How Feminism Erodes Marriage

An incredible sales pitch on a defective product.

Readership: Christians
Theme: Agency
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Introduction

Anyone who has been reading the Christian Manosphere for any length of time will have come to the conclusion that Feminism erodes marriage. But I’m not sure if anyone has explained exactly why this is. Feminism hits men and women in their respective weaknesses by promising what both sexes desire, while offering what seems to be an evasion of the costs and responsibilities thereof. This has the effect of cheapening marriage by making the inherent benefits of marriage a free-for-all (or that is the sales pitch, anyway).

Here, I’ll gloss over many of the dynamics that are already well known by regular readers in order to get to the point.

Pre-wedding feminism incentives that erode marriage

Loosening female sexual morality offers incentives to both men and women before marriage.

The incentive to men is that they will get more sex, and more easily. This is not the reality for most men but that is the sales pitch and it was/is powerful.  The small percentage of men who do get sex regularly have little to no incentive to change the current situation, and the vast majority of men who get little to no sex in the current arrangement end up demoralized.  Without being “man up! – ish” there is an incentive for those men who do not have regular access to the SMP to live lives of self-satisfaction (pun most certainly intended), which often means reduced productivity, further erosion of attractive qualities and a reinforced cycle of singleness.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone;”

Genesis 2:18 (NKJV)
A lonely young man dreams of finding love.

The incentive to women is that it allows them to fully explore their hypergamous instincts. The upside is that most women can have a top quality man! Sex is assumed, and the motivation is Tingles galore. The downside is the fact that most women will not actually pair up with a top SMV man in marriage. The reality is that, without first having a marital commitment in place, they will have a long series of pump-n-dumps, and ride the carousel until they hit the wall. Women are blindsided by this fact because (1) they are unaware of the short supply of HSMV men, (2) they are pumped up on precious princess entitlements, and (3) they don’t understand men.

There is also a prioritization of female career achievement over family achievement which (1) offsets material dependence on men, and (2) makes the men just described seem even less worthy of marriage to these women. This overall shift in focus causes women to underprioritize marriage and family precisely at the time when their prospects for marriage are at an all-lifetime high.

Post-wedding feminism incentives that erode marriage

Prioritization of female career achievement over family achievement incentivizes a more egalitarian marriage structure which brings up Proverbs 14:1 and 21:9.  Fates often awaiting men if they do marry a carousel rider is that their marriage ends in divorce rape, potential alienation from his children due to “family” court, or remains intact but has the characteristics of how Deti describes being married to a girl who settled for you.  Each of these options erodes the sanctity of marriage as men seek to avoid the pain associated with marriage. (This sentence is so d@mning to our society.)

A married alpha widow dreams of past lovers and is disinterested in the man she settled for.

As you can see, Feminism breaks down marriage on both sides of the wedding ceremony.  On the dating side it incentivizes men with the benefits of marriage without any of the responsibilities of headship.  It’s an easy marketing pitch to men because they avoid all the hardest work which happens with headship, while getting the fruit (sex) at a way reduced rate. On the marriage side of the wedding ceremony it gives women all the power they need to resist biblical marriage authority and extract resources and protection without any of their cost (submission). So feminism incentivizes men to erode marriage prior to the wedding and women to erode marriage after the wedding. Wildly effective.

Parallels

Comparing feminism to Eve and the serpent we have great parallels.  The serpent told Eve that God’s commands were not for her benefit but to keep her down and feminism tells women that God’s marriage order of authority is not for her benefit and to keep her down.  The conclusion the serpent draws or implies is that God is a bad authority much like feminism says that men are a bad authority.  Eve goes to Adam, tells him to eat and he abandons headship and sins through his supplication to her and the world falls into sin and death. Men listen to feminists and buy the Happy wife, happy life mantra and supplicate to them and we are witnessing the deterioration of western society.

Here is where I think it gets interesting.  We are obviously not perfect like Adam was at the time and the enticements of feminism, not the actual outcomes, are actually attractive to a sizeable number of men.  Men, like lastmod, openly complain about the current situation and the lack of women, but there appear to be just as many who are enticed by the message of marital benefits without any of the costs.  Those costs are the weight of headship.  They outweigh Gregoire’s “mental load” of running the family, because that is the way God designed it, but if strong, independent women want to take some of that load off men’s shoulders (versus supporting men as they carry it) and still give men the benefits of marriage, well, for most men, that seems like it’s too good to be true.  Which it turns out is exactly the case…

But that sales pitch …… !!!

To tie this to feminism, we should think about what it costs a man to live in a biblical headship role compared to what it costs him in a feminist marriage (I know, it’s an oxymoron) which is essentially a tentative liaison within serial monogamy. As the saying goes, “She’s not really his, it’s just his turn”, and here, the husband gets a long, formal “turn” with bells, and whistles, followed by a hefty soul-crushing price tag.

In economic terms, this is why a free market (a freely submissive wife) always beats a communist system (a husband asserting headship against non-compliant opposition).  To be fair, in a truly free market, everyone is out for themselves, but outside of rare circumstances, the interactions are not one-move games.  So the strategy to make the most money for yourself is to actually do what is in the best interest of the customer, even to your own minor short-term deficit, because you’ll make more serving them long term than fleecing them once.  This incentivizes self-regulation and organizes economic systems very efficiently compared to other options.  Communism’s top-down structure that demands people work against their self-interest and this design in the system requires heavy compliance enforcement costs in order to implement it.

Conclusions

My conclusion from this line of thought is that feminism is going to either become the dominant cultural force or remain the dominant cultural force in any modern society (viz. one in which people enjoy an easy life relative to history) until the incentives change.

This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Education, Elite Cultural Influences, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Identity, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Persuasion, Philosophy, Polysexuality, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to How Feminism Erodes Marriage

  1. feeriker says:

    “My conclusion from this line of thought is that feminism is going to either become the dominant cultural force or remain the dominant cultural force in any modern society (viz. one in which people enjoy an easy life relative to history) until the incentives change.”

    And from a Christian perspective Complimentarianism, if not egalitarianism, will remain the dominant marriage model (at least in the Western world) until those who dare call themselves “leaders” of the flock wake up, grow backbones, open up their Bibles and start actually reading the Word, and throw down a gauntlet in which they issue an ultimatum to either choose between the Word or the World. Needless to say, this is not likely to happen within the current corporate church model (i.e., Churchianity, Inc.). Any changes will be at the margins within the underground (i.e., true) church, where more than likely it’s already the norm anyway.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Needless to say, this is not likely to happen within the current corporate church model (i.e., Churchianity, Inc.).”

      Built into my conclusion is that most churches these days follow the whims of their female congregants. I also have seen church leaders, who in my opinion honestly desire to adhere to the Bible, miss the mark. In my limited data set, I think it’s a combination of their views being shaded by feminist culture and their wives not being subject to female extremes that have been the impetus for most of us married men that found the RP.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “[Church leaders missing the mark] …it’s a combination of their views being shaded by feminist culture and their wives not being subject to female extremes that have been the impetus for most of us married men that found the RP.”

        This is a noteworthy point. Churchian proponents of feminism enjoy some of the “benefits” of feminism (such as sexual promiscuity in their youth), but never really face the bitter consequences for those “benefits” that come later in life (such as having to battle it out with a contentious, alpha-widowed shrew). As a result, they never wake up to the lies implicit to their beliefs. I think part of this is because of Churchian culture, and part because ADIEU.

        Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Pray that God does a thorough purging of the Church and purification. As God hated the teachings of the Nicolatians so we should pray for God to act.

      Like

  2. thedeti says:

    “The incentive to men is that they will get more sex, and more easily. This is not the reality for most men but that is the sales pitch and it was/is powerful.”

    The first section overstates the premarital incentives to men that erode marriage. The current state of the SMP is ENTIRELY the doing of most women and the top 10% to 15% of men. Most men are not doing anything to erode marriage, other than just being who they are, which is “not top 10%”. And that’s not their fault.

    This section says the premarital incentive to men to erode marriage is easy access to premarital sex. Except that most men aren’t getting anything like the sex they want, either in marriage or outside of it. Empty promises aren’t incentives — they’re sources of frustration and anger. An incentive that has at best a hollow promise of illusory benefits is no incentive at all.

    I really think MGTOW is going to have to be the way to go. Men just need to stop dealing with women altogether until women come to the table and give everything up. Since I don’t see that happening in our lifetimes, I suggest men just continue to pressure the system and refuse everything that does not benefit them. No marriage. No time, no attention, no labor, no money, no resources. Men, don’t give women anything until they come to their senses and lay it all at your feet.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      To add to this:

      The OASIS doesn’t give men easy access to premarital sex. Men have to pay to gain admission to the OASIS. Top 10% men get free sexual access. They go to the H0 Store and just borrow the women they want, for free. No money down, no deposit required. All it costs them is a drink or three. That’s chump change that any man can afford. Might as well be free.

      All other men must pay to use the OASIS. They have to pay for OnlyFans or premium p0rn. They have to pay hookers or sugar babies. They have to go all in with commitment to a girlfriend. If they want premarital sex from a girlfriend, bottom 90% men must go all in immediately and give her exclusive access to everything – all of his time, money, attention, labor, and resources. And even then, all he gets is no BJ starfish.

      This doesn’t sound like an incentive to me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It has to be easy access to more premarital sex for it to be an incentive. The vast majority of men aren’t getting “more” sex, and it sure as hell ain’t easy — not when they have to work their asses off for it and pay for it. What they get in return for all that work and cash is lukewarm, damaged, and spoiled.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – The promise of pu$$y is just like the promise of gold during the various gold rushes in history. Men thought they’d strike it rich and flocked to an area to find gold, only to find out that only a few men actually got rich. Some prospectors scraped by and others went bust. The dream being sold of wealth by finding gold, just like the dream of abundant pu$$y that has been sold, is enough. The substance does not have to be there for all comers, just a few. Eventually, the truth gets out and men change their behavior. I think we are in the truth-getting-out part of the cycle currently, and we are seeing men begin to change their behavior.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scavos says:

        “What they get in return for all that work and cash is lukewarm, damaged, and spoiled.”

        This reminds me of the single moms that some men and women in the churches try to vouch for. My favorite is when they give the “she’s a catch” sales pitch to the single men.

        My SOP response is, “Explain to me how a past-her-prime, ball-busting, career chick, who’s also a single mom, and still takes pictures of herself at the nightclub, makes her a catch. No disrespect. Explain to me how she’s a catch.”

        (My NY upbringing tends to clash out here in the Midwest.)

        Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Deti — I’m not saying that men erode marriage. I’m saying that feminism erodes marriage by the incentives it has created. It sold these incentives to all men, hence the good sales pitch, when the reality is that only a smaller portion of men actually get benefits. It also does not matter if the benefits are as good as promised or not. If over promise and under deliver sells, then it sells. How long this will sell for is a separate question.

      The current state of affairs will eventually end because it’s bad for both men and women, and the pendulum will swing back towards the biblical marriage direction. It has lasted as long as it has because it takes women longer to feel the downside of their life choices.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “How long this will sell for is a separate question.”

        Probably until there’s some sort of system-wide failure. Great Depression II? Civil War II? MGTOW Apocalypse? Who knows?

        There are a lot of fair criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but he gets some things right. For example, his explanation of why women weren’t oppressed in the past.

        The way he explains it, all people were oppressed in the past by nature itself. Men, and women, teamed up to deal with that oppression as best they could, performing the tasks to which they were best suited by nature. That makes a lot of sense to me.

        For example:

        “I did not notice that American women considered conjugal authority as a happy usurpation of their rights, or that they believed that it was degrading to submit to it. I seemed to see, on the contrary, that they took a kind of glory in the voluntary surrender of their will, and that they located their grandeur in bending to the yoke themselves and not in escaping it.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        I can’t imagine anyone saying that about American women today. But, then, life was harsh in 1700s — early 1800s America, especially on the frontiers, which de Tocqueville did visit, so a woman in those days was probably much more likely to be grateful to have a husband to shield her from some of that harshness.

        My wife recently discovered Major Dad on some streaming service. It’s a sitcom from the 1990s where a Marine Corps Major marries a single mom with three girls, the oldest a teenager. My wife’s been watching it while she breastfeeds.

        I was in the room, not really paying attention to an episode when the wife in the episode angrily said something like, “Sometimes I wonder just what kind of man I married!”, and storms off the set.

        I said, “You’d think a past-her-prime single mom of three would be more grateful to have a husband who’s a Major in the Marine Corps. What a bitch.”

        My wife said, “Yeah, she’s kind of bitchy”, and hasn’t watched the show since.

        I suspect that kind of thing was less common back when women had to worry about — things like starvation, hungry bears, and rapey natives.

        Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @Oscar, I was thinking the other day that when the housing market crashes and the stock market crashes, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will deafen us all.

        You bring up a great point, until recently, the environment oppressed us all, AND enforced an external discipline on us all.

        You don’t feel like farming today? That’s fine, you can starve come wintertime. You don’t feel like chopping firewood today? That’s fine, you can freeze come wintertime. You don’t want to eat cabbage and corn? That’s fine, you can starve to death.

        Now, calories are cheap, so it takes self-discipline to not be a glutton. Life is easy, so it takes self-discipline to not be lazy. You can cruise through life if you want, so it takes self-discipline to be successful.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        It’s been a while since I read Democracy in America, but this quote came to mind.

        “As for me, I shall not hesitate to say it: although in the United States the woman scarcely leaves the domestic circle and is in certain respects very dependent within it, nowhere does her position seem higher to me; and now that I approach the end of this book where I have shown so many considerable things done by Americans, if one asked me to what do I think one must principally attribute the singular prosperity and growing force of this people, I would answer that it is to the superiority of its women.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

        Can anyone imagine anyone saying that of American women today?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Democracy in America was written in 1835, which was long before the women’s suffrage movement (about 50 years). (I believe the hardships following the Civil War contributed to this.) Tocqueville believed that equality was the great political and social idea of his era, and he thought that the United States offered the most advanced example of equality in action. Seems like equality was a very appealing ideology back in that day and age. Little did they know what it would grow to become 200 years later.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I suspect that kind of thing was less common back when women had to worry about things like starvation, hungry bears, and rapey natives.”

        And, women understood: You’ll have at least 4 children. If you live through all of those births, you will likely bury at least one of your children.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “And, women understood: You’ll have at least 4 children. If you live through all of those births, you will likely bury at least one of your children.”

        That had to have been the worst part.

        Like

      • info says:

        Child mortality was so bad. That women can have 11 children and have only 1 survive back in the day.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “Empty promises aren’t incentives — they’re sources of frustration and anger. An incentive that has at best a hollow promise of illusory benefits is no incentive at all.”

      The empty promises are not incentives in themselves, they are lies. But if men and women believe the lies, then natural desire is the incentive for them to follow through. Only later do they realize it was a lie and that’s when the frustration and anger kick in.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Femmy says:

    I think single women ARE changing, but only after the WALL.

    They see that feminism did not work, and when THEY want babies, no one wants them anymore.

    There are plenty of single women in their early 30s who want a husband.

    Why don’t guys go for them?

    And they go to church…

    Perhaps they are not attractive enough?

    How did unattractive women get married in young America? By the way… when I look at old photos, they weren’t “sexy”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “I think single women ARE changing, but only after the WALL. They see that feminism did not work and when THEY want babies, no one wants them anymore. There are plenty of single women in their early 30s who want a husband. Why don’t guys go for them? And they go to church. Perhaps they are not attractive enough?”

      I don’t know if you’re asking rhetorical questions. But these are easy to answer.

      Guys DO go for early 30s women seeking marriage. The problem is that the guys going for early 30s women seeking marriage aren’t the guys these women want. These women finally figure out that they can’t get the guys they want, so they start settling. They hold their noses and just do the best they can.

      Most women are attractive enough to get someone to marry them. All you have to do to be “attractive enough” is not be morbidly obese, not be horribly disfigured, and have a vagina. Women can be quite homely and still attract men. Women can be noticeably overweight and attract men. Women can be noticeably disfigured and still attract men.

      Women’s “attractiveness” is not the problem. The problem is these women don’t want the men they can have, don’t understand men, don’t know how to relate to men, don’t know how to do the give and take a relationship requires, and won’t give the men who will have them anything. The problem is that women are net liabilities for most men, not net assets.

      Women have a difficult needle to thread — he’s gotta be attractive enough for her to have sex with; and he’s gotta have enough beta qualities to stick around. Women complain that the men who are attractive enough for her to have sex with don’t stick around; and the men who stick around are so beta they’re hopelessly unattractive. I don’t know what to tell women. Suck it up. Deal with it. Pick one and learn how to get along, or buy a dog and die alone.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        Add to that the fact that women generally prefer men a little older than themselves. That means those women in the 30s are looking for men between the ages of 35 – 45. There aren’t that many single men in that age range, especially among Christians.

        The ones who are single are likely divorced, and those women may not like having to deal with an ex wife (who does?), step kids, etc.

        The ones who’ve never been married fall into two general categories.
        1) They’re not married because women don’t find them attractive enough to marry.
        2) Women find them attractive, so they’re still playing the field.

        If there’s an exception to those categories (a man who’s attractive, between 35 – 45, wants to get married, and has never been married), he may be dating women in their 20s, because he can.

        Women don’t seem to realize that their dating prospects narrow as they get older, while a man’s dating prospects broaden.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        “All you have to do to be “attractive enough” is not be morbidly obese, not be horribly disfigured, and have a vagina. Women can be quite homely and still attract men.”

        A good feminine character will also raise her MMV by a few points as well.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        This:

        “Women’s “attractiveness” is not the problem. The problem is these women don’t want the men they can have, don’t understand men, don’t know how to relate to men, don’t know how to do the give and take a relationship requires, and won’t give the men who will have them anything.”

        Like

    • anonymous_ng says:

      How did unattractive women marry?

      The simple answer is that they maximized their other attributes and married the best they could as quickly as they could before the blush wore off the rose.

      They learned to cook tasty meals. They learned to have a pleasant personality. They dressed nicely and to catch a man’s eye.

      Basically, they did all the things that are anathema to modern women.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        “How did unattractive women marry?”

        “The simple answer is that they maximized their other attributes and married the best they could as quickly as they could before the blush wore off the rose.”

        Good point. That’s like asking, “How do short guys marry?” The answer is pretty much what you wrote there.

        We all have strengths and weaknesses. We all have to learn to maximize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. Some of our weaknesses are unalterable. That being the case, we accept our unalterable weaknesses for what they are, and work on the things we can change.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scavos says:

        @Oscar

        “We all have strengths and weaknesses. We all have to learn to maximize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. Some of our weaknesses are unalterable. That being the case, we accept our unalterable weaknesses for what they are, and work on the things we can change.”

        Yep, some weaknesses ARE unalterable. For me, I’m screwed in the height category (5’6″). I could cry and moan about my height, but it won’t change anything, so I make the best of it. Having broad shoulders helps me, somewhat. It’s ironic, to me, when women talk about their height preferences (which can’t be changed), but the moment any men talk about weight preferences (which for the most part, can be changed), they lose their $#!%. Aba and Preach made a great video about heightism, and I use that as a rebuttal, sometimes.

        Like

    • info says:

      Combined with the fact that in their 30’s there is likely no eggs left for conception and the risks of having a child with genetic diseases rises far more at that age.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Rock Kitaro says:

    And what’s sad is that too many ladies figure out how bad Feminism is and how far they’ve strayed only after it seems too late when it comes to having children. On online dating site, I have a lot of ladies matching with me who are in the 38-40 age range and my heart goes out to them. I want to have children. As beautiful and Christian as they now seem, I’d still rather be patient and strive to find someone younger and childless.

    The way I see it, feminism is a rebellion. The question I ask, is it worth it? To a few die-hards, it certainly is. They’re ready to enter old age and die on their ideologies. But what about the rest. I look at what’s happening in S. Korea. Even here, I keep hearing talk of “safety nets” to be extended towards people who continue to make bad decisions and expect the taxpayers to pay for it. Truly, it really is sad.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. rontomlinson2 says:

    Feminism is vile. It makes a virtue out of trying to hurt and demoralise men, just as chivalry makes a virtue of appeasing women.

    Finding the words to test men can be good thing: to defend her heart in a tricky situation and sort between men as a prelude to investing her trust. It can make her safer and him stronger, pruning away some of his nonsensical impulses.

    He has to have the emotional awareness to not take such words seriously. This is OK. Some words in some contexts aren’t serious, for example ‘How are you?’ is usually not intended seriously.

    Some women will not be fooled by feminism. Some will but will eventually realise and abandon it. Some will double down and become witches i.e. corrupters of other women.

    They share and refine the poison in a sustained manner and at a societal level, developing fully-fledged ideas and having them received seriously and acted upon — which is fatal.

    Christianity gives men who lack discernment (which I think includes ’emotional intelligence’) a path to receive this blessing plus an inherited wisdom to prop them up until they get there.

    That aside, I suspect men, including non-Christians, could put feminism on the retreat tomorrow by abandoning pornography. Simple but not easy!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “I suspect men, including non-Christians, could put feminism on the retreat tomorrow by abandoning pornography.”

      How so?

      Like

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        Hi Oscar, by increasing their courage, amicability, and general intelligence. If enough men did it, I think this would, in turn, give hope to other men and to women also.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Got it. Sounds reasonable.

        Like

    • RICanuck says:

      Ron, I don’t want to make a false accusation, but I suspect you have a Christian, “pron is really bad” fixation.

      At the time of the Seneca Falls declaration in the mid nineteenth century, porn was really hard to find.

      When I came of age back in the 70’s, second wave feminism was the big thing, “Freedom of choice!”, “Transcendence!”, etc. Porn was limited to magazines and dirty movie houses. Anyone could know who the porn hounds were.

      Now we have the internet. I know some MGTOW’s, some with considerable sexual experience, who consider pron as a superior substitute to women.

      Stopping pron will not roll back feminism, as it predates easy access to pron. MGTOW might roll back feminism, but I doubt it.

      An anecdote:

      I was once at a couples’ prayer reflection meeting, and Fr. Mike brought up the dangers that pron posed to marriage. Addiction! I mentioned that husbands want sex with their wives and often. That marital sex releases oxytocin, which is the bonding hormone. If oxytocin levels are kept up, the wife looks more beautiful and other women look plainer!

      Right on cue one woman said, “That’s stupid!”

      I replied, “That’s contemptuous!”

      “A woman has a personality, a voice, a scent, soft yielding flesh. Better than any image of flickering pixels. But pron doesn’t show contempt. You can’t compete with a bunch of flickering pixels.”

      The women were furious. So was Fr. Mike. The few men who were not slack jawed in amazement laughed.

      I bet every husband was in deep $h!t when they got home. I know I was. My wife and I have never gone to another Catholic couples thing.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Jack says:

        RICanuck did everyone in that couples group a favor by making the unpleasant truth of the matter known. This interchange made it clear to the wives present that men have requirements, and when women acquiesce to those requirements, then they both stand to benefit.

        “I bet every husband was in deep $h!t when they got home. I know I was.”

        “Being in deep $h!t” is a social construct of controlling wives, and it can be dislodged by maintaining Frame. This is not easy to do in this situation, especially if you’re not in the regular habit of doing so at home with the wife. However, it is something that should be practiced, because everything gets easier once you get into the habit.

        That said, instead of making a shocking/funny quip about p0rn being better than a wife because it does not show contempt (which I agree is true in this one aspect, and it is this truth that makes it shocking/funny), it would have been better if RICanuck kept a straight face and gave his rebuttal in a matter-of-fact way, and then after the sensationalism died down, followed through with an open discussion of the matter.

        But that takes steel ball bearings…

        Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        “My wife and I have never gone to another Catholic couples thing.”

        I get the distinct impression that “couples groups,” no matter what the denomination involved, are intended to be little more than “show wives how to make their little-boy husbands behave” sessions. This is a big reason why my wife and I have never been participants in them. Your introduction of Red Pill truth into this group tore the whole setting and premise to shreds (and a beautiful thing it was!).

        Sad. Setups like that group help to explain why the divorce rate among (nominal) Christians is not significantly different from that among non-believers.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        Awesome account. I’ll never forget reading 1st Corinthians 7:3-5 and instantly, I started thinking of all the times I heard “Christian Women” bragging about withholding sex from their husbands… I’m like… that’s what marriage is for! God knows we like sex. God knows its one of our biggest vices and temptations. For married couples to intentionally deprive it or use it as some bargaining chip… That’s why I’m so glad I read the Bible from cover to cover. Everything makes sense, and when I see bad things happening, or people making bad decisions while looking for someone to blame, I shake my head.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Stopping pron will not roll back feminism, as it predates easy access to pron. MGTOW might roll back feminism, but I doubt it.”

        RICanuck is right on this. I believe that the profitability of pron, the rapid expansion of it is evidence of the money involved, is caused in part by feminism. The empowered, contentious woman, which most wives are these days, is not a turn-on to men. When you couple a man’s masculine sexual nature with a woman that actively turns him off, then have a readily available, inexpensive source of sexual arousal… it does not take a genius to figure out the equation. Because pron is the effect, abstaining is not going to put a dent in feminism. On the other hand, having a large percent of Christian women who actually took being a biblical wife seriously, including seeking to sexually satisfy their husbands, would probably put a sizable dent in pron usage within the church.

        That interactive pron, through sites like OnlyFans, has become a big money maker is telling to me. This is certainly an avenue to avoid your spouse, or avoid even getting a spouse in the first place, which, if my assertion is true, is damning of most marriages. The vast majority of men just don’t agree to tie their lives and sexuality to one person unless they really enjoy being with that person. The wife has to be pretty bad for an extended period for a man to ditch the real thing for a video chat.

        Liked by 3 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        Bravo, RI Canuck, Bravo!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The primary, only reason married men use p0rn is because of their wives. Their wives either refuse sex, or less often, are so unattractive their husbands don’t want sex with them.

        It is a wife’s job to provide regular consistent sex and to stay physically attractive enough for her husband to seek out sex with her.

        Liked by 2 people

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        Hello RICanuck,

        Yes, I do think porn is an evil and the situation is harder still for the sigma male who typically possesses a powerful imagination and is thus more susceptible to fantasy without recourse to an external supply of images.

        Yes about bonding and the oxytocin. Porn can satisfy lust but cannot supply attachment or the thrill of the chase. Perhaps one needs to experience this deficit. One can learn stuff from pornography. Partly because the acting, where any is attempted, is so bad!

        Yet it is also an opportunity provided one can eventually rise above it. The opportunity would not exist were porn not ubiquitous, as you rightly point out it is. So I don’t condemn it and I’m certainly not in favour of banning it.

        Regarding the sigma aspect, I ought to point out that a man lacking a busy social life can nevertheless possess strong attachments. It’s these that truly count. To his wife, his family, to a few friends, not least to God. These are sufficient to satisfy his instinctual needs.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Anonymous says:

      @RT
      I can understand the courage – it’s easier to look at porn than to risk rejection by asking out a real woman. But are you suggesting that not watching porn will make a man friendlier and more intelligent? I’m not seeing how that follows…

      Like

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        “But are you suggesting that not watching porn will make a man friendlier and more intelligent? I’m not seeing how that follows…”

        The pursuit of masturbation and pornography is a solitary, unsocial activity, and an addiction.

        I see addiction as a substitute for a mature social and sexual life. This is why people who were abused in childhood so often become addicts — their ability to form close bonds with other people has been damaged. It’s one of the reasons Alcoholics Anonymous, with its 12-step programme, has been successful — it provides attendees with a structured social activity.

        As to increasing intelligence well that’s a stretch, I admit, partly because we don’t really understand what intelligence is. I don’t mean IQ. Some people (e.g. E. Michael Jones) say that pornography ‘darkens the mind’. It may not make one optically blind but it may make one spiritually blind.

        The final and provocative paragraph of my initial comment was intended to be a thought experiment. But I think it’s true. If a majority of men voluntarily abandoned porn then it would simultaneously create both the inclination and the opportunity for fellowship and social activity. It would impress women and they’d reciprocate in a favourable manner I think.

        It seems unlikely this could happen except as part of a wider change. But the option is always open to become Christian as I alluded to previously.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        I agree that p0rn and masturbation are addictive (or can be for some). I also agree that men who are missing strong relationships in their lives (especially with other men) are more susceptible to this addiction.

        “If a majority of men voluntarily abandoned porn… It seems unlikely [the inclination and the opportunity for fellowship and social activity] could happen except as part of a wider change.”

        From what I’ve seen around the internet lately, there is a growing segment of men (whom I assume are incels) who are abstaining from masturbation and are reporting various benefits in other areas of their lives, such as better health, more energy, a positive attitude, etc. I’ve also seen that, for some reason, women (especially feminists), hate this movement.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Anonymous – Acting with courage is the key here. That will change a man from the inside out. To mentally set yourself in the frame that you are going to try, knowing that you will lose some, and forging ahead anyway builds toughness and persistence. The process also develops emotional control and helps cement the fact that you will be OK no matter what happens. The key is facing something that causes fear and moving forward. It could be in any aspect of life.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lastmod says:

        What a joke.

        One day here it’s “men need, must have and pursue sex because it’s normal and we should not be ashamed…..feminism an blue pulled cucks in the year 975 or whatever ruined everything”

        Now????

        “If men didn’t use porn it would make them more intelligent and push them to form friendships / fellowship with other men….feminists hate men turning away from porn….”

        What dribble. The men who use porn extensively….like at an addiction level do tend to be the stereotype Incels with bad haircuts and thick glasses. It tends to be a younger set. It tends to be men who can’t get sex, or dates, or IOI’s or noticed.

        This isn’t a guy who got rejected by a girl or two when he was in high school. This is extensive nuclear rejection. Extensive “bawh-har-har” joking, ribbing, putting down of, isolating, teasing and shaming of these men by indeed men like many of you at a tender or formative age.

        Fact. By the time I was 20. My ego had been already slashed to ribbons by women. By the time I was 30. I was being called an AFC frequently. Not even a year ago, still accused of “blue pulled pedestalizing women” thinking which is impossible because I and a huge swath if men really never had the opportunity to put such thoughts into action with women.

        From about the 25 and up. More damage at this level has been done by fellow men than women. I am effing invisible to them. Aside from work. I don’t talk to nor have interacted with them. I know the answer: ” no / ummmm creepy / someday a great gal will come into your life / tatting yo HR or the bouncer or the manager or their boyfriend to make me stop!” An evidently unmasculine man like myself is the biggest danger to her (rolls eyes)

        The “no fap” thing is a thing in the MGTOW / Incel bowels of the internet but it’s not that big….

        And these incels are still rejected by men like yourselves because they are not “real men” who pursue and want, need and must have sex….

        The contradictions abound. Most of you just want a select few in marriage , rampant free sex with no consequences biblical or otherwise and the rest to fall into line with “fellowship and friendship” with other men. You men won’t ever “be friends” with these losers.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        One day here it’s “men need, must have and pursue sex because it’s normal and we should not be ashamed…..feminism an blue pulled cucks in the year 975 or whatever ruined everything”

        Now????

        “If men didn’t use porn it would make them more intelligent and push them to form friendships / fellowship with other men….feminists hate men turning away from porn….”

        You mean to tell me that different men commenting on the same blog sometimes disagree with each other?

        No…. freaking….. way!

        Like

  6. Devon70 says:

    The lack of incentives is starting to show up in areas like the gender gap in college which is up to 60-40. The rat race is only worthwhile to men if they have the promise of a good family. As more men don’t have that prospect they do just enough to get by. The average guy isn’t going to work 70 hours a week in his twenties in hopes that a fat single mother will marry him in ten years. I see a continued erosion of society as more men drop out because there aren’t any rewards for guys in a feminist system.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Scavos says:

      This is definitely something I’ve seen at work. Many of the guys I work with prefer to play video games, watch shows, shoot guns, and go boating rather than dating. It’s just simply not worth it to them and they’d rather enjoy what they can out of life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maniac says:

        I’m one of them. I tithe, but the rest of my money is spent on my pursuits. (Only In Your State is a godsend.) I’ve been blessed with a very low sex drive and bringing kids into the world right now is ludicrous, so a LTR is pointless. I have platonic dinner dates with my best friend who is a woman, but that’s as close as I’ll get in that regard.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Not gonna lie… that was very much my attitude when I was/am pushed to “climb the corporate” ladder and advance to other positions that paid more, but I knew I wouldn’t enjoy it more than what I’m doing now. I love my work. I enjoy it, and can see myself doing this for the rest of my life. I really don’t care about money. I make enough to put away at least $400 every month in savings.

      I’ve always theorized that “IF” I did have a family, I wouldn’t mind working those higher-paying yet unsatisfying jobs because it’d be worth it to provide. Providing for my family would make up for the happiness I’d have doing what I do now. That was my attitude in my mid-20s to early 30s.

      But if you don’t have a wife and kids, and the only way to get them is to abandon your own Christian standards, or settle for unattractive woman or a single mom… what’s the point? I’d much rather do what I know I can control… myself. Because you hear all these Red Pill Coaches say, “Focus on your money, focus on your grind, and they’ll come to you…” And I’m like, that’s not a guarantee. Even if they do come to you, if you lose all that money or you get into an accident where you can’t grind as hard as you used to, you can’t force them to stay.

      Liked by 6 people

  7. feeriker says:

    “Eventually, the truth gets out and men change their behavior. I think we are in the truth-getting-out part of the cycle currently, and we are seeing men begin to change their behavior.”

    That and the coming economic collapse are going to wake up a whole lot of people of both sexes in a very unpleasant way. I’m not holding my breath that much will change in the immediate future even if that does happen (witness the doubling down on acts of destructive stupidity). If I’ve reached one conclusion about humanity that no one will disabuse me of, it’s that almost none of humankind learns a d@mned thing from experience.

    “The lack of incentives is starting to show up in areas like the gender gap in college which is up to 60-40. The rat race is only worthwhile to men if they have the promise of a good family. As more men don’t have that prospect they do just enough to get by. The average guy isn’t going to work 70 hours a week in his twenties in hopes that a fat single mother will marry him in ten years. I see a continued erosion of society as more men drop out because there aren’t any rewards for guys in a feminist system.”

    Mainstream social media is taking the YouGoGrrrrl nonsense to absolutely nauseating extremes. LinkedIn is becoming insufferable with it.

    The funniest thing I ever saw (d@mned if I can find it now) is a propaganda appeal to men in the workplace to mentor female coworkers because “She can’t get there without you!”

    Yes, seriously. The sex that don’t need no stinkin’ man can’t break the glass ceiling without the man’s help. Unbelievable.

    Although it’s the COVID vaccinonsense that’s currently driving it, I think 2022 is going to be seen in hindsight as the year when a whole lotta working MEN started to tell the world, “Take this job and shove, Shove, SHOVE IT! I ain’t workin’ here, or anywhere else, no more!”

    Like

    • Joe2 says:

      “The funniest thing I ever saw (d@mned if I can find it now) is a propaganda appeal to men in the workplace to mentor female coworkers because “She can’t get there without you!”

      This is the workplace equivalent to the Nazis forcing the Jewish war prisoners to dig their own graves. It’s only a matter of time before your career reaches a dead end and dies because mentored females will need to be promoted and provided a career path.

      In fact, I know of situations where supervisory positions opened (through retirements) and rather than promoting from within the ranks (which was the historical precedent) young mentored females were brought in to fill the positions. They knew enough to ask focused questions, but lacked the experience to do the actual work or even appreciate what the work involved. The reasoning given was the positions were supervisory and they didn’t have to know how how the work was done — they just had to know how to supervise / manage. This resulted in no chance of ever being promoted, morale heading south and days being counted to retirement.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. feeriker says:

    “Can anyone imagine anyone saying that of American women today?”

    Sure. Spoiled, arrogant, delusional, worthless American women say that about American women, in various ways, all the time today.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. feeriker says:

    “Churchian proponents of feminism enjoy some of the “benefits” of feminism (such as sexual promiscuity in their youth), but never really face the bitter consequences for those “benefits” that come later in life (such as having to battle it out with a contentious, alpha-widowed shrew). As a result, they never wake up to the lies implicit to their beliefs. I think part of this is because of Churchian culture, and part because ADIEU.”

    And this is the source of contention between the “reformed” (hah!) alpha widowmakers in the churchian hierarchy and the lower-tier men, whom they exhort to either “man up and marry that slut” or “be content in your singleness until God ‘leads’ you to the wife he wants for you.”

    One wonders when the poison fruits of this will reach critical mass and most churches become devoid of men except for the CEO, er, pastor and the Politburo, sorry, his inner circle of “yes men” elders.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Feeriker —

      “One wonders when the poison fruits of this will reach critical mass and most churches become devoid of men except for the CEO, er, pastor and the Politburo, sorry, his inner circle of “yes men” elders.”

      I’d argue this already exists to a large extent. Men might still sit in the pews, but what makes men good as spiritual leaders of their families and the church body is masculinity. And that is almost extinct in the western church.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Scavos says:

        “Men might still sit in the pews but what makes men good as spiritual leaders of their families and the church body is masculinity. And that is almost extinct in the western church.”

        Sadly, replaced by “happy wife, happy life”, “I gotta ask the boss (wife)”, and my personal favorite, “If the wife is rebelling, it’s most likely the man’s fault.” And the church leadership (I prefer to call them management) can’t figure out why they can’t get more men in the church. That’s usually followed up with evangelism dating or more “man up” sermons.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scavos – I lived the rebellious wife lifestyle for 17 years and will attest that “happy wife, happy life” is from Satan himself. What finally started the process of turning the tide was growing a pair and adopting a “happy king, happy kingdom” approach. I’ve had to retrain myself from a behavior and attitude standpoint, but the results after a year and a half are remarkable.

        Women don’t really want a “yes” man as a husband. They want a man that cares enough about her to set and enforce boundaries in a loving way as he leads his family. Doing that unapologetically with confidence is the real panty dropper.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “It’s ironic, to me, when women talk about their height preferences (which can’t be changed), but the moment any men talk about weight preferences (which for the most part, can be changed), they lose their $#!%.”

    That reaction is less about the issue of weight than about two other key characteristics of women’s hardwiring:

    1– They hate and resist moral agency (i.e., taking responsibility for their own decisions and behaviors) more than anything else in the universe.
    2– They cannot stand to have their defects brought to their attention, even in a constructive way, especially by men they consider “beneath them.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • lastholdout says:

      1– They hate and resist moral agency (i.e., taking responsibility for their own decisions and behaviors) more than anything else in the universe.
      2– They cannot stand to have their defects brought to their attention, even in a constructive way, especially by men they consider “beneath them.”

      These are both indications of a woman’s hardened, unbiblical heart under Satan’s influence. It is not the heart that Sarah had toward Abraham.

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        “These are both indications of a woman’s hardened, unbiblical heart under Satan’s influence. It is not the heart that Sarah had toward Abraham.”

        Yes, that’s true, but we also know that women like Sarah have always been the rare exceptions to the rule. I believe that we can say without hesitation that most women — even those who call themselves “Christian” — are characterized by the two points I listed above.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You guys do realize that Sarah hated and resisted moral agency, right? It was Sarah’s idea for Abraham to impregnate Hagar.

        Genesis 16
        1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. And she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar. 2 So Sarai said to Abram, “See now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing children. Please, go in to my maid; perhaps I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai.

        Then, when Sarah’s plan predictably turned to crap, she blamed Abraham.

        Genesis 16
        4 So he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress became despised in her eyes.
        5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “My wrong be upon you! I gave my maid into your embrace; and when she saw that she had conceived, I became despised in her eyes. The Lord judge between you and me.”

        Typical female behavior. By all means, listen to your wife. She may have some good advice to give. But, always remember that, whether you listen to her, or not, she will always blame you when things go wrong. Behave accordingly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar brought up the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar and concluded…

        “[Your wife] may have some good advice to give. But, always remember that, whether you listen to her, or not, she will always blame you when things go wrong.”

        Things don’t even need to go wrong. In this story, things went exactly as Sarah had in mind. But she blamed Abraham because she was despised by Hagar and she didn’t like the feeeling. She found that having a competitor in breeding (and in the bed chamber) hurt her ego more than having a surrogate child and heir bolstered her ego.

        Did you ever wonder if part of Sarah’s motivation was because she wanted a threesome? AWALT!

        Like

      • info says:

        When Peter cites Sarah as a woman to be emulated in (1 Peter 3) he is talking about Sarah at her best.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. redpillboomer says:

    “Women have a difficult needle to thread — he’s gotta be attractive enough for her to have sex with; and he’s gotta have enough beta qualities to stick around. Women complain that the men who are attractive enough for her to have sex with don’t stick around; and the men who stick around are so beta they’re hopelessly unattractive.”

    And, she probably met that guy in her early-to-mid twenties, ‘attractive enough to have sex with, and enough beta qualities to stick around,’ but she REJECTED him when he began to make a move towards commitment. Why? Because the cultural programming says she ‘can have it all’…. when ‘she’s ready’ for it, i.e. in her late twenties or even her thirties. So, when she met Mr. Good Enough, he wasn’t good enough AT THAT TIME (when she’s <28), because Mr. Better was ‘out there’ and she needed to find him. Mr. Good Enough was husband material, good husband material (not settling type material), yet she kicked him to the curb to go chase after Chad, Brad, Enrique, Tyrone to get him to be her HOPEFULLY, exclusive Mr. Right.

    This BTW, IMO, was the back-drop to the whole Tomi Lahren thing in the summer of 2020 (the PSA For Boyish Men rant that went viral). Not to go back into that old story but, what’s relevant in Tomi’s case, IMO, it gave us a high visibility look into the ARCHETYPE of many women today. The “I can have it all, when I’m ready to have it all — Sexy guy with a high paying job ready to settle down with me and start a family because, well because I’m ready to start my family NOW!” Those guys aren’t there, they’re either taken or they have all the options available to them to continue ‘playing the field.’

    As the women matriculate into their 30s, they still want to marry the sexy stud man with money, BUT they can’t find him, or if they do find him, he won’t commit to them. AND, the Good man they rejected in their 20s, he’s long gone too, either married, playing the field, or gone into some form of MGTOW. Then comes, “Where have all the GOOD men gone?” And, it seems like this lament is getting more pronounced as each year goes by. Never seen so many clips of late twenty/thirty something women crying, in some cases literally crying during their recordings, “Where are they???” With our Millennials, I believe we’re headed toward a generation of lonely women, either no man, or settled with a man they’re not attracted too.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      Let’s put these two comments together:

      “Never seen so many clips of late twenty/thirty something women crying, in some cases literally crying during their recordings, “Where are they???” ~ RPB

      “A woman has a personality, a voice, a scent, soft yielding flesh. Better than any image of flickering pixels. But pron doesn’t show contempt. You can’t compete with a bunch of flickering pixels.” ~ RIC

      I recently watched one of those compilations of such clips that get recommended. There was a young lady (I’m being generous here) whining about “why am I still single?” She was a very attractive Latina. She counted off attribute after attribute that she thought should land her a man. I kept thinking, “Wait for it… Wait for it….”

      Finally, she said, “Some people say I have an attitude.”

      I thought….

      I don’t care how hot a woman is, how well she cooks, or anything else. If she’s contentious, then a man is better off without her.

      Proverbs 12:4
      An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, But she who causes shame is like rottenness in his bones.

      Proverbs 21:9
      Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

      Proverbs 21:19
      Better to dwell in the wilderness, Than with a contentious and angry woman.

      Proverbs 27:15-16
      A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike;
      Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand.

      Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Yep.

        If a woman in her late 20s/early 30s is physically attractive, but is still single, it’s because she’s crazy, b!tchy, slutty, or damaged.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Yes, but there’s a lot going on with why women are how they are now.

      First, there are no restrictions on female sexuality at all now. Women can have sex how they want, with whom they want, anytime, anywhere, in any combination and permutations they want, regardless of time, location, or their own marital status. Married, single, separated, divorced – doesn’t matter. She can have open relationships, or just cheat. If she cheats behind her husband’s back, well, she is entitled to, because she deserves a fulfilling sexual relationship and her husband “made her do it” anyway.

      Second: Choice. Even just 25 years ago, women’s choices were limited socially, temporally, and geographically. Women were limited to a few dozen men. With OLD, one woman can choose from thousands of men, any and all of whom will be willing sex partners.

      Third: The OASIS, which is an outgrowth of OLD and a result of internet technology. Women love attention and money — the OASIS gives every woman a chance for both. Even married women who don’t want sex can get OF accounts and get paid to show their bodies.

      Fourth: Women make more money than ever before, but still can’t seem to make ends meet. Hence the proliferation of OF and sugaring. Women do this because they need the money. This is really interesting to me — women make all this money, but still need money from men they don’t really want.

      Fifth: Status is still important to women. 200 years of ever increasing feminism have not evolved this out of women. The only status that matters to women is the status they confer on each other, the status they get from other women. The main way women gain status, and confer status on each other, is through the quality and caliber of man an individual woman can get and keep. That is a major reason why women still want men. There are many other reasons too: Men can work harder and earn more. Men can protect and provide better than women can. Men are better at virtue and integrity than women are. Men are more honorable, courageous, faithful, trustworthy, valorous, stoic, pragmatic, and reasonable than women are.

      Women can be pragmatic, but about only one thing — picking men for long term commitment after getting repeatedly pumped and dumped/alpha widowed. When it really gets down to it, if she has to do it, she’ll hold her nose and let a beta bux put a ring on it. And she can make it work for several years, until the youngest is in kindergarten.

      All of what we in the Manosphere talk about is a symptom of the overarching twin causes of pursuing maximum individual liberty and in doing so, rebelling against God.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        It’s fascinating: Women sought out, and were given, economic freedom. They can work all they want. All careers/jobs/employment fields are open to them.

        This was all done for the specific purpose of liberating women from men. This was all done specifically because women did not want to have to be economically dependent on men. This was all done specifically so that Becky didn’t have to marry Billy Beta to survive financially. This was all done because women wanted it this way.

        And now that it’s been done, women are still complaining they need more money. Women are still complaining that it’s not enough. Women are still seeking out men’s money. Women are still wh0ring themselves out as camgirls, OF girls, sugarbabies, or prostitutes. Some of it is greed. Some of it is entrepreneurship. But a lot of it is necessity – because they can’t earn enough to make ends meet.

        All proving to me at least – men want women, but women need men. Men need women for sex; but women need men for their daily bread.

        Like

  12. feeriker says:

    If God Himself, through His divinely inspired word, is calling you a contentious b!+ch, then maybe you’d better find some way to get a complete personality transplant, stat.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      I once knew a literal diseased, home-wrecking adulteress that referred to herself as a Proverbs 31 woman. Good luck getting a contentious b!+ch to exercise that level of self awareness.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Did you correct her by informing her that the operative verse she was reaching for was Proverbs 14:1b?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        No. I tried to bring UCMJ charges against her (she was married, and she was one of my Soldiers), and the married NCO with whom she was committing adultery. I failed.

        Like

  13. feeriker says:

    “If a woman in her late 20s/early 30s is physically attractive, but is still single, it’s because she’s crazy, b!tchy, slutty, or damaged.”

    I wonder if the reason no men ever give these women a “Red Pill enema” by telling them this exact truth is because the result would be a psychotic, unhinged act of murder-suicide that would make the Columb!ne $hootings look like a minor schoolyard fistfight.

    Like

  14. feeriker says:

    “And now that [economic independence for women ha]s been done, women are still complaining they need more money. Women are still complaining that it’s not enough. Women are still seeking out men’s money.”

    If women have no moral agency (or are loath to exercise it) and have no restraints or accountability imposed upon them in any other aspect of life, then why on earth would anyone think they have any fiscal common sense?

    One thing I’ve NEVER understood is men who let their wives or girlfriends take control of the household’s finances. To me, that’s as insane and idiotic as giving your infant child the keys to the family vehicles and making them responsible for all the household’s transportation needs.

    Like

    • lastholdout says:

      I think it’s a case-by-case. Although I took over managing the money, my late wife did a very good job with it. It was amazing what she could squeeze out of a dollar.

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        You appear to blessed with a “Proverbs 31” wife (verse 27: “She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness”). Fiscally responsible women exist, but IME they’re the rare exceptions to the norm (my own wife does reasonably well at budgeting when I task her with it). Some women actually recognize the difference between “need” and “WANT.” As King Lemuel says in the proverb, such a woman’s price is “far above rubies.”

        Like

  15. feeriker says:

    Oscar says:
    2021-11-14 at 8:26 am

    Excellent point. Can’t believe that slipped my mind.

    Like

  16. Pingback: A Volitional Model of Cascade Courtship | Σ Frame

  17. locustsplease says:

    Shelia Gregoire’s “Mental Load” gives me PTSD flashbacks of my marriage.

    The hottest day of the year. Spraying myself with a garden hose every 30 minutes to not over heat. Throat so sore from the heat I can barely talk. Walked through the door at 8 p.m. She chewed my @ss like I had been missing for days on a drinking binge. (I was here eating pizza with the kid.) She actually said it like she was on a chain gang breaking rocks!

    I would love to have someone to share my life with, but after nearly every hard dirty day of work, I come home and I’m like, “Thank god! I don’t have someone complaining about me right now and I can relax!”

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “I would love to have someone to share my life with, but after nearly every hard dirty day of work, I come home and I’m like, “Thank god! I don’t have someone complaining about me right now and I can relax!”

      Can’t say that I blame you. Better to dwell in the corner of a roof, or in a desert wilderness, then with a contentious woman. What do you do for a living?

      Like

  18. ramman3000 says:

    “…being married to a girl who settled for you…”

    The alpha widow effect is oft-discussed, but not so much the related effects of so-called “soft porn”.

    Mainstream portrayals of sexual relationships (e.g. movies, magazines, novels, TV, and advertising) distort the marital relationship by setting undue and/or unrealistic expectations on the marital bed. This is, more-or-less, summarized in the feminist concept of “sexual compatibility”, where if the sex doesn’t match some preconceived notion, then the relationship can’t work out.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Pingback: What Changes after Marriage? | 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 )

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