Posts Tagged ‘Christian views on marriage’

This comment to Dalrock’s article discussing the behaviors of the typical Christian woman explains much as to why women behave as they do regardless of their religious beliefs.  The comment introduces why and when our “traditional” value occurred and touches on some interesting theories as to where our society may be going.  In the future I would like to delve deeper into some of the many topics that were touched upon.  However this comment discusses a theory that Evolutionary Biology seems to explain about cuckolding and how it was dealt with in the past.  An interesting note should be made as to how birth control, which is primarily controlled by women, will affect our future generations.

Dear Dalrock,
I have recently discovered your blog and was quite fascinated by it. I fully agree with you on most points. Moreover, I often engage in debates on feminism with my friends, always trying to point out its harmful effects to society. I basically was arguing many of your points without knowing it. I am still quite surprised about widespread obliviousness to this situation even among smart educated people.

I couldn’t find a way to contact you directly other than posting a comment. This short essay is not directed at the topic at hand, rather it is an expression of the opinion on big picture origins of feminism. Some of it was taken from a number of popular science books, and some of it is my own speculation. May be it was already covered in earlier posts, or in other blogs, I didn’t happen to run across it yet. I would like to engage in a debate and/or be proven wrong, so please don’t hesitate to comment. I hope everyone finds it interesting.

To begin with, I and pretty much all scientific community agree with you on human female evolutionary needs:
“1. Sex from the most attractive, powerful, highest status man they can get.
2. Maximum investment and commitment from a man (love, courtship, romance, his lifetime commitment to her).
3. Children.”

In fact, evolutionary biologists logically explain these desires. Firstly, the male attractiveness strongly implies good genes therefore the offspring has much better chance of surviving. A lot of research has been done on that, e.g. it was recently shown that “Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: an assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814000749. Secondly, due to large size of the human brain babies have to be born quite helpless, and a woman could not raise the children on her own for at least few first years. That’s why such unique features as constant availability for sex and concealed ovulation had evolved, so as to keep a man loyal and committed. And finally, I don’t think I need to comment on how evolutionary biologists explain a desire to have children.

This means that a woman that followed up on those desires had higher chance of leaving more descendants in the primitive hunter gatherer environment. This is a very important caveat because in all the blogs and modern literature we use such terms as “traditional”, “old-fashioned”, “for thousands of years”, or “for generations”. All these terms typically imply the environment humans lived after the onset of the agriculture: from few thousand years to about couple of hundred years ago. This period is blink of an eye with very limited impact on humans as a species. The vast majority of time was spent in so called primitive hunter gatherer setting. Our behaviors and instincts have evolved to adapt to that environment, which in fact has very little similarity to what we would call traditional.

How family arrangement and human sexuality worked in primitive societies is hard to figure out for certain. However, such methods as observation of modern primitive societies, records of observations in the past, archeological evidence, details of human anatomy, observations of our close relatives – apes, and other species give some clues for our current understanding (Matt Ridley in “Red Queen” and Jared Diamond in ”The day before yesterday” elaborate on that). The answer turns out to be that throughout most of their history humans lived in predominantly monogamous families (at least serially monogamous) with a widespread cuckoldry. This implied that in a given tribe/village there was one or few dominant men who were in fact biological fathers of about 10-20% of all children. These alphas typically had their own wives and children, while the adulteresses were conning hapless betas into providing for the kids, whose true father was unknown even to the mother herself. Yes, women always wanted to “have their cake and eat it too”. Women went for their #1 desire, despite the fact that in all societies, it was a very risky activity. Adulterers were almost universally severely punished if caught. But there is not much the majority of man could do under such conditions, hence women were moderately successful in pursuing all three of their desires.

That is until the onset of agriculture. More people were now able to crowd together so laws and norms enforcement institutions had to be created. This part is somewhat related to the current topic in this post, it may sound a bit blasphemous for some readers, and I apologize for it in advance. After the onset of agriculture a bunch of men got together and developed a set of rules so that strangers could live next to each other without conflict, it is often overlooked that the important part of these laws was aimed at curbing the adultery (just read Ten Commandments).
Provided much more resources (available manpower) the institutions were quite efficient at enforcing the rules and achieving their goals. These developments created what we call now “traditional” family arrangement. This typically involved patriarchic structure, where women’s chastity was highly valued. A monetary transaction typically took place between patriarchs, whenever a daughter changed household in an arranged marriage. The virginity of the daughter in such situation was of paramount importance. It was often argued, and rightly so, that men ended up on a winning side of this arrangement. I like to think about it as “Revenge of the nerds 1.0” – ordinary men stuck it to women hard for all those hundreds of thousands years of cuckoldry.

A side note: another interesting side effect of agriculture is the appearance of harems. In a primitive society rarely could a man afford to take care of even two wives. But with agriculture and division of labor, some men accumulated insane amount of resources. Obviously, they created themselves a heavily guarded breeding machines comprised of up to thousands of fertile women. This summarizes human male’s evolutionary needs pretty well.

The “traditional” arrangement with some variations lasted for several thousands of years. Women were not completely powerless during this time on both individual level and as a whole. There are multiple examples of societies where many women appear everywhere in societal hierarchy having successful careers. We all know examples of powerful queens in European nations. It’s hard to say, however, whether those women could or ever considered instituting feminism reforms. Some feministic propositions, or rather pieces of work that pointed fingers at the unfairness of women’s situation appeared here and there in western literature long before the onset of feminism. You could check out “Madame Bovary” or “Anna Karenina” for example, and you will find some resemblance to “Eat Pray Love”, safe for eventual outcome.

I speculate that there is one good reason why feminism never took hold or became popular before recent times. One big difference is that throughout all human history except may be last 50-60 years women lacked a remarkable technological invention: reliable and painless method for birth control. Indeed, the one thing women could never do, even now, albeit to a lesser extent, is to raise a child on their own. Children of single mothers are and have always been at a great disadvantage from the start, more so in the past than recently. Yes a woman could engage in her #1 desire and hook up with the alpha, but if she gets knocked up her life was ruined. That’s why they needed men, and needed “traditional” arrangement to help raise the children. And about 50 years ago it all changed, now women had means not to get knocked up. Obviously a set of propositions that appeal to basic subconscious instincts was bound to become widespread and popular. There are certainly other important developments such as democracy and freedom of speech that had an impact. But I’m strongly convinced that the “carousel” and “hookup culture” wouldn’t be possible without a means of birth control.

Now we find ourselves in a truly unprecedented situation: women bunch together and successfully pressure to legitimize their sexual promiscuity. Adultery is no longer a crime in civilized world, for the first time in history. And nobody knows how it will affect subsequent generations. One consequence is already experienced by both men and women, your blog devotes a lot of attention it: Achieving desire #1 by means of utilizing birth control, fundamentally contradicts achieving desires #2 and #3. It’s obvious that’s it hard to get kids with birth control, but the absence romance in hookup culture is trickier, such that most feminists still don’t get it. In this blog you explained it remarkably well, I learned a lot reading it.

This is probably a simplistic view. I would like to learn more and be contradicted. Please ask questions, I omitted many interesting details for the sake of brevity and clarity.

There are many more important issues brought up not only in the original article but in the comment section that I am working on addressing.

Both of my parents were brought up in two parent families and both sets of my grandparents remained married until death.  When one of them died they remained unmarried and as far as I know didn’t have any special “friends”.

My parents divorced when I was 12.

Things are better now and it will be ok.

I wonder how moms and dads can say that to their children with a straight face when they tell them that the family is splitting up.

Men and women who do not come from a broken family have no frame of reference of the pain that children feel.  Furthermore the attitude that a child will be ok is just plain arrogant.  I will say that the pain for a child is 1000 times worse than it is for the parents, who can replace their spouse with another.  Kids cannot replace their moms and dads that way.

For the parents that come from broken homes, they should just know better.

Things were not ok.

 

Additional Reading:

Denying that marriage has moral meaning is the new virtue. – Dalrock

ON CELIBACY

Next in the Moralist Series.

Mandated celibacy is a curse for many men who choose to follow this often unrealistic moralist doctrine.  Many moralists will proclaim that celibacy in next to holiness.  However living a celibate life is not natural to a man.  Did not God give Eve to Adam because it was not good for Adam to be alone?  The bible in other passages states it is rare for a man to choose a celibate lifestyle and to do so is akin to having an infirmity.  Could that be why marriage (with its attendant rules and punishments) was heavily promoted in the bible?  However that marriage model no longer exists for any man yet the moralist still promote celibacy for young men of faith as an absolute instead of a preferable standard.  I think it is good for men to reason out their own celibacy to make sure his reason for it are his own and not because of pressure from the moralists or any orginization.  Here is a good article discussing religion induced celibacy.

Should the church just stop discussing human sexuality and sex as it relates to men and women in and out marriage because of the harm and shame it inadvertently causes?  It is observable to see that the church is creating many problems for both men and women in the way it treats human sexuality.

There are two types of celibacy as it pertains to this discussion one is universally mandated (forced) celibacy as promoted by various church doctrines stating sex is only permitted in the state run marriage system, and the other is personal celibacy where a man chooses to remain celibate out of a personal conviction and not based on an outside factor such as certain moralistic teachings.

There are those men who believe that celibacy is preferred because sex is inherently sinful and is only made clean when a man and woman are married.  I believe this attitude is wrong and overall destructive to a man’s healthy sexuality.

Many Christian men feel that this choice has been made for them and are celibate because society and faith expected them to conform to a certain standard of behavior. Rather than choose celibacy as a personal call, they chose to conform to the traditional ethic that has been presented to them as the only orthodox option.

This is not really a personal choice for most of these men.  These men are essentially coerced into believing as such for if he slips up (backslides) while his loin’s burn, he is shamed back into line by his church peers and leadership demanding he repent for his sins.  His attitude causes a man to fell the attending and sometimes crushing guilt for his otherwise natural behaviors.  This guilt will stay with him subconsciously and in turn will negatively affect his sexuality in marriage.

The men who personally chooses to remain or become celibate because that makes him feel closer to God while he is single may choose when to stop being so because he falls in love with a woman and decides to commit to her (in marriage or not) and she commits to him, but eschew modern marriage. This is a personal choice made for his own personal edification and thus does not proselytize to others about his own personal decision.  This does not mean we will not share his views and experiences, but that is different than the judgmental attitude of the typical moralist.

The one way I see Christian men doing quite often is using the rationalization that they want a woman but are saving themselves for marriage when the truth is they could not get laid anyways, and of course there are no marriage prospects nor are they are dating.  This is simply lying to oneself.  For many of these men, had they had the chance and had they been able to meet women, especially secular ones, they would be having sex with them.  I suspect that for the typical professing Christian virgin man his virginity is a curse.  I am afraid that for these men, in his thirst will marry the first woman willing to spread her legs for him.  I don’t see this as moral but idiotic.

So for most men is the Christian form of celibacy a personal choice or a decision made under the weight of crushing and unrealistic expectations, guilt or shame?

Next we will talk about The Double Standard

The Moralists

August 27, 2014

Dalrock has a post that in the last few days has been gaining traction to becoming quite epic.  The original post discussed a young Christian woman who retained her virginity until marriage and then afterwards discovered she has some serious sexual dysfunctions.  It is obvious reading her story that she has some serious emotional issues as well.  From reading her story it is plain that she was taught that sex was shameful and dirty before she even reached puberty and understood what sex even was.  This is a common teaching that young people receive in almost every church to one degree or another.  These attitudes are not easily changed once a woman finally marries and sex becomes ok literally overnight.  The church’s repression of healthy attitudes about human sexuality and our natural sexual desires is just as ominous as the promotion of female promiscuity which the church also accepts and legitimizes.

It is not difficult to see that the origins of this young woman’s harmful attitudes about sex originated from with her church’s indoctrination and its foundational belief system.  Although she is a stout feminist, her attitudes about sex were likely fully ingrained into her belief system before she accepted the feminist ideology wholeheartedly.  It is important to point out that mixing modern church doctrine with feminist beliefs will almost always cause sexual dysfunction and unhealthy repression in not only women but men as well.

THE DISCUSSION

I submitted several questions and gave some hypothetical’s of issues pertaining to the main topic that I hoped would be discussed in a rational manner.  I also made a few statements to help guide things along.  These were legitimate concerns that many men do have when reevaluating their personal beliefs after taking the red pill.

What resulted was some men decided to mischaracterize what I said and then decided to engage in thinly guised character attacks.  I did not enter into these discussions really caring about what these other men and women think about me personally, nor do I currently care.  What is important is that the message gets through.  The level of debate, emotion, and rationalization from the church men this discussion caused tells me I struck some very raw nerves, which I will explain below.  That is good.  That was the point.  However many of the men who held themselves out as morally superior (moralists) avoided and ignored the most important points and questions I asked.  They engaged in a type of anti-intellectualism that for some of us well read individuals greatly annoys us.  However, not everyone did this, and not everyone held themselves out as a moralists.  These individuals greatly added value to the discussion.  This is pretty long but the problem is big and the solutions must be hashed out.

I will admit that some of my points were not as clear as they should have been.  My mind works extremely fast and as it happens at times, many of these ideas came to me in one fell swoop while I was writing my comments.  I believe this caused some confusion and if so I hope to clarify that here.  Also, because of the personal nature of some of the criticisms against what I wrote and the length of this essay I decided to post here on my blog and link back to Dalrock’s post instead of posting a simple comment.  I am going to break this up into a few different posts so bear with me.

One thing you may notice is that I no longer refer to myself as following any sect or religion.  The thing I find most disagreeable is hypocrisy.  For me to not be a hypocrite myself, for the many reasons below, I am no longer willing to identify as a Christian or promote the church in any way.  I feel by doing so could be harmful to good men by possibly encouraging him to join an organization where he is almost guaranteed to be hoodwinked by the feminine imperative.

ALPHA AND BETA

I am not going to get into a big what is Alpha and what is Beta discussion.  There are enough good resources out there if you want to know more.  However, what those two terms, and other like it such as Omega and Gamma, they are merely adjectives that encompass different sets of behavior patterns, attitudes and personality traits.  All three of these things can be changed in a man to a greater or lesser degree if necessary to achieve certain goals and objectives.  Many men often have a mix of these qualities.  The terms therefore are used loosely in my essays when I use these descriptive attributes.

THE QUESTIONS I PRESENTED

Is sex in a loving committed monogamous relationship just as moral as sex in the current Marriage 2.0 scheme where men are likely to lose?

Is sex between an unmarried man and women in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship inherently sinful?

Is it absurd and unrealistic to expect all unmarried Christian men to remain celibate when there is no other viable and rational option for sexual gratification other than entering into Marriage 2.0?

THE POINTS AND STATEMENTS I MADE

Church doctrine about human sexuality cases more problems and dysfunctions due to the inherent shame that surrounds most churches beliefs concerning sex in general.  This shame manifests itself in men and women even after they marry creating sexual issues in the marriage.

There is no consistency in church doctrine from one denomination to another concerning human sexuality, sex in marriage, marriage and divorce.  Most churches do not uniformly enforce its own edicts and local customs, even ones that are vigorously promoted within that church organization.  Many denominations refuse to teach the entire counsel of God.  The inconsistency on such issues such as divorce have ramification that could affect the salvation of the parties involved.  So how does a man know what teaching is truthful and which ones are in error causing him to sin?

Biblical marriage no longer exists because the state has usurped the bibles’ authority over family, marriage and sexual matter by legislative fiat.  Marriage 2.0 is a government promoted institution to ensure that the state has jurisdiction over a man, his assets and his children for later disbursements to his ex-wife should she choose to divorce him.  For biblical marriage to exist there needs to be social controls in order to discipline transgressors of biblical law.  Civil law would need to match biblical law.

Because biblical marriage no longer exists, a man may engage in sexual relations with a woman who he has a loving committed and monogamous relationship with without incurring the wrath of God or everlasting damnation.  God knows a man’s heart and will judge him according to that.  God will not judge a man for not following and unjust law or religious edict.  Godly suffering comes from God.  God would not place an impossible burden on a man and then call it a sinful should the man choose to opt out of trying to meet that impossible burden.

Additional points and questions relevant to the overall theme of this series and the previous points that were discussed will follow in subsequent essay in this series.

Next essay: Celibacy

I am working on an important post for the thinking man, but first I want to know what morality means to you.  What is the definition you use.  I want Christian and secular perspectives on this, as well as male and female input.

 

You can fight a lot of enemies and survive, but if you fight your biology you will always lose.  (Lord of War 2005)

Destruction

This is a true philosophical statement, ironically made by arms dealer Yuri Orlov.  In Sometimes You Just Have to Look, I noted that men and women will act according to their instincts and it is these instincts that guide both genders to behaving how we do.  That essay was in response to women being upset that their husbands and boyfriends sometimes look at other attractive women.  The sites owners (a marriage counselor) make it a point to counsel men that this behavior is absolutely unacceptable.  What he is really doing is telling men that our natural urges and instincts are shameful, thus adding to the socialization of men to be more feminine.  This creates in us a dissonance between the natural and the social.  This marriage counselor goal is to bring equality to marriages by telling men to act more like women.  That will not work in the long term.

Fighting to uphold positive masculine values is difficult enough in this modern anti-male environment.  If it was only the female feminists we fought against, the war that is waged everyday could actually be winnable while maintaining some semblance of civilization after the fall and the dust clears, but because the indoctrination of the Feminine Imperative has infected our culture like a cancer, far too many men have been infected and are picking up the feminist banner betraying the exact principals of positive masculinity that they should instead be supporting.

As Rollo pointed out in Equalism and Masculinity the Feminine Imperative has tried to redefine not only what masculinity is, but what it means to be a man. Rollo explains that this modern social conditioning conflicts with our natural sexual strategies and instincts.  This conflict leads to nothing but the chaos we see every day in the SMP and MMP.   You see men and women having unhealthy and damaging attitudes about not only sex but love and what it means to be in a healthy productive relationship.

Men are checking out of the marriage scheme because for many, finding a suitable spouse has lead to only failure, disappointment and unhappiness.  Observing this it is not difficult to see the corollary between the feminization of men (and the masculineization of women), which started in earnest in the 1960’s, and today’s current rates of unhappy relationships.  It is unfortunate that only a small percentage of me and women in or society have realized this and are actively fighting to counter the attendant ideologies that have caused so much harm.  Someday we might win, but in the meantime there is war in the streets.  Which side will you be on?

article-2158262-139366D9000005DC-727_634x467

images

It’s sad that so many men and women both have such a messed up view of what sex is, what it means and the importance of it in a monogamous relationship.  Take the case of Samantha Pugsley who through an unhealthy mix of her apparent hardcore Christian upbringing and her belief in radical feminism maintained her virginity until she married and now has a very unhealthy attitude about sex and especially sex in marriage.

Since pictures can tell a story by themselves this is her a few years ago and her now after her full indoctrination into feminism, colored short boy haircut included.  Her transformation validates that wedding cake is very fattening indeed.

She was able to convince an obviously very beta or omega boyfriend to remain celibate and wait for her throughout 6 years of dating.  What happens in these cases is that she turned her virginity into not only a big part of her identity but an idol.  The end result for these young women who have this attitude is that they often remain unmarried and become old spinsters who are still virgins, which is bad for men and women both.  The 463 point checklists these women create are also a big roadblock for them in their quest for the perfect feminist Christ like husband.  The whole virginity game that religious women and beta men play is harmful and can have lasting negative repercussions throughout their lives.  We see this game played out in celebrating virginity for virginity’s sake with purity balls, rings, and other such unbiblical nonsense.  These women’s virginity ends up being narcissistically all about them and not about the gift of their body to their future husband, as is apparent what happened in Pugsley’s case.

Although this seems far more common in virgin women than men, many of these people end of with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality which creates sexual dysfunctions as seen in Pugsley’s article and throughout the comment section with women who adopted virgin game ended up disappointed because they failed to realize their unrealistic expectations about sex.  I follow a fellow blogger who also saved herself for her husband, but she was taught by her mother the proper attitude about virginity and about the importance of sex in her marriage and now her and her husband experience the wonders of sex as God truly meant for it to be.  A lot of poor teachings come from the parents of these young men and women.  The fathers of these girls essentially go super white knight and pedestalize their daughter which in turn just gives her unrealistic expectations because no man would live up to the fantasy that she created in her mind with her parents encouragement.  The boys on the other hand are also taught harmful attitudes.  One such thing is even remaining a virgin to begin with.  Unless a young man quickly courts and marries and has sex (which is biblical) he should be experiencing other women.  He should not become promiscuous per se, but a man does benefit from having experiences, sexual and otherwise, with other women.  A young man should never remain celibate just for the sake of waiting but only a short time in order to marry particular woman.  It’s also important to note for those men with moral hang-ups regarding sex, that nowhere in the bible does it instruct men to remain virgins prior to marriage.  I am of course challenged to raise up my 2 daughters with the proper attitude about sex so they will make their future husbands happy and have lifelong happy marriages.

The church is extremely schizophrenic when it comes to sex in general, and especially sex in marriage.  Deti’s comment stood out to me and nailed the point quite well:

From Pugsley’s article:

“When he did, I obliged. I wanted nothing more than to make him happy because I loved him so much and because I’d been taught it was my duty to fulfill his needs. But I hated sex.

“My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex. He encouraged me to see a therapist and I did. It was the first step on a long journey to healing.

“When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.

There is always a horribly distorted view of sex and a woman’s sexual role in marriage whenever these discussions are had. A wife is supposed to be sexually available to her husband at all times. She is supposed to give her husband sex when he wants it. Look at it this way: Would a wife put up with a husband who said “well, I’ll work when I feel like it. I’ll give you money to take care of the family when I feel like it, or I think it’s a good idea, or when I decide you need it”. Would a wife put up with that? Didn’t think so. So it is with sex and a husband’s view of it.** But women don’t want this. They don’t want to be totally sexually available to their husbands, for many reasons, chief among them are that most wives just do not desire their husbands sexually. This is a problem because most women are having sex with men who are more sexually desirable than they can get for marriage.

The other prime reason that women don’t want to be sexually available to their husbands is if they are, then they cede a lot of control in the marriage to the husband. A woman before marriage is able to control men by using sex and sexual access. Sex, sex appeal and sexual access are the greatest measures of a woman’s power, and if she gives them completely and totally to one man, she has given up most of her power. She doesn’t want to do this, of course, because that would require her to submit and trust, and what if he screws it up?

** NOTE TO liberals, feminists and other dipshits: I AM NOT SAYING THAT A WIFE IS CONSENTING TO RAPE. I am not saying a wife must have sex when sick or injured or recovering from childbirth. No loving husband would demand sex under those circumstances. I AM, however, saying that a lot of wives unreasonably withhold and limit sexual access. No wife is too busy that she can’t take 20 minutes out of her schedule to take care of her husband’s need. And if she is, then her priorities are screwed up. I am also saying that if a woman doesn’t consent to having sex with a particular man when HE wants to and NOT just when SHE wants to, then she should not marry that man and should not marry at all, because she has a distorted and improper view of marriage.

It is likely she was only a technical virgin and not one in fact.  She states in her bio she is bisexual and so one may deduce that not only do other women join her and her husband in bed, but she likely engaged in certain woman on woman activities prior to marriage.  That said, she was not a virgin and whatever waiting she forced upon her husband was not done in any biblical or moral sense, but as a way to satisfy her own warped view of controlling her own sexuality and sexual morality.  This is evident in her disgusting attitude of “my body my choice”.  All you have to do is read how she hates her husband so much she cannot stand the thought of being impregnated by him and goes ahead and terminates her pregnancy.  I just wonder what the story is behind her husband who waited 6 years in order to have sex with this average looking obviously mentally unstable woman who’s motivations are fueled by radical feminism.  Regardless of one’s religious convictions this man was nuts to remain celibate for 6 years while he waited for this woman.

fSYtDJD

I found this article through Empathologism’s site and found it to be quite interesting in that it is consistent to what I have pointed out in some of my recent essays.  Before we get into the overall theme, I want to point how this article and this site in general seems to encourage beta behaviors as it also caters to a primarily female audience under the auspice of helping men in their marriages.  It is important to point out directly that if a man does indeed follow the advice given, it is likely it would negatively affect the happiness of both partners and probably lead to the premature ending of the relationship.

As Anonymous commented on Empath’s article:

The article is deeply flawed as relationship advice because the problem is stated in such broad and fuzzy terms as to be almost without meaning. Empath hit it : what problem is to be solved, here? By lumping in all sorts of visual behavior into one, catch-all category “looking at other women” the author conflates many different male actions with “bad”.

Whatever the intent of the author (and I am not so kind as Empath) the effect is to give a blank cheque to women’s demands. No matter how strictly a man may control his eye muscles, from time to time in the Western world he will see a pretty woman, and by declaring the simple act of “looking” to be a crime or a sin, men are set up in the “Nothing you can ever do will be good enough for me” pedestalization trap.

There is a not very subtle dominance issue in the original article – men are to be accountable to women, period. Oh, and apparently to God as well, but women first. So the standard Churchian hierarchy is reinforced: God > women > men > children.

Although as always, there is more than a whiff of: women > God > men > children, even though it would be stoutly denied by the original author and the various female commenters. But frankly, “God says you have to do what I say!” does bleed over from the first hierarchy into the second without much effort. […]

[‘’’] Even if the author is well meaning, he’s just fanning fears. I’m sure that there are women who will find the article and who were sorta content with their husband / LTR, but who after reading it will find themselves compulsively watching his eyes in order to see what he’s looking at, then taking notes for future reference. So as with so many other “advice” articles, the author is creating trouble in other people’s lives by playing on the fears of women.

In the end, it’s just another example of how the notion that women must control men, and men must submit to women, has become shot through all aspects of at least US society.

(emphasis mine)

Most of the aforementioned article represents two separate but related issues that need clarifying.  The first is that women will often act hypocritically.  In this article and other on the site, they are flavored with men bad>women good either overtly or implicitly.  However when men understand women’s behaviors and motivations it will help us navigate through the various minefields and shit tests that will inevitably come our way.   This is part of the feminine primary social conditioning that the ‘sphere has illuminated over the last decade or so.

topless11n-5-web

Men should never notice this.

 

It is worth noting that the comment section represents the various shit tests these women gave their partners and the results of their partners failing and them.  At first, I thought that the women who get upset at their men looking at other women were possibly mate guarding behaviors, but mate guarding would entail that woman actively try to please her husband all of the time and thus keep him interested and invested in their marriage.  However, that attitude was not shown in any of the comments, nor was it presented in the article.  In fact Smith put the entire onus on the man to somehow suppress his natural urge to look at beautiful women.  When considering preselection and women’s attraction triggers, a man who looks at another woman and especially other women showing interests in him normally trigger behaviors in the woman that would reinforce her attraction to her husband.  This would manifest as behaviors such as the woman being more sexually available to the man and a likely increase in a woman’s general submissiveness to her husband.  This is the proper context of mate guarding behaviors and as such should have been mentioned by Smith.  Instead he promoted the general fem-centric view that woman should control men via a man’s sexuality by essentially encouraging the tactic of the women throwing a temper tantrum until a she gets her way.

A brief reading of the comments, which were mostly a repeating of the same mantra, show us that women have no understanding of men and our sexual impulses, nor does it seem that most women are in fact really interested in learning how to improve their relationships.  One such natural and normal impulse is when a man glances and even starts at a beautiful woman.  The feminine imperative tries to shame men and tell them that we are wrong and we should “bow our heads” and divert our eyes” in a perverted display of submission and supplication to the feminine goddess.  As I stated in my comment to his article:

Women have no right to castrate men’s natural urges to appreciate other women.  As one respected writer (Empath) indicated “women generally feel a strong inclination towards letting their morals be guided by their emotions”.  That is probably the underlying cause of a majority of frivolous divorces, only to be spurned on by shit article like this that give women the moral cover they desperately seek.  These same women would set aside their high morals when it comes time to divorce their husbands, proving the above statement.  It’s all about you honey, aint it?

I suspect that the majority of the women who take issue with this are at, or have already hit the wall.  All the comments showed was that overwhelmingly these women are very insecure and not content in their relationships.  I suspect that their men simply look at women who are much hotter than themselves.  I wonder if these women honestly assessed themselves and made themselves more attractive to their men by growing out their hair, losing weight, and being sexually more available and exciting how much less this would be a problem in their relationships.  Of course that would mean they would have to stop being delusional and maybe appreciate their husbands more, but I digress.  The women who got their panties all twisted up seem to constantly need the affirmations and reassurances of their beta husbands that they are the most beautiful women in the world to them, blah, blah, blah.  I pointed out in my comment that no, that with a lot of men their wives are in fact NOT the most beautiful women in his eyes.   It is not hard to notice that with the typical married woman, they gain weight, cut their hair short and it seems deliberately make themselves unattractive.  Even in cases where a man’s wife is still a hottie, men should use caution in telling her this all of the time.  In many cases (with the typical woman) this just adds to her already excessively large ego.  Nothing good comes out of pussy worship.  I will add that in a healthy relationship a man shows his wife his attraction for her on a daily basis through his actions, and a woman with a healthy attitude accepts this as his affirmation of love and attraction.  What we commonly see is that too many women have unhealthy attitudes and expectations.

Fat_chicks_1   Many mens wives.

If I can point at one important thing I learned is that women are responsible for their own feeling, good or bad.  It’s not something men are responsible for in this age of female fickleness and general flakey behavior. Smith adds to this by encouraging the delusions of these women.  He has several articles about how husbands are not attracted to and do not want to have sex with their wives.  The comment sections were hamsterbation in the first degree.  Reading many of the comments on some of his articles it is apparent that many of these women are seeking validation for their behaviors which simply turn their partners off.

My comment was met with the typical white knight shaming language from the author and of course he preemptively dismissed the entire context and premise of what I said;

Michael, You’re correct that insecurities can drive some of the conflict between partners on this subject. However, so can how many men look at other women in such a disrespectful way. Many of your points can apply to both men and women. I wish you had chosen to present them in a more balanced manner, because unfortunately your one-sided, angry approach is going to cause your points to get dismissed. –Kurt

(emphasis mine)

There are two quiz’s on his site, one for men to see how shitty of a husband he is, and another is for wives so they can validate their feelings that their husbands are in fact shitty.  Below is the pitch.

Guys

  • Are you a good husband? Learn more about yourself, take the quiz and see how you rate
  • Learn what women really want from their husbands
  • Discover ways to be a better husband

Ladies

  • Want to know what kind of husband you have? Take the quiz and see how your husband rates
  • Learn how to get the husband you’ve always dreamed of

The questions were typical and I received the grade I expected.

new york street style high heels short dress almost showing off ass and legs fashion by he

How can you not look?

GRAVITY

Once we finally open our eyes via swallowing the red pill, we begin to seriously take notice of the various gyno-centric propaganda we are inundated with on a daily basis.  This occurs in most mainstream movies and television shows.  It is not too often that science fiction movies make such a sickening display of the hypocrisy of feminism and the meme of the Strong Independent Woman™.

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch the movie Gravity.  I would normally not wait so long to see a Sci-Fi movie that I think has a lot of potential.  The visuals were absolutely beautiful but that was about the only thing the movie had going for it.  The story line was interesting in the fact that there was a lot of spacecraft blowing up, but it was very disappointing in every other aspect.

It was hard to not notice the dichotomy between the stars of the movie.  You have Sandra Bullock, who in many films portrays the typical strong willed and oft unpleasant career women such as is The Proposal.  That movie was the typical rom-com where the strong female lead is finally reined in by the psedo alpha Hollywood loves to portray.  The male lead is played by George Clooney.  He is the alpha who bangs various younger women in real life, he also plays the alpha role well on the big screen.

In Gravity the movie starts off with a spacewalk where Clooney and Bullock are astronauts repairing a satellite when disaster strikes and a debris cloud destroy the shuttle killing everyone in the crew except them.  Clooney plays the experienced astronaut and Bullock plays the novice mission specialist working in space for the first time.  Right after the disaster it’s a never ending drama of Bullock being only a few seconds from death.  Clooney plays it cool as Clooney does.  Bullock seems to always be in a state of a panic attack as she makes mistakes and bad decisions.  Clooney on the other and always had answers and solutions to every problem and always seemed calmed.  His amused mastery of the situation was quite noticeable.  In the middle of the movie Clooney makes a decision where he cuts himself loose from the tether holding them together and drifts off into space to die.  It was at that moment that I realized that had Bullock been a man, he would have taken more responsibility for his own and Clooney’s survival and they both would have likely survived.  As it was, Bullock was a hindrance to Clooney’s survival and her actions directly contributed to his eventual death.  It was ironic that she had given up and was faced with a lonely death in the cold vacuum of space after a string of mistakes and glaring examples of her incompetence that she had a vision of Clooney who gave her advice that she was (admittedly) unable to figure out herself that helped saved her life.  The sub context of the exchanges between Clooney and Bullock showed that she failed to master some basic skills needed by all astronauts, such as landing the spacecraft on earth without crashing.

This movie made me think of how women react in emergency situations.  I have seen plenty of emergencies materialize in front of me and participated in assisting in not a few of them.   My ex used to say that I was the perfect person to have around when shit was hitting the fan.  I attribute a lot of that to my military training.  It was common to see that women would lose their minds or just freeze up in life and death situations.  That was the rule.  The exception was a woman being proactive in hers and her companion’s survival.

As with all things about the American female, this movie shows the common underlying theme that without a man to assist her, the average woman would simply not survive.  Men are often forced into this role of protector against our will and when we refuse we are shamed to high heaven.  Woman will use state thugs, divorce court and the church to force us provide for women we derive no benefit from.  Even though women need men they, and society at large, still considers us mostly disposable to be left to just drift off into oblivion.

Lastly, I am not disparaging female astronauts.  Sally Ride, who is probably the most famous of all of them, was a true asset to the astronaut core and from what I have read was extremely proficient at her profession.  She is a woman to be proud of.

 

Kate Upton

 

Just saying.

Maddy 078

A fun and yet informative article on why sex everyday is very good indeed for marriages.  I would suspect this same attitude would benefit any LTR as well.  It comes on the heels of The Spreadsheet Couples troubles which would not have occurred if the woman followed Meg Conley’s advice. I have to agree with much of what this writer said and would think that her marriage, like others where the wife has a healthy attitude about sex, are likely very happy not only in their marriages but in life as well.  Of course I am a man and when my lovers approach sex like this it does make the relationship oh so much better.

The most important thing I noticed is that in the comment section you can see the truth about our society’s general attitude about sex and specifically sex in marriage.  Our society’s women by an overwhelming majority had devolved its notions of human sexuality.  I expected to read that no man should ever expect sex and how being a mother is somehow so degrading and unempowering.  Well what the fuck is modern marriage for then?  I was of course not disappointed.  No wonder our birth rates are so low and our divorce rates are so high.  Why would a man want to reproduce with such a creature that is the modern empowered woman?  Unfortunately the plugged men in often do.  The comment section essentially became a tirade by these feminists and the dutiful white knights supporting them.  It’s fun to look at these men’s profiles and see that they are fat bastards with peculiar hobbies.  I will briefly mention that if white knights would stop reproducing already or just take the red pill it would go a long way to finally killing off feminism.  However it is only when we put controls back on women’s hypergamy will we see improvements.  Unfortunately it will require the help of the AFC’s and white knights to accomplish this.

The feminists completely freaked out over one statement the author made that being a mother is “one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood”.  That statement is actually highly accurate and I would think that being a mother IS the ultimate expression of womanhood.  The feminists and the white knights, who outnumber the rational folks by a very uncomfortable margin as they always seem to do, go on and on about how it is not right and somehow immoral to see women as having children and God forbid, want to have sex and desire to please their husbands, as the normal beautiful thing it is. When you see a woman who has a positive and healthy attitude about sex, you see her man as also happy and wanting to give her happiness and pleasure.  It’s a self feeding circle of marital bliss.  Several of these women also criticized the author’s over simplification of men’s basic needs, where she said that if we are well fed and well fucked, men are usually pretty happy.  I think many of these types of comments were made by women who simply didn’t want to have sex with their husbands.  I don’t think I can disagree with that statement because nothing says I love you to a man like an awesome sammich before or after some really good sex.

What is ironic is that the women who could not have children for whatever reason really fly off the handle.  Many comments open discuss this.  These women have finally realized that that they cannot have it all as they face the wall and spinsterhood.  Some will snag their beta, but as the words used in the comments, many remain unmarried.  I sense a lot of guilt and regret in those comments, but solipsism and the feminine imperative keeps them from acknowledging their own responsibility for their very own failures.  Many of these commentators then make claims that defy nature and biology.  What these women fail to realize is that their attitudes are hurting their own happiness.  When there is relational equality, there is bad sex and unhappy partners.  You can almost see the bitter tears through the comments.  What the comments from the women boiled down to was that they had all sorts of insecurities about not being attracted to, and attractive to their husbands, being infertile, not being able to orgasm and of course the whole working mother thing and all of its related stresses.  The ideology that these women so believe in is the very same belief system that is the source of all of their unhappiness.

Another issue I want to take to task is that you have many women’s comments speak of how hard it is to work and be a mother and wife.  It is easy to see that all of the working mothers really hate on the SAHM.  Maybe if they reduced their expenditures and did things more traditionally like, oh the woman stays at home and raises the children and takes care of her husband.  It is really out there to think like that, I know.  Modern women will have nothing to do with this notion because raising a family and keeping your man happy is degrading and goes against the branding of the Strong and Independent Woman™.

It has been shown over and over again, and this article just proves it yet again, that the typical modern woman hates everything about masculine sexuality.  That is the medium of the message that you will read in every article from the one above to this one where essentially the same things are discussed.

poss-sella

Ironically I found the above picture from a magazine article from the 1960’s on the same feminist’s blog.  These women there also criticize the wisdom of the advice given and even go so far as to claim that those values never really existed.  It when I read women talk about these issues I again am reminded that Feminism really is a mental disorder.

The commentators overwhelmingly bash on the one red pill guy who just happens to agree with me, yet he and his ardent supporters of rational thinkers were greatly outnumbered.  As I stated yesterday to a white knight defending feminine imperative:

It could be he was trying to gain their approval in an effort to test the waters because he thinks spanking might be a good idea (unlikely), or he was entering into their frame as a white knight so that he could show these women how great and special he is because he not like that sadistic monkey over at The Reinvention of Man who like to spank his lovers asses red and then have wild sex with them (likely)

Or as Rollo puts it:

“What interested me most about this ‘discussion’ wasn’t just the intensity of the responses, but also how quickly and comfortably the Plugins were in their need to set the “troglodytes” straight. You see, in our disconnected lives it’s much more difficult to express our ideology without real-time social repercussions. We can get fired from a job, kicked out of our social circle, excommunicated from church or not be asked back to the lady’s bridge club when we venture a disenting perspective on a great many topics.”

Essentially the majority of the comments by women call childbearing unnatural, degrading, and unnecessary.  I wonder what how they would react if their mothers though of them as disgusting little parasites, as some of these women called little babies.  Apparently these women failed their biology and sex-ed classes.

One woman tried to enter some logic into the exchange and actually gets close to seeing it.

Cameron Mcmahan , I feel sorry for you…Advice for future…When you are a guy, you cannot make any comment which can in the farthest sense be considered anti-feminist…No matter how valid it is….

I think that the point Mr. Cameron Mcmahan is trying to make is that every species has the main target to survive. There have been many scientific researches about it and have been extrapolated to human species…Why are peacocks beautiful?? Why does lion have a mane?? Why in every species the male is given the extra plumes to impress females?? That is nature’s law…. If you believe that human species is different then that is your opinion and it is equally valid whether me or Mr. Cameron Mcmahan agree with it or not.

Fertile or Infertile, the pleasure of holding , developing and if possible creating a life and a baby IS unbeatable…I have never felt as invincible as on the day the doctor held those tiny feet and told me that you are a mom now…I have friends who have adopted children and they felt the same way when they held their baby for the first time…

I don’t believe that both genders should be treated equal … because they are not “comparable”… I do not believe that creating a good marriage and having children is anyway demeaning…I, for one, am proud to have that role… And yeah, I have been a working woman for a pretty long time and DID give it up entirely by choice and to all the feminists, there is nothing bad about it…

If you do not wish to have children or cannot have children, its ok…you dont have to defend it…you do not need to prove anything to anyone…The fact that you are defending it just goes to show that you have some doubts about your decisions…

So this begs two questions. Is childbearing one of the ultimate expressions of womanhood, or is it THE ultimate expression?  And, would marriages be better if the wife was more giving in sex as an expression of her commitment, love and respect for her husband?