How the Pill Changes the Brain and Emotions

This post reviews some scientific literature on hormonal contraceptives to identify exactly what changes in the brain and the emotional constitution of a woman on the Pill.

Readership: All; Parents of adolescent daughters; Women who use birth control pills; Men with partners who use birth control pills; Men interested in vetting a woman for a relationship;

A previous post on Σ Frame, How the Pill Kills (15 October 2019), covered how Oral Contraceptive (OC) medication (AKA birth control pills) causes medical complications and death in young women.  But the effects of the Pill don’t stop there.

Hormones are able to work at very small doses (parts per billion ranges).  Therefore, endocrine disruption can occur from low-doses of exogenous hormone exposure or from hormonally active substances that interfere with receptors for other hormonally assisted processes.  As these hormones disrupt the chemical balance in the normal endocrine cycles of the body, the brain, emotional moods, and the overall constitution of the person are affected, possibly even affecting the expression of personality and certain decision-making processes.

Reports on OC-related mood changes are inconsistent.  There appear to be two populations of women – those who feel that OC’s improve their mood, and those who experience increased rates of depression, anxiety, fatigue, neurotic symptoms, compulsion, and anger.  Many women who experience negative effects will discontinue taking OC’s, so that only women who have positive physical and emotional changes continue to take oral contraceptives.  As a result, the results of studies of women on OC’s tend to be biased towards having positive emotional side effects.  Even so, the effects are not so positive, as we will see.


The Pill is a Hatchet-Job Concoction of Biochemicals

Many people believe the biochemicals in the pill are expertly synthesized by professional chemists in a laboratory, and contain absolutely no impurities introduced from the chemical processing used to create those chemicals.  This naïve notion could not be further from the truth.  In the early days, the hormones (e.g. estrogen, progesterone) used in manufacturing oral contraceptives were extracted from animals, specifically horse piss, and the isolation and purification of these biochemicals was anyone’s guess.  Since then, chemists have been able to synthesize more potent versions of these chemicals, and to concoct similar biochemicals from other biosources.  For example, efforts have been made to synthesize bioidentical hormones from soy and yams, but with limited success. [1]

Harvard Health: What are bioidentical hormones? (August 2006)

Oral contraceptives manufactured outside of North America and Europe could be extracting these biochemicals from almost any kind of animal.  I have no evidence of this, but I would guess that in eastern Asia, the massive pork industry would be able to offer the sheer volume of estrogen contained in urine that would be required to mass produce birth control pills for millions of women on a continual basis.

How the Pill Changes the Brain and Body Chemistry

Frontal Neuroscience [2] reported that oral contraceptives (OC) caused changes in the brain structure, neurocognitive processing, and emotions.

 “…any hormonal contraceptives, irrespective of the progestin component, may facilitate testosterone actions on the brain, thereby masculinizing brain structure, function and behavior.  Alternatively, it has been argued that some masculinizing effects are promoted by estrogen receptors after testosterone has been locally converted to estrogen via the enzyme aromatase (Roselli, 2007).  Consequently, estrogenic actions of ethinylestradiol may contribute to possible masculinizing effects of hormonal contraceptives on the brain.”

In short, the pill tricks the body into behaving like she’s pregnant, and causes the brain to become more masculine.  From a male perspective, this sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Low libido

The Pill Ruins Libido

Women on the pill commonly report a decreased libido.  One of the mechanisms responsible for loss of libido in women on the pill is a rise in the sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG).  It combines with the woman’s naturally occurring testosterone, preventing it from having its normal effects on other receptors.

A decreased libido has one noteworthy consequence of reducing a woman’s interest in sex.  Without a healthy sex drive, women on the pill become disinterested in their husbands/partners (and vice versa).

Note: The source paper by Cappellettia and Wallena [3] is informative, interesting, and readable.

How the Pill Changes Mood, and Affect*

* In psychology and the medical field, affect (emphasis is placed on the first syllable) is a person’s general emotional response that is expressed or observed.  Affect also comprises the non-verbal expressions that are used to estimate how a person feels about something.  For those readers who are unfamiliar with what variations in affect appears like, this video offers a half-hour long tutorial on identifying affect and mood. 

Since the relationship between hormonal contraceptives and mood/affect was first studied in the early 1980’s, it has been shown that there is definitely a link.  But because cyclic changes in mood are present even when there are no changes in ovarian hormone levels, and because of the wide variability in the physiological constitution and responses among many types of women, it has been difficult to pinpoint exactly how hormones change mood/affect.

Nevertheless, it can be safely concluded that hormonal birth control use (and similar medications) tends to decrease a woman’s Positive Affect during ovulation, and decrease a woman’s Negative Affect during menstruation.  One paper on this subject [4] stated,

 “From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that naturally-cycling women score higher in PA in the days they are fertile, the periovulatory time.  Specifically, women who ovulate self-report more enthusiasm, alertness, attentiveness and activity levels during those days, which could be conductive to attracting and engaging a potential mate.  These changes were not observed in the [Positive Affect] scores of hormonally-contracepting women which also makes sense since they do not ovulate. The limbic system could be implicated directly or indirectly in these findings since it is responsible for both triggering ovulation and the processing of emotions and motivation.”


A 2015 study [5] examined the association between oral contraceptive use (any current use, duration, and type) and major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and panic disorder (PD) in a nationally representative sample of 1,105 women aged 20-39 in the USA. The data were drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys dated from 1999 to 2004.

“Women using oral contraceptives had a lower past-year prevalence of all disorders assessed, other than subthreshold MDD. When adjusted for confounders, women using oral contraceptives in the past year had significantly lower odds of subthreshold PD, compared to former users (odds ratio (OR) = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.84).  Effects estimates were strongest for monophasic (versus multiphasic) oral contraceptive users.  Hormonal contraceptive use was associated with reduced risk of subthreshold PD.”

In simple language, the Pill had a calming effect on women, even to the point of making some women depressed.  Women experienced less anxiety, and were less panicky when taking the pill.  However, women also displayed less enthusiasm, alertness, attentiveness, and other signs of vitality.  In other words, the pill makes women become androgynous automatons.  These findings support Pletzer and Roselli’s assessment that oral contraceptives produce a masculinizing effect on the brain.

Now, some men might think that less anxiety would be a good thing.  But is it worth her losing a Positive Affect?  Then what happens when she stops taking the pill?  Do you think she’ll immediately regain her Positive Affect?  You guessed it!  Suddenly, she becomes a nerve-racked termagant who can’t handle life in her normal hormonal state!


The Pill’s Link to Depression

When you tamper with one brain system, you’re going to tamper with another.  This should not be surprising, because everything in the brain and body are connected.

The BBC news [6] reported a scientific study which found that women on the contraceptive pill were more likely to be diagnosed with depression.  Researchers at the University of Copenhagen studied the health records of more than a million Danish women aged between 15 and 34, in one of the largest studies to date [7].  They found that…

  • Women on the combined pill – which contains artificial versions of the hormones oestrogen and progesterone – were 23% more likely to be prescribed an antidepressant than those not on hormonal contraception.
  • For women on the progestin-only pill, the figure rose to 34%.
  • For girls aged between 15 and 19 on the combined pill, it increased even further, to 80% more likely.

The authors of this study concluded,

“Use of hormonal contraception, especially among adolescents, was associated with subsequent use of antidepressants and a first diagnosis of depression, suggesting depression as a potential adverse effect of hormonal contraceptive use.”

Using antidepressant medication has further implications on the brain and emotions.

In brief, antidepressants, especially SSRI’s, elevate serotonin and depress dopamine.  Dopamine is associated with romantic love.  As a result, it becomes very difficult for the person to have the experience of falling in love.  Not only do antidepressants suppress the dopamine circuit, but they also kill the libido.  And when you kill the sex drive, you kill orgasm.  And when you kill orgasm, you kill that flood of drugs associated with emotional attachment.

This explains why women on birth control pills and antidepressants might have a hard time settling down with one love interest on her heart.


Finally, the Good News

The good news is that they’re making it easier for women to take androgeny pills without feeling androgenized.

Pletzer’s study [2] notes that the newer generation of pills (introduced during 2010-2014) contain anti-androgenic progestins, while older pills contain androgenic progestins.

Why is this an important change?

“Androgenic disorders have many negative physical effects [such as…] oily skin, acne, hirsutism, android obesity, androgenic alopecia… unfavorable lipid profiles, and increased incidence of diabetes and hypertension.  [The external] manifestations of androgenicity often lead to poor compliance, decreased efficacy, and discontinuation of oral contraceptive use, especially in the younger patient.  With the introduction of the newer oral contraceptive formulations containing less androgenic progestins (norgestimate, desogestrel, gestodene), androgen-related effects have been reduced and better compliance is anticipated.” [8]

Here, “compliance” means the patient is willing to follow “doctor’s orders” and continue using the pill.  Apparently, these unwanted side effects are one of the primary reasons why women discontinue using OCs containing androgenic progestins.

“New generation progestin OCs have shown a decreased incidence of unwanted/negative external physical side effects; they also appear to increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels and reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. The author concludes that the improved user compliance rate resulted from the prescription of new generation progestin OCs.” [8]

Judging by the last sentence (in bold), the underlying goal of the study was to (find ways to) increase “user compliance”.  Reading between the lines, it becomes obvious that, “low compliance” poses a big problem to the pharmaceutical industry, which is intent on keeping as many teenage women on the pill as possible.


“I will not feel.  I will not think.  I must not be distracted by life.  I must fornicate, but I must not breed.  I must take my pills.  I must obey my lord… Big Brother!”


A brief outline, summarizing the contents of this essay and the scientific research papers cited within, is as follows.

  • The potent chemicals in contraceptive pills are harvested from equine biowaste materials.
  • Small chemical imbalances in the body’s endocrine system lead to big changes.
  • The pill masculinizes the brain structure.
  • The pill puts the female’s hormonal state into “pregnant mode” thereby rendering the ovaries and uterus fallow.
  • The pill causes a loss of libido resulting in a reduced appetite for sex.
  • The pill creates a false sense of calm by flattening emotional affect, reducing anxiety, and muting panic attacks.
  • The pill decreases a woman’s Positive Affect, especially during ovulation.
  • The pill decreases a woman’s Negative Affect, especially during menstruation.
  • Women on the pill are more likely to experience clinical depression. Depression introduces a further unique set of symptoms, including her inability to function normally and feel love.
  • The academic, medical and pharmaceutical industries are actively seeking methods to retain their consumer base, and to keep more women on the pill.

All these changes have negative effects on a woman’s personality, social behavior, and love life.

With the sheer number of women on the pill, this medication spells out sinister consequences for society.  Pletzer revealed the Black Hand when he wrote,

“The hormonal contraceptive pill is the major tool for population control.  Hence, such behavioral changes could cause a shift in society dynamics and should not stay unattended.”

Ladies, stay off of the pill for your own good, and for the good of those around you!

Take responsibility for your body and sexuality without resorting to soul-bending, affect flattening drugs.

God’s way is best!

Note: This post may be updated upon future developments.


  1. Very Well Mind (feat. Nancy Schimelpfening): The Relationship Between Estrogens and Depression (26 November 2018)
  2. A. Pletzer, H. H. Kerschbaum, “50 years of hormonal contraception-time to find out, what it does to our brain,” Frontal Neuroscience, 2014 Aug 21;8:256.
  3. Maurand Cappellettia and Kim Wallena, “Increasing women’s sexual desire: The comparative effectiveness of estrogens and androgens”, Hormonal Behavior, 2016 Feb; 78: 178–193. (PDF)
  4. O. Rebollar, F. J. Menéndez Balaña, M. C. Pastor, “Comparison of affect changes during the ovulatory phase in women with and without hormonal contraceptives”, Heliyon, Apr.2017; 3(4).
  5. Cheslack-Postava, K. M. Keyes, S. R. Lowe, K. C. Koenen, “Oral contraceptive use and psychiatric disorders in a nationally representative sample of women”, Archives of Womens Mental Health. 2015 Feb;18(1):103-11.
  6. BBC News: Does the contraceptive pill cause depression? (4 October 2016)
  7. W. Skovlund, L. S. Mørch, Ø. Lidegaard, “Association of Hormonal Contraception With Depression”, JAMA Psychiatry, 2016.
  8. E. Jones, “Androgenic effects of oral contraceptives: implications for patient compliance”, American Journal of Medicine, 1995 Jan 16;98(1A):116S-119S.


Posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Conspiracy Theories, Contraceptives, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Disorders, Health, Influence, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation, Science, Vetting Women | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Parable of the Inherited Estate

A response to a reader’s question about who’s responsible for “wife washing” – Jesus or hubby?

Readership: Christians in LTR’s;


Farm Boy shared a link to my previous post, Washing Her Clean (21 October 2019), in the discussion of Privilege at Spawny’s Space.

Richard P posed the following question in response to that post.

Re. the link to Sigma Frame’s post, Washing Her Clean (link up-thread):

Just posting some idle thoughts here.  Not trying to start a discussion.

Consider this phrase from Ephesians 5:26 that is part of that post:

“…that He (Christ) might sanctify and cleanse her (the Church) with the washing of water by the word.”

Some argue that these Ephesian 5 verses place an obligation on the husband to wash his wife with the word, as Christ washed his bride (the Church) with the word.  Two points occur to me:

  1. A careful reading will show there are no words in these verses that require the husband to wash his wife with the word. The only requirement is that husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies.
  2. A careful reading will show that Christ is washing his bride (the Church) with the word.

Assuming both husband and wife are redeemed, and therefore both are part of Christ’s bride that Christ washes, we end up with the following:

  • (a) As part of the Church, husband is cleansed by Christ with the washing of water by the word;
  • (b) As part of the Church, wife is cleansed by Christ with the washing of water by the word;

What, then, is left for the husband to wash off of his wife that Christ has not already washed off?  And – to extend the metaphor – if wife has goo left on her that still needs washing off after Christ washed her, then we might presume that husband still has goo left on him that still needs washing off after Christ washed him.  Husband is supposed to do a re-do wash on her?  Who does the re-do wash on the husband?  And Christ’s washing in not sufficient, not complete, at least on the wives???  Do we really want to claim that?

That scenario is not logical on so many different levels.  I think Christ gets it all off with the first wash.  And I think those who claim that husbands are commanded to cleanse their wife by the washing of water by the word are finding words where there really are not any.  For the reasons laid out in Point 2(a-b).

We have the natural inclination to conjure up mental images of taking a bath, so Richard’s reaction is a logical, associative one.  But the world of spirit and emotions are not entirely subject to rationale.  Here, The Parable of the Inherited Estate might impart further understanding.

The Parable of the Inherited Estate

We should not conflate our objective (or “positional”) identification in Christ with the tentative (or “conditional”) experience of regenerative living.  Here’s a parabolic interpretation of this paradox.

You inherited an estate from your great-granduncle.  On paper, it’s all yours.  But when you go to inspect the estate, you find that it hasn’t been maintained in decades.  Trash is scattered everywhere.  The roof is leaking.  The house is moldy and rotten.  Small trees are growing through the cracks in the driveway.  There are even homeless bums squatting on parts of the overgrown property.  If you want to live there, you’ll have to do some renovations and restorations.  It’s a lot of work.  It takes further investment, and a few years to finish.  But once complete, you are finally able to call it your home, and not just a derelict rat trap that your relative left to you.

To interpret the parable, the estate is your lot in this life, which includes your emotional constitution.  Jesus did the legal work, paid the taxes, and made it “yours”, as opposed to you just being a tenant or a squatter.  The Holy Spirit is the contractor who renovates the property.

When you get married, your husband or wife shares your estate, and you share hers.  If she is not a believer, then her estate is still under lien, and so you always have to dicker around with her “landlords” ≈ idols, or various strange affections (who may very well be represented by the in-laws).

When you divorce, you lose part of the joint estate, or part of your ownership of the estate, and you risk returning to the status of being a tenant (rent ≈ alimony, child support, etc.).

Responses from Married Christian Females

We saw some feedback from two female readers, which are valuable as general indicators of how wives might receive the ideas in my previous post.

Stephanie responded to Richard as follows.

“But it IS logical in a marriage.  When we accept Christ, we don’t automatically become mature, fully-developed, perfect Christians.  We have to go through a very complicated sanctification process.  In Philippians we’re literally told to, “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Not getting into any Calvinist/Armenian theology stuff (I honestly can’t argue for any of that well – my husband can though).  But it’s clear that yes, both spouses will still have “goo” (as you said) still on them from not yet being fully sanctified.  And it seems that process takes an entire lifetime, and people can slide backwards unfortunately in old age (Solomon 😦 ).  It’s a continuous process of staying close to God, and accepting/receiving rebukes, etc.

Since the husband is the head of the family, he’s responsible in a big way for their spiritual maturity and growth, or at least, he probably should be.  So it makes sense in that way.

It’s not that Christ’s washing wasn’t sufficient, but that the husband as being head of the household (and told to play the role of Christ toward the Church) should be the one helping correct her when she’s wrong.  That involves some kind of discipline/correction, not meaning it can’t be done in love, but it IS needed, and it definitely is logical when you think about it.”

Ame responded with a couple pages of scriptures.

22Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.  29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.  30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.  31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” ~ Ephesians 5:22-33

Going to the beginning… How did/does Christ love the church?

  • Prunes
  • Cuts
  • Disciplines


To make us holy.

Sure, husbands need the same love from Christ, but wives aren’t commanded to love their husbands this way.

18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.  19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.  20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently?  But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.  21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.  25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.  3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.  5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.  7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” ~ 1 Peter 2:18-25 – 3:1-7

Ame and Stephanie’s comments indicate that they are familiar with the concept behind The Parable of the Inherited Estate.


Posted in Building Wealth, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Love, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Organization and Structure, Questions from Readers, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Washing Her Clean

Acts of love can be enriched by including positive emotions and inspiration.

Readership: Married Christian men


After studying the concept of “unclean” in a previous post, I went back to see how this might apply to a marital relationship.  The following familiar passage stands out in a new light.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.  29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.  30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ~ Ephesians 5:22-30 (NKJV)

In art and literature, water symbolizes emotions.  The figurative idea of “washing” means to allow emotional experiences to renew one’s Frame of mind and outlook on life, and this is related to sanctification.  This contrasts with the concepts of “unclean” and “defiled”, which is when emotionally charged experiences change one’s disposition in a negative or unsuitable manner.

Men can be “washed” by learning new things and exploring new methods, hence the emphasis on the “Word”.  Women also find renewal this way, but often times, not in the right way.  Instead, they tend to get caught up in the emotional experience, and lose sight of where it is taking them.  Here in this post, I wish to point out how men can use emotional experiences to coax a woman in the right direction, instead of allowing the woman’s own emotions to hold sway in the relationship, perhaps to its own destruction.

Acts of Love can be Enriched by Including Positive Emotions

In this passage, have you ever noticed that the commandment for wives to submit to their husbands comes first (in verse 22), before husbands are commanded to love their wives (in verse 25)?  Ladies who want to maintain their marital relationships should take note of this.

But should husbands wait around until their wives get the feeelz, and start submittin’ like a kitten in the missionary position?  When a man’s patience runs thin, then skip to Step 2.

Husbands are commanded to love their wives.  But this kind of love is distinct from the obsequious pussy pedestalization that is encouraged by Churchians and denigrated by Manospherians.

No, the Christ-like sword of love that husbands should extend to wives is characterized by the hard work of living with a woman who is frequently worried and anxious about many things.  She may even regress to having a p!ss poor attitude and a lack of respect.  The husband should not let his marriage degenerate into a Pygmalion Project, but instead, is to take up his cross wife and try his hand at inducing a little Tingle into the situation.

man and woman laughing

In loving the wife, verse 26 elaborates on the application of love by stipulating that it is the responsibility of husbands to “wash their wives clean” unto sanctification (?!?).  The previous injunction to wives to submit to their husbands in all things includes his work in washing her clean.

I presume that the task of becoming clean is a real challenge to women.  The daily household cleaning, the changing diapers and wiping up children’s vomit, as well as the marital duties of lovemaking (if done right), all contribute to her unclean state.

Many women chafe at these tasks, given the hard work involved and the unclean nature of the work.  Some Feminized women might even claim that it is “beneath them” to do so.  Nevertheless, it is up to the woman to find joy and purpose in these undertakings as a wife, as dirty as they may be.

Joking aside, the husband’s task of washing his wife clean with the Word hints more to the spiritual and psychological state, than the physical.  Here are some small, but very significant actions towards improving her state of being.

  • Giving her a sense of dignity.
  • Providing the outline of a clear purpose.
  • Teaching her to talk and behave in a respectable and dignified manner, worthy of Christian reputation.
  • Maintaining an attitude of thankfulness, appreciation, and a mutual reciprocity.
  • Building an environment of love and respect.
  • Encouraging her to dress in attractive yet modest attire.
  • It would be a grand gesture of much appreciated generosity to perform the grungiest and most unusual tasks for her. This would encourage her to retain a sense of security and self-respect in the face of daunting challenges out of the ordinary.
  • Not to downplay the wife’s concerns in a derogatory manner (unless a neg is appropriate and necessary), but to help resolve those issues which caused her to be anxious in the first place. Sometimes this can be easily solved by taking action to fix something minor that needs corrected.

A Woman’s Emotional Weakness can be a Man’s Strength in the Relationship

Women are wired to connect on an emotional level.  Men could easily regard women’s need for the Feeelz as an annoying weakness, but if a man knows how to handle a woman’s emotions, then this can become his greatest strength.  The problem is that most men have never been taught how to motivate a woman by creating the Feeelz for her.  Women, even the best of them, will never teach this skill to men.  Men must learn this from other men.

Many women don’t seem to understand what men want, and what makes a man happy.  So a man needs to clearly state his purpose and express his enthusiasm in order to shift the emotional context into a “clean” state.  Otherwise, the woman may feel like her submission is a dry duty, without any joy, purpose, or sense of connectedness.

For example, sometimes, a bothersome fight or argument can be avoided simply by telling her in calm, plain language, what you want to do, and why.  She will find it easier to relate, respect, and submit, if she knows what your goals are, and that your underlying purposes have a beneficial emotional effect on you and your relationship.

Another way to describe this technique, is to create or develop an iconic expression of your personality, which will cause you to become more emotionally inspiring in her eyes.  Yes, this can be exhausting work, but it gets easier with time.


A man shouldn’t just be doing this to impress chix in the hope of getting laid, but he should be developing his personality and skill set according to his own life trajectory.  Having a better relationship is only one benefit of growing in maturity.

On a deeper level, sometimes the problems that crop up in a relationship are because of her false notions about things, and her unrealistic desires.  At those times, the battle lies only in her mind.  In this case, the husband should present an alternative assessment of the situation, backed by reasonable logic, provided she’s in the mood to hear it.  The most important thing is to not succumb to her doubts, fears, psychological defense mechanisms, and subtle power plays.  It’s a little tricky for most husbands to do this.

If this is the case, don’t admit her argument, but instead, improvise and introduce your own Frame of mind.  This may require you to become a “temporary MGTOW”, “go to your cave”, invent a new stratagem, and then come back out to effectively deal with her problemata.  Similar to Soft Dread Game, the time you spend away from her will make her more eager to patch things up after you return.

During your down time, you may need to wash yourself clean first, before you deal with the work of washing her clean.  If you are chronically sad, pessimistic, or low energy, then it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for you to grab the she-wolf by the tail and spin her (mind, heart, and body) to your mutual advantage.  This is why other Manospherians strongly encourage sports, weight lifting, and in general, leading an active, exciting life of your own.


Men, don’t listen to envious sad-sacks who mock you for being a fun-loving, emotionally transparent man, who say that you’re being a faggot or just peacocking for pussy.  Those are the men who are too proud, too lazy, too hopeless, or too low SMV to compete with you.  Kick them out and get new friends who appreciate your authentic self.

If a man can share his inner aspirations with a positive emotional affect, and let his girl tune into his wavelength, then from her perspective, she will be experiencing sanctification in the relationship, meaning that she’ll feel connected, content, and she won’t be hypergamsterbating dreams of having a better relationship with another man.

Best wishes!


Posted in Attitude, Authenticity, Courtship and Marriage, Holding Frame, Influence, Joy, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, The Power of God | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Unconditional Atonement, Limited Election

A reflection on the theological doctrines of four men who have been a spiritual influence in my life.

Readership: All; Christians;

Four men in particular.

  1. Dark Brightness is a Reformed Calvinist, part of the neoreactionary movement and the Manosphere.
  2. Ed Hurst is from a Reformed background, but he goes heavy on Hebrew epistemology and Christian mysticism.
  3. My current Pastor is from a Buddhist background, but later became a Calvinist and is prone to ranting about Arminianism.
  4. My father was from a Reformed background, but then became a stalwart firebrand Baptist for most of his life, and an elder in a Methodist church after his retirement.


Last year, I used to read Dark Brightness every morning as a source of daily inspiration.  But then he experienced some technical difficulties, and his site was down for several months.  So during that time, I switched to reading Ed Hurst’s epiphanies at Do What’s Right.  (His blog has since relocated to Radix Fidem.)

Perhaps this adventure was at the hand of God, because I found that Ed’s posts were more closely attuned to the challenges I was being faced with in my spiritual life.  Over the last few months, Ed and I have developed a mutual respect through sporadic email correspondence.  I have corresponded with DB off and on, but I can’t say that we ever really connected on a deeper level.

Concerning my father, I need to offer a brief, ecclesiastical history of my family to provide the background for the epiphanies discussed later in this post.

My paternal grandmother, who had divorced around the age of 40, afterwards served as a deaconess in a Presbyterian church for about 20 years, nearly until her death.  As a young man, my father abandoned Calvinism.  He won’t say much about this specifically, but from what I’ve picked up from my talks with him over the years, I can just about guess how things went.  He could not agree with several points of Calvinist doctrine and practice, and he needed to get out of the church where his mother was a deaconess so that he could “find God” on his own.

Instead, he joined a Bible study with a group of other men.  By 1968, the men in this Bible study had founded a Baptist church, which grew exponentially in its first decade, and is now the largest Southern Baptist church within that particular suburb of the largest city in a Midwest state.

My mother came from a Lutheran background, but after marrying my father, she saw the need for the family to be united in the faith, so she agreed to be baptized into the Baptist church.

So this is how I came to be raised in a Southern Baptist church.  Since then, I’ve had a long journey in expanding my ecumenical understanding.

Later on, while I was attending college out of state, my mother divorced my father.  It may be of interest to my readers to know that over a dozen divorces rocked our church at exactly the same time that my parents divorced.  In order to escape the incessant prattling, both my parents started attending different churches.

My father attended a Nazarene Church, and then an American Baptist church for a while.  But the leaders of these churches wanted to run their church like an entertainment business and a real estate business, respectively.  No one took his doctrinal arguments seriously, and no one appreciated the wisdom he had gained from his experiences in starting a church and being a deacon for 25 years.  He was often embroiled in arguments with pastors and deacons about the purpose of the church and how a ministry should function.  Eventually, he abandoned the Baptist church altogether.  Since he retired, he has been attending a Methodist church regularly.  They still don’t take him very seriously, but they do have an immense respect for him.

stained glass church window

Scrutinizing the Theology*

What drove my father into a crisis of faith?  What led him to eventually stop attending the Presbyterian church as a young man?

The doctrinal points of Calvinism and the Presbyterian Church that bothered my father the most (at that time in the mid-1960’s), were as follows.

  1. Unconditional Election, which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself. His selection criteria is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people.  Rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy and divine providence alone.
  2. Limited Atonement, in the sense that it is intended for some and not all. In other words, Only God has the power to elect.
  3. Female leaders in the church, including his own mother, who was also divorced. He didn’t agree with this because the Bible clearly states that women should not teach or hold authority over men.  (See 1st Timothy 2:12)

The first two tenets above are included in the Five Points of Calvinism.  Combining these together, it is concluded that only God chooses who “gets saved” (a Baptist term) and who doesn’t, and people have no choice in the matter.

Earlier this year, my current pastor said to me,

“People are as close to God as they want to be.”

This statement sent me into a tailspin.  In light of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement, how can my Calvinist Pastor say that people can be as close to God as they want to be?  Is he only referring to the elect?  I asked him this question, and he said, “No, that’s true for everyone.

Since then, I’ve always been confused about this apparent contradiction.  Not only because (1) it didn’t make sense to my understanding, but also because (2) it just didn’t agree with my own experience.

I know there are some people who wish to be closer to God, including myself, but God keeps them at some distance, fighting a losing battle in life.  I’ve come to understand that God does this with certain individuals (e.g. Hosea, Job), because He has a purpose for that.  When this is the case, God’s purposes are often hidden from that person’s understanding.  But this does not mean that God is not watching out for them.

I know I have been one of those people in the past, but now, not so much.  It really hurts to want to be closer to God, but not being able to find any way there.  It feels like a cosmic rejection, and I suppose it is, in a sense.  But God’s purpose was/is to help others somehow, and I know my suffering has helped many others.  God knew I am willing to sacrifice for them.  (Sigma’s are like that.)  It seems that I now have the responsibility to tell the world (through blogging, I suppose) what I have learned from this experience.

Another reason I had a hard time swallowing the Calvinistic laissez-faire approach towards salvation, is because I am a true believer in evangelism.  My Baptist upbringing had baked the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) into my faith at a young age, and that will always be a part of me.  But also, I know from first-hand experience that evangelism brings people into the Kingdom.  To combine the Baptist and Lutheran standpoints on this issue, evangelism is how God uses people to reach those who are predestined to be a part of His plan.


Are we Hedged In, or Locked Out?

Concerning the apparent contradiction, I found an explanation in one of Ed’s posts, Theology and Practice – Divine Sovereignty (May 6, 2019).

Because spiritual truths can only be communicated through parables, Ed establishes three different theoretical archetypes of people.  Those believers living by a heart-led conviction through faith are called “sheep”.  Those believers subject to a legalistic conscience are called “slaves”, and unbelievers as “cattle”.  As a comparison, the Bible labels the last group as “goats”, which emphasizes their stubborn rebellious nature, whereas Ed’s word, “cattle”, brings out the fact that they are “herded” (controlled and used) by God.

In this post, Ed brings out the Calvinist belief that what we do here on earth doesn’t have a direct correlation to our eternal destiny.  He wrote,

“The Bible says that in the Fallen Realm, humans do have choices.  There is an element of volition that justifies separating out sheep from cattle.  Anyone can be a sheep under His covenants.  Most of humanity sees no reason for it, and so end up herded like cattle.  Why was the Pharaoh of Exodus herded like a bull?  Because he refused to be a sheep.  He thus left God no choice but to train him like a rodeo bull that would buck and twist and refuse to be led quietly to his own benefit.  But did Pharaoh end up in Hell?  That’s a separate question that only God can answer, and He’s not telling.”

It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that Pharaoh was, in fact, doing God’s will, and that we might see him sitting next to the Father in glory.  Could the death of his first born son prove to have been the Flaming Sword of Self-Death that brought him into salvation?  I have to wonder, was Hitler also doing God’s will?  Stalin?  Mao?  Soros?  Obama?  Trump?  (Insert your favorite bad guy here)?

“Often in the New Testament, the term “salvation” does not refer directly to being Spirit born.  Spiritual birth is implied as the natural culmination of the self-death, but it’s never held forth as a direct offer.  Scripture flatly states that God alone understands spiritual birth, and controls that process entirely.  No one can choose spiritual birth; their fleshly nature excludes it (see Romans 8 and “carnal mind”).  However, it is possible to be a good servant of God without being family.  It’s a false dichotomy to assume all His sheep are born-again.  The Bible says quite clearly that one can reasonably choose the noble path of obedience to the Law Covenants, that one can be heart-led without spiritual birth.  The Scripture frequently demands that people submit to Jehovah as Lord from the heart, that this is a human choice He holds open for all humanity.”

In other words, God gives us a lot of choices within this earthly realm, but the extent of our volition ends at the tips of our tongue and fingers.  We’re judged by what we do or say, but that judgment has nothing to do with our election.

“Lots of people camp in the shade of Eden without ever getting through the Flaming Sword gate.  This is what the Old Testament Covenant of Moses was all about.  It was to bring everyone close enough to see the Flaming Sword, the final requirement of self-death to become a member of God’s family.  The fleshly nature had to taste execution by the hand of the one who had the fleshly nature.  For those whom God has elected for eternity, the process is easy.  They already have the power to choose self-death.  Those who lack election won’t find that power.

apple death

I think the concept of self-death** entails one of the most misunderstood concepts about God.  People want to believe that “God is good”, but in their minds, “good” means anything that they enjoy, benefits their lives, or fulfills their better desires.  They cannot possibly entertain the idea that God actually requires a death in order to be close to him.

Brett Stevens discussed the misnomber of “good” in yesterday’s article at Amerika, entitled, Meditations On Evil (17 October 2019).  His concept of good and evil is that,

“Evil destroys the world; good enhances it.  These definitions are a far cry from what people use in their place, where “good” means “benefits me” and evil means “obligates me or causes losses.”

Stevens is right on target about people having an inverted concept of good and evil, but the definitions he offered are only marginally better.  From the Christian perspective, Good is what brings people closer to the Flaming Sword of Self-Death and into His Family, and Evil is what takes them further away from it, or makes them ignorant of it.

The paradox of the Gospel is that what’s Good in God’s eyes may very well be repulsive and vile to the person who doesn’t trust God enough to endure a spiritual death in the crucible of this broken world.

Further on, Stevens writes,

Evil then represents less of a moral choice than a mental state.  Someone who is motivated by revenge against the world will have a desire to control which does not consider the consequences of its acts; control is a closed-circuit loop, a sealed feedback cycle, in which control only exists to perpetuate control and everything else is a means to that end.”

Stevens’ first sentence (in bold) is fair, but then he gets sidetracked in a subjective, worldly application.  God has no intentions of either enhancing the world, nor destroying it, but only to use it to break mankind’s bent towards spiritual self-reliance, and bring them into His fold.  Power, money, and control are just the means by which people often seek to avert a self-death, and that is what makes the desire for these things evil.

Now returning to Ed’s post,

“But an awful lot of shalom is available to folks who just can’t go through that.  And this is why the New Testament refers to the kind of “salvation” that means heart-led obedience to Christ as Lord, the Living Law of God, but does not make it necessarily equivalent to spiritual birth.

This is where mainstream evangelicals fail: They do not make adequate allowance for the household of God to include willing servants who aren’t slaves.  It’s easy to understand how most of the world is going to Hell and are thus unwitting slaves of God’s plans.  And it’s not too hard to grasp how His Children are not slaves.  But virtually no one among evangelical leaders understand the place of free servants in the household of God. […]”

Being one myself, I can say that Evangelicals can’t understand this point, because they lack the Calvinistic awareness of the ultimate sovereignty of God over the will of man.  Within the Baptist context of Free-Will, everyone is considered to be willfully minded, and therefore, any person who is not a believer, is deemed lost and degenerate.  (See figure below.)  Evangelicals consider themselves to be servants to the Word of God and slaves of righteousness.  As such, a believer who has selfish motivations or who refuses to submit, is considered to be a very poor servant.

“Our church activities should assume conversion is separate from spiritual birth.  And we should be very careful to make conversion not a sales pitch, but a genuine choice for someone drawn to it on their own volition.  The church is a converted body of people who cling to a shared covenant.  [Evangelicals should not] assume everyone [who believes] is born-again and so build policies and activities on that.  We need a radical redefinition of church that aims at the heart-led way of serving Christ.

I can know that I am born-again.  That is the power of conviction in my heart.  You cannot know for sure that I am born-again, even if I tell you.  What you can know is that I am heart-led and committed to Christ, if you use your heart as a sensory organ to discern my heart.  That’s the basis for doing church.  That’s the proper basis for building a theology about the sovereignty of God.”

After being inspired by Ed’s insights, I’ve constructed a diagram that explains my current understanding of the different sectarian doctrines based on their stances towards Free-Will (Arminianism) vs. Predestination (Calvinism), and what appears to be their Biblical “labels” (Sheep, Servants, Slaves/Goats, Cattle, and Sons).  The red dotted line represents the Flaming Sword of Self-Death.

Sheep Slaves Sons 1


After arriving at my own understanding of the doctrinal concepts of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement, it seems to me that the adjectives should be exchanged.  That is, the idea that God has the final decision about who will enter into heaven should be called Limited Election, and for those who are chosen by God for some unimaginably illustrious purpose in the next life, there is Unconditional Atonement.

The purpose of Evangelism is to…

  • advance God’s Kingdom on earth.
  • make people aware of the Gospel.
  • make people aware of their place in God’s Family.
  • lead people to realize their potential and purpose in God’s Kingdom.
  • help spell out the choices available to them in life.

To revise my Pastor’s statement, I would say that people can be as close to God as God wants them to be.  Up until that point, they can be as close to God as they want, but no further.

To adapt Ed’s statements, people who do not want to be close to God are, nevertheless, still used by God to accomplish His purposes.

* Since I am lacking formal training in a theological seminary, I’m sure someone well-steeped in doctrine will disagree with something here.  You’re welcome to explain why in the comments.

** “Self-Death” is not the same, and should not be confused with suicide.  Here, the idea of Death is figurative, meaning an end to the false identifications we have with our ego, mind; and body, and the death of the human will to self-preservation and self-determination.


Posted in Faith Community, Fundamental Frame, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Sanctification & Defilement, The Power of God | Tagged , | 11 Comments

How the Pill Kills

You might guess that oral contraceptives cause developing embryos to perish, but birth control pills have also been found to cause death in women.  More than half of these deaths are caused by venous thromboembolism.

Readership: All; Parents of adolescent daughters; Women who use birth control pills; Men with partners who use birth control pills; Men interested in vetting a woman for a relationship;

Note: Photographs of women who have been killed by the pill are depicted throughout the article.  Information reported in Dr. Lanfranchi’s speech is in green text.

Abbey Parkes

Abbey Parkes, 20, a legal secretary from Tunstall in Staffordshire, had been taking Logynon for six years when she suffered a cardiac arrest and died at her home on 26 August 2016.  An inquest found that she was killed by her contraceptive pill.


Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.  Dr. Lanfranchi heads up the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

This short video (18 minutes) features Dr. Lanfranchi giving a riveting presentation of the scientific proof of how the birth control pill (hormonal contraception) has several harmful side effects, and worst of all, it kills women.  More than half of these deaths are caused when the pill induces some type of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the follow up cause of death is surprising – intimate partner violence!*

Below, several points in the speech are cited and discussed.

People Love the Pill

The pill is the number one contraceptive method in Africa, Europe, and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific islands).  It is also the most prevalent form of reversible contraception in the Americas [1].

If the pill is so bad, then why do teenage girls love it?

  • They have lighter periods.
  • They have periods accompanied by less pain.**
  • They have more predictable periods due to increased regularity.
  • Their breasts grow larger and fuller.
  • For many girls, the hormonal changes caused by the pill improves their skin complexion.
  • They think they don’t need to worry about pregnancy, should anything “just happen”.

If the pill is so bad, then why do parents of teenage girls love it?

  • In general, parents worry less.
  • Parents think the pill will prevent their daughter from getting pregnant.
  • Parents think that using the pill makes them and their daughter “responsible” for the daughter’s sexuality.
  • Parents resort to psychological defenses to deny the risks. “It’s for acne.” “It’s for painful periods.**”
  • Parents are unaware of the medical risks associated with using the pill.


Miranda Scott, of Delta, B.C. was 18 when she suddenly collapsed in a gym at UBC Okanagan in 2010.  Her autopsy report concluded she had died after blood clots formed throughout her body.

The Pill Kills Embryos

To understand how the pill works, and how it terminates pregnancy, let’s take a look at how life begins in the womb.  For a woman to become pregnant, the following steps must occur [2]:

  1. Sperm transport — The sperm must be deposited and transported to the site of fertilization.
  2. Egg transport — Ovulation must occur and the egg must be “picked up” by the tube.
  3. Fertilization and embryo development — Union between the sperm and egg must result.
  4. Implantation — The embryo must implant and begin to grow in the uterus.

Birth control pills affect (2) and/or (4).

Concerning (2), birth control pills can prevent ovulation.  In the normal monthly cycle, estrogen and progesterone levels rise and fall naturally.  At times when there is a shortage of estrogen and progesterone, two other hormones, FSH and LH, will be produced, and these hormones trigger ovulation.

Hormonal birth control provides just enough synthetic estrogen and progesterone hormones to prevent the stimulation of FSH and LH production, thereby preventing the two key hormones that cause ovulation.

Hormonal birth control basically keeps a woman in the same phase of her menstrual cycle on a continuous basis, and averting the phase of ovulation.  The ovaries become relatively inactive.

Mechanism (4) is more complex.  Approximately five to six days after fertilization, the fertilized egg reaches the blastocyst stage.  Here, the embryo hatches out of its zona pellucida and begins the process of implantation, in which it attaches to the lining of the uterus.  Implantation occurs about 7-14 days after sexual intercourse.

In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman misses her next menses.  The reasons for this include…

  • An embryo may begin to develop but not make it to the blastocyst stage — the first stage at which those cells destined to become the fetus separate from those that will become the placenta.
  • The blastocyst may implant but not grow.
  • The blastocyst may implant and grow, but then stop developing before the two-week time at which a pregnancy can be detected.

The receptivity of the uterus and the health of the embryo are vitally important for the implantation and growth process.

In the case of mechanism (4), the pill doesn’t simply prevent conception.  In fact, it is an abortifacient for the following reasons.

  • It causes the endometrial lining of the uterus to be too thin to allow implantation of the blastocyst (embryo).
  • It changes the level of interleukins which are necessary for implantation.

As a result, the conditions inside the uterus are insufficient for allowing the implantation and growth of a fertilized embryo.  When the embryo cannot successfully implant the uterus, it passes out of the body and dies.  Essentially, the pill causes the mother to miscarry at the very earliest stages of pregnancy.  So the rate of losing the embryo goes from 50% in a natural state, up to 87-91% when using some type of birth control pill [3].

According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions.  This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.  But this estimate only includes reported surgical abortions.  It does not include unreported abortions, nor nonsurgical abortions.

Since birth control pills (and IUD’s) are abortifacients, and not preventative contraceptives, then any fertilized embryo that may form in the womb is lost due to an insufficiently fertile environment within the womb.

This is grave news for the pill (and IUD’s) if you believe that life begins at fertilization, because (although it is impossible to measure), that would mean that the number of babies lost due to abortifacient contraceptives are astronomically larger than the number of reported abortions.  If abortions caused by abortifacients could somehow be included in the abortion statistics, then that would likely place the abortion rate into hundreds of millions, or even billions per year.  Of course, this is all speculation, but the point is that the pill kills, and it kills many more than we could ever know.


Fallan Kurek, 21, from Staffordshire, U.K., died from a massive pulmonary embolism after the side-effects of the pill were not effectively treated.

The Pill Kills Women

According to Dr. Lanfranchi, there are four mechanisms that the pill is known to cause death.

  1. The progestins in the pill increase blood clotting, leading to thrombosis, embolisms, infarctions, and strokes.
  2. The metabolites of estrogen in the pill are carcinogenic agents which increase a woman’s chances of developing cancer.***
  3. Regular use of the pill increases the chance of contracting and transmitting a lethal illness or infection (i.e. HIV, human papilloma virus).****
  4. Use of the pill statistically increases the chance of dying from accidents or violence (i.e. homicide).

The first cause of death listed above encompasses many conditions related to the circulatory system.  Of note, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the foremost cause of death among oral contraceptive users, accounting for roughly half of these untimely deaths.

As early as 1977, it was reported that the death rate from diseases of the circulatory system in women who had used oral contraceptives, was 5 times that of controls who had never used the pill.  For those who had taken the oral contraceptive continuously for 5 years or more, the death rate was 10 times that of the controls.  The excess deaths in oral contraceptive users were due to a wide range of vascular conditions.  The number of excess deaths was substantially greater than the death rate from complications of pregnancy in the controls, and was double the accident death rate.  The excess mortality rate increased with age, cigarette smoking, and duration of oral contraceptive use. [4,5]

In a 1981 study of 249 deaths associated with oral contraceptives, women who had used the pill were reported to have a 40% higher death rate than women who had never taken oral contraceptives.  Virtually all the excess mortality was due to diseases of the circulatory system. [6]

In a 2010 study done on 46,112 women observed for up to 39 years, there was an increase in mortality among women of childbearing age, but a reduction in mortality for post-menopausal women. [7]

In 2014, another Nurses’ Health Study published the results of a significant longitudinal study of 121,701 participants who were prospectively followed for 36 years between 1976 and 2012. [8]  The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of oral contraceptives is associated with all cause and cause specific mortality.  The results of this study are as follows.

“In our population of 121,577 women with information on oral contraceptive use, 63,626 were never users (52%) and 57,951 were ever users (48%).  After 3.6 million person years, we recorded 31,286 deaths.  No association was observed between ever use of oral contraceptives and all cause mortality.  However, violent or accidental deaths were more common among ever users (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.37).  Longer duration of use was more strongly associated with certain causes of death, including premature mortality due to breast cancer (test for trend P<0.0001) and decreased mortality rates of ovarian cancer (P=0.002).  Longer time since last use was also associated with certain outcomes, including a positive association with violent or accidental deaths (P=0.005).”

This connection between the pill and mortality has not changed since its discovery over four decades ago.  In the United States alone, 136 to 260 healthy women die from VTE caused by hormonal contraception every year.  When that risk is combined with the added risk of stroke and heart attack, between three and four hundred women die every year in the United States due to their choice to use hormonal contraception. [9]

The consensus is clear.  The Pill Kills!


Charlotte Foster, 23, took ill and was hospitalized after being prescribed a contraceptive pill.  She later died from a blood clot, on 25 January 2016, weeks after going to her GP with tell-tale symptoms.


* The term “intimate partner” includes current partners, and past partners (e.g. hookups, flings, and ONS’s).  More partners and more associated drama increases the likelihood of violence from at least one intimate partner.

** The medication that gynecologists prescribe for menstrual pain is similar or the same as that for birth control.

*** Dr. Lanfranchi notes that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have downplayed and sometimes denied the link between the pill and various forms of cancer.  This is done partly through citing studies that have reported conflicting results, and partly by using social factors as an excuse.

**** Dr. Lanfranchi doesn’t comment about why the regular use of the pill increases the chance of contracting and transmitting a lethal illness or infection.  There are a few possible, overlapping explanations.  (1) The hormonal disruption depresses the immune system, causing a greater susceptibility to infections.  (2) Women who use contraceptives may be more sexually promiscuous, thereby increasing their chances of contracting an illness.  (3) Using contraceptives may cause women to psychologically dismiss the risks involved with sexual activities, and increase women’s confidence to engage in more profligate sexual behavior.


  1. Earth Policy Institute (feat. Brigid Fitzgerald Reading): Growth in World Contraceptive Use Stalling; 215 Million Women’s Needs Still Unmet (27 March 2012)
  2. University of California, San Francisco Health: Conception: How It Works
  3. Refinery 29 (feat. Cory Stieg): What Are The Odds Of Getting Pregnant On The Pill? (1 November 2018)
  4. J. Wingrave, V. Beral, A. M. Adelstein, C. R. Kay, “Royal College of General Practitioners Oral Contraception Study: Mortality among oral contraceptive users”, Lancet, Vol.2, pp. 727-31, 1977.
  5. F. Kippley, “Death rates and the pill”, CCL News, 1977 Nov-Dec 4(3):3.
  6. Royal College of General Practitioners Study, “Further analysis of mortality in oral contraceptive users”, Lancet, Vol.1 pp.541-546, 1981.
  7. C. Hannaford, L. Iversen, T. V. MacFarlane, A. M. Elliott, V. Angus, A. J. Lee, “Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study”, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 2010, 340.
  8. M. Charlton, J. W. Rich-Edwards, G. A. Colditz, S. A. Missmer, B. A. Rosner, S. E. Hankinson, F. E. Speizer, K. B. Michels, “Oral contraceptive use and mortality after 36 years of follow-up in the Nurses’ Health Study: prospective cohort study”, BMJ, 2014 Oct 31, 349.
  9. Public Discourse (feat. Lynn Keenan and Gerard Migeon): Birth Control, Blood Clots, and Untimely Death: Time to Reconsider What We Tell Our Teens? (4 March 2019)


Posted in Health, Models of Failure, Relationships, Science, Society, Vetting Women | Tagged , , , | 13 Comments

True Rest as a form of Worship

This post offers some descriptions of rest as a form of worship.

Readership: All

What is a “Sabbath”?

You might ask, what is a “Sabbath”, and what does it mean to “keep the Sabbath holy”?

Throughout Scriptures, the word “Sabbath” is habitually used in association with the word “REST”.  The word “holy” is an adjective that means something is special, and SET APART from the normal, day-to-day occurrences and uses.

“Rest” means different things to different people, so we need greater clarification here.  Some people think resting means sleeping, or simply not doing anything.  But I believe the intended meaning of a “Sabbath REST” is not slumber or idleness, nor even strictly confined to church attendance, but it is any activity that is out of your ordinary routine, which can free your mind and heart from the burdens and anxieties of your life.

It’s not hard, at this point, to identify the concept of REST as a variation of WORSHIP, which is why a lot of people hold the idea that going to church is how we keep the Sabbath holy.

But the church is not the only place we can worship.  We should learn to worship God in all facets of our life. Your career, your family, and all your relationships should be offered to God as forms of worship.

Also, you don’t need to go on a long vacation, or spend a lot of money to get REST.  Rest can come in very simple easy ways.

For example, on nice days, I like to take a ride on my motorcycle through the countryside.  The fresh air, sights and smells always give me a renewed perspective on life.

rural Taiwan

On nasty days, it’s better to curl up in a comfortable chair with a good book and a hot drink.

Dante coffee

Sometimes, I’ll take a walk up the small mountain behind the University, to get a sense of refreshment during the day.  It only takes half an hour, and a little bit of exercise, but I come back feeling like a new man with a fresh wind.

In fact, sometimes, a good rest could be a real physical workout, such as playing sports, or working on a hobby.  Most hobbies qualify as avenues of restful diversion.

For example, my friends’ testimony conveys a very good description of how he finds rest through hunting (and snowboarding)…

“Let the 2009/2010 Deer (less) Season stand as testament to all of you who ever doubted my motivations for hunting, that it has absolutely nothing to do with killing deer, but is much more about watching the world come to life each morning, talking to God with no distractions, and spending time with my friends and family. Now on to snowboarding!”

The popular notion is to dismiss such activities as idleness.  We may not think of this as REST, but it is!


Posted in Authenticity, Conserving Power, Health, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, The Power of God | Tagged | 2 Comments

Yet another variety of Internet Whoring

Tongue slathering and extremely suggestive lewdness attracts clicks, views, and $$$ just as well as actual sex.

Readership: Men

Warning: This post contains images which may be considered graphic or obscene.

This year, we’ve seen several expressions of internet wh0ring, including the marketing of virgin brides and virgin prostitution and the InstaWhore phenomenon.  For those who may have missed it, InstaWh0res are women who use Instagram and other social media forums to attract well-heeled, overseas “customers” for vacation wh0ring abroad, something like the female version of sex tourism, except that it pays $$$.

And here’s yet another variety of Internet Wh0ring!


Although her tongue has become her claim to fame, Mikayla Saravia, who also goes by the enigmatic string, “KKVSH”, actually looks more attractive with her mouth closed.


Older photos prove that her youthful innocence is (or was) her best feature, but because of fame, I’m sure she’s lost that by now.  In some younger photos, her face wasn’t too bad. But in many photos, the overuse of makeup has given her a fake appearance.  She actually looks better with less makeup.

KKVSH natural makeup

Many media outlets describe her body as “busty”, “sexy”, and “amazing”, but her body isn’t all that great.  (The first photo of her above is airbrushed.)  She has a decent HWR, but only because her butt and thighs are supersized from too many squats/deadlifts.  I’d put her at a 6.5 in her better (older) photos.  The heavy mascara and the grotesqueness of the tongue really put me off.  It’s just not feminine at all.


More recent photos show that she’s degenerating into a ghettoffal shrew with a resting biatch face.  Lately, she’s gone for oversized, full-color tattoos of geisha girls extending around her blimped thighs and buttocks.  (Someone should report her to the SJW administration for cultural appropriation offenses!)  Can you imagine what her bum will look like in 20 years?


The one thing that she still has going for her is that she presents herself to be a fun person to hang out with, which draws in the bored wannabes who spend all their time on the internet.  Ultimately, the implied, but false promise of “having fun” is the fundamental claim to fame for these internet and media personalities.

Saravia loves daddy

There are many photos of her licking popsicles, bananas, eggplants, and other objects with a high aspect ratio – including her taking up the Cucumber Challenge wearing hoop earrings as big as barrel bands. (Warning: the link to the YouTube video is somewhat graphic.)  BTW, hoop earrings are a s1ut tell.


There are even some photos of her comparing her tongue with that of a horse, which is suggestive of bestiality.  Now we’re getting close to real depravity.

Saravia horse

Why not pose with a sun bear?

Sun bear with long tongue

Since we’re on the subject, I’ve seen some truly freaky, alien-like tongues in Asia.


Among white chix, I’d say this lady wins first prize for the best tongue.  Is that even real?

tongue model

Saravia’s tongue can’t compare to these.  So what is actually behind the tongue fascination and click frenzy?  I mean, why aren’t these people becoming just as rich and famous?

people with long tongues

Saravia’s licker isn’t freakishly long, but she knows how to use it in a suggestive manner.  This is the true reason why she’s is popular — because of her sensual seductiveness.  It’s visible in her dark eyes, but the tongue gimmicks and sultry poses contribute to this effect to make it all too obvious.

This raw seductiveness is something the common Joe hardly ever sees from a woman anymore.  Obviously, she’s making her money off of thirsty male lust and sensationalistic female-friendly envy.

One could dismiss her antics as merely entertainment, but if she were to remove the tongue slathering, remove the twerking vids, remove the wildly seductive s1ut eye expression, replace the skin-tight boy shorts with anything less form-fitting, or add 10 years or 10 kg. to her form, then her internet profile would quickly blend into the masses with no particular genuine appeal.  So her tongue tricks should not be mistaken for authentic entertainment.  OTOH, if Gene Simmons never stuck out his tongue, he would still be a stellar entertainer.


If any guy thinks Saravia is “better” than Simmons, then he’s not looking for entertainment, he’s looking to get turned on and F*cked.  Let’s be honest about it.

Lollygagging tongues, lewd poses, twerking bubble butts, cucumber fellatio…  All that which feeds the lust of the flesh, but which can never satisfy.  This is the stuff that gets money-generating clicks these days.

This form of internet whoring is different, however, in that they are not actually putting their bodies down for carnal sale.  Or maybe they are.  Who’re knows?



Posted in Female Power, Reviews | Tagged , , , | 31 Comments

Bards, Jesters, and Kings

Musicians and comedians are, respectively, the modern day versions of the bards and jesters of yore, the prophets of culture and politics.  What are the present day bards and jesters trying to tell us?

Readership: All

Who were the Bards and Jesters?

Jesters in Medieval times wore brightly colored clothes and eccentric hats while they entertained the royal class with a wide variety of skills; principal among them were storytelling, jokes, tongue-in-cheek puns, mock imitation, and stereotypes, but many also employed song, music, acrobatics, juggling, and magic tricks.  Much of the entertainment was performed in a comical style and many jesters made contemporary jokes in word or song about people or events well known to their audiences.

Danny Kaye Court Jester1

Danny Kaye plays The Court Jester, 1955.

Through music, dance, and stage dramas containing dialogues, the bards were able to capture in short form the spirit of the times, and convey them in a concise epithetical statement that any aware person would be able to grasp onto.  The bards played an especially powerful role in communicating deeper truths to Kings and Lords, who often got sidetracked with their personal agendas and needed to be shown the errors of their ways from the people’s perspective.  This venue of formal entertainment was able to address moral grievances and point figurative fingers without requiring a presumptuous or violent ascendancy over authority.

Bards had an important role in the court, as they could influence the King’s political stances and decisions without facing the risk of being beheaded for speaking shameful truths to the King.  Medieval court jesters utilized the foolishness of man to teach the wisdom of God, and were often considered to be among the wisest “counselors” of all.

A Modern Day Tale

A modern day jester of the Manosphere once told the following story.*  I’ll attempt to fill in the parallels.

Once upon a time, there was a wise and beloved king.

This king was no inbred son of royalty.  He had earned everything he had.  He had begun at the absolute bottom, a peasant with little money, no allies and no reputation.  Through dedication and force of will, the king had carved out a fiefdom for himself in the cold, unforgiving world.  When his friends were goofing off and drinking, he was drawing up battle plans and making a name for himself.  When his peers were doing the bare minimum to get by, he was reaching out and building alliances with like-minded men.  When everyone was just mailing it in, the king gave 110 percent.

He saw his chance for glory and seized it.

Think of the British, Dutch, French, German (Holy Roman Empire), and Spanish empires during the 16th to 19th centuries.

Winter in Innsbruck

Eventually, the king presided over a bustling and prosperous empire.  His castle was always packed to the brim with courtiers seeking favors.  Men twice his age looked to him for advice.  Women swooned over him, some even offering to give him naked pictures of themselves.  Even his enemies respected him for his wit and intelligence.  And every time he made a proclamation, everyone fell silent to listen to what he had to say.

And one day, the king surveyed his empire and said that it was good.

Picture Europe and the United States before WW1.

princess procession

A Time of Trouble

The king arose during a time of troubles.  Liars and fools played at being philosophers, running the nation into the ground with their schemes.  Shysters roamed the land, preying on the poor and stupid, fleecing them of what little they had.  The king saw all this and knew instinctively that it was wrong.  He never claimed to be perfect or infallible, but he was way smarter than the nincompoops that most people worshipped.

Enter WW’s 1 and 2, and the introduction of Feminism.  Everything went downhill after that.

I have a friend who is a Messianic Jew of the Boomer generation.  He once told me he clearly remembers the Summer of 1967, in which the Six Day War took place.  He does not remember it because of Israel’s political conquest, because his family of origin never identified with his Jewish heritage.  He only did so, after he became a Christian.

No, he distinctly remembers that summer because, as he said in his own words,

“You could feel everything was different after that.  You couldn’t put your finger on exactly what that was, but the whole world changed.  And it wasn’t just me.  Everybody I knew at that time said the same thing.”


Sure enough, the sexual revolution revved up to full speed by the summer of ‘69.  The political landscape became more tumultuous with Nixon and the Watergate scandal in 1972.

The United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford was Henry Kissinger.  Kissinger was a Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1938, and who played a prominent role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977.  During this Cold War period, he pioneered the policy of détente with the Soviet Union, orchestrated the opening of relations with the People’s Republic of China, engaged in what became known as shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East to end the Yom Kippur War, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American involvement in the Vietnam War.

And yet, while his empire swelled and grew with each passing day, the king became discontented.  He regretted letting many of his courtiers into his castle, as they were cranks and idiots, the only thing binding them together being a mutual hatred of the king’s enemies.  While many of his followers were earnest, too many were not taking his proclamations to heart, instead living vicariously through the king’s exploits.

Most of all, the king could not bear the truth: his followers were worshipping a mirage.

1946 Dali Mirage

Mirage, by Salvador Dali, 1946.

The Jesters

During this period, comedy as a whole became cutting, darkly honest, cynically profane, and overtly sexualized.  The leading comedians of this time period were Woody Allen, George Burns, John Candy, George Carlin, Bill Cosby, Rodney Dangerfield, Redd Foxx, Gallagher, Jackie Gleason, Arsenio Hall, Andy Kaufman, Sam Kinison, David Letterman, Eddie Murphy, Bob Newhart, Richard Pryor, and Robin Williams, among many others.  Of note, many popular female comedians appeared for the first time in western history, including Lucille Ball, Roseanne Barr, Carol Burnette, Phyllis Diller, Whoopi Goldberg, and Lily Tomlin.

The Bards

Popular music reflected these cultural transitions with an aggressive shift to hard rock anthems we now know as Classic Rock.  Popular music groups of that era included Bachman Turner Overdrive (BTO), Boston, Electric Light Orchestra (ELO), Fleetwood Mac, Foreigner, Jimi Hendrix, Journey, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, Steely Dan, The Cars, The Doobie Brothers, The Doors, The Eagles, The Police, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Van Halen.

The classic rock group, Rush, consisting of bassist/keyboardist/vocalist Geddy Lee, guitarist Alex Lifeson, and drummer/lyricist Neil Peart, won a large and passionate worldwide fan base for its unique, adventurous approach, which combined sterling musicianship, complex compositions and distinctive lyrical flights drawing upon science-fiction motifs and esoteric philosophical concepts.  The band has sold more 25 million albums in the US alone, with worldwide sales estimated at 45 million, and has been awarded 24 Gold, 14 Platinum, and three multi-platinum albums.  Rush has received seven Grammy nominations and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2013.


A Farewell to Kings

The king was a private person, and while he had never lied to his people, he never told the whole truth either.  His most devoted fans thought him superhuman; his biggest enemies called him a liar and a narcissist.  To his subjects, the king was not a person, but an idol, a golden calf on which they could inscribe all their fantasies and neuroses.  It didn’t matter what he said or did; his subjects would cling to their mirage as furiously as cultists to a foreign god.

The king couldn’t take it anymore.  So he quit.

One day, after presenting himself in the courtroom as usual, he announced that he was abdicating his throne.  He had had enough of being the man in charge.  Someone else could rule for once; he was going to take a much deserved vacation.  Everyone was saddened and shocked by this news, but aside from a minority of layabouts, they gave a standing ovation.  The king packed his bags and rode off into the sunset, never to return.

Or will he?

Rush Farewell to Kings Lithograph-2

Album art from A Farewell To Kings.
Note the guy wires attached to the puppet on the throne.

Rush’s fifth studio album, A Farewell To Kings, was originally released on September 1, 1977, and played a major role in establishing Rush as an internationally popular and respected band.  A Farewell To Kings also introduced the trio’s first successful radio hit Closer To The Heart, album tracks, A Farewell To Kings, Madrigal, and Cinderella Man, as well as enduring fan favorites, Xanadu, and Cygnus X-1.

Of note, A Farewell To Kings was released ten years after the Summer of Love in 1967.

The Return of Kings

As much as he wanted to go back to being a peasant, with its lack of responsibility, the king knew better.  He knew that while peasants were common, only a handful of men had the brains, the gumption, the will to be a king.  They needed him, and he needed them.  The same fire that led him to forge his empire could not be extinguished.

The forces of evil have not won.  The king is still alive, and he will reclaim his throne.  The only difference is that this time, his followers will admire him not for who they think he is, but who they know he is.

The 2012 Phenomenon was characterized by a number of eschatological beliefs and strange astronomical and mathematical phenomena corresponding to late 2012.  The intersynchronicities of these signs were interpreted as being indicative of a cataclysmic or transformative event for mankind.  These included,

All of the above events signaled the beginning of a return to the old order, or to a new old order.


Final Statements

A Farewell To Kings was released ten years after the Summer of Love in 1967.

During those 35 years between the Farewell To Kings in 1977 and the Return of Kings in 2012, American culture and society experienced a catastrophic disintegration.

Could it be, that another ten years after the Return of Kings, we shall witness a cultural cataclysm?

1967 – The Summer of Love
1977 – A Farewell to Kings
2012 – The Return of Kings
2022? – The Winter of War?**

In numerology, this sequence can be written (approximately) as a series of five-year periods:
(2 x 5 years) + (7 x 5 years) + (2 x 5 years)**

Five years has 60 months, so rewriting the above formula in terms of 60-month periods, we have:
(2 x 60 months) + (7 x 60 months) + (2 x 60 months)**

Compare this to the 1,260 days of prophecy described in Revelation 11:2-3:
1,260 days = 180 weeks = (3 x 60 weeks)

60 months has approximately four 60-week periods.

Perhaps now (or soon) we will sense the synchronicity of these events viewed through the lens of history.

* The parable displayed in green text originally appeared on Matt Forney, The Empire Never Ended (14 November 2012) – Also in 2012, just one month after Roosh set up the Return of Kings site.

** Ten years is my guess.  Anyone have a better method of estimation?


Posted in Conspiracy Theories, Culture Wars, Glory, Male Power, Society | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

The Overton Shake

Has the Overton window divided to form distinct Left and Right factions?

Readership: Sociocultural Anthropology enthusiasts; Those following Boxer’s arguments against Dalrock; Those involved with the American Heritage Girls organization;

“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” ~ Proverbs 27:17 KJV

* Section titles taken from the song, Stuck in the middle with you, by Stealer’s Wheel (feat. Gerry Rafferty).

Clowns to the Left of Me*

It’s not often that we see a senator berating a tech giant for not being progressive enough.

PA Pundits (feat. Alexander Hall): Senator Calls To Jail Zuckerberg If Facebook Doesn’t Censor More (2019 September 5)

“Wyden specifically hammered Big Tech, though not for the reasons conservatives would.  “Your companies have done practically everything wrong since the 2016 election”, he wrote.  He later added, “If you don’t get serious on moderation, you’re going to have a lot of people coming after you.  And they’re going to be in a very strong position.

In other words, Suckerberg’s forbearance of free speech advocates is slowing down progressiveness!

“[Sen. Wyden] has called for better moderation, particularly against “all the hatemongers”, which, to free speech advocates, is a step down the slippery slope to censorship.  On the other hand, Wyden mentioned that when “Barack Obama said you had to give up 10 percent of your liberty to have security,” he “wanted to throw a rock at my television set.””

They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

“In a statement posted on his government website, Wyden said “tech companies certainly need to continue to be far more vigorous about identifying, fingerprinting and blocking content and individuals who incite hate and violence.”  Big Tech, he said, should be doing far more to “clean up their platforms” on their own.””

Wyden is acting as the Deep State’s goad to get Big Tech giants like Facebook (FB) (and all of their numbskull users) further down the road towards Big Brother socialism.  But Zuck is caught in a conundrum.

“[Facebook’s] business model was built on clicks and virality, which led them to tune their algorithms in ways that actively encouraged conspiracy theories, personal abuse, and other content that was most likely to generate user interaction.  This was the opposite of the public broadcasting ideal, which (as defined, for example, by the Council of Europe) privileged material deemed in the broad public interest.  User attention is the most precious commodity on the internet, and platform algorithms increasingly determined what users were likely to see or hear.”

Zuck can’t pyle on any more censorship as long as (1) he’s using clicks and data to generate income, and (2) a significant segment of his user base is dead set against both censorship and selling user data.  He has to bide his time and wait until a larger piece of the population is convinced that tighter censorship is necessary.  Only then can he tighten up his algorithms without a considerable kickback.  Meanwhile, the public’s discontent with FB has been rising.  Recently, Zuck was called to the congressional carpet for selling user data.

Facebook Hiring

Jokers to the Right*

Meanwhile, over on the other extreme of the political spectrum, Dalrock is taking issue with various manifestations of Feminism within the Church and society, and Boxer’s clan is pointing out how Dalrock’s efforts might be counterproductive – or worse.

  1. Boxer: The Love of The Censor (2019 August 31)
  2. Dalrock: Proverbs 31 princesses (2019 September 3)
  3. Boxer (feat. Derek Ramsey): Embracing Feminist Scouting (2019 September 3)
  4. Boxer (feat. Chronoblip): Survival vs. Status (2019 September 7)
  5. Boxer: Manufacture of Consent in Microcosm (2019 September 8)

Just days after Boxer castigated Dalrock in post [1], Boxer’s place blew up after Dalrock wrote an article [2] discussing how the AHG taught a feminist agenda within the church.

Boxer’s primary claim to contention can be summed up in this quote from post [3] above.

“…blogs like Vox Day and Dalrock are really feminist blogs riddled with half-truths.

Dalrock, specifically, spends almost all his time vilifying anti-feminists.  Given the choice between attacking a popular activist feminist organization or an anti-feminist organization whose worst crime is not being amazing at teaching theology, Dalrock chooses the latter.  When faced with the choice to attack feminist thought policing or embrace it, Dalrock chooses the latter.”

Boxer wants to say Dalrock is a feminist for not properly accepting the AHC.


What’s Up With Boxer?

Boxer has put Dalrock under heavy scrutiny. Earlier this year, Dalrock went after Warhorn and It’s Good to be a Man (IGTBAM), and Boxer has taken him to task in the following posts.

  1. Boxer: Deconstructing Dalrock (2019 February 26)
  2. Boxer: Dalrock (The Neverending Screech) (2019 March 14)

We could put Boxer and his crew under the same speculum.

Within these and other posts in his past repertoire, Boxer has called out Christians as fake, bad, hypocrites, etc. He has called out the rejects of society and labeled them as Feminists. This is essentially what Dalrock and Vox do, except for a couple differences.

  1. Boxer doesn’t accede any faith to Christianity (or any other religion that I know of.)
  2. Boxer never calls out Feminism within Churchianity (to the best of my knowledge).
  3. Dalrock has an evangelical approach, not only about Christianity, but also about the Red Pill. Boxer’s place is more of a Red Pill coven for the like-minded.

Whenever Dalrock has a post that manifests these differences, Boxer jumps into the ring with his gloves on, ready to tear into Dalrock.  So it seems Boxer is opposed to either (1) the evangelical approach, or (2) Christians calling out Feminist influence within the church, as though this would be hypocrisy, or a subtle form of treachery.

In other words, either he can’t seem to understand, or he’s not willing to address the difference between secular politics and what’s happening in the Church.  Hence, he doesn’t see a problem with a Feminist gospel so long as the activities and soliloquies in the Church are coherent with Chivalry (traditional Feminism) in nature.

Or maybe he has an interest at stake there.

So, could Boxer and Derek be converged agent provocateurs, going undercover as abrasive Manospherians to undermine Dalrock’s influence and/or doxx him somehow?

Personally, I believe Boxer, Derek, Necron, Sharkly, et al. are motivated to pick a bone with Dalrock because Boxer, Sharkly, et al. have been ostracized from Dalrock’s comment section in the past, and also because Derek, Necron, et al. are displeased with any blogger who prefers to remain anonymous.

So I would lean against the idea of an organized effort and say, like attracts like.

birds flying meme

The Frame

The larger question that Boxer poses is valid enough – whether Dalrock, Vox, et al. might be detracting from the popular support for individuals and organizations that make baby steps towards moving the Overton window to the Right.  In other words, is Dalrock et al. conducive, incisive, or divisive?

Under a closer scrutiny of the most recent skirmish, the constitution of the American Heritage Girls (AHG) is central to the argument.  Here, Gunner Q offered an informative review of the AHG: Checking the American Heritage Girls (2019 September 8).

I might summarize Gunner’s conclusion by saying that the AHG is better aligned to Christian values, compared to the Girl Scouts of America (GSA), but not totally free from feminist influence.  This is “good enough” to be considered a Christian organization for Boxer’s consortium who are in tune with the times, but not good enough for ideological purists like Dalrock.

As a thought experiment, would anyone think that Sen. Wyden might be an undercover member of the Alt-Right, or a controlled opposition, solely based on the fact that he is attacking Glowbowl Big Tech giant Farcebook?

Or would you guess that we are seeing a spokesman for the more extreme Left chastising a leader of the less extreme Left for dragging their feet and slowing the shakedown cruise towards progressivism?

Likewise, would anyone suspect that Dalrock (or Vox) might be a Zi0nist social engineer who helped build the Manosphere, only to then destroy it by fomenting internal bickering, based on the fact that he attacks the doctrine of popular preachers and girl scout organizations?

Or would you guess that we are seeing a mouthpiece for the more extreme Right chastising leaders of the less extreme Right for not being sufficiently Right?

Boxer and company have come to a conclusion reminiscent of the former, by arguing that Dalrock is (1) anonymous, (2) unreasonably, and at times offensively overprotective of his identity and his blog, and (3) intellectually dishonest.  He’s got a following that agree with him, including Derek, and Earl of all people.  But I am yet to be convinced.

Reasons (1) and (2) are debatable, but perfectly understandable.  Concerning (3), even supposing someone is intellectually dishonest, does that necessarily mean that their basic premises and conclusions are in error?  Or perhaps it might only suggest that they are less well skilled in Aristetolian logic and debate?

A third possibility is that they are sarcastically/hyperbolically utilizing any number of logical fallacies in order to (1) emphasize the foolishness of the argument being entertained, as well as to (2) captivate the readers and (3) provoke critical thinking with a foolhardy jest.

Although I am no expert in literary devices, I do enjoy toying with them in my writings just for the fun of it, and I have recognized that Dalrock does the same in his work, much to the chagrin of others.

One addendum… Jokers and Jacks to the Right!

Jack Sparrow Diamond Card

The Reframe

As an abstract concept, the Overton Window looks like this.

Overton Window

The question is, why are we now seeing intra-fighting on both sides of the political aisle, instead of inter-fighting?

I suggest the answer might be because the Overton window has now split into a Leftward migrating window, and a Rightward drifting window. Something like this.

Split Overton 1

FB and the GSA are within the “Politically Correct” Overton window being proscribed by the Left.  Meanwhile, IGTBAM, AHG, and to a lesser extent, Warhorn, are trying to stay within a freshly budding Overton window on the Right.  Most of the other pastors criticized by Dalrock are floating in the converged, No Men’s Land (pun intended).

Entities in either window must appear acceptable to their public constituencies in order to attract more people, to gain popularity and the financial solvency that goes with it, and/or to avoid persecution.  If we play hardball, we might call their stance a pragmatically graceful compromise.

Why must Religious groups compromise?  It’s because they’re in a feminized Society, and like FB, to stay in business, they need to connect with the viewpoints of a large number of real people who don’t know how far off the mark they stand.

The AHG tries to offer an alternative program for girls that is closer to Biblical teaching, but they also try to make themselves attractive and identifiable to the larger community, which has already been corrupted through Feminist influence and Churchianization.

IGTBAM tries to spoon feed the Red Pill in micrograms to the wider Christian community.  They can’t push milligrams of the stuff, because then they’d be condemned as raycis, misogynistic, phobic, etc., ad nauseum.

But religious orgainizations are not the only ones who must compromise.  Fakebuck as well as the GSA know they have to stay within their respective Overton windows to stay relevant and lucrative.  Greater numbers of adherents are necessary before the Overton window can be said to shift through continual reeducation and exposure to their respective ideas.

In other words, all these groups are limited by their respective Overton windows – how much people can accept as normal.  But at the same time, all these groups contribute to the movements of their respective Overton windows – what people can adopt as relevant truth.  Those who actively push the boundaries of what people can adopt as relevant truth might be defined loosely as Evangelicals.  It might not be their express purpose, and they may not even be conscious of this, but in the larger sense, their influence has some impact on what people choose to believe as the “norm”.

Dalrock, IGTBAM, the AHG, and Wyden too, are all making efforts to move the Overton window to where they think it should be.

Dalrock and Wyden, on the other hand, are setting the goal post closer to home, and castigating those who don’t line up, rank and file, to the Word of God or the Noo Odor agenda, respectively.

As a point in case, Many of Dalrock’s posts (such as this one with the excerpt following), show that he is conscious of being an “outsider”, hoping for the Overton to budge a bit.

“I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place.  If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise.  But if you are like me you very much want to leave.  Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here?  We could make it to the land of sanity.  But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid.  Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.”

In his posts, Dalrock is chastening Warhorn, IGTBAM, and the AHG, but from a wider and more distant perspective, the slow drift of the Overton is the cause of his subterfuged frustration, and not so much the various individuals and organizations subjected to his criticism.


Final Shakements

The respectable constituents of the current bipartisan system are comprised of who’s right on the Left, and what’s left of the Right, with a large number of subfactions revolving around these entities.

Dalrock and Boxer may very well be a trite example, while Zuck and Wyden are only slightly more pertinent.  Readers could probably imagine many other examples.

The main point of this essay observes that the Left wing has coherent entities who argue about how far left the Left should be.  Likewise, those on the Right are quarreling about how to set up shop.

Moveover, there is very little intermediary talk of agreement between the Left and the Right anymore.  Thus, these factions are no longer working together for the common interests.  Instead, they are each focused on their respective pet issues, only colliding in the public sphere when a conflict of interest materializes.

Are we seeing a binary polarization within the West?  Have the different groupthinks of society become so diverse and disconnected that socio-political sub-cultures are forming between the Right and the Left?

I’m tempted to conclude that the old bipartisan political structure is nearing an end to its useful relevancy, and that an atomized political structure is on the horizon.

Tell us, what’s your shake?


Posted in Culture Wars, Influence, News Critique, Organization and Structure, Politics | Tagged , , | 21 Comments

Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion

One wimminz impeccable argument on how abortion is the direct result of men’s irresponsibility.

Readership: All

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” ~ Matthew 7:13-14 KJV

I just came across this article from exactly one year ago, and I can’t resist reposting it with a commentary. It’s utterly hilarious!

Design Mom: My Twitter Thread on Abortion (2018 September 13)

H/T: Just Ambitious to Serve Communications (JATSC): ‘Irresponsible ejaculation causes abortion’ (2018 September 16)

This could have very well been published on the Babylon Bee, and no one would have suspected that it wasn’t satire; that a woman actually wrote this with sincere convictions.

This is an excellent example of what I meant when I wrote that a person can have a seemingly rational argument, but still be ridiculously in the wrong.

The problem with her argument is that she conveniently omitted the pertinent facts and information. I’ll attempt to fill in the blanks with my commentary.

♦              ♦              ♦

Gabrielle Blair

Today, I tried something new. I wrote a Twitter thread for the first time. It’s about abortion, and how I think we need to approach the topic differently.  I thought I’d share it here, because I know many of you don’t use Twitter.

So here’s the thread, broken up into small Tweet-size pieces. : )

I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I’ve been listening to men grandstand about women’s reproductive rights, and I’m convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here’s why…

Mormon… that says something, but I’m not sure exactly what.  (I’ll ask Boxer to comment.)  Reading between the lines, I’m already getting the feeling that this woman hates her life, and maybe her husband too, but she’s lazy and doesn’t want to do anything about it, even something as simple as changing her attitude to be thankful for her family.

It’s All Menz Fault!

If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

100% men’s fault, you say?  Heh…  Men are not 100% responsible for the fact that the woman they just impregnated doesn’t want to bear their offspring.  Men are not 100% responsible for her unilateral choice to abort either.  From the man’s perspective that’s a classic bait and switch.  “Here’s my body. Insert your c0ck in my vagary… (intercourse commences)  Oh, you actually came in me!  What a surprise!  Didn’t see that one coming!  (A month later…)  Ohhh, I’m pregnant!  No, I changed my mind, I don’t want a baby.

Sophie Microwave

No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for intentional pregnancies. But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period.

Translation: Sex can be great, except for that annoying risk of getting pregnant.  Never mind the fact that God created the male-female union to result in procreation; Itz duh manz fault!

Don’t believe me? Let me walk you through it. Let’s start with this: women can only get pregnant about 2 days each month. And that’s for a limited number of years.

Not true! I’ve known women who conceived while on the pill and/or from having sex during their menses. In reality, anytime you have sex, there’s a chance of pregnancy, even when using many forms of birth control.

That makes 24 days a year a women [sic] might get pregnant. But men can cause pregnancy 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year.

There’s a twang of penis envy here. Note how she’s assuming polygyny. She’s a good Mormon wife.

And though their sperm gets crappier as they age, men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty till death. So just starting with basic biology + the calendar it’s easy to see men are the issue here.

Starting with basic biology, fertile women get pregnant. It’s easy to see how women who spread their legs are the issue here.

But what about birth control? If a woman doesn’t want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, why wouldn’t she just use birth control? If a women [sic] can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can get birth control, right? Great questions.

She portrays men’s fecundity as a power to be envied, while the fertility of women is little more than a risk of pregnancy. Where is the honor for women as child bearers?

Modern birth control is possibly the greatest invention of the last century, and I am very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women are ridiculously harmful. So ridiculous, that when an oral contraception for men was created, it wasn’t approved… [she inserted a pregnant paragraph break here] because of the side effects. And the list of side effects was about 1/3 as long as the known side effects for women’s oral contraception.

Men are smart enough not to ingest hormone altering drugs which are intended to screw up their body chemistry.


There’s a lot to be unpacked just in that story, but I’ll simply point out (in case you didn’t know) that as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

A classic example of Psychological Projection. What she means to say is, “(in case you didn’t know) …as a society, we really don’t mind if men suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for women.”

But good news, Men: Even with the horrible side effects, women are still very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment and a prescription. It’s not free, and often not cheap.

So she is inadvertently arguing that using abortion as a form of birth control is easier and cheaper than using birth control pills. We already know too many women think this way.

In fact, there are many people trying to make it more expensive by fighting to make sure insurance companies refuse to cover it. Oral contraceptives for women can’t be acquired easily, or at the last minute. And they don’t work instantly.

Yes, sin is rather frustrating. You can’t fool God, you can’t revamp biology on the fly, and you can’t change human desire to F*cky F*cky. When will you learn to go with the flow?

If we’re talking about the pill, it requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. And again, the side effects can be brutal. I’M STILL GRATEFUL FOR IT PLEASE DON’T TAKE IT AWAY.

She’s coming closer, but she still won’t come out and say that abortion is a one-off visit to the clinic, making it more convenient than using birth control pills.

birth control pills

Wimmin want Men to Trust Condoms to be Miraculous

I’m just saying women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy. In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men, meaning condoms. Condoms are readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective, and work on demand, instantly.

…and she doesn’t have to do anything about that. If she asks him to wear a condom, then it’s no longer her responsibility. The perfect solution!

Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. Amazing! They are so much easier than birth control options for women. As a bonus, in general, women love when men use condoms. They keep us from getting STDs, they don’t lessen our pleasure during sex…

Women love using condoms? In my experience, women hate using condoms even more than men do.

… or prevent us from climaxing. And the best part? Clean up is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as your jizz drips down our legs. So why in the world are there ever unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Ouch! I’m getting the impression that she’s a frigid whife who’s never known anything other than duty sex. A woman who is really crazy about her man wouldn’t waste a precious drop.

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, men frequently pressure women to have sex without a condom. And it’s not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex, without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro-tip: That’s assault.)

Women do the same thing to men. What is it called when a woman tries to trap a man by having his baby? But women wouldn’t think of that as “assault”.

I’ll say it again; if you’re having sex, there’s always a chance of pregnancy.

JATSC adds here, “Stealthing’ is a new sex trend where men remove condoms without partner’s consent.

If women remove or puncture condoms without partner’s consent, would that be stealthing? If the condom accidentally breaks, would that still be stealthing? Where do you draw the line?

Guess what? You’re already way past the line and into the thick of it. So you’re just complaining because things did not go as you wished, and your actions actually led to the natural consequence.

responsibility for sex

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Good question. Apparently it’s because for the minutes they are penetrating their partner, having no condom on gives the experience more pleasure.

It’s not just about pleasure. For many people, commingling swill is a deeply emotional bonding experience. It also alters one’s body chemistry.

So… there are men willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career, so that they can experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure? Is that for real? Yes. Yes it is.

Yes, sexual relations can change a woman’s life, health, social status, relationships, and career, as well as produce children. Has she ever considered the longitudinal consequences of engaging in sexual relations?

What are we talking about here pleasure-wise? If there’s a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives, a back-scratch falling at 5, and an orgasm without a condom being a 10, where would sex with a condom fall? Like a 7 or 8?

She seems obsessed with the pleasure aspect of sex, and fails to consider any of the other cofactors.

So it’s not like sex with a condom is not pleasurable, it’s just not as pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10. Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk by having non-condom sex, in order to experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure.

Women already put themselves at massive “risk” simply by entering into a situation where sex could occur. Would a woman ever see that “risk” ahead of time and take precautionary measures? No, that’s too much work. It’s easier to just blame the man.

Men should have self-control, so they can do what Wimmin want them to do

Now keep in mind, for the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control built right in, called the pull out. It’s not perfect, and it’s a favorite joke, but it is also 96% effective.

If a man can make himself pull out every single time, he’s either a porn actor, or he doesn’t feel that passionate about the woman. Losing control is a big part of what makes sex “good”.

So surely, we can expect men who aren’t wearing a condom to at least pull out every time they have sex, right?


And why not?

Perhaps a man might be overwhelmed by lurrve, passion, and desire, perchance? If he’s not, that’s a shamefully poor reflection on the female.

Well, again, apparently it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach.

Here we go back to the obsession with pleasure. Give me a break! The pleasure is not without a purpose.

So men are willing to risk the life, health and well-being of women, in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for like 5 seconds during orgasm.

Men are also risking their own life, health, and well-being in their gambit to procreate, especially in our modern gynocentric, pound-me-too society.

moan is worth it

And… don’t underestimate those 5 seconds of orgasm – that’s the culmination of thousands of years of breeding being thrown into the future (or a latex bag).

It’s mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize that’s the choice men are making. And honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)

More Projection about pleasure and dismantling it from procreation. Pleasure is obviously a running theme of her monologue. Do you think she’ll bring it up again?

While we’re here, let’s talk a bit more about pleasure and biology. Did you know that a man CAN’T get a woman pregnant without having an orgasm? Which means that we can conclude getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men.

Hasn’t she ever heard of the potency of precum?

But did you further know that men CAN get a woman pregnant without HER feeling any pleasure at all? In fact, it’s totally possible for a man to impregnate a woman even while causing her excruciating pain, trauma or horror.

True, pregnancies are typically painful. But if you don’t enjoy the sex, and you don’t want a child, then why are you doing it? Duty sex confirmed.

In contrast, a woman can have non-stop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists not for creating new babies, but simply for pleasure.

There’s that P word again… Are we surprised? She says her clit is only for her pleasure, not for making babies, but somehow, for reasons unbeknownst to wimmin, that pleasurable clitoral orgasm has suckered her into procreating. The joke’s on her!

No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant. Pregnancies can only happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

Only? So let me be sure I’m following correctly here. Fapping to RedTube is more pleasurable than duty sex, but I’d consider that to be an irresponsible orgasm. But she says, “Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly”. So can we conclude that watching internet porn can cause a pregnancy, and one that is unwanted, no less? Taking this one step further, if we outlawed internet p0rn, then abortion would never be necessary!

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume a correlation between duty sex and unwanted pregnancies?

What this means is a women [sic] can be the sluttliest slut [sic LOL] in the entire world who loves having orgasms all day long and all night long and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly.

Toxic masculinity strikes again! How dare you interrupt a s1ut’s joyride with your pleasurable ejaculation!


Women enjoying sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men enjoying sex and having irresponsible ejaculations is what causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

It takes two to progenerate.  Women who abort go to clinics on their own initiative, often without even informing the man.  I’d say “a women” who wants to be sexually active with a living man, but who also considers abortion as a preferred alternative to bearing a child, is the one who causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.  If we must foist the responsibility onto men, then the solution is not to bang “a women” who want to withhold the fruit of their loins.

Feminine Responsibility

Let’s talk more about responsibility.

Heh… Of course, what she means by “responsibility” is Wimminz opinions about what they believe should be Menz responsibility.

Men often don’t know, and don’t ask, and don’t think to ask, if they’ve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

Zero consequences?!?!?  Paternity suit?  Child support?  Wait, those are benefits (for her), not consequences!

Next, she details three possible outcomes. (1) She aborts secretly. (2) She has the baby secretly. (3) She has the baby and uses it for sextortion.

There are a couple more possibilities which she never mentions: (4) She informs him that she’s pregnant by him and that she’s getting an abortion whether he agrees or not. (5) She informs him that she’s pregnant by him, and carries the baby to term while maintaining proper health and nutrition, which is her reasonable service. Meanwhile, she is grateful to have been chosen by God to become a progenitor of future generations.

These last two responses would be the most honest responses of all. But an honest response is not feasible for the obvious reason that it would show her to be the savage, scamming Sheila she truly is.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.

If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation, or that there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

Let me correct your inadequate reasoning for you. If the woman decides to never tell the man about her pregnancy, the man may never know he fathered a child with his bullseye shot. Her having an abortion has nothing to do with him not knowing, except that it makes it easier for her to prevent him from knowing.

If the woman does tell him that he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him, is that he may need to pay child support. But our current child support system is well-known to be a joke.

Yes, the child support system is a failure because it can’t give her any more money than what he earns. Weak men always screw feminism up.

61% of men (or women) who are legally required to pay it, simply don’t. With little or no repercussions. Their credit isn’t even affected. So, many men keep going as is, causing unwanted pregnancies with irresponsible ejaculations and never giving it thought.

Some men might consider it irresponsible to continue offering financial support to a wimmin who frivorcenapped his child to extort monthly installments of ransom.

When the topic of abortion comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. And never once consider the man who CAUSED the unwanted pregnancy. If you’re not holding men responsible for unwanted pregnancies, then you are wasting your time.

Of course, we could never hold wimmin responsible for forcing themselves into having unpleasurable duty sex that results in a child they don’t want to have.


News flash! The most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and irresponsible abortions is to abstain. That means stop hopping on cock! Why is she omitting the most obvious solution?

Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop trying to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply HOLD MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

Holding people responsible for their actions sounds reasonable. Let’s repeal Roe vs. Wade and make sexual promiscuity and abortion punishable offenses!

What would that look like? What if there was a real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering… [here’s another pregnant pause] as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?


Her Argument for Castration

In my experience, men really like their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were putting their balls at risk, they would stop being irresponsible. Does castration seem like a cruel and unusual punishment? Definitely.

Not so fast. I know several young men who would give their left nut to empty their sack into a supermodel of their choice. I would call that a grotesque trade, or even a reward of sorts, but not a punishment.

But is it worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Is a handful of castrations worse than women dying during forced pregnancy & childbirth?

She subscribes to the feminist emasculation/castration rhetoric. <Sigh…>

Put a castration law on the books, implement the law, let the media tell the story, and in 3 months or less, tada! abortions will have virtually disappeared. Can you picture it? No more abortions in less than 3 months, without ever trying to outlaw them. Amazing.

Legislating mandatory castration – an idea we’ve heard before. A not-so-subtle power grab.

For those of you who consider abortion to be murder, wouldn’t you be on board with having a handful of men castrated, if it prevented 500,000 murders each year?

Imagine that. She believes castrating men is preferable to the risk of pregnancy, or a normal world without Roe vs. Wade. And she never seems to realize that wimmin, not men propagate those murders – a very convenient omission.

And if not, is that because you actually care more about policing women’s bodies, morality, and sexuality, than you do about reducing or eliminating abortions? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

Wimminz actually care more about policing men’s balls with legislated castration, eliminating their progeny, and maintaining the upper hand, than they do about reducing or eliminating abortions.

Hey, you can even have the men who will be castrated bank their sperm before it happens — just in case they want to responsibly have kids someday.

That’s a cute argument, just in case they find a responsible woman who is not obsessed with abortion.

Can’t wrap your head around a physical punishment for men? Even though you seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women? Okay. Then how about this prevention idea: At the onset of puberty, all males in the U.S. could be required by law to get a vasectomy.

A vasectomy at puberty would not eliminate toxic masculinity nor male thirst. You’ve got to remove those gonads at birth to do that.

Vasectomies are very safe, totally reversible, and about as invasive as an doctor’s exam for a woman getting a birth control prescription. There is some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s pretty much it for side effects.

trapped by the balls

(So much better than The Pill, which is taken by millions of women in our country, the side effects of which are well known and can be brutal.)

Who would not agree that scalpels and stitches are better than pills?

If/when the male becomes a responsible adult, and perhaps finds a mate, if they want to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed, and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. And each male can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

A backhanded stab at males there in the first clause. She must think she’s being kind to men by allowing them this option, but it’s not much of an option. Vasectomies can be reversed with 30-50% success. Published rates of artificial insemination in women under 40 years are about 10-15% per cycle. After 6 months of inseminations, about 50% of women are pregnant. In other words, she’s saying that female control over procreation takes precedence over male fecundity.

It’s not that wild of an idea. 80% of males in the U.S. are circumcised, most as babies. And that’s not reversible.

Hey, female “circumcision” is “not that wild of an idea” either! 80% of females in central Africa undergo genital mutilation, most as babies. And that’s not reversible either! I’m sure feminists would agree, since they value equality so much.

Don’t like my ideas? That’s fine. I’m sure there are better ones. Go ahead and suggest your own ideas. My point is that it’s nonsense to focus on women if you’re trying to get rid of abortions. Abortion is the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy.

A moment of silence for all the babies lost at abortion clinics. She gotta be free to climb dat stairway to heaven by sending her child to ћǝll!

Final Delusions

If you want to stop abortions, you need to prevent the “disease” – meaning, unwanted pregnancies. And the only way to do that, is by focusing on men, because: MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. Or. IRRESPONSIBLE EJACULATIONS BY MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

Dicks cause abortions. Ho hum… We hear similar vague, overgeneralized arguments from the Left all the time. Guns cause shootings. Alcohol causes drunkenness. Drugs cause addictions. Society causes incarceration.

american students first in confidence

If the Right were this irrational, we might hear arguments like, Tingles cause affairs; miniskirts cause rape; mouths cause beatings; and bosses cause unemployment. We could also say that WOMEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED ABORTIONS.

If you’re a man, what would the consequence need to be for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? Would it be money related? Maybe a loss of rights or freedoms? Physical pain?

Men are willing to endure untold severities for the sake of sex and procreation. Modern marriage and all the inherent risks are at the top of that list. There is also a growing number of men who refuse to accept those risks and forsake sex and women altogether. They’re called MGTOW’s. It’s hard to say which is worse, but as wimmin get worse, MGTOW is looking better.

Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Why does there need to be a false dilemma? Love and life should proliferate in a healthy relationship, producing mutuality, not a parasitism. To insist otherwise sounds like (more) Projection.

Are you someone who learns better with analogies? Let’s try this one: Think of another great pleasure in life, let’s say food. Think of your favorite meal, dessert, or drink.

I am guessing she is a conscientious vegan.

What if you found out that every time you indulge in that favorite food you risked causing great physical and mental pain for someone you know intimately. You might not cause any pain, but it’s a real risk.

I know exactly what you mean! Chickens, cows, and potatoes are brutally and systemically destroyed every day because McDonalds. We should pass a law to ban the cruel mockery of clowns serving horse lips in a box.

Well, you’d probably be sad, but never indulge in that food again, right? Not worth the risk!

I would be sooo sad in a world without the hamburglar! But I’ll sacrifice my carnivorous nature for the sake of not offending vegans and for the rights of soybeans.

And then, what if you further found out, there was a simple thing you could do before you ate that favorite food, and it would eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone else. Which is great news!

We could switch to vegetarian “meat” substitutes, which are comprised mostly of soybeans.

BUT the simple thing you need to do makes the experience of eating the food slightly less pleasurable. To be clear, it would still be VERY pleasurable, but slightly less so.

Lack of sufficient grease causes perpetual global hunger.

Like maybe you have to eat the food with a fork or spoon that you don’t particularly like.

The Chinese don’t like forks at all, and so instead, they eat oryza seeds and tofu with sticks. That’s why they are thin. Likewise, outlawing silverware in Murica would solve the obesity epidemic. In addition, soy reduces testosterone, further combating the toxic masculinity crisis.

This is turning out to be a great idea. We could eliminate hunger, obesity, cruelty to organisms, and toxic masculinity, all by eating processed soy and outlawing forks and meats.

Would you be willing to do that simple thing, and eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone you know intimately, every single time you ate your favorite food?


vegan head

Condoms (or even pulling out) is that simple thing. Don’t put women at risk. Don’t choose to maximize your own pleasure if it risks causing women pain.

Did she ever think, “Maybe I should just not have sex?” Or, “If I’m absolutely sure I never want to have a child, maybe I should get my tubes tied.” No, she always puts the responsibility on men.

Men mostly run our government. Men mostly make the laws. And men could eliminate abortions in 3 months or less without ever touching an abortion law or evening mentioning women.

Again, she is putting all the responsibility on men and she blames men for the outcome. In our modern feminista culture, men are not as powerful as she imagines.


The sentence in bold reveals wimminz true motives. If wimmin start controlling themselves and taking responsibility for their actions, then others will not need to do so.

♦              ♦              ♦

Although her argument might seem reasonable to the solipsistic hamster, her naïve self-centeredness, ignorance, and fear of the male viewpoint, transforms her essay into hilarious satire.

Selfish immature people always focus on their desire to engage in profligate sex at their whim for their own enjoyment, but they never want to take responsibility for their behavior. If things don’t go the way they want, then they blame someone else.

All these arguments about abortions, condoms, pills, castrations, vasectomies, laws and legislation, and who is responsible for what, amounts to nothing more than a Pandora’s box of selfishness and sexual sin.


Posted in Discerning Lies and Deception, Feminism, Hamsterbation, Models of Failure, Satire | Tagged , | 17 Comments