Two Viewpoints on Marital Risk

A review of Rollo Tomassi’s and Kevin Samuels’ viewpoints on the risks of marriage.

Readership: All
Theme: Risk Assessment
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes + 24:49 minute long video

In this video, Rollo Tomassi takes on Kevin Samuels’ views on marriage.

I’ve identified several areas in which Rollo and Kevin agree, and three areas in which the two men disagree: Risk Assessment, Female Responsibility, and the Role of Religion. I’ll compare these differences in the remainder of this post.

The Rational Male Clips: The Concept of Marriage Has Turned Into THIS (2021-12-04)

Areas of Agreement

Both men agree on the following points.

  • They are both advocates for men.
  • Relationships are the most important thing in life.
  • Marriage and the nuclear family unit are crucial for having and raising children.
  • Marriage and children constitute the future of the community and the race.
  • Men and women are meant to be together for life.
  • The laws are stacked against men, making it risky to get legally married.
  • The laws need to be changed.
  • The choice to marry or not is simply a matter of knowing the risks and managing them accordingly.
  • If a man is not ‘high value’, then that risk increases dramatically.

1. Disagreement on Risk Assessment

The assessment of risk is the main point of contention where the two men differ.

Rollo places more emphasis on the individual man’s personal domain and says the risks are too great for individual men at this time.

Kevin understands that marriage constitutes the future of the community, and argues that it is indeed a costly but also very necessary risk.

Kevin Samuels’ motive is getting Black families together first and foremost, and to save the Black community. He understands fully well that the destruction of the Black community started when the welfare state was created in the mid-60’s; where the government became surrogate husbands and fathers for Black women. He has a dedicated interest in ending this destructive, self-perpetuating cycle of single motherhood in that community.

Risk is Highly Contextual

Marital risk is highly determined by one’s life situation, including age, family history, SMV, social circle, religious convictions, socio-economic status, and geographical locale.

Horrendous Risk: In most western social circles, women follow the feminist life script during their 20s and become Alpha Widows in the process. Many of these women have kids out of wedlock during this time. They wait until they hit the wall and they’re 100% completely desperate. Then they go through their epiphany stage, and then say, “I’m not looking for fun (anymore). I want a stable man.” Then they’ll start looking for marriage at around 30 after they’ve had 100 guys. Five years and two kids later, they’re itching for a divorce.

Moderate Risk: There are some small communities and churches in which marriage and sexual purity are emphasized, and couples get married fairly early in life. Yes, they do exist.

Low Risk: There are other parts of the world that still conform to Patriarchal social norms. It is not uncommon for women to be married to their first sexual partner. However, other forms of risk are increased.

Also, there is evidence that racial subcultures and genotypes have a significant influence on risk. For example, in other videos, Kevin has mentioned the Moynihan report dozens of times. This report indicates that it’s not strictly the Government at fault as welfare is available to all skin tones. He mentions how the report showed white women did not choose Government over white men in general, while Black women were more likely to choose welfare over marrying a black man.

I find it remarkable that Kevin is bravely pushing marriage to the demographic with the highest risk of all (i.e. Black women).

2. Disagreement on Female Responsibility

Another point of difference between Rollo and Kevin is how they view female responsibility.

Rollo takes an evo-psyche perspective and says that women are not going to change within the foreseeable future. They have no incentive to change.

Kevin argues that the Black community has been imploding on itself with now 2-3 generations of single mothers raising weak sons and delusional daughters. He says the Government sucks, but it’s not the entire problem. Kevin is to be respected for his work in revitalizing the Black community. He has spent many years on his channel talking exclusively to men. His non fashion videos for men 1-4 yrs ago were very career focused and about how men should get themselves together. He became viral when he opened the same criticisms to women. For over a year he has had 3-5 shows per week covering chat sessions with overweight, single mother, and overall average looking women without wife skills who somehow think themselves able to marry a six figure stud muffin.

Kevin recognizes that the family unit is best for children, and he wants and truly expects women to bring their perceived value into reality. This is exactly why Kevin is begging women to become marriage material.

IMO, Rollo’s take is more realistic, but Kevin’s views align more closely with the gospel and the possibility of redemption. He holds this out as a hope for the Black community.

3. Disagreement on the Role of Religion

A third point of difference between Rollo and Kevin is their appreciation for religion.

Rollo has a high, albeit token respect for religion, and he will admit that many religious norms are beneficial for the individual and helpful for the community under certain social conditions. But he has a poor knowledge of Christianity and seldom adapts Christian precepts into his arguments. When he does, he gets it wrong. I’ve found a few instances where he argued against Christian ideals on the basis of practicality.

Kevin is far from being a Bible thumper, but he is not hesitant to make reference to ideas that are based on Christian concepts. He is adamant about incorporating religious tenets into his world view and in the advice he gives out. A lot of people might think that his views and lifestyle are not very Christian (he’s been divorced twice), but from what I can tell, he’s rather authentic and true to himself.

Image Source: Black Sports Online: Kevin Samuels Hooks Up With Brittany Renner (2021-11-08)

Further Thoughts

Rollo touches on politics as a matter of how political culture and policy shape the norm. But Kevin seems to avoid any discussion of politics and specific changes that need to be made in the role of government. This general elusion of legislative polity fits his style (he’s much too frank to be a successful politician), but I think it would greatly further his agenda if he approached statesmanship and government more proactively. For example, he could advocate removing the State from any involvement in the marriage union. After all, that is the most aggravating factor in the issue of marriage, especially in the Black community, because the incentives for women to have children out of wedlock and depend on welfare, and to divorce and get cash and prizes on the way out, are far too great.

I suppose that he avoids these topics because it would be difficult to present these ideas to women without offending their interests.

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 Agency, Building Wealth, Calculated Risk Taking, Collective Strength, Communications, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Elite Cultural Influences, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Generational Curses, Holding Frame, International, Leadership, Manosphere, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Personal Presentation, Philosophy, Politics, Polysexuality, Purpose, Reviews, Single Parents, Stewardship, Strategy, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Two Viewpoints on Marital Risk

  1. Sharkly says:

    I’m just guessing here, because I don’t know much about Kevin Samuels, but, he may be avoiding political discussion to avoid offending a large part of his target audience. If Kevin is trying to influence Blacks, and Black women in particular, they routinely vote to further empower politicians and “big-daddy-government” by an overwhelming majority. And if Kevin starts off by immediately contradicting the core of everything they have ever believed politically, they might not stick around to listen to Kevin and be influenced by his message. While Rollo Tomassi, being a White male, is already going to have his his teachings largely discounted among many of that same left-leaning demographic group, just based upon their personal identity-politics. So Rollo loses very few members of his likely listener demographic by openly espousing politically rightward viewpoints, and gains greater trust and loyalty among many of his fans who are further to the right, when he openly espouses many of his rightward political beliefs. Kevin Samuels probably isn’t ready to go full Jesse Lee Peterson yet, it’s not his fashion, he is trying to stay more subtle.

    Liked by 5 people

    • feeriker says:

      “If Kevin is trying to influence Blacks, and Black women in particular, they routinely vote to further empower politicians and “big-daddy-government” by an overwhelming majority. And if Kevin starts off by immediately contradicting the core of everything they have ever believed politically, they might not stick around to listen to Kevin and be influenced by his message.”

      This is what is called “trying to reason with unreasonable people,” and it has an almost ZE-RO percent chance of success. Kevin clearly means well, but he is wasting his time and energy on his chosen demographic group. The only factor that is likely to influence people or change their behavior — and this goes for most people of either sex, regardless of their racial or ethnic demographic group — is surviving “the school of hard knocks” and teaching logical conclusions based on the experience. This should be 100 percent effective, even with “unreasonable” people, and yet we still see people playing with matches and gasoline even after they’ve received third degree burns over 100 percent of their bodies after doing so previously.

      Good luck and Godspeed to Kevin, but I’m afraid his message will continue to elude most of his target audience.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “The only factor that is likely to influence people or change their behavior — and this goes for most people of either sex, regardless of their racial or ethnic demographic group — is surviving “the school of hard knocks” and teaching logical conclusions based on the experience.”

        I haven’t watched much Kevin Samuels, but isn’t that pretty much what he does? Or, am I missing something?

        Like

  2. Scott says:

    Imagine being given this deal to sign up for:

    Man: You must hold the ball of responsibility for everything that goes wrong under your roof. You must provide a comfortable lifestyle. Everything from hair appointments, to a decent car, to two weeks vacation at Disney World every year. You must help with household chores, homework, coaching little league, etc. You ALSO must contain your very strong biological urge for sex to one woman, for life. There is absolutely no guarantee that she will reciprocate on the sex thing. (Pretty much the only thing you really need from her). This means that if she wants to stop doing it one day after the wedding, you are celibate FOREVER. If you protest, you will be shunned by your whole family and community for being a shallow creep who only cares about sex. You must never take your foot off the gas of successful endeavors, driving yourself into an early grave via stroke or heart attack. You must remember birthdays, anniversaries, send surprise flowers to work, and woo her for her affection every day for the rest of your life. Your wife is the ultimate, subjective judge of your performance in any of these areas, and if you fail, you will probably lose access to the house you bought and the kids you sired.

    Woman: Do whatever you want.

    This is not a problem that YouTubers or the government can solve.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Elspeth says:

      What Scott said, x 100. I’ll get to Kevin Samuels in a minute, but Scott’s comment is the truest thing here, even juxtaposed against the post. Rod Dreher (who can often annoy me) recently posted a critique of post modern culture using the new Mickey Mouse Clubhouse format as the touchstone. Basically, the show teaches kids that Mickey can learn and live life all on his computer (“Oh, Toodles?!”) and technology can provide some answer to the dilemma they face. That’s kind of how we are about the Internet and the commentators we like. Not to say that there isn’t something to be gleaned from it. There often is.

      I loved the monologue that Doug Wilson offered in one his recent podcasts called Man Rampant. I loved it so much I texted the link to all my Christain girlfriends. (“You gotta listen to the first two minutes of this. He says exactly what I have been trying to say for yeeeaars!”)

      Usually the text stream is lively and animated. I literally got crickets. No one said ANYTHING. When we saw each other face to face, no one mentioned it, except one of my friends out of the 9. It went over like a lead balloon. That was telling, but hey, what are you gonna do? I forge on, LOL.

      Now to the substance of this post.

      First, I offer a vehement objection to the intimation that black people are somehow particularly drawn to government dependency over marriage. I don’t think that’s true at all. It would be far more insightful and certainly more plausible to argue that matriarchy is a bigger temptation in the black “community” than the idea that we simply can’t abide traditional marriage when offered government assistance as an alternative. It’s absurd, particularly since most black marriages that do go the distance are a lot more patriarchal in practice than almost any white middle class marriage, even among white Christians, who talk a good headship game but rarely live it.

      As for Samuels, I take exception with folks who can’t stay married offering relationship advice, particularly when they have mulitple divorces in their rear view. Steve Arterburn, Dennis Prager, Steve Harvey? Nah, brothers. I can appreciate that you have insights about some things, but no. Don’t tell me how to stay married. How the heck would you know?

      I will give Samuels a hat tip for honestly telling women the truth that they don’t usually want to hear. Credit for that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Good clip Elspeth! Never quite heard Servant Leadership unpacked the way the guy on the clip did it. Insightful. Thanks!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        What about people who begged their wives (after they cheated) to stay? And went to the elders and twisted ourselves into pretzels to become whatever it was we were being asked to become? Those of us who literally went through several years of recurring dreams at night (where the divorce never happened), waking up to the reality that she really did leave, and there is nothing you can do about it, yet still prayed every night that she would come back? I don’t know the particulars of these others guys divorces, but mine was a nightmare foisted on me against my will, despite prostrating myself in front of my wife, my church, my elders… after no violence, no drinking, no abuse on my part.

        I am at least honest. I have no idea why my current marriage is working. I just wake up grateful that it is, knowing that I am laboring under the contract I described upthread.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth –

        “First, I offer a vehement objection to the intimation that black people are somehow particularly drawn to government dependency over marriage. I don’t think that’s true at all. It’s would be far more insightful and certainly more plausible to argue that matriarchy is a bigger temptation in the black “community” than the idea that we simply can’t abide traditional marriage when offered government assistance as an alternative. It’s absurd, particularly since most black marriages that do go the distance are a lot more patriarchal in practice than almost any white middle class marriage, even among white Christians, who talk a good headship game but rarely live it.”

        The effect of government welfare programs have had on the the nuclear family amongst black people is well documented. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell beat that drum for decades, pointing out that that black families have been decimated after the implementation of the Great Society programs. If I remember right, the percentage of intact nuclear families declined by roughly 50% while the incidence of single motherhood soared after government programs were implemented.

        You correctly put your finger on the main problem being a matriarchal mindset. What can’t be separated though are government assistance and the matriarchy, as the government provides the funding that is the lifeblood of it. Black women, along with white Appalachian women, have a simple choice between choosing marriage and choosing to be supported by government programs and by overwhelming numbers they have chosen the government option for a couple generations now. If they were drawn to marriage over government dependency the marriage numbers would not be what they are.

        Why this draw to government exists is a separate discussion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Scott:

        I know why your current marriage works. It’s because you are a PhD level clinical psychologist with a high degree of intelligence and success married to a woman who wants you so badly she can barely stand it.

        Same reason why Liz’ marriage works and Elspeth marriage works. Hard, visceral sexual attraction from her to him which attraction leads to virtually uncontrollable sexual lust from her to him.

        That is the only thing between these men and divorce court, and writing checks for a large percentage of their incomes to these women for the rest of their working lives.

        That’s IT.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “First, I offer a vehement objection to the intimation that black people are somehow particularly drawn to government dependency over marriage. I don’t think that’s true at all. It’s would be far more insightful and certainly more plausible to argue that matriarchy is a bigger temptation in the black “community” than the idea that we simply can’t abide traditional marriage when offered government assistance as an alternative. It’s absurd, particularly since most black marriages that do go the distance are a lot more patriarchal in practice than almost any white middle class marriage, even among white Christians, who talk a good headship game but rarely live it.”

        Gotta weigh in.

        Black women do prefer government dependency over marriage. They CLEARLY do.

        1) Only 1 in 4 black women marries during her lifetime.

        2) Over 50% of black men are single and childless. Most of that 50% of black men are middle class and employed.

        3) If these women wanted to marry, they could do it. They choose not to because they aren’t sexually attracted to the men available to them.

        4) Most of these women get knocked up and have the babies. No man around. But someone’s gotta pay for it. Enter Big Daddy government. (Interestingly enough, most of the time, the baby daddy/sperm donor is NOT one of those “over 50% of black men, single and childless, middle class and employed.” It’s not your usual single black middle class working stiff guy who’s knocking these women up. Usually…)

        5) Daddy Government doesn’t tell her what to do. If she were married to a man, that man would have something to say about what she does, what she spends, how much she spends, what she spends it on, and who she hangs around with.

        Now, I’m going to expand this out to make it race neutral.

        Women take government money (that’s MY F**ING MONEY) over being married to a man and letting him support her. Know why? Because *Big Daddy Gov’t doesn’t tell her what to do. But a husband will.

        You women don’t want to do what your men tell you to do. You women don’t want to be subject to a man, and have to do what he says. You want him to just give you his money while you do whatever the F you want.

        NO. NO NO NO.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m not in the mood to argue with you deti, but I have a quibble with your stats, because this is what I have:

        “After viewing the available data, we can see that although fewer black women are “now married”, more black women than Black men have been married at least once. This is because a higher percentage of Black women are divorced and widowed than men. Also in 2019 just under half or 48% of black women had never been married which is up from 44% in 2008 and 42.7% in 2005.”

        So the 1 in 4 in her lifetime strikes me as odd. Given the astronomical black divorce rate, (a point I heartily concede and believe is relevant), I don’t see where it really matters, but I don’t think that 25% number — over a lifetime — is correct.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth,

        “It would be far more insightful and certainly more plausible to argue that matriarchy is a bigger temptation in the black “community”…”

        Why do you think that is?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA,

        “Appalachian women, have a simple choice between choosing marriage and choosing to be supported by government programs and by overwhelming numbers they have chosen the government option for a couple generations now. If they were drawn to marriage over government dependency the marriage numbers would not be what they are.”

        Asians and my fellow Hispanics provide an interesting test case, because we’re both immigrant groups, so we kind of work as a control group.

        Among Hispanics, you generally see 0th generation immigrants (like my parents and me) with strong, long-lasting marriages. But, as soon as the 1st generation is born in the States, the out-of-wedlock birth rate, cohabitation rate, and divorce rate all skyrocket. I base that on personal observation, by the way. Statistics may prove me wrong.

        You don’t see that among Asians.

        What’s the difference? Probably average IQ. People with lower IQ need simpler, clearer rules to serve as guardrails for life. Those rules can be provided by the government, the church, the culture in general, etc., but somebody needs to provide, and enforce them. Higher IQ people can navigate life with fewer external guardrails. The USA’s current anything-goes, hyper-atomized culture provides few guardrails outside of prison.

        That’s why we see low divorce rates among UMC people, and marriage pretty much disappearing among low-income people. The lack of guardrails doesn’t hurt high-IQ, high-income people all that much, but it royally screws lower-IQ, low-income people.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Oscar,

        It probably also matters where the IQ discrepancies lie, which is revealed in the subtests on things the WAIS and S-B. It is amazing to me how many of the general IQ questions are missed by younger generations.

        What do you do if you find a stamped, addressed envelope on the ground?

        People over 40: “Put it in the nearest mailbox.” (This is the correct answer.)

        Everyone younger: “Well, what if it is laced with anthrax?”, or “How do I know if the person really wants this piece of mail?”, or some other outlandish assertion.

        I want to scream at them. “THE ANSWER IS ‘PUT IT IN THE F&%$ING MAILBOX,’ YOU IDIOT!!!”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        People over 40: “Put it in the nearest mailbox.” (This is the correct answer.)

        Everyone younger: “Well, what if it is laced with anthrax?”, or “How do I know if the person really wants this piece of mail?”, or some other outlandish assertion.

        I want to scream at them. “THE ANSWER IS ‘PUT IT IN THE F&%$ING MAILBOX,’ YOU IDIOT!!!”

        This is a symptom of our movement toward maximum individual liberty, and societal atomization. People don’t consider themselves to be part of a larger community. Everything that exists is all about them, all about the individual experiencing whatever that “everything” is. The idea of duties to society, obligations to fellow man — these concepts don’t compute. Everything in an individual’s experience exists for that individual’s convenience, comfort, and self actualization.

        All that matters is “How will this affect me personally, right now?”

        “If I touch the piece of mail, I might get sick. I might get inconvenienced. It doesn’t help me or affect me, so I don’t care. I will not do anything to “help” someone else, because “helping” someone else doesn’t serve my interests and could be detrimental. So I will give it no consideration at all, because it doesn’t help me.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Oscar:

        @ Elspeth,

        Why do you think that is?

        I have no idea, because I grew up in a house that was staunchly patriarchal, where my father as the head was not ever in question. EV.ER. My husband did also. My aunts and uncles were likewise. Of my husband’s very many aunts and uncles, only one couple shows signs of the wife wearing the pants. I made that statement about matriarchy based on my anecdotal macro observation, but my own experience in a whole host of these dynamics leave me scratching my head.

        I appreciate the whole, “in general it works like this” angle, which is why I said it. But until my a couple of my siblings, nieces and nephews starting reproducing (and in some cases marrying and divorcing), the matriarchy thing was nonexistent in my family.

        I’ll also add that my husband has married nephews who are solidly in the driver’s seats in their marriages. I’ll not remark on their driving ability, but their women follow them adoringly.

        All that to say the idea that black women are primed for and default to matriarchy and government dependency is a rather broad brush.

        But although I don’t know, I guess the consensus here is that Africans are inherently dumb and matriarchal, LOL.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        Well, we can’t know everything, can we?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth,

        “…most black marriages that do go the distance are a lot more patriarchal in practice than almost any white middle class marriage, even among white Christians…”

        I would agree with this, while noting that the phrase “…that do go the distance” is doing a lot of work in this statement. I’d venture to say that any marriage that “goes the distance” has to be more patriarchal than not, otherwise, it couldn’t “go the distance.”

        “I guess the consensus here is that Africans are inherently dumb and matriarchal, LOL.”

        First of all, it’s intellectually dishonest to play this card.

        Second, to address the statement itself, my general impression of Black cultures, not only American Blacks, but most Black cultures worldwide, is that (1) iconic forms of masculinity (e.g. aggression, athleticism, dominance, emphasizing social status, power, protecting one’s domain, sexual prowess, etc.) are much more obvious and prevalent, and this is sometimes misinterpreted or recast as “dumb”. (In my opinion, only the way it is expressed can be dumb.) (2) Even so, they are still nevertheless deeply Matriarchal cultures. Older women in the community are “respected”, deeply reverenced, and even feared in many cases. Phrases like “Momma’s always right”, “Momma rules the roost”, and “Ain’t nobody happy unless momma’s happy”, are often repeated and seem to describe it well. I believe this cultural influence is largely why black women are the demographic with the most marital risk.

        “It would be far more insightful and certainly more plausible to argue that matriarchy is a bigger temptation in the black “community”…”

        I would agree with this. You said you don’t know why it is more of a temptation, which is a fair statement. I’m not sure exactly why either, but I would guess that it is due to various acculturation factors. If I were to be more precise, I would venture to guess that the increased prevalence and widespread social acceptance of sexual promiscuity within Black culture has something to do with this. I’ve written about this before, but not as it applies specifically to Blacks.

        How is illicit sex related to one’s spiritual state? (2019-5-22)
        Why is illicit sex so enticing, and so prevalent? (2019-5-25)
        Why is premarital sex a sin? (2020-8-14)
        Illicit Sex Upsets the Balance of Sexual Authority (2020-12-4)
        The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women (2021-8-2)
        Women have sex to influence men (2021-11-10)

        “I grew up in a house that was staunchly patriarchal, where my father as the head was not ever in question. EV.ER. My husband did also. My aunts and uncles were likewise. Of my husband’s very many aunts and uncles, only one couple shows signs of the wife wearing the pants.”

        “I’ll also add that my husband has married nephews who are solidly in the driver’s seats in their marriages.”

        I think your family is unique, and the patriarchy in your family is unique, but you aren’t well aware of this.

        “But until a couple of my siblings, nieces and nephews starting reproducing (and in some cases marrying and divorcing), the matriarchy thing was nonexistent in my family.”

        Based on this statement, I’d say it will die out further down their lines. I like to think that others in your family could step in and model some better habits and behaviors for them to emulate, but this has probably already been tried.

        Finally, thank you for your input on this subject.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Jack:

        “I would agree with this, while noting that the phrase “…that do go the distance” is doing a lot of work in this statement. I’d venture to say that any marriage that “goes the distance” has to be more patriarchal than not, otherwise, it couldn’t “go the distance.”

        You’d be surprised how many marriages make it 30, 40, 50 years with a passive man and a ball busting woman. So you’re right that my phrasing, “that go the distance”, is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But not many black marriages that are structured that way go the distance, in my observation.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      @ Scott,

      The government could definitely solve this problem….

      “…you will probably lose access to the house you bought and the kids you sired.”

      …. if they wanted to (other governments have), but they have no short-term incentive to do so, and our politicians are short-term thinkers elected by short-term thinkers. A nation full of solid, intact families is a safe, prosperous nation that generates immense revenue for its government, but try explaining that to a short-term thinker.

      The other problems are the church’s to solve. Some churches are, in fact, working on them, but they’re few and far between.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar,

        “A nation full of solid, intact families is a safe, prosperous nation that generates immense revenue for its government…”

        …while at the same time creating a populace that is much less dependent on government, reducing the power of those in charge. Free, independent, prosperous people, which is what intact families tend to create, is the exact opposite of what the power hungry people at the centers of political power really want. I’d argue that the lust for power is a much better explanation than any other when it comes to understanding the decisions those in political power have made.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA

        I’d argue that the lust for power is a much better explanation than any other when it comes to understanding the decisions those in political power have made.

        I can’t argue with that.

        Like

  3. Scott says:

    I almost forgot dudes!

    You can always go to your “conservative” church or pastor if you need sanity, rationality, mercy and justice.

    HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

    deep breath

    HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

    Liked by 4 people

  4. redpillboomer says:

    I had a curious thought after reading this interesting post. Since I vaguely remember the last vestiges of Marriage 1.0 having grown up in the 1960s and 70s, being raised in a two-parent home and surrounded by neighborhood nuclear families+ (three or more kids), it got me to thinking what were the marital risks back then?

    There were risks back-in-the-day as my best friend’s parents got divorced (caught all of us by surprise), and somehow I got the idea that a few of my friends parents had ‘loveless marriages,’ but stuck together for the sake of the kids. However, overall the zeitgeist was men and women got married, had families, and for the most part stayed together. Heck, this was still the predominate model when I was a young adult in the 1980s with the exception of the back end of marriage, the rising divorce rates. Today, with Marriage 2.0 and maybe we’ve evolved to Marriage 3.0 by now, IDK, it seems the risks were way, way higher back then.

    I’m sure it’s been analyzed in terms of risks now vs. risks then, Marriage 1.0 vs. 2.0 (vs. 3.0?), but it would make for an interesting comparison. I do know from all my reading and listening to ‘Sphere content, that the marital laws are very different now (i.e. no fault divorce, child support and alimony for the wife who predominately gets child custody from the Family Courts, etc.) from the pre-1970s, so the changes in laws would be an obvious place to start in comparing the days of 1.0 vs. 2.0. What other things would have to be compared and contrasted in such a study? And would even looking at 1.0 be even worthwhile in that there may be a possible way out of the current Marital 2.0/3.0 conundrum? Probably not, as it appears we have crossed a rubicon somewhere during the last fifty or sixty years, so there may be no going back to any semblance of the marital stability that we once had as a society. IOW, is the institution of marriage hopelessly doomed to progressively find itself in the “dustbin of history” without some sort of radical societal upheaval?

    Like

    • Scott says:

      We are going to continue to see really bizarre forms of pair bonding with less and less stigma against them for a while. We will also always have a remnant of people who believe in the sacrament (which is what marriage 1.0 really is when you get down to it) because they are not trying to thread the needle between secular “marriage” and actual marriage.

      At some point, when the entire civilization collapses, and people look backward to forms of marriage that actually produced stable civilizations and families, it will be cool again and tried again.

      Remember: the sacrament of marriage, for about 1800 years was a mystery that even protestants understood to transcendently make two unrelated people next of kin, in a bond that it was a grave sin to rend. It came with burdens on both parties and the hope of dying old together, surrounded by the children and grandchildren you made as a reward for loving each other while holding nothing back.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I agree with you Scott, that we have no idea why these mens multiple marriages all imploded. I do know this though, which is why this notion that black women are the highest risk irritates me.

        There’s a saying: “Black men vote with their feet.” Unlike other races of men who tend to suffer through bad marriages and ill-behaved wives, it’s not so with black men. Even if they don’t file the papers right away, they mostly will not suffer through a sexless marriage. They leave, they pick up a side piece, etc.

        Also, since y’all love data, statistics show (and yes, these have been adjusted to account for the relatively low number of such marriages), that in America, black women married to men of other races have the lowest divorce rates overall, even lower than marriages between two Asians or two whites, etc. That’s another peek into the reality of who is leaving whom in BW/BM marriages. There have even been a growing number of black men on YouTube complaining that when black women are married to men other than black men, they control their weight, they are more submissive/demure etc. all the stuff. One might argue that it might be the caliber of those women in general. I just don’t know.

        So while I can’t really speculate concerning Arterburn or Prager, I feel fairly confident saying that in the cases of Samuels and Harvey, the chances that they left at least one of their mulitple ex-wives for greener pastures is probably at LEAST 50/50.

        They probably didn’t go through what you went through.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “It came with burdens on both parties”

        A little louder for the ladies in the back.

        Burdens on both parties.

        Both parties.

        BOTH parties

        BOTH PARTIES

        BOTH parties.

        BOTH PARTIES.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott,

        “We are going to continue to see really bizarre forms of pair bonding with less and less stigma against them for a while.”

        Pair bonding? I never took you for an optimist!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Oscar

        By pair, my loose meaning is “any number of warm objects rubbing themselves together in an infinite permutation of arrangements.”

        Sorry, should have been more clear.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      RPB,

      “Probably not, as it appears we have crossed a rubicon somewhere during the last fifty or sixty years, so there may be no going back to any semblance of marital stability that we once had as a society. IOW, is the institution of marriage hopelessly doomed to progressively find itself in the “dustbin of history” without some sort of radical societal upheaval?”

      1– God is always working to his purposes.
      2– God created marriage as part of his design for men and women.
      3– God has consistently worked through families as part of his covenant, which people have acknowledged for millennia through the sacraments of circumcision in Judaism and infant baptism in Christianity.

      My point is that marriage is important to God and he’s shown us this by how he’s woven it into his plans. So marriage is probably not going anywhere and God will probably reserve a remnant for Himself that still believe in God’s ways when it comes to marriage. I think the role of government in marriage will change, as the current situation is not sustainable long term.

      It may not even take civilization collapsing, depending on what Scott means by collapse. People respond to incentives, and in the U.S., short of deeply held faith in God’s ways, there is a massive incentive for men to avoid marriage. I can see enough men shunning marriage in response to the current incentives to begin making a difference. But this will probably take a similar amount of time as it took us to get here from the end of Marriage 1.0.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        It may not even take civilization collapsing, depending on what Scott means by collapse.

        I’m not saying this meme is true, but I’m not saying it’s false, either.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Oscar,

        That meme is exactly the kind of response I think some people are hoping for in the case of hard reset. However, depending on “hard” it is, we may see something like warlords hoarding 99% of the women using nothing but their cruelty and power, and the rest of men out in the cold.

        The current technologies are the wildcard in that scenario. Who knows? Maybe it will work out, or God will cause the end of the world first.

        Which reminds me, speaking of equality and introspection. Has anyone on here ever met a woman who is willing to confront why they are attracted to power, money, and cruelty, and what they are doing to teach their daughters this is not good?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “Has anyone on here ever met a woman who is willing to confront why they are attracted to power, money, and cruelty, and what they are doing to teach their daughters this is not good?”

        I’ve never met a woman who will admit that they’re attracted to power, money and cruelty.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I’ve never met a woman who will admit being attracted to power, money, or cruelty.”

        I see women dating and having sex with men who exhibit power, money, and cruelty all the time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Hell, I can’t find one woman in a hundred who will admit any portion of responsibility for the breakup of the marriage. All divorced husbands are P.O.S.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “I see women dating and having sex with men who exhibit power, money, and cruelty all the time.”

        and

        “Hell, I can’t find one woman in a hundred who will admit any portion of responsibility for the breakup of the marriage. All divorced husbands are P.O.S.”

        I’d say that women are attracted to like kind. They are ride or die right up until the point when they aren’t, and then he!! hath no fury. The money and power are easy to understand when it comes to why a woman is attracted to them. But with the cruelty, it’s a little harder to see.

        Being able to get away with being cruel without consequences is what powerful men do. Up until a few years ago, I’d have denied that women are attracted to cruelty, but my experience with Mrs. Apostle, due to a combination of her denying agency and feeling justified (brought on by our friend the rationalization hamster), changed my mind on this. I’d call the following the dark triad of female behavior: controlled by emotion, lack of agency, and justification.

        When you combine those 3, she can feel good about almost any merciless action she takes because…

        “The other person did X, so I had to do Y.” (Agency)
        “Because the person did X to me, I can now do Y without consequence.” (Justification)
        “They deserved it, so I don’t feel bad for them.” (Emotion)

        — Using a man’s trust in her against him to get what she wants — check.
        — Saying anything she can to hurt him simply to win an argument — check.
        — Threatening his access to kids or finances to keep control — check.

        I think women are attracted to cruelty, because they have justified being cruel themselves without mentally accepting responsibility for their actions. This reduces the cost the other person pays in their minds so the cruelty doesn’t seem as horrible as it really is.

        The dark triad of female behavior is real y’all.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. thedeti says:

    Love Rollo. Love Kevin Samuels.

    They’re correct that things currently aren’t working. But neither of them come at this entirely from a Christian perspective. Samuels claims to be a Christian but is a twice divorced man who lives the alpha player lifestyle.

    It’s also interesting to see people who were talking about marriage being dead a few years ago now talking about how we need marriage. This is a nonstarter discussion while women don’t want to do what it is going to take to make marriages work.

    So, I’ll ask E and the others.

    Are you ready to read what it’s going to take? Are you? Because women are going to have to do more than men are to bring men back to the marriage table. Women are going to actually have to make some very, very difficult choices and take some years-long actions here.

    Do you women have the courage to face the truth here?

    Liked by 1 person

    • farmlegend says:

      Rollo has historically been somewhat ambiguous about his religious beliefs, and has explained his reluctance to discuss his personal beliefs as taking away from his message of Red Pill. In his most recent book, Religion, in one of the later chapters, he reveals his Christianity. FWIW

      Like

      • Jack says:

        While Rollo is not well versed in Christian doctrine and precepts, I can certainly believe that he’s on a personal mission, maybe even doing God’s will for his life. Same goes for Samuels. At least in the RP area.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “It’s also interesting to see people who were talking about marriage being dead a few years ago now talking about how we need marriage.”

      Yep. I saw this coming. Marriage is fundamental in so many ways — child rearing, family, love, sanctification, sex, social stability, having a hope for the future, and much more. That’s why I never gave up hammering on the topic of marriage, even though it was so blasé for a while.

      Like

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Agreed about Samuels and his “Christianity”. I’ve seen a number of videos where he’s encouraging women to put out and not wait until marriage to have sex with “high value men” they say they want. Most recently, there was a “born again virgin” who essentially decided to be celibate, but she’s in her 40s and is now looking for a Christian marriage. Samuels told her and another girl he called “Canada Dry,” that they need to put-out to find the man they want.

      Now here’s where I take umbrage with Samuels. He very often talks about formerly being involved the ministry and being raised in the Church as a Christian… when you use those labels to describe yourself or your ideology… I think it does considerable damage when it comes to other Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists looking at Samuels and simply taking his word as Gospel… instead of what the scriptures actually say.

      Don’t get me wrong, I think everyone is responsible for themselves and finding the truth about what the Bible says… but if you’re on your journey, and you have weaknesses of the flesh as we all do, and then you hear this man advocate for that hook-up/player lifestyle (albeit, on a case to case basis)… I can see them being misled.

      Also, I saw one video where he criticized the Christian community who were calling him out on his ethics. He suddenly switched hats in this video and said, “I am an Image Consultant. I’m simply trying to help people get what they say they want.”

      Yeah… but in Satan’s world. That’s what’s disturbing. That he touts himself to be Christian yet advocates sinful behaviors as if helping people get what they want is more important than what God wants (which is revealed through the Bible). Maybe I’m being too “self-righteous” but you’d think with a platform where he could reach millions, he’d at least tell them, “If you want to get that, here’s what you have to do… However, as a Christian, I’d be remiss if I didn’t warn that this might not be the best thing for you.”

      For instance, instead of telling the 40-year-old “Born Again Christian” to put out again, Kevin should have commended her for repenting from her former lifestyle and simply told her that at her age, the road ahead is tough, but stick with it.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        One thing I’ve noticed about some of the well known content creators in the ‘Sphere, I can listen to what they’re saying about female nature, societal trends, etc. gleaning informational ‘nuggets’ from it, all the while realizing they’re not the greatest examples in their personal lives. In some cases, they’re NOT examples I’d hold up to men, especially young men, to emulate.

        When it comes to Kevin Samuel’s, I liken him in ways to Tom Leykis. What they both do really well is get on the phone or camera with some really b!tchy, delusional women, Leykis primarily with white and Hispanic women, Samuel’s with black women, and take them down with logic and common sense. They have a real knack for showing these delusional BSC (bat s!it crazy) broads just how freaking delusional they really are. If the female callers on their shows don’t get it when KS and TL dismantle their delusions, Samuel’s and Leykis audiences sure do.

        With that said, I disagree with Leykis on his lifestyle choices; disagree in the sense that it’s okay for him to live that way if he so chooses, but young men really look up to him and try to follow suit. From what’s been posted here about Kevin Samuel’s, it sounds like he and Leykis share some similarities of both of them engaging in the player lifestyles.

        I guess what I’m getting at, I’ve learned to separate the quality information the content creators put out from some of the ways they live their lives, ways which don’t sit well with me. It’s not quite like they are being hypocrites because after all they’re secular guys, it’s just…… Well, let me put it this way, it just doesn’t sit all that well with me, and leave it at that.

        I was just listening to a content creator today that I had stopped listening to months ago because of what I learned about him. However, I had to admit, his shows today (I listened to a few) had some really good stuff in them, real quality information. He was interviewing different women and I thought he did a really good job with it, and the women he was interviewing did as well. I gleaned quite a bit of useful information from his podcasts today. HOWEVER, with that said, I still see him as a a bit of a POS (piece of s@#$) person, and will continue to see him that way; but I had to admit, he did a really good job on the 2-3 clips I looked at today, so I have to give credit where credit is due.

        It’s one reason I like the Christian Red Pill sites. On sites like Dalrock and this one, I don’t have to worry about the content creators being POS’s in the way they live their lives. Not saying any of us is perfect, far from it, but we do focus on the deeper nature of the Red Pill and that is Christ and His ways. I deeply value that; and it’s always refreshing to get back here after a foray out their with the secular Red Pill men and their content.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Scott says:

    “You women don’t want to do what your men tell you to do. You women don’t want to be subject to a man, and have to do what he says. You want him to just give you his money while you do whatever the F you want.”

    I call it, wanting to be married, but not wanting the hassle of having a husband. Husbands have needs, their workout clothes smell like testosterone after the gym, they shave. They have opinions, ideas, dreams, fears, a basic masculine humanity. This all must contained and sequestered.

    This is why husbands feel like strangers in their own homes. Most of the domestic rules are made by the wife, and they are designed to make it seem like no man is actually living there. Take a look the next time you go into a standard American married couples home, looking through this lens.

    Gone are the days when there was a shotgun hanging above the fireplace next to a mounted elk cape. All the man stuff is sequestered into the garage or a “man cave.” Out of sight. Gross. Masculine. Stinky. There are pictures of the family, everyone wearing matching casual clothes next to a river, the husband looking like just another equal, non-threatening member of the team.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Scott –

      This…

      “I call it, wanting to be married, but not wanting the hassle of having a husband.”

      Early on in the process of me asserting myself in my marriage, I told Mrs. Apostle, “You don’t love me. You just love the idea of being married.” She protested, but it was true. The fantasies built up in their own heads of being married is a big draw for many women. Had I told my wife something like this, “Husbands have needs, their workout clothes smell like testosterone after the gym, they shave. They have opinions, ideas, dreams, fears, a basic masculine humanity…” prior to getting married, it may have at least given her a more realistic view of marriage.

      I will note that we’ve come a long way since then.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      A young man (for demographic purposes: white, 26 years old) told me yesterday that he has been reading some Marcus Aurelius, and as he read some of the character traits he encouraged, this young man thought, “That sounds like Mr. [SAM]!”

      High praise for my man, so I know we’re impacting young people no matter how dark it gets. Look for those silver linings.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Elspeth says:

    I know what it takes to keep a marriage afloat. I have no problem with “facing the truth”. I’m out here, fighting the good fight. I and my husband are out here, in the real world, saying some of the most unpalatable things (see my above comment) no matter the consequences, living by example. sometimes I get the side eye evern from women who sincerely love me (see my first comment). I’m not just keybiard warrioring here.

    I keep wondering why you, old friend, have the darndest time separating those of us who are doing something from women who think the world owes them something just because I don’t agree with you on every point.

    No, I am never (no, not ever) going to agree that young women need to marry somebody, anybody no matter the situation to prove that they are traditional. We have a front row seat right now to a few young women who have done that and it is a train wreck to behold. Men have standards, and I support their right and duty to have standards when t comes to choosing a wife. I agree the risk is far too great to do anything less. It’s no more wrong for women to have baseline standards, too.

    I am not the enemy here. One thing I know for sure is that whenever I breather my last, I will be able to say that when it comes to admonishing women, encouraging, giving of my time, money, talents; supporting Biblical marriage, promoting the Truth, I left it all on the field (to use a sports analogy). In real life, not just online. My real life reputation precedes me for better usually, but sometimes for worse. No one would EVER claim that I offer cover for women’s bad behavior.

    One of the main reasons why we are losing the battles that we are is because we are demanding that everyone espose ideological purity with us on every point or we pull out the knives. Good grief.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. thedeti says:

    No. We are losing the battles because we will not insist that women are going to have to do the work here and we will not hold women to any standards of conduct.

    We are losing the battles because we will not say or do things that make women uncomfortable because we are as a society terrified of offending women and hurting their feelings.

    I have never said that women just need to marry somebody, anybody, to prove they’re traditional. But dammit, what they want is ridiculous. What they are demanding of men is patently absurd. Their standards for men are out of this world stratospheric. They simply cannot get what they want because they DO NOT QUALIFY. Their expectations for what they think marriage is or will be or what the men will be like in their marriages are not within any kind of realm of reality that is known to exist. Women are just ludicrous right now.

    We are losing the battles because we lack the courage to even SPEAK the truth, much less face it, much less do anything about it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • elspeth says:

      Fair point, deti. But those “we” certainly doesn’t include me.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        What work do you think women need to do to fix this? Because in the past, I have prescribed a very specific set of concrete actions women can take; and you and others shot it down.

        So, if not “make your IOIs obvious”, then what?

        (In Sean Connery’s The Untouchables voice): “What are you prepared to do?”

        Women today need to answer that question.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        deti – You and I both know that women’s part in fixing the issue around marriage is simple, and that they won’t do it unless forced to. They should remain under their father’s headship until she is under her husband’s, say “no” to premarital sex, not say “no” to marital sex and fall in line under their husband’s headship (obedience). These are the simplified steps women can take.

        Men do have a part in this too. We need to know what we want and have an idea of how we want to get it. We should then begin to use the word ‘no’ with great frequency.

        — Want a big family but she’s a career woman in her 30s? — Sorry, “no”.
        — Want a peaceful home but she’s a SIW type? — Sorry, “no”.
        — Already married and the wife thinks because she has you she now gets to dictate when sex happens? — Sorry, “no”, because that is how marriages end.

        Y’all get the idea.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “But dammit, what they want is ridiculous. What they are demanding of men is patently absurd. Their standards for men are out of this world stratospheric.”

      Yes they are if you’re referring to the “6s” (6′ or greater, 6 pack abs, 6 figure income, 6 inches plus, etc.), plus societal status and the ability to spoil/pamper her 24/7 wtih shopping sprees and trips to wherever. Those standards, while probably still not the majority of women, are held by enough modern women to give some credence to the trope. Even if they don’t quite hold to the 6s, many of them still see themselves deserving of a top 10% man, aka ‘high value’ male.

      If there is one thing the older women can do to help these Millennials and Z’ers get a grip on reality, it would be to emphasize their biological window for reproduction. I heard a stat the other day, and I’m not sure where I heard it (some podcast), that we now have, for the first time in our history, over 50% of our thirty year old+ women childless. One of the best lines I’ve heard in the ‘Sphere is, “She met her husband in her twenties and REJECTED him because A) She thought she could still do better, or B) She was busy working on her career and not ready to settle down, or C) She was having too much fun and didn’t want to miss out on having her ‘fun years’ (FOMO), or D) Some other reason given.”

      Liked by 1 person

  9. anonymous_ng says:

    I can’t remember the author, but it was written in the ’70s (paraphrased):

    “The marriage contract was historically: the man offered up his excess labor, the woman offered up sexual exclusivity. Thus, the man was assured that the children his wife bore were his. The woman gained the resources to see her children grow and thrive.”

    “Every woman knows that the children born of her body are hers. Her sexual exclusivity is necessary for her husband to have that same knowledge. Similarly, a husband’s infidelity doesn’t threaten the entire edifice.”

    I’ve made an argument that the civil rights acts were a mixed bag. They made it harder to be a racist and a bigot, but they also removed the ability of social groups to enforce cultural norms. Now, the lowest common denominator of behavior is the law. That wasn’t always the case.

    Freedom and autonomy is the enemy, alongside hormonal birth control and abortion on demand.

    If those things aren’t going back inside Pandora’s box, things are unlikely to change.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      This is a big part of it right here. A lot of the “freedoms” and autonomy and license and liberties will have to be rolled back full scale. Those things just won’t happen without either (1) mutual widespread agreement; or (2) global cataclysm/reset in which hundreds of millions of people have no other choice.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        The latter. Most definitely the latter. No way will anyone –especially women– EVER give up license unless it’s torn away from them by violent force.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      “Freedom and autonomy is the enemy…”

      Galatians 5:1
      It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

      2 Corinthians 3:17
      Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

      Freedom is not the enemy. Slavery to sin is the enemy. Most people are slaves to sin and think they’re free.

      “A man has as many masters as he has vices.” ~ St. Augustine

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar — Add Galatians 5:13-15 to your list of verses in your comment and we’ve confirmed what you wrote that sin is the real issue.

        Galatians 5:13-15
        13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

        Freedom is not the issue. It is how people use it that is the issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Good call, RPA.

        Like

  10. feeriker says:

    “Among Hispanics, you generally see 0th generation immigrants (like my parents and me) with strong, long-lasting marriages. But, as soon as the 1st generation is born in the States, the out-of-wedlock birth rate, cohabitation rate, and divorce rate all skyrocket. I base that on personal observation, by the way. Statistics may prove me wrong.

    You don’t see that among Asians.

    What’s the difference?”

    The difference? IQ (and thus improved economic prospects) are one key factor, but here’s another, one that I’m not sure that anyone has examined as to whether or not it plays a role. If it does, the implications for American society are horrifying:

    Most Asians do not come from a cultural or religious background that is rooted in Christianity.

    Whites, Blacks, and Hispanic Americans mostly DO come from Christian backgrounds, and yet they have growing, if not already astronomical rates of bastardy and divorce. Asians, who mostly come from what we would call “pagan” backgrounds, don’t. Is there anything to this? Just curious.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “Is there anything to this?”

      I think the key is that Whites, Blacks, and Hispanic Americans mostly DO NOT come from Christian backgrounds. They come from backgrounds that have ABANDONED Christianity, which was the source of order (the “simple rules” I mentioned above) that USED to hold our cultures together.

      The lesson, I think, is that abandoning Christ is worse than never having been a Christian in the first place.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        “The lesson, I think, is that abandoning Christ is worse than never having been a Christian in the first place.”

        I agree. Even most pagan cultures today are not as decadent as the Apostate Christian West.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        2 Peter 2:20-22
        For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”

        Matthew 12:43-45
        “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Feeriker, et al.,

      “You don’t see [a skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rate, cohabitation rate, and divorce rate] among Asians.

      What’s the difference?”

      Most Asians do not come from a cultural or religious background that is rooted in Christianity.

      Not Christianity, per se, but the social structure (i.e. Patriarchy, e.g. “filial piety”, etc.), values, and norms are more closely aligned to the ancient Biblical norm, which is about as close as a culture can get to God’s ordained order. They have maintained these traditions since ancient times.

      Meanwhile, Western societies abandoned these traditions centuries ago, and since then, have totally disregarded the mystical, social, and philosophical precepts of the ancient near East. We have pursued Capitalism, Christianism, Communism, Fascism, Feminism, Gnosticism, Individualism, Progressivism, Socialism… and just about every other kind of -ism there is, in a crazy rebellious effort to fill in the missing pieces. We cannot truthfully say that the Western “Christian” cultures are truly Christian. All Christianity in the West is little more than a religious doctrine that seldom extends past the philosophical realm, and is peppered with occasional social experiments/movements that usually end in failure. They fail, not because they don’t work, but because the entire culture is founded on -isms.

      The implications of this are truly horrifying, but not because Christianity has failed. It is because westerners have wandered so far from God’s order that now good is evil and right is wrong. This fact is reaching a blaring volume, but the implications are so horrifying that Westerners can’t even face up to it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        “The implications of this are truly horrifying, but not because Christianity has failed. It is because westerners have wandered so far from God’s order that now good is evil and right is wrong. This fact is reaching a blaring volume, but the implications are so horrifying that Westerners can’t even face up to it.”

        +1000

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “The implications of this are truly horrifying, but not because Christianity has failed. It is because westerners have wandered so far from God’s order that now good is evil and right is wrong. This fact is reaching a blaring volume, but the implications are so horrifying that Westerners can’t even face up to it.”

        Yes, this is the meta-context for everything we’re dealing with now both in the area of relationships and societal trends as well, “…now good is evil and right is wrong.”

        Like

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      “Most Asians do not come from a cultural or religious background that is rooted in Christianity.”

      That is an interesting point. I’m just thinking out loud with a theory here… I grew up with the ideology that Satan is going down and is looking to take with him as many people as he can. Just like Jesus said that a physician doesn’t come for the healthy, but seeks out the sick, Jesus sought out sinners to get them to repent.

      I wonder if… this is going to sound extremely ignorant… perhaps Asians and cultures not rooted in Christianity, these people simply aren’t targeted and tempted as heavily by Satan to go down paths that lead to dysfunction and chaos the same way those with Christian roots do… because if we’re to believe that the only path to salvation is through Christ alone, then all those who reject/don’t believe in Christ are likely already going down with Satan?

      Damn that felt horrible to type. But just a thought.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Random Angeleno says:

    Watching Kevin Samuels videos is a guilty pleasure now and then. Denigrate his twice divorced background all you like. He’s still out there calling solipsistic women on their poor conduct and undeserved entitlement. Maybe he never gets anywhere, but he’s trying.

    About the rest, it will take a societal reset. But the pendulum does swing eventually. Warning we might not enjoy the path on that journey.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Scott says:

    I forget what the “off topic” rule is, but if anyone is interested I’ve put about 11-14lbs of lean mass on in about 60 days using something calmed SARMs

    And burned fat at the same time. Reminder I’ll be 51 in June.

    I’d post pics if I could ever figure out how to get them to show in the feed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Scott,
      Send me an email with the photos and your story, and we’ll write up a post about it.

      Like

    • Maniac says:

      Scott, where’d you get them? I’ve been interested in Ostarine and RAD-140.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        You can get Ostarine through the mail from Total Nutrition in Great Falls, Montana.

        Just Google it and call him.

        He’ll charge you for shipping it, but that’s it.

        Really cool guy.

        Like

  13. Lastmod says:

    I’ve read and watched both these men on and off. Rollo even quoted me in 2016…2017? That shows obviously how “Beta” he actually is (LOL).

    Both men are “exceptional”, meaning pretty much most men will never achieve the amount of success they have with their respective audiences. Both are very articulate. Both are way, WAY above average intelligence (something most men are not). Both are camera friendly enough. Samuels has excellent fashion sense that works for HIM. He knows it, and he’s good at it. He could easily be a GQ model or in Esquire for ads on the Mercedes, Rolex, Armani Emporium level. He obviously has some good training on how to use camera and lighting, and he was groomed, and he KNOWS how to present himself. This probably took some time to really hone. But his natural good looks made this task MUCH easier for him, compared to others or even most men who would like to emulate him. Black or white.

    Rollo has a squeaky voice and a ponytail. Looks like he should be working at Apple Computer circa 1992. Rollo’s observations and musings work only for men who ALREADY “have it”, meaning they have the looks and the confidence, and they just need a “dusting off” and honed. Losers like me would look silly doing what he actually says men should do.

    Also, Rollo has been married for a VERY long time now. I honestly commend that. Any man that has a solid marriage for a long time is not some “brow-beaten beta”, but just maybe… he and his wife ACTUALLY like each other. I would wager that this is the case. Happy for that.

    Rollo postures tough, but I’d wager that if his wife left tomorrow and took everything…. it’s doubtful Rollo would be a ladies man dating and banging 25 year olds. He even mentioned that himself — if his marriage ended… then he would be off the market……. Now, he’ll cloak this in the “toxic dating world” of today….. but call it a hunch……. his pic on a dating app wouldn’t be getting much attention.

    You know Kevin Samuels’ would.

    Both, I suppose, have some good info. I like Kevin for some of his fashion / design stuff. When he gets in a roll-around with women on his show… it’s the same thing over and over and over and over again. Same with Rollo. Both use big words, both could care less about 99% of the men they are claiming to “love” and “help”, and both now just have a cheering section in the comments…. If you stray one micron over the line…… their fans will pounce on you. Hard.

    I watched a video that had all these experts, with Rollo, Face, and LMS. They PILED on Face HARD and used typical “bro” low punches, and none of them could even understand that he did show up to speak to all of them. I mean, Face invited them to his show. Frequently. They decline. Why? Bro’s like Rollo need a group of sorts… like most faux… or maybe I should say….. Ego masculinity needs to prove a point.

    I suppose both men could be helpful to a younger man. Like someone who is 20. But someone over the age of 35?????? That man is hopeless, but they will never tell you that. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • doclove says:

      Your comments about the older you get, and the physically uglier you are, then the more difficult it is to learn how to seduce women, is true, and I did not say it would necessarily be impossible. However, it may not be worth your effort if you are any combination of too ugly and too old. I do agree with you that if you are in your 20s and younger then it is worth trying to become better looking and otherwise develop better seduction skills or Game. A man or boy should become stronger by lifting weights, sprinting, doing cardio, such as long distance running or swimming, and learning martial arts such as jiujitsu, kickboxing etc., Engaging in prostitution and wearing a latex condom when it is legal helps too, but hopefully you will be forgiven by God for fornicating and adultery. I regard fornication and adultery to be as equally evil, if not more so, as using seduction skills on a woman, or prostitution, or directly paying money or some other compensation for it.

      Like

      • doclove says:

        I need to clarify my above post. All fornication, and even more so, all adultery is a sin and is offensive to God. However, it either makes no difference as to whether one seduces a woman or pays directly through prostitution as to how offensive it is to God, or it is worse to seduce an amateur woman than to pay for a professional prostitute. Both kinds of women are made less marriage worthy, but at least the professional prostitute has some money to show for it with the thousand cock stare, wheras the amateur woman only has the thousand cock stare. The seducer or whoremonger have equally sinned. For some men in the past and increasingly a large minority now and in the forseeable future, there is no other way they are going to get sex other than prostitution, or else suffer through involuntary celibacy. Hopefully, one would be forgiven by God for fornication and prostitution. St. Augustine of Hippo said that if prostitution, even though it is sinful, was outlawed in the towns, then lust would overthrow society. St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later agreed with him and said it is like building a most wonderful palace and not having chamber pots and a serpentine to dump the waste in, which would be toilets and sewers in the modern day and age. Both men were and are and will always be right on this. Lust has overthrown society and some of that reason is that prostitution prohibition is vigorously enforced in most of the West, especially in the USA and Canada. The first world Eastern nations such as South Korea, Hong Kong, Macao, etc. do not enforce prostitution prohibition as much, but they do support narcotics prohibition much more and they are better off for it.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “St. Augustine of Hippo said that if prostitution, even though it is sinful, was outlawed in the towns, then lust would overthrow society. St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later agreed with him and said it is like building a most wonderful palace and not having chamber pots and a serpentine to dump the waste in…”

        Male thirst and female lack of interest, refusal, or unavailability is and has always been a pervasive problem.

        Imagine what society would be like if each man had his own wife, and expressed all his sexual desire to her, and if every man’s wife was willing and eager to receive him, and they engaged in sex anytime either of them had the urge to merge.

        Oh yeah… Somebody already had that idea (1 Corinthians 7:1-5). It tends to function as an individual solution for some men with varying degrees of success. But for some reason, it doesn’t seem to work for the larger society. I can’t help but wonder, why hasn’t anyone or any subculture in the last 2,000 years been able to come up with a social system that could implement 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 somewhat more reliably? Obviously, this goal for a community/society has not been sufficiently prioritized.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Okay. First, even in Jesus’ time there was prostitution. It’s the worlds oldest “profession”, right? Jesus didn’t go the Law and the Teachers of said “laws”, nor did he demand an audience to the puppet king Herod, or to the brutal, evil occupier of Rome to tell Caesar, “Prostitution must be illegal to protect women, and force men to become eunuchs.”

        No. Jesus was pretty clear on sin. He told the prostitute, “Go forth and sin no more”, i.e. meaning that this practice was and is a sin. He spoke of divorce and gave some pretty basic and CLEAR acceptable grounds for divorce to the eager elite men (teachers of the law and perhaps others on THAT level).

        In modern churchianity… all denominations basically condone anything and everything. Just ask for forgiveness, and really try to not do it again. Don’t fear sin…. The priest, the Vicar, the pastor, the reverend, the officer… will forgive sin… not Jesus. Men……. the leaders, the modern pharisees (the in crowd in churches, i.e. the good looking) decide what sins are okay and what sins are not……. and usually….. WHO committed a sin versus WHAT the sin is or was.

        Christianity lost men when they were told to “suffer and burn / your next life will be great / no marriage in heaven… but you must suffer… be alone… serve God, live a righteous life, and MAYBE you will be rewarded along with everyone else who did sin anyway… because God loves everyone and forgives sin….. so its okay…. We’re only men / human / can’t help ourselves.”

        SO there is nothing to strive for. It’s all relative anyway… and Jesus “really” meant this or that. I was always told, “in the context of those times / history…”

        So God’s Word is not for all time??? It was translated wrong? It’s all relative?

        Personally, I just got tired of suffering for the faith, being preached at, talked down to… While some (the elect / cool people) were doing basically anything they wanted to. Just like Jr. high.

        As for young men sprinting, lifting weights, swimming, learning martial arts while studying hard for a STEM degree, getting socialized with women, learning Game/seduction, and at the same time following Jesus “no matter what”, and to master all this before he is 17, is d@mn impossible for most men. The Manosphere makes it sound like it’s easy…

        When I was a teenager coming up in the late 1980’s, I barely had any time to do such things. Aside from studying, my duties at home with family, working a part time job and full time in the summers, I barely had enough time to develop a hobby……

        And it is much harder now:

        There are just not enough virginal women 18-22 who are an easy 8-10 on the looks scale, or who are even wife material. The cultural narrative makes it sound like most women are perfect tens and most men are messing up. The church parrots the same narrative, and you’ll even find this attitude reflected in the Manosphere. So saying that “guys just need to be atheletic, learn game, etc.” is silly. Not every guy is going to get a medal. Not every guy is going to be the “team captain” and even within my hobbies of DJ-ing, soul dancing, design, and early sixties design and fashion…. which I am good at, even at my age…. there is STILL someone who is better, knows more and has more expertise. Try that at 16. Not happening.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Christianity lost men when they were told to “suffer and burn / your next life will be great / no marriage in heaven… but you must suffer… be alone… serve God, live a righteous life, and MAYBE you will be rewarded along with everyone else who did sin anyway… because God loves everyone and forgives sin….. so its okay…. We’re only men / human / can’t help ourselves.”

        SO there is nothing to strive for.”

        Christianity is an entirely different and simultaneously parallel paradigm from that of the world. Christianity is not about being popular with women, having a wife, or getting laid. These are humanistic concerns. So if these other things are a man’s priority, then of course Christianity will not hold his interest. Those men will find secular PUA blogs more to his liking. “It’s never been a better time to be a player.” However, this blog is for men who may have those priorities, but still count them subordinate to serving Christ and realizing God’s order. IOW, we’re trying to walk a narrow road that balances the two parallel paradigms. It’s not for everyone, so it is expected that some men will turn away.

        The problem with the church is that they are not presenting the truth about these matters, and are thereby damaging families and repelling even more men unnecessarily.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “The Manosphere makes it sound like it’s easy…”

        Here we go again. “The manosphere says….” You can’t find anyone who actually said any of that was easy, but “the manosphere says”. Liars like to keep things vague.

        Like

  14. dpmonahan says:

    KS says marriage + divorce is better than never marrying. He is probably thinking in terms of his own upbringing: His dad had something like 10 kids with 8 women, and KS said his 1/2 siblings who were children of the wife were much better off than he was.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Not even the Babylon Bee is creative enough to invent something this ridiculous.

    De Zeen: Vulva Spaceship aims to counter prevalence of phallic spacecraft (2022-3-3)

    “A German feminist art group has revealed a vulva-shaped spaceship concept, which it is encouraging the European Space Agency to help realise in order to better represent humanity in space and “restore gender equality to the cosmos.

    The group Wer Braucht Feminismus? (WBF?), which translates to “Who Needs Feminism?”, created the Vulva Spaceship concept to challenge the convention of phallic spacecraft design.”

    […]

    “WBF? argues that as well as being symbolically inclusive, the ship would be “surprisingly aerodynamic” because the V-shape creates little drag as the craft leaves Earth’s atmosphere – proving that there is room for non-phallic shapes in space.”

    Apparently, the laws of aerodynamics are sexist. Besides, that Bernoulli guy sounds Italian, and Mussolini was Italian, so…. Fascist!

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Lol, heard it all now!

      Like

    • feeriker says:

      “Apparently, the laws of aerodynamics are sexist.”

      Are feminists even smart enough to grasp the concepts of the “laws of aerodynamics”?

      Also, since these are “laws” codified by MEN, they’re inherently sexist and must be done away with.

      Next up: a “legitimate” MSM organ will report on a tardation* of German feminists converging on the Bundestag to DEMAND that their rocket design be adopted by the European Space Program.

      (* “tardation” being my neologism for a collective of feminists [e.g., pride of lions, clowder of cats, murder of crows, shrewdness of apes, etc.])

      Like

  16. Scott says:

    My point in bringing up the money, power, cruelty thing is several fold.

    My contention is that the curse has implications beyond just men toiling and women trying to usurp.

    I believe that the sexes, in the aggregate, have (naturally occurring) greater challenges with different sins and different categories of sins. I have run afoul with a clergy friend over this issue.

    I believe that we (the current “civilization” that is) are very good at identifying and explain to men what their innate challenges to being a good person are. It is a constant droning on in the ambient air of scolding and finger waving at us about aggression, sexual passions, etc.

    But we never do this with girls. What about vanity? What about pettiness? These are things that everyone has the potential to struggle with, but I think it’s pretty easy to observe who has trouble fighting these urges the most.

    Some years back, Sunshine Mary wrote a post about how she observed her 13 year old daughter clearly starting to “tingle” for a boy at the pool who was kind of a cocky jerk, launching water balloons at the girl, aiming them right at her ass. She liked it, and SSM could see it.

    I remember she wrote about how she discussed this proclivity with the daughter. But I don’t remember much else.

    I have two daughters. I was kind of a cocky jerk in high school. I turned out ok, but I noticed early on in life that I could manipulate girls into doing pretty much anything I wanted with the right combination of boyishness, cruelty, smart-assery, and aloof demeanor. It was fun. But the thing is, since this is a site for men, how do we discuss this with our daughters? Or is it mom’s job?

    Sigma — this is an idea for a post! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “I believe that the sexes, in the aggregate, have (naturally occurring) greater challenges with different sins and different categories of sins. I have run afoul with a clergy friend over this issue.”

      I thought that was pretty standard Christian theology.

      “I believe that we (the current “civilization” that is) are very good at identifying and explain to men what their innate challenges to being a good person are. It is a constant droning on in the ambient air of scolding and finger waving at us about aggression, sexual passions, etc.

      But we never do this with girls. What about vanity? What about pettiness? These are things that everyone has the potential to struggle with, but I think it’s pretty easy to observe who has trouble fighting these urges the most.”

      Stefan Molyneux often says that a civilization has to tame male aggression and female vanity, and that the west figured out the first, and forgot about the second. And he’s an atheist! A Christian who doesn’t see it, doesn’t want to see it.

      “But the thing is, since this is a site for men, how do we discuss this with our daughters? Or is it mom’s job?”

      It’s mostly mom’s job, but I’ve talked about it with my daughters, usually during Bible study. I used Jane Austen novels as examples. Mr. Wickham from Pride and Prejudice is in the book specifically to teach girls to avoid such ne’er-do-wells.

      No word yet on how successful I’ve been.

      Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      I’ve already had a few discussions with my 10 year old daughter about bad boy behavior. She started with, “some kid at school is such a jerk…”, this and that… “Why doesn’t he do this or that?” He was obviously just negging the girls. I told her, “He set you up, now you’re on a mission to win him over and change him.” I can’t remember the details, but if she’s out on the streets at 20 it’s too late.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “I believe that we (the current “civilization” that is) are very good at identifying and explain to men what their innate challenges to being a good person are. It is a constant droning on in the ambient air of scolding and finger waving at us about aggression, sexual passions, etc.

      But we never do this with girls. What about vanity? What about pettiness? These are things that everyone has the potential to struggle with, but I think it’s pretty easy to observe who has trouble fighting these urges the most.”

      And–

      –selfishness
      –self-centeredness
      –self-absorption
      –laziness, sloth
      –carelessness
      –thoughtlessness
      –wastefulness
      –emotional dysregulation (women’s arrogation to themselves of the “right” to express their emotions however, whenever, wherever, and upon whomever, they want. Commonly known as vomitpuking negative emotions all over someone. The women in my family did this all the time.)

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Devon70 says:

    A woman has to have a strong physical attraction to a man for the guy to have a chance at a healthy marriage but that physical attraction is just the first step up Mount Everest for the guy.

    Women have no incentive to change because the society and dating/mating market is tilted completely in their favor.

    The one thing that could even the field some is if prostitution became legal and affordable in which case a substantial number of men would drop out of the dating/mating market and go for occasional escort visits. A substantial number of older men with resources have dropped out and have gone to sugar baby sites.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “Women have no incentive to change because the society and dating/mating market is tilted completely in their favor.”

      And this was done specifically by design. Everything is set up to favor and advantage women; and to hinder and disadvantage men.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        deti –

        “And this was done specifically by design. Everything is set up to favor and advantage women; and to hinder and disadvantage men.”

        If you think about the Bible’s prescription for marriage, it imposed massive costs on women for leaving. Only in the rarest of circumstances could she monkey branch to someone with enough clout to make the move financially worth it given the cost of leaving and that is only if she and her new man could both avoid being stoned to death.

        It’s almost as if the Bible compares women to the church because of their tendency to stray just like the church tends to stray from it’s Savior. The prescribed rules are to prevent unfaithfulness for her own good just like God gives us rules to us as His church to prevent us from straying for our own good.

        All of the laws that feminism has created regarding marriage have served to damage marriage, because it is God’s building block for his church, and this is done by freeing women on the initial consequences of their base instincts. This is yet another way you can know that feminism is from Satan himself. Which means the only answer is a big heaping dose of God’s patriarchy and men strong enough to buck culture and find the will to impose it.

        Liked by 2 people

  18. feeriker says:

    “The one thing that could even the field some is if prostitution became legal and affordable…”

    An even bigger game changer would be if sexbots/virtual sex technology matured to the point where flesh-and-blood women were rendered less desirable than the technological alternative, and thus superfluous.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Can you imagine the outcry, the ‘wailing and gnashing of teeth,’ that would occur throughout the land if the one thing you’ve been able to count on as your power source, your sexuality, was suddenly rendering meaningless and powerless?

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Rock Kitaro says:

    Days late to the conversation, but I’ve been watching Kevin Samuels since before World Star blew him up. I do like and respect the effort he’s putting into having the conversation with Black Women because it seems that no one can/or is willing to be honest with them, either out of fear, a lack of patience, or because they just don’t care.

    Some of Kevin’s earlier conversations with ladies had me witnessing the skillful ways in which he basically treats the women like suspects in an interview room until the woman finally admits that she’s lying, particularly about her options and men proposing to her. This is important, because you see examples like Tommy Sotomayor who is constantly attacked for his rhetoric with the main complaint being along the lines of, “He shouldn’t be talking about his own people!!!”

    But again… if he can’t (being a black man)… who can? So I like that Kevin has the patience, will, and drive to put up with the attitudes, BS, and go against popular narratives to actually help people. There have been cases where he has. But as far as the majority? I’m not as sanguine.

    I say that, after having just returned from my black family reunion over the weekend and seeing a lot of single parents, a lot of toddlers running around… and yet, everyone was at peace and harmony. One of my cousins has 4 kids and is expecting his 5th… not married, no one put any shame on him. Everyone congratulated him as if they were proud.

    I mention this to say… that maybe in Black America, the culture has truly changed to the point of no return. If everyone simply accepts the breakdown of marriage and having kids out of wedlock as if it’s a normal thing, sad to say… that’s just the way it is. And when it comes to people like me who do still live by the Scriptures, we have to accept that we are a rare breed. Holding on to things like “waiting till marriage to have sex” is outdated and old-fashioned in today’s times. The likelihood of finding one who’s still young, beautiful, fertile and Christian all while accepting and appreciating these things about you, it’s slim. So just make peace with it. Be open minded that it may happen, but simply stop looking for it. That’s what I’ve committed my mind to 3 months ago and I’m a much happier person. Dating, being alone, and dying alone don’t bother me. Just endure till the end.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Hey Rock. Good to see you.

      I’m not part of the black community. Just an interested onlooker, because what has been happening in the black community in the past 50 or so years with respect to intersexual dynamics is now well underway in the rest of society and with whites.

      The main objection black women (and a lot of black men) raise with Kevin Samuels is that he isn’t “nice”. It’s tone policing. I listened to a conversation Samuels had with a lot of black women about the “Average At Best” video that catapulted him to national attention. Their prime complaint is that he wasn’t nice to her; and that he should have called her up after that exchange and apologized to her. After that, their complaints are, “Well, maybe you’re right about some of this stuff. But, gee, Kevin, the way you say it is just so… harsh and kinda mean, ya know what I’m sayin’?”

      The next thing they do to Samuels is deep dive into his past life. He’s been married and divorced twice. He has a kid by one of his marriages. He took a little longer than usual to pay off some of his debts/court ordered obligations from his last marriage. A lot of his claims about his past careers and work history are hard to verify.

      Then they resort to “misogyny”. “You just hate women.”

      Maybe we do have to just make peace with all this, and remember Who is still in control.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        deti – Harsh seems to be an effective way to snap people out of complacency and harsh is going to happen whether Samuels says anything or not.

        1) A man like Samuels tells women the truth about what they are facing in the future giving them time to adjust, which is a kindness he does not have to offer them, as harsh as that message may be to hear.
        2) The women live in their delusion, ambling through life until the world imposes its harshness and they are caught ill prepared for their reality. At this point options have dwindled considerably.

        Option 2 is what the “tone police” will leave for women. Samuels is right to ignore them like the idiots they are.

        Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        “The main objection black women (and a lot of black men) raise with Kevin Samuels is that he isn’t “nice”.”

        Women in general can dish it out, but can’t take it. This is one hundred times more true of black women, in particular. The medicine (a.k.a. attitude) that they dish out to others is cyanide to them when they’re forced to choke it down themselves.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Women in general can dish it out, but can’t take it. This is one hundred times more true of black women, in particular. The medicine (a.k.a. attitude) that they dish out to others is cyanide to them when they’re forced to choke it down themselves.”

        I am so sick and tired of female attitude. It isn’t just black women either. It’s more an issue of class and lack of restraint than it is race. The neck rolling, the eye rolling, the shrill raised voice, the finger wagging, the pointing, the “in your face” brazenness. Some of them are even throwing punches at men and assaulting and battering men.

        It’s because no men are around to tell them to stop b!tching. These women need to be told to sit their asses down and shut the F up. I’m serious. These women are toxic with a capital T. It’s no wonder so many of them are unmarried.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Mrs. A used to do a head shake and eye roll combo back in the day that I now have ZERO tolerance for EVER. The level of disrespect is intolerable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Eye rolling is actually associated with the last few years of marriage. It usually signals the end.

        Divorce Mag: Study: Eye-Rolling Spouses May Be at Higher Risk of Divorce (2016-1-29)

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        “Eye rolling is actually associated with the last few years of marriage. It usually signals the end.”

        I appear to have gone to the edge, stared into the abyss and pulled back from it. I 100% can see why eye rolling signals the end. It means the wife doesn’t respect the husband at all. The vast majority of the time now, because my wife has no poker face, I may glimpse an expression before she checks herself. Usually it’s because she has a different opinion and we’ll talk about the reasons why before I make a decision on whatever matter we’re discussing.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Rock – Your description of your family reunion made me think of 2 parts of scripture.

      The first was 2 Kings 22 when King Josiah reads the law for the first time and tears his clothes. God’s word had been culturally forgotten by the chosen people, through whom all the prophets and covenants came and then ultimately the Savior of mankind. So forgetting is easy to do, especially when the standard is so exact and sometimes uncomfortable for us to live with. Until men start speaking up about those standards, and this will mean they are willing to take the arrows that will come, culture will dominate what guides right and wrong. We all know that it’s not working out so well.

      The second scripture I thought of was 1 Kings 19. This is where Elijah complains to God and prays that God take his life because pity party. What is relevant is God’s answer and specifically verse 18 where God basically says He is in control and has reserved a remnant to be faithful. There are like minded people out there who still try to adhere to those standards that are now smeared as old fashioned because God will always reserve a remnant for Himself. As long as believers remain there is a chance for the culture, as admittedly bleak as that chance may seem.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Elspeth says:

      When our families get together, there are a plurality of single parent and/or divorced families, and yes. There is peace and harmony (mostly). The whole point of a family reunion is unity. In our family though, there is a clear demarcation between the people who are blasé about children being born without the benefit of marriage, and those who hold tightly to Biblical truth on the matter. The issue is (as it always is) holding to truth without making the children feel as if their very existence is a mistake. This is usually the impetus for refusing to make hay, and it’s not an irrelevant factor.

      Our family has dealt with a lot of contention over the years as we won’t attend baby showers for unmarried mothers. One of my daughters’ lifelong, very close relationship with her cousin bit the dust last year when she (at 26) got pregnant without being married. Our daughter tried to dio verything right. Sat down face to face, explained her position, bought a lovely (and expensive) gift for the baby which she dleivered after the birth. Didn’t matter. All that mattered was that she had “judged, and not been there for” her family. Relationship irreparably changed.

      That was the moment that it became rather noticeable tto everyone that we attended married baby showers (those do crop up in our family on occasion) and refrain from attending the others. We’ve been mostly “othered” but not completely because when you’re the ones who have your act together, yours is a bridge that people are reluctant to burn, but at the same time, things are not the same anymore. Thankfully, my husband has a steel spine and has been pretty much the anchor that held my emotions in check when they would threaten to overwhelm me. It’s not always easy, but he holds me steady and reminds me that doing the right thing comes with a cost.

      There is one thing we have noticed. It’s pretty clear and startling. While the women in our extended family (most of the young ones -under 50- anyway) are very indifferent to us when we come to family events, all of our male relatives are always so excited to see us. They compliment their cousins/nieces lavishly for holding to their faith, virtue and principles.

      Like you, we’ve made peace with it all. The church in America has not done a great job at teaching that “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way” that leads to life, and that there are few fellow travellers. We’re learning that, though. Our girls are too.

      Blessings to you Rock. Seriously.

      Liked by 4 people

      • elspeth says:

        Contrary to popular lore, being gracious, generous and helpful to your fellow women (or even men in this current culture) doesn’t endear you in any way unless you proclaim openness, acceptance, and cheerleading for whatever choices they make.

        This is the end result of the moral hazard referenced here. Without standards, any culture is doomed. Ours certainly is.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “If everyone simply accepts the breakdown of marriage and having kids out of wedlock as if it’s a normal thing, sad to say… that’s just the way it is. And when it comes to people like me who do still live by the Scriptures, we have to accept that we are a rare breed. Holding on to things like “waiting till marriage to have sex” is outdated and old-fashioned in today’s times. The likelihood of finding one who’s still young, beautiful, fertile and Christian all while accepting and appreciating these things about you, it’s slim. So just make peace with it. Be open minded that it may happen, but simply stop looking for it. That’s what I’ve committed my mind to 3 months ago and I’m a much happier person. Dating, being alone, and dying alone don’t bother me. Just endure until the end.”

      Rock, if it makes you feel any better (and I’m sure you know this), what you describe is not just affecting Black America anymore, even if it might be more widely symptomatic in the Black community. The entire American culture, of all races and ethicities, is this way today, with the exception of Asians. I know that’s cold comfort, especially when the dysfunction hits so close to home. Honestly, I find myself sometimes weeping inside for young American Christian men today, and may God please give you all the inner strength to keep moving forward on the journey through this life in Satan’s realm. I’m glad to hear you’ve found peace in not making marriage the center of your life. May this lead to you eventually finding the one who is right for you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “…what you describe is not just affecting Black America anymore…”

        To be fair, it’s been endemic in certain section of the population for centuries. Read Thomas Sowell’s (may the Lord preserve him) descriptions of “cracker culture” in Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

        The problem is that the breakdown of the family is no longer relegated to specific sections of the population. It’s spreading to the entire population, with the exception of most East Asians, and the UMC in general, regardless of ethnicity.

        In his book, Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, Theodore Dalrymple also described a similar phenomena he observed in the U.K.

        Based on my experience growing up in poor (mostly Hispanic) immigrant neighborhoods that featured a lot of the same dysfunction, the one thing that reliably pulls people out of the worldview that Dr. Dalrymple describes is the transforming power of the Gospel.

        Sadly, too many churches have pretty much abandoned it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Oscar-

        Anthony Daniels (Dalrymple), Christopher Degroot, and others like them are interesting characters. These are the “cultural Christians” who are not really believers, but acknowledge that Christianity (as an “ism” or worldview) has done more to bring light, morality, justice, stability, and progress to the world than any other. They fear the collapse of the Christian work ethic because of the ensuing collapse, as there is nothing better to replace it with. Gavin Mcinnes is in this category too.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Scott says:

    “…because when you’re the ones who have your act together, yours is a bridge that people are reluctant to burn…”

    I have friends and family members who have confided in me that they love to take trips to see us because our home feels so loving and “normal” because it is intact. They describe it as basically a respite from the storm of their chaotic, unpredictable, dramatic lives.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      And when four high energy kids under the age of 13 running around like wild animals in a no holds barred cage match to the death is described as a “respite” you know there is something magical about the nuclear, intact family.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        You have just described our summer vacations. 2 sons, 2 nephews, and 6-8 of their second cousins all show up for the same week at the beach. They are all boys and it can be like an old school WWF cage match but with swimming and snacks. Great fun. We parents bring copious volumes of adult beverages.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      That was my parents’ house. Fortunately, my siblings and I all have intact families.

      Like

  21. feeriker says:

    “I am so sick and tired of female attitude. It isn’t just black women either. It’s more an issue of class and lack of restraint than it is race. The neck rolling, the eye rolling, the shrill raised voice, the finger wagging, the pointing, the “in your face” brazenness. Some of them are even throwing punches at men and assaulting and battering men.”

    In saner and more civilized eras past, women who behaved this way would have LITERALLY had some manners beaten into them by whatever male authority figure had guardianship or authority over them. And no, contrary to popular propaganda trumpeted endlessly by today’s feminists and their gelded enablers, this type of discipline was not AT ALL common. Society had norms that were rigorously enforced and upheld — even by other women. It usually only took one instance of going of the rails for a woman to be reminded, in an unmistakably clear manner, that this type of behavior would not be tolerated. At the same time, gratuitous violence against women was tolerated just as little as it is today, if not less so. I’m not going to go looking for the link to it, but if anyone is so inclined and curious enough they should go over to A Voice For Men and check out their links to various historical sources describing how men who gratuitously abused women were dealt with by the law in times gone by (hint: it was tolerated even less than women’s aberrant behavior). The current baseless accusations of “abuuuuuuuuuuuuse!” are simply feminists’ attempts to prevent women from being held accountable for the consequences of their inexcusable behavior.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “And no, contrary to popular propaganda trumpeted endlessly by today’s feminists and their gelded enablers, this type of discipline was not AT ALL common.”

      I’ve been to places where it is common. That’s where we’re headed. Thanks, feminists!

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Yeah. Feminism paints our pre-1970 society as one in which women were being mercilessly beaten and raped, all the time, every day. It’s just not true at all. Most of the time, here’s what a bad marriage looked like: They yelled at each other. One of them moved into the guest bedroom. He did without sex. They hated but tolerated each other. He took a mistress or had sex with prostitutes. He kept it on the downlow.

      Or they separated, but didn’t divorce. One of them moved out and they maintained separate residences and lives. Most of the time, he lived alone, and again, if he wanted to and could, he had a mistress or prostitutes. A particularly bold or well to do man might get his own place and have his mistress live with him part or full-time. His estranged wife, on the other hand, got what she wanted: a reprieve from his sexual overtures. She no longer had to have sex with a man she didn’t want. He got what he wanted: Peace and quiet, and illicit sex if he could swing it.

      But he did not, repeat, not, beat her or abuse her. And he did not rape her. If he wanted sex and she didn’t, he didn’t force himself on her. He might be persuasive. He might apply pressure. He might bitch and complain. But he didn’t rape her.

      Seriously, this is how a lot of married couples did it back in the day. If she turned him away too many times, he simply gave up and either got a subscription to Playboy or went to the peep shows; or if he could, he frequented prostitutes or had affairs. Many times they physically separated and lived in separate residences. It wasn’t talked about a lot, but everyone knew what was going on – it was just a marriage breakdown between two people who couldn’t get along with each other, and them resolving it as they could. They either did not want to divorce or could not. So they lived apart.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Well to do people with irretrievably broken marriages reached “understandings”. They continued to live together. He took mistresses, sugar babies, or prostitutes. He was expected to be discreet, not get anyone pregnant, and not jeopardize the family name or assets. She could have her fun, but discreetly, with no pregnancies and no drama. Both of them were expected to keep up appearances and keep their mouths shut.

        This happened frequently and still happens today. It’s often an open secret with some marriages – everyone knows it’s going on, but no one talks about it.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “This happened frequently and still happens today. It’s often an open secret with some marriages – everyone knows it’s going on, but no one talks about it.”

        The “old” way was to recognize that there is something bigger than the individual so even though the behavior was largely the same as it is today, privacy was protected to perpetuate the family image. The Kennedy’s are a good example of not publicizing behavior to maintain a family image.

        In today’s world, we are individuals first and family members second. On the whole, debauchery is so accepted that we don’t bother trying to hide it and in fact celebrate it as empowering if you are a woman and demonize much of it if you are a man, unless you look like a male model. Social media combined with unchecked individualism and the loss of shame has lead to where we are today with regards to public knowledge of people’s steamy indiscretions.

        Thinking back to growing up, Dan Quayle clumsily mentioning Murphy Brown becoming a single mother and the ensuing backlash that from those foisting strong independent woman mantra, was indicative of the cultural Overton Window shift regarding what is considered shameful. We had gone from single motherhood being something we knew existed but kept out of the limelight, to it being celebrated on a leading sitcom on network television. Fast forward 30 years and instead of shame, we have single women advertising their prowess at controlling their gag reflex with certain shaped fruits and vegetables on social media.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “In saner and more civilized eras past, […] …gratuitous violence against women was tolerated just as little as it is today, if not less so. […] …men who gratuitously abused women were dealt with by the law… (hint: it was tolerated even less than women’s aberrant behavior).”

      I always had the impression that Chivalry remained popular because it was a custom that greased the gears of social intercourse.

      Like

  22. Elspeth says:

    That’s the way of it in the black community, Rock. You know that. Lip service to Christianity, love the church services and the music, talk about Jesus and how the breakthrough is “on the way”, but it’s all smoke and mirrors.

    I heard Voddie Baucham say this in an interview this past week (rough paraphrase):

    “Even if no ‘justice’ was ever achieved [no, he doesn’t buy the narrative], most eveything that ails the black community could be completely solved tomorrow in totality if the gospel was truly preached, and the truth about Biblical marriage, sex roles, and family became normative. That;s all it would take, and that doesn’t require any government action.”

    They need to quit playing church. It’s one of the reasons (although not the only one) why we left the so-called “black church”. Too much noise, not enough truth.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Elspeth says:

      I think I may have been unfair, because the church I grew up in, where my father was a deacon for 40 years, taught truth. Women couldn’t preach, etc. However, over the past 30 years, particularly as black churches have become cults of personality, nondenominational, and void of a unifying doctrine, many of them are just the black gospel version of Joel Osteen’s church. The problem with that approach is that the problems loom too large and the sins far too destructive to be play acting at church rather than discipling members to obey the Truth.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Elspeth….. but Christianity has been divided along racial lines for a long time…. even back in the supposed “good ol days” when my dad was young.

        Even today, Blacks are assumed to be Baptist. Polish are Catholic. Poor people go to the Salvation Army usually downtown. Suburban folks go to that big-box church that is “reaching out”, but is full of suburban, mostly white familes….,and they have a billion ministries and of course a few “youth pastors” and always…………… ALWAYS contemporary praise (that should drive any reasonable man of any color away from a church).

        But just preaching and slamming the door on 99% of people who may have had sin in their lives isn’t the solution either.

        Personally…… being real here. If I walked into any of your churches on some random Sunday out of curiosity, I know for a fact I would not be welcomed. It would be assumed I knew everything about Jesus, the Bible, the history behind said bible, expected to follow rules (kneeling standing, bowing / chanting to an icon, praying to Mary), don’t dare ask any questions, and be expected to take classes, and STILL not be welcome. Most churches (including yours) would fail the Book of James quickly.

        The only reason I stayed as long as I did with the Salvation Army was for the fact that at least there was ALWAYS something to do at the local Corps in terms of service. Cleaning alleys, prepping more food boxes, rotating stock and supply… Always being able to grab a bucket of hot water, a hi-low brush and disinectent to clean the urine soaked alleys around the Corps………

        Elspeth mentioned above that ideological purity cannot be crossed in the man-o-sphere or sites LIKE this… even on small points, or else, out come the knives, and I know that first hand.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Elspeth mentioned above that ideological purity cannot be crossed in the man-o-sphere or sites LIKE this… even on small points, or else, out come the knives, and I know that first hand.”

        This is a good point, LastMod. If you (or anyone else) can identify them, how would you describe the “lines of ideological purity that cannot be crossed”? Try to be as specific as you can.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Even today, Blacks are assumed to be Baptist. Polish are Catholic. Poor people go to the Salvation Army usually downtown.

        What’s wrong with people wanting to worship among others like themselves? My parents, siblings and I attended Spanish-speaking churches when we first moved to the States. What’s wrong with that? These days, my wife and kids and I attend an English-speaking church. What’s wrong with that?

        I’m Hispanic, my wife is white, my five bio kids are mixed, and my five adopted kids are Ethiopian. We’ve been welcomed at every church we ever attended. The accusation that churches keep people out because of their race is a lie. There may be exceptions out there, but after 46 years of attending hundreds of churches on five continents, I’ve never found one.

        Liked by 2 people

  23. Elspeth says:

    I’m going to respond to Jason’s point and address Oscar’s points before I leave. I sense I am wearing out my welcome. Some of y’all can only take so much estrogenic prattling before things go badly.

    We have been to many different types of churches, and the church we attended for the better part of two decades (until they stayed closed for 2 years because Covid) was a predominantly black church. When white people came there, they were always welcomed and treated with kindness. At the time we left, there was a fully white family there. There were a few mixed raced families, even two or three white singletons in attendance. One white guy showed up a few Sundays in a row, and when he started a new restaurant in town, the church members made his spot one of the busiest places to eat on a Sunday afternoon.

    Conversely, we have been in several church environments and have never felt unwelcome. Christmas 2020, the above mentioned church was still closed so we went to church with some friends. It was kind of a high church environment that we were not familiar with. When our friends kneeled, we kneeled, etc. It was awkward at points, but that was because we didn’t know the ritual, but no one made us feel as if we didn’t belong there.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with people worshipping with people who are like them. Of course, this assumes that “like them” is solely a function of ethnicity and other factors don’t matter. My husband has never (no, never) been a fan of emotive worship at all. Not his thing. We went to the church we went to for as long as we did because it was the church I was a member of before he became a believer and he just came with me. As time went by, his strong sense of, “You don’t just leave a church for superficial reasons”, kept us there, along with the fact that he was heavily involved in outreach to the poor. There was plenty he wasn’t thrilled with, but he’s loyal.

    It wasn’t until Trump and Covid that he finally decided that some things were deal breakers and we went somewhere else. We’re not the only black family in the church where we landed (There are 4 others besides us), but the liturgical, more cerebral, more prayer focused style of the Sunday worship suits him much better. So for us, worshipping with people who are “like us” is far more than ethnic similarity, and I would argue that this is probably more true in middle class America than in the upper and lower classes.

    @ Jack:

    I think one point of ideological purity that cannot be broached without severe reaction is the fact that women — however few they may be — can be committed, chaste believers and that they can have a hard time in the mating market as well. That is always met with, “No no no no no no no.” The fact that the Kevin Samuels’ strategy is the fastest route to success for a woman is met with resistance.

    Another ideological point that is always shut down is the fact that occasionally (not often of course, but on occasion), good women marry men that seem good and then those men turn out to be bad in myriad ways. I don’t believe divorce and remarriage are necessarily okay in those circumstances, but they happen as surely as it happens that a man marries a woman and she changes in all the worst possible ways, making his life miserable. Neither of these two things can be said without the knives out.*

    *I agree that most of the time the women just chose badly, but there are occasions where bait and switch occurs. By the same token, most times men choose badly, but there are occasions where bait and switch occur.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “…women — however few they may be — can be committed, chaste believers and that they can have a hard time in the mating market as well.”

      To the extent they have a “hard time”, they create their own “hard time”. It’s because their standards are too high and they will not accept their SMV/RMV counterparts. It’s because they will not do the necessary work of being proactive, of showing IOIs. They will not do the work of going out there and seeking out the men they say they want, and then making their interest crystal clear and then following through. They will not be honest with themselves or others, and will not admit that they don’t really want the Christian men they claim to want. They will not admit that they want the hot sexy bad boys and pine away for them.

      The only place I will agree is that most women have a hard time finding sexually attractive men who are willing to offer them commitment. E, most women will never ever have what you have. Most women are either baby mamas to sexy badboys, or they’re frustrated unhappy wives of beta buxes they settled for. Most women are NOT married to a sexy bad boy who offered them commitment.

      If you want a man, you are going to have to compromise. You will not get everything you want. The reason women stay single is because they will not compromise, they will not settle, they will not cooperate, they will not work with a man, they will not do the work it takes to get a man and keep him.

      And none of this is men’s fault.

      “…good women marry men that seem good and then those men turn out to be bad in myriad ways.”

      The reason it gets shut down is that it’s BS. There are always red flags; always warning signs. Women simply choose to overlook them.

      “By the same token, most times men choose badly, but there are occasions where bait and switch occur.”

      Men don’t choose. Men get chosen. Men display, women select. Men chase, women choose. So if poor choices are being made when it comes to commitment, those are on women. If a woman feels a man is a poor choice, she can always turn him down. She can always reject his sexual overtures and can always reject his requests for commitment. She can always turn down his marriage proposal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Dang deti.

        You didn’t give me a chance to put on some chain mail.

        Good morning, though.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Men don’t choose. Men get chosen. Men display, women select. Men chase, women choose. So if poor choices are being made when it comes to commitment, those are on women.”

        I’m going to have to disagree with that. Men make choices too. We choose which woman, or women, to pursue. Why do you think so many Proverbs warn young men to avoid bad women? Obviously, it’s because so many of us choose to pursue bad women.

        “If a woman feels a man is a poor choice, she can always turn him down. She can always reject his sexual overtures and can always reject his requests for commitment. She can always turn down his marriage proposal.”

        And a man can always choose to not propose to her, or not pursue her at all. If a man chooses to pursue a woman who displays more red flags than a Chinese Communist parade, catches her, and then ends up miserable because of it, whose fault is that?

        Let’s not kid ourselves. That happens all the time.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Elspeth says:

    One more comment about “choosing badly”. There is a man in our family whose wife turned out to be a terror. It’s the kind of story that make most of what you all say here sound like child’s play. I was angry with her for the longest time because I thought what she had done was beyond awful.

    My husband told me plainly, “First of all, yeah. She was awful, but I know for a fact that he knew what kind of woman she was from the outset. Her past was not a secret. She just [insert euphemism here] real good, and he fell hard for her, and then married her because he thought the fact that she went to church meant something. And for the record, it’s not like he was keeping his junk at home either. He wasn’t. Yes, he got screwed in court, but he chose to shut his eyes and believe that he was so wonderful that she would do right by him [not an atypical trait among men in the Agent Man family, LOL]”.

    My disgust with this woman (who I thought was a strong Christian) fueled a fairly healthy distrust of women in me for a good long time. The story is just that horrendous. However, SAM knew and could see both sides of the story. He has taught me to do the same over the years.

    I still agree with the consensus here that western womanhood is the biggest culprit contributing to the current mess that has become of marriage and family. Collective Eve continues to be deceived and collective Adam continues to follow her into the abyss. The curse lives on, but wildly swinging pendulums always hit the innocent on their way to the other side. That is just the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      A man never truly knows a woman until she decides to divorce him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Yes, the issue here is a spinoff of Rollo’s idealistic vs. opportunistic love subroutine. Realizing it has indeed been the last little bit of boyish innocence I had to finally give up. And knowing this has made me a little less bright of a human, to be honest.

        At a previous blog of mine I pointed out that for men (who BTW are not “afraid” of commitment, we are afraid of the OTHER PERSON not committing), once the marriage is in place, we believe that a permanent context to pursue sex and romance exists.

        This is why, when divorce is thrust upon most men in the western world, it is a surprise to the man. The culture says this is because men are so clueless they have no idea how unhappy their wives are until it’s too late.

        No.

        We are not confused about unhappy you are. We are just committed to working through whatever that unhappiness is about until death. If you crossed your fingers behind your back during the vows, this is called “operating in bad faith.”

        Divorce was off the table in the mind of one person only.

        It’s exactly what happened to me.

        Liked by 5 people

      • elspeth says:

        For the record, in my story, he divorced her. She wanted to try and fix it. I agreed with him that it was unfixable, particularly since he isn’t a believer.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        One of my least favorite features of argumentation in the modern world is “the exception that invalidates the rule.”

        Any time you notice a macro trend (all you have to do is notice–even if you draw zero deductions from it) the very next thing you hear is about an example that flies in the face of the overwhelming trend.

        There is a post coming up that Jack kind of shadow wrote for me, that I need to go edit before it is published. Its about the whole “what sins do women struggle with more than men and how to talk about it with your daughters” thing.

        Vanity will come up as one of those issues, I am sure of it.

        And every woman reading (what are there, like 3?) will argue some form of this:

        “Well, I like jeans and ponytails therefore the general rule about women and vanity is not true.

        or

        “What about gay dudes who primp for hours and wax their bodies and whatever?”

        Men who just up and divorce their sweet innocent wives with no warning at all are extremely rare, and any of the guys here on this site who saw it happen would clobber one if we saw it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        One of my least favorite features of argumentation in the modern world is “the exception that invalidates the rule.”

        Seconded.

        Stop me if you have heard this.

        “Women are X” (where X = some negative but factually true characteristic)

        Individual woman: “Well, I am not X and my friends are not X and none of the women I have ever met are X, so therefore, women are not X! You are generalizing, and generalizing is bad.”

        I am convinced that women do this because they take personally anything and everything anyone says. Individual women view anything and everything someone says about “women” as a personal affront. They view it as an attack on them, personally.

        I really think this is because women just hate judgment of any kind. They hate negative consequences. I think it goes back to the herd, “circle the wagons” mentality women have for other women. “Every woman must be saved and preserved because we need every womb we can get for reproduction. We cannot judge any woman, and even if we do, we can’t impose any negative consequence on her, because we need her to make more humans. So, you have to be nice to women. No judging. No bad stuff can happen to women.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Well Scott, I admit that I am vain. Painfully so, and I fight against it all the time. The passage of time is forcing me to, obviously. That’s one of my “lesser” vices, LOL.

        That said, the whole “I wear jeans and ponytails” thing doesn’t mean that vanity is absent, anymore than my wearing heels more often than other women my age automatically means that I am more vain. I am. It’s a heart thing not an external thing.

        I hate the special snowflake thing. I don’t like the idea that I am somehow different, that my life is somehow different. I prefer to deal with “what happens in general?” But the truth is that there are exceptions. Your life is an exception to the sphere narrative, my marriage is apparently an exception. So when you negate exceptions, you often are left with little more than hopelessness. The status quo right now is pretty sucky.

        Okay, now I really am done.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Deti-

        It pretty much ends the conversation, which I think is the point.

        My ex sister-in-law was accepted into an engineering program at a pretty prestigious school (I think it was Embry Riddle) and I remember commenting on it. I said something like

        “That’s great. It’s rare to see women breaking into fields like that. Good for you”

        Which was met with (from my in-laws, and everyone else in the room)

        “Now wait a minute, Scott. Woman are just as capable as men and they can do what ever they want! Shame on you for that comment!”

        All I said was she is entering a male-dominated field and that it was cool.

        The crime is now “noticing” and nothing else.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I’ve run into every time I use the Caprice Classic example.

        You and I are standing on a street corner. We see a 1986 Chevy Caprice Classic with pearl paint, spinner wheels, blackout tinted windows and the license plate screws are rattling from the booming bass inside.

        I put a gun to your head and ask, “What color is the driver?”

        The answer, when your F&*$ing life depends on it, using only the information available and a few seconds before your brains are splattered all over the road is:

        BLACK

        It’s not: “Well, what city are we in?” Or “Did the owner loan the car to someone else?” Or some other stupid obfuscation.

        It doesn’t mean I HATE black people. It’s a test to see if you live in reality.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “I still agree with the consensus here that western womanhood is the biggest culprit contributing to the current mess that has become of marriage and family.”

      And all I can say in response is that when I have suggested things that women can and should and must do to help fix this, you shot it down and protested that women can’t and shouldn’t do those things.

      Well, I don’t know what to tell you, then.

      Elspeth: Problem!! PROBLEM!!

      deti: Solution. But you have to do a lot of it.

      Elspeth: Well, but we’re not gonna do that!

      deti: (shakes head)

      Liked by 1 person

  25. thedeti says:

    “If you (or anyone else) can identify them, how would you describe the “lines of ideological purity that cannot be crossed”? Try to be as specific as you can.”

    1) The ‘sphere clings very, very hard to the notion that a man can improve to the point of getting a satisfying sex life. We hold fast to the idea that every man can do this through self improvement, lifting, looksmaxing, and Game, regardless of background, age, station, or past experience. But Scott and others have been doing yeoman’s work here and elsewhere in observing that it just is not true for increasing numbers of men.

    Scott has mentioned something that many of us AFCs in the sphere forgot. Boys go through developmental milestones with girls, and if a boy didn’t reach those, then something got lost. Important skills weren’t learned; important concepts not picked up on. The Meet Cute. Sneaking around with a girl. Your first kiss, first handhold, first feelup, first time she touches your penis, first time making out in the backseat of a car, first time a girl gets you to orgasm, first awkward sex. And through those experiences, men learned things about women, they internalized things. Most men of my vintage (Gen X) got all those out of the way and learned the rudimentary basics by age 18. If you didn’t get them out of the way, and you didn’t learn that stuff, you have a lot of remedial work to do, and it’s not clear that you can get it all done in your 30s or 40s while you’re working a job, fresh off a divorce, and paying child support to a woman who hates your guts.

    The truth is emerging for a lot of men that because those milestones weren’t reached or because they didn’t pick up on some things, it’s not going to get better. It’s as good as it’s going to get, right now. They can improve their lives through Game, looksmaxing or self improvement, but they will not get relationships with women and they will not get sex. At least, not without paying for it.

    2) Another is the idea that when a man improves and a marriage or relationship follows suit and improves, all the improvement is because of the man’s actions. We in the sphere fight hard to take all the credit for all the improved relationships.

    The truth is that it always takes two to tango. So if a relationship improves, at least part of the reason it does when a man goes “Red Pill” is because of the woman’s reactions and responses to it. Maybe the woman cares about him. Maybe she sees the errors of her ways. Maybe she realizes the good man she’s got and doesn’t want to lose him. Maybe she’s reached down deep and found some decent character in there, and resolves to do her part to fix things. But if the relationship stays together, part of the reason is because of her decisions, actions, reactions, and responses. No amount of Game or self improvement can save a marriage or relationship that a woman has decided is over.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      I would also add the wrinkle that whatever grouping of girls that happened with (let’s say, most of your experiences were with 6s and 7s) then this permanently aligns you in that bracket (assortive mating) and that’s actually a good thing. It keeps (or kept) things humming along for a variety of reasons that you can kind of see downstream from it. There are plenty of couples who are matched up on those numbers who look absolutely blissfully happy to me and I love seeing it. They have stumbled into something like the lore would call “true love.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      3) The ‘sphere likes to think it’s red pill but it’s moving more black pill – that looks are all that matters. That’s become a point of “ideological purity” that’s harder and harder to combat.

      4) The sphere is overpopulated with two subcategories of men: Men on the spectrum (mildly so, not necessarily obviously); and poorly socialized men. A lot of men were seeing things but didn’t know what they were seeing, in part because their brains didn’t pick up naturally on all the social cues or because they didn’t get those experiences.

      Some men’s brains just don’t pick up on it. They perseverate on other things. They concentrate on other things to the exclusion of women and social interaction. Or they stubbornly cling to their first notions of a concept or situation even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

      Other men were just poorly socialized or not socialized at all. We’re seeing a lot more of this. More and more men just don’t get normal social experiences. They don’t get them because all of their interpersonal interactions are taking place on screens. They spend hours, days, interacting with others through social media. They have “best friends” they have never met in person. They have “online girlfriends” who live 1500 miles away who they have never even talked to on the phone. They have online emotional affairs with women they have never met in person.

      Because of all this, these men don’t ever learn what is involved in real life, in person, face to face, real time interaction and communication. They don’t pick up on facial cues, body language, speech rhythms and cadences, the natural rise and fall of a voice when speaking, and other things you see when interacting in real time face to face with another human. They simply don’t know how to do it because they’ve never learned how to do it. They never learned how to do it because they’ve almost never done it. They don’t know how to talk to another person and react in real time, and keep a conversation going. They don’t know how to go up to someone and introduce themselves. They don’t know even how to have a telephone call for business purposes: greeting, introduction, requests, state your business, patience while the other party attends to you, reciprocate while the other person presents their requests and business, please, thank you, you’re welcome, signoff, closing.

      These men lack even rudimentary interpersonal social skills. And that’s something we will have to address as time goes on.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “Another is the idea that when a man improves and a marriage or relationship follows suit and improves, all the improvement is because of the man’s actions. We in the sphere fight hard to take all the credit for all the improved relationships.”

      That’s because so many men in the sphere believe women have no moral agency. Ever since I first found Dalrock’s blog, I’ve been arguing the falsehood of that premise. Women do, in fact, possess free will and moral agency, just as men do.

      Free will is a wild card. You can’t control what another human being (male or female) does, unless you’re willing to use levels of force that any decent man would find abhorrent (see your previous comment about pre-1970s behavior). And yes, every once in a while, a person (male or female) gets a wild hair up their behind and decides to do something completely irrational for no apparently good reason, like throwing away a perfectly good spouse, and detonating a previously happy family. It happens. I’ve seen women and men do it.

      Women’s free will and moral agency (in general) are weak from lack of exercise, but they still exist. Men need to start treating women like adults, and holding them accountable for their actions. That needs to happen before marriage (so the man can dump her if she responds poorly), but if a man failed to do so before marriage (as many of us did, myself included), then it needs to happen during marriage, even if it means she walks out because of it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “Another is the idea that when a man improves and a marriage or relationship follows suit and improves, all the improvement is because of the man’s actions. We in the sphere fight hard to take all the credit for all the improved relationships.”

        “That’s because so many men in the sphere believe women have no moral agency. Ever since I first found Dalrock’s blog, I’ve been arguing the falsehood of that premise. Women do, in fact, possess free will and moral agency, just as men do.”

        Dalrock was a strong proponent of female agency. I don’t think he ever argued for this specifically, but he always made a general assumption that it is true — that women have agency — and with great comedic effect. Other writers have described this assumption as “The Dalrock Route” and have objected to this assumption, without really knowing what they were actually objecting to. I wrote about this in an earlier post, The Dalrock Route (2020-2-10).

        Personally, I believe women possess the potential to have moral agency, but in reality, they don’t exercise it. Furthermore, there are many incentives for them NOT to exercise agency, and there are many machinations they can use to avoid exercising agency. Western culture has fully and without question accepted this as the norm. It is so ingrained and pervasive, in fact, that to even question this is to be “misogynistic”. Therefore, since this is a widespread malady, it certainly appears as though they don’t have agency.

        Femmy gave us some pertinent insights as to the confusion, difficulty, and trouble women have when faced with the choice to exercise agency. I wrote about this in two posts, Moral Guidance Based Feedback vs. Sexual Attention (2021-11-24) and No More Mrs. Hot Mess! (2021-11-29).

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I believe women possess the potential to have moral agency, but in reality, they don’t exercise it. Furthermore, there are many incentives for them NOT to exercise agency, and there are many machinations they can use to avoid exercising agency.”

        That means they have moral agency.

        Imagine a person that has legs, but has never exercised them because someone insisted on pushing them around in a wheel chair. Clara, from the book Heidi comes to mind.

        Clara had legs, but never exercised them, because she had many incentives to NOT exercise them, mostly provided by her governess, who needed Clara to be dependent on her. When Clara began to exercise her legs, she finally became a whole person, much to the horror of her governess.

        It’s the same with most women. They have moral agency, but they’ve never exercised it, because of their governess — feminism. It’s in feminists’ interests to prevent women from exercising their innate moral agency, but that doesn’t mean that women have no moral agency, or that it’s merely a potential. They have it. Every human being has moral agency (with exceptions, like babies, and the mentally handicapped). They just need to learn to use it.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. feeriker says:

    “Divorce was off the table in the mind of one person only.

    Its exactly what happened to me.”

    Me too. It takes two to make a marriage work, but only one to destroy it. All the dedication and commitment to maintenance in the world is useless if the other party decides to use Semtex on the marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      In the heat of the worst, most painful part of my divorce I was told “It was about a year ago that I started picturing my life without you in it. You didn’t have a chance.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “It was about a year ago that I started picturing my life without you in it. You didn’t have a chance.”

        Odds are that, decades later, she’s eating those words every day and wondering how she was ever stupid enough to utter them in the first place.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. thedeti says:

    Here are the usual argumentation techniques women use. They are very, very effective because they’re mostly shaming. They play on men’s protective nature and they invoke “women as victim”. They also invoke morality and suggest that men are immoral and bad even for arguing the positions they do.

    1) You just hate women.

    1a) You’re an incel/creep/sexist/misogynist/bitter small d!cked loser who can’t get laid.

    1b) You’re just angry and bitter.

    1c) Wow, who hurt you?

    1d) You’re attacking me personally.

    2) You’re generalizing. Generalizations are always bad because everyone is different and relationships are complex.

    2a) But I am not like that, my friends are not like that, and no women I know are like that. So, that might be true about women, but it’s not true about me or my friends or women I know.

    2b) Men do it too/are like that too. Therefore, if I do that, it’s OK. Or if men do that, then it’s not OK. Or if men do it, and I do it, it’s not bad. And you’re a hypocrite.

    3) You’re making me feel bad. I am not supposed to feel bad. Bad feelings are abnormal. Anything that makes me feel bad is bad, immoral, evil, and wrong. Therefore, you are bad, immoral, evil, and wrong.

    4) You’re judging me/others/women. Judgment is bad. We can’t judge others. Says so right there in the 12 commandments. You have your truth, I have my truth, and others have their truth.

    4a) I have to be true to myself. If I accepted what you’re saying, I couldn’t be true to myself.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Pingback: How do we teach young women about their own nature? | 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