Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Get off the reservation

Rollo explains why it is so important for men to get off the reservation of the Female Imperative:
What worries women is that all the Blue Pill conditioning men have endured for the past several decades might be undone if men were to actually make themselves their mental point of origin. What worries the representatives of the Feminine Imperative is that Betas might see the pragmatism in following the example of men who put themselves first and eschew the trappings of building their lives around the materialism women seek when their looks fade and their need for men’s resource security is a better prospect than having to compete for men with their sisters. When marriage is an easily recognizable sucker’s bet to the point that even Betas can see the sense in avoiding it, that’s when the Feminine Imperative must shift to a new tactic.

Open Hypergamy makes for aware Betas. Men aware of the game they are expected to play must either tamp that understanding down into denial or they simply refuse to play. That refusal can come in many examples, but the reasoning is the same. The deductive, pragmatic response is for men to go their own way and put themselves at the beginning of their thought processes and goals.

The success of women’s sexual strategy depends on ignorant Betas being prepared to meet (or wait for them) at the time at which their need for security is the greatest. This expectation of Betas in Waiting is part of a Hypergamous plan; it is the consolidation of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks prioritization (also known as the Sandberg Plan). Bros Before Homes is an offense to this plan.

This then becomes a paradox for the Feminine Imperative. A man’s life experiences are generally a wellspring of attraction if not arousal for a woman. Experience is the source of a genuine Amused Mastery and a man’s self-serving experience is usually a prime indicator of an Alpha mindset. My Red Pill brother Goldmund is a perfect example of how personal, self-asserted, self-initiated experiences can be parlayed into a very effective Game.

Be that as it is, the proposition of any and every Beta going MGTOW in various ways, hitting the open road and regaling women with the stories of their exploits presents a problem to Hypergamy; Hypergamy wants certainty and a well-traveled Beta is still a Beta. Furthermore, living for the experiential implies less investment in Beta men developing skills, status, affluence and the personal equity that make them good prospects for Beta providership when they reach the critical age at which women need their cooperation in fulfilling their Hypergamy. At least, that’s the implied concern for women. Men with a sense to educate themselves from experience are usually all the better for it – even when that experience is a nightmare.

I should add here that prioritizing experience above other consideration needn’t be limited to Bovy’s silly impressions of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road.  What concerns the feminine is that men would devote the lion’s share of their personal efforts on anything unrelated to meeting women’s future or present security needs.
The reservation is the idea that men exist solely to meet the financial and emotional needs of women. That way lies desperation and unhappiness. Get off the reservation.

127 comments:

Timmy3 said...

Article is a response to maintaining a home and material things. She has a point. She wants that home except the man has no home to give to her.

natschuster said...

I find all this red-pill and female hypergamy talk very saddening. Men blame feminists. Women say that men are only interested in one might stands, that alpha male game stuff. Women say men are afraid of commitment, that men are peter pans, etc. Then men say that modern women are damaged by promiscuity, then buy books on how to seduce women, which further damages women. Now we are caught in a blame spiral. Now we have dangerously low birth rates. Damaged women don't give up on motherhood. They just produce damaged bastards. It saddens me.

Sokrates said...

Rollo is one of my heros. I owe him a lot of deep insights about women, relationship and the reality of the world.

From: http://freedompowerandwealth.com

tweell said...

Nat, it's simple. Guys want sex. Most guys want children. The institution of marriage locked down a woman. The man's exertions and resources were traded for exclusive access to that woman, and knowledge that her children were your children.

That contract is broken, and women did it. The man's work and resources still get traded away, but the reverse no longer applies. As I pointed out to my wife, if she violates the terms of an agreement, it's gone. I am no longer held to that agreement. Dress it up with fine words or BS, that's how it is. With our institutions enforcing one side and not the other, the best recourse is not to enter into that agreement. Women can call it whatever they want, that won't change what is. Shaming is quickly losing effectiveness, guys are increasingly seeing through it.

What's really sad is how quickly women get damaged by promiscuity.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
The last sentence is the biggie: "As soon as a woman has had more than one partner her long term marital stability risk drops to near 50%." Yeah.

The only way a common guy (I'm done, but my son is still hopeful) can win here is to learn how to deal with the situation as it is, not as it was or how you'd like it to be. By the time these women get to looking at the lower 80%, they're already broken. This place doesn't change that, it explains the hazards.

natschuster said...

Tweep:

Women say men did started the problem by going after one night stands and such. We are caught in a downward blame spiral.
Now, if men are the natural leaders it is up to men to lead society out of this mmutual blame game morass.



natschuster said...

Meant to type tweep. Sorry, my bad.

gnossoss said...

@nat

If the followers don't follow the leaders' plan to fix the problem, how exactly does it get fixed? Are you suggesting that draconian punishments should be placed on women to push them back into behavior patterns that won't slowly destroy society?

That seems reasonable enough to me, but that's the only way that the actions of men alone are going to fix a situation caused by the rebelliousness of women. Do you have the stomach to advocate the measures that would be needed for men to fix this without women's help? Or do you think it might be a good idea to make it clear that women's behavior is the cause of the mess and that they should start behaving in a way that won't destroy society if they don't want to end up in a destroyed society, which lacks the luxury and security they like?

I think we should do both, of course. But if you're going to lay the responsibility on men, you'd better be prepared to advocate men imposing strong restrictions on women to rein in their self-destructive behaviors.

natschuster said...

I don't really have an answer. Giving women lashes or putting them in the stocks doesn't appeal to me. But maybe if men said they would only marry virgins, and then waited for msrriagr themselves it might help. It used to work before the sexual revolution. Well maybe that idea isn't realistic.

tweell said...

So, because women blame men, men must fix the situation? Bwhahahaha! Oh my... Nit, you're funny!

Without force, how do you propose that men lead women to do the right thing? The only way I see that happening is if women have to endure the consequences of their actions. Their children, seeing that, will hopefully make better decisions. This means that the ordinary guy shouldn't wife up the women who have damaged themselves playing around, so that they do endure those consequences. The best way for this to happen is to educate the common guy.

If you have a better way, by all means, share. I tried to find a devout Catholic woman, believing that would be the best way to protect a marriage. Culture trumps religion in the US these days, unless you find a unicorn. It took Game principles for me to hold my marriage together.

Unknown said...

Nat, you are almost getting it, bur maybe ignoring the point. The REASON men held out for virgins was because they had a reasonable expectation that women woul be faithful. Once women could detonate their duties on a whim, men had no reason to hold out for virgins. The social contract is broken and you clearly do not advocate enforcing it.

liberranter said...

Giving women lashes or putting them in the stocks doesn't appeal to me.

Most people in positions of authority (e.g., parents over children) don't relish the idea of imposing harsh discipline over their charges, but sometimes it just has to be done, for the recipient's own good.

natschuster said...

Tweep:

I'm pleased to hear your marriage is intact. I hope you have many more years together. But using game to score with every woman you see only exacerbates the problem.

natschuster said...

Unknown

If men saved themselves for marriage then women would have no choice but to remain virgins

natschuster said...

Women could not have broken this part of the social contract without help from men. It takes two to fornicate.

Cail Corishev said...

Fine, men have to fix it even though they didn't break it, because women aren't going to fix anything.

But you can't fix it by picking and choosing which parts of traditional morality you want to bring back. You want to bring back men saving themselves for marriage, because that won't hurt women's feelings. But you can't have that in a vacuum. You also have to bring back real consequences for women. You have to take away their vote so they can't vote themselves power. You have to take away abortion and birth control so they can't avoid the consequences of slutting. You have to let businesses refuse to hire them, and bring back the social taboo against women dressing/acting/working like men. You have to give fathers and husbands authority over daughters and wives again. All those things are part of a package called patriarchy, and you can't just have the parts of it you like.

If you're not willing to bring back the whole package because girls will cry, then I guess you can just bash men for not being perfect and turning down the goodies women are offering. It won't help, but it'll feel good.

gnossoss said...

@nat

What you're saying is that the consumers who want the goods should hold out to discourage the supplier from supplying too much low quality merchandise, to encourage them to supply less but higher quality merchandise. Do you see the implications here?

All this will do is reduce the price further, as all the suppliers compete for a reduced number of consumers. Those consumers then will be able to consume all they want. Sure, a few suppliers may cut back, but most won't need to as they can all find a consumer.

There will never, can never be a shortage of men who want easy sex. We are physically hardwired to want that, and only some portion of the population will ever have the self-control to turn down sex that's offered for moral reasons, even if everyone agreed on the morality of it, which they don't.

Contrariwise, if the suppliers raise the price (from smooth talk or a drink to lifetime marriage) and increase the quality of the product to match (from fat and used to slim and new) then the price will increase. Men will pay what they need to to get sex.

This is the only way it can work, and the only way it ever has worked. You're having trouble because you refuse to blame women for what they do. If a woman does bad things, you look around for a man to blame. This is what people around here call the "blue pill." You can't see what's in front of your face, that a change in women's behavior towards depravity and total lack of self-control is the cause of this mess and changing back is the only solution. There have always been cads, and men have always been willing to do whatever was necessary to get sex. What has changed is that modern women are sluts. Remove the sluttiness of the women, and you fix the problem. We know this because that's how it has always worked throughout history.

Cail Corishev said...

That's typical conservative feminism, by the way: Men have to take charge and fix things, but that doesn't mean they have to do anything mean to women. If men just Man Up and raise their game, setting an example by being good Christian gentlemen, women will automatically follow their lead and be the Good Girls they deserve.

It assumes women are basically good, when men aren't dragging them down -- to the extent that it grants women any agency at all.

natschuster said...

Gnossnoss:

I am blaming women. But since women can't fornicate without men I'm blaming men also.

natschuster said...

Gnossnoss:

I am blaming women. But since women can't fornicate without men I'm blaming men also.

Cail Corishev said...

You're blaming women in theory, but blame is meaningless without consequences, and you ruled those out immediately by going straight to the extreme of "lashings and stocks."

Preach your style of equalitarian blame to women, and they'll smile and nod, because they know it doesn't affect them.

natschuster said...

I did say men should insist on marrying virgins.

gnossoss said...

No, nat, you're not blaming women. When you blame someone for something they chose to do that was wrong, you expect them to make amends. You expect them to change their behavior. You expect them to admit that they were wrong and make a conscious effort to do right in the future.

Would you make women admit that they've been sluts, nat? Would you even use that mean-sounding word (which is similar to the word "whore" which is used throughout the Bible)? Would you make them admit to being bad and rebellious wives and Christians? Would you have society tell a single mother that she did wrong and her selfishness hurt her children, and she deserves to be ostracized for her selfish behavior? Would you enforce marriage, even when women don't want to honor their sacred vows anymore?

Of course you wouldn't. You blame men, you think men should feel sorry, you think men should fix everything, but you can't accept that women should suffer painful consequences when they deserve them. Deep down you don't really think women are actually guilty. You think men made them do it.

We understand, we really do. This is the conditioning our society puts into us; it's the blue pill. The red pill is being able to see that both men and women should actually be blamed when they do wrong, and that consequences should be enforced on everyone.

The sad thing is that this mindset doesn't serve anyone; women are depressed and mentally ill at absurd levels. They were so much happier when there were rules and the rules were enforced. But people like you will fight tooth and nail against imposing the order that will make women happier, in the name of protecting women.

Mr.MantraMan said...

I was a very early adopter of this strategy and I have heard all the complaints but I point blank stated I was not going to be a mule. I've done rather well even married well

Unknown said...

@natschuster
"I am blaming women. But since women can't fornicate without men I'm blaming men also."

You need to read Dalrock's article linked below. He demonstrates that slut-shaming works while player-shaming fails. Remember, there are 3 to 4 sluts for every player.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

JollyGreenChemist

Cail Corishev said...

I did say men should insist on marrying virgins.

Women aren't stupid enough to take that seriously. They know you'll never get all men to hold out, so there will always be men -- generally the men most attractive to them -- willing to sleep with them and men to marry them later (not necessarily the same men). So they know that's just blather to avoid putting any demands on them directly.

It's a statement that sounds noble and is technically correct, but is also meaningless and usually a disingenous attempt to derail an uncomfortable discussion about women.

Cail Corishev said...

That's not to say individual men shouldn't demand virgins. That would be a good thing for them. It's just not a serious proposal for fixing anything society-wide.

professorastro said...

@natschuster - In all of human history, no one gave a shit if a man was a virgin when he was married.

de ti said...

Blaming men for being able to fornicate isn't the answer. Most men don't fornicate. Most men CAN'T fornicate.

It is much, much easier for a woman to get sex than it is for a man.

If we're using "ability to fornicate" as the measure for who gets the blame, that blame is on women, squarely and firmly.

tweell said...

My wife is no more (cancer). Now that she's gone, no woman can honestly claim to have had sex with me. She could not have said the same. You have no moral high ground to pontificate from, Nat. Not to me.

We're dealing with knowledge here. Nasty, unpalatable, messy truth. Game works. Some guys will use it to get into women's pants. Others will use it to get and/or keep a woman. There is no knowledge that cannot be twisted to evil, that's the way it is.

Game isn't mind control. It isn't all-powerful. Women are intelligent, right? They have free agency, right? They can keep their legs together, they don't have to go for that hot stud. In our society, women control sex. Period. Sex is when they decide it is (barring rape, a felony that is increasingly rare according to the FBI). If an empowered womyn decides to have commitment free sex, she can, even if she has to get some guy drunk first.

My oldest daughter decided she was going to go have fun. Party, screw hot guys, ride that carousel. There was nothing that me and my wife could do, she was an adult and she could do whatever she wanted. She had her fun. Her life sucks now, but it's totally not her fault, just ask her! Her younger sisters did learn from her example, and her daughter lives with me. The father? That was her first marriage, he committed suicide after she dumped him and took the kids away. (Still working on getting the grandson.) Have you seen the suicide rate for divorced men?

Blame men if you want, I can't stop you. Understand that it's not a 50/50 split, it's an 80/20 split, and that's being generous.

Cail Corishev said...

Tweell, you could prove to conservative feminists that it's a 99/1 split, and they'd still say we need to focus on the 1% that men are responsible for first.

Mr.MantraMan said...

Can we expand the Man Strike to include a college or two?

Dexter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean Carnegie said...

Nat is either a chick or a Gamma. Either way, you're wasting bandwidth and oxygen trying to get Nat to see.

Cail Corishev said...

Sean, you're probably right. But there are always some readers who are new, who would fall for that line of thinking if someone doesn't point out what it means once in a while.

natschuster said...

Cail;

I'm prepared to call ptomiscuos women sluts. I am blaming them
Now men on this thread are saying men are not to blame since men need sex. But women are not to blame because of her biological hypergamy. Then men and women blame each other. Then everyone says that they are just making the best of the situation someone created. No one takes responsibility. The result is a lot of unhappy people and a future of damaged women popping out bastards. I for one would like to see changes.

Cail Corishev said...

Nope, no one said men aren't to blame. That's another straw man, right on schedule.

This isn't our first rodeo. We know where you're coming from, and where you're going with this.

natschuster said...

Now as far ad my status in concerned I hsvr been married to a spectacularly beautiful woman for 32 years. Face like an angel, 36DDD, tint waste. We have 12 children and 3 grandchildren with one more on the way. I was a virgin until my wedding night. I've had opportunities before and after our wedding, but I believe in monogamy. What diiferencr foes my status make?

And tweel, I'm sorry for your loss.

natschuster said...

Cail:

So men needing sex is not an excuse just an acceptance of reality? So what is the excuse for laying game while knowing it is ruining women?

natschuster said...

And where I'm coming from is a deep sadness at the state of our culture, and and a desire yo.improve things. Now @are you coming from a place where men hit on women without restrictions because it is what men do?

natschuster said...

So do you guys have any ideas? Maybe we should just let the jihads take over. Our society had mo future.

natschuster said...

Ohsnd I was trying to avoid discussing the moral aspects of the problem. I was trying to focus on the solutions. I hues there aren't any. Sad

paworldandtimes said...

There is another reservation that men ought to step off: the one that makes you pair "guys" and "women" in your writing.

Say it with me: "MEN."

PA

natschuster said...

Tweep

I hope things work out for your grandson.

Jew613 said...

Nat, women aren't good at understanding cause and effect, they only understand it when it is right in their face. That is why the only solution is a complete rollback of every aspect of feminism and the reestablishment of traditional patriarchal mores. So yes public lashes for certain behaviors would do wonders to improve female behavior as the consequences to poor choices would be very obvious and immediate.

natschuster said...

Jew613

I don't have a problem with a rollback of feminism.

Acksiom said...

Nat, there is at least one prospective solution -- Vasalgel.

They just won't address it, because. . .

. . .well, actually, I don't know why they won't address it, because they won't even address that.

I follow the online men's movement pretty closely and month after month, the Parsemus Foundation puts out Progress Reports, and month after month, they don't get even get mentioned.

At all.

You'd think someone as smart as Vox would have picked up on what a godawful Black Swan Vasalgel is, and how it's not just hovering over the horizon but now on a 2 to 5 year approach run.

Womb-winter is coming.

Cail Corishev said...

Nat, I named and described the solution earlier: traditional Christian patriarchy. If you don't like that solution, that's your business, but it has been offered. It has the advantage of A) being the way God ordered things, and B) having a pretty good track record as a way of ordering society from the family up to the nation, until we abandoned it last century.

The hope that we can pluck chastity out of patriarchy and reimplement it -- men first, of course! -- and fix things with that, while leaving the "offensive" parts of patriarchy behind, has neither of those advantages.

Cash Gorman said...

Men that are having sex with multiple women are in the top 10-20%. The majority of single men get very little action compared to women in the same age range, so shaming them to get even less sex is a none starter

natschuster said...

One last point I fotgoy to mention. Children hate hypocrisy and are very good at detecting it. So if s man played the field in his youth, thorn has a daughter, he had better for s very through job of hiding hid past if he wants hid daughter to stay chaste.

praetorian said...

I'm glad to see a synthesis of MGTOW and game starting to develop. The oppositional nature of the two always struck me as AMOG-ing/mate-competition in the intellectual sphere.

A man can have 10 children in a day.

A woman can have 10 children in a life.

This basic biological fact dictates that women will choose and men will compete. Asking men to control the mating market, without recourse to violence, is absurd.

Men can advance their number a bit, say two slots, but if most mid-tier females are banging the top three numbers (see female dating profiles with height minimums that eliminate 90% of males) then improving yourself for that dating market is pointless for your average guy. Rather, you should improve yourself and learn game because you value yourself as a man and you value truth, respectively. If dating success comes from that, so much the better.

Nat, men have never been held to the same chastity standard as women for the basic biological fact cited above. Sans violence, the majority of men have no recourse in the mating market except to not play, hence MGTOW. While I agree that this must change, I would expect that change to come from darwinian winnowing out of slatternly females and western fathers finally controlling their daughters (the one relationship where outright male authority and, ultimately, violence, is possible.)

Jeff said...

Nat, I hope that you do know that you've got zero personal experience with modern single women. Not that that's bad - you're very fortunate to be in a long marriage.

It's easy to say that men and women should both abstain, but that's not reality. 80% of single guys are already going without sex because they're not one of the studs that gets all of the ladies. So, turn your focus to the ladies as most men are already going without...

Now for an even more difficult discussion, ask yourself why this trend is occurring and who might be behind it (and thus benefit from it). If 'anti-semitic' comes up, you're on the right track...

natschuster said...

Jeff:

So I guess the alpha males are to blame. People used to call them cads and bounders. But this game stuff usnt helping. And I guess its all over for our society.

Acksiom said...

>Sans violence, the majority of men have no recourse in the mating market except to not play, hence MGTOW.

And thence Vasalgel.

A Breitbart dictum is that politics is downstream of culture. But culture is downstream of primarily two things; childrearing and technology. Childrearing will change in response to male birth control technology changing. Culture will follow.

Vasalgel is the industrialization of Game for the masses.

>While I agree that this must change, I would expect that change to come from darwinian winnowing out of slatternly females

Primarily via Vasalgel.

>and western fathers finally controlling their daughters (the one relationship where outright male authority and, ultimately, violence, is possible.)

Except, of course, for how that only worked when communities enforced it by default. That changed when the physical constraints limiting population replacement rates changed through lowered infant mortality, the female Pill, and the industrialization of women's homemaking responsibilities.

Women were liberated from that kind of paternal control because communities didn't need to keep enforcing it, and communities didn't need to keep enforcing it because the time, money, and other resources needed to maintain population replacement became cheaper and more available.

Vasalgel will inject an element of artificial scarcity back into the current system.

Do I know for sure? No. I'm just guessing. As I said, it's a gawdawful Black Swan. But the theory makes sense. It's a coherent, sensible, and congruent model.

praetorian said...

How would vasalgel change the sexual market for men?

I suppose it would help men become more certain of paternity but, infuriating Reddit stories of dubious plausibility aside, this doesn't strike me as a huge change.

It doesn't seem like this would do much for the majority of men. VR porn seems more disruptive to me. Certainly that's what the single men I am around seem more excited about.

Cail Corishev said...

1. He steps into a discussion that is, in part, critical of women, and attempts to reframe the problem as a men's issue.
2. When called on that, he claims to be equally critical of both sexes, but in a way that means nothing.
3. When called on that, he claims (whether true or not) that no one else has offered any solutions.
4. When solutions are offered that include anything he doesn't like (usually because he thinks women wouldn't like it), he ignores them and continues putting all the onus on men.
5. When someone makes an observation of fact about imperfect reality (alphas get laid a lot, for instance), he accuses the speaker of supporting or hoping for that circumstance, and attempts to shame the speaker and the group over it.
6. If that's not going well, he attempts to divide-and-conquer by criticizing only a subset of men, such as alphas.
7. If all else fails, he declares the situation hopeless, again implying that we've offered no solutions, nothing for him to learn from, and really, he's quite disappointed in us.

Gentlemen, I give you: the white-knighting conservative feminist! Learn his ways and habits; you will see them again. If you see #1, watch for #2, and know that #3-7 will soon follow, more or less in that order. Saves time.

natschuster said...

Didn't I say that in okay with rokkibg back feminism?
And do you actually HSBC a viable solution? I suggested putting yhr onus on men since the onus is usually on leaders.

Do you have a viable solution? I didn't see one. That's why in exprrssong despair? By the way did I touch a nerve?

JCclimber said...

Cail, let me step in here:
3. Men's issue: women should be held to a patriarchal standard. Arranged marriage. Not allowed to leave the household without a male relative of an age to defend her. She must dress conservatively when outside. She should focus on the feminine strong suits - running a household and raising the next generation. She should be trained to defer to the head of the household. If she brings dishonor on the family, one option is to kill her.

Does this sound like a particular religion that is practicing currently in many parts of the world? Yes?

For years I wondered why the women in Muslim lands didn't just castrate their men and kill their male children. It took the red pill to open my eyes that the vast majority of them support and reinforce and teach this system to their children.

You want to have a real solution, Nat? Eliminate no-fault divorce. Eliminate alimony and child support. Make the man the default custodian of all children in divorce. Remove ALL welfare payments from unwed mothers.

That is the only way that you could possibly reverse where we are going and still preserve Western Civilization. And you know it is true, but the blue pill won't let you see it.

natschuster said...

And why usnt it a means issue without my framing it? In critical of both men and women.

natschuster said...

Jcclinber

I agree with all your suggestions. I just downy see how that will solve the problem of sexual promiscuity dsmging women before marriage.

natschuster said...

Please excuse the spelling errors? It late I had a long day.

natschuster said...

Why fours everyone think I am s feminist? Feminists encourage women to be promiscuous. I want women to be chaste for their own good and the good of society.

natschuster said...

Oh and I also said men are the leaders. That's not a feminist thing. It's just that I always understood leafetdhip to mean responsibility, and that leaders should lead.

JCclimber said...

Because you are targeting your guns on the exact same target as the feminists: Men.
Therefore, you are a "conservative feminist"

Also, when your solutions go directly against history, experience, and biology, and yet you still expect people to jump on your bandwagon, that is a magical, female, way of thinking.

Hence, feminist.

JCclimber said...

Back to the original post, it is the duty to raise your young men in the red pill. Most of the world will be fighting you at every turn. Part of your duty involves being a man whom your sons will respect, so that they will tune into you and tune out the world at the moral level.

natschuster said...

Jcclinber

That's a different definition than the one in used to. The one i"m used to is about equality. That not me. In about male leadership.

natschuster said...

Now you guys are complaining about how you lost control of your women and can just hope to get as much sex as you can before society deteriorated. Where is the male leadership? I say be men and tsje control you call me a feminist.

natschuster said...

I am saying be a man take a stand. You are saying we lot control take a pill. And I am the feminist?

natschuster said...

I am sorry but you guys of sound pathetic. You need to take pills to protect yourselves from the feminists. I know its a metaphor but it sounds so weak and dare I say it effeminate.

Revelation Means Hope said...

Look, I understand from your incredibly poor typing skills that I need to simplify this for you a bit.
Red pill = swallowing the bitter truth and opening your eyes to reality.
It is a stolen meme (expression) from a moving picture called "The Matrix".

Oh, I'm going to type slowwwwweeeeerrrrrr now.

Men leading = good
Modern society = severe roadblocks at every turn to prevent men from leading
Entire legal system = corrupted, unjust, and entirely stacked against the male sex in practice if not in the actual written code. Hmmm. maybe not slow enough typing. crap. let me try again.

Courts and police = very bad. very very difficult for justice to win. very expensive for men to fight. Almost certain to favor women
Hope that is simple enough.

Result = we no longer encourage men to marry women, because even that one pretty woman who manages to stay a virgin until she is 20, is almost certain to be corrupted with the feminist world view. And even if she isn't when you meet and marry her, she can change her mind AT. ANY. TIME. and rape you using the legal system.

Therefore, many here no longer will buy the poison that you are trying to sell, the "you need to man up and marry the sluts" mindset.

gnossoss said...

On the off chance you're not a troll, and because some people still think like this: why we focus on women and not men. (The whole "cads are bad" thing is irrelevant; the Christians here don't think being a cad is a good thing, so that has no bearing on anything.)

Let's say you have a female Golden Retriever. You don't want your house full of puppies. Do you:

a) Spay your female dog
b) Campaign throughout the neighborhood to encourage everyone to neuter their male dogs so there won't be any potent male dogs to impregnate your dog

Once you've chosen an answer, think about why you chose that answer, and how it might relate to the situation we're discussing.

natschuster said...

I never said marry the damaged women I said do not fornicate do they don't get damaged.

natschuster said...

Gnossoss
If it was only my dog I would have sprayed. If there was a whole society of female dogs I would say it was a good idea to get the male dogs fixed

natschuster said...

Rmhm:

I said men should hold out fir virgins and the only way to garuatee that wad for men to remain virgins themselves until marriage.

natschuster said...

Gloss;

And the whole cads thing had no bearing since we are not discussing the moral aspects, only the consequences.

natschuster said...

Gloss:

I have a hypothetical for you. Your friend is a hunky. You have heroin. He wants you to give it to him. Should you givevitvto him even though it is bad for him?

liberranter said...

Nat seems to be steadily losing IQ points by the hour (a "Charlie Gordon" redux ["Flowers for Algernon"]?). Probably time to put him(?) on "ignore."

Revelation Means Hope said...

liberranter - just type slower. you see how well it worked for me, in that he has completely ignored my post because it penetrated deep.

natschuster said...

Revelation:

You said that I said marry the damaged women. I nevervsaud that. I said don't marry the damaged women and don't damage them in the first place. them you are saying I ignored your post? I don't get it.

natschuster said...

Tebrlstion:
Are you sure I didn't ornrtrste when I said that this ref pill stuff sounds pathetic? Oh no the evil femininists are coming Ltd take our red pills to protect ourselves. It shoes weakness and sutremder. Well, I guess I'm too manly for the red pill masculinity.

natschuster said...

Tebrlstion:
Are you sure I didn't ornrtrste when I said that this ref pill stuff sounds pathetic? Oh no the evil femininists are coming Ltd take our red pills to protect ourselves. It shoes weakness and sutremder. Well, I guess I'm too manly for the red pill masculinity.

natschuster said...

Should be revelation in the title and touched a nerve when I said that this red pill stuff sounds pathetic. Sorry too early.

Cail Corishev said...

Nat, you're flailing and looking more desperate by the comment. Your shaming tactics are useless because we recognize them for what they are. I suggest an orderly retreat and regroup.

natschuster said...

Okay

Do you think the current situation is good or bad? If it is bad do you think that men fornicating is contributing to the situation? Do you think that if men stopped fornicatungvit would help? Do you think men are the natural leaders? Do you think that, if men are the natural leaders, they should lead society to a better place? Is my idea viable? Do you have another viable idea? If there is no solution am I not justified in feeling despair? That's the prscticsl aspect. Are you a Christian? Do you believe fornicating is a sin? Is it moral to do something that causes someone harm? If fornicating harms women is it immoral to fornicate since it harms women?

Now I didn't start with the shaming, you know.

natschuster said...

And I believe women should stopfornicsting too. It is Judy that I think things like this need to start with the leaders.

natschuster said...

And I believe women should stopfornicsting too. It is Judy that I think things like this need to start with the leaders.

Cail Corishev said...

"Retreat and regroup" does not mean "reframe and distract with a barrage of questions." Why would we consent to being interrogated by someone who has already been dishonest and shown that he has no interest in our answers in the first place?

natschuster said...

Now I believe someone above said that a return to the patriarchy would solve the problem but I eoulf not like that. Actually in okay with that. Then it was said
that it is not viable. I expressed sadness. Then I was called a gamma feminist etc. That is were we are holding.


natschuster said...

I listened to your answers. I don't recall a viable solution. Am I mistaken? Please correct Mr if I am wrong.

natschuster said...

And where was I dishonest?

jaericho said...

Me thinks Nat doth protest too much.

natschuster said...

And I am not really interested in interrogating anyone. I see a problem, and I would like to do something about it.

liberranter said...

*****YAWWWWWNNNN*****

This is getting really tedious, Nat.

It's over. Go home.

Michael Maier said...

I dunno... I for one am REALLY glad nutchaser came here to tell us all what's what.

S. Thermite said...

Well, I guess I'm too manly for the red pill masculinity.

Baahahahahah! Too funny!

If the definition of Manly is not having premarital sex and believing other men shouldn't be having it either, and expecting men to be leaders...well, I'm probably manlier than this Nat character. If he's truly been married to a gorgeous woman for 32 years and had 12 kids with her then he probably married relatively young and didn't have to abstain for as long as myself and many other religious folks here.

Unfortunately though that's not the definition of Manly, any more than not robbing a bank is the definition of Wealthy.

The conversation here is about not getting stolen from, which any idiot knows is better accomplished by locking up your valuables as best you can, rather than by leaving them out in the open and trying to shame every man against taking them.

natschuster said...

So this is the new masculinty as far as I can see.

1. Surrender to the feminists in every important area.
2. Admit defeat and go along with the feminist agenda by damiaing women by fornicating.
3. Make excuses like an adolescent.
4. Buy how-to-fornicate books.
5. Whine bitch and moan in interent coffee clatch abter how femeinsta nad fornicationhave ruined women.
6. Talk about how the bad feminists have takne over everything, and we are sooooo scared that we need to talk about taking red pills so we'll feel better.

Have I got it right? It all sounds so pathetic and effeminate.

And how do yuo religious people out there reconcile habitual fornication wih the fact that most religious groups consider fornication a sin? Aren't men suppose to be faithful to their principals? They don't compromise and make excuses. And isn't it immoral to give somethng someting which is bad for them?

S.Thermite, are you suggesting that this is all about my fears that someone will steal my wife? I think that after all these years kids and grand kids that is a bit of a strech. Are you sure you aren't projecting?

natschuster said...

S.T.
In your post you seem you seem to be making excuses yo justify your behavior. In my opinion that is not what men do. Men here say that that is what women do? And that is all I've heard here? Foesnt the Bible say something about that?

natschuster said...

Two posts above should be going along with the feminist agenda of damaging women and families by fornicating. Sorry my bad.

natschuster said...

S.T.

I thought the conversation wad about how men should make the best of the situation by having sex before marriage with as many women as possible then blaming the feminists. What am I missing?I heard about marriage gsme. I don't have a problem with that. Its the fornication part. Men here complain that fornication ruins women then go out and fornicate. Then they blame women or feminists or whatever.

S. Thermite said...

I don't fornicate, Nat. And I wasn't implying anything about a fear you likely don't have about someone stealing your wife. That wasn't it at all.

I have no problem however implying that you're a blithering, solipsistic, self-congratulatory idiot, too obsessed with what other, "lesser" men may or may not be doing with Game info to see the bigger picture and the obvious points being made here. How does that happen with a man who's been alive as long as you? Willful blindness, and being steeped in a culture of Churchianity? Or is my other suspicion correct, that you're actually be a woman making this all up?

natschuster said...

Then when I point this out and suggest a solution people call me names. Aren't men suppose yo solve problems? Its the women who complains about how they feel.

natschuster said...

S.T

I see a lot of unhappiness. I see a lot of complaining I see society deteriorating. That's the big picture I see. It's not me. It's the people on this blog who are saying it. I didn't start out judgmental. I started by trying to suggest a solution. Then people started calling me names. I don't consider myself supeprior I think every man is capable of doing what I suggested. This why I suggested it. Oh and I am prepared to congratulate you on the way you stickbto your principals.

natschuster said...

Oh and I did acknowledge the points. That what i meant when I said making excuses. Isn't that what they are?

natschuster said...

If I were seomsm I would imagine I would try to excuse women and lay all the blame on men. I'm not doing that. There is plenty of blame to who around. I'm notvfosing on blame though. Women do that. I'm looking for a sokution And the only one I see lied with men.

natschuster said...

Just one more point. What difference doesit make who or what I am?

natschuster said...

To posts above should be if I were a woman. Anyway honor what o am is irrelevant.

natschuster said...

When you said above thAT we should lock down our own it meant in a spirtusl sense? I should only worry about my one soul? Doesn't the bible say we are to encourage everyone to avoid sin? Anyway my focus was on pracyicsl stuff mostly, know trying to save society. I think that since I liver in society I can have an opinion on what happened and even try to improve things.

Oh and the main pointbif your lady post seemed to be that I just don't understand? Where have I heard that before?

natschuster said...

When you said above thAT we should lock down our own it meant in a spirtusl sense? I should only worry about my one soul? Doesn't the bible say we are to encourage everyone to avoid sin? Anyway my focus was on pracyicsl stuff mostly, know trying to save society. I think that since I liver in society I can have an opinion on what happened and even try to improve things.

Oh and the main pointbif your lady post seemed to be that I just don't understand? Where have I heard that before?

Revelation Means Hope said...

sometimes it is fun to feed the troll just to watch it dance.

natschuster said...

Maybe I am being too hard on you guys. I live in an insular community where chastity, monogamy and fidelity are the norm. Maybe I don't appreciate your struggles. It just that I see did much unhappiness and I would like to see change.

S. Thermite said...

It's always amusing to hear supposedly Christian women like Nat claim to believe that men bear the responsibility of leadership, and then immediately usurp that authority by telling men (including non-Christian men) how to behave.

What's that Nat? You're really not a woman? Well, I guess I just helped partly answere your question about "what difference does it make?" If men do have a natural leadership authority and responsibility over women, doesn't it stand to reason that at least some of us have insight the average woman doesn't?

natschuster said...

Its not me its the guys in the neomasculine movement who say men are the leaders

natschuster said...

Oh and the bible ways it too.

S. Thermite said...

Oh and the bible ways it too.

The Bible says men are appointed leadership authority over women, but you don't say so too? Meaning you either disagree with that part of the Bible, or else you don't want to be held responsible for stating your position on it. You are, however, completely fine with telling men they shouldn't be having sex with women they're not married to. How typical. How predictable. How safe.

Fascinating how your actions mirror every other "Christian" feminist who comments here...

natschuster said...

First of all I am not a woman. Then I hsopen to agree with the bible. I also believe that a woman can critic a man without undermining his authority. Sarah criticized Abraham. Rachel criticized Jacob. Judah admitted tamer was right. Debirau criticized Barack. Moreover I'm just suggesting that you be consistent.

natschuster said...

Now isn't your attempt to deflect my suggestions by criticizing me a feminine tactic?

natschuster said...

And even if it isctrue that I am wrong for suggesting stuff, does that fornication okay?

natschuster said...

The book of Samuel relates a story about how an old lady criticized king david. Bathsheba also told David what to do. Miriam got punished for criticizing Moses but that was because of his unique status.


natschuster said...

Oh and rebekkah contrived a way to undermine Isaac.

natschuster said...

Oh and rebekkah contrived a way to undermine Isaac.

Bob Loblaw said...

Without force, how do you propose that men lead women to do the right thing?

You could certainly nudge it in the right direction by a few changes to the law. Part of the problem now is women actually come out ahead (or think they will) when they get divorced. A woman with an ex who's living with a new man is getting money from both. She's planning to trade up, whether or not she actually pulls it off.

Where I live divorced women are supposed to be supported in the style to which they've become accustomed. I would change the law to cap support at "the style at which you're not starving". It would still be a viable option for women who are abused, but it's no longer an attractive option for a wife who's just bored.

S. Thermite said...

I hsopen to agree with the bible. I also believe that a woman can critic a man without undermining his authority....Oh and rebekkah contrived a way to undermine Isaac.

You say you're a man? Well, congratulations on making me root for a woman. More specifically, for making me hope your 12 kids take after their mother. The thought of them all inheriting your intellect is truly terrifying.

S. Thermite said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
S. Thermite said...

Intelligent fathers knows it's more effective to prevent daughters from unwisely spreading their legs before marriage than it is to try to shame every man against fornicating with them. Even if you succeed in shaming 99% of men, the remaining bad-boy, devil-may-care 1% can still impregnate a lot of daughters. Hunters and farmers know this too- if you want to keep the deer population down you stop does from breeding rather than attempting to stop every single buck.

natschuster said...

I taught my daughters to be chaste. I taught my sons the same thing since I worry about my neighbors daughters I care about my own and society. Didn't the prophets of old preach to society not to sin? Didn't Jesus preach to society to stop sinning?
j


natschuster said...

At least slim smart enough to know that one can look to his own and care about others as well. Isn't that the Christian way?


Daniel Kelley said...

Nat,
You're off on some crazy, snake-handling, salt-of-the-earth pious fantasy in your own mind. Your use of 'fornicating' kind of gives you away as some kind of guy who is roleplaying a character.

Anyway, men have chosen to simply 'fornicate' because that's their imperative. That's what they really, really want (not to sound like a spice girl). In generations past, there was some incentive to forego their imperatives for a higher, more meaningful, long-term narrative (marriage and children). The reason they were motivated to do that was that women were meeting them halfway. It was an exchange. Both sides sacrificed some of their imperatives to come together to create children. I think men were sacrificing more than women from the outset anyway. But when women got so spoiled that they started feeling as if they could; 1. Get the reward of children. 2. Not compromise their own imperatives at all 3. Not meet any of the contractual obligations of marriage and, what's worse, CELEBRATE AND TRIUMPH over their lack of obligation in the marriage contract, well then men decided that sacrificing their imperatives for NOTHING in return was something they were no longer interested in. It's a shit sandwich even before the reality of divorce rape has come into the conversation. Anyway, back to their true imperatives men go: sexual adventure. When sacrificing not only gets you NOTHING in return, but actually makes your life a thousand times worse, then a guy starts to second guess. What's amazing is that it took so long for men to start second-guessing the shit sandwich and that even today, EVEN TODAY, men will actively shame the guys who have wised up to the shit sandwich.

White boys were the only demographic making sacrifices for the good of society. Every other demographic was just partying away. White boys wised up to it. There you go.

Factory said...

I can't help but think of the movie "Wild Hogs" when i read this sort of thing.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.