Posts Tagged ‘Divorce’

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.

 

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?

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?

tumblr_n42uk19omh1shty2no1_400

The most fascinating thing about writing is not only the research involved in composing many of my essays and articles, but it’s the emails and the comments I receive.  I have to say that between commenting forthrightly on other articles from other writers and then writing my own articles, I do oftentimes stir up some strong emotions and opinions in others when I debate them.  I suppose because I am in fact very passionate in real life I am just as passionate in my writing.  My essay on spanking your woman apparently riled up one commenter to such a degree that he shared my work with several women, who must be his friends, in order to get their “opinion” about what I wrote and in turn wrote an interesting comment whereas this essay is my response.

To begin with I think he was seeking the approval of these women more so than anything.  I say this because he received what I believe to be disingenuous responses from them based on the context and what he didn’t say in his comment.  A woman will always respond to a question in a way as to benefit them the most.  The truthfulness of their answer is contextual and is therefore oftentimes subjective.  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).  The following excerpt from his comment really illuminates the frame the commentator is coming from:

“And I know for a bloody fact that many of them would rather chew off their own arm than be stuck in a relationship that you have described in your blog. I know because I asked them.”

It would have been more useful for the class if he had tried spanking one or two of these women first and then wrote about how his experience was either positive or negative rather than trying to protect the illusion that most women are virtuous.  I suspect he had never spanked or tied a woman up during erotic play.  It’s a pity too.  I also suspect he has many other inaccurate preconceived notions about human sexuality in general.

The questions he should have asked himself is what would happen if I just spanked her when my woman did something I felt was disagreeable?  This goes to the issue of initiating sex versus asking for it.  Asking a woman, “can I spank you” completely misses the point of the exercise and many women will probably flatly respond with a “no”.  They are not saying no because they don’t want to be spanked, they are saying “no” because they do not want a spanking from, you a weak supplicating man in their eyes.  I know this is harsh but the truth is often that way.  This comes full circle back to having the proper frame in order to not only spank a woman, but having her want you to do it, enjoy you doing it and of course having the activity (spanking in this case) bring about positive behavior and reactions such as real respect for her man and of course more intense sexual stimulation.  The key lesson here is that a woman who respects you and admires you will more often than not, want to have sex with you, and she will WANT to please you.

Most plugged in and beta’s are quick to criticize unplugged men’s behaviors and what we write about without first really considering the real issues or the evolutionary biology behind our various essays.  I’m not criticizing anyone because I also had a hard time digesting these ideas when I first began reading the articles and essays I found in the manosphere.  For men who truly want to learn I suggest doing just that.  The links I include in my essays will lead readers to far more detailed information than what is contained in this work.  Continuing, these men will think like this for any number of reasons, two most common of which I will note here.  The first reason is based on a sense of white knightery and of course a skewed sense of chivalry which in our modern society is quite outdated.  The second reason these men criticize works such as this are playing beta game in their attempt to garner a positive response in women they either want to bang or in an attempt to gain a favorable reaction from their wives or girlfriends so they can get that atta-boy and recognition and maybe a little tepid sexy time.

Before we continue let us look at the subject of premises.  I wanted to bring this up because of the 2nd sentence of L’s comment which stated that he has never met a woman who enjoyed being patronized.  I can only surmise by the rest of his comment that he equates spanking and male leadership to patronization of a woman.  He is wrong on that issue as we will see throughout this essay, but the key issue to address is his premise, faulty as it may be.  The truth is that he likely never initiated spanking a woman as it related to his woman’s disagreeable behavior.  I believe that had he at least tried to spank a woman he would have mentioned it and described whether her reaction was positive or negative.  The issue of premise addresses a large portion of his comment and how he tried to create a straw man argument against the idea stating that out of billions of women only a few would like spanking.  The important thing he needs to realize is that he is wrong thinking women are all that different from one another.  Women may like different kinds of food, but all of them like to eat.  Women will also act a certain way most of the time and react to certain stimuli on a primal level also most of the time, given the right circumstances and conditions.  Most men do not understand or appreciate this and refuse to open their minds up enough to learn about it.  I see this when men get angry at their girlfriends who fool around.  They cannot grasp the innate desires a woman often exhibits. A good start would be reading Rollo’s essay that I linked to at the beginning of this section and all of his other essays.  Rollo is probably one of my favorite writers because he addresses many of the foundational truths of evo-psycology and gender dynamics.  That is probably why I link to his essays quite a bit.

I have noticed that when plugged in men are confronted by something they either have no experience with or understand as it pertains to human sexuality or gender dynamics, they immediately seem to ask women what their opinion is about this or that.  We see this with dating advice from woman for men. They fail to realize that women will say one thing and mean something else entirely.  Another such example is as it pertains to spanking directly. This is when a woman says she wants a nice guy.  Any unplugged man knows for a fact that the overwhelming majority of women deplore “nice guys”.  Plugged in men still think maybe his love object will love him if he is nice enough to her and does enough things for her but he soon finds himself with blue balls and dealing with a LJBF rejection while she is getting fucked every which way by the alpha bad boy rockstardrummer asshole.  I want to clarify before we continue that I don’t think women want to be abused with daily beatings, nor am I encouraging that sort of behavior.  I also do not think that a woman would like her man calling her a worthless dirty slut every day either (outside of the bedroom at least).  However most women will certainly not respect and definitely not give the best of herself to the typical nice guy or AFC.  Many women who have already hit or who are approaching The Wall do in fact seek out and find beta victims nice guys to marry them, but those men are considered 2nd or even 3rd tier after she has had all of her fun during her younger most fertile years with all of the hot alphas.

He mentions the woman who was amused by the spanking essay.  She was probably being the most honest of them all.  The fact that these women know the particular name of the protagonist in 50 Shades of Grey suggests they have read the book, which is nothing more than the female preferred form of porn.  I would think that many women who enjoyed that book would also enjoy some spankings from the right man.  He mentions BDSM and its kinkery and how it does not relate to somehow patronizing a woman by spanking her.  I am not sure what his point was, however for many of the individuals who do enjoy a BDSM lifestyle, that is a big part of their life.  Some may live a DDlg lifestyle while some are more into other facets such as the woman being collared and owned, and some others like the dungeon work like in 50SoG.  However many couples do play rope games and engage in soft BDSM, but even all of that is beside the point.  The point is only a white knight or beta chump would consider a man being the head of his household and exercising his headship however necessary to ensure the members of his family are happy and that the household in general is content and peaceful would call disciplining someone, even an adult, “patronizing”.  Nor are spankings considered kinky or BDSM as used in the context I suggested.  When I was in the Marine’s I was disciplined plenty and it was done to ensure the efficient operation of our combat unit.  Because I cannot make my woman dig fighting holes in the yard, a quick spanking is a good alternative that yields many more positive results such as not having a hole in my yard that at some point will need to be refilled.

Society used to have controls on women’s Hypergamic natures, such as slut shaming, marriage 1.0 and teaching male headship.  This was when society, and especially families and marriages were not only gentler in many respects but overall happier and more content.  In our modern society sometimes we need to reintroduce old concepts that once worked so very well.  Amazingly enough as many eventually find out, these concepts really did work as shown in the video in the previous essay, where John Wayne verbally chastises a woman but then spanks her over his knee to reinforce what he said.  The scene ended with him kissing her.  She initially half heartedly resisted but then kissed him back with passion.

Now, I hope this guy read through and thinks about this essay and reads all of the accompanying links.  I hope he does not get to something he does not agree with and stops reading, which is very common.  The men who do that normally end up responding in the typical blue pill fashion by calling aware red pill men misogynists and claim that we have some all sorts of psychological issues, such as he stated that I did in his first comment to my essay.  We in the sphere and unplugged men alike are often called names, shamed and told we are immoral for the mere act of observing and writing about our observations and life experiences and how certain modern day social ideologies affect us in our day to day lives and the lives of other men.  For some reason anyone who does not ascribe to pro-feminine beliefs is somehow labeled a misogynists who hates women.  The real reason these men get upset is that these foundational truths and observations conflict with their feminine conditioning.

My practical advice for living a full eventful life is, “It is better to ask for forgiveness than it is permission”.  This pertains to relationships, sex, and business.  I realized long ago that most men don’t have the guts and instead of doing, they criticize those of us who “do” and try to pull us back in the barrel.  As for the woman who was allegedly disgusted, maybe she was, but I can almost guarantee that not only was she also intrigued by the idea of being spanked by the right man, once she thought about it a little their panties were gooey as a result of the tingles she felt.

I do want to quickly address a few other issues you brought up.  In my marriage my ex wife never abused me.  Her trying to hit me twice does not necessarily constitute abuse on her part or severe psychological issues.  Alternatively, I never abused her either.  Me defending myself and disciplining her also does not constitute abuse.  I will agree with L that she does have anger issues, but most of that could likely be tracked back to her feminist upbringing and her unrealistic expectations of marriageWhen I didn’t respond to her threats in the manner of how she was taught I would, she was became confused and angry because her upbringing and current belief system didn’t equip her with the tools on how to be a good wife in a successful marriage.  My personal toolbox was also lacking.  Other than during sex once in a while I never spanked her although I should have many times.  That is my failing for catering to her feminine imperative and my acting as an AFC.  Had I lead her properly we would still be together, because contrary to what people like the commentator says, women can be taught, as men can be taught.  They are taught every day, what matters is who is leading and teaching them.  Spanking is nothing but a tool to use when teaching a woman to behave in a positive way.  Lastly my ex wife’s beliefs, attitudes and actions were all atypical of virtually every American woman.  You statement in your closing sentence that the hypothesis that women are attracted to assholes has been thoroughly debunked is wholly incorrect when the exact opposite has been not only proven by several studies but also by the man on street who meets quality women and yet rejects the notion of being the nice guy.  Asking some women what their opinion is does not disprove a hypothesis.  Next time please link sources and research materials when forwarding a theory.

Recommended additional reading:

Nice Guys – The Rational Male (multi)

People are People – The Rational Male

Nice Guys – Heartiste (multi)

Chicks Despise Niceguys – Heartiste

Niceguys Lose… Again – Heartiste

Girl Admits She Loathes Niceguy “Boyfriend” – Heartiste

Defining White Knights and Mangina’s – Society of Phineas

White Knighting Explained – Heartiste

 

tumblr_n9kp4tvGiB1t2na6io1_500

Images found on Tumblr

I wrote most of this as a companion to The Women in Church essay, but a comment on J4M prompted me to include his comment in this essay and thus my response to it as an example of the typical man you would meet in church.

Church Man writes:

I stopped reading alt-right and christian game (an oxymoron) sites last year. The hypocrisy and lunacy was too much to digest. I call myself a church man on purpose, since that crowd is so anti-churcianity as they call it. Supposedly they are the “real Christians” and the rest of us who go to church and actually enjoy it are fakers and dupes or chumps.

I took a gander at Grey’s blog and its the same ol’ crap. A fornicator deigns to lecture men about “church sluts”. And those men lap it up like the dogs they are.

The only people with a right to critique the church are those who are IN IT and trying to make a difference. Not those who have left it to lead wanton lives and yet deign to lecture those of us who have stayed and are living straight.

I am glad Church Man stopped by.  However it seems he read the title of ONE post, got his panties in a knot and stormed off to randomly criticize me on a article that was talking about something else entirely instead of leaving his remarks at the end of my essay.  I think he should have read more of my essays.  He did this in an effort to discredit me personally instead of addressing the issues in the j4G article or my particular comments. This is the classic behavior of the white knights and mangina’s I speak about below.  Many of these men are probably married to the older church women I wrote about in my previous essay on the Types of Women in Church.  When you point out how these mens’s behavior is perpetuating some of these problems they take it as a personal attack and act out emotionally, just like women really.  He ambiguously uses shaming language against me and the entire sphere because he is somehow more moral than any of us, or he thinks of himself as so.  Maybe this is because he chooses to attend church were some of do not.  I personally think that Dalrock and Rollo are quite moral and probably more moral than most of the men who actually go to church including my criticizer.  I will also speculate their marriages are happier and more fulfilling for both spouses than most church men.  I will admit I am a bit more amoral than what I used to be in regards to having sex out of wedlock.  I am also pragmatic, but I digress.

He goes on to state that no one is allowed to criticize the church if they no longer attend.  This smacks of someone who is so entrenched into the feminine-primary mindset that they cannot see past their own misandry.  He must go to the non-typical church were the virgin women are marrying the good virgin and non virgins men regardless of their beta mindsets and none of the church girls have 463 point lists of qualities their perfect man must possess.  His church also takes divorce and female promiscuity so seriously that women are excommunicated for frivolously divorcing their husbands.  The sluts in his church (yes they are there) have forsworn their promiscuous ways and thus many have relegated themselves to a life of celibacy and singleness because they know that they are far to damaged to be a good wife who is able to bond to the beta men who she would meet in church.  These men like Church Man, when (not if) they find themselves victims of hypergamy and the feminine imperative will either resign themselves to a lifetime of loneliness and bitterness or they will be the first ones lurking on Roosh or Heartiste in order to learn the skills and mindset necessary on order to meet and keep his new love interests.

Continuing the original essay, we see from the example above that these men do exist in large numbers and the comments just lends credibility to what follows.   As for the older or married men in church, I have NEVER met a red pill alpha, or any alpha for that matter.  Even the combat vets, who I consider brothers, are still white knights mangina’s when it comes to women and the feminine imperativeEverything they say about marriage and relationships is usually dead wrong.  Many of these men are led by their wives and their children, although they will be the first to tell you how much of a leader they are in their families.  If you criticize or call out the bad advice they commonly give about intergender relations you are thoroughly chastised and shamed.  They will never debate or talk about these issues in an adult and intellectual manner.  Normally they tell you that their interpretations are the only ones that matter, call you immoral and rush off in a huff.  I really cannot totally respect a man for behaving like that.  These same men continuously tell the unmarried and younger men they must marry.  All you have to do is attend any modern church and you will hear the cry from the pulpit and the other male attendees for younger or unmarried men to Man Up (and marry those sluts) and woe unto the man who has sex with one of the precious single princesses who attend church.

Other men you will meet are the young men who were brought up in church and are hoping to find that “one special snowflake” to marry.  They saved themselves, in most cases from lack of opportunity mind you, and are hoping to find the vestal virgin of their dreams.  The problem though is that these men dry up the vajayjay’s of the pretty little church girls who with their lists, only get hot and tingly for the alpha bad boys they would only meet outside of church.  Some do get lucky and their personalities and potential win out, AFBB.   For these men they might end up with a good woman with a healthy (but previously restrained) sex drive that can now be released in all of its naughty fury.  Woe to the man who ends up marrying the 30 year old virgin spinster who had very few choices to begin with or the fake Christian woman who has already worked up a notch count in the double digits.  I hope most of these men at least have enough sense to ask his love interests some very basic questions. It’s unfortunate that for many of these young men who ascribe to contemporary Christian dating advice (bullshit really) the only women who will actually settle for them are themselves settling.  They wouldn’t have to settle so much if they learned game and upped their alpha quotient some.  But these men can rest assured that although she probably wasn’t your first choice, neither were you her first choice.

It’s important to remember that most Christian women have thoroughly adopted the Fireproof world view of how marriage should work and of course if you are not a weeping slub like the (supposed) hero of Courageous, well your just less of a man.  Of course the men who act like this are the ones who end up being cuckolded and possibly forced to raise another man’s child.  Most Christian women also have no problem blowing up their marriages for whatever frivolous reasons, such as her husband looking at porn or he no longer makes her haaapy.  When Christian leaders exalt praise on single motherhood, then you know for sure the church has big big problems.  The older men in church encourage the women to act like this because they refuse to hold women accountable to that higher standard.  They also refuse to teach the unpopular masculine messages in the Bible.  Lastly they deify their wives which of course contradict every teaching of the bible and ends up leading the man to idolatry.  When there is a problem in a couple’s marriage, the following excerpt gives a perfect example of the men=bad, women=good meme.

“When my wife left me for frivolous reasons I approached the head pastor of her church in order to get some help reigning in her rebellion.  All he told me was that it is a woman’s right to divorce and that I am abusive because I told her (my wife) we were going to go to a different church because I did not like the teachings of the one she was attending, which was the church this guy led.  He actually had the gall to tell me that I should be listening to her and coming to his church.  Suffice it to say that we never did reconcile our marriage and are now divorced”.

Too many Christian men and believe that marrying Christian woman will shield them from the reality of divorce.  Unfortunately that is simply not true.  Christian men would be much better of marrying a secular non believer.  If anything the sex will probably be better.  By marrying a secular woman  you can feel confident that at least she will not be having the trad-con version of feminism pumped into her brain twice a week.  It is a sad state of affairs when a non believing woman is preferred to a professing Christian none.

I blame the men in church for not biblically leading their women.  I feel sorry for the young men who grew up in church and have never been exposed to proper thinking about what works with women.

Christianity has become extremely feminized over the last 20 years or so and I would say that the women a man would meet in church are worse marriage material than the women he would normally meet in the secular world.  Churched women have an unrealistically high sense of entitlement that would be difficult for any man to satisfy, Christian or not.   And of course as a man you will receive a constant barrage of “Man Up” and “men bad- women good” messages, with some twisted scriptures thrown in for an illusion of credibility.  As for me, I have an evangelical protestant background from when I started attending church on my own in my early 20’s but I was not brought up in any church.   The following are mostly from my own personal observations.  I no longer attend Church nor will I ever again.

You have 3 types of women in church:

  1. The actual virgins are looking for the perfect husband and are often so deluded with lists so long that only Christ himself would qualify as good enough to pop her holy cherry. Many of the young women in this group seem to turn their virginity into a type of idolatry.  It seems that God turns out to be the biggest cock block for those men with enough guts to approach these girls.  I say guts because with these young women it will be like traversing a battlefield with the prize of her pure untouched punanni on the other side.  You will just have to hope and pray (and trust her word, lol) that she wasn’t giving up anal sex and blowjobs in an effort to save her pussy for marriage so she could “technically” still be a virgin.  Of course the average churched young man would need to have every qualification on her 463 bullet point list and need to put a ring on her finger before you can get into her panties.  Just remember that these same women have been promised in all of her church groups, in the sermons she heard and from the elders women that their virginity is so valuable and the sex will be so good in marriage that these women on that faithful night will expect nothing less than the planets aligning, the seas parting and little birds singing as they sit on the windowsill.  Unfortunately it is unlikely that she will even reach orgasm that first night and if her new husband is also a virgin they will have quite a bit of a learning curve to deal with.  The worse things these women could do is marry a man who is a virgin himself.  I think it would be best if these young women married men who were considerably older and more experienced than them as was the norm for most of human civilization.  Only an older experienced man has the hand to deal with these entitlement princesses.  Her virginity would only be partial payment for the work he would have to do with her.  However no modern church would ever condone such a thing.  Some of these women will never learn to settle for a real man when compared to the imaginary prince she envisions, and will end up the 30 year old spinster virgin who has lost whatever looks she had and her fertility window.  Many of these women have an unrealistic vision in their heads of what they think they deserve because God said that they are the princess’s to the His Kingdom.  It’s sad to think of all of the good men they ended up disregarding out of hand because of these expectations.  This woman will still need to be gamed hard by her husband because her entitlement monkey will be strong in her.

 

  1. Now we have the born again sluts who rode the carousel hard and are so screwed up biologically, mentally and emotionally that any man who dates (or God forbid, marry) them is in for a world of hurt, torment and self doubt. (Yes, I have seen this many times). I will say this in case you didn’t figure it out from the previous sentence; NO RINGS FOR SLUTS! Period.  The singles ministries are full of them.  They can fake being good girls but an observant man can pick out these women.  You can always go to the Sunday morning nightclub and score with these women where they outnumber the men significantly, but do not marry them.  These women have low impulse control regardless of their new found faith and only the strongest of alpha’s will be able to hold her down (at least temporarily) in what would likely only end up only being a semi monogamous relationship.  For any guy with Game trying to score with these women they are perfect pickings.  Just don’t marry them.  I have even seen men in church have a harem of these types of women in the same church, although this is very rare because most churches will kick such a guy out quickly.  Another thing with these women is that the church will never hold them accountable.

 

  1. Then you have the old housewives who although may stay at home, home school and all of that, you can tell just by meeting them briefly that they are overbearing harpies and all of their husbands are incurable beta chumps who behind the masks of the “yes dears” are utterly miserable. These women will support women’s preferred type of sexual promiscuity, serial monogamy.  They will make sure that men are adequately shamed for such infraction such as dating much younger women and those who do not tow the modern trad-con line.   It is these women that either directly work with church leaders to drive out good alpha Christian men or create the environment where good alpha men will not come to church.  These women will often try to make sure certain rules are followed in order to give other Christian women moral cover for their bad decisions and lack of discretion.  These same women are the ones raising and teaching these younger women in the church how to get what they think they are entitled too.  It is bad that they refuse to follow and heed God’s words in the matter.

 

The modern church will also ruin a good woman.  Yes, those women do exist in very small numbers.  In all good conscience I would never take my daughters or any woman I am in a relationship with to any modern church.  Now good churches do exist, but they are few and far between.  The good ones won’t have rock bands or child ministries or any of that “new” stuff.  The best type of worship services are held in someone’s living room.  But because the pastors of these churches are usually still beta white knights and total mangina’s I am still given pause.  Either way these good women will be negatively influenced by their Christian sisters and that is never a good thing.  In reality Christian women are not looking for a Christian man to marry so they can be a good wife to him and mother to his children, no, they are looking for a man to worship them like she worships herself.

 

See Also:

Reframing Christian marriage

Reframing Christian marriage part 2: rebelling wives aren’t to blame for their own rebellion.

Reframing Christian marriage part 3: husbands as helpmeets.

Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance.

Reframing Christian marriage part 5: sex as a weapon.

The Typical Christian Woman’s List