The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market

Women have a significant advantage in the Mating Marketplace. Here’s why.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: Cameron232 requested this post, which will sum up some Classic Manosphere Lore and includes some infographics from online dating websites.
Reader’s Note: I realize that the “visual attractiveness rating numbers” for women are generally a topic of nearly endless fascination and conversation in the sphere, and in general among men as well. This, however, is not the topic of this post, and is a sidelight. Leaving aside the specific “ratings” (which represent my own take on the issue as is fairly well-known) in terms of which “ratings” of women are in which “slice” above, and the issue of which “rating” or “band” a specific woman or type of women fits into, the general distribution of women in the SMP (and therefore indirectly in the MMP via “dating”), by general level of attractiveness, is generally as set forth here. We are planning to publish a separate post on the “ratings” questions, which will address in some detail the methodological, practical, and personal issues that the “ratings” question tends to raise in discussion. Readers are asked to defer a more detailed discussion of those issues for that post.
Length: 3,000 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Introduction

Finding a “great” mate has always been highly competitive, and thus very difficult. In a sense, it is the “great game” of the early years of adult life. In prior eras, the outcomes reached by individual people in that race differed greatly, but in general, most people did marry, due to many pressures that existed. These pressures to marry came from all angles, socially, religiously, culturally, economically, and from family. Because of these pressures, the average period of singleness was short lived and marriages were largely assortative. More attractive prospects couldn’t “hold out” and “test the water” indefinitely, because this was simply neither feasible nor tolerated for most of history, even until the relatively recent past of the mid-20th Century.

But during the 1955-1975 timeframe, there was a drastic change in the social and economic conditions that dramatically and decisively altered the mate market in significant ways.

The underlying reasons for this can be traced to an array of social shifts and technological developments during the critical period of the social revolution which took place between 1955 and 1975 which have together worked to remove many of the natural constraints that limited the full exercise of hypergamic mate selection. In his post, The Six Sirens of The Sexual Apocalypse (March 17, 2016), Chateau Heartiste set out a list of these factors defining the change:

  1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and, the de facto “fallback” contraceptive, abortion).
  2. Easy no-fault divorce on economic and other terms that are generally very favorable to women, irrespective of the marital economics, and unfavorable to men.
  3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio and relative income levels among younger generations is any indication).
  4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have created less incentives in favor of marriage for men and an greater incentives in favor of divorce for women.
  5. Penicillin and related antibiotics (reduced the cost of contracting STDs).
  6. Widely available hardcore pornography (decreased marginal participation rates of men in the SMP and MMP).

Since this post was written, this list has expanded to include others.

  • Equal Opportunity Legislation and The Tender Years Doctrine which created economic leverage and independence for women.
  • The centrality of sex in Western culture, and the widespread social acceptance of sexual liberation.
  • The predominance of Chivalrous norms, and other prevailing lore such as the “Soul Mate Myth” and “Friends First”, that places men under the sexual authority and the service of women.
  • Within the church, there is the flaccid “love and forgive” social atomosphere.
  • Social media and dating websites which employ the power of digital aggregation to provide women whoards of opportunities with men.
  • SMS and internet communications which are convenient and easy to hide and delete.

Most of these changes revolved around the fundamental goals Feminists have for social change.

To a great extent, the difference between the market that existed before that period and the one that has existed since then (and to a greater and greater degree the further removed temporally we get from that period) is that, under the “old” system, if you were like most people and didn’t get to have a “great” mate, you still mostly ended up in an “okay” situation, which was at least tolerable, at least most of the time, and quite a few people ended up in situations that were pleasant and happy despite not having an objectively “great” mate. And of course there were quite a few people “stuck” in crappy marriages, too — not as many as the feminists of today like to claim, but it also was non-zero. All this changed, and changed substantially, when the mating market was reformulated in the wake of sexual liberalization and female economic independence.

The Two Pillars of Female Power in the Mating Market

Among the factors listed above, sexual liberalization and female economic independence are the two outstanding changes responsible for the current mating market. Namely, the advent of (1) safe, legal, and reliably obtained abortion, (2) cheap, effective contraception, coupled with (3) the transformation of the economy in such a way that many new jobs were created which did not require or even place a premium on size or strength.

The simple and obvious reality is that when you take pregnancy and economic dependency out of the equation, together with the related social pressures that arose from these two base realities, women are by and large “freed up” from the necessity of mate selection, and therefore select mates on other attributes. Due to women’s pronounced hypergamic tendencies, this selection is primarily based on desire, which results in a very concentrated skew in female mate selection upwards — that is, directed at better-than-assortative men.

1967

The Nature of Applied Hypergamy in the Mating Market

A mating market which features far less temporal pressure to marry (and, indeed, features a fair amount of pressure to delay marrying) will feature an extended period of “dating”, which, since the period of the social revolution, has been the primary locus of pre-marital sex, and a high number of other no-strings or otherwise low commitment sexual encounters (yesterday’s “pick up ONS” and today’s app hookups). The reason a liberalized market plays out this way is because of the basic nature of men and women, i.e. applied hypergamy. The following image depicts how women strongly desire top men, while these men are quite willing to choose more than one woman, thereby creating a glut that destroys assortative mating.

Due to the generally higher male libido and perceived “sexual need” of men (not in every case, but enough generally so as to skew the entire market), any market that is primarily, or even substantially, about sex will feature much greater male demand expressed at all levels of the market than female demand, other than at the very top of the male side of the market due to the concentration of female demand there … so that in the rest of the market outside the top 10% (or so, now due to the tightening effect caused by the rise of swipe/phone dating apps and their intensified screening of men) of males, women are the “sellers”, and men are the “buyers”. This fundamental inequality in demand is why the world features such things as Instagram, and OnlyFans, and internet porn, and cam girls, and sugar babies, and all the rest as well — male demand substantially exceeds female demand, such that females are “sellers” and can, if they wish, literally charge men fairly easily as we have seen recently.

Very Few Men Can Satisfy Hypergamy

Another feature of human nature that plays into the mix and greatly exacerbates the glut is that men regard womens’ collective attractiveness by a normal distribution, whereas women tend to view most men as unattractive. This tendency is reflected in the following graph based on OK Cupid data, which illustrates the skew in perceived attractiveness between men and women, and how womens’ high attractiveness ratings are concentrated towards a very small group of men, as compared with how men tend to perceive attractiveness in women.

This means that very few men (currently estimated to be about 10%) are deemed by women to be attractive, and therefore can satisfy womens’ desire for expressed hypergamy. It should be well noted that this difference in perceived attractiveness is basically equivalent to sexual authority. The result is that only these men are “chosen” by women.

The Resulting Glut in the Mating Market

The following graphic displays well the change I am describing in this article and the impact on the SMP/MMP.

The left side is the way “dating and mating” are generally distributed (there always were outliers, but this was the general distribution) among males in a system where (1) unavoidable, not easily/safely/legally terminable pregnancy is generally the result of sex and (2) the economy did not provide a lot of jobs that could be done by women for the same, or better, economic remuneration as men. This kind of a system encourages assortative mating because there is timing pressure exerted on virtually all market participants, as explained above.

The right side shows how “dating and mating” are generally distributed among males in a system where (1) pregnancy is opt-in at the woman’s sole discretion and (2) the economy provides a plentiful amount of economic opportunities for women to earn as much as, if not more than, peer-aged men. This kind of a system encourages hypergamous skew in mating because there is much less timing pressure, until a later period, and market participants therefore feel free to optimize mate selection opportunities based on their actual market power apart from such pressures.

The distribution on the right side alters somewhat when women decide that they definitely want to marry (which in most places in the US appears to be in the late 20s, while in the larger urban metros it is now in the early 30s), such that the interest expressed towards the men begins to encompass the top 50-60% of men for the first time.

Caveats

Some may object that the mate market is not actually liberalized due to the current divorce regime in the United States, in particular, which in many ways remains punitive for men and beneficial for women. While it may be true that the *marriage* market itself has not been entirely liberalized due to the divorce regime experienced by men once they are married, it is nevertheless true that…

  1. The sexual market in which the marriage market is, for almost all participants, deeply embedded, has been almost totally liberalized in the sense of having the previously applicable “rules” removed from it.
  2. The overall pressure to marry is overall much less (for reasons discussed above), which results in more “holding out” for better-than-assortative mate pairings, predominantly among women, in the marriage market itself due to the prevalence of “dating” (which is fundamentally a vehicle of the sexual market) which, quite apart from divorce law, creates pressure on assortative pairings in the midrange of the attraction curve.
  3. The effect of the punitive divorce regime, due to its flipping of marriage from an economic necessity for women to an economic windfall for many of them, actually serves to amplify the other trends exerting pressure on the sexual and marital market places, all in the direction of more delay, holding out, and attempted hypergamous optimization.

I also note that it is possible to characterize the current mating market(s) as “scientifically subsidized”, rather than liberalized, because one of the main factors was, in fact, the removal, scientifically, of the main natural “check” on behavior in the market (i.e., female pregnancy), such that the resulting market is actually a “subsidized” one rather than a “liberalized” one. While I agree with the underlying point that the “natural check” has been removed, nevertheless I think this perspective obscures more than it explains, because the impact of the removal of that natural check was the near wholesale removal of all of the existing “rules” of the market and their replacement with one base rule. It seems to me that a change in the market that is characterized by the dramatic reduction in the number of rules applicable to market participants is clearly best viewed as a “liberalized” market, in terms of the end effect on the market participants, even if the underlying cause of that liberalization, or removal of rules, was, itself, a kind of science/technology-based removal of the “natural check” on market behavior which had led to the development of the various, overlapping, “rules” on participation in the mating market prior to the sexual revolutionary period.

Flexing for women, 2021

The New Power Distribution

Under the “new rules” market, the top men hold the most power (smallest in number for the demand related to them), followed by the top women, followed by the top half or so of women, followed by the next group of men (in most markets this used to be the group between the 60th and 80th percentiles, but with the rise of phone/swipe dating apps, women’s screening has become substantially more empowered, and therefore more stringent, such that in many markets this group is now stretching upwards so that it runs from the mid to upper 60 percentiles to the upper 80 percentiles of men), followed by the next 1/3 of the women, followed by the men between the 40 and 60-65 (mid-range men) percentile, followed by the remainder of the women, followed by the remainder of the men.

So like this (women are indicated in red):

  1. Top 10% of men (used to be top 15-20% before phone/swipe dating apps)
  2. Top women (9s, 10s for most men) … not close to 10%, more like 1-2%
  3. Rest of the Top 50% of women (5s-8s for most men)
  4. Men in percentile 65-90 (used to be men between 60 and 80)
  5. Next 30% of women (3s-4s for most men)
  6. Men in percentile 40-60-65
  7. Remainder of women (1s-2s for most men)
  8. Remainder of men (percentiles 1-39).

As you can see, there are more women towards the top of the power structure than men. This means that half of the women are more empowered than 80-90% of the men in the market … something which leads to alpha chasing (women are generally not attracted to men whom they know they have power over) and long droughts for the men below the top 10-20%, even if true “incels” are concentrated at the lower rungs. And even though only those men are truly “incels”, men are disadvantaged relative to women at all levels of the market apart from the very top … even at the bottom they are disadvantaged relative to women at the bottom.

Here’s another graph based on data from Tinder that shows why there is an imbalance in the power dynamic between men and women. This has been circulating around the Manosphere for a few years, but it still applies.

As you can see, the attraction ratio is far from linear. It is heavily skewed in favor of women.

Conclusions

The principal difference between the “old” mating market and the one we experience today is that the market has been liberalized, largely due to technological advances and economic changes. This “free market” allows market participants to engage in sexually liberal practices with very few rules, limited primarily by the extent of their value in the marketplace.

The bottom line is that when you remove pregnancy and economic dependency, the market becomes largely about sex and sexual desire. Again, this is so even in the MMP, due to the nature of “dating”, even if it is somewhat lessened because of the presence of other factors that play a stronger relative role in that market than they do in the SMP, where they play almost no role whatsoever. And any market that is substantially about sex and sexual desire will always favor women over men because men, on average and on the population level (that is, outliers aside), desire sex-qua-sex more than women do. Substantially more. Any market that is “liberalized” in such a way that it boils down to sexual desire will always disfavor men, barring strange scenarios like vast male shortages due to warfare and the like. A “liberalized” market for mating simply doesn’t work — for either men or women, generally, other than for the top men, who are better positioned than they have been for thousands of years, perhaps for all time to date.

In the long run this “new lack of rules” market based on sexual desire doesn’t actually serve the women market participants either, because they are increasingly left with relatively unattractive men as options for mates once they are finished exploiting the height of their own market power during their 20s and earlier 30s. This negative impact is something that most contemporary women don’t worry about until the mid-30s, and that’s just human nature — most humans of both sexes have terrible future time orientation innately unless it is forced on them by external constraints and/or social expectations and rules.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Game Theory, Hypergamy, Internet Dating Sites, Male Power, Power, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV. Bookmark the permalink.

382 Responses to The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market

  1. SFC Ton says:

    Things like affirmative action and how they do college admissions also give women an edge over men when it comes to ecconmic indepedance

    I think consumer debt gives women the illusion of even greater ecconmic success which helps drive down the smp/ mmp value of men.

    Not sure how big of an impact those things play and it probably depends on where a man is on the scale. Tier one dude? ? No impact but I can see where those things could drop a mid level tier 2 guy down to a tier 3, which means only fat ugly and or train wreck tyoe chicks will be into him

    Liked by 5 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    Great fleshing out of your earlier comment. Thanks for all the hard work. Love the graphics (I’m a data slut) and I agree with the focus on the early adulthood, sexual-desire driven marketplace which I think is the reality of the “hookup”, “friends-with-benefits” culture of a lot of the young people I work with.

    I agree that free market is a good analogy. I would just add that there is a subsidy in the form of a huge number of jobs that are completely made up BS jobs (my job is a BS job BTW) and women benefit disproportionately from the made up BS jobs (government, government contractor, regulation-driven, legal-driven, etc.). But this is somewhat less relevant to the early adulthood, sexual-desire driven marketplace you are describing here.

    I am curious about 10% being the number for top males now? I thought 20% was based on dating app data (and Pareto was later assumed based on that data)?

    I’m not sure about the data behind the tinder chart (the blue and pink cumulative chart). I thought that graph was drawn “conceptually” and not based on real data but that’s just from my memory. It is interesting – does the percent of men that women direct their intent/desire towards vary with the woman’s self-perceived attractiveness? Unattractive women are attracted to a wider percent of men? The 20% (10%) of men rule is based on an average across all levels of female attractiveness?

    A great article – one to bookmark for future reference!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      20% was the estimate going way back to the 2000s, which was long before swipe/phone dating apps, but was validated to some extent by what we then called “online dating”. Phone/swipe dating apps changed the market substantially from “online dating” because they made it much easier/more fun for women to screen men (as compared with facing an inbox with hundreds of messages at an online dating site), so women ratcheted up the screws on the screening of men. One of the most popular swipe/phone apps, Bumble, doesn’t even permit men to message women unless the woman shows an interest first.

      Apps changed things, so it is now lower than 20%. It’s anyone’s guess how much lower it is, which is why I stated it as 10-20%, but it’s certainly lower than it was in the 2000s before swipe/phone apps came along and dominated the market.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Nova- One of the ways that you and I have been talking past each other is on the topic of assortive mating. I don’t really mean that in a bad way.

        I have been hammering on the magical delusional thinking that if we could just go back to that (people matching up with others around their same “number” naturally) all would be right with the world.

        But the whole time, you have been offering up a hypothesis (about the internet and its effect on that process) as basically the reason my idea amounts to putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

        I live in this imaginary world where all the 7s find other 7s to marry, and the 6s and so on. Stay within your number people! Stop jumping the line! Happily ever after!

        Then Elspeth points out that (one) solution would be to not use that medium to find a mate. Then you offer the counter point that the percentage of people using the internet (or apps or whatever) is growing every year. Then she points out that there is still a huge chunk of the market that is meeting the old fashioned way (friends, school, etc). It would be interesting to see an age break down on those.

        High school and college (and at the kinds of jobs kids have like fast food restaurants and the one that worked really well for me as a teenager–the local six flags) are awash with people around your age meeting, mingling, flirting, etc.

        God forbid if that ship sailed, or you were divorced against your will, or you spouse died, you are now on the secondary market. You cant go back to HS.

        It reminds me of the 90s Adam Sandler movie “Billy Madison” where he has to repeat all of his schooling from K-12. He drives up to HS in his trans am and Aerosmith t shirt, blaring REO Speedwagon and all the high schoolers think he is a creep.

        It seems to push everyone or almost everyone on to the apps. Now try to make a bright line of distinction between “Christians” and “not Christians” along the dimension of marriage and sex/sexuality and you are down to the needle in a haystack/unicorn whatever analogy you want to use. You are a guy in 79th percentile! Ooops, didn’t quite make the cut off because you have it all, except you are 5’11” !

        Its crazy. My chest hurts.

        Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Apps changed things, so it is now lower than 20%. It’s anyone’s guess how much lower it is, which is why I stated it as 10-20%, but it’s certainly lower than it was in the 2000s before swipe/phone apps came along and dominated the market.”
        From what I observed in the educational program that I’m part of which has a good-sized number of 30s-40s-50s women with a smattering of twentysomething women, the dating/hook-up line for the men would be maybe the top 30% of the men for the older women, and the top 20% of the men for the younger women. Since so many of the older single women participating in the program were publicly declaring their desire for LTRs/marriage, what it looked like to me, anecdotally speaking of course, was the top 20% of the men for the older single ladies, and top 5-10% of the men for the younger single ladies that they considered LTR/marriage material. Interestingly, the majority of these men were the players in the educational program…AND everyone, including the ladies, knew they were the players. The only marriages that seemed to occur out of that program were two divorced people getting remarried for the second or third time.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        …continued.

        Then you have the addition of easy access to BC, abortion, divorce and ZERO stigma against premarital sex and this creates guys like Eric approaching the bench and carefully, tactfully asking

        “Hey, um, in light of the circumstances, do you guys think it would be OK for me and my late 20s/early 30s Christian girlfriend to have sex before we get married because it kind of seems like that slide in the grand scheme of things may work to my advantage?”

        And I (and guys like me) are over here like “gee, uh that’s kind of what I did until I found one I liked and it worked out n stuff so…”

        The chorus from some is “Any N above zero is a high risk low value slut coming off the carousel! Be chaste! Either accept the tenets of the faith or you are not serious. Deep Strength did it!”

        (Lastmod hears the message, and I am empathize)

        Hands thrown up in the air. Crying mercy.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Scott

        “Hey, um, in light of the circumstances, do you guys think it would be OK for me and my late 20s/early 30s Christian girlfriend to have sex before we get married because it kind of seems like that slide in the grand scheme of things may work to my advantage?”

        And I (and guys like me) are over here like “gee, uh that’s kind of what I did until I found one I liked and it worked out n stuff so…”

        The chorus from some is “Any N above zero is a high risk low value slut coming off the carousel! Be chaste! Either accept the tenets of the faith or you are not serious. Deep Strength did it!”

        To be fair, there are a lot of exaggerators.

        Most of the data I compiled is associated with risk profile. It’s definitely more risky to marry someone with greater N, just like it is more risky to marry someone who is BPD, former alcoholic, comes from a broken family, or whatever.

        When I was single I’ve even said I’d rather marry a woman who had sex several times before marriage but came to Christ and was virtuous since than a virgin who did everything but sex with 10 guys while she was still a “Christian.” Someone who is actually following their faith is a much better candidate, even if not a virgin, than people who claim they are a Christian but living like the world.

        Each man must decide the amount of risk he wants to tolerate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Each man must decide the amount of risk he wants to tolerate.

        Yes, this is absolutely right. Be aware of the risks and make your assessment and choice, and then proceed accordingly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I have been hammering on the magical delusional thinking that if we could just go back to that (people matching up with others around their same “number” naturally) all would be right with the world.

        But the whole time, you have been offering up a hypothesis (about the internet and its effect on that process) as basically the reason my idea amounts to putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

        I live in this imaginary world where all the 7s find other 7s to marry, and the 6s and so on. Stay within your number people! Stop jumping the line! Happily ever after!

        I agree with you in that it would be “best” if it were that way, in terms of stability.

        Where I think we disagreed a bit, maybe, was on the feasibility of that coming back under foreseeable circumstances. The internet is a part of that, with app dating. It’s also just the case that women are not as happy with “6 gets 6” as men are, once female 6s are used to male 7s and 8s. It’s not realistic to expect women, en masse, to say “Oh, ok, we will give up the advantage we have now of being able to date above ourselves assortatively when we are young, sexy, and want to have fun, because it’s better for everyone else and society in general, and likely also better for (most of) us, if we do”.

        They won’t agree. It would have to be forced on them, and that would have to happen by means of circumstances because men will certainly not force any changes in this area (men are too divided to do that, as you agree I think).

        hen she points out that there is still a huge chunk of the market that is meeting the old fashioned way (friends, school, etc). It would be interesting to see an age break down on those.

        It’s an ever shrinking amount and, in any case, it’s clear that one method dominates the others. When one method is roughly half the market by itself, and the other half of the market is scattered among 6 different approaches, all of which are declining except for meeting in bars (which is the offline equivalent of dating apps), that one method dominates the market, and that dominance casts a performance and expectations shadow over the entire market.

        God forbid if that ship sailed, or you were divorced against your will, or you spouse died, you are now on the secondary market. You cant go back to HS.

        Agree. It’s also very unpopular to suggest that this is, in fact, the case. Suzanne Venker wrote an article a few years ago basically saying the same thing — that women at Princeton should be husband hunting there because at no future time would they be surrounded by so many eligible, single, suitable, attractive men for marriage. Boy did she get the business from women for writing that. You’re supposed to have fun in these years, not husband hunt, even though they are actually the best time to find a mate in many ways (there are other challenges with marrying at those ages, however, as I think we both learned the hard way).

        It seems to push everyone or almost everyone on to the apps. Now try to make a bright line of distinction between “Christians” and “not Christians” along the dimension of marriage and sex/sexuality and you are down to the needle in a haystack/unicorn whatever analogy you want to use. You are a guy in 79th percentile! Ooops, didn’t quite make the cut off because you have it all, except you are 5’11” !

        Right. It puts everyone who is male in a very hard spot. The men who happen to Christians are in a real box, very much so, unless they want to start their own community, or move to Branson.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        And I (and guys like me) are over here like “gee, uh that’s kind of what I did until I found one I liked and it worked out n stuff so…”

        The chorus from some is “Any N above zero is a high risk low value slut coming off the carousel! Be chaste! Either accept the tenets of the faith or you are not serious. Deep Strength did it!”

        (Lastmod hears the message, and I am empathize)

        Hands thrown up in the air. Crying mercy.

        Yes. This is what Jack and I have been bouncing around between ourselves as falling under the “Christian Conundrum” conflux of issues that we will be delving into soon. There’s no obvious solution that satisfies everything. You can pick and choose what you want to prioritize, but you can’t actually optimize them all, and if you choose one path it can have very adverse consequences on other aspects. It’s a true conundrum.

        Like

    • bee123456 says:

      “I am curious about 10% being the number for top males now?”

      Anecdotal, but I also sense 10% is more accurate today than 20%. I know Pareto is a good rule of thumb but it does not apply to everything. I don’t think it applies to the SMP. Maybe it used to apply, as Novaseeker has explained.

      Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        10% makes sense to me

        As women gain more political, cultural and ecconmic power less men have status over them so fewer men will make them wet.

        The war on men, especially White men is cranking up to newer levels and we should expect that to make the smp/mmp more dysfunctional

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I wonder, pre-internet dating sites (or pre-SMP-free market), was it something like 25 or 30%. Bear in mind we’re talking about the percent of males that receive most of the female intent (what women want).

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Pre-free-market there was time pressure that forced assortative mating based on MMV. Women likely still preferred the top men, I would presume, but that wasn’t “actionable” in that context.

        It was really after second wave feminism came through into the second generation (say mid 1990s) that the screws began to be ratcheted, because generations of women were growing up who had totally different life expectations, more economic empowerment than prior generations, and therefore less pressure — which all means the ratchet goes up. I think that’s when it was around 20%.

        Old “internet dating” (i.e.,, websites) didn’t change that very much because although men generally did terribly on them for the usual reasons, a lot of people didn’t use them (far fewer than dating apps) because they were a pain for women, in particular, due to the chore of dealing with too many responses. The real ratchet from 20% down came with swipe/phone apps that made the electronically intermediated process more user-friendly, from a nuts-and-bolts perspective, for women, which drove adoption rates up, and the ease of review/discard of men, one after the other, tightened the screws yet again upward for the same reason — lots of ability to scrfeen quickly and easily, and no need to “settle” for anything less than top guys since there was an ocean of men in the “man store” (as Scott calls it).

        And then, when even in that context they started to dislike uppity guys messaging them, they started their own app, which has become one of the most popular phone/swipe dating apps, which is set up such that even when two people “match” (mutually swipe right), only the woman can initiate contact — so she can put men on a “shelf” to contact later, while the man is muzzled.

        All of this ratchets things.

        Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        One guy out of ten Vs one guy out of five. I’d lean to the one guy out of ten, the women seem that entitled and that picky. Interestingly, that one guy, is typically a ten percenter because of his looks and physique, and to a lesser degree status and resources. I know a few ten percent men, and if I was a woman, I’d NOT go out with any of them; certainly NOT entertain an LTR with them. Why? Underneath, they are usually selfish, self-centered and not really the best men to relate to intimately or otherwise. On the other hand, if a girl wants to mount the CC and ride, they are good for casual sex; Missy can enjoy his good looks and muscles even if he isn’t all that great as a lover. This CC thing that’s just been growing exponentially the last four decades or so, is slowly sending the MMP the way of the dodo bird. In my limited experience talking to the late twentysomethings and thirtysomethings I know, they are having trouble even finding the MMP let alone navigating through it. The “Where have all the good men gone?” lament could be just as easily translated, “Where did the MMP go?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        This CC thing that’s just been growing exponentially the last four decades or so, is slowly sending the MMP the way of the dodo bird. In my limited experience talking to the late twentysomethings and thirtysomethings I know, they are having trouble even finding the MMP let alone navigating through it. The “Where have all the good men gone?” lament could be just as easily translated, “Where did the MMP go?”

        @RPB —

        Yeah, we have a post coming on the two markets — SMP vs MMP. Preview is that the MMP is a subset of the SMP, because the MMP is still done via “dating” and “dating” is an SMP vehicle, so the same basic problems of the SMP impact the MMP due to dating being the mechanism. It’s just that some women, at some stage, ratchet their expectations around when selecting dates, if they are actively seeking a husband, as compared to simply looking for a fun date or a boyfriend. It’s still “dating”, which is still based on sex, and so the basic premises of the SMP still apply, even if the emphasis she places on the various criteria may be different.

        The problem women are running into relates to:

        (1) what Dalrock referred to as the phenomenon of many men not using their 20s to become attractive mates, because doing this nets them nothing beneficial in their 20s. The guys who do well in their 20s are generally not the same guys who women want to marry “once they are ready”, but the guys who would be in the second category are expected to go without much of anything by women during their 20s while the women ride the CC. So, a good number of these guys are de facto “opting out” in favor of X-Box, DraftKings, BroCulture and the like in lieu of building themselves in their 20s … not actually “going MGTOW”, per se, because it isn’t ideologically motivated or anything, but just guys focusing on other things because their own situation with women is so hopeless in their 20s that it doesn’t seem worthwhile to focus on becoming more attractive. This means that when the “time comes” and women feel “ready to commit”, these guys are not actualy attractive for marriage, which places a downward pressure on women — there really are fewer attractive candidates for marriage than there were before because of what is happening in the 20s. “Where are all the good men gone?” for these women means “all these men who were supposed to be available for marriage around now just … really aren’t good marriage candidates! I mean what were these guys doing in their 20s???”

        (2) Alpha-Widow — for some women, the expectation is too high after dating more attractive men than will commit during the 20s. A woman who is used to dating and sleeping with top 10% men during her 20s will not be happy with a mid-level man as a husband in her 30s. Some of these women become Kate Bolick. Some of them accept their situation and become women like Deti’s wife. None of them are very happy with the situation. “Where have all the good men gone?” for these women means “I never dated men like this, and I won’t start now … why should I settle for these guys when I dated Brad and Chad exclusively for the past ten years? If I just wait, I am sure I will find a “good” Brad eventually, and if not …. there’s always springtime in Paris!”.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        Yeah, we have a post coming on the two markets — SMP vs MMP.

        How you and Jack keep up with the writing volume on this blog is beyond me. Rock on, dudes!

        Liked by 2 people

  3. cameron232 says:

    OT – well not entirely. Make sure to take out a second mortgage so you can send your 18 year old daughter to university.

    “Ohio State University Encourages Freshmen Girls to Prostitute Themselves on OnlyFans During ‘Sex Week’”

    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/ohio-state-university-encourages-freshmen-girls-to-prostitute-themselves-on-onlyfans-during-sex-week/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      I have also read in some of the slew of recent press articles on Only Fans that came up after Belle Delphine disclosed her GBP 1 million per month income that female college freshmen are asking advisors and such on campus for advice in setting up OF accounts. It’s spreading like wildfire right now, because it can — it’s legal and it’s free money. If you’re a girl who is already putting sexy pics up on Instagram (and that’s a LOT of young girls), you can pull in nice cash flow at Only Fans for putting up basically the same pictures there, sans one piece of clothing that likely already isn’t hiding much. It’s a very easy and seamless transition for many of these young women since it’s something they’re already basically doing on Instagram.

      Instagram is as much of the problem as Only Fans is — only OF is, in effect, a logical extension of what Instagram had already become, anyway, just without the one limitation that Instagram does impose.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I’m sure the universities love it – gives the girls money to pay their (overpriced) tuition.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Not sure a lot of chicks need the sans one piece of clothing

        Or they could hide their naughty bits with any number of things to work a particular customer base… like a flag wrapped aroound their boobs or what have you

        I mean chicks cash in by being hot and posting PG13 photos of them fishing and what have you so They’re not a lot of bars to entry for FO’s.

        I’m sure the less hot, the more she has to show the goods, but that’s a different equation

        Liked by 3 people

  4. Scott says:

    This post offers a perfect context for the argument (in the previous “we can’t plant seed” post) between Oscar and Eric. Whereas neither of them is “wrong” in the absolute sense. Eric perceives from his vantage point that Oscars advice is more or less useless to him personally and Oscars solutions are perfectly reasonable from where he sits.

    The age/situation/rating/means of the man in question is hyper-relevant to how he is going to respond to the current mate selection framework.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Oscar’s conclusions are reasonable to any person who views Scripture as God’s authoritative voice (not just a book) and who understands that part of being a Christian is “suffering” and “bearing one’s cross”.

      I have kids bearing the cross Eric complains about, but it is what it is. If you believe that this life is all there is, than it is certainly hard to wrap your mind around the notion of keeping rules that make life here harder than it has to be if you take another path.

      I totally get it. I truly do. My suggestion, which I have made to MANY people both offline as well as online, is this: If you don’t believe in the tenets of the faith, then fine. Just acknowledge that you’re not interested in being a Christian, and go on out there and have a good time. A lot of people make that decision every day, and they seem to be happy with it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        If you believe that this life is all there is, than it is certainly hard to wrap your mind around the notion of keeping rules that make life here harder than it has to be if you take another path.

        I think Eric’s point is slightly different — it’s whether the “rules” around this specific issue should be relaxed under the current circumstances, given how different they are from when the rules came about (i.e., I don’t read him as asking whether promiscuity should be considered morally licit, but whether there should be a relaxation of the rules around marriage and sex).

        As I have pointed out to him in some back and forth in comments in the past, I don’t see how this works from any morally orthodox Christian perspective, but bear in mind that different kinds of “morally orthodox” Christians differ substantially about many related moral questions, such as the liceity of divorce and remarriage, and contraception, without having to be “all in” or “all out”. It is hard to discuss it with him in substance, however, because he hasn’t really articulated a view as to what he would be proposing, so it’s hard to engage with him on it, but as I read him I don’t think he’s asking for a blessing for a sexual free-for-all in general, but rather whether it makes sense to rigidly enforce the traditional rules in theory when even many “morally orthodox” Christians who are married today didn’t actually follow said rules themselves.

        Jack will be doing a series on this “conundrum” Christians currently face in terms of a set of apparently unappealing choices, and how to work through some of the issues relating to those. It would be great if Eric would articulate his views as a part of that, but I don’t know if his views are well-formed enough (yet?) for that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Nova-

        On the topic of the varying views Christians have on marriage/sex see my comment about online man stores and my vivid eye opening experience with that.

        I lasted about .00003 seconds in the wholesome wait-til-you-are-married (again) church dating world.

        I concluded “the ship on virginity sailed for me already. And most likely every girl I will meet from now to the end of time.”

        A self delusional rationalization? Sure.

        But there you go.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        it’s whether the “rules” around this specific issue should be relaxed under the current circumstances

        Great. What other rules are we going to “relax”? Where does the “relaxation” of rules stop? Why there, and not somewhere else? Why not “relax” all of the rules? Christians have already “relaxed” all kinds of rules. How’s that working for us, so far?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “I don’t know if his views are well-formed enough (yet?) for that”.

        Novaseeker is right. There arent fully formed. That’s why I’m here.

        It is correct that I’m not looking for a total free for all so much as to relax the rules a little. What that will look like is up for discussion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        It is correct that I’m not looking for a total free for all so much as to relax the rules a little.

        That’s exactly what you fail to grasp. What you want is “to relax the rules a little”. What you will get is “a total free for all”.

        Have you read Romans 1 yet?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Guys want the excuse to be able to fornicate without guilt.

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      The age/situation/rating/means of the man in question is hyper-relevant to how he is going to respond to the current mate selection framework.

      Yes, as in any market, everyone’s perception of it will be based on their own expectations and strength in the market, which tends to determine one’s experience in the market. And it will also constrain one’s options and alternatives to the market.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Oscars solutions are perfectly reasonable from where he sits. ~ Scott

      That’s only part of my argument. Elspeth covered the other part.

      Oscar’s conclusions are reasonable to any person who views Scripture as God’s authoritative voice (not just a book) and who understands that part of being a Christian is “suffering” and “bearing one’s cross”. ~ Elspeth

      That’s why I keep asking “who is your Lord?” And that’s probably why Eric keeps evading that question.

      The same goes for every person stuck in a crappy marriage. Who is your Lord?

      If a person answers that question honestly, then the rest of the answers flow from there. And, by the way, not every problem is solvable. To a Christian, unsolvable problems are crosses to be borne, whether that is celibacy, or a crappy marriage, or a disability, or persecution, etc.

      My suggestion, which I have made to MANY people both offline as well as online, is this: If you don’t believe in the tenets of the faith, then fine. Just acknowledge that you’re not interested in being a Christian, and go on out there and have a good time. ~ Elspeth

      Exactly. If Jesus Christ is your Lord, then obey your Lord. He gave you left-and-right limits. Do whatever you want inside of those limits.

      Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

      If you’re not going to obey Jesus Christ, then stop pretending, and go eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die (1 Cor 15:32). But, if you’re going to call Jesus Christ your Lord, then deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24).

      It’s not complicated. It’s tough as hell, and it’s going to get worse, but it’s not complicated.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      @Oscar

      Yes I have read Romans 1.

      You’re holding to a false dichotomy. It isn’t all-or-nothing.

      Have you read Matthew 12:1-8?

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Yes I have read Romans 1.

        Great. Summarize it. Let’s see if you understand it.

        Have you read Matthew 12:1-8?

        Of course I have. We’re not discussing the traditions of the rabbis, or God’s ceremonial laws for ancient Israel, which Jesus Christ fulfilled, and do not apply to Christians. We’re discussing God’s moral Law which is eternal and universal.

        Do you understand the difference?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        He should read Jude to see what you become when you promote sensuality.

        Like

  5. Elspeth says:

    My community is self-selected. I acknowledge that up front, but there are young people who don’t use dating apps, maybe to their detriment, but they don’t. I can’t believe that the young people in the community we are a part of are the only ones. A certain kind of person uses dating apps to being with. I’m not knocking it; simply saying that not all personalities are drawn to that.

    This necessarily means that depending too heavily on the statistical trends from these apps is instructive but not conclusive nor universally applicable.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Not everyone, no.

      I mean literally no statement about any human behavior is applicable to everyone, so of course it’s true that not everyone uses dating apps.

      However, here is how the dating market looks, and this is already as of 4 years ago now: https://www.statista.com/chart/20822/way-of-meeting-partner-heterosexual-us-couples/

      “Online dating” there is mostly dating apps. And it seems exceptionally unlikely to me that the curve shown there has flattened significantly since 2017.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        This argues for “Christian” online sites, the current crop of which are not significantly different from their secular counterparts.

        A dating app or website is a “man store” for women, who, as you have pointed out here are the buyers.

        WAY back in 2001, I walked in on some colleagues shopping at the man store (at the time it was match.com) and for just a brief moment I listened. Literally just a few seconds as I walked up behind them all looking (they were all helping their one recently single friend out). Hearing their comments (compliments as well as take downs) was brutal. I was still in my brooding, depressed, unavailable pouty over my divorce stage. One of the girls (these were all 20 something enlisted females) said “you should go on here. You are soooo good looking!”

        I remembered that about 6 months later when I finally relented and tried it. I don’t think “Christian Mingle” was a thing yet. I was attending a mainline Church of Christ in NC at the time. It had about 200-300 people in the pews on any given Sunday. There were precisely ZERO women in the 22-30 age range I was interested in who were pretty, not weird and single. So online dating it was.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Liz says:

        I wish they’d separated the types of “meeting online”.
        Meeting through social networks sites/debate sites/blogs and so forth is far different from meeting on Tinder.
        Admittedly I have little experience with “dating apps”. It’s kind of limited to my spouse’s tangential stories about pilots. Goes like this: They say something about being a pilot, “going to (name of location)”. Usually this gets them free sex in some hotel room that night. Seems more like a free hooker service to me. How much screening for “alphas” can there be before even a handshake?
        just my .01

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        People meet (I mean romantic meeting) through debate sites/blogs?

        As far as social media, I would think meeting through facebook (which I’m sure happens) is about the same as meeting through dating apps.

        The main distinction seems to be “old-fashioned” dating sites vs. very recent dating apps which Nova estimates shift the requirements for being alpha male from 20% to 10%.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        People meet (I mean romantic meeting) through debate sites/blogs?
        I think so.
        Back when I was on a political debate site (it’s now gone) I met a few people from it. Just friends, but I knew others who started dating having met there (and subsequently married). You can learn a lot about people after months of discussing religion/politics and so forth.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Just thinking further, it’s not limited to politics/religion either….
        People can meet up over hobbies (thinking of this after playing fetch with my new pup)
        They might share common interests like dogs, or whatnot and meet up over that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Elspeth. I agree many don’t use the apps men and women…….who are in faith or not. I have never used one (would be foolish for a man of my age to even consider that). Many just know they don’t have shot, or it might damage the Ego further……….when I was on dating sites in the early 2000’s it was brutal to my self-worth. Sending a few hundred messages and getting no replies, or maybe one who tell you to “leave her alone”

      I wish I could place my finger on it, or had the right words to say to explain this (I don’t).

      Like

  6. lastmod says:

    “The age/situation/rating/means of the man in question is hyper-relevant to how he is going to respond to the current mate selection framework.”

    The most astute and smartest comment I have seen in ages here (credit to Scott). No studies, no complex pscho-babble. No made up terms. No “new” or “bold” ways of saying something. Plainly said.

    A man usually knows “where he stands” looks wise / situation by the time he is a late teen young adult, or after trade school / a stint in the military or college. The problem lies on how to deal with it. He may not have a “fertility” window like women…….but HIS time is short as well. He either has to become one of the amazing men here by reading Rollo or whatever, he has it already and needs maybe a minor brush up on style…….and other social accument or he has to move to the third world and try his luck there (not an option for most men)

    It’s very hard in this sense to move “up the chain” so to speak, almost impossible. This isn’t like getting a good job, or studying hard for a career to move up. This is effing genetics. You can’t make ugly, un-ugly. You can’t take a man with a 91 IQ and make him 110. You can’t. You can’t make a set of steps that are foolproof to get a wife, or read a book.

    This kind of stuff is subjective, and it usually is learned in the formative years. Born ugly? Messed up by your parents? Had problems as a teen (late bloomer thing?) You grew up inas a teen in 1985 versus 2020 versus 1962? Huge factors. Things he cannot change.

    The acceptamce part can be done….but it doesn’t go away. Ever. Mistakes he made or circumstance, or the time………..it doen’t change the fact this is a severe problem now and its not going away.

    The top men don’t anybody anything. However….they need to stop telling the bottom rungs that they just need to “try harder” and really want it. That perhaps is part of the frustration.

    Spare me that you are all “average guys” you’re not.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. thedeti says:

    This is an excellent write up.

    Scott has touched on what I was going to say.

    For the benefit of the ladies reading here, men are seeing the landscape NovaSeeker describes and mapped out. When a knowledgeable, astute man surveys this, he goes through the following mental process in roughly this order. He will usually approach this the same way he approaches most other “tasks”.

    1) He needs to know the facts. He determines what the map of his locale and region is. He determines the specific terrain he lives and works in.

    2) He needs to know the “unknowns”. He says to himself “I now know facts. I need to know if there’s anything else out there that I don’t know, and if so, I need to know it.”

    I think it was Don Rumsfeld who famously said something like “there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.” There are things he does not know so he works to identify those things and then turn them into things he knows, instead of things he knows he doesn’t know. He works to reduce the number of “unknown unknowns” as far as possible. You know?

    3) He surveys the actual terrain (not the map, the terrain). He draws his own conclusions from his survey, in addition to what the map shows and what other people told him about the terrain contours.

    4) He assesses his own resources and determines what he can do, in and on and with the terrain.

    5) He then asks himself “how can I use resources and the terrain to my advantage? Is there any way I can gain an advantage? Is there any way I can get anything I want or need from current conditions, in light of my resources and the territory as it currently exists?”

    6) If the answer is “no”, he conserves resources and retreats to his own location or to another territory. If the answer is “yes”, he devises a plan to get what he wants and needs in light of current conditions. He then executes that plan as best he can.

    An increasing number of men are answering “no”. More and more men are first answering “yes” and then seeing their resources plundered and their plans fail spectacularly (mostly because of errors at 1, 2 and 3, not tactical mistakes at 4, 5 and 6). They then have to fall back, take their losses, and regroup. Most don’t live to fight another day. And a small number of men answer “yes” and see plans succeed. Formerly, most men could succeed. Now, most men are failing.

    This algorithm is how men approach, or should approach, nearly every task, dilemma, and “problem”. This is how men “problem-solve”.

    Lots of men followed that exact strategy and they found that it just doesn’t work anymore. But about a decade ago, the men in the Manosphere took a new approach in navigating the marketplace. This was…

    -learn from those around you that traditional problem solving doesn’t work with love, sex, dating, mating and relationships, because it’s too complex and unpredictable for that kind of approach.

    -Survey the terrain with no map (because the recon said you don’t need a map and there really isn’t one anyway) and very poor reconnaissance, intelligence, and information.

    -head out with no assessment of resources and no plan (because the “intelligence” you got said assessing resources or devising plans is useless when dealing with human emotion) in an attempt to get what they want and need.

    -fail, take casualties and losses, and fall back.

    -get the same poor recon, intelligence, and information, only this time from other people.

    -head back out.

    -gain a minor victory based on events and info counter to recon and intelligence.

    -Declare “Victory”.

    -Compare notes with other men, learn, and make a new map. This new map is what we now call the Red Pill.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. lastmod says:

    Don Rumsfeld got us into Afgan and Iraq. He should have followed his own advice.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      We got into Iraq and the A-stan due to poltical correctness…. actually 2 different versions of political correctness…… and the desire to create a kill box that was out side the United States

      In a lot of ways both of those were successful operations. In a ton of ways they were/ are failures but they are considered failures because the kill box had to have the cover story and what not

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Elspeth says:

    Liz is right. Not all online meetings are through dating apps. However, even with that large increase, those 2017 numbers (admittedly 4 years old) indicate that 61% of couples are still meeting some other way. Even if the percentage has jumped 5 points in the past 4 years, that’s still 57% (more than half) of couples meeting some way other than online.

    When you factor in the large numbers of under 30s that are uncoupled (and not all of them are fat and/or ugly), it indicates that significant numbers of people are NOT using online dating apps, and with that, we have to temper the credence we give to statistics born of the denizens of online dating sites.

    The same kind of self-selection that characterizes the kind of young people I know who find dating apps off-putting is the same kind of self-selection that characterizes the people who use the sites.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      Oops. My math was off. If the 39% jumped 5 percentage points in the past 4 years, then that would be 44%, and 56% of people are still meeting another way.

      Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        I wonder how hard covid drove up those numbers?

        Personal observation tells me on line dating is dying. Dating is dying, on line dating is dying along with it

        Liked by 6 people

  10. Elspeth says:

    People meet (I mean romantic meeting) through debate sites/blogs?

    There was a sweet traditional Catholic young woman around these parts for years. Devout, chaste, and pretty cute. She finally married about 2 years ago (she was 31) to a guy she met around here. They have at least one baby at this point. I still hear from here every now and again.

    I’m extremely pleased that she stayed the course, kept the faith and it worked out for her.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      I know exactly who you’re talking about. She was traditional and Catholic, claimed to be devout and chaste and I have no reason to doubt otherwise. She was cute enough. She was definitely not “sweet”. She was, by her own admission, opinionated, “bossy”, and with a “big personality” (translation: Kind of b!tchy). I talked to her in backchannel comms and gave her my frank opinions.

      I am glad it worked out for her too. But she needed to be told to dial that personality way, WAY back and turn up the femininity and kindness.

      This is one of women’s biggest problems today: They’re not feminine. They’re self-made caricatures of what they believe masculinity is. They’re terrible imitations of the men they claim to want. They’re loud, brash, rude, unkind, selfish, self-absorbed, work too hard and complain about it constantly, and worst of all, they don’t seem to care about what men ACTUALLY want.

      Liked by 9 people

    • thedeti says:

      She was also 27 and heading into full on panic mode. She needed to get this marriage thing going right away, and she was more than a little concerned, rightly so, that time was running out for her.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. lastmod says:

    And I guess the “acceptance” so to speak for men my age in my situation (the single, never married, lower level men) is to just be thankful that they are maybe working, not in trouible with the police, the taxman, and are not on a fistfull of scripts………..not addicted to drugs or alcohol…..

    Maybe that is the “gift” in itself. Great, find jesus and be miserable in church or don’t and be miserable at home.

    At the age of almost 51 it doesn’t change the fact I believe I have been “cheated” out of something and there is nothing I can do about it……and yet my sex drive doesn’t go away, or stop. Nor does the massive hurt at times of trying to happy for someone who “just met this amazing gal” by burping and farting during a party or using some derogatory comment to make him irresiistable to him. Happens all the time evidently………just wish it happened to me.

    Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      No doubt

      I divorced for grounds over a sexless marraige.

      I tried to gut it out for 2 years but it was unending misery. Pointless unending misery.

      One of the worse experinces of my life and that’s a huge qualifying statement

      No amount of fasting, praying etc changed that

      Which is why I disssmis so many people’s strong talk about not having sex before marriage, re marrying after divorce etc etc

      Liked by 3 people

  12. cameron232 says:

    @Liz and Elspeth, you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. I’ve been in the same relationship since before the internet existed.

    Like

    • Elspeth says:

      Yeah, Cameron. Me, too. Been married 27 years this week. I’m fairly certain Liz has been married a long time as well.

      But my man is a tech dude, so I was on the Internet in some capacity before every soul and his or her grandma was using it, LOL. I’ve “met” a lot of characters online. A couple have turned into true friends.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Married in 1992. Lived with the in-laws the first year of marriage while my husband was a pizza delivery guy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Congratulations Elspeth!

        We fornicated for many years (my fault – she wanted to marry right after she graduated HS – I was too much of a wuss) so we have only been married (almost) 22 years.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m not going to judge you , Cameron. we fornicated too, just without any sense of care or caution (we were reckless in a lot of ways), so in order to legitimize our firstborn, we got married quickly.

        A lot of people put off marriage for education reasons, and many do it out of obedience to their parents, who prize finishing school over rescuing their kids from temptation and sin.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz:

        A pizza delivery guy in 1992: Gets a wife.

        A pizza delivery guy in 2021 ? He can’t even get a hooker, much less a wife.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Well, people aren’t marrying that young anymore.
        It was unusual then too.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Scott says:

    @Liz and Elspeth, you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. I’ve been in the same relationship since before the internet existed.

    This super important.

    If I was still married to my first wife (whom I married before the Internet was a thing) I would be in my 27th year of marriage.

    Instead I was thrust into singleness, 29 years old after a 7 year stable relationship, completely heart broken and becoming cynical, and the world of dating had been totally turned upside down in less than a decade.

    I found my current wife in that morally ambiguous cesspool with a pick axe, night vision goggles and just good enough looks to catch her attention.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      This resonates.

      My wife and I will be married 25 years this year.

      In that time I went from blue pill idealistic simp to red pill pragmatic hard nosed jaded cynic. Mrs. deti has seen both.

      Our marriage and the way we relate to each other has been changed forever. I, and it, have never been the same since. I’m more guarded and skeptical. I don’t take anything she says at face value. I verify. I sometimes trust, but always, always verify. I have to remain on constant vigil to keep things where I need them to be. I can compromise on many things, and I have. But there are some things that have to be my way, period, end of discussion, and that is just how it is going to be from here on out, no negotiation, no compromise, ever.

      Because I am never, ever again going to tolerate or endure the maltreatment I received in the early years of my marriage. Never.

      That’s my cross.

      Liked by 4 people

      • It’s like looking in a mirror, only the other guy is smarter and better dressed (that’s you, Deti).

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        KH:

        Thank you!

        Seriously: One of the hardest, saddest things I’ve ever been through is when the idealist in me died. I kind of liked that part of me. Sometimes I miss it. But it’s dead.

        When I laid down the law and said “change or I’m done”, I did things I never thought I’d do. I said things I never thought I’d say. I prepared to leave everything I knew. I prepared to subject my own children to the divorce maw.

        I wish I could love like I used to again. I wish I could live in ignorant bliss. But I can’t. And I never will again. I wish I could trust blindly and fully again. But I can’t. And I never will again.

        Liked by 3 people

      • I came to believe that if someone big enough picked me up and shook me they would hear a rattle coming from my insides where the broken parts were jostling each other.

        Love is for my kids, my mother and siblings, my pets. I’ll never trust another woman (including this one) again because:

        “I have to remain on constant vigil to keep things where I need them to be.”

        No safe harbor anywhere. No “Green Zone”. No “I’m on base”.

        Liked by 3 people

  14. lastmod says:

    Pizza delivery guy. According to this sphere. He didn’t have provision, and that’s not being a real man and having a vision. This is where the break-apart happens here. It’s okay for “ME” to be working on a career and getting started, you know, it just happened. It is what it is…..fornicating……..but any other man? No! That’s a sin! “YOU”need to have your “mission” in life figured out before seriously trying to date or find a wife. It comes off “okay for me, not for you” in these forums

    just saying

    Like

    • Liz says:

      I screened for potential.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        You judge a young man by his potential. You judge and older man by his accomplishments. A 50-year-old is judged differently than a 25-year-old. Every reasonable person knows that.

        That being said, it’s pretty tough to lead when you don’t know where you’re going, and it takes some of us longer to get to that point than others.

        My wife and I married when I was 28, and she was 22, and that was after I’d graduated college, after I received my commission, after I completed the Engineer Officers’ Basic Course, and after I completed the Sapper Leader Course.

        And she was still judging me on potential, because I was a brand new, untested, wet-behind-the-ears 2nd Lieutenant.

        How did you see the potential in your husband, Liz? What advice can you give those of us who have daughters about spotting potential?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “I screened for potential”

        This is what happened to me the first time around and apparently did not make the cut after x number of years.

        It scary to read, even today.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        How did you see the potential in your husband, Liz? What advice can you give those of us who have daughters about spotting potential?

        In our case, he had been accepted to pilot training…it was just a recession so we didn’t know when he could start. He had an engineering degree (aerospace, high honors). He was the smartest man I had ever met (still is). He didn’t plan on being a pizza delivery guy living with his parents his whole life. That’s the shortcut version. We had a lot of chemistry, and shared opinions on the stuff that mattered (religion, politics, family and all that).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        How did you see the potential in your husband, Liz? What advice can you give those of us who have daughters about spotting potential?

        To be honest I’m way more concerned about to teaching my boys how to spot one whose “potential spotting” turns into unreasonable expectations later.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Liz says:

        Well, Scott, if you start out with a minimum wage job living with parents it pretty much can only go up after that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        25 moves later, numerous deployments, we got through a lot of hard stuff.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Thanks, Liz. That’s a whole lot of potential!

        To be honest I’m way more concerned about to teaching my boys how to spot one whose “potential spotting” turns into unreasonable expectations later. ~ Scott

        I agree, but my oldest are girls, so I need to help them first.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        25 moves if you count every house (kicked off base for going reservist, kicked out of one base house into another, and so forth), 18 moves if you count just different countries/states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        That’s a whole lot of potential!

        Yes. I was a value investor.
        Not so many women saw his value then. Through the years that changed a lot.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar

        “And she was still judging me on potential, because I was a brand new, untested, wet-behind-the-ears 2nd Lieutenant.”

        I am sorry if this comes off as an @-hole comment. How can a girl literally raised in a trailer park be picky about how much potential you had? Especially with what you had already showed?

        My potential consisted of her liking “high intelligence” and perceiving that I had it (an astronomical 1200 SAT and 29 ACT). Otherwise, I never showed any signs I was going anywhere in particular. After HS I enrolled in the local community college (13th grade). I did the switch majors thing a couple times.

        I never got the impression I was under threat from lack of potential.

        Every serious problem we ever had was my insecurities and/or other woman issues (2 times) – in other words her being understandably jealous and protective (no, I never cheated).

        I mowed grass for a while at Arnold Palmer’s golf course ($7/hour, no benefits). She used to bandage my blistered feet when I came home

        I dropped out of college senior year (the company gave me a lower paying job anyway). What did she want right after that. Marriage and babies.

        A unicorn, by God, I got a unicorn, I swear I did.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Liz

        Not so many women saw his value then. Through the years that changed a lot.

        Hey, I’m happy for both of you! But that’s exactly why I asked. I think a lot of young men with a lot of potential get overlooked, and I want my daughters to understand that the path you and your husband took is about as close to the ideal as it gets in real life.

        May God bless you and yours.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        The take on what I thought was a small comment (screening for potential), is interesting.
        I didn’t marry a man I thought would go nowhere.
        I don’t think the alternative (marry a man who’d already made it, or marry a man whom I thought was going nowhere and never would) would say something better about me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Thank you Oscar, God bless you and yours too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ cameron232

        I am sorry if this comes off as an @-hole comment.

        No worries, brother. It’s a valid question. Besides, you just forced me to reconsider what I thought.

        How can a girl literally raised in a trailer park be picky about how much potential you had? Especially with what you had already showed?

        Now that you mention it, I could be wrong. It could be that I was holding myself to that standard, and projecting it onto her. That hadn’t occurred to me before, but all of a sudden, it seems likely.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        The take on what I thought was a small comment (screening for potential), is interesting.

        It’s because men brought up in the last 40 years thought women were telling the truth (and equally applying to both sexes) the provably false notion “loving/be loved exactly as I am”

        Rollo, as obnoxious as I find him personally is right about several key issues that will crush a man if he doesn’t pay attention. Like make him suicidal serious.

        One is

        “Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically”

        Several of us here went into relationships with stars in our eyes for our first wives, who at the altar had their fingers crossed behind their backs while uttering vows.

        “I do (as long as he meets the potential I have placed on him as unspoken milestones)”

        Men actually mean “I do.”

        No caveats. No unspoken expectations.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        Fair enough Scott,
        You’re reading something completely different into what I said.
        Screening for potential doesn’t ipso facto mean making vows one isn’t going to keep.
        It means exactly what I said.
        Marrying a girl who is fit and treats you well is also screening for potential.
        You can’t be sure, but you hope she will stay fit and treat you well (if she doesn’t she doesn’t value you).
        In the same manner, screening for potential in a man was the basics: we share the same values, he is smart, he is fit, we probably won’t be living in his boyhood room with the race car wallpaper for the rest of our lives together.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        On balance, because of the burden of performance (that only men have) and other innate masculine qualities a husband will continue to love and fawn all over his land whale, completely given up on looking pretty, acting sweet wife until he is dead. Because he has been trained to believe her loss of give a crap is his fault.

        Most women today bail at the first moment your upward trajectory falters.

        Lost your job? Gone
        Sick? Gone
        Belly starting to hang over? Gone

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Marrying a girl who is fit and treats you well is also screening for potential.
        You can’t be sure, but you hope she will stay fit and treat you well (if she doesn’t she doesn’t value you).

        No, Liz, we do NOT screen for potential. We screen for femininity, attractiveness, attraction to us, and character. We want, we need, we expect, those things to ALREADY BE THERE, not that maybe they’ll be there at some future point.

        We don’t want her to change. We want her to stay just like that. We don’t need her to “improve”. We married her because we like her like she is now.

        We also say EXACTLY what we mean. “I love you” means exactly that. “I do” means exactly that. No conditions no caveats no hidden meanings no “except for”s. Because for men, at least, words mean things. Promises mean things. Vows have import, impact, and meaning.

        We are not with women for “potential”. We don’t take women on for “maybe someday”. We need it NOW. Right NOW. We need her to be things NOW. We picked her because she is, or was, or at least claimed to be, what we needed, RIGHT NOW.

        Men do not want “potential”. We need feminine women to be feminine women for us, NOW.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        If men screened for potential, it would be for her potential to be skinny, and we’d give her a gym membership. We don’t do that though, mostly because we know they’ll revert to being lazy and fat again.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Men do not want “potential”.
        I can’t speak for others, but my spouse wanted children.
        He hoped I had the potential to have them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz:

        I can’t speak for others, but my spouse wanted children.
        He hoped I had the potential to have them.

        You did NOT have the “potential” to have children. You had, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, the ABILITY to have children. He could have had sex with you every day for 2 months after you got married and you almost certainly would have become pregnant.

        It was not “potential”. It was the present ability and capability and capacity, RIGHT NOW, to have children.

        Nothing had to change. Nothing had to improve. No time had to elapse. You were ready for children. “Just add baby batter.”

        That is NOT what is meant by potential.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        You did NOT have the “potential” to have children. You had, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, the ABILITY to have children.

        Potential is the inherent ability or capacity, not yet realized.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I kind of agree with them Liz – by potential they mean performance. I don’t think the ability to have a baby is a performance burden placed on women the same way burdens are placed on men (I feel sorry for women who are sterile).

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz:

        Potential is the inherent ability or capacity, not yet realized.

        No, it is not.

        Potential: Adj. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

        “Become or develop into something IN THE FUTURE”. Development means change. Future means time passage.

        If you have that ability and capacity, then nothing has to change. Potential requires CHANGE and TIME. A woman has the present ability to have children. Nothing has to change. No time has to pass.

        You’re just wrong about this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Liz:

        “You can’t be sure, but you hope she will stay fit and treat you well (if she doesn’t she doesn’t value you).”

        My wife didn’t stay fit (I did). Do you think she doesn’t value me? Not putting you on the spot. Not saying “Hey! I resemble that remark!” Seriously asking.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        She just sent me this:

        “I spent all morning scrubbing and cleaning up our bathroom and bedroom, TO SURPRISE YOU. I vacuumed the floors, chair and bed, wiped down windowsills and walls. Even behind bed and dresser.
        What happens when I finish? …….”

        I capitalized TO SURPRISE YOU for emphasis.

        The ……. was her describing how our 2 y.o. was destroying the kitchen while she was “surprising” me. Then destroying the bathroom when she was cleaning the kitchen mess. Then destroying the bedroom she was surprising me with while she was cleaning the bathroom mess.

        Following this in the message was a bunch of hearts and attached pictures of our 2 y.o. daughter.

        In my mind a wife who is not fit can value her husband. I can agree with your part about “treat you well” but not the “stay fit” part.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Liz, I actually congratulate you (and Elspeth too) on your fitness. It’s a good thing. But people have different bodies and different psychology/self control.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        @Cameron:

        by potential they mean performance.

        YES YES YES. by Jove I think he’s got it!

        I don’t need a woman to perform. I don’t need her to do things. I need her to BE things, FOR ME. I need her to be feminine. I need her to be attractive. I need her to be attracted to me. I need her to be kind, nice, cheerful, optimistic, and a “soft landing”.

        For the love of God, woman, I don’t need you to DO ANYTHING. I need for you to BE THERE. I need for you to be present, in the moment, with me, being what you have been and being what attracted me to you in the first place. I need for you to be

        If anyone’s going to do anything, it will be me. I’ll do it. I need for you to BE the things I want because that helps me do what needs done. I don’t need you to perform or do or change or improve. I need you to be what you have been, and are, and I need you to be here, with me.

        Don’t talk to me about you having to “do chores”. Yes, you’ll do this or that. But chores are not central to who you are. I did not bring you into my life to cook meals for me and wash my underwear. I can do that myself. I brought you into my life because you are what I cannot be – FEMININE and SOFT. I brought you into my life because of WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE. And I brought you into my life because I want and need those things.

        OK, ladies. You’ve read this. Do you get it now?

        Liked by 5 people

      • Ame says:

        Deti – I keep reading these comments and realize this is all what I thought marriage was and what I thought I was getting the first time, but, I guess the easiest way to make a long story short is to say I guess not all men are like that 😥.

        This past week would have been our 35th anniversary 😥

        I’m thankful for what I have now, but I lament during this time each year (not planned; it just always hits me out of the blue) all those hopes and dreams and the never ending energy and naivety I had back then. Like your wives did to you and broke all those things, my first husband did to me. Unfortunately, he also did it to our girls, too😥

        My now Husband’s story is like many others out here, too. So we’re two broken people who choose to overlook a lot and focus on what’s good 😊

        My daughters have said they wouldn’t have known men could be kind if it weren’t for their step dad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Actually, I didn’t stay perfectly fit either. My weight varies between 160 and 200+ – currently 200 – so I’ve had plenty of 40 lb swings. I don’t think you can tell how much a person loves or values another person by what the scale says.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m not all that fit. I keep my weight reasonably under control, and I am an exerciser (lifelong, in fact) but I don’t know if I would say I am fit.

        I actually do get it, Deti. More than you realize. I’ve just seen a lot of variation in men, especially since moving up from the working class, manly man prototype I was raised by, grew up around, and married.

        What you describe is basic common sense but far from I oversell among men. Far from it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I meant “moving up” socioeconomically. Middle class men are very different, I’ve learned.

        And a lot of young men DO want a working wife for a lot of reasons. My husband was very atypical in that regard. He’s atypical in many regards.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth:

        I meant “moving up” socioeconomically. Middle class men are very different, I’ve learned.

        And a lot of young men DO want a working wife for a lot of reasons. My husband was very atypical in that regard. He’s atypical in many regards.

        It doesn’t change the analysis one iota.

        No man is going to marry a woman for financial reasons who does not also have femininity, character, attraction to him and attractiveness. Men simply do not do this. If he has to choose between her earning potential and those 4 items, he’ll choose the woman with the 4 items. Every. Single. Time.

        And, yes, many men do expect working wives. That does not mean they do not also expect their wives to be feminine, of good character, attractive, and attracted to him. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But the 4 core items are way, WAY more important than her job. That’s Red Pill 101.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        What you describe is basic common sense but far from I oversell among men. Far from it.

        NO NO NO. This is NOT “basic common sense”. This is stuff that has to be taught to men. This is stuff that men have to learn. Either they pick it up from direct dealings with girls; or someone sits them down and feeds it to them. This should be taught, trained, and internalized into every boy by the time he’s 15 and absolutely no later than high school graduation. For some of us, it is not.

        Just because you think SAM “just got it” and it was “basic common sense” to him or you, doesn’t mean that it is. Do you think SAM came out of his mother’s womb just knowing this? He did not. He learned it – either because someone taught it to him, or more likely through hard won experience. He experienced first hand women’s treachery, and he experienced it long before he met and married you.

        So no, this is not “basic common sense”. Men have to learn it, one way or another.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        My wife didn’t stay fit (I did). Do you think she doesn’t value me? Not putting you on the spot. Not saying “Hey! I resemble that remark!” Seriously asking.

        I’m sorry Cameron, I didn’t see any of your posts on that particular thread until now.
        I’m sure your wife values you very much, from what you have posted.
        I don’t know anyone’s particular circumstances so I cannot speak knowledgably.
        Partial information is worse than ignorance (stolen from someone…nor sure whom exactly), and most of us online here only have partial information.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        At any rate, it depends on a person’s circumstances.
        Right now my spouse is coming home from a family emergency. After that, we’ll have to fly out to another. Not really a time to get in super shape for either of us. Stuff happens.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      Lastmod, you often make astute and valid points about the tendency -of all of us, really!- to outline a set of standards that very few of us held to ourselves. It’s kind of the hazard of growing older, and seeing in hindsight what you were blind to in the fog of youth and hormones.

      Times have changed so much in the past two decades that young men -and young women- almost have to dig deep and be on guard with higher “missions” because the support systems and vestiges of sanity that we had are all but gone.

      One of the things we’ve done with our kids (since they can do basic math, not to mention their dad had a kid that I didn’t give birth to) is explained to them not only the sin of how we started out, but laid bare a lot of the difficulties that came along as a result of our disobedience.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Ditto

        This is the only way me and Mychael “works”

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott and Elspeth

        I’ve wanted her to avoid the topic of the years we lived together when talking to the children. Just have it be part of the foggy history before their birth. She doesn’t share my desire to hide all this from them at least not as much as I do. I guess I prefer, don’t ask don’t tell. My feeling is that you give kids the idea that it’s ok because “mom and dad did it” even if you “confess” your sin to them. Consequences? They’d probably have at least two more older siblings if we did things the right way but kids don’t often think about things like that. There’s no visible “consequences” to describe to them. We “got away with it.”

        I can remember mom and dad saying things that hinted they didn’t wait (early 1970s). “Unlike my sister, we didn’t get caught” or something like that. As a kid, I really didn’t want to know.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        My feeling is that you give kids the idea that it’s ok because “mom and dad did it” even if you “confess” your sin to them. ~ Cameron

        I fall in with Elspeth and Scott. Kids can be really perceptive. They pick up hints over the years, and put them together like puzzle pieces, sometimes inaccurately, and they rarely talk about what they’ve discovered.

        I think it’s less destructive to be honest with them.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Scott says:

        Cameron

        I believe this is a misinterpretation of the concept of hypocrisy.

        People today believe that the act of doing something in your past sends a message to younger ones that’s it’s “ok”

        It’s not ok if you announce:

        “It’s not ok when you do it. And it wasn’t ok when I did it.”

        Big difference

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree Scott. I tried to make this point with my baby sister – she never understood it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        I do it not to be a fault finder Elsph….but sometimes (well…most of the time) I just find The Rules of Red Pill are laid out in concrete. Must. Will. Always. And then I find fewer and fewer men who proclaim this actually did this themselves, nor do it after they are married. yet too many expect men to stick to the program like a math equation.

        My past faults will never be forgiven. They could be if I indeed was “so handsome” but you know…..life is pretty brutal in these matters…….german sociologist Max Weber once said “physical attractiveness and social class are a roll of the dice”

        I know what I did. Apologized a gazillion times, I will never get back the 150K that was honked up my nose. I’ll never get back the average 3,000.00 a month in rent I paid to live in San Francisco from 1996-2008. I’ll never have my potentials evaluated fairly or justly by fellow men or women.

        The “blackpill” I do understand though is that I would have been at least forgiven if I had some of the skills I have now at the age of 17,19 or 22.

        You don’t know it all. You can’t even speak for the lower 80% or what is it now…..90% of “lower” men deemed by women as undateble. But you all apply solutions that work well for men like yourself…….

        I just don’t like how this is somehow made foolprooof, and just like Game or PUA before it “if it doesn’t work, you are not doing it right / you must like being a chump”

        Like

  15. Elspeth says:

    Yeah Cameron, Scott and I literally didn’t have that luxury, of hiding from our kids. There were things that simply could not be hidden.

    But here’s the thing. Our kids have never seemed to come away with the attitude of , “Mom and Dad did it, and it worked out fine.” In fact, they understand clearly and unambiguously that we are a weird combination of graced by God and freakishly lucky.

    The young adult girls have said to me, “Mom, you went for the cute, popular guy and it worked out for you, but most girls we know who did what you did ended up heart broken and devastated. Dad -as he is now- we can understand the attraction. Dad, as people described him back then, that was a huge risk for someone like you. We are so glad he’s our dad, but you took a big personal risk.” he doesn’t deny it, either.

    They chalked it all up to, “God MUST have had a plan for you guys!” They do NOT see it as, “well mom and dad did it and it worked out fine.” And they’re right. I took a HUGE risk getting involved with their dad as the man he was then. But he was very clear-eyed about many things that weren’t obvious from a distance, and I was the beneficiary of that clarity.

    But we’ve really never been ones to sugar coat the realities of life from our kids as they have reached an age where they could properly process it. My husband decided to show them actual pictures of genitals infected with syphilis, HPV, and herpes sores when they started high school. Along with this admonition, “if you can’t find it in you to obey me and or obey God, you need to understand that condoms are far from perfect protection against THIS.”

    LOL. Thankfully, they listened and found their way into a personal faith that is not tethered to ours.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @Elspeth, There’s not wanting to empower them to do the same but there’s also just shame too- yeah shame plays a role in wanting to hide stuff from them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        One of the joys of a Protestant understanding of Christ’s sacrifice: You can shed the shame and embrace the glorious mercy of redemption.

        The key is to walk forward on grateful obedience, not to practice saying stupid things like, “making that mistake made me who I am today.” That’s not repentance.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Ame says:

      Elspeth, I’ve been very honest with my daughters, too. Rather than tell them they could not do things, I told them they would get to choose, and here are their choices.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I completely agree, Ame.

        Honesty really is the best policy. As soon as they are old enough to properly process, they need to know that choices have consequences, and how we know that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ame says:

        One day a few years ago my Aspie Girl sat down and said, “Mama, I need to know what Daddy did.” I knew that would happen one day. I had prepared them over the years by teaching me them about Rahab and how prostitutes need love and forgiveness. I taught them how to love and forgive and that we all have ‘something. ‘

        The only caveat was that she couldn’t tell her sister ever unless she asks. Her sister has never asked and has stated she doesn’t want to know. I think she’s figured it out, but she hasn’t wanted to talk about it so we haven’t.

        So, I just told her he had slept with prostitutes. I don’t remember how much else except I’m sure we talked about how God had forgiven him and I had forgiven him and she needed to also. It actually brought her peace because now her imagination could stop.

        Our imaginations are usually worse than the truth.

        There are parts I’ll likely never tell her, but some things just need to be left in the grave with him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ame & Elspeth, men sometimes do horrible things – we’re not all evil monsters.

        We have seen three horrible cases in 2020. A friend’s husband was arrested for molesting their daughters – I mean his/her biological daughters. Apparently it has been going on for years. The husband of one of my wife’s friends is transitioning into a woman so they split (they have three children). A guy I worked with murdered his wife – he went to his car, got his pistol and emptied it into her. And the gun suicide (over a woman) of a guy I work with.

        I can’t really understand all this – I hope 2021 is better – I can’t deal with too much more of this sort of thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ame says:

        Cameron, it does get very overwhelming and even oppressive. i remember the first ‘wave’ of bad divorces that occurred in my circles as a newlywed in my 20’s. it was very depressing. i guess, somewhere, i’ve compartmentalized some of that.

        the incest is harsh … i did a six month sexual abuse recovery group when i turned 40 … one of the things we did was tell our ‘story,’ and i was never more grateful that i missed most of them – running late b/c a kid had a something – all usually weird things, but i think it was God protecting me from having those stories in my head.

        my therapist (whom i was seeing concurrently during this group) would often remind me of Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. 6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7 and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.

        i actually need to spend some time on this myself with all the sad stories here in texas right now – getting so depressing.

        Liked by 2 people

  16. Elspeth says:

    I mowed grass for a while at Arnold Palmer’s golf course ($7/hour, no benefits).

    I know that place…

    Liked by 3 people

  17. thedeti says:

    Breaking: Rush Limbaugh has died.

    Like

  18. Elspeth says:

    @ Scott:

    Rollo said a lot of stuff that I thought was simplistic and easily debunked, but I do agree with that bit about men loving more idealistically than women do. I wouldn’t say women are opportunistic as much as we are pragmatic when it comes to sexual relationships. We have a lot to lose with pregnancy and childbirth. So he’s right about that in large part, although I don’t think it’s universal.

    I have a huge problem with being a pragmatist, but I don’t think that played any role in how I chose my husband. I only realized how much of a pragmatist I am because I married an idealist. I think we compliment each other well, but he didn’t marry me with stars in his eyes. I can almost remember clearly when he relaxed into trusting his heart to me, and we’d been married several years at that point.

    Before that, we didn’t have a bad relationship. Just the opposite, in fact. He was just raised by his father to view women a certain way and not be a fool. It didn’t bother me because I had a dad with a similar attitude regarding not allowing a woman’s feelings -even your wife- to be the determining factor in every decision you make because the buck stops with you. So I was used to it and wasn’t offended by it.

    The older you get, the longer you’re married, the more a kind of Vulcan mind meld thing happens and it doesn’t really matter as much any more. You almost always agree.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Oscar says:

    Completely Off Topic: Rush Limbaugh’s talent returns to its source.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/02/17/breaking-rush-limbaugh-dies-at-70-n1426245

    “It is with profound sadness I must share with you directly that our beloved Rush, my wonderful husband, passed away this morning due to complications from lung cancer,” his wife said. “Losing a loved one is terribly difficult, even more so when that loved one is larger than life.”

    Love him or hate him, it is undeniable that Rush was a colossus in his time, and his profession. There was a time when his was the only popular voice that contradicted the Cultural Marxism constantly streaming from the mainstream media. He may not have gone as far right as some of us would like, but he got a lot of people moving in that direction.

    I hope he was reconciled to his Maker.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      I was given the book “the way things outta be” as a wedding present in 1994. That was the start of my moving right, from basically “garden variety apolitical guy” and I never looked back.

      Like

  20. thedeti says:

    I’m going to make this a top level comment. I feel this strongly about it.

    Maybe women screen for potential, but men do not. We, or at least I used to, screen for what a woman represents herself to be, not what she “wants to be someday”. We presume that people mean what they say and say what they mean, including women. Because to us men, words mean things.

    We men do not marry a woman hoping that someday she’ll become feminine or make more money or lose weight or gain muscle or have 18 babies. We men marry a woman because of WHO SHE IS RIGHT NOW. Because who she is right now is what we want and need. At her core, at the center of who she is, her character, her femininity, we want that to stay just like that. For the love of God do NOT change, do NOT improve. We like it like that. Just like that.

    Men do not screen for potential. We screen for femininity, attractiveness, attraction to us, and character. We screen for those things because we want and need them now. Right now. Not someday. Not next year or 5 years from now. We want and need and expect them NOW.

    We also, to our extreme detriment, do take, or used to take, women at face value. We presume that what you are saying is what you mean. We presume (erroneously) that how you present yourself is who and what you are. That you really are what you appear to be. We presume that when you say “I love you”, that you mean you love that man, right now, with all the ascriptions and connotations those words entail. We do not presume hidden meanings, conditions, caveats, or “Except For”s. We presume I. Love. You. means I (The woman) Love (care about, would do anything for, would give up things for, cares about us more than she cares about herself) You (the man. Me.) That’s it. Nothing less, nothing more.

    Because Words Mean Things. At least to us men, they do. When we say I Love You, that’s EXACTLY what it means. When we say “I do”, that’s EXACTLY what we mean. And that is why men like Scott and me did what we did and do. That’s why men like me fell short and screwed up – because we actually took women at face value. Because we believed things we should not have believed. Because we actually listened to women (and a lot of simp men) tell us that women don’t lie, they don’t lie about love, they don’t lie about sex, and Women Are Wonderful. And we believed it.

    Let me tell you people something – a big part of me died when I realized how wrong I had been about all this. That idealist is dead. It died because I had to put a bullet in the back of its head following the mortal wounds my own wife inflicted on it. And extracting that gangrenous part of me hurt. A lot. Still does. I’ll never get that back. I’ll never be able to fully trust a woman again. I’ll never be able to believe what a woman says again without cross checks and stopgaps. In fact, I’ll never be able to believe what pretty much anyone says or does ever again. I can’t rest or repose. I have to be constantly on guard so that I can detect, deflect, and protect myself against things women now tell me I have to look out for, and that I should have been vigilant about all along.

    No. We do not want potential. We want a woman to just fcking be who she says she is and appears to be. We want her to say what she means and mean what she says and fcking be HONEST and CLEAR in word and deed. Femininity, attractiveness, attraction to us, and character. NOW. Not someday. NOW. RIGHT NOW.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Elspeth says:

      The potential for kids is a very real potential.

      Scott would have to answer for himself, but from reading his commentary over the years, I don’t believe he is anywhere near as jaded in his marriage as you describe here. He seems -adorably, I might add- besotted with his wife. And you don’t get that without a pretty high level of trust.

      Wounds certainly teach you to be cautious, but that’s a wholly different thing from this:

      I’ll never get that back. I’ll never be able to fully trust a woman again. I’ll never be able to believe what a woman says again without cross checks and stopgaps. In fact, I’ll never be able to believe what pretty much anyone says or does ever again. I can’t rest or repose. I have to be constantly on guard so that I can detect, deflect, and protect myself against things women now tell me I have to look out for, and that I should have been vigilant about all along.

      Now to be fair, I have a BIL who would agree with this 110%. He would be cheering you on if he read this. His first wife did a number. on, him. But I don’t know if it makes sense to lump Scott into this characterization. He is certainly wiser for his wounds, but it doesn’t seem he hasn’t withheld that idealistic love from Mychael.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        No, it is NOT “potential”. No. You’re just wrong about this.

        A woman has the present ability, RIGHT NOW, to have children. That’s not potential. Potential means that someday you’ll have that ability. A woman doesn’t have “potential” to have kids. She has that ability RIGHT NOW.

        Scott would have to answer for himself, but from reading his commentary over the years, I don’t believe he is anywhere near as jaded in his marriage as you describe here. He seems -adorably, I might add- besotted with his wife. And you don’t get that without a pretty high level of trust.

        Yes, he is besotted with Mychael— after his first wife ripped his heart from his chest and he had to recover from it. Yes, after he sacrificed his first marriage and some of his idealism. He’s said before that Mychael gets the jaded, cynical Scott whereas first wife got the idealist romantic Scott.

        The more I do this the more I can clearly see that women just do not get this. I know – I KNOW – the other men here know exactly what I’m talking about.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Actually, E, Scott has said Mychael gets the jaded cynical skeptical Scott.

        And while Scott loves her, I think it’s more that Mychael is besotted with him.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        deti,

        A woman has the present ability, RIGHT NOW, to have children.

        You don’t know that. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t. Odds are pretty good that she does, but she may not. Just ask Anne Boleyn.

        Besides, we don’t want a wife to just squeeze out a few kids, and that’s it. We want her to be a godly mother to those kids, and we don’t know whether she will, or won’t be, until she does it, or fails to do it. Some women have a greater potential to become godly mothers, and some women have a lower potential to become godly mothers, but either way we’re playing the odds.

        Other than that, as the old saying goes, men get married hoping the woman won’t change. Women get married hoping the man will change.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        We are both pretty crazy about each other.

        The jaded, cynical part is something I have to fight. It’s not my nature to be that way, but it was caused by my experience with divorce. I am hopelessly positive and optimistic.

        But the darkness, caused by my first wife manifests itself in the tiny part in the center of my chest that I (sometimes) keep from Mychael. It’s a protection measure. She doesn’t deserve that. But she accepts it because she knows the pain I am guarding against.

        I know her deepest fears and insecurities too. We decided to guard the others heart. To not poke at those wounds.

        Liked by 5 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      My father was akways clear that marriage was a breeding program for people

      So I screened for potential. And for traits to offset short comings when it came to child production.

      Like my ex wife was insanely good at math and book learning where it’s always been a huge struggle for me.

      It mattered a great deal to me that she was a top rated swimmer, becuase I wanted to double down on athleticism

      Same with what was basically a back ground check of her and her family

      At 17.

      She was also always on the prom court/ homecoming court deal. So being hot was a given but being hot alone was not enough.

      Didn’t help much in the long run though we did produce high quality childern

      Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I know a person who married a woman thinking she would learn to cook and eventually do so. 20 years later, guess who still doesn’t cook.

      Like

  21. thedeti says:

    I really, really need you people to get this. This is important.

    We men do not need for you to be something in the future. Whatever you are next year or the year after that or 5 years from now, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. What we need is femininity, attractiveness, attraction to us, and character. NOW. We are not marrying you in the hopes that someday you’ll be those things. We need those things RIGHT NOW.

    Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not next year. TODAY. THIS MINUTE. NOW.

    If we didn’t need them now, we would have nothing at all to do with you. We wouldn’t care. We look for you and get you and take you because we want and need what you are NOW.

    And we don’t want you to change those things. Keep it just like that.

    And we need you to mean what you say, say what you mean, and be HONEST and CLEAR.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Liz says:

      Deti, I think a lot of tragedy can be avoided if people are clear about their expectations from the beginning. I was. Mike was. It worked very well. We’ve been through a lot in life (though are very blessed and fortunate).
      The status quo, the road to destruction, is living for today, acting however she needs to to get what she wants…not really valuing him at all.
      Mike was attracted to me, but he knew what he wanted in a wife and it wasn’t just someone who looked good at the moment. He found himself more drawn to “artsy” types who don’t age well or mother well. He ignored that and married the good girl.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        I should add: “Good” relative to…what he had going on at the time, at any rate.
        He did look for potential. Maybe that’s rare.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Agreed that people do need to be clear about expectations from the beginning. I wish I had been. But, again, I presumed things I should not have. I presumed that people’s words would match their actions, and that appearances were in fact correct.

        Then you start going off the rails.

        I am NOT talking about “living for today”. I am talking about a woman, a wife, actually being who she claims to be.

        I am also not talking about men wanting a wife who looks good at the moment. I am talking about him wanting a wife who ACTUALLY IS feminine, attractive, attracted to him, and of sufficient character, NOW. It is not about women who don’t age well. This is not about women who don’t “mother” well. This is not about physical appearance. At its core, this is about a woman’s femininity and character, and those are things she can have now.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I can tell I am just not getting through to the womenfolk on this.

        He did not look for potential, Liz. He married you for who you were at the time hoping that your core characteristics of femininity and character would stay just like that. And they probably have.

        I won’t press this point further. I just can’t be any clearer about this. I just don’t think you’re grokking this. I think you’re projecting your mindset onto Mike, and men in general. We just don’t do what you say we’re doing when we pick women. We don’t. None of us do.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Okay, Deti. I stand corrected. It’s as I said, Scott can answer for himself.

        My husband, like Liz’s, was clear about what he expected, has never tolerated disrespect (no he doesn’t beat me, LOL), and we’ve done swimmingly. We came from a background where we had to find a balance and a Christian path to do what we’d already been raised with: Husband is King. I realize that has been a boon to us.

        he knew what he wanted in a wife and it wasn’t just someone who looked good at the moment. He found himself more drawn to “artsy” types who don’t age well or mother well. He ignored that and married the good girl.

        But again, like Liz’s husband, my husband background was multi-ethnic women, with all the aesthetic that goes along with that. Kinda like this (she kinda looks like an ex):

        And yet, he ended up married to a kinda cute plain ol’ black American woman most of you have seen my About pic which is fairly recent). None of the exotic aesthetic that most men like. Why did he choose to marry someone very different from his type, someone clearly not as objectively hot as he usually dates?

        I was serene and he was a bit of a tumultuous soul who found that like an oasis, I respected masculinity, I was opinionated, but I followed him. I had a dad (first girl he’d ever dated who had been raised with her dad in the house). And even at 20, he immediately sensed that it was a huge part of the reason I carried myself the way I did.

        He has always been crystal clear about a person’s word being their bond. Do what you say you’ll do, even if it hurts you to keep your word. That’s what marriage is. You say you’re going to love, honor, and obey (we were married by an old country preacher who included the word “obey” in my vows)? Well then, I expect you to keep your word.

        I get what you’re saying, but I also personally know of men who do marry women precisely because she has the potential to add to his net worth. Say what you want about that kind of man (and they’re usually young), but they exist. I’ve met them.

        So the absolutism wrapped up in your statements are, again, borne of growing older, wiser, and having the chance to form an understanding in your mind and heart about what’s important.

        Projecting that onto the average younger man is an error.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ deti

        Agreed that people do need to be clear about expectations from the beginning. I wish I had been.

        I was. It didn’t matter.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth:

        Thanks for your long reply. It’s interesting but not on point at all. It has next to nothing to do with the points i was making. And it’s clear you aren’t understanding me.

        This has nothing to do with a woman’s physical appearance or men’s “types”. A man can be attracted to and choose and be perfectly happy with women of many different types. SAM married you because you were and are attractive to him, and you are absolutely so smitten with him you can’t see straight. I mean, come on E, do you think he doesn’t know that? Do you think he didn’t know that before he proposed to you? Of COURSE he knew that. He married you because of your femininity and sterling character. Do you think SAM couldn’t see that? OF COURSE he could.

        It has nothing to do with men wanting a woman to add to his net worth. I can tell you right now that those men who do consider “potential for net worth” would jettison that “requirement” in less than a heartbeat if they have to sacrifice femininity, character, attraction to them, and attractiveness. I can tell you right now that there are few, very few, men for whom a woman’s earning “potential” is more important than the fact that she is a woman who is feminine, attracted to him, attractive, and of good character. Hell, I’ll live in a TRAILER before I pick a woman who doesn’t have those four characteristics but who can financially support me.

        And your presumption that younger men don’t get this is just wrong. SAM got it. Scott got it. It’s kind of pressed into men.

        You. Do. Not. Get. It. And that’s fine.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        I am also not talking about men wanting a wife who looks good at the moment. I am talking about him wanting a wife who ACTUALLY IS feminine, attractive, attracted to him, and of sufficient character, NOW. It is not about women who don’t age well. This is not about women who don’t “mother” well. This is not about physical appearance. At its core, this is about a woman’s femininity and character, and those are things she can have now.

        Okay, fair enough.
        This entire thread about “potential” is based on what I said and various interpretations of four words.
        Mike would say he screened for potential too.
        I can’t speak for anyone else.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        This entire thread about “potential” is based on what I said and various interpretations of four words.

        which is a suggestion that my points were illegitimate or meritless or not worthy of discussion. On the contrary, this is a discussion that needed to be had and identification of a misconception that needed correction.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        which is a suggestion that my points were illegitimate or meritless or not worthy of discussion.
        Not at all.
        On the contrary, this is a discussion that needed to be had and identification of a misconception that needed correction.
        Okay.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      Deti wrote,

      “We men do not need for you to be something in the future. Whatever you are next year or the year after that or 5 years from now, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. What we need is femininity, attractiveness, attraction to us, and character. NOW. We are not marrying you in the hopes that someday you’ll be those things. We need those things RIGHT NOW.”

      I agree that this is something that women really need to understand, at least, if they hope to get along with a man for the long distance.

      To put this in my own words, men want a woman to “perform”. This has several facets.

      There is one facet of “perform” that means providing a service and being a helper in life. This means cooking, doing housework, putting the children to bed on time, regular sex, etc. … In sum, “doing things”. In general, men judge other men on how well they “perform” by “doing things”. Likewise, women get the idea that “perform” means “doing things”. “Performance” does include those things, but that is not what men get married for. We can eat delicious food at a restaurant and hire someone to clean the house. We can have a girlfriend (or two) for sex, or even having a child (without considering the morality of it). This is why these things are not so important to a man, as Deti said. So the question remains, Why should a man take the risk of getting married?

      But there is another facet of “perform”, which has gotten lost in this discussion. “Perform” means he can rely on her to be constant, faithful, honest, and trustworthy. This includes all the non-material forms of exchange within the relationship — things like being kind, feminine, respectful, submissive, and so on. Comprehensively, she must be attractive, not just physically attractive, but attractive in overall character and constitution, and this is what endures after a woman’s physical attractiveness has waned. True, a large part of attractiveness is a physical quality, but the value of being attractive is NOT a physical quantity. At the root of attractiveness lies a soul connection that includes regular vibrant companionship, sexual bonding, inspiration, encouragement, and so on.
      God created woman so that man would not be alone.
      THIS is why men take the risk of getting married. Men know they need to provide certain things to a woman (i.e. commitment) for her to be all of the above to them. God did NOT create woman so that man could have a clean house and hot meals. This is just an added benefit.

      A third facet of “perform” is the immediacy of the present functionality. Deti expresses this aspect in saying, “We need those things RIGHT NOW!” Employees who don’t show up for work are dismissed. A business partner who doesn’t follow through on the deal will not have his contract renewed. Likewise, if a man isn’t experiencing a deeper connection with a woman, then it’s a no go.

      A fourth facet of “perform” is about maturity and moral agency. If a man offers monogamous commitment to a woman, then what will she do with that? Some women know how to short circuit the immediate connection (described in the third facet above) in order to attract a man’s commitment in marriage, but then they don’t follow through on the second facet above. This is essentially fraud, because it omits the whole reason that men get married. Deti and others have mentioned how women cling to certain expectations they have about the man’s potential, and how they use this as an excuse not to fulfill their marital vows “to love, honor, and cherish… to have and to hold until death do us part”. Most men have the tenacity to stick to their word (i.e. marital vows), despite the fact that the woman is getting everything that the marital relationship holds for her, while the man gets nothing but a clean house and hot meals. Some men don’t even get that much.

      There is nothing about marriage that promises “potential”. It only promises relationship permanency (and now days, even that is tentative). If the relationship is good, then there still remains a lot of work to make it smooth and satisfying. But if the relationship is hollow or unstable, then that loneliness becomes a permanent disappointment (as Scott and Deti described). Men just can’t understand why any woman would debase marriage in this way for any reason. But yet, women dig in their heels to deny it. Women hamster up many reasons (“I’m unhaaapy”, “he changed”, “he didn’t change”, “he didn’t fulfill my expectations”, “he doesn’t make enough money”, “he’s a loser”, “Chad was better”, etc.), but it’s all hash with respect to what marriage is all about. Women are presumed to be experts in managing relationships, but few women actually “perform” well in this regard. For a woman to be deserving of a man’s marital commitment, she has to first “prove” that she can “perform” by handling the relationship tactfully, and not just extract whatever will benefit herself and leave the man hanging out to dry. That is the pertinent immediacy of the NOW.

      Liked by 7 people

      • thedeti says:

        Jack:

        Good write up.

        Women deny all this and don’t understand it because they really, truly believe the marriage and the relationship is all about them It never occurs to most women that they are conducting said marriage and relationship with a man who is fully one half of this relationship, that he has wants, needs, desires, hopes, and dreams too, and that he expects things of her as much as she expects things of him.

        Women understand what THEY want. They have so little concept of what men actually want it’s almost farcical. They don’t know how to be nice. They can’t do sexy, like, at all. And they have no idea how to be wives. Wearing a white dress and having a party in your honor with a tuxedoed man as a supporting player does not make you a wife.

        We want WIVES. We don’t just want sex partners. If all I want is a sex partner, I’ll buy one. We don’t just want girlfriends. If I wanted only a girlfriend I wouldn’t marry anyone. I need for you to be there FOR ME, and I need you NOW.

        They have so little concept of life is actually really like for the average man it just makes my head hurt. “Well, just take back the power!” Sheesh. I do understand why, though – because superhumans like Mike and SAM never needed Red Pill, and never had to “just take back the power!” because they were given it, taught how to keep and wield it, and never were deprived of it. Elspeth and Liz have no experience with men of the type who post here.

        Which adds to the disconnect – women peering into the locker room wanting to see what the men are talking about, then wanting to influence the discussion, and then thinking they can advise the men.

        Liked by 2 people

  22. feeriker says:

    The more I do this the more I can clearly see that women just do not get this. I know – I KNOW – the other men here know exactly what I’m talking about.

    Exactly. Whether women “get it” or not, it still needs to be said, repeatedly, so that they’ll never be in any doubt as to where we stand and what our minimum demands (or “requirements,” if that’s a more polite term) are.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Fee, I just don’t know how to say it any more clearly. I don’t want a woman’s “potential”. I don’t give a flying f * ck what she will be or wants to be. When it comes to femininity, character, attractiveness, and attraction to me, I couldn’t care less about “someday”. I need those things NOW. I have absolutely no use at all for those things “maybe someday.” I want, I need, I expect them, NOW. TODAY. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. NOW.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        I don’t want a woman’s “potential”. I don’t give a flying f * ck what she will be or wants to be.

        This, I’m certain, is women’s inevitable projection onto men of what they THINK attracts us to them, that being instead what find THEY find attactive in US (i.e., our “potential,” ephemeral as that is in the real world we find ourselves trapped in today). I don’t think their wiring permits them to see things from any other perspective. Consider it part of the punishment for Original Sin, a factor added to complicate and frustrate intersexual relations.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        This, I’m certain, is women’s inevitable projection

        I think so. I think that’s correct. I had to be emphatic about this because this BS notion that men want a woman’s “potential” is just not accurate in any way, shape manner or form. Potential does me no good. Tomorrow never comes. In this particular instance I don’t care about tomorrow. I need her to have those basic attributes now. I cannot wait until tomorrow. I want and need them now.

        As to Oscar’s point: It is not about whether a woman is fertile or barren. She has the ability to have children. I never said, nor have I ever implied, that all we want women for or expect is to have children, and that’s it. On the contrary – having kids is wrapped up in femininity/attractiveness/attraction to me. That is not “potential”. I need for her to do the things for me that result or can result in having kids. That’s the one thing I want and need a woman for that I can’t do by myself – have sex.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. Scott says:

    I’ve tried to make this point before and I will attempt to elaborate here again.

    This is in response to the Liz/deti/Elspeth side bar

    I believe that the only thing that God ever created that approximates “equality” on this earth is that both men and women are cursed, and blessed with an equal helping of proclivities that make it harder or easier as it were to obey the commandments

    Women struggle with malcontentmebt, always looking at the grass on the other side, tearing down hierarchies, vanity, etc.

    Men struggle with aggresssion, cowardice, taking too high of risks, etc.

    We can learn from each other, if we really wanted to.

    Men are simply better at love— the total sacrifice kind. This is not to say women can’t learn it.

    My friend and his girlfriend have been together about as long as Mychael and I have been married. They are, for all intents and purposes a married couple.

    She recently went through a mastectomy after a lump was removed. She won’t have sex any more, citing how ugly SHE FEELS.

    My friend tells her that her looks, after this much time together are not why he wants to be with her physically. It is deeper than that. It no longer has to do with perky breasts or what it feels like on his Johnson.

    I can explain this, because I am one of the few educated men out here with the lexicon and the gift of eloquence to.

    At some point over the last 14 years of being with my wife, my love for her changed. I do not know the precise moment. It evolved. People around here have seen pictures of her at our wedding, before 4 babies. She was smoking hot, and I loved that. I really did. But now what I love about our physical intimacy is the years of babies, mortgages, active duty, internships, deployments, and all the rest of it that we are celebrating. She could lose all her beauty, all her limbs, all her hair and you could not keep me off her.

    My friends girlfriend cannot conceive of that kind of love. Can’t. But he wants her to.

    If I could have had “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” tattooed on the inside of my eye lids when I was 16, along with a corresponding subliminal message played in a loop into my ears all night I would have avoided so much pain, so much heart ache over the following 20-30 years.

    I love Mychael even if she never loves me like that back. Even if she could not have had children. Fat. Invalid from a head injury. And this kind of devotion comes naturally to me as a man.

    Liked by 5 people

    • feeriker says:

      I love Mychael even if she never loves me like that back. Even if she could not have had children. Fat. Invalid from a head injury. And this kind of devotion comes naturally to me as a man.

      Some women understand this. It’s usually women who have been brought up in stable households where the Christian faith was central to her family’s life. They know, based on their spiritual grounding, that the flesh is not the end-all, be-all of a committed relationship.

      Broken women, on the other hand, women raised in dysfunctional households without a strong spiritual foundation (and thus very often without a father in the home) simply cannot grasp this concept. At all. They lack respect for themselves and thus cannot fathom how any man can respect them, let alone love them, if they are flawed in even some superficial way. They REJECT love because they have never really experienced it and it is an alien emotion to them.

      Heaven help the man who is committed to a woman afflicted like this. My ex was the living embodiment of this. Had I been introduced to the RP decades earlier in life I would have been spared a quarter century of agony.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      At some point over the last 14 years of being with my wife, my love for her changed. I do not know the precise moment. It evolved.

      I know exactly what you’re talking about because I’ve experienced the same thing. It’s about all the shared experience – experiences I have shared with no one else. Only men seem to understand this.

      I love Mychael even if she never loves me like that back. Even if she could not have had children. Fat. Invalid from a head injury. And this kind of devotion comes naturally to me as a man.

      I love my wife even though she hasn’t loved me like that back. That devotion is one prime reason I’m still here.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      @Scott: “She recently went through a mastectomy after a lump was removed. She won’t have sex any more, citing how ugly SHE FEELS.”

      Deepstrength has a post up about how female sexuality tends to be narcissistic – your friend’s story sounds like an example of this.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. Elspeth says:

    Can you tell me deti, how so many ball busters end up married and making men miserable -according to RP reports- if men are selecting for femininity, respect, and character. I’ll leave off attractiveness, because it’s an obvious marker.

    Our cousin got married a couple of years ago. My husband warned him. She gave lip service to character traits, and she was attractive enough to him, but you could see her attitude coming from a mile away. This was not a guy who could not have married someone more amenable. He had options. But he married her. Why do you figure that was? And nope. They don’t have any kids.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I said femininity, attraction to me, attractiveness, and character. Respect is part of character.

      Can you tell me deti, how so many ball busters end up married and making men miserable -according to RP reports- if men are selecting for femininity, respect, and character.

      BECAUSE THEY LIE.

      They lie. Women lie. Women misrepresent themselves. Women bait and switch. They manipulate, deceive, and defraud. They feign attraction to get things they want from men, or a man.

      BECAUSE THEY CHANGE.

      They do the very thing we asked them not to do. No, not gain weight or change jobs. Their very core character changes.

      Come on, E. We’ve have these discussions before. You know why.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        See, E, this is how I know you’re not getting this. I also said we need women to be honest and clear. We need for their I Love You to actually mean that. Not this BS “Right Now I Feel That” I Love You. We need for the vows they take to actually mean something to them. We need for women to understand that when you say something to us, we think you actually mean the concepts and ordinary meanings regularly attributed to those words.

        If you understood this, you wouldn’t even have to ask me how ballbusters end up married. It’s because they’re dishonest, unclear, and make critical life decisions based on how they FEEL instead of what they THINK and whether it will make sense in the long run.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Our cousin got married a couple of years ago. My husband warned him. She gave lip service to character traits, and she was attractive enough to him, but you could see her attitude coming from a mile away. This was not a guy who could not have married someone more amenable. He had options. But he married her. Why do you figure that was? And nope. They don’t have any kids.

      He married her because she LIED TO HIM and MISREPRESENTED TO HIM WHO SHE WAS. Maybe YOU could see that attitude, but he could not. Why? Because women are really really good liars. Women are master manipulators and deceivers.

      He also married her because as I said yesterday, p*ssy makes men stupid.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        So what you’re really saying is that men aren’t paying attention because they are allowing their judgement to be clouded? And women lie. Okay.

        I do get it, believe it or not. I’m not stupid. I can read, and I comprehend pretty well also.

        I just see a lot of things that lead me to believe that this is often not as clean cut and easily discerned as you make it sound. If your family can see that a person is not what you think they are, then as a smart person, the more rational sex as it were, why wouldn’t you take a step back, reevaluate? As a man, there’s so much to lose if you get it wrong, you can’t really afford to allow the sex to make you stupid.

        So…men’s feelings get the best of them too?

        And THAT is why the marketplace is lopsided!

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Women lie. Women change. That’s on them.

        P*ssy makes men stupid. That’s on us.

        I didn’t say you were stupid. I didn’t say you can’t read or comprehend. I said it is clear from what you’re writing that you just aren’t grokking this. Stop taking this personally. Don’t try to guilt or shame or scold me.

        If your family can see that a person is not what you think they are, then as a smart person, the more rational sex as it were, why wouldn’t you take a step back, reevaluate? As a man, there’s so much to lose if you get it wrong, you can’t really afford to allow the sex to make you stupid.

        Because your poopsie woopsie wouldn’t ever lie to you. So she says. Sometimes you do take a step back and reevaluate. Sometimes, men don’t. Because then you take these concerns to Poopsie, and she reassures you. Because if she didn’t do that and keep the lie up long enough, she’d never find anyone to marry her. If she didn’t manipulate and deceive, she’ll be out of luck. And because if he doesn’t believe it, he won’t get any p*ssy

        And don’t tell me he had “options”. He might have had a few. But most men don’t have anything like the options women have.

        So…men’s feelings get the best of them too?

        Sometimes. That’s on us, like I said. I am not exonerating men here. At the same time, I am not going to give women a pass either. Women have gotten a pass on this stuff for far too long. Not with me they won’t, not anymore.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Years back, Mike had a roommate (we were married, he was on a temporary assignment and I had a job so we lived apart a few months, no children yet). This roommate brought a girl he’d met at the bikini carwash home. They became engaged. Mike warned him that every time he left the house she would make eyes at him. Eventually, he received a call from one of the girl’s boyfriends. Apparently she was “engaged” to him and he (the guy calling) was wondering what was up because he heard she was engaged to him.

        Mike was elated, hey…stupid roommate can’t ignore this. Well, he did. About a year later they were married. About three years after that, he came home early from a deployment and caught her in a gang bang in his home.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @Elspeth,

      “Can you tell me deti, how so many ball busters end up married and making men miserable -according to RP reports- if men are selecting for femininity, respect, and character.”

      Deti covered this but let me say they don’t just lie in the conventional sense – they ACT. As in fake who they are. They act like they are kind or demure – they keep the inner b!tch hidden. They act like they want to have sex with the man to get commitment from him.

      How do I know this? I’ve seen it flat out including with women I’m related to. It is laughable at times – you watch how they’re behaving, acting when you know how they really are (“yeah-right, you’re really like that”). I have family photographs of women next to their fiancée – acting all sweet and demure – when I know that the woman is anything but.

      NAWALT, but it happens more than you think.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        To clean that up some, they are still bitches to the outside world but they don’t focus that bitch on whatever dude they have picked out.

        Then when life proves he isn’t perfect she turns the bitch on him

        Liked by 5 people

    • Can you tell me deti, how so many ball busters end up married and making men miserable -according to RP reports- if men are selecting for femininity, respect, and character. I’ll leave off attractiveness, because it’s an obvious marker.

      Several things IMO.

      Modeling. If his and her parents were in a reversed roles relationship (wife overbearing, husband pushover) then it’s common to get into that type of relationship as well.
      Attractiveness / ONEitis blinds people to character flaws.
      Cultural proclivity. Somewhat has to do with modeling as well. People just assume it’s normal for women to be ball busting and disrespectful and just deal with it unwillingly.
      And possibly they might have not seen any (or many) relationships or gotten into one themselves with a woman/wife who respects her husband.

      Liked by 5 people

  25. Scott says:

    He married her because she LIED TO HIM and MISREPRESENTED TO HIM WHO SHE WAS. Maybe YOU could see that attitude, but he could not. Why? Because women are really really good liars. Women are master manipulators and deceivers.

    I think this partially true, but I don’t think “character” means the same thing to women that it means to men.

    This will show itself when they say “I meant til death to us part AT THE TIME” (I actually got this one from wife #1).

    They literally believe that if something comes up to suggest this man is not “the one” then all statements made in the past about the future are invalid, and therefore leaving immediately upon realizing this is the “right” thing to do.

    And of course, the male response to this is “Um no, sweetheart. On the day you say it, you must resolve for it to be true, now and forever. You must visualize yourself married to me, no matter what happens. Picture the worst case scenario and imagine sticking it out. Til death means forever.”

    Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’m sure that character means something different to women than to men.

      Character does not change so easily. Character does not alter itself based on situations, context, or for light and transient causes. If it is this malleable, then it is not “character”. It is artifice.

      Words.

      Mean.

      Things.

      Liked by 3 people

  26. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Heroes,standing tall!Caught in a troubled world!We rock,YOUNG,WILD&FREE!come on,WE ROCK!!Like DIO but in the great north!Mainstream pop-culture?No!!You know not when I strike!Call of the wild,lurking in the shadows!Tell me why, you do what you do!?You are now about to witness the power of POWER-METAL knowledge!HOW to be a 3% man:winning the heart of a ho/feminist?From June 22,2017 huh?Thats a real book on amazon?This life-coach COREY WAYNE(He study evil MANOSPHERE?He know anything about EVIL violent MANOWARtm fans who swarm guys(for praising a sound of thunders’ WOMANOWAR!) at ROUGH COURTLY-LOVE METAL/COUNTRY&WESTERN bars like I,ELSPETH&ROLLO TOMOSSI do?He/COREY teach me anything that MANOWARtm did’nt?!Your in for a suprise!Your in for a shock!Oh hear my warning!Never turn your back in foggy london from 1888-1890?Wait until the mentaly disturbed guy is locked up!Except for the professor(without maryann/dawn wells now!) or if you like GBFMtm2021!Heroes await me!My enemies ride fast!knowing this rides their last!Ours is the kindom of steel!My rep,is getting bigger!I’ve got a reputation!The reputation of the whole MANOSPHERE crew is on the line!Like NWA rapped in 1988! ProfessorGBFMtm2021 & the MANOWARtm/POWER-METAL message has already sent shockwaves thru the MANOSPHERE(DEREKL.RAMSEY,SHARKLY,J.J.GRIFFING & ELSPETH all know me!)Now SIGMAFRAME gets some of the GBFMtm2021 love! Sometimes its all ya got!Come on,Stand your ground firmly,We came to ROCK!I’m wild&free!All the things you want in life!You got nothing to lose!We rock!We rock!Young,wild&free!CANADIAN,Not english(Like my friend LASTMOD!) BRIGHTON ROCK!Like on CBC& CTV&YTV(HI, ALYSON COURT,WHOM Y’ALL know as LOONETTE from the big COMFY COUCH Or REBECCA CHAMBERS on first version of RESIDENT EVIL 2 game?!!Too many lonely nights waiting for your call while, I sing ”BLOOD OF MY ENEMIES!”or the ULTRA-COURTLY LOVE ballad ”KILL WITH POWER”!,She could’nt beleave I knew so much about LONDON,ONTARIO (after she had a sudden change of heart!Like BRIGHTON ROCK sings!After seeing my YOUNG nurse fans fawning over me!)Where she use to STYLE&PROFILE in the 1980’s at SQUAREONE shopping center!JACK&NOVASEEKER this is a long one!I have known most of you(When I think of you,do you think of me?Like TREAT’s DREAMHUNTER from sweden sung in 1987!?) since march/april 2012, when I first came apon DALROCK’S ”WARN MEN ABOUT CHRISTIAN DOUBLE SPEAK ON MARRIAGE AND HAIR TRIGGER PROPENSITY FOR DIVORCE” post from 10/11/2011 the EPICSTOICPHILOSOPHY!? one about KIRK CAMERON’s FIREPORN:THE MOTION PICTURE and SHEILA WRAY GREGOIRE’s passive-agressive promotion of divorce!But I had already known of most christians being in love with divorce from ATTORNEY turned PASTOR CHUCK CHRISMEIRS SAVEUS MINISTRY radio show which I also stumbled apon one day in 2006!I have been mainly hooked on SYMPHONIC-METAL since 1987!I have what you call natural GAME!How I know that!?NO.1!First gf at 7 years old!How many guys(WITHOUT FAME!) you know had 3 girls chasing after them before puberity?I of course was the tallest boy in every class until 5th grade taller than ever girl until then too!Blond hair too with natural pint-size football player look, when my elemetary school had a feild day.The football team coach asked me to try out for the team(My best friend whose a FIREFIGHTER now, was already on the team!) after seeing me run in a 1000 yard dash!I of course did’nt try out, I barely cared about school, let alone sports as is to this day!I’am not mainstream hence my secondary appeal to girls!Boring?I not only did’nt know who CARDI B. was in aug,2019!I got so mad at WENDYO’?WILLIAMS for talking about her constantly one day I hav’nt watched her show since (sept.2019?)!I first watched wendy o’williams/PUNKPREISTESS-a PIRAHNA like the song says/WOW-The long forgotten KISS -spin-off album from 1984!/her show in early 2009 when she had LYNDA CARTER on one day!I mainly watch mainstream METV shows that the young kids out here love like the RIFLEMAN & on COZI the millenials fav HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN!Boring like my musical tastes?MANOWARtm!ELSPETH &SHARKLY know what I’M talking about!I tried E-MAILing our old friend PEDAT but his GMAIL sent my beautiful prose(J.J.GRIFFING knows this!)back saying PEDAT gone or something like ANONYMOUSAGE72?Like WENDY sing LEGENDS NEVER DIE,They keep the memories alive!But 100% serious my 24 year old day nurse PATRICE,a beautiful black girl here in the south could’nt beleave I was not in my 20’s but 40 a while back!She not know I’m like youthful SIR CHRISTOPHER LEE singing & rocking to OPERATIC-METAL/power-metal into his 91st year with CHARLIEMAGNE:THE OMENS OF DEATH in 2013!Power -metal infusions is what I reccomend unless your are like my 68-year old black JEHOVAH WITNESS buddy(NO blood transfusions allowed!He never told me nothing of JEHOVAH WITNESS stuff, but I told him about those DALROCKIAN debates with ARSENIOTOADHALL over is a ”homosexual{Not know thats how most younger minz hooked on SYMPHONIC-METAL see such things?MARRIAGE LISENCES?NOT SO!}marriage lisence” needed!While he told me about a old woman that lived near his CHILDHOOD FARM saying it was okay for him to have sex with her which creeped him out back in the mid-1960s!) bro at PHYSICAL REHAB!He could’nt beleave I knew all about his two fav TV shows AMOS&ANDY(KINGFISH?He died in 1960!,ANDY?in 1969!,AMOS a.k.a ALLANCHILDRESS?in1986!These men who lived in a tv world of black doctors,lawyers&judges from 1951-54 forgotten by ALMOST everyone today!)SANDORD&SON{THE wholetime we we’re roommates he never once watched tv while I watched with the sound off, mainly TCM(So I could keep up with the kardashians!) (ROLLOLAWSON?A.K.A.NATHANIELTAYLOR just died from a heart attack in feb,2019!Hear this on POP-TV?That third girl chasing after me as a kid must have thought I was her age!She looked like a teenager to me but I was 9 years old and of course she was’nt no older than 12 or so on the bus sending me notes of the ”do you like me” vareity,which I thought was from some suspicous-acting boys in the back of the school bus until I entered a local KMART-type store one day and a girl I recognized getting on the bus every day is in line with I persume her father while looking at me like a peice of meat!I being a normal 9 year old boy wanted to check on the stores stock of dinobots(G1 DUDES!)She followed me to the shelves!I had discovered KISS in summer of ’85 by way of their ”KISS MEETS THE PHANTOM OF THE PARK”tv film from 1978 with yours and mines fav at the end ”GOD OF THUNDER”this was on a saturday night on a local abc affliate!That film was basicaly HE-MAN:the REAL film to my 7 year old self!With KISS fighting DRACULA and the FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER!I could’nt beleave music could be more than about FAKE love&peace like on the COMMERCIAL POP-RADIO stations!This set me up for MANLIER METAL like MANOWARtm later!I like SHARKLY can’t beleave any MINZ, listened to bowing down to women!I have to tell you that courtly love has always sounded QUEER to me?A guy that has NON-CHANTLY talked to girls since he was 4 years old could easily fall for such FOOLISHNESS?
    P.S.In my next reply I’ll tell y’all about my semi-relative a almost 60 year old never -married guy who thinks his sister is kidding about their parents home being hers!Which happens about once every 2 weeks!Plus MINIIVA &DARIA ZARATIKA on youtube who siren call metal-heads with W.A.S.P.’s ”WILD CHILD” and ACDCS MISTRESS FOR CHRISTMAS!I asked DARIA why not ”JACK IS BACK?” and she said she did’nt think she could pull it off in her black leather pants!While MINIIVA rocked out to her metallic version of THE FROZEN MEGA-HIT ”LET IT GO!” while I said LOUDNESS’s ”LET IT GO” rocks and she agreed while being unsure if GOJIRA/GODZILLA could appear because of TOHE!I’m living the life SIR CHRISTOPHER LEE was living until he died in 2015!He knew SYMPHONIC-METAL better than non-sense drugs or POP-TV!Hence LASTMOD want to join me and GBFMtm and SIR CHRISTOPHER LEE in POWER-METAL HEAVEN?You think those rumors of DALROCK starting a power-metal band are true?Our friend DEREKL.RAMSEY(before he ”MORE OR LESS GAVE UP BLOGSOPHERE”!) thought he saw DAL’ talking to UDO ex-ACCEPT singer one day in DELAWARE C. in pensylvania!Once the non-UDO guy said ”SCREAMING FOR A LOVE-BITE” is a CHURCHIAN-ROCK&ROLLTROUBADOR of the french variety CONSPIRACY FROM 1100A.D”.He knew that had to be DALROCK!See LASTMOD this stuff should’nt be taken that serious ESPECIALY goofy women!Just don’t be like that semi-relative(cousin of a cousin!) of mine!When a woman tells you she hate you,Don’t laugh that off, just come to SYMPHONIC-VALHALLA(DALROCK’s band?!) where GBFMtm &DALROCK break bread together in peace as befitting brethern!Dalrock even quotes SOCRATES now!Only the educated are free!He also perfers DRAGONFORCE to MANOWARtm?But MANOWARtm NEW YORK, AMERICAN like you were LASTMOD!Just like most of us we’re DALROCKIAN ,MANOSPHERE RIGHT?Want to go rocking and rolling across japan to IBX TOKYO?They love MANOWARtm’s ”WARRIORS OF THE WORLD UNITED” from 2002s album of the same name!You a dancing machine right LASTMOD?I once was in a conga line at a southern hospitol with all the young nurses who for some reason was playing W.A.S.P.’s THE PEACE from the REIDOLIZED(2016?) version of the crimson idol from 1991(Where were they at when that album came out in 1991?)?What was that about a song about a guy singing”Is there a soul I can borrow?Away to be another me,free of pain,all I want is,the peace I’m passing now,save me from what I can’t change,show me,one better world to come,give me peace,give me hope,give me love,all I need in life,love,LORD,will we ever see?Yes thats from the band LASTMOD best know for ”ANIMAL:F@$%LIKE A BEAST”!I suggest LASTMOD you go to youtube and listen to ”W.A.S.P. THE PEACE WITH WOLF PICTURES” video that will show you how much they neither worry about long-term non-sense or short-term folly ,Yet they rock out with GBFMtm to O.C.R.ONECOCRULEBETASBUTTHEX as much as DALROCK(He loved it from the start as in ”GBFMtm you have outdone yourself” ) does now!Then get some MANOWARtm songs to get you dancing again!Like with FIONA APPLE or me with those W.A.S.P. woman nurses that time!NO.1(With arnold schwarszengger MR.OLYMIPC fanboy videoes on youtube!) by MANOWARtm(Off of 1996’S LOUDER THAN HELL album) will get you feeling better than any GAME ADVICE ever could!Plus watch some HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN on COZI on KGMC-TV in fresno right LASTMOD?You think most of the guys are trying to sell you on being a man!?I’m not!You are older than me but SIR CHRISTOPHER LEE was enjoying life at 90 singing FANTASY/FRANK FRAZETTA-METAL!Thats not amazing?What was STAN(THE MAN WHO BETRAYED HIS OWN SUPPOSEDLY BRO JACK KIRBY) LEE(Stan lee got 99+% of the money while JACK GOT A KICK IN THE PANTS!) ,doing?Trying to feel up NURSES as the stories go who would you rather be!?Think I try to to get up with those strange W.A.S.P.woman nurses?Nay!I was too busy thinking of ”LA”!Like STRANGEWAYS sanged!LA where you at tonight?Jessicaholmes ready for KTLA5NEWS tomorrow morning?Remember her on SLIMETIME LIVE around 2001-2003?She reminds me of my first gf!At least in 2009/10 she did!Lemmy is still riding motorcycles singing ”KILLED BY DEATH”, while avoiding the polices shotgun blasts as if hes 42 again in sept,1984, even after death he still sings!?ELSPETHP.S.I’ve clearly been a character all my life!As I type this I feel like I’m with GBFMtm and dalrock in VALHALLA breaking bread,While dalrock pulls out a graph&chart contradicting GBFMtms NEO-CON wealth transfers while GBFMtm LOLZZ.. him!Mean while TFM/ANON starts another pointless fight with ANONYMOUSAGE72 about MENSRIGHTSACTIVISTS!JACK I know this is too long but I thought I had a lot to prove!The whole reputation of the DALROCK/MANOSPHERE CREW is/was on the line!LASTMODP.S.You know POWER-METAL is only realy big in europe,south america,japan,not in america or canada why do you think that is?Hint!not about wqomen or sexing them!”KILL WITH POWER” or ”BLOOD OF MY ENEMIES” any mainstream singers have song titles like that!?But they like me stick out without any rooster-hats like JOHN ALMOS use to say about J.J. (JIMMY WALKER)on GOOD TIMES!99.9% of girls or men at danceclubs even know theres POWER-METAL or life outside of techno or house music?Also what was TFH/ANON problem always coming after you?He thought you were a danger to soceity?Like MANOWARtm? JACKP.S.Expect a flood of my nurse fan-girls to rush your site after this goes up jack!They know I only can be myself anywhere I go!

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Novaseeker says:

    We also, to our extreme detriment, do take, or used to take, women at face value. We presume that what you are saying is what you mean. We presume (erroneously) that how you present yourself is who and what you are. That you really are what you appear to be. We presume that when you say “I love you”, that you mean you love that man, right now, with all the ascriptions and connotations those words entail. We do not presume hidden meanings, conditions, caveats, or “Except For”s. We presume I. Love. You. means I (The woman) Love (care about, would do anything for, would give up things for, cares about us more than she cares about herself) You (the man. Me.) That’s it. Nothing less, nothing more.

    Because Words Mean Things. At least to us men, they do. When we say I Love You, that’s EXACTLY what it means. When we say “I do”, that’s EXACTLY what we mean. And that is why men like Scott and me did what we did and do. That’s why men like me fell short and screwed up – because we actually took women at face value. Because we believed things we should not have believed. Because we actually listened to women (and a lot of simp men) tell us that women don’t lie, they don’t lie about love, they don’t lie about sex, and Women Are Wonderful. And we believed it.

    I think this is true.

    But I don’t see how it could be any other way.

    I mean, women are the vulnerable sex. They are the sex that bears children, which is a very vulnerable period for them, and they are the sex that is primarily tasked with raising children, which is also vulnerable. They are also physically subject to men, regardless of what the “you-go-grrl” crowd thinks — it is men that restrain other men from women, not women themselves, and almost all women know this viscerally.

    They could not possibly be designed to love the way men conceive of it given those realities. It would be suicidal for them. Survival needs historically have dictated that women love pragmatically, flexibly, open-mindedly, and, in many cases, temporarily, in order to protect themselves and their children, which are always the two main prime directives for any woman. Men are loved therefore for what they can do, not for who they are per se, apart from a the kind of love that can develop over a long term observed consistently excellent performance by the man in question — a track record built by that specific man with that specific woman in front of her eyes in her own life that makes him her best option pragmatically, and which therefore allows that aspect to take a back seat and for a more settled, longer-frame love to develop. They simply are not capable of loving a man for “who he is” from day one — that would be crazy. It would be a “design flaw” for certain.

    The problem arises from the subterfuge. In order for women’s kind of love to “work” it has to be credible from a man’s perspective. If men were aware generally of just how pragmatic women are, many men would have a much lower view of women than they currently do, and this would negatively impact men’s ability to really love women the way men need to in order to provide what women need from men (love to the point of self-denial, self-sacrifice if need be) to protect themselves and their children from the world’s vulnerabilities. But it is also important that women themselves believe in the more idealistic form of love that men seem to practice in a way that serves to sweep them up and help them forget their own pragmatic basis — this process of being swept up helps to draw the woman into mating to begin with, which starts the whole shebang of procreation around which all of this is based, and also serves to reinforce the man’s sense of being swept up in his romantic form of love which draws him in as well. The difference is that this isn’t how women love at their core, and they mostly know this viscerally, yet they also know that it is a bad idea to speak of it openly. And this leads to the anger we see from men when men realize this reality.

    Let me tell you people something – a big part of me died when I realized how wrong I had been about all this. That idealist is dead. It died because I had to put a bullet in the back of its head following the mortal wounds my own wife inflicted on it. And extracting that gangrenous part of me hurt. A lot. Still does. I’ll never get that back. I’ll never be able to fully trust a woman again. I’ll never be able to believe what a woman says again without cross checks and stopgaps.

    I experienced that kind of thing prior to marriage, so I entered marriage with the idea that this kind of thing was always possible, yet at the time I thought it was rare. That I was disabused of by my first marriage. I was burned by it, yes — I was also burned by what had happened with my college GF, but I thought ex-w was a different woman, so not the same risks, but in reality the same risks are always there. Always, every woman, given the right “trip wire”. That doesn’t mean every woman will betray, but it does mean that every woman can, they are wired to do it, actually, if certain wires are tripped — they may still not do so even if they are tripped, based on any number of factors, but they can all get the same wires tripped by the same kinds of things. AWALT in that sense is very true.

    But I have accepted long ago that this isn’t a “flaw” in women. They really couldn’t be made any other way. The flaw doesn’t lie in women themselves per se, but in a social order that is based around lies when it comes to men and women and which actively and vociferously insists that women are NOT this way, and that women are more moral, better people, than men simply because they are less criminally violent because they are the weaker sex. The problem lies with the culture. Women have exploited this to beat the band for their benefit — of course they have, as we would expect them to. But their underlying nature couldn’t be otherwise. The problem is that the culture has unleashed it, is in vocal, vehement, vociferous denial about that, and there is no way to reverse that at this point. Therein lies the issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Women are biological robots desgined to take in jizz, spit out babies and extract resources.

      Some churched up version if that has been the historical perceptive of women. Across the ages and across the whole world

      Liked by 3 people

  28. Elspeth says:

    I wasn’t trying to shame or scold you. I was saying that I get what you’re trying to say.

    That all men really care about is attractiveness, character, and whatever the other two things were. That the things women vet for (economic potential, etc) are things that men don’t care one whit about. Y’all could not care less about that if you tried. If the woman is of right character, attractiveness, etc, and is honest and true (and remains that way) then that’s all you need.

    And I’m saying that there are men who either 1) include metrics that go beyond that, because I personally know men who want a wife that can bring in a certain amount of dollars, or 2) ignore all the signs that those markers you outlined are missing from their intended. That is just a fact.

    Novaseeker would probably heartily concur with me that this is especially true up the SES ladder. Male doctors mostly marry other doctors, not nurses. Lawyers marry lawyers, etc. And we all know that women with that level of education and ambition are as far from demure, submissive flowers as you can get.

    Your assertion just does not really hold up universally in the real world, on the ground. Most men have to come to this later. With some wounds and experience under their belts.

    Again, my husband was exceptional in that regard, as was Liz’s husband, but in the case of my husband, he was raised outside of the time and place of widespread emasculated manhood.

    Southern men, of a certain age, and a certain SES, are just outside of that. So I’m not trying to say my husband is a breed apart. I think Ton would fit into that realist mode as well.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Male doctors mostly marry other doctors, not nurses. Lawyers marry lawyers, etc. And we all know that women with that level of education and ambition are as far from demure, submissive flowers as you can get.

      You STILL don’t get it.

      Where did I say anything about “demure, submissive flowers”? I said femininity, character, attracted to me, and attractive. You don’t have to be a “demure, submissive flower” to at least fake femininity. And all women have to do is fake it long enough to fraud a man into marriage.

      First of all, those men are marrying those women IN SPITE OF their education levels, not because of them. Second, those women still have to have femininity, character, attracted to me, and attractiveness. No man is going to marry any woman unless he wants to have sex with her, she at least acts like she wants to have sex with him, she at least feigns femininity, and she appears to have requisite “character”.

      These men are NOT marrying women SOLELY for their education and earning potential. Yes, she’s a lawyer, but she’s a woman, and she’s got a woman’s body, and she gives him some access to said body for sex, and at least acts like she enjoys it.

      So, yes, it does hold up on the ground. Because even if they’re marrying female doctors and lawyers, those female doctors and lawyers have vaginas into which those women admit their men, and at least fake liking said admission. And said men will not even try to enter said vaginas unless attraction is there.

      All you’re seeing is “male doctor married female doctor” and you draw the conclusion he’s marrying her because of her education. No. He’s marrying her because doctors are the kinds of women he’s around, and because she’ll make a better mom than a woman with a GED, and because she is an attractive women who has sex with him and at least acts like she likes it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Nova,

        Would most of these upper SES career guys ever really consider marrying down educationally if the woman had the traits deti has outlined?

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Would most of these upper SES career guys ever really consider marrying down educationally if the woman had the traits deti has outlined?

        Not today, no, but in prior iterations yes.

        So what does that mean? It means that class/education-based assortative mating is overlaid upon the rest of the criteria that men and women of higher SES use to select mates.

        So what this means is that it defines the pool they fish in. Within that pool, though, it’s true that men are not selecting another highly educated professional woman because of her achievements or her earnings or what have you (many of the guys I know are kind of “proud” to have their MD or lawyer wife “retire” or “go part time” to take care of home and kids while he is the breadwinner, for instance) — they try to select the most feminine, demure and attractive woman they can from that pool. Because today people date very assortatively by class and education, and this is important (or perceived to be so) for the competitiveness of children and the raising thereof, this tends to be the pool that men like that are fishing in today. Once they are in that pool, though, men and women alike revert to their normal sex-based criteria, each of them, in my observation.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The answer is no – because of social pressure and divorce potential.

        When I was engaged, I was ostracized by my church and employer for being with a woman who wasn’t a professional and wouldn’t be. It was literally brought up in my annual review.

        The other factor is if you marry down, in the event of a divorce with kids, you have to maintain a standard of living for the child. If your wife is the non-working stay at home type, you will also have to pay alimony, or have your support and distribution of assets modified to essentially act as alimony.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Whew! Don’t get me started on the education thing.

        When I was on match.com, it had a series of check boxes for preferred education level

        I checked bachelors or higher. A friggin check box!!!

        Mychael never lets me forget that I stooped to AA/RN to date her. It’s still a point of contention (although more of an inside joke now).

        This a function of socialized norms and pressure on BOTH sexes.

        The reason I checked that box is because I thought I was supposed to. (I don’t give a crap about the formal education level of my wife).

        The reason it bothered Mychael is because she perceived me as an elitist/snob

        Imagine if THAT checkbox prevented this beautiful family from ever being formed. I shudder to think about that narrowly dodged bullet.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “Mychael never lets me forget that I stooped to AA/RN to date her.”

        Mine has a HS diploma.

        My maternal grandmother was the sweetest and most beautiful woman who ever lived. She had a 9th grade education.

        Liked by 3 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Thank you for the kind words

      I think there is a serious disconnect and I think it is based on…..

      Guys who struggle to get laid
      And
      Guys who don’t

      The more a dude struggles to get laid the less picky he can be about who he bangs and marries

      Plus morality is middle class. Doctors ( who are mostly upper middle class) marry doctors to protect what they have and add to their lifestyle.

      Can’t see doctors marrying teachers etc for a couple of reasons. #1 they don’t run in the same social circles. #2 Teacher pay won’t add much to what the doctor is building. (Ps teachers are over paid.) #3 the doctor will pay out the @$$ if the marriage goes side ways. #4it would be a social stigma in the UMC (a man I know calls the UMC strivers and the strivers look down on the non strivers)

      The younger and wealthy men I run into marry chicks with generational wealth in their backgrounds…. born into money….. and those chicks also have educations that would place them into the UMC bracket, if they worked.

      Generational wealth around me is mostly this; the family has done really well over generations, but most of the family members coast along at the easy to achieve and maintain upper middle class level. Easy to achieve because family money means they go to Duke, Chapel Hill etc without debt, tutors when they struggle, they don’t work through college, family connections get them jobs, Dad gives them 4 acres to build a home on, their brother builds it at cost for them etc etc. 5 days a week their lifestyle is UMC. 2 days a week they are at their grandma’s 100 acre mansion, or their aunts 2 million dollar beach home, a guest at their grandfathers high end country club etc etc. The family has more motivated and talented members who own things. They aren’t doctors, they are doctors who have doctors as employees etc Or they got high power buiness degrees and own large small buiness, have money invested in other local buiness etc. Plus inherited money thrown in the mix

      That crowd would be ok if a man married a teacher becuase teaching down here still has this werid noble profession vibe. She’ll be teaching in the right private school before long or not teaching at all but that she was a teacher will carry weight. They’ll be somewhat ok if one of the girls marrys a military guy, cop, firefighter, preacher etc for the same reason but they will move that guy up the eccnmoic ladder asap!…… seen it happen

      Those guys who marry trophy wives marry hot bitches from the right kind of family with a degree from the right school. Might be a music degree but it’s from Duke or Chapel Hill or what have you. They dont marry waitresses and what not

      The wealthy guys I know who don’t have high powered wives are self made, married before they turned the corner on stacking cash and “married down” typically have done really well in blue collar business and have blue collar wives who are typically part of the operation. These are the kind if guys I see who like nurses. Nurses are basically some kimd of weird blue collar elite chicks. Not sure how-to explain it but I see it a lot. Heck! Girl#1 started off as an RN with an AA

      Very succesful real estate agents seem to exist in both worlds but def try to put on the Ritz in their social lives

      Didn’t really mean to ramble like that but as a blue collar guy with serious money I fiend the various SES groups fascinating

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You made an important point – I want to emphasize – for about 50 or so years now, many wealthy men (particuarly those who worked hard for their wealth like MDs) marry women who are equally well off so they don’t lose a huge chunk of their money if it ends. Judge sees MD who’s married to HS dropout country girl – there goes his money. I have known wealthy men who insisted on a prenup aggreement if they marry down social class wise.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Pre nups are trash that get dismissed by judges every day

        I really hope no one in your inner circle is counting on one to save their @$$

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        The more a dude struggles to get laid the less picky he can be about who he bangs and marries
        ……..

        Should have added…..and the more the struggling dude values how she looks

        Where a guy who does not struggle to get laid assumes she is going to be hot just becuase he always bangs hot chicks

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        The obsession with UMC-ness offers almost no context for high earning, successful blue collar guys. The reason for that is because part and parcel of UMC-ness is the education component.

        We’re not UMC. We are solidly middle middle class, we do okay, husband makes decent money, and our kids are in a private school (a part time school because we believe that WE are their primary educators). We live in a nice, safe suburban neighborhood.

        But my husband doesn’t have a degree. He has plenty of credentials in his chosen field, but no actual college degree. He’s smart, but I’m the book worm, the one who reads Boethius, and boring history texts, and he listens to me ramble on about that stuff.

        But we could never fit into the UMC paradigm of social climbing and striving. And he’s way too cocky for that. I also have a highly successful blue collar brother who would read a book unless you paid him, LOL

        Personally, it sounds stressful, the UMC thing. I like buying my clothes at Target. Looking cute for cheap works for me, 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL Meant to reply this to you instead of Nova

        The umc is the tail that was the dog etc etc

        As a group they can’t seem to think beyond their own small bubble and way, way to politically correct for an accurate world view or understanding of how things work

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Elspeth –

        But my husband doesn’t have a degree. He has plenty of credentials in his chosen field, but no actual college degree. He’s smart, but I’m the book worm, the one who reads Boethius, and boring history texts, and he listens to me ramble on about that stuff.

        That’s the dividing line right there. It’s the education. And frankly, right now, because so many people get college degrees anyway (most secretaries around here have at least a BA, increasingly MA), the “UMC” cutoff is drifting towards more elite educations. That is, not people who have practical degrees from practical schools (these tend to be middle-MC) but people who have intellectual degrees from more “elite” schools (whether public or private) — this latter group is the core of the “UMC”, and it tends to marry within itself and try to ensure that its kids remain within this group.

        This is why you pretty much don’t see Docs marrying nurses in most places, or lawyers marrying secretaries — both matches were common when I was a kid. By the time I became a lawyer myself, this was finished, and the new “UMC” was a thing. This has been a major factor in class divisions becoming hardened precisely because in prior eras women would marry “up” in social class, and there would be more social mixing between classes because of that — it was a route whereby women from the lower classes could marry men from the upper rungs and mobility generationally was created by that. This was replaced by a much smaller number of women, and men, from the lower rungs “earning” their way up through the “meritrocracy” system (some do, but it’s a small number overall), while generally men and women who are already in the upper tier following their education are marrying each other. The resulting system is more closed, more effective at perpetuating itself through intermarriage and elite education, and therefore creating more durable and harder to overcome class divisions than we have ever had before.

        But we could never fit into the UMC paradigm of social climbing and striving.

        This tends to be how it is perceived, but it’s a misperception. There isn’t much in the way of “social climbing” going on, as that term has been historically understood. Members of this class generally aren’t hanging out at the country club, doing rounds of golf, cultivating social status at cocktail parties and “entertaining” as was the case in the past. Today the striving is simply getting those elite degrees, getting the jobs that require them, working your ass off in them to promote yourself up the chain in your career, focusing like a laser on your kids education and especially the elite aspects of it, and to a certain degree (although this varies a lot) material consumption. For most people in this class it’s about personal prestige through career advancement, educational pedigree, and kids eliteness and success, rather than conspicuous consumption (although there is certainly plenty of the latter as well), but it isn’t what was traditionally referred to as “social climbing”. It’s basically being a very smart, very driven, “gunner” in your career, with your kids, with your life. It’s certainly pathological, without question, but it is a different kind of pathology from the “social climber” one remembers from prior generations.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Another aspect to the reduction of Dr/nurses and attorney/secretary relationships is directly correlated to the fear of being fired or sued for sexual harassment.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        The umc doesnt have the free time to do the socialising to be social climbers

        And also maybe a fundamental lack of understanding on how it works

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Many of the old school engineers I work with (brilliant some of them) “only” have a batchelors. The kids almost all get a masters while working – it makes little if any practical difference in their job performance, promotions – it’s a status thing.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Never had more then 3 engineers on staff at a time, and with software we cut it down to one so maybe there is some value to having an advanced degree.

        I know my son in law had to spend some time getting certified or some such in automation to start making serious cash as an engineer

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Many of the old school engineers I work with (brilliant some of them) “only” have a batchelors. The kids almost all get a masters while working – it makes little if any practical difference in their job performance, promotions – it’s a status thing.

        In engineering it probably is, because engineering has an undergraduate professional degree, like nursing or physical therapy.

        Fields like law, medicine, academics (professors) do not work like that, and require advanced degrees, and in corporate America once you get above a certain level in the hierarchy, many of the people there (not all, but a large portion of them) have MBAs. That’s kind of where the “dividing line” is, with the exception of engineers, because engineers have a professional undergraduate degree.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        The umc is the tail that was the dog

        Probably because the various main steam media talking heads and writers are part of it

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The southern aristocracy in action.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        My guess is it works more or less that way everywhere

        Maybe not the slack for military, teachers etc but it’s a real practical and easy to implement plan….. though I doubt it’s any real sort of paln either

        Can’t really say much bad about them folks though

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Out west it’s completely different. You don’t have that many “established” families who have owned the local constabulary for 178 years, and have a county named after them.

        At least the Deep South and the Carolinas have a wave of industry and new money coming in, but it will take about a generation for the implants to change the culture.

        Just for those who have never lived in the Deep South, no matter what your background is, the only people who will ever accept you are the middle class people who are also from outside of the south, and people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        If the Lord would grant me one wish it would be the transplants, 3 generations back, would leave and never return

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Lol. The south would look like a war zone with no roads, no electricity, and third world quality water supply like tunica Mississippi in the 90s.

        A giant problem with southern thinking is supreme hostility to any improvements in living conditions. And then they wonder why they are behind in education, health, and quality of life.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Must be true if you siad it

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Lol. Unfortunately I had to live in the Deep South for a long time. There’s a reason why so many professionals who get their degrees there leave and never come back.

        Republicans there are just democrats that converted to maintain uniparty control over their states.

        Like

  29. feeriker says:

    Character (in this case accountability) is one of those things men just understand better.

    I don’t think that it’s too extreme of a generalization to say that ONLY men understand accountability. Expecting women as a sex to understand, my less self-apply accountability is akin to expecting dogs as a species to be able to sing. A few examples of the species can do it, but ONLY a very rare few.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Random Angeleno says:

    The day nearly two decades ago now that I had to have my ex-wife served with the divorce papers was the single hardest day of my adult life. By far. Bar none. Because it was the day that I, the child of parents who stayed married until my father’s death a few years ago, had to shoot the idealist in me in the back of its head and leave the carcass behind to rot in the house we lived in.

    Through my post-divorce reversion to the Church and my encounters with first the secular red pills then the Christian versions of same, I’ve come to understand the dynamic along with the cross I bear.

    This is the calculus today and until many, many more women get it, it will not be solved any time soon. We have been and still are at the point where nearly every American man has either been the victim of a woman-originated and/or woman-advantaged divorce or knows at least one man close to him who has. I may have been the one who filed, but my ex-wife had already long abandoned the marriage. Looking back, as hard as that day was, all I did was make her abandonment official. Most women who cry about the “lack” of male marriage candidates do not get this calculus. At all. And they never will.

    TFH called it the mass transfer of resources from men to women without the benefits that mean something to men. Dalrock called it the change in the family model from marriage-based to child support-based with the concurrent ejection of men from their families and the continued extraction of their resources for the benefit of the ex. The Christian manosphere call it the loss of Godly masculinity in the churchian world. And so on. But somehow most women think we men have not noticed that?

    Men who check out no longer need to pull weight for a family, only for themselves. But most women do not think that through. They do NOT understand that said lack of readiness is a rational response by men to the risks they are being told to ignore, but won’t anymore.

    Deti is on point about women needing to be who they are RIGHT NOW in a good way in order to attract men. But women are often too prone to letting the popular culture dictate to them. It’s a very hard lesson for men walking away from the blue pill: that a woman’s actions need to be taken more seriously than her words. As Deti says, he now trusts his wife so little that if she says something important enough, he needs to verify that. Every single day if needed. As long as Deti remains married to his wife, there will be no escape from this. Ever. His wife has amply demonstrated to him who she is. It was just incumbent on him to recognize that and confront it. This isn’t to say his wife is a bad person. But it is to say she cannot be left to her own thoughts and feelings to decide how the marriage will go. She forfeited that privilege long ago. Actions and all that. This is what Rollo calls the “burden of performance” and Christian men are subject to this too.

    Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      I trust mrs. deti with many things. Money, running a household, material possessions, child rearing. I trust her to micromanage those things, because I cannot do it and she can and someone needs to do it, subject to my oversight.

      I do not trust her to do the things she should never have been trusted with anyway, like determining the marriage’s course, determining what my mission should be, and being the family head. Those are things I will run with my hand – and no one else’s – firmly at the helm. I do not fully trust her with my heart. That has gotten better. But it’s not fully there. She is not evil, or stupid. She was and is a woman, doing what women do, and doing what she thought she needed to do to get what she wanted. That involved dishonesty and lack of clarity and a little treachery. She sees it as merely doing what she needed to do to get what she wanted. I see it as what it REALLY is – dishonesty and obfuscation.

      The damage she has done to me, our marriage, and my children has been incalculable, and we are still putting things back together from it. It won’t be the same.

      Liked by 2 people

  31. Scott says:

    This issue of men/women and marrying for “potential” is fascinating and worth its own post.

    Here’s what I was told, after the dust had settled on my divorce.

    (Ex wife speaking): “I looked at you and though, that’s a good start.”

    Hearing this was truthfylky one of the most eye opening, and painful moments of my life. It never occurred to me that I was laboring under this rubric.

    Because I looked at her and thought the exact opposite.

    “If you stay exactly like that, forever. EVEN IF YOU DONT CHANGE THE THINGS I HATE— I will never leave. I will be right here, growing old all the way to the end.

    The idea of her “potential” to have to kids, make money, stay thin, whatever never entered my consciousness. I was totally satisfied with the version of her standing right in front of me. Even the stuff I couldnt stand.

    It occurs to me reading the comments from women that the above statement about commitment (with zero caveats) is about as weird as a person with three heads.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Liz says:

      This issue of men/women and marrying for “potential” is fascinating and worth its own post.

      It has been more then fascinating to me (the one who started it, though I had no idea at the time) as well.
      Not sure why the “stuff about commitment” should be so strange.
      I’ve been married almost 30 years now (married before I could drink legally). We’ve been through a lot (and current events are the gift that keeps on giving). I don’t know anyone with a better marriage than we have.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Elspeth says:

      It’s not weird to me. I actually commented (on the other thread I think) that as very young, immature newlyweds we made that commitment:

      “No one is going anywhere. There’s no place else or no one else, to go to. Period. No matter what.”

      That resolve was the glue that kept us together. I’m not sure what either me or Liz said that indicates we don’t understand unconditional, till death do us part commitment..

      Can you elaborate? I’m curious what we said.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I think women can understand it abstractly (if shown it growing up) and if there is enough guard railing around them (usually a very strong dad/grandpa and then transfer to the exact same kind if husband) it will stick

        But men are loyal, like dogs. No one had to teach us that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        But men are loyal, like dogs. No one had to teach us that.

        I’d say that men instinctively value loyalty, even if they’re not loyal themselves. Similarly, we value courage, blunt honesty, and are a lot more comfortable with hierarchy than women are, and I think for the same reason.

        Every code of honor (they’re all male codes) includes some combination of loyalty, courage, and honesty (among other virtues), because men who perform dangerous tasks in a team have to be able to trust each other to do their job, and watch out for each other’s safety.

        Historically, the same is not true for women.

        Liked by 7 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth,

        “I’m not sure what either me or Liz said that indicates we don’t understand unconditional, till death do us part commitment..”

        I think the men here are making generalizations that are true. I don’t think it applies to every single woman or applies equally and I don’t imagine it applies to either of you. I don’t think either of you are typical.

        Also, there are women who understand and uphold the commitment but aren’t happy and the marriage isn’t happy as a result. I doubt this applies to either of you but I’m just stating that. Performance burden is a real thing even if it varies woman-to-woman.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Liz says:

      From above:
      I know her deepest fears and insecurities too. We decided to guard the others heart. To not poke at those wounds.

      That is exactly as it should be. Life is messy. No one is perfect.
      God bless and keep you and yours.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      The idea of her “potential” to have to kids, make money, stay thin, whatever never entered my consciousness. I was totally satisfied with the version of her standing right in front of me. Even the stuff I couldnt stand.

      But doesn’t this just make sense?

      I mean, a woman at that age brings to the table everything a man wants in a woman. She doesn’t need to develop to bring that.

      A man … does. No man at that age brings everything to the table that a woman is looking for in a long term mate. She can either marry an older man (which women don’t prefer generally, but which some do and which was more common in the past as we know), marry at that age as man her own age based on assessment of potential, or, as is common today, marry later once the track record is clearer.

      I don’t see how women could behave differently, really. The subterfuge/lying is an issue, I agree, as I noted above, but the marrying for potential vs who you then are, when both are young, makes perfect sense that women are like that and that men are not.

      Liked by 2 people

  32. feeriker says:

    The day nearly two decades ago now that I had to have my ex-wife served with the divorce papers was the single hardest day of my adult life. By far. Bar none. Because it was the day that I, the child of parents who stayed married until my father’s death a few years ago, had to shoot the idealist in me in the back of its head and leave the carcass behind to rot in the house we lived in.

    I may have been the one who filed, but my ex-wife had already long abandoned the marriage. Looking back, as hard as that day was, all I did was make her abandonment official.

    Brother, your story appears almost identical to mine. My own parents had a marriage I could only dream of. Fifty-three years together, the last thirty of them LITERALLY at each other’s side 24/7/365 as they worked together, with neither ever even imagining being with out the other. Dad’s death from cancer at age 80 hit Mom especially hard. But not for her faith, she would have probably experienced a complete collapse.

    I tried hard to emulate that marriage. It was ALWAYS my life’s goal. Unfortunately, it takes two to be committed to that proposition, one that has certainly not gotten any easier in the modern age, no matter how committed each party to the union. My ex did not have that committment, and really never did. If I can fault my own parents for anything, it’s having lived in a bubble of a marriage that, for most of the rest of society, burst no later than the early 1970s. Had they at least been more generally aware of the society around them, they could have imparted wisdom to my brother and me that would have spared both of us dreadful, almost life-ending pain in our early adulthood. I, too, “summarily executed” the idealist within me after my ex trashed our marriage after nearly 25 years. Yes, it hurts. There is definitely lingering pain. But it’s pain I can live with compared to what I would be suffering if I not “whacked” my idealistic, blue-pill alter ego.

    Most women who cry about the “lack” of male marriage candidates do not get this calculus. At all. And they never will.

    They might, eventually, but ONLY if things deteriorate to the point where society completely collapses and makes the status quo unbearable. However, we’re far, FAR from that point now.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      They might, eventually, but ONLY if things deteriorate to the point where society completely collapses and makes the status quo unbearable. However, we’re far, FAR from that point now.

      We’re kind of seeing the very start of it now.

      I know lots and lots of single and divorced women. All but a handful of them are at least partially dependent on a man or men for their sustenance.

      They rely on child support (paid by men they reproduced with and rejected on pain of imprisonment), alimony (paid by men they married and then rejected also on pain of imprisonment), jobs (created by men for whom they “work” and from whom they take orders) and TANF/welfare (paid by male taxpayers and borrowed from the economy designed and run by men).

      Sugar daddies (men to whom they prostitute themselves). Boyfriends (men who pay for things here and there or who even support them and live with, in exchange for “companionship” and sex). Chads and Tyrones (men with whom they have validation/entertainment sex and maybe some drinks or meals). Dad (a man who cannot bear to see his daughter starve or thrown out into the street).

      “And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man….” The “taking hold” is “I’ll pay for my own clothes and place. Just give me a little money in exchange for my body (the only thing of any value I have left).”

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Social Security (from FICA taxes paid mostly by men).

      Supplemental security income (based on income from deceased husbands)

      Life insurance proceeds (based on premiums paid by now-deceased husbands from money they earned during their truncated lifetimes)

      Personal injury/workers compensation proceeds (obtained for them and paid mostly by men)

      Medicare/Medicaid (from taxes paid by men from money earned mostly by men and borrowed a male-designed and driven economy)

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Huge number of jobs, HUGE!, that are bullsh!t, make work jobs (middle class welfare). Women disproportionately employed at these jobs and so “empowered.” See it every day.

      The essential jobs disproportionately occupied by men.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Yes. “jobs” where people don’t really have to work. Women who “work” at these “Jobs”.

        Most jobs/careers are occupied by men because they’re the ones who will do it and want to do it. Women cannot do hard physical labor like some of the trades or first responder work. Women don’t want to do easier trades like electrician or machinist. Women don’t want to do “dirty work” like garbage pickup, public utilities work, assembly line/heavy manufacturing, or mechanical repair.

        Women don’t want to get the education required for, or spend the time on, STEM work. They do not want to do the rigorous fact driven analysis STEM requires.

        Women don’t want to spend the time doing, or the pressure of, professions like medicine, law, big business, banking, etc. They love the prestige. They get into it and find they cannot stand the tedium, the hours, the antagonism, or the pressure.

        I’m a lawyer. I write and talk for a living. I have to mediate disagreements. I have to litigate them. I have to deliver bad news, tell people “no”, and be an a-hole. Sometimes I have to roll up my sleeves, put up my dukes, stand my ground, and fight. People pay me a lot of money to do those things. But they also expect me to get them done, on time, and with expected results.

        For the most part, women don’t like it. I’ve trained more than a few female lawyers who quit. I’ve handed tissues to weeping broken down female associates in my office, crying because some witness was mean to them during a deposition. They don’t like it. They cannot, or do not want to, handle the pressure and the hardnosed hardassed fighting we have to do sometimes. They don’t want to come in at 7 am and stay till 7 pm sometimes.

        I mean, I don’t know what to tell people. The reason men do this work because we can, we don’t have a lot of choice, and most of us kind of like it. And most women just won’t do it, and if they will, they won’t do it for very long.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Most people don’t realize that the majority of female attorneys are not trial attorneys, and do not remain trial attorneys for long. Those who do are wired differently

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I was informed a week or so ago about all the things I need to do (“stretch assignments”) to get promoted – if I do good they might be able to get me promoted before March 2022.

        Girl I work with. She demanded a promotion a year or so ago and got it right away. Her justification? “I’m a single mom and my time is valuable.” Exact quote said to me. Babies’ daddy’s are two different bad boys (years apart). If this sounds like a story straight out of a manosphere article, well, I’ll swear on a Bible it’s true. The wife is probably tired of me complaining about it.

        Thing is, it would never occur to me (even if I thought it would work) to demand a promotion because I have 8 children. That has nothing to do with merit. Merit is now being impregnated by a douchebag, not learning your lesson the first time, and being impregnated by another douchebag (no ring, either case).

        So yeah, feminine imperative/gynocracy is true.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ deti

        They don’t like it. They cannot, or do not want to, handle the pressure and the hardnosed hardassed fighting we have to do sometimes.

        The ones that do like it, and can handle it are insufferable battleaxes.

        Liked by 2 people

  33. Scott says:

    Random Angelenos comment makes me want to burn the whole civilization to the ground.

    Like

  34. Scott says:

    This is important too:

    As to Oscar’s point: It is not about whether a woman is fertile or barren. She has the ability to have children. I never said, nor have I ever implied, that all we want women for or expect is to have children, and that’s it. On the contrary – having kids is wrapped up in

    Because for a woman to argue that a man is marrying for her “potential” to have kids is obfuscation and projection.

    No kind, loving man (which I believe describes every man on here) would divorce his wife if they found she could not have babies.

    Every man on here would love her, care for her, tell she’s beautiful 1000 times a day. Support her. Never let her feel bad about it. I’m sure of it.

    But all of the married men here operate under an implied performance criteria that could eventually grind them up in the divorce machine if they miss the mark.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      No kind, loving man (which I believe describes every man on here) would divorce his wife if they found she could not have babies.

      No. But, I’d divorce the hell out of her if she turned out to be a horrible mother. That’s the potential I’m talking about. It’s not about birthing babies. It’s about raising children.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        I wouldn’t. “Horrible mother” is as nonspecific as “neglect” which is the kind of thing men complain about with frivorce all the time.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I wouldn’t. “Horrible mother” is as nonspecific as “neglect” which is the kind of thing men complain about with frivorce all the time.

        Okay. Allow me to be more specific. Physically, and/or sexually abusive.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar, one of the things I liked about my wife – she was compassionate. I noticed she was emphathetic and compassionate to men – example: she was very kind to this kid from HS we saw on one of our first dates – the kid was considered a fat loser – she was kind to him.

        I married what I saw not her – her kindness which indictates a good mother – not her potential. I’m with Scott and Deti on this point

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “I married what I saw not her – her kindness which indictates a good mother – not her potential. I’m with Scott and Deti on this point”

        Should read: “I married what I saw, not her potential. I married her kindness…….not her motherhood”

        I don’t think in general men choose/marry based on performance expectations, whether well defined or not (Scott’s case).

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar: I think in order for Scott’s case to be equivalent to your “horrible mother” example, he would have had to be an awful husband who sat around on the Playstation, didn’t work or barely worked. He just didn’t meet a vague but ambitious expectation in a timeline that was satisfactory to his ex.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        I married what I saw not her – her kindness which indictates a good mother – not her potential. I’m with Scott and Deti on this point

        The kindness you saw in your wife gave her the potential to be a good mother. You couldn’t possibly know that she was a good mother, unless she was already a good mother (i.e., a widow with kids).

        “I married what I saw, not her potential. I married her kindness…….not her motherhood”

        Again, the kindness you saw made her a potentially good mother. You did marry her potential motherhood.

        Even if you didn’t think about it consciously at the time, the reason men value kindness, patience, sweetness, etc. in women is not primarily for our sake, it’s for the sake of our potential children. We’re biologically programmed that way, just as women are biologically programmed to desire ambitious men for the sake of their potential children.

        Oscar: I think in order for Scott’s case to be equivalent to your “horrible mother” example, he would have had to be an awful husband who sat around on the Playstation, didn’t work or barely worked. He just didn’t meet a vague but ambitious expectation in a timeline that was satisfactory to his ex.

        Men are – as a general rule – more loyal than women. I agree. But the fact remains that fathers are supposed to protect their children, and if protecting your children means protecting them from their mother, then a man has to do what a man has to do.

        Stefan Molyneux tells the story of how his mother beat him unconscious against a door when he was 4 years old.

        That’s why we screen for kindness, patience, sweetness, softness, etc. Because we don’t want to be legally bound to a woman who could potentially do that to our children.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I get what you’re saying, Oscar. I also think we value sweetness in women for its own sake (or for how WE”LL be treated not just how our children will be treated). And probably because we all too often know the actual alternative to “sweetness” – real witch (which the Proverbs warns us about – the opposite of the precious gem woman).

        I think the distinction being suggested here is this: Yes, men “objectify” women – but that means the object they love is the woman as she is, not what she could become. Even if that love of the “object” is shallow in that it’s what she looks like (and her personality).

        I fear that women often fall in love with what men could become – so in that sense their love doesn’t “objectify” us.

        Look at how you described your perception of how you weren’t up to par yet with your wife’s expectations (my “@sshole” comment earlier). Even if that was just your own (mis)perception, that feeling came out of somewhere – IMO out of the reality we men live in.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I also think we value sweetness in women for its own sake (or for how WE”LL be treated not just how our children will be treated).

        Agreed. That’s why I said we primarily want sweetness, kindness, etc. for our potential children.

        Primary, as in the first, or most important, but not the only reason. Of course we want that sweetness and kindness for ourselves. Why wouldn’t we? But, primarily, we want it for our potential children.

        Look at how you described your perception of how you weren’t up to par yet with your wife’s expectations (my “@sshole” comment earlier). Even if that was just your own (mis)perception, that feeling came out of somewhere – IMO out of the reality we men live in.

        Again, I agree. And I embrace that reality. I obviously hold myself to a high standard. So do you, I bet.

        We need to teach our sons and daughters that, when choosing a spouse, they’re choosing the potential mother or father of their potential children, and to choose accordingly, consciously, deliberately.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Actually since this is a Christian site (and primarily Protestant/Bible-only) a good husband (from a SES “potential” perspective) for women should be a man who provides basic food/clothing/shelter (Christians are supposed to be content with these). Do women have a right (from a Christian perspective) to prefer a lawyer, engineer, etc? My dad provided these basics cleaning swimming pools as a college dropout.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Actually since this is a Christian site (and primarily Protestant/Bible-only) a good husband (from a SES “potential” perspective) for women should be a man who provides basic food/clothing/shelter (Christians are supposed to be content with these). Do women have a right (from a Christian perspective) to prefer a lawyer, engineer, etc? My dad provided these basics cleaning swimming pools as a college dropout.

        A woman has a right to prefer whatever she wants, just as man has a right to prefer whatever he wants. Whether either of them will get what they prefer is a different matter. Rights are kind of meaningless in this case.

        We need to teach our children to be realistic about their preferences and expectations, and yes, I realize that girls need a lot more education on this matter than boys do.

        Besides, ambition has nothing to do with college degrees. I know two plumbers that make more than I do. One is my next door neighbor.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Oscar,

        Correct, a person has a “right” to set any criteria they want since in our society people choose their spouse. Even within Christian circles a lot of women want the big house and Lexus SUV – I guess that’s where expectations come into play and what I was getting at.

        Women see education as ambitious and tied with status compared to a plumber even if the plumber makes more money. Women eat up the TV shows and movies about hunky doctors because doctors are high status.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Women eat up the TV shows and movies about hunky doctors because doctors are high status.

        Again, true. But that’s why we need to teach our daughters. Also, if TV shows about hunky doctors are evidence, then so are Hallmark movies about hunky handymen.

        Like

    • Corey Ashcraft says:

      Indeed, a kind loving man will have no problem adopting. My parents did so twice. In some ways adopted kids are more of a challenge but they have there own rewards.

      Like

  35. Elspeth says:

    I just saw this:

    Just because you think SAM “just got it” and it was “basic common sense” to him or you, doesn’t mean that it is. Do you think SAM came out of his mother’s womb just knowing this? He did not. He learned it – either because someone taught it to him.

    No, he didn’t “just get it”. His dad taught all of his sons from a young age to revel in, and never apologize for, their maleness, and not in a particularly godly way. SAM acknowledges that had to unlearn a lot of things, and I went through a lot as he unlearned some things (no, not infidelity), but I wouldn’t trade any of those early years for something different. Having a strong husband, even a hard nosed one, was infinitely better than having had a weak one.

    But again, I don’t think he’s special that way. Scott has said that there were things he knew and understood through being taught, but also instinctively, until he was later taught that it was “unChristian” to be unapologetically male. That was the one thing that never really penetrated my husband as he came to faith. In his words, “I don’t read anywhere that being a Christian means I have to put my balls in my wife’s purse.”

    Women would all behave a lot better if more men simply refused to allow themselves to be pushed around. Recently, one of my daughters actually said to me, “Mom. THIS is what I want. Is this really too much to ask for?” No, daughter, it is not, but good luck with that.

    Men need to know that they do have the power to tip these scales. They just have to take it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Men need to know that they do have the power to tip these scales. They just have to take it.

      I get what you’re saying, but the issues are social. Men stopped needing high cooperation with each other to make society work when the economy changed away from primarily male strength labor. It was a gradual unraveling through the later industrial period, and then it was a fast unraveling in the post-industrial one. When men don’t need to collaborate, their cooperation and trust levels go down (for each other). When that happens, it reverts to competition, and when that happens you won’t get social rules that permit “lesser men” to “assert their masculinity” in that kind of way, generally speaking, because other men will prevent them from doing so, at force of arms if need be. When men have each other’s backs, the social rules tend to favor men asserting themselves in the way you suggest — when men don’t have each other’s backs, you tend to see the “lesser” men get actively subordinated by the “greater” men in all sorts of ways.

      This is beyond the ability of most individual men to unravel. Individual men can make adjustments in their own lives, based on their own circumstances, but the system? Nope. You would need to kill the powerful men to do it. Or at least create enough consistent chaos for them that they decided to revert to a more cooperative system rather than a more “haves and have nots” system. And that won’t happen as long as there are enough bread and circuses, which are both more plentiful than ever.

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Women would all behave a lot better if more men simply refused to allow themselves to be pushed around. …. Men need to know that they do have the power to tip these scales. They just have to take it.

      With all due respect:

      Spoken like someone who thinks it’s just that easy.

      It is not.

      Who is teaching men this? NO ONE. When men try to “just take it”, they get falsely accused of rape and sexual harassment. They get nuked. They get rejected left and right. They get hauled in to HR. Their pastors and other men lean all over them and pressure them. As boys, their parents and teachers lean all over them and threaten them.

      When ordinary men act like this, they get absolutely smashed into the ground, MeToo-ed, threatened with job loss, and essentially made into pariahs.

      You just have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Sorry, but women don’t get to tell men how men should live their lives or what they can and cannot do. You have NO IDEA what it’s like and you have NO IDEA what we have to go through and do.

      Stop lecturing men about this. Just stop.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Stop lecturing men about this. Just stop.

        I was under the impression that the possibility of balancing the lopsided scales was on the table.

        I will stop. Apologies.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I was under the impression that the possibility of balancing the lopsided scales was on the table.

        It isn’t. Not anywhere close to being “on the table” for most men. The only thing I could do to even try to move the needle was to threaten to leave and say “change or I am leaving”.

        This worked, but not because I am particularly valuable to her or that she gave a damn about me.

        It worked because she didn’t want the inevitable hellfire war I was about to rain down. It worked because she did not want to lose the house, cars, and stuff I bought her. It worked because she did not want to go to her parents with her tail between her legs and explain to them how her 15 year marriage failed. It worked because she did not want to risk me telling everyone the truth about why it failed.

        It worked because she did not want to take the status hit with her friends, all of whom are married. She doesn’t want to be “the divorced one” whose relationship failed… AGAIN. It worked because she didn’t want to put her children through it, nor be a divorced 47 year old woman with two children under 13.

        It worked not because I was an attractive option. It worked because whatever else I am, I’m her “best” option, “best” being “not so terribly bad that I can’t live with him”.

        We have no power. No power at all. You just don’t know. You just do. Not. Know.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        The last thing I’ll add is that what keeps the “balance of power” needle moved a little in my favor is the unspoken threatpoint I had to create. Which is:

        I unilaterally changed the rules. You will live by them, or I will go General Sherman on this marriage and everything in it. If you fail to live by them, it will be total war and I will burn it all to the ground. I will take us through a nasty, expensive, and public divorce. I’ll sit your mom and dad down and tell them everything. I’ll quit my job and take a lower paying one. The house, the cars, the nice gravy train you’ve been riding the last 25 years? Gone. I won’t do it anymore. You’ll be getting a full time job. You won’t have a choice. No extras. You can forget about nice dinners, vacations, clothes, and hobbies. That’s done. Life will be about bare survival for us from here on out. Your choice, dear. What’s it gonna be?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Even then, many women won’t care, and still blow up their marriages. One would think that women love their children, but reality and experience shows us they are perfectly fine with ruining their children just to screw with an ex

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Elspeth the only way most men can “refuse to allow themselves to be pushed around” is to drop out. The only way most men can refuse to let women push them around is to not have anything to do with them, not date them, not try to have sex with them, and not interact with them.

      Men DO NOT have ANY power to tip these scales. They can’t “just take” power. That is viewed as hyperaggression, sexism, misogyny, hate, and antisocial criminal behavior.

      You don’t know what it’s like. You don’t.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Liz says:

        I’m dropping out now.
        Thanks for the discussion.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        This is a disconnect I’ve noticed since the sunshine Mary days

        “ why don’t you guys just put us back in the kitchen?”

        Is the gist of it. Hahahahaha

        Men would have to collectively do this for it to be effective

        The outcome of that collective effort would result in shrieking and wailing on a grand scale that would be intolerable to any man

        Liked by 4 people

    • Liz says:

      I wonder if they have any scenes like this one from “A Different World” in the modern media today? Can’t remember the last time I saw something like that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        It was pretty funny, and astute.

        ‘I love it when you take charge, Daddy!”

        Could you even begin to imagine that scripted today as a positive ending to a relational dispute? That show would be cancelled. Immediately.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Could you even begin to imagine that scripted today as a positive ending to a relational dispute? That show would be cancelled. Immediately.

        If you understand this, and you understand the current political, social, cultural, and intersexual relationship climate and zeitgeist, then why are you coming to us with nonsense about “well, just take back the power! It’s EASY!!”

        Sigh.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      This TV show as a teen finishing up high school in the late 198-‘s was the one moment every week when I could just watch a show like this and say “college will be different”

      Loved this show. Dearly. Thanks for a positive memory of those long ago times.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      If you have to learn it, or if someone has to teach it to you, then it is not “basic common sense”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        If you have to learn it, or if someone has to teach it to you, then it is not “basic common sense”

        True. My mistake. I stand corrected, although I might add the caveat that even common sense has to be taught to children. It’s not “common sense” because it’s instinctual. It’s common sense because it makes sense.

        Like

  36. RichardP says:

    Here are a few points that guided my thoughts from a young age.

    God did not tell Eve that Adam would love her. God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. Two thing fall out of that: a.) if love is a verb (it is), then “ruling over” in order to promote a better life for both A & E is a form of loving her, and b.) if God, who created A & E, tells Eve that Adam will rule over her, there must be a legitimate reason why. Comments in this thread about what women are as opposed to what they present themselves as suggest that legitimate reason(s) why.

    Young men raised in the church know what God told Eve about her husband. But that is the extent of it. Young men raised in the church would be far better positioned to manage their marriage if they were told the truths laid bare in this thread. Because they form the basis for why Adam was intended to rule over Eve. Because life is not worth the living if that ruling over is not done – as the comments in this thread indicate. However, at least for now, this is one of those problems that have no solution that were mentioned upthread. The State will not allow the husband to do what God said they were meant to do in their marriage (rule over).

    Watch the third-grade girls on the schoolyard, playing with each other. Boys are icky because they have cooties. Watch those same girls in the 10th and 11th grade. Parading on the schoolyard in every way allowed, all in order to catch the attention of those boys they rejected in third grade.

    What makes the difference in behavior? Certainly not Sunday School lessons or sixth-grade social studies. Hormones. The same hormones that, the absence of which later in life, change the woman’s attitude toward men and sexual relations back towards the attitudes possessed by the third-grade girls (notice that I said back towards, not back to)

    Listen carefully, or read in the right places, and one will hear women complain that their (ex) husband expected them to stay the same person they were when their husband married them. Hormones, among a host of other things, won’t allow that to happen. Any man who thinks their wife won’t change over time is in for a rude awakening. There is a reason for the cliche: grow old together That word “grow” acknowledges the “change” part that occurs over the course of one’s life.

    Everything about humans, both male and female, is potential until that potential is realized. No informed person will ever insist that any given women has the ability to have a baby right now. They only proof that any particular woman can have a baby is the birth of that baby. And the birth of that baby does not guarantee the birth of another baby. At any given moment, outside of the actual moment of childbirth, any given woman only has the potential to make babies. This is said by the husband of an OB/Gyn nurse wife with many years of experience with the issues surrounding conception, gestation, and actual birth of live or stillborn babies.
    Unless I misinterpreted it, the comment was made upthread something to the effect that women don’t have to work at being attractive / beautiful / feminine / whatever else is involved in triggering a man’s desire for her. I’m not going to comment on that other than to say I can hear the stiffled laughter of any woman reading that. Some girls are naturally girly. Others are naturally butch. Everyone else in-between gets to work at it. As made evident by the huge fashion and cosmetics industries. Something that was evident to me even when I was a young boy.
    I once heard a prominent minister criticizing another prominent minister for having not grown beyond feeding his congregation spiritual milk. The minister doing the criticizing was making the point that he wouldn’t be caught dead doing that because he had “grown” and could feed his audience spiritual meat. I said nothing to him (we were at dinner) but thought the obvious about his comment. And it applies to this thread as well. There are always new babies (spiritually or physically). These new babies always require someone to feed them milk – until they mature enough to be able to digest meat. A teacher (spritual or secular) may have a specific calling to feed milk rather than meat. There is as much honor in feeding milk as there is in feeding meat. That is, the teacher is meeting the need that exists in the moment. And their is honor in doing that.

    There will always be a need for this type of post, and the ensuing comments. Because there is always going to be the next generation of men casting about for answers / explanantions about what just blindsided and devastated them, on the order of how commenters here have described how they were blindsided and devastated and had the ability to “love” taken away.

    Those men looking for answers need to be pointed to the early warning signal that the Bible provides … and he shall rule over you. Before anything was said in the New Testament about how husbands should behave, God said that about how he expected husbands should behave. And for a reason. God also spoke the “why” (so says Paul) in the New Testament. That caveat: … But it she leave …. God himself saying “rule over”. But, even then, there is no guarantee that she will stay. Because God has a contingency that many men insist is not there – … but if she leave.

    How many stars would be knocked out of a guys eyes before he marries if he were taught that in a sober fashion. Get their eyes off of what girls say will happen and onto what God say should happen (“rule over”) and might happen (“but if she leaves) happen.

    Nothing is guaranteed. That is why it is called a leap of faith. Young men should be taught this firmly, and prudently. Because it is a real part of life.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. cameron232 says:

    @Elspeth

    “I’m not all that fit. I keep my weight reasonably under control, and I am an exerciser (lifelong, in fact) but I don’t know if I would say I am fit.”

    Yes, you’ve said you fluctuate +- 20 lbs. Liz didn’t answer me (possibly didn’t see). Do you agree with her statement:

    “You can’t be sure, but you hope she will stay fit and treat you well (if she doesn’t she doesn’t value you).”

    Let’s assume she understated and she means “not obese” by “fit.”

    I’m curious because I already know the men’s answer, having seen it here and elsewhere. Would be interesting to see if the women agree.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      It’s really hard for me to understand the not staying fit thing

      I snapped this a couple days ago. She’ll be 48 in March. 5 live births.

      https://ibb.co/BPkmNY5

      It’s not hard

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        It’s mostly what and how much you eat.

        I know she’s thin, I’ve seen the pics in the past.

        I wanted to hear if Liz really believed what she wrote. Or Elspeth’s take(since she’s a woman and I’m not).

        Couple of points maybe supporting what Liz says?:

        They tend to lose weight right when they want to find a man. Often late teens. It comes back quickly thereafter.

        WHen they are married and lose a bunch of weight, it’s when they are trying to find a new man/have some reason to hope for a new man.

        WHen they have been dumped and/or are alone for a long time or are single moms and then marry they tend to stay thin. It’s as if the suffering with no man makes them value the man the finally get.

        These last three things are just anecdotal from cases I”ve seen and from talking to other men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        I wanted to hear if Liz really believed what she wrote

        Sorry, I answered above, but it was late since I didn’t see your post for a while.
        I just stated that partial information is worse than ignorance and everyone’s situation is different. I’m probably in the top tier of most people in my age group as far as fitness goes. Pretty sure I am, but I would never say it “isn’t hard” because the level of difficulty would depend on the individual situation.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        oh sorry about below – I didn’t notice this – will read your reply above.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Also I said this before Scott you are top 1 or 2 % (that’s not Jason/lastmod hyperbole). Professionally and physically. So not super surprised she’s motivated to keep herself thin (for all I know she might either way but being alpha male husband doesn’t hurt).

        Like

  38. RichardP says:

    Umm – I had my points numbered. Those numbers seem to have disappeared when my comments posted, My numbers made it easier to separate out the various thoughts I presented. So:

    Point one: starts with “God did not tell Eve … :
    Point two: starts with “Watch the third-grade girls …”
    Point three: starts with “Everything about humans, both male and female, …”
    Point four: starts with “Unless I misinterpreted it …”
    Point five: starts with “I once heard a prominent minister … “

    Like

  39. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    You know what time it is?Allya right about now!THE MANOSPHERE is in full effect& indahouse!F@#$ing it up thats what we do to the mainstream!Can’t wait for the night!So many promises!Slowly you push me away!well you do what you want!Tell me why?you do what you do!I never realized how bad it realy it is/was with you DETI!While I’m just trying to survive another day listening to ”MIDNIGHT FOR YOU”(from CHINAGIRL FILM) by PAUL HIPP there goes you ”enjoying” modern life!I wonder why so many married guys were at MANOWARtm HELL ON EARTHtm thats a MARRIAGE.DIVORCE-COMPLEX TRADEMARK 2019 co-sponsored by CHURCHIANS OF BABYLON!(Every see those concerts?Know what my favourite thing is about MANOWARtm concerts?Spot the handful of women in the audience of course!We MANOWARtm fans are EX-HE-MAN woman haters club members with PORKY&BUCKWHEAT guarding the front door!) singing along to ”KILL WITH POWER”!So enthusiticaly I know now why!My biggest problem I had with my first GF ,who was 6,while I was 7 years old was, our teacher who pleasantly disapproved of us everyday at RECESS!”Play with the other kids”?I’m keeping it relz and thats what she said!She went silent once my 6 year old g.f. said she was being mean to her!Her parents have anything to do with that you think!?But you can understand right?Why MARRIAGE LISENCES seem QUEER in the gay sense to men like myself right!?Remember that 2&HALFMINZ EP where uncle CHARLIE SHEEN said let gays have lisences or something like that?How you make it through the day, DETI?JACKP.S.My nurse fans like heather will be getting off work right about now!I wonder if she’s like I&BRIGHTON ROCK?Can’t wait for the night(for the night) either!You know its all right!As I sit!Most churchians fav mashup song?LAST CHRISTMAS+SLAYERS ANGEL OF DEATH!Monitor the kingdom of death(AMERICA)LAST CHRISTMAS ,I GAVE YOU MY HEART!,Universitys letting out now!P.S.
    FRANCE24(I WATCH MAINSTREAM AMERICAN NEWS!) just reported RUSH LIMBAUGH DIED!I stopped barely liking ”ELRUSHBO” like THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR JIM HELLMAN did!After RUSH got caught with OCYCOTIN in 2003 and even further after he attacked MICHAEL SAVAGE in2006!Who sounded insane to him?Why? because he was’nt a 100% behind W.BUSH or the ”REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRAT OLIGARCHY”tm as SAVAGE would say!Is any of us realy backing any PARTIES at this point!?COREYWAYNEP.S.Heather just told me!Lifecoach corey wayne wants me to advise him on his next book?More CHAINS&SPIKED GAUNTLETS corey! that’ll get MARRIAGE&BIRTHs&DATING-TRANSACTIONS rates SKYROCKETING fast!He need’s me to tell him this!?Check out 5oshades of greyish beatings corey!Get back to making those BILLIONAIERS corey!For daladies!Man-up corey!You look weak & pathetic! sincerily professorGBFMtm2021,
    AMERICAS REAL POWER-METAL ANCHORMAN!

    Liked by 1 person

  40. feeriker says:

    I’m dropping out now.

    As women ALWAYS do when the kitchen gets too hot.

    Like

  41. redpillboomer says:

    “The principal difference between the “old” mating market and the one we experience today is that the market has been liberalized, largely due to technological advances and economic changes. This “free market” allows market participants to engage in sexually liberal practices with very few rules, limited primarily by the extent of their value in the marketplace.”
    How has the post-COVID world effected the sexual marketplace? I can see all of this in place circa 2019 and earlier, but now with COVID, the plus increasing effects of MGTOW due to the increasing numbers of the non-top ten percent, i.e. the 90% and below of men, increasingly opting out of the sexual market place for ‘other’ forms of ‘dating’ (porn, cam girls, sugar babies, etc.), swamped dating apps where it seems increasing numbers of men (and women) are getting tired of the poor results of the ‘swiping technology’ for ‘finding love’ beyond just casual sex (the Tinder phenomenon). Please elaborate if there has been any changes in the last twelve months spurred on by COVID and a few of the other trends I mentioned above.

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      My observation is that, as with many other things, it’s “on hold” right now, to a large degree. Many things are like that right now, and dating/mating is one of them. Some people are still participating but participation rates are much lower than they were for obvious reasons.

      And, as with the other things that are impacted, no-one really knows what life will look like “on the other side” yet. We will have to see how behavior is, in all sorts of ways (economy, workspaces, travel, living locations and so on and on) as well as this area before we can assess.

      So the “right now” is an “on hold” area.

      Like

  42. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    I’m your worst nightmare!”JACK IS BACK”BRIGHTONROCK keep it relz!Lurking in the shadows,a KISS(not like GENE SIMMONS one!) without warning!Thats me on MATCH.COM SCOTT!I was their worst nightmare!Like DR.NEIL CLARK WARREN said ”what is this she must like MANOWARtm” stuff?I said I’m relz that’s whats up doc!He soon had a mental breakdown after I descibed my perfect woman as SHE-RA:PRINCESS OF POWER-METAL but with spiked gauntlets!This one is too short right JACK?

    Like

  43. Elspeth says:

    The fitness thing is very hard for me, Cameron. Requires daily and continuous thought. My body type gains weight easily.

    this is me recently with one of our daughters. I have to work like heck to look like this, and I’m carrying an extra 20 pounds. That old saying, “moment on the lips, lifetime on the hips” is quite literal for me.

    It stopped being easy for me after baby number 4 when I was 35. been fighting and struggling ever since, but I stay in the fight.

    I think there is a genetic component so that staying thin is easier for some people than others.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      It just says unauthorized. I have no doubt you are very lovely.

      Not to be pushy, still didn’t see an answer and Liz saw your response. I would assume she stands by her comment and is just being polite.

      Which isn’t me being confrontational – just wanted the woman who dropped that little bomb to confirm it or hear another woman’s perspective. I know what the other men say.

      More direct – does an obese wife not value her husband?

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        ignore this Liz – saw your reply above.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I do not believe that a wife who gains weight has lost respect or value for her husband.

        I have been fat in our marriage. A few times. I can recount at least 3 times when I carried 30 extra pounds for a year or more.

        I valued my husband greatly. Have always thought he was the best man on earth. I’ve never NOT valued him. Ever.

        I just had periods when I wasn’t watching what I eat and wasn’t exercising enough.

        If I’m not putting in an hour of exercise a day, I will get fat. Sometimes we had seasons when I just couldn’t keep that up.

        And with the number of kids you have (more than my piddly 5 if I recall) it would be hard for me to keep this up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        8 kids, even more pregnancies.

        IMO when a wife or girlfriend attempts to lose or control weight, when done out of care about what he thinks, then even if she fails this shows she values him. People vary a lot in self control. My dad basically ate himself to death – his father, an MD, told him for years what he was doing. So he loved us intensely while he was alive but left us early, it’s not like he didn’t value us though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        So he loved us intensely while he was alive but left us early, it’s not like he didn’t value us though.

        He didn’t love, or value you enough to change his behavior for your sake. The same is true for a spouse (male or female) who becomes obese.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        The same is true of every addiction. The alcoholic doesn’t love, or value his/her family enough to give up booze for their sake.

        We’re all tempted to be sentimental concerning our loved ones, but we really can’t afford that sentiment, because it often results in repeating the behavior.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        My point, actually Cameron, from the pic was to show that I am NOT thin. I’m not obese, but thin? Nope. Not even close. Mychael is thin. I am borderline fat and barely hanging on. And I value my husband a great deal. He’s amazing.

        My husband doesn’t really like me to spend an enormous amount of effort dieting and watching every morsel. If he decides he wants to to take me out for dessert one night, he wants me to graciously accept the invitation, and enjoy myself.

        The only way for me to get back to pre-first pregnancy weight is to diet like a beast all the time. So I’ve pretty much had to settle in with these extra few pounds, and he’s fine with them.

        You would be shocked at the level of activity it takes for me to stay no more than 15-20 pounds overweight.

        When I was a young foolish girl, I hated being taller than all the other girls. Now, I thank my lucky stars all the time that I am tall. Plus I could legitimately demand a tall husband. win-win.

        Liked by 2 people

  44. Elspeth says:

    I’m on the left. I’m not the young thin one.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. lastmod says:

    “The same is true of every addiction. The alcoholic doesn’t love, or value his/her family enough to give up booze for their sake.”

    As an alcoholic who has not had a sip since 2004 (nor a line of cocaine, nor a puff of the green since then).

    Addiction is the result of a “broken spirit” in the end. The addict needs support (AA / NA). Needs to learn to make amends, and to at least “look at himself in the mirror in honesty”

    The addict has to want to change as well. “Sick and tired of being sick and tired?” is a common theme and question asked in AA / NA (and I still attend a meeting about once a month….at first it was a few a day)

    An addict just doesn’t become one. Something went wrong, or a few things went wrong….maybe a lot of things went wrong. The trajectory that Scott has spoken of in other posts went “off” somewhere or at a few places.

    I have heard that addiction is a disease. I have heard it called a “mal-adaptive behavior”
    The addict cannot give love or value to others because he has no value himself (and deep inside, he knows this). When I speak of an addict, I am not talking about the guy who wrecked the car on a DUI….and had court madated AA. I am talking about the guy who would filter shaving cream through pantyhose to get the alcohol out of it (that was me at the end…so disgusting).

    A broken spirit in the christian sense….and this is why AA / NA DOES work for many. You have nothing left EXCPET that higher power (Jesus) where you do learn at least there is someone who cares, who does still love you so much and yet…….expects you to “go and sin no more” and there indeed “second chances”

    I certainly needed that.

    An addict just doesn’t become one, and then doesn’t love or value people. It’s a process, and addiction is more than a stimli / response. It’s more than just “they need some good advice” or “just read this book”

    Addiction is a complicated thing….like chronic homelessness or other social ills

    Liked by 5 people

  46. Eric Francis Silk says:

    Oscar asks “What other rules are we going to “relax”? Where does the “relaxation” of rules stop? Why there, and not somewhere else? Why not “relax” all of the rules?”.

    Slippery slope fallacy aside, I don’t think he understands what I’m getting at when I say that the sexual market is in crisis. A state of crisis, from a legal/political perspective, is a state where usual legal norms are inadequate and cannot apply. It doesn’t just mean that something is wrong. It means that things have gone so wrong that following the usual rules is either useless or actively counterproductive. No norm is applicable to chaos. You have no other option than to step outside the legal norms.

    The Bible provides our moral norms. But the norms do not apply in a state of crisis.

    So what other rules do we relax?
    Well, what other areas are in a state of crisis?

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      I’m picking u0 what you’re laying down becuase I have been there

      Been just about every position a man could be in the smp/mmp. Most of which arent that much fun

      I stuck my landing but I can still recall the not great days and marriage is still the worse experinces of my life

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      Slippery slope fallacy aside

      Right. Because no slippery slope has ever happened in real life, like… oh, I don’t know…. “legal, safe, and rare” abortion turning into live-birth-infanticide.

      Have you read Romans 1? It describes a culture sliding down the slippery slope of sexual immorality. And you want to join them.

      I don’t think he understands what I’m getting at when I say that the sexual market is in crisis.

      You’re making the common logical fallacy of thinking that if someone disagrees with you, that means they don’t understand you. I understand what you’re saying. That’s why I asked; has anyone threatened to burn you alive?

      Is the “crisis” you’re in right now worse than the crisis experienced by the Christians being burned alive in Nero’s garden?

      The Bible provides our moral norms.

      No. It doesn’t. It provides moral laws that are universal and eternal.

      But the norms do not apply in a state of crisis.

      Says who? Did your Lord say that?

      So what other rules do we relax?
      Well, what other areas are in a state of crisis?

      Exactly. You’ll keep labelling everything a “crisis” until none of God’s Laws are left.

      Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Being burned alive isn’t a moral crisis. Being given a choice between apostatizing trampling on an image of Christ and letting others be tortured IS a moral crisis. The usual rules aren’t applicable. The Bible gives no guidance in such a situation. You have to decide on the exception.

        Moral law is for the benefit of humans. If God is sovereign then God is above God’s own law. God did not break his own law by commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Moral law therefore cannot be eternal. The words of the Bible are not coeternal with God.

        That the Sexual Market is broken and in a State of Crisis is self evidently true, at least from my perspective. I’m sorry that you can’t see that and I can’t convince you otherwise. It’s difficult to prove something to someone else when it already seems like a self evident fact to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Do you understand the concept of a Constitutional Crisis?

        That’s what I mean by a crisis. A situation that the usual rules cannot resolve.

        The state of the Sexual Market creates the biblical equivalent to a Constitutional Crisis.

        The biblical norms are inadequate for the conditions at hand.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Being burned alive isn’t a moral crisis. Being given a choice between apostatizing trampling on an image of Christ and letting others be tortured IS a moral crisis.

        Are you ignorant of the fact that the Christians who were burned alive were “given a choice between apostatizing” and being burned alive?

        The Bible gives no guidance in such a situation.

        False. Completely false. Your Lord gives you the following command.

        Luke 21:16 You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. 17 And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake.

        Matthew 10:32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

        Do you want your Lord to deny you in heaven?

        Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

        God did not break his own law by commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

        Are you aware that God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac?

        the Sexual Market is broken and in a State of Crisis

        Once again: is your “crisis” worse than the crises faced by Christians who – to this day – are “given a choice between apostatizing” and death or torture?

        That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Yes? Or no?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Do you understand the concept of a Constitutional Crisis?

        Of course I do. Is your “crisis” worse than the crises faced by Christians who – to this day – are “given a choice between apostatizing” and death or torture?

        That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Yes? Or no?

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The priest in the novel was given the choice between apostatizing and letting OTHERS be tortured and killed. You seem to be missing that detail. Would you trample the image?

        Whether God stopped Abraham or not is irrelevant. God still ordered it. Did God break His own law by ordering it?

        -Greco-Roman sexual mores bear little to no resemblance to modern ones.

        -Biblical writings on sexuality were written in a context where Marriage 1.0 was the norm.

        -Marriage 1.0 no longer exists in Western culture, for the most part

        -The Sexual Revolution represented a total deregulation of the Sexual Market. Far from communal sexual liberation, the Sexual Revolution was instead a triumph of consumerist individualism.

        -The deregulated Sexual Market is not functioning properly. There is massive inequality, marriage is declining, the sexual market favours women and a small number of men.

        -Following biblical norms under these conditions is maladaptive. Biblical laws that once served their intended purpose are now counterproductive to that purpose.

        -If following biblical laws are now counterproductive to their original purpose then they are no longer adequate to resolve the problem of the non-functioning sexual market.

        -A state of affairs where existing laws cannot resolve emergent problems is a state of crisis.

        -A state of crisis (again, in the sense of a constitutional crisis) requires a state of exception.

        Do you disagree with any of these premises?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        The priest in the novel was given the choice between apostatizing and letting OTHERS be tortured and killed. You seem to be missing that detail. Would you trample the image?

        I already answered your question. Have you read Fox’s Book of Martyrs? That’s been a real moral dilemma for Christians for 2,000 years. No need to resort to novels.

        My Lord commands me to confess Him before men, or He will deny me in heaven. He didn’t make exceptions for that commandment. Other Christians faced the same dilemma (to see others tortured or killed for Christ) and chose to confess Christ. And they still do.

        Is your “crisis” worse than the crises faced by Christians who – to this day – are “given a choice between apostatizing” and death or torture, for themselves and for others?

        That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Yes? Or no?

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Do you disagree with any of the premises I laid out in my last comment?

        Why or why not?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Do you disagree with any of the premises I laid out in my last comment?
        Why or why not?

        I don’t play the game where I answer all the questions, and you answer none. You asked a question, I answered it twice, and you ignored the answer. I asked you a question, and you still haven’t answered it. When you’ve answered my question, I will answer yours, as I always have.

        s your “crisis” worse than the crises faced by Christians who – to this day – are “given a choice between apostatizing” and death or torture, for themselves and for others (like the Apostle Peter)?

        That is not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Yes? Or no?

        Like

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      On a personal level it isn’t.
      On a collective level it is a bigger crisis.
      Martyrdoms were good for the church as a whole.
      An large number of men left isolated, priced out of the sexual market, and unable to form families is a disaster for the church.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        On a personal level it isn’t.
        On a collective level it is a bigger crisis.
        Martyrdoms were good for the church as a whole.
        An large number of men left isolated, priced out of the sexual market, and unable to form families is a disaster for the church.

        You don’t know that. God does. He’s smarter than you are. He sees the end from the beginning (Isaiah 4:10). You don’t.

        When God wrote His moral law for you, He already knew the circumstances under which He would require you to live them out. You didn’t.

        God knows the result of you living our His moral law under the circumstances He foresaw. You don’t.

        Isaiah, by the way, got sawn in half from the crotch up for his faithfulness. Isaiah did not “suspend” God’s law because living it would be painful for him.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “When God wrote His moral law for you, He already knew the circumstances under which He would require you to live them out”

        Books can’t make decisions. Finite written law cannot possibly anticipate every possible situation.
        I suppose God could have chosen to provide constant updates to the Bible, like a software publisher releasing periodic patches. But that wasnt how God chose to do it. Why did God choose to put the law into a single, static format like the Bible? No idea.

        Greco-Roman sexual mores bear almost no resemblance to modern ones. The instructions in the Bible were written in that context. The advice that worked in the context of Greco-Roman sexual mores doesn’t work very well in the context of the Sexual Revolution and the aftermath of its triumph.

        Paul didnt see fit to include a chapter on what to do in case of individualist, gynocentric, consumerist, Sexual Revolution. For one, Paul writes assuming that Marriage 1.0 still exists. Unfortunately, most people read the new definition of marriage into the Bible when they get to places like 1 Corinthians. The shift has been so total that most people don’t even realize it has happened. They think that Marriage 2.0 has always existed and their only knowledge of Marriage 1.0 is some vague recollection of arranged marriages.

        Restricting sex to marriage assumes that Marriage 1.0 is still the norm. But those conditions no longer exist. The best you can do is extract some general principles. But specific advice like 1 Corinthians 7:9 isn’t usable because the advice assumes Marriage 1.0 is the norm. To put that verse into modern vernacular: “if you’re horny then get married”. But what does Paul mean by married? And how does he expect his readers will go about it? Well, it won’t resemble modern practices that’s for sure.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Books can’t make decisions.

        Nobody said they can.

        Why did God choose to put the law into a single, static format like the Bible? No idea.

        Exactly. You have no idea. That’s the wisest statement you’ve made.

        For one, Paul writes assuming that Marriage 1.0 still exists.

        No. He doesn’t. It didn’t exist in Paul’s day.

        Restricting sex to marriage assumes that Marriage 1.0 is still the norm.

        No. It doesn’t. It assumes that marriage is an earthly picture of Christ and the Church. That doesn’t change, no matter what man does, or fails to do.

        You claim that “God is sovereign”, but you don’t believe it. Nor do you fear Him. If you did, you wouldn’t dare screw with His Law. How do you know what work God is doing in your life through suffering?

        You don’t.

        James 5:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

        Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

        You don’t know what God is doing. All you know is who is your Lord, and what He’s commanded you to do. That’s it.

        It’s not your place to screw with His commandments. Your place is to obey your Lord, and leave the consequences of your obedience to Him. Because He is sovereign.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        God does not involve Himself in day to day governance. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. If He did we would be getting new communication from God and getting judgements on each new issue that comes up.
        Someone has to represent God on earth. It isn’t the Bible because the Bible is a finite book that can’t make decisions. The Bible can only serve as a set of legal norms. And, “There exists no norm that is applicable to chaos. For a legal order to make sense, a normal situation must exist, and he is sovereign who definitely decides whether this normal situation actually exists”. So who represents God by deciding?

        Whether or not there is an amendment process written into the Bible is irrelevant. An exception is not the same as an amendment. It also does not matter that the Bible does not have a direct provision for a state of exception.
        “Because a general norm, as represented by an ordinary legal prescription, can never encompass a total exception, the decision that a real exception exists cannot therefore be entirely derived from this norm”.

        A crisis is a situation that existing legal norms are inadequate to resolve. Sovereignty is the ability to decide that a crisis exists and to take extralegal measures to resolve the situation.

        Under this definition, who is sovereign when it comes to biblical/moral questions? If God does not directly judge these questions then it must be the church. The church has had to make judgement calls whenever an issue comes up that the Bible doesn’t address.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        God does not involve Himself in day to day governance.

        You didn’t answer the question, Eric. Did God say that He “does not involve Himself in day to day governance”. Yes, or no. It’s not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Whether or not there is an amendment process written into the Bible is irrelevant.

        It does if you’re going to compare the Bible to the Constitution.

        Under this definition, who is sovereign when it comes to biblical/moral questions?

        I already answered that question. God is sovereign, which you obviously don’t believe.

        You still haven’t answered my questions (surprise!).

        Has God told you what exception exists? Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Will you obey, or disobey your Lord? Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        God remains silent. God does not communicate with us about new moral issues as they emerge. He does not judge new cases. That is how I know that God does not involve himself with day to day governance. Instead we are left with a set of norms (the Bible) and then left to extrapolate from those norms.

        All bodies of law are subject to the state of exception. That is a core axiom I assume from the beginning of my argument. You either accept it or not. If you don’t then that explains why we keep going in circles.

        Who acts on God’s behalf in regards to moral/biblical law? Who represents God in earth? Is it the church? The government? Who?

        Like

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      @Oscar

      Thank you for admitting that books can’t make decisions. That’s entire crux of my argument so I think that counts as a win.

      “Because a general norm, as represented by an ordinary legal prescription, can never encompass a total exception, the decision that a real exception exists cannot therefore be entirely derived from this norm”.

      The fact that the Bible doesn’t mention the idea of an exception (at least in regards to sex) doesn’t mean that no exception can exist.

      So who decides on the exception?
      The church is analagous to a state and the Bible is analogous to a constitution.
      God doesn’t involve Himself in day to day governance.
      Therefore the church needs to make decisions on day to day governance.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Thank you for admitting that books can’t make decisions.

        I did that a long time ago. You weren’t paying attention.

        That’s entire crux of my argument so I think that counts as a win.

        You think I’m actually trying to win a debate with you? Bless your heart.

        The fact that the Bible doesn’t mention the idea of an exception (at least in regards to sex) doesn’t mean that no exception can exist.

        It does if God is sovereign.

        So who decides on the exception?

        God does. Because He’s sovereign. Has He told you what exception exists? Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        The church is analagous to a state and the Bible is analogous to a constitution.

        The Constitution has an amendment process written into it. The Bible does not. That should give you a clue, if you believe God is sovereign, which you clearly don’t.

        God doesn’t involve Himself in day to day governance.

        Says who? Did God say that? Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Therefore the church needs to make decisions on day to day governance.

        The only decision you have to make is whether you will obey, or disobey your Lord. Every other decision flows from there. So, which is it, Eric? Will you obey, or disobey your Lord? Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.

        Like

  47. Pingback: Thursday Theology. – Dark Brightness

  48. bee123456 says:

    Jack,

    Elspeth’s response to Deti above:

    “Stop lecturing men about this. Just stop.

    I was under the impression that the possibility of balancing the lopsided scales was on the table.

    I will stop. Apologies.”

    Your blog, your rules. Has Elspeth submitted the video of her singing and dancing – so that she is allowed to comment? It’s your blog, if you gave her a waiver, it is not mine to say.

    Like

  49. lastmod says:

    Had one of my suits taken in slightly at Banana Republic by the tailoring they offer for their higher end clothing. I picked it up last night (fits smashingly by the way….excellent work).

    I was browsing the shop waiting for the salesgirl to bring it out. Another shopper, a woman was nearby. I was looking at an item. I thought she worked there. You know, she was pretty…dressed in the clothing. Probably in her mid thirties, I assumed she was a worker. Little or no men work in the mens department of stores today (a degrading career evidently, real men play football, burp and are engineers). I asked “Darling, do you have this in an M size?”

    She smiled “Sorry, I don’t work here”

    I quickly apologized for my mistake. We chatted politely for a few moments until my suit was brought out.

    When it was, this woman then said to the tailor “Umm, this man has been harassing me, and bothering me…could you please tell him to stop.”

    “Really?” said the tailor. “Just leave fellow customers alone. They are here to shop, not be bothered.”

    There really wasn’t anything I could say. It would have made a scene, and it would have fed into the drama that this woman evidently wanted. It would have looked poor on my part because I am not handsome, and I am an old man. I took my suit, tipped the tailor and said to the woman “I thought you worked here because you looked like a total snob.”

    And walked out. Thing is…..with women like this, they like just the authority over a man, even if it someone in day to day living. Do young men really want this? Why should he even try to “game” this? Why even bother? I know men are thirsty, and part of being a guy today is playing this and turning her to get naked or a number………many men are miserable because they give women like this their attention. Hence MGTOW.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      It would have been interesting to see how the outcome would have differed if you hadn’t started with “Darling” – that’s a “term of endearment. ” Without that maybe she wouldn’t have complained.

      Sorry man.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Yeah. Sad, isn’t it, that these sick creatures react so negatively to kind words?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Sad, isn’t it, that these sick creatures react so negatively to kind words?

        Get a girl, 1987: Be nice to her, take her out, show her a good time, do the dance where you each give a little to get a little. Get her a gift now and then. Make it clear you like her. Surprise her with little gifts or showing up unannounced, because it’s kind of fun and she gets a kick out of it. Find out what she likes and do that sometimes, or get her those things sometimes. Don’t spend all your time with her, but give her some of your time and attention.

        Lose a girl, 1987: Do all the above and then ghost. Pump and dump her. Ignore her, stop talking to her, forget her birthday, treat her like crap. Make her guess about your intentions, be unpredictable, go hot cold, push-pull (bring her in close, then push her away). She’ll eventually break up with you and tell all her friends what a d-bag you are.

        Get a girl, 2021: Alternate between talk to her and ignore her. Constantly make her guess about whether you like her. Dont buy her anything more expensive than a bag of Skittles or a craft beer. Flirt with other women in front of her. Never take her seriously. Be rude to her. Interrupt her, belittle her, deride her. Push her hard for sex as soon as possible. When she does have sex with you, act like it was “just OK” and “no big deal”. Demonstrate traits like arrogance, unreliability, aloofness, recklessness, dissoluteness, faithlessness, disrespect, and self-absorption. She will love you forever, or at least until another man comes along who does these things better than you do.

        Lose a girl, 2021: Tell her you like her. Use the words “I like you”. Be crystal clear about your affection for her. Open doors, show her kindness, listen to her, take her seriously. Take her on a date. Like, after you ask her and she says yes. You pick her up in your car, and actually, you know, take her to a place other than her home or your home where you do something together that costs some money and you pay for it and you, um, talk to each other and interact. With words, voices, bodies, and limbs. Don’t push for sex. Show her respect. Tell her that you want to avoid premarital sex because you love the Lord and respect her bodily integrity. Demonstrate traits like loyalty, attentiveness, industriousness, conscientiousness, frugality, prudence, and kindness. She will run screaming from you, accuse you of trying to rape her, and tell all her friends what an incel you are.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Deti

        Interesting read on “get a girl, 80s style”

        What I remember about those days was that you should indeed push for sex, and expect mild push back until date #3

        It was a dance you both did, to offer the appearance of propriety.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Scott:

        Yes, it was not necessarily “push for P in V sex”. It was more “push for physicality, for her to let you take it out, and for some of her clothes to come off”. Girls had no problem at all stating their limits and enforcing them hard. She fully expected to be the one applying the brakes if it came to that.

        Of course there were some who stepped on the gas. Most had a limit; it was just that you had to keep going until you ran up against it and she stopped you.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        I wasn’t even trying to hit on her, or whatever. I wasn’t upset. Or angry. I like Banana Republic clothing and I like the Fresno store (better than the SF flagship if truth be told) so I will not make a “scene” with a woman in a place I like.

        This has always happened with me with women. Like Jack mentioned once “the good looking guy does a ‘cute’ thing for a girl” and he’s so amazing. The ugly guy does it, and “he’s creepy”

        She should have been flattered that I thought she worked there. That happened to me at Ben Sherman in London on three occasions within a half hour. I found it actually flattering. I looked good in their clothing.

        Darling is not a term of endearment in my world, if she thinks that, well…..that’s on her not me. She just liked being the “boss” to man, and get the playground supervisor to step in and correct me. She views this as power, or “standing up” to the man. Though if I looked like Scott, or any of the other men here you probably would have been offered her phone number. Whatever. No one steal my joy in my shopping experience.

        The tailor I could tell was holding back a laugh when I did tell her I thought she worked there because she looked like a snob”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Whatever – it isn’t becuase you’re ugly Jason – it’s because she’s a bitch with no compassion or even common decency. She could have let it slide – let’s say it made her uncomfortable because she thought you were hitting on her – she could have let it go. Being ok with publically embarassing a man (who isn’t harassing her) like that- that’s a bitch. This has always happened to you? – well there are a lot of bitches out there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        It is Cameron. I can at least deal with it now. I was in one of my favorite shops, and the weather here has been mild and sunny. My car still has a new car smell in it. I cannot let a woman or man steal my happiness while I am shopping or browsing in a store I like. I won’t let that happen. I dress well, and have always had good fashion sense. I was voted “best dressed” in high school. I never wore the trediest things, or the coolest. I wore what worked well on me. Still do. I can also dance.

        I also worked retail all through high school andsumemrs home from college. Dealt with this kind of teen-age girl, college aged woman, adult woman in stores like this. Snots and snobs to any man unless he looks like Jude Law or Hugh Grant………they were my co-workers at this age.

        Yeah she’s a btch but a-plenty of “alphas” are calling her and getting her. Part of the problem too really. If these “top 20%” of men actually disapproved of women’s behavior and not date them, fck them or feel them up, or ask them out, or tease them, or give them any attention…….maybe there would be a slight leveling of the field, and maybe a few more would have some genuine manners.

        But what do I know

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      Why should he even try to “game” this? Why even bother?

      No self-respecting man wastes time “gaming” an attitudinous bitch. That most women have become attitudinous bitches is why the whining about “no good men to be found” has reached the point where it is now permanent background noise. Of course their inability to understand cause and effect is at the root of this.

      Liked by 3 people

    • lastmod says:

      This comes to mind though………”Med Men” final season roughly the year 1969 / 1970

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        LastMod

        Both Draper and the underling are correct, about each other.

        Of course Underling is correct that Draper gets away with a lot because he’s handsome, and that Draper has a lot of character defects. Because, well, Draper is handsome, handsome men can get away with a lot, and because the client Underling mentioned was a closeted gay man who was in love with Draper and half the male Sterling Cooper staff.

        It makes for good drama, but in real life, a conversation like that never takes place. Underlings simply do not talk to their bosses like that, and they especially do not talk to men like Don Draper like that. The words “you’re fired” and “STFU” would have come out of Draper after Underling barged into Draper’s office and barked orders at his secretary.
        In an office setting, underlings DO NOT act like that, EVER.

        That conversation would never have happened also because Draper would have heard about Underling’s screwup from the client, and fired Underling on the spot for screwing it up THAT badly and showing so little judgment and finesse.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        It happened at IBM…not as dramatic as this, but it happened. Happens in my office. Client barges in when I am on the phone….walks past my admin………

        yes, yes…I know if I just “exuded” confidence people would respect me and the boundry.

        The underling here KNEW he was going to be fired for what he was going to…so he decided he was going to just “do it” and get that parting shot the only way he could.

        Calmly sitting down in Don’s office and having a “discussion” and cup of cofffee or a drink would have had ZERO interest to Don with this man unless it was Cooper, Sterling, Joan, Peggy or maybe the hot chick.

        Underling knew this is the only way. Yes, I know it’s a fictional TV show (well done I might add) but fictional….but the way he did this. I understood when I first watched it. Been there. It’s the only way a guy like this can get an “alpha” attention in many matter like this

        Like

  50. Eric Francis Silk says:

    Does anyone who isn’t Oscar have any feedback?

    I’m getting really tired of arguing with him. At this point we’re just going in circles and constant antagonism is getting wearying.

    There’s some feedback in the other comments, which I appreciate.

    Maybe I should just write a guest post like I was invited to. I never was a very good writer though.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      You are both right.

      This is an unsolvable problem for men. Men will have the choice of sexual sin and the consequences attendant to that, or sexual continence and the consequences attendant to that. Sexual sin: release, sexual enjoyment and fleshly pleasure. Physical, mental emotional and spiritual injury. Rebellion against God and His commands. The possibility of dying in sin and eternal damnation.

      Sexual continence: Obedience to God. Lifelong sexual deprivation. No marriage, no family, no children. Probably the occasional slip up, with lifelong sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

      This will be the choice for an increasing number of men. Most men, including most Christian men, will choose sin, because the sex drive is that strong. Some will choose continence and find ways to live with it. But I can’t suspend God’s laws; because I didn’t create them and they’re not mine to suspend. I didn’t

      It is truly a problem for increasing numbers of men, for which there are no appealing Earthly solutions. This used to happen to the true “bottom of barrel” men. There have always been such men. The mentally defective, the moderate to severe autistic, the truly odd, the truly ugly, the hopeless social failure. Society found places for these men in menial jobs, institutions, religious orders, the military. I often refer to them as “crazy Uncle Paul who lives in his sister’s attic watching the game on his TV” because I had a couple of relatives exactly like this.

      The problem now is that what happened to Uncle Paul is now happening to Billy Beta, Ernie Engineer, Tom Teacher, and Stan STEMlord. 50 years ago, Billy, Ernie, Tom and Stan became married men by 25 and fathers with mortgages and car payments by 30. Now, they’re suffering Uncle Paul’s fate. There’s really not much to be done about this now, except sin and live with it or do your best to remain continent and abstinent, and live with that. Of course, you will also have to stand by and listen to women shame you and tell you you need to wife one of them up and their lack of husband is your fault. You’ll have to tune that out, or you can do what I do and vomit words out onto a keyboard and into a combox in the hopes that someone will learn something. Or you can do what most men will eventually do, which is let one of those shaming women pick you, roll the dice, and wife her up in which case you’ll get a roommate dependent (definitely), a companion (probably) and a sex partner (maybe).

      Thems the breaks for us, kid.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        This is an unsolvable problem for men.

        As I said, some problems are not solvable in this life. Those are crosses to be borne.

        Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

        What’s worse, a life of celibacy (like that of many Christians throughout history), or watching your wife crucified in front of you because you refused to deny Christ (like St. Peter)?

        None of this surprises God. It’s not as though He failed to foresee this present trouble. We are not smarter than He is, and we need to stop trying to outsmart Him. That never ends well.

        In fact, that’s how we got into this mess in the first place. We’re not going to get out of it by doing what got us into it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        The paradox is that when men like this find peace and settle into lives that work for them, doing things they enjoy that don’t involve dating, women, sex, and relationships….

        Women notice those men. And start getting interested in those men. And start sending IOIs to those men.

        There are few things more attractive than a reasonably acceptable-looking nonobese man who has his sh!t together, has a good job, a nice place, some disposable income, does cool stuff on his off time, and has a good friend group.

        When we stop fretting over our lack of women, women start showing up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        “When we stop fretting over our lack of women, women start showing up”

        ehhhhhhh………..treading on low-end 1980’s sitcoms and “made for TV movies” with that statement Deti……sure it happens, but for most it doesn’t. Most women are grateful when most men just leave them alone. Lower level guys usually are invisble. Then and now.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        When women start showing up, then you can choose from the ones who do show up.

        And you can have one of them. On mostly your terms.

        (You had better make sure they’re mostly your terms, because that’s what she’ll expect. She won’t say that. But she’ll expect it. She will WANT you to tell her “this is how I want it and how it will be”.)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Eric — If you can put together a draft of some ideas you have, Jack and I can work with you to address the writing, and then we can have a fulsome discussion.

      Oscar has a definite point of view, that’s true. It’s a large ranging discussion I think that needs to take into account a lot of different issues, and that’s why I think it’s best to have a dedicated post to discuss the kinds of problems, and the ideas behind them, with analogues of how similar things have been addressed historically and the like (or not), and then we can have a debate in that thread that is more focused on that issue.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I agree with Oscar.

      The choices are to follow God wholeheartedly OR compromise God with the world (“The Bible provides our moral norms. But the norms do not apply in a state of crisis. So what other rules do we relax?”). Revelation 2 and 3 are pretty clear that compromise is not an option.

      This doesn’t mean leaving most men out in the cold as all men have the ability to execute God’s mission while simultaneously cultivating traits that make them more attractive to women. Also, they can choose how much risk to tolerate in women they select for marriage. It’s not hard to become the top 10-20% of men nowadays with like 60-70% overweight and obesity rate plus the general culture of laziness + porn that most men wallow in now.

      If we could get all Christian men on board with developing excellence in physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual disciplines then we’d have a plethora of men in the Church that are more attractive than normal which allows them to have a generally wider selection of potential mates than typical thirsty men.

      The problem is that most men don’t want to put in the hard work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I was with you until you said

        “It’s not hard to become the top 10%-20% of men nowadays”

        Being a Christian man automatically knocks you out of that upper echelon, because if you’re in that upper echelon, you have sex, and you’re expected to. If you don’t, women consider there’s something egregiously wrong with you.

        I’m talking about “Christian” women here. NonChristian women won’t even give you a second look, and it doesn’t matter how good you look or how together you are.

        Like it or not, women decide what’s attractive, and right now, Chad PlayaSlaya is where it’s at. And Chad has sex.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ deti

        “It’s not hard to become the top 10%-20% of men nowadays”

        Being a Christian man automatically knocks you out of that upper echelon, because if you’re in that upper echelon, you have sex, and you’re expected to. If you don’t, women consider there’s something egregiously wrong with you.

        I’m talking about “Christian” women here. NonChristian women won’t even give you a second look, and it doesn’t matter how good you look or how together you are.

        That’s an over-exaggeration.

        First, you’ve read my posts. You know that there is a statistical 30-40% virginity rate into the mid-20s for Christian women who go to Church very frequently and were raised in the Church. There are women out there who won’t have sex until marriage. You just have to find the right communities as Oscar said.

        Second, vetting criteria are there to select out the types of women you are referring to. The non-Christians and “Christian” women. It’s good if they reveal themselves because then you can kick them to the curb and don’t waste your time with the ones with loose morals.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Additionally, Christian men can find faithful Christian communities and join them. Those communities do exist. I stumbled onto three of them in three different states, and I wasn’t even looking.

        Like

      • @ Oscar

        Eh, everyone seems to be getting too black pill for my tastes. Even when I was living in California (“the liberal cesspool TM”) for a time the men my age and younger I was talking to were fairly understanding to the points I talked to them about attraction and dating and how to vet women.

        A lot of Christians are still getting married. I see it all the time across FB. Same with the RPC discord.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        It’s not hard to become the top 10-20% of men nowadays

        LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      My responses to you are kind of scattered throughout the comments, which are now substantial

      This thread has really taken off

      I have a feeling the Nova/Jack post on this topic will
      Probably offer a good set of tools to start.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s