The man living in 21st century America won’t get good dating, relationship or marriage advice from most churches, unfortunately.
Most of what I’m writing here has been written about extensively elsewhere. It’s based on my experience and that of others writing around the manosphere.
My quarrel is not with churches teaching sound doctrines of the faith, nor with administration of sacraments and rituals, nor with providing fellowship for the faithful. Rather, the problem has arisen from churches and their well-meaning but misinformed membership and leadership offering dating, relationship and marriage advice which is both obsolete and not based on male and female nature. They’re trying to fashion solutions for a real problem, but failing at it because they’re listening to a feminized body which offers nothing to the men expected to be “part of the solution.”
THE PROBLEM AND RESPONSE
Feminism has completely infected and overtaken the North American Christian Church. Mainline Protestantism has been worst affected; both the predominantly white and black denominations. Roman Catholicism has had its problems but to a far lesser degree at least to this writer. The Church has also become more secular and “worldly”, which is to be expected with widespread feminism. The results have been increasingly masculinized women, getting degrees, earning their own money and asserting their own status as StrongIndependentWomen ™. At today’s churches, women run nearly everything except sermon preparation. This is because women do the vast amount of volunteering,Sunday school teaching, and organizing. They also tend to decide where the family will attend church, and – most importantly – how much of the family’s money will be tithed and donated to the church.
In most churches, girls are extolled as “daughters of the King” and “God’s Special Princesses”. Boys are told they are evil, predatory, violent and criminal. Girls are told that their sexuality is special and delicate; while boys are told their sexuality is deviant and dangerous. The entitlement mentality and stratospheric hypergamy among girls and young women at churches simply have to be seen to be believed. At the same time, most of the church men are either beaten down hapless betas who really do believe what they’re told they are; or hopelessly unattractive men who are trying to court women using supplication and pedestalization.
Churches shame and bully “traditional” men into toeing the feminist line. Men are told their ideas are sexist and outdated, and ultimately that they are irrelevant. Most such men conclude correctly there is nothing for them at organized religious events or services.
At the same time, modern “ministries” have heard the age old complaint from young single church women — a variation of “where have all the good (Christian) men gone?” They also hear from men that they cannot seem to get to know any women at churches.
Those ministries have embarked on aggressive campaigns to encourage dating and marriage among the faithful while at the same time attempting not to offend women, their biggest volunteers and sources of funding.
The result has been a minefield for men. In a well-meaning but misguided attempt to help women and men find and meet each other, churches have held men’s feet to the fire while helping and excusing women. False theologies abound which excuse wives from submitting to and respecting their husbands, and which overvalue girls and undervalue boys. Men are given severe “man up!” lectures from all sides; while women are coddled and pampered from the pulpit. Men are given all responsibility; women are relieved of all agency. If a woman has premarital sex, it’s because (1) a man tricked her into it; or (2) she just wants to be a mommy. If a man has premarital sex, it’s because he’s a sinner. If a woman frivorces her husband, it’s because the man forced her into it such that she had no choice but to divorce him. If a man frivorces his wife, he’s the scum of the earth. If a man can’t find a woman to date, he’s obviously not Godly enough or confident enough. If a woman can’t find a man to date, it’s because men aren’t Godly enough or confident enough.
NAVIGATING THE MINEFIELD
Christian men should not look to churches for self improvement advice as well as for seeking good women to meet and date. Here are the mines to avoid:
“Man up!”
What this should mean is “grow up, take responsibility, and get better. Do what it takes to improve – spend some time alone; get a hobby; get back to work; become better read and educated, lose weight, get in shape, etc.”
But instead, in church, when spoken to a single man, “Man up!” means “you need to get married right away and be a father to children who might or might not be yours.” In traditional conservative parlance, “Man up!” means “man up and marry that slut.” When spoken to a married man, “Man up!” means “you need to step up and lead your wife the way she wants you to lead her, and you need to give her whatever she wants.”
There are a couple of things driving this. First is that men want sex; and so in Christian parlance this means a man wanting sex needs to get married. This is correct Biblical doctrine, but ignores the readiness and desires of the men and women involved.
The second thing driving this is the ever-louder and more frequent complaint from women that they want husbands (which is what is spoken, but which isn’t always true).
The third concept buttressing “Man up!” is that if a wife is unhappy, it is because her man is not Godly enough; and he is not leading her. What this really means is that he is not leading her the way she wants him to lead her and he is not giving her what she wants. He is either (1) a weak milquetoast of a man; or (2) an abusive tyrant.
Men, don’t listen to anyone in church telling you to “man up”. If you ‘re a single man, they demand that you get married off immediately, regardless of whether that’s in your best interest. If you’re a married man, it means you need to lead her the way she wants to be led (not the way YOU believe the family should be led).
Churchian Treatment of Pornography and Masturbation
The issue here is not whether the viewing and use of pornography is sinful; nordoes this post discuss differing doctrinal views on masturbation. Those matters are beyond the scope of this post. The point is the hypocritical and vastly different treatment between men and women on these subjects, and what a Christian man can expect from the Church on these subjects.
One of the hallmarks of current Churchianity is how pornography and masturbation are treated. The sex of the person involved is the key determinant. Porn use and masturbation by men are mercilessly and endlessly shamed and condemned. A man viewing porn (even looking at a Victoria’s Secret Catalog or looking too long at a scantily clad woman) is treated by many Churchians as adultery and thus grounds for divorce. Male porn use is viewed as being always wrong, and never, ever justifiable. Male masturbation is shamed and condemned as deviant, the result of perversion or sex obsession.
Female masturbation isn’t given much discussion in Churchian circles. But female porn usage is, and mostly it gets a pass. Female porn usually takes the form of emotional porn (Disney Jr. movies; romcoms), bodice ripper smut books, stories with occult/supernatural leading characters such as the “Twilight” saga (“gorenography”), and Janette Oke novels and the films made from them (“folklorenography”). More recently, female porn is more overt, and includes the “Fifty Shades of Grey” phenomenon and the feature film “Magic Mike”. Like female premarital sex, female porn use is excused, ignored, or rationalized away. Churchian rationalizations for female porn are simply astounding: (1) It isn’t “really” porn. There’s “porn” (women use it, it’s harmless) and then there’s PORN (men use it, it’s sinful and harmful). (2) It’s just a harmless diversion. (3) It’s just healthy female sexuality. (4) Each woman can decide for herself if looking at/using this material is sinful; while men’s using porn is automatically sinful.
In a healthy society, the men entrusted to a church for spiritual development would be married at young ages to women who love them and are attracted to them, and who have regular sex at reasonable intervals. What many Churchians fail to understand, or simply ignore, is that current society offers these men no healthy outlets for their sexuality. The Church certainly isn’t helping at all in this regard. These men are specifically told to select from among “Christian” women. Yet when they try to do that, they are either rebuffed repeatedly and mercilessly; or can’t get anything other than used up sluts who cannot or will not bond to them properly. Moreover, no one outside the Manosphere is doing anything to teach any of these men how to manage a relationship with an undamaged woman, much less how to do so with a woman with multiple sex partners in her past.
Pitfalls in Church Dating
Most blue-pill Christian men at churches fall into the trap of believing they need to find a woman at a church or at the churches they belong to. The problem is that unless he’s conventionally attractive, he will have very bad luck.
Good Christian Men, remember that supply of sex will diminish in your marriage, very likely producing irreconcilable conflicts along the way.
Who knows, perhaps outcomes quoted below weren’t representative of your group:
(Source)
Indeed deti, let’s face it, there are some nutters out there in Church. I’ve met some of them. It’s dreadful to say the least. Even worst are the Barbies who put on a show claiming to be a goody two shoes when they aren’t. Let’s not even speak of the intense fanatics who scare the heck out of me. They are everywhere!
But, heck, for the most part Christian men and women are a ‘normal’ decent bunch of people. Some drink, some don’t. Some have tattoos, some don’t. Some are gorgeous looking alphas others are your betas – quite the mix. Really, I find Church a great place to meet other people.
deti, I wholeheartedly agree that the Church’s dating, relationship & marriage advise should be strongly improved.
Now, I cannot speak for America but fortunately Church in Australia hasn’t been overtaken by feminism.
Most modern Churches in Australia have a good mixture of male and female leaders. About 50% 50% really. Traditional churches such as Anglican as well as Lutheran Churches are still mostly male dominated though. Anyhow, teachings here say that pre-marital sex is sinful whether you are a man or a woman. No exceptions. But marital sex is highly encouraged. Porn is not accepted across all borders doesn’t matter whether you are male or female. Some peeps will be okay with others looking at underwear models, others will be not. Consensus is though that looking at pictures of scantily clad women for self desire is not okay. Appreciating beauty, however, is widely accepted.
(I have a strong Catholic and recent pentecostal background.)
[saw a spelling mistake: should read “even worse”]
Who knew women could be so generous in one arena. The man sins are his sins and her sins are his sins.
Starlight:
Christian ministries should simply get out of the business of mating/dating/marriage advice; and otherwise playing yenta. They literally don’t know what they’re doing; and are doing far more harm than good.
God damn it. [/thread]
For the record, I’m not affiliated and am otherwise indifferent to matters of faith, religion and the church (and atheists), but this was a great read. Also, I cannot wait to drop “gorenography” in a conversation sometime.
The only experience I can relate is my two years at a small, private, liberal arts college. The doctrines explained up above were clear factors behind why the campus featured single-sex dorms and limited visitation hours. Women could come and go into the men’s dorm, but if a guy gets caught with one after hours, BIG TROUBLE. But if a guy visits the women’s dorm, it’s almost like going through a security checkpoint at the airport. Oh, but I’d have to leave an ID behind and check in / check out. And, they had to keep the door open while you were visiting. “Big Mother” was watching.
The school administration had the nerve to complain about the severe lack of dating.
Deti,
I believe a reputable as well as insightful source such as JFG is very influential. Thus, if the Christian ministry & leaders worked with reputable sources such as JFG to relay information about mating/dating/marriage to the Christian community that’d be pretty advantageous for both parties.
Plus it’s much better than some radical feminist bot indoctrinating Christians on the matter. The last thing young Christian girls need to hear is that bashing men or being a tart is acceptable or that Miley Cirus’ public behaviour is okay.
I believe PP2 already took a great initiative with that questionnaire of hers. I’m sure your answers where more than helpful!
[again, another typo. ‘where more than’ should be ‘were more than’.]
My experience has been that there is little in the way of men’s ministries within the church. Mostly, there are women’s ministries, but not much in the way of men. If there is a men’s group, it is usually a feminized version lead by the pastor or one of his hand-picked leaders. The group focuses on how bad men are and how we need to get better. From what I can tell, women’s groups do no such thing.
I know that there are exceptions out there, but it’s an 80/20 rule here.
Your post mirrors my observations as well. Evangelical churches probably have the hottest girls because its so easy to be their type of Christian. It requires no accountability, sacrifice or loss of the world just another place for being seen, superficial interaction and finding facebook friends.
The ONLY Churches I would even consider as a man these days are Catholicism/Orthodox variants, and the bible thumping baptists who know how to keep their congregations in line through shunning.
What do these groups believe that the others don’t:
– Hell is real and your sins can send you there
– Repenting should be hard and can maybe even take more than a lifetime (in Catholicism/Orthodox circles)
– Sin differs based on the type. Any new age Church that believes all sin is equal and should be treated equal is foolish.
– Enabling someones sin/bad behavior makes everyone in the congregation who knows and especially the shepherd accountable on judgement day.
Keep up the good work.
Quibble wrt singles groups:
Rationale is that various groups, especially those with missions–speaking both figuratively and literall–outside the church have restrictions in terms of time and energy. Married, especially with children, cuts into time available, or restricts which time in the week or month is available.
Singles might be uncomfortable at, say, “family camp”, by definition.
To see a singles group or ministry as a dating service is to miss most of the points. There is no expectation that, in a group of, maybe, ten or a dozen regulars there would be a reasonable chance of finding a suitable partner, even for a coffee date.
OTOH, as long as the mission is the mission, each individual is in a position to be judged, and to judge, others according to various criteria: honesty, competence, sociability, skill with people, leadership, forthrightness, judgment, physical appearance when not dressed to emphasize physical appearance (we’re landscaping the assisted living facility), and a number of other items which cannot be ascertained in a bar.
Although not involved in such activities sponsored by a church, I have been involved in such activities, as well as employment, back in the day. I am convinced that the IOI I missed bigtime were the result of being judged in a non-matchup situation. Why I missed them is a separate subject.
However, should the randomnity of circumstance allow, it’s possible a match, for one term or another, could result.
And, I suspect, with more discernment than wrt other venues.
“To see a singles group or ministry as a dating service is to miss most of the points. There is no expectation that, in a group of, maybe, ten or a dozen regulars there would be a reasonable chance of finding a suitable partner, even for a coffee date.”
That could be. In my experience in mainline protestant churches, in which the Church life is supposed to be one of the central features of daily and weekly life, the “singles ministry” is at least in part intended to introduce young single men and women to each other. Perhaps it’s not a “dating service”, but it certainly is intended to facilitate meetups and “fellowship”. This is particularly the case where Christian men and women are strongly encouraged to marry within the faith and not to be unequally yoked. As I think about it more, I would have to disagree that singles ministries aren’t supposed to be essentially in-real-life versions of eHarmony.com. There’s simply no other reason for a church to have a ministry geared toward unmarried people.
The problem is that these kinds of “ministries” simply don’t work, whatever their purpose: to function as a “dating service” or to provide fellowship. They don’t work because churches, and their well-meaning but ill-informed leaders and members, literally don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to this arena. They’re clueless because they’ve bought into feminism hook line and sinker and don’t understand male and female nature.
I met my future wife through a church singles ministry, but I got her away from the group as fast as possible. In my experience these ministries insisted on a kind of orchestrated childishness: game playing (as in kiddie fun and games in lieu of adult conversation), group activities versus socializing, submitting to condescending tradcon lectures from leaders who were either lying or terribly naive about male and female nature. It was an ecclesiastical/social milieu virtually designed to make single men look weak and ineffectual in the eyes of women. That’s bad enough in any age, but head-poundingly stupid in a feminist age where hypergamy is running rampant.
It was only many years later that I discerned the method in all this madness. The leaders did not want us to mingle freely because doing so would leave the lowest-SMV women (the homely, the obese, the post-Wall) out in the cold. It would rub ground glass in the wounds of their loneliness. I can appreciate the problem but, as Deti says, the best solution is for the churches to stop playing matchmaker.
There are three responses from pastoral leadership in most churches.
The first don’t even see there’s a problem.
The second kind are the most common. They see there’s a problem but they don’t know exactly what it is because they have a skewed version of it. What they see and hear are their single women whining and wailing “Where are all the good men! I just wanna get married and have babies and I can’t find a good man!” They also see two kinds of single men: The employed men with good jobs and decent looks who won’t marry because they have options. The second kind are all the other single men: the hapless, uninformed men who have been told for a couple of decades to “be nice” and “be yourself” and “be pure” and “don’t you dare touch her!”. These are the stereotypical Star Trek/basement dweller/video gamer/”Big Bang Theory” men who don’t have a clue because no one ever stopped to think to, oh, I don’t know, maybe GIVE THEM ONE.
And so, these well meaning people take women at their word. They conclude that men are the sole source of the problem, which leads them astray to an ill considered “solution”. Second, they believe the solution lies in men just “growing up” and “manning up” and getting jobs and “quit playing those video games” and getting married off to whatever women will have them.
To these people, the problem is not a lack of masculinity in men or lack of femininity in women. It’s not that women are putting off marriage until the last possible minute. It’s not that men are thirsty and hard up and don’t have confidence and wouldn’t know how to attract a housefly to shit. The problem to these people is a lack of marriage. To these people’s thinking, everything will be OK if you just get them married to someone.
The third kind of church leadership are the most informed, and the most hamstrung. I’ve talked to some pastors like this. And what I inevitably hear is something like this:
“I know there’s a problem, and I know what it is. I know damn well there isn’t a single virgin among the women in this church. I know most of them sleep with their boyfriends, and a good number of them sleep around. I know that their mothers were the same way. I know most of the men here couldn’t get a date to save their lives. I know most of the fathers here are henpecked. I know what the Bible says about a man being the head of his wife and that wives are supposed to submit to their husbands. I know all that.
“But I can’t say anything about it. Every time I say anything about it, the women howl and screech and freak out. Meetings are held, my bishop gets inundated with letters and phone calls complaining about how I hate women and I’m “judgmental”. The women threaten to leave the church and take their families and tithe money with them. I can’t preach on wifely submission or sexual chastity. I know that if I do, I’ll probably get fired, or at the very least, the women here will make my life and my bishop’s life hell.
“So, I’ve decided I can’t say anything about it — mostly because my bishop tells me not to, because he doesn’t want to deal with the uproar that will result.”
That, friends, is what’s going on in most evangelical churches. And it’s why the problem continues.
I met a pretty young girl in church. We were both late 20’s. She was “taking some classes” at the time. Banged me like a bunny on first date. Got pregnant immediately. Here are the pertinent facts….
1) she was “taking some classes” because welfare insisted it as part of transitioning her off welfare.
2) her getting pregnant got her a) more money b) a better apartment c) security for another 6 years. (her son was turning six, she was being threatened with having to work)
3) after our daughter was born, she returned to her feral ways.
4) gave me VD
5) cheated several times
6) moved out of state with my daughter
7) child support folks were on me like flies on shit
8) she told me my daughter was another man’s
9) 18 years later I found my daughter – she looks like me
10) my daughter has been told I’m a scumbag for 18 years
11) everyone lost.
12) I’ve never been to church again. For all the reasons you list.
Good luck guys.
“What do these groups believe that the others don’t:
– Hell is real and your sins can send you there
– Repenting should be hard and can maybe even take more than a lifetime (in Catholicism/Orthodox circles)
– Sin differs based on the type. Any new age Church that believes all sin is equal and should be treated equal is foolish.
– Enabling someones sin/bad behavior makes everyone in the congregation who knows and especially the shepherd accountable on judgement day.”
Plus they have the sacrement of Reconcilliation. It keeps you accountable for your sins and gives you a very real outlet for God’s mercy. I tell you it is basically free therapy…and you get the assurance that the priest won’t blab your sins to everyone else. It is between God and you.
If you don’t use it…your sins stay with you.
“I’ve never been to church again. For all the reasons you list.”
Because you met a crazy chick at church and did what you did…you decided not to go back?
I fail to see how that was the church’s fault…did they force you to have sex with her and take on the resulting consequences?
I’d swear off women first before swearing off the church.
Deti, I agree with your comments, but you didn’t go far enough.
I am of your age group, and when I go to church I get a great deal of attention from married women. I recognize IOI’s when I see them and quite often it’s while they’re standing next to their overweight husband who is unable to talk about anything other than football, hunting or the latest offerings of FoxNews. Away from their husbands they flirt outrageously. Not all of them, but a significant percentage. Obviously they’re unhappy in their marriage and while perhaps they don’t want to end their marriage, they’d certainly like some excitement.
The “single” middle-aged women are much as you have described, but there are a few more twists. From a Biblical perspective most are ineligible for marriage (c.f. 1st Cor. 7:39; Romans 7:2) because they are illegitimately divorced from their Christian husband. I occasionally meet a widow who is legitimately able to marry again, have occasionally met women whose unbelieving spouse left them, but the vast majority of the “single” middle-aged women I meet in churches are lot legitimate marriage material. Their past behavior and system of beliefs means they’re nothing more than a pump and dump at best.
Your comments on christianese are good, but keep in mind that most Christians suffer from spiritual schizophrenia. The live in a neighborhood in which they have a circle of people who know them (this includes family and old friends), they have their circle of people at their work with whom they have “professional” relationships and they have their circle of friends from church/Bible study. Unless one lives in a small town, it’s rare that these different circles intersect or overlap. I’ve had the experience of meeting women and after an hour or more of conversation mention that I’m a Christian. The change was always remarkable. First was watching the attraction she’d previously been expressing die a sudden death. Second was to see how her body language and her verbal language changed immediately. Literally, her vocabulary changed as if a light switch had been flipped.
Unless one is looking for some safe married women to hook up with occasionally, church is not a good place to meet women. The only exception to that is if you’ve got a good wingman who plays the role of bringing you (the non-believer) to church to get saved. Word of that spreads fast and the single women are drawn to the idea of missionary dating with the bad boy.
Is it just me, or have most of the churches in the USA adopted some cargo cult version of Christianity?
Deti, I’m afraid that any church fitting this description belongs to Satan. You’re more likely to achieve salvation going it alone than attending a church like that.
I particularly enjoyed your examples of Christianese, like “My Holy Spirit said that I should ___________________”, which means “My ego said…” If these people actually listened to the Holy Spirit, He would tell them to take up their cross and come out of that church, my people, that ye not partake of her sins.
might not be popular, but to me, the church seems a failed experiment at the social control necessary to temper the feral female.
in a society where a ten guys in a smartphone are there to assuage her every fear, what chance does a religion have?
then again, the Mormons crush it all day.
As someone who went to years of church schools who later on left on good terms, I have no particular dog in this fight. That said, the structure of the church pretty much drives off good men. Once you have a man who is speaking on a biblical authority from the Lord on a pulpit elevated from the crowd and dressed differently (and more strikingly) than they are, everything flows from there. Only the most socially incompetent minister would not be an Alpha Male. (And notice that at female led congregations, you have less of that dynamic…and fewer women around.)
In a Catholic Church, at least the men are safe because, save for the occasional scandal of a priest deciding to church their vows out the window, because they are officially out of the game. In the more traditional churches, it’s at least unseemly for a pastor to be seen openly playing the field, so they usually marry quickly once they’re ordained. At the more worldly churches, the pastors know their situation and abuse it, to the detriment of men. The exceptions to the rule are where the pastor (and half the congregation) are, ahem, “married to the Lord” (aka in the closet). (Hi Eddie Long! LTNS!)
Since society has changed from an explicitly religious one with the rise of cultural institutions with more sway than the church, I don’t see how men are going to get back in the church. As with any institution, those with the most marginal stake in it leave first, and you can see what happened to the men over the past 50 years. I feel sorry for those of a conservative bent, because you have fewer options to deal with. I have a friend who is in the very bind of being a single male in the church, and I don’t envy him for a moment.
There was some church research done on what factors affect whether the kids continue to go to church once they leave home. The greatest factor was whether Dad regularly attended church.
In destroying any positive influence or value for the father of a family from the church, these churchian leaders in the US are delaying the death of their institutional relevance by one generation. The next generation of women that they seek to cater for won’t be going to church.
I’m from the UK, nobody gives a crap about what the church says about anything. The church is just a left wing, limp wristed bunch of gammas. They did it to themselves by having no backbone whatsoever, no morals, no relevance.
When the church fails to follow the bible, what is it good for? Your churches are on the same path as ours have already trod afaics.
I’m a life-long atheist and I’m pissed off by the state of what should be a moral beacon in society. I can only imagine your rage at this state of affairs.
(Atheist where I come from just means I don’t believe, not that I’m militant about it. And not that I fail to see value in the institution in past.)
As the father of three over-18 (and virginal) daughters, I’ve got a few bones to pick with the author and his over-generalizations, but all in all it’s a thought-provoking discussion. The issue of how our youth meet, marry and bear children is probably the most important issue that any society faces. But who pays any real attention to the problems our youth face in a world of over-sexualized images and economic insecurity? I agree with the author on one thing – the church leadership is mostly clueless. The Alpha male leaders of the church are self-satisfied and uneducated on the realities of modern mating rituals. The world as a whole worships the nubile female and it warps everything in our society. Maybe it’s time to follow the Islamic model and enforce the burkah. lol.
I think the dating system was destined to fail. It’s a bad way to find a wife and being a Christian or trying to Christianize that system doesn’t make it work. Strip clubs don’t become useful by having the strippers paint John 3:16 on their bellies. As long as we expect women to choose their own husbands and men have to compete with women as their judges, we aren’t going to see progress in marriage. Progress, to me, is where believers are able to marry at a young age and have large families. Satisfying sex and general happiness should be the norm. Men should be able to expect to marry virgins. This will only happen when fathers lead in this area and set up marriages for their daughters. Too bad that one of the largest obstacles to this happening is opposition from feminist churchianity.
Just tagging so I can follow…
Heh. I recall seeing something similar to this in Dalrock or Athol Kay’s blogs. Then I recall seeing something that I have been practicing myself for over a year, maybe two. I acquired this from some PUA blog somewhere. I’ve long since forgotten the source. The topic is “Sunday Morning Night Club”.
The point is using Church as a night club to meet women. I certainly have zero intent of ever marrying again since I was screwed at the end of my first. The point is meeting and getting to “know” (in the biblical sense) the women in church. Let ‘em think what they want to think, they’ll lead themselves into believing you are the one for them and are available to them.
The only downside is you have to change churches when they figure you out, but by then you’ve screwed half the single female members of the congregation. So, who cares.
OK, google is my friend. Here’s the citation:
http://www.antifeministtech.info/category/sunday-morning-nightclub-exploits/
Good luck. Just remember: Not one woman at Sunday Morning Night Club is a keeper. None!
Does deti have a blog of his own?
I’d swear off women first before swearing off the church.
I would swear off the church before i swore of women, as playthings that is. My ex’s church encourages divorce and female headship like most of the others.
Is it just me, or have most of the churches in the USA adopted some cargo cult version of Christianity?
That is what the modern protestant church is. Many Catholic ones are the same too. The church is not a safe place for men and has not benn for quite some time. I have found non Christian women better candidates for LTR and marriage overall. Not great mind you, but better which speaks volumes about the church culture.
“Men are given severe “man up!” lectures from all sides; while women are coddled and pampered from the pulpit. Men are given all responsibility; women are relieved of all agency”
A pitch-perfect example of such obsequious, mewling (and typical) White-Knightery can be found in a recent article at the young adult (20-something) Christian site Boundless. Entitled ‘Your Turn: Lust and Leggings’ (http://community.focusonthefamily.com/b/boundless/archive/2013/11/29/your-turn-lust-and-leggings.aspx); in it Colin Woodard writes:
—–
“As groups of guy friends gather…there is one conversation that I can always count on to eventually come up: leggings as pants…What often starts as a fairly innocent conversation, however, often spirals very quickly into a rant about how women only wear them because they’re after attention. They’re desperate. They want us to look.
“Whatever motivations that women wearing leggings have, I find that conversations like this set a dangerous precedent. The biggest problem here is not why women choose to wear leggings as pants or how Christian such a clothing choice may be, but that men don’t want to take responsibility for their own behavior.
[…]
“While the world seems intent on hyper-sexualizing young women, I worry that misplaced messages of modesty are doing just as much harm.”
—–
Woodword immediately discounts any responsibility women have to dress modestly*. In fact, he regards any such discussions as ‘misplaced messages of modesty’ that risk ‘setting a dangerous precedent’. The problem for him isn’t female immodesty, but the evil that it uncovers (couldn’t resist): the fact that ‘men don’t want to take responsibility for their own behavior.’
He further excuses women from responsibility, asserting that ‘the world seems intent on hyper-sexualizing young women’. You see, women are just hapless, passive victims of this hyper-sexualization, playing no active part in it themselves. As if that wasn’t bad enough, men further victimize them by pointing out that their attire will inevitably draw male attention!
Of course, no such diatribe would be complete without a hearty ‘man up!’, and our White Knight does not disappoint:
“As men, I say it’s time that we man up. Unlike Adam, let’s commit to accepting responsibility. Let’s guard our hearts and take our thought lives captive. It won’t be easy, and you won’t do it perfectly…”
Needless to say, he has nary a word for the women; no ‘lady up and accept your responsibility to dress and behave modestly’ pep talk. After all, that would ‘set a dangerous precedent’!
In a nutshell:
– holding men accountable is good and proper;
– holding women accountable is misplaced and dangerous.
How about this: these ‘men’ grow a pair, call women out for their sin and misbehavior, tell them to ‘go and sin no more’ and then hold their feet to the fire?
*Unaware of what exactly ‘leggings’ are, I googled them; good grief!. If the lengths to which males like Woodward are willing to go to ‘protect’ women from accountability aren’t clear to you yet, google it yourself. ***ANY*** women with an IQ above room temperature who wears these things in public as pants knows EXACTLY what she is doing and why she is wearing them.
@Kowalski 31
Good stuff on how churches tell men to man up and women get a pass. I used to be Mormon and there was tons of that too, how the women were so wonderful and it was all the men’s fault of why these sisters were single. The men were told to “arise from the dust and be men.” Little did they know that female hypergamy kept many of these sisters single (to this day) and many of the men had to end up marrying down a point or half in order to get married.
Also, there’s excessive porn scaring with the Mormons. Basically, there was little distinction made between some occasional viewing vs. the small percent of men that goes nuts with porn and spend hours a day. Pretty much all the men that viewed any porn were lumped in with the excessive types and told they were committing adultery or fornication (with their hand, via mast.). This caused and causes many men to leave and caused some women to divorce their husbands, though many wives stuck with their husbands and tried to support them. And masturbation for singles was harped on and forbidden to be in good standing. Basically, the only thing single men can do is repress their sexuality, resulting in a lot of unnecessary guilt and psychological torture.
I will say, that in spite of the hypergamy of some Mormon girls, that it was still often a better place to find girls than outside the church since they weren’t as bitchy and were generally looking to get married. If anyone can stomach some of the teachings and wants to find a wife I think it would actually be a good place. Still, choose well but the Mormons haven’t been quite as infested by feminism and go-girlism as it seems many other churches have.
I grew up around a lot of Mormons. I always thought they did a better job than most everyone else of making an honest effort to live what they were preaching. Of course in high school there was even split between goodie good Mormon girls and very, very slutty Mormon girls.
Obligatory link to Haley’s Halo, where the evangelical Haley routinely sneers at the absurdity of the young-adult Boundless blog, the “gift of singleness” and other post facto responses to hopeless Churchian singles.
http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/
Great comment Kowalski.
To raucously and lewdly flaunt female sexuality and simultaneously reserve the right to condemn men who notice and expect the ‘undesirables’ to look away is an affront to male dignity and masculinity.
To do it in a house of worship that promotes modesty and righteousness shows it for what it is, nothing but a power play to neuter men.
Basically they are saying, “I can do whatever I want, flaunt any convention of my choosing and you can’t do anything about it.”
3. Refers to her past as a series of “mistakes”.
The mistakes are rare compared to the “experience” of the modern woman. With a ‘mistake’ there is some kind of awareness – or tacit contextual, conditional responsibility for the decision(s) resulting in said “mistake”, but this is increasingly rare. In fact, the feminist perspective is that there are no mistakes but rather just experiences that “make us who we are”. She would not be the same woman without those impulsive tingle-tangles in which she was given ankle-earrings by some random cat after the appropriate number of cosmotinis to relieve her of that annoying agency. Thus, no “mistake”, just “experience”.
I rarely encounter a woman who owns such decisions, let alone categorically frames them as mistakes. Mistakes are only when she gets involved with men who aren’t attractive enough to produce the “experience” that leaves her with a favorable imprint – an imprint, by the way, that some lucky cat will inherit down-the-road (good luck with that).
Women who own “mistakes” are often still looking to replicate those mistakes, but with men who will sign up for the program and/or who are more attractive. Its not about the behavior or the choice, but rather her ability (or lack thereof) to control the outcome and/or calibrate the man’s value with her ideal. Women who have no mistakes, who are quite “experienced”, are often looking to make mistakes, as those are much more exciting. Female “mistakes” are almost cute in the warm glow of hindsight. Which is why they tend to come in aggregate; her mistakes can occupy the period between 16 and 32. Which is also why they translate so easily into “experience”.
In any case, your point is valid, as the constant is in how the man is told to accept such things. But I think the “mistake” part is really kind of disingenuous because it is so easily converted into the modern woman currency of “experience” and/or bundled into the “past”, indemnified from the reach of inquiring men. Wether mistake or experience, the churchian perspective – and culture at large, lay it on the feet of those good christian men. Which is to say; “man up”; “don’t judge”; “live in the present”; “the past is the past”; “those days are behind me”‘; “we all make mistakes”; and on an on. God forgives, and so you should too.
In my experience, the mistakes mean nothing. If you are attractive enough, you’ll be the next mistake. If not, you are expected to swallow those mistakes, even value them as experiences that you are now the beneficiary of in the form of an “experienced” woman. Those mistakes/experiences are hers alone; the church is not in favor of a man placing his own value on those things. Convenient how that just happens to mirror the feminist tack as well.
Yes! I thank you for this article, we DESPERATELY need more articles about Red Pill Christian dating… I am a mid 20’s ex- bad-boy Christian, and it is hard as hell to find a decent girl in the Church. I took the Red Pill a few months back.
Here’s what the problems are: For one, Sunday morning and church social events are very, very constrained places to meet women. There are very few women in my college age group that are LTR material to me. It’s hard to just jump around to all the Young Adult Bible studies etc, because I have a pretty solid network of friends, and I don’t really have time to work on developing tons of new friendships in the name of finding a wife. Plus there’s a whoooole new set of socio-sexual dynamics when dealing with the Christian SMP, which compounds the issue even further. It’s honestly frustrating guys, especially since I can’t marry a women without the same beliefs as me.
All the hot girls are mostly Christian Princesses (bless their hearts still) who don’t understand flirting, and (this is a guess) probably thing they are saving themselves for the Christian Brad Pitt. It’s not a problem on my end- I’m attractive, own a small business, work out, know how to game decently etc. I really think it comes down to the fact that they have a 300 item bullet point checklist, or something. It occurs to me that they got this from Christian Feminism. They are so speciallllll that they can hold out until Mr. Right comes along. I have a few non-negotiables: She has to be hot-ish (7+), sweet, and submissive, and also close to virginal (aka you can tell she’s not a whore/inexperience). But all the girls with the first 3 are used up, and the girls who are all 4 are veryyyy rare.
Most of the guys in the Christian circle of my city are stone cold betas and gammas. I guess the real problem is the only girls who are quality LTR material are girls who grew up in the Church, or converted at a young age. I’m honestly thinking of going to this Chinese college age church near my house and just gaming some pretty little Asian girl. Any thoughts/advice?
Reggie,
That approach assumes this life is all there is. Judgment day is coming when excuses won’t hold up.
Very interesting base post. It has me thinking about trying to design a curriculum for someone trying to teach principles to men. Is anyone already working on that? I doubt I would agree with everything here or elsewhere, but griping about churches not doing anything isn’t all that productive by itself. What can and should anyone do?
Joseph of Jackson had a bit about that, but it seemed to end when he was kicked out of his church.
I am not attached enough to a specific church right now to care if I was kicked out, so I would not have to worry about at least some things.
Whoa, after reading all these posts I am very fortunate to attend a pretty decent one. I think you need to find the right church, which takes time.
I moved from a Catholic church to a Pentecostal church mainly due to the lack of people my age in Catholic Churches. The pentecostal church I attend is pretty involved with them. That’s what I like.
I must say, re committing sins, appropriate dressing choices, etc, it really boils down to insecure people versus confident people. The latter don’t pinpoint someone else’s flaws. Insecure people do.
@ 35
To raucously and lewdly flaunt female sexuality and simultaneously reserve the right to condemn men who notice and expect the ‘undesirables’ to look away is an affront to male dignity and masculinity.
I’ve seen girls being told to dress more modestly because it’s too tempting for guys. Oh, pretty girls get the most flogging. Honestly, what the heck? It’s a guy’s responsibility to control his urges, the same way it’s a female’s responsibility to control hers. I don’t want to cover up in burkas any time soon. I enjoy looking good.
@Brad
Afair Joseph of Jackson and some like minded buddies set up a church after he was kicked out of the one he tried mentoring the guys. SSM is the only place I’d have seen that other than Dalrock’s.
@Starlight
(From Kowalski’s quote)
“…often spirals very quickly into a rant about how women only wear them because they’re after attention. They’re desperate. They want us to look.”
The guys aren’t worried about keeping control, they’re disgusted that the women are desperately flaunting their sex to get noticed by (the right) men. Probably, subconsciously, because the girls know that sexuality is all they have to offer.
It’s a tragic state of affairs really (for the women), after being brought up through 25-30 years of EAP, entitlement and ‘education’ they realise that their best asset is their arse. Because all the attractive femininity that they have is their sexual organs.
Most men have always liked feminine women (not weak, not dumb) for LTR or marriage rather than depraved twerking bonobos ‘presenting’ for alpha males. The guys described in the article are despairing of the behaviour of what they are supposed to see as the ‘fairer sex’. They are on the way to the redpill and maybe out the doors of the church.
The article that Kowalski quotes from is a prime example of the white knights’ wilful attempts to shift all blame on to men. Either through ignorance or desperation (options 2 & 3 in Deti’s article).
Ah, ok. Spawny Swithers, thanks for clarifying!
Happy new year, everyone!
Part of PMAFT’s Sunday Morning Nightclub series. Not about yoga pants, but purty close
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/06/religious-cleavage/
The born again Molly saga was very educational. Can’t remember how many dates it took before she lost her virginity (again) to him, but it wasn’t many.
@Starlight
you’re very welcome. The red-pill can be tricky to those unfamiliar with just how out of whack the blue pill world is with reality. At least you’re ‘getting’ it and you’re prompting clarifications which might be of use to the lurkers. There are always far more readers than commenters, seeing you not get savaged might tempt a few more to dip a toe into commenting (come on in, the water’s lovely).
@Starlight:
“It’s a guy’s responsibility to control his urges, the same way it’s a female’s responsibility to control hers.”
I agree; but many in the church apparently don’t. Usually, I don’t know that a chick is dressed immodestly ***until I see her***. Yes, at that point it’s on me to look away and not entertain any naughty thoughts that come a’knockin’, but I cannot ‘unsee’ what I just saw. Frankly, as much as my ‘inner guy’ might enjoy the view, I **do not** want those images bouncing around in my head, it makes ‘being a good boy’ all that much harder. Women have an interest in policing this stuff themselves (as they did in the past); do they want immodest women cheapening female sexuality and making things harder for their boyfriends & husbands? Is that a price women are willing to pay to maintain their own ‘girl power’? The White Knights of the Churchian Roundtable simply compound the problem by refusing to hold women accountable and telling men that it’s all on them (contrary to biblical teaching). Flat sacks, all.
“I don’t want to cover up in burkas any time soon. I enjoy looking good.”
There’s quite a bit of space between wearing a burka and dressing trashy. “Looking good” ≠ dressing immodestly; to the contrary, immodesty is trashy – think Miley Cyrus or, for instance, wearing leggings as pants in public. There is simply no comparison between a woman dressed in tasteful yet flattering attire and one dressed to pander to the basest of male instincts. And that gets back to Spawny’s point, it’s disheartening to see that many women apparently think that being trashy is how to attract good men. No doubt this is due, in part, to Churchians constantly portraying men as inveterate, sex-obsessed pigs in need of rehabilitation; how else to attract a such a pig?
It’s disgusting that so many in church leadership and in parachurch ministries don’t have the sack to hold women accountable. but then turn around and tell **us** to ‘man up’.
“In a nutshell:
– holding men accountable is good and proper;
– holding women accountable is misplaced and dangerous.”
Well that is the message. Period. The women all seem to look pretty hot on Sundays. I heard so many anti faping messages and of course the “man up” and marriage lessons for young men while they tell women to wait for marriage, WTF?
Treat REAL virgins with a little more respect, and all the others are fair game. Us red pill men are not going to change anything. If asked just explain that unless God made a new hymen any non virgin is unclean and thus unmarryable and that these woman are for nothing but sex. Most will agree that fornication is wrong, but I stopped believing in all of that some time ago. Society and the church places too much shame on men for wanting sex while at the same time celebrating womens slutty behavior. As an alcoholic must suffer health problems from past behaviors when when he or she stops drinking so does the slut, reformed or not.
I just had this convo with an ex of mine that wanted me to marry her and was pissed when I told her sluts don’t get rings and I will not pay full price for used goods, especially at her age and HB#.
I guess I don’t even care of I piss women off anymore.
Plus women do not make mistakes. She made a conscience decision every time the panties dropped. Run Game and bang them. If there a real good girls there, a man who can run through a few of the church girls will still be attracted to the virgins. Just dot bang all the sluts. Gotta use common sense here.
As for dress codes, women want to attract the men. They are not regenerated and they are not truly repentant of their past sinful behaviors. Therefore they do not deserve grace or forgiveness.
A man should never try to maintain his virginity. If her needs to lie to get a REAL virgin so be it, but it does a man no good and even harms him if he is a virgin for reason that I shouldn’t have to explain.
Forget church if you want a wife. Find a nonbeliever. They seem to be more traditional than any churched woman. The church doctrines corrupt woman more than society because they will twist scripture around to justify their bad behavior and escape accountability. If the man is a Christian and he finds a smart and submissive woman he will likely lead his new wife to Christ in time and teach her and his children at home and with like minded men.
Personally I was unhappy when I attended most churches, but not the real fundamental ones, which hardly exist anymore. Even in the fundi ones there are ZERO attractive single woman and I was shocked that many of the old fat single woman wanted to come by and help me out, hang out, etc. There is a big shortage of real men in churches. Any man with a little alpha, game and who looks half ass hot will get attention very easily almost aggressively because all the other men are simpering betas who never touched a woman before.
Chrisitan men were never commanded to be virgins in the bible. There was takl about resisting sexual sin such as adultery and homosexuality, but I think even fornication was downplayed compared to the other sins. However I don’t think Gods use of the term is the same use that we see in effect today considering the very biology God designed in us. Men want to bang several woman and that desire increases when we are ignored by our wives (which the church does in fact encourage negotiated desire). If our wives are doing their jobs we usually are pretty content. That said I don’t think its wrong for a Christina man to bang sluts, just don’t corrupt the real virgins, unless you plan on marrying them.
Well I too look pretty damn good in my bulging spandex shorts, singlet, trusty work boots and my Aussie cricket hat.
I’m certain no one would mind if I shimmied up to the good flock and sang a round of Ave Maria?
If anyone objectifies my spectacular bulge (it’s summer down here so it’s got a mind of its own) I’ll make sure I give them a stern lecture on ‘self control’.
He should find some straight guy friends to hang out with. If any of my guy friends know what “leggings” are, we wouldn’t admit it.
Excellent post by Deti, as usual. Depressing, but I can’t argue against a single word of it. And being Catholic, I’m not sure it’s any better in most of our churches, except that the EAP phenomenon and the associated nuclear rejections aren’t as common. Everything else is just the same.
I am Christian separatist. I believe that anytime a group of believers end up in a situation where they need to cover infrastructure costs then the organization is immediately, irreversibly, and fatally corrupted.
In light of that I think what might be best is for good Christian men abandon the cargo cult churches, and churchian women. They should then go forth and breed good secular women, convert them, and raise the reborn faith from the ground up. The existing structures cannot be saved. Every family should be church unto itself.
I have a simple test for identifying a cargo cult church. If the the organization is more concerned with attendance and collections than saving the souls of the active congregation it’s a corrupted church. If the organization believes increasing attendance and collections is saving the souls of the congregation then the leaders are at least fools if not deceivers.
****
As for leggings, I prefer yoga pants.
We shouldn’t be surprised women all dress like hookers these days, Barbie’s been dressing like hooker for 20 years. Every women under 30 probably had several little hooker dolls as a child, and their mothers encouraged those toys and subsequent fashion choices.
@Cail Corishev:
“He should find some straight guy friends to hang out with. If any of my guy friends know what “leggings” are, we wouldn’t admit it.”
Now that you mention it, it does seem strange that the subject would come up; it never has when I hang out with my friends. Sometimes the subject of immodest women comes up, but never ‘leggings’ spefically. When I first read it, I thought they might have been talking about those colorful, open-ended sock-type things what’s-her-name wore in Flashdance.
@Spawny, Starlight and Kowalski
When you think about it, and as Spawny sort of mentioned, what can women do to get out-of-their-league men? They have to offer up something that those men would be interested in–namely, sex. Dressing in a way to put sex on the man’s mind is a way to get the ball rolling (and it has that effect whether it was consciously intentional or not by the women).
Dressing sexy or slutty is going to create sexual interest from men.
Which men will women be more likely to appreciate attention from? The ones of higher S/MMV. The women who dress to sexually impress may then think they can turn this sexual interest into commitment interest but it’s rarely (though not never) successful. However, it seems like some NBA players are particularly prone to marrying well below their league–see Lebron James as a prime example–thought it’s often the case that they are getting hotter women on the side and have the homelier wife that will put up with such shenanigans.
Badpainter,
I think there is a lot of merit in this theory ‘I am Christian separatist. I believe that anytime a group of believers end up in a situation where they need to cover infrastructure costs then the organization is immediately, irreversibly, and fatally corrupted.”
Got any good reference links/sources for more info?
No info or sources to add, just the resulting observations of my own life experience, which I offer as thought for consideration not as transcendent truth.
Something we all have to keep in mind is this:
In the arenas of sexual attraction triggers and what a woman finds attractive, there are no differences between Christian women and secular women.
Christian men really need to get over this false idea that there is something “different” or “better” or “special” about Christian women’s attraction triggers and what they want in men.
There’s nothing different. She might be a Christian, a true Christian even; but she’s still a woman.
Stated another way:
Secular women who have never and will never set foot in a church, synagogue or temple are attracted to confident, dominant, good looking, in-shape, fit, attractive men.
Christian women who love God and have been raised from their earliest days in the Church are attracted to confident, dominant, good looking, in-shape, fit, attractive men.
Secular women tingle for George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Denzel.
Christian women tingle for George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Denzel.
In fact, you good Christian men need to get over this idea that Christian women don’t experience tingles. Oh, yes, yes they do. Examples? The female Christian bloggers around these parts who can’t get enough of football player/thug/alleged criminal Aaron Hernandez. Remember I said that the next time you see Kylie the Good Christian Girl turn down a date with you as she gets on the back of Harley McBadboy’s bike. Remember that when you hear Whitney the Good Christian Girl doesn’t want to go out with you because she has tickets for Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer’s show at the downtown club.
Jc, 24:
Yeah, there are generalizations in my post, but that’s only because the things I said are generally true. Not All Churches/Christian Women/Pastors/Ministries Are Like That. The problem is that enough Churches/Christian Women/Pastors/Ministries ARE like that and are pretty much as I’ve described.
It gets quite tiresome having to qualify every statement made around here with Not All ___________________ Are Like That. Come on, people.
Augustus:
I do not have a blog of my own.
Kowalski:
Great discussion about Boundless. The thing churches are doing to their men is the same thing feminism is doing to society. Women have no agency. Anything they do or that happens to them is because they are victims of men. Women have choices and rights. Men have responsibilities and obligations.
@Han Solo:
“Dressy sexy or slutty is going to create sexual interest from men.”
This gets to something else wrong with that article, which is what Deti touched on in his post and elaborated on in comment 12: ‘They’re clueless because they’ve bought into feminism hook line and sinker ***and don’t understand male and female nature.***’ From the article:
“One of the biggest problems with the argument that men are programmed to lust after a woman in skimpy clothes is that it makes women’s bodies out to be inherently sexual regardless of situation, context or intent.”
First, he confuses the fact that men ***notice*** an immodestly dressed women with ‘lusting after her’. Apparently, men are supposed to be completely blind to such stimuli. He characterizes the discussion with his friends as a ‘rant’; there is no indication that they were lustily swapping stories about scantily clad women and what they would like to do with them. They were ***complaining*** it! Further, he seems to imagine that a woman’s intent in, for instance, wearing leggings in public, might be otherwise than to attract male attention; again, ***utterly clueless***. Of course, this gives women a perfect out: ‘I didn’t ***mean*** to attract that kind of attention’. Incidentally, I wonder what ‘situation, context or intent’ Woodward thinks would justify publically wearing such attire (or a woman displaying her exposed body in any manner).
Second, Woodward seems unaware that, at the most fundamental God-created level, the male response to the female form is hard-wired in: to look and appreciate. This is ***not*** a sinful reaction. We certainly are prone to abuse this hard-wiring due to our sinful nature, but the wiring itself is as God intended (something women in general and wives in particular should be thankful for, by the way). In fact, women who dress provocatively – and the flat sacks like Woodward who excuse and enable them – are themselves guilty of abusing male human nature. Though men have a responsibility to exercise self-control, women (indeed, all Christians) ***have a duty to not to cause their brothers to stumble*** (Romans 14:13-23). Apparently, duty and responsibility is a ‘bridge too far’ when it comes to what we are to expect from women.
More:
“While the world seems intent on hyper-sexualizing young women, I worry that misplaced messages of modesty are doing just as much harm. Is the church’s message coming across to women saying, “Men can’t control themselves when they want sex, and your bodies are for sex. Cover them up so you don’t look like you might want sex. If you have any feminine curves, make sure you hide those because even under clothes, men will see them and only want you for sex”? I can’t begin to imagine the level of insecurity and self doubt that comes from being raised hearing a message like that.”
There are light-years between a women ‘hiding her feminine curves’ and blatantly putting them on display in [nearly] all their glory (or shame, as the case may be). Woodward has set up a false dichotomy, the sole purpose of which seems to be to give women maximum latitude in this arena. Or, as he seems to style it, we mustn’t preach modesty to young women so as to avoid engendering ‘insecurity and self-doubt’ in their fragile little hearts. Paul would not approve.
Woodward hearkens back to Adam:
“It’s not like this is a new phenomenon. Just look at Adam’s reaction the second God questioned him about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Instead of stepping up and taking responsibility for his sin, Adam tried to pin the blame on that woman God gave him.”
Eve shirked responsibility just as Adam did. Adam’s excuse was ‘Eve made me do it’; Eve’s excuse was ‘The Devil made me do it.’ God accepted neither excuse and held each of the accountable for their own part in the Fall. The selective blindness of Churchians never ceases to amaze me; they always manage to see the application of Scripture to men but completely miss the same for women, even when it’s in the same passage on the same subject, staring them right in the face. Woodward and company accuse men of blameshifting on their own behalf while doing exactly that on behalf of women. Planks, motes and all of that…
Thanks for prompting the discussion with a great post, Deti.
@ Deti – spot on re sexual attraction!
@ Spawny Swithers – You are right! The waters are indeed lovely around here, so peeps feel free to join in the fun.
@ Kowalski, Han Solo –
There’s quite a bit of space between wearing a burka and dressing trashy. “Looking good” ≠ dressing immodestly; to the contrary, immodesty is trashy – think Miley Cyrus or, for instance, wearing leggings as pants in public.
I completely agree! A tarty look is not going to get you very far except create sexual interest as Han pointed out. But looking frumpy is going to get you absolutely nowhere. You need to look attractive, enticing enough so that a cute guy (in your S/MMV of course) approaches you. If you see a girl dressed dowdily and old-fashioned would you approach her at all?
I find that some women use the Christian setting as an excuse to wear dowdy clothing due to being insecure. Wearing a nice fitted outfit makes them uncomfortable and they are unwilling to get out of their comfort zone. To me this is a matter of high importance as IMHO proper dressing (for lack of a better word) is slowly going out the window. Why should guys respect us if we look slutty?
@ Kowalski
“While the world seems intent on hyper-sexualizing young women, I worry that misplaced messages of modesty are doing just as much harm. Is the church’s message coming across to women saying, “Men can’t control themselves when they want sex, and your bodies are for sex. Cover them up so you don’t look like you might want sex. If you have any feminine curves, make sure you hide those because even under clothes, men will see them and only want you for sex”? I can’t begin to imagine the level of insecurity and self doubt that comes from being raised hearing a message like that.”
You hit a spot with that excerpt from the article. Some churches literally frown upon short skirts or anything that is tight. I have met plenty of women who were indoctrinated with the view stated in that excerpt. They literally feel that wearing a bikini is unacceptable and distasteful. What the? I even did some googeling on the matter – some views are so distorted, it is painful to keep reading.
Paul would certainly not approve how some are misinterpreting the Bible or rather interpreting it to support their skewed views.
“As for leggings, I prefer yoga pants.”
Camel toe FTW! I will add also if a woman cannot dress sexy what going out I have seen those types to be total prudes in bed. This goes for prudish wives. My ex was cool dressing slutty when we went out or when she would come over but after finding God it was like she would be happy wearing a burka.
The sluttier dressed are better and more fun when naked. Church is not the place to dress like that but church is nothing more than the Sunday morning nightclub anyways.
“In the arenas of sexual attraction triggers and what a woman finds attractive, there are no differences between Christian women and secular women.
Christian men really need to get over this false idea that there is something “different” or “better” or “special” about Christian women’s attraction triggers and what they want in men.”
Deti this above is golden and so very true. AWALT after all. Men should not have to hide their desires for hot women. Do you go hitting on the married ones, no? But the single hotties, why not? If they are dressing slutty they probably put out. Its not your job to save them, its Gods. Its your job to show them the error of their ways as your banging them with lustful abandonment.
Starlight asks: “If you see a girl dressed dowdily and old-fashioned would you approach her at all?”
If I were a young bachelor, and the woman were pretty, absolutely. Here’s why:
1. Men are attracted to pretty faces, long hair, and non-fat bodies. When a man is sexually interested in a woman, he imagines her clothing as items to be eagerly removed, not admired. It’s called undressing with our eyes. Women who think clothing matters much to men are projecting their own sartorial competition with other women onto men. Here’s a useful analogy: If you were desperately hungry and somebody showed you a takeout bag with a delicious-smelling hamburger inside, would you care about the appearance of the bag?
2. Dowdy-dresser gives the immediate impression of being sexually inexperienced, a wholesome good girl. Innocence in grown women is a big turn-on for men. Her actual sexual history might be revealed through other tells (e.g., hard eyes, a.k.a. the Thousand Cock Stare), but I’m just talking about the first impression.
3. Dowdy-dresser gives the immediate impression of being counter-cultural, in the sense that she hasn’t bought into feminism and the EAP mentality. Good wife material, or a least a potential girlfriend who knows how to be sweet rather than treating non-alphas like garbage. A nuclear rejection would reveal the bag contains a bomb instead of a hamburger, but the bag seems safe enough to approach.
When I met my future wife she was wearing spectacles, a long dress, long hair, and granny boots. All of this screamed “approachable,” at least to a fairly shy beta like me. Male tastes in women are variable, but I imagine at least some of the other men here will confirm my opinion.
Houston: “3. Dowdy-dresser gives the immediate impression of being counter-cultural, in the sense that she hasn’t bought into feminism and the EAP mentality. Good wife material, or a least a potential girlfriend who knows how to be sweet rather than treating non-alphas like garbage. A nuclear rejection would reveal the bag contains a bomb instead of a hamburger, but the bag seems safe enough to approach.
When I met my future wife she was wearing spectacles, a long dress, long hair, and granny boots. All of this screamed “approachable,” at least to a fairly shy beta like me. Male tastes in women are variable, but I imagine at least some of the other men here will confirm my opinion.”
I was definitely a dowdy-dresser when my husband approached me.
Besides, there’s a lot of maneuvering space between “dowdy” and “slutty.” You can show plenty of curves without showing any cleavage or wearing tight enough clothes for your underwear to show through. Just wearing a dress or skirt adds that “sashay” effect that will draw masculine attention.
There is a balance but it seems most women don’t understand how to maintain it if they can even find it in the first place.
@ Cail Corishev 63:
It’s as if these people think the only two options are a 1) burlap sack or 2) leggings, thong underwear and a belt. And since we mustn’t consign God’s Holy Princesses to burlap sacks, they must be given free reign! This is just lazy ‘zero-tolerance’ style thinking – balance always takes more effort than sliding towards one end of the teeter-totter or the other. To acknowledge that there is such a thing as ‘tasteful yet flattering attire’ would not only require exercising discretion and judgement, but also holding women accountable to these reasonable standards. That last part, I think, is the big rub for the Churchians; they are terrified of telling women ‘No’.
No churched man will discipline a woman because most Christian men are simpering betas. That said, the balance you speak of comes from a lifetime of living a discrete and disciplined and chaste life. How many church girls can you say have lived like that. I met only one or two myself. The rest were reborn again sluts or frivoilorced women.
This will make Deti insane but it’s too good not to share:
http://cbmw.org/men/manhood/were-just-talking/
@monkeywerks 66
“No churched man will discipline a woman because most Christian men are simpering betas.”
True as far as it goes, but there’s more to than just that. So many ‘Christian men are simpering betas’ because that’s all they’ve been taught. For all of Woodword’s handwringing about the effect that preaching modesty will have on young women, he and his fellow travelers apparently have no issue with teaching men that
1) if you your girlfriend/wife has a problem (whether it be a sin or a lesser shortcoming), it is your fault and responsibility; she’s all but innocent. On this point see Tim Challies’ review of White Knight Justin Buzzard’s book ‘Date Your Wife’ (http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/date-your-wife). A more direct statement of ‘it’s all men’s fault’ would be hard to find.
2) if there is a problem in your relationship, it’s your fault and responsibility; she’s all but innocent. Again, see the above linked book review.
3) you’re a sex-obsessed pig, so:
3a) if you’re single, stop looking at women because they know you just want sex. Merely noticing immodestly dressed women is to ‘lust after them’ – STOP IT. And you certainly have no right to point out their immodesty; doing so proves you’re an irresponsible pig. Moreover, women who dress immodestly likely have perfectly good reasons for dressing like trashy sluts; you have no business questioning their judgement.
3b) if you’re married and your wife isn’t interested in sex, it’s necessarily your fault. she’s all but innocent and you need to get to work becoming more like Christ. On this point, Dalrock has a good post on, among others, Dr. Al Mohler, who essentially claims that a woman’s libido is an accurate barometer of her husband’s godliness (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/lowering-the-boom/). Yes, really.
I’ll ask express Woodword’s concern here, this time on behalf of men: “I can’t begin to imagine the level of insecurity and self-doubt that comes from being raised hearing a message like that.” Needless to say, such insecurity and self-doubt make poor soil for growing leaders.
Paul Coughlin, one of the few men in ministry that speaks out against such pious bilge has a great article on all of this entitled ‘Pain and Prejudice’ (http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/paul-coughlin/pain-and-prejudice-11535858.html) where he spells out the consequences of men being taught and raised on such tripe:
“But the biggest problems aren’t that such bigotry takes place and those who are guilty of it get away with it. The biggest problem is that with enough intensity and duration ***the group under fire believes the propaganda against them.***”
Indeed; as man thinks in his heart, so is he. This gets to the root of why so many ‘Christian men are simpering betas'; they have been taught to believe (many from boyhood) that, in not so many words, they suck. They have been essentially told that they are unworthy of, among other things, their wives. They are then told to ‘man up’ and get married, only to have the harangue continue. (I highly recommend reading the entire article; Coughlin really takes it to the White Knights.)
As for disciplining their wives, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. First, men who have been taught the above are unlikely to have the confidence and sturdiness of character and purpose to even think about it; after all, why does she need disciplined? Whatever the matter is, he’s been taught that it’s all his fault. Second, when was the last time you heard a message in church on this subject? I can’t even imagine the firestorm that would erupt in most congregations. Though it’s clear, logical and biblical that a man – who is responsible for loving his wife as Christ loves the Church – has a duty to discipline her when necessary (as Christ does the church), you’d be hard-pressed to find THAT responsibility being urged upon men.
The Church has sown the wind, she now reaps the whirlwind.
@Rollo 67
Another one! May the ranks of the White Knights never decrease! Btw, I got your book; good stuff. I’ve read it once and will be doing so again soon. Keep up the good work.
@Rollo and Kowolski
Good links. It’s insane how much the churchians and the tradcons blame men for everything and how similar they are to feminists in that regard.
Suppose a woman showed up in one of the Singles groups and said she had leggings and was rocking some cleavage and nobody looked twice.
Bummer.
She wouldn’t say it, of course, but a guy might bring up the possibility as a kind of thought experiment. Just what everybody wants, right? Right?
And, just for grins, when the occasion arises, make sure to look at her eyes. Every freaking second. Be easily distracted. By the popcorn machine. Have to clean those puppies every third batch. Too much oil as it is. Bad for the heart.
Back in the day, the Movement, as it was loosely called, or the Loose Movement, or the counterculture–a bunch of people trying to be individualists like everybody else and lampooned in Tom Lehrer’s The Folksong Army–thought that a woman interested in her looks was superficial, frivolous, bourgeois. So some didn’t bother, and some went ‘way out. Tried to look frumpy. Joke was the counterculture guys still lusted after sorority row. No chance, of course.
Just noting that this was posted by Vox at AG: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-desexualized-church.html
@richardaubrey 71:
“Suppose a woman showed up in one of the Singles groups and said she had leggings and was rocking some cleavage and nobody looked twice.
Bummer.
She wouldn’t say it, of course, but a guy might bring up the possibility as a kind of thought experiment. Just what everybody wants, right? Right?”
Bingo. This would be a ‘lethally’ effective way of exposing the charade that women don’t dress immodestly to get male attention. You think women are complaining now? Serve up a truck load of ***complete and utter*** male indifference. Eventually, the dam would burst and the wailing and gnashing of of teeth would begin in earnest.
It would be particularly entertaining to see the White Knights turn on a dime and begin berating men for NOT paying attention to immodest women (the only Rationalization Hamster mightier than a woman’s is that of a White Knight!) I can hear it now:
“These poor innocent darlings are so desperate for good men to commit to that they are willing, against their every instinct, to degrade themselves publicly – at church, no less – just to get your attention. How dare you drive them to this lowly state; how dare you then deny them their holy and pure desire!”
Unfortunately, this ‘experiment’ is unlikely to happen for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that some men would see an opportunity to ‘clean up’ by being among the few who would break with the ‘cartel’ and give the women what they want. Happens with all non-government-enforced monopolies…
Kowalski
I understand that’s all they had been taught, but damn, when will men pull their heads out of their ass. In the past when I was not as popular with women I figured out what I needed to change and changed it. My association with the churched messed me up by making me feel shame for my desires, and although it took time I was able to get rid of that also. Much of your post states why I was able to subconsciously rectify my actions to my moral beliefs. You are absolutely correct in that with not only the shame I felt I became terribly insecure when I attended church. It was only recently I have been able to purge those cancerous beliefs from my mind and heart. Good thing I was not raised in the church. What we need to do is get men to leave the church altogether. It’s a dead institution. Thinking otherwise, considering your references is pure lunacy.
The only females a man is responsible for is his daughters. With feminism and our current social conventions a man is no longer responsible for even his wife. He may be bad ass and alpha enough to lead her, but if she gets the divorce tingles or whatever she is gone and no amount of bass ass is keeping her around. Like there is always a better fighter than you, there are always men more alpha than you too. For all of the shit taught in churches I will only concern myself with me.
As for the short skirts in church, I will enjoy getting a shot of their panties and then ask them out for a bang. That is all they are good for. Wife or LTR material will not dress like that and will behave naturally, but most women are feral now so enjoy the animals for what they are.
Speaking of this reminds me of the alpha pastor at my ex wifes church – interesting.
@monkeywerks 66
“when will men pull their heads out of their ass?”
I hear you, man. I used to be there; thankfully, I stumbled across the red pill. It was a journey just to pull my own head out of my ass. Part of the problem is that many men out there were raised by fathers who were themselves raised on or otherwise bought into this claptrap. I think Christian men are starting to wake up as evidenced by the increasing frequency of the demands for men to ‘man up’. As for churches, I think the solution is to do what Joseph of Jackson did. After he was kicked out of his church for teaching young men how to fruitfully (and respectfully) interact with young women (how’s that for a kick on the teeth?), he and a band of his guys found a corrupt church and took it over. I’m not sure what the status of his project is at present, but I think it’s a great example.
You’re also correct that a man is not, indeed CANNOT, be properly responsible for his own wife. To be so, he would have to have AUTHORITY AS THE HEAD OF HIS HOME AS WELL AS OF HIS WIFE. This has been legally denied men since the advent of no-fault (or more accurately, ‘his fault’) divorce. This was one of Dalrock’s main points in his debate/discussion with Alan Roebuck of the ‘Orthosphere’ over whether men are obligated to accept the terms of modern ‘marriage’. If memory serves, Dalrock questioned whether ‘marriage’ in the sense that the bible speaks of it even exists today; his point being that since husbands have been stripped of their authority by the State, they are UNABLE to serve the proper function of ‘husband’. The State has transferred ultimate authority to the wife; the buck stops with her. Even if she never exercises that authority, she has it and he doesn’t – and they both know it. Given female nature, specifically hypergamy, this is inherently destabilizing to the institution of marriage. And it’s demoralizing to men. Roebuck’s response – if I remember – was basically that as long as the ***intentions*** of the couple are, for lack of a better term, biblical, biblical marriage can still exist. As such, despite the predicament we find ourselves in, men just need to buck up,, get married and do what they can to make the best of it. Of course, this will be cold comfort o any man whose wife decides to go all ‘Jenny Erickson’ on him. I’m incline to agree with Dalrock in questioning whether biblical marriage is even possible today. If you want to give it a go, have at it; but I can’t see that men have any ***obligation*** to do so.
@ Houston
I applaud that you are able to approach a woman who dresses frumpish provided she has a pretty face. Interestingly enough you provided a condition for her should she desire to be approached by men: she needs to have a pretty face, long hair and non-fat body.
If she doesn’t meet those requirements what can she do to improve her chances? What would you suggest?
I believe appearance is important as you can improve your S/MMV. Andrew emphasises this notion a lot in his blog The Rules Revisited. Read his post on Feminine Beauty Is Highly Controllable.
FYI: I am against dressing like a slut and am a strong advocate of dressing tastefully.
@#76
To what extent it is controllable, it is non-inheritable. For a genetic celebrity, beauty will shine through. And who would wear the makeup 24/7?
@Starlight
Aside from looks (which are always going to be a plus) and flattering clothes.
She can smile, appear friendly, above board and honest, be visibly interested in hearing what a guy thinks. These are highly attractive traits that also encourage the guy in question to approach a woman. No whiff of desperation, just being approachable and unlikely to shoot him down in flames if things don’t work out.
Smile, you wouldn’t believe how much more a attractive a woman is who looks happy in themselves and willing to engage positively.
Really, I mean it. Laughter in the eyes and a smile on the lips, so out of fashion.
First, Happy New Year. Grateful for what I’ve learned in this and a few other like-minded forums this past year.
***
I. No Grace but through White Knighting.
I attend services in two forms in two locations: one, a small evangelical Lutheran church far into the northern prairie (hence quite conservative); the other the Episcopalian National Cathedral in DC (hence, well, great music).
A) I prefer the sola scriptura congregation, but I found when I began attending (alone) a couple of the biddies would, in the guise of introducing themselves to the strange singular man, drill into me and shame me for aspects of the smoking crater that is my marital past. This remonstrating was bad enough that I left for a while, explaining to the pastor (who is a friend) that I was fine being inspected by these women if they would care to discuss their intimate married life details with me. That situation got fixed, after a fashion; I remain wary and do not socialize with anyone other than the pastor, however. As a man who is divorced, the general framework appears to be that if anything has gone wrong in my personal life, it was my failure and my innate male-specific deficiencies that created the marital unpleasantness. This is only true up to a point, of course. But apropos this discussion, I would summarize the criticism as “questionable male is insufficiently a white knight, plus he’s likely an adulterer. We need to keep an eye on him.” This hostility shocked the shit out of me at the time, given the kindness and conversations I had experienced with the pastor, which had led me to the church initially.
B) Meanwhile, at communion last Sunday at the 8 a.m. Eucharist in DC, the slender and tall woman standing in front of me for Communion was wearing thigh-high suede boots, Prada or some such over her lanky immaculate frame, etc. while holding her three year-old. Of the 30 or so of us who attend early services, there are usually three such examples. They are scrupulously aloof.
Deti, I much appreciate your commentary because I did not grow up in a Christian church (I was a Unitarian from birth until a few years ago) and thus I had never encountered these attitudes. I was very disturbed and mildly distraught when I did: I think my experience in example A), above, is perhaps directly related to this ‘Churchian Drafthorse for Christ’ stuff you discuss in great detail. Choices and rights, versus duties and obligations, indeed. Also, I would add, only one sex is innately debauchedIt must be brutal for the 20 year-old kid to deal with, given that he lacks my inherent skepticism and independence. (I found it very upsetting, at a time in my life when I was seeking sincerely, yet remained sufficiently the skeptic that I just asked the pastor where these women got off rewriting scripture to shame me.)
Oh, also as noted above, the pastor didn’t confront elder ladies with the crummy attitude (and bogus scriptural scholarship); he made allusions in a couple of sermons, told a couple of the congregation that I was not going to come back in all likelihood, and then told me to come in last and stay away from them at coffee. He has to make a living like everyone else.
II. Rural v. Urban Attitudes.
So-called mainstream churches in urban (NYC and DC) environments seem quite sold on the obligation of men to master their corrupt, basal nature, man up, and fulfill the feminine imperatives of girlfriend, wife, or community (nature’s beautiful flower). While even a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America; example, any of the Tim Keller-created churches) congregation, which would self-describe itself as deeply conservative and obedient to the Westminster Catechism, and which is explicitly male-directed, this male-servant role is in fact directed. These people are the backdoor feminists: they live workaday lives in the feminist world, have learned to suppress their reactions to it, and then direct wayward souls to enact a feminist faith (under the comfortable shawl of conservative Christianity). Lots of Sunday nightclubs here. I doubt it needs further discussion. The deacons may be men, but the customers are the women.
The rural church is a deeper puzzle. These are not avowedly feminist places. Yet culturally, we have always assumed, in the USA, that the frontier was captured by men, civilized by women. James Fennimore Cooper, The Prairie (1827):
“… woman was made to perform her accustomed and grateful office. The barriers of prejudice and religion were broken through by the irresistable power of the master passion; and family unions, ere long, began to cement the political ties which had made a forced conjunction between people so opposite in their habits, their educations and their opinions.”
Broadly, I would say that one of the underlying fallacies to be confronted here is deeper than “he’s divorced, note that he has a penis, therefore he is an adulterer and deadbeat.”
It’s really that the female, in even conservative cliques, remains perceived as the flower of civilization, requiring of gentle nurturing, polite whispers, regular sunshine, and none-too-severe watering. To someone with my history, this idea is quite ludicrous. But I seem to astonish simple and educated people alike when I ask, “Exactly which brake, which constraint, slows a woman who discovers that the State will profitably end her marriage and collude in the kidnapping of her children?” What is their response? Guess what: there is none. But surprise: “NAWALT.” Well, goody. Not all shooters put bullets on target. Young men need to be taught: the girls aren’t the target.
Concerning a woman with modest looks who wishes to maximize male attention in the SMP/MMP, Spawny Get writes:
“She can smile, appear friendly, above board and honest, be visibly interested in hearing what a guy thinks. These are highly attractive traits that also encourage the guy in question to approach a woman. No whiff of desperation, just being approachable and unlikely to shoot him down in flames if things don’t work out.
Smile, you wouldn’t believe how much more a attractive a woman is who looks happy in themselves and willing to engage positively.
Really, I mean it. Laughter in the eyes and a smile on the lips, so out of fashion.”
This is spot-on advice. I would add something equally important: She must not denigrate, criticize, or complain about men when she is talking to a man, or even when she is within earshot of a man. Not even jokingly. In her position she cannot afford to give the impression of being just another ungrateful bitch with a giant divorce meat grinder looming behind her. We men are sick of being insulted and run down.* The woman who observes this rule will shine with kindness compared to her less gracious competitors.
* She should not be fooled by the fact that many American men will denigrate themselves and/or laugh at anti-male jokes. They are foolishly adapting to feminism because they lack they wisdom or courage to resist it. Yet even they will prefer a sweet woman to an arrogant women if given a choice.
“The church is not a safe place for men and has not benn for quite some time.”
And being in the company of women is somehow safer?
I’d swear off women before the church. Then again I am Catholic…most Protestant denominations I wouldn’t dare step foot in.
@Starlight 76
She should work on her looks as much as possible without becoming neurotic about it. Even going from a 5 to a 5.5 will put her over the cute-enough threshold of a good deal of men.
Spawny’s advice of smiling and seeming (and being) approachable is very good. Also, when talking with men actually be positive and appreciative of them. As I’ve often said though, women will often do this with a guy that isn’t interested in them (often because he’s out of her league) and conclude that women showing interest in men doesn’t work. Well, duh, of course a male 7 isn’t going to be interested in dating seriously a female 4.
Women should show interest to men in their league and they’ll be surprised at how welcome this will be received by most such men.
Then…..David & Solomon had it right. Polygamy is the way to go.
Based on the info here, a Christian man will NEVER, repeat, NEVER get full satisfaction from just one woman, his wife. N.E.V.E.R.
So:
-Suffer through celibacy or
-Suffer through marriage or
-Suffer through a sinful lifestyle of fornication and/or adultery or
-Become a polygamist
David & Solomon had it right. Polygamy is the way to go.
Yeah, look how well their lives ultimately turned out. David had many rebellions by his own offspring. The full kingdom was lost to his line by his grandson. He couldn’t get enough such that he had to take another man’s wife and then commit murder to cover it up. Not good at all.
Based on the info here, a Christian man will NEVER, repeat, NEVER get full satisfaction from just one woman, his wife. N.E.V.E.R.
B.S. Sex is certainly great, but it is not the entirety of life. Living by your sex organ is not a good way to live. It may seem great for the moment, but eternity is very long.
Going from one extreme to another may seem right for the moment, but it will play havok in the older years, if you make it that long.
@BradA
Those criticisms against David aren’t valid criticisms against polygamy or else every polygamist would do them and suffer those consequences.
And I never said full SEXUAL satisfaction. I said satisfaction in general. Because it’s true.
Kowalski @75
My wife did the Jenny on me and I don’t even see myself as beta as Leif. I was alpha for a long time before although I realized I slipped up. Biblical marriage is not possible today nor do men have any responsibility or obligation to their wives.
@76-78
As for attractive women, there are women who are naturally good looking and remain that way as they age. The important thing to remember for a man to appreciate this older woman she must marry young. Anything less is depriving her husband of her best. I don’t associate with non attractive women in general regardless of the context. I have been like this for a long time and I don’t know why, well I suspect why I suppose.
@79
Your experiences are common. Add in some amused mastery an aloofness and you see what I went through. All these woman are corrupt as are the white knights that seem to make up 99.9% of the men. Its best to ignore or just game them.
@83
Have sex with the impure women (95% of the church women) and leave the virgins alone.
“So:
-Suffer through celibacy or
-Suffer through marriage or
-Suffer through a sinful lifestyle of fornication and/or adultery or
-Become a polygamist”
Being married to more than one woman…don’t you see the potential suffering there too?
There is no lifestyle on this earth that will keep you completely free from some sort of pain…that is as red pill as you can get.
@deti: I asked if you had a blog, because you seem to have a good awareness of women’s behavior.
As far as most women are concerned, being a good Christian is very often a liability rather than an asset with respect to attraction triggers. I have seen several times women exchange “good Christian” men for jerks.
Very early men/boys learn a tough lesson: they have little, minimal or simply no sexual value for women. I think most of manosphere blogs are actually just a desperate cry from men/goys realizing how little or no sexual (or whatever) value they have for their idealized and romanticised women, other than their wallets and fun/game playing potential (a player’s main function is to entertain women with games, because they love games, drama, etc.).
On the other hand, women under feminism have so much privileges, protection and pedestalization (worshipping, etc.) that they start to develop a megalomaniac and neurotic personality, whereas at the same time having little or no opportunity for growth and development of relationship skills.
So we actually have a lot of societal wrong assumptions about women: such as that they have a higher intelligence, a powerful intuition, higher moral grounds, etc. It is all part of the megalomania they have been endowed with through feminist propganda and brainswashing.
If they have a superior intelligence, why cannot they choose a good mate in spite of so many available potential mates?
If they have a superior intelligence, why cannot they leave their passive attitude to life and relationships?
If they have a powerful intuition, why cannot they use it for their benefit, and mostly to their relationships’ benefit?
The truth is: women have a very inferior intelligence on average, almost null self-determination (or inner compass) and their intuition is usually good for nothing, other than to detect and reject supplicating creeps and the like.
But we all are to blame for that, because we have idealised them and given them a place which belongs only to God and men.
Great post sir. I am a christian and I understand. those females at church are low quality and want a man of high quality, cant get one and dont wonder why.
“Then…..David & Solomon had it right. Polygamy is the way to go.”
Yeah, one wife would be disaster, so better to have several; makes perfect sense. No thanks, my head just hurts thinking about it. In any case, whenever you see polygamy in the bible, it always has baneful consequences, from personal misery all the way to crumbling kingdoms. Count me out.
I think having two wives might sort of work the same way as the old joke about why you don’t take just one Mormon fishing.
[…] I need to talk about what it is not. It is not the current scheme. Deti at Just four guys has given a fairly good description of this. So let us briefly describe the current Western system as […]
Deti, my comment was too long for the combox…
http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2014/01/reclaiming-biblical-marriage/
So basically, it is a Christian slutwalk?
What we need is a total, complete strike by all the good men toward the women unless they are acting in a very respectful Christlike way.
No help. No moving furniture. No emotional support after they get pumped and dumped.
Nothing. Nada. It is time that we starved them for the attention that their attention-whoring little hearts are craving.
We must cut off all help or “lets-just-be-friendships”.
Chris: I read your post at Dark Brightness. Good stuff. Recommended.
Jack,
Why would we help any woman we are not banging? I still see that a lot of men even in the sphere still let women cry on their shoulder when the get P&Ded, help them move, fix their car, etc. A man should only be friends with women who do things for him in return. This may not even be sex, but what I see are women who always take and never give. That is the common frame of most male/female friendships. It is the woman’s frame. Instead men should only be friends with women after he has banged her, or she gives him backrubs, cooks for him, etc. Which if a woman is doing these things she usually wants sex anyways.
By making the women work and prove their worth it sets the frame of the friendship into a more natural and mutually beneficial one. For example as a mechanic I used to get calls from many women that wanted cheap repairs done. I even had several suggest blowjobs for brake jobs. I ended up telling them I only give deals to the women I am fucking and at that time that was only my wife. In hindsight maybe I should have taken the blowjobs.
Either way my wife did not like me being friends with other women as I did not allow her to friends with other men. She knew what was likely going on and even though I never told her she was right. This is the same as any male friends she would have had would, in the back of their minds, want to have sex with her. She was a hottie after all. Even post divorce my ex still tries to get my attention and I just ignore her. Because of my previous rule she does not even get free repairs anymore, although she tries.
I would help a woman I knew, banging or not, as long as I was sure I wasn’t being used. Eventually, it would have to come back. Before word processors, a woman who would type a paper for you was a gem. Or brownies.
When I got to be fraternity grad adviser, I had to fix up a lady’s room in the house, so I enlisted a lady friend so I wouldn’t be buying tampons and suchlike. Friends do that. You can be a friend just to be a friend.
Of course, the other party has to be worth being friendly with.
“speak boldly to your sister in Christ”. About your intentions. Shorn of the cant, it’s a good idea.
During some of my travels, I put up at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, which is just across the street from the Baptist seminary mentioned. It’s in an area called Cherokee Park which has some of the most fabulous–in architectural and maintenance and pleasing appearance, and large–homes. I was told it has its own House Beautiful magazine since the original isn’t up to standards. Might be true.
As to the guy who said it’s always the guy’s fault if the woman turns out to be a bitch–said something like that–I could give him just a bit of slack if we presume he presumes the guy married a woman who was not a bitch. Something happened….
If he married a woman who was or would be a bitch–sometimes these things are not obvious–it’s his fault but at a different stage.
But consider a nice woman who is not a bitch and is not on the road to becomng a bitch who…becomes a bitch. You can’t always stop these things, but you can usually figure out how not to start them.
Takes work.
For example; leadership. A guy who’s always been considerate and polite is going to have the wrong reflexes when something comes up where he needs to say no, and take charge, and won’t figure it out until the moment’s over. He has to make himself be in what Dogsquat referred to as “condition yellow, pill red”. Always a bit of wariness looking for, waiting for–that’s condition yellow–the time when the red pill is necessary. Not letting it get by you because you’re mellow and aren’t about to sweat the small shit.
The guy who doesn’t care about much in the daily ordinariness of life isn’t going to be expressing interest, opinion, or desire. For the much-maligned “restaurant”, or what to have for dinner, or whether to go to the Jones’ place for bridge is going to have to start pretending to care about something or other and insisting on it. The Big Deals don’t come along often enough to exercise one’s studliness where everybody can see it.
BTW, I saw on Dogsquat’s blog some time back that he was having a tough time. Anybody heard from him?
“As to the guy who said it’s always the guy’s fault if the woman turns out to be a bitch–said something like that–I could give him just a bit of slack if we presume he presumes the guy married a woman who was not a bitch. Something happened….
If he married a woman who was or would be a bitch–sometimes these things are not obvious–it’s his fault but at a different stage.
But consider a nice woman who is not a bitch and is not on the road to becomng a bitch who…becomes a bitch. You can’t always stop these things, but you can usually figure out how not to start them.”
All women have the potential to turn into a bitch. They will call it the feminine prerogative; we would call it hypergamy and well being a bitch. Women are responsible for their own behaviors and attitudes. If many of the bitchy women would stop with the passive aggressiveness and communicate properly like mature adults, we could help them work through their problems many times. This is part of leadership in a home. Maybe if a man stops entertaining bitchy behaviors form his woman she will become pleasant again.
@Richard #98
Not for a very long time. DannyFrom504 (afair) was the last to have contact. I’d love to have him laying more steel on target.
Spawny.
Yeah, that’s as far as I’ve been able to get.
Different union and all notwithstanding, I like his use of the military metaphor from time to time.
But he seemed to be riding the ragged edge.
Sort of on point: In Holland, three towns have named streets after my Dad’s division–Timberwolves–and one town named a street after his division commander, Terry Allen. We’ve been able to Google Earth our way down the streets, which pleases my father.
In Carentan, France, there is a street named after the 101st Airborne. In the church in Ste. Mere Eglise is a window with the Virgin holding the Holy Infant, flanked by American paratroopers, so that the congregation can lift up their eyes and see whence came their deliverance.
It’s nice, I suppose, to have places in other countries grateful to us, instead of having to fight here.
But, sweet Jesus, the cost….
I’ve read that trust is the key to improving the human condition. Humans are (paradoxically) independent social creatures. Together, people can improve the human condition, but working together and living together, building relationships based on mutual interdependence (neither absolute dependence nor absolute independence are workable…not even for grouches, grumps, curmudgeons, cynics, misanthropes, etc who operate closer to the “trust must be earned” paradigm…with the exception of those who go complere hermit, even they extend a tremendous amount of trust to others).
So, anything that works to build and maintain trust works to improve the human condition. And anything that doesn’t, works against it. The current one-sided power dynamic squanders that trust, in a big way.
I’m reminded of this when I read Monkeywerks’ post above, particularly this bit: “Why would we help any woman we are not banging?” I find that acts of kindness without the expectation of reciprocity kind of lend themself to a better environment for everyone, and this usually does pay off in a large way (directly and indirectly). But it’s true no one should allow themselves to be used. We interact daily with far too many people, both directly and indirectly, for society to work on a “trust earned” basis. We work more on a “trust squandered” basis. We trust until trust is lost, then it must be earned back.
@Richard
I had a week’s diving on the Normandy wrecks some years ago, around St-Vaast-la-Hougue (between Barfleur and Carentan). In between dives we walked some of the beaches with their defensive structures still in place. The emplacements had fields of fire covering flat beaches, no natural shelter…the mind boggles. We visited a few of the memorial sites as well.
Whatever he’s up to, I hope Dogsquat is well. He was clearly a guy of great heart and insight.
@Liz
while I agree with what you write in #102, you’ll be unsurprised by the key part in my opinion
“I find that acts of kindness without the expectation of reciprocity kind of lend themself to a better environment for everyone, and this usually does pay off in a large way (directly and indirectly).”
This is not the experience of a large number of males when interacting with general society. It seems that many women view most men as unpaid butlers. Men should do everything in their powers lest a woman be inconvenienced. No need to thank a butler, he’s just doing his job, isn’t he?
Here’s a killer discussion of the point and what men should, and are, doing about this attitude; That Women are human beings and men are only human doings.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/the-western-butler-and-his-manhood/
GMP being of course the manginafest of feminist ‘thought’ on what a Good Man is; ‘The Good Man Project’
GiMP being a popular alternate name for it, though there are others.
Swithy, perhaps I’m thick, but I don’t understand what is meant by the last bit: ” The reason being that most men feel valued, appreciated, and loved, and indeed many of them are. And to those men, I ask you only for a single favor. Try speaking up for your humanity. Try it just once, and find out whether you’re loved as a human being or loved as a butler.”
Assuming a man feels loved, valued, and appreciated…what does he mean by the last, “Try speaking up for your humanity and find out whether you’re loved as a human being or loved as a butler”?
How would said (assumably, ostensibly) loved, valued, appreciated person “speak of for is humanity” in said case?
My experience in the community is kind of like this: I volunteer time and services and (usually) other reciprocate. Even if they don’t, it usually works out well for me because they think well of me and trust me. If they take advantage, I notice it and am less inclined to be helpful towards them. Example: A few years back, I moved into a home in a new neighborhood, and was greeted by many people…shortly after, our water heater broke and I had water dumping down through the streets. I’d never owned a home before and my husband was deployed overseas, and the kids were babies/toddlers. A guy down the street shut off my water and helped me out (took about five minutes of his time, then he checked back later on us). I was grateful, and a couple of years later when it was time to move again, I chose him as our realtor even though several of the neighbors were realtors (who hadn’t bothered to meet us until they got wind we were leaving soon, and then they scrambled over to be very friendly) with far more experience (he had only had his license for about a month when we selected him).
I have legions of similar examples…my husband is very helpful towards others, and they will bend over backwards to help our family, because we’ve helped them (or someone they know, or someone someone knows…anyway, word gets around, believe me). When he applied to a major airline he had so many references the interview was basically a formality. The interviewer told him that after a person has been in the military a certain number of years, if they don’t see a stack of praise in a pile they won’t interview that candidate, regardless of his work experience. They’re looking for generally pleasant people, because shyte attitudes are infectious. By all means, men should speak up for their humanity and not allow others to use them. But don’t lose it. That’s one pyrrhic victory.
Had a couple of emails with Tom Matlack after he left GMP. I hadn’t noticed–not paying attention–until I saw something Saint Hugo of The Schwyzer said, that, after Matlack left the place was more friendly for feminists.
Sort of a Conquest’s Law. Any organization not overtly conservative will eventually become liberal.
Matlack’s view was that any part of masculinity that was “traditional” was by definition obsolete and toxic. So if the place got to be too much for him, you can imagine….
I was interested in the business model. The eyeballs the current GMP attracts aren’t precisely rolling in money, afaict. That perception would affect ad rates. So if they’re not making a ton of money for the principals, and if they don’t care, they don’t have to worry about content. They can do anything they like as long as they pay their bandwidth.
There are any number of people with Ideas desperate to be published someplace. Like me. GMP ran four of my fiction pieces. I don’t expect they pay a dime for the submissions.
Oh, yeah. I’m banned from commenting.
Hi Liz,
Did you read his whole article? It really is very good. If you like it perhaps try out his other works on AVFM?
I would be very happy interacting with you and your family on the basis that you describe, my point was rather that many men’s experiences with society are not so balanced. The man giveth, but the lady doth not recognise any debt to be repaid(eth). You should not read any accusations against your attitudes into my comments. Your comments merely raised issues in my mind that I wanted to address, I didn’t say that those issues were relevant to you…
Anyway, getting back to your question
This goes back to “women are human beings, men are human doings”
To be valued as a human being, a woman just has to exist, whereas a man has to prove himself of value by his acts.
Is the man in question valued just because he exists (loved as a human being) or becuase of his utility as packhorse, guard, ATM and sperm donor (loved as a butler)?
Also of relevance (from 2011), GirlWritesWhat, “Feminism and the Disposable Male”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&list=PLucaFEihIOYAJbIOSR8_EAOiXiJkmrFgr
text form http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/alexacaliente-alyssapry-anitasarkeesian-jaclynf-newsweek-abc-feminism-and-the-disposable-male/
This male disposability is the bedrock on which the churches (to get back on topic for the post) base their demand that men need to “Man up and marry those sluts”, need to disregard their own financial and emotional interests, need to take all responsibility for whatever the problems with any marriage on themselves.
GirlWritesWhat is aka Karen Straughn on AVoiceForMen.com
@Richard
I’ll not say what my opinion on that psychotic piece of cuckholding shit Hugo is (oops, I just did. Or I started, anyway). Is he in gaol yet? Last I heard, it was likely.
Tom…I never really came to a decision on him. He seemed to be coming from a good place, but woefully naive about the realities of feminist action. I guess he’s had a hell of a beating with a 2×4 clue stick. I’d have more sympathy if I didn’t think he’d done damage to the interests of men along the way. It’s basically become a feminist site that attempts to indoctrinate men with their drivel. Occasionally a conversation worth having slips through the comment modding.
Sorry to her that you were banned from commenting, you seem pretty reasonable to me (for whatever that’s worth ;0 ) even when we don’t see eye to eye I do acknowledge your point of view.
Have you talked to the JFG guys (contact details via the front page) to see if they have any suggestions regarding your material? It’s not what this blog currently does, but who knows what suggestions might come out of a discussion? My interests lie more in the MGTOW / MRA and sane relations between the sexes (the former more in evidence than the latter the last few days, obviously), so I don’t have any specific suggestions.
best wishes
p.s.
On a lighter note (from a GMP-esque frame) did you ever see the “Conscious Men” with their “Dear Woman”
puke festvideo? The lighter note is the parody (including Will Ferrell), have a bucket at hand if you watch the original that they’re spoofing@Spawny 107
Great excerpt from GWW. Feminism is about getting stuff for females, particularly to meet feminist goals (sometimes in conflict with certain female desires) but, in the end, for females.
@Han
yes, I’ve been a GWW fan for a long time. TB is fine too! But Karen was the first that I came across who talked sense about the male experience as a woman. AVFM has found an irish woman who similarly hits it out of the park (that’s American for ‘remarkably well observed’, is it not?)
Dalrock has just posted about the ‘Marriage Strike’, or is it more than a temporary phenomenon?
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/more-ominous-than-a-strike/
FWIW I think it is more than a blip that can be corrected by small measures. Not only do the legal outrages have to be corrected, you need men to start trusting that the laws won’t be re-instated after they marry and they need to forget seeing how so many women react when given the ability to cash in a marriage for fun and profit. There is going to be a huge issue of hysteresis.
Just reading the post now, I’ll see if he agrees…(but how can he not align with my wisdom?)
Spawny
Thanks for the compliments. Tom was a Quaker whose father did civil rights work in Holly Springs, MS a couple of years before I did. Between those two influences, imo, he’s been primed to see Old Ways of doing anything as Bad. And if he didn’t have evidence, or his assertions were at odds with reality, he’d be as rational as a feminist….
My material got published, which is cool. I’m not looking for another outlet just now for fiction. I kind of like writing shorts.
I’m looking for some outlets on tech stuff I do. Made $250 in 2010. Got to do better.
One item which always bothered me was the GMP’s implication that, until they came along, men couldn’t talk about stuff.
@Richard
I’m open to whatever might work for society as a whole, as long as no one (male or female) gets thrown under the bus. I’m not an expert on Tom, but I never saw him advocate things that were antimale per se, just things that didn’t really apply to what I saw as the reality that we live in. Kind of like some of the church leaders that Deti describes; many of them presumably mean well, it’s just that their approaches are pretty much doomed to fail and hurt more men. I don’t believe all those leaders don’t care about men, they just make things worse with the best of intentions.
I wish him well in the future, I hope that he’s now more aware of reality. And therefore more able to actually help men in a practical manner. I’d love to see him on AVFM giving solid advice, his sincerity was never in doubt.
“One item which always bothered me was the GMP’s implication that, until they came along, men couldn’t talk about stuff.”
indeed.
I have a sister who had a mid forties long term friend die of cancer recently. My sister’s sons are friends with her sons. It had already been noted that the sons didn’t want to be smothered by their aunts. But I took time to make sure that my sister knew that the boys might well not want fuss, but that that did not mean that they didn’t need to talk. I am confident that my sister is capable of engineering scenarios with her (eminently sensible feminine self) or her (my sister’s) same age sons to be there. I have always known that NAWALT, some of them are my female relatives.
Men dont need outright drama and shows of pain, their solutions might well involve a couple of good mates and some alcohol to loosen tongues. Who’s to say which way is better? We just need to remember that men and women can differ in their coping mechanisms.
Spawny.
“”Men dont need outright drama and shows of pain, their solutions might well involve a couple of good mates and some alcohol to loosen tongues. Who’s to say which way is better? We just need to remember that men and women can differ in their coping mechanisms.””
You’re right. But this paragraph would not be welcome at GMP any longer. Their contributors have generally taken the position that, to the extent men differ from women, men are wrong.
Back when I studied psychology–takeaway; they don’t know as much as they want you to think they know–the Freudian model was so easy to understand that any undergrad could misunderstand it. I call it the steamboiler model. If an urge/emotion is not released, it will eventually blow (up). It’s so obvious that you don’t have to have the slightest formal exposure to the subject to believe it. Rroblem is, it’s probably not true.
Some research shows that incessantly chewing over something that went wrong extends the negative emotional consequences, for example. So “talking” isn’t the panacea. But the steamboiler model validates the stereotypical women’s method of dealing with misfortune. Just one example.
@Spawny 104
Thanks for the great link. Reading it, I came across this paragraph:
“Furthermore, the Western butler is obligated to the safety of the lady. Yet the lady increasingly recognizes no limits on her own behavior. Thus, the Western butler must take responsibility for the lady who increasingly refuses to accept any responsibility for herself. The lady’s poor decisions where her safety is concerned must never be questioned. Doing so results in international slut walk movements to remind the butler of his place. Thus, the Western butler’s obligation to the lady’s safety, even as she continues to behave as she likes, ensures she will not be inconvenienced by any of her own choices, since he is responsible for those choices. She can behave in any manner she chooses, and he will sacrifice and come to her defense, whatever the circumstances, without questioning her. The butler’s own safety, of course, is not a priority.”
This underscores another problem with the Churchian approach to female modesty as exemplified by the Boundless article I linked to. Deflecting responsibilities that properly belong to women onto men, White Knights promote a distorted perception of reality. Female immodesty isn’t a problem at all; the entire problem is men – they won’t stop looking at and taking note of scantily-clad women. Implicit here is at best a condemnation, at worst a denial, of male sexual nature. Women (and men) come to believe that one shouldn’t expect such behavior from men ***and act accordingly***. Hence, Woodword’s breezy dismissal of ‘whatever motives she has for wearing leggings in public’.
This is dangerous. While many, if not most, men will restrain themselves around brazenly immodest women, ***there are men who will not***. Such men will respond to uncivilized female behavior with uncivilized male behavior – and it won’t be pretty. Sadly, when men are so uncouth as to point this out, they are denounced by many women and their flat-sack White Knight enablers as misogynist pigs (Woodword being a perfect example).
Thus the charade continues, leading many women to believe they are entitled to wantonly provoke the baser instincts of male nature with no consequences. All because White Knights don’t have the stones to stand up to women and simply say ‘No’.
All because White Knights don’t have the stones to stand up to women and simply say ‘No’.
Or be someplace else.
@Kowalski, you’re welcome. He (and others) have written some great stuff on AVFM. I had a lot of trouble selecting a section to quote here to give a flavour of his work.
@Richard, I did try and reply last night but the server swallowed the response (an error, not spam filter). My response to disasters is to try and understand what went wrong, learn whatever lessons are applicable and then, for the large part, move on. The serious issues (divorce, failed romance) never go away of course, but the pain fades over time.
Endlessly re-hashing the same stuff without solution drives me nuts. I didn’t understand my (ex)wife’s fascination with complaining about stuff that she never had any intention of fixing (work matters, not ‘me’ matters), part of the reason for the split. Why didn’t I understand? Because I was brought up believing that men and women were the same – sucker!!!
On “obligation butlering” in the church, Dalrock wrote a post (ahem, from a tip I gave him back when I was Badger Nation) about a clueless whiteknight. Some great discussion in the comments from an older time – I love Dalrock but his comments section has really gotten tough to wade through recently.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/chivalry-only-comes-from-a-position-of-strength/
“One of the automatically generated wordpress links on the bottom of my first post on chivalry was from a homeschooled young man who believes that his role as a man is to protect any woman who lacks the sense to come in out of the rain (H/T Badger Nation):
>>
We now live in a society where a girl can walk outside, in the pouring rain, without a coat or umbrella and is no one offers their own coat or umbrella. Oh but surely that wouldn’t happen! Yes it would. Well, surely the homeschool movement is producing young men that would offer a hand! The instance I’m referring to happened at a homeschool event.
<<
"
The whole post is illustrative of how tradcons are rather misandrist and feminist in their views.
“Endlessly re-hashing the same stuff without solution drives me nuts. I didn’t understand my (ex)wife’s fascination with complaining about stuff that she never had any intention of fixing (work matters, not ‘me’ matters), part of the reason for the split. Why didn’t I understand? Because I was brought up believing that men and women were the same – sucker!!!”
I don’t recall where I got the tip (which sucks because thanks are certainly in order, it might have been Dr Laura or John Gray) but one of the best single pieces of advice I got was to explain the “venting chatter” men get from women. Simply doing ten minutes of moderately active listening and not trying to solve the problem at hand can produce massive comfort benefits.
The key then is to control how much she’s allowed to complain – if she’s exceeded her limited quota, or is repeating the same rant, you gotta alpha up and tell her to stop.
Part of the “aloof game” red-pill training is very useful here, since it gets you OUT of the mindset that your job is to solve women’s every problem.
The near death of chivalry is saddening. Like the author states on that article, I can also carry my own grocery bags, but it’s a welcoming gesture when a guy helps you out. It’s very nice, too, when he opens the door for you and does other chivalrous gestures. Chivalry makes me feel feminine and I feel men are empowered when they are able to behave in a masculine manner.
Unfortunately most feminists see chivalry as insulting, as if men where robbing them from their capability to be independent. Total BS IMO. Being feminine doesn’t mean you are helpless or can’t solve your own problems. Nowadays, a reversal of roles is forthcoming if not already here. Scary!
*reversal of gender roles
@Badger
I read one of those ‘Men are from Mars…’ books shortly after the divorce was done. It went into the ‘she just wants to emo-vent, not to fix anything’ phenomenon with the counter explanation ‘you emo-vent to him and he’s pre-wired to try and fix the problem’. Not saying the marriage could have been saved, but that knowledge would have improved things (in both directions).
Quite like the whine-time (hey, me man) limits.
One of the other pieces of advice was to women; ‘When he gets home from work, leave him be for 30 minutes or so. Let him unwind’.
@Starlight
being nice to people needn’t die, but going beyond basic courtesy for strangers is looking a bit passé. Chivalry relies on the other party returning the favour either directly or on a plausible pay-it-forward basis. When neither is guaranteed / neither is likely, one risks looking like a chump. Open a door for a woman and get cursed at by a fembot? Or she walks through without a word? Chump. Even white knights can get bored of that. Chivalry is dead, feminism killed it.
Having said that, you might like to hop on over to Danny’s latest post.
http://dannyfrom504.com/2014/01/05/the-feminist-lie/
Sounds like a great environment to live in.
@Badger
“The whole post is illustrative of how tradcons are rather misandrist and feminist in their views.”
No shit.
I often despise them more than the radfembots (who are clearly broken on the most part. latest example? ‘All PIV is rape!’ You silly, mad little moo). Those tradcons aren’t mentally broken as much as wilfully blind (there are some questionable cases though). I have no time for those that would throw men under the bus for the convenience of their bone-headed, out-dated beliefs.
We should force-marry those tradcons to radfems, because? because schadenfreude. nothing wrong with schadenfreude when the schaden is self-earned and I get the freude. And society gets a perfect illustration of the problems with both sets of kaputweltanschauungs. (made that last word up, it needs to exist though, so sue me)
#124
Tradcons are more dangerous than feminists to clueless men because they claim to be anti-feminists and the selfless helpers of men with problems. In fact, their misandry is just as strong as that of feminists, the difference is that it stems from self-righteousness and the belief in their own supreme truth which transcends everything.
Swithy:
“being nice to people needn’t die, but going beyond basic courtesy for strangers is looking a bit passé. Chivalry relies on the other party returning the favour either directly or on a plausible pay-it-forward basis. When neither is guaranteed / neither is likely, one risks looking like a chump. Open a door for a woman and get cursed at by a fembot? Or she walks through without a word? Chump.
I thought opening the door for a person is basic courtesy. I open the door for people all the time. If they just walk through without a word, I still don’t look like a chump (nor would anyone else). And if they curse me for opening the door they look like an asshole and I still don’t look like a chump.
@Liz
I guess that you’re just a more patient person than I…sooner of later I’d say something…fruity (means something different over here)
@HH2
“it stems from self-righteousness and the belief in their own supreme truth which transcends everything.”
oh yeah! that rings a bell all right
@Liz
doesn’t mean I don’t do nice things, but ‘she’s probably better off looking like a nice person and I have to be the mood to shrug off any potential bitchiness. I’m a selective nice guy and anyone who thinks that that is an oxymoron is shit out of luck – because I don’t care; it’s a red-pill thing.
Aha – since you treat us nice around here, we ladies at JFG must be pretty special.
Spawny Swithers, indeed it’s pretty demotivating to do something chivalrous when you are being insulted for it. Still, every time I see someone do something nice for someone else it’s a lovely reassurance that there are beautiful people out there and life doesn’t have to be so bad after all.
And if others don’t care about you being a Good Samaritan? Well, consider your good deeds brownie points that accumulate and eventually pay off.
Re that article you posted, I wonder – how many men nowadays miss traditional gender roles? Would it be worth the fight to claim that back?
I believe that husbands can be stay at home dads whilst mum works full time should that family desire so and that major family decisions should be undertaken as a couple. I believe in females exercising authoritative roles such as judges, managers and so forth. I also believe in equality laws (e.g: equal pay rates) and all that jazz.
However, emasculation of men and them being taken advantage of is something I dislike greatly.
I agree with you Liz, some niceties are just common courtesy. Besides, ideally when you do something nice it’s because you want to, not because you expect something in return.
@Starlight
(excerpt from an email I wrote about this very subject in response to a post on TarnishedSophia’s blog http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/chivalry-is-dead-long-live-courtesy/ regarding a trip to France (and me English remember!))
Tale of a red-pill white knightish selectively nice guy
Glad I helped her, wouldn’t have done it if I hadn’t got the vibe that she was nice…just saying Ladies of JFG
“Besides, ideally when you do something nice it’s because you want to, not because you expect something in return”
Ideally yes, but ideally one’s experience is not composed entirely of giving. Men get tired of that. Given your personal circumstances, that isn’t your experience…that is no surprise. In addition, I’d lay money that you look like the kind of person to show gratitude and return random favours (paying it forward). You are doubly removed from the reality under discussion.
TL;DR? You aren’t the kind of harpy the men are talking about…
Swithy, You always come across as a pleasant person, with a good sense of humor. I’m glad you helped that person.
I don’t think you’d ever shut the door in my face. (this did happen to me once…a guy slammed the door in my face while I was holding a baby…seriously, what a dick)
I’m a nurse by trade (though it has been over a year). I’ve had a whole lot of cranky (hope this isn’t an untoward word across the pond) patients. They aren’t feeling well, and in pain and all that, and most are just generally curmudgeons/bitches and so forth anyway. But it really does make an impression when I’m kind and helpful, rather than giving the nurse Ratched response…sometimes they ask for me, “I want the nice nurse!” anyway, we all feel better for it. I have a better night, they’re happier with the next shift, and so forth.
This is why I like small towns and dislike the big cities. The city is mean.
There’s a question in ethics/philosophy: If doing something unselfish makes you feel good, were you being selfish? If you didn’t want to be selfish, you wouldn’t do something unselfish. If you feel that somebody really needs help with something, you’d feel bad if you didn’t help. So, if helping means you don’t feel bad, then who were you serving?
Obviouusly, both.
So what? So freaking what?
I’ve said it before, using the example of opening the door for a woman in discussing chivalry is a loser. There are too many ways in which people do, or could say they do, hold doors for others which have nothing to do with chivalry.
My wife belongs to a book club. Where we used to live, several organizations rotated meetings from one house to another. When the meeting is at our place, I make it a point to be outside–presuming the thing is over after dark–putzing around, putting away a rake, whatever, to reduce any apprehension there might be. This is, however minor, gender-specific and is thus a candidate for chivalry.
Offering to walk an unaccompanied woman to her car when a dinner party at a restaurant is over, samesame.
Thing is, the implication is that, if the shit hits the fan, the guy–masculine–will defend the woman–feminine as a gender requirement. There is no expectation of the roles being reversed, due to various patriarchal atrocities such as sexual dimorphism (NTTAWWT).
Example: On the way home from work, I found a car stalled in the middle of the street in an area where you want to make sure your doors are locked. Parked behind the car, found a woman unable to make the thing go. Said I’d wait until her husband arrived. Got back in my car. Waited. Husband arrived. I drove off. Gender/Aubrey expectation was that, should it be necessary, I would defend her.
Opening doors isn’t a useful example.
Liz
“Swithy, You always come across as a pleasant person, with a good sense of humor”
Pretty sure that I can get references to the contrary… the word ‘cad’ has been used by a couple of people, and not in a good way, not at all. The result of one of those learning moments I mentioned recently, sadly. Out of my hands now though.
Still, chin up! Monday in 35 minutes. Where’d I leave that straight razor? Time for a bath…
Well, Swithy, I’ve had actual bipolar stalkers who gave me death threats online (womenfolk).
ME! Lil’ Ol me. Can’t please everyone.
Have a great day!
You’re just showing off now Liz…No one likes a showoff.
Monday now. Can’t find the razor and the flex on the hair drier is too short to reach the bath. Tried blowing myself up last year, barely a scratch…Spawny Get in deed indeed.
Awwh Liz, don’t make me add smiley to the show off crack. Dry humour (alleged) and smileys don’t mix. Don’t make me do it, I’m begging you…
Of course I caught your quip, Swithy!
No need to show off your crack. Er…flash me a crack smiley…er…you know what I mean.
[…] Deti on what to watch out for when pursuing girls at church. […]
Anyone stating they are CLUELESS: YOU are the problem. They are NOT clueless. A thief that steals does so with full awareness. This is INTENTIONAL. Because so many men are defending the INTENTIONAL strategy of every male church ‘leader’ it’s time to fund a mass media campaign to expose those that say the church leaders are clueless. With no where else to turn, these wimps will be forced to open their eyes to see that they are defending the most evil beasts walking on earth: Modern Church Leaders.
Short video how ‘christian’ church ‘leaders’ get in and stay in: http://wp.me/P3P5mL-eh VIDEO WILL BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS!
Outstanding post to offer blue pill christian men as a beginning read.
As explained, church is not the place to expect to meet a future wife. But where would a good place be to meet ladies of quality? Of course school or the workplace are options due to men having to be there, but what about other venues?
I come from the UK and go to church here. Fortunately my experience of church in the England (and I’ve been to a few) is *nothing* like described in this article. I’m not yet married, nor do I see any prospects from women I know atm. However, the women are polite, generally approachable (to a greater or lesser degree) and I’ve never heard of or witnessed a ‘nuclear rejection’. Nor am I aware of a large number of ‘reformed sluts’ (faux reformed) desperately prowling for husbands.
I’m aware the article is about church in America and not the UK. Just thankful that UK church (to my experience and knowledge at least) is not like the above.
[…] Rockbanddrummer just fine – Christian women don’t want any part of Gary GoodChristian. Consequently, a good reminder for good Christian Men to think twice about manning up and marrying th… And when women try to be attractive, they have no idea how to do […]
Christian women are nothing special, and neither are Christian men. They act in the same Hobbesian self interest as non-believers.But even worse, a great many people go to church and find God because their lives are screwed up. Addiction, dysfunction, broken homes, relationships, etc. They have a moral framework but are not at all disciplined in the habit of living it. So finding a Christian partner is not a problem. Finding one that is not dysfunctional is.
[…] waiting this long already. And in the meantime he starts to make sure he attends church regularly because that’s where all the “good girls” are right? So a few years into his career he meets and begins seeing Reformed Sistah Y . She’s […]
Thank you for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I will be
waiting for your next write ups thanks once again.
Thanks lots intended for sharing this particular with all of people today that you know what you happen to be talking about! Book marked. You need to as well speak with this site Implies). We can employ a exchanging links arrangement of us
[…] talked about “Man Up” before in my post here, entitled “Good Christian Men, Think […]
@Rollo
Being dizzy has been a constant in 2014.
The article you posted from ‘cbmw.org’ brought on acute nausea.
No comment section on ‘cbmw’? Comments shall default to Twitter, etc.
Really!? Really? This is why you are all single lol. You need Jesus.
I did a search looking for advice for a possible brother to ‘man up in regards to his desire for a wife, hoping to find good material on biblical manhood & walking in your role & purpose. What I found was a bit interesting, sad, truthful and lying all mixed in 1 bag. I’m a virgin & totally support purity/chastity understanding that submission to God is necessary in order to have any kind of Godly life. In fact, I cant imagine living another way, esp. when you are missionary to Preborn children. marriage.
I’m also waiting on God for right husband, I declined 2 offers of marriage for good reason (non frivolous). A comment was made above by someone who is an atheist, in that they love this article. I was not shocked because my initial thoughts is that it seems to be written as a ‘Christianize’ blog but out from a spirit & heart of a man not truly saved or born again…or at least ruled by anger & frustration? When you must resort to calling sisters in Christ ‘used up’ or ‘sluts’…lol it’s a pretty good indicator something um is wrong with you…and any man/woman not saddened when reading it. That’s all I wanted to say. May God bless you all as He desires.
Haven’t read all the comments but have these points I want to make.
I know exactly how many single Christian men feel. I suspect I got ignored too from the good Christian women when I was single in my 20s.
A dating loser who lacked confidence, things didn’t improve for me until my late 20s.
When a guy hits his 30s, it gets harder to abstain and a guy who hasn’t really had much success at dating — or hugging, handholding or kissing !!! — he feels he “deserves” some things.
It really grieves me when I hear about “good Christian girls” giving their virginity to the pagan bad boys, instead of going out with the many good Christian men in their midst.
Take this story:
http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/319997-pity-sex-16.html#post3909542
“….. you have never been able to attract the women you want. Nice women don’t like jerks, no matter how hot they are.
“….. Actually some of them were “nice girls”.
One girl who I deflowered was really sweet and innocent and the only girl around my age I know who went to church every sunday. Not brilliant, but she wasn’t dumb either.
She threw her virginity away on me instead of all her male church-going Christian friends who were all in love with her, I never called her back once I got what I wanted. …….”
See that last part???
SHE THREW HER VIRGINITY AWAY ON ME INSTEAD OF ALL HER MALE CHURCH-GOING CHRISTIAN FRIENDS WHO WERE IN LOVE WITH HER……”
That guy was a first-class jerk, taking away a Christian woman’s virginity like it was all a game.
That terrible decision was all on that woman, and she knew right from wrong to have a one-night-stand with such a guy, but bet she had BIG regrets giving herself to a player like that, who now is whining about all his regrets…..
I never laughed so hard reading that pagan fornicator so upset he can’t get any “good girls” when he took as many virginities as he could… something we honorable Christian men would NEVER do to our Sisters In Christ.
Sorry Christian ladies. Many of you ignored guys like me or refused our invitations to date.
So try not to judge…. if we did end up having (some) unwise sex outside of marriage…. We were decent men who wouldn’t have pressed you for sex and were really concerned about your needs… your “feelings…”
I see many of you didn’t care about or weren’t “attracted to” us Good Guys and preferred to lose your virginities to the “Bad Boys” who not only broke your hearts, but gave you many regrets….
Wonder how we “church-going” Good Guys look to such women now ????
For years the Church has made men look like sinners.Many of the church leaders who talk about virginity to young adults cohabited before marriage.Christian women just need men (Any faith).Men who are well placed, looks good.They know they can bring these men to church later on.Premarital sex is very common among Christian women in America and Europe,be it Catholics or Protestants.Christian men should man up and have fun and not worry about what the church has to say.Honestly, you would miss out all those women if you listen to what the church has to say.
Online Christian dating websites are a big joke.Most women on these websites in their late 20’s did everything you could imagine in their early 20’s.They would have slept with everyone in their dorm. When they approach late 20’s they need a man who is financially secure.Christianity is a just a mask for them.You can feel that after the first few emails with them.I have spend lot of time and money on these websites only to find real “w****s”.
Christian women are just attracted to good looking men or ones who are filthy rich.
Welcome to 2015 everyone! Looking as if this situation is just going to get worse in the church, and sadly the leadership for decades has allowed, and nurtured it!
**shhhhhhh, don’t call women out on sin….you’ll be judging her! The LAST thing ANY strong Christian man should do is gently rebuke, uplift or guide a woman who asks for advice!!! Tell her she’s strong, beautiful, and a ‘daughter of the king’ and she’s perfect. Be NICE to her; cause if you actually give her sound doctrine….you’re JUDGING***********
*******Cut it out! Don’t tell your pastor your concerns and desires as a man! Never do this!!!!! He has been married for 30 years, and met his wife when he was 16, and still in high school! You’re 46, and have never been married, you pastor *understands* EXACTLY what you are going through. Just listen to his ‘man-up’ sermons, and pray harder……you are obviously not as *holy* and *in God’s favor* as he is. You’re single because you’re not a real man like him, or the other *leaders* in the church. Just shut-up and don’t say a thing. He knows God better than anyone else right?????
****Shhhhhhhhhhhh, keep it quiet! You’re seeing single moms pregnant AGAIN, and the defense is “God wants her to have this baby” and you WANT to say “No, she let a man put his penis in her, and it ejaculated” and that’s why she is having a baby. Don’t ROCK the boat EVER in church. Women are SAINTS and don’t YOU forget it! Only God can judge, and well….ummmm, the pastor, and his wife can too…….and the leader of the women’s group can…….a few of the prettier girls can judge….but no one else. Just remember to nod your head, and put MONEY in the collection plate ONLY!
What is a single, Christian man to do today???? It’s hard men, but don’t give up on Jesus. Don’t give up on His plan. Build your confidence through Him. Take that altar by yourself if you must. Keep yourself Holy, and as impossible as it sounds……..don’t like the “rock” (church) get you down. Remember His grace. His love, and what He did for you. Be concerned with your continual salvation by your continued obedience in Christ Jesus. He is worth it.
Find communities, pages like this, and other resources to know that as a man…..you are not alone. We Christian men come from many stripes, and situations…..but we all see truth. Keep the faith brothers and love Him more than this world………….love Him even when all the terrible behaviors mentioned come MORE real as we crest into the final days. Be strong and faithful men! In Christ, and in truth!
[…] Goldstein) College Showed Me the Cultish Nature of Feminized Christianity (by Vincent Law) Good Christian Men, Think Twice (by […]