The Lecherous Horndog

If women are so Pure and Lovely then why is talking about them so Filthy?

Readership: Men; Single Men;
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 4.5 minutes

There’s a common impression that “All men want is sex, Sex, SEX!” This is most noticeable in secular culture, as there are countless examples of articles and blogs that make passing reference to this impression of men.

Here’s one such example.

“…women across the board are entirely fed up with trying to find that one single guy out there who isn’t trying to have sex with them on the first date.”

Evie Magazine: How You Can Have Higher Value in the Sexual Marketplace

Or consider this now famous example from Suzanne Titkemeyer, presumably directed towards Larry Solomon (the author of Biblical Gender Roles)…

But this impression is not limited to secular culture. It also occurs within Christianity.

Yes, even Christian men have this assumption that men are horndogs, and frequently characterize certain men as such!

Here’s a noteworthy example.

I consider Bruce Charlton to be a leading Christian philosopher of the day. I’ve cited his work on occasion. Over at Adam’s place, he wrote this comment about MGTOW forums.

“I can only assume that the authors and commenters are unaware of how self-revealing their quasi-scientific analyses of ‘women’ really are. How such a discourse can self-identify as Christian is evidence only of the vast human capacity for self-deception.

I speak as an ex scholar and researcher in Evolutionary Psychology dating back to 1994 – with an interest in evolved sex differences – so it’s not like I don’t know of the research concerning the kind of stuff the MGTOW’s incompetently purport to be concerned by; but so egregiously misrepresent.

At a more personal level; I find it phony, creepy and unmanly to observe grown-up men gossiping (and sharing experiences) about women’s behaviour at length and repeatedly. It’s something that ought to be discouraged, not indulged under cover of pseudonyms.”

I’m taken aback by Bruce’s criticism!

Granted, MGTOW forums can be pretty raunchy, but at the most basic level, this is what men do. A man who never expresses any interest in such matters, and/or avoids discussion of the same, is either geriatric or is testosterone deficient.

Besides, thanks to “grown-up men gossiping (and sharing experiences) about women’s behavior”, we now have a wealth of information to help us understand and deal with women, i.e. The Red Pill.

But Charlton’s idea of Masculinity is that a man should never touch on any analysis of women’s behavior because that would be “self-revealing”, nor should a man even talk with other men about his experiences with women, because that’s “phony, creepy, and unmanly.”

According to my understanding of Christianity, revealing one’s self is an integral part of fellowship, trust, self-discovery, confession, repentance, and growth!

Personally speaking, writing this blog and discussing these matters with other Christian men helps to keep me sharp when assessing my own marriage and in dealing with my wife.

We should not be surprised to see such talk come out of secular men’s mouths. But for Christian men, it’s a little different. There are a multitude of Bible verses urging Christians to clean up their speech.

Perhaps the most pertinent verse within this context is this one.

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”

Ephesians 4:29 (ESV)

From this verse, we find four key conditions for such talk.

  1. “no corrupting talk” — It leads men closer to knowing God, and away from sin.
  2. “building up” — It serves to teach, exhort, and admonish other men.
  3. “fits the occasion” — Be wary of the social context and the overall impact on others.
  4. “may give grace” — It invites humility and introspection, and it revives vision and purpose.

On point (1), talking about such things can be either a confession or a profession. Those who are guilty and/or ashamed are unwilling to open up and talk about it. Those who talk about it may be less likely to do something wrong.

On point (2), there needs to be at least one discerning man in the group to steer conversations away from foolish and unprofitable talk, and guide men towards a greater knowledge of themselves and how to apply the truth to their lives.

On point (3), there are times and places when talking about sex and women is inappropriate and some topics and phrases are degrading. But that’s exactly why men go to Red Pill or MGTOW forums etc. to discuss such things. That is the right place to engage in such conversations. Unfortunately, even many church sponsored men’s groups do not offer a fitting occasion to delve into such matters.

As for point (4), men have a right to discuss what they want, how they want. A lot of men hang around to teach and train. Men do this for camaraderie, belonging, and fellowship. Why begrudge men that?

Conclusions

While I was brainstorming for different kinds of faux-Masculine archetypes, the Lecherous Horndog came to my mind as a prominent concept of males. But as I was studying this and reading up on some examples in which this characterization of men is used, I realized that it’s not a true faux archetype; it’s only a faux conceptualization of normal men’s sexuality that is cast on men in order to demonize their sexuality. So this post will not include a Masculinity Rating.

Concerning the overall criticism of men being constantly obsessed with sex, I suspect that whenever such a characterization of a man (or men in general) is used, it is not devoid of ulterior motives. At least some of it is adopted as a form of virtue signaling and/or social distancing from the person in question. Other purposes for implementing this image may include…

  • Attention — Chick crack
  • Legalism / Purity Culture
  • Self-Righteous feeels good
  • Virtue Signaling — “I am better than him.”
  • Casting Offence — For the sake of creating drama.
  • To cast shame and/or derision on the man or men being named.
  • Making a distinction of what is perceived to be socially acceptable.
  • Displaying indignance, which is a self gratifying expression of pride.
  • Social Distancing — To distance one’s self from the man or men being named.
  • To identify one’s self as being different from that, viz. not having that behavior.
  • Maybe others?

All this basically boils down to deti’s axiom and/or Scott’s axiom — You’re NOT a lecherous horn dog “only if she thinks you’re hot.”

Instead of taking such a statement personally, a man may do well to interpret such derision as an attribution error or a form of projection. Of course, discernment and introspection are required as usual.

In closing, I’ll very kindly point out that women are 10 times worse! And not only in talk, but also in deed, and they’ll keep it all top secret. And yet, a woman has to be undeniably, unmistakably, and utterly defiled before she’ll be classified as a 304. Meanwhile, otherwise decent men are recast as perverts for merely thinking about sex or talking about women objectively. So even if Christian men took care to watch their mouths, this may be insufficient towards preventing them from being seen as a horndog. The reason is because one loose accusatory word from a woman does much damage, especially in these times when men are guilty simply by accusation.

BTW, the scripture verses above apply to women too.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to The Lecherous Horndog

  1. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  2. locustsplease says:

    Bruce above doesn’t want you talking about his master like that. We’re just supposed to submit to them, take whatever scraps they give us back from our labor, and be happy they haven’t sold us into slavery yet. You ain’t nothing but a dog boy.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Maniac says:

    “Yes, even Christian men have this assumption that men are horndogs, and frequently characterize certain men as such!”

    Good ol’ Purity Culture. At the end of the day, there isn’t much difference between Joshua Harris and Andrea Dworkin. Although I’d probably rather have sex with Josh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      I didn’t know who Andrea Dworkin was so I Googled her. Isn’t there supposed to be a Surgeon General’s warning on that sort of thing?

      Liked by 3 people

  4. redpillboomer says:

    “I consider Bruce Charlton to be a leading Christian philosopher of the day.”

    This guy is about as blue pill and White Knight as they come. The categorical dismissal of all MGTOW men and the rank-and-file men who make up most of the Manosphere, reeks of arrogance, elitism, and just assuming an overall position of cow-towing to gynocentrism and the female imperative.

    Is it true that there is crap in the ‘Sphere? Yes, absolutely. Is there cringe worthy stuff out there too; like grifters and what not? Of course! Are there guys trolling around out there I wouldn’t get caught “dead” with because they are in some way a bit weird in the way they present themselves or their information? Most certainly. HOWEVER, when men get together and share notes on their life experiences with women (and other men too when applicable), mostly good comes out of it. Why? Because the consequences of “getting it wrong” or not mitigating the risks can be severe, even life threatening in extreme cases. The male suicide rate from failed relationships, from getting screwed over by the family courts is horrifying testament to this to say the least.

    Men need a place to be able to talk about relationships with women. We need to hear from each other and learn from one another, so that we either A) We don’t make the same mistakes again (and again and again in some cases); and B) Can turn around and mentor/teach/counsel/coach the younger men what they need to know so it reduces the risk that they F their life up really bad, in some cases really, really bad. Oh, and C) Live the best quality life they can going forward whatever their current circumstances might be. Why? Because God loves his men and wants the best for them. Adam, and especially redeemed Adam, is not some second class citizen, even in our riduiculously screwed up culture. With God, “All things are possible” and He is the ultimate one who can “make messes right”; or if you prefer a popular cliche, “make lemonade out of lemons.”

    Are women the enemy? Of course not! They are made in the image of God just like we are; and they are fallen creatures in need of a Savior just like we are. Women are not the problem, the enemy is, Satan, Lucifer and his fallen demons. They’re the one’s causing all this sh!t in a fallen world, all this stuff we’re currently dealing with. Mankind are just the dupes going along with and facilitating it to their/our detriment.

    Liked by 3 people

    • rontomlinson2 says:

      Here’s BC comparing blue pill, red pill and Christianity

      https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/02/blue-pill-red-pill-christianity.html

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Charlton’s not wrong. The problem is, where are you going to see “real” Christianity, and with whom can you learn and experience it? 95%+ of people who claim Christ aren’t “real” Christians. The reason Christian men here embrace the red pill is because true, “warms your heart” Christianity very well could get you killed, and certainly won’t get you married. If you are married, it won’t preserve your marriage and very well could leave you destitute.

        In that thread, though, Charlton’s commenters decry Vox Day. And 6 years later, are now aligned with him in demanding that Christian men man up and marry the sluts to “save Western Civilization”.

        See, that works only when “real” Christians are in large numbers and pledge themselves to each other. Will Dr. Charlton be there to help me when I need it? Will “real” Christians be there to offer me work and employment if I get doxxed and lose my job? Will “real” Christians be there to help me and mine? Will “real” Christians protect me from unjust reprisal?

        Will the “real” christians who demand that I “save Western Civ” have my back when the SHTF?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Will “real” Christians be there to offer me work and employment if I get doxxed and lose my job?

        I know Christians who will, but many here won’t like who it is. I’ll write more about it later.

        Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Mankind as always has a problem with sin. Only this time we have removed accountability from Women in their proper roles in society.

      And in addition, Men for their part in helping to make the situation worse: “White Knights” and “unrepentant blue pillers”.

      Satan just happens to find this specific weakness exposed by bad Theology and wolves in sheep’s clothing that were allowed to prey on the flock.

      Like

  5. anonymous_ng says:

    I was reading a novel recently by an Australian author. The protagonist needed to work on his strength, so he was lifting weights with 1kg and 2kg weights. The conversion is 1kg ~= 2.2#, so this was patently ridiculous, and yet the author and all the editors didn’t catch that this was ridiculous. Every day, that protagonist used more than enough strength to lift those tiny weights.

    Sometimes, authors from the US confuse metric measures. It was a small room, 10mx10m.

    I find so much of what’s written and said in Christian circles is like American authors trying to use the metric system. Far too much is just foolishness.

    For example, my parish priest said many years ago, that if you looked at porn more than once or twice a year, you were addicted. OK. Let’s extend that contention to other areas. If you drink more than one or two beers a year, you’re addicted. If you eat ice cream more than once or twice a year, you’re addicted. If you watch television more than once or twice a year, you’re addicted.

    See?

    Ridiculous.

    Everyone who writes and tries to frame sexual desire like it’s a deviant impulse, like it’s sinful, is wrong. They are reinforcing the blue-pill/femocracy orthodoxy that male sexual desire is something about which men should be ashamed.

    You know who isn’t ashamed of their sexual desire? Chad. Chad isn’t ashamed of his sexual desire, and everyone is OK with it. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Is he Chad because he refuses to bow to the femocracy about his sexual desire? Or, is he not destroyed when acknowledging his sexual desire because he is Chad?

    IMO, the single thing most men could do to improve their sex life, even with their wives is to be honest about their desires. Sure, it might chase off lots of women who aren’t interesting, but as has been pointed out here many times, it’s better to be alone than married to an angry bitter harridan who hates the thought of sex with you.

    As I reflect on my years married to my ex-wife, I realize now that sex was most often something to be approached from the oblique angle. It was seldom approached directly. But, like so much of that time, if I had to do it over again, I would do things almost the complete opposite way.

    So, the pickup community, red-pill forums, and the rest all threaten the carefully constructed edifice of the femocracy where because women don’t speak directly and forthrightly, honest acknowledgement of sexual desire is verbotten.

    Lately, I’ve come to think that the fear of women is that men start to play the same game they are playing, the Machiavellian cutting turn of a phrase etc. In every endeavor save one, the very best is usually a man. Ha!! Even woman of the year was a man. If men started to treat women the way that women treat each other, which of them could stand before them? Sometimes, I think that’s the fear that maintains the blue-pill femocracy.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “Is he Chad because he refuses to bow to the femocracy about his sexual desire? Or, is he not destroyed when acknowledging his sexual desire because he is Chad?”

    He is The Chad because he does not feel shame over his sexual desire and expressing that desire, nor can women or weak men make him feel shame over that desire and The Chad will often shame them for trying because he’s not backing down. The Chad has his own value system based in the truth, and one of those truths is that it’s fine for a man to have and express sexual desire and he’s more concerned with the truth than what a harpy thinks of him.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The Chad has his own value system based in the truth, and one of those truths is that it’s fine for a man to have and express sexual desire and he’s more concerned with the truth than what a harpy thinks of him.”

      Chad is too busy enjoying the “fruits of winning the genetic lottery” to worry much about what others think of him. The world of women is his proverbial oyster. The Stacy’s and Amber’s are all lined up, just a swipe or text away, awaiting their turn to board the Chad A-train. He lives by a different set of rules. The one thing he needs to be careful of are the traps that the feminist wildebeests have laid for him in the form of false accusations, rape charges, MeToo etc. The wildebeests are just waiting for a disgruntled Stacy or Amber, finally realizing that their 9 looks are nothing special to Chad (to him, 8-9s are a dime a dozen), to serve as the weapon delivery device. Other than that, Chad is free to just lean back and holler, “Next!” LoL

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Good looking men… as a rule… don’t have to worry about false rape accusations, or sexual harassment in modern office culture. “It’s cute” when Chad does it. It’s “creepy” and “deviant” when low key men do it. I saw it at IBM. I see it now in my corporate office.

        The reason why this more recent commercial caused laughs for everyone was because of how “true” it was. Most men got upset at it for the wrong reasons, btw.

        Having a healthy sex drive is “okay” when you are Chad, or the “big shot” in the room. As for anyone else? Nope! We’re moving towards open relationships, harems (hard and soft), and good looking men have no problem with that.

        The rest of us just have to “go to the gym”, or “try harder”, or “pray more”, or “just get confidence”, or “just be content in this life”, because in heaven, there is no marriage evidently.

        When we look at centuries of history, the postwar modern model of the nuclear family was never the “norm”, it was an abberration actually. For most of history, people lived in extended families, harems and concubines existed…… and a dog-eat-dog world of sexual competition. The post war model evened the field for a little while…… but that model could never be sustained for many reasons… rising costs of living, feminism, people wasted the treasury, divorce laws (thanks to our hero Ronald Reagan for that), and many other factors that eventually led to the cultural and moral decline of the country. And what was the church doing during all of this? It just sat there and watched Rome burn.

        Even the aspect of just turning a quick buck was too tempting to sustain this model. It worked well for a little while, due to the fact that the world pretty much was in ruins in 1945 and the USA emerged intact. But there were lots of other factors as well. I’m sure many of you could think of some others and add to this.

        As I’ve gotten older, I’ve slowly realized that the dog-eat-dog model has always been the norm (Darwin I guess), and the current model I grew up with is now giving way and regressing back to what it once was.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “As I’ve gotten older, I’ve slowly realized that the dog-eat-dog model has always been the norm (Darwin I guess), and the current model I grew up with is now giving way and regressing back to what it once was.”

        Right. It was in many ways the model in the West all the way up until the 20th Century. Life before 1900 was dog-eat-dog capitalism and our ancestors, the vast majority of them, could only scratch out a living. If they were lucky, they could reach a modicum of respectability. The great Industrialists and the old money families lived in luxury, but the vast majority of the society was what I guess what we’d call lower middle class or poor. They were scratching out a living, but that was about it. Interestingly, many of them enjoyed life as they spent their non-working hours with family and extended family doing family related activities: meals together, going to church together, etc. Even in the cities with all the immigrants, there were loads of children to bring up inside of the two parent homes; and if y sanitary conditions, child mortality, etc. on the other hand, if you were a child, plenty of children to play with in the neighborhood because families were much larger. I believe 6-7 kids was the average size family around the turn of the century. Problems abounded for sure like alcoholism, sanitation issues, diseases or whatever, but generally speaking, most people were what we’d call today relatively poor, but happy; or at least trying to create happiness the best way they knew how inside of what was then a short life span (they were considered old by 50). In many ways those people, OUR ANCESTORS, enjoyed life much more than we did with far, far less materially speaking.

        Then it slowly began evolving as the western nations grew richer. Many set backs on the way, a couple World Wars, a Great Depression, etc. The post-war nuclear family that I caught the tail end of being a child in the 1960s, was in many ways an aberration. Not perfect by any means, but overall, societally stable for what we refer to as the nuclear family to flourish. This “golden period” lasted what, about 20 years? Then many of the societal forces you mentioned started to tear at it, slowly dismantle it, changing the laws, “socially engineering” just about everything, etc. Now, 50-60 years later, an utter sh!t show.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Right. Back in those times, every family had…

        — That cousin, aunt, or niece who “never married” or “found a man” and she ended up living with relatives. She became that hand maid, that helper and confident or friend to other members but she also depended on the family to take care of her.
        — That life long bachelor who never married back then was looked at, not always as a “playboy”, but more than likely was what we would now call “autistic”. Many such men lived with other men. Others lived with some relatives on a farm, and in exchange for his hard work, he was cared for by the greater family.

        This carries over to today within some immigrant groups… but years ago, it was the norm.

        My Polish side had family members like this up until the 1970’s. I had a Great Aunt Mary who never married and was forever in black… devoutly Catholic…… She probably made the pope look bad. She was a sweetheart and lived with her sister Ida on the farm. She cooked, cleaned, helped with family gatherings, and she made life in Ida’s home that much easier for her and my Great Uncle Stanislaus (Stanley). It was just understood that Mary was going to have to live with her because she never married.

        Even family members who couldn’t make it in society had a role in the home. A room in the house. Duties they carried out with dignity and honor. Expectations. Even that crazy uncle who was taken out to eat or to a movie once a week with the rest of the family had a role… Today, families throw those people on the street. “Is he mentally ill? He just needs to bathe, take responsibility for himself, and work really hard and pay rent / make his own way on minimum wage while most apartments eat 75% of his monthly wage. It’s his own fault!!!”

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        Today, families throw those people on the street.

        My disabled older brother lives with me. Who took care of your disabled older brother?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        My parents did. Until my mother became too ill with her cancer. He was then placed into a private group home until he died. It was a nursing home type of place for older Downs guys. My “disabled” brother bankrupted my family twice financially growing up. He should have been put out of misery at birth. He was supposed to die at birth in 1966. My parents were not “blessed by god” with a child like this, it was a curse.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Jason,

        Thanks for revealing more about your moral character.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Jason,

        Why didn’t you take care of your disabled older brother?

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        After my mother died, the local organization called “The Association of Retarded Citizens” (ARC) had several very well run group homes in the Saratoga Springs region of New York. My mother was nineteen when my parents first married and had my brother. She was a young bride, married ten months, living in a foreign country… and her first child had Down’s syndrome — A baby with medical expenses well over $75K for the first six months of his life. My dad’s insurance would not pick up any coverage because Greg was expected to DIE and not live. That is about $650K in 2021 dollars.

        Anyway, back in 1966, The Way was the ONLY organization that helped my parents with budgeting. They found funding and grants for us. Not only did they help with financial support, but also training on how to care for a baby like this. (He was fed through a tube in his back for the first two years of his life.) They gave my parents emotional support too (which the church was supposed to be and should have been doing), and connected them with other parents going through the same thing. Later, when Greg was older, they set him up in an early day program to help teach this population in what was the burgeoning field of Special Education.

        After my parents had Greg, my mother’s local church (an Episcopal / COE) wanted nothing to do with them. Remember, in 1966 the cultural tenor surrounding idiocy and pathology was taboo. If you had a child like this, you were seen as a “bad person” or you “must have done something terrible to have a child like this”, so my parents were shunned by my dad’s family as well.

        My mother wanted Greg to be with his peers that he had grown up with. His friends. All the Downs guys in this group home had known each other since they were babies. Hence why he was placed there. He wanted to be there. Me moving him to California in 2008 would have killed him.

        Yes, he could have lived with me in a tiny apartment and sat at home alone all day while I mopped floors. Then I could’ve had church folk tell me, “What a blessing it is to have a brother like this!”, while they themselves would never want the burden of it… Followed by, “Oh… and don’t take him to those evil government services! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!!!” And they all knew plenty of people who could do this with the “power of Jesus” (rolls eyes).

        So that’s why. TBH, I’ll admit I would never want him to live with me, but fortunately for both of us, he’s found a happier place.

        BTW, it’s a cheap shot to assume I never had any character, moral, or otherwise.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Yes, he could have lived with me in a tiny apartment and sat at home alone all day while I mopped floors.”

        Or, you could have worked the kind of job that would have allowed you to support your brother, which is what family does. And if moving him to California “would have killed him”, then you could have moved to him, which again, is the kind of thing family does. Abandoning a brother on the opposite side of a continent is not what family does.

        But, then again, neither is wishing death on your own brother, or calling him “a curse”.

        “BTW, it’s a cheap shot to assume I never had any character, moral, or otherwise.”

        I never said that you “never had any character”.

        Like

  7. Devon70 says:

    It’s not surprising one of the Christian bigshots wants men to remain ignorant about women’s behavior. That’s typical. This is why guys go to non-Christians to get the truth.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. feeriker says:

    “So even if Christian men took care to watch their mouths, this may be insufficient towards preventing them from being seen as a horndog. The reason is because one loose accusatory word from a woman does much damage, especially in these times.”

    Further evidence of how completely subsumed by the World the “church” is, that a man is guilty simply by accusation.

    “BTW, the scripture verses above apply to women too.”

    Not in the world of Churchianity, Inc. they don’t.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    It’s been said that one of the sexes’ mating strategies must lose, because they can’t coexist. The only way women can get theirs is to create an artificial power structure where they can keep their motivations hidden. They know that if men got together and talked for ten minutes, we would figure them out and they would lose. (This is why women used to try so hard to be “mysterious”. It’s because they’re not and they know it). Women have been able to convince some men that keeping all men (themselves included) in the dark is to men’s benefit. Nobody wants to admit to being duped by a woman, so it continues even if said man is taken to the cleaners.

    It’s the glory of God to hide a thing, so we can discover it and be awed. It’s the prerogative of women to hide themselves so as to never be discovered, lest we be wroth with them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “It’s been said that one of the sexes’ mating strategies must lose, because they can’t coexist.”

      When both sexes submit to God’s will, everyone wins.

      Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The only way women can get theirs is to create an artificial power structure where they can keep their motivations hidden. They know that if men got together and talked for ten minutes, we would figure them out and they would lose. (This is why women used to try so hard to be “mysterious”. It’s because they’re not and they know it).”

      Well put. I think this is one reason many women despise the Manosphere, because once the ladies get wind of it’s existence, they know the men are talking. They either revert to some form of shaming tactics, or in some cases, try to talk the talk, chameleon style, and (wink-wink) tell the men they’re really on their side once again, “To he!! with feminism! We’re more traditional minded women who’ll cook and clean!” However they respond, I think they, at some level, are aware the gig is up if enough men, a tipping point if you will, figure their game (sexual strategy) out.

      I think one of the reasons for the increased “howling” from women about MGTOW (for example, my personal favorite so far, “MGTOW, Is that a real thing?”), is the sense that we’re on the verge of a tipping point. IOW too many of the “Lower 80% of men” (jeez just typing that phrase is offensive) are waking up to the sexual strategy that has served the ladies well the last few decades, i.e. ride the CC through their 20s, settle down with Capt Save-a-Ho, pump out a couple kids, divorce rape him, and jump back on the CC (or some variation of this construct).

      The problem now for the ladies? Too many “Captains” are wising up and saying “no” to their game, not playing it anymore, not being the beta in their settling party, and going MGTOW. And Chad has already moved on from the now late twenty/early thirty somethings because there’s a whole new bumper crop of 18-25 year olds out there to hop on his train. The ladies strategy is trapped between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” IOW, it’s not working anymore, or at least not as well as it did just a few short years ago. You can sense the desperation in the air. There’s a Bible phrase in the OT, someone help me out, where the women are grabbing the men and begging to be called by their names; anyone know the reference and the context of it?

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Isaiah 3:16-4:1
        16 Moreover the Lord saith,

        “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
        And walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes,
        Walking and mincing as they go,
        And making a tinkling with their feet:
        17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab
        the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion,
        And the Lord will discover their secret parts.
        18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery
        of their tinkling ornaments about their feet,
        And their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
        19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
        20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands,
        And the tablets, and the earrings,
        21 The rings, and nose jewels,
        22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles,
        And the wimples, and the crisping pins,
        23 The glasses, and the fine linen,
        And the hoods, and the vails.

        24 And it shall come to pass,

        that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink;
        And instead of a girdle a rent;
        And instead of well set hair baldness;
        And instead of a stomache a girding of sackcloth;
        And burning instead of beauty.
        25 Thy men shall fall by the sword,
        And thy mighty in the war.
        26 And her gates shall lament and mourn;
        And she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

        4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
        “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel:
        Only let us be called by thy name,
        To take away our reproach.”

        The last verse makes sense only with 3:16-26 read before it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Women don’t like the manosphere because they know what we’re saying is correct and they don’t want men knowing about this stuff. Men knowing what women are like leads to bitterness and hatred. I will give Charlton that much. (Just as women knowing what men are like leads to seething contempt and more than a little fear.) When men and women know “too much” about each other, men hate women; women disrespect men.

        Women don’t want men knowing about them because it leads to judgment, and judgment leads to rejection. Women desperately do not want ordinary beta men rejecting them and rejecting marriage. Bottom line is that women need those ordinary beta bux men for marriage.

        So you hear the usual protestations

        — They just hate women/they’re misogynists.
        — They’re incels/bitter small d!cked losers who can’t get laid.
        — NAWALT
        — IANLT (I am not like that.)
        — MFANLT (My friends are not like that)
        — NOIKILT (No one I know is like that.)
        — The women I know/work with/go to church with/in my social circles are not like that.
        — The only women who are like that are slutty/stupid/broken/damaged/crazy.
        — If the women you know are like that, you need better friends.
        — Who hurt you???
        — I really hope you can get past your rage/bitterness/anger/issues someday.

        All to keep women from taking a look at their own issues.

        I think the biggest issue here with men is something I’ve written about before.

        The way most men approach the “problem of women and relationships” is the same way they approach any other problem. Identify the problem, define it, and then search for workable solutions. If you find something that works, you use it. “Problem solved.”

        If you have before you a problem that has no real workable solution, no “out”, you abandon the problem and leave it as you found it. The reason you leave it as is, undisturbed, is because there is no solution. There is no “workable angle”. There’s no “way in”. There’s no way to make the situation work for you, so you walk away from it and leave it as it was when you encountered it.

        So it is with women. I suspect what’s going on here is a mass “walking away” by men. It’s not most men walking away, but it’s increasing. It’s enough men that it’s rippling through society and it’s gotten the attention of more than a few movers and shakers. It’s causing a “critical mass” so to speak.

        A lot of men who are currently incels in their 30s are men who, had they come of age in the 1980s or 1990s, would be married men now. A lot of men who cannot compete in this SMP and MMP are men who would be able to compete were they in the market that existed in 1982 or 1992 or even 2002, instead of in 2022.

        So, instead continuing to try like Gen X men did, men in Gen Z and iGen are simply walking away. They’re saying “there’s no way in. There’s no angle. There’s no way I can use this situation to my advantage.” Or, they’re men who found out the hard way through a very bad breakup or through a divorce rape that they can’t gain an advantage. They’re men who got zeroed out and they’re now in self preservation mode. They’re men who cannot get back into the market because they don’t have the assets or the capital to get back in. So more and more of these men are walking away. There’s no “in”. There’s no angle. There’s no advantage. There’s no way they can get anything profitable out of the situation. So they just walk away.

        I think that’s what’s happening right now, and it’s increasing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Isaiah 4:1 (KJV)
        And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
        “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel:
        Only let us be called by thy name,
        To take away our reproach.”

        Yes, that’s the one I was thinking of when I thought where we might be headed with our male-female relationships in the next few years, or in the next decade or so.

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        Women’s sexual strategy has been smoked out. The real problem now for them is since they planned on a bottom %80 man, loosing just 10% of these men crashes the market. From what I’ve seen, the bottom men head into Incel oblivion and don’t understand women. The top and lucky enjoy themselves. Most of the MGTOW I see are attractive enough to get women and get the experiences that drive you away from them, but not enough to be the very best. With most women, if you are not the best she’s ever had, you are a pathetic second, and as time goes on she’s just gonna resent you.

        The F boy who works for me spills the beans. You cannot believe the limitless 7-10s begging. Just a couple hundred guys like this in a town of a million can bang every hot girl 20-30. Except what is really going on is that there are more like 2,000 of these guys! After that you have almost no wife material left. This is the one Red Pill thing I wish wasn’t true, but it is.

        Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yeah. If men’s sexual strategy wins, women’s loses. If women’s sexual strategy wins, men’s loses. Up until about, oh, 100 years ago or so (before women got the vote), men’s sexual strategy was the clear winner. Men won, women lost. When women got the vote, women started winning and men started losing.

      Now, 110 years after women got the franchise, women sexual strategy is not only winning, it’s in clear victory. Women weren’t satisfied with just “winning”; they needed men’s sexual strategy absolutely decimated. And it is – men’s sexual strategy simply cannot win anywhere, unless the man deploying it is a top 5% man. Anytime a man uses strategy to get sex, it’s simply a requirement that that male sexual strategy exercise benefit a woman somewhere in some way. Men simply cannot win now, at all. Men have been totally and completely defeated – and it’s our fault.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti – It’s a pyrrhic victory. In going all in on their urges to be equal with men, just like when Eve went all in to be equal with God, they only have obtained what they were striving for, but not what they really wanted. Eve wanted to be like God and thought having the knowledge of good and evil was the means to do this. It wasn’t, death entered the world and Eve was not like God.

        Women wanted to be equal to men because they were unhappy in their roles as helpers and sought the same political, economic and social roles of men thinking this would make them happy. They have largely obtained their goals, but they are more miserable than ever because they denied their own nature in doing so and have lost out on what they truly wanted, contentment.

        Like

  10. Oscar says:

    Now I know what a 304 is.

    Did I miss a functional definition of “horn dog” in the article? Because it seems to me that a “horn dog” is just a dude with a healthy sex drive generated by a healthy hormone profile.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “Now I know what a 304 is.”

      It took me a while too. It is up-side-down or reversed (mirrored) calculator text, like 58008 and 3M TA3.

      “Did I miss a functional definition of “horn dog” in the article? Because it seems to me that a “horn dog” is just a dude with a healthy sex drive generated by a healthy hormone profile.”

      Right. While I was brainstorming for different kinds of faux-Masculine archetypes, the Lecherous Horndog came to my mind as a prominent concept of males. But as I was studying this and reading up on some examples in which this characterization of men is used, I realized that it’s not a true faux archetype; it’s only a faux conceptualization of normal men’s sexuality that is cast on men in order to demonize their sexuality. That’s why I did not include a Masculinity Rating at the end of the OP.

      The purpose for implementing this image is…

      — To virtue signal.
      — To cast derision on the man or men being named.
      — To distance one’s self from the man or men being named.
      — To identify one’s self as being different from that, viz. not having that behavior.
      — Others?

      All this basically boils down to deti’s axiom and/or Scott’s axiom — You’re NOT a lecherous horn dog “only if she thinks you’re hot.”

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        Got it. I thought I was missing something.

        I read an article years ago that I wish I could find again. This lady got testosterone injections to help her gain weight after a long illness. She was shocked at how she wanted to have sex with every man she saw.

        I thought, “Now imagine being a 16-year-old boy. Testosterone’s a hell of a drug.”

        That’s normal for men, especially young men. Makes me wonder if the reduction in testosterone over time has something to do with this false conceptualization.

        Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Hmm maybe from the woman’s point of view, a “horn dog” is a guy who wants it and can get it, aka Chad, a Player, F-boy, etc. … A “lecherous horn dog” is a guy who thinks he could get it, or would like to get it, but is basically left out of the SMP, or is skimming around of the edges of it, getting 2s and 3s in ONS. Stacy and Amber, and the wannabe Stacy’s and Amber’s running around out there (the 3s-4s-5s) think he’s a “creep”…. From what little I’ve heard from the women who would talk about it back in my blue pill days just before getting red pilled, what we would call the “horn dog” was the Player or F-boy who wouldn’t commit to them after they’d spent some time sleeping with him. IOW, he was what they wanted, the tingly guy, but she couldn’t get him to commit to her in an LTR. She went from admiring him to being disgusted and frustrated by him; and in the extreme cases, despising him. The “lecherous horn dog,” that’s just a fancy term for the creep in her eyes, the wannabe Player, the wannabe F-boy…. Now Mr. Blue Pill beta-bux deluxe, he’s an all together different guy. He’s what the women “settle for” — the guy with resources and some degree of social respectability. He’s also the guy she wouldn’t give the time of day to back in her early-to-mid twenties, but now “needs” him as she approaches her thirties; and she REALLY NEEDS him after she’s hit the Wall and progressed towards being post-Wall, 35 and older.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “I thought of the lecherous horndog only in the sense of the guy who just wants to get sex all the time. He’s always inappropriate, seedy, tasteless, and crass. Think Herb Tarlek in WKRP in Cincinnati.”

        Yes deti, I had the same impression. Herb would be a good example of a “lecherous horn dog.” The average, non-Chad like man with a healthy sex drive, that would be “ordinary guy” who is attracted to women. He’s a horndog in that he’s 1) attracted to women (straight, not gay); and 2) wants a relationship with them that includes F-ing. He’s not imo a “horndog” nor certainly a “lecherous horndog,” he’s probably you and me and most every other man on this site when he was young.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. thedeti says:

    A few random comments:

    I thought of the lecherous horndog only in the sense of the guy who just wants to get sex all the time. He’s always inappropriate, seedy, tasteless, and crass. Think Herb Tarlek in WKRP in Cincinnati.

    I never thought of MGTOWs commiserating about women as lecherous horndogs. What Charlton’s saying here is that this is men complaining about women. He, like most traditionals and women, view men complaining as whiny and feminine. They take this view of men complaining about anything, really. (The issue here is men discovering they’re “in the dark” about women and lack of training and understanding. They’re finding out the hard way they were lied to, shafted, and exploited, and they’re justifiably unhappy about it.)

    Nor did I really think about men cursing like sailors on shore leave as lecherous horndogs. You can have as vulgar a vocabulary as you’d like; but unless you’re getting women with it, you’re not much of a lecherous horndog.

    It’s kind of funny to see the Evie quote about women looking for guys who don’t just want sex. Women like it when good looking, sexually attractive men are sexually forward and aggressive. If the guy is good looking enough, they won’t care that all he wants is sex, at least not initially.

    However, women do not like it when unattractive men try to act like attractive men and act sexually forward and aggressive. This, I think, is the source of the notion that women don’t like it when men “just want sex”. Women are complaining about unattractive men in this regard.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      Like I said, the so-called “horn dog” just sounds like a dude with a healthy sex drive. Maybe I’m missing something.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lastmod says:

      I’ve been in MGTOW chats / dischords / forums on and off for a long time. First. It’s NOT in person. This christian guy is thinking all these MGTOWs get together like he does with his “pizza and prayer” guy friends from church.

      I have heard more talk about sex from professing christian men at a men’s retreat (ughhh, yes, I am guilty — I went to one in 2014 in Glen Erie Colorado) than I ever heard in a MGTOW forum. Most of the MGTOW comments and talk of women is “hypergamy”, and “Chad”, and “How do I get better?”, and “How can I get them out of my life for good?” talk than actual sexual talk and swapping stories. MGTOWs don’t meet in person at a church, or meeting weekly. This chump christian seems to think they do. Also, there’s just too many assumptions about MGTOW are taken as truth. “Oh, I read somewhere…”

      Christian men do that. Game and PUA guys DO that.

      Women, plain and simple, don’t like chumps who actually figured out their game and are refusing to play. You see, women need average and below average guys to “take her out” when Chad doesn’t and won’t. They NEED these men to exist so he can “be there for her” when Chad breaks the headboard, hits on her mom, and does her best friend in the same week. She needs many of these guys to “help her with her bills because of the b*tch coworker who ‘hates her’ and got her fired.” Women don’t care how good looking those men are, as long as they’ve got him at their disposal.

      Women actually LIKE really good looking men talking about their bodies, boobs, how good they are horizontally, and their attractiveness around other men. Like always…. it depends on which man is SAYING it.

      Dating coach Mat Hussey has rooms full of women at every event he speaks at. They’re hanging on his every word. The comments sections are filled with “He is so correct.” “He is so smart.” “Finally, a real man who knows how to talk to women about men.” and “More men need to listen to this guy.”

      Nope.

      He has a nice head of hair, a sweet accent from ‘down under’, decent fashion sense, a razor sharp jaw line, friendly-lean blue eyes….

      If I was up on stage telling all these women the EXACT same thing, then we already KNOW the outcome: “He just can’t get a girl.” “Who cares what that dork thinks…” “Why is it that creepy / dorky guys always seem to open their mouths without thinking?”

      It goes back to Dr. Scott: None of this matters if she has the hots for you when she lays eyes on you.

      And unfortunately, now 80% of men are not in that camp, and never will be.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Women don’t like it when unattractive men try to act like attractive men. To women, this:

        chumps who actually figured out their game and are refusing to play.

        is “unattractive men trying to act like attractive men.”

        Liked by 1 person

  12. johnson j says:

    Why is the assumption that by “corrupting talk” Paul means “revealing women’s sins” rather than “hiding women’s sins” in preparation to ordain them as ministers? Remember that women speaking in church would be “corruption” to Paul. So Paul would class gynocentricism as “corrupting talk.”

    Liked by 2 people

  13. thedeti says:

    “But Charlton’s idea of Masculinity is that a man should never touch on any analysis of women’s behavior because that would be “self-revealing”, nor should a man even talk with other men about his experiences with women, because that’s “phony, creepy, and unmanly.”

    Well, I don’t know about this. I think Dr. Charlton is not talking about what he thinks masculinity is; rather, he’s talking about what he thinks masculinity is not. First he’s saying (wrongly, I think) that in discussing evo psych and sexual dimorphism, MGTOWs don’t know what they’re talking about. He’s wrong here – the manosphere, MGTOW included, gets it mostly correct in discussing women and “what women are like”.

    Second, the context tells me Charlton believes men who discuss women and “what they’re like” are acting “unChristian”. I don’t think he’s correct here either. I don’t see any reason why Christian men can’t talk about their struggles here. I have never understood this notion that learning about intersexual relationships should be verboten at church. Why? If you don’t learn this at home, where are you going to learn it? Isn’t it better to learn this at church among Christian men, than it is to learn it on the street from nonChristians? And is it not better to learn the honest truth about male and female sexual nature from Christian men?

    Third, he’s saying Christian men talking about their experiences with women is fake, weird, and feminine. This is the kind of thing women do, he’s saying. How else are Christian men going to learn this? Go out and do it? Aren’t we forbidden from doing that before we marry? Doesn’t Christian sexual morality forbid “test drives” and “practice runs”, instead requiring “on the job training”? And OJT comes with instruction through talk/verbalization, does it not? Why can’t men hear about talk training before OJT from other men who have been through it? If we have problems (as we all do), why can’t we have a group of men to talk about this stuff with?

    The next interlocution people make is “all you do is talk. All you do is complain. If you’re gonna go your own way, then stop talking, stop complaining, and go your own way. For a bunch of men who claim they don’t want anything to do with women, they sure do spend a lot of time complaining about women.” My rejoinder to that is: Men have a right to discuss what they want, how they want. A lot of men hang around to teach and train. Men do this for camaraderie, belonging, and fellowship. Why begrudge men that?

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      If Sharkly hadn’t been on these forums to talk about his wife’s intimacy anorexia, I wouldn’t have known such a thing existed. How can you try to avoid something when you don’t know it exists?

      Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        You lucky duck

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I’m almost mortified to learn there is such a thing as “intimacy anorexia”.

        Frankly, I think “intimacy anorexia” is just another name for “Imnotattractedtohimitis”. It’s just another fancy shmancy phrase for “woman who married man she’s not sexually attracted to because needed to get married/wanted to score status points with the sisterhood/just want to be a wife and a mommy/needed money/whatever other reason.

        It’s not a reflection on Sharkly. He’s probably an attractive man. It’s just a reality that any one man just will not be sexually attractive to most women. It is simply a fact that a woman will be sexually attracted to a narrow swath of men. It just is so.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        He could tell the story but I believe he has said she had a promiscuous history.

        Someone on one of these pages saw his social media page and confirmed that yes he is an attractive man.

        Promiscuity damages women mentally and spiritually. You could be the hawtest guy in the world – crazy is crazy.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Promiscuity damages women mentally and spiritually. You could be the hawtest guy in the world – crazy is crazy.”

        See Amber Heard. I plan to use her as an object lesson with my boys.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        I’ll see myself out.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. redpillboomer says:

    “My rejoinder to that is: Men have a right to discuss what they want, how they want. A lot of men hang around to teach and train. Men do this for camaraderie, belonging, and fellowship. Why begrudge men that?”

    Agree. Even for an older, married guy, there’s a lot to learn: Makes my marital relationship better and stronger, my relationships with women and MEN stronger, increases my wisdom and understanding of human dynamics in a fallen world with redeemed people (us) in it, etc. etc.

    Oh, it also helps with self improvement in other areas of my life. And just as importantly, makes me a potential resource to other men, especially younger men, when they’re ready to begin awareness of and learning, aka diving deeper, into red pill concepts. They can stand on our shoulders and learn this stuff instead of starting purely from scratch and trying to figure it all out by themselves the proverbial hard way, aka all trial and error.

    Besides helping men out, in a roundabout way it helps the women out. Gives them at least some possibility of finding a red pill man who she can be in a relationship with, and once-and-for-all shut up her, “Where have all the good men gone?” lament; that’s assuming she’s ready to give up her “there’s a rich Chad out there somewhere who’ll walk me down the aisle” fantasy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      If you have sons it can help them too.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      RPB and Cam,

      It has taken 3 generations to get where we are now. It is going to take some time and sacrifice to reverse the trend. Sharing experiences and insights amongst fellow men, both married and single is an essential part of passing on knowledge that more often than not has been hard earned.

      If you are a married man who has children passing on the wisdom you have to your kids, both male and female, is essential in not losing the truth again. For girls they need to be taught how to act and the specifics of what she shouldn’t do to her husband because he’ll grow to resent her, then hate hate and finally (and worst of all) become indifferent about her. She needs to understand that she will be the chief protagonist of your own discontent should she not follow your lessons.

      With sons you teach them what they are to do and what not to do, so they can keep their wife in her proper position in the hierarchy. Namely, men need to approach their wives with the mindset that they are the most responsible teenager in the household and act accordingly in setting proper boundaries and expectations. The appropriate application of this mindset gives them the best chance for maintaining the most family harmony with the least amount of long term effort. They need to understand that because of her emotional whims that life as a husband is one of performance and enforcement.

      Liked by 3 people

  15. feeriker says:

    OT:

    Vox Popoli: Feminism, Transgenderism, and the Devil (2022-5-26)

    Money quote:

    “Notice how evil always inverts. ‘The Light of the World’ became ‘the Dark Ages’. The revival of satanic darkness became ‘the Enlightenment’. And the enslavement of women to sin and self-destruction became ‘Women’s Liberation’.

    “If you want to discern if something has satanic roots, look for the inversion. Once you spot it, you’ll scent the sulfur soon enough.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      This is straight from the Limbaugh school of thought. If the left is accusing you of something evil, you can be 99.99% sure the opposite is true. In a recent example, Tuesday was the primary day here in GA. Since 2020 the left has been accusing GA of suppressing votes with the rules put in place to ensure the validity of ballots. We have ghastly racist requirements such as people signing their mail in ballots! The reality is that more people of both parties voted in the primaries than ever before, which is definitive evidence or voter suppression.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Follow up …. there is a better than average chance that Hershel Walker, yes that one, is going to be our next senator. He is still one of the most disciplined and physically imposing men in existence. This will be fun to watch.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Careful RPA…… We had a “Republican” as our governor with massive star appeal in California. He was imposing, popular and masculine. He talked right, made sense… then he got elected. He should have then just called himself a Democrat. He would go to “conservative” functions and talk the talk. Then he came back to California and signed bills to drain our water supply in the name of “nature”. He gave us a huge blunder of a high speed rail project. He couldn’t balance a budget, all of his budgets were rejected, so he did the “If you can’t beat em, join em” Same with Jesse Ventura in MN.

        Hollywood, sports stars, and pastors need to stay out of politics. Most of the Republicans….. No, just about ALL of them in the senate, now do nothing. They had a supermajority when Obama was president for most of his second term, but they were still saying, “You need to give us the presidency in order for us do get anything done. You see, there is this Liberal named Obama in the White House, and he’s stopping ANYTHING we do….”

        Like

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      Exhibit A: women wanting to be men when it suits them, then revert back to being women when it doesn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Every woman should be forced to sign a contract once she reaches majority age: either elect to be fully equal with men, which includes ALL of the burdens, obligations, and responsibilities men have traditionally carried, or be under the coverture of a man (either a husband, father, or other male relative or guardian), with all the restrictions that entails.

        PICK ONE: YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        elect to be fully equal with men, which includes ALL of the burdens, obligations, and responsibilities men have traditionally carried

        technically. women chose this. Women say they chose this. It’s just that pesky little “burdens, obligations, and responsibilities” part that our society’s still having a wee bit of trouble with.

        Most of us men would have no trouble with women choosing this, so long as they live up to that second part.

        A huge part of the problem, though, is that no one, not even men, expects them to live up to that second part. All women have to do is complain long and loudly enough, and they usually can escape that second part. Or get a man to do it for them.

        All the perks; none of the responsibilities. Such a deal, eh?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        That won’t last forever. That’s why we’re heading in the direction of savagery.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        And, right on cue….

        https://gab.com/Libsoftiktok/posts/108370042368990242

        Women are strong and independent, and don’t need no man, until an abusive man shows up, and they suddenly transform into damsels in distress.

        Like

  16. feeriker says:

    It’s not a reflection on Sharkly. He’s probably an attractive man. It’s just a reality that any one man just will not be sexually attractive to most women. It is simply a fact that a woman will be sexually attracted to a narrow swath of men. It just is so.

    I’m sure someone else has expressed this, here or elsewhere, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if God added this to the “punishment package” following The Fall, along with female contentiousness.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      Damn, that sounds disturbingly plausible.

      You will desire to please her, but she will be impossible to please.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I’ll second this.

        The notion of wanting to please her but not being able to fits nicely with the idea that a woman should never be a man’s top priority. A man’s purpose is his top priority and a man striving for his purpose gives a woman the best chance at being happy because her God given purpose is to be his helpmate. This alignment helps her focus on something that is greater than herself which I would think would help mitigate the effects of solipsism.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. thedeti says:

    Off topic, but not really.

    I really have tried to understand from women’s viewpoint all of the problems we talk about here. I’ve done this in a genuine attempt at empathy, and in hopes of helping at least identify the problem. As usual, there’s some truth to what they say and believe. It just all depends on how you view society and what you want that society to look like.

    Women really do believe the problems between men and women exist because men aren’t keeping up with women’s socioeconomic advances post sex rev. Everything will be fine as soon as men “catch up” to women in terms of overall social confidence, skill, economic prowess, and physical appearance. Men haven’t sufficiently adapted to women’s economic and political “independence”. As soon as they do, all will be well.

    Women assert that men can improve their lots with women by increasing their overall attractiveness. This takes on 3 basic forms: Sexual, economic, and emotional. Sexual: physical appearance and personality. Economic: make more money. Emotional: “emotional availability”, “emotional labor”. If a man isn’t doing well with women, it’s because he’s deficient in one or more of these areas. All that men have to do is tweak or overhaul one or more of these areas, and their “catchup” work and adaptation will be complete.

    Women don’t think they’re being unreasonable by expecting good looking, high earning men who are “sensitive” and “emotionally available”. The men they date and have sex with are like this (at least initially). They have to invest their bodies, and they have to risk injury by being around men. They are physically smaller and weaker. It’s easier for them to get STDs. They risk pregnancy. So if they’re going to risk murder, mayhem, disease, and unwanted pregnancy every time they get alone with a man, they want that man to be “worth it”.

    They’re also going to do everything they can to eliminate those risks. If that means demanding money or indicia of commitment or waiting for sex with less attractive men, well, that’s eminently reasonable. The better looking a man is, the less he has to “pay”. He doesn’t have to wait as long, meaning it’s less of his time. If you’re not as sexually attractive, well, she has a “right” to make you “pay” with money, or more attention or time.

    Sex is just not that important to women. It just isn’t. This is because they can always get it. It’s always available to them, they can always get lots of it free for the asking any time they want, and most of it’s kind of bland and boring. Think about it, gents: Is water all that important to you? Not really, because you know you can always get it when you want it or need it. It’s free. It’s everywhere. Most of it’s OK at best, but then, it doesn’t need to be any better than “OK” for it to sustain you.

    For the most part, women have an external locus of control. They don’t look at themselves as the cause of, or solution to, their problems. When something isn’t working, their first thought is not “what’s my role in this and what can I do to make it better?” Their first thought is “what is happening outside me that is causing this, and who is doing it to me?”

    Women do not see why they should have to compromise, make choices, or engage in tradeoffs. Women don’t see why there should be negative consequences. Mostly, this is a direct result of never having had to compromise and never having been required to suffer negative consequences. Or, it’s because she has learned that with complaining or use of feminine wiles, she can escape them, get someone else to bear them, or lie about them. This is also because she focuses on the exceptions rather than the rule. The exception means there’s some chance the rule won’t apply to her. She has also seen the exception enough times that it gives her hope that maybe, just maybe, it could become the rule.


    Even Christian women believe all of this. This is mostly because the Church today idolizes women’s feelings. I mean that quite literally. The modern church has made women’s emotions and mental states into golden calves which its people worship and offer sacrifices to. Christian men are positively terrified of women’s negative feelings. Men know if they are exposed to said negative feelings, it means they won’t get any sex and they will have to tolerate drama, deprivation, and distraction.

    The Church has done this because it has done too much negotiation with terrorists. Women engaged our society with emotional terrorism: “Do what we want or we will not socialize with you. Give us what we want or we will divorce rape you, take your children, leave your churches, refuse to tithe or volunteer, and we will not have sex with you.” This is social and emotional terrorism. It cannot be described any other way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      This reminds me of a post I saw today. Women fall into the rich and uber-rich categories:

      https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2022/05/26/class-or-prosperity-levels-broken-out-by-psychological-effect-of-most-common-dilemmas/

      Never have to choose between two bad options and follow the decision through to the end. For example, a person without health insurance is often faced with a choice between financial devastation and going without medical treatment. In modern America this applies to the middle class and up: not only do they never/rarely have to make such choices, they come to believe that no one ever has to make hard choices and they have contempt for the poor people who do. This gives rise to such beliefs as “Everything will work itself out/God will provide/We’ll find a way/Never sacrifice X for Y.” If you’re poor, a common experience is for a rich person to offer to help, get discouraged by the facts after hitting the first obstacle, and lose interest for lack of comprehension.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The “uber-rich” category applies to women and their sexual decisions:

        Never have to choose between two good options, the answer is always “both”.

        But not at the same time.

        Women are sexually uber rich. Pretty privilege. They can have AF at the beginning of their lives, then BB for the rest of their lives. Both are “good” options and they can and often do choose “both”. It’s just that they can’t choose both at the same time. Or if they do attempt to choose both at the same time they have to conceal it.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      I should not have said that sex is just not important to women. Sex IS important to women.

      It’s more accurate to say “women don’t concern themselves with how to get sex or worry about getting sex, because they can always get it.”

      Liked by 1 person

  18. feeriker says:

    “The Church has done this because it has done too much negotiation with terrorists.”

    Much more fundamentally, the church, at least in the Western World, has completely capitulated to the temporal world, to the point where it is effectively no longer the Bride of Christ. Capituling to women’s “emotional terrorism” is just one form of this, a subset of the behaviors pointing to a surrender to the worldly culture.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Oscar says:

    Off topic: science confirms the obvious.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/12/12/women-rate-the-strongest-men-as-the-most-attractive-study-finds/

    Women, when asked in a study to judge photos of men’s bodies, rated the strongest men as the most attractive. Height and leanness were appealing attributes, too, but strength played an outsize role in the ratings of a man’s torso, per a report published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
    ……
    There was no nuance to these results, he said. Zero of the 160 women surveyed showed a statistical preference for weaker men.
    …….
    Sixty of the shirtless men were recruited from the university gym; 130 were students enrolled in psychology courses. The researchers quantified the students’ physical abilities via weightlifting machines, grip strength tests and other measures.
    ……..
    The researchers also discovered a linear relationship between a man’s rated strength and his attractiveness. “What really explains the lion’s share in attractiveness is how strong a man looks,” Lukaszewski said.

    A man can’t control his height, or his facial structure, but he can get a lot stronger than he is now. Men who say it doesn’t matter are excuse makers who don’t want to do the work.

    Like

  20. Lastmod says:

    Off topic. Flying out of LA to London Sunday afternoon. Will return to the USA on June 26th. Back to work on the 27th. It will be good for me to get off the Internet for a month, dance, relax, people watch, sleep in, not feel guilty by using more than one towel in the hotels I am styaing in. Going to this famous Mod nightclub again……smoking inside (thank goodness!) and I dont drink anymore but will dance and lounge. England swings! Music in video Tito Puente “Hit The Bongo” from about 1967. Be safe everyone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEmIDAAR6ig

    Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      Enjoy, Jason, and be safe!

      My boss was just in Leeds, West Yorkshire last week and said that the weather was unseasonably pleasant. Hope it stays that way for you!

      Are you going back to Wales, too, this time?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        No. Not this time. London for the Jubilee, and to shoppe, The Tate Gallery and a private one-on-one tour of Windsor Castle and grounds. That will be a full day, and then after that, I’ll just relax. I’ll go to Manchester to dance to soul music, and then Salcombe in Devon, on the coast… My Welsh relatives and I are meeting there (uncle, aunt, cousins).

        Liked by 3 people

  21. Oscar says:

    Off topic: strip club economics

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Another good indicator is lumber yards. Lumber sales for framing is still ok, but those are orders from months ago that builders are committed to completing. What lumber yards are not selling much of are the pressure treated ground contact boards that form the sill plate on top of foundations indicating that new home construction starts have greatly slowed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        True. I worked at lumber yards when I was a kid. A big local employer lost a government contract and laid off a bunch of people. The local real estate market crashed, and my lumber yard closed.

        It’s pretty tough to find a job when you’re an unskilled kid competing with a bunch of professional adults.

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      I’ll add that using lumber data as an economic indicator is much less titillating than looking at stripper job security as an economic indicator.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      Alcohol and bar sales always go up in recessions. Self-medication.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        BtM – Stocks of companies that produce alcohol along with those that are involved in collections tend to have a negative covariance with recessions, or at least they did nearly 2 decades ago when I was in business school, but with how wacky things have been the past decade who knows anymore. As such, money managers would include them in their portfolios as a means of mitigating down market years due to recession.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        I worked in bars circa the last recession. Bar business goes up as long as gas prices aren’t crazy. Gas goes up, people drink at home. We’ll see how it shakes out this time around.

        Like

  22. Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | 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