Girls

The Future Mother Of Your Child Should Be A Virgin Who Believes In God

691 Comments

Six months after publishing 7 Things I Require In The Future Mother Of My Child, I wanted to make two minor adjustments that refine the list even further.

If you haven’t read the article yet, here’s the original seven points:

1. She must be between 18-25 years old
2. She must have less than three prior sexual partners, though I prefer a virgin
3. Her physical attractiveness should hover around the 7 range
4. Her skin tone should be within two shades of myself
5. She must be feminine
6. She must want to be a traditional stay-at-home mother
7. She must believe in a god

Stronger preference should be given to virgins

virgin-pledge

I’m increasing the importance on finding a virgin. Sluts will often share the myth that virgins are a bad mate to choose from because she will get curious and cheat on you, but the studies don’t at all bear this out (1, 2, 3, 4). If you are serious about creating a family with a girl, you should heavily weigh her virginal status, because it acts as an insurance policy—though not a guarantee—against impulsive female behavior.

Even if you have found a girl with a low notch count, there is the danger that a part of her heart is still set on another man from a previous relationship. Even though she is firmly in a relationship with you, dealing with an emotional widow will cause you problems down the line, especially since it’s common for a girl to keep “in touch” with exes.

It is ideal to have a girl who is clean both physically and emotionally, without any lingering baggage that can hurt your future family. Only a virgin can provide this.

A nominal belief in God is not enough

I thought that a girl believing in God was sufficient in having a girl with a strong moral code, but I have discovered that it is not. Your future wife must get beliefs and behavioral guidance from her book of worship. In other words, she must opt out of certain acts solely because God commanded her to.

There are millions of girls in Europe who “believe in God” but do drugs, lie, cheat, and have countless sexual partners. Don’t let her “spiritual but not religious” belief system fool you into thinking that she actually allows the word of God to tame her destructive female nature.

Unless a girl can tell you that she rejected a behavior because it went against God, she is lacking a moral code and will make decisions in the future which will cause harm to you and your children.

Beware of very beautiful women

johnny-depp-blake

I wanted to stress point number three on my original list that a girl should not be too beautiful. Now that the leftist anti-beauty cult has ravaged so many women into looking like disgusting beasts, the remaining beautiful women are getting unfathomable amounts of attention, more than legitimate female celebrities from a generation ago. The wolves will always be circling your beautiful girl, and while tight game can prevent her from straying, at least in the short-term, a non-virgin without a strict moral code will eventually succumb to the call of excitement and novel pleasure. She is human, after all.

I’ve come to learn that even in medium-sized cities, a girl of high beauty is hit on constantly and persistently by a replenishing supply of players and orbiters. Short of moving to a little village or locking her into a dungeon, there isn’t much you can do to prevent it. The more beautiful your girl, the more you’ll have to trust her, but this is close to impossible if she has a loose past and a lack of morals.

Conclusion

It may be obvious to you that I’ve thought about having kids. My focus is not so much on her aesthetics or token behaviors but her history and values. The problem is that very few women have values that exceed even prostitutes of old, especially in the West where the dominating institutions are helping shove slime and rot into her very core. If you meet a girl who hits all seven items on my list, you potentially have a great mom on your hands.

This article was originally published on Roosh V. 

Read Next: How To Apply Neomasculinity To Raising A Child 

691 thoughts on “The Future Mother Of Your Child Should Be A Virgin Who Believes In God”

  1. God does not exist. Reason should be #1 guide for my woman with clear goals in her head. Otherwise she does not bring any value to the table.

    1. He didn’t say God has to exist. He just said she has to believe in him.
      By the way you don’t exist, just as soon as the mods do their job

      1. Why would they delete it? Are You one of those religious zealots who cannot stand others opinions? Read some books of Hitchens, Dawkins, Denett, Sam Harris etc. I do not want my wife to believe in god. You can live by virtues without god.

        1. Hitchens claims that men are overawed by a woman’s ability to give birth, and that this gives the woman an unchallenged authority.
          You buy that?

        4. It’s just as meaningful to assert that you don’t exist as to assert that God doesn’t. Deleting your comment would moreover ‘prove’ your non-existence for all intents and purposes. Good luck with finding a woman committed to reason. You never know.

        5. No. But I don’t have to agree with everything he said. He also said many times he would prefer his wife to be a stay-at-home mom. He acknowledged (much to the anger of many of his leftist fellow travelers) that women were better suited to child-rearing and he would make sure he brought home enough bacon so his woman could focus on the home.

      2. The mods won’t delete a comment doubting the existence of God. Even Moner won’t stoop that low.

        1. He didn’t doubt the existence of God. He baldly stated his non-existence.
          You’re right though. Aurelius Moner is too liberal to wield the banhammer on atheists

        4. It was more a meditation on moderation and existence than an exhortation to ban. Still, these aggressive atheists….one moment they’re denying God, next thing you know they’re worshipping Moloch. Slippy slope

        7. Because I’m omnipotent and my will enacts justice
          Although that’s more the sort of thing you’d say

        9. I’m sure that’s not the case. Although I suppose you could always be divinely incompetent? Best to keep our feet of clay perhaps

    2. Are you demented? Even the most educated folks in the world cannot summarily make such a sweeping statement with certainty.

      1. Not an argument. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Denett etc. are they demented?

        1. Actually they are. Just because you don’t know does not mean it is not there, dude. We used to believe in 9 planets. Now we know there are and have always been hundreds of thousands, we were just not smart enough to see them.

        2. There are many non-materialist atheists, namely Thomas Nagel and Quentin Smith. They hardly get any attention.
          Even in intelligent design creationism there’s an agnostic named David Berlinski.

        3. Agnostics still admit they don’t know. Only a fool would say God does not exist because I haven’t proven his existence in my own way.

        4. Claiming it’s bad for an atheist to jump to an assumption would mean you’d have to claim it’s bad for religious folk to jump to an assumption.

        5. You do not know either if he exists. People back then believed earth is flat or that god is pissed on them when any weather catastrophy happened so they had to lets say rip heart out of chest or sacrifice some animals for invisible father lol. How fucking dumb is that? That is real demention and obscurantism. Thanks to science you have explanations for all that and god is not needed for anything. There are many things unexplained yet but they will be… 😉

        6. Hitchens didn’t believe in god, and made arguments against the possibility of god’s existence, but he made important caveats:
          1) he conceded he could not disprove the idea of a “prime-mover” type god that started the universe rolling and has not intervened since. He argued that COULD be a possibility but that no widespread religion on earth posits this idea of god that he knew of. The idea of an intervening, benevolent (or malevolent) god that communicates with people (the god of the “Big 3”) was something he said was wrong.
          2) While he disagreed with the religious, he didn’t care if you kept it to yourself, keep it out of the public square and don’t try to force it on others.

        7. What Dawkins says, to choose one of them, is that he can’t state 100% that God doesn’t exist, but the probability of it is so small that it can be dismissed.
          In a similar way, you can’t prove that Superman doesn’t exist. But the probability that he exists is so small that you can discard his existence. Neither can he prove that there’s not a teapot in the orbit of Mars, but such probability is so small that it can be dismissed.
          I mean… before calling Dawkins demented because what he says, shouldn’t you at least know what he says?

        8. “You do not know either if he exists”
          You asserted that he doesn’t. That’s equally as “dumb” as asserting that he does. Either way its metaphysics

        9. A lot of religious folk would stop short of a positive assertion of God as a fact, but would talk about faith or something. An atheist asserting positively that God does not exist is probably taking a more extreme metaphysical position than most people who believe in God. Arguing that God is absurd, or backward is something different, and can be sustained in argument, but that’s not what he said

        10. Respectfully, Hitchens’ point “2” is so filled with caveats as to not have any meaning.
          His atheism (sorry sorry “reason”) was suitable for the public square, but the Gospels and Summa Theologica would have earned unrelenting opprobrium. This “public square” would have eventually meant “under your roof” and then “propagandizing your children” and Churches would have become “enemy buildings.”
          The only thing I know is that right now Hitchens is a theist.

        12. I’ve heard of this book but yet to read it. My problem with some of the major atheists nowadays is that they tend to proselytize “anti-belief” as much as the faithful proselytize belief. They tend to blame every problem on religion.
          The arguments that they make that I find more cogent are the arguments against the universe being controlled or supervised by an intervening deity that conforms to the major religion(s) teachings.

        13. Vox Day’s debate “On the Existence of Gods” is also worth a read. It’s only a three-round debate, but it raises some excellent questions to think about.

        14. Dawkins certainly strikes me as a very, very angry and bitter man who is borderline sociopathic.

        15. The ancient Greeks were quite aware that the earth was round, and even found ways to measure it’s size. Long pre-dating Christianity. The “rip the heart out of the animal” thing was for Easterners mostly, your average worshipper of Thor had no time for such nonsense.

        16. Here comes a fundie atheist to teach us morons that religion is stupidz, thank god we have such a person in our lives.

        19. The guy I initially responded to made a categorical, unqualified statement that God does not exist. By that he proved to the world that he had little between his ears.

        20. “While he disagreed with the religious, he didn’t care if you kept it to yourself, keep it out of the public square and don’t try to force it on others.”
          All the while, Hitchens reserved the freedom to force his own “religion”, or lack thereof on his readers. Typical Liberal mindset.
          He should have kept his atheism to himself also, not spread it to others, while telling the religious folks not to talk.
          A man who could not even make a fair debate proposition does not have the ethics to debate the existence of a subject as vast as God.

        21. I know a lot of atheists who are like him, except that they are less intellectually grounded, so they basically come off very…dogmatic…and quote Dawkins as if he were a Prophet. Pointing this out to them can be good fun if one is bored and without a handy source of alcohol nearby.

        22. Personality cult and celebrity status all over.
          He may be an intelligent man, but intelligence has little to do with faith. Intelligence also does not necessarily mean you are smart. There are many intelligent idiots out there. In fact, I dare argue that intelligence makes you susceptible to become an idiot more than others.
          He obviously has some personal stake in it. I mean, why would a “rational” man even care about religion that much, especially if he doesn’t believe in it?

        23. That’s always been my question for crusading atheists. Ok, you don’t believe, great, but why this obsessive need to go try and rub other people’s noses into your lack of belief? Makes no sense and comes across as very, very insecure.

        24. What Taignobias wrote makes sense. If you have grown up being forced to believe something that doesn’t make sense, you kinda have this victimhood mentality. And true victims have no way to deal with their situation than to protest.
          Only that once you grow up, you someday realize that you are no longer a victim and can move on.
          Hell, I know I rant about a lot of bullshit I was brought up with. And yet, the more I age, the more I see that there is no need to protest against it. I can simply discard it.

        25. Actually he was often invited by religious scholars and clergy to debate.
          He would probably never argue against the right of a religious person to write a book or debate his ideas, but rather was against FORCEFUL proselytizing, which he acknowledged was more of a problem in , muslim-dominated countries and less so in western countries.

    4. Moreover, the ability to not let her emotions dominate her. A rational woman isn’t one who suddenly gets the hots for another man.

      1. Or, to put it more clearly, Science is the study of present physical phenomena. It is strictly data, and it has strength only on its data. Even creating a model from that data (i.e. a conclusion or further hypothesis) is a philosophical act.
        That which is not immediately measurable is not subject to science. As such, it must be approached through another philosophical discipline. This is true of most things, including history and all consideration of the supernatural.

        1. That definition of science only takes into account some sciences and not theoretical fields

        2. For good reason – I have less confidence in the theoretical fields. In fact, the name “theoretical” indicates to me that they are only formulating hypotheses, which are a precursor to that which makes Science so trustworthy.

        3. I get that more tangible fields in the sciences like biology or engineering tend to be very appealing because there are questions that have close ended answers, but I think it is a mistake to let that detract from the fact that we have a very big and complicated universe and that science begins in wonder and curiosity and asking questions and working out theoretical frameworks and possible answers is the very foundation of scientific progress. It could easily be said that everyone else is just playing with toys.
          As for the popular use of theoretical, it is a misnomer. Formulating hypotheses is how we talk about gravity too. I wish we never went into using that word and kept it as it used to be Pure and Practical sciences with practical dealing with issues a posteriori and pure dealing with issues a priori

        4. I find it useful to distinguish data-driven Science and idea-driven Science, because the two do not have the same degree of trustworthiness.
          For example, the Science of gravity gives us the constants and practical effects we observe. When we talk about undetected gravitons, though, we are not talking about something we’ve observed but an idea alone.
          If it’s not observed, it must be analyzed through logic, or history, or other forms of rational philosophical inquiry. This is my distinguishing factor.

        5. in the second half of the 19th century George Johnstone Stony theorized that there must be something called an electron. Long before any real practical testing could be done to understand electrons, using logic the man figured they had to be there. Fast forward 150 years and the whole fucking world is running on electronics.
          So what’s the point? Basically, it is the stuff we can’t observe, we don’t understand that can only be seen by its logical interaction with the stuff we do know that shapes the future. What the fuck is CERN doing over there with the superconducting supercollider? These fucks convinced the EU to give them billions of dollars to build a machine they are unsure of how to use, not sure what it does and could, some speculate, actually destroy the fucking world. What good is it? Who knows.
          We need, as men, to explore. The moon? The bottom of the ocean? This is our nature. Well some of the stuff we need to explore is stuff like string theory or what goes on when sub atomic particals hit the speed of light or what the fuck is going on in the double slit experiment. The fact that it has no practical purpose, no way to touch it, that it can only be seen by a very small handful of people who understand math and science on a freakishly high level shouldn’t be a turn off. Hell, the people who actually go to the moon is a freakishly small group too.
          I totally understand the very normal human experience of saying that the stuff you can see and feel and have directly effect your life is somehow more “real” but that flies right in the face of the very soul of scientific research

        6. All true. However, the key point to make is that the Stony’s theory was not trusted in the same way as Newton’s Laws until there was evidence.
          We are driven to explore what we do not know or understand, but if we assume it is true because a Scientist postulated it was true we have nothing to explore.
          This is the distinction that is key. Data-driven Science represents knowns, while Idea-driven Science represents unknowns. We cannot assume the unknowns are known in the same way we cannot discount the known on the basis of unknowns. They are distinct classes of idea and should be referenced as such.

        7. This is why I used Stony as an example. The trust aside, Stony had faith in his own theory and while it may not have received the kind of universal appreciation that Newton’s Laws were given, people in the know understood and saw that whatever this meant it was going to be big. I think the same stuff is happening now in theoretical physics in such a way that the other sciences can’t touch (disclaimer, I have a PhD in Philosophy so I am more accepting of bullshit)
          I like the way you put it, knowns, unknowns, and I honestly feel that the guys in the theory fields are very much like explorers. Data-Driven science is based in stuff we already understand. The questions are smaller…to my mind there is something big and beautiful and astonishing about the theory field….at least to me.

        8. Most scientists (who engage in largely theoretical work) are “dreamers” – people who are best able and happiest to come up with ideas.
          Most engineers are “builders” – people who are best able and happiest to apply known quantities to practical problems.
          The best managers are “planners” – people who bridge the gap between dreamers and builders, creating plans by which builders can test or implement ideas.
          The scientific community skews rather heavily toward the first category, but all three are necessary to make things like space exploration possible.

        9. Indeed. THis is absolutely true. I do feel, however, that the infighting between the builders and the dreamers went, even over the course of my life time, from the builders thinking the dreamers were flaky nuts and the dreamers thinking the builders were essentially plumbers (which is a healthy kind of competitive thing in the field) to something much worse where the builders and the dreamers essentially devalue the other to the point where they don’t want to consider the validity of the very project of anyone else.

        11. “Science” is a buzzword. It is used to hijack pretty much everything that is cool and interesting about the world under the “science” religion.
          But when you think of it, that’s not quite valid. One can not be a “scientist”. You can be, say, a chemist. Or a biologist. Or a physicist. But either of those is not a general “scientist”. They simply know their part about the world. If you are a physicist, you likely have no clue about medicine and couldn’t follow the argumentations from a doctor, despite the fact that both are called “scientists”. It’s like saying that a glassmaker and a toilet producer are both “traders”. And then you would hijack every product in the world, saying “That’s awesome! That’s trade! Where would we be without trade!”
          I just looked up the “scientific method”:
          http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
          If you look at it objectively, there is nothing objective about it. The first step is: Ask a question.
          But science does not provide you with a “method” to ask a question. It comes all out of intuition. Ideas. The divine spark of creativity.
          That’s what learning is all about. To acquaint yourself with a particular thing and to learn to ask sensible questions. That’s not “science”. That’s just getting to know something.
          Rationality is flawed.
          Also, look at this scientific method set up. You can easily apply it to metaphysics. It is not exclusively materialist in any way. The question could be: “Is there a god”? The background research could delve into religion, shamanism etc. The hypothesis could be the theoretical framework of enlightenment, say. The experiment could be to take a high dose of psychedelics (DMT) to have an experience of God. And the result of it would be the proof.

        12. They aren’t so tangible even so.
          Think of it. What do we know about gravity? We know it as an observable effect. We can calculate its impact. What we can’t do is answer where it comes from, why it is the way it is, whether it has always been that way and we can’t even tell whether it can be reduced to materialism.
          Scientific hypotheses are necessarily models. Take the Bohr atom model. We know today that it has little to do with reality, and yet it is helpful to make a couple predictions and form a mental image.

        13. If we could see gravitrons, we could still not tell why they behave the way they do or why they have any effect at all. We could merely observe that they do behave a certain way in our perception.

        14. agreed all around. That doesn’t make it any less important though. Niels Bohr’s research isn’t just important in and of itself, but also in what it means that ideas like wave/particle duality were permeating the academy at that time. My larger point was just not to take the theory guys so lightly. The stuff they are doing is incredibly important and meaningful.

        15. If we could see them, we could measure their movement and paths and then derive knowledge enough to start making hypothesis regarding deeper questions such as “why do they behave that way”. When you take something out of theoretical and place it into practical “see them”, then they become standard science and the questions answer themselves in time.

        16. All science starts out as theory! And where does that theory come from? Logic? Huh. Guess again. How do you get the theoretical idea that electrons exist, simply out of nowhere, without some kind of inspiration that transcends logic?

        18. We could quantify how they behave. What patterns they follow. I don’t think we’d be able to tell why they are what they are. In fact, I am not even sure what I mean with “why”, if you catch my drift.

        19. The “why” is not what science strives to answer, which is the problem. Remember, science and philosophy used to be merged concepts taught simultaneously. One addressed the “how” the other the “why”. Since divorcing the two around the time of the Renaissance we’ve seen a lot of great advances in explaining the “how” with a simultaneous de-evolution in cultures due to a lack of searching for a “why” to accompany the “how”. It’s basically me saying “Science is building shit without asking if they actually should, these days, and that’s pretty fucking dangerous”.

        20. Very nicely said.
          “Science is building shit without asking if they actually should, these days, and that’s pretty fucking dangerous”.
          Agreed.
          It’s like asking: Can I win over this stupid whore who will torment me? I have rationality and methods and shit.
          Instead of asking: Should I?

        1. Assuming Russell’s theorem wasn’t flawed (it relied on itself for proof), the burden lies only in a positive assertion.
          Thus, it is equally incumbent on the theist to prove existence and the atheist to prove non-existence. Only the truly agnostic has nothing to prove.

        2. And the truly faithful.
          “Prove it!
          Searching for proof denies faith. I believe by faith alone.”
          Ta da.

        3. Heh.
          I never bought into that nonsense, if only because the word “faith” in the Scripture is “pistis” – basically meaning collateral. If you have nothing but the will to believe, you have nothing (as far as I can tell).
          If this were not so, why would Paul and the later Christian Philosophers spend so much time engaging with philosophy?

        4. Paul was the worst “founder” of Christianity, he did a lot of really stupid, stupid shit. I have nothing good to say about him. He was a loon. Later Christian philosophers? Because they lacked faith.
          Pistis actually means something closer to “loyalty” or “commitment”. One need not have proof to be committed to something. For example, many people still think that the Cubs will one day win the world series. They are committed to that, without the slightest shred of proof or hope. Heh.

        6. correct. Faith implies a lack of ability to prove. If you can prove then you cannot have faith and if man is saved by faith any ability to prove would mean salvation would be impossible.
          I find that my position of apatheism is still most pertinent. When asked if he was afraid of dying Socrates gives my favorite answer. He says “why would I be….if I die and its nothing then who cares. if I die and it is something, well, ill deal with it then”

        7. This is why in the Bible there is a constant reference to the will of man being unable to in any way “choose” God. That it is entirely up to the creator and some he chooses for salvation and most he chooses for burning hellfire. Why? Well because he can of course!

    7. You pick a woman like that, I can promise you her goals will be malleable and suited to the best opportunity in front of her face at any given moment. It will change over time and you risk being very unhappy with how it “evolves.”
      Frankly your sweeping assertion is – like all atheist assertions – totally unprovable. Why do Darwinists fight the reality of the God fearing household being the most fecund? (i.e. the most “fit”?)

    8. Most women aren’t too smart, if they don’t believe in God that means they believe in something worse; and the smart ones still lack honor so you are dealing with borderline sociopaths

    9. Out of casual curiosity, were you raised Catholic? My anecdotal evidence would suggest that a substantial proportion of atheists come from that particular sect, and such information interests me.

        1. So far, my tally is 5 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 1 Atheist, and 134 Catholics.
          In case anyone was curious.
          EDIT: Make it 135 Catholic, with Jacob’s confirmation.

        3. I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, but I’m often inclined to attend Presbyterian services (whichever one is Dr. Sproul’s denomination – I always forget).
          Wherever I hear the Word preached, I’ll go.

        5. There was a schism in both denominations. The mainline Methodist position is no position at all (usually trending left), as is one of the two major Presbyterian denominations (I forget which). In each case, the major denomination remained left and the others left.
          Similarly, the ELCA left the Missouri Synod Lutheran denomination and became left.

        6. In my experience from the church I attended for 25+ years, it was getting progressively…progressive. Women pastors, contemporary services based on the feelz rather than hard hitting scripture, the whole “think of the chilluns” approach to every facet of the church.

        7. Methodists are all about their Chick Priests. Once you get Chick Priests, it’s over.

        9. I often find that right-wing atheists are usually former Catholics, and most left-wing atheists are former protestants.

        10. Interesting – I don’t find such strong correlation in my experience.
          Of course, most of the atheists in my experience are more left-leaning, so it could be a skewed sample.

        11. Holy shit, that’s interesting.
          I guess this points us to: If a good concept is misrepresented and lied about, the psyche tends to discard it altogether.

        12. I’m sure it’s nothing compared to the Catholic Church though. The high number of Catholics leaving doesn’t surprise me at all; I’ve been a Catholic my whole life and the Church has become incredibly socialist, this is mostly coming from the head of the church in Vatican City. The modern Catholic Church preaches about open borders, free government Healthcare for all (including non-citizens of nations,) total abolition of firearms, ect. I belive it’s a big reason a lot of men leave the church. However, the biggest reason I hear from women who have left is “The Catholic Church is too judgmental.” Which I’ve figured out actually means, “The Catholic Church doesn’t tolerate my sluty behavior, so I need a church that accepts me for the lying, cheating, slut that I am.” But hey, women are women no matter what religion.

        13. I was also raised Catholic. I noticed that there were many women who thought they were pure yet they were giving blow jobs to men. Others were sluts and believed that going to Confession would erase their sins. It was pretty sickening.
          I actually agree with this article even though I wasn’t a virgin when I married. My husband was just glad that I had less than 4 partners since he was used to sleeping with women who had 20+ men inside them.

        15. Many “Christian” protestant sects now have no requirement to believe there is a god. You can be agnostic or atheistic as you please and remain in the fold. No need to go around declaring there is no god just quietly sit in the pews and listen to the meaningless platitudes and maintain your social position.

    10. Clear goals? Just keep looking at marraige that way then. When you realize that financial gain is for the sake of furthering your genetics and not the other way around, it will already be too late.

    11. This is lol worthy. First for the assumption of knowledge of an unknown(God) which you claim to possess hidden knowledge which no one else knows. That for certain you are 100% sure there is not a creative force greater than your very limited thinking.
      This is proven in your second statement which confirms total hubris when you equate women with reason. LOL.

    12. A positive declaration of fact – “God does not exist”
      I posit the question then: “Prove it”
      Take your time. We have all day.

      1. Jeff, curious (posed the question to Brett earlier), do you believe in a prime-mover, initial creator, non-intervening god?
        Or the god of one of the major religions?

        1. Regardless of how I answer here, Jacob will take it and run the conversation off track to where I want him to go. I don’t mind answering, but how about a bit later please?

      2. This should go the other way around. When I was born I did know nothing about god. He never did anything special in this world that I would even think he is here. My catholic parents and community started talking to me when I was young and naive. They showed me bible and took to church. How about you prove to me that he exists? Like my parents try to tell me how you came up with such an idea? Or you were the same victim as me and you never question those things because you have to be sheep? Because you might feel fullfiled with it does not mean you are right. I have no idea he exists so I assume he does not. You come over and tell me you believe in him. How do you experience your god in daily life? Or you try to rationalize and just blindly believe he does all of it around you?

        1. “I have no idea he exists so I assume he does not.”
          When you move from preference into statement of fact, you make an argument that must be proved or disproved. To say “God does not exist,” as you did in the original comment, is to make a positive statement which is in need of proof.
          If you want to hang on “I have no idea, but I am predisposed to disbelieve,” then say that. No one can argue that you require proof of such a statement.

        2. I’m not making a claim one way or the other, to the negative nor the positive.
          You however made a definite claim of fact. Back up your claim with actual proof and not just sophistry.

        3. St Augustine would say that your ability to cognize your self inside of a schema of time is proof that you are made in the image of god….god being a trinity that is three things yet one and it’s image (not copy, image) is past present and future being united in the human mind by the soul and understood as temporality in general. So your existence as a baby may very well have been devoid of knowledge regarding some stories, but your very existence is proof of gods. But that is Augustine. I am sure other people have other ideas. I know several people who are very religious and I can tell you that they are not making a show of the fact that they experience god in their daily life….it is real for them, as real, or even more real, than my experience of you right now.

        4. God is just a word. The question is simply what you associate with it.
          To me, it is the fact that I exist, that this reality exists, that I live, that I can enjoy life on earth and in the universe. That I have consciousness.
          These are undeniable facts. You can choose to call them God or you can call it physicality. Either way, it doesn’t change what it is.

        5. The thing is that people come up to me stating god exists and have no evident facts about his existence. I do not have a need for believing in god. I simply do not get the fact he exists due to non existence of the fact. So in that case I do not need to prove any facts for his non existence, it is people who believe, they have to prove. Otherwise I am not convinced. For me it is immature wishful thinking and empty hope.

        6. Of course, given the nature of the subconscious mind (which controls belief), you will likely not be persuaded by evidences, either. It is much the same for the believer. Rhetoric has always cornered the market on persuasion, not logic.
          What’s important is that you did not say, “I do not know, but if you prove it I might believe.” You said, “God does not exist.” The first does not require proof, but the second does. To say there is no burden of proof on the claim that God does NOT exist (which is a universal negative assertion) is disingenuous at best.

        7. You brought the topic up yourself, first, on this thread, and others are answering.
          You are making a positive claim of knowledge. So yes, you do in fact have to provide some kind of backing.

        8. i’m always surprised by such intelligent and sometimes thought provoking people debating if god exits or not as if they are debating a foul call on a soccer of basketball match.
          is the more important question not if god exits, but what is god? for that only a poet or a visionary can assist us in our quest

      3. The onus of proof lies on the one making positive assertions that something exists. Otherwise we all have to believe in unicorns, leprechauns, teapots orbiting around distant planets in other galaxies, gnomes, and creatures that haven’t yet come out of the minds of future artists. And which god anyway? Jupiter? Zeus? Jahweh? Allah? The Christian God? Kali? Shiva? Bhahma? Radha Suami Ji? Depending on what your religion is you’ll make the claim that your “holy” book already proved which one it is.

        1. No, you don’t get out of it that easy. If somebody says “There is no bread in the cupboard” I can say “prove it”, and they can open the cupboard and show me, positively, that in fact no bread is in there.
          Y’all try to play fast and slick with words and phrasing, but end of the day, if you make a definitive claim of knowledge, you can and should be called out to back it up.

        2. “Y’all try to play fast and slick with words and phrasing”
          Which you just did with your cupboard analogy. So I have to believe in god just because nobody proved there isn’t one? You realise a magical being in the sky is a FANTASTIC assertion? It’s a paranormal assertion. And again, which god? Suppose I want to comply, which god? What does he want of me? Do I have to worship it? Where is the evidence that that is what he wants? Is it even a he? What sense does it make to attribute an animal gender to such a being? what is it even made of? Does it have internal structure? How does its intelligence work? Does it have neurons? Postulating that there is a god because nothing can come out of nothing does not solve a single problem. You’re left with even more questions.

    13. The statement is irrelevant. If He does not exist, then the mental construction of a deity is one which is biologically formed much like logic and reason are biologically formed constructs. In which case it is part of the human condition.
      Any attribute that applies to the human condition is by definition healthy and must be used properly.
      To say otherwise is to be in the category of those who either overindulge in their appetite for sex, or those who completely refrain in sex, both of who are inbalanced and ill.
      Beleif in God therefore falls in this category and must be used properly.
      Now ask me the obvious question.

    17. Just remember, women are stupid and if they’re aren’t told to believe in being pure and a virgin, they’ll just be sluts. You can be whatever you want, she has to be brainwashed.

    2. They won’t marry you if you don’t convert to islam. Maybe an american-born muslim girl would, but she would be muslim like I am catholic. In other words, not really.

      1. I know. That’s the tragedy of being born white. the best girls won’t marry you and the worst are truck stop sluts we don’t even want.

        1. There’s a tragedy of being white? I don’t know I’ve really been enjoying all this “privilege”. 🙂

        2. There are a lot of great white women out there who have already dropped out of society, but you won’t find them in your basement or LARPing. 😉

        3. I’m more attracted to brown girls though. If I could marry a muslima I would.

        4. You might consider looking at Buddhist women or Baha’i women, although the latter can have an unfortunate tendency to be a little social justice-y.

        5. Brett there are a lot of great women in my basement. They just don’t “stay very long”. >:)

      2. so convert. Like I said above….just be a shitty muslim.

        2. Islam is not very different from your uber-religious church-goers in that it’s mostly an act. The clerics, imams, sheiks, princes, etc are typically the biggest offenders/non-believers. Most of it is a ploy to keep power.

        3. says who! What are they gonna do if I am a bad muslim? Blow up my cities center of finance?

    3. I was sort of thinking the same thing based on the way Roosh qualified it. Also Amish (not that this is practical), but orthodox Christian households would be ideal imo.
      It makes you wonder why the best (from a Darwinian perspective) reproductive/fitness model is the one atheists keep claiming is the craziest/most demented/(insert five other hyperbolic insults) for life in a world of reason and rational behavior.

      1. Pascal’s wager returns to the front of my mind increasingly often of late.
        We are observing the material consequences of living as if there is no God. That’s the simple state of the Western world. Perhaps it’s time we considered what life would be like if we all lived as though (the Christian) God would judge us.

        1. Pascal’s wager is a perfectly acceptable way to get there if that’s the best one can do.
          God stoops to conquer 🙂

      2. Because natural selection doesn’t care about social justice, or science, or rule of law, only cares about having lots of children so you can replace other populations.
        Nature is not fair, it doesn’t care about moral highgrounds. We have lost track of it.

      3. my grandfather used to call the amish “those Pennsylvania jews” I don’t know why but I always found that hilarious. He wasn’t doing it maliciously. He was a farmer and had a certain gentlemanly naivety to him.

      4. Atheists cant see the forest for the trees. Most religion is about living in accordance with nature in order to start a healthy reproductive cycle. All of this is necessary because the laws of thermodynamics dictate it. Whether the drive for those forces was created by a godlike being is irrelevant; you either yield to them or go extinct.
        I hear liberals have less than one child per couple now.

      1. I would say that people who marry period are generally underconfident and display signs of mental problems as well. Always rare exceptions, but the +/- margin of error seems very small on this one.

        2. If I had any more confidence in my soul I’d transform into pure Kratom and Light.

        3. I have thought about this. It is hard for me to really understand to be honest. I think that you and GOJ seem to derive personal satisfaction from doing the whole family thing which means, to me, that your drives to get married and have kids were generally selfish…something I totally understand….and that is how I make what little sense of it I can.
          I do think that that is the minority of men however. Most men are getting married and having kids with some sense of duty that has been burned into their brains either by their family, church, friends, culture or whatever woman was trying to lock them down. From my experience in talking to married men almost all of them are just fucking miserable and want nothing more than to go back in time and undo things.
          You and GOJ seem happily married and if it makes you happy then I can at least understand that. Wouldn’t work for me. Hell, I have never dated a woman for more than 2 weeks without thinking at least once that I truly and honestly wished she was dead.

        4. see comment below to unabashed. I find that the two of you display unusual characteristics in your marriage/family stuff in which you actually enjoy it whereas most married men I know are praying, daily, for a large bus to run over their wives.

        5. I’m actually a mix. What you say about me deriving personal satisfaction from siring offspring is true. Gotta keep the bloodline going.
          That being said, I was incredibly blue pill when I got married and was pressured into the societal norms of marriage and kids. I have reconciled the two however. If I was red pill before marriage, it likely wouldn’t have changed much, if anything. Woulda just made the first few years easier, heh.

        7. There is a strong sense of familial pride in my family, on both sides, to where you really feel by the time you’re in your early 20’s that you are just cut out to continue the bloodline (in a good way, almost an arrogant way) like a king of old.
          Agree that most men do not fall into this and seem to be praying for death by the hour. This is not to say that I have some kind of perfection, I really don’t and we’ve had our problems here and there, but everything smoothed out nicely in the end.

        8. agreed and that’s why I worded my original comment to make sure there was room for rare, but existing cases. I get the sense from most men, even men who do love their children, that if they had it to do all over again they would not have got married.
          If your day to day life from now until the day you die is lived as a byproduct of something you wish didn’t happen and society and fear of divorce rape is the only thing that keeps you from changing then I would say you have a very unhealthy mentality.
          If, however, you are glad you are married (not every second, we aren’t morons here) and if you are glad that your life is as it is and if, given the chance to change it, you wouldn’t then I would say you are (in a positive way) living a selfish life which is healthy and normal.
          I see, however, the look of jealousy even when I am eating a lone at a restaurant and some guy with his shrew wife is looking at my ringless finger and I can feel him trying to swap souls with me.

    6. Muslim girls aren’t free from hamstering, and introduction to westernism often sees them virtually indistinguishable from actual western women.

    7. Amish
      Mennonite
      Mormon
      Russian Orthodox (at least, there’s a decent chance there, not ironclad like the other three)

      1. Russian Orthodox girls are great. If you get bored of her you just pull the top off and a smaller version of your wife is inside.

  3. What about not having children? What about not being in a relationship? Would give me time to devote myself to actual interesting things and not have to constantly be at yellow alert worrying if my girl is looking at other men.

  4. Forget organized religion. There should only be one ‘god’ in your household.

  5. Observe that Roosh does not say she must believe in God because he believes in God (at present, I have no idea what his belief is). What he says is that she must have a strong belief in God because that establishes and reinforces a moral code that will severely reduce her likelihood of cheating and other detrimental vices.
    “Churchians” (those who profess to be Christians but do not demonstrate any knowledge or action that would indicate such) are no less likely to do those things that destroy marriages and mess up kids than blue haired atheist feminists. The same is likely true of other religions – I lack sufficient data to do more than extrapolate.
    It is a simple fact that, lacking a constant and just authority, there is no reason to adhere to a moral code (only a preference). As such, there is no assurance. Roosh is here arguing that we need assurance before we consider marriage and child-rearing.

  6. If you stick to a list like that, you’ll never find the perfect woman, because people change all the time.
    In a long term relationship and marriage, you have to be prepared to accept the imperfection in others and hope they will accept yours. You can not step into the perfect marriage, you perfect it yourself as you go.
    Having said that, you don’t have to lower your standards but it all boils down to the man’s character. Women are very fluid and in the hands of a sculpture they can be mold into anything.

    1. good points, but you don’t want the source material having a rich and colorful past in the times square area!

        1. ok but the man isn’t Jesus. man has been specifically warned by God about trying to “turn” women of ill repute.

    2. Holy shit, a second comment by you in as many months that I absolutely agree with.
      I really haven’t checked the alignment of the planets in a long time, I should probably consult my star maps. Heh.

  7. I agree. Reason leads us to God. Even more, religion shows an appreciation for life and its patterns, not just its material parts (which lead to the type of behavior that encourages sluttery). Also, you want a girl with an innocent heart who is open to the possibility of ultimate good in life itself, not someone who is entrenched in biases against good by looking at material and not the ideas advanced through its change. I recommend reading the Bhagavad-Gita for more information on this difference.

    1. May I ask Brett, does reason lead one to a prime-mover, initial creator, non-intervening god? Or the god of one of the major religions?
      If the latter, I don’t see it.

      2. I’d say that, at least, Aristotle’s prime cause (perfect existence, from which other existence inherits) is rationally necessary. The alternative is infinity, which is irrational and otherwise unobserved.

        1. If people believe in the initial spark type god that does not intervene and has never “spoken” to mankind, fine. I don’t buy it, but no one who espouses that idea has ever tried to:
          1) get $ from me
          2) told me I’m going to hell
          3) lectured me about my behavior based on his belief of that above god
          4) tried to hurt anyone based on that idea of above god (that I know of)

        3. The human obsession of ascribing rationality to every aspect of the universe is truly baffling to me.

        5. which is why I edited my comment to say ”
          every aspect”
          Yes, there are patterns which we can create models on. The problem is, I think a lot of people take that to mean that everything is patterned in such a way that a model can be made. It is very black and white. Just because many things, or even most things, follow a logical and rational pattern doesn’t mean that ALL things do.

        6. I think it’s just all we know to do.
          I’ve mentioned before my idea that everyone has a “known to be true” bin, a “known to be false” bin, and a “don’t know” bin in their minds. Very few are comfortable leaving things in that middle bin, so they quickly (often without evidence) sort into one of the known bins.
          Human nature, I guess.

        7. I think this is about right. But it is that middle bin that I find most confident.

      1. Hardly.
        Churchianity, is the ultimate Blue Pill.
        Putin is Russian Orthodox, and RO is some pretty red pill stuff. The actual real Bible, not the New Age Hippy Jesus one, has women submissive and obedient to their husbands and fathers, lest they get smited (smote?), and women are not portrayed very positively (thanks Eve!).
        So yeah.

        1. It struck me on one drunk evening that Original Sin was letting Eve decide what they were having for dinner.
          After all, the Bible says it is through the father that we inherit original sin, not the mother. By Adam all die, not by Eve.

  8. I wouldn’t conflate a belief in God with worshipping a book. Just because something is written in a book does not mean that God commands her to do so. That’s silly in my eyes. As I see it, all you need is a girl who truly want to be what you want her to be. If she is just doing it out of obedience, I figure that is a step down the ladder.

  9. Virgin and believing in God…
    I that’s true, then I think the best place to search for a wife is the Muslim community.

    1. No effing way. A Muslim woman more or less is forbidden from marrying the kuffar, so you’d better be prepared on converting. I would never be that desperate, regardless of religion of the prospective wife.

      1. Well, true believers don’t use to marry infidels. That happens with many religions in the world: muslims, christians, feminists…

      2. There is a paki girl in my office who is constantly telling me how happy I would be if I had a good Pakistani wife. She says she knows many and would even show me pictures if I would be willing to commit to the idea of getting married (and, of course, bringing her here from Pakistan). She said I would need to convert to islam. I joked with her and said “ill just be a bad muslim” you know, I know jews who eat bacon and Christians who have premarital sex. So Ill just be there drinking whisky eating pork chops going “blah blah blah allah blah blah”
        She stops asking when I say shit like that but always comes around to bringing it back up.

        1. Damn, if she would drop the Allahu Akbar shit, you’d have yourself the pick of the litter–if you were willing to marry a Paki. Race and skin color is irrelevant, but I can’t in good conscience convert as a prerequisite.

        2. Shorty: “I love pig’s feet and white women too much so I sure as shit can’t be no muslim.”

        4. I am not getting married. That’s absurd. I would rather have a boat.

      3. I know several Muslim women that married white guys. But unfortunately, like you said, the guys had to “convert” to Islam for them. Basically just reading the shahada and proclaiming now to be a Muslim. Although in my opinion this is such a weak move. A man should never convert to another religion for a woman.
        Here’s my cousin, she is divorced with 2 kids. Found this rich white guy to marry. He converted to Islam to marry a divorced woman with 2 kids lol

        3. How desperate/lonely was this guy to convert and marry a woman with two adolescent kids?

        4. I know a guy (American white) who converted to marry a chick from Jordan. He also uses his “conversion” for business connections in the ME. He is an oppoturnist… not a believer at all. Everyone has a motive for their actions and G-d had little to do with it.

    2. Amish as well and, I think, Mormons still do a pretty traditional type of thing. Plus you’d get great pointers on food preservation with those two sects.

      1. Mormons make me uneasy. I ran into some on their mission the other day, and it made me uncomfortable.

      2. The Mormons are an odd case. I know a few traditional Mormons, but I also know a few who demonstrate none of the traditional traits (even after their missions). It seems they might be going the same route as so many Christian denominations.

      3. It’s sad that the answer to one religion (feminism) has to be another religion.
        It has been two centuries since John Stuart Mill, two fucking centuries, and instead of building on him, we’re forgetting him.
        Sorrowful times.

        1. Stefan Molyneux has mused about this recently. It seems like pretty much everyone wants or needs a god and a religion for some reason, so when they abandon the theistic religions they substitute secular ones.
          He said something to the effect that, given the choice between believing in the State (or race, or gender, or whatever) and an unknown God, he’d take God every time.

        2. We can look around and see with our own eyes what a world devoid of God results in. The entire world is borderline communist, and even the “freest” nations are declining quickly into a giant throbbing canker of self extermination and self loathing. Without an overriding philosophy or belief guiding a society that all of its citizens agree on, there appears to be a breakdown of not just values, but even basic impulses to do right. Atheism/agnostism is great for higher intellect people, but their mistake is in assuming that the average man is capable of that kind of work necessary to build a rational belief system for oneself. The average man doesn’t care and will work on animal impulses if he can get by with it. This is why we now have a world where feminism is possible, where societies are self extinguishing via uncontrolled immigration and socialism still is upheld as a fantastic idea despite a 100+ million body count in the 20th century.
          Simply put, for a society to work, it needs God or some form of religion. There’s no getting around it.

        4. Oh, don’t do that. There are plenty of decent honest people out here. The Letist hordes and Cuck Right wings though, they’re scary.

        5. Almost agree with Greboada above, haven’t completely lost faith in people, but it’s circling the drain.

    2. Yeah, what a terrible fate. Except everybody dies alone, no exceptions, and most people die old. You’ll have to do better.

    3. Why do you say this is a guide to dying old and alone? That list is not impossible to find in a woman. I did it. But in my culture (I’m Palestinian) it’s definitely easier for a man to find a young religious virgin wife, versus looking in a Western country where women start having sex in middle school.
      But your comment sounds a bit self-defeatist. Learn the difference between being alone and being lonely. There is nothing wrong with being alone.

      1. It’s the standard answer a Feminist gives when a man refuses to marry up some cum dumpster. Gil is a resident Leftist so it’s no surprise he apes their shaming techniques.

  11. This might be out of topic but Roosh’s article just fits the context of a Radiohead song – “True Love Waits”. I know they sound kinda “whiny” and I don’t really believe in love. At first, I thought it was just a beta song about oneitis. However, it sounds more like about waiting to settle down (true love) with a girl who is a unicorn type (a virgin). To me, it just implies that there are many girls who are promiscuous and don’t fit the criteria of being a good wife.

  13. One through six is fine (I’ll grant up to age 30), but belief in God is not necessary; just be kind towards others.

    1. As a general getting-along-with-others policy you’re right.
      The greater point is being kind or nice isn’t always being good. What is good comes from God, not man.
      Even dictators are kind to their kids.

  14. All good and valid points.
    So it would seem to me that men are going to have to go less lounge lizard and more “nest mode” and hard-stigma loose young women.
    But I don’t see any other way for the West to recover itself than to do less hedonism and more virtue (with lots of stigmatizing).

  15. You can’t trust atheists. Every culture in which they take a hold goes to shit. The same will be true for your household.
    And I grew up in an atheist family.

        1. So that’s why your name keeps popping up.
          “Unabashed racism”
          “Unabashed sexism”
          “Unabashed jealousy”
          It’s all YOU!

        12. That’s cool. Manosphere sites should take ownership of that meme and use it as their own.

    2. Atheists are negotiating in bad faith from the start. They will claim that there is no proof for god and on this basis that they do not believe in god. Atheism is just as much a faith based religion as Christianity.
      That is why I go apatheism all the way.

      1. I don’t see how a god necessarily solves theists’ selfish problems. A logically possible god doesn’t have to arrange its creation for our convenience in the first place.

        1. neither do I. I think atheists and theists are both nuts. Dafuq you care about god or no god? Might as well ask mice what they think about macro economics. Yes sireee bob, it is apatheism for me. I honestly and truly do not give a fuck if there is a god or not. It means less than nothing to me

      2. Once again, one must set the “parameters” of god before one starts this discussion.

        1. Always, of course. I am using it colloquially. People who say that there is absolutely no higher power are operating on a level of faith no different from people who say there is an unprovable higher power that I have faith in (despite how that power is conceived). The atheist, however, is often slow to realize that believing that there is absolutely no higher power is, in itself, a faith based system of belief and so I claim they begin in bad faith.

        2. I would consider a god to be something that operates outside of the typical laws and parameters that we come to define as reality.
          Through my short life, I’ve yet to witness something that operates outside of established law.

        3. One time while on an errand to pick up a brief case for my boss a scared kid shot a gun 6 times at me and not one of the bullets hit. It was at that moment that I started reconsidering my life and decided to wander the earth.

        4. “It was at that moment that I started reconsidering my life and decided to wander the earth”
          Interesting and intriguing. Could you elaborate a bit more? What have you learned from your wandering so far?

        5. Actually it is from Pulp Fiction when Sam Jackson decides he has felt the hand of God and seen a miricle and now he is going to stop being a hit man

        7. ha. When first hearing about schodinger’s cat in college my response was “what kind of fucking weirdo puts a cat in a box”

        8. So, because you have not witnessed it, it does not therefore exist? That would be the most illogical statement I have read today so far.

      4. “Atheism is just as much a faith based religion as Christianity”
        Exactly. It’s one thing for someone to take the position of not believing and be content with that, but when an atheist gets confrontational with a non-atheist (assuming atheist is not purposefully provoked) and goes in to some tirade about trying to convince the world there is no God, one has to wonder what is going on with said atheist.

        1. I basically get paid about $6k-$8k a month from freelancing at home. For everybody looking to do basic online jobs for few hours every day from your couch at home and make solid paycheck in the same time… This is perfect for you… IS.GD/wAEVRO

        2. “when an atheist gets confrontational… and goes in to some tirade about trying to convince the world there is no God, one has to wonder what is going on with said atheist.”
          That’s when you say, “Methinks, you believe more thoroughly than any priest.”

      5. So not believing in unicorns until they are proven is faith based? And by trying to bring atheism down to the level of faith aren’t you sort of admitting that faith is foolish?

        1. I think faith is foolish. No argument from me. I think it is the height of arrogance and foolishness assert a dogmatic belief about something so far beyond the scope of your own perception that it is in another universe. It doesn’t matter to me which side you come down on. If you are vociferously passionate about the existence or lack of existence of a deity then I think you are a little butter butterz. I give a bump to the faithful because at least they will admit that faith is not rational. Atheists often seem to want to elevate their disbelief into some notion of rationality when it is just another faith argument.
          The truth of the matter is that you have no real proof that there is a lack of intelligent design behind the creation of the universe any more than someone who says they believe does.

        2. “And by trying to bring atheism down to the level of faith aren’t you sort of admitting that faith is foolish?”
          I hear what you are saying, and I respect that – but the best way to describe my position is from Shakespeare :
          “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ”
          – Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
          I simply have to allow for the fact that we do not know everything about consciousness outside of biological, as well as what truly is reality.
          And I’m not dismissing your position, but I do recognize that we cannot know everything, including consciousness outside of the biological form.

        3. Saying Unicorns do not exist before proving their nonexistence. That would be faith based.

        4. I know it sounds surprising, but there is much more that we do not know than we know. Was it not relatively a short time ago when every astronaut could swear that we had only 9 planets? Today, everybody knows we have thousands of planets. Fact is, we have ALWAYS had those many planets; we just didn’t know they existed.
          When a scientist exclaims that there is no God, I know instantly that that person is more ignorant than anyone I know.

        5. LOL so we should believe in absolutely everything a creative mind can conjure up now or in the future because we can’t prove those things don’t exist. Warped sense of rationality you believers have…

        6. True – and the problem arises because people need “proof” from an empirical evidence vantage point which is how all quantification is done in the physical world. I think the quantum physists probably have a better chance at presenting some kind of rational speculation on the existance of the hereafter.

        7. Just showing you that atheism and theism are actually faith-based. They believe in God’s existence or non-existence, irrespective of what the basis of their faiths might be. If believers have no proof that God exists, the atheists also have no proof that He does not. Both have an element of faith in their assertions.

        8. There used to be an expression, “that would be a black swan”, that meant that there is no such thing, because there are no black swans, But then, black swans were discovered in Australia. But now the phrase would mean, “something that you and everyone assumed to be true, but is not.”

      6. I was brought up in the Southern Baptist church. I was a good little mindless sheep until I actually started to think for myself.
        Then I evolved into an aggressive atheist as a reaction to years of brainwashing.
        Eventually I leveled out.
        I still don’t believe in imaginary sky daddy, but at this point it is rarely ever thought of. I just don’t care. I have other things to do.
        Apatheism seems perfect to me!
        The only times now I have issues with are when atheists get pushy and act evangelical about it or when a Jesus zealot tries to push my nose up their saviour’s ass.
        On a side note: Way back when, I attended atheist meetings. I saw no difference in their zealotry than the Christian form. Well maybe one. The Christians go out and try to “convince” people to their views by illogical argument or coercion(they may not kill people but lack of workplace promotions, back turning and other passive aggressive punishments are rampant) while the atheists tended to cower and grumble more.

        1. You are being inconsistent.
          If someone were to tell you there is a lot of money to be made in stocks, won’t you satisfy yourself by reading, asking questions, etc about stocks until you arrived at the truth? So if the first person that you asked gave you incorrect information, do you simply become apathetic to stocks? I don’t think so. You will ignore the ignorant teacher, and look for better information elsewhere, for yourself.
          Same with religion. You were told your eternal wellbeing depends on your relationship with an imaginary God. Your first teachers were largely incompetent, by your standards. So, what do you do? Gamble your eternal destiny away? Assume religion is a bunch of fairy tales, without studying deeply about it? What if you discovered in the end that you were indeed wrong? What then? You’d be an outstanding fool.

        2. How Christian! You begin the lesson with a parable. Jesus would be proud.
          But, blabbering on at me with nonsensical logic does not make your saviour’s ass smell any better.

        1. I am honestly not about any of that and willingly say I am not an atheists. I think people on both sides of this issue are using a lot of faith when they do it right and a lot of pseudo science when they do it wrong. The truth is, pretending you know the answer to this question is pure arrogance. I am ok with arrogance, but I don’t want to hear the answer from anyone. As I have repeatedly stated, I am an apatheist. I do not care about whether or not there is a god. It has no effect on my life either way. I am just here to live my life.

    3. Lmfao – here we go again. First Roosh writes an article bashing Islam, a religion that actually follows the doctrines mentioned in this article, and now he produces this. So what’s the difference between Shariah Law and the conditions presented here in picking a woman to bear your child? Absolutely nothing! But yet, Islam is sooo bad. The hypocrisy is real on here.

        1. Yes I saw that in the video yet his site and his followers keep spreading negativity about Islam. As I mentioned, talk about hypocrisy.

      2. Islam is a bad religion and incompatible with Western Civilization. That is why. Sharia infested nations are shit holes.

        1. Simply stating it’s a bad religion without any proper argument or context just shows why your words are meaningless.

        2. It’s an opinion based on observation and personal research. Ever visit islamic countries? They are shitholes for a reason. Points for keeping their women in line, but no one immigrates to the ME for the sunshine and cultural enrichment. In fact, muslims are fleeing them in the millions.

      3. The line between Sharia and right wing Christians seems to blur a bit more every time I come on here.

        2. Because the laws of our land punish that kind of behavior.
          Without our laws and punishments, I have no doubt they would quickly degenerate into that more commonly than is now.
          Besides, I said the line blurs. I didn’t say they were the exact same thing.
          The attitudes though are evident in both.

        3. Lol, Christians don’t behead because laws and not because they worship a jewish hippie (i.e. not a slave-trading warlord)? Got it. Apparently, the Muslim that beheaded Lee Rigby didn’t get the memo that London has laws against beheading infidels. wonk.

        5. Exactly and Christianity does; Which was my point. Islam is governed by Sharia law and demands the world be a theocracy. There is no moral equivalence.

        6. Your circular reasoning is impeccable while still ignoring my initial point. Are you a lawyer?

        7. Your desperate attempt to equate Jesus’ teachings of peace and love with Muhammad’s ideology, of conquest and Jihad, is the very definition of stupidity. You’re in no place to critique anyone’s reasoning skills and I strongly suspect your emotional views are interfering with your rationale.

        8. I equated Sharia with the right wing Christians themselves, not Christian teachings. You do tend to read into things such that are simply not there. This version you are accusing me of is out of your own ass.

        9. I’m pretty sure Muslims do far more killing in the Middle East than any “right wing Christians.” Conversely, you don’t see “right wing Christians” traveling to the Middle East to commit terrorist acts. Islam is a fascistic, terrorist religion and it really is that simple. Again, I strongly suspect your emotional views are interfering with your rationale but here’s an exercise, in case you aren’t: Try to find a scripture in the Bible, where Jesus Christ commanded his followers to kill people.
          Spoiler: You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

        10. Hello! Earth to KZOO! Not what I was saying! You are off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I said!
          I suspect your Jesus blinders and emotional tantrum is making it hard for you to grasp that you are babbling on about something I never said.
          Chill, come back down to Earth and try some basic reading comprehension.

        11. Nice psychological projection buddy but I’m as atheist as it gets. You said verbatim “the line between Sharia and right wing Christians seems to blur,” I gave several examples why your argument is silly on its face. Now, I need to “Chill, come back down to Earth” because you’re an idiot who couldn’t substantiate his argument. Sad.
          Not sure why I expected a thoughtful, well-worded response from a pile of fried chicken but I was bored with you a week ago. Later.

        12. YES! FINALLY! Yes, I said right wing Christians! Not Christian teachings!
          Your examples were for Christian teachings, not right wingers. Can you see the difference? Apparent not still.
          You have been arguing against something I NEVER said!
          You never gave any arguments against my statement. Never. You went on a non-related tear on your own.
          You have had no comprehension of what my statement was obviously.
          Kevin, I have my doubts about your atheism judging from your inane defense against an attack I never made.

        13. “Without our laws and punishments, I have no doubt they [right wing Christians] would quickly degenerate into that more commonly than is now.” —You
          “Islam doesn’t recognize the laws off our land. That’s the problem. Duh.” —You
          “I’m pretty sure Muslims do far more killing in the Middle East than any “right wing Christians.” Conversely, you don’t see “right wing Christians” traveling to the Middle East to commit terrorist acts.” —Me
          (Several Posts Later)
          “Yes, I said right wing Christians! Not Christian teachings!
          Your examples were for Christian teachings, not right wingers. Can you see the difference?” —You
          tl;dr “Right Wing Christians” follow laws but without them, they would be as lawless as Sharia lovers who don’t follow the laws we already have? Clearly you’re an idiot.
          As I said before, I’m bored with you and you are not on my level.
          Feel free to fuck off now.

    4. Atheism is the source of moral relativism, scientism, nihilism and materialism that leads to social and cultural decay. Atheism never produced a vibrant and original Civilization and it will never will. It is simply sterile.

      1. That says nothing about whether it is a valid stance or not. It just says it leads to a lot of stuff you don’t like. By that token I can say that McDonald’s doesn’t exist because it leads to obesity, oily skin and bad overall health while decaying the culture of good food.

        1. “It just says it leads to a lot of stuff you don’t like. ”
          My point exactly as i see to be impossible for me to live with a women like that. From personal experience, every single atheist women i know, are marxist intellectual wannabes that turn every little thing in to a political and social battle.

        2. This, I believe, is part of your problem. And, trust me, I say this in a respectful way and not in a way where I am looking for an argument. What the fuck possesses you to even find out if the woman you are with is an atheist? a Marxist? dafuq you talking to these birds about? Take them out, let them smile, fuck them….at what point between meeting up with a girl and kicking her out of your apartment with a lame excuse about needing to be up in the morning did you take the time to talk to one of them about their political, social or theological opinions? What they think and believe does not matter one bit. If a girl starts talking about some bullshit like this, just change the topic to how nice her earings are or how her dress is pretty — you know, something she is actually qualified to discuss.

        3. Well my assumption is that he is engaging in these conversations to assess the woman’s worthiness.

        4. yuk. Just enjoy them, pump them full of Dick and move on with good memories

        5. Isn’5 it better to fuck someone you can have a proper conversation afterward with. I think you are just sleeping with the wrong women my friend

        6. I don’t know. I really enjoy my life. I think I’m doing just fine.
          And I can talk to the women I fuck, but about things that they can be reasonably expected to understand.
          And while I am always happy to get advice from Mr Nobody from Nowhereville I’m pretty set on how I feel I should live my life. Thanks anyway duke!

        7. That’s your world and you live it. Some of us though choose a more traditional approach and thus, vetting is key.

        9. By all means, you dont have to excuse yourself for making a argument. In fact, your comments are some of the most sophisticated in ROK and i always like to read them.
          Now, as for your point you are completely right, but bare in mind i was not talking about women i try to seduce, rather women i know and that are really boring with their anti theism crap. I could never had a long term relationship with “that”. But its true, many men do give to much importance to ideology. I always say that a vagina is neutral in that respect.

        10. Thanks!
          I will admit, I do not know many women. The very few friends I have are all male and most of them are spread around the world. Women are an invaluable resource for the things they are good at. But trying to talk to them about things that involve reason and logic is just infuriating. Let them tell you about shopping, some dress they got, how much they like some wine. You will find that they can be very entertaining….especially if they are pretty and smell nice.
          As for her ideas on higher minded things? Fuckin’ A? She is about to have my cum on her face do you really think I am going to listen to her talk about metaphysics or epistemology? HAR.
          Best bet, if a woman starts talking about something like that force the conversation back around to something that women ought to be talking about: fashion, food or your genitals.

        11. “As for her ideas on higher minded things? Fuckin’ A? She is about to have my cum on her face do you really think I am going to listen to her talk about metaphysics or epistemology? HAR. ”
          This is so true!

        13. “I gotta work in the morning”
          “But it’s Sunday”
          “Yeah, wel, you know, crazy world”

      2. I like how people say that atheism is materialist…. it’s almost as if they are projecting their own fear of becoming selfish and shallow assholes without a god… hmmmm I wonder…

        1. Perhaps he means philosophical materialism, that everything is simply composed of matter and energy, and nothing else, and not the “I like lots and lots of stuff” variety. That is also bad though.

        2. I also like how the entire concept of atoms, eletricity, the space and everything sciece related is just dismissed as… empty and materialistic… shallow. But put a soul in there and voila, it’s complete now… give me a break

        3. philosophical materialism
          n. The theory that matter and energy are the only objects existing within the universe, and that mental and spiritual phenomena are explainable as functions of the nervous system of people
          If we follow this to it’s logical conclusion, then any action should be permissible. There should be no consequences for murder for instance. Why would it even matter if you killed someone?

        4. You mean… how nature actually works? Because… we denied nature as humans… and that’s not a bad thing… but yeah… in nature things are in fact just indiferent.

        9. Hah, now tell me then what a morally superior being your are.
          Certainly you are able to leave your comfort zone to help others, right?
          You are just such an awe inspiring example of the best humanity has to offer.
          No, actually you’re not. You won’t even bother. Why should you even?
          Morality is relative and thus worthless anyway.
          You cannot build anything on nothing. All you can do is to be a shallow egocentric nihilist.
          Either that or you’re to emotional and irrational to realize that “good” doesn’t even exist in your world.

        10. Dude… i don’t think i’m superior. You are the one that is putting yourself down. Because, really, it isn’t Like that at all for people who don’t believe in god. And yes, good and evil are creations of the human kind…. so what? You think these concepts are worthless because of that? I sure don’t

        11. When we can just determine and change what good and evil means based on our emotions and subjective mind than it is worthless.
          On that basis I can argue anything to be anything.

        12. As an agnostic, I think more and more that humans are not made for atheism. Humans need to have an instinctive fear of stepping out of the line or face punishment, something fear of God does very well, in order to more or less behave and survive, because the current situation where atheism moral relativism replaces religiousness isn’t stable or can’t last for long.
          A society based only on atheistic values will eventually and unavoidably decay. There simply isn’t any drive for defending oneself or reproducing when any virtue or pride from one’s country or group has been expunged by nihilism and moral relativism.
          In that situation, external groups that aren’t so spineless and weak will invade and take the reign of the country’s future, by simply rejecting the weakling ‘values’, wanting to continue existing and by fostering their own morals and ideas vs the decadent atheists who don’t see any value left on themselves.
          And the suicidal western societies, so guilty of existing and so welcoming/understanding with the barbarians shows this painful fact very well.
          Also, rationalism and atheism always end up making the female role look like an existential burden. Because all this moral relativism takes us to an inversion of what’s considered valuable in men and women, with the pursuit of pleasure and egotistical freedom seen as the most important goals.
          And having babies is, really, a major source of discomfort and reduction of personal freedoms for women, when seen objectively. Yet still is indispensable for life to continue and a source of happiness for those that take the biological bait and do it.
          In order to survive, I think secular societies will eventually need to reach a Bene Gesserith entente, with a political elite of rationalists who know what’s up promoting a majority’s religion that motivates people to continue wanting to exist and live, even if it’s only for that reason.

        13. Ok, to you… it is not meaningless for every atheist i know personally… it might be somewhat relative… but often it is quite objective. Don’t Treat other people like shit for no reason for instance… but what you are saying is that if there is good and evil set in stone on nature… then there is no moral gray area, wich would be false. By the way, I for instance consider the misoginy and sexism that rule on this site to be really…really bad. In all honesty

        14. Your view of atheism is very… wrong in some aspects… because you made only presumptions on top of presumption, this existencial crisis I often see on many religious people. Is not the lack of Faith um in god that is gonna completely shatter people’s will to live. And you are also saying bullshit by taking an extreme situation that will never happen as a fact… there is never gonna be a complete unity in every person’s beliefs . No society will ever be completely atheist nor religous. Is the same stupid argument nada by homophobic people, that no society will last with everyone being gay… like, wtf??? Nobody thinks or wants that… is the exact same with your argument

        15. Indeed. People in a developed society devoid of (the right) religion tend to want to live and do what they want as their topmost priority.
          That’s what’s happening right now, when people (and most importantly, women) want careers and riches and a fulfilling, pleasurable sex life free from consequences and any devotion to anyone. And of course, never having to carry a baby in their bellies and end up disfigured by it, or have to abandon their dreams to raise that annoying baby.
          But you see, this behavior results in lifelong bachelors and bachelorettes, flirting and living the good life (or so they think) or worse, in sterile feminists and herbivore men that reject the sexual game, live unhappy lives making everyone else unhappy too, but yet living as long as it lasts and that end up not having any kids.
          Men not having kids isn’t a real drama, though. Most males never have any offspring anyway, while a few ones end up having a lot. But females are critical. They have to want to have kids for things to continue working.
          If females don’t want, there simply won’t be enough kids for replacing dying people and keeping that society working.
          And that’s where things break up, because having a society and people around for getting the good things of any society, depends entirely of more people being born and raised in the right values and thinking of that society that got you the people with all the good things you enjoy.
          Because everyone gets old and unavoidably dies, and with them their ideals and culture if there wasn’t someone to pass the torch into the future.

        16. So much bullshit… you know, pass the fucking torch if you, pass the fucking sexist Culture of yours, because somehow, you managed to put the burden of mankind upon women and at the same time blame them… you are boring and you live in a dream

        17. Hitler (an atheist) thought that it was a good thing to kill jews.
          Tell me now why he was objectively false.
          “Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone,…”
          Adolf Hitler
          “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”
          Adolf Hitler
          Don’t get this wrong now. He said all those things in secret from the Christian public.
          When he made public acts he made sure they fit his propaganda.
          That being said atheism has the most kills of any ideology. Sure, you might say now why would anyone kill anyone in th name of disbelief?
          Of course there are some however my point is this:
          Atheism leads to moral decay. This is perfectly substantiated by history.

        18. “Perhaps he means philosophical materialism, that everything is simply composed of matter and energy”
          This! I was talking about materialism/naturalism.

        19. My point was about materialism/naturalism. The notion that we nothing more than evolved primates in a dark corner of the Universe, with no more value than a bacteria or a dog. Juts a mix of flesh, nerves and chemical reactions. But, it is also true, that we can argue about the materialistic narcissism that can be promoted without God.

        20. Fuck off… stupid asshole. Agar a fucking dumb and pointless discussion anyway, pm am even dumber and pointless article. Misogynistic pigs… boring fucks

    5. You can’t trust anyone. As one of my favorite poems says “if you are doing business with a religious son of a bitch, get it in writing. His word ain’t worth shit. Not with the good lord on his side telling him how to fuck you on the deal”

      1. At least the religious son of a bitch has some kind of code of to follow. He can manage to twist it a little to slaughter half of the world, but the atheist doesn’t even go through that process.
        If he’s convinced that he found the way to create heaven on earth using the last new ideology, he will slaughter everyone. Why not, after all ? YOLO and stuff.

        1. my point wasn’t just to not trust the religious son of a bitch….but it is that no one is worth trusting.
          To think that no atheists have a moral code is simply incorrect and not becoming of you.
          That said, I get all business in writing. Like the US currency says. In god we trust….which implies that everyone else pays fucking cash.

        2. “If he’s convinced that he found the way to create heaven on earth”
          The problem is all the idiots who think they can create Heaven on Earth, religious or otherwise (I say this as a follower of Christ).
          No human can set up the Kingdom of God, much less run it.

        3. Atheists mostly live on a watered down and or perverted version of the religious dominant moral code of the society they live in, that’s from my personal experience.
          That’s why for most of them it’s still bad to cheat on their sexual partners, when they have actually no reason not to.
          And for me every moral code must aim toward an ideal of perfection, a characteristic that I have never met among atheists.

        4. That is my experience as well. But it is also my experience with people who claim faith that they also are living on watered down or perverted versions of religious dominant moral code. I am not a fan of the atheist and feel they are just religious to a derivative and lesser religion than the religious.

        5. This is the wonderfully entertaining circle that everyday Theists and Atheists live in. Most, and I’m talking % in the upper 90s, of atheists were raised with some semblance of religious morals. No way around it. They then pervert it to fit their needs… conversely, “most” Theists use the fact that they are religious to prove morals, even if little are present. BIG circle jerk for the most part, BUT seeing as how Atheists do mostly try to use the fact that they are “good people” to prove that atheism isn’t for morally inept people, they falter, because the concept of being a good person is from religion.. THEN some guy bought a hotdog in Time Square, believes its the best hotdog ever and no one can prove to him otherwise even though it turns out all the franks in the cart went bad last week. Relish and Kraut covers most bad flavors. Also, last Thursday, my wife told me this joke and as it turns out The A/C went out and my Dog barked at a stranger walking through the front yard…
          Who gives a fuck, believe what you believe and care about the beliefs of those in your circle of influence. If you are living right and its worth emulating, people with follow your lead. I mean, I’m religious, Catholic, in my world this isn’t the last stop. When a family member dies I celebrate it, what’s to mourn? Unless you think they are going to Hell, Otherwise its a selfish act to mourn the death of someone you believe to be righteous. Ugh I hate talking about Religion. but the damn Knee baited me.

        7. I feel like using the no true scotman fallacy regarding the religious ones, but I think that you’re right on this one.

      2. Anyone invoking G-d or phrases like “my brother” in a business setting is getting ready to f*ck you. Been there. Call them out immediately.

    7. Ignoring of course the fact Ayn Rand had an entire philosophy based around her atheism that opposes everything that brings cultures to shit.

      1. Sure, did it work though?
        On a basis of nothing anything can be made.
        Yet as the nothing suggests it still falls.
        Only an ideology that embraces this can logically work in your worldview.

        1. Ideology is always based on an emotional impulse. Socialism was created as a desire for equality and enfranchisement. Neomasculinity was created as a desire to recover the masculine ideas of yore. Nationalism was created out of love for kin and country. None of these things are rational, only emotional impulses based on what the adherent to the ideology holds dear.

        2. Sure, except that the belief in god includes that good and evil exist outside of a human perspective. No matter what we make of it we will also be judged according to it.
          As such it is logical, regardless of your utmost desire in life, to take this into account.
          Your ideology doesn’t have such a basis. It doesn’t have any basis at all.
          As such it cannot stand.

    8. Atheist households tend to stifle discussion of personal revelations and admissions. It’s like athiests are embarrased to see some bible wielding person on the street talking of his transgressions and of his redeeming conversion. Athiest parents cover their children’s eyes when a street preacher comes around like it was some crazy person in the buff, streaking naked about. ”You don’t want to be crazy like that” the godless parents will warn. And the godless parents, if ever tested and strung on the rack of their own fate, when forced to break out with a confession will hone their spiritual exposure into some quacky hippie offshoot spiritualist religion at best, but never the hard core thumping book printed on thin golden leaf rice paper. You can’t always blame modern athiests for rebuking orthodoxy in the face of the liberal warehouse community churches ran by fat divorcees and copto ashki’s. The fruits delivered are the qualifying grade of a house of worship. You have to want and demand patriarchy, culture and the women maintained as the engines that produce and nurture the bloodline and the men who dictate and engineer the civilization. Lay judgement on your church and keep the patriarchal frame with your temple. Man reserves the right to rebel against the temple always. Man can erase and re write his government as well.

    9. I’d turned my life around when I found faith in God, and went to church regularly… three years later I renounced that faith, I had my doubts and it wasn’t fashionable…. I’ve been trying to piece together the whirlwind shit storm that is my life since then…. I went back to church, considering becoming Catholic….. my life is still shite, but I’ve got a better grip on who I am and what I’m doing.

    10. I used to believe the same until I lived in Asia for 6 years. I’ve met many women of good moral fiber who had it instilled in them by their families. My wife is without a doubt the most decent woman I’ve ever known and she learned right and wrong from her family and Asian culture. I think you are correct regarding western cultures.

  16. “Her skin tone should be two shades within myself.” Albinos and the blackest of black off limits?

  17. Yeah, I’m inclined to agree as a general thumb rule, although the 18-25 rule is not really fair, if you’re expecting women of quality character to save themselves, you should give a little more leeway that that. And I’m curious whether he places a value on male virginity, or is that just for beta males?

      1. Damage both mental and physical.
        Past around the age 32, chances of having healthy offspring diminishes. To have a few healthy kids, this is the optimal age range.

  18. “She must believe in a god”
    I would say that she must believe in the same God as I do. Mixing religions in a house hold is not ideal.

  19. Excellent advice. So true for beautiful girls, I dated a very cute blonde once and it was awful.

    1. part true part not true. It really depends on what you are using the women for. If you are using a woman for arm candy, a fun time out and a sheath, heh, to put your sword then very attractive girls do the trick every time. They are in abundance and disposable. a tool for every job and all.

  20. I guarantee that fulfilling this list is gonna be harder than defeating kratom enhanced chuck norris
    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F63%2F48%2F7b%2F63487bc46152cb096c582c36420fec58.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fexplore%2Fchuck-norris%2F&docid=K5h1KcsjdlTixM&tbnid=Gj7Stpf22tqEpM%3A&w=236&h=292&client=ms-android-xiaomi&bih=620&biw=360&ved=0ahUKEwisvvPk8rTOAhWIKo8KHQ74A28QxiAIBSgB&iact=c&ictx=1

  21. ROK is intellectually struggling with the man’s imperative to game and score with the noble idea of finding virtuous women after habituating ourselves to swimming in the fetid waters of pick-up artistry.
    We’re victims of our own success.
    Prime example: My 16 y.o. son has been using ROK tips and tricks to overcome approach anxiety and other female eccentricities. He had success in asking girls out, day game, and understanding the female imperatives. Good I say. He enters the game with eyes stapled open.
    As a dad I’m acutely watching his attitude towards women in general. The success of using these approaches makes it hard to feel a need to lock down that good-enough girl with always others around the corner willing and waiting to be gamed.
    When the means of game become the ends of game we’re caught in a self-perpetuating loop of conquest. It is fun to see ourselves unplug and improve. Over time game success will ultimately stunt our original purpose, and in a way plug us back into another false reality.
    Without God and 2000 years of Church guidance, the natural sexual inclination is Score! for our pride, lust and vanity. Robust sex is promoted by the Church. Sex is God-given. It is man who turns it bad for his own ends. SJPII discussed the theology of the body this way. I admit as much as I like game, SJPII is right.
    As a dad my job is to help my 4 kids get to heaven. Looking at the world through the looking glass of highly sexualized, plate-spinning, clever pickup lines and formulaically dealing with women taints our perceptions of the natural sexual ebb and flow. Seduction is a means to something better than sex alone and I pray we all find it someday.

    1. As a dad my job is to help my 4 kids get to heaven.

      I don’t see how going to “heaven” really solves anything. What if your children arrive in heaven, then they rebel against God?
      After all, traditional Christian theology says that this has happened at least once involving God’s creatures.

      1. If they’re of the mind to rebel against God, they’re not getting into heaven in the first place. They are not immortal angels, they need their very souls judged before being given the E Ticket into God’s amusement park.

        1. Lucifer was the best of the best, greater than any man could hope to be. Clearly there is a flaw in the system.

        2. Or God just likes a non-static universe. If God created all, then he clearly created Evil as well as Good. So if He has a plan for it, that’s up to him I guess. It would be pretty boring being the all powerful overlord in a realm where there was no question of good and bad and everybody acted as automatons.

        3. Actually, this is were St Augustine struggled a lot philosophically. First he saw Evil as a substance and couldn’t get over the question of how a perfect being could create Evil.
          That’s when he got in touch with the Manicheans, but left after because the all thing appeared to be very silly.
          Then he went back to Christianity and reached the following conclusion :
          Evil was not created, for evil is no substance. It is merely the perversion of a will.

        5. But, that perversion of will comes from a human mind that perverts that will, and the human mind comes from God. I doubt God unknowingly built a bug into the prototype and later said “ooops”. I think the answer lay in the Bible directly, that no man can know the will of God. As such, we have no way of knowing why he created Evil, although we can make guesses.

        6. In the Old testament, Yahweh takes credit for all the evil things that happen to mankind and to his people the jews. You can find supporting themes in the new testament as well. That the will of man is always in subordination to the will of God.
          This means that whether man is doing good or doing evil…the will of God is still the prime mover and the individual self choosing his fate is merely an illusion.
          I will also add that many scriptures state that Lucifer, satan, the devil is simply a servant of god doing the will of god. Much like the angel of death who god sent to kill the first born of the egyptians.
          Personally knowing a little bit about the original texts the word satan just means adversary and Lucifer I believe was referring to an earthly king, Bel Shazar(or something).
          Lucifer is only ever mentioned one time and yet this entity has been stretched over the years to mean the ultimate evil who reigns in hell and brings war upon mankind and God.

        7. He created free will, and thus the capacity to commit Evil, not Evil itself. I think there is a difference.

        8. The capacity anticipates the existence, does it not?
          I’m not saying God went out and is torturing children and shit, rather, that all concepts derive from His plan and one of the concepts we deal with in life is Evil.

        9. Add to this Martin Luther’s “Bound Will” theory, which says that fallen man has free will up to a point determined by his fallen nature – he is free to sin, but lacks the ability to live without sin.
          It’s a long and difficult question for the philosopher.

        10. Ah okay, in that sense, I can agree with it.
          The point of Saint Augustine was that Evil is no entity and is just a result of a corrupted will.
          Now why have our will and the will of angels the capacity to go bad, as you pointed out, that is indeed a rather tough question.

        11. Lucifer was a second-tier angel, a seraph, not the best of the best. Seraphs are to know God. Pride in subjugating himself to Man-God Jesus was his downfall.

        12. Cherubs weren’t even angels until the middle ages, and even still Seraphim outrank them.
          You need to retake your class.

        20. If I have to check my facts or spine before posting I’d never contribute. The community will police my bloviations. Well done!

        25. Without the capacity to go bad it wouldn’t be free will.
          That is why I believe god created satan and why he threw him on earth nonetheless.
          God doesn’t want us to be just puppets like his angels.
          As such he had to ensure we have both spectrums of free will and the ability to become a being of either spectrum; the good and the evil.
          To have free will is to have the ability to choose after all.

        26. To the contrary, I believe that satan proves that we have free will and that we are meant to have free will.
          To say that god did all this out of boredom seems bizarre for a timeless, omnipotent and infallible being.
          God created satan to ensure that we have free will. Without the possibility of choosing evil, as would be if we would only live in his presence, free will cannot be.

        27. I believe that this capacity is needed to have free will and that god created satan for this purpose.

        28. I’m simply pointing out what those scriptures say. In the book of Job satan must come to God and ask his permission to inflict Job. Does not sound like a being with free will to me.

        29. You can’t really use Job’s case here as he has been blessed by god for his faithfulness.
          As such god had always averted harm from him. Satan wanted to test that.
          That being said I don’t believe that angels have free will unlike us.
          So yes, god created satan exactly for that purpose.
          He wanted that we have free will and as such we need to be able to choose.

        31. He was the top of the tops, the very tippy top second in command Angel.

        32. I was somewhat jesting with the “boredom” comment actually. End of the day, you can’t know the mind of God so any guess is automatically 100% wrong by definition.

        34. Yeah, I can imagine. I just used it unapologetically to put my idea in the right light. Perfectly agree with the rest.

      2. O.K., then I’d guess they’d go to hell. I pray and work for them not to though. Try to approach life less cynically. There is good out there.

  22. Philosophers have long recognized that god beliefs come in useful for keeping weak-minded people in line, whereas the Red-Pilled men can take or leave such beliefs. I have yet to meet an atheist woman who didn’t seem damaged to me, so women probably benefit on average from getting Blue-Pilled with religion early in life to protect them from themselves.

  23. The belief in God is an important one. We all have a moral conscience, but having a belief in God makes believers closely adhere to that moral conscience, they go above and beyond what is expected of them by the standards (or lack thereof) set out by modern society. It’s an unfluctuating moral code that has eternal consequences if broken, you do not have this outside of religion.

        1. Eternal? I can only think of under 4-5 people in world history that deserve ETERNAL punishment. And if that’s the type of god you believe in, okay, but you don’t describe him to others as “loving” or “merciful” right?

        2. The love is in deciding to spare anyone. The mercy is in making a way to satisfy both his justice and his desire to spare anyone.
          If he is merely just, he has no reason to permit a world to exist in which his creation has defied his law. If he is merely beneficent (the most common meaning when one says “God is Love”), he has no reason to have laws at all.

        3. I just can’t get on board with a god that intervenes, sometimes “answers” prayers, sometimes doesn’t, seemed to enact miracles (temporarily suspending physics/nature) only prior to development of most recording technology, sets and incredibly rigid code of behavior and punishes transgressors thereof to eternal suffering. Sounds like there is really no freedom, not when you boil it down.

        4. It’s a question that requires more analysis than I have the time or mental ability to answer.
          In its simplest conception, Adam was created with the ability to choose whether or not to sin (posse pecare and posse non pecare). When he chose to sin, he lost the ability to not sin (posse pecare and non posse non pecare). With the sacrifice of Christ, we have a forgiveness that allows us to be viewed as without sin (posse pecare and posse non pecare are restored). And, upon the final Resurrection, it is assumed we will lose the ability to sin (non posse pecare and posse non pecare).
          As to whether God answers prayer (that is, changes his mind when we beg him to), that is an academic question to the believer. The simple fact is we are told to pray, and in praying we are obedient.
          And as to miracles, the Scriptures say that even many who saw miracles refused to believe that’s what they were. Perhaps, then, he still does perform miracles that go unnoticed by many.

        5. But even if you believe that say, the world is only 20,000 years old there beg several important questions about the nature/plan of an “Abrahamic” god. I guess my problem is the designing god flies in face repeatedly as we learn more about the world and the universe at large.

        6. It is interesting, what you say. Which aspects of the Universe, as you understand it, seem most inconsistent with the idea of a designer God?

        7. Not really. The literalist interpretations of the Genesis are fairly recent.
          I would tend to see an intelligent design in evolution for example. And so did Saint Thomas of Aquinas when he pointed out that God could have created some elements of the world in an unfinished state.
          And as for the Big Bang, well it only explains how the gun might have fired and not by whom and why it was fired.
          Besides, this theory was found by a Belgian Catholic priest…

        8. There are plenty of cases of people in modern times not following the laws of physics. Look into scientific research on telepathy and fasting.
          I don’t think the righteous religions have set a rigid code of behaviour. There are a few basic rules (no free sex, no killing or stealing etc). Other than that you’re pretty free. Most other rules such as how to conduct various ceremonies, what to eat and when etc were added by people who came after the original teachers.

        9. Jesus spent a decent amount of his ministry talking about exactly this. The religious authorities had built up the simple laws into complicated codes that were all but impossible to follow.
          This is why he was able to summarize the law as “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” We tend to make it harder than it has to be.

        10. The Big Bang is simply retelling the story of Genesis while removing God. It makes zero logical sense when you get to moment 0. Everything after the explosion at least has some kind of way of proving it or at least demonstrating some fundamental ideas, but even then they had to invent shit you can’t see or measure, dark matter and dark energy, and simply fudge the math in giant swirls around it in order to make the end result come out the way they want it to. If I had to make two giant unproveable fudges to make 60% or so of my math work, I’d probably reconsider if my model was actually worth pursuing.
          The Big Bang – A thing popped into existence for no reason, then exploded for no reason we’ll ever have the capacity to understand so just take our word for it, and hey, see….and science!

        11. But why would an omniscient/omnipotent god care if you ate pork or unleavened bread, meat on Friday or drank alcohol.
          Also the “anti-covet” sins are thought crime. They don’t say don’t STEAL neighbors goods/wife. Don’t wish YOU had what he has.

        12. Yes that’s how I understood it too. I think George Lemaitre only came up with the theory of a giant explosion and ideologists twisted it to what you describe.

        13. We all deserve eternal punishment. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

        14. Did you know that 90% of species that have ever existed went extinct prior to man walking upright? Seems a strange design.
          Also why would a god that intervenes or has care for mankind allow horrible genetic/congenital disorders that cause nothing but pain and death?
          Once again, if your concept of god is one that is the source of the “big bang” but has not interfered since, that is an explanation. But an intervening god is either a poor designer or capricious (possibly cruel).

        15. Why is it a strange design? A moon rocket has three stages, and as they are used, they are discarded and dropped from the rocket. Far from being a strange design it makes perfect sense, that which is no longer required goes away. Perfectly logical really, when you think about it.

        16. I think one problem is the judgment of pain and death. If you think of those as something bad, you must conclude God is bad. But if you realize that this judgment only exists in your head, everything falls into place.

        18. You’re quoting the bible verses not presenting an actual argument but fair enough seems to support my position that the “lord” is petty and cruel.

        20. I would say that on a grander scale, they are neither positive nor negative. They just are.
          Of course, that perspective is impossible to accept if you are in the middle of that pain. But in the end, we grow from and out of the pain and become something better.
          Can you seriously fathom a universe that would allow something truly and absolutely bad to happen?

        21. No it isn’t logical, not at all. A rocket is a designed piece of technology with parts. And while man figures out technology he experiments. Are you saying god experiments? That would mean he is not all knowing and is imperfect. I’ve never heard of a major religion that posits that.

        22. No I can’t imagine a world where no bad things happen. But I can’t imagine at the helm of that world is a benevolent, all powerful deity that can or does intervene.

        23. I’m a decent fellow. I treat my fellow man right and with respect, and generally get along well with the rest of the world. That said, if I make a program such as one that mimics evolution and has choices for one way or another in order to distill how the end result will calculate, how would that make me somehow not benevolent? i set the program in motion, step back, observe and wait to see how it all plays out.

        25. I’m saying that if you accept the framework of God as being the creator of all things, for the sake of argument, as you have, then questioning his engineering design doesn’t make sense. It’s not claiming he’s experimenting in the least, what it is, is noting that an engineered product can logically lose parts of its self in order to further the actual goal that the product is meant to fulfill. It’s perfectly logical.

        26. That is the argument of a “non-intervening” god. Which there COULD be (although I don’t think so), but no major religion I know of posits this god that started the ball rolling and just sits back.

        27. The first point presupposes the totality of the Theory of Evolution, complete with long ages and genetic shifts across the species boundary (that is, changes to the length and meaning of DNA which does not inhibit reproduction, survives over long eras, and ultimately causes massive changes to the organism that renders it incapable of breeding with the original species). Neither has been observed, and both derive from the necessities of the a-theist model. The Christian response is generally to assume that the fossils found are relics of the great flood, and they construct hypotheses and tests to validate whether such a thing is possible.
          The Christian response to the second is that these are the consequences of our fallen condition. The hypothesis tends to be that such disorders would not have arisen had we not first contaminated the world with the consequences of disobeying God. Further, the theory says God permits these things to happen due to his will – whether out of justice or just to run the simulation out, none can say.
          I understand where you are coming from, but you must understand that most of these inconsistencies are, in fact, the inconsistencies between theistic premises and atheistic premises. I do not say this to persuade you (because, if that was my only aim, I would have first engaged in rhetoric), but to show you one of the key points where you and I will naturally deflect.

        29. Debating religion is different than debating the existence of a God. I always like to make that distinctions. Religions are wholly manufactured by men. While the founders of a given religion may have had the right idea, it never stays in true form and in a century or two you go from “Let’s try being nice to other people and get along for a change” to “Hey, let’s hold an Inquisition!”

        30. Quite so. The species all incorporate back into the earth, from when the raw materials of life spring.

        32. Torquemada. Don’t try to dissuade him though, because you can’t Torquemada anything!

        35. “What’s an Auto-de-fa?”
          “It’s what you oughtn’t do but you do anyway.”

        38. Drinking alcohol affects your energy if you meditate, it’s a physical thing, that’s why Buddhists don’t drink. Meat on Friday etc are just rules added by people later on because humans like to be a part of something and look down on others. It’s like vegans who think they are better than you since you eat meat.
          Jealousy is not a good thing. Why would a jealous person be let into heaven? It has to have standards or it would just be the same as earth.

        39. I was just using an updated version of the Benevolent Clock Maker as an example, not as a an of my actual beliefs.

        40. Just asking. Considering what I’ve learned in the past few years about human differences, the true nature of women, etc., I’m starting to lean more towards the deist/agnostic view of things. If God were a personal and involved being, He wouldn’t let things be as they are.

  24. Personally, I’ve found that beautiful women are often not gamed as much as less attractive women as most men are intimidated by them.
    What does ROK think of marrying a beautiful woman (I’m talking 9-9.5ish) who because of various reasons including religion has a human-sized ego and is a virgin? One catch: looks young but is a little above 25.

    1. It’s what I did, so I give it a thumbs up. Although my wife was a bit younger than that, but not by too many years.

      1. yeah, if I’d caught her a few years ago it would have been ideal but I guess the fact that she didn’t compromise proves her quality

        2. lol not that far over 25!!!
          Other people assume she’s 23 or younger (as in: ‘ isn’t she too young for you?’ I’m early 30s)

    2. When guys say 9.5, I’d have to ask for a pic. I know everyone’s rating system is different, but 9.5 is exceedingly high. She needs to be fine without any makeup with glowing skin for me to rate her that high.

      1. Her face is really nice to look at. After I started dating her other girls who I thought were hot before looked ugly to me. She’s tall and appears taller than she is since she’s quite slim. Has long legs and a perfect hip to waist ratio. Perhaps if you live in a place with lots of hotties you might downgrade her a point for whatever reason. The only place I’ve seen many girls of this calibre is St Petersburg.

  25. I don’t know if I agree or not with the beauty recommendation.
    I know it’s “from another time” but my wife was an absolute smoke show in her day. Think of a cross between a young (like 20 year old) Meg Ryan and Uma Thurman (also in her 20’s). What kept her in line and in check was that while she was certainly gorgeous, she valued time with me because of the various qualities she admired about me, more than she did thinking about a string of random men. Yes, she’s traditional to the core, but that’s the key, not the beauty fact. A mediocre or even ugly girl WILL cheat on you in this day and age, thanks to all of the social media and “body image” bullshit going on these days. Guys are hooking up with absolute slug beasts. Women know this, even the ugly ones.
    In that case, I’d say, go for the 10 if you land one and she meets all the other requirements. I think that they do exist still, in isolation. I know a 23 year old who is, outside of the religion question, everything required by Roosh. Sweetest girl you’ll ever meet and an easy 9 by anybody’s standards. Plus she has amazing breeder qualities about her (nice hips, large breasts, symmetry, perfect height-weight ratio, etc). She’s nearly an anomaly, but she’s out there.

    1. Competition anxiety. If you can offer her what she personally needs, she is bound to realize that quality goes over quantity.
      But I can see how a man unsure of himself would want dogma to keep her in line.

      2. Exactly, if you’ve been improving yourself for a few years you’re probably pretty good yourself.
        I know plain girls who get hundreds of messages on instagram and facebook, think they are beauty queens, even for an average girl there is plenty of competition.

    2. I agree. The 8 to 10s are, while possibly loose, very likely to be more loyal if you can be the man in their life. Why? The beauties HAVE SEEN IT ALL. The uglies only 1/2 that and never the top quality guys.
      When a beauty finds you, you may be her only real friend. Every girl will hate her and she very likely has no girl she can truly trust. They usually end up being friends with guys BECAUSE girls hate them so much.
      Can they still be attention whores? Absolutely. There is also a chance though that if she is SMART, she knows when to keep a good guy when she finds one.
      I think the key for me… is if her parents are still together. If you can find an 8 to 10 whose parents are still together and you meet them and like what you see… dudes… lock that bird down!

      2. Of course we know how things ended up for him… The problem is being a “lone nut” refusing to compromise. You need others to support you. One guy standing alone doesn’t do anything but make himself an outsider, but if he can convince just a few to join him… I respect the determination of Rorscharch but also understand the lesson of his end.

        2. But he did not die. His book was found and while just tossed aside, the TRUTH was sitting there, waiting to be rediscovered. THAT… is what Rorschach represented. Pure, uncompromising, truth.
          You can’t say “Oh, come on TRUTH, be reasonable. The TRUTH is to hard to be hard assed about. We have to compromise…”
          Every single person who compromises on the truth, is the reason the world is in the shape it is in.
          I remember reading a newspaper article years back on people who adhere to truth in all their relations. They usually don’t end up having any. No one.. NO ONE.. likes the truth. The truth is the SINGLE biggest reason the majority of the west is rejecting God, because God IS truth.
          When the west did not compromise on the truth, it flourished.
          Now, people running for President scream “What difference does IT make?” when confronted with the truth.
          Nobody liked Rorscharch… and he did not like many people… because truth is always rejected by those who have no love for it and who will compromise it when telling the truth counts the most.

        3. Interesting, where did you read that article? I can’t imagine any modern publication outside a religious one even wanting to consider that point of view.

        4. It was a number of years back in a local MSM rag newspaper. It was an article on a book review (maybe) or something like that on the topic of friends? (God I am getting old).
          All I remember though… is precisely what I recollected above that stood out.
          If you live your life for truth… and rarely, if ever compromise… you will have few friends. I think the reasoning behind this is that most people NEED others who DON’T tell them what they need to hear because it makes them feel accepted and liked.
          This is why the old adage of giving advice… must only be done with someone you have JUDGED to actually be capable of TAKING advise… i.e. of listening and accepting uncomfortable truths about themselves or their life.
          Even I am not immune to this. But, I know I am more open, and very thankful, when someone has the balls to say something that might offend me because they believe it is important for me to hear.
          See what I mean? How many times do you do this in your life? With family, friends, co-workers. You, on the outside, can CLEARLY see where they are fucking up (job, relationship, etc)… so you think you are HELPING them (cause that is how YOU would see it), by telling them something you think is obvious and would not offend you, but they flip out, scream you are an asshole, and never speak to you again!
          Tell the truth? No friends. Pretty simple equation that has not failed so far in my life.
          THAT said… you WILL get the reputation of the guy that WILL NOT BULLSHIT anyone. You will get people out of the blue asking you for advice BECAUSE they know you will give them the straight goods.
          It’s a hard and lonely path to walk, but the one thing that keeps me walking it is… with the truth… you can always put your head to your pillow and fall quickly and blissfully into deep sleep. I don’t know about you, but that is worth a lot to me.

        5. That’s some thought provoking stuff, and would actually make a good article here. Truth and authenticity. Ironically, one of the few people I can be fully truthful to is some women. Because I don’t give a shit about their opinions, their reactions, etc. An ex that I still hang out with socially told me that the other day, and I had never realized it. I have no filter, because I don’t care if I offend her or not. Surprisingly, it has not pushed her away, but then again I’m not really dishing her the info she needs to hear (Stop talking so much, learn to be a better kisser, lock a guy down now before you hit the wall, etc.) but generally just talking about tangential things or other people.
          Anyway, it gives me something to ponder. I’m not sure how truthful I would want to be with others, knowing that it would alienate and destroy friendships with them.

        6. She still wants you. Bank on it. If you two are talking with no filter… I don’t know your situation, but that is the BEST place to be with a woman long term.
          I have talked to too many divorced dudes and the number one lesson I took from all of them is never be afraid to speak whatever is on your mind. If you are walking on egg shells every time you walk in the door, your marriage is over.

  27. The problem with women is that they suffer from an inability to understand basic logic. Gather ’round y’all, Uncle Knee is gonna take you all for an interesting ride. I would like for you to think about Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories song Stay (I missed you) from the reality bites soundtrack, 1994/ Tails 1995).
    In it there is a lyric which I think is so perfectly indicative of modern women and their inability to function in a logical universe. She says “You say I only hear what I want to”
    So basically, what Lisa Loeb is saying here is that this whole fucking “language” and “logic” thing need to be abandoned. Allow me to elaborate.
    In 1905 Bertrand Russell wrote an essay in which he analyzed the sentence ‘The present king of France is bald’ asking whether this sentence could possibly be true or false given that there was (and is) no present king of France.
    It’s over a hundred years later and analytic philosophy still hasn’t decided whether the sentence is false (as Russell said), meaningless (as Frege and Strawson argue) or just a zazy quirk of the way we play with language (as Wittgenstein argues in the Philosophical Investigations).
    GIven that they can’t even agree on baldy up there, and even with the additional tools proved by the advancements of modal logic in the 1960’s there’s no way any of these exceedingly boring assholes could even BEGIN to deal with ‘You Say I only hear what I want to.”
    Even though my knowledge of analytic philosophy could be inscribed in crayon by a gorilla with Parkinson’s disease and still take up less space than a list of ROK’s future Pulitzer Prize winners, I think it is safe to say that there’s no possible way to determine whether that sentence could possibly be meaningful, much less what it might mean.
    Think about it for a second: if you said “you only hear what you want to” would you expect that person to hear you say it? Presumably they would only hear you if they wanted to hear that, and why would anyone want to hear that about themselves. So if you said it, you either don’t believe it and are kind of a dick, think they’re a masochist and are kind of a dick, or don’t expect them to hear it and are saying it for your own (kind of a dick) benefit.
    Now look at it from the other side: if you hear someone say this to you you’re either assuming it’s false, or you want to hear someone say it to you (presumably so you can whine to your cat about it later while walking or teleporting around your apartment alternating adorable and bunny-boiling manic). If the latter is true it’s entire possible you hallucinated it.
    So to sum up 1) If he said it it’s probably false 2) If he didn’t say it it’s probably true, but 3) we’d have no way of knowing 4) if he said it he probably didn’t believe it 5) if he believed it he probably wouldn’t have said it and 6) if it’s true there’s no way to tell if he said it at all.
    All of this from “you say I only hear what I want to” Gentleman, this is the way women think. They have no ability to recognize logic. They may be soft and smooth and fun to touch and have voices like music, but never, ever, ever try to apply logic your interactions with them. They will not follow logical rules. The only thing you can do is either enjoy them and let them pass or possess and own them and use a significant amount of energy to continually train them for the rest of your lives.

      1. A fairly well reasoned argument that women have no capacity for logic and advice to not try to superimpose logic on them in your interactions with a little trip down the history of analytic philosophy. I am actually quite proud of this one

        1. Huh. Your reasoning went right above my head, but I agree with your conclusion. Does that make me illogical?
          Can you logically prove illogicality?

        2. I think I just did. That song lyric “you say I only hear what I want to” shows an insight into the (lack of) logic women operate on

        3. On the other hand, it could simply mean that she’s saying that somebody said the words “You only hear what you want to”. And nothing more.
          Think of it. How much of our casual conversation actually “means” anything? A lot of it is just small-talkish bonding and expression of emotion that, by chance, uses real words.

        4. But this isn’t casual conversation. These are song lyrics that she presumably put time, effort and thought into writing.

        6. I think the line is perfectly indictive of the logic (or lack therof) in the female mind and that in the mid 90’s there was a lyrics driven movement of girls that lisa loeb was part of…

        7. Checked out the song. I have to say I am amazed. The sound design of it so totally resembles another artist that I know. Check it out:

          So much for creativity.
          By the way, I think that considering your analysis, this is the correct interpretation, as you have propositioned:
          – He noticed that she hears what she wants to hear.
          – He told her.
          – She used it to write a poor me song about it. Which is why she wanted to hear that particular sentence.

        8. agreed that it was faux creativity, but being all artsy was kind of the zeitgeist of the mid 90’s. It isn’t so much the details of the song that were important. It was that applying basic logic to things that women think are “deep” will reveal that their very basic existence in the world is not one which is grounded in the logical so any attempt to apply logic to a woman’s actions or thoughts will always end in failure.

    2. I agree with you……..and I don’t even know what in the hell you said.

    4. I cant believe you referenced Lisa Loeb and Bertrand Russell in the same post. Outstanding

  28. Being an older dog, hopefully I can pass along a solid tip or two in this regard. There is indeed another way to skin this particular cat – marry a woman who loves you from afar, and isn’t even on your WB radar. If you are a man who is worth his salt, you’ll already have a couple of these who are waiting patiently in the wings. That’s who you should marry, if you want to start a family, not the hypergamous hot girl. She might even be a 6 – but that’s not the point. A woman who loves you from afar will fight for you, kill for you, and watch your back 24/7. She will do whatever is required of her, to make your life better – but you won’t even have to ask her to do these things, because she will have already dreamed about doing them. You can even have a couple of sidepieces and she will never rock the boat. This will allow you to focus on your own personal business, and not have your head filled with doubts and paranoia, as you wonder if that 8 you wifed-up is banging all of your friends. This is about playing the percentages in order to give yourself the best chance at happiness, and nothing more. It’s better to be loved, anyway, than to love another. Have your fun and bang a bunch of girls out before you decide to get serious, but when you start getting serious, always go for the woman who loves you from afar. In the end, doing it any other way is masochistic.

      1. Absolutely. But they exist. And they don’t get snapped up by alphas. Reverse psychology – or is that suckology. Same difference.

    2. What if the women who love you from afar are all usually 8+? I’m actually semi-not-kidding asking that.

      1. I’d personally still go 7 or less. The actual “tell” would be if they flat-out throw their pride away and tell you to your face at some point that they have always been in love with you. That’s the chick I would snap up if I were a younger guy.

        1. I let a 9.5 I grew up with go when I was younger, despite spending a lot of time with her when I got out of basic being “more than friends”. She literally told me how much she loved me almost near the beginning of us being an “item”. Keep in mind, again, we grew up together so it wasn’t Crazy Chick Insta Love, we had a lot of history together. I wasn’t quite as savvy as I am now about that kind of thing, or I would have taken her up on going further down that path (snapping her up, as you say).
          I still see her from time to time, she’s my age and clearly way passed the time when she was “all that” but she’s aged gracefully and is still very beautiful, has two lovely children, a nice blue collar traditional male husband and is a staunch right-wing pre-Vatican II type Catholic (if the Mass is not in Latin she wants nothing to do with it).
          Reflecting on one’s choices in life is always an interesting thing to me. What could have been, but wasn’t, what lead to those decisions and so forth.

        3. Heh, I didn’t mean it that way. I should have hyphenated it. “Traditional-male” was what I was shooting for, iow, old school.

        5. Yeah, ok. Look, you get what you pay for with my posts. Heh.

Comments are closed.