Monday, May 18, 2015

The temptation of MGTOW

Somehow, a discussion of SJW paranoia turned into a debate concerning MGTOW. I don't support the concept, although I do understand the temptation it holds for men in an environment of readily available sex, high-quality pornography, and viciously anti-male legal regimes.

There was one useful attempt to define a distinction between the two primary types of MGTOW from a critic of the movement:
Maybe we can say there's the strong MGTOW position and the weak MGTOW position. The strong position are those people, as Cail said, "accusing every man less stridently anti-marriage than himself to be a fool or a feminist." They're like some coward running through camp before a battle screaming "we're all gonna die! The enemy is invincible!"

Just shoot them as a traitor before they cause any more damage.

Then there's the weak position, the guys who have just given up on marriage or civilization. If they've given up after making a fair try at it, if they've been knocked down and gotten back up, but they just finally got knocked down one too many times and they're just going to quietly sit the rest out, I've got no problem with them.
If they haven't even tried though...
And then there was this clarification from a man who does not even qualify for the weak MGTOW camp.
Now, I'm single, childless, and no immediate prospects for marriage. Guess how much shit I get for it? None. (Except rarely from Vox.) Because I'm not flying my loser flag. THAT is what causes all the contempt in fathers with intact families who have invested their lives in raising the next generation as pro-civilization. Taking actual pride in doing nothing.

Let's put it like this: As a soldier, do you run into a battle you know you will lose, just because it is a battle? No. That would be the single mom / alpha widow option.

But, do you then lie in your bunk in the base, bragging about how you're not in any danger? No, you don't do that either. That will not go over well with the men who are actually in battles.

Rather, you wait for the battle you can win, and do preparations for it as best you can. If it never happens, fine. But you DO NOT BRAG about doing nothing.
MGTOW is an understandable temptation that needs to be manfully resisted. Because it is, ultimately, as barren, dyscivic, and parasitical as feminism itself. Yes, we are in a civilizational war. Yes, you might be one of the casualties. But that is not sufficient justification for hiding in the barracks refusing to take risks.

You don't win by fighting stupid. But you don't win by not fighting either.

274 comments:

1 – 200 of 274   Newer›   Newest»
Conscientia Republicae said...

It's tempting to live poolside, it really is. But it's just not an option. Children have to be born and raised properly. My ancestors would look down the ages and scoff at me if I refused to get married and have children just because times are hard. They're always hard. Life is never easy.

Desiderius said...

Vox,

Well said.

The thing is, if you avail yourself of the resources the manosphere provides, you'll go into battle like Kitchener at Omdurman.

Tim said...

" But you don't win by not fighting either."

I'm brilliant at Russian Roulette.

Never played that either.

Earl Thomas said...

I believe that no man can sit poolside because of our very natures. That doesn't mean you have to go out and get married...but that does mean you have to provide something to society and civilization. Otherwise you are a parasite.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

Men have never faced such a toxic climate before. If you've already seen the elephant, well, you may not desire to again. This civilization is dying. Evidence is all around us. Why should I have children? In fact, look at all the feminist hatred for Dad's and Fathers. Okeydoke, we understand what's happening. There's no room for masculinity in this society. So, let it rot. Young men are balking in greater numbers. Marriage and children are a suckers bet. Just think.....if men won't marry and have FUNCTIONAL children, who's going to mind the store? How will women convince men that they don't hate them?

manofstealblog said...

I for one don't want these twinkster dudes and neckbeards polluting the gene pool. Like neoteny, I see MGTOW as an evolutionary mechanism to back itself out of a corner and move in a direction toward strength.

If they don't adapt, their genetic heritage SHOULD die with them.

Crowhill said...

MGTOW is an understandable temptation that needs to be manfully resisted. Because it is, ultimately, as barren, dyscivic, and parasitical as feminism itself. Yes, we are in a civilizational war. Yes, you might be one of the casualties. But that is not sufficient justification for hiding in the barracks refusing to take risks.

Exactly, and I'm glad to hear you say that so straight-forwardly.

It's one thing to understand the temptation and the legitimate concerns. It's another to endorse it.

B.J. said...

I disagree.

The first quoted paragraph is dumb. Saying you're not allowed to refuse marriage unless you've already tried and failed? What kind of retarded statement is that? It's like saying:

"You're not allowed to refuse to go skydiving unless you've tried and your parachute didn't open."
"You're not allowed to refuse to go deep sea diving unless you've already been eaten by a squid."

Preposterous. Marriage isn't a battle, it's a business contract. It behooves all men to be sure they only engage in sound business dealings, especially when their entire life and future is on the line. Currently marriage simply fails the cost-benefit analysis. Huge risk, no benefit. Refusing to voluntarily put your head in a noose is not cowardice.

This is shaming via cognitive dissonance. Men who get married and pledge their lives to women are faced with a host of uncomfortable truths. Much easier to call all other men cowards than to admit the realities of your life. Saying that men just need to pick the right woman, or that you need to be "alpha" enough to keep your woman in line, is largely playing into the same mentality as feminists; ie that women are not responsible for their behavior and everything is men's fault.

It takes vastly more courage to stay single than to marry. There's tons of social pressure to get married and huge validation when you do. Choosing to reject all those customs and pressures takes bravery.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Most people want to be in a herd, and they are not Sigma enough to resist.

The vast majority of people want a pre-written script to follow and here I find it ironic that a Sigma is the one doing the writing, or maybe not, maybe the distance from the herd allows one some unique perspective.

Bobo #117 said...

If a man can't attract a quality woman (there are about 20 left) and are just left to pick amoungst the shrews, harpies, tramps, trampy shrews, shrewish harpies, etc., then maybe staying outta the game is the wise option.

As it stands with modern marriage, if you're not the steamroller, you're part of the pavement.
And as with jail, it's easier to stay out than get out.

automatthew 0062 said...

Voluntary Gamma Extinction. What's not to like?

B.J. said...

Oh look, it's the "If you're not married you're just a loser who can't get laid" canard.

It's so easy to get married; resisting is hard. These guys claim that marriage is fighting and MGTOW is cowardice, but it's the other way around. Marriage is surrender--giving in to the female imperative. Tme was, men extracted some concessions for their surrender; nowadays it must be unconditional. I refuse those terms.

Alexander Thompson said...

No one wants to be a casuality in someone else's war.

AmyJ said...

The equivalent of this are the childless women who want to call it "child free", as if they are choosing freedom over shackles. That's fine if a woman doesn't want kids and uses her natural mothering instincts to care for dogs or cats as if they were children and/or becoming a cougar to twist the mother/son relationship to her own desires. If that's her honest choice, that's probably best for everyone involved.

But that doesn't stop the rest of us from pitying her or outright despising her for her unnatural and selfish life.

VD isn't saying to forgo MGTOW if that's your choice; he has repeatedly said that it's understandable. It's just that it isn't something to brag or be proud about. Much like being a cat lady.

Conscientia Republicae said...

If civilization is dying, who will replenish it? People. Civilizations have died time and time again. People have rebuilt them. I'm interested in rebuilding, carrying on after the ashes of whatever this time is blow away. We need sons to do it.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Life is good. There's just too much fun still to be had. Pussy awaits, poolside.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

It's so easy to get married; resisting is hard.

Yes. Also, you can get sex, companionship, and children outside of marriage. So why do it? The institution of modern marriage is for beta-boys who can't get anything outside of it.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Civilization produces your pussy, LBF. Civilization also makes the pool.

Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 said...

Isn't going your own way by definition a more free and open option which in my understanding basically means not to get married in a Western country and pursue the usual 8-6pm taxation poor, government blessed, "normal" life? If you get married in a non-western country and raise kids that is in fact going your own way. You certainly aren't making feminists happy marrying a foreign girl and the government wants your job front and center and right by the tax office thank you very much under penalty of law. By dodging these societal demands in favor of your own pursuits isn't that going your own way?

I guess I see the MGTOW as a kind of escape from the toxic West rather than sitting in a basement jerking off while blasting marriage kind of thing. Oh I will absolutely blast marriage as a bad deal in the West. You'd have to be a mafia king pin with a cadre of torturers and assassins on staff to keep your wife honest in America today with all the incentives she's given to go for cash and prizes. Most of my friends here are men who went there own way and they're happy. Many have wives and families with a much better deal than they could get in the U.S. They aren't neckbearded morons who sit fapping all day in the basement of their mothers house which seems to be prevailing opinion of those who like to make a living shaming anything that doesn't directly serve their own needs.

I certainly label myself a man going my own way - I've no interest in returning to the states, I work hard, I'm happy, and I would entertain the idea of marriage over here. This is the not the normal state of affairs expected and demanded of men, i.e. I did my own thing.

Krul said...

"MGTOW is an understandable temptation that needs to be manfully resisted."

Excuse me, but I don't think your approach will be very effective at convincing men to get married. Telling them that the satisfaction they could get from fatherhood far exceeds any hedonistic pleasure they could find on their own might work. However, telling them that it's their duty to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of civilization is more likely to drive them away. Really, the whole war analogy just makes marriage sound horrible.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

Gentlemen, there's a lot of room under the MGTOW banner. Personally, I have no use for a society that hates men. I just happen to live here. Thing is, some of the commenters here seem to be afraid of the message. Young men are simply not marrying in supportable numbers. I think that's great. You see, masculinity will have its revenge. Scoff as you will, but the idea is growing.

Think of this, please.....there's an all out war being waged on masculinity by this society. We've already lost. There really is no way to stop what's coming, no matter what some men think. This is getting off into a major societal reset type of situation. Folks tend to belittle ISIS and their efforts at recruiting. Feminists are their best tool. Can anyone defend this feminised society? There will be a growing number of young people who go over to the masculine side.

Yes, ISIS are brutal murderers. Barbarians are attracted to effeminate dying societies. There are plenty of historical lessons that tell what is coming. It also plainly tells that no one listens. Men will quit when they're disgusted. No amount of pleading will get them back.

Women in this society have truly ruint things. Feminism is going to destroy until the feminists are no longer among us.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Civilization is produced by men--many of whom are unmarried.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

And some of those aren't even into women.

Mannerbund.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

Yes, civilization depends on the overproduction of young men. Because they have to provide for a family. Destroy the family unit, and young men will eventually quit the necessary overproduction. It's really that simple. Add in the humiliation and out right theft from Frivorce, and you get what we see is coming. American women are feminized, and as such, are worthless. Statistics are clear.

I wonder what this feminised government will do to get young men to cooperate? Japanese Authorities are perplexed. Personally, I do not believe that young men can be convinced.

Bastiat's Ghost said...

I'm MGTOW because I have too many other things I'd rather be doing. Those laws aren't coming off the books. The best possible outcome for me personally is not to ever marry. My paycheck is all mine. I can go where I want. do what I want, when I want, and how I want. Compared to what I see 90% of the married men having to deal with I think it's a pretty sweet deal.

I do hold out hope that I can go expat permanently. The day I give up on that is the day I schedule a vasectomy.

Guitar Man said...

The hedonism of the MGTOW movement will be an infinitesimal dot in the pages of history. I can understand the appeal of it for those who believe that the traditional marriage route is a waste, but I personally know of many examples of sound traditional marriages that are working despite society's best efforts to undermine those husbands and wives. Christians believe in marriage's critical importance to society because marriage was created by God. Society's efforts to change the God given roles of the traditional marriage fall short when the marriage is centered on God. I've seen previously fierce feminists become loving and caring mothers and wives, and I've seen men who struggled with same sex attraction become awesome fathers, leaders, and husbands to their wives. When a person repents, the Spirit works.

Again, the hedonistic, feminist, and frankly, weak society that we live in will die off. And very soon.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Don't become the Japanese male, and especially don't whine about it if you do become its Occidental version.

Anyway I have an idea for a character in one of those action films with ensemble casts, a Japanese Alpha (no doubt the only one left) man who can drop the bad dudes and then go on to slap some shapely female ass, tug her hair like he is the Nipponese James Bond and have the ladies screaming with delight. Chances of this happening .00001% no doubt.

Nate Winchester said...

Yes, you might be one of the casualties. But that is not sufficient justification for hiding in the barracks refusing to take risks.

You don't win by fighting stupid. But you don't win by not fighting either.


I think you're partially wrong on this but it's because of the very different nature of the war.

Let me use a metaphor a moment. I'm not sure about whichever war game you play in particular but in most strategy/tactical games I've ever played or watched, they involve a roll of dice or some kind of chance mechanic. So let us imagine a game where player 1, if they ever roll the absolute worst result in a battle, loses one of their characters to their opponent (player 2). P2, however, does not have this consequence. So, if P1 goes into a skirmish and there's a non-zero chance that not only will they reduce their forces, but they'll increase their opponent's, it's perfectly logical for P1 to be gun-shy in certain engagements where as P2 can be less concerned.

The issue with MGTOW and such becomes a lot more complicated when children get involved BECAUSE if a man is ejected from the lives of his children while they're young, then it's not just that the forces of civilization have lost a battle/soldier, it's that the forces of barbarism have gained one. (like Jonah Goldberg like to say: every generation a society is invaded by millions of barbarians; they're called children)

So in this case, perhaps a win can be had by not fighting. Like zombies, sometimes it is more helpful to hide out in your bunk because then you're at least not adding to the problem. The best move may really be not fighting.

As in all things, "know thyself" and know whether you belong on the front lines, with support staff, or in the corner, at least not making things worse.

Nate Winchester said...


Anyway I have an idea for a character in one of those action films with ensemble casts, a Japanese Alpha (no doubt the only one left) man who can drop the bad dudes and then go on to slap some shapely female ass, tug her hair like he is the Nipponese James Bond and have the ladies screaming with delight. Chances of this happening .00001% no doubt.


You ever watched Ninja Scroll?

Brad Andrews said...

MGTOWs are eating the seed corn of civilization. They can do what they do because others have laid the foundation.

They can gripe all they want about a bad environment, and it is bad, but they are benefiting that same badness while they pursue their hedonism. They are not just eating the seed corn and feeling bad about doing so, they are boasting that they are doing so and denigrating those who disagree with their hedonism and solipsism. They are looking out for themselves alone and claiming that as a virtue rather than the vice it is.

That is their huge sin.

tweell said...

As a widower with five adult children, I'm done. My youngest son is the one going his own way, and after talking extensively with him, I have to see his point. He's tall, strong, good-looking, intelligent - but also autistic and has a slight speech impediment. Socializing is foreign to him, and he disqualifies himself every time he opens his mouth.

That makes him an omega in today's FI world, although in previous times he would have been in the delta group. Quality women aren't interested in him, the few left can pull beta or alpha. He has read and understood enough to not be taken in by a slut retread, with the help of a sister or two.

So my son slowly works on his speech impediment and accumulates resources, with no real expectation of a wife and children. That's about all he can do until things change, we just hope that comes when he's still young enough to benefit. Second fiddle's a hard part to play when you have no bow, it's hard to pass sh_t tests when you can't even recognize them.

David-093 said...

It's not men that are the problem with modern marriage, it's women. The steadily increasing rate of the marriage age, coupled with their poor quality and slutty, unfeminine traits makes it very unappealing for any man with a functioning brain. You might as well say men are cowards for not joining the war so they can die on a rice paddy in Vietnam. A pointless death is different than one that was hopeless but honorable and necessary. Fix the women and the men will marry, but it's no more foolish for him to refuse to marry than it is for him to not play Russian roulette.

Brad Andrews said...

BG,

You will eventually reach a point where you can no longer care for yourself. Who takes care of you then? Who watches over the money you have collected then?

Your view you have full control is only true now, not necessarily for the rest of your life. Only dying early removes the need for others to care for you when you are old. That is often left out of the conversation and is part of the "live for today" concept that is so infectious. Hedonism is fun for a season.

Corvinus said...

Well... that escalated quickly.

And then there was this clarification from a man who does not even qualify for the weak MGTOW camp.

Great post, by whoever it is. That's more or less my own position.

Voluntary Gamma Extinction. What's not to like?

@automatthew
That's the way I see it: Gammas removing themselves from the gene pool. Problem is, as with all Gammas, their narcissism makes them think that all males (except for cheating jerks, of course) are in the same position they themselves are, or at least they cannot conceive of the possibility of their not being, because feminism.

Essentially, the strong MGTOW position is the ultimate surrender to feminism. "Okay feminism, you win, let's destroy marriage and civilization and we'll go our own way, because fish and bicycle."

Weak MGTOWs seem to be either Omegas or embittered frivorced Deltas. In my Omega days, I dabbled with the weak MGTOW position myself.

Most people want to be in a herd, and they are not Sigma enough to resist.

The vast majority of people want a pre-written script to follow and here I find it ironic that a Sigma is the one doing the writing, or maybe not, maybe the distance from the herd allows one some unique perspective.


@Mr.MantraMan
Actually Gammas "resist", but still insist on being a part of the society. That's why so many are SJWs. Sigmas just stand on the sidelines and observe, chuckling at the ridiculousness of it all.

hank.jim said...

Some men don't want to be married or were previously in a relationship that soured so their instinct is to be anti-social. Maybe they take up MGTOW as a present condition. It doesn't matter how they got there. I see Pick-Up Artists are a subset of MGTOW. Using high-SMV women for sexual conquests. They never find marriageable women so marriage is avoided. Whatever they do or believe, it gives them satisfaction that they are right and men have the advantage. Men do have the advantage in dating, but not in commitment. They somehow seem to relish keeping women from reaching their goal of marriage and children to "punish" them or women will punish them with divorce and child support. These are all risks we take, but the risks can be mitigated.

To mitigate risk, the wife should also be working. She should also own property so any division of property includes her property. Write a prenuptial agreement that excludes or limits spousal support. Have no more than two children and be sure to test them for paternity if trust is an issue.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

There's no civilization without civilized behavior. Feminist misandry has a huge debt to pay. Masculine revenge is slow, but certain. Most of the Gents here really don't want to think about that. Thing is, this society was doomed when women got the vote.

Brad Andrews said...

Tweell,

You don't note what your son is doing, but building a family is not the only way to build for the future. He could do many things he could enjoy and that would be helpful. Your description does not make it sound like he is the evangelistic MGTOW type, but that he is dealing with what he is dealt. Why could he not work with a church or other group laying groundwork to help those who are making progress, for example?

Brad Andrews said...

Thing is, this society was doomed when women got the vote.

Civilization was doomed when Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree.

That is a reason we ALL need a savior.

I would still rather live today with all its flaws than most other times in history. Many problems, but what era has not had them? Remember that history is written by the winners so you do not hear all the flaws in the "golden ages" of the past. Quite the narcissism today.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Life is still beautiful enough that modetn marriage is unnecessary. The sin of marriage-minded men is willingly submitting to this evil. They are perpetuating slavery. Engage with life. Enjoy what God has provided. Poolside.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

I've always thought the great error of MGTOW is their butthurt attitude towards women and complete disengagement from pussy. Then again, it leaves more for men like me.

Guitar Man said...

LBF,

We enjoy the pool with the wife and kids.

Corvinus said...

As a widower with five adult children, I'm done. My youngest son is the one going his own way, and after talking extensively with him, I have to see his point. He's tall, strong, good-looking, intelligent - but also autistic and has a slight speech impediment. Socializing is foreign to him, and he disqualifies himself every time he opens his mouth.

@Tweell
If he's in his 20s, it may be a phase. Quite often, men don't really figure things out until they're about 30.

There's no civilization without civilized behavior. Feminist misandry has a huge debt to pay.

@Plump Pleasant Plumber
True. So what I do is penalize the most obvious offenders, namely fat chicks.

I even go easy on feminists and lesbians if they're thin and attractive, because quite often they get soft around me, and even their feminism weakens. For example, on their facebook they'll start emphasizing libertarianism or attacking government overreach and snooping. (Police abuse is a favored target, of course, but one that I can actually sympathize with.) In one case, one even attacked stupid liberal parents who encourage their kids to identify as transsexual. It's quite funny how bendy women are.

But fat chicks... no. They seem to have a decidedly unpleasant streak that is absent in the attractive ones. They're more militant, narcissistic, overall unreasonable, and are far less bendable from the SJW party line.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

From a risk-return standpoint, it's not only imprudent to encourage young men to get married, but also highly irresponsible. Shame on those men who are pushing other men to submit to modern marriage.

Guitar Man said...

No one here is telling anyone to submit to modern marriage. Submit to Godly Christian marriage.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

As I read the various comments, it becomes clear that most commenters may not realize that a seachange is happening. Men can see what is happening, and they decide on their own to go their way. I reckon that there's only a certain amount of time to change their minds. Once a young man learns to love freedom, he won't marry. He won't get robbed in a marriage. The laws aren't fixing to change.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Piss off, preacher. We don't want your snake oil.

Guitar Man said...

LBF, you have no idea how much of a joke you are to us. You're absolutely pathetic. But I'm sure you realize that.

Tim said...

"Submit to Godly Christian marriage. "

LOL.

No.

Plump Pleasant Plumber said...

Godly Christian marriage? In a feminised society? Yeah, right. That's the Churchian line. Mangina much?

artisanaltoadshall said...

There is an alternative to MGTOW. What amazes me is the refusal many have to honestly considering the one form of marriage that circumvents all the problems with marriage 2.0 and at the same time makes women more feminine. I'm specifically referring to polygyny. I could write pages about this (and have in the past) but here are a few high-points:

*The state, as a matter of public policy, cannot recognize such a relationship as a marriage.
*A tightly written marital covenant will be considered as a cohabitation contract.
*For those of the Christian perspective, polygyny is a sanctioned Biblical form of marriage.
*If one of the women wants out, in all likelihood the father gets the kids. Especially if he has children by each wife (children should not be separated from their siblings, father and other wives have intact household).
*Multiple wage earners combined with a full-time housewife means greater household income and more economic resilience if someone loses their job.
*With multiple wives its very difficult to use sexual starvation as a weapon against husband.
*Multiple wives means multiple witnesses in cases of imaginary DV. No more he said - she said.
*Unlike monogamy. each wife is still in competition for husband after he makes the commitment. They compete for his attention by giving him what he wants- sex and pleasant feminine behavior.
*Wives can get their emotional needs met by each other, thus husband stays more aloof.
*Structure of the relationship causes the husband to be more alpha (thus more attractive)
*Incentives are structured to reward staying in the relationship rather than leave.
*Infertile women could be considered candidates for such a marriage even if their only contribution was earning capacity and sexual availability, due to the presence of other fertile women in the marriage.

Alphas can handle this, no problem. Betas can either handle it or grow into it. Many Deltas could manage such a relationship if they had training and support, however, I think the majority of the Deltas along with the Gammas and Omegas would not be able to handle it. I can't see more than 25% of the male population being able to pull it off, so there isn't any issue with respect to the numbers of women.

For those concerned about obedience to God as well as desiring sex with women, this is the only way to avoid the marriage 2.0 traps.

Guitar Man said...

You MGTOW wimps who can't even fight a bunch of hedonists and feminists. Vox is right. You're merely parasites.

Tim said...

My massive pile of hard-earned money says otherwise

If not wanting to give it to parasites does in fact make me a parasite then so be it

Keef said...

Brad Andrews said...
BG,

"You will eventually reach a point where you can no longer care for yourself. Who takes care of you then? Who watches over the money you have collected then?"


Obvious Concern Troll is Obivous.

Guitar Man said...

Just like SJWs, do MGTOWs always lie?

Kallmunz said...

First I appreciate the differentiation of MGTOWs. I guess I don’t take the screaming “NEVER GET MARRIED” types seriously, I would bet you that one bat of the eyelash would change their tune just as much as I have seen strident feminists bow down for the best players. Sometime ago there was a infamous MGTOW who advised everyone not to get married and then did so himself.
No, the guys you are going to have problems with are the quiet lurkers who feel no need to advertize, which would be most of them. There are different reasons for their decision, it could be anger, bad relationships, lack of options (take one look at Scalzi’s wife and tell me you would want to live with that for the rest of your life), fatigue, or simply weighing the options and deciding on their best course of action. In one form or another it is fear, whether that fear is justified or not.
One night in Basic Training we had to crawl under live fire. That night there were three Drill Sergeants, two from the MPs including the Senior Drill Sergeant, and a new one from the infantry. One the soldiers freaked out and, when ordered to advance, screamed “I heard you,” but didn’t move. The MPs moved on him and were going to give him hell, the infantry Drill Sergeant stepped up practically pushing the Senior out of the way, grabbed the soldier and told that they would do this together, and they did. The point here is the infantry understood the problem and how to correct it much better.
The larger point is I can’t believe how stupid some of you are. Do you really think that you are going to convince a single MGTOW by insulting him? Let me give you a clue, you are going to have to get in line behind feminists, churchians, and a host of others who are already insulting them. Some of you sound like teenage girls bleating “you’re just afraaaid, you’re a wimp.” To most of them, that alone is a red flag.
Many of these guys have friends and coworkers are divorced and see no upside. No one tells them “look I know that marriage is hard, but you don’t know what you are missing.” Instead he constantly hears the cries “I wish I could have that too but I have a wife and children to support.” On top of this, if he has any spine at all, he has to think that the insults are hurled because the other side has nothing better to sell.
St. Paul wrote half of the New Testament but never mentions hell, not because he didn’t believe in it, but because he was selling something so much better.
Marriage can most defiantly be sold, but if you can’t do so then just shut up.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

GM ~ I'm here for Vox, and for the lulz.

Keef said...

Guitar Man said...
"You MGTOW wimps who can't even fight a bunch of hedonists and feminists. Vox is right. You're merely parasites."


Citation Please, bitch.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

"submit to Godly Christian marriage"

Snake-oil salesmen selling snake oil.

Who knew?

Guitar Man said...

LBF, that's why I peruse AG. For deeper discussion, go to VP.

Keef, none needed. Read the comments.

Corvinus said...

There is an alternative to MGTOW. What amazes me is the refusal many have to honestly considering the one form of marriage that circumvents all the problems with marriage 2.0 and at the same time makes women more feminine. I'm specifically referring to polygyny.

No. Just no.

Guitar Man said...

What's funny is that the MGTOWs think Godly marriage = modern marriage.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

...claims the preacher boy.

Keef said...

No Guitar Man,

What's funny is that you think you can project your opinions and preconceived notions onto individuals whom you have never met.

Vox has some great ideas and, IMO, has a place in my red pill reading. Every so often though he posts something where he screeches about the MGOW and tries to assign a low value to men who aren't married or who aren't desperately trying to get married.

Not having a family, by its own virtue, does not make someone a parasite.

Somebody like Tesla is a perfect example. He didn't marry and probably did more for civilization than all readership of this here blog combined.

Unless you steal from others via gov't handouts or as an outlaw (in other words a productive member of society) you are not a parasite.

Guitar Man said...

LBF, it isn't an insult to me to be called a preacher boy. I will, however, call shenanigans on your sexcapades that you so frequently post about.

Guitar Man said...

Therein, is where you're mistaken me, Keef. Men can absolutely be of value without being the full on gamma MGTOW. Most men should have a wife and kids and teach their sons to be men and do right for their families. I'm not trying to protect this society. I see MGTOW as giving up the fight against this contemptible society. At the same time, MGTOWs are telling men to just give up and enjoy the short pointless lifestyle of hedonism. I believe that is a path to destruction.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Oh noes, GM is claiming it's all ptetense!

I've heard it all before. Got anything else?

Go tell it on the mountain, preacher boy.

We're not buying your snake oil.

SarahsDaughter said...

Fix the women...

Who? Who should fix the women?

Corvinus said...

Yup, another fault line:

1) Atheists don't see the point of marriage at all, and therefore all marriage is automatically Marriage 2.0 and stupid.
2) Christians have to get married so they don't go to hell.
3) Atheists dump on the Christians as "sustaining Marriage 2.0", another version of the strong MGTOW stance.

Unfortunately, given how Churchian and pedestalizing so many Christian men are, dumping on the Christians isn't entirely unjustified. But it's yet another version of the MGTOW assumption that all men who get married are stupid, weak tools.

ajw308 (#98) said...

" But you don't win by not fighting either."
I'm brilliant at Russian Roulette.
Never played that either.

Just because you can use a gun the wrong way, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.
Goes for a lot of things.

Guitar Man said...

Actually, this would be an interesting study. Are the majority of MGTOWs atheists? If so, that would help explain a lot.

Keef said...

Guitar Man said...
"Therein, is where you're mistaken me, Keef. Men can absolutely be of value without being the full on gamma MGTOW"

Then perhaps name calling and projection is something you should refrain from doing.


Me personally, I would love to get married and have the kind of union my parents have. I just don't see it happening.

It's sad, but no marriage is better than what happened to my cousin (same age as me, 28), when his ex wife ripped his daughter from his home, has worked the courts to bar him access to his daughter without state supervision, and actually left him with a note informing him of his impending divorce.

Guitar Man said...

Keef, none of us support divorce. Or modern marriage. The key is marrying a woman who is for traditional marriage. Many of them exist. Get them young and fresh, too. I will raise my 3 sons to choose wisely, and raise my 2 daughters to be great helpmates. They have an awesome example of that. Heck, some of us ilk were joking about arranging marriages, but in a way, you can do that indirectly by surrounding them with people who are of like mind and teaching them what true value is.

You're still young. Find a girl of 19 or 20 and isn't some feminist or churchian.

Tim said...

Yeah Keef but NAWALT/he was unlucky/not alpha enough

Everyone man up and save the society that will fight and punish you every step of the way for trying to do so.

And they have guns, and more friends than you.

Guitar Man said...

Dang if VD isn't proven his point with this thread. This is funny.

Guitar Man said...

I can typing today.

Trust said...

The problem isn't that there aren't any good women are that women need "fixed." The problem is that the family law/court industry creates perverse incentives leading otherwise decent women to not only behave unfairly towards men and their families, but to justify such behavior in their own mind.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Corvinus
No. Just no.

You make my case for me.

Those who do not fear God are free to buzz from flower to flower, spreading pollen as they go. As LBF has pointed out, [state-sponsored licensed] marriage is not necessary for companionship, sex or children. However, for those who would honor God, the choice is between celibacy [that strangest of perversions], marriage 2.0 or polygyny.

Saying that marriage 2.0 is acceptable if only one can find a decent woman [virginal, Christian, uninfected by feminism, etc.] is to say that such a decent woman will not change and will not at some point in the future develop an entitled feminist mindset to the point that she commits divorce-rape. There's better odds at Russian Roulette.

That leaves polygyny or celibacy.

Dystopic said...

Sometimes I wonder if our age is like Isaac Asimov's Foundation books. The Empire is falling, and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent its collapse. But there is value in fighting nonetheless. It may shorten the interregnum to follow, and minimize the damage to Western civilization, in the long run.

Corvinus said...

You make my case for me.

Yeah, dude, if you say so.

If there were several women to every man, maybe it would be doable.

And Jesus Christ banned polygamy, so quite aside from the biological parity problem, there's God's explicit opinion on the practice right there.

Yours is just another twisted version of the atheist assertion that all marriage is automatically Marriage 2.0, except in your case you have somehow come to the weird conclusion that this means you should go muzzie or Africoon or Warren Jeffs.

(shakin' mah haid)

Keef said...

Trust said...
"The problem isn't that there aren't any good women are that women need "fixed." The problem is that the family law/court industry creates perverse incentives leading otherwise decent women to not only behave unfairly towards men and their families, but to justify such behavior in their own mind."

A very good point Trust. IMO, it isn't the only problem, but it is a big problem.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Too funny the way these discussions go.

(((sippin' mah cocktail poolside)))

phantom26d said...

MGTOW may be "selfish", but they're smart enough to realize what's going on and look out for themselves.. Unlike blue-pill manginas who actively support the very system which dehumanizes them. That being said, I don't think MGTOW would give two shits about labels like "coward". Neither would they care about being a "genetic dead end" Such shaming language would not only be pointless, but harmful as it would further antagonize men to each other.

For every man who avoids marriage and doesn't pay large amounts of taxes, that's minus one slave to feed the Beast. What's not to like?

Besides, what alternatives are there anyway? Expatriating? Surrogate mothers? Surely pursuing *any* kind of relationship with females would be a stupid thing to do in Western nations, and shaming men into doing so for some misguided attempt to *save the civilization" sounds insane to me.

Civilizations should exist for the benefit of citizens, but they have always primarily existed for the benefit of the governments which rule them. I say men should go their own way, whether by celibacy, porn, surrogate mothers or expatriating. Let it all come crashing down. Those who are fit for it will be able to rebuild the civilization as they please.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Corvinus
Jesus Christ banned polygamy, so quite aside from the biological parity problem, there's God's explicit opinion on the practice right there

Cite, please. Chapter and verse will be fine.

Hund Hollen said...

In online parlance, “MGTOW” basically refers to any man who’s off-script. There are many scripts out there.

The tradcon / white nationalist script: bust your ass and remain celibate, then marry some supposedly good and worthy Christian “virgin”, move to some rural area, have lots of kids and homeschool them, grow your own food and brag about your lifestyle on the Internet.

The feminist script: bust your ass and have egalitarian relationships with feminist women based on mutual respect, marry an ageing spinster or single mother, have 1 or 2 children and indoctrinate them with feminism, move to the suburbs, pay off your wife’s debts, brag about it all on the Internet and then tearfully claim it’s all your fault when she frivorces you and ruins your life.

The MHRA script: bust your ass and do lots of activism on behalf of MRA organizations. Donate money, show up on protests and conferences. Paint a target on your back for tradcons and feminists to shoot at. Whenever attacked, claim that you support “gender equality” and love women.

The PUA script: bust your ass, work out like crazy, spend your free time learning all sorts of “valuable” skills, go on a diet, approach 10 women everyday, travel the Third World, brag about it all online, then move to the Philippines or Latvia when you’re tired of it all, then self-publish your memoirs in online format and sell it on Amazon.

The people pushing these scripts are all targeting the same demographic, young single betas, so they are in fierce competition. What is making their job even harder is that a growing segment of these betas are refusing to follow any script. This is making more and more people angry and frustrated, as evidenced by increasingly shrill public discourse about MGTOWs and the “Sexodus”. Young men are supposed to be dumb disposable shits, after all, and follow a script. But a growing number of them simply won’t do it.

Keef said...

Hund Hollen,

That is a fantastic post and you are absolutely right. Most Betas these days are running their own script and the above 4 groups are clamoring to claims new Beta members.

Bravo.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Phantom26d
Surely pursuing *any* kind of relationship with females would be a stupid thing to do in Western nations, and shaming men into doing so for some misguided attempt to *save the civilization" sounds insane to me.

The problem, on a realistic basis, is the ability of the women to use the court system to destroy families and men. The practical solution is to avoid playing the game and have a marriage that cannot be defined as a marriage by the courts. A marriage that places the incentives on staying in the marriage rather than leaving the marriage.

The MGTOW's go beyond that and take the position of not getting married (or even cohabitating) as a reactionary move to keep from getting screwed. Setting aside the issues of fornication and adultery, this is perfectly rational if the goal is not getting screwed by the courts. However, children are best raised by their biological father and mother working together to train and discipline them. Thus, the desire to have children and give them the best possible upbringing places an enormous amount of power in the hands of women under the current regime.

The question should rather be aimed at how to have a durable and stable marriage with the incentives arranged toward continuing the marriage while doing as much as possible to eliminate the possibility of being legally screwed. The closest thing I've been able to find is polygyny, the mere mention of which sends everyone running for cover. In their fear, they trot out ridiculous arguments like the ones Corvinus made:

If there were several women to every man, maybe it would be doable.

That assumes every man is capable of riding herd on multiple wives. Fail. Reality is that only the alphas, the majority of the betas and a minority of deltas would be able to handle having more than one wife. As stated upthread, I don't think more than 25% of the men would be able to handle it. Since the omegas, gammas and a good portion of the deltas are not able to get married, I'd say it kind of balances out and there goes the biological argument. However, observations made in China during the 1700's and 1800's indicated that polygynous families tended to have far more girls than boys. That fits with recent studies showing that older men tend to father more girls than boys.

Reality is also that polygyny as a structure destroys feminism. Nothing is more patriarchial than polygyny, but women (especially Christian women) are scared to death by the idea. Even more so are the men, because most guys feel like they can drag one woman to the altar but they know in the depth of their soul that they don't have what it takes to spin all their plates together into the same household. However, anyone with half a brain can see that modern women have trained themselves to share a dominant man. The solution? Be the dominant man and collect your herd of cats.

Corvinus said...

Cite, please. Chapter and verse will be fine.

First of all, not everything is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

Secondly, if you'll notice, every single case of a man and wife mentioned in the New Testament are with the wife in the singular. One wife. Not "wives".

The New Testament assumes monogamy.

If it didn't, you would see some cases where Our Lord or His Apostles discuss matters regarding multiple wives, and they never do. Ever.

If it didn't, there would be rampant cases of the early Christians practicing polygamy. But you never hear a single account of Christian polygamy, aside maybe from heretical sects, of which Islam itself may sort of be considered one. Ever.

Also, you appear to have the ridiculous notion that all marriage nowadays is Marriage 2.0 doomed to failure. But the reason for that is Marriage 2.0 is based on various secular humanist assumptions, the biggest of which of course is that the man and woman have absolute equality, from which follows that "till death do us part" is a mere formality, the wife may overrule the husband's wishes whenever she feels like it, no explicit mention of God except as a formality, etc. etc.

Marriage 2.0 is a secular humanist institution.

In fact, the legal code doesn't really matter. If it didn't exist, the secular humanist assumptions behind Marriage 2.0 would eventually ensure that the legal code matched the practice.

Saying that marriage 2.0 is acceptable if only one can find a decent woman [virginal, Christian, uninfected by feminism, etc.] is to say that such a decent woman will not change and will not at some point in the future develop an entitled feminist mindset to the point that she commits divorce-rape.

Clearly, you're either a low Delta or Gamma yourself, if that's the impression you get about women. You actually getting a few mistresses, let alone talking more than one woman into actually marrying you, is a ludicrous fantasy. Do you seriously think that even if you did manage to marry multiple women, it won't expose you to alimony and child support, or some sort of frivorce settlement if one turns unhaaappy?

If anything, the risk is magnified. You apparently don't realize that FLDS girls are conditioned that way practically from birth, and muslim girls generally marry their cousins and will have an extra level of devotion to them through being inbred. Marrying multiple western women will in no way, shape, or form, make them more "docile".

What is required is the man bettering himself into a sociosexual rank above Delta. That's it. Nothing else will help, including that manifestly stupid idea known as polygamy.

Conscientia Republicae said...

I'm not insulting anyone, or trying to either. My point is simple: the poolside lifestyle is dependent on civilization for its existence. Marriage 2.0 is a deathtrap, we all agree on that. Marriage 2.0 isn't guaranteed though. LBF, where you are in OC is just about the epicenter of Marriage 2.0. I lived there and chased women there. I know.

A good friend of mine was asking me several years ago when we both lived out there where all the good men were. I told her she wasn't going to find any out there in OC, and that she needed to move back home to Texas/Oklahoma. Once she did she got married and is loving life. Traditional women are in existence, but you have to find them young.

My wife never went to college, and that is one of the reasons I picked her.

Johnny Caustic said...

I am very seriously considering siring children in one or more low-cost countries while continuing to earn money in the US. Just think about the advantages:

- I can easily support 10 third-world kids and their moms on my salary, in slightly better comfort than they're accustomed to. My financial support will be an incentive for them to behave well, rather than a motivation for divorce rape.

- Filipinas and Latinas are eager to get their zygotes on some nice white genes. Many of them live with large families that can help with the child-raising.

- The long arm of the law won't be shaking me down for child support. Mom in the Philippines won't be suing my ass in America. No pressure to send the rugrats to a $20,000 school.

- I can visit the wives and kids several times a year. They'd be hard pressed to invade my premises, though.

- I can import the most promising Johnnyspawn into the US once they've gotten a good education somewhere cheap.

I don't know why more guys aren't doing this. Is there any reason not to do this?

phantom26d said...

@artisanaltoadshall

"The practical solution is to avoid playing the game and have a marriage that cannot be defined as a marriage by the courts. A marriage that places the incentives on staying in the marriage rather than leaving the marriage."

Would you kindly explain how that can be done? Unless you mean to let others figure it out.

"The MGTOW's go beyond that and take the position of not getting married (or even cohabitating) as a reactionary move to keep from getting screwed."

As a *reactionary* move you say. As if there's something wrong with that.

"children are best raised by their biological father and mother working together to train and discipline them"

I think you're right about this, but I believe single fathers can raise their kids just about as well as long as they have enough time (and money). I'd say they'd do even better than hen-pecked husbands married to nagging harpies.

I'm not a Christian, but I think christian men should leave the West if they want a family.

"handle having more than one wife"
"know in the depth of their soul that they don't have what it takes to spin all their plates together into the same household."

This is the part of your comment that interests me the most. Is it not quite telling that even someone such as yourself thinks husband must "have what it takes" to "handle" their wives correctly? Why are women so difficult? Why must they be "dealt with" and "taken care of" ? What can be done to make them more agreeable and easier to live with? It is my humble opinion that these questions need to be asked. Preferably without predictable one-size-fits-all answers like "get game"

Women have had far too much power for far too long. I believe it is time for the pendulum to swing back. Before their attitude changes for the better, women must wallow in desperation. They must be unable to find suckers to look after them following their cock-carousel years. They have to realize the harm feminism has done, and how it antagonized both sexes to each other.

de ti said...

@ guitar man:

"The key is marrying a woman who is for traditional marriage. Many of them exist. Get them young and fresh, too."

Where? Where, pray tell, are these "many" women who are for traditional marriage? Where does a young man find them?

Many? Not from what I've seen. A few, perhaps. Not nearly enough to go around, and not nearly enough to stem or even slow down the tide.

Corvinus said...

This is the part of your comment that interests me the most. Is it not quite telling that even someone such as yourself thinks husband must "have what it takes" to "handle" their wives correctly? Why are women so difficult? Why must they be "dealt with" and "taken care of" ? What can be done to make them more agreeable and easier to live with? It is my humble opinion that these questions need to be asked. Preferably without predictable one-size-fits-all answers like "get game"

Yes, getting Game works. Women respond to it automatically by becoming more docile.

What artisantoadshell is suggesting is that the Alphas, Sigmas, and Betas marry multiple women and let everybody else be out in the cold.

However, Islamic "civilization" over the last millennium has provided us an excellent argument against this notion. It essentially did as artisantoadshell suggested: let Alphas, Sigmas, and Betas have multiple wives, with the concession to Deltas that they could marry one of their cousins, and surprise: the gene pool stagnated, and Muslims now have an IQ about 15 points below Christians, despite both groups being originally from the same "Caucasoid" race. (And Hindus are just like Muslims, with polygamy and cousin marriage.)

It's part of the human condition for men to be tempted to exhibit weakness toward women. It's probably a result of Adam's sin from doing that very thing. Hence, the traits of the Delta.

But throwing Deltas under the bus is not the way to go. Rather, we should encourage them to become Betas.

Stephen Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen Ward said...

So in summary: Feminists damn you if you decide to get married. Civilizationists damn you if you don't decide to get married.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/01/winning-no-win-game.html

Gentlemen, carte blanche now applies.

phantom26d said...

@Cornivus

I'll be honest, I don't exactly know what "Game" is. Neither do I have any interest in finding out beyond for the purpose of partipicating in such discussions.

Even if it does work as you say, I believe Game would not be as important if women were capable of appreciating men. Women these days have wrong ideas about sexes. Grrl power, equality, women need men like fish needs bicycle and all that. But it is the women who depend on men on every context other than reproduction. A guy can live quite happily with porn, video games, one night stands and friends with shared interests. Women depend on men materially (even if they work, they need men to maintain the civilization), socially (to avoid the stigma of being unmarried / childless / a single mother etc) and emotionally.

I believe in order to change female attitudes on a grand scale, women must learn to appreciate men by means of scarcity. Avoiding marriage aside, what I'd like to see happening is even lesser sexual validation and emotional support offered by lower status men. I believe *that* is what makes women so extremely confident about their SMV (which they mistakenly conflate with MMV). Males of all ages should be educated on the true nature of women, and encouraged to deprive them of the validation they seek.

phantom26d said...

I wrote women depend on men on every context other than reproduction, which was a mistake.

Retrenched said...

@ Brad

"MGTOWs are eating the seed corn of civilization. They can do what they do because others have laid the foundation."

The same can be said for carousel riders as well as the PUAs who pump and dump them. But... yes, you're right.

Corvinus said...

I believe in order to change female attitudes on a grand scale, women must learn to appreciate men by means of scarcity. Avoiding marriage aside, what I'd like to see happening is even lesser sexual validation and emotional support offered by lower status men. I believe *that* is what makes women so extremely confident about their SMV (which they mistakenly conflate with MMV). Males of all ages should be educated on the true nature of women, and encouraged to deprive them of the validation they seek.

You just described a huge part of Game right there, exactly.

Trust said...

I've been married 11 years with two daughters. Marriage is necessarily for civilization. But it is also tough. It's tough enough without providing half it's members with incentive to divorce, which results in giving half of prospects a reason to destroy it.

Having one of the better marriages in my social circle, I can tell you the state makes it worse. Even though I have a wife who is more religious than I and who takes her vows seriously, her demeanor has no doubt been swayed by the knowledge that if push comes to shove, she has the stronger legal position.

The state has made marriage dangerous for men, and divorce rewarding for women. Yet, we still focus all our legal and social solutions in furthering the same imbalance. It won't solve the marriage problem any more than handing out money to single mothers solved the illegitimacy problem.

Trust said...

In other words, ponder these two questions:

1. Why would a woman stay married when the state guarantees her the benefits of a husband without the responsibilities of being a wife?

2. Why would a man's want to marry when he is stripped of all the benefits that come with having a relationship while being forced by the state to continue with the responsibilities even if your wife is shagging an ex con?

Earl Thomas said...

'2) Christians have to get married so they don't go to hell.'

Uh...no.

Trust said...

@: which results in giving half of prospects a reason to destroy it.
_______

That should read "avoid it." Apologies, didn't catch the autocomplete. I should proof read better.

Corvinus said...

@Earl
Fine, "so they can have sex without going to hell." (1 Cor. 7:9)

I would have thought that was implied, since few men are inclined to be celibate.

artisanaltoadshall said...

Corvinus said
First of all, not everything is explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

Secondly, if you'll notice, every single case of a man and wife mentioned in the New Testament are with the wife in the singular. One wife. Not "wives".

The New Testament assumes monogamy.

If it didn't, you would see some cases where Our Lord or His Apostles discuss matters regarding multiple wives, and they never do. Ever.

If it didn't, there would be rampant cases of the early Christians practicing polygamy. But you never hear a single account of Christian polygamy, aside maybe from heretical sects, of which Islam itself may sort of be considered one. Ever.


Normally, Christian objections to polygyny come from two groups. The first is those who don't really know their Bible (lack of knowledge) and the second is those who know their Bible well enough to be really, really scared of the idea. Because churchianity. You are obviously in the first group, so let's see if you can follow this:

In making a doctrinal statement, using the term wife, singular, applies to all wives whether they are in a monogamous marriage or a plural marriage. Get it? Use of the plural term wives is restrictive to only those wives in a plural marriage. Thus, doctrine that applies to all wives would naturally be couched in terms of "wife." Now we move on to the harder part, try to follow closely.

Polygyny was "permitted" in the same way as monogamy under the law except it was also regulated. God does not regulate sin, He forbids and condemns it. Therefore polygyny is not a sin and is permitted. Why? Because God is the same yesterday, today and forever. As you have pointed out, there is no mention of polygyny in the NT and you make this lack of mention a basis for a doctrine of prohibition. Bad move. Why?

Bestiality was prohibited and condemned in the law for both men and women. There is no mention of bestiality in the NT by either the Lord or His Disciples. Ever. With me so far?

To say that "no mention" in the NT on the subject of the sanctioned and regulated practice of polygyny means it is now forbidden is exactly the same logic as saying that the "no mention" of bestiality in the NT means it is now permitted. You need a much better argument than the one you're making because polygyny is a sanctioned form of Biblical marriage. God, in fact, had two wives: Israel and Judah. He divorced Israel and the requirements of His own law are such that God (Jesus) had to die in order for God to redeem and be joined once again with Israel. However, that's probably too complex for you so I'll stop.






artisanaltoadshall said...

Corvinus said



Clearly you have some serious projection here.

You actually getting a few mistresses, let alone talking more than one woman into actually marrying you, is a ludicrous fantasy.

Obvious projection, as I have previously mentioned. Again, sir, you testify against yourself. Perhaps others here would care to testify to the ease with which an attractive and dominant man can get multiple women in bed at the same time. Trust me, once that happens it isnt much further to get them all moved in. After that it's called management.

Do you seriously think that even if you did manage to marry multiple women, it won't expose you to alimony and child support, or some sort of frivorce settlement if one turns unhaaappy?

I not only think that, I know that. No marriage means no divorce and no alimony. But what about child support?

Assuming a marriage by covenant (contract- no license), multiple wives and children by all the wives, what happens when one woman decides she wants out? Husband and other wives are still living in the house so she doesn't get it. Even if she can get a DV order against the husband (other wives will probably testify against the troublemaker) the judge CANNOT give her the house. With the husband and other wives operating as an intact family unit with the siblings of the troublemaker's children, the husband is likely to get custody. Otherwise the judge has to justify why he/she is compelled to separate siblings. So if husband gets custody she pays him child support. Even if she gets custody the child support can only be calculated based on his income and not that of any of the other wives.

The incentives are arranged to keep the marriage intact, unlike monogamy.

What artisantoadshell is suggesting is that the Alphas, Sigmas, and Betas marry multiple women and let everybody else be out in the cold.

Not at all. However, this is no different from observing that alphas, sigmas and betas have a good shot at monogamous marriage (maybe) if they maintain their frame (a must) and are always at the top of their game. The deltas, gammas and omegas are already being thrown under the bus by feminism. Not everyone can run a business, but does that mean we should condemn those who can for wanting to?

Marissa said...

Why didn't the early Christians practice polygyny?

Tim said...

+1 to finding Hund Hollen's post very interesting

Corvinus said...

As you have pointed out, there is no mention of polygyny in the NT and you make this lack of mention a basis for a doctrine of prohibition. Bad move. Why?

Tradition. Revealed truth came to us as both Scripture and Tradition.

It's why we can eat pork now, why we go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday, and yes, why we don't do polygamy any more. There's no explicit Scriptural basis for any of these -- the only one I know of off the top of my head is the abolishment of requiring circumcision -- but to assume there's no basis for the abolishment of polygamy, and deny the universal practice of monogamy among Christians -- even sola scriptura Protestants, who don't even admit to Tradition in the first place -- seems to be, let's just say, in denial about more than a few facts.

That's all.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Marissa

Why didn't the early Christians practice polygyny?

Two answers. First, lack of evidence does not indicate that they didn't, especially given the culture they came out of (Hebrew). We do not know whether they did or didn't, but logic says very few would have. At that time, only the very wealthy could have more than one wife and Christianity was a religion of slaves and the lower classes in its infancy. That isn't a pejorative, it's an observation with respect to those who were willing to die for what they believed.

Second, the infant church very quickly moved to the big apple, which at that time was Rome. Roman culture was monogamous and in order to be acceptable to Rome, certain practices were curtailed. It may surprise you to learn that the comments of Jesus in Matthew 19 about castration were taken literally by more than a few. This was not acceptable behavior to Roman culture and the early church actively worked to suppress it along with other unacceptable-to-Rome practices such as polygyny. It had nothing to do with God.

Hells Hound said...

MGTOWs are eating the seed corn of civilization.

No. Women and alphas are eating the seed corn. MGTOWs are the ones refusing to grow more corn.

SolemnSentinel said...

I find myself in an unwanted mgtow position. As a late 20's christian man, I desire to be in a good marriage and raising kids, but in current reality it is difficult to find an attractive young woman that have not been poisoned by feminism. Not that it is impossible or that that isn't a relatively large number of such girls. Just difficult to find them.

Hells Hound said...

Essentially, the strong MGTOW position is the ultimate surrender to feminism.

As opposed to signing up for marriage 2.0, which I suppose counts as some sort of rebellious act against feminism. LOL

(P.S. I'm Hund Hollen, but I got my name fixed)

Hells Hound said...

Who? Who should fix the women?

Other women.

Acksiom said...

Remember, MGTOWs -- and the MGTOW-curious:

Virtually every example of male-shaming like Vox's above is fundamentally about preferring to beat down the self-respect of boys and men so that they'll demand less compensation for risking their well-being, safety, health, and lives meeting the traditionally assigned masculine responsibilities.

What it boils down to is that people who engage in MGTOW shaming and denigration are either cheap exploiters who would rather have more male suicides overall but more money in their pocket as a result of that, or enablers of such.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Corvinus
It's why we can eat pork now, why we go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday, and yes, why we don't do polygamy any more. There's no explicit Scriptural basis for any of these

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

With respect to the eating of Pork, the vision of the Apostle Peter, who was told "kill and eat" the unclean things (we assume pigs were part of that) is the first point. The second and definitive is 1 Timothy 1-5..

As far as the choice between Saturday and Sunday is concerned, perhaps you should consult the SPECIFIC guidance provided in Romans 14.

Now that you got the first two out of three wrong... in which contrary to your claims Scripture provided specific guidance, you try to tack on a subject in which Scripture provided no clear guidance. Fail. Again, to use your logic you could say that Bestiality is perfectly OK and maybe you need to start looking for a herd of goats.

1sexistpig2another said...

Brad at 8:35 am

Nursing homes are filled with older folks who have kids that visit them once a month if at all. Having kids doesn't guarantee they will be there for you. Granted if one raises them right odds are they will be, but I spent years ministering in nursing homes and the majority of the occupants rarely saw their kids. The fact that so many kids let their parents go there in the 1st place was telling.

artisanaltoadshall said...

It ate my last paragraph.

When God's Law provides clear guidance and there is nothing in the Apostolic Authority of the NT to contradict it, the opinions (tradition) of various people throughout history don't trump God's Word. Morality is not determined by democracy.

Corvinus said...

Now that you got the first two out of three wrong... in which contrary to your claims Scripture provided specific guidance, you try to tack on a subject in which Scripture provided no clear guidance. Fail. Again, to use your logic you could say that Bestiality is perfectly OK and maybe you need to start looking for a herd of goats.

Fine, I don't know Scripture as well as you do. Give yourself a pat on the back.

If you want an example of implying polygamy is banned, let's look at this then:
"Every one that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery/" (Luke 16:18).

So... what you apparently believe is that if you attempt to marry a second woman without divorcing your wife, you're not committing adultery? Then what would the point be of divorcing the first at all? You could have sex with two women! Every man's fantasy! Win win!

Don't be ridiculous.

Again, the prohibition on polygamy is implied. Tradition bans it, and Scripture never contradicts it.

Deal with it.

phantom26d said...

@Acksiom

I think you have a good point, but I think sometimes it just boils down to self-righteousness rather than money.

It doesn't really matter though. Shaming turns potential allies into enemies.

I used to be Muslim, who didn't want to marry even back then. I just knew that women are trouble. Now I just see marriages as adversary relationships that have nothing to do with love.

“To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock.” ― Emma Goldman.

Hells Hound said...

That is a fantastic post and you are absolutely right. Most Betas these days are running their own script and the above 4 groups are clamoring to claims new Beta members.

Bravo.


Thanks, hopefully I'm indeed right.

The main factor keeping this whole process in motion is prolonged economic stagnation, which is affecting most developed countries. There's increasing social pressure on young people, especially men, to push themselves, work increasingly harder and have more children, because everybody assumes that's the only way, besides mass immigration, to keep these societies economically afloat. Hence the shrill complaints in the mainstream media about so-called Peter Pan men, MRAs, PUAs, Gamergate, the dearth of "good men" and so on. There's less and less tolerance for any male behavior that is "deviant" i.e. not one of a pack mule slaving away for the common good.

The one thing sabotaging the efforts of the Man Up Brigade is, of course, the fact that these societies are thoroughly feminized, which means they are unwilling and unable to even entertain the idea of changing men's behavior through incentives. The only "solution" they can come up with to solve the problems "caused" by men is to dole out punishments, threats and shaming language. Hence the YMY laws, for example. They basically think terrorizing and shaming men into behaving better is a good idea - the only idea. This only gives more reason for men to GTOW, so what we have here is a feedback loop. The Man Up Brigade will grow ever stronger and louder, because it exacerbates the problems it claims to fight against. Good times.

SarahsDaughter said...

Other women.

How?

I ask this in all sincerity. It was a man who fixed me so I don't have personal experience to draw on.

Brad Andrews said...

Pig,

So? All that proves is that many don't have family to really care for them. Lots of reasons for that. You would have to prove that such were a large part of those who attempted marriage to make your point. Lets see some data....

Keef,

I want to warn those who would follow such idiocy. Those who are committed are unlikely to listen to any logical argument.

LBF,

Judgment day is coming. Hope your drink lasts a long time....

Guitar Man,

Don't waste your time. They just rant and demonstrate their idiocy. If Vox wants to let them do so, then perhaps letting them demonstrate the idiocy is good. Work with those who care.

Retrenched,

All of those are moral scum.

========

General comment on polygamy:

Most who push polygamy as a great solution will likely never get even one wife, let alone several. We have it now though, with soft harems and such, though the ones who do that don't argue the Biblical case for it, they just do it. The piper will get paid for that. You can't create an intentional mismatch and have no long term consequences.

I believe I read that most men still only had a single wife even in polygamous societies. Only those at the top had more. I doubt many at the top are spending much time posting here.

This picture is more like the likely polygamists brides: [img]https://i1.wp.com/www.kindofcreepy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/mormum2AP1504_468x315.jpg?zoom=2[/img]

David-093 said...

@Sarahs Daughter

Fix the problem by not allowing it to develop. In other words, it starts with the parents. Raise the daughters (and naturally sons) right and you make them marriageable by the time they're 20. As for those that are already in their mid or lat 20s and "broken", they're not my concern.

1sexistpig2another said...

Brad So? All that proves is that many don't have family to really care for them.

Can't you read? I wrote that their kids don't come and visit them. They have family. They have kids, but rarely see them. By the way, it's sexist pig to you.

How about YOU provide some data.

ARYAN said...

+1 more on Hund's post - the name 'Hund Hollen' looks familiar to other interesting posts I have read from 'Hollenhund' - thanks for posting 'the scripts'.

artisanaltoadshall said...

@Corvinus
If you want an example of implying polygamy is banned, let's look at this then:
"Every one that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery/" (Luke 16:18).


In addition to your quick Google hit, please read and study Matthew 5:31-3 and Matthew 19:1-9. That's the context, but only part of it. God's Law forbids adultery, but allows a man to have more than one wife. If you don't believe that, perhaps you should read Exodus 1:10 and explain how "conjugal rights" of the woman can happen apart from marriage.

So, the law allows polygyny but forbids adultery and now you're trying to tell me that polygyny is adultery? Get a grip. The passage you quoted and the relevant related passages are making a specific point: God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. The ONLY way one can commit adultery is if they're married. Since a man can have more than one wife, the implication in Luke 16 is Jesus was referring to a man marrying a woman who had not been legitimately divorced. That might be why neither Matthew 5 or Matthew 19 mention the husband marrying another woman.

However, this is why polygyny is such a fascinating issue. Deut. 24:1-4 (the law of divorce) was a judgment of Moses and did not come from God. It does not appear in any of the books of the law, but only in Deuteronomy. In Matthew 19 Jesus made it plain that "Moses permitted you..." and the Pharisees were in complete understanding about the issue. However, in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, the Lord Jesus specifically overturned that judgment of Moses and forbid divorce between His believers.

This is why polygyny is the perfect lens with which to view the sin of divorce in the church. The churches support and allow that which God says He hates (divorce), yet condemn something God never had a problem with (polygyny).

Again, the prohibition on polygamy is implied. Tradition bans it, and Scripture never contradicts it.

Scripture (God's Law) regulates polygyny so there is no prohibition without an explicit prohibition later in Scripture. Is God the same? Yesterday, today and forever? Is His Law not perfect (c.f. Psalm 19)? How then can you claim that your so-called tradition trumps God's Perfect Written Word?

Stephen Ward said...

@SarahsDaughter
"How?

I ask this in all sincerity. It was a man who fixed me so I don't have personal experience to draw on."

Women are socially oriented, right? When a woman sleeps with a man she isn't married to, what would happen if her social circle stopped talking to her and hanging out with her, and her own mother disowned her?

Hells Hound said...

How?

I ask this in all sincerity. It was a man who fixed me so I don't have personal experience to draw on.


You do it by setting an example for other women to voluntarily follow. Setting an example showing that refusing the feminist script serves their own long-term interest better than following it. Show them that it's possible to elicit the kind of male behavior they expect.

You're a woman living in a feminized society - a society structured around your wants, where men are only guests and life accessories. It's your world - women's world. You are the ones who have the power to shape it.

Hells Hound said...

+1 more on Hund's post - the name 'Hund Hollen' looks familiar to other interesting posts I have read from 'Hollenhund' - thanks for posting 'the scripts'.

Yes, that's me. Commenting here with a Wordpress registration is too much of a hassle, but the name of the Google account I use here was screwed up.

Acksiom said...

@phantom26d

>I think you have a good point, but I think sometimes it just boils down to self-righteousness rather than money.

They're not exclusive of each other, but the economics is always there. The self-righteousness is more about quelling the internal insecurity caused by the blatant cognitive dissonance displayed between being a supposed advocate for men's and boys' issues, yet tearing men and boys down for not sacrificing enough for others.

>It doesn't really matter though. Shaming turns potential allies into enemies.

Or new victims, and that's one of the reasons why things are the way they are.

I keep telling you folks, you have to be offering us something better than just faith. Again, we can't trust our communities to keep up their end of the marriage contract. You want us to marry and work hard and lead a family; we want you to rein in the family courts and the police and child protective services.

You "Man up and marry those sluts!" folks are the ones slacking off, not the MGTOWs. Like the loose young women, you haven't figured out yet that men and boys are not only getting more and better alternatives to marriage, but that the rate of increase is accelerating.

You want us to marry, but you don't offer anything in exchange. I figured out a standard reply to that sort of demand long ago, and it applies here:

No, *I* don't like *your* behavior; *you* should change just to suit *my* personal preferences.

Because, really, what are you offering us that's sufficient to make up for the risk? What's in it for us? You can't guarantee us a wife and family and you know it. You also know that you're trying to draft us into your service, but you just kind of conveniently skip over the whole consent issue.

We were never in your barracks in the first place. We never joined your army, and we don't belong to it just because we're male.

We're not your troops, Vox. We're mercenaries. Nothing for nothing, and what you're offering is less than nothing.

Brad Andrews said...

Acksiom,

You "Man up and marry those sluts!" folks are the ones slacking off, not the MGTOWs.

Who said that in this thread? You must really like straw men.

Pig,

You still did not validate that the ones you mentioned were a significant part of those who married. You have the need to prove the point.

"MGTOWs will have no one to look after them when they are older."

"But some married folks have no one to look at them when they are older."

All MGTOWs will be alone unless they really weren't MGTOW. Many married ones with children will not be there. Which is more appealing? I will spend my time trying to help those who are in the latter category but got messed over before I would waste time on hedonists. Grasshopper, winter will eventually come. The ants will have food, but you will have used yours up.

verusconditio said...

I ask this in all sincerity. It was a man who fixed me so I don't have personal experience to draw on.

We establish a new herd. More and more women are being drawn to this lifestyle (yes, it is still quite small, but growing). One of the reasons, ironically enough, is because we are the new rebels.

Also, we live our lives. They can call us weak willed doormats who are scared of our tyrant husbands all they want. But the fact is, we are happy. We live our happy lives and people will see. Women will see. Some will come to us for help and some will even listen. Hopefully there will a ripple affect.

~ Stingray

David-093 said...

"We're not your troops, Vox. We're mercenaries. Nothing for nothing, and what you're offering is less than nothing."

You're an idiot. The majority of women may not be worth a shit, but there are plenty of marriageable ones out there. He's telling you to find them and sustain Western civilization, but given that you're a "mercenary", you care for nothing except yourself so it's probably for the best you don't reproduce.

Corvinus said...

Scripture (God's Law) regulates polygyny so there is no prohibition without an explicit prohibition later in Scripture. Is God the same? Yesterday, today and forever? Is His Law not perfect (c.f. Psalm 19)? How then can you claim that your so-called tradition trumps God's Perfect Written Word?

You have not provided a single quote in support of polygamy from either the New Testament, or by any early Christian authorities whatsoever. All you are able to show is that the New Testament has not explicitly banned it.

But again, not everything is in Scripture. In fact, your Scriptural support of having the Sabbath be on Sunday instead of Saturday isn't any more explicit than Scriptural condemnation of polygamy, and probably in fact less so.

Since a man can have more than one wife, the implication in Luke 16 is Jesus was referring to a man marrying a woman who had not been legitimately divorced.

No. He was referring to a man marrying any second woman, including a never-married woman. If you can show me that "marries another" somehow refers only to divorcees, you can go ahead and try do that.

You also assert that monogamy was a "Roman" thing introduced to the Church. Unfortunately for you, the Eastern Christians in Syria and elsewhere have also always been monogamous.

And as if that wasn't enough, we have the perfect thousand-year-old laboratory for your ideas: the Islamic world and its stagnant, inbred, cretinous population.

Which, of course, you've never addressed either.

liberranter said...

Who? Who should fix the women?

Other women.


Once upon a time that was possible, when the majority of women were not active or de facto modernist feminists. Now that nearly 100 percent of them are, there are almost no "wiser older women" to set things right again.

Acksiom said...

@Brad Andrews

>>You "Man up and marry those sluts!" folks are the ones slacking off, not the MGTOWs.

>Who said that in this thread? You must really like straw men.

[shrug] It's the common manosphere summation of the attitudes being displayed. It's not a straw man because nobody had to say it explicitly for it to apply here correctly.

>I will spend my time trying to help those who are in the latter category but got messed over before I would waste time on hedonists.

Dropping out of a society that messes people over so consistently that even you acknowledge there's a need to help them is hardly "hedonistic", Brad. Funny thing, when I was MGTOW for 14 years straight, it was because I dropped everything else in my life to take care of my handicapped father, and later my mother when she finally had a crippling CVE. I didn't have time for women because I was too busy doing the single stay-at-home-dad thing for my incapacitated parents.

Yes, winter will eventually come. So what? You don't seem to understand than many of us were raised above the snow line ITFP, so to speak, and never managed to beat its advance downhill into spring. What have we to fear from more winter? And where were you when we were struggling to survive?

Well, never mind chewing old soup. The bottom line today is: what are you offering us now, Brad? What have you done for me lately?

MGTOW aren't hedonists; MGTOW are mercenaries. Tits or GTFO, Brad.

Corvinus said...

You're an idiot. The majority of women may not be worth a shit, but there are plenty of marriageable ones out there. He's telling you to find them and sustain Western civilization, but given that you're a "mercenary", you care for nothing except yourself so it's probably for the best you don't reproduce.

MGTOWs are a bunch of hopeless Gamma atheists.

"All marriage is Marriage 2.0!"

"Improve ourselves and learn Game? Yeah, you are just telling us to man up and marry those sluts!"

It's becoming more and more obvious as the thread goes on. /smh

professorastro said...

St. Kramer -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysw3QZIBzMo

Acksiom said...

@David-093 -

>You're an idiot. The majority of women may not be worth a shit, but there are plenty of marriageable ones out there.

No, you're illiterate. As I said above:

Again, we can't trust our communities to keep up their end of the marriage contract. You want us to marry and work hardand lead a family; we want you to rein in the family courts and the police and child protective services.

It's not about marriageable women. It's about marriageable communities. I've been saying for years that there are plenty of marriageable women out there, but a lack of marriageable women is not the problem. The problem is that marriage is also a contract between a couple on one side and community on the other, and we can't find any communities that can be trusted to keep up their end of the deal.

The wife is not the only person who can blow up the marriage, put the man in prison, and take his children away from him. Do you understand that? Do you understand that a community has a responsibility to ensure such things aren't done on false grounds?

Do you understand that you are disagreeing with a proposition that I did not make? Again, it's not the women; it's the communities -- and that's YOUR responsibility, because YOU folks are the ones who want US to change our behavior.

Well. . .what's in it for us? You know what our requirements are. You know what you need to do for us in exchange; default presumption of equal custody, forex, is non-negotiable. When are you people going to start talking about keeping up your end of the contract? When are you people going to start taking responsibility for the changes in the world you want us to provide for you?

Acksiom said...

@Corvinus

>MGTOWs are a bunch of hopeless Gamma atheists.

And even if they were, I'd still be right about the exploitation reasons behind the namecalling. So what does that make you?

1sexistpig2another said...

Brat All MGTOWs will be alone unless they really weren't MGTOW.

I guess the accuracy of this statement depends on which definition of MGTOW is the correct one (if there is a correct one). I still haven't seen much to nail down what is meant by the term, especially by those (like you) who criticize it.

Many married ones with children will not be there. Which is more appealing?

Which is more appealing depends on what each man has to lose or gain (cost vs benefit), which you are not in a position to evaluate in most cases.

My point was that following your rules in this hedonistic society does not guarantee a man's children will be there either. Sure his chances are better if he actually has children, but how much better? And does having children out way the other penalties that accompany further entangling him (and any future family) with an oppressive state?

What kind of life are those children going to have if mommy wants to cash in? Once mommy cashes in and takes his kids, what are the chances of them being around in his old age? As some have pointed out already, there aren't enough marriage worthy women in the US to go around (which is why I recommend shopping over seas), so what you and others seem to be advocating is signing up for Russian roulette in the form of high risk government sanctioned emasculation. I can't fault a man for steering clear of those waters.

It's obvious that the critics of MGTOW don't agree with the proponents of MGTOW on who or what is being criticized. I've asked on the other Vox thread for a definition so I could see what is being objected to, and so far no one has really nailed anything down.

So Brat, you tell me, without a solid definition for the term, how does being MGTOW automatically make a man a hedonist, a leach, and disobedient to God?

Keef said...

1sexistpig2another
"So Brat, you tell me, without a solid definition for the term, how does being MGTOW automatically make a man a hedonist, a leach, and disobedient to God?"

It doesn't make anyone, by its own virtue, disobedient to God. You know it (and called some people out on it), and they know it.

phantom26d said...

@David-093

"You're an idiot. The majority of women may not be worth a shit, but there are plenty of marriageable ones out there."

AKA the NAWALT argument. Where have I heard that before?

Let us know when you've discovered a method which allows men to isolate the unicorns from the rest with a hundred percent certainty that she's neither a fake nor will she change in the future.

If that's too difficult, change the gynocentric marriage / custody laws.

What exactly is this "Western civilization" that guys are supposed to Man Up and sustain anyway? The secular, godless one we have right know is pretty much a dead man walking, and I doubt such childish name-calling will be of any use for keeping men in the plantation.

It needs to get worse before it gets better. Let it all burn. We'll see whether Christian communities rise from the ashes and continue with their brand of civilization.

One thing is getting increasingly clear for me; which is that even "red pill" Christians don't really concern themselves with all risks and suffering men have to face. Far as I'm concerned, It is just anohter script / ideology being pushed onto males as Hollenhund noted.

1sexistpig2another said...

"...The majority of women may not be worth a shit, but there are plenty of marriageable ones out there."

This really needs to be clarified. Please define "plenty" and "marriageable".

If this study is anything to go by:

http://waitingtillmarriage.org/4-cool-statistics-about-abstinence-in-the-usa/

then only around 3% of people under the age of 45 in the US haven't already fornicated before they marry. How many unsullied women does that leave, and how many of the unsullied are marriage minded let alone marriage worthy?

HickoryHammer #0211 said...

Lol, MGTOW debates really get people's juices flowing!

SarahsDaughter said...

@David-093
Fix the problem by not allowing it to develop. In other words, it starts with the parents. Raise the daughters (and naturally sons) right and you make them marriageable by the time they're 20. As for those that are already in their mid or lat 20s and "broken", they're not my concern.

Check, doing that. However, this is, by extension, still a man fixing things - the same one who fixed me.

@Hells Hound
You do it by setting an example for other women to voluntarily follow. Setting an example showing that refusing the feminist script serves their own long-term interest better than following it. Show them that it's possible to elicit the kind of male behavior they expect.

Check.

You're a woman living in a feminized society - a society structured around your wants,

This is not true. This society is by no means structured around my (or other like women's) wants. Feminists, yes, but for those of us who understand the nature of women and the devastation feminism is causing them, it has been painful to witness.

@Stephen Ward
Women are socially oriented, right? When a woman sleeps with a man she isn't married to, what would happen if her social circle stopped talking to her and hanging out with her, and her own mother disowned her?

For my own daughters, this would be devastating and they would likely get the message. They have those purity rings (I know many people balk at that) but it was the first vow they have made. They will keep these rings as a sign of their obedience to God's instruction that they be chaste. They have been great conversation pieces for their peers. Some of the sexually active girls (age 14-16) find them to be signs of overly controlling parents. They get the most comments from boys - who respect the rings! "Ah, a Good Christian Girl."

Regarding other single women, I feel like a miserable failure when it comes to influencing them. Yes they are social creatures but the desire to be with a man they are highly attracted to seems to always win out over social shame or stigma. It is also very difficult to overcome the acceptance of stupid behavior by EVERYONE else in their sphere of influence. For instance with our nephew's girlfriend - he was just joining the military and she was playing the dutiful role of "Army wife" though he did not propose before he left or give any indication that he would later. She spent way too much time with his mom and grandma, they taught her how to can veggies and quilt. I told his mom this was a mistake, that they're not married and if he breaks up to her, being attached to our family is going to devastate her. Everyone ignored me. Then when her dad told her he didn't want her to fly out to D.C. where he was training to visit him, she pitched a fit on Facebook. In an email exchange, I advised her to listen to her dad, don't go. Let him wait for her and long for her, don't give the milk away for free. She went anyway, had a wonderful, romantic vacation with him - great memories for her to think on in her alpha widowhood. He dumped her within a month of coming back home.



SarahsDaughter said...

@Stingray

We establish a new herd. More and more women are being drawn to this lifestyle (yes, it is still quite small, but growing). One of the reasons, ironically enough, is because we are the new rebels.

Also, we live our lives. They can call us weak willed doormats who are scared of our tyrant husbands all they want. But the fact is, we are happy. We live our happy lives and people will see. Women will see. Some will come to us for help and some will even listen. Hopefully there will a ripple affect.


With married women I'm seeing the this a little bit. But what about single women? Have you been successful in mentoring single woman toward the right choices?

For me, I'm losing credibility due to age. Young women (even some sassy Christian ones who want to hang with the men on VP and teach them a thing or two about the Bible) are so blind to truth and any amount of admonishment - "I'm not gonna listen to you, you're old" I'd love to see more of those younger women who seem to be "fixed" focus less on where they disagree with men and more on influencing women of their same age.

Bluntobj Winz said...

The difficulty with christian communities is that they have been converted to hollow churchian groups, and now lack the will to compete against those religions who still have fire in their bellies.

This is completely understandable with the conversion of woman as temptress that places herself in submission to god and her husband in order to control her hypergamous biology into a woman as always virtuous until a man makes her sin without volition, because it is his fault she is now fallen, and must be made to pay.

Islam, from a successful religious standpoint, does a great job of policing and excising those ideas which will weaken it. You might call it inbred or cretinous, but this is debatable given the demonstration of debauchery, sin, and outright devilishness that modern Western culture offers.

MGTOW and the other withdrawal of male support and provisioning from women are the only rational response to the currently corrupt governmental, religious, and cultural practices that embody the western world today. As a believer in God, I thoroughly despise the Churchian infection in Christianity, and an embrace of a warped version of turn the other cheek, which in today's parlance means that it's ok for enemies of Christians to cut off their heads, sell their wives and daughters into sexual slavery, destroy their property, expunge history from the world, and salt the very ground it stood on.

Christians are so memetically set on a martyrdom that their practical sense has been encouraged to leave them. My wife recently made me laugh by saying "In the old days god SMOTE people and countries, ordered their populations killed, their women taken, and their donkeys killed too!" While she went a little overboard on the poor donkeys, she is correct. Jesus did not equate turning the other cheek with being killed. He was savvy enough to know that his followers could not mount an active guerrilla campaign, so he became the first 4th generation warfare leader in recorded history. He further did not repudiate the laws of the Old Testament, though he struggled (successfully) for people to hold forgiveness in their hearts.

Ultimately Christianity will not rise again until women seek to place themselves under men for protection from themselves and their nature. The destructiveness of female hypergamy will not be tamed by Churchians!

Corvinus said...

1sexistpig2another
"So Brat, you tell me, without a solid definition for the term, how does being MGTOW automatically make a man a hedonist, a leach, and disobedient to God?"

It doesn't make anyone, by its own virtue, disobedient to God. You know it (and called some people out on it), and they know it.


@Keef
Only if you remain strictly celibate.

verusconditio said...

Have you been successful in mentoring single woman toward the right choices?

In real life, no. Online (on the RPW subreddit) I've been successful in mentoring young women toward some of the right choices. Respect, gratitude, seeing their own folly, building him up, caring for him, throwing off feminist nonsense.

I couldn't do it alone, but the group of women there don't put up with any nonsense and there are a surprising number of young women there who are responding quite well to it.

~ Stingray

Corvinus said...

And even if they were, I'd still be right about the exploitation reasons behind the namecalling. So what does that make you?

@Axiom
It makes me not a complete pessimist.

I really don't care if atheist Gammas go MGTOW. I really don't. You all are free to do that if you like. But don't sneer at what we do, either. We aren't stupid.

One thing is getting increasingly clear for me; which is that even "red pill" Christians don't really concern themselves with all risks and suffering men have to face.

@Phantom
It's not necessarily that. We don't deny that they exist (which would be blue pill). But since marriage is a requirement for Christians to have sex, if you want sex and are Christian, you have to learn Game if you don't want to get frivorced.

Regarding other single women, I feel like a miserable failure when it comes to influencing them. Yes they are social creatures but the desire to be with a man they are highly attracted to seems to always win out over social shame or stigma.

Right. Isn't it fun being a Cassandra? I don't understand that earlier poster's asking women to police women. They've shown themselves to be completely unable to do anything more than shaming, and tingles win over shaming any day. Guiding the women is the duty of the men, and above all the duty of the men they're attracted to.

tonsplace said...

There is a lot of bombastic language about fighting and combat from folks who have no trigger time. Makes it impossible to take them serious. Leastwise when your a man with trigger time and who went without sex for years while trying to save a marriage more or less because I was under the same kind of delusions the pro marriage crowd is still wielded to.

Maybe I could take y'all serious if you had blood on your hands, or paying a shit load in child support and alimony, or some jail time due to false rape accusation or did 6 months of anger management due to some false domestic violence claims or anything from the laundry list of likely outcomes. Without those experiences you are cheerleaders on the sidelines.

Maybe y'all could put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to pay child support, alimony, divorce fees, property settlements etc of those who do take on the risks advocate for and claim are the hallmark of masculinty. Set up some kind of emergency fund for those foolish enough to listen to the whole get married scam. You know provide some tangible assistance and incentive.... any of you pro marriage fellas want to pony up some cash to cover my lifetime alimony so I will consider a legal marriage again? And by the way according to most pro marriage folks criteria I married wisely; young virgin bride, church girl, no history of divorce or mental illness in her family.... so think again on that topic sparky.

Also might do folks some good if they realize the vocal kind of mgtow on the internet are not typical of the men who do the math and say no thanks. No neckbeards etc in the mgtow I know. Most Just decide bikes or fishing or working their daddy's farm are better investments. It's pretty damn funny thinking of my friends going their own way as whimps, cowards etc given their combat record 's and all.

Your Godly Christian marriages is only that until she changes her mind. And why does the pro marriage side have to lie about all the good marriage minded low risk women out there? Such statements erode your credibility.

And Bibical marriage has nothing to do with a state sponsored licence.

The claim mgtow are eating the seed corn of civilization sounds catchy but is a hollow statement. As in the notion the majority of mgtow are living some hedonistic lifestyle, but hey keep batting those cool buzzwords around. That will teach those dastardly mgtow .

Cail Corishev said...

Regarding other single women, I feel like a miserable failure when it comes to influencing them.

You can only do so much when it comes to spreading unconventional thinking. More than a decade ago, I learned how wrong the conventional wisdom on nutrition is. At first, I went through the usual evangelical stage, wanting to spread the truth, and probably annoying everyone to little gain. Eventually I realized you can't teach people until they want to learn, and started keeping my mouth shut. One night, sitting around with friends, someone started asking me questions about it, so I let them draw me out, and ended up giving a pretty good summary of the facts. They seemed convinced -- at least convinced there was more than one story. But the next day, they saw ads on TV for "heart-healthy" cereals, stopped at McDonald's and saw their grain-heavy "healthy" selections, heard a comedian telling jokes about someone getting fat on bacon, saw some celebrity bragging about her low-fat diet on a magazine cover, and everything I said went right out of their heads.

You're one person up against an entire society of influences, which nowadays get beamed into their heads through every waking hour. Even if you were the most respected person in their lives, you'd have trouble influencing them against that tide.

David-093 said...

@Acksiom

"No, you're illiterate"

I read what you said and it doesn't mean a damn thing. "Marriageable communities"? Dude, where do you live, the Middle East? If you have a problem with the community you're in then make an effort to move away. Not every part of the US is like DC or New York, there's still civilization here.

@1sexistpig2another

"This really needs to be clarified. Please define "plenty" and "marriageable"."

"Plenty" as in millions. "Marriageable" as in chaste, committed to honoring vows, reasonably fit, desires kids.

@SarahsDaughter

"Check, doing that. However, this is, by extension, still a man fixing things - the same one who fixed me."

Yeah, you're doing exactly the right thing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes. That being said, your case is somewhat of an anamoly. Your husband took a major risk, greater than what the MGTOWs are bitching about relentlessly, and it worked, but that's because you genuinely repented and seriously honored your vows.

"This is not true. This society is by no means structured around my (or other like women's) wants. Feminists, yes, but for those of us who understand the nature of women and the devastation feminism is causing them, it has been painful to witness."

Society is only using women's basest wants to further the goals of particularly wicked men and the occasional woman. The alphas are the only ones benefiting both in the short term and the long term. Women overall are benefiting in the short-term at the expense of the long-term. The betas largely don't benefit at all.

"They get the most comments from boys - who respect the rings! "Ah, a Good Christian Girl." "

Men and boys have very little problem waiting for intimacy if it's guaranteed (i.e. marriage). Where they are absolutely, positively loathed to wait is when it's withheld on a whim. Boys tend to respect girls if they are chaste before marriage, as boys have the correct understanding of it: women have no trouble getting laid, it's the resistance to the constant temptations and offers that's the real test.

"Yes they are social creatures but the desire to be with a man they are highly attracted to seems to always win out over social shame or stigma."

Women's attraction to high-value men is understandable, but ultimately if it's not reigned in from a young age it'll make them miserable. Women used to have a much broader selection of men to choose from since they weren't artificially proppped up by society, but now they desire only the alphaest at the expense of those that they will actually be happy with.

Which is why you raising your daughters properly is the true solution to this problem.

tonsplace said...

Also there really isn't that many atheist around so that argument also sounds awful silly and Christ tells us to care about atheist and gammas, which is why we're were supposed to spread the Good News.

As for the pro marriage group not being stupid, who am I to say? I do know a fair amount about motivating young men you are asking to dangerous and nasty jobs; sneering at mgtow and what not in an attempt to get them to buy into your schemes is pretty f#cking stupid but it is a good way to get your side all fired up and feeling good about themselves.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Lol, MGTOW debates really get people's juices flowing!

Tell me about it! Hilariously, as if on cue, out comes the finger-pointing, shaming language, and self-righteous moralising. The notion that some men simply aren't called to the married life, or have simply rejected it, is unacceptable to these types. They sound like old women.

Acksiom said...

>It makes me not a complete pessimist.

And also someone who would rather exploit men and boys to their loss and his own benefit rather than helping them.

>I really don't care if atheist Gammas go MGTOW. I really don't.

Yes, I know. You don't expect to get any benefit from them participating in society, so of course you don't care if they drop out.

You *do* care, however, if both deltas and better (regardless of atheism) go MGTOW, because you *do* expect to benefit from their self-sacrificial participation. That's ultimately why you characterize MGTOW as hopeless gamma atheists; it's the same basic reason why SJWs -- or anybody, really -- namecalls and denigrates others. You want to put the hoodoo curse (hopeless, gamma) on MGTOW because men dropping out increases the competition and prices in the remaining male labor market, and you don't want to pay us back a fair price for what you're asking of us. Thus, you characterize MGTOW as hopeless gamma atheists in order to scare more profitably exploitable men and boys away from dropping out like them.

As long as it's just the hopeless gamma atheists, the consequences to your pocketbook from MGTOW aren't big enough to matter. But if enough functional, competent guys follow their lead and drop out, it's another story. If that happens, then you might have to start paying more for them to risk their well-being, safety, health, and lives to provide you with the resources, infrastructure, manufacturing, defense and so on to which you are so comfortably accustomed.

>You all are free to do that if you like. But don't sneer at what we do, either.

But Corvinus, you *don't* do anything. That's *my* point. What are you doing *for* these guys? You want them to change their behavior, but the only tool you seem to have available to you is a stick to beat them into obedience.

So again. . .what's in it for us? When are you people going to start talking about keeping up your end of the contract? When are you people going to start taking responsibility for the changes in the world you want us to provide for you?

Corvinus said...

sneering at mgtow and what not in an attempt to get them to buy into your schemes is pretty f#cking stupid but it is a good way to get your side all fired up and feeling good about themselves.

@tonsplace
The thing I disrespect about MGTOW is their pessimism, and their refusal to see that they could get better with women if they wanted to. But they don't really want to. And that's fine. But it doesn't mean I can respect them, any more than I could respect any other Gammas out there.

Corvinus said...

And Axiom, consider what I wrote to tonsplace as also addressed to you.

SarahsDaughter said...

Have you all seen this advertisement? I'm not sure if they are a national firm but they are here in our (very feminist/liberal) community. Their radio commercials are fantastic. With all that I have read and personal experience to boot, ALL children would be best off staying with Dad in a divorce. If you have to be a lawyer, this would be an okay one to be.
Cordell & Cordell TV Commercial - Divorce for Men - Fathers Rights - Dads Rights

SarahsDaughter said...

More than a decade ago, I learned how wrong the conventional wisdom on nutrition is. At first, I went through the usual evangelical stage, wanting to spread the truth, and probably annoying everyone to little gain.

Heh! I'm in the evangelical stage right now! My poor family. They are so sick of watching documentaries and listening to me talk about sugar addiction and the benefits of fat. (Have you seen Cereal Killers yet?) :) For my friends, I told them I'd spare them and created a private facebook group where I post endless information and articles and invited them all. Surprisingly 8 of them wanted access to it. - 8!!! :)

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Lol, MGTOW debates really get people's juices flowing!

Tell me about it! Hilariously, as if on cue, out comes the finger-pointing, shaming language, and self-righteous moralising. The notion that some men simply aren't called to the married life, or have simply rejected it, is unacceptable to these types. They sound like old women.

tonsplace said...

That's ok I cannot respect the pro marriage side because of hos they devalue men and play fast and lose with the truth. Or cannot show human decency to a group of beaten down men.

And how do you know most mgtow are gammas? The ones I know certainly are not. We dont have enough intell to make that call. One young man I know is fit, a former Marine with a second lauange, good prospects and college paid for yet the only woman qualified to marry him is not interested. Nor does he live in DC, New York Etc. Another I know is a miracle worker with a machine gun, extremely fit and all that jazz but watched his mother ( a good church girl) destroy his father. Not to mention witnessing all the infidelity of being down range and his inability to find worthy women in rural Michigan. Maybe the gamma thing is code for nerd etc but I don't run with that crowd.

And since you pimp the Christian line you are required to love the gammas any way. I am all for tough love when required but abuse is still abuse

Acksiom said...

@David-093
>I read what you said and it doesn't mean a damn thing.

It means what I intended; you just don't understand it. Marriage isn't just a contract between a man on one side and a woman on the other; it's also a contract between a man and woman on one side, and a community on the other.

>"Marriageable communities"? Dude, where do you live, the Middle East? If you have a problem with the community you're in then make an effort to move away. Not every part of the US is like DC or New York, there's still civilization here.

So what if not everywhere is as bad as DC and NY? That's not the point. The point is, under the current conditions, nowhere is good enough, so it simply doesn't matter how bad anywhere else is. When our choice is between dog crap, bull crap, horse crap, and fake food, it doesn't matter how much more crappy one of the first three is versus the others. They're all off the menu, and we're sticking to the fake food, the MGTOW, because even if it doesn't nourish us as well as real food, it's still better than your crap.

You show me a community in the usa where there's default presumption of equal custody. Or where any of the other critical State-empowered impediments to modern marriage -- biopaternal primacy, comparable parenthood exit strategies, child support reform; the list goes on and on -- have been publicly addressed and minimized, and there is a consistent record of making it stick.

So go on, show me a community in the usa that has a recent public record of meeting its reciprocal responsibilities to the male part of the couple on the other side of the marriage contract.

LibertyPortraits said...

Is there even a statistically significant number of MGTOW to warrant all of this fear mongering? It's not like these MGTOW men are like the Jews and capable of political action and financial control, even as a small number. There are also probably less MGTOWs than there are Jews, and MGTOWs seem to be, by definition, not influential. I find that the more I go on the internet and frequent these kinds of discussions, the bigger this problem seems, and then the more time I spend offline and out in the world, I forget about these grand battles for civilization all together because I don't see this happening around me.

Acksiom said...

@Corvinus

>The thing I disrespect about MGTOW is their pessimism, and their refusal to see that they could get better with women if they wanted to. But they don't really want to.

Except, of course, for those that do, and are doing so, and who are all over the place in reddit's TRP and older manosphere forums.

>But it doesn't mean I can respect them, any more than I could respect any other Gammas out there.

Nobody said you had to. More importantly, not respecting someone does not compel you to sneer at them and put them down. Normal, healthy people simply don't bother; as much as possible, they ignore the people they don't respect. Yet here you are, sneering and putting them down. Why bother?

Well, the real point, which you are dodging, and attempting to distract people from by treating "non-respect" as equivalent to shaming and namecalling, is that you sneer at them because you want to drive non-gammas away from MGTOW so that you can more easily exploit them to your benefit and their loss.

Cail Corishev said...

Men and boys have very little problem waiting for intimacy if it's guaranteed (i.e. marriage).

That's true, though of course it's the opposite of the stereotype. When I was 18, I really, really, really wanted to have sex. But if someone had said to me, "Look, if you just play by the rules, 2-3 years from now you'll be banging your young new wife every night and twice on Sundays," I would have signed up for that. Instead, that path didn't seem to be available anymore; there was a sense that it'd be a several-year wait, at least until they finished college, with no guarantee then. Nowadays an 18-year-old man must see that all the girls he knows consider marriage at least ten years away with no guarantee at the end. Signing up for more than a decade of celibacy during your most lustful years, in hopes that a woman will choose you when she gets tired of "relationships," is a much chancier deal.

tonsplace said...

Excellent point LP but... I work with mostly men in their mid 20's to early 30's. None have heard the term mgtow best I can tell but damn near half of them are living it. For the now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring for them. None are really blue pill, a few are red pill but they certainly seem to know what's up. Their experiences or what they have witnessed 1st hand has their minds on other things. Even the guys who statistically should be well positioned in the smp/ mmp are pretty much leaving it be.

Way I reckon it is, the Chicken Little sky is falling thing regarding mgtow is more about fear of the future then about the mgtow numbers as they stand..... and probably a good deal about rallying the pro marriage team

The Remnant said...

I gave marriage an honest shot. When it blew up, I considered myself very lucky to have escaped with no harm other than a broken heart, which has mended. My decision not to re-marry has NOTHING to with fear of what might happen the second time around, and everything to do with my realization that marriage no longer exists. An arrangement whereby one party has unilateral power to destroy the family on a whim; profit from it despite being guilty of any number of abuses or infidelities; and subject the innocent party to debt peonage enforced by prison is not marriage. It's an abomination, and I will no longer legitimize or endorse it with my participation.

I admire all the men out there who are working hard at being a husband and/or a father. Raising a family indeed is vital to civilization, whether preserving one or laying the foundation for a renewed one. But none of you are actually married. You are not the lord of the manor; you are a serf tilling the soil on another lord's property.

Tobias Templo said...

MGTOW guys, if marriage is too scary for you, where would you be when the much scarier things come to pass?

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

You are not the lord of the manor; you are a serf tilling the soil on another lord's property.

Slaves.

Cail Corishev said...

Is there even a statistically significant number of MGTOW

In terms of men who will not marry even if an attractive girl makes a play for them, then I'd say no, there aren't that many. Most would marry if the right girl came along. I doubt there will ever be enough men refusing to marry to cause a problem, though it could be that the ones who do will tend to be the cream of the crop, so that their withdrawal has a more dysgenic effect than their numbers would indicate.

Marriage will regain its status and importance when women want it again, and want it badly enough to withhold sex to get it. What'll cause that, I don't know. Economic hard times could do it, a swing of the pendulum back to stricter social mores could do it.

liberranter said...

You show me a community in the usa where there's default presumption of equal custody. Or where any of the other critical State-empowered impediments to modern marriage -- biopaternal primacy, comparable parenthood exit strategies, child support reform; the list goes on and on -- have been publicly addressed and minimized, and there is a consistent record of making it stick.

So go on, show me a community in the usa that has a recent public record of meeting its reciprocal responsibilities to the male part of the couple on the other side of the marriage contract.


We all know the answer to this - and it's important to the "Christian/biblical marriage" crowd because the answer is, of course, "there ain't none." This is, once again, is why "Christian/biblical marriage" only exists until wifey, no matter how dedicaded and devout of a Christian she supposedly is, decides that it no longer does. At this point the State intervenes on her behalf - even if you thought you could keep the State's nose out of the original covenant by not getting one of its marriage licenses.

tonsplace said...

Tobais where we're you when I was fighting the drug war in places like Colombia with men who went their own way? Or when we jumped into Panama for the invasion with men who have gone their own way? Or destroyed surface to air missiles sights in Iraq back in 1990? Or did counter sniper missions in Somila and the Balkans? Or the multiple deployments to Iraq ans Afghanistan? Not to mention the off the books work I have done with some men going their own way? Or the men gong their own way who fight fires? Work as cops in shit hole cities? Or ride mister waves? Or hunt bears with bows?

And you know what? There is not a damn thing cowardly about counting the cost and saying no to a venture. The Good Book tells us to count the cost and be prudent.

You know not of which you speak. Which is right typical for your crew

Tobias Templo said...

You know not of which you speak. Which is right typical for your crew

Please. Posturing does not earn you anything here but a chuckle.

The irony of your post is that you are willing to, allegedly, all those "brave" things you listed and yet starting a family is much much more costly in comparison.

You did count the cost but you failed to be prudent.

Look at Paul the Apostle. Did he not count the cost of living in a civilization hostile to what he preached? Did he do what you did?

What your side failed to see is that you chose what was easy. And you wonder why the other side only have contempt for your crowd as they continue to fight the battle that will also benefit you once it is won.

Brad Andrews said...

Acksion,

[shrug] It's the common manosphere summation of the attitudes being displayed. It's not a straw man because nobody had to say it explicitly for it to apply here correctly.

So we are guilty just because we don't agree with you? Must not have a very strong position if you have to tell everyone what someone believes but isn't saying. Just like the SJWs. Maybe you will develop a sound argument some day and can leave behind the name calling and similar attacks. I won't hold my breath though.

LBF,

Looking in the mirror? You are always on the attack when not boasting of your escapades. You are as much a narcissist as any female.

Cail,

I probably push more than some, but targeting the message is the important thing. I spoke up at a home fellowship we attended for our new church. It was afterward when we were talking about homosexual marriage and such. A few seeds of truth were planted, but I didn't try to win everyone over. I can get sucked into arguing, but I am really trying to hold myself back on that and only share tidbits with interested parties.

Stingray (I think),

You may not have credibility, but better to give a solid message than worry about being heard. Your job is to spread the message, not to make sure it is received well. The Biblical principle is for the older women to teach the younger ones. You just need to find more teachable ones.

(That could have been for SD.)

Brad Andrews said...

Acksion,

[shrug] It's the common manosphere summation of the attitudes being displayed. It's not a straw man because nobody had to say it explicitly for it to apply here correctly.

So we are guilty just because we don't agree with you? Must not have a very strong position if you have to tell everyone what someone believes but isn't saying. Just like the SJWs. Maybe you will develop a sound argument some day and can leave behind the name calling and similar attacks. I won't hold my breath though.

LBF,

Looking in the mirror? You are always on the attack when not boasting of your escapades. You are as much a narcissist as any female.

Cail,

I probably push more than some, but targeting the message is the important thing. I spoke up at a home fellowship we attended for our new church. It was afterward when we were talking about homosexual marriage and such. A few seeds of truth were planted, but I didn't try to win everyone over. I can get sucked into arguing, but I am really trying to hold myself back on that and only share tidbits with interested parties.

Stingray (I think),

You may not have credibility, but better to give a solid message than worry about being heard. Your job is to spread the message, not to make sure it is received well. The Biblical principle is for the older women to teach the younger ones. You just need to find more teachable ones.

(That could have been for SD.)

Corvinus said...

Nobody said you had to. More importantly, not respecting someone does not compel you to sneer at them and put them down. Normal, healthy people simply don't bother; as much as possible, they ignore the people they don't respect. Yet here you are, sneering and putting them down. Why bother?

Axiom, I really don't care. And I fail to see how you think I benefit from other men getting married. Civilization benefits, when it's done properly.

Why do I sneer at them and put them down? Easy. Whenever Vox brings up the subject of MGTOWs on here, the comments quickly fill up with strong MGTOWs bitching about how marriage sux and women are evul. So, I do so for the same reason any healthy man has an urge to beat up emos: they're Gammas, sadsacks, pessimists, and bitter atheists, and contrary to what you say, they are quite vocal and strident, just like SJWs.

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

tonsplace said...

LOL

I have three kids now; number three born today and sleeping on top of me as I read and type. I married a good church girl right out of high school back in '88. She was a virgin with no family history of divorce or mental illness and all.that good stuff. She was a horrible wife and unfaithful while denying me sex for 5 years. She lied her ass off in court and spent months jumping through hoops to.avoid jail time and losing my clearance, then years working to fix things with my son and daughter. which was successful because she turned on them and they got wise ans the church supported her every step of the way. After the settlement I was so broke I had to couch surf or sleep in my truck and shower at work. Did that for months and months.

So yea I know all about counting the cost from 1st hand experience living the life the pro marriage crowd pimps and overcoming the ruination of marriage 2.0 and the family courts


Paul had fire support from Sky Six. Can you say the same thing? I can tell you I received none during my marriage. I can also say the big mistakes in my life stem from me electing to follow the advice of church boys. I no longer make such mistakes

It is not cowardice to say this risk is for me and that one is not. I don't surf when the swells break 7 ft either

The posturing in this place comes.from.the pseudo intellectuals.


Once again you know not what you speak.

tonsplace said...

Projection your name is Corvinus and apparently you would like to be a bully.

artisanaltoadshall said...

Corvinus

You have not provided a single quote in support of polygamy from either the New Testament, or by any early Christian authorities whatsoever. All you are able to show is that the New Testament has not explicitly banned it.

But again, not everything is in Scripture. In fact, your Scriptural support of having the Sabbath be on Sunday instead of Saturday isn't any more explicit than Scriptural condemnation of polygamy, and probably in fact less so.


Scripture does not forbid or condemn polygyny. Anywhere. Ever.

You made the claim that Jesus Christ forbid polygyny and I called you on it. From that point it's been one long example of moving the goal posts, false appeals to authority ("tradition"), ad hominem attacks, etc. and you are now trying to claim I'm the one who has to prove (according to your standard) that polygyny is permitted.

Your problem is God doesn't have a problem with a man having more than one wife and nothing in the Bible says He does. But polygyny drives everybody crazy and particularly those in the church, who want to tell everyone that its forbidden. It really boils down to the fact that, as God said, His ways are not our ways. Nothing brings this to the forefront faster than the subject of sexual relations and the idea that some guy is legitimately banging more than one woman.

For both men and women in the church the subject of polygyny is one that triggers deep-seated fears along with envy and jealousy. The real trigger point is the sleeping arrangements.

Think about it. Christian wives are told to obey their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24) even if he isn't being obedient to God (1st Peter 3:1). The women don't have to be told that if there's more than one wife, sooner or later he will want all of them in bed together with him. So what happens if he wants wife #1 to do xyz to wife #2? Guess what? Nowhere in Scripture is sexual contact between women forbidden and the wives are commanded to obey their husband in everything.

I know you'll scream about that, so turn in your Bible to Leviticus 18 and take a look:

Sexual contact between men is forbidden and condemned.
Sexual contact between men and animals is forbidden and condemned.
Sexual contact between women and animals is forbidden and condemned.

What's missing? A prohibition on sexual contact between women. The fact that God specifically stated sexual contact with animals was prohibited for both men and women makes the point that He didn't prohibit or condemn sexual contact between women.

The women know they're commanded to obey their husband in all things and if they check carefully they know that sexual contact between women isn't forbidden. So what happens if the husband wants to experiment with all the different ways the plumbing can be connected and the women discover they like that kind of attention?

Acksiom said...

>So we are guilty just because we don't agree with you?

Of course not. You're guilty because you're guilty; people have been displaying the "man up and marry those sluts" attitude throughout this thread, beginning with Vox himself. That's the essence of both Markku's original proposition and Vox's extension of it.

>Must not have a very strong position if you have to tell everyone what someone believes but isn't saying.

Must much more have a very strong position if no one is willing to actually address the actual arguments actually made. Because that's how it works. When you respond to me but don't address my points, Brad, you're tacitly admitting those points are valid, and that therefore I'm right and you're wrong. And I tell people what they appear to believe based on their behavior. If you don't like my conclusions, change your behavior; say different things.

So, that being the much more accurate narrative here, where am I wrong about any of this? Go right ahead and tell us. Don't hold your breath; speak up. Tits or GTFO.

>Maybe you will develop a sound argument some day and can leave behind the name calling and similar attacks. I won't hold my breath though.

My arguments are sound, and unlike you, I already did leave behind the namecalling and similar attacks. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

Corvinus said...

Artisanaltoadshall, you have in fact convinced me that sola scriptura does not technically forbid either polygyny, or even lesbianism(!).

Speaking as a Catholic, all it goes to show is that sola scriptura is even more ridiculous than I had ever realized. /smh

Cail Corishev said...

people have been displaying the "man up and marry those sluts" attitude throughout this thread, beginning with Vox himself. That's the essence of both Markku's original proposition and Vox's extension of it.

No it's not. Vox may go further with the "men should marry because civilization needs it" logic than I would, but neither he nor any of the pro-marriage commenters have said you should marry a slut. It's just not there. If you think being pro-marriage implies being pro-marriage-to-sluts because so many women are sluts today, you lack imagination. By insisting on reading your personal hobby horses into posts where they don't exist, you only look dishonest and ignorant. You do your valid points no favor by lumping them together with obvious lies.

Cataline Sergius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David-093 said...

@Cail

My grandparents followed that script exactly. Married at 21, been together for almost 60 years now. I'm 26 now and the probability of being married before 30 is unlikely in the extreme.

archerfisher21 said...

You guys realize the vast majority of men who are against marriage are simply those who took a look at family law and discovered that mrs doubtfire was a very factual movie?

What next? scorn men who refuse to put money on roulette?

Tobias Templo said...

Once again you know not what you speak.

Repeating it does not make you right no matter how hard you try. You are the one who jump in and addressed me directly like the defensive bitch you are.

Let us see the inconsistency of your story:

She was a virgin with no family history of divorce or mental illness and all.that good stuff.

Then

She was a horrible wife and unfaithful while denying me sex for 5 years.

You sure she was a virgin when you married her?

Like I said earlier, you did count the cost but you failed to be prudent. And you've proven it.

Acksiom said...

>No it's not.

Is too.

Also, neener neener nanny nanny boo boo poopypants.

>Vox may go further with the "men should marry because civilization needs it" logic than I would, but neither he nor any of the pro-marriage commenters have said you should marry a slut. It's just not there.

And we're not really conscripts or mercenaries either, nor are we actually in the barracks. If you can understand that, you should be able to understand how neither "sluts" nor "civilization" are to be taken as literally as you would like to pretend.

To say nothing of this, previously:

["Man up and marry those sluts!"] [is] the common manosphere summation of the attitudes being displayed. It's not a straw man because nobody had to say it explicitly for it to apply here correctly.

Do you understand what the phrase "nobody had to say it explicitly for it to apply here correctly" conveys about my awareness of what others have said here? Do you understand that in order to say that in that specific way, I had to know first that nobody *did* say it explicitly?

>If you think being pro-marriage implies being pro-marriage-to-sluts because so many women are sluts today, you lack imagination.

And if you think I think that, you have an excess of it.

>By insisting on reading your personal hobby horses into posts where they don't exist you only look dishonest and ignorant.

To what personal hobby horses are you referring? And your self-contradictory excessive literalism about "sluts" doesn't count.

>You do your valid points no favor by lumping them together with obvious lies.

To what supposed lies are you referring, and which of my points do you consider valid? Because, again, I had already made it clear to anyone paying enough attention that I knew nobody here had actually said that.

It's the common manosphere phrase that accurately describes the attitudes being displayed here. It doesn't have to be explicitly identical to be appropriate any more than Markku's original metaphor does. We're not in the barracks, and not all women are sluts. If you can understand that the first is a metaphor, you should be able to understand how the second is hyperbole.

Acksiom said...

@Cataline Sergius --

>Bad news, there is no Silver Bullet. Whatever the answer is for you and your generation, it isn't simple and we haven't found it. Yet.

Oh, I disagree: RISUG, Smart RISUG, and Vasalgel.

The blind spot the manosphere seems to have for this Black Swan of default veto male birth control never fails to amaze me. Last I heard, the sperm donation crisis was still worsening, just as the manosphere predicted back when the contractual anonymity and non-culpability for sperm donors started being broken. Vasal inhibition is only going to accelerate that. It's going to radically restructure both the sexual and marriage markets, and one way or another it's going to be commercially available by 2020 at the latest.

Because we WILL arrange for medical tourism to clinics outside the usa where we can get it done if the FDA drags its heels.

Corvinus said...

Axiom, you are a total caricature of Gamma MGTOWs that I've been talking about. Sperm donor anonymity? Honestly, why is any man with any brains at all donating to a sperm bank and thereby providing kids for lesbians and aging single women? Sperm banks should all be shut down anyway.

And tonsplace, you too. I mean, seriously:

I married a good church girl right out of high school back in '88. She was a virgin with no family history of divorce or mental illness and all.that good stuff. She was a horrible wife and unfaithful while denying me sex for 5 years.

D'ja possibly think that maybe it wasn't just her? That maybe you weren't in fact sold a lemon, as you insist on believing? The very fact you took them at their word that she was a "good church girl" and a "virgin" blah blah blah indicates that you are in complete denial about basic female nature.

Let me make this as clear as I can:

A husband's Gamma/emo/clingy behavior turns off women the same way a wife's bloating to 200+ lbs and constant nagging turns off men.

What happened to you is a prime example of why men need to learn Game.

But I suppose if you were in denial, MGTOW might look like the only real option.

Perhaps I should add that MGTOWs have no imagination.

Kirk Parker said...

Guitar Man,

"Submit to Godly Christian marriage. "

Of course! Why didn't I think of that???


Oh, right--because in the US at least, that only exists in the abstract. Any actual marriage in these here parts is going to be the Marriage 2.0 version.

VD said...

And we're not really conscripts or mercenaries either, nor are we actually in the barracks.

No, you're parasitical dead ends. You're irrelevant and you will be gone, without progeny or having left a lasting mark on the world. You can certainly do what you want, I'm not going to stop you, but you should stop pretending that you are anything but useless.

You might as well drug out or plug yourself into a sensory stimulation device. It really makes no difference what you do.

Acksiom said...

Dude, can't you at least get my name right?

>>Last I heard, the sperm donation crisis was still worsening, just as the manosphere predicted back when the contractual anonymity and non-culpability for sperm donors started being broken.

>Sperm donor anonymity? Honestly, why is any man with any brains at all donating to a sperm bank and thereby providing kids for lesbians and aging single women? Sperm banks should all be shut down anyway.

[double facepalm]

Corvinus. . .they *are* being shut down, or rather, going out of business, and either not being replaced or turning to the Danes (see below). The importance of sperm banks shutting down was my sub-point, along with how that market contraction will help drive the coming sperm crisis due to vasal inhibition, and the resulting radical changes to the sexual and marriage markets.

Here's VICE magazine talking about it just seven months ago. Money quote:

"Schou says that the only way forward is to reintroduce anonymous donation, citing nine other countries with a similar problem. Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Finland all suffered at least 85 percent of all donors withdrawing their sperm after laws banning anonymous donation were introduced.

The result, Schou said, is twofold. Firstly, a 'gray market' emerges, with infertile couples, single women, and lesbian couples traveling to Denmark for insemination from sperm held at Cryos, in order to get around UK laws. Secondly, something Schou calls 'cross-border reproductive care,' which Denmark also monopolizes, have become the leading sperm producers on Earth. They are, in effect, the testes of the world, exporting a whopping 90 percent of their 'production.' Much of it makes it to British shores, as illustrated by the 'Invasion of the Viking Babies' headlines earlier this year."

http://www.vice.com/read/why-are-british-men-so-stingy-with-their-sperm

Eytan Fishman said...

Shame on all of us for not calling BS on this whole cynical ploy of a post from the get-go. Vox has used the old standby of asymptotically brushing up against the MGTOW third rail in order to throw up sparks and thereby set up straw men to later knock down so he could create springboards from which to launch into other topics/series he has up his sleeve. Not doubting that it's a strongly-held conviction for VD, but at this point, it's become rather transparent on most RP/manosphere sites that this topic and its constellations are their version of click-bait whenever they run into a fallow period in terms of what they had recently posted.

That said, this topic calls to mind the axiom that I daresay is sadly not being heeded by the blogosphere on this and many other important civilizational topics. In terms of arriving at a workable solution, the piecemeal individual approach is bound to fail to make a dent. We need unity, organization, and collective action so as to undermine and eventually overthrown the edifice that has been created to counter pro-civilizational truths. If you insist on a libertarian-individualist model, you are dooming any enterprise to certain failure. My occupation puts me in close proximity to the Divorce(frivorce)-Industrial-Complex from the Defined-Benefit pension plan perch up here in Soviet-Canuckistan and, let me tell you from personal experience, that individual voices and choices, regardless of the resoluteness of their execution, will not be able to counter the tsunami the SJW's have unleashed.

Jack Amok said...

1. Why would a woman stay married when the state guarantees her the benefits of a husband without the responsibilities of being a wife?

Because she actually likes being married to her husband. Women don't get divorced because they want to live alone with cats. They get divorced because they no longer find their husbands attractive and then fall for the lie that a 40-ish woman in the process of splattering herself all over The Wall can go Eat, Pray, Love and find her secret millionaire handyman.

But none of that happens if her current husband can remain attractive.

We rightfully heap contempt on a wife who puts on 50 pounds and chops her hair off after a few years of marriage. What should we say of a husband who begins to meld into the laz-y-boy and starts to skate by at work without any particular ambition? They're both cheating their spouses out of what they thought they were marrying.

Of course the sackless wonders are going to blow a half-dozen fuses over that comment, though none of them will even comprehend it. One of the new twists of the gamma brigade is accusing folks like me of being some sort of feminist. It's ironic, considering how nearly perfectly they parallels the real feminists in going apoplectic any time someone suggests their side might actually bear some responsibility in life. Tell a feminist that women shouldn't be fat and shrewish and she'll explode into a diatribe against "shaming language." Tell a MGTOW activist that men shouldn't be spineless wimps and... 3... 2... 1...

Jack Amok said...

Regarding other single women, I feel like a miserable failure when it comes to influencing them.

Truth is, women can't really influence other women. Young women don't really trust each other because they know they're sexual rivals. And young women don't listen to older women because the hot young thing at the height of her sexual power can't imaging what she could possible learn from some ancient mom with wrinkles and stretch marks who has to wear a swim skirt to cover her tush. Or as Sarah's Daughter said "I'm not gonna listen to you, you're old."

It has to be men who turn them around, because it's men who's attention they want.

Marriage will regain its status and importance when women want it again, and want it badly enough to withhold sex to get it. What'll cause that, I don't know. Economic hard times could do it, a swing of the pendulum back to stricter social mores could do it.

Ah-ha, we find a disagreement Cail! It won't be women who drive it. Women can no more withhold sex of their own accord than they could will themselves to stop breathing. It's their only source of power, they have to use it. And if push comes to shove, they'd simply be raped, which wouldn't in general help to advance civilization. It'll be men who change things. Men who take charge of their daughters, of their sons, and of any rogue men who fancy themselves PUAs.

tonsplace said...

It's real easy to call someone a parasite but taking that serious will require an actual argument and since y'all are so smart, that should be real easy. Though so far I am underwhelmed by all the self proclaimed geniuses here.

Historically 40%of men have not reproduced. That doesn't seem to have stopped the advancement of civilization none. And given how civilization turns men into pussies and how Godless this civilization is, why should it continue? So soft men can enjoy their soft lies? Rome collapsing lead to something bigger and better, forging the West.

How did I not choose well? Who can predict the future? Of course I was sold a lemon, but who knows that when you 1st marry? Women go feral after 20+ years of marriage. Mine started changing around year 2. It would be nice if you actually have a logical call to arms so to speak for marriage but so far there has been none. Having a magic crystal ball is not much of an answer? Is your pro marriage propaganda more important then the truth?

I tore her hymen; her family known to my family and our small rural town for a goodly while. We all know women pull the bait and switch after marriage. All the time. See this is the basic dishonesty the pro marriage crowd brings to the table. Liars, the children of the fathers of lies. Nice attempt at slander and shaming etc but it's plain dishonest on your part.

Gamma? LOL if that helps you choke down the pro marriage lies, call me whatever you like but you are called to love even the gammas. To help.share their burdens etc.

Well you are.Catholic so any type of honesty from you is no longer expected. Want to talk about a force for the destruction of the West? It's the current edition of the Catholic church. Maybe you should fix your own house 1st? Progressive rely on the Catholic vote like farmers count on the rain.

Is intellectual honesty impossible from the pro marriage Christian? Is a debate with out name calling impossible from pro marriage Christians? So far the answer is yes.

tonsplace said...

It is also interesting being called a gamma here when I am routinely called a bull.alpha like that's a bad thing in other corners of the man o sphere

daleaf47 said...

How is marrying a woman some sort of fight for society? (More of a support for the current society, and I am married.) I do see it as an individual victory in the long biological war; but socially we need to wait until the enemy (and they are internal, not external) slips up and then destroy them.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 274   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.