Consolidating one’s Masculinity requires a man to be responsive, knowledgeable, and get the facts straight.
Theme: Consolidating Masculinity
Length: 2,500 words
Reading Time: 14 minutes
The Rabble Rouser
GrifterShifter is a new commenter. She first appeared on 2023/1/20, criticizing Kevin Samuels as a grifter. Over the next few days, GS left a few comments under several posts, all having the same flavor of criticism. When she started commenting on the most recent posts, she brought up many inflammatory ideas (e.g. immigration, monasticism, tr@nsmaxxing, vaginismus, etc.) that were waaay off topic and effectively derailed the discussion. To top it off, her comments were disdainful towards Red Pill lore and took on a condescending tone towards men in general, especially Incels, MGTOW, et al.
I posed four questions to GS with the intention of eliciting a more solid and reasonable response out of her.
- How is the secular monasticism you described any different from the Black Pill, MGTOW, or other similar men’s movements?
- How should vaginismus be addressed in order to set proper expectations for a LTR?
- What do you think the church should be doing differently to help young people set proper expectations for sex and marriage?
- Finally, how does all this relate to Consolidating Masculinity?
The majority of this post will review GS’s flimsy responses to these questions and offer a better informed and more reasonable assessment, followed by a summary statement at the end.
Re: Secular Monasticism
“I think if monasteries were made attractive enough and provided real brotherhood, incels would gravitate to them. True, most aren’t religious, but the religious ones would. The non-religious ones could join secular communes of brotherhood, which men should be building to help each other.”
I’m not someone who would know much about this, but on its face value, what GS describes seems like it might be of interest to a number of younger men who are disappointed with what they’re finding in life. However, I think it would be a hard sell to convince younger single men to come live in an all-male commune or on a farm and work for little more than basic sustenance and the experience of it all. As I stated in SMP Paradigms Compared, there needs to be a purpose, and in this case, it would have to be a shared purpose that would unite and motivate single men. GS played the violin on the necessity of “not being alone”, but as Rowena pointed out, this is not a sufficiently motivating purpose.
The problem with this whole idea is that GS is trying to micromanage what she considers to be a problem with someone else, or a group of people in this case. Stuff them in a comfortable cage, saying, “Here you go. Problem solved. Now, BE HAPPY!” It would be like someone telling a group of lovelorn women, “Can’t solve your problems with lurrve and finding a man who will commit? OK. Be a sugar baby, or go join a rich man’s harem. You can F one day a month and have the leisurely lifestyle you desire while your benefactor is busy with 29 other women during the rest of the month. All expenses paid. Go post photos of your bedroom escapades and lavish lifestyle on FB, IG, and OnlyFans to get the attention you need. But if you don’t put out, if you mouth off, or fail to produce an heir, you’re back out on the street. Now shut up and BE HAPPY!”
The reason this doesn’t work is because it removes agentic free will from the equation. This approach essentially excises Christ and imposes a worldly solution contrived by man (or a woman in this case). If one is to be assigned, coerced, or forced into doing something, then one cannot be forced to be happy in doing so. It violates the integrity of the soul. It is essentially an imposed anesthetic that will produce more ħɘ11 than heaven. This is not to say that a monastic life is not the answer to some men’s struggles, but it cannot be imposed. It has to happen organically and by the power of God.
LastMod was the first to recognize this as a dead end “solution”. He took a step back and considered what might be GS’s purpose in making this suggestion… ???
Re: On Becoming a Monk / Nun
“One of the great failures of Protestantism is the lack of a monastic option. As a Protestant, if I want to remain single to serve God exclusively my whole life, I will be looked at as a failure simply for not marrying. That goes for both women and men.”
I agree that there is pressure on young people to marry and procreate, especially within the church. There always has been, especially from mothers and fathers who wish to see their family lines continued and to enjoy having grandchildren. From an evolutionary viewpoint, one is a failure if he/she does not procreate. From a moral standpoint, one is a failure if one is sexually active and refuses to procreate. This is the Catholic stance on sex in a nutshell. From a Christian viewpoint, it all depends on whether it is within God’s purposes for one to be married and to procreate. If God calls them to do so, and they do not, then maybe those who know them best are correct in their assessment of them as a failure. Of course, only they themselves would know if God has truly called them to be married / have children or not. But if a person is sexually active, it’s a good indication that they ought to be married.
Re: Men’s Movements
“[The Black Pill / MGTOW] aren’t movements. Nobody’s moving. They are sitting online all day, every day.”
This is a tangent from the main topic, but I should explain my reasoning. I would regard these sociological phenomena as a movement — not a social activist movement, which GS is probably thinking of, but a cultural movement — a fundamental shift in the life choices of a large number of men. MGTOW is currently estimated to be 10-26% of men. There are no demographic estimates available yet on the Black Pill, but I would guess it’s in that same ballpark, with some overlap. There was no Black Pill nor MGTOW, nor men calling themselves such more than a decade ago. Now there are. I would call that a movement. That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything, as GS says. What GS means is that they aren’t doing anything for the Feminine Imperative. In reality, it means they’re doing their own thing and going their own way, just as the name implies.
In response to my second question about how vaginismus should be addressed, GS wrote a generic and unsatisfying answer.
“Google it, research a bit, then seek treatment.”
I am getting the impression that GS is someone who suffers from vaginismus. She’s told us a lot of information about this — waaay off topic — but yet she has not given us any transferrable knowledge on the subject, probably because it would be humiliating. At some point, she’ll need to start quoting solid research, or else establish herself as an expert on the subject (i.e. someone with first-hand experience), in order to gain any further traction with readers on this subject. (That is why deti et al. were asking for her age, sex, marital status, etc.)
Anyway, I did just as GS said. I Googled “vaginismus” and found some information. Then after doing some reading, I realized that she had probably never done what she was asking others to do — to Google it.
About vaginismus, GS wrote,
“It’s actually not that rare, just un talked about.”
How rare is “rare”? Is below 5% rare?
“The prevalence of vaginismus in the general population is 1-6%, and this ratio rises to between 5% and 17% in sexual dysfunction clinics (Konkan et al., 2012).” 
GS said that the problem is underreported and misdiagnosed. As a high water mark, can we assume that the prevalence in the general population is similar to what appears in sexual dysfunction clinics? Or can we say that every woman who defrauds her husband out of regular marital relations is suffering from vaginismus and they just don’t know it? In that case, that’s about 10-26%,* which is slightly higher than the frequency of those going to the sex clinics. At any rate, it offers a very clever excuse for women who apparently don’t know what they’re missing out on.
I also learned that it’s aggravated by familial dysfunction.
“The family structure in which the individual is raised is a significant factor for the development of several problems, including sexual dysfunctions. Repressive, frightening, threatening and extremely moral loveless parents, alcoholic father, serious arguments that can even lead to violence, and extremely protective merciful parents are common in women with vaginismus…” 
Poor relationship with her father; Not experiencing God through her parent’s marriage — More stuff we’ve covered here before.
According to the research paper , the success rate for women undergoing treatment for vaginismus (using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and vaginal penetration exercises) was 63.8%. Success largely depends on the woman’s willingness to undergo treatment, practice CBT, and do the penetration exercises as a habit.
Patients who were reluctant to perform the vaginal penetration exercises had a lower rate of recovery. The researchers noted that it was common for these patients to perceive vaginal penetration as a “violation” of their bodies.
“In conclusion, patients with vaginismus are aware of their condition and treatment is possible if they want. There is no difference between treatment methods in terms of success rates. However, the patients are more resistant to treatment if they have a history of vaginismus in their relatives or in the presence of a partner who say it is his or her fault.”
Note the last part of the last sentence. Translation: Self-consciousness aggravates vaginismus. IOW, a lack of self-confidence and trust, which we already know will put the brakes on the beaver.
“…if she’s young, healthy, hormones are balanced and has at least a moderate libido, and has a healthy sexual self-esteem (despite anti-sex Church indoctrination), if she does not show interest in sex I would question my bedroom skills as a husband.”
That’s not what the medical literature says. Granted, there’s not much research on this, but the paper I cited above  suggests that the biggest issue with vaginismus and the treatment thereof is more or less psychological – a cold family upbringing coupled with a fear of vaginal penetration and seeing it as a violation of the body. To this, I would add, that “violation of the body” is the defiling and humbling aspect of sex (for a woman) which is what makes marital sex validational and contributes to sanctification. IOW, women with vaginismus are women who have a psychological block and don’t want to be defiled and humbled in the bedroom. The reasons for this might vary from one woman to the next, but we can all take a guess as to why… Insufficient Tingulation. (Deti is always right, dadgummit!)
* It is interesting to note that the percentage of women with vaginismus is exactly the same percentage of MGTOWs. Coincidence?
Re: Faulty sex education within the church
GS repetitively mentioned the failure of the church to educate young people about sex and marriage. This is a topic that is covered rather frequently here. I and most readers here would agree that the church has dropped the ball concerning Christian education about sex and marriage. There are many problems in changing this, including…
- Not having anything better to teach.
- Current leadership is not willing to teach or even rejects what we’ve already identified as being beneficial.
- Things that are beneficial are difficult, embarassing, or unpalatable to women, and church leaders will not address these issues because the majority of churchgoers are women.
- Building the momentum of a “new and improved” social environment that is free from the corrupting spoils of feminism.
- Cultural indoctrination has hypnotized and blinded the majority of young people, including those in the church. As a result, they are not “hungry” enough to seek out anything better.
On this problem, GS did not offer any suggestions other than monasticism.
Re: Expectations for LTRs
”Satisfying sex is an expectation people have for marriage. Sexual expression is very closely tied to masculinity and femininity. If our bodies (or anything else) prevent us from fully expressing ourselves sexually in our marriage, it will prevent us from “consolidating” our masculinity or femininity.”
GS should have stated this at the beginning of her first comment about vaginismus, and she would have received a much warmer response. But again, she hasn’t offered any transferrable knowledge here. The larger issue with her comment is that she is assuming that masculinity / femininity is dependent on one’s sexual function. I suppose to a small degree it is, especially for the married, but it is a mistake to make this blanket assumption because it would imply that all Black Pillers, incels, and MGTOWs are excluded from ever being masculine. Men deserve more respect than this.
Stuff like this makes me certain that GS is a female, because this sounds just like a woman’s viewpoint — light on facts, heavy on Feeelz, half-baked logical assumptions, and always leaning towards the Feminine Imperative.
GS left 10 additional comments that I did not “approve” for posting, mainly because they were excusing women’s sexual sin, misinformed, petulant, solipsistic, dancing from topic to topic, and disrespectful to men in general. I grew tired of the tiddlywinks and decided that GS had had sufficient air time to make her position and disposition clear. Interestingly, not more than 10 minutes after I decided to stop approving her comments, not one but two other women popped in to resume the fray!
Afterwards, I reflected on all this fracas and realized something deep. The past two posts were encouraging men to find their Mission and Purpose in life through knowing God. And riiight on cue, some stranger shows up to pose a messy distraction from the Message.
I’m proud of the many commenters who were able to quickly and accurately size up GS. Of note, Deti and Rowena left excellent responses to GS’s hamsterbations.
I need to apologize to the regular readers. I often state that men should not admit women’s arguments, but that’s essentially what I/we did here. And look at the mess of confusion it has resulted in! Granted, it was not clear that GS was a woman in the beginning, but as soon as this was apparent, I should have nipped GS’s comments in the bud and kept the focus on the recent topics. But… I was on vacation, I didn’t have a computer, I didn’t have the proper mindset, and I wasn’t in the mood to deal with it. I usually view life as an adventure and a continual discovery, but this is one of those times when urgent action was necessary and should have been taken. Because of my inaction, I’ve had to do more work to address all the issues that have come up and settle the confusion, and I can only wonder about how much my laxity has allowed attention to be drawn away from the main message of men finding their Mission and Purpose in Christ.
OTOH, maybe THIS IS the larger takeaway for us. Perhaps taking action in a timely manner is one of the most important lessons we can learn about Consolidating Masculinity.
- Anğın AD, Gün İ, Sakin Ö, Çıkman MS, Eserdağ S, Anğın P. Effects of predisposing factors on the success and treatment period in vaginismus. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2020 May 1;24(2):180-188. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200018. PMID: 32301599; PMCID: PMC7169926. [Read online]
- Σ Frame: The Male Hamster InAction! (2022/4/13)
- Σ Frame: Headship Authority Takes Work (2022/8/12)
- Σ Frame: Men’s Role in the Mess (2022/12/21)
- Σ Frame: Complacency (2023/1/11)
I knew GS was a woman as soon as she said that incel (unattractive) men should place themselves in a monastic environment where they could produce a surplus, have nothing, and be happy. The attractive men could still run free in the wild.
Her comments on vaginismus could prove useful the next time I have to go to South End or Back Bay in Boston. I’ll just tell the g@y guys who approach that I have vaginismus. They wouldn’t dare question my gender or medical history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s the feminist great reset.
No one who has experienced the male sex drive would problem solve it in that manner. The vast majority of males would not be content to live monastically. The male sex drive was basically harnessed by Judeo-Christian societies to build the great(est) civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s shocking that the kind of men who enjoyed cleaving the skulls of Saracens used to volunteer for monastic life. The Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonics were some high testosterone badasses.
Arguing with her is falling into her frame. She will not debate you on the merits. Quickly, she will resort to her feminine wiles because that’s her nature. So how do you win? By not arguing with her to begin with.
We all touched the poop because we’re men who like to debate. Fine. But like every woman ever, she did not come here to debate. She might have been after attention, she might have been on a power trip (she was able to ruffle the feathers of a whole blog for several days. That’s a certain demonstration of power over men), or she might have just been doing the feminine thing of throwing us off track. Whatever the case, the next time this happens, on the blog or real life, the lesson here is to STOP engaging with the woman. You are never going to argue her back to her senses, because she doesn’t have any, and she’s not here for the same goals as you are. So stop it. Stop wasting your time, stop feeding the troll’s ego, ignore her (or ban he her, if you must) and go about your day. If she throws a tantrum, that means she’s not getting what she wants and you’re winning.
Why must we learn this lesson over and over?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Funny, I thought of D.A.R.E. / D.E.E.R.
Yeah, we may have taken the bait for a bit, but it is valuable as a good case study, as Jack has made it in this post.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, I had forgotten a rule I set out: Men and women can’t discuss these issues in any meaningful way.
We have to learn this lesson over and over because (1) as you said, we’re men who like debate and hashing out issues in comboxes. The other reason is as Elspeth had said before: (2) when a man sees a woman who appears to “get it”, to “get” men’s issues, then men get hopeful that they’re actually getting through, that “this time it’ll be different”, and that means there’s hope for getting through to the women in our lives or finding a woman who understands it.
But, as I so often forget, that will just never happen. Hope is a terrible thing. Men and women work against each other at cross purposes, and it isn’t even intentional — it’s just us doing what our respective hardwiring programmed us to do.
Personally, if it were me, I’d simply ban women from commenting here. Even the comments yesterday from women follow the same typical pattern: Giving advice to men; “We must ignore the general rule because of these rare exceptions”, “It just depends…”, “Nuance matters”, “Specifics always matter”, and other inanities.
LikeLiked by 4 people
We as men have to learn to control ourselves. Just because someone comes here and comments does not mean a response is necessary. We have to learn to put value on our words and our time. We all collectively failed that test. If we cannot control ourselves, then yes, women should be banned until we gain said control.
If we are going to restore a patriarchy, be it in our homes or society at large, we are going to have to pass these tests. We will not win them by “arguing”. That’s the men’s domain. Women play a different game, and we have to beat them. We talk here ad nauseum about women, all the theories, games, tricks and wiles. We say we know and are aware of them all. Yet, when a real-world test comes up, we fail. We have to do better, starting today. No more allowing women to knock us off our frames.
Let there be peace on [Sigma Frame], and let it begin with me.
LikeLiked by 5 people
In my Christian walk, I’ve found that lessons will keep popping up, from one perspective then another, in one context then another, until I can master the core truth underlying that particular set of lessons. When I master it, then the lessons, temptations, tests, etc. suddenly stop. Sometimes, the lesson that is learned is much simpler than I could ever imagine, like changing my attitude, maintaining Frame, not worrying, speaking boldly, taking a rest, or in this case, drawing a boundary and refusing to get sucked into an intractable mess — the men’s version of “Just say NO!”
My buddy’s wife is a nurse who teaches women to get thru said above female disorder. MGTOW need to get out of her sight. We did! Why would I want to live with 50 dudes instead of alone? Men want women for sex not endless conversation. I got no problem dying alone. Being celibate till then is the concern. Every now and then I get lonely — about a 20:1 lonely:horny ratio — not worth the risk for conversation. When I hear women like her talk, I just think, “Imagine being trapped with her and listening to this babble sexlessly forever!” No thank you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The thing is, if she was having sex she wouldn’t be talking to you like this.
Also, women need to spend most of their time talking to small children. It’s how they are designed to communicate to begin with.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Just shows Jack, you/we must be hitting a nerve with our RP analytical work we’re doing for GS to show up in attempt to… well to… well, whatever it was she was attempting to accomplish. The RP on-line community, and I’ll admit that’s a “big tent” we’re all under, i.e. Christian Red Pillers, secular Red Pillers, MGTOWs, MRAs, PUAs, Incels, Black Pillers, etc., has been advancing this conversation, particularly the last five years I’ve been a part of it. The women seem to have been increasingly noticing something’s “not working” the way it used to for them.
The women’s game / agenda, springing from whatever angle of the Feminine Imperative it’s coming from, i.e. shame / blame tactics, their SMP/MMP AF/BB sexual strategy, faux Red Pill female content creators, divorce rape via the court system, etc. is unraveling right before our collective eyes. I’d assert GS and all the feminine “screechers” out there are sensing this unraveling, i.e. “The jig’s up.” They’re attempting in some way or fashion, to stop the unraveling. If not stop it, muddying up the whole thing so they can (maybe?) salvage something from the imperative.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I took the RP almost 10yrs ago. I frequently hear things from people indicating they know. Things I see on these blogs. Even my liberal mother. I never used to hear anything from anyone except one church elder asking me if I’m MGTOW. Yeah women’s dual mating strategy got smoked out. These guys in the top %1 have a thousand plus body count. We really need women who end up in this lost generation to get to the other younger women.
Only if they’ve repented and become RP parrots. The last thing we need is older cat ladies teaching younger women how to game the system and destroy p_ssy and marital bonding.
Yeah, we need them to tell them they were sold a lie. I’ve had a few, young enough, attractive enough, women tell me recently they cannot find a boyfriend. And they had been trying for years, genuinely, and were not happy. They’re not on boss babe vibes. They wanted kids and a husband the whole time. I told them there’s so many girls dumping guys for minor flaws, using men for foodie calls, and divorce raping husband’s that a lot of men are worn out.
I dated 4 girls before my ex (2 LTRs, 2 STRs). Basically all of them ended the relationship. 1 was moving and it was relatively mutual. 1 was as hurtful as possible, ending it with a total surprise midnight phone call saying she’s about to sleep with a guy and making it official were done! Then sleeping with my former room mate! WTF! Another ghosted me. My ex was the only one interested in actually dating and she followed me like a puppy for years. Then she started the abusive behavior and divorce raped me. Men don’t have unlimited ability to take this stuff. I think there’s a lot of younger women who are getting it and are gonna die alone from what feminism and online dating have done to our society.
I think in some cases they’re not teaching them to game the system, but they secretly want them to end up as miserable as they are in life. It’s the old cliche, “Misery enjoys company.”
They, the older cat ladies, may be thinking, “Those little B’s aren’t going to get what I missed out on, i.e. a good husband and family, because I was following the Feminist Imperative throughout my twenties right on into my thirties until I ran into that thing those d@mn RP misogynists call ‘The Wall.'”
Remember when I wrote about crabs in a bucket?
Misery loves company. Miserable people rarely pull themselves up out of their misery. Instead, they pull others down into misery. That’s true of both miserable women and miserable men. You see it frequently in the “can’t win, may as well not try” attitude some men try to spread to other men in the manosphere.
Whether miserable people do it consciously or not is irrelevant. The best response is to get them out of your life. You can’t change them or save them. The best you can do is save yourself from them.
One of the failures of this car dealership is that it doesn’t sell boats, so I’m going to whine about it on the internet instead of going to the boat dealership.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Monastic? The Scriptures speak nothing of monks and nuns. I suspect it was Buddhism that came up with the monk and nun thing. I suspect the Roman Catholic Church learned that from the Buddhists and adapted it to its needs. I think Eastern Orthodoxy had its monks and nuns since the split of 1054. Now? I am seeing Anglican and Lutheran versions of monks and nuns if I am not mistaken.
In Hinduism, almost 2,000 years before Jesus ever walked the earth, there were aesthetics who were monks, in seclusion and in orders of sorts, depending on the Caste (Brahmin). Philosophies asking “What is The Real?”, and orders of monks / nuns were established in that faith tradition shortly after Buddha died.
I think monks, nuns, and “orders” in the Christian tradition started in the late Roman Empire era.
[Jack: Comment edited for readability.]
Remember when I posted this?
I see a couple of brothers caught my drift.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re not immune from trainwrecks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The train is not okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would have to be Monasteries stocked with PS4s and where you are allowed to have money and a job (if you want a job). Or essentially, communes where men band together to generate wealth for themselves and no women. Like imagine if the Catholic Church kept all its money and spent it only on the monks and none on women.
The obvious problem with traditional monasticism is you have to give away all your wordly posessions, close your bank account, etc. to enter. Then you’re cloistered, no job, no PS4. Not attractive in the modern world at all.
If Andrew Tate could have got over women he could have built this. We could all be chilling in a giant estate in Romania driving Bugatis. Of course the generational wealth such a system would produce would attract women and other grifters to use the government to destroy it.
Many medieval monasteries were enormously wealthy. Some were wealthy enough to lend to kings. One of Henry VIII’s motivations for breaking with the Catholic Church was to confiscate the monasteries’ wealth.
Then there were the orders of warrior monks, like the Templars, the Hospitalers, and the Tectonics. They were both enormously wealthy and arguably the best armies in medieval Europe.
Shockingly, kings didn’t like them that much.
If Andrew Tate was a decent man, he wouldn’t be Andrew Tate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Teutonics, not “tectonics”. Sheesh!
“Tectonics” sounds about right for the modern age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not that it matters that much, because it’s not going to happen; but I suspect GS’s suggestion of “monasteries” for “incels” is more akin to an assisted living center for seniors. One of those apartment type complexes where you pay rent for an apartment and a central dining room with activities for socializing, for use by residents and guests but closed to nonresidents. It would be on some extensive land tract with cultivated farmland, I suppose. I think that’s what she had in mind.
The problem with this is that most men of whatever stripe, incel or sexually active, just don’t live this way and don’t want to live this way unless they have to. Then there’s the issue of who would own it, pay expenses, and staff it. There’s also the issue of where the men who live there will come up with the rent. If they can afford the rent for a place like this, because they work and hold jobs (like most incels do), then the issue becomes why they’d want to live on a commune? This was already tried in the 60s during hippie counterculture, and it failed because of little things like money, who does the work, and the fact that people of any means simply don’t want to live like this, even if they’re otherwise isolated single men with no dependents.
Men would much rather live in the wilderness, hunt, fish, and die alone, than live with 40 other men forever. That’s the opposite of a female alternative. Grifter really just wanted to say, “Turn them into eunuchs. If they can’t find a beautiful queen, they are deformed and unfit. Just go to work and forfeit that cash to the matriarchy.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The orders of warrior monks are my favorite characters from medieval history, particularly the Hospitallers.
The Knights Hospitaller started out as regular monks who provided hospitality (shelter, food, and medical care) to Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Then they teamed up with nuns to run orphanages for the many orphans in the Holy Land. Then, with the many Muslim invasions, they began protecting their charges, and pretty soon they became a wealthy, powerful army.
My favorite story of theirs is the 1565 defense of Malta against the Ottoman Empire.
At first, European kings liked the warrior monks, but eventually they felt threatened by them. The monks were wealthy, militarily powerful, and answered to the Pope, not any king.
Besides, many of the kings’ best knights and other noblemen renounced their worldly titles to join the warrior monks, instead of generating tax revenue for their kings.
For a modern reference, imagine an order of monks armed with every modern weapon, who answered only to the Pope, and did things like air assault into the Nigerian jungle and rescue Christian children from Boko Haram.
How crazy would that be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d say Teutonic Knights or a Knights Hospitaler is a better use of time. In the world but not of it.
Right on cue:
What we know about the stabbings
An Interior Ministry statement said,
The El Mundo newspaper reported that at least four people were wounded.
Police said the suspect was arrested.
Spain’s National Court said a judge was investigating the stabbing as a possible terror attack.
The Battle of Grunwald is quite well portrayed here:
Love the Teutonic Knights.
The code of Chivalry as it was in the past when Christian Men were more Rough Military Men:
Resolving problems with a duel.
Such armies are one of a number of reasons countries have banned private armies because they answer not to the national authorities but to people like the Pope alone or even a powerful CEO of a private company. If the Teutonic Knights or something like that operated today, they would be seen as mercenaries by a number of countries and the countries would deal with the Knights as if they were mercenaries and prosecute them according to their own laws. Mercenaries can face imprisonment or death in these countries. Mercenaries are usually not covered under the Geneva Conventions. The reason kings did not like the Knights or similar organizations was that it would be seen as interference on the part of the Vatican in the internal affairs of kings and their kingdoms.
Of course, private armies could be used by national leaders and one example would be Putin using the Wagner Group. It is said that the Wagner Group is more effective than even the regular Russian army. I even read something about the Wagner Group and it was using a few tactics more or less straight out of Stalin’s playbook. The Wagner Group is headquartered in St. Petersburg, the hometown of Putin.
Pingback: Nobody’s Heroes 3 | okrahead
Keeping men aimless and without God appears to be enemy action.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two possibilities stick out to me, and neither would be a surprise. Either 1.) GS got some of her allies to join in on the attack, or 2.) GS commented as these “two other women.” I’m leaning toward the latter.
Just a hunch, and I could be wrong, but if I were to lean towards door #2, I can’t help but wonder if GS is actually Ins@nitybytes22!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grifter came on here and made claims about reality. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with showing her why her claims are incorrect. That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with male or female ways of communicating.
For example, she said vaginismus is some sort of epidemic. That’s a statement about reality. It’s false, as Jack pointed out. Additionally, if Scott or other people who work with couples weighed in, my guess would be he would confirm it’s just not a common problem, and the lack of tingles for a man you’re settling for is by far more common as causing a dead bedroom.
It’s always better to shine the light of truth on wayward ideas, rather than banning them.
In general, I agree. The problem is when the person spews an avalanche of a hundred ideas that are half truth and half lies, and are all off topic. And for every false factoid, it requires somebody to do a half hour of diligent research to sort out the truth from the fluff, and another half hour of writing to set the facts straight for other readers. I can only address 3-4 issues a week, properly. It’s too much for one man, but as a group, we can do this. This is why I invite readers to contribute posts. It is also why I try to keep things on topic. It narrows down the number of issues in question to a manageable size.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the long way of saying she wasn’t arguing in good faith. That’s the part all the free-speech advocates forget to mention: good faith is the bedrock of the whole system. Once someone breaks good faith, you shut them down, full stop. That’s why liberals continue to run roughshod over conservatives in the political arena: one side is giving good faith and the other isn’t even pretending but will take the concession and run with it, then beat you by breaking the rules when it suits them.
Women, in general, will not deal in good faith with men in any debate. It’s better to assume they won’t. They will play every dirty trick in the book, because they’re the weaker sex and because they can. Even if they start off well, best to assume they will turn on you at some point, and to have pre-prepared your line in the sand and do not let her cross it. Otherwise you will be dealing with a mountain of sh!t to clean it all up and it will all be your fault. If she’s going to make it all your responsibility, might as well put all the rules in your favor and make her deal with it. She doesn’t hesitate to do the same when she has the power to do so.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The point of free speech is to let the person discussing in bad faith hang themselves. Shutting them down eliminates the ability to undress the tactics. Of course if you answer the fool, we know the rest of the verse.
If you are married, and I don’t care how strong and disciplined a man you are as a husband, your wife will noodle through topics as women do in discussions and you will forget for a moment and go along with her premise. It takes consistent practice to get to the point of recognizing the bad faith and then even more practice to skill fully shut it down in a kind loving manner.
I’m a guy who believes in practicing the way you want to play. Because of this, I see value in dissecting the tactics of a dishonest broker, but not in dissecting the arguments of a dishonest broker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eh… I don’t know.
Social Security going broke. Unfunded liabilities… Even the Federal Pension System is now teetering………
And the response???
The new republicans in the financial committee are all committing themselves to the mantra of “The biggest threat to the economy is not enough diversity in the banking system.”
No talk of balancing a budget. No talk of closing tax loopholes. No talk of ANYONE in the alphabet soup of agencies getting FIRED. No audits of the FBI, or The Fed, or HUD, or the SSA, or… or… or…
Instead, the supposed “conservatives” in Congress, many of whom were backed by Trump, have already voted to:
— Send MORE money to Ukraine (i.e. the president and his wife, pretty much).
— Send tanks to “stop Putin” and his “war of aggression”.
Meanwhile, “Protecting life is the most important thing!!!!!!! If we just make abortion illegal! Everything is gonna be great! Women will be women again, men will “man up” and “step up” according to T Carlson and that guy from Prager U! Even if she is a single mom, we’ll shame her and her kid til their dying day!” (That will make them come to church for sure!)
“But Trump was the greatest president ever! Boy oh boy, he sure told everyone!!!” (Rolls eyes)
When he wins, he’ll say some funny things as an entertainer and do very little except “protect life”, while murder still happens, cities still being burned (which they did under his previous watch too, I might add).
Meet the new boss? Same as the old boss.
[Jack: Comment edited and reorganized for readability.]
Take for a second, at face value, that if a woman tells you her vagina hurts because of pain during intercourse, she’s telling the truth (for the sake of argument).
Take, also, that she is telling the truth that she is still really into you and thinks you are sexy, and misses it, blah blah blah.
And assume that sex (and all other sexual activity) has more or less ground to a halt in the bedroom.
Here is what you (the man) say to this.
“Sweetheart. I am really sorry its so painful. And here is what I would do if the shoe was on the other foot. Keep in mind, baby, that the shoe on the other foot is miserable for me.
Let’s say I was the one who had some kind of medically induced sexual dysfunction. Some kind of validated medical finding that made me impotent, or it made it painful to fvck, or whatever. And let’s say that YOU were the one who lies there every night, waiting for me to get on top of you and do something. Let’s say YOU were the one who was staring at the wall all night, getting up in the middle of the night multiple times masturbating to try to take the edge off the frustration and get yourself to sleep. YOU were the one who had to constantly tell yourself whatever you had to to keep your sanity and to be empathic about my problem. And let’s say once in a while you lost your cool and actually mentioned how sexually frustrated and lonely you were. Do you know what I would be doing?
I would buying dildos and vibrators and books and videos about how to eat pvssy. I would be reading the Kama Sutra to glean ways on how to satisfy a woman without my d!ck. I would be lying these things out in an array of marital aids on the bed every night begging you to join me in some non-intercourse fun because I would be terrified that you might cheat on me.
And WHILE I was doing that, I would be breaking down the door of every doctor in town begging them to fix my junk. I would be saying, “You gotta help me doc. The beautiful, love of my life woman who I married is lying in bed next to me begging me to fvck her and my junk doesn’t work. I will take whatever pill, whatever procedure I have to please her in the bedroom. If you have to sew someone elses d!ck on me please do it. I have to fvck my wife. She needs me.” That’s what I would be doing.”
If the vaginismus woman is not doing the female version of that, her complaint is BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m on gab.com. It’s really funny how people on Gab consider themselves “based” right up to the moment someone (usually me) brings up women’s moral agency.
One of the accounts I follow is Life News, which focuses on the Pro-Life cause. A woman replied to one of their posts saying that she knows a girl whose boyfriend “made her” get an abortion.
I asked, “Made her???”
Long story short, the boyfriend threatened to break up with her and to deny he was the father.
I replied with, “She could’ve said no at any point. Nobody made her do anything.”
She blocked me. Surprise!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You will never catch me dead at a pro-life rally, even though they’re practically required if you’re a Catholic. Women’s agency is never discussed. A baby born out of wedlock is still okay because at least it wasn’t aborted. If they were really serious about ending abortion, they would work instead to put reproductive authority back in the hands of fathers and husbands, but that will never fly. Princess would have to go back to living at home, and she wouldn’t be able to drink wine until midnight with her roomies, or get Starbucks every day, or wear spaghetti straps and booty shorts to the mall. And forget college. So we’ll have a march instead, which is just an excuse to drink lattes, network, get some steps in and some sweet internet validation points. Makes me puke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, those marches eventually got RvW overturned, and that’s had real life effects on the number of babies aborted, so at least give credit where it’s due.
Marches are victory dances. They don’t really influences the halls of power unless our people are in there.
Marches help morale, and in any competition morale is crucial.
True. But only in relatively friendly cities. In more hostile areas. People end up like the Jan 6 people.
Police crackdown happen there. But not to Antifa and BLM in Blue Areas.
Washington DC is hostile territory, and the March for Life has consistently been the biggest political demonstration – by far – every year since the ’80s. Seeing that many like-minded people together has given people hope for decades when the cultural narrative has been that only extremists oppose murdering babies in the womb.
Indeed. Maybe the Government has changed into a more totalitarian direction. Look at how they reacted to Lockdown protests.
And those marches are not as feasible today in Blue Cities perhaps.
I think you missed my point. Washington DC is as deep blue as a blue city gets, yet this was the March For Life in 2022.
How is that not feasible in a blue city if it happened in a blue city?
I didn’t miss your point. I shifted my position since you have proven me wrong. However:
Now pro-life will be facing arrest soon enough.
Love it! This kind of admission is the gold standard of a truth teller.
In that case, I obviously missed your point. My apologies.
Yep. Persecution was always part of the deal.
This is in the same ballpark as asking “How exactly did she BECOME a single mom?”
You will be strung up and quartered.
And the analog to this, “dead beat dads”.
He was falsely accused of being violent in the home during the divorce? Too bad, pay child support!
He lost his job sometime in the interim? Too bad, pay child support!
She now has a husband who makes 4 times as much as he ever did? Too bad, pay child support!
She keep reneging on the agreed upon custody arrangements? Too bad, pay child support!
She lies about him to the children when he cannot defend himself? Too bad, pay child support!
I always ask, “Who chose the dad?” It’s kind of fun.
And… just like that (with the snap of my fingers), GrifterShifter has totally dissapeared!
Three black cops beat a suspect to death.
LA times conclusion? It’s still white people’s fault.
It was five black cops.
The Memphis police chief is a black woman.
And 64% of Memphis’ population is black. But yeah, it’s whitey’s fault.
It may get even better.
At this point I believe that if an entirely black police department was going house to house killing only white people, it would still somehow be white people’s fault.
Pray for God’s vengeance on those slanderers. And who held genocidal rage against white people. May God make them like Edom. All gone.