Feminism turns women into maternal prostitutes and johns.

British suffragette Rebecca West once said:

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

Regardless of what feminism may purport to be about, the result of feminism is that women have been reduced to being nothing but sex objects.  Reader Just Saying recently noted:

Feminists lost long ago. Men are in control – at least the ones that understand. We get to call the shots – now instead of being able to keep house, have children, and cook (very, very few women can cook these days) women are ONLY sex-objects. It is the only thing they have to offer to a man, that will get a man’s attention and to hold it for a while. And we don’t have to marry them to get it [...]

Feminism has brought about all of the things they say they hate – women today only bring sex to the equation. So I have to thank Feminism – I doubt that young women would be as skilled, or as open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex, without it. And for that, I say, “Thank you Feminism.” If there were a patriarchy, I doubt they could have ever come up with something as beneficial to men. No one would have believed women were that dumb.

I completely agree with him, except for the “thank you” part.  In addition to reducing women to sex objects, feminism has also reduced many women to being childless careerists who must purchase other women’s reproductive capabilities.

Several weeks ago, Laura Wood had a post about couples from other countries using American women as gestational surrogates in order to have an American child that they could use for immigration purposes.   She also discussed the use of surrogates by homosexual couples and referred to gestational surrogates as maternal prostituteswhich is a fairly accurate term.  Statistics are hard to come by, but the Council for Responsible Genetics notes:

There are virtually no statistics on how many women and families are involved in the
surrogacy market. The only numbers we do have exclusively describe gestational surrogacy
IVF cycles, and give no indication of the prevalence of traditional surrogacy. Nor do
statistics describing IVF cycles, rather than patients, paint an accurate picture of the
demographic characteristics of surrogate workers. Nevertheless, the available reports from
the CDC and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) clearly show that the
number of infants born to gestational surrogates almost doubled from 2004 to 2008, from 738 babies born to nearly 1,400. These numbers, while only skimming the surface of the entire surrogacy market, will surely continue to rise. In the face of this growing industry, it is imperative that accurate data collection be initiated to understand the scope and
implications of surrogacy in the United States.

Although homosexual use of surrogacy is increasing, the primary customers are still older married heterosexual couples.  The price tag alone, easily $50,000 when all costs are factored in, limits who is able to use this service.  So, why is the use of gestational surrogacy increasing so quickly?

Approximately one out of five American women end their reproductive years childless.  This is an increase since 1970, when only one out of ten women remained childless.  It is interesting to note that the rise of second-wave feminism and the mass entrance of women into the workforce began right around 1970 as well.  Unsurprisingly, feminism and childlessness rates fit together hand in glove.

Despite over forty years of feminist indoctrination, most women still have a maternal drive, the instinct to nurture a child.  However, after spending all of their fertile years earning degrees and climbing the career ladder, once they finally stop and take a breath and realize how very much they want a child, women are often unable to produce their own children. Rates for in vitro fertilization with egg donors have exploded – I actually know a woman who bore her second child via this method – but carrying a child after 45 is quite risky and hence the increased use of gestational surrogates.

I sent the following comment to Mrs. Wood about her article but thought I would also share it here:

About nine years ago, I met a woman through a mutual acquaintance at a play date for our children.  She had a young son and daughter and was heavily pregnant.  I struck up a conversation with her and when I asked when her baby was due, she told me that it wasn’t her baby.  I’m sure the shock was visible on my face, so she explained that she was acting as a gestational surrogate for a married couple in Chicago.  Both the husband and wife were attorneys and by the time they got around to wanting children, the wife was no longer fertile.

All the women who listened to this conversation were very affirming of her, but I asked her if she was worried about having a hard time giving the child up to the couple after his birth, and she told me that she was very worried about it, so she had begun taking anti-depressants in advance of the delivery after securing the married couple’s permission to do so.  She told me that the week of the birth, the married couple would be putting her and her husband and children up in a posh hotel in Chicago and paying for all their expenses, in addition to the fee they paid her for carrying the child.  She told me that as soon as she had recovered from birthing their first child, she would attempt to carry a second child for them.

At the time I considered myself slightly left of center (I’ve since moved quite far to the right), but even then, something seemed very, very wrong to me about a married woman with two children of her own carrying another couple’s child, all while taking anti-depressants.  I can’t image what she ever ended up telling her own children about their missing sibling(s).


Mrs. Wood responded by saying:

Sickening.

Gestation involves the most intimate experience one can possibly have with another human being. The idea that because the baby is not genetically related to the mother, she should be able to give him up easily is false. Pregnancy is not like carrying a piece of luggage. This whole practice is profoundly dehumanizing and will reverberate throughout the lives of the people involved for many years to come. It’s no wonder this woman was taking anti-depressants. She and her husband have destroyed part of themselves by putting her body up for sale. Her husband is a pimp. This will make their marriage extremely difficult to maintain.

The entire situation is insane.  The feminist obsession with careerism over family is producing a generation of highly educated women who are the equivalent of reproductive johns and a lower class group of women who are their maternal prostitutes, selling their eggs and renting out their wombs for use by other women and (sometimes) their husbands.  My goodness, remember the bad old days under the patriarchy, when women were not only sex objects to men and when women bore and raised their own children?

Recall the quote at the beginning of this essay – “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” – and consider that in context of Just Saying’s comment that modern women now bring very little of value to men other than their sexuality and in light of the fact that women are increasingly childless and purchasing the reproductive capabilities of other women.  The conclusion is inescapable:

Under feminism, women are less human.

160 thoughts on “Feminism turns women into maternal prostitutes and johns.

  1. tbc

    It is a bit frightening to consider. Of course surrogacy is in the Bible; the story of Abram, Sarah, and Hagar is basically about Hagar having a baby as a surrogate for Sarah since she could not conceive. The same is repeated with the wives of Jacob and their maids that they give over to Jacob to have children by — as a means of rivalry between the sisters. In neither case is the outcome necessarily the best.

    I believe though that there can be a case made for surrogacy in certain extreme circumstances, though it is far from ideal. The adoption of a child is a kind of surrogacy, though very different in many ways.

    To the main point of your pose however, I would disagree that feminism reduces women to only sex objects; they are still useful for bearing children if that’s what a man wants. But it definitely makes them primarily sex objects, whether they want to be or not. And for quite a few men, the price to pay for the sex is far too high hence the MGOTW phenomenon.

  2. billy

    Love your articles. I still find it hard to believe women allow themselves to be brainwashed by feminism so easily. All the negatives are pretty obvious if you take more than a cursory look past the rhetoric… I guess most feminists can’t resist being in power and being the victim at the same time though, I’m guessing that’s what blinds them to the dire consequences of their selfish actions.

  3. DrTorch

    Again the tragedy of feminism is made apparent.

    And yet, the Church does so little to oppose it. Sure, most “conservative” churches would (and have) raised concerns about IVF, and I’m sure they’ll get around to being concerned about the surrogate motherhood when they finally put down this month’s argument about aeschatology/catechism/YEC, but how many rebuke those who use it w/in their own families, and how many address the younger women and warn against the career pursuit that leads to its use?

    Furthermore, how many will take the time to dig into the issue and address its root cause (feminism) in the way SSM has done for years?

    (Conservative) Churches want to evangelize exclusively, and not address evil in any way (except maybe to chastise husbands and fathers). I don’t get it.

  4. sunshinemary Post author

    tbc

    And for quite a few men, the price to pay for the sex is far too high hence the MGOTW phenomenon.

    Feminism reduces women to their reproductive capacities. They essentially become worthless to men because all the traditional female activities and virtues are denigrated and seen as worthless by feminists. A tough, sexually-experienced, entitled careerist is not a “helper suitable for him,” and if that is what a woman has made herself into, she becomes useless to him beyond her vagina, ovaries, and uterus.

    Which leads to another horrifying point…as alternative forms of sexual gratification are developed (legalized prostitution, increasingly realistic computer generated/user interactive pornography, perhaps sex bots at some point) and as the purchasing of eggs and gestational surrogacy becomes more common, what will men need women for at all? Why would most men want to put up with the modern entitled, unpleasant, unattractive, useless women?

    Feminism doesn’t just make women less human. It doesn’t just make women into nothing but their reproductive capacities. Feminism actually makes women useless.

    This is what the LORD says: “What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves. – Jeremiah 2:5

  5. Just Saying

    “women are ONLY sex-objects”

    So true… That is why I thank Feminism – my life wouldn’t be anywhere near as pleasant as it has been without Feminism. So when I hear the “you only see women as sex-objects” I have to laugh and respond in my mind, that is all that are NOW. One of the reasons that I will never marry – what advantage is there? None…

  6. sunshinemary Post author

    JS

    Feminists lost long ago. Men are in control – at least the ones that understand. We get to call the shots – now instead of being able to keep house, have children, and cook (very, very few women can cook these days) women are ONLY sex-objects. It is the only thing they have to offer to a man, that will get a man’s attention and to hold it for a while. And we don’t have to marry them to get it

    You know, there are those who say that a small segment of men were the original architects of feminism and that women were just their willing dupes. It’s kind of like what GBFM is always going on about. Now, I like that explanation because it makes this whole thing men’s fault. :) Yeah, that’s right – it’s you guys who did this! Ya’ll have reduced unsuspecting women to being just sex objects, and we innocent women have been the willing victims of your evil plot. What we women need is some kind of movement to look out for our interests…

    Darn, I’ve just come around full circle.

  7. tz2026

    Feminism takes the male tendency to objectify women and preaches equality in that.

    Women were treated as persons (people) under the Patriarchy, but not under feminism. They were honored as Mothers and Wives, and even as the occasional other view for the unmarried. But the focus was on their maternal role.

    Now apparently we have declined from sex-object to mother-object. The surrogate womb turns the woman into a bio-machine. There were earlier “marriages of convenience”, but these were just as evil as they severed the unitive aspect of the act. But having severed procreating, we now need to keep descending to lower levels of technological depravity.

    Women – as a person – are feminine, but that means their anatomy, but also their minds and souls have a purpose, a telos, to bear and nurture children.

    What the feminists preached is to deny this aspect of the personhood, but what is left is an object. A Cow or Sow, which has brute desires – and the feminists say its ok to have them satisfied even if you become the object.

    Some earlier “feminists” were demanding recognition for the genius, dignity, and rights of women in their very nature as a person, but a female person.

    The feminists said “My body”, but at the same time sold their soul. And they are now selling their bodies in both manners.

    John Paul II wrote (theology of the body):

    The possible circumstance that one of the two persons exists only as the subject of the satisfaction of the sexual need, and the other becomes exclusively the object of this satisfaction, does not correspond to the union or personal communion to which man and woman were mutually called from the beginning—on the contrary, it is in conflict with it. Moreover, the case in which both the man and the woman exist reciprocally as the object of satisfaction of the sexual need, and each on his or her part is only the subject of that satisfaction, does not correspond to this unity of communion—but on the contrary it clashes with it. This reduction of such a rich content of the reciprocal and perennial attraction of human persons in their masculinity or femininity does not at all correspond to the “nature” of the attraction in question. This reduction extinguishes the personal meaning of communion, characteristic of man and woman, through which, according to Genesis 2:24, “a man…cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Lust turns away the intentional dimension of the man’s and woman’s mutual existence from the personal perspectives, “of communion,” characteristic of their perennial and mutual attraction, reducing it, and, so to speak, pushing it toward utilitarian dimensions, within which the human being uses the other human being, for the sake merely of satisfying his own needs.

  8. Miserman

    Pearl Jam sang the following: Daddy didn’t give affection and the boy was something that mommy wouldn’t wear.

    For me, this line echoes the way the process of surrogate parenting (and to a point, adoption) turn children in fashionable property. The entire process of a man and woman coming together, engaging sexually, and from their sexual union producing biological children carries such substance and richness for human life. I would dare say that life begins before conception, when the parents’ lives merge together. To take that process and attempt to synthesize a facsimile for the sake of convenience makes children into a commodity, bought and sold for a generic and fuzzy copy of marriage and family. In order to make their fake families real, they accessorize with children.

  9. feeriker

    …carrying another couple’s child, all while taking anti-depressants.

    This alone made this woman unfit to carry anyone’s child (I wonder if the adoptive parents knew about this – or cared). The irresistible urge of some many people nowadays to gulp down pills for everything even remotely thought of as mental “illness,” even if it’s non-organic (being “unhappy” is NOT an organic condition that requires medication, nor is it one that medication can do anything to alleviate!) is going to do as much long-term damage to the human race as war, pollution, crime, and disease.

    Echo Laura Wood’s sentiments. I shudder to think of what effects this genetic prostitution had on the surrogate mother’s family long term.

    Oh, and bearing a baby for a pair of LAWYERS??!!! God help the poor child(ren)!

  10. tbc

    Under patriarchy acquiring a wife was to acquire a burden of responsibility — leadership, provision, decision making, etc. Yet along with the burden came certain privileges – or better said, the powers necessary to carry out the duties / burdens of having a wife. The woman too in acquiring a husband acquired certain responsibilities – obedience, deference, bearing his children, etc. But she also obtained certain privileges — being supported, not being held to quite as high a standard, etc.

    Feminism undid all of that — for the woman at least. For now women are freed of their obligations, but cling to their privileges. Men are to give up their privileges, but retain their obligations.

    Under such a system, the man acquiring a woman gets nothing that he cannot provide for himself including, increasingly, sex. Getting and keeping a woman means getting and keeping a bundle of obligations with virtually no privileges to go along with them. So why would he do that?

  11. feeriker

    For me, this line echoes the way the process of surrogate parenting (and to a point, adoption) turn children in fashionable property.

    Yeah, and don’t even get me started on the whole “designer children” thing. My sincerest hope is that a special place in the bowels of hell awaits anyone, male or female, who would even THINK of doing this to a child.

  12. Lee Lee Bug

    Surrogacy has always made me seethe, even before I was a committed Christian. What really bothers me, other than the fact that you are in essence buying and selling babies, is that it always comes down to a poorer, lower class woman prostituting herself for a wealthier, upper class couple.

    Have you ever heard of an UMC woman carrying a baby for a poor woman? Of course not. Even many Christians don’t see anything wrong with it.

    One of Mitt Romney’s wealthy sons and his wife have used surrogates to add to their brood even after having biological children the old-fashioned way. It’s not as if they were childless and desperate for a baby.

    There are studies showing that when you carry a baby, you absorb some of its DNA into your body where it remains forever. The child will be a part of you always. How can giving it up to be raised by another not affect you?

    Back when I was in high school, there was a famous court case in New Jersey involving a surrogate named Mary Beth Whitehead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M. Mary Beth had agreed to be a surrogate for a wealthy UMC couple. But, after giving birth she changed her mind and refused to give the baby up.

    Back then (late 80s) egg donation hadn’t been developed. So, Mary Beth had used her eggs and sperm from the man who hired her to create the embryo she carried. Genetically, the baby was half hers. In the end, a judge awarded custody of the baby to the biological father and Mary Beth was given visitation rights.

    It was a big legal mess and led to surrogacy agreements being outlawed in NJ. I”m not sure if that’s still the case or if can now be done legally.

  13. Artisanal Toad

    I think the truth of this post is so very clearly illustrated in the profiles of women on POF and OKC. Over and over and over again you will see two common themes:

    1. Where are the decent men? I’m just looking for an honest faithful man. I want my white knight.

    2. I am not a hookup, ONS, booty call or FWB. I want a relationship, so if all you want is sex, move on.

    What these women completely fail to see and what they literally cannot see, is that mens’ needs are pretty basic. The major reason they can’t see it is because they are trying to view men and men’s desires through the lens of their own experience. They seem to think that men want the same thing they want and can’t understand that men’s needs and desires are pretty simple. Men want to find a sweet, attractive, submissive woman and marry her. After they’re married, he wants the ’4 F’s’ and it comes down to this:

    1. Feed him. That is a basic act of service and a skill that is completely misunderstood today. It says “I care” on a level seldom seen today. It’s also a great way to cut spending, because women don’t want to admit how much they’d be saving if they stopped buying pre-processed “food” and cooked from scratch. Likewise, sending him off to work in the morning with a lunch pail means no money spent on McFood.
    2. Fondle him. Random times, especially in public, just to let him know you’re thinking about him. It can be as simple as brushing against him with your breast. He will know it. He will appreciate it, because no woman ever “accidentally” bangs the girls against any man and he’ll know it was intentional. The flipside of this is never, ever publicly object if he grabs or swats the ass of the woman he married.
    3. Fight for him. Never, ever allow anyone to insult him, lie about him or put him down without a defense. Especially if it’s a woman doing it. This is only one aspect of loyalty, the kind of loyalty that keeps marriages out of divorce court. Men want loyalty almost as much as sex.
    4. Do I really need to explain the fourth F? Just don’t say no.

    Feminism has practically eliminated the sweet attractive and submissive women so committed marriage is pretty much gone and with it the first three ‘F’s’… and men know they aren’t going to get that kind of woman or that kind of treatment. Therefore, they learn to cook and clean for themselves, they develop and use close friendships and family relationships to meet their emotional needs. They grow a thick skin and don’t let the BS bother them, but what they don’t have is sex.

    I don’t think feminism has made women less human, what it’s done is made them good for nothing but sex. They can’t understand why that’s the only thing men want from them now that they’ve taken all the other goodies off the table.

    The online dating market proves it. Women cannot fathom the level of selfishness and self-entitlement they display in their profiles and rare is the day I see a woman’s profile that demonstrates she understands that it isn’t her that is the prize, it’s him.

  14. Looking Glass

    @SSM:

    That’s the basic logic. Which is why, in a now infamous comment, I said “the sex bots are coming”. It wasn’t a joke nor without ominousness overtones. A functional Sex Bot that can cook with a Microwave and clean as effectively as a Roomba would obliterate the net utility of 75% of the Women in the West.

    This is why judging Women on the same scale as Men makes them come up wanting. Their total utility, as a Man, for other Men is very, very low. If they aren’t truly needed, they won’t be needed. We’re going to rapidly hit the point that if you don’t get married by 25, you probably aren’t getting married. That comes next.

  15. earl

    Another wonderful fruit of feminism.

    I have come to the conclusion that most women have done every conceivable evil to themselves through feminism and I take no part in this. Next time I get blown off, hated, ignored, or judged incorrectly from some tart…I’ll play this scene.

  16. Lee Lee Bug

    Ya’ll have reduced unsuspecting women to being just sex objects, and we innocent women have been the willing victims of your evil plot. What we women need is some kind of movement to look out for our interests…

    The movement should be as simple as this: Convince all unmarried women to refuse to have premarital sex. Considering that studies have shown that 88 percent of Americans who call themselves Christians have premarital sex and assuming that number is higher for the non-religious crowd, this would have major implications.

    Men would be running to the altar if the cows stopped giving free milk. Think of the positive effects this would have on all aspects of American life, from societal problems (no more single moms and far fewer abortions) to economic ones (the welfare rolls would be greatly reduced and that money could be applied elsewhere).

    With women getting married younger (since, hey we want sex, too) there would be less need for IVF, donated eggs, and surrogates.

    I believe that women gave up a great deal of their power when they started to offer their bodies like free prostitutes during the sexual revolution. Promiscuity DOESN’T empower us; it reduces our worth in society. Why don’t feminists understand this?

  17. Bike Bubba

    The rantings of PUAs aside, I don’t know that feminism is that great a deal for men, either. Wasn’t it a U. of Chicago study that found that the married, and especially the traditionally married, who were the ones “making the beast with two backs” most often? And certainly you won’t hear much praise of feminism from the “frivorced” among us.

    Add to that the idea that sex isn’t for making babies anymore, and you have the “cool” idea that the epitome of feminist bliss is nookie with a barrier method, or with the lady’s temperament and physiology affected by chemical birth control. Hot it’s not, no? Yes, might allow some women to “ride the alpha train to widowhood” or whatever it is that the game-sters say, but my goodness….radical feminism is, as our hostess notes, to take the El down to Rush Street in Chicago (or the Reeperbahn in Hamburg) and apply for jobs as a couple. Yuck.

  18. sunshinemary Post author

    LLB
    I understand your thinking on this, but I think that ship has sailed. Not just because women are addicted to sluttery and show poor ability to self-regular, but also because just clamping our legs shut is probably not enough to entice men to marry at this point. Chastity has to occur in the context of a whole host of other positive feminine traits.

  19. earl

    If there is any upside to feminism for me…it has given me a challenge and conflict to overcome that I’ve desperately needed. I needed a name for it.

    I will suffer the evil indirectly…but I won’t tolerate it in my house.

  20. Red

    “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

    I’ve always thought this was a good lie. A good lie always carries good chunk of the truth.

    Here’s the real definition:
    “Feminism is the radical notion that women are men.”
    or
    “Feminism is the radical notion that women are homosexual men.”

  21. sunshinemary Post author

    Christians will still marry. That’s why Rollo often speaks against it, while trying to be careful not to be too overt about it or to offend anyone, and I completely understand his point of view. If you are not a Christian, and you look at Christianity objectively from the outside, it looks like the entire thing was just created out of thin air solely to serve the feminine imperative. So I understand why he tries to warn men against both marriage and Christianity.

    The HBD and secular reactionaries are the same, though; they believe Christianity exists solely as a social justice movement that is destroying Western culture, I’ve been following a handful of articles at Occam’s Razor that essential blame Christianity for the subjection of whites to the faux-racism machine (see these articles as examples: Is Contemporary Christianity Suicidal for the West? Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men? Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?).

    Naturally we Christians know that our faith is true and right, but we need to understand that even though we will still marry and attempt to “do” civilization, the secular crowd that also used to do these things no longer will, but their social capital was essential for a functional nation.

    Edit: Readers may find a brief back-and-forth among myself, Will S. of Patriactionary, and Scharlach of Habitable Worlds on the topic of Christianity and Western civilization of interest.

  22. Red

    “The rantings of PUAs aside, I don’t know that feminism is that great a deal for men, either. Wasn’t it a U. of Chicago study that found that the married, and especially the traditionally married, who were the ones “making the beast with two backs” most often? And certainly you won’t hear much praise of feminism from the “frivorced” among us.”

    It’s a good deal for very Alpha men. It’s the children who suffer the most from feminism.

  23. earl

    Christianity today serves the FI. I’m a Catholic and I would warn most people against marriage and most Christian denominations as well. Satan has done a good job.

    But when marriage was created by God and Christianity was created by Jesus…it was an institution with male authority and females serving it in the way females could.

  24. Artisanal Toad

    @LLB
    Even many Christians don’t see anything wrong with it.

    Genesis 16:2 is helpful in seeing where this comes from, there are other examples, such as Jacob’s two wives Rachel and Leah giving him their maids as surrogates. In the Biblical model, the surrogates were either additional wives (Hannah, the mother of Samuel comes to mind) or took the role of concubines (Hagar, Bilhah, Zilpah) with the children “belonging” as it were to the wife who owned their birth mother.

    This is contrasted with the inappropriate method of surrogacy found in Genesis 19:32-38. Putting aside the incest issues, it wasn’t a matrimonial relationship which is the one God designed for bearing and rearing children. In Hebrews Lot is described as a righteous man, the problem was the daughters. Probably the first recorded instance of feminism.

    Men would be running to the altar if the cows stopped giving free milk.

    Not anymore they won’t. So many of them are not getting any of the milk anyway, but I guess you’re assuming an assortive mating trickle-down effect. If the premarital sex stopped I’d want to be selling vibrators but I don’t expect an explosion of marriages.

    Refer to my previous comment. Sex doesn’t make up for the lack of all the other stuff men want out of marriage that feminism has taken off the table. As has been pointed out, ad nauseum, men have options that run the gamut from pr0n and self-service to dolls/robots to paid professionals. And… I have to tell you, I spent some time in the “hood” earlier this year (the white population of the neighborhood doubled with my arrival) and I had some truly enlightening conversations with some of the whores (I’d see them walking past in the evenings, headed off to work. They’d always stop to see if I was interested. I was, but only in talking). The going rate for a blow-job is between $5 and $10. A one-hour in-home full service visit is going for $20 to $40 depending on lots of variables. All this to say, men have options and those options are now way cheaper than marriage 2.0

    Convince all unmarried women to refuse to have premarital sex.

    But… the TINGLES! Tingles Uber alles!

  25. Red

    Has the Christan reactionary/traditionalist community thought of creating their own church? If the present church is largely controlled by heretics wouldn’t it make sense to start over with a new structure? Progressive Christianity is tried over and over again and the churches always end up empty so there’s defiantly a market for a return to the true faith.

  26. feeriker

    @AT on 10/10/13 @ 11:47AM:

    How much hope can there be when the vast majority of women today find those four VERY SIMPLE (really, ladies, it can’t possibly get any easier) rules to be an intolerable burden? The very idea that they have to contribute ANYTHING to a relationship –even rule number 4, which is something that they get at least as much benefit from as their man- is enough to send them into a frothing rage.

    Here’s another hint, ladies: men are turned off by “lazy” just as much as they are by “bitchy” and “selfish.” If “lazy” is what we want, we can enjoy that all by ourselves, without the added burden of having to carry the dead weight of a second nugatory body (which of course defeats the purpose of “lazy” in the first place).

    And to veer back toward topic, if a woman can’t be bothered with doing the simplest of things for a husband, what on earth would lead anything thinking man to believe that she’ll show any more motivation or effort toward taking care of any children she might have, which easily requires at least twice the level of effort?

  27. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM

    We’re saying the same thing, and I agree that Christians will still marry if for no other reason than a moral imperative. However, I think Christian men need to change their strategy in order to get what they want. I wrote some thoughts about this in the essay Bottom Fishing. You might find it amusing.

    [ssm: Thanks, I'll check it out.]

  28. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Earl

    Christianity today serves the FI. I’m a Catholic and I would warn most people against marriage and most Christian denominations as well. Satan has done a good job.

    But when marriage was created by God and Christianity was created by Jesus…it was an institution with male authority and females serving it in the way females could.

    Well, sort of. The Christianity of today, like most of Western culture, serves the FI (actually, I have my doubts that any society can not serve the FI to some degree without imploding rather quickly, but we’ll discuss that another day), but step back a little further. Think about this: someone like Rollo very naturally advises men not to marry and instead to engage in as much sexual activity with as many women as possible. I do not fault him for giving this advice because from his vantage point, this makes complete sense. Why marry when marriage offers men so few benefits; instead, free your mind from this created-religion that constrains your natural sexuality. Under that (entirely rational) view, Christianity itself (or any religion that instructs men to avoid premarital sex) is the problem.

    This is why I have twice now asked Deti to clarify a comment he made about marriage being the only licit sexual outlet for Christian men, but so far he has declined to do so.

    That is important, though. If one actually believes Christianity to be true, rather than just a lifestyle choice, then sex is no more licit for non-Christian men than it is for Christian ones.

  29. earl

    “Think about this: someone like Rollo very naturally advises men not to marry and instead to engage in as much sexual activity with as many women as possible. I do not fault him for giving this advice because from his vantage point, this makes complete sense.”

    Well I do fault people for that advice because it is rationalization for fornication. Paul makes it clear in the Bible what you don’t get if you are a fornicator (among other things which would be a good reminder for people to read over). Saying you are a Christian is not a get out of jail free card for deliberate sinning without contrition and forgiveness.

    But as far as the concepts about how things are going now-a-days…I agree with them.

  30. Martel

    I think one of the over-riding effects of feminism is the divisions it causes, causing stronger divisions between categories of men, but more importantly, within women themselves.

    There have always been Alpha and beta men, but the differences between the two have never been starker, and there used to be a lot more guys with both sets of traits. We’ve got men who’ve slept with hundreds of women and unappealing manboobs, and they’re almost different species. In earlier eras, it was more where a guy stood on a continuum and less a question of which category he’s in.

    Within women themselves, they’re now able to virtually separate their sexual beings from the rest of themselves. Observe the corporate go-getter who demands respect in the boardroom but wants a whipping in the bedroom, the single mom who DEMANDS goverment payments but will gladly degrade herself for her loser boyfriend. The contradictions are striking.

    Now more than ever, women are divided within themselves.

  31. Bucho

    Speaking of Homosexual surrogacy, try this one on for size…. A girl I knew from high school, who is white, is in a relationship with an Asian woman. So when they decided to start a family, they wanted it to favor both of them, so they decided to find an Asian sperm donor. Now my friend was the one who received the insemination, but other than some race specific genetic make up, there isn’t much that child is going to share DNA-wise with the other party. It seems like being a child of a mixed race lesbian couple (coming from an unknown paternal source) will add an even messier dynamic to the situation….

  32. sunshinemary Post author

    That’s an interesting point, Martel.

    And regarding the categorization of men – I agree with you. Pre-feminism, there was a continuum for male dominance but now there is mostly just hyper-alpha and manboob. And men like Heartiste very naturally say to men, “Well, which one would you rather be?” Most men say “Alpha.” Why sign up to be a manboob and kiss Amanda Marcotte and Rev. Al Sharpton’s collective behind?

    But that is where modern Christianity comes riding in offering the sanitized Christian manboob. Perhaps he refrains from fornication, or mostly so, but then marries a woman who has had a previous partner or five. And people like CH quite natural look at this with bafflement and say, “Man, why would you do that? You don’t have to marry them anymore!” So men are left with the choice of PUA-wannabe, Christian manboob, or male feminist ass kisser.

  33. Martel

    @ SSM: And for obvious reasons, I decline to be a part of any of those categories.

    I sincerely want to follow the Biblical imperative (and I have been for quite a while). However, an attractive guy like myself gets almost eternally visually stimulated and gets lots of temptation from women, but almost no women seem remotely qualified to marry me (and the consequences for choosing wrong could be disastrous).

    So when Rollo says he’s surprised how Christians ever breed, I see where he’s coming from, for to refrain from pre-maritial sex in today’s society seems almost hopelessly idealistic, especially when “licit” sex within marriage has such risks attached to it.

  34. earl

    Here’s why I like reading the likes of Heartiste, Rollo, and other PUAs:

    They know the deep dark nature of women…whereas most Christians still have the ideal image of them brainwashed into their heads. They don’t know the limits of sin a woman can go, what they do to plan it out, and how she covers it up. What I don’t like is that they tell men to go ahead and exploit it…but that’s another argument.

    [ssm: Yes, this is the same reason why I read those blog, too. And like it or not, from a secular point of view, their advice to men is eminently reasonable.]

    Now you take a guy like me that used to be that naive about women and give me that info…while staying true to my beliefs…that is going to make it hard for some lady to run their sweet little “born again virgin” game to try and get me to marry her. So instead of a Christian manboob…they will be running into a Christian man who has all eyes open.

  35. Escoffier

    The attack on Christianity has roots that are, literally, 500 years old. Literally, exactly. Machiavelli wrote The Prince and began the Discourses in 1513. (He tells us so in a letter dated December 10th 1513. Anti-Saint Nick’s Day, you might say.) Those two books are the foundational texts of modern secularism. They are also very carefully contrived attacks on Christianity and the Bible. Every single strand of modern atheism and pathology stems from them. I have babbled about this at length on Novaseeker’s blog.

  36. nightskyradio

    Miserman – Pearl Jam sang the following: Daddy didn’t give affection and the boy was something that mommy wouldn’t wear.

    For me, this line echoes the way the process of surrogate parenting (and to a point, adoption) turn children in fashionable property… In order to make their fake families real, they accessorize with children.

    Makes ya wonder how all those Jeremys will turn out, doesn’t it?

  37. Carlotta

    Stick a fork in me, I am done.

    Thank God His Kingdom is not of this world and we love not our lives unto death.

    The deals with the devil always, always rot you.

  38. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM

    That is important, though. If one actually believes Christianity to be true, rather than just a lifestyle choice, then sex is no more licit for non-Christian men than it is for Christian ones.

    That is important, though. If one actually believes Christianity to be true, rather than just a lifestyle choice, then sex outside the bounds of marriage is no more licit for non-Christian men than it is for Christian ones.

    There. Fixed that for you. There will come a day in which those who practice the lifestyle will hear the words “Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” God’s Law applies to everyone.

    I read your exchange on the other blog, and I think that you’d have a much easier time discussing your faith in terms of conviction vs belief. A belief is something we hold on to, which means we can let go of it. A conviction is something that holds on to us and we can’t get away from it because it holds fast to us.

    Christians have a conviction concerning their faith. They hold fast to the word of truth because the author of their salvation is holding fast to them and He has promised to complete the good work He begun and there is no power that can separate us from the Love of Christ Jesus.

    Churchians, OTOH, have a belief in Jesus. They picked up this belief in Jesus from other churchians and they’re comfortable with the lifestyle. They are best known for their shaming of men, glorification of women and the bitterness and envy in their hearts.

    It is said that there’s nothing a soldier hates worse than a warrior. That is true, because it provides a point of comparison that allows the jealousy, envy and bitterness to bleed through.

    In the same way, there’s nothing a Feminist Churchian hates more than a Convicted Christian.

  39. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Escoffier

    Although I don’t dare try to contribute something intelligent to the conversation there, I have followed your essays at Novaseeker’s and found them to be very educational. Thank you for filling in those gaps in my understanding of what modernism is and how it came to be.

    Interested readers can find Escoffier’s essays on Modernity at Novaseeker’s site, Veritas Lounge:

    Guest Post: Escoffier on the Problem of “Modernity”

    Athens and Jerusalem in Dialogue I — L’Affaire King

  40. Theo

    And when those careerist finally get their kids form the surrogates will they be raising them, or will they leave them in the care of nannies while they continue their careers? The likely answer seems to be the latter. The reality of feminism is that it can only ‘empower’ wealthy women, by foisting their maternal responsibilities on poorer women. Feminism is, and always has been, about serving the ambitions of a minority of upper-class women, not about improving the lives of women in general.

  41. earl

    Most secularists would be right about the people who say they are Christian yet willfully engage in a secular lifestyle. If a woman says she’s Christian and goes after alpha bad boys…she’s no more Christian than a hedonist. I have a feeling that’s who most secularist see as Christians.

    They are wrong about Christians who try to hold to the beliefs…and when they sin, they get their butts to confession for forgiveness and grace to withstand those temptations.

  42. Looking Glass

    It should probably be pointed out that it’s not just “Christian Masculinity” that will need a complete rebuild, but all of Western Theology, going back several hundred years. There’s still some good work to be brought out, but the truth is that the Seminaries will need to be cleared and a massive amount of pastors called to repentance. A lot of Souls are at stack.

  43. Scott

    “Edit: Readers may find a brief back-and-forth among myself, Will S. of Patriactionary, and Scharlach of Habitable Worlds on the topic of Christianity and Western civilization of interest.”

    Just followed the link to read it. A topic that drives me crazy. The current practice of “speaking in toungues” is pure self-focus and narcissism. It makes everyone who is NOT experiencing anything feel awkward, and it is supposed to. “Look at me, I am sooooooo spritual. [and you aren't]“

  44. davidvs

    Not sure why this post should seem surprising. Modern feminism believes two false declarations…

    Proposition A: “Men and women are the same except for their physical, biological differences.”

    Proposition B: “As much as possible, people should be independent and fulfill their own needs.”

    Is it not a necessary logical consequence that men and women therefore only need need each other for sex?

  45. taylor

    Gestational carriers are also used to carry embryos that the carrier has no genetic connection to. There are many reasons people use GC’s and they all do not fit into the descriptors you listed above. I have watched some younger couples make the difficult decision to use a GC, and it was gut wrenching for the woman to not be able to carry her own child.

    Does it sit well with me that rich older couples are buying women’s wombs? It sure doesn’t. One can only hope they become good parents raising good children. But, that is a probably a naive wish. And of course, as you pointed out, there are big fees with the GC process, and btw, a huge portion of it goes to the lawyers and agencies. In fact, I’ve been trying to figure out how to pay for a GC for awhile now. Overall, the cost of infertility treatments is astronomical and sadly, having children is not a gift bestowed on everyone.

  46. Miserman

    Red wrote, If the present church is largely controlled by heretics wouldn’t it make sense to start over with a new structure?

    At one time I agreed with such a sentiment, but I now understand that regardless of how many new structures are erected, the feminist creep will always coming knocking at the door. There was a time when churches were bastions of biblical Christianity before succumbing to modern feminist ideas. Even the fabled Southern Baptists are to some degree affected. So simply splitting off and starting new will only delay the inevitable.

    I believe that it will require bold Christian leaders working within whatever churches they can to challenge feminist ideas biblically, consistently, and rationally. Within each denomination, from Catholic to Reformed to Baptist to Charismatic to whatever, men should take a stand against the progressive heresies and as best they can, as far as they are allowed. Men may be asked to leave such a church, but there is no shame in that.

  47. baux

    Having successfully failed pair-bonding and monogamy with a woman that is the byproduct of Bernakification, consumerism and the Kardashians instead of God, GB4M and man, I am entirely with Just on this.

    I avoided commitment for a long time in favor of being a rake, knowing the caliber of young ladies we crank out these days, though believed I would need to reconcile myself to wifing up one of these women in order to leave my genetic legacy.

    Now, with the expenses saved from abhoring provider-servitude in favor of enjoying my damn life, I’d plan on purchasing a quality egg, renting a womb and paying a devout immigrant woman a king’s ransom to care for the best among the Y-chromosomed swimmers procured by a lab.

    Whether we’re heading toward a future that merits creating progeny to live in it is a different story.

  48. donalgraeme

    I would like to back up what SSM said in response to LLB’s statement about premarital sex. Chastity before (and even during) marriage alone isn’t enough these days, not by a long-shot. Nearly all western women lack essential skills for being a helpmeet. They possess awful personalities are at times painful to endure. Overall, they add no value to a man’s life outside their reproductive capacity. And even that is questionable given the current legal and cultural climate.

    It isn’t premarital sex which is driving many men to avoid the alter these days. Even knowing that they were all virgins… there are very few women I have personally met who would cause me to run to the alter. Very few.

  49. Martel

    To echo Donal, almost all of the women I’ve met who theoretically “would cause me to run to the alter” have already run some other dude to the alter.

  50. Martel

    On the other hand, I’m not sure how much of most modern women’s unpleasant demeanors are intrinsically connected to their sluttiness. Perhaps if they weren’t as slutty, it would either a) reflect that they’ve got something else going for them, or b) help them to get something going in other ways.

  51. donalgraeme

    Addressing the topics of the FI, Christianity and Western Civilization…

    Christianity serves the FI in the sense that it establishes clear lines of behavior, many of which are more advantageous to women then they are to men. But Biblical Christianity doesn’t let the FI run rampant, rather it strives to balance the needs of men, women and children to create a healthy community.

    Do men benefit from ignoring Christian teaching and doctrine, and choosing to act in their own selfish interests? To a limited degree, yes. They can certainly enjoy a greater sense of hedonistic delight… for a limited time. But only so long as society stays stable around them. Once society falls apart their lovely times quickly come to an end.

    As for Christianity and Western Civilization, I would argue that you can’t have the latter without the former. At least, a functional former. With an ethical code at the foundation of a society, it cannot stand. Western Civilization without any form of religion would invariably turn into Rapture:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture_%28BioShock%29

  52. Artisanal Toad

    @Maeve

    There are two examples of speaking in tongues cited in Scripture. The first is when a person speaks in a known language for the benefit of a native speaker so that they can hear the Gospel and believe. I have occasionally heard of this happening in modern times but it seems to have mostly been confined to the early church.

    The second is a reference to Paul talking about speaking in angelic tongues (which are not known languages). This is pretty much what the Pentecostal “speaking in tongues” is all about. It’s incoherent and unintelligible noise. In attending Pentecostal churches years ago, I was frequently asked if I’d received the holy spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. If I chose to have an impromptu debate I could usually get them to admit there were multiple spiritual gifts and someone could have the Holy Spirit without having ever spoken in tongues, but amongst themselves that’s pretty much their de-facto standard. That’s why they call themselves “Pentecostals.”

    It is thought by many that the proximity to the Delphic Oracles to Corinth and the speaking in unintelligible tongues was the context for Paul’s admonition that women are to be silent in church. Evidently women can be quite distracting when they’re babbling away intelligibly. ;-)

    You might be interested in a book called “Christianity With Power” by Charles Kraft. It provides a good overview of how the Vineyard movement was born. I can attest that I have personally seen people healed from the laying on of hands and it will rock you to your core if you ever see it. Sometimes approach anxiety is discussed in this area of the internet, talking about the fear of rejection. Trying to publicly exercise gifts of healing requires a total sacrifice of pride and a willingness to look like a fool in order to allow God to work through you. Of the people I know who regularly do this, they all acknowledge that it only works about 1/3 to 1/2 the time. The rest of the times they just look like fools. One of them, his name is Bubba (no kidding), says he keeps doing it because his goal is to put every bit of his pride and fear of what others think on the altar and burn it up.

    Sound familiar? 8-O

    From your church’s viewpoint, I think talking in an “angelic” tongue would simply be annoying. I think healing someone by the laying on of hands and commanding them in the name of Christ to be healed in front video cameras with multiple unimpeachable witnesses and the opinion of multiple doctors claiming it really happened might maybe qualify as a miracle and they’d start using the “B” word before you were dead. I don’t know about the casting out of demons, but there is no horror movie you could name that even comes close to how you feel when you witness a real power encounter. In fact, it was because they had missionaries coming back from overseas with their minds *blown* after being on the receiving end of power encounters with demons that Fuller Seminary decided to bring in a few Pentecostals like John Wimber. That’s detailed in the book I mentioned. I also note you wanted “concise” and I’ve failed at that so I’ll just get back to work.

  53. donalgraeme

    @ Martel

    To echo Donal, almost all of the women I’ve met who theoretically “would cause me to run to the alter” have already run some other dude to the alter.

    Yeah, same here. Before I found the Red Pill, and after high school, I think I ran into one women whom I could have happily married. All the others were already married, or in a few cases, engaged (and to good men too). After taking the Red Pill I kicked myself non-stop for a long time about that one woman. I’ve come to grips with it now, but it is an important lesson in regret:

    The greatest source of regret in our life is not the paths we walked, but the paths untrodden.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure how much of most modern women’s unpleasant demeanors are intrinsically connected to their sluttiness. Perhaps if they weren’t as slutty, it would either a) reflect that they’ve got something else going for them, or b) help them to get something going in other ways.

    Promiscuity accounts for part of the problem, that’s for certain. Yet how often have others complained about EAPs, including more than a few who were virgins and never found a man to suit their hypergamy?

  54. Artisanal Toad

    To echo Donal, almost all of the women I’ve met who theoretically “would cause me to run to the alter” have already run some other dude to the alter. ~Martel

    To echo Martel’s echo, almost all of the women I’ve met who theoretically “would cause me to run to the altar” have already run some other dude to the alter, cranked out a couple of his kids, decided they were unhappy and were forced to frivorce him for half his assets and child support. They had to because everybody knows that God wants women to be happy. That’s why He gave them a hamster. These women now stand around complaining that there aren’t any decent men anymore and the only thing men want is sex.

    Such is the difference of a slightly older perspective.

  55. Martel

    @ Donal: I met one woman that I should have married that I could have married, but I was 21 and not interested in marrying in the slightest. But what are EAP’s?

  56. thegreatshebang

    Rollo Tomassi at the Rational Male has published his book and I’ve received my purchased copy. He strongly thanks Dalrock for help in intellectual and moral discussions over the years. I recommend a copy as it is a ver comfortable and convenient way to read the blog posts. Also would make a great gift that someone would read.

  57. thegreatshebang

    As to your current post, SM, yes I agree.

    As a young adult I did everything the feminized society and Church asked of me. I achieved the highest level of academic success and acquired good work and social skills.

    But I committed the “sin” of not learning Jerkboy Charisma and Social Dominance. Even though I had everything else, I therefore could not get women’s attention for 90 seconds. I would have been very happy with a pre-feminism wife, at least happy enough to have tried really really hard to make a marriage work.

    But with no interest from women, I became suicidal. I had to deconstruct society and the Church’s ideas in order to literally save my life.

    Religious ideas and Feminist thinking are dangerous to me. Real masculinity is better.

    And yes, I worked really hard to be the best provider Beta so I have a host of money and work skills. So from my point of view women only offer sex and only 1% can cook.

    I am now dating 18-25 year olds and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

    But I don’t “thank” feminism. My brush with danger was too painful. I’ve learned a lot, though, so I am grateful that my eyes were opened.

  58. Athor Pel

    Toad,

    The Biblical requirement for allowing someone to speak in tongues in church is for there to also be someone there that can interpret. Without interpretation it’s just noise and by definition it is being done to distract which fails the test which all spirits are to be put to.

    Emotional outbursts for the sake of emotional outbursts are the sowing of confusion and not of the Spirit.

  59. thegreatshebang

    EAP
    Evangelical American Princess
    is how I’ve heard it. I met one this week through friends. I shivered and wouldn’t date her on a bet.

  60. deti

    EAP= Evangelical American Princess. A term coined by long gone bskillet at his defunct blog Christian Men’s Defense Network.

    An EAP is the religious churchian girl, the God’s Special Princess, the Daughter of the King. She has a 463 bullet point checklist for the Perfect Man that God is preparing for her. And because that man will come from God he will be Perfect In Every Way, because God knows the thoughts and plans He has for her; and He is not a man that He should lie. So if a man who attempts to date her is not Perfect, then he is not The One.

  61. tbc

    Edit: Readers may find a brief back-and-forth among myself, Will S. of Patriactionary, and Scharlach of Habitable Worlds on the topic of Christianity and Western civilization of interest.

    I found it interesting indeed, though perhaps not for the reasons you may have intended.

    Leaving that aside for the moment, I think there is a both a fortunate and unfortunate correlation between Christianity and Western Civilisation. It is undeniable that Christianity (ethically and philosophically) made the West. That is a matter of historical record. What is fortunate about that is the ethical norms of Christianity are still what our society deems as normative even as it rebels against them. We are still fighting more or less on Christian turf.

    The West has however largely entered a post-Christian phase. This leads to the ‘unfortunate’ part of my earlier statement. That Christianity so influenced the development of the West unfortunately has led many in the West to believe they have a proprietary stake in Christianity in terms of theology and theopraxis. In other words, there is an assumption that Westerners and Western civilization are the only ones who know how to think or practice Christianity ‘correctly’.

    Hence the hand wringing on the blog you referenced. There is some suspicion (and derision) of Christianity as practiced in other parts of the world (notably Africa) as being somehow less than ‘proper’ Christianity. The critique of speaking in tongues is part of that; it is largely viewed by some as a kind of irrational pagan primitivism belonging to the ‘lower’ races. This is not based in scripture but in a evolutionary assumption of the 18th and 19th centuries about both peoples and concepts where European Whites (Germans in particular) were the apex of human development biologically and theologically. For a time it was even argued that Islam was ‘good enough’ for Africans as it was sufficient to raise them from barbarism, but they were likely not fit for Christianity. All of this is a matter of historical record by the way.

    These assumptions bring a particular kind of racial supremacy, masquerading as a defense of Western Civilisation into conflict with Biblical Christianity, with some essentially playing the theologically equivalent role of Judaizers, insisting of the cultural equivalents of circumcision for non-Western Christians. That is, that there is a tacit and sometime overt insistence that to be a proper and fully formed Christian, one must become a White Westernized European; this despite the fact that Europe itself has largely abandoned the faith and it is arguably the theological compromise with the Enlightenment that made such abandonment possible.

  62. GKChesteron

    @SSM,

    Now, I like that explanation because it makes this whole thing men’s fault. :) Yeah, that’s right – it’s you guys who did this! Ya’ll have reduced unsuspecting women to being just sex objects, and we innocent women have been the willing victims of your evil plot. What we women need is some kind of movement to look out for our interests…

    Not really. It implies that there are two patriarchies one good and one evil and that you have the choice between them. We may be at fault in the macro sense as we are the “leaders”, but every woman is responsible for which side she chooses.

  63. donalgraeme

    @ Martel

    I’m not sure I could have married that one woman, I was a hopelessly pathetic White Knight who would have actively repulsed her. But I still should have tried. Alas, what is done is done.

    EAP means Evangelical American Princess.

  64. donalgraeme

    @ Fuzzie

    I guess Entitled American Princess works too, although I’ve usually seen it applied specifically to Evangelical “Daughters of the King.”

  65. earl

    I’ve met only one woman I would have even thought of marrying as well…and my betaness screwed that up.

    But yeah…even if they were not having sex, if they still were nagging and ungrateful all the time…I wouldn’t put up with that either. I don’t mind conflict in the world but I value peace and quiet at home.

  66. deti

    Donal, Martel:

    Badger long ago theorized that in the course of any one individual’s dating life, that individual (man or woman) could expect to meet two, at most three persons of the opposite sex that she or he could be sufficiently compatible with and attracted to so as to make a successful marriage. I’ve met three. The first I met at 17; the second at 19, the third and last at 24. Of course at 17 and 19 I was in no shape at all to marry.

  67. deti

    Sorry. Oversharing, I know.

    Maeve: “Daughters of the King” Is all attitude. It comes from — no lie — fundie and charismaniac pastors calling young women “daughters of the King” and that therefore they are entitled to royal treatment from men.

  68. thegreatshebang

    @Earl

    “if they were still nagging and ungrateful …”

    …describes my mother.

    An otherwise very charming woman, my mother was a virgin at marriage, so she would swear on her father’s grave but has always made my dad’s life miserable. How he ever put up with her is beyond me.

    But despite my mother being Exhibit A to never marry I very much did want to marry until I thought things through

  69. Artisanal Toad

    @Maeve
    Men love women who have intelligent cheerful babble while happily making him a sammich. If he smacks her on the ass and says “go make me a sammich”, she gets bonus points if she brings back a dagwood wearing nothing but her apron and a smile. Even bigger bonus points if she gives him the sandwich, asks him if there’s anything else he might like and “turns the other cheek.”

    @Athor
    I agree with you, but it is what it is. You can make that argument to the Pentecostals if you want, but before it’s all over you’ll be branded a “sower of discord” and probably a graduate of “Cemitary” that’s been sent by Satan himself to test and tempt the faithful of the Lord. BTDT, no T-shirt available.

  70. earl

    Well I get there will be times a woman will not be in the most pleasant of moods and that may be because of her husband…but that isn’t an excuse to nag or be ungrateful.

    There are times I’m not in a pleasant mood for whatever reason…I can still say thanks or acknowledge someone who is kind to me. It’s called emotional control.

    And I secretly will give a lady a +1 if she says thanks to me when I do something…or helps me out. It doesn’t come by often.

  71. deti

    It’s time for a refresher course on the churchian false theology. Friends, I have seen or heard EVERY ONE of these espoused or suggested in a Christian church in the last 15 years.

    Here’s a series of comments I left at Dalrock’s in March 2012.

    *** it’s being asserted that every one of these points has a basis in Scripture, Scripture is being twisted and distorted to support the feminine imperative. And Scripture is used because you cannot argue with it or disagree with it. In this context, pastors bludgeon men with “Scripture is the infallible Word of God” and is “Given by God, good for teaching, instruction, rebuke and reproof”. So, the argument from the pastor is, if you disagree with any of this, then you are disagreeing with God, calling Him a liar, putting yourself above God, committing blasphemy, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit (which is the only unpardonable sin). So therefore, since there are scriptural bases for all of this, God is right, you are wrong, and you better shape up, man up and “get in line and agreement with God’s Word”.

    Below are a series of assertions and the scripture I’ve seen used and its original meanings distorted. Note these are all taken out of context, or divorced from their original meanings, or devoid of any theological support:

    –girls are “daughters of the King” and “God’s special princesses” (Song of Solomon, Psalm 45)

    –”born again” virgins: (Christ’s instruction to Nicodemus that one must be “born again” to enter God’s kingdom; Paul’s statement that “if any one be in Christ, he is a new creation, behold, all things are made new”)

    –Husband is responsible for wife’s sins, failings and substandard conduct: (“As Christ is the Head of the Church, so the man is the head of the wife”)

    –Husband’s sacrificial love is unconditional even to the point of death: (“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” Ephesians 5)

    –Husbands are to love even in the face of the wife’s lack of submission/respect: (Ephesians 5, because the husband is to be “Christlike”)

    Girls are brought up in the church as “Daughters of the King” and “God’s special little princesses”. They are told they are the fairer sex, the weaker sex, the purer sex. Girls and women are pure, noble, altruistic, and good. (Boys are tainted, fallen, base, self-serving and bad.)

    Girls are entitled to special treatment, deference, and nurturing. (Boys are on their own.)

    In dating, girls are expected to date only Christian boys and certainly not to have sex. But she is entitled to princess treatment. He must pay for everything, be a gentleman, hold her chair, open her doors. She is not to settle for any man. She must only marry the man whom God has selected for her. Since God is “perfect and makes no mistakes,” the man He selects for her will also be perfect. God is all powerful and all knowing, so He can and will do it and knows exactly what to do and when to do it for her. God is also “not a man and therefore does not lie.” This means God’s chosen man for her will meet her every qualification and requirement. If a particular man does not meet even one requirement, however minuscule or slight, he is not The One, and the man is auto-dumped. (She has no agency, no ability to choose, no free will, no decisionmaking ability and in fact no reason or need to make any decisions. She merely needs to …. exist.)

    She is never to have premarital sex. But if she does have premarital sex, it is not her fault. The boy/man tricked her in some way. He was a cad/player. He was so good looking. He caught her up in the moment. He lied to her and told her they were going to get married. It is only boys who need to be “wise like serpents and gentle as doves.”

    In marriage, scripture is twisted to serve the feminine imperative. If she has moral failings, it is the man’s fault. If she is unhappy in her marriage or their marriage is not working, it is ultimately his fault. (“Christ is the head of the church, so the man is the head of the wife.”) If something is wrong, it is all traceable to the head, who is the man.

    If a man looks at another woman and likes the way she looks or finds himself sexually aroused, he has committed adultery and his wife has grounds for divorce. If he looks at porn, he has committed adultery. (“If any man looks on a woman not his wife with lust in his heart, he has sinned because he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”)

    If he masturbates, he has violated scripture by “spilling his seed” (the story of Onan in Genesis, who was struck down because he did not consummate a sexual relationship but instead pulled out and ejaculated on the ground). If he masturbates to porn (but I’m being redundant), he is guilty of both adultery in his heart AND “onanism”.

    If she has committed adultery, it is because he drove her to it. She was merely looking for love, kindness and understanding from a man who would treat her right and better than her uncaring, insensitive, overworked brute of a husband. It is his fault because he did not lead her.

    Wifely submission/respect is purely conditional, but these conditions are never met. Somehow, she is always relieved of this obligation. Yet, the husband’s obligation to love is unconditional because he is to be like Christ, who is Perfection personified, and he is to die for her and give himself up for her “as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her”. The argument is “after all, Christ loved the church and hung on the Cross even though we humans hated him, spat on him, and crucified him! So you have to love me and die for me even if I’m a bitch who hates you, maltreats you and won’t have sex with you, because that’s what Christ did and YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE CHRIST!!”

    If any one or more of the following is happening or has ever happened, she considers that she does not have to submit or respect the husband:

    –she considers him in any way deficient in leading (“because he’s not leading the family”)
    –he sins or has any kind of imperfection (so “he does not lead me into sin”)
    –he doesn’t attend church or doesn’t like it (because he’s not “right with God”)
    –he looked at porn, or masturbated, or pushes for sex (because “he’s leading me into sin”)
    –he isn’t loving or kind (because “he has an obligation to show sacrificial love FIRST, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do I have an obligation to submit/respect”)

  72. Red

    “Most secularists would be right about the people who say they are Christian yet willfully engage in a secular lifestyle. If a woman says she’s Christian and goes after alpha bad boys…she’s no more Christian than a hedonist. I have a feeling that’s who most secularist see as Christians.

    They are wrong about Christians who try to hold to the beliefs…and when they sin, they get their butts to confession for forgiveness and grace to withstand those temptations.”

    I think what they don’t understand is why you allow the above mentioned hedonist to call herself a Christian. It’s like a police force allowing criminals to wear the same uniforms cops and refusing to do anything about it. You being a members of the police force can probably identify a cop dressed a crook but everyone else just has to assuming that all the cops are really crooks.

  73. FuzzieWuzzie

    Maybe it’s a little late in the thread but, as to the complaint of men being after only one thing, has anyone looked around and noticed how divergent men and women’s interesta are?
    It’s like we can’t eat the same food, can’t watch the same television programs, read the same books, and, all too often, using the same language carries different meanings.
    In this social setting, sex might be one of the few things bringing men and women together.

  74. Bike Bubba

    Per John 1:12, every believing woman does happen to be a daughter of the King, no? So it at least has its origins in a Biblical fact. Doesn’t entitle her to be a total sinful jerk, but there is a reality here.

    Regarding speaking in tongues, it’s worth noting that Paul does note the need for an interpreter in all cases, not just those of human language, in 1 Cor. 14. Maeve, you can do your own “cost effective concordance” at http://www.biblegateway.com if you like–it’ll give you a few cases (Acts 2, 1 Cor. 14, etc..) of the phenomenon. It was an important way that God authenticated His Gospel in Acts, and (as I’d argue about pentacostals and charismatics today) quickly got blown out of proportion because it’s impressive and we all like a show.

    My personal take; I’ve not seen real examples of it despite rooming with a pentacostal and spending a lot of time with charismatics, so I’m a “mild cessationist”. Not against the idea, but it’s not the normal experience.

  75. Rollo Tomassi

    Christians will still marry. That’s why Rollo often speaks against it, while trying to be careful not to be too overt about it or to offend anyone

    SSM I challenge you or anyone else claiming the same to find anywhere on my site or in my comments where I’ve spoken ‘against’ marriage. If anything the validity of what I’ve written over the past 12 years gets called into question for having been happily married for 17 years by my critics.

    Here’s a good link to start with:
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/28/fidelity/

    For the record I’m not anti-marriage, I’m anti-never-saw-it-coming-pollyana-how-could-she-do-this-to-me?-hypergamy’s-a-bitch marriage.

    [ssm: Perhaps my wording was inaccurate. Perhaps you have not spoken against marriage per se. But you very much warn men never to marry. It's a common theme in your writing, regardless of your personal circumstances. And furthermore, I don't entirely disagree with you and my comment was not meant as criticism. I do believe that marriage to a loyal wife confers emotional benefits on a man, but loyal wives are not easy to come by and even so, divorce and custody laws are biased against men in the U.S. Even I don't advise state-based marriage at this point; covenant marriage before God (which, by the way, is not the same as just shacking up together) and witnesses but not the state.]

  76. deti

    If the woman has had a “checkered past” or has had premarital sex or a lot of sex partners, bringing her back to “right relationship” with God is quick, simple and easy. She need only pray a prayer, say she was sorry, “rededicate her life” to God, and get a “personal relationship” with Christ. Note she is not told HOW to do any of this; she is merely told to do it and pray the prayer.

    Once that is done, she is fully restored to “Daughter of the King” and “God’s special princess” status. She is now a “born-again virgin”. But she needs to get married right away, and it’s the job of the church to find her a husband. It is the solemn obligation of the good men around her to surround her, affirm her, court her, and compete with her for her affections. The worthy man will appear at just the right time with a ring and pledges of eternal love.

    Meanwhile, the men of the church are sternly lectured that it’s their duty and obligation to “man up” and “stop playing those video games” and “who in the hell do you think you are” sleeping with women who are practically begging you to “get it in”.

  77. tbc

    Shouldn’t we called them APEs instead of EAPs, you know to give the genus before the particular species: American Princess – Evangelical. And of course there are other sub- species: American Princess – Evangelical Slut, American Princess – Evangelical Tease and so on…

    As for speaking in tongues — well I say with St. Paul, ‘I thank God I speak with tongues more than ye all’,…

    [ssm: LOL, very clever.]

  78. earl

    @deti…

    If that is the state of other Christian churches…then I’m glad I’m Catholic. I’ve never heard any of that nonsense. Makes me want to avoid Protestant women altogether.

  79. vascularity777

    @ Just Saying:

    You stated, “So when I hear the “you only see women as sex-objects” I have to laugh and respond in my mind, that is all that are NOW. One of the reasons that I will never marry – what advantage is there? None…”

    I totally agree. I will never marry again. Life single, although very imperfect, is much better than being married to what is available in our current culture.

  80. tbc

    St. Paul on tongues clearly does not forbid them, nor does he say that they are all intelligible languages (not in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage) and implies in chapter 15 that they are supernatural / angelic. There are those who dispute this distinction, but scripturally speaking it is there. He notes that the person who prays in an unknown tongues builds himself up, that his spirit prays but his understanding is unfruitful (because he doesn’t know what he’s praying) but that he will therefore pray ‘with the Spirit’ and pray ‘with the understanding’. So he makes room for both. He does note that without an interpretation a person should pray ‘to himself and to God’ — so the question then is one of the practice within a congregation. In his context as in many contexts around the world, prayer is not ever done silently, or is rarely done that way — so by implication the person may be praying in tongues aloud, but in such a way that does not distract or otherwise draw attention. In a cultural setting where everyone prays aloud loudly, praying the same way in tongues is not necessarily out of order.

    Either way, praying/speaking in tongues was not the point of this post.\

    ssm: I disagree with your scriptural analysis of this and I think this whole slain-in-the-spirit and speaking-in-tongues things leads to very disorderly worship. But I don’t have a huge problem with it to the point where I wouldn’t be willing to be in fellowship with people who practice it.

    I should add that I disagree with the fundamental premise of the article at Occam’s Razor, in case that wasn’t clear. My thoughts are quite in line with Will S.’s:

    The Third World Christians who adhere to correct Scripture doctrines ARE Christian, even if they add on weird charismatic things that seem pagan; I would scarcely call white American Pentecostals non-Christian, nor will I do their Third World counterparts. And see Alex’ comment above about Catholics in Gabon. Those are Christians, not heathens. Are those Gabonese adhering to a European folk-religion? Pshaw. They are adhering to the Faith.

    OTOH, the mainline progressives, ‘liberal Christians’, I have no problem in calling non-Christian, because they have jettisoned all pretense of adhering to what Scripture teaches. The deformation is not the Faith, unlike the true Faith being practiced in Africa, despite some pagan elements. (Same as pagan elements survive in the Faith in the West.)

    God is preserving His church in Africa; and even for now in elements of the West like the church to which I adhere.

  81. grey_whiskers

    @Scott October 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    “Edit: Readers may find a brief back-and-forth among myself, Will S. of Patriactionary, and Scharlach of Habitable Worlds on the topic of Christianity and Western civilization of interest.”

    Just followed the link to read it. A topic that drives me crazy. The current practice of “speaking in toungues” is pure self-focus and narcissism. It makes everyone who is NOT experiencing anything feel awkward, and it is supposed to. “Look at me, I am sooooooo spritual. [and you aren't]“

    Scott — this is the same problem the church in Corinth had (1 Corinthians 14:18, but in this connection it’s useful to read 1 Corinthians 13 as well…)

    The other thing to remember about Corinth is that they had a member of the church sleeping with his father’s wife. (And the church was *arrogant* not repentant.)
    The “man up and marry those sluts” crowd isn’t too far away from that, it seems; so I don’t find it particularly surprising that the emphasis is on “showiness” of one of the minor Gifts.

  82. grey_whiskers

    @Athor Pel on October 10, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Toad,

    The Biblical requirement for allowing someone to speak in tongues in church is for there to also be someone there that can interpret. Without interpretation it’s just noise and by definition it is being done to distract which fails the test which all spirits are to be put to.

    Emotional outbursts for the sake of emotional outbursts are the sowing of confusion and not of the Spirit.

    +1
    (Where are the teachers urging the congregation to seek after the higher gifts, or, better yet, Agape?)

  83. grey_whiskers

    @donalgraeme, @Fuzzie, @deti, @martel, @ssm –
    Just food for thought if any of you with more time than I have — though I surf aplenty :-)
    care to make this a topic for thought, discussion, or writing.

    Consider the topic of the EAP — “Daughters of the King” and “Noble” and “Deserving of God’s Best” and therefore legitimate in imposing only the *highest* standards on a potential mate.
    Does it strike any of you, with the feminist teaching having infiltrated the Church, and the feminists wanting to usurp men’s roles —
    that just maybe, the attitudes spoon-fed to the EAP, are in fact, much closer to the attitudes that MEN in the church should seek, have, and practice, when interacting in church, and in particular, when interacting with or courting *women*?

    Just an idea; discuss.

  84. grey_whiskers

    @deti October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    May I suggest that the answer to all that is Ezekiel 23.

    It might be a hoot to play a prank —
    similar to the one I saw on TV where two guys set up a booth to take signatures for a petition to “End Woman’s Suffrage” (woman are suffraging and we don’t want *that*, do we?).
    It was amazing how many fatuous entitled young women eagerly signed.

    The prank would be to sell T-shirts at a Churchian event, which would read
    “I’m a Biblical woman” (in suitably flowery script and the word ‘Biblical’ emphasized by size and font).
    The kicker would be the small-print tagline at the bottom reading
    ” — Ezekiel 23:20″

  85. FuzzieWuzzie

    Getting back to the original post, given that it will cost $50K plus expenses, not much of this is going to happen. It’s sick and unnatural but it seems more of a rich/poor issue than one for our wacky friends.
    These kids will be farmed out to nannies and boarding schools. More sick.

  86. redpillsetmefree

    I never considered this:
    Feminism doesn’t just make women less human. It doesn’t just make women into nothing but their reproductive capacities. Feminism actually makes women useless..

    …but after reading this article I see how true it is. A woman is a poor substitute for a man, and straight guys want feminine women….so if career minded unfeminine sluts are all that’s left, yet they still have the legal right to financially rape you through frivorce……what is left for women to offer to men but sex? And then, mainly in their 20s?

    SSM, I pose this question to you: what is the way out/back from this current state, given all you’ve said?

  87. FuzzieWuzzie

    grey_whiskers,
    While I’m not a church goer, from second hand, it looks like thes EAP’s egos are being boosted to the point where Tom Mix’s ten gallon hat wouldn’t fit. All this for approval at arem’s length?

  88. FuzzieWuzzie

    redpillsetmefree,
    The question you posed for SSM should be addressed to all of us. While men have been calling bulls$*t on this for a long time, we haven’t gained much social traction. When women start calling it out in sufficient numbers, expect action.

  89. grey_whiskers

    @FuzzieWuzzie on October 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM –
    grey_whiskers,
    While I’m not a church goer, from second hand, it looks like thes EAP’s egos are being boosted to the point where Tom Mix’s ten gallon hat wouldn’t fit. All this for approval at arem’s length?
    >
    I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear.
    What would happen if the MEN in the churches started proclaiming and teaching that they are SONS of the King, and strong, and noble, and ordained by God to the the head and leader of their house (with appropriate Scripture references, including for example 1 Timothy 2:9-15…)
    Would the authority and masculinity evinced by these men generate tingles a-plenty?

    And as for the relations between the sexes, “…treat younger women like sisters, in all purity”.
    OK, how do you treat a younger sister? You tease her *mercilessly*. (more tingles).

    Food for thought.

  90. feeriker

    She need only pray a prayer, say she was sorry, “rededicate her life” to God, and get a “personal relationship” with Christ.

    Tears. Do not EVER forget the tears. Gallons and gallons of tears, accompanied by as public a display of raw emotion as possible. This is an essential part of the whole ritual.

  91. FuzzieWuzzie

    grey_whiskers,
    For a real life answer to your question, we should address Joseph of Jackson.
    He’s been quiet for a while. If you’re reading, how about a progress report?

  92. Farm Boy

    This thread does a very good job explaining fellas views on modern women (NAWALT). Young ladies lurking would be wise to consider these perspectives

  93. Lady Just Saying

    If everything was so perfect “under Patriachy” and men are so without any blame for anything that they do, why did my grandfather kill my grandmother after she had spent her life taking care of him as he was disabled and unable to take care of himself. She would have better off with a little feminism IMHO and told him to kiss off and take care of himself or hire a nurse to do it, taken half of his money, no shabby amount, in fact, and ran off with the pool boy to Aruba and lived a little. She got a bullet through her brain for her loyalty — I’ll see you in Aruba.

    [ssm: OK, we have two people here going by the handle "Just Saying". One is a man and is manospherish in orientation. The other (you) is female and feminist in orientation. It's too confusing having two people with one handle, so one of you has to change. And ladies here are expected to yield to the men so...what would you like your new handle to be, my dear? I'll go back and change it on your old comments when you choose a new one.]

  94. Artisanal Toad

    I’m calling BS. Pic’s or it didn’t happen. This is way past them feminist trope…. I don’t believe a word of it

    [ssm: Yeah, it seems a little iffy to me, too.

    @ Just Saying: I'm changing your handle to Lady Just Saying. You may pick a different one if you like; let me know.]

  95. OffTheCuff

    Earl: “Most secularists would be right about the people who say they are Christian yet willfully engage in a secular lifestyle. … I have a feeling that’s who most secularist see as Christians.”

    Pretty much.

    Earl: “They are wrong about Christians who try to hold to the beliefs…and when they sin, they get their butts to confession for forgiveness and grace to withstand those temptations.”

    While I could respect those who walk the walk… I’m still waiting to meet one. I think the closest I’ve heard was “well, I’m not very good at repentenace”.

    The vast majority of Christians are not chaste, and of those, the vast majority of them don’t repent. Maybe I’m crazy, but if only such a tiny fraction of people can actually succeed at what, to stupid, secular me sees clearly, then I really have my doubts about that whole Truth thing… but I realize that’s my uh, cross to bear.

  96. Je Suis Prest

    Reference Martel’s 4:22 comment about sluttiness being linked with unpleasant demeanours, I think there is a very strong link between the two. Of course, any time we act in ways that move us further from God’s plan and what we were created to be, the further from happiness we travel, but as Paul noted, he who sins sexually, sins against his own body and I think this has profound impacts for one’s emotional health, and by extension the demeanour one portrays to the world.

    We live in a culture that encourages women to ‘embrace their sexuality’ and many have done so outside the marriage bed. To tie this back to the first part of the OP, I think that as women do this, on some level, regardless of their spiritual leanings, they feel objectified because they themselves are treating treating their bodies as objects to be used to satisfy a biological urge. Based on what they have been taught, they don’t expect to feel that way and then have a choice between admitting they were wrong and setting about fixing the damage to their soul, or trying to rationalize why what they did wasn’t wrong and thereby depriving themselves of the opportunity for healing. The rub is, very few people are truly stupid enough to completely fool themselves in this regard and consequently, they have to live with the cognitive dissonance between what they do feel and what they think they should feel. Is it any surprise then that their outer demeanour would reflect this internal turmoil? Or that as they seek to avoid accepting responsibility for their sins that they would seek to blame external forces and lash out accordingly?

  97. Lady Just Saying

    Lady Just Saying is fine. You can chose to not believe what I say happened if you wish since there is no way to prove it, it doesn’t matter to me whether you believe me as I know I’m telling the truth, I really don’t know how it would benefit me to make up such a tragedy, but disbelieve me, if that is most “convenient” for you.

  98. Martel

    @ Lady Just Sayin (if it stays that way): You’re operating under the leftist delusion that it’s somehow possible to achieve some sort of earthly paradise. Was life perfect under the patriarchy? Hell no!. We’re fallen, all of us. There hasn’t been anything close to a paradise on earth since Genesis, and there won’t be until Revelation.

    However, there are certain customs and practices that can mitigate the harm caused by our sinful natures, and patriarchy is among them. When we’re led by sinful men (which includes all men), things will be bad, but not as bad as if we’re led by sinful women.

    Your grandmother suffered a horrible injustice, but she was an exception, not the rule. The Family wasn’t perfect, so in response, instead of working to create more virtuous men, we decided to destroy the nuclear family itself.

    And considering all the battered women’s shelters all over the place, I don’t think women are exactly better off with more “equality”.

    God’s system may be perfect, but it’s implemented by imperfect men, so things won’t ever be what they should be. However, if in addition to our imperfect selves we also cast off what He put in place to control us, it will only get worse.

  99. Elspeth

    Badger long ago theorized that in the course of any one individual’s dating life, that individual (man or woman) could expect to meet two, at most three persons of the opposite sex that she or he could be sufficiently compatible with and attracted to so as to make a successful marriage.

    Interesting. I’ve never heard of that.

    I’ve met one.

  100. FuzzieWuzzie

    Lady Just Saying,
    Given the sparse details of the tragedy and presuming your veracity, advanced age, disability, would lead me to suspect Alzheimer’s. I understand that they can get violent. If your grandfather was not prosecuted, mental competence would likely be the reason.
    There are a lot of hazards with care of the elderly. The primary one that I have seen comes from family that sees things not as they are but as they would wish them to be.

  101. GKChesteron

    @Lady,

    Assuming that your story is true it invalidates patriarchy how?

    The logic is:
    Bad things happened to someone I know
    Bad things happened under a certain system I dislike
    Therefore the system should be destroyed so bad things don’t happen

    It doesn’t follow. One could use the same argument to not pay taxes. Again, if true, I am sorry for your loss, but your argument doesn’t hold water.

  102. Cail Corishev

    On the other hand, I’m not sure how much of most modern women’s unpleasant demeanors are intrinsically connected to their sluttiness. Perhaps if they weren’t as slutty, it would either a) reflect that they’ve got something else going for them, or b) help them to get something going in other ways.

    That was my thought too. No, chastity by itself wouldn’t fix everything. But it’s the cornerstone, the change without which no other change will have much effect. As long as the higher-ranked men can get sex without marriage, then A) they’ll gladly put off marriage forever, and B) women who actually are chaste will have a hard time competing for them. You could get rid of no-fault divorce and child support tomorrow, and men still wouldn’t have an incentive to marry if their girlfriends are willing to move in and sleep with them without it.

    I also think chastity would lead to improvements in the other areas. For instance, there seem to be two kinds of mannish women: obviously the man-hating, buzz-cut, flannel-wearing lesbian; but also the cougar who’s been though a few dozen men and is getting more desperate and aggressive with each one. Over time, riding the carousel gives a woman a predatory look that wipes out any femininity she once had. And if a girl is marriage-minded enough to stay chaste, she’s probably also marriage-minded enough to learn some homemaking skills, to try to treat her man right, and so on. Chastity is harder than sandwiches; if you can do the former, the latter should be a breeze.

    Even the EAPs are affected by all this. I’ve mentioned before how the pretty, chaste church girl looks at the pretty, slutty girl and says, “Hey, if she can get all these hot guys to give her motorcycle rides, then I with my excellent morals should be able to get an even better guy — maybe an Italian guy with a motorcycle and a yacht!” So all the other women drawing in the alpha with easy sex drive her self-perceived value through the roof.

    Chastity wouldn’t fix things overnight, of course, but that’s where it’ll have to start. And it has to start with women, unfortunately. As we’ve discussed before, 90% of men could commit themselves to chastity before marriage, and the other 10% would happily keep the carousel running at full speed. Only women can close the gate to easy extra-marital sex. If even 50% of girls were chaste until marriage, there would be huge changes.

  103. elsie

    Surrogacy is not so much of an issue where I live as commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence. Altruistic surrogacy is legal which is an interesting topic of discussion in itself. Far fewer people use surrogacy here because the only incentive for the mother to do it is love for the other couple, or in very rare cases an addiction to pregnancy.

    As for meeting more than once person in my life that I would be be sufficiently compatible and attracted to as to make a successful marriage? I wouldn’t know because after the first came along I stopped evaluating other men in terms of my potential compatibility.

  104. Lady Just Saying

    It was not Alzheimer’s but he had a rare illness. No prosecution, as he then committed suicide himself. So he obviously was mentally ill as well as physically disabled. So at least I know my grandmother is in heaven, truly one of the few genuinely nice people. I wasn’t trying to disprove patriachy overall, just my own reasons for why I would never want to see things the way they were in the “good ole days”.

  105. Martel

    @ Lady Just Saying: Sorry, but this simple fact of the matter is that that type of things happens a hell of a lot more often today than in the “good ole days.” Billy Joel’s assessment that “the good ol’ days weren’t always good” is entirely correct, but you didn’t find quite so many infants left in dumpsters, grandsons killing their grandmothers, teachers boinking students, drive-by shootings, etc.

    Your anecdote was a horrible tragedy, but it proves nothing.

  106. Lady Just Saying

    @Martel

    In every picture of people I’ve ever seen of the “good ole days” the people sure didn’t look happy to me. Basically, they look like they just bit into a sour lemon, so I think it’s pretty safe to say, they weren’t all that happy then either.

  107. Looking Glass

    So… one of my grandfathers died during bypass surgery. Which means bypass surgery is bad and should go away?

  108. Looking Glass

    On the issue of tongues, I like to say it as “you don’t try to force the Spirit”. This ended up being much of the downfall of the early Pentecostal movement. It basically works down to “all reaping, no sowing” issue. Just because God is calling you somewhere, it doesn’t mean you have “more Faith” by expecting him to book the plane tickets. That’s just vanity.

    As for the spiritual gifts, I know from experience that they haven’t ceased. What has “changed”? That’s easy: not many were ever given to the “showy” ones. Not many are called to be Apostles or Prophets. These are simply rarer gifts and are not intended to be “shown off”. Properly understood, a true display of a spiritual gift is anathema to the body. Jeremiah describes Voice of God as a fire in his bones. This is why I’m always a bit leery of Pentecostals on the practice front: you’re attempting to force something you don’t have the Faith to back up. As a few Jews found out, demons know Jesus & Paul but they didn’t know them. They got their butts kicked for that one. (Acts 19:13-16)

    The one, though, that probably comes up too much is “demon possession”. This one can get messy, simply because there’s not a lot of agreement (especially on some quick checking) over the exact nature of “cast out demons”. Some are probably afflictions (healing), others are affliction of Evil (desires/lusts of various types; pick your Deadly Sin), yet some are straight up Demons being cast out of a human and into pigs. This makes sense given the reality that, with the exception of the Jews and a few tribes no one now knows existed, everyone was a Pantheist. They’d understand the concept of being best by a “spirit(s)”.

    The answer to that question is as it always has been: actual possession is rare. It happens and woe be to the Christian that takes the problem lightly, when encountered. You’ve just walked into an outright Spiritual War and you’re not prepared. You’ll know it the first time when you can “feel” Satan walk into a room. It’s a fight on a completely different understanding of existence, but it is rare. Unless you get out of the First World, odds are you won’t actually run across someone that is so touched. But they exist.

  109. Chris

    Erk. I’ve tried to avoid the Pentecostalist controversy as much as I can over at my blog in the last couple of days. Particularly when the text has been I Cor 12. (As an aside, it is fun (not) using mobile networks to comment — I got kicked out a few hours ago due to network hassles).

    On Evangelical Princesses, they exist in other countries. It relates to the neopagan worship of the female as divine — which is a sublimation of sexuality that is extremely obvious to any Catholic or Protestant from the previous generations. (Or you can see it as women pretending they have the virtue of the Theodokous when Mary Magdelene was less slutty than they were. Double and triple erk). I agree with Deti’s definition.

    “An EAP is the religious churchian girl, the God’s Special Princess, the Daughter of the King. She has a 463 bullet point checklist for the Perfect Man that God is preparing for her. And because that man will come from God he will be Perfect In Every Way, because God knows the thoughts and plans He has for her; and He is not a man that He should lie. So if a man who attempts to date her is not Perfect, then he is not The One.”

    Young man of God, if you see and EAP in the neighbourhood. Flee! For a grumbling wife (and she will grumble because things are never perfect) will gnaw at your bones.

  110. tbc

    ssm: I disagree with your scriptural analysis of this and I think this whole slain-in-the-spirit and speaking-in-tongues things leads to very disorderly worship. But I don’t have a huge problem with it to the point where I wouldn’t be willing to be in fellowship with people who practice it.

    That is why these things can be termed ‘disputable matters’ and we do best to operate in charity towards those with whom we disagree.

    I would say though that the pentecostal movement should probably be understood as a kind of corrective to a faith that could (and had) become entirely rational and disconnected from the affective aspects of religion. Heart and head so to speak. So given that, it is natural that in reaction it would tend to err in the other direction: towards shallow emotionalism.

    Despite this, Christianity both now and historically has always been more ‘charismatic’ than the last 250 years in the West would indicate. That is not to say that people were charismatic in the sense we mean it today, but prior to the Enlightenment and the church’s need to erect a theology that could accommodate itself to Enlightenment claims, Christians by and large lived a very ‘spirit conscious’ life that almost seems magical to modern ears.

    After all if we consider the Catholic faith from a supremely rational point of view, you have a man (the priest) who supposedly is invested with some invisible spiritual power (the Holy Spirit) who, by virtue of reciting some incantation (prayer), magically transforms ordinary bread and wine (the host) into the literal flesh and blood of a human being who died quite some time ago and yet whose followers claimed self-resurrected from the dead. He then invites people to eat it as a meal of thanksgiving and remembrance. Add to that the quite regular practice of exorcism of demons by priests, accusations of (and trials for) witchcraft towards people who were thought to have slept with the devil, and lighting candles as a form of prayer to dead people to ask them to ask God to do something on your behalf… well, next to all of that speaking in tongues or being ‘slain in the spirit’ really doesn’t seem all that strange.

    Now let me be clear. I am not mocking any belief or practice, and if I’ve misrepresented something, please forgive me. That is not my point. The point is that we as Christians really do believe in a supernatural faith that is both reasonable and rational, but it is not only reason and rationality. We believe in an actual world of spirit powers (principalities and powers) that effect life here in the natural realm as well. What Pentecostalism with all its weirdness and excesses does is pull us back into that stark reality.

    So even as we discuss intellectually the challenges of feminism, it is a useful reminder that there are evil spirit powers at work that motivate and drive women and men away from God and from the good. Some of these feminists probably are demon possessed. Certainly feminism as a philosophy is demonic. It is not just a psychological construct called the ‘rationalization hamster’ that pushes women into these self-justifying behaviors, but the Prince of Lies himself who loves to see people destroyed, families and communities set to ruin, and God’s name blasphemed.

    Thus I am very resistant to people who tend to rush to a defense of ‘Western Civilization’ as if that itself would rescue us from the current peril. It was the supra-rationalism of Western Civilization that gave us the revolt against Revelation and the consequent dethroning of God’s order for family and society. It is not the superstructure of Western Civilization that saves, but Christ.

  111. earl

    “While I could respect those who walk the walk… I’m still waiting to meet one. I think the closest I’ve heard was “well, I’m not very good at repentenace”.

    The vast majority of Christians are not chaste, and of those, the vast majority of them don’t repent.”

    Right here.

    And that’s why I have some sympathy for those Christians who are not chaste…because at this time it is very easy to not be. That however is not an excuse to repent…and believe me I’ve gone to confession many times for those mistakes. I’m human in that it happens…but I take the action so I can to fix the fault.

    Repentance seems to be like everything else in this life….you start out weak at it but the more you do it the stronger you become to overcome those temptations as they come along the way.

  112. Scott

    “The “man up and marry those sluts” crowd isn’t too far away from that, it seems; so I don’t find it particularly surprising that the emphasis is on “showiness” of one of the minor Gifts.”

    Yep. I visited a Vineyard church with my friends once. Everyone was swaying back and forth, chanting, mumbling incoherently. I was looking around to see if anyone else was still sane. The purely emotional circle jerk was so weird. Eventually, it was like the scene at the end of the book “Animal Farm.” Except instead of pigs and people, I couldn’t tell the difference between the men and the women.

  113. Cail Corishev

    On Evangelical Princesses, they exist in other countries. It relates to the neopagan worship of the female as divine

    That’s a good point. I’m currently reading the book Ungodly Rage, which is about the feminist infiltration of the Catholic Church, especially the women’s religious orders. Paganism and witchcraft and goddess-worship were wrapped all through it from the start.

  114. grey_whiskers

    @Lady Just Saying October 11, 2013 at 1:08 am

    @Martel

    In every picture of people I’ve ever seen of the “good ole days” the people sure didn’t look happy to me. Basically, they look like they just bit into a sour lemon, so I think it’s pretty safe to say, they weren’t all that happy then either.

    They’ve traded one kind of unhappiness for another.
    Two or three important distinctions there.

    1) Under the “good ole days” there was *much* less intrusive government: so the government didn’t step in under your anecdotal example; on the other hand, the government was much less intrusive in other ways. Also, taxes were much lower, as there were neither the number of indigents dependent upon government, nor the government bureaucrats whose livelihood depended on prolonging or increasing the problem.

    2) The kind, number, and severity of social pathologies was much less in the good ole days.
    If people *did* have pre-marital sex (the per capita incidence was much lower, as there were not TV shows such as Sluts and the City glorifying it), it was usually with someone to whom they planned to marry anyway. And if a pregnancy occurred, “You break it, you bought it” was the watchword. No, not as much “fun” as today; or maybe it was: if the people back then were stuck in an unhappy loveless marriage because “they had to” then they could have avoided the problem by refraining from intercourse outside of marriage. Today people go from fling to fling discarding paramours like used kleenex: collecting diseases, neuroses, baggage, and scar tissue in their souls. The only difference is, the old way made for a much more stable SOCIETY in ways that don’t show up on surveys of hedonistic sexual pleasure.

    What would be fun would be to dig up the *actual* divorce rates from the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s; then to see how many divorces were initiated by the man or the woman back then, and on what grounds; then to ask if women are *really* happier today jumping from bed to bed before marrying at age 32, only to divorce by age 40 and go on the prowl again, with a much lower marriage market value but not realizing it, their hamster having been spoon-fed empowerment lies; to the point that they are bitter single women or end up marrying a second time, the way women “used to have to marry” in the bad old days — taking what they can get and never complaining out of raw economic necessity and loneliness.

    The difference is, in the bad old days, men were primarily socialized into good behaviour, despite the feminist tropes: Hugo Schwyzer kind of puts paid to the idea that the “sensitive new age guy” is really a better catch than the old “strong silent type”…

  115. Maeve

    @Deti,
    Thank you for the explanation – it’s kind of a disgusting mentality.
    Also WRT your “things overheard in church” – I have to say that in 49 years of attending Mass (and I’m kind of compulsive about it), I’ve never heard anything like that. In fact, I would go so far as to state that the most common messages have been “you are responsible for your own soul”; “you are responsible for your own behavior”; “it’s your obligation to perform a daily examination of conscience”; “it’s your responsibility to regularly go to Confession”. It has not been my experience that women received any special exemption from these obligations, thank goodness. A long time ago, someone told me to think of myself as the custodian of my soul – that it was my primary responsibility to see to it’s upkeep and health. I am human, so I fail all the time, but at least the mentality does not allow me to pass off the responsibility onto someone else, or allow me to make excuses for my actions.

    @AT,
    Going to take my own advice to me for a change and just shut up :-)

    @Cail,
    I have that book ordered – am hoping it gets here soon.

  116. Elspeth

    I’ve thought a lot about many of the things tbc so eloquently said in his last comment. I have largely checked out of the “fight for Western Civ” debate because as much as I lament the country and culture that my kids are inheriting, I don’t need the distraction from The One Who truly saves. Lest we forget:

    This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    And should we really be expecting things to get markedly better. Verse 13:

    But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

    The work we need to do has to begin in our own hearts, homes, and families. And then we can extend to the remnant within our churches to study and live out Truth. Win souls. But the saving of the culture and Western (or any other) civilization? That feels like a losing battle to me at this point.

  117. tbc

    elspeth — I find that we are often in agreement on these issues.

    For the record I’m a big fan of Western Civilization. Heck I got a master’s degree in it. I am just not a fan of the conflation of an idealized version of Western Civilization with ‘the faith once delivered’. They are not the same

  118. TomPain

    paragraph 3 page 5- http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/starter-husband-5 For some, a starter husband is like a starter home — a semicommitment where you’re willing to do some of the surface work, like painting the walls, but not the heavy lifting, like gutting the whole foundation; he’s just not a long-term investment. Others compare a starter husband to a first job, where you learn some skills and polish your resume before going after the position you really want.

  119. Elspeth

    For the record I’m a big fan of Western Civilization.

    I am as well. It’s all I’ve ever known. I just want to be sure not to find myself elevating its continuance over my devotion to Christ.

  120. sunshinemary Post author

    I’m a fan of Western Civilization, too, and will do what I can to try to change the course it is currently on but agree that it is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is God’s Kingdom.

    This is why I never ally myself with movements – political, social or otherwise. I’m not part of the manosphere and I’m not part of the reactionary movement for these very reasons. If I have common ground with a movement (and I do have common ground with both the manosphere and with reactionaries), great. But I’m still not playing for any team other than Christ’s.

  121. Martel

    @ Sayin Lady: Early photographs were meant to be a kind of replacement for portraits. Nobody smiled in portraits, in large part because it would be almost impossible to hold a smile for countless hours while you were being painted.

    Nonetheless, the custom transferred over to photographs, in which the goal of the photographed was to look dignified. Dignity used to matter to people. That doesn’t mean they weren’t happy.

    Today, Ironically (or maybe not) we worship at the altar of happiness and we’re downright miserable.

  122. Farm Boy

    When women say “I do”, do they really “mean it at the time” or are they consciously thinking about under what conditions they will abandon the marriage?

  123. Bike Bubba

    I don’t think we need to doubt “Lady Just Saying’s” story; it appears to be pretty routine, for example, to hide the fact of suicide in obituaries under the phrase “he died unexpectedly at home” or some such thing, no? So in the case of a dementia-fired murder, I can see the “facts of the case” being hidden, or at least obscured.

    That said, exactly what good would feminism have done for Grandma? Are we to posit, seriously, that the behavior of a mentally ill man would be remedied by a suitable application of the writings of Gloria Steinem? Seriously? Maybe they could have both died alone–and much sooner–with a suitable application of no fault frivorce?

    Sorry, but even having read Ms. Magazine for a few years as a teen, I fail to see anything in at least that brand of feminism that could have even plausibly helped. Not even a theory with which I disagree.

  124. Spiralina

    YES! This post resonated so much with what I’m feeling lately. Too many women nowadays have this entitlement mentality that men should line up to marry them simply because they have breasts and a vagina. The truth is, men WILL line up…just not to marry them. Men will be more than happy to look past selfish personality traits to get sex. But for lifelong commitment? You need to offer more than sexual access, because that comes CHEAP nowadays thanks to feminism. In my eyes the average feminist is not a “strong, independent woman” at all. They’re dependent on neoliberal bureaucracy to maintain their paper-pushing administrative careers, and real strength means putting your selfish demands aside and realizing true commitment is about sacrifice. It took ALL my strength to learn how to be a good wife – to apologize rather than being stubborn when I’m wrong, to get up at 5AM to pack him a nutritious lunch with a handwritten love note inside. But he put the work in too – being patient when I’m a PMS-ing mess, bringing home a bottle of wine and flowers on random weeknights just because.

    In other news, since I turned 30 I’ve found myself slowly drifting away from my “strong independent” single career woman friends, and drifting more toward my friends in committed relationships who express loyalty and love toward their partners. I think we just have more in common, and I can talk to them about how much I love my husband without getting these disgusted looks like “eww, you actually NEED a MAN to be happy?”

  125. Calliso

    I definitely don’t think the “good old days” were really that good but I think that people not smiling in portraits/photographs does not equal they were unhappy.

    More on the original topic I think rather then have someone else carry you child because you can’t anymore why not adopt? There are plenty of children out there already that need homes. Of course then again you have to wonder how good of parents some of these parents really end up being. I mean if they were so career focused before that they did not have time to have kids unless they are putting their careers on the backburner when they decide to have kids, well I don’t see how they are suddenly going to have time for their children. Sure I am guessing some do give up their careers and work a job or jobs that give them time with their kids. But I am guessing many don’t give up their careers and those kids do end up basically being cared for by nannies and so on. Sadly I feel that some people treat having kids almost like a to do list.

    Also there is no way I would carry someone elses kid I don’t care how much they offered me.

    As for many women not being able to cook I wonder if that is in large part due to all the frozen meals take out and the like available these days? And not all women could cook back in the day either. My moms mom apparently was a pretty bad cook. One reason I guess my own mom decided to learn how to cook well. Which I am certainly grateful for! I am not nearly as good of a cook as her though, but can follow simple recipes without too much trouble if need be. My husband gets heartburn from a lot of things so that limits what I can cook for him anyway.
    I do think though that both men and women should learn the basics of cooking. I mean its not that hard to follow some simple recipes.

  126. christiankp

    This is really a good analysis.
    Often feminists complain that women make most of the “unpaid” work in the family and forget that the work we do in our families are not paid but reciprocated. When they insinuate that they want to get paid for the work as mothers and wife, they basically say that they want to be reduced to employees.
    Feminists don’t understand very much.

  127. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM
    This is why I never ally myself with movements – political, social or otherwise

    This is why I respect you. This is why I inhabit your blog. I’m not your beta orbiter…. [further comments redacted]

  128. grey_whiskers

    @Elspeth on October 11, 2013 at 8:12 AM
    The work we need to do has to begin in our own hearts, homes, and families. And then we can extend to the remnant within our churches to study and live out Truth. Win souls. But the saving of the culture and Western (or any other) civilization? That feels like a losing battle to me at this point.
    That’s because the Enemy has been playing offense for the last 50 years. And they have seized the institutional high points (education, mass media, entertainment) which serve to form the “unthinking backdrop” of what is “culturally approved” and “echoed without thinking” — all with mutually interlocking fields of fire.
    We need to seize the offense: but to do this we must build up strength.
    There’s a good analogy to the Pacific Theatre in World War 2 there somewhere…

  129. hoellenhund2

    > Feminism doesn’t just make women less human. It doesn’t just make women into nothing but their reproductive capacities. Feminism actually makes women useless.

    “To keep them is no benefit. To destroy them is no loss.” /Khmer Rouge wisdom/

  130. Bee

    @Donalgraeme,

    “I would like to back up what SSM said in response to LLB’s statement about premarital sex. Chastity before (and even during) marriage alone isn’t enough these days, not by a long-shot. Nearly all western women lack essential skills for being a helpmeet. They possess awful personalities are at times painful to endure.”

    Chastity is God’s plan, God’s best. But, it is rare today.

    IMHO, submission is a better indicator of a potential marriage prospect being; a good helpmeet, a non-sex refuser, a wife whom won’t frivorce you.

    If you can only find one, choose a woman who is wiling to submit to you and accepts your leadership.

    If you can find submission and virginity, that is best – but it is also very rare.

  131. Pingback: Sunshine Mary: “The result of feminism is that women have been reduced to being nothing but sex objects.” | man boobz

  132. Lady Just Saying

    The response on this board was pretty much what I expected to receive, so predictable, in fact. I’ll let you figure out why I say predictable. I don’t know why the insistence on me being a liar. But whatever — par for the course and I am not a troll — I am an ELF — get it right people — an ELF.

    [ssm: ELF = Every Lady's Fantasy, right? I guess I don't see how you represent that, though.]

    [ssm: Or maybe it means you are from the Earth Liberation Front. Wait, are you going to set our cars on fire or something??]

    [ssm: Hey, are you from Elephant's Fork Elementary school? Do your parents know what you are doing on the internet?]

    [ssm: Or maybe you've authored a sequel to Eat, Pray, Love entitled Eat, Love...um, but what would the F be? I just can't come up with something for the F. OK, readers, here is the challenge! Let us figure out the title of the new feminist novel sensation:

    Eat, Love, F_____________

    Readers are invited to fill in the blank with a suggestion.]

    [ssm: I'll go first. Um...how about Eat, Love, Fruitcake? I love fruitcake. And not that nasty kind with the creepy neon red and green cancer-causing cherries, either. I have this Victorian-era recipe for fruitcake that is amazing. You make it with all these different kinds of natural dried fruit and you soak it in brandy. Can I get a woot-woot for fruitcake-love, people?]

  133. FuzzieWuzzie

    Have you considered that she may be an elf? Since you already have a talking bear, is that so far fetched? Anyway, she is an Extremely Loud Feminist elf.
    Please, somebody feed her some M&Ms!!

  134. Lady Just Saying

    Elf – pixie, imp, sprite, etc.

    Troll – elf, sprite, imp, gnome, etc.

    It was a joke people — just a joke. Don’t get your pantaloons (old fashioned underwear) in a twist. That would be a very uncomfortable wedgie.

  135. Pingback: the Revision Division

  136. teapartydoc

    Something to consider: Someone once said that conservatism is the negation of ideology. (The rest is from me) Ideologies are basically the programmatic result of an attempt to apply a philosophy to political and social life in a comprehensive way. Philosophies require life to be reduced to abstract ideas in order to simplify them into explanatory forms. These abstractions are not life itself, but shadows of life, so to speak. Feminism is an ideology. It requires that men and women, and the relations between them be reduced into abstract concepts to facilitate explanation and action. The abstraction of human beings is dehumanizing.

  137. Pingback: Scary reality: my response to Amanda Marcotte’s criticism of my essay. | Sunshine Mary

  138. Mandy

    “So I have to thank Feminism – I doubt that young women would be as skilled, or as open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex, without it.”

    He should thank porn, not feminism.

  139. Pingback: What does sex-positive feminism mean to you? | Sunshine Mary

  140. Carrie

    What we need is to stop being so narrow-minded and learn to be more open to accepting of each others genuine good desires and quit the fear of rejection. Many people have a tendency to go overboard with everything (including religion and sexual fantasy). Everything we see is not always as we perceive it to be. But, we draw conclusions based on assumptions and sweeping generalizations that cause us to feel no empathy for others. If we put ourselves in other peoples shoes and treat others how we would like to be treated; we would all get along so much better. It’s that simple.

  141. Pingback: Delusional teen-aged whores and useless kitchen gadgetry. | Sunshine Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s