Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The greatest crime against a woman

It's not domestic violence. It's not rape. It's not even a sexually transmitted disease. All of those terrible things convey much sought-after victimhood on a woman; that's why so many women claim they were date-raped or near-raped or pushed or frightened just to be able to posture as Saint Victim. The greatest crime a man can commit against a woman short of actually murdering her is exposing a factual element of her sexual history to the public:
“The Bachelorette” contestant Nick Viall stunned his former TV flame on Monday Night by revealing to a live studio audience that he had sex with her during the 10th season of the popular series.

In discussing their brief relationship on “After the Final Rose,” an emotional Viall, who earlier tried but failed to talk to “Bachelorette” star Andi Dorfman, said the two were intimate before she decided to accept the marriage proposal of Josh Murray.

“If you weren’t in love with me…I’m just not sure why you made love with me, either,” Viall said softly.

The visibly stunned “Bachelorette” quickly gathered herself.

“First of all, I think that’s below the belt,” Dorfman said, “that’s something that should be private and kept private.”

Viall, still obviously heartbroken, tried backtracking but it was too late.

“I’m not trying to put you below the belt…”

“You already have!” she snapped.
As the Chateau pointed out, it is just possible that this was a brilliant black-knighting, but it was probably nothing more than a sad and disappointed delta trying to figure out how it was possible for a woman to act on sexual desires unrelated to committed romantic love.

Speaking of THE BETA OF THE MONTH, my vote is for candidate number two, whose girlfriend went off on a vacation without him, got drunk, disappeared with two men, and came back home pregnant. The fact that the guy didn't ditch her on the spot, but promptly fell for the usual routine - "shes absolutely scared to death, shaking, sobbing, apologizing profusely" - would make one despair for the male sex if one wasn't aware of the socio-sexual hierarchy.

Understand this, gentlemen. The waterworks are a standard routine that women run to get out of trouble with men. The fact that she's pitching a weeping, frightened mea culpa, complete with anguished, body-wracking sobs, doesn't mean a damn thing. It's a performance. It is not indicative of how uniquely terrible she feels, how truly trustworthy she is, how out of character her actions were, or even of genuine remorse. It means nothing except that she is trying to convince you to absolve her of the consequences of her actions and resolve the situation to her benefit. The routine shouldn't influence your thinking in the slightest.

65 comments:

meerkat said...

havent seen this show or know the format. is it possible that she has slept with more than just the two men concerned? does the viewing public not find it disgusting?

Sam said...

You said it, Tran.

Cranberry said...

The waterworks are a standard routine that women run to get what they want from men.

A young female co-worker recently employed this strategy with her academic adviser at school. She has a dismal 2.3 GPA and despairs of ever getting into grad school, and needed to know what she could do (I told her not to bother with grad school, but...you know, society has placed these demands on her). She is scared of her adviser, and told me that when she sat down she broke down in tears, and he suddenly became very helpful and kind and talked her through her troubles.

Now, she's a nice young woman, very attractive, is engaged but won't marry until they've both got Master's degrees and jobs, etc. I don't think she went into the meeting with a kryptonite-tears strategy, it just happened and got her what she needed out of the meeting. I wonder how this plays out when she has confrontation with other men in her life.

Vox, the tears are a kind of uncontrollable thing, for right or wrong. They well up inside me whenever I'm confronted with a tough situation. They don't require or deserve a response, but they are there and it's hard to get them to go away. I wonder why this is sometimes; I try to have good control over my emotions but occasionally a switch flips and they turn on despite my not wanting to get teary and cry. I've heard of women who can cry on the spot, actresses and such who can summon tears to get a rise out of people, and this mystifies me, as I find them difficult to summon. They master me, not the other way around. Another reason why no one should take tears seriously.

As Elspeth said, we'll get over it. Really, we will.

vashine said...

Watch the video. This guy is delta/gamma. Pushed into delta only by his good looks. The other clips of him of being googly-eyed and supplicating during their 'date' were sad. Very, very sad. Repulsively pitiful. It's obvious to anyone, even those NOT schooled in Game or Game theory, that she was not going to choose him. Or stay with him much longer after the show ended, even if she did choose him. Everyone could see that except him. Children can see that kind of power imbalance. Even they cringe at it.

It was a pitiful exchange to be honest, and neither the woman or him came out looking better. He barely said it, it was hardly audible, practically a whisper, and he was visibly and audibly pissing himself at the thought of saying it. Literally his voice was cracking in the run-up to a weak, weak delivery.

But, at least he said it. Because it has given us an amazing example of the horrid state of affairs in the American dating scene. Man-boys with no balls, who are wasting their strength and energy on Jezebels (keeping them man-boys) and brutish, savage women who have lost virtually all their femininity and grace and decorum while satisfying their vanity and lustful desires. She wanted another dick. And she wanted another notch on her belt from a good-looking guy to give her pride another short-term boost.

The mainstream media responses are extremely instructive. They are attempting to label their sexual tryst as a wholly private affair that he betrayed. You can feel the effort they put into not mentioning one negative thing about her at all and placing blame or criticism, both veiled and unveiled, on him.

Reminds me of Vox's recent post about the people taking photos of women fully dressed, but photos of their underwear hanging out, or their butts and legs.

Had an Alpha, a Jesse Ventura let's say, just dropped the BOMB on her, in an alpha way, with zero remorse, standing up and bellowing like a MAN, knowing full well he was at the mother-fucking helm and he had the trump card, the power-play that would crush her and have people fucking cheering him, with bitches lined up at the door outside the studio, panties already down.... you'd be seeing a very different reaction from many, many people. Including her.

But that's why she didn't choose him. Cause she never feared he'd do anything like that. She knew he didn't have the balls.

Amy G said...

They are the tears of someone who got caught, not of someone that is truly repentant. That poor guy has no idea.

Vox said...

They are the tears of someone who got caught, not of someone that is truly repentant.

Yeah, it is truly eye-opening to see how fast the waterworks shut down, and how flat and emotionless the voice suddenly goes, when one refuses to respond to the routine.

finndistan said...

Was the guy she chose aware of the girl shagging the other guy in the meantime?
Was she ever going to tell that she was blowing at least two flutes?

He unknowingly committed the biggest sin (of the ever changing goalpost)
Tarnish the purity.

jaericho said...

I worked for a place that was scanning records for another company. The program for the electronic records was let's just say, kludgy. The client walked in weeping, "We need records x, y, and z. The lawyers say they need them by 5:00 pm today!" jaericho to the rescue! Down I sat and banged out a custom program to scrape the database, pull out the records that were needed, and compile them all into separate files. With hardly any programming experience I was done by 3:00 pm. The whole thing took me an hour and a half. I had saved the day! ... She was playing solitaire, and the lawyers never saw the records. I guess they weren't that important.

Tears and lawyers don't mean much to me now.

Owen said...

His letter to her after the show:

“Andi,
You lit me up. You made me feel those things that people go a lifetime to find, and I feel like I made you feel the same. I truly hoped we would have made it into the real world, where there would be no arbitrary dead-line, where those stresses that came with that environment would have melted away, where we could have had the goofy, fun, exciting relationship that I know we could have. What we had was real to me, and it was amazing.

I fully realize that in the end I could have been wrong about what we had. While it’s hard to accept, I totally realize that it’s a possibility. With that being said, when I think about the relationship that we had, very few things in my life have felt more real.

I think about that moment when you ended things and what you said to me. I believe you when you said something didn’t feel right with us when you woke up that morning, but I wonder if what didn’t feel right was really about us and our relationship. I wonder if it would have been different if that night you thought about us with your heart and not with your head. Let’s just call it what it was–our relationship was very much the road less traveled. I totally get that all the passion, intensity, and connections that we had were accompanied by fear and sometimes discomfort. There is a reason why very few are willing to take the road less traveled. It can be scary, challenging, and risky, but if you have the courage to take it, it usually ends up being amazing.

That is one thing that has bothered me the most–when you said you know you could have a good life with me, you just don’t think you could have a great one. The thing is, if you were to go back and think of every moment that we spent together, the first time we met, our first date, our “wow” moment in New England, our time in France, everything about Venice, our walk in Belgium, that moment in the monastery, the first time I told you I loved you and everything about that day and night, and the adjectives to describe those moments, many words come to mind. Words like exciting, passionate, intense, tingling, romantic, sexy, easy, and great. You could even say scary, nerve-racking, frustrating, and challenging. You could say all of these are words you could use to describe us, but I doubt very much you would think of those moments and the word “good” would ever come to mind.

I am not going to say that if by some miracle you changed your mind and were willing to give us a shot that we would definitely make it. I don’t know that. I think that if we were willing to trust each other, be totally vulnerable with one another, and follow our hearts, we would have a great chance. What I could promise you is that if we did make it, we would be anything but good. It would be exciting, sometimes even hard, but definitely great.

There is a reason why I asked you if you ever had your heart broken. I wanted to know if you have ever “put it on the line” enough to truly have a chance at something special. To me that is what it’s all about. A lot of things about us scared me. I really didn’t know if we would make it, but I was willing to put it all on the line for us because I truly believed the connection we had was incredibly unique and special. To me, if there is no risk of being totally crushed and heartbroken then there is no way it can be great.

I realize I have to move on and I mean it when I say that if you’re truly happy with your decision and I haven’t been a thought on your mind, then I want that happiness to continue for you. If I have to move on, I will look to find amazing with someone else know that some day I will. I just know I would much rather turn my life upside down and risk it all to have amazing with you.”


I honestly would have expected an apology, given the rest of the content.

Too bad for the guy. Seems like a decent guy who really bought into what our culture taight him to be and believe.

Looks like he's deep blue and will get crushed again if he doesn't start learning lessons from this experience.

Vox said...

Down I sat and banged out a custom program to scrape the database, pull out the records that were needed, and compile them all into separate files. With hardly any programming experience I was done by 3:00 pm. The whole thing took me an hour and a half. I had saved the day!

Weren't you a good little Delta. How does it feel to be a hero, save the day, and win the girl?

indpndnt said...

Nick is a clear beta (or less). Anyone who wants to see a very fast play-out of the socio-sexual hierarchy should watch the last episode. The other guy (Josh) was always confident, he spent his last night just telling the lady what their life would be together. He never broke frame away from what he wanted.

Nick, on the other hand, spent his last night with her by almost crying and whining for her to let him know that she would say yes the next day. It was obvious he wasn't going to be picked, but the nail in the coffin was when (after his whining) she goes "Awwww, it'll be alright". Ouch. He was trying to follow the "I'm sensitive and so into you" playbook, and it destroyed him.

JDC said...

Yeah, it is truly eye-opening to see how fast the waterworks shut down, and how flat and emotionless the voice suddenly goes, when one refuses to respond to the routine.

Or how a direct remark such as, "Stop crying, I'm not buying it for a minute," will turn the waterworks into a flaming ball of anger and hatred.

cailcorishev said...

Yeah, that letter hits every point in the blue-pill white-knight playbook. That's painful to read. Trying to talk her into trusting his feelings over hers; reminding her of the facts of what they did and what she said, as if anything she said or did in the past is relevant now; making it clear several times that he's still on the shelf if she wants him; trying to challenge her with all the blather about "greatness" (which he's seeing in male terms, not the female terms in which she used it); trying to shame her (in the nicest possible way) by implying that she played it safe by rejecting him; and claiming in the end that he just wants her to be happy. And throughout the whole thing, building her pedestal up to the sky. It could only be worse if he offered to come over and help her new boyfriend move his waterbed into her place.

Her point about it being "good not great" sums up hypergamy and the alpha/beta issue in three words. It was good with him -- good enough that she wanted him inside her -- and they were probably both quite happy when they were together. For most guys, good is good enough. But for a woman, if there's a better option available, the new one becomes "great" and the previously "great" one becomes just "good," and not good enough.

Reality TV is mostly a lot of garbage, but sometimes it does put the facts of life on clear display. There was a dating show called "Average Joe" more than a decade ago, which set a hottie NFL cheerleader up with a bunch of average-or-less guys. Once she got over the shock, she was nice enough about it and managed to sort out a couple who weren't actually ugly or too nerdy, whom she could feel a little romantic about. Then the show brought in a bunch of hunky models, and it was all over. She picked the hunk she liked best; and sure enough, he turned out to be smart and sensitive and they "just clicked" -- it totally wasn't about his six-pack and SMV at all.

liberranter said...

“If you weren’t in love with me…I’m just not sure why you made love with me, either,” Viall said softly.

"Love??!!" Seriously? They still make guys like this (I thought there was a recall several years ago that ensured all of them were taken out of circulation)?

I don't think a guy as far gone as Nicky can ultimately be helped, but let's hope some generous soul at least buys him a clue for his birthday.

cailcorishev said...

"Love??!!" Seriously? They still make guys like this?

Yep, I used to be one. If you think girls -- or at least the girl you're currently crushing on -- are basically good, then sex becomes proof of her love. A good girl wouldn't have sex with you if she didn't love you. She might with a bad boy, because he tricked her or took advantage of her somehow; but your own love is pure, so her response to it must be pure too. If you start with the assumption that girls are morally good by default -- especially the pretty, fun ones -- it all flows logically from there.

So a guy like this goes home from sex with a girl convinced that he's won. He loves her, and now he knows she loves him, so what's left but to live happily ever after?

If she slept with him and didn't love him, what's that make her? What do we call guys who sleep with girls they don't love? He can't face that truth -- at least not until it's been done to him at least once. Some require the lesson more times than others.

Giraffe said...

Oh I'm sorry GG. There there, don't cry.

de ti said...

GG:

The entire point of the waterworks display: the crying, the sobbing, the pleading – is to avoid consequences for bad conduct. A woman caught in her bad conduct --sobbing, throwing herself at the feet of a man, is a show of vulnerability specifically designed to shame the man into forbearance, into not using his superior strength and power to crush her.

It’s the woman saying:

“Can’t you see how weak I am? It would be shameful and cruel of you to hurt me now, even though we both know I deserve it. But if you do impose consequences on me now, you will have done so when I am at my lowest and most vulnerable, and you are a BAD MAN for doing so.”

Any expressions of contrition, regret, remorse, etc. are simply contrived and made up. If she really felt those emotions, she would have experienced them BEFORE or AT THE TIME OF the bad conduct, not simply when getting caught.

Vox’s post isn’t a preparation for stoning. It isn’t casting about for reasons to castigate women. It’s simply seeing the crying/weeping/sobbing display for what it is. It’s acknowledgment of reality.

Booch Paradise said...

Heh. Wormtongue, er GG, is ever there to whisper in our ears about how heavy the truth must be, and how surely Jesus would not want us to shoulder such a load. Come, accept the lies, they will make your days light and free from pain and worry.

Of course the a real wormtongue would actually go about it in a way that had some chance of actually convincing someone.

Patrick Kelly said...

@GG: "No where did he ever tell anyone to take up a bag of rocks and walk around prepared to stone an adulteress."

I used to think Vox was too hard on you, but you really are dense.

This is not about her. It is not a critique of her, it is about what a pitiful, clueless gamma the guy was, and the comments are not even being that hard on him (in both cases).

Womenz gonna Women, game is about how the guys should react.

vashine said...

A properly-worded alpha statement, on national television, with several layers of nuance within which her female mind (emotional id) would have been caught (again) with her proverbial panties down, would have gone something like, "You were my one... the words, we saw each others' SOULS... but now I truly regret, truly regret, having fucked you so hard that night."

Booch Paradise said...

Meanwhile, we can see God's actual thoughts on manipulative adulteress.

For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil;
but in the end she is bitter as gall,
sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps lead straight to the grave.
She gives no thought to the way of life;
her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it.
Now then, my sons, listen to me;
do not turn aside from what I say.
Keep to a path far from her,
do not go near the door of her house,
lest you lose your honor to others
and your dignity to one who is cruel

Survival Gardener/David The Good said...

"No where did he ever tell anyone to take up a bag of rocks and walk around prepared to stone an adulteress. That bag of rocks y'all insist on packing around must get awful heavy sometimes."

Actually, the story of the woman caught in adultery is a complete interpolation into the Gospel. Never happened. The section interrupts the flow of the text of John and also doesn't exist in any of the early manuscripts.

So yeah, we can tote us some rocks.

Random said...

So I used to think Sola Scriptura was the worst thing that could happen to Christianity, but I was wrong.

Sola Scriptura in the hands of people like GG is the Devil's greatest achievement.

vashine said...

A man gets on a public city bus, sees a woman driver at the wheel, says "that's dangerous" aloud, then proceeds to peacefully go about his business and take a seat on the bus.

In response to this vignette, a woman I know recently insisted that the man's actions were "violent". She insisted that what he had done was "violence." She refused to even modify it to "emotionally violent." No, full-on "violent". She could not, refused to step back and see, how incorrectly she was using the word "violent" in its most basic and primary meaning.

GG cannot comprehend that so many of her feeeeelings and experiences of the world are dictated by her being a physically weak and fragile being in relation to the rest of the physical world that is full of hard, big, fast things: buildings, cars, ships, loud noises, men, animals, planets, and on and on. She is therefore more prone to see minimal physical and emotional threats as being much bigger and more threatening than they really are.

Hence, a peaceful man, fully within his rights to openly voice an opinion on a bus, is "violent".

Hence, GG equates verbal shaming and public criticism with the stoning of women. "Violence". Solipsism in a nutshell.

de ti said...

Cail, July 30 at 7:54 am:

Cosign all of that. That is exactly the mindset of the man brought up in today’s society. Such men have idealized notions of women. Women don’t have sex unless they’re in love, or love or at least care about the men they have sex with. Couldn’t be more wrong.

What I like most about the post is that it demonstrates how most women cannot bear to have the truth of their sexual histories talked about in public, because it lays bare female motivations behind whom they select for sex and why.

liberranter said...

How sad it must be to be so cold, so unforgiving, so bitter, and to harbor such wounding in your hearts. I cannot even imagine what trying to live like that is like. Just please stop trying to claim you're doing it in the name of Christ, will you? No where did he ever tell anyone to take up a bag of rocks and walk around prepared to stone an adulteress. That bag of rocks y'all insist on packing around must get awful heavy sometimes.

How perversely invigorating it must be to be hardwired to selfishly deceive and then be able to rationalize it, both to yourself, the ones you've deceived, and all others who will listen, as being not only harmless, but a GOOD thing, and that those whom you've hurt are subhuman for reacting to the pain you've inflicted. I cannot even imagine what trying to live with yourself like that is like. Please stop trying to claim that you're reacting to negative feedback out of a sense of moral outrage that is in any way scrpiturally based, will you? Nowhere in the Gospel did Jesus ever tell the adultress whom He saved from stoning "Wow, sweetie, those mean men really had it in for you! How dare they hurt a precious little snowflake who was just minding her own business and not hurting anybody! Good thing I arrived just in time to save the day!" (Read John 8:1-11 - especially the last sentence of verse 11). That polar bear-sized hamster must be awfully heavy to carry around - as well as extremely expensive to feed (in more ways than one).

vashine said...

GG seems to forget that Jesus told the woman to stop being a WHOOOOOOOOORE before letting her off the hook. GG has, on many occasions, equated slut-shaming to the unjust oppression of women and has also claimed it to be detrimental to the spreading of the Gospel. This is a lie straight from the Devil. And she spouts it day in and day out. She should be ashamed and beg for forgiveness and for the humility and grace to bow the knee to every part of His Law-Word. She obviously needs the power of God to help her, she cannot even see that she needs it, much less make the change herself, all on her own. God will root out every bit of rebellion in us if we let Him. For our Good. For His Glory.

The Bible, including Jesus, shows us that watering down God, His Law, and the Gospel does no one any good. She is just one of the many who desperately want and try to water down the Gospel, thinking she will win more souls for it. It is just the opposite, as Jesus showed us. He watered down nothing. Our Lord's words were hard, always with the promise of redemption and salvation and forgiveness through repentance, but unapologetically hard. "Stop whoring." We know of two women he said this to, out in public, straight to their faces. It turned both of them into believers.

Get out there, tell whores that they are whores, to their faces, offer them forgiveness and redemption and change through Christ. And if they scorn you or run away, dust off your feet as Paul said. You did your part.

Do not listen to GG. If you do, so many beautiful souls, masculine souls as well as feminine, will be lost to the Devil. But as long as GG feeeeeeels good about it, then it's all ok, right?

Brad Andrews said...

GG, Jesus pretty strongly pointed out sin. Try reading chapters 2 and 3 of the Book of Revelation sometime. Paul also pointed out sin.

I don't think you are that ignorant, but note that pointing out sin is far different from killing (stoning) someone.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

I don't watch this show, but it sounds very embarrassing for him.

"I’m just not sure why you made love with me, either,” Viall said softly".

LOL. As CH said, deltas and lesser males "make love," while alpha males "fuck."

"It's a performance."

True that. Women are natural actors and drama queens. Never forget it.

liberranter said...

Women are natural actors and drama queens

An observable fact as obvious as sunlight to any human male who hasn't spent his entire life in a unisex orphanage, boarding school, or juvenile detention center. The fact that a guy could participate in a "Reality TV" show and not see or understand this portends, again, hopelessness.

Vox said...

I truly regret, truly regret, having fucked you so hard that night.

Good start, but that comes off too blunt, too focused on revenge. Better would be: "I truly regret, truly regret, having made such sweet, sweet love to you that night."

Said, of course, with a wholly innocent smile. It would also have the advantage of being something that could be broadcast.

Corvinus . said...

His letter to her after the show:

“Andi,
You lit me up. You made me feel those things that people go a lifetime to find, and I feel like I made you feel the same. I truly hoped we would have made it into the real world, where there would be no arbitrary dead-line, where those stresses that came with that environment would have melted away, where we could have had the goofy, fun, exciting relationship that I know we could have. What we had was real to me, and it was amazing.


A textbook example of Gamma diarrhea, as if we needed any more.

ajw308 said...

This guy is delta/gamma. Pushed into delta only by his good looks.
Being a tv celebrity helped push him up in SMV. How the hamster must have spun that one, for her to put out for him.

2870b918-77c0-11e3-b9bd-000bcdcb8a73 said...

is it possible that she has slept with more than just the two men concerned? does the viewing public not find it disgusting?

I haven't watched the show and know very little about it, but if I understand correctly, it takes an attractive woman and throws her together with several attractive men under romantic circumstances. If she sleeps with more than one of them, and the viewing public is the least bit surprised, the viewing public is utterly clueless.

Bobby Dupea said...

Vashine: "Hence, GG equates verbal shaming and public criticism with the stoning of women. "Violence". Solipsism in a nutshell."

Little different than expressing disagreement with a black person (or anyone else interested in climbing Victim Mountain) about any independent idea or action. Immediately the tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies are rolled out, and the disagreement is elevated to some form of criminal bias. This is good enough for people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with thinking.

Owen said...

The other guy has been on shows after, apparently in full beta/mate guard mode.

He just learned the woman who says is ready to marry him gave it up to another guy only (I don't know, guessing) a week ago or so.

And he still think her sentiments are meaningful and truthful.

He still intends to marry her.

That is mind blowing. If I heard my fiance banged a guy days before I proposed and I still wanted to marry her, believing she really loved me, I'd hope my family would have the sense to grab the nearest coal shovel and brain me.

de ti said...

I also like this post because it shows, once again, that the two things women hate the most are judgment and consequences.

I mean the word “judgment” in its most literal sense. I mean evaluation. Talking truthfully about a woman’s past opens that woman up to being evaluated and assessed for all manner of characteristics: Integrity. Honesty. Character. Sobriety. Industriousness. Ability to see a task through to conclusion. Fertility. Bonding ability. Value as wife. Value as mother to potential children. Emotional openness and stability. Ability to sustain a relationship/marriage even in the midst of difficult tasks and weighty responsibility.

I mean the word “consequences” in its most literal sense too. I mean the understanding of facts and circumstances which naturally and probably flow from the conduct one undertakes.

vashine said...

"Better would be: 'I truly regret, truly regret, having made such sweet, sweet love to you that night.'

Said, of course, with a wholly innocent smile. It would also have the advantage of being something that could be broadcast."

Hmmmmm. Same end, just a bit sweeter to make the medicine go down, and to make sure it gets broadcast. And a bit of verbal emphasis, a dramatic pause even, on the “sweet, sweet” part would amp up the salaciousness just enough, which is kinda what I was going for.

If she were capable of registering the artistry of being served in such a manner, she would have LOST it. But certainly well after the cameras and lights had shut off. Hahahahahahaha.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Even his posture and body language scream delta/gamma.

It's a cringe-worthy scene.

Trust said...

Women go down on crusty old hacks like Hefner and the late Ted Kennedy just bc they are famous. That's bc status is to women what hotness is to men. One can hardly imagine a man willing to do the same due to the fame of Betty White or Hillary Clinton.

That a delta got laid due to situational alpha status is hardly surprising. If he really were an alpha she'd be proud of the event. But alpha is tough to fake long term.

Black Poison Soul said...

I'd like to propose another option for greatest crime against woman: ignoring her utterly, ignoring her utterly, as if she is of absolutely no worth. The best part is that it's a stealth-crime which slowly creeps up on them.

Bob said...

omg stop judging her!11!!

Trust said...

Black Poison Soul, ignoring a woman isn't a crime, its an aphrodisiac.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

The person she chose, or chose to choose her (not sure how that works exactly never seen the show), should have stone cold dumped her and gone over to the runner-up, and said, something like "I know it wasn't your intention to do me a solid, but thank you for saving me from that". And really that would have been best for ABC too.

---

I don't even understand #2. He seems to be of the opinion if she gets an abortion, the relationship is salvageable. If she murders the baby she will hang around all of 2-3 months she needs for emotional support before she purely resents him for tolerating her worthless ass.

She couldn't even bring herself to sleep with him the second she got back as a CYA. Probably because she knew it would never have worked given the races of her gangbang.

The only way he gets to stay with this girl is if she keeps the bastard, at which point he can look forward to 5 sexless years caring for her and her spawn. Then the kid is off to public babysitter, and the State goes after him for childsupport. Correction, he will probably have a good go of starfish sex for the 3-6 months it takes her to convince him she has "changed" so he will sign the adoption papers and she can get the full cuckold prize.

jimmy-jimbo said...

"He still intends to marry her."

I think they are caught up in the moment. I wouldn't put much meaning into meaningless sex. The guy likely responded to the hookup sex based from the expectations of females not knowing that the woman is likely depraved.

Some of you are saying he is a delta or gamma. He is likely a beta and he did an alpha move by revealing the truth. A delta or gamma would have been cowed to keep it a secret, but they probably didn't sleep with her so there is no secret to tell.

Markku said...

Yep, Vidad is correct. Jesus and the adulteress is a complete fabrication. One of the two big ones, along with the "long ending of Mark". The textual evidence is clear.

Brad Andrews said...

Lots of textual and other evidence the last part of Mark really is part of Mark Markku. You are wrong there. (Not that I expect to convince you.)

Are you really arguing the women caught in adultery didn't happen too?

Seems like you are going the Thomas Jefferson route and taking out the things you don't like.

High Arka said...

“I’m not trying to put you below the belt…”

That sounds like support for the theory that he was so clever he set it up. To "PUT" you below the belt? Was he making a fellatio allusion that would pass network censorship, or did Vox just typo that line?

Markku said...

Are you really arguing the women caught in adultery didn't happen too?


Most likely not, though there is a small chance it did. And that is because it just appears in the text at a certain point in history, and then stays there. Not because of my likes or dislikes.

Now, though the story absolutely is not Biblical, here's the way it COULD still be true: It could be an oral tradition among early Christians that a copyist wrote down to the margin, because he thought it might interest the reader. And then another copyist thought it was actually part of the text itself, and wrote it there.

As I said, there are just two such major parts in the Bible that clearly weren't part of the original text. The rest are basically words or single verses here and there.

Booch Paradise said...

@Markku
It's OT, so I won't get too into it, but there is definitely a strong case to be made that the adulteress was in the original text, as was the long last chapter of mark. I mostly feel I should mention that it's not like we tons of really old manuscripts, mostly just fragments, and the inclusion of these passages also seems to correspond with where they were written about as well as when they were written.

Owen said...

I’m not trying to put you below the belt

I think it's "I'm not trying to put you (in a bad spot, under the microscope, etc) mixed with her "below the belt" comment. The guy was likely hyper-emotional and borderline gibbering.

High Arka said...

He's either a brilliant actor and strategist, or a complete buffoon. :-)

High Arka said...

Even were that particular story false, the Golden Rule makes the same point. Because none of us is free of sin except Jesus, we are asked in many different ways to forgive as we would like to be forgiven. People may "judge" situations in the sense of "assess" or "perceive," but to "judge" in the stronger sense--the sense of "absolutely condemning" or "making decisions about how many points a person has earned or not earned toward salvation"--is not our prerogative.

With or without the adulteress parable, if you want to judge people that way, then you're just another Islamic tribal member who wants to stone or mutilate women for perceived sex crimes.

So, which camp do you guys want to be in? Throwing stones and curses with the Taliban, or forgiving with Christ?

Owen said...

So, which camp do you guys want to be in? Throwing stones and curses with the Taliban, or forgiving with Christ?

Sloppy trolling.

High Arka said...

I'm sorry; I don't mean to "troll." I meant to pose a question about whether it is preferable, as a Christian, to forgive someone who has sinned, or to execute judgment upon them as though you are God.

God tells us not to murder, so He permits us to kill someone who, say, invades our home and attacks our family. He asks us to turn the other cheek, but He doesn't prohibit all killing--it seems clear that we're able to defend ourselves, even though ideally, we would sacrifice ourselves as He did. But when we're not being threatened, what do we have to lash out for?

There are societies based upon the kind of firm, "alpha" beliefs advocated here, where women are controlled and put in their place. Those societies seem to correlate with mutilation and murder. And indeed, there are also batshit crazy neofeminist societies, like ours.

In your backlash against western feminism, you're going too far. You're doing just what the feminists did--using a few bad examples as an excuse to be hurtful to a large group of people, many of which people will not be responsible for, or just like the people who committed, the hurts that make you feel justified.

Lori said...

That "standard routine" bit is rather harsh. My husband used to accuse me of it all the time when we first got married. In reality, I had never dealt with the kind of direct confrontations we had in early marriage--the family I grew up in was extremely reserved and pretty introverted, and tended to bury things rather than fight openly about them. I was frequently overwhelmed and upset by our early marital spats, and it's awfully hard not to cry in a situation like that. It was only made worse by him accusing me of "faking it"... not much worse than being accused of faking emotions that you have tried very, very hard--but unsuccessfully--to hide.

I have the same reaction when I'm stopped by a cop. It's convenient, sure... but I HATE how emotional I get, that I cry as soon as I see a cop with a gun approaching my car. A man with a gun is a pretty intimidating scenario, even if you're fairly certain he's not going to abuse his power. And usually, if I'm pulled over at all, it's because I was really emotional about something in the first place, so more prone than ever to tears.

I am surprised that your logic about feminine emotions doesn't make the rational conclusion that our more-emotional nature will make us more prone to tears, in situations where a man would not cry. Some women can conjure up tears on command, and use them to manipulate, but certainly not all.

Doorstop said...

"It's convenient, sure... but I HATE how emotional I get, that I cry as soon as I see a cop with a gun approaching my car. A man with a gun is a pretty intimidating scenario, even if you're fairly certain he's not going to abuse his power. And usually, if I'm pulled over at all, it's because I was really emotional about something in the first place, so more prone than ever to tears."

Let's pretend that I'm not hearing "NAWALT!" followed by a bunch of excuses, mostly based on an irrational fear of guns and men (a woman guilty of nothing more than speeding is far more likely to be injured or killed by a female driver than by a male police officer's gun). But I wonder, Lori, how do you expect the cop to respond to those tears? Do you hold it against a man if he treats a crying woman the same way he'd treat woman who has more control over her emotions? How about if he treats her the same way he'd treat a man who's not crying? If women can cry so easily, how much are those tears supposed to mean to a man?

You might not be able to control the waterworks, but crying is usually an indicator of distress, and nearly all women feel entitled to assistance (or at least compassion) from men when they're displaying distress. Many will hold it against a man who doesn't bow at least partially to their tears. Some will get downright angry if that doesn't happen, in the same way that a crying baby can rage about his mother not giving him what he wants. Ironically, many women will also hold it against a man if he gives in too much to their tears, so there's a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" element in play here too.

I think that many women also forget that all men are born criers, but we've had it programmed, shamed, or even beaten out of us, some later in life than others...sometimes by our own mothers. And even the most "callous" men are usually more tolerant of weeping women than most women are towards weeping men. That's "rather harsh" too if you think about it.

High Arka said...

That's all true. However, if you let your past experiences cause you to collectively judge a group, and in doing so, treat one person out of a billion unfairly--then you are in the wrong. That's why Jesus encourages those who are not omniscient to avoid trying to pass judgment as though they are.

(Also, isn't whining about man-tears something that they laugh at, here? I thought that they had some dirty word for "men's rights advocates" who did that sort of thing?)

Doorstop said...

To summarize my overly-wordy response- many women can (and do) manipulate men through tears, consciously or subconsciously, without even having to fake them. And men would do well to be aware of this.

Doorstop said...

Wasn't talking to you, High Arka. But your comments on this blog over the last several days have shown you to be an outspoken and unrepentant hypocrite....a Pharisee trying to put a burden on men's shoulders that you won't carry yourself, and you'd rather have us blind and mute and risk falling into a ditch than speak about what our own eyes have seen. You've insulted, ascribing sin and false motives to, and collectively judged myself and the other men on this blog, and then you have the gall to lecture us about prejudice.

Only a hypocrite would say, as you have "You testosterone-popping little eunuchs are so proud of yourselves for occasionally rubbing your condoms around inside some jezebel's loose nethers, in-between your impotent little cubicle jobs and your six-hour Call of Duty marathons. The only one impressed with your masculinity is you."...and then turn around and say "if you let your past experiences cause you to collectively judge a group, and in doing so, treat one person out of a billion unfairly--then you are in the wrong. That's why Jesus encourages those who are not omniscient to avoid trying to pass judgment as though they are.

Your insults are laughable, but your hypocrisy and lack of discernment are not. It's one thing to argue in bad faith, but if I was you I'd be very nervous about doing so while appealing to the authority of Jesus.

High Arka said...

I wasn't saying that all men are that way--just you guys.

Lori said...

Doorstop, I'm not suggesting that a man should become a doormat to a woman's tears. However, a good man can have compassion AND continue to lead. He need not base his decisions on a woman's emotions (and indeed, a woman should not allow HER OWN emotions to rule her, either)... But that does not lead immediately to callous disregard for her feelings, either.

As for "irrational" fear of police with guns--do you not read the news?

Doorstop said...

"As for "irrational" fear of police with guns--do you not read the news?"

I read the news, Lori. Did I miss a national news article somewhere about a woman getting shot, raped, or beaten by a scary male police officer after a routine traffic stop? If so, please provide a link to the article, so that my apparently ignorant self can be educated. That closest news article I can recall reading involved a female officer who cavity searched two women without changing gloves. Disgusting behavior, for sure, but you were talking about men with guns who are apparently conveniently affected by a woman crying, not sadistic, power-tripping dykes with fat fingers...

As for the rest of what you just said, before presumably trying to paint me as ignorant, I agree.

Lori said...

A teenage boy was shot fatally by a cop less than a half-mile from my house, during a routine traffic stop, and I live in a very quiet, safe suburb. The cops in my town are nuts. I've also had guns drawn on me during a traffic stop, during my honeymoon, because our wedding gifts in the back of the car looked "suspicious"... And as the cops defensively told us, the "Just Married" sticker in back could easily have been a distraction placed by criminals.

Besides my personal experience, there's this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.