Secrets

…that only the bad guys know!

Readership: Men
Author’s Note: This post contains contributions from Deti, Oscar, and RedPillApostle. Links to original comments are embedded.
Length: 2,100 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

The Romantics: Talking in Your Sleep (1983)

Red Pill lessons from the bards of yesteryore.

As described in The Feminine Secret (2021-08-16), women love fantasy and they love keeping secrets. This is an innate characteristic of female nature.

Young girls have a little game they play about keeping secrets. “Can you keep a secret?” They will share little tidbits of the personal or the profane and then watch to see whether their confidante spills the beans. This game is centered on trust and loyalty. Girls who are able to keep a lid on it earn the status of a trusted friend. Those who cannot fall under the bus in the immediate fallout, but eventually rework their identity to become more of a powerful gatekeeper who can be trusted to pass and review gossip to see whether it is true or not. Later in life they learn the wisdom and discipline necessary to keep some things secret while also being a whistleblower on the liars and tricksters.

Even as adults, women like to play this game. Women I’ve dated have coyly said to me, “Can I tell you a secret?” Then after my assent, they’d pull me close and whisper in my ear some forbidden fantasy that they long to experience with me, or sometimes it’s just a simple “I love you!”.

Case Study – A High School Story

When I was in the 8th grade, a group of schoolmates who lived in my neighborhood sat in the grass one night under the starlight and we shared our secrets. When my next door neighbor, a girl two years older than me, told us that she started having sex with her boyfriend, I protested, saying it’s not right and it’s too soon for her. Before I finished my sentence, an older boy shoved me and told me to get lost, so I left the huddle. About 30 years later, that same girl, now a married mother, sent me a message on FB, saying I was right and that she should have listened to me.

Did it help her to divulge this secret?

Fun Filthy Fantasies

Everything I’ve discussed so far are rather healthy behaviors, but when sharing secrets goes beyond issues of trust, loyalty, self-revelation, and modesty, and delves into the realm of concealment, deception, lies, and manipulation, this is the point at which the secret keeping wades into what men would consider the muck and mire.

But women don’t see it this way.

Most women who lie and deceive by failing to divulge the truth about themselves need not worry about burdening their consciences with the guilt of being a liar. This is because women can always count on the good nature of men to give them the never failing P-Pass, and thus, guilt never has the opportunity to kick in. A discerning Chad, however, might hold her toes to the oven of the hell she has stoked, to soak in its heart melting warmth, and thereby give her good reason to be concerned about eternal consequences. But a white knight will never know the value of a good sound soul spanking towards weaning a witch off of her b!tchcraft.

Given the absence of negative punishment, women will keep secrets for positive rewards — reasons I discussed in The Feminine Secret. This is especially obvious when we adopt a teleological approach by examining Secrecy according to the most desired response when it is successfully employed (i.e. acceptance, inclusion, humility*, loyalty, and heartfelt Trust), which more often than not, is taken to be the ostensible goal of Secrecy. This is different and separate from the fundamental goal of Secrecy, which is more related to self-expression, bonding, emotional connection, building rapport, and maintaining social relevancy.

Individual-specific desires, characteristic traits, and personal identity are central to the dynamics of Secrecy.

The purposes for Secrecy are unique to each woman and her confidantes, and it is largely dependent on the context. Typical purposes for Secrecy include the following.

  • Secrecy serves to establish, maintain, and enrich a relationship.
  • Secrecy allows her to create an attractive, protective Machiavellian shroud — a public persona that appears much more desirable than her true self.
  • Secrecy provides more control to the social context in which her public persona can manifest.
  • Secrecy allows her to avert or deflect accusations, embarrassment, shame, or whatever unfavorable emotion she may be exposed to on a daily basis.
  • Secrecy enables her to experience the joyful shame (or the shameful joy) of being humbled/defiled, which is experienced subjectively as inclusion, love, and grace.

To elaborate on the last point, when a woman can experience Humility* by sharing all her obscene desires and perfidious deeds with another, she can experience acceptance, inclusion, and Grace, meaning that she can get the conviction that her life is ostensibly “better” than what she feels she deserves.  This is a key element in both satisfying her need for authentic social inclusion, and establishing a network of loyal trusted accomplices who will aid her in any situation she may herself machinate or else stumble into amid her many life adventures. So Secrecy also abets her need for security.

In many respects, Secrecy, for women, is very similar to what Game (i.e. applied charisma) is for men. We might even say that Secrecy is Girl Game.

* The concept of Humility is here defined according to the Christian understanding of the word, and not the worldly connotation of being shamed. For those of my readers who are unfamiliar with this distinction, the differences are described in a previous post, Apprehending True Humility (April 7, 2019). Of particular note to this essay, Humility is a key ingredient in experiencing love.

Levels of Secrecy

I’ll offer this rough order of relationship role complicity. Some things women would divulge to people higher on this list, would not be told to people lower on this list. Individuals may vary in specific order.

  1. Select girl friends
  2. Group of girl friends
  3. STR partner
  4. Pastor/Priest/Confessor/Counselor
  5. Mixed group of friends
  6. Mother
  7. Women
  8. LTR partner
  9. Father
  10. Grandparents
  11. Men
  12. Unattractive men

Note the general order. Peer females are at the top of the list, while men are at the bottom of the list, with the exception of a STR partner.

Men have the notion that a woman who loves him will be willing to share all her secrets with him, but this is far from the truth. A woman will only tell a man all the nitty gritty from her past if she sees him as a STR. If a woman is LTR/marriage minded, she’ll share very little about her past, and even lie about certain things.

A Short List of Dark Secrets

Here’s a shortlist of secrets that women commonly hold, taken from crowdsources, surveys, and scientific studies. As you will see, while some of these secrets are related to modesty or public image, most of them revolve around sex and soft power.

  1. Trying or using recreational drugs.
  2. That women despise/dislike/hate someone who by all observable accounts appears to be close to them. Oscar pointed out that a group of girls will often talk with each other like they are “BFFs”, but if one of them should leave, then all the rest would start gossiping about her. Oscar posed the interesting question, “Do they not realize that all of them are doing the same thing to each other?”
  3. Liking certain activities primarily because it draws sexual attention, simulates sexual freedom, stimulates sexual desire, and/or offers a sexualized ambience/mood/environment. For example, high watt bass amplifiers, bar hopping, clubbing, dancing, dressing provocatively, drinking, Instagram/OnlyFans, reading romance novels, horseback riding, riding big motorcycles, sensuous or profane jazz/R&B music, and doing various activities in the nude (e.g. hiking, rock climbing, skydiving, sunbathing, swimming, etc.)
  4. That women’s attraction vectors are constant and consistent. They’re all attracted to pretty much the same basic masculine traits and characteristics. Women all have an unspoken secret subconscious pact that requires them to lie about all this so they can maximize the number of men they can use for whatever purposes they see fit.
  5. That if she is sexually attracted to a man, she will let that man do pretty much whatever he wants to do, to her and with her.
  6. That if she is NOT sexually attracted to a man, then nothing he does will ever be good enough for her.
  7. That the number one sign of a lack of sexual attraction is not disrespect, but contempt (often indicated by curt insults, sighing, and rolling their eyes).
  8. That women view all unattractive men with contempt, but will justify their contempt with nitpicking.
  9. Most women are members of a mixed friend group consisting of both men and women. All the women in that group have had sex with the one or two most attractive male group members. All the group members except the unattractive men know this.
  10. That all the women know all the other men their girlfriends have had sex with (a secret learned from her associates).
  11. That all the women know which men are good in bed (another secret learned from her associates).
  12. Sharing/recommending male partners with/to girlfriends.
  13. Hooking up with a man just because he has a big beautiful shaft or some other unique sex-positive trait (a secret learned from her associates).
  14. Almost all women have had sex with other men before they met you.
  15. That you are not the best lover she has ever had, or will ever have.
  16. That you were not her first choice. She wanted to date/marry someone else.
  17. That most of the sex you have with her is not that good for her, even though she might say the opposite.
  18. Actual N count is a highly cherished secret (yes, some women are actually proud of it) which is closely guarded due to anti-s1ut defense mechanisms.
  19. That if a woman is having an affair, her closest girlfriends will know about it, but they will NEVER EVER tell her husband under any circumstances, not even decades after the affair has ended.
  20. If one of the women in a group even suspects that one of their boyfriends/husbands is out of line in any way, she will tell his wife, and neither of them will tell him unless it is decided that a drama-filled confrontation is in order. She will protect her girlfriends’ marriages against the women’s own sins and will even help her girlfriends sin against their marriages. She will not hesitate to interfere in a marriage if she thinks the husband is “sinning”.
  21. Girls’ Nights’ Out are particularly insidious for the above reasons. The first rule of Girls’ Nights’ Out is: You do not talk about what happens on Girls’ Nights’ Out. The second rule of Girls’ Nights’ Out is: You do not talk about what happens on Girls’ Nights’ Out.
  22. That she masturbates. (80% of American women [1,2])
  23. Giving fellatio. (80% of American women [1,2])
  24. Viewing pornography (60% of American women [1])
  25. Sending digital nude or semi-nude photos to someone. (54% of American women [1])
  26. If she is a squirter or not. According to a 2013 study of 320 participants, anywhere from 10-54% of women ejaculate.
  27. Having sex in public. (43% of American women [1])
  28. Receiving anal sex (37% of American women [1])
  29. Being spanked and not disliking it (30% of American women [1])
  30. Having a crush (or something more incestuous) with a step-brother, cousin, or other close family member. (No data available.)
  31. Having sexual relations in exchange for money, drugs, alcohol, getting a job position, raise, promotion, or other preferred status, or to receive other types of commodities, favors, or attention. (No data available.)
  32. Cuckoldry. Estimates of so-called “paternal discrepancy” over more than 50 years has revealed that the acting father was not the biological parent in between 1% to a whopping 32% of the cases. An intergenerational study estimated that 1-2% of men of any generation raise a child that isn’t theirs.
  33. Engaging in threesomes (10-20% of American women [1,3,4])
  34. Participating in orgies/group sex. (8% of American women [1,3,4])
  35. Bestiality, fondling pets or other animals, and/or any related fantasies and desires. (No data available.)

This is by no means a complete list. I suspect that if all the dark secrets that women hold were to be known and written down, then the deep dark depths of the Mariana Trench would not supply room enough to hide all the books.

Daryl Hall and John Oates: I Can’t Go for That (1981)

References

  1. D. Herbenick, J. Bowling, T. C. Fu, B. Dodge, L. Guerra-Reyes, S. Sanders, “Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of adult women and men”, PLoS ONE 12(7):e0181198 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181198
  2. Shape: How Do Your Sex Numbers Compare? (2013-06-13)
  3. Women’s Health: More People Are Having Group Sex Than You’d Think (2016-01-07)
  4. Forbes: One In Seven Americans Has Had A Threesome And One In Five Finds Them Appealing (2017-09-20)

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Conspiracy Theories, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Divorce, Female Power, Feminism, Hamsterbation, Hypergamy, Influence, Introspection, Love, Personal Presentation, Psychology, Relationships, Rites of Passage, Sanctification & Defilement, Secrecy, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Solipsism, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

276 Responses to Secrets

  1. KJ says:

    FYI: Your comment links in the “A Short List of Dark Secrets” don’t work.

    Like

  2. cameron232 says:

    Here’s one you missed: “Having sex with another woman’s husband.”

    One of wife’s HS friends was having sex with the husband of the woman she was babysitting for. He was a 30-ish year old guy, and she was in HS. I mean nasty, do anything and everything sex. In the couples bed. She’s multiple times divorced now. She goes on Facebook and complains about her relationships ending: “When is the HS drama gonna stop?!?” Bite my tongue on that one.

    “Having a crush (or something more incestuous) with a step-brother, cousin, or other close family member.”

    This happens. Another one of the wife’s high school friends had consensual sex with her first cousin. She said, it just “happened.” She’s at least twice divorced too. First husband/baby-daddy was deadbeat pothead (but he was “hot”). Second husband/baby-daddy ended up being a child abuser (yes, THAT way). Boy of first hubby molested the boy of second hubby. Women’s life choices have consequences for their children.

    “Bestiality, fondling pets or other animals, and/or any related fantasies and desires.”

    This also happens. A girl in my neighborhood let a group of boys make a dog perform oral on her.

    Girls are really messed up. A lot of them, anyway. However, they don’t always keep it a secret. Don’t underestimate women’s tendency to “spill the beans” about each other, sometimes even to men.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      “Bestiality, fondling pets or other animals, and/or any related fantasies and desires.”

      Leviticus 20:16

      “16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

      As Paul said:

      Romans 1:31-32

      “31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them.”

      Like

  3. Scott says:

    If you ever find out that any of these things have happened (through a source other than she just tells you) and you want to discuss it:

    You will be clobbered with an onslaught of obfuscation, projection about what a pervert you are, how judgmental you are, and how whatever she did before she met you has nothing to do with you and is none of your business.

    I was using an ex-girlfriend’s laptop once for a totally innocent purpose and found some pictures this way, and it was like I committed murder.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Hmm. They like to keep those cherished memories (in the form of photos) of love/romance/sex they just don’t like men they have a use for knowing about them. Still, her need to hold onto visuals of those memories outweighs the risk of you finding them.

      Yeah, apologies to the sphere’s women’s auxiliary (NAWALT) but women are pretty friggin’ awful.

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        “…women are pretty friggin’ awful.”

        As with American parenthood, each successive generation seems to get progressively worse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        In this particular case, it was something that would have been a deal breaker for me had I learned about it early on. But I was months in, and emotionally invested.

        Very graphic, public, people standing around cheering, girlfriends snapping photos and giggling.

        And no matter what I did, no matter who I sought out advice from, I was the bad guy. The goodie-two-shoes who couldn’t handle the fact that “it sounds like your girlfriend had some fun before she met you. Big deal. Get over it.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “Very graphic, public, people standing around cheering, girlfriends snapping photos and giggling.”

        Sounds like a typical college campus in ‘Murica, frat houses and coed dorms to be more specific.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “They like to keep those cherished memories (in the form of photos) of love/romance/sex…”

        I know some men are like this too.

        I once knew a WW2 vet who served his time not in Europe or SEA, but in Cuba. (His brother also served and died in Italy.) Hot d@mn, boy! He had women out the wazoo! He took a photo of himself with many of the girls he had. After the war he came home, got married, had three children, worked the farm until he lost his eyesight from old age. His wife died of old age and then he was a widower for about 20 years before he finally died at the ripe old age of 102. During all this time, he kept all those photos (I’d guess around 30 or so) in a tin box underneath his bed, right up until his dying day. He showed them to me once, and I was intrigued by the fact that he wanted to show me those photos even though he couldn’t see anymore.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “…it sounds like your girlfriend had some fun before she met you. Big deal. Get over it.”

        Two can play that game.

        “It sounds like your husband wants to have some fun now that you’re old and his SMV is higher than yours. Get over it.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        What Jack said is absolutely true. We also know of an old man whom we found, upon helping him move house in his old age, had mementos of past flings despite having been married many years and widowed. Some were pre-marriage, some at a more inappropriate time, but he had kept them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Elspeth/Jack – I don’t have a hard time believing this.

        What I have noticed is that a disproportionate number of women I went to school with keep social media contacts with the alphas they dated and banged (and had tumultuous alpha male relationships with ) in their youth. Seems to be the same trend – the current hubby is always beta.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        @ Jack:

        “…he kept all those photos (I’d guess around 30 or so) in a tin box underneath his bed, right up until his dying day. He showed them to me once, and I was intrigued by the fact that he wanted to show me those photos even though he couldn’t see anymore.”

        Here are the differences:

        Men do this, and are honest about it. Women do this, and lie through their teeth about it.

        Men are honest about the fact that those women presented formative educational experiences. Women have the same formative educational experiences with different men, and lie about it.

        Men keep these things, and will show them to you if asked or if the subject comes up. Women keep these things, and hide them from everyone else who matters.

        Men do this, and women love them for it. Women do this, and men bemoan the fact that their women didn’t care enough about them to make it so they were the men in the pictures and video. Because the truth is that the women did not love or care about their men enough to save their photos or video.

        Men save the photos because they loved and cared about the WOMEN depicted in the photos. Women save their photos because they loved and cared about the EMOTIONS that the EXPERIENCES those men gave them.

        Men: honesty, integrity, loyalty, caring about others.

        Women: dishonesty, treachery, self-absorption, caring only about self and her own emotions.

        THOSE are the differences. And THAT is why men have such a problem with this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “Men save the photos because they loved and cared about the WOMEN depicted in the photos. Women save their photos because they loved and cared about the EMOTIONS that the EXPERIENCES those men gave them.”

        “Men: honesty, integrity, loyalty, caring about others.”

        ROFL! I have to believe that this is a hyperbolic statement. No. At least in the case I was referring to, this stuff was hidden away and it was not meant to be found. This man surely did not want his wife to know he had been sleeping with women in their circle while he was married to her.

        Honesty, integrity, loyalty, caring about others. Yeah, that’s all men. Right.

        In no universe ever has it been true that all men are good, loyal and caring while no women are good, loyal, or caring.

        It’s one thing to acknowledge that our culture has whitewashed the nature of women and painted a picture that denies the reality of our innate sinfulness. I can totally get with blowing a hole through that damnable heresy.

        I cannot get with swinging the pendulum so far in the other direction that it strains credulity and asks us to pretend that no women have ever actually suffered real and damaging hurts at the hands of men they were loyal to.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “ROFL! I have to believe that this is a hyperbolic statement.”

        “In no universe ever has it been true that all men are good, loyal and caring while no women are good, loyal, or caring.”

        I calls em like I sees em.

        Most men will fess up to their past sexual adventures and misadventures when presented with irrefutable evidence of same. “Boys will be boys” and all that.

        Most women will hide their faces in shame when merely told to face up to and accept the natural consequences of their sexual adventures and misadventures. And most women will scream and shout obscenities at you when you tell them, simply “Because X, then Y.”

        You should listen to some of Kevin Samuels’ podcasts. He’s reading the riot act to these ratchets and they are seething with anger and contempt at him…. merely for telling these women the truth.

        Men do these things and accept their lots. Women do these things and insist that others relieve them of the consequences of their actions.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “In no universe ever has it been true that all men are good, loyal and caring while no women are good, loyal, or caring.”

        Another thing:

        I didn’t say “men are good”. I said men are HONEST. Men fail to adhere to Christian sexual morality, and are honest about it, by and large. Men have sex with women who mean something to them, and are honest about it.

        I didn’t say “women are not good”. I said women are not HONEST.

        Because that’s what we’re talking about here – women’s DISHONESTY.

        I also didn’t say “all” men are anything. I said nothing about “all” men.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Men don’t lie. Check.

        Unfaithful husbands are all married to women who know about it, approve, and don’t mind at all.

        Got it!

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth, put your strawmen and your petty offense away.

        “Men don’t lie. Check.”

        Didn’t say that.

        “Men are honest, by and large” is NOT the same thing as “men don’t lie”.

        The root word of “honest” is “honor”. Honor is a uniquely masculine virtue. Men are expected to have honor, which is a concept that men express to each other, not from men to women. Men are not expected to be “honorable” to women; men are expected to be “honorable” to each other. Men are expected to be chivalrous and gentle to women – not “honorable”. And we are definitely NOT expected to divulge everything to women.

        We do not expect women to have honor. Women literally revel in their dishonor, or more accurately, non-honor.

        “Unfaithful husbands are all married to women who know about it, approve, and don’t mind at all. Got it!”

        Not what I said either.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Last thing:

        Men’s honor does not require unswerving truthfulness and that you NEVER EVER lie.

        Part of honor is that when you lie, you fess up to it and correct it. When you are not truthful, you fess up to it. When you fail to live up to Christian ideals, you acknowledge it at least to yourself, and you work to correct it.

        Men’s “honor” does NOT require unfailing, slavish truthfulness to anyone and everyone, much less to women. Honor requires only acknowledgment and correction. Honor does not require perfection nor does it require self-flagellation before women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Someone’s hamster is in overdrive because I suspect you know that I don’t think men should have to bare their souls to a woman to be honest or honorable.

        But something as basic as not having sex with other women is not too much to ask. Especially if the wife is “holding up her end of the bargain”.

        There’s NO honor in that kind of infidelity.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Why are you insisting that men can’t or don’t sometimes behave dishonorably?

        What in the…?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Why are you insisting that men can’t or don’t sometimes behave dishonorably?”

        Calm your own hamster, dearie. Good thing I never said that.

        I said that honor requires that when you do behave dishonorably, you fess up to it and acknowledge it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “But something as basic as not having sex with other women is not too much to ask. Especially if the wife is “holding up her end of the bargain”.

        There’s NO honor in that kind of infidelity.

        You as a woman don’t get to decide what male honor is or what it should look like.

        We can all agree that marital infidelity is wrong. But the error arises where you insert the original concept of honor into marital fidelity. Honor is a concept men express to each other, it’s not a concept men express to women. Honor comes into play here with respect to the unfaithful man’s relationship to any husbands of the women he cheated with. To those men he is dishonorable. To his wife, he’s a liar and a cheat.

        I am not talking about the current 21st century concept of “honor” or “honesty” meaning, “unswerving truthfulness to anyone and everyone without fail or question”, or “always divulging accurate and truthful information on request to anyone who requests it”. That’s CANDOR. I’m talking about HONOR. I am talking about the masculine concept of “honor” having to do with the manner in which men relate to each other.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I said that honor requires that when you do behave dishonorably, you fess up to it and acknowledge it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scavos says:

        “What I have noticed is that a disproportionate number of women I went to school with keep social media contacts with the alphas they dated and banged (and had tumultuous alpha male relationships with ) in their youth. Seems to be the same trend – the current hubby is always beta.”

        I’m seeing the same thing on FB. Seeing many girls my age (early to mid thirties) from my old Bible school either getting married or are showing profile pics with them and another guy. Their body language says it all. Their sitting or standing as though they’re alone (i.e. hands in their lap) whereas the guy is leaning in way more than her or have their arm around her waist (but not vice versa). None of them look like they desire their “man.” They still have their AF guy on their friends list (at least, the ones I know).

        Once upon a time, I would’ve been happy for them. Not sure, anymore.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Scavos gave us a snapshot of the typical marriage today.

        “Their body language says it all. Their sitting or standing as though they’re alone (i.e. hands in their lap) whereas the guy is leaning in way more than her or have their arm around her waist (but not vice versa). None of them look like they desire their “man.”

        It’s a tell tale giveaway that she took a few spins and then “settled” in order to stick the landing. It’s also a tell tale sign that the guy had practically zero sex until she came along and took pity on him. These kinds of marriages are an inversion of Headship and therefore cannot glorify God. It is no wonder that we see this as a fruit of the sexual revolution.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Maybe Shaggy has no honor. He certainly isn’t being candid.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “I was using an ex-girlfriend’s laptop once for a totally innocent purpose and found some pictures this way, and it was like I committed murder.”

      I think the “proper” response would be to laugh so hard that your face hurts and so long that you get stomach cramps, and then make jokes and tease her about it periodically from then on. If she can take the ribbing, then she might be worth keeping around.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        The whole ordeal was part of the much broader experience of “things went really crazy during the decade of the 90s when I was married to my first wife and now I have to navigate the dating world post-divorce in my 30s surrounded by all this unchecked female sexual aggression which to be honest was kind of fun but weird and dirty at the same time and then I met Mychael”

        Sorry, I can’t come up with a shorter name for that period of time in my life.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      Reminds me of what happens when you talk about some of the activities that gay people can get up to. They’ll call you a pervert for knowing about it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      My ex had an abandoned computer and she wanted to get rid of it. I remember her going on and on about how much it cost to get rid of the thing i told her to throw it in the trash. Oh no i dont know whats on there. I didnt understand until after red pill. I found many spicy photos on old data devices laying around. When we got divorced i had to look at this stuff and it hit me this is a total whore.

      And i find out her best friend was actually her bisexual lover of a decade they used to go out and find women or men to take home. Shes shown me pics of her and friends partying naked on vacation. But whatever was on this computer she just absolutely could not let get out! She never had internet played games or worked from home so im sure it was all pics and videos. And to go along with the post everybody knew what was on there, but me. Secrets!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. cameron232 says:

    If it weren’t for the internet, I could have gone my whole life without knowing there was such a thing as a “squirter.” Somehow that sounds gross to me.

    Can we just get on with the project of destroying all technology that was invented after the 1930s or so.

    Like

  5. cameron232 says:

    “Actual N count is a highly cherished secret (yes, some women are actually proud of it) which is closely guarded due to anti-s1ut defense mechanisms.”

    The (fake) polygraph experiment/study done in the 1990s. Women’s N-count decreased when they were told another woman was watching their answer and increased when they were hooked up to a polygraph.

    Like

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “In many respects, Secrecy, for women, is very similar to what Game (i.e. applied charisma) is for men. We might even say that Secrecy is Girl Game.”

    Interesting point. When I think back to the young woman from educational program I coached in that essentially red pilled me, she said something to me at one point like, “People think I’m a good girl.” Of course, in my blue pill mindset at the time, it went right by me. She did in fact seem like a good girl, for example, the way she dressed and carried herself, and her intelligence too. However, after getting red pilled, I could now see it more clearly.

    To some degree I think it was how she was raised, i.e. to dress the way she did–modestly; however I also now see it was in some way a form of camouflage to mask her CC riding ways. A couple of other women in the program, yes I could see that they were ‘easy,’ aka slutty, but not her. She came off as a…. well, a good girl, kind of a girl next door type.

    The Manosphere term ‘Chameleon’ is what I had been using to describe her behavior. I’m now intrigued by the possibility of it being part of a larger ‘Girl Game’ that she was using. I’ll have to think about this a bit. You opened up a bit of an inquiry for me Jack, this whole idea of ‘Girl Game’ and it being analogous to men’s ‘Game,’ aka applied charisma.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      “The Manosphere term ‘Chameleon’ is what I had been using to describe her behavior.”

      That pretty much describes every woman, once you start seeing everything through Red Pill lenses. The exceptions are too few in number to be statistically relevant.

      Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      Hmm, thinking through this a bit more. She was 27. The ‘Good Girl’ look and personae might have been Game in that she was probably attempting to ‘switch lanes’ from AF to AB. How better to get Chad, who also has a good job and some money in the bank, by differentiating yourself from Stacy and Amber? Chad in his AF stage would be adding S & A to his rotation, my gal too; however, if Chad is now a little bit older, and if he’s AB and starting to think about possible settling down (maybe in his mid to late thirties?), S & A won’t cut it. However, the CC rider camouflaged as the ‘girl next door’ might just pull it off, or at least have a better chance than the S & A’s out there who are his ‘hit it and quit it’ girls. Bait and switch? Hmm

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Oscar says:

    Great. Now I need brain bleach again.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      People’s innate disgust instincts seems to vary. It’s been said that this is one thing that tends to separate natural conservatives from natural liberals/leftists (I’ve seen this disputed too).

      E.g. there are a number of things popular in male-oriented porn that disgust me. Hint: seeing anyone’s body fluids/discharges/etc. disgusts me. When I was in college my buddies made fun of me because something they showed me started making me literally gag and get sick.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        My disgust instinct is kind of weird. I saw some pretty awful things in war that didn’t bother me at all. But, I made the mistake of Googling “Dubai portapotties” thanks to redpillboomer (that’s right! I blame you, RPL, ya bastard!) and just about puked on my keyboard.

        Hey, RPL, if you’re reading this, I’m messing with you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “I saw some pretty awful things in war that didn’t bother me at all.”

        At one point, early in my education, I toyed with the idea of becoming a surgeon. I was pretty good with dissection in high school Biology class. But then I took a Biology course in college, and I learned that cutting open living organisms with blood squirting and things moving around made me really disgusted and nauseous. So I gave up the idea of becoming a surgeon.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Mrs. RPA is like you when it comes to fluids. She’s so bad that she actually used to have an aversion to the word “moist”. My brother picked up on this fact and would find ways to use moist in conversation. Over time she got over the aversion but her reaction to the word for a time was visibly evident and she could not help it.

        She still gets grossed out by bodily fluids and faints if she does not look away from blood quickly. Fun story from our time in FL … she nicked herself with a kitchen knife. It bled a little but was not bad enough that I could not tape it back together for her, so not a bid deal. She couldn’t look at the cut. I did that for her. Then I washed it out for her and between the feel of the water on the cut and the thought of the cut she got really pale and light headed. She ended up sitting on the kitchen floor because her legs were weak and she couldn’t walk, with her head between her knees, holding the paper bag she was breathing into with one hand while keeping the other hand above her head as I held paper towel on the cut. Fortunately, I am the complete opposite. Almost nothing bothers me, which is good because she’d have EMS at our house every time the boys had anything beyond a minor scrape both to put on the band aid and to give her oxygen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA, yeah, blood doesn’t bother me. Seeing other peoples’ reproductive fluids squirted all over each other makes me sick. I don’t get the appeal in seeing that.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        I learned that cutting open living organisms with blood squirting and things moving around made me really disgusted and nauseous

        It’s situational for me. Blood and guts didn’t bother me in combat, but I nearly passed out one of the times my wife gave birth. My knees buckled and I barely caught myself.

        Now I know where to not look.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @RPA, I would add that while I find the female body/form incredibly attractive/alluring, I don’t have the desire to look at the gynecologists view of the female reproductive organ. I would stop short of saying my reaction is disgust, but we found a picture like this going through a dead relatives things and it kinda bothered me.

        When I discussed these sorts of attitudes with my wife she said “That’s because you’re like your dad. You’re not a dog like a lot of guys are.”

        @ Oscar. Me too. How does the head fit through there?!!!!

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar,

        During the delivery of my first kid I distinctly remember the smells, sights and especially the sound of the episiotomy because I wasn’t expecting any noise from it. None of it really bothered me. It’s hard to explain other than because it’s a part of life and seems rational to me. The closest I’ve come to having a reaction was gutting a deer. The smell caught me off guard and I had to take a breath before resuming work.

        Like

  8. cameron232 says:

    This is a really thought provoking, if disturbing post, btw. Ignoring the few non-sexual things (drug use):

    Women know that men want sex and romantic/sexual “ownership” of a woman. And women are the gatekeepers of sex. It follows that most younger women have tremendous power.

    The “secrets” thing seems to be a natural strategy to protect this power and get the various things they want from men. Women want a variety of things in men (that are often in conflict in terms of the men available to them) and want/expect them at a higher value than merited.

    Like

  9. cameron232 says:

    “Very graphic, public, people standing around cheering, girlfriends snapping photos and giggling.”

    Yeah, contemporary American culture. Is this the reason the Afghan men didn’t even fight the Taliban?

    Yeah there’s a sweet spot between girls-gone-porno and burkas/beatings (this sweet spot was called “Christendom”) but if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose burkas/beatings.

    Silly cave men, slores are awesome!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “…if I had to choose between the two, I’d choose burkas/beatings.”

      Not me. I’ve been there. What we have now is far worse than Christendom, but it’s still far better than what they have over there. Don’t believe me? Go see for yourself.

      Besides, we still have pockets of Christendom from which we have a shot to rebuild post-collapse. What do Afghan Christians have?

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure – I guess the point is the men saw this choice and chose the burkas – I’m not super surprised by their choice. Doesn’t mean I’d literally want to live in Afghanistan. It’s funny because a lot of Muslims see us (I mean America) as “Christian.”

        “Hey Muhammed, look at those Christians!”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        It’s funny because a lot of Muslims see us (I mean America) as “Christian.”

        “Hey Muhammed, look at those Christians!”

        That is definitely, sadly true. They see religion as a national thing. If you convert, you’re not just an apostate, but a national traitor as well. Funny, because they have no problem working to convince people of other nations to convert to Islam.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Speaking of learning from our enemies, Raymond Ibrahim quotes Ayman al-Zawahiri.

        https://pjmedia.com/columns/raymond-ibrahim/2021/08/17/the-real-lesson-of-afghanistan-the-journey-of-jihad-marches-on-n1470276

        Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time [The Al Qaeda Reader (2007)]

        Mr. Ibrahim posits…

        Whereas Muslims take a long, patient view of history, Westerners take a very short, myopic view; whereas Muslims maintain their ways and bide their time in moments of defeat (“we may be down but—so long as we’re not out—we’re still in the game”), Westerners allot too much significance to the temporal—to specific achievements or markers in time and space.

        Mr. Ibrahim is mostly right. Muslims don’t just “take a long, patient view of history”, they take an eternal view of history. Look at what Al-Zawahiri said.

        the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time”

        That which “transcends time” is, by definition, eternal.

        Guess who else has (or should have) and eternal view of history. Christians.

        Back at Dalrock’s blog, an atheist reader claimed that Christianity is dying. My response was basically, “you’re about the millionth person make that claim. All your predecessors were wrong, and so are you.”

        Christianity is “down” in the West, but God’s Kingdom marches on regardless. Best case scenario, we, our children, and our grandchildren will rebuild Christendom after the West’s collapse. Worst case scenario, Asian and African missionaries will re-evangelize the West. Either way, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

        Liked by 2 people

      • KJ says:

        The reason Christianity is “down” in the West is because it persists in demanding that Christians believe in metaphorical concepts as literal events: virgin birth, rising from the dead, literal miracles, apparitions, etc. – things that are impossible in the material, earthly realm.

        This was fine for a simple, peasant, mostly illiterate “flock,” but now that Western people (mostly) are literate, educated and more sophisticated, they don’t believe these things as literal, and most don’t have the bulb wattage upstairs to understand the metaphorical/metaphysical concepts these stories are conveying. Add to this that the various denominations of Christianity still demand these things be literally believed, and you get people turning away because they think it’s dumb or insane.

        When we incarnate on earth, we are subject to the laws of material reality. We’re taught these laws very early on in grade school science class (or at least we used to be, before this became “racist’).

        The Biblical stories are metaphors for spiritual concepts, and should be taught as such.

        Like

      • dpmonahan says:

        First century people didn’t know that dead men don’t resurrect and virgins don’t give birth? There were no literate / educated believers before the Enlightenment?
        21st century people are far more insulated from biological realities than people who had to bury their own parents or children in the back yard, or help their female relatives give birth. This is why 21st century people are far more susceptible to Gnostic fantasies like transhumanism or transgenderism.
        This is not to say these things actually happened, but they are no more unbelievable today than when they were first preached.
        Also: is it at all possible to teach these things as metaphors without people saying “then to hell with it”? Considering the state of liberal churches I’d say no.

        Liked by 2 people

      • KJ says:

        Yes – 1st century people were far more prone to believing people can miraculously and literally rise from the dead and conceive without a sperm fertilizing an ovum.

        Uneducated, illiterate people living hard, brutal lives look for a glimmer of hope that their bleak reality can be literally transcended . And the “elders” of the Church, the inner literate, initiated sanctum, will encourage that belief in an effort to maintain power.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        KJ-

        I’ve struggled with what you are writing my entire adult life. My “ultradox” (that’s what I call them) friends and I just don’t really talk about this much because of it.

        But in my heart of hearts, when I really listen to myself, I don’t believe God suspends the laws of nature to accomplish anything. He doesn’t heal cancereous grandma. He doesn’t keep my plane in the air because I said a prayer before take off.

        My relationship to Him is transcendent, yes — the sacraments require a belief in this. But that’s why they are called “mysteries.”

        I am not sure I believe the earth was created in 6 days. I am not sure I believe there was enough water in the closed ecosystem we have to cover the entire world with water for 40 days.

        All of this makes me essentially faithless in the eyes of most of Christianity. Its a bummer.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        What you are describing viz a viz your “ultradox” friends isn’t Faith, it’s a cult.

        I believe you’re on the right track to understanding the Biblical stories as metaphors – especially when it comes to things that are impossible on the material plane of existence – such as people living 900 years, Noah putting every species of animal onto an actual ark, etc. These are metaphors, and I don’t completely understand all of them myself, but the first step is understanding that they’re metaphors for spiritual and transcendent experiences and things.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        The reason Christianity is “down” in the West is because it persists in demanding that Christians believe in metaphorical concepts as literal events: virgin birth, rising from the dead, literal miracles, apparitions, etc. – things that are impossible in the material, earthly realm.

        You got that exactly backwards. Christianity began to die in the West when Western Christians began rejecting essential Christian doctrines like the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.

        In fact, the denominations that gave up on those doctrines are dying away, while the ones that continue to cling to Biblical doctrine are actually growing, and not just in the USA.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/04/liberal-churches-are-dying-but-conservative-churches-are-thriving/

        Conservative Protestant theology, with its more literal view of the Bible, is a significant predictor of church growth while liberal theology leads to decline. The results were published this month in the peer-reviewed journal, Review of Religious Research.

        We also found that for all measures, growing church clergy members were most conservative theologically, followed by their congregants, who were themselves followed by the congregants of the declining churches and then the declining church clergy members. In other words, growing church clergy members are the most theologically conservative, while declining church clergy members are the least.

        This isn’t even a new phenomenon, or a new argument.

        The Biblical stories are metaphors for spiritual concepts, and should be taught as such.

        You just made the exact same argument that liberal Christians in the USA started making in the late 1800s, and the higher critics (who taught them) made in Germany before them. Your argument is what got us to where we are now.

        John Shelby Spong, the author of that book, is a liberal U.S. bishop in the Episcopalian Church. How’s the Episcopalian Church doing? It’s lost half its membership since the 1960s.

        So, yeah, go ahead and liberalize doctrine. Like Communism, I’m sure it’ll work this time.

        Liked by 5 people

      • KJ says:

        Believe whatever makes you feel connected to God, my friend.

        As for me, I believe it’s time to adapt to the current time. And that has nothing to do with “liberalization,” it has to do with reality.

        I never lost my faith in God, I lost my faith in the idiotic way the organized church(es) and those within them insist on insulting people’s intelligence by demanding they literally believe in things that are impossible on the Earth plane, rather than teaching them as what they really are: metaphors for spiritual concepts and experiences.

        Have a nice day.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        Having been down the crisis of faith road, I ultimately came to the conclusion that faith, by it’s very definition, includes unanswered questions. And if God and His work can be fully explained with my rational faculties, then He would be little different from the gods of Mount Olympus, and hardly worthy of worship. So I accept the Bible account as true and move on.

        My husband’s crisis with believing it all were before his conversion. He was pretty open about the fact that he wasn’t really sold on religion when we were getting acquainted. I think he would have most accurately described as a Deist at best. Once he converted, he never looked back, accepting his relative smallness in the grand scheme of things and believing the Bible without reservation. His faith is stronger and more solid than mine. Of course, I’ve found that this is usually the case with people who grew up steeped in religion versus people who were converted as adults.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        To be precise, I don’t consider my faith to be in crisis. I think of it as going through stages, along a trajectory. It will probably go through multiple iterations and refinements over time until I die.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Learn from your enemies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        “Believe whatever makes you feel connected to God, my friend.”

        If something is false, it’s not worth believing.

        “As for me, I believe it’s time to adapt to the current time. And that has nothing to do with “liberalization,” it has to do with reality.”

        You claimed that,

        “The reason Christianity is ‘down’ in the West is because it persists in demanding that Christians believe in metaphorical concepts as literal events: virgin birth, rising from the dead, literal miracles, apparitions, etc. – things that are impossible in the material, earthly realm.”

        I showed you evidence (i.e., reality) that it’s actually the “liberal” churches that believe as you do that are dying, while the churches that believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible are growing. You refuse to deal with that reality.

        “I never lost my faith in God…”

        Which God? The one that literally raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, or some other god?

        “I lost my faith in the idiotic way the organized church(es) and those within them insist on insulting people’s intelligence by demanding they literally believe in things that are impossible on the Earthly plane…”

        Which churches? The conservative churches that are growing, or the “liberal” churches that believe as you do, and are consequently dying (a fact you refuse to face)?

        “…rather than teaching them as what they really are: metaphors for spiritual concepts and experiences.”

        Says who?

        1 Corinthians 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

        “Have a nice day.”

        Thanks. You do so as well.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        My empirical experience is people don’t believe the dogma as literal, and the organized churches’ demand that they do so is what is turning people away from the organized church – at least educated, intelligent people.

        Now, whether this means they become atheists, agnostics, satanists, or something else – I don’t know. All I know is that, for me, I managed to keep my faith in God and incorporate into it the reality of the physical world – with an understanding that the Biblical stories are metaphors for spiritual concepts and experiences.

        Your “evidence” of an expanding church may be a result of mass 3rd world immigration to the USA of people who aren’t very educated and who haven’t been taught the physical sciences in a school setting, those more prone to believing, for example, that a person can be conceived and be born into a physical body on this planet without a sperm cell fertilizing an egg cell. (A virgin birth is actually possible in 2021 if the sperm and egg are joined in a lab and implanted into the uterus of a virgin woman, but that wasn’t possible 2,000 years ago.)

        But in taking this story literally, you’re missing the entire point of the story, which is God (The Holy Spirit) “impregnating” and animating matter (“Mater,” “Mother,” “Mary”) and creating the Son of God Incarnate – which is the Christ. It wasn’t a literal impregnation, we needed Joseph for that part.

        You can believe whatever you want to believe and cite whatever articles and lines of scripture you want to cite. Your strident and emphatic defense of your belief system actually shows that you’re insecure with it. If you were secure in your beliefs, you’d have just disagreed with me or found some point of common agreement and said, “Have a nice day,” rather than try to prove your right-ness with an appeal to the “authority” of a WaPo (!) article and throwing some lines of scripture at me. You’re stuck in your head. This is not faith.

        Have a nice day, as before.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        KJ-

        “What you are describing viz a viz your “ultradox” friends isn’t Faith, it’s a cult.”

        Psychologist James Fowler would have put most of them somewhere between stages 3 and 4 of his Stages of Faith Development model.

        Whereas, the final stage, stage 6 is something like “sells everything they own, moves to a 3rd world country and helps reduce their suffering until dead”.

        Most people never reach that stage, but they are very concerned about whether or not you believe in a literal flood so they can say you aren’t a real Christian.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Having been down the crisis of faith road, I ultimately came to the conclusion that faith, by it’s very definition, includes unanswered questions. And if God and His work can be fully explained with my rational faculties, then He would be little different from the gods of Mount Olympus, and hardly worthy of worship.”

        As Brad Stine would say, “I don’t WANT a God I can understand!”

        If I can fully understand God and His ways, then He is not God. If my little pea brain can grasp everything God is about and what He does and is, then whatever that “everything” is, is not God.

        And if I can get all of it, understand it all, and grasp it all, and He is not God, then I am God. If Jack can get and grasp it all, then he is God. If Elspeth can get and grasp it all, then she is God.

        I clearly am NOT God. And neither are Jack or Elspeth, or anyone else.

        So, since I can’t get it all, and I can’t grasp it all, then the Someone who can, must be God.

        Want to get even more frightening?

        If I can understand everything, and I am God, then I cannot be saved. Or if I am to be “saved”, then I have to do it myself or others must do it. I have to trust in imperfect others, or “perfect” me, to save me. But I will die someday. So I cannot save myself from death. And since I cannot see beyond my own life, there is nothing after I die. Which means everything I have done, everything I do and will do, is for nothing. It means nothing. It is nothing. It will amount to nothing.

        I am nothing. You are nothing. No one is anything. Nothing means anything. No morals. No ethics. No right or wrong. No hope. No nothing. When we die we go into oblivion and nonexistence. There’s no reason to go on. There’s no reason for me, or you, or anyone else, to take their next breath.

        The only logical response to this is to (1) kill ourselves; or (2) go on a real life The Purge and just do anything we want, to anyone else we want, in any way we want, and get all the Life Experience we can before we die. But if we do (2), that’s just a waste of time, because as I’ve established, everything is nothing, it means nothing, and will never ever be anything.

        I cannot accept that. I cannot accept that life on this little speck of dust is a one in a septillion biological accident. I cannot accept that none of this means anything. I cannot accept that there is nothing beyond right now. There is no hope. And if there is no hope, there is no reason for me to type this. There is no reason for me to hit “post comment”. There is no reason for any of you to read it or think about it.

        So I don’t have any problem taking some things on faith. Hell, I don’t have any problem believing God heals grandma’s cancer (mostly because some cancer survivors get better and the doctors stand there scratching their heads going “Welp, can’t splain it… She’s just better and dunno why”). I don’t have any problem believing there was a flood that covered the earth or that an ark carried two of every living thing or that God suspends the laws of physics or that there was a Man named Yeshua who did signs and wonders and died on a cross and came back to life and ascended into Heaven.

        Did George Washington exist? How do you know that? Did you ever see him or meet him? No? Oh, it’s because people who did know Washington and did meet him and did talk to him wrote down their eyewitness accounts about knowing, meeting, seeing, and talking to him. Do you believe what they wrote? Yes? Well, then, why do we have such a hard time believing written accounts of people who did know this Yeshua dude, who did meet Him, talk to Him, and know Him? Why won’t we accept what Saints Matthew or John the Apostle wrote? They were right there when these things happened. Or what about St Luke? He was literally the first journalist. His two Books are works of journalism. The preamble (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3) could be expanded in a reprint as:

        “There was this man named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. This was His life. Here’s how He was born This is where He lived. Joseph and Mary were His earthly parents. This is what He did. These are the things He said. These are the people He knew. This is how He died. This is what happened after He died. This is what He promised would happen, and lo and behold, THEY FREAKING HAPPENED. These are the people who Jesus lived with and taught. After He left, these are some of the things they did. Jesus said they would do all these miraculous things, even greater things than He did. And lo and behold, THEY DID.”

        “I know these things because I personally talked to the people who were there. I asked them what happened, and they told me. I asked them what this Jesus dude said, and they told me. So I wrote all this down so that there would be an accurate account of Who this Man was/is, what He did, what He said, who He knew, what He said would happen, and what did happen after He left. I did this, and wrote this, because I wanted the truth about this Man, and this is what I found out.”

        “All those who read these words, judge for yourselves their truth or falsity. Judge for yourselves their meaning or significance. If they be false or meaningless, let them be tossed into the dustbin of history, forgotten for the meaninglessness they are. But if they be true or meaningful, then read them and heed well.”

        Why the dinosaurs? Why is the earth 13 billion years old then when the bible says it should be around 7000 years old?

        I DON’T KNOW. And I don’t need to know.

        Why did my grandma make it to 96 dying of pneumonia?

        I DON’T KNOW. God had His reasons.

        Why did Mom die at 76 with the last 20 years of her life being so poor in quality? Why did he have her live through all that?

        I DON’T KNOW. God had His reasons.

        Why did I get the wife I did?

        I DON’T KNOW. God has His reasons.

        All of these things are being slowly revealed to me for His purposes in the fullness of the time and space I occupy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        “My empirical experience is people don’t believe the dogma as literal, and the organized churches’ demand that they do so is what is turning people away from the organized church – at least educated, intelligent people.”

        Again, which organized churches? You’re still refusing to deal with the reality that it’s the churches that believe as you do that have lost half their membership. How do you explain that?

        “You can believe whatever you want to believe and cite whatever articles and lines of scripture you want to cite.”

        Note how you can’t cite any empirical evidence to support your thesis that “Christianity is ‘down’ in the West is because it persists in demanding that Christians believe in metaphorical concepts as literal events: virgin birth, rising from the dead, literal miracles, apparitions, etc. – things that are impossible in the material, earthly realm.”

        Why can’t you cite any empirical evidence to support that thesis? Is it because such empirical evidence doesn’t exist?

        “Your strident and emphatic defense of your belief system actually shows that you’re insecure with it. If you were secure in your beliefs, you’d have just disagreed with me or found some point of common agreement and said, “Have a nice day,” rather than try to prove your right-ness with an appeal to the “authority” of a WaPo (!) article and throwing some lines of scripture at me. You’re stuck in your head. This is not faith.”

        Providing empirical evidence is not “an appeal to ‘authority'”, and the WaPo is hardly biased in favor of conservative Christianity. As for your assertion that “you’d have just disagreed with me or found some point of common agreement and said, Have a nice day’”, I literally disagreed with you, thanked you, and said have a nice day as well.

        So, who’s being “strident”? The guy who provides empirical evidence to support his argument, thanks the person who disagreed with him in the first place, and wished him a nice day, or they guy who can’t provide any empirical evidence to support his argument, falsely accuses the person he’s disagreeing with of appealing to authority, insecurity, and stridency, and refuses to acknowledge when he’s been thanked and wished a nice day?

        “Have a nice day, as before.”

        Thanks, as before. You do so as well, as before.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        You’re obviously a pharisee, not a man of Faith. Don’t think about it, it’ll make it worse. Just relax your busy, insecure mind, with it’s citations of scripture and appeals to authority (WaPo!), and hopefully things will dawn on you and you’ll understand.

        Have a nice day, once again.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        “Most people never reach that stage, but they are very concerned about whether or not you believe in a literal flood so they can say you aren’t a real Christian.”

        Do you believe in a literal virgin birth, and a literal resurrection?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        “You’re obviously a pharisee, not a man of Faith. Don’t think about it, it’ll make it worse. Just relax your busy, insecure mind, with it’s citations of scripture and appeals to authority (WaPo!), and hopefully things will dawn on you and you’ll understand.”

        That’s a very nice ad hominem attack you got there, but it does nothing to support your thesis.

        “Have a nice day, once again.”

        Thank you, once again. You do so as well, once again.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        I’m not making any “thesis,” and I never claimed to be.

        I’m merely pointing out that the purpose of Biblical stories that go contrary to what’s possible according to the laws of material reality on Earth is to convey spiritual concepts, not to be taken literally. That’s what I believe to be truth. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want.

        You’re trying to prove some type of “case,” as if you’re arguing in court. That’s not faith, that’s what a Pharisee does. “Here is the proof that my case is correct.”

        This is evidence that your awareness is earth-bound, not spirit-bound. You’re attempting to prove the “truth” of your earthly religion by citing earthly sources, in an attempt to “prove” that your dogma is The Truth.

        You also pinned Scott down with the question, “Do you believe in a literal virgin birth and a literal resurrection?”, and if he doesn’t answer “Yes,” you’ll tell him he’s not a “real Christian.”

        Go re-read your New Testament, focusing on Jesus’s trial before the Pharisees, You’re acting just like them.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        “I’m not making any “thesis,” and I never claimed to be.”

        That’s false. A thesis is a proposition that is maintained by argument. You made a proposition.

        “The reason Christianity is “down” in the West is because it persists in demanding that Christians believe in metaphorical concepts as literal events: virgin birth, rising from the dead, literal miracles, apparitions, etc. – things that are impossible in the material, earthly realm.”

        You then attempted to maintain that proposition by argument, but since you have zero empirical evidence to support the proposition you made, and I provided empirical evidence that contradicts the proposition you attempted to maintain by argument, you resorted to logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks.

        “I’m merely pointing out that the purpose of Biblical stories that go contrary to what’s possible according to the laws of material reality on Earth is to convey spiritual concepts, not to be taken literally. That’s what I believe to be truth. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want.”

        Thanks. That’s very gracious of you. But I’m not arguing over “the purpose of Biblical stories”. I’m arguing that your thesis about why Christianity is dying in the West is false, and I provided empirical evidence to support its falsehood. You haven’t provided any empirical evidence to support your thesis.

        “You also pinned Scott down with the question, “Do you believe in a literal virgin birth and a literal resurrection?”

        Scott and I have known each other for years, not just online, but also on the phone. He’s a big boy. He can handle himself.

        “…and if he doesn’t answer “yes,” you’ll tell him he’s not a “real Christian.”

        Oh, so you’re a prophet and a mind reader now! Sweet!

        “Go re-read your New Testament!”

        It’s not my New Testament.

        “…focusing on Jesus’s trial before the Pharisees, You’re acting just like them.”

        Okay. Let’s see what it says.

        Mark 14:56 For many people were giving false testimony against Him, and so their testimonies were not consistent.

        So, the Pharisees falsely accused Jesus, just as you falsely accused me. Pretty cool, huh?

        Have a nice day, once again.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        Well, Counsellor – if I do, indeed, have a “thesis,” you’re proving it correct with every additional novel you post.

        Not sure if it’s in the Bible, but did you ever hear the saying, “When you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole, you should stop digging?” You should heed that advice.

        Have a nice pharisaical day.

        PS: Apostolic Faith in Action: Beware of a Pharisaical Attitude (2013-03-01)

        (The only comment below the post is particularly applicable to you.)

        You may have the last word now. Ciao.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        You may have the last word now. Ciao.

        That is very gracious of you. You have yourself a swell day! Again.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Oscar-

        My answer to the question about the virgin birth may come across as sophistry, or maybe coy, but it is honest.

        I find that the longer I am a Christian, and the further away I get from seminary (I also call this “Pharisee school”) the less I find any particular persons view on matters like floods and 6 day creation stories to be useful in expanding Gods kingdom and purpose. Recall, the entire purpose of all of creation is to glorify Him.

        Its a cool story though, right? God comes down in human form, born as a helpless little vulnerable baby to humble beginnings, protected from Herod and all other dangers by his poor parents and the charity of others. He grows into a man that the world has never seen the likes of since, full of perfect character and love. He literally saves the world from darkness with his teachings. They kill Him for being so right all the time.

        Near the end of his life, the smart ass leaders around him ask him what the greatest commandment is, and he tells them about two: Love God and love your neighbor. Simple right? Easy way to glorify Him?

        If Elspeth and her family moved in to my neighborhood tomorrow (and I did NOT KNOW who they were), let me totally honest–my gut instinct would be “Oh great. Now they are moving to Montana.”

        But you know what I would think immediately after? “No dumbass, that’s not right. Have Mychael bake them some cookies, go over an introduce yourselves and help them settle in.”

        Jesus taught me that. And I am not sure it matters what I think about the mechanics of His birth.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        “And I am not sure it matters what I think about the mechanics of His birth.”

        Okay. Thanks for answering that question. What about the resurrection?

        Also, you once said that you believed that the eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Do you still believe that?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It’s a 2000 year old ritual. The church, and church tradition holds that it has certain metaphysical properties that cannot really be disproved. I am in awe of it when I receive it. I have what you might call an “obedient faith” to it in that sense. But my rational side thinks its really weird.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        Your rational side is correct. It’s not LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ, it’s a SYMBOL of it. The process of changing the bread and wine into a symbol of the “body and blood” is called transubstantiation.

        https://www.wordnik.com/words/transubstantiation

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Transubstantiation, or even “Real Presence” says that things have an essence, substance which is distinct from their material, observable, measurable properties. It’s a way of saying that there’s more to the world than just the mechanical/physical. This shouldn’t be controversial to Christians even if you reject the specific doctrine. Lutherans, Anglicans also teach real presence or something similar and I think even Calvin recognized it. Zwingli did not.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I’m not sure I am tracking “criticized” but I do think the version that protestants do is quite watered down.

        As Cameron pointed out, all symbols are not just symbols. I’ve never heard protestants describe communion in sacramental terms, and this makes sense–they don’t have sacraments. This is because they don’t believe in apostolic succession. So, no priest, no sacrament.

        The Eucharist is “spiritual food” that only a valid priest can consecrate. And its a total mystery.

        The mystery part of it is how it “becomes” the body and blood. Upon this there is great variance and disagreement. And I love it exactly like that. I don’t have to understand that part, or challenge the laws of physics to accept it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        I’m not sure I am tracking “criticized” but I do think the version that protestants do is quite watered down.

        “Watered down” is a criticism.

        What about the resurrection? Was that literal?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I think without the resurrection, the promise of eternal life gets pretty shaky.

        But here’s the thing. I am even prepared to entertain the idea that “eternal life” is not exactly what we earthly types want to believe it is. It could be an entirely different plane of existence that we achieve through this process of the temporal life.

        As I get older, my faith is mostly about values and serving others, so I am getting less and less interested in precise doctrinal adherence.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        “I think without the resurrection, the promise of eternal life gets pretty shaky.”

        Agreed.

        “But here’s the thing. I am even prepared to entertain the idea that “eternal life” is not exactly what we earthly types want to believe it is. It could be an entirely different plane of existence that we achieve through this process of the temporal life.”

        St. Paul did say that “no mind can conceive what God has prepared for those who love him”, so I’d say that’s a given.

        “As I get older, my faith is mostly about values and serving others, so I am getting less and less interested in precise doctrinal adherence.”

        Makes sense. St. James did say, “Show me your faith without works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works.”

        Here’s the problem, though. If the Apostles lied about the resurrection, what else did they lie about? How can we trust that anything they wrote is true if they lied about the an event without which St. Paul said we’re still lost in our sins?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      I also have to admit, I have a real temptation and propensity to gravitate toward cultural Christianity. The concept is described and adhered to by folks like Christopher Degroot, and even Gavin McGinnes.

      Looking out over history and trying to figure which system of relating to the supernatural/transcendent has done the most to elevate the human condition out of the slime, Christianity wins, hands down. And you don’t have to believe in a virgin birth or any other fantastic idea to acknowledge that.

      Christianity did a better job than any other faith tradition on earth of reconciling God’s infinite greatness to mans infinite smallness. Under that rubric, it was only a matter of time before it conquered the world and spread its infectious and sublime second and third order effects. And this cannot be overstated. Science, medicine, space travel, plastic eating utensils, skyscrapers, air conditioning. Walk into a room, flip a switch and the lights come on! Crap into a porceline bowl, push the lever and it disappears! Its absolutely amazing when you think about it. And none of it possible without Christian civilization, its curiosity about how the world works, and its ethic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        …and so much more to add to the above list. Jurisprudence, human rights, calculated risk taking, private property, the nuclear intact family, classical music…

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Jurisprudence…

        The entire system of western jurisprudence and English common law is based on the Mosaic Law set out in the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and the Ten Commandments, with a little from the Code of Hammurabi and some from the traditions of the Roman Empire. But most of it is derived directly from Exodus and Deuteronomy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Right, but Israel did not export these concepts to anyone. It was packaged and sold to the world by Christians.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Right, but Israel did not export these concepts to anyone. It was packaged and sold to the world by Christians.”

        Right; I’m simply pointing out their origins is all – we Christians arose from Hebrew traditions and texts. The first Christians were Jews.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Crap into a porceline bowl, push the lever and it disappears!”

        No it doesn’t because my kids have usually clogged up the toilet with too much paper or with a toy of some kind. One time I had to take the whole thing off to retrieve Harold-the-Helicopter from the bowels of the toilet. Another time it was a toy credit card.

        I can’t speak for anyone else but for me it requires the belief in the miracles concerning Jesus (birth, life, death, resurrection) to be worth believing. The early Christians who were tortured and murdered suffered for the belief that these things are literally true.

        If I thought it was just a metaphor for our edification I’d probably start a new religion. One that doesn’t include things that are inconvenient for me. Or I’d go back to my ancestors’ Celtic paganism or something.

        I know this isn’t flawless reasoning – that’s just me.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “The reason I didn’t answer you is because the purpose of your “questioning” was an attempt to prove the “rightness” and “truth” of your dogma.”

        There’s that mind reading again.

        “You do this because you actually have no spiritual belief system: your belief system is earthly and solely concerned with being in ‘control’ on the material plane.”

        More mind reading (you’re not very good at it), and telling me what I think, instead of asking me what I think.

        “This is why you’re a Pharisee, and this is why I won’t answer…”

        Maybe. But then, I’m the one who’s happy to answer questions, and you’re the one who can’t.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        It’s not that I’m not the one who “can’t” answer questions, it’s that I’m the one who “won’t” answer them (from you). There’s a difference. The context in which you’re asking questions is more akin to a cross-examination than questions asked in a neutral discussion. Since I don’t argue about how I conceive of and express my faith, I won’t answer your questions.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      @ Scott

      It’s a 2000 year old ritual. The church, and church tradition holds that it has certain metaphysical properties that cannot really be disproved. I am in awe of it when I receive it. I have what you might call an “obedient faith” to it in that sense. But my rational side thinks its really weird.

      Okay. So, what about the resurrection, again? Was that literal, or not?

      Also, if the eucharist is symbolic, and not literally the body and blood of Christ, why did you criticize Protestants for believing exactly that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Crap. I replied to the wrong post.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Oscar, Just copy and paste the comment in the right place.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        Oscar, you missed your calling by a few hundred years. You would’ve made a great Inquisitor. LOL!!!

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        KJ

        Sadly, I don’t have your powers of mind reading, and prophecy, so I actually have to ask questions to understand what another person thinks. It’s rough, but maybe you can extend me some grace.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        You are forgiven.

        Now please take down the stake, put the pile of wood back onto the carrier, and return the lighter fluid to the shelf in the garage. We can BBQ later.

        Badum-pum. I’m here all week…

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “Also, if the eucharist is symbolic, and not literally the body and blood of Christ, why did you criticize Protestants for believing exactly that?”

        In Catholic and Orthodox belief, the eucharist is a sacrament (a “holy mystery” to Orthodox). The definition of a sacrament is a symbol that effects (with an “e”). So it is a symbol that effects the grace it symbolizes. So it IS a symbol just not merely a symbol.

        Sorry for butting in Oscar.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        In Catholic and Orthodox belief, the eucharist is a sacrament (a “holy mystery” to Orthodox). The definition of a sacrament is a symbol that effects (with an “e”). So it is a symbol that effects the grace it symbolizes. So it IS a symbol just not merely a symbol.

        Sorry for butting in Oscar.

        No need to apologize.

        So, if the eucharist is symbol, then why to Protestants get criticized for saying it’s a symbol? By the way, you’re literally the first Catholic I’ve ever heard call the eucharist a symbol, and as a native Spanish speaker from a Catholic country, I’ve known a lot of Catholics. I find that kind of strange.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        I was raised Catholic. Went to Catholic school from 4-8 grade. Was an altar boy. My mother was very religious, into Catholicism. She was so into it she often went to a local monastery for the Latin mass.

        I started getting into trouble when I was around 11-12 yrs old when I would question the priest or nun in religion class about the literalness of the virgin birth, resurrection, Lazarus rising from the dead, etc. I also made a stink about Noah’s ark and all the animals. They didn’t like to be questioned and insisted that I accept the dogma and the literalness of these things.

        This is when I started to get turned off. I got Confirmation at 14 to please my mother and that was the end of that. My faith then became a personal matter and I found what made sense to me without the intercession of any churches or priestly “experts.”

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar,

        “So, if the eucharist is symbol, then why to Protestants get criticized for saying it’s a symbol?”

        I assume it’s because Protestants say it’s MERELY a symbol. Some people say “visible sign” instead of “symbol.”

        Lutherans (technically they are the ones correctly termed “Protestant”) also teach the Eucharist as a sign/symbol that confers the grace it symbolizes. The main difference is they only recognize 3 (not 7) sacraments and don’t believe in priestly faculties to dispense certain ones (e.g. Eucharist, absolution, confirmation).

        If Catholics don’t call it that, it’s probably because they fear they will sound like they’re denying the grace of the sacrament by sounding “too Protestant.” What’s important is it’s not merely a symbol.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        They didn’t like to be questioned

        You have that in common.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        I meant they didn’t like their dogma questioned.

        Kind of like you, actually.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        I assume it’s because Protestants say it’s MERELY a symbol.

        What’s the difference between a symbol and MERELY a symbol?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar. I’m not sure how else to describe it.

        Evangelicals say the eucharist is merely a symbol. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans say it is a symbol but it is a symbol that confers the grace it symbolizes.

        Evangelical: Merely a symbol. Only a symbol. A sign God gives us.
        Catholic: A symbol/visible sign but also giving grace.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        That’s about how I remember it. 40 some odd years as a protestant, “communion” was a ceremony by which we reminded ourselves of His words, His life, His sacrifice. Like a funeral.

        But the sacrament actually has substance to it that nourishes the soul, and therefore breathes life back into it when it is tired. Its why its important to go to confession first.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “I meant they didn’t like their dogma questioned.

        Kind of like you, actually.”

        I know what you meant, and my observation stands. Unlike you, I’m perfectly happy to answer questions to the best of my ability. In fact, I much prefer being questioned about what I believe than having my mind read and being told what I believe.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        The reason I didn’t answer you is because the purpose of your “questioning” was an attempt to prove the “rightness” and “truth” of your dogma.

        You do this because you actually have no spiritual belief system: your belief system is earthly and solely concerned with being in ‘control’ on the material plane. You appeal to laws and rules and citations and ‘experts’ to prove the “truth” of your alleged “religion,” and engage in Inquisition-style questioning of anyone who either expresses a different perspective, or whom you suspect might believe something different than your dogma. Your “religion” is akin to a court case in a legal proceeding; it has nothing to do with spirituality or spiritual truth, and is in fact the opposite.

        This is why you’re a pharisee, and this is why I won’t answer you.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron & Scott

        “I’m not sure how else to describe it.

        Evangelicals say the eucharist is merely a symbol. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans say it is a symbol but it is a symbol that confers the grace it symbolizes.”

        Evangelical: Merely a symbol. Only a symbol. A sign God gives us.
        Catholic: A symbol/visible sign but also giving grace.

        That’s what Protestants refer to as the “Ordinary Means of Grace”. From the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

        “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.”

        Also…

        “To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.”

        And…

        “The sacraments of the New Testament are, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.”

        That’s what I’ve been taught my whole life. And I’m not a Lutheran, or an Anglican, or a Catholic, or Orthodox.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar,

        I’m not surprised by this. I think I may have mentioned in a previous comment that Calvin taught the real presence. The two sides of the Reformation wrt this were Luther/Calvin vs. Zwingli. Most Baptists/American Evangelicals call it something like “ordinance” since they reject the real presence.

        There are secondary differences e.g. ex opere operato, and the necessity of priestly consecration.

        The Catholic teaching (no surprise!) is, for better or worse, the most elaborate. The eucharist is the body and blood, full divinity and full humanity. Effected through transubstantiation.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        All sacraments symbolize something. Baptism, giving/receiving the Holy Spirit, joining of two into one in matrimony, etc. The ceremony of the latter was symbolized by the exchange of a taken symbolizing exchange of consent even in ante-Nicene Christianity. Scott’s Church I think might use some additional symbols for matrimony. My impression is EO weddings are elaborate and beautiful.

        Luther taught marriage is a civil affair and not a sacrament.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        “The Catholic teaching (no surprise!) is, for better or worse, the most elaborated. The eucharist is the body and blood, full divinity and full humanity. Effected through transubstantiation.”

        Yeah, I had to read up on the eucharist overnight, because it’s been a long time since I attended Catholic school, and I was a little kid then, and I didn’t speak English. Definitely elaborate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ KJ

        “The reason I didn’t answer you is because the purpose of your “questioning” was an attempt to prove the “rightness” and “truth” of your dogma.”

        There’s that mind-reading again.

        “You do this because you actually have no spiritual belief system: your belief system is earthly and solely concerned with being in ‘control’ on the material plane.”

        More mind-reading (you’re not very good at it), and telling me what I think, instead of asking me what I think.

        “This is why you’re a Pharisee, and this is why I won’t answer…”

        Maybe. But then, I’m the one who’s happy to answer questions, and you’re the one who can’t.

        Like

  10. Scott says:

    Sounds like a typical college campus in ‘Murica, frat houses and coed dorms to be more specific.

    This was a bunch of late 20/early 30s single moms at a 30th birthday “girls weekend” in Vegas. At a bar, with probably 100 people present.

    Like

  11. FallingMelesse says:

    Something that might be of interest is “My Secret Garden” by Nancy Friday. She did a survey of women’s fantasies back in the 60’s, and published. It would be really interesting to see how things have changed over the last 50 years or so.

    It’s a very eye opening account of women’s fantasies. It tends to be pornographic though, it’s not a study or a research text, it is the literal fantasies that women laid out for the author and she transcribed.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Lastmod says:

    Watch “valley of The Dolls” from 1967

    Gives an interesting take on secrets, and how women, in-general-material-comfort get bored, and create a mess in their lives. The drugs didn’t help either. Then again….as a former addict, I can say with strong conviction: A gal messed up on drugs (even the prescribed stuff…zoloft and the other crazy psychotropics) is a lot scarier than a guy messed up on drugs. RIP Sharon Tate btw…murdered by the Manson Family in 1969 in LA

    1967

    Like

  13. elspeth says:

    @ Deti:

    Your philosophical/metaphysical exposition up there on faith? Yes! 100 times yes.

    Isn’t it nice to agree on something?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. lastholdout says:

    “To be precise, I don’t consider my faith to be in crisis. I think of it as going through stages, along a trajectory. It will probably go through multiple iterations and refinements over time until I die.”

    Isn’t that called Sanctification?

    Like

  15. Scott says:

    Deti (Re: men and the physical aspect of love)

    It’s taken me a long to get to this conclusion, but here’s my take on this. When a high school boy awkwardly says to his girlfriend, “If you loved me you would do it”, he is actually hitting a powerful vein of truth. Our society scolds him and tells him he is being selfish and a “typical” male and insensitive, etc., etc.

    But in fact, this is how he experiences love. He is 16 or whatever, so he is not particularly sophisticated at expressing this, and the world around him tells him he is a pervert who just wants to get his junk wet.

    It is in fact women who are more likely to experience this as nothing more than a transaction–which is ironically what men are charged with ad nauseum.

    Over the course of my life time I have been told these things, by real women whom I thought were “in love” with me:

    “I slept with you so early in the relationship because I didn’t think you were going to be around long.”
    “The reason I do [X raunchy thing so well for you] is because I am afraid you will leave if I don’t.”
    “I just needed to get laid and you were hot enough and available.”

    And many other things that are in DIRECT refutation of the narrative of “women are the diviners of true, transcendent, meaningful sex” or whatever. I realized after many, many broken hearted moments that women use sex for a great many things, and demonstrating/expressing love and devotion/connecting on a deep level is not one of them. Literally everyone has that wrong. MEN do sex for those reasons.

    There is a reason men become so talkative and vulnerable and open about what is going on inside them right afterward. Because that is the way to access their hearts. It’s not through “his stomach.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Scott:

      Excellent.

      That’s why I said men love the women depicted in the photos they saved.

      When I think back to the women who meant the most to me, they all have one thing in common: They all freely and without reservation gave their entire selves to me, no matter when I asked, or how I asked. Yes, that includes their having sex with me in whatever form or fashion I was looking for.

      Yes, those women were looking for something in return for the sex they were giving. The point here is that those women gave me everything I asked for, how I asked for it, when I asked for it. So when it came time for me to give them “something in return”, I was only too happy to give it.

      It isn’t just WHAT they gave me. It was that they gave it to me when I wanted it which indicates they cared about ME. It was that they gave it to me in the specific way I wanted it which indicates a willingness to submit and take direction. They gave it to me without a crass expectation that I’d be at the immediate ready with a return ‘payment’ which indicates they trusted me.

      A Word to Women: We want you to trust us. We want you to care about us. And we want you to cooperate with us and submit to us.

      “I slept with you so early in the relationship because I didn’t think you were going to be around long.”
      “The reason I do [X raunchy thing so well for you] is because I am afraid you will leave if I don’t.”
      “I just needed to get laid and you were hot enough and available”

      Which all indicate:

      — (Grudgingly) “OK, OK, I’ll do this thing for you, but only because I expect to get something in return.”

      “OK, I’ll do this thing for you, but the only reason I do this is because I feel like I have to, or else you will not give me what I want/need/expect.”

      This is not what men want. Men do not want sex from women who are doing so only because they believe that they have to.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        A couple of other doozies I heard:

        “Stephanie has a really bad crush on you and I’m mad at her right now.”
        “I’m sorry I thought you knew I’m trying to make my ex-boyfriend jealous.”
        (!!!)

        Liked by 1 person

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Deti, what you wrote here reminds me of the Steve Jobs/Joan Baez story about the dress. As I recall Rollo opined that Jobs was testing Baez for her actual desire for him.

        I think it’s a pretty good take on the incident.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        It’s also the reason I think the “5 love languages” book is silly.

        Men’s love language is sex

        I’ll repeat for those in the back

        Men’s love language is sex.

        Liked by 3 people

    • KJ says:

      “I realized after many, many broken hearted moments that women use sex for a great many things, and demonstrating/expressing love and devotion/connecting on a deep level is not it.”

      Scott: Sex is really the only pragmatic tool most women have in their toolbox to get what they want and/or need, and if they have other tools, they developed them because their sex appeal isn’t strong enough for them to lean on it as their default (usually a lack of physical attractiveness is the reason.)

      Once men realize this, women’s behavior won’t hurt as deeply and you can actually laugh it off and move on.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Sex is really the only pragmatic tool most women have in their toolbox to get what they want and/or need, and if they have other tools, they developed them because their sex appeal isn’t strong enough for them to lean on it as their default.”

        Well, this is kind of simplistic. Sex is the only tangible tool women can use to get what they want and/or need from men.

        Women have all other sorts of tools that developed from sex and from their physically weaker nature. Those tools include fraud, deception, manipulation, backchannel communications, mendacity, duplicity, backbiting, sh!ttalking, conniving, conspiracy, subversion, subterfuge, sabotage, “waterworks”, “Don’t hit me I’m a girl”, “Let’s you and him fight”, “If you do what I want/give me what I want, I might have sex with you” — and that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KJ says:

        And the effectiveness of all those other wonderful qualities you list are highly dependent on their sex appeal. Therefore, sex really is the only/primary tool most of them have in their toolbox.

        (And I thought it was implied that we were discussing this in relation to men.)

        It may be simplistic, but I’m like the Ramones: I strip the song down to it’s essential elements and discard the extraneous stuff.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “…sex really is the only/primary tool most [women] have in their toolbox.”

        Not really. Adding to Deti’s list…

        Bait and Switch
        The Blame Game
        Bulverizing
        Claiming entitlement and special privileges
        Feigning Innocence or Ignorance “It just happened!”
        Feminine Mystique “I changed my mind”, “Just because I felt like it.”
        Gaslighting
        Machiavellianism
        Pretending to have moral superiority
        Psychological Projection
        Pretending to be helpless or devoid of any moral agency.
        Sabojacking (destroying anything that isn’t done her way, or to her liking, and using this threat point to assume control)
        Secrecy
        The Shame Game
        Shifting Responsibility
        Withholding sex

        This list could stretch into the hundreds, as well as a list of correlating augmenters [e.g. accomplices, make up, cosmetic surgery, having two email addresses, two phone numbers, two online accounts, even two names, displacement (throwing out red herrings or changing the subject)]. Secrecy is absolutely necessary to pull it off.

        The Solipsistic Hamster (AKA Psychological Dissociation) and various other Psychological defense mechanisms must be routinely employed to keep themselves together in this state of madness.

        It is easy for men to think that women’s sexual authority is the only/primary tool most of them have, but this impression is because sex is the tool that affects men the most acutely. As Scott said, “Men’s love language is sex”, so when that outlet is shut off, it hurts and feels like hate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “Once men realize this, women’s behavior won’t hurt as deeply and you can actually laugh it off and move on.”

        That’s a fairly common position that many men around the ‘sphere take, for rational and understandable reasons.

        But if I ever get to the point where I am so psychologically well defended that I can’t have my heart broken, I don’t want to be alive anymore.

        Liked by 3 people

      • KJ says:

        My heart still breaks (a little) every time it doesn’t work out. But now that I have perspective, I file it in the “It was a life experience that I’m thankful for” department.

        Plus, I look at all my miserable married and divorced family and friends and say, “Thank you, Lord, for protecting me from those headaches.”

        Only ONE of my friends from over the years is very happily married.

        I’m happily single, and barring any unforeseen circumstances, I’ll be staying that way.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      You’re describing romantic men which is a decent fraction of men. Maybe most men. There’s a subset of men who just want to get their thingy wet. They’re not rare. The boy in high school who pumped her and dumped her next day. The boy who banged her and the next day told half the school how bad her hooha stunk or how she has saggy boobs.

      Like

  16. Lastmod says:

    I have a different take……. Men and women play these games to justify their selfish and or transactional needs for sex, validation, attention…. or whatever….. and cloak it under false humility (“It’s not you, it’s me”), and supplication (“If you loved me, you would…”), and other kinds of stuff. Men use this to justify themselves sleeping around (“I couldn’t help it” kinds of statements), and women use this to justify and guard their supposed amazing “virtue” that some guy always wrecks….

    In my case, I get the “You’re a nice / great / amazing guy but….” statements, and it hurt badly as a teen, young man, and adult. They don’t hurt now for the fact that I don’t give women the chance or opportunity to use them anymore.

    AS for fellow men…. for the most part, I find them mostly braggarts. I have never seen so many men who have dated, bedded, that very small minority of women at the upper end of the bell curve for looks; and yet……..

    As a younger man I was jealous, and now….. it doesn’t phase me. “Oh, your wife divorced you and now you are dating a 22 year old… Oh, she’s a nine and you’re about a 3….. Yeah… Okay. Whatever.”

    Their whole existence is based on sex… how much, how hot, and how amazing. You would think after a divorce at 47 and most of his assets gone, he would be a bit more concerned about other things.

    Like

  17. Scott says:

    And just remind people that this exists–

    Mine still leaves me love notes.

    https://freeimage.host/i/RlqOpj

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I park at a SAMs club and drive to work with another guy. Mine left a note on my windshield yesterday: “I love you! From your favorite wife!!” The note had little hearts written all over it.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Lastmod says:

    “Their body language says it all. Their sitting or standing as though they’re alone (i.e. hands in their lap) whereas the guy is leaning in way more than her or have their arm around her waist (but not vice versa). None of them look like they desire their “man.”

    Ah yes…… Women have to have a viscereal look, and have the hots from the moment she sees you / meets you or you are doomed to a marriage that “doesn’t honor god”.

    …and you guys think Black Pill is defeatest.

    So if a woman has the hots for you this now makes her a good wife? Test drives are okay, even if you are a christian…….. What if she had the hots for someone else before you? Is that a red flag now?

    You are setting up a ton of young men for a life of singleness; and the same time claiming you are helping them find that unicorn that is rare, but is everywhere.

    Its really too bad that many of you would judge another mans marriage by an acasual view of body language. Maybe they had a disagreement before they went out. Maybe she is sick. Maybe he trying to be supportive, and publicly demonstrating his affection.

    Look at your hero, Trump. Wife doesn’t or ‘limply’ holds his hand when he was president, turns her cheek when he gives her a smooch for a polite shot for the cameras. The look of disgust by her when she looks at him. We have well over four years of witnessing this. Use him as an example. The most “alpha” man on the planet, and his own wife fits the above description…. ….and crickets from you all……….

    SHE has the look and actions that she has little or no desire for HER man. Yet, we’re all supposed to look up to this as our hero and model of “manhood” and “keeping it real”.

    His own son, dumps his wife of five kids, moves in with a former lingerer model who once was married to Gavin Newsom, doesn’t marry her…………… and this is held up as “model manhood”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Trump was cheating on her with a porn star right? Cheating on a supermodel (and mother of your kid). I guess I’m not real shocked if there isn’t a lot of physical affection in the relationship. This might be manosphere heresy IDK – but women in general don’t want you to cheat on them. They might (and probably do) prefer FORMERLY promiscuous men, but they don’t want their man cheating with a “horse-face” porn star and it being revealed to the whole world.

      Like

  19. RichardP says:

    @Scott said: the entire purpose of all of creation is to glorify Him.

    Q: How do you know that?
    A: Because the Bible says it is so.

    Q: And you believe that just because the Bible says it?
    A: Yes.

    Q: What else does the Bible say – that we should believe it just because the Bible says it is so?
    (Rhetorical question, but do think through the implications that fall out of the answer to that question.)

    @For others who have commented upthread.

    We must have a firm understanding on who is the potter and who is the clay in all of this. The clay bends to the will of the potter. The potter does not bend to the will of the clay (other than he must keep in mind the innate nature of clay, and artifacts in the clay, etc).

    If God created this Universe and everything in it, then he can certainly do as he damn well pleases with it. That is the point behind God being the creator, and everything in the universe being the created. That is – the Universe abides by God’s rules; God is not constrained in any way by rules imposed by the Universe. That is entirely what the distinction between Creator / Created is about. The Creator can do anything he damn well pleases, regardless of our ability to understand what he is doing. (If we were allowed to be present and watch, who would understand what things looked like at the level of chromosomes and atoms when God breathed the breath of life into Adam?)

    If God created the process whereby the joining of chromosomes from sperm and egg can create a unique third being, he certainly is capable of creating that unique third being by conjuring up sperm in the same way he conjured up Adam – Joseph would be totally irrelevant to the process. God is God, and he can do whatever he wants to do, regardless of our ability to understand what he is doing. God is the Creator, and he can do whatever he wants to with the Created, regardless of our ability to understand what he is doing.

    In Acts 16:30-31, the jailer asked “what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas responded “believe on the Lord Jesus …” I understand that the Catholic and the Orthodox may have some additional requirements for salvation that I am not aware of. But if we can take Paul and Silas’ answer at face value, in the way that the common man would understand, we must believe in Jesus. Believe what? Believe that 1. he was / is the Son of God, and 2. that his shed blood is the blood that God requires for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22).

    For the moment, forget #2. Number 1 is required: believe he is the Son of God. How do we get there if Joseph is the donor of the male half of the chromosomes to Mary’s other half? I accept that we could get there, since God can do anything he wants to. But the problem is, the Bible says that God chose a different way, which did not involve Joseph contributing his sperm. an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20). God conjured up Adam out of the dust of the ground. I’m certain he could conjure up the required set of Chromosomes for the Holy Spirit to insert into Mary’s egg.

    If salvation depends – at least in part if not in whole – that we accept that Jesus was / is the Son of God, it matters greatly what we think about what the Bible says in terms of how Jesus was conceived. Not in all of the ways we can imaging that God could have done it. But in accepting how the Bible says that God did do it. Just like we accept the proposition that the purpose of all of Creation was / is to glorify God.

    Like

  20. info says:

    God sees all. And God will avenge. Women who keep secrets of this sort need to understand. They need to Fear God and keep his commandments and believe his eternal Gospel in Jesus Christ.

    With fear and trembling fear him. Or else God will undo not only them but all their descendants even leaving them bereft of any fruit of the womb.

    As sin is continued and increase so does the judgment of God exponentially get worse. When God was done with the Old Bolshevik party. It was all gone. All who wage war on God will be unmade by God:
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/sixth-proof/

    Like

  21. Scott says:

    One of the issues I have with holding litmus tests of faith (you must believe X or there is some question about your status) is the sheer numbers of people worldwide, prior to being effectively evangelized.

    For example, I looked up the population trends of China, starting in 1AD and moving forward to ~650AD when Christianity finally made it to that part of the world.

    Hundreds of thousands of humans lived and died there for centuries, having never heard of Christ, the gospel, the virgin birth, and all the rest of it. Not only did not hear of this religion, they certainly would not have even to had the chance to mull over and refine their beliefs about the literal vs metaphorical texts of “the Bible.” What happened to those souls?

    I mean Christ is “literally” the only way to be saved, right? No exceptions? Did God create millions of people who lived on earth, loved their families, completed their narratives, invented things, experienced joy, sorry, satisfaction, defeat, war, peace, success, failure, and then just went straight to hell? Sorry, NO Christ!

    That’s JUST China, for 5 centuries.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Some RadTrad Catholics don’t like this:

      “Outside the Catholic Church, those who are in invincible ignorance regarding the nature of the Church and the sacraments can still receive grace. This was an explicit teaching of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, and it has clear precedents in the teaching of 13th century scholastic theologians like Aquinas.“

      “The means instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church (her teachings and sacraments) remain the ordinary means of salvation in the world we live in. People can be saved without these means, but it is greatly to one’s advantage to receive their graces in order to be saved.”

      A person who is Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, heathen, whatever AND who is in a state of invincible ignorance, CAN live with charity in their hearts. We don’t know who is saved – your best chance is in the Catholic Church, at least according to the Catholic Church. The status of others is discussed in terms of possibilities. Certain modernists have used this to push Apocatastasis (universal salvation, temporary Hell) a belief that Origen held but usually considered a heresy by both Catholics and Orthodox.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Yes, most Christians, even protestants believe some version of this.

        It is rational, and comes across as an attempt to not look cooky, cruel or indifferent. It’s like saying “yeah, we get that the ramifications of this one doctrine are absolutely ridiculous, so here’s the way out.”

        It also creates a really big hole because the definition of invincible ignorance can be stretched subjectively to include pretty much the majority of people who ever lived in the long arc of history.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        In my mind it reflects the reality that God didn’t tell us who is saved (specifically) through His revelation to us. Not an attempt to not seem cruel.

        “It also creates a really big hole because the definition of invincible ignorance can be stretched subjectively….”

        Yes but it includes living with charity in your heart (not just invincible ignorance) and is explained in terms of possibilities. My guess is the vast majority of people who have ever lived didn’t live with charity in their heart.

        The saints opinions vary greatly. Some think almost everyone will be condemned. Others emphasize there is a possibility for everyone up to the moment of death.

        There is a theologian in your communion, David Bentley Hart, who is currently arguing for non-eternal Hell. I guess he imagines it to be like Purgatory? That would be ironic.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Orthodoxy has the exact same teaching. We do not ever say where grace “isn’t” only where it is. Commenting on the status of those outside the church is pure speculation. Its a BIG difference between RCC/Orthodox teachings and most of protestantism. There is a very strong urge to weed out the not real Christians.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Non eternal hell sounds like the ladders of divine ascent to me. A non-essential matter believed by some Orthodox Christians since the 7th century I think. Its our version of purgatory.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Scott

        The reason there is a need to weed out the “not real Christians” is the amount of false brethren claiming Christ’s name yet acting contrary to his will without repentance , spreading false preaching and actually spreading leftism rather than Christ.

        Like

    • Lastmod says:

      This is reason why my uncle won’t accept Christianity. He married a woman from Thailand. She was raised and is a cultural Buddhist. Thailand is the only nation in the world that claims the state faith is Buddhism. Though other faiths may practice there. The faith of the crown and government is Buddhism. Buddha lived about 500 years before Jesus was born, and the first Christian missions didn’t arrive until the 1600’s….. most were illiterate, few or no Bibles in Thai…….. My uncle refuses to accept a faith that would condemn millions upon millions to an eternity in hell for the fact that they didn’t know any better.

      My aunt claims the first image of Buddha was created by the Greeks. Evidently, Buddhism arrived there about two hundred years before Jesus ever lived, but it didn’t catch on. I don’t know how true or false this is.

      Krishna evidently arrived on earth about 700-1000 year before Abraham was born. Hinduism is the oldest organized / practiced religion on the planet to this day.

      And I went to a church here this past Sunday that another poster here recommended I attend. Well, the lesson was about the story of “The Samaritan woman at the the well.”

      “She was the first Christian, she was a feminist (’cause she stood up to Jesus and questioned him), and Jesus understood her sins and didn’t condemn her.”

      I was happy when it was over. This is suppooosedly a traditional bible-believing church. The pastor said, “Everything you have ever heard about this story is WRONG!”

      So there you have it……. The bible is wrong, or could be… or people only accepting what they like and rejecting what they don’t. The concepts and muddling are so over my head now…… This is why I am now convinced that most of it probably isn’t true.

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        “I was happy when it was over. This is suppoosedly a traditional bible-believing church. The pastor said, “Everything you have ever heard about this story is WRONG!”

        Given where you live, this experience shouldn’t really have been surprising. To be fair, the extreme extent of the rot might be more visible in a place like SoCal, but this is the same form of rot affecting the “church” everywhere. When churchian franchise CEOs consider it their primary duty to “modify” the Bible in order to make it more palatable to the carnal world, the sermon you heard is the inevitable end product.

        Like

      • info says:

        @lastmod

        That Pastor is definitely a false teacher. Teaching contrary to the Word of God considering the Sex Roles taught in the rest of the Word contradict his statement.

        Must be also using the feminist distorted NIV 2011:
        http://bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Scott – There is an answer to your question about those people who did not specifically hear about Jesus. John 6-36-40 clearly states that God the Father gives Jesus those who are his. There is v 40 that speaks about people believing in the Son, but we don’t see the specifics about what that belief entails. Romans 2:12-16 gives us clarification about the belief. Those that God the Father has given the Son are His regardless if they have heard the name of Jesus or not.

      Like

  22. elspeth says:

    Couple thoughts:

    I have never seen Trump as a particularly confident man. He’s shows far too much interest in what others think of him. So I agree with Jason 100%. Not to bash him. I voted for him too, but his brashness and braggadocious behavior doesn’t mean he’s confident. I have a running list in my head of men in the oval office who I thoguht exuded confidence. GW Bush, Clinton, LBJ, for instance. Trump doesn’t make my list, and neither did Obama. They both fake it a little, but the chinks in the armor always show at some point.

    @ Scott:

    Love the love note. I don’t really do that. I do however, send love songs to my husband on a fairly regular basis. It suits our relationship, and he likes that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      When one of “our” songs randomly plays on her iphone through the car stereo, she takes a picture of the title on the screen and sends it to me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Our songs” include:

        “I Cross my Heart” by George Strait
        “Groovy Kind of Love” by Phil Collins
        “Heaven” by Brian Adams
        “Remember When” by Alan Jackson

        and others…..

        Notice that it’s all male songwriters/performers. “Men are the true romantics” – Rollo

        Like

    • Scott says:

      Cameron

      Pay close attention to most modern love songs written by women. They generally come from the perspective of a woman making a list of all the things he does for her.

      Men write songs that describe how incredible she is and how lucky they are she chose to be with him!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I would actually clarify-

        “What he does for her/how he makes her feel.”

        vs

        “I can’t believe such an awesome woman like you stooped and condescended to be with a scoundrel like me.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        This is so true Scott … There is a county song called “The Good Ones” by Gabby Barrett that stands out to me and you clarified for me why this is. There is some of what he does for her or makes her feel in the lyrics, but there is a good deal about how his character is displayed in action.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        That’s generally true but I can think of more than a few songs from the 80s by female R&B artists that defy that conventional wisdom.

        Overall, I tend to prefer male vocalists, but THIS song by Whitney Houston? This is a genuine love song from a woman to a man:

        https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/whitneyhouston/ibelieveinyouandme.html

        One of my absolute favorites.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        E-

        That is classic. Exactly what I am referring to. An entire song devoted to how she feels about him with nothing about what kind of person he is.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        Scott:

        I would argue, especially in the case of the second song, that a song specifically about how weak in the knees a guy makes her is specifically what -according to the standard manosphere lore- she should be singing about. It’s interesting that it doesn’t make the cut, because my husband thinks it’s cute that I relate that song to him.

        As for the first song, it’s a declaration of commitment. I’m never leaving. I’ll never wound your pride, I don’t care if people say I’m a fool, I’m willing to take that hit (I’ve TAKEN that hit), and I’m staying with you anyway.

        My experience in marriage is that my husband is not a “words of affirmation” kind of guy., He is a “I make my wife weak in the knees kind of guy:, because it means his needs are getting met. He is a “I’m with you through thick or thin” kind of guy.

        He already knows he’s amazing and a catch and that he does all the things for me and that I’d be a fool to even THINK there’s someone better out there.

        So I submit to you that men and women SHOULD write different kinds of love songs to each other. Based on the lore in the sphere, it;s far more important that she has the crazy stupid hots for her husband than that she be able to list all his amazing qualities.

        Besides, are most women -in reality- ANYTHING like the way male songwriters wrtie about us?

        Like

      • Scott says:

        E-

        Sometimes when Mychael is mad at me, but it is a day that we have to spend together for errands or whatever, we do the walking-around-in-the-store-not-talking-to-each-other thing for a few hours.

        Then eventually, she slugs me in the arm, which is the cue for “OK, I’m over it.”

        Whenever I ask her about this she says “I just can’t stay mad at you for very long because I’m still crazy about you.”

        Its a very cute little routine we have.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Belinda Carlisle “I Get Weak” a song she wrote to me when I was in middle school.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Susanna Hoffs was waaaaaaay cuter.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        I have a cousin who recently posted a meme that says:

        “If the love doesn’t feel like 90s R&B, I don’t want it”.

        On the one hand, that was sexy music. Janet Jackson had some super sensual hits during the 90s. On the other, you need other stuff to in order to make it over the long haul.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Janet Jackson had some super sensual hits during the 1990s”

        Ummm… yeah….she did Ask me how I know 🙂

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        Take note of the the filming location where the people carrying the globes are spinning around.

        This is the ride “Spin Out” at Magic Mountain, in Santa Clarita, CA. I was one of the ride operators the day when they filmed it. I had a girlfriend at the time, so I wasn’t super interested in hitting on Belinda.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Cool Scott. That would have been 1988. Junior high for me. My first and last girlfriend wouldn’t be for a few more years.

        Dang Belinda was purdy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I worked at gold rusher/spin out from the end of 87 through the summer of 88

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I thought Debbie Gibson had better songs, but that’s just me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I was curious enough about this Scott, to take a poll of 9 women. Only 2 of the husbands reportedlyhad ever asked their wives “Why” she loved them. Only 2 ever have, and mine was not among them. My husband has never even asked me IF

        Conversely, all of the women (including me) have asked the question, “Do you love me?” And followed up the affirmative with, “Why?” My husband has never even asked me IF I love him. When I tell him I love him, and he says, “I love you, too” back, and I say, “I don’t think you understand me, I love you so much I can’t find sufficient words”, he says, “Yeah. I know.” LOL.

        In that context (with an admittedly small sample), it really does make sense that women write about how a man makes them feel, while men write about why they love a woman.

        The differences between the sexes manifest in myriad ways, and those differences are beautiful and complimentary in a healthy setting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I should add, as a funny twist, that even with all that, my husband has said in the past that without a doubt, he is certain that he loves me more than I love him.

        Which I find curious.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth,

        Some more data for your survey. We have both asked, “Do you…?” Neither of us has asked, “Why do you…?” At least from my man memory, she has only said she liked my intelligence. Where we come from, if you take Calculus you’re a genius.

        We ARE different! e.g. women get emotional jealousy vs. men get sexual jealousy. She wonders, “Does he love her?” vs. he wants to know, “Did she have sex with him?”

        This is well documented, not just Manosphere speculation. The woman probably needs emotional commitment because of provisioning/protection and mate poaching by other women. Men want to “own” a woman’s sexuality for obvious reasons.

        This may contribute to what you’re describing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        @Elspeth:

        “I say, “I don’t think you understand me, I love you so much I can’t find sufficient words…”

        Please understand that most men will never in their lifetimes hear a woman say this to them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        @ Cameron: I think all of this amplifies and verifies Scott’s initial point:

        “Exactly what I am referring to. An entire song devoted to how she feels about him with nothing about what kind of person he is.”

        He is 100% correct, but I have concluded that rather than this expressing some deficit in the way women love compared to men, it’s just what is. At least in my husband’s case, he is so solidly secure in who he is, he doesn’t need me to tell him what I think is great about him. He just wants me to passionately love and follow him without debate or apprehension. In that, it is crystal clear what I think of him.

        I, on the other hand, being female, want to know what he thinks about me as a person, what he loves about me, what he likes about me, etc. I generally don’t require much validation, but I do require some.

        So, men writing songs in which they talk about what she does for him makes sense. Women writing songs about how he makes her feel, makes sense.

        @Deti:

        “Please understand that most men will never in their lifetimes hear a woman say this to them.”

        I hear you, but I hope with everything in me that you are wrong. I cannot believe that this is true of men married for any length of time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I hear you, but I hope with everything in me that you are wrong. I cannot believe that this is true of men married for any length of time.”

        You can hope all you wish, but I assure you I am correct. I can tell you with absolutely NO fear of contradiction that most men’s wives never feel this way about them and never HAVE felt this way about them. I can also tell you that even if some of said wives do feel this way about them, they will NEVER EVER say it to their husbands.

        Most women just do not love or care about their husbands beyond what those men do for them. Even if they do love or care about their husbands the way you feel about SAM, they’ll never ever say it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think Deti is probably right.

        Trying to think of personal examples. She once wrote to me: “In a million lives, in a million worlds, I’d find you and choose you!” This was a couple of years ago.

        But I think I have an atypical marriage. My wives friends tell her our marriage is atypical.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth, This between you and Deti ….

        “I say, “I don’t think you understand me, I love you so much I can’t find sufficient words…”

        “Please understand that most men will never in their lifetimes hear a woman say this to them.”

        I love your comments. They are filled with an optimism that should be lauded because God has decided to bless SAM with a woman who can not think straight around him. Know that you are a rainbow unicorn that lives in a house with solid gold toilet seats.

        I have listened to a neighbor’s wife, who is by conservative estimates over 250 pounds, say that there should be separate countries for people who want sex and those who don’t. She has said she’d just give oral because she’d rather not be bothered to have sex with her husband (directly told in Mrs. RPA’s presence), Then you have my story of sexlessness for 5 years, with threats of using the courts to take my children from me, or threats of withholding sex again if I did not do what she wanted.

        I want to be bluntly honest with you. You are literally intoxicated in love with SAM like Song of Solomon depicts, and it is hard for you to understand just how little wives are infatuated with their husbands (which I recognize as a divine blessing in your life). While you are not clueless from an intellectual standpoint, as others can relate their experiences to you, it is hard for you to really understand what it is like to experience the person who you thought was you best friend reject you over and over to the point where you give up, or have her admit that she just says things to hurt you and get her own way, or uses your little boys as a proxy in an argument, telling them how horrible you are just to get you to do what she wants. This is what modern women are like. God bless you that you are not one of them. But pull your friggin’ head out of the sand.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @RPA:

        “Know that you are a rainbow unicorn that lives in a house with solid gold toilet seats.”

        That’s slightly offensive, 🙃.

        The flaw in your assertion is that it would mean Cameron’s wife, Scott’s wife Mychael, my friend Hearth, and Liz are ALL “rainbow unicorns who live in houses with solid gold toilet seats.”

        And that cannot be possible.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Most of the time, when observing people out in public interacting with their spouses:

        I see a husband who looks dejected, staring at his feet, wife badgering him about something really stupid, or insulting him over some totally subjective difference of opinion, or making some other disrespectful comment to him. When you see a couple holding hands (other than stupid teenagers, I mean) cooing at each other, she looking up at him like he hung the starts, its odd. That’s why I comment on it so stridently when I see it. Mychael’s thing is we will be standing in line somewhere, and all the sudden I feel teeth digging into the back of my shoulder. My head swivels back and she is staring up at me. Its so cute I can’t stand it. And I realize, most couples with four children and 14 years together are not like that, and I am grateful. If the kids are with us, its even better, because they love it.

        I don’t get the feeling that most husbands have ever heard such lovely things behind closed doors, or anywhere else for that matter.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Elspeth says:

        The other issue is the implication that an atypically happy marriage comes without hard work and sacrifice. That SAM never annoys me or that I never annoy him. That it has always been easy.

        No rainbows. No golden toilet seats. Just love and understanding what it means to be a grown up.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        The situation at the store I described makes the annoying times much easier to tolerate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth,

        I think some of the language used is intentionally hyperbolic. There’s a culture of “smack you upside the head with cold hard reality” that’s just part of being a man.

        I agree that marriages take work. A lot of men dont get to the stage of cooperative working on the marriage because the woman settled for him. I dont think it’s a “grown up” i.e. maturity issue for a lot of these men.

        We all have biases based on our experiences (me too). A lot of the men here have been screwed over and hurt. Your alphabux husband is probably your bias. I have my own.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Another point about my marriage. I actually don’t think we’ve “worked” a lot. I think it has tended to naturally click. I also don’t think either of us is notably mature. Kind of the opposite.

        My wife came from a very dysfunctional lower class background. The men in her mother’s life were very low quality. We talk about “top XX%” but there’s a relative component to hypergamy. I think I checked her hypergamy boxes the way SAM checked yours, Scott checked Mychael’s and Mike checked Liz’s. I’m not saying people have zero ability to effect the quality of the marriage but a lot of men have little opportunity to influence how their wives feel about them because a lot of women settle.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        So I would say ignore the “unicorns and gold toilets” language (I’ve used that line on you) and I think it will help you to discern what the men are saying.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Deti

        “Even if they do love or care about their husbands the way you feel about SAM, they’ll never ever say it.”

        This is what Dalrock used to refer as “being stingy with their love”. And it is a chronic problem (as in since the fall chronic) with women. It offers a real area of possible improvement that women like Elspeth can make a HUGE difference with the women around her if she chooses.

        If holy (I mean, set apart, convicted) women like Elspeth could say:

        “All things being equal. Regardless of how your husband performs on a day to day basis, he is ENTITLED to your adoration and words of encouragement. And if you do that, you will be pleasing God and mostly likely see the second order effect of a man who feels loved. Men who get talked to like that feel invincible.”

        …then marriages would improve greatly. Because this kind of love compounds exponentially as a return on investment, and (I think) women can actually get addicted to it, if they would have a little faith.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        @ Scott:

        Yes, chemistry makes up for any and all annoyances. One of the things I have told other wives is: While it’s true that the majority of your married life is spent outside of the bedroom (an argument I hear bandied about fairly often), what happens in it, how often, and the attitude you have towards it does wonders to grease the skids when things are less than stellar in other areas (and that can be as a result of things outside of either person’s control).

        Hey, Cam.

        We haven’t had to work particularly hard either. I describe our relationship sort of like dovetail carpentry. We have very different personalities, but they fit together perfectly in a way that makes the entire piece stronger. However, we have had to be willing to lay aside some pride for the sake of the greater whole. That takes maturity. I feel like I was born mature; hard childhood. SAM has enough youthful energy for us both and it often rubs off on me. Meeting him really was the start of a grand adventure. People say we make it look easy. Someone at a celebration we had recently said that the way they see me relate to SAM -and vice versa- is really beautiful, which I found very touching. We compliment each other well.

        The dude at Pushing Rubber Downhill recently wrote something along the lines of, “The bolted horse can’t put the saddle back on itself. A woman needs a man to do that.” I actually needed a man like mine, with a strong constitution and steel spine. I would have run roughshod over any other guy, rendering him miserable and looking for answers. I found the man who tempers me and challenges me to be better. I am eternally grateful to him for that and I show him. But he’s a normal guy. Our toilets aren’t golden, LOL.

        RPA says my commentary is optimistic. It is optimistic because I honestly believe that while some people have to work harder than others at things, that doesn’t mean that they can’t have a good thing. Our culture has basically accepted in every area of life you can have what you desire if you’re willing to work for it, except in marriage. How sad is that?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree but BOTH people have to work. This applies to the wife AND the husband. I know you know this. But when one partner wont work or work very hard because they settled that’s a problem. A lot of women that dont marry/partner at a pretty young age settle.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You optimistically see possibilities and I admire that. These sites are for helping men get women into their lives, deal with women in their lives AND decide IF they SHOULD bring a woman into their lives. Optimism has to be tempered with realism.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “We talk about “top XX%” but there’s a relative component to hypergamy. I think I checked her hypergamy boxes the way SAM checked yours, Scott checked Mychael’s and Mike checked Liz’s.”

        This is true. I had a very strong father (Silent generation) who married a boomer woman when I was 10. She was fairly feminist in outlook but she respected him and he led our household unapologetically. No question who was in charge. I wouldn’t do with a weak man, but I was initially drawn to my husband’s physicality and confidence. Just so happened that he is a strong-willed man of solid constitution.

        Our daughters have expressed that while they obviously need to be attracted to their husband, their takeaway from my experience with their dad is that very handsome men can come with a particular set of issues. They have however, unanimously concluded that they cannot abide a weak man. My response to that is that so long as there is some level of strength there, no matter how little, I can teach them the way to respect and build on that.

        But I do know that when your template of manhood is strong and stellar, it can be a challenge, especially in our current climate. I have seen women who had very strong dads and then married more malleable men. It’s challenging for them but the ones who really and truly are of strong faith look for ways to respect their husbands. I have seen it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth,

        The toilet seat of solid gold is a reference to one of the Austin Powers movies, so it’s not meant to be offensive. The quote is something like, “And I want a toilet seat of solid gold, but it’s not in the cards now is it?” So it’s not just me and Mrs. Apostle, it’s the vast, vast majority of our neighbors in a middle to upper middle class neighborhood. As we’ve spent time with them in social settings the wives, in both speech and body language, are less than enthusiastic about their husbands. I can also see it in the husbands in their body language, looks and sighs. It is an unspoken understanding amongst the men of what being married to a western culture wife is like. In years of time with them I have not seen a wife have doe eyes for her husband, buy I have seen an infinite number of eye rolls.

        So what you have with SAM, Liz has with her husband and Mychael has with Scott are the far outliers on the normal curve of marriages. What I have with Mrs. Apostle is far more the norm, except that her level of stubborn adherence to maintaining control and power in the relationship appears to be much more than the average woman.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The other issue is the implication that an atypically happy marriage comes without hard work and sacrifice. That SAM never annoys me or that I never annoy him. That it has always been easy.”

        “No rainbows. No golden toilet seats. Just love and understanding what it means to be a grown up.”

        No. that’s not all. It isn’t that simple. It takes much, MUCH more than that.

        It takes sexual attraction so intense and insanely hot that you can’t see straight. THAT is the difference. THAT is what Mychael has for Scott, what Liz has for Mike, and what YOU have for SAM. THAT is why it works. Not love. Not understanding. Not adulthood. Not even Godly submission.

        Sexual attraction. The fact that you want to f**k SAM so badly you can taste it. THAT, and ONLY that, is why it works as well as it does.

        No one is holding that against you. no one is mad at you because you have that and others do not. All that’s being done is pointing out the key ingredient. That ingredient is there in you, but it is so subtle and so a part of you that even you yourself can’t see it. It’s always been there; so you don’t know what it’s like for that ingredient not to be there.

        Yes, yes, of course, if a wife chooses Godly submission she’ll be OK, content, even joyful, with a husband she really doesn’t want sex with. Yes, yes, the marriage can work. Yes, yes, there can be joy. But the wife will always pine away for some vague “something” that’s missing. Something she wants but can’t have. Something she knows isn’t there but should be there. Dare I say, the “problem that has no name”.

        So, no, Elspeth, you are wrong again about this, and I think I am finally convinced that you will never ever understand why you’re wrong. It’s because this is so alien to you that you’ve never seen it and because you’ve never seen or experienced it, you can’t believe that it exists. Well, it does. I’m telling you that it does. It is far, far, FAR more common than you or others want to admit or even know.

        You and Liz will never, ever, EVER, as long as you draw breath on this little rock, understand this.

        And frankly, I am glad you won’t. Knowing what I know is hell. Seeing what I’ve seen is sheer hell. I would spare you that. Be glad you know nothing of what is being spoken here today.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Deti,

        “…… be OK, content, even joyful, with a husband she really doesn’t want sex with.”

        In general she’ll feel used for sex which will damage even her non-sexual feelings for him. Then he’ll feel used for giving up his entire life for a woman who doesn’t feel the same way about him as he does about her. This dynamic affects how she treats him and how he treats her. The whole thing goes into a downward spiral. Divorce.

        Why does this happen? Because:

        –The average man is much more viscerally attracted to the average woman than she is to him.
        –Visceral attraction matters to women even though they try to obfuscate this point by saying things like, “We choose men for other things too”
        –Their ability to emotionally connect during sex is damaged by her promiscuity/whoredom. The man is effectively punished for her whoredom.

        Women do choose men for other things, but they’re not usually happy about it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “I have a running list in my head of men in the oval office who I thought exuded confidence. GW Bush … for instance.”

      Shrub was “confident” only because he was too stupid to realize that he was in waaaaayyyy over his head (as all of the figureheads-in-chief have been). Looking at the meat puppet now warming the Oval Office chair, I think there’s a convincing argument to be made that Shrub was the Deep State’s first experimental prototype of “the congenital idiot that can be controlled like a marionette.” Biden represents production version 1.0.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Shrub was the Deep State’s first experimental prototype of “the congenital idiot that can be controlled like a marionette.” Biden represents production version 1.0.

        What does that make Heels Up Harris? Because she doesn’t strike me as particularly intelligent, either.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Scott says:

    Great

    Now everyone thinks I’m some kind of confused seeker who hasn’t read enough Bible verses.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Scott says:

    You see, for better or for worse, as an Xer, a child of the 70s and 80s, I TRULY internalized the message of tolerance and openness to others thoughts, feelings, beliefs, experiences.

    I am a lifelong, seminary trained Christian. As such I have consumed an enormous amount of literature on things like Transubstantiation, the Trinity, whatever. I am aware of the hermeneutic and grammatico-historical principles that lead Christians to all kinds of conclusions about a near infinite number of permutations on these things. I know what the Bible says, what the canons say, the homilies.

    But I always allow my inner voice to say “yeah, but everyone in the world since the beginning of time doesn’t have to see it this way. And that’s OK.”

    I feel like the Steve Zahn character in the film “The Wonders”

    The lead singer is explaining to him that “Oneders” is pronounced “Wonders” as if he is missing the point.

    And I’m like “Got it. Looks like the oh-need-ers.”

    Like

  25. Lastmod says:

    When the NIV Bible was first published in 1978 it was a big deal…..this was painstakenly done and was started in the 1940’s.

    When I do read the Bible, I read the King James for the fact the English is beautiful but it does make me “slow down” and ponder and think. In the span of the next twenty years……

    The Recovery Translatiion. The New Life Translation, The Living Translation, The Womans Translation, The Gods Girl Translation, The Urban Translation, Condensed Translation, it goes on and on….and the words have changed in context and in meaning. I was following along once in a Holiness Meeting and the translation that was being read, while I followed in my King James was really very, very different.

    So who is right? What is right? Even the King James has had its critics over the decades “that was copied from Greek…….and this subjective structure of Greek v English doesn’t work because……”

    Christians can’t even agree what words mean in what context, and yet we are told to “just believe” while at the same time the endless delinations of what Greek or Hebrew words mean….of course now too you have to study every ancient culture and have a degree in cultural anthropology to get the “true meaning” of what “god is really saying” at this point……but just read it and believe, and then you’ll be told “you’re wrong”

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      “Christians can’t even agree what words mean in what context, and yet we are told to “just believe” while at the same time the endless delineations of what Greek or Hebrew words mean.”

      This is why Muslims consider only the original Arabic text of the Qur’an to be the true recitation of Allah’s word. Any translations of the Qur’an into other languages are labeled “The Meaning of the Qur’an” (معنى القرآن), not the text itself. Thus any non-Arab Muslim who wants to study the Qur’an has to learn Arabic to do it. That works about as well as you would expect.

      Back when I was in my intermediate-level Arabic studies I bought two copies of the Qur’an, which contained both the original Arabic and English translations. I was curious to see how consistent and harmonious (or not) they were. One translation was by an Arab Islamic scholar named Yusuf Ali, the other by a British convert to Islam named Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall. To my absolute non-surprise, the two translations differed wildly at many points, and often neither really captured the meaning of the original Arabic accurately.

      My point: Christianity is by no means the only religion where there is contention or doubt over the meaning of its scriptures when translated from the original tongues.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Not that any of you probably noticed, but the Arabic phrase I embedded in the post above has its word order reversed. Must be a WordPress issue when cutting and pasting certain non-Latin alphabets.. I felt compelled to point it out, just in case.

        Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      The Septuagint. And the Byzantine Manuscripts which was the result of painstakingly correcting copyist errors are most in accord with the Dead Sea Scrolls which is dated older over the Masoretic and Alexandrian.

      I believe those Manuscripts are the most reliable

      Like

  26. Lastomod says:

    An English saying from the 1600’s:

    “Read your Bible doth day and night, but thou see black where thee sees white.”

    Like

  27. feeriker says:

    “What does that make Heels Up Harris? Because she doesn’t strike me as particularly intelligent, either.”

    She’s the same production model as SenilePedoPerv Joe, only with perhaps 2.75 additional brain cells.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Scott says:

    Totally off-topic

    LinkedIn just shared a post featuring a scolding lecture (delivered with a smile) from a person with the title “Diversity and Inclusion Thought Leader”

    If that is not the most frightening job title you have ever heard, I don’t know what is.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      LinkedIn is so woke that yhey out to change their logo color to red.

      On the bright side, someone pisted a pic today on one of the threads that showed a young lady wearing a politically provocative t-shirt that, as near as most of us could tell, had bugger-all whatsoever to do with the reason for LinkedIn’s existence. Multiple people were not pleased at the picture, or the woke drivel accompanying it and were negatively comparing LinkedIn with Instagram and Facebook. That pushback, to me, is a good sign. A small start, but a start nonetheless. Now if only such pushback started against endorsements of otherwise-unemployable women of color wearing fake job titles and spewing condescending leftist drivel. I guess we can dream…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “If that is not the most frightening job title you have ever heard, I don’t know what is.”

      It’s right up there with Political Officer in the Soviet Union.

      Like

  29. Jack says:

    Illimitable Men just published a new post for the first time in four years!
    https://illimitablemen.com/2021/08/19/vetting-women-what-to-look-for-a-guide/

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Scott says:

    Greetings from the Bitterroot Celtic Gathering and Highland Games in Hamilton Montana.

    https://ibb.co/JRS1d8C

    Like

  31. Scott says:

    Jack– I MEAN for these to embed. Never works. What is the correct code configuration for that on blog comboxes?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      You can copy and paste image files with a file name like http://…… .jpg and it will show the image.

      Right click on the image and then click “Copy image address”, and then paste it here.

      Like

  32. Elspeth says:

    I will try very hard, from here on out, to keep under wraps my doe-eyed optimism about what other marriages could be if people are willing to work for it.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Wrong again. You can’t work for sexual attraction like you have for SAM, like Mychael has for Scott, or like Liz has for Mike. It either is there, or it isn’t. You either have it, or you don’t. You cannot “work for” that.

      Your belief that you can work for and achieve that with “Just anyone” is why you still aren’t understanding this principle.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Yeeeaaaah…. I get the argument, Deti. This is why I am officially conceding that point. It sounds very defeatist and like a lot of people are screwed with no plan of attack to redeem their marriages, but if you all insist that that’s just the way it is, then OK.

        I fold.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        “Wrong again. You can’t work for sexual attraction like you have for SAM, like Mychael has for Scott, or like Liz has for Mike. It either is there, or it isn’t. You either have it, or you don’t. You cannot “work for” that.”

        Amen, man. You are 10,000% correct. Hard to understand how some people just don’t get it. It’s one of the most basic facts of our human existence. Maybe it’s just too cruel for Pollyanna-idealistic types to accept.

        Life as higher primates in the animal kingdom is cruel…

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “It sounds very defeatist and like a lot of people are screwed with no plan of attack to redeem their marriages, but if you all insist that that’s just the way it is, then OK.”

        Not every reader is middle aged and married. If he’s right, it’s useful information for unmarried young men.

        “Be sure she’s attracted to you. Be really sure.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “It sounds very defeatist and like a lot of people are screwed with no plan of attack to redeem their marriages, but if you all insist that that’s just the way it is, then OK.”

        I don’t want to sound “defeatist”. I prefer “realistic”. This is just the way it is. I wish it were not. But it is.

        It is not about “having no plan of attack” or not wanting to “redeem” their marriages. There is nothing men can do about this. Nothing. Not one damn thing. The ONLY way this changes is women’s change of heart, and women simply not marrying men they aren’t head over heels for. Men cannot do ANYTHING about this. Nothing. NOT ONE THING.

        This is all on women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        For married men whose wives did not start out infatuated with them, this site probably offers a lot of pain, and a dark future with no answers, agreed.

        Because even if those men learn “game” or whatever, and they deploy it with perfect execution, precision and efficacy–passing every sh!t test, every nag, every gaslight, they will be exhausted at the end of each day, and the “X” factor of her starry eyed infatuation with him will never be there–because it was never there to begin with. You will find yourself asking “was it worth the fight today?”

        This is a deeply troubling prospect that neither I, nor Rollo Tomassi, nor whomever can solve for those men. They must get up every day and give themselves the “pep talk” that RPA coined some posts back to stay in the marriage.

        My own marriage, as good as it looks on the outside, has had some significant challenges, and at the end of the day, it was her feelings for me that saved the day. I have no idea why, but I do know that if you are in the market for LTR style monogamy, you MUST consider that bonkers level infatuation (from her) an absolute deal breaker, or next it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “Be sure she’s attracted to you. Be really sure.”

        “…at the end of the day, it was her feelings for me that saved the day.”

        Her feelings are the “weakest link in the chain”, so to speak — a wild card that cannot be predicted nor ever fully accounted for. So her feelings for you had better have a stellar track record before you can let yourself get too comfortable with her. No matter what a man says or does, it won’t change this much.

        While it’s true that Game “works”, this is merely an emotionally engaging distraction. Once you stop or let up your Game, you’re back to square one with her natural feelings for you.

        This is something I discovered intuitively about 6-7 years ago. No body believed me. They thought I was making excuses or shifting the blame. Maybe part of that is because I couldn’t find the words to describe it very well. But this idea started to take shape for me after Scott wrote about the importance of the Meet Cute in Probabilities (2020-02-24).

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Yes. In this respect, Deti is correct with the assertion that men can’t really do much about this. Women are, in the aggregate and at the individual level in the drivers seat here.

        Men have a couple of options to help mitigate all this. But not much. They can hold out for one that is crazy about them, or sit it out.

        And if I am understanding the “attraction floor” in the way Nova and others have described it, men MAY be able to eek out a slightly cuter girl who shows the visceral IOIs than they might get in their natural, unimproved state. That’s about it

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “…at the end of the day, it was her feelings for me that saved the day.”

        Yes. for me, what saved the day was not Mrs. Deti’s feelings for me. Rather, it was…

        –her obedience to God

        –that she would rather be married than divorced, especially as a Christian woman

        –that she would rather NOT have to explain to everyone she knows, especially to her parents and her children, how and why her marriage failed

        –that she would rather not fight WW III in the courts with me

        –that she would rather have a man provide money and protection than do it herself or rely on her father to do it for her

        She stayed “for the kids” and to avoid mutually assured destruction. I know this.

        My marriage’s survival has much less to do with me or Mrs. Deti’s feelings for me, than it does with Mrs. Deti’s obedience to God, with her comfort, and with the financial security of herself and her children. And that is the honest truth.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        @Elspeth

        And, uh, yeah – a lot of people ARE screwed. It IS hopeless for a lot of people. It WILL NOT get better for a lot of people.

        For a lot of people, especially for men, there is no hope at all. They will live their entire lives like high school boys – mostly sexless, mostly loveless, with no one caring about them. Sorry, but there it is. That is our nation’s future. That is the future of a growing cohort of men. It is utterly hopeless.

        Given where I started, I got the best possible result – which was “not divorced”. I know that the only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason, I am still married, is that I have worked my fingers to the bone and just about killed myself providing, and because I have made clear to her that her ending the marriage will provoke all out war.

        If she divorces me I will create a legal bloodbath. I’ll fight tooth and nail over everything, I’ll spread of legal record every crappy thing she ever did to me, I’ll consume the entire marital estate, I’ll put us both in the poorhouse. I won’t have any choice – it’s fight to the legal death, or live in a car and eat Alpo the rest of my days. And I am not doing that.

        Women: This is what you have wrought. This is what you have done. This is the society you have created.

        Way to go, women.

        Like

  33. Scott says:

    “Men have a couple of options to help mitigate all this. But not much. They can hold out for one that is crazy about them, or sit it out.”

    And just for clarification, these are the two options that men with deep religious convictions have.

    Other men can do whatever they want. They can hire prostitutes, be players (spin plates with women they have no intention of marrying), whatever.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. thedeti says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here.

    Elspeth is (a) insanely sexually attracted to her husband.

    Mrs. deti is (b) insanely attracted to the relatively comfortable lifestyle I provide and insanely wedded to obedience to God.

    I think Elspeth sees lots and lots of (b) and presumes it is (a), because all Elspeth knows is (a).

    I think we are seeing lots and lots of (b) and hoping/praying it is (a).

    Most people don’t have (a). Elspeth, Scott, and Liz have (a).

    Scott knows he has (a) and also knows that most people will never ever have (a).

    Elspeth has (a), knows she has (a); and imagines that everyone else can have (a), when they cannot.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Even in marriage 1.0, a woman tends to drain the alpha qualities out of a man, making him less attractive to her. “Wedding cake is the best libido killer.” Why dread game works BTW. You come off as having more alpha qualities.

      Marriage 2.0 is designed to do this even more so – to make men subject to the female strategy of rotating polyandry. This is why so many marriages end around 4-6 years. (The Institute of Family studies looked at 5 years for their divorce-vs-N-count study since this is the sweet spot for female initiated divorce.) This will continue forever or until society resets. I mean hard resets.

      “At least with savages practicing Rotating Polyandry in the past, once the woman had parasitically sucked all the Alpha qualities out of a man, the discarded male was at least free from her and could go about rebuilding his resources and his life again.”

      The Masculine Principle: Love is for Suckers… Blood Suckers! (2015-03-11)

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – From the linked article the following quote comes after teasing out that men love for men is based on what they give and love to women is based on what they get “Women’s love is parasitic. Men’s love is the host.” While the author arrives at this conclusion based on biological and evolutionary principles, this sounds an awful lot like Paul’s comparison of husband and wife to Christ and the church and this makes complete sense.

        Christ’s relationship with us is entirely about a perfect, loving savior giving of Himself simply because He wants us to be with Him. His life was the cost and He paid it. We bring nothing to the table that He could not do for Himself, and we, as the church, feel love by what He has done for us. We are the eternal parasites of His goodness and fortunately for us, there is no end to that goodness.

        As men, imperfect as we are, we are created in God’s image and as such we reflect certain traits of the Almighty. One of them in relationships is often that our love “is the host” as we reflect the love Christ has for the church (bride). Once you start thinking about Christian marriage this way, the reasons for why the bible commands wives to do certain things in marriage fall into place. For example, why would Paul write that older women are to teach younger women to love their husbands? It’s because wives, in the vast majority of cases, need to be actively taught to love their husbands and children and fight against the feeling that love is what he does for me.

        Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      From above:

      “THAT is the difference. THAT is what Mychael has for Scott, what Liz has for Mike, and what YOU have for SAM.”

      Liz has sex with Mike every day at 50-ish years old. Not gossiping – she said that here. Yes, she finds him “alpha.” A very small fraction of men have this.

      When husbands do not get sex with wives or it’s conditional, begrudging, blatantly “duty” sex, etc. then the men feel rejected. I talk with men in the real world, not just in the Manosphere. That is most husbands’ lot in life. A man gives up his entire life, his freedom, pays a huge opportunity cost so that the thing that makes him feel most loved, desired, appreciated ends up making him feel rejected by the person he gives it all up for. RPA understands this.

      The anthropology of marriage is an exchange – she exchanges “ownership” of her sexuality and it’s fruits (children) for his protection, provisioning, commitment to her (and not other women) and she gets the status of a “wife.” Women need to understand this – then they are free to accept it or reject marriage to men. If they don’t like this they should marry another woman (which is legal now). Leave men alone.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “When husbands do not get sex with wives or it’s conditional, begrudging, blatantly “duty” sex, etc. then the men feel rejected. I talk with men in the real world not just in the Manosphere. That is most husbands’ lot in life. A man gives up his entire life, his freedom, pays a huge opportunity cost so that the thing that makes him feel most loved, desired, appreciated ends up making him feel rejected by the person he gives it all up for. RPA understands this.”

        Yes I do. Here is an example of just how aware of this women actually can be of what Cameron wrote, even though they will often feign ignorance. Last month, Mrs. Apostle and I had an argument that devolved into her ultimately throwing what amounts to a temper tantrum. I was blunt/harsh in my insistence on whatever point I was making, which is my fault, but her reaction was a means of bringing me to heel and she used what Cameron wrote as the weapon of choice to do this.

        At one point she said, “Well, I guess you won’t be having sex for a while then.” When I called her on this as being completely sinful and unbiblical, she told me, “I’ll have sex with you, but I’ll just lay there.” She knew where my soft spots used to be. She knows what the Bible says about marriage and sex. But she’ll still use it as a lever of power whenever she feels I’ve behaved in such a way that she can justify her behavior.

        So here is the cost. God designed sex to be binding agent that makes a husband and wife bond for life. I can, without a doubt, say that this pair bond is severed for me. Not just because of a single argument where Mrs. Apostle stepped over the line again, but due to years and years of similar behavior coupled with sexual rejection. I will be fine with or without Mrs. Apostle in my life, and that realization is actually quite calming and freeing.

        Liked by 3 people

      • KJ says:

        “At one point she said, “Well, I guess you won’t be having sex for a while then.” When I called her on this as being completely sinful and unbiblical, she told me, “I’ll have sex with you, but I’ll just lay there.”

        When a woman knows she’s your only option for sex, she knows she’s in control of you and the relationship. You can spout all the biblical verses at her that you know, lay on her all the “sinful and unbiblical” guilt trips that you can muster, but it won’t change this immutable fact. She’ll have no respect for you.

        What you should do is have sex with another woman and let her find out. This will demonstrate to her in a real, visceral way that she’s not in control of your sexual release. Perhaps it will lead to her filing for divorce (not as likely if you’re just getting your rocks off and not making an emotional commitment to another woman), but you put yourself into this weak position with your wife, so you have to accept any consequences of that mistake.

        I have a cousin who’s in a similar position. He and his wife (a Filipina) have two adult children and they no longer have sex. His wife claims “sex is for teenagers” and won’t sleep with him anymore. However, she drags him to church every Sunday. He’s tremendously frustrated by this situation and complains about it, but he goes along passively and willingly. However, she keeps a great house and takes care of things on the domestic front.

        I told him that if she wants to get it on with God but not with him anymore, he needs to go out and find another sexual outlet. She’s basically his mother at this point, and you don’t have sex with your mother. She doesn’t respect him as a man and as her husband, and the only possible way he can regain her attraction is for him to go out and get it with another woman so she sees that other women find him sexually attractive.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @RPA

        While I’m not dismissing the importance of scripture, she should also be capable of understanding this in secular language. “This (sex) is what makes a man feel loved/wanted/desired/appreciated vs. un- loved/wanted/desired/appreciated. This very thing is used as a reward (carrot) or a de facto punishment for good/bad behavior. Love is not just how you feel it’s what you do. You aren’t loving me except as a reward for good behavior.”

        I’d like to think this would make an impact but it’s all about the feeelz for many of them. Since she probably doesn’t have much faith, maybe the secular talk would have more impact. Meet her feeelz with yours. IDK.

        I’m sorry for what you are going through. I can’t imagine what it’s like for you. I admire your faith – I don’t think I’d have the strength to put up with what you do without doing something to blow the whole thing up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “…not as likely if you’re just getting your rocks off and not making an emotional commitment to another woman”

        When she thinks you are making an emotional commitment to another woman (even if you’re not – all she has to do is think you are), she will say things like “I would rather you had just f_cked her.” This presumes that she values you although her perception that you suddenly have options does increase how much she values you. Depending on how much she values you she might also decide to “f_ck your brains out”, and tell you that’s what she’s doing.

        It’s sick really – you are incentivized to be barely monogamous and cause her hurt in order for her to “love” you most.

        Really we don’t get much past high school level maturity in our modern relationships. Most people anyway.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        KJ – I appreciate your sentiment, but from my biblical beliefs having sex with woman I’m not married to is a sin. So for me, that is off the table. What is biblical would be divorce for marital infidelity. There are 2 ways she could have done this. The first is the blatantly obvious way, which is to be married to me and sleep with another man. The second is to be married to me and lock me into one biblically licit option for sex and then refuse (no medical reason involved for why not). They are opposite sides of the same marital infidelity coin.

        Same thing goes for your uncle. He shouldn’t play games. Christianity is not his problem.

        A sinful, harpy, domineering, hypocritical wife is his problem and she exposes his problem of not trusting God enough to set boundaries for her and hold her to them. If she doesn’t she’s gone. There is a biblical way to address such unrepentant sin, such as your aunts’. He loving confronts her seeking her repentance. If she does not change he lovingly confronts her again but this time with 2 witnesses from the church. If she still does not repent then he gets the leadership of the church to bring her before the whole church body to lovingly try to get her to repent of her sin. If she does not, then there are serious doubts to whether she is a believer or not and she is 100% guilty of marital infidelity and it is up to your uncle to choose to divorce her or not. From what you wrote I doubt he has hit a low enough spot in life to have the fortitude to pull this off.

        As for Mrs. Apostle, she lacks emotional control in many cases. She will say things just to hurt me as this has been a method in the past of getting 2 things from me, emotional engagement from me and power over me. One of the things that recently happened is that in conversation with other men, I was convicted that I feared the outcome and that fear kept me in a position of calculating her responses and then trying to act in such a way to avoid the responses I didn’t want. When it clicked for me, I had to face the fact that divorce may very well be a reality because I can only be responsible for changing myself. I’d much rather have the woman who was my best friend (the reason I married her) act in such a way that my marriage has the richness and depth of relationship that God intended.

        But she might not come around to what I want and at that point it is decision time. The irony of the whole situation is that it might be the fact that I had to get to the point of facing those things I fear and accept divorce as a option that changes the whole dynamic by making me the type of person she has to work to keep. We’ll see how it all shakes out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        KJ – Correction, your cousin, not your uncle is who should publicly take his wife through church discipline and then drop her if she doesn’t repent.

        Like

      • KJ says:

        I can’t fathom how any man could continue to put up with this behavior from his wife, but I wish you the best of luck. I’m not of the belief that God demands a man suffer through this type of relationship, but I accept that everyone has different beliefs and tolerance levels. Sometimes you have to just cut the cancer out, though, before it eats away at everything and destroys you in the process.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Mrs. Apostle does understand the importance of sex and the marriage is no longer clinically sexless. She still holds on to control and domineering and her $hit tests are epically immature tantrums designed to pull me back in line with whatever her hamster tells her I should be doing. For example, last week in an attempt to get a rise out of me during a disagreement she told me she had made a mistake marrying me. I simply replied “OK” and went back to what I was working on. There’s nothing you can do with the statement that won’t escalate (what she wanted) the ordeal and she’ll eventually get over it.

        There are some very kind men who have given me their time and wisdom from their own experiences to get me to this point. I’m still a work in progress, but they helped me avoid pitfalls I would have doubtlessly encountered without them. The above interaction is one of those instances.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “The second is to be married to me and lock me into one biblically licit option for sex and then refuse (no medical reason involved for why not).”

        Interesting. I am familiar with the first reason, the one Protestants usually give. I am not familiar with the 2nd as a traditional Protestant position. My perception is the 2nd reason you give is a Manosphere response to wives claiming husbands looking at porn is “fornication” that justifies divorce:

        “Oh yeah? They say us looking at porn is sexual immorality? Well two can play that game. Not having sex with your husband is sexual immorality! Divorce.”

        However, your way of describing it as “opposite sides of the same marital infidelity coin” is more thoughtful than what I typically hear and an interesting take on this.

        Obviously given my background and biases, I think there are no Biblical reasons for divorce (the contemporary definition of divorce). But I don’t want to start a Catholic vs. Protestant catfight. The 2nd reason just seemed novel to me, even for Protestants, that’s all.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Wow that’s awful man. Really sorry. Wish I could fix things for you.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        KJ – One of the interesting things about being married to Mrs. Apostle is that I have seen Romans 8:28 in my own life. Would I want to do any of this again. No. Do I see God working in my own life to bring out the masculinity that I was created to have and at the same time breaking a generational curse of Blue Pill beta-ness in my family? Absolutely. Currently, because I went through misery in marriage and couldn’t do it anymore, I am improving myself, my brother is improving himself and his sons are watching him just like mine are watching me. Over the course of 18 months my sons have internalize what they have seen to the point they openly state to people that daddy is who decides.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        The RCC/Orthodox position on divorce is so unfathomable to most people because it literally means that nothing your spouse does (behavior after the wedding) is “grounds” for divorce. Nothing.

        Left you for another man, then another man, then another man? Still your wife.

        Went on a murder spree and robbed a bank? Still your wife.

        Wakes up every morning, points at your johnson and makes fun of its size? Still your wife.

        It is a tough pill to swallow, for obvious reasons.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The RCC/Orthodox position on divorce is so unfathomable to most people because it literally means that nothing your spouse does (behavior after the wedding) is “grounds” for divorce. Nothing.”

        That sword cuts both ways.

        Cheats on you openly? Still your husband.

        Gave you chlamydia 5 times? Still your husband.

        Smacks you around, puts you in the hospital on a regular basis because you “fell down the stairs” or “hit your head on a doorknob”? Still your husband.

        Drinks and gambles and wh0res your family finances away? Still your husband.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, absolutely true. Of course, it doesn’t mean much in practical terms, for either spouse, if the other spouse doesn’t believe that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron

        “Oh yeah? They say us looking at porn is sexual immorality? Well two can play that game. Not having sex with your husband is sexual immorality! Divorce.”

        Change sexual immorality to marital unfaithfulness, which is what the sin of adultery is, and withholding sex from a spouse fits the bill because it breaks the marriage the same as adultery does. What most people miss is that when Moses was given the law it was written with how God designed marriage, not how it legally exists today. Back then, and even in Christ’s time, divorce was referenced as a husband putting away a wife not a wife putting away a husband. It is the husband as head that takes the action. (This makes sense as God has paid for HIs church, we belong to Him, and it is God who accepts or rejects us making this another way that marriage is the model of Christ and the church. Thinking through this further, the reason divorce is something God hates is that He promises to not put away those who are His. He’s good for his vow to us.)

        So when you consider that sex is what makes marriage an actual marriage instead of roommates with a legal contract. Adultery and withholding are both forms of denying a husband his rights in marriage. That is the reason that they are two sides of the same coin and is why I consider withholding on par with adultery as grounds for divorce. If you want to you can add a host of Jewish legal precedent of how the priests interpreted the Torah, but I think the above is enough to at least strongly consider the argument.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA, usually the debate I see from Protestants centers around the definition of “porneia.” Entire papers have been written on this. Also, there’s a Protestant debate as to whether this applies to men only although I think some early Protestant confessions (e.g. Westminster?) seemed to conclude it applied to both.

        I think of adultery as a crime against marriage committed by: 1. A woman against her husband. 2. A man against another man by taking his wife to bed.

        Deti has written about these definitions on this site I believe.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Your assertion is correct and stems from the concept that a woman belongs to the husband. When they marry, his headship over her actually exceeds that of her father’s headship over her because the husband has the rights a father has plus the God ordained rights to her body that the father does not have. So when a wife sleeps with another man she is stealing from her husband of what is legally his. The man who sleeps with another man’s wife does the same to her husband. This ties back to a wife withholding and she is literally stealing from her husband. Hence, abandonment is grounds for divorce.

        Liked by 2 people

  35. Elspeth says:

    Eh, Cameron. Pardon me again my ognorance. On the one hand I get it. A needy, clingy, indecisive man would be a turn off. On the other, when you say marriage is designed to “suck the alpha out of a husband”, I think that’s too broad a statement.

    My husband is exponentially more sensitive and responsive to me than he was when we married. He has, very obviously, grown in his tenderness towards me as the years have gone by. I appreciate it; immensely. I suppose the “alphaness” of his youth has been tempered. In fact, depending on your definition of it, it’s been tempered a lot.

    And yet, I don’t view him as having “gone beta”. Perhaps that is because at the end of the day, he is NOT afraid of my feelings. He is NOT afraid of my displeasure, and he can live -and sleep- just fine with my hurt feelings when he knows he’s right. Or when knows that he is well within his authority to make a decision that I may not fully appreciate. At the same time, he has no problem listening to my take on things and, armed with another perspective, considering a change of course.

    He’s a more well-balanced man than he was 29 years ago when we got together. I’m sure if Liz were here, she wold agree that her husband is a better, more balanced man at this stage of life than he was 30 years ago. That’s having the alpha “sucked out” of them? What. in. the…

    Growth and maturation hasn’t diminished our intimate life. We still have a very physical realtionship, and the fact that he is more sensitive and responsive to me doesn’t make me want him less. Which yes, proves deti’s overall point. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that the idea of marriage sucking the alpha out of a man is kind of silly. It implies he had any to suck out to begin with.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      @Elspeth – you’re not ignorant – I’m expressing ideas that you’re free to criticize – I will consider your criticisms and not just try to “win an argument” with you.

      That’s me quoting another site. Manosphere hyperbole sure but I think they have a point.

      I’d probably put it differently. Men in general have alpha and beta traits. Some men have more alpha. SAM has a lot of alpha. This is probably genetics and the socialization that comes along with having alpha genetics.

      Marriage in general makes men less “alpha” as the link describes (e.g. the man is “subdued”, etc.). For a man with an abundance of alpha like SAM that’s fine and can even be an “improvement” in the sense of pushing him more towards alphabux. I don’t hold to the caricature that all women are exactly the same in their seeking to maximize alpha traits. I fully believe women vary in the relative weight they place on these traits but visceral attraction leans pretty strong towards alpha.

      I don’t understand what you mean by your last sentence. Certainly SAM had plenty of alpha. I’m saying that most men have some degree of “alpha” traits – some more than others – and that you tend to lose some of these with marriage. It’s women that say things like “we civilize men”, “we tame men” etc.

      I hope this responds to your argument.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth doesn’t get this at all.

        The typical marriage dynamic is that the wife runs the marriage. All of society supports this. So wife’s unspoken message to husband is:

        We got married because we wanted things. I want financial support. You want sex. I am the “weaker” sex. You have to do what I want. If you want sex, you have to make me feel like it. So… you do what I want, how I want, the way I want, or I will not have sex with you. If you do things how I want or make me feel good, I might have sex with you.

        If you do anything to assert yourself or tell me that what I am doing is ‘wrong’, I will not have sex with you. I will tell our friends, our parents, and our pastor that you’re being mean to me, that you’re a bad husband, and that you’re abusive. And I will still not have sex with you.

        If it gets bad enough, I will divorce rape you, take half of everything, get a court order requiring you to keep paying me after the divorce, and you will never see your children again. And it will be months or years before you have sex again. And everyone will know that the divorce was your fault, because you weren’t nice to me, and because you’re a mean and bad man, and a terrible husband. You’ll get kicked out of the church. You’ll lose all our friends. Even your parents will side with me.

        So. What’s it gonna be, big boy?

        That, really and truly, is what most wives are subliminally telling their husbands. I know Mrs. Deti said that for a long time. The only thing that turned it around for me was

        Go right ahead, Mrs. D. Blow it all sky high. I got nothing more to lose at this point. Just know that if you do, everything stops. I’ll quit this job and go live at the county jail. I’ll take you through the bloodiest, most expensive divorce this county has ever seen. Your stay at home mom gig? Gone. 4 BR house in the burbs? Gone. Little hobby “ministry”? Gone. Private school for the kids? Gone. College for the kids? Gone. Nice dinners on the weekends and a beach vacation every year? Gone.

        Your nice van? Gone. Half of that van is mine, and the only way to get my half is to sell it. So it’s getting sold. Everything is getting sold. We will fight over EVERYTHING, down to the wastebasket in my office. There won’t be anything left to divide because it’s all going to the lawyers. I will spread of record every crappy thing you ever said or did to me, and it is a LOT. Prepare for me to swear it out and for it to sit in the court file for anyone to read forever. I will personally sign that pleading myself, under oath, because I know every word of it will be true, and I will happily testify to it all in open court. Prepare for everything you ever did to destroy this marriage to become very, very public record. Prepare for all the dirty laundry to be hung out for all to see – including our children.

        So. What’s it gonna be, big girl?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        All of society wants it this way. Everyone supports the wife’s heavy handed impositions on the husband. Everyone, including the church, thinks this is “just right”, “just as it ought to be”. Absolutely no one supports anything any husband wants from his marriage. No one thinks that a wife has any obligations to her husband. No one thinks a husband is entitled to anything from his marriage; and he certainly is not entitled to sex.

        So if a man asserts himself as I’ve listed up there, and the wife doesn’t go along with it, he’s going it alone. And he will probably have all of society come down on him like a ton of bricks. He’ll probably get kicked out of his church and his family will disown him.

        I was prepared to do that 10 years ago. Still am, if I have to. Because I’m never, ever going back to the way it was. If that means I have to live the rest of my life as a divorced man on 40% of what I earn now, so be it. I am not ever going to live that way ever again. From here on out we are doing things my way, or we’re not doing them. We are doing things my way and anyone else with me gets on my program, or they can be not with me anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Perhaps that is because at the end of the day, he is NOT afraid of my feelings. He is NOT afraid of my displeasure, and he can live -and sleep- just fine with my hurt feelings when he knows he’s right.”

      That’s only part of it.

      The main part of it is that he has ALWAYS been like that – not afraid of your displeasure and not afraid of shutting you down when that needs to be done. Your relationship has been like this from day one – “Elspeth’s feelings do NOT run this relationship, they don’t run me, and they don’t even run Elspeth if I don’t want them to. E needs to keep her sh!t in check or there’s the door.”

      From day one, it has always been clear to you that you are NOT in charge, and that you had best keep your feelings at bay, or there will be hell to pay, or you will not be SAM’s wife anymore.

      “I’m arguing that the idea of marriage sucking the alpha out of a man is kind of silly. It implies he had any to suck out to begin with”.

      Please. SAM is pure bull alpha. The idea that he had none to begin with is ludicrous. Men get the alpha sucked out of them in marriages ALL THE TIME.

      Here’s what happens with most marriages: Man asserts himself, then becomes less assertive as marriage goes on. One time he asserts himself, wife says, “Oh no you don’t!” and then starts withholding sex. Man has choice.

      –man relents – she’s in charge from then on.

      –man asserts himself – she digs in her heels and divorce rapes him. He pays alimony and child support. He lives in car and eats dog food and pays her over 50% his gross wages. She lives off his money, has sex with a string of men in the bed and house he continues paying for.

      Wrong again, E.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        True story. Once when my grandmother asked my grandfather what he wanted for dinner he sarcastically replied “Just give me dog food.” She opened a can of Alpo and placed it on a china plate garnished with a little sprig of parsley.

        Yes, they divorced.

        “The main part of it is that he has ALWAYS been like that – not afraid of your displeasure and not afraid of shutting you down when that needs to be done. Your relationship has been like this from day one…”

        The Manosphere way of analyzing things would be to say that he had an abundance mentality because he had (and took advantage of) plenty of options before they married. Not as many “options” as his brothers I know.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Elspeth,

      His alpha-ness combined with your relative submissiveness (and, yes, Godliness) is the reason he isn’t afraid. You don’t threaten to withhold sex, divorce, etc.

      You admit he was more alpha in his youth. He has plenty of alpha – some can be sucked out and he’s still good.

      And, yes, your submission and Godliness.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        “His alphaness combined with your relative submissiveness (and, yes, Godliness) is the reason he isn’t afraid. You don’t threaten to withhold sex, divorce, etc.”

        This is REALLY important. Men aren’t afraid of their wives emotions. They are afraid of what they do when they are upset, because it ruins lives. They have been given that power, with no restrictions.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Right.

        Men aren’t afraid of women’s negative emotions. They’re afraid of what happens when women use the State to weaponize and empower their emotions. It’s not the emotions. It’s that they sic the State on their men when they’re upset.

        They call the cops on their men. They divorce rape their men. They jam those men up in court with petty criminal stuff and family court. They ruin their men and their children.

        Thanks, James Dobson. Thanks, Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine. Thanks, thrice married/twice divorced Steve Arterburn. Thanks, Focus on the Family. Thanks, “family ministries”. Thanks, Bob and Audrey Meisner.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        To say that I am uncomfortable with the idea of any godliness on my part is an understatement to a degree which I can hardly express with any level of articulation.

        SAM might say that I can be a handful, but yeah. I am submissive to him in everything. Well, he would rather I not drink Coke Zero, but I do it about once a week anyway. He knows I do it though, and he’s never “forbid it”, LOL. But seriously, he takes such excellent care of me that I genuinely feel that the least I can do is trust his heart towards me and towards our family enough to follow his lead. The intimacy isn’t any sacrifice on my part.

        I’m just not sure any of this is attributed to godliness in me. Yes, I believe what Scripture teaches, and yes I try to live up to it. But since I was submitting to him when our entire relationship was akin to wallowing in sin the way a pig wallows in mud, I can only pray that God accounts my wifely tenure to me as righteousness.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        re: godliness

        The preacher at my church growing up once told us what he says any time he does something good. Like for example, he might stop for a stranded motorist, give them a hand, or a lift, or whatever. If the person thanks them, or compliments them in any way, he says something like:

        “Hey, listen. I get how grateful you are but just so you know, I didn’t stop because I am such an awesome person. I stopped because I know this guy named Jesus who lives in my heart and makes it so I can’t do anything BUT stop in situations like this. I won’t preach to you if you don’t want, but I can tell you all about Him if you would like.”

        I always thought that was a good way to approach it that is sincere, and doesn’t make you sound like a Bible thumper. And its true. There is nothing inherently good about any of us really.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok. Relevant to the discussion, the fact that you even affirm that you’re to obey your husband makes you unusual in a good way. You can call that whatever you want – people use phrases like “a godly wife.” If that’s giving the good wife too much credit you can call it whatever. I guess “good wife” is ok

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        We’re good in the sense that God doesn’t create evil but bad in the sense that we become deformed by original sin. That we can live a life pleasing to God absent grace through our will is Pelagianism -condemned by the Church.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Cam:

        I can accept the “good wife” label. I do believe that I am a very good wife. I may be a “godly wife”, but he’d have to make that declaration.. I’ve never been comfortable with ascribing holiness or virtuous labels to myself. I know me too well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I just had one last thought, a religious one. Any good protestant (much less one who attends a reformed church such as the one we attend), tends toward the confession made by faith that we are “the righteiousness of God in Christ. I do believe that, but the heavy enphasis in on the “in Christ” part.

        Because I have not forgotten that my initial motivation of submission to SAM was at it strongest (and far more passionate, with no apprehension or hesitation) was when I was in a sinful and rebellious state, I refuse ascribe holiness to my actions.

        But there are certainly times when I have to remind myself, “No, he doesn’t like that”, or “No, you should check with him before you do this”. I credit God, through the Holy Spirit for arresting me when I am tempted to go rogue, no matter how small the temptation.

        Alrighty. Y;all have a good night.

        Liked by 1 person

  36. Lastmod says:

    Thank this guy…….I watch some his live stuff….every comment by men stating “Women need to…” and “women must do…….” and “I never put up with such and such, I just tell her…..”

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      That’s all well and good Jason… until you’re married to said woman.

      I very much get to tell my wife how to behave. I very much get to tell my wife what she must do and what she needs to do.

      I very much get to do this because if she makes a trainwreck of her life, she makes a trainwreck of my life. And she is by God NOT going to make a trainwreck of MY life. So, no, I am not going to stand by and let Mrs. Deti do and say anything she wants, because if she f__ks if up for herself, she f__ks it up for me, and I’m not going to allow that.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. feeriker says:

    sounds exhausting….all just for some sex

    Ultimately it’s not even about sex. It’s about psychological and economic survival. And yes, it’s exhausting, and will continue to be so unless/until hard patriarchy (or uxicide) makes a comeback.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      Disagree…..if “hard patriarchy” comes back….you would still be working 23 out 24 hours a day to make sure its enforced or followed…and in red pill tradition, by examples I have seen……

      all time would be spent putting down most men who did not do what Rollo said or this blogger or this writer……and their own daughters would be given a pass….the “i am more patriarchial than you” and “Me Claudius” stances that would dissuade most men from even trying

      Like

  38. Pingback: She don’t need no man! Except… | Σ Frame

  39. Pingback: 50 Female Evasion and Control Tactics | Σ Frame

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