At Return of Kings we have often been accused of promoting slut-shaming. But what if, as we here have long known, the lion’s share of distaste for easy women rests not among males, but within the seedy underbelly of the female psyche? Recent research suggests that female animosity toward promiscuous women is not due to any “oppressive patriarchy,” but rather an ingrained competition mechanism that has developed over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.
The New York Times reports on a study at McMaster University that was designed to test female reaction to perceived sexual competition. The experimenters had a hot blonde lab assistant enter a room and ask for directions, and then filmed female reactions to the confederate after she left. When the girl (who was highly attractive in either case) was wearing conservative clothing, she received almost no negative reaction. When she was dressed in a short skirt and low-cut top, however, the female hater parade ran strong with subjects making comments about her clothing, chastity, etc. From the article:
“Now that researchers have been looking more closely, they say that this “intrasexual competition” is the most important factor explaining the pressures that young women feel to meet standards of sexual conduct and physical appearance.”
ROK readers yawned, but society at large recoiled in horror. Though we often hear the tired canards of “male chauvinism” or “media emphasizing unrealistic body image or sexual expectations” as explanation for slut-shaming, behind closed doors this impulse exists independent of any male influence. Despite the shrieking of feminists to the contrary, it is the female’s innate drive to compete with her peers for high value males. There is delicious irony in the fact that women were enraged at Tuthmosis’s slut tell list and invented any reason to dismiss his points, but in private they are adept at recognizing and reacting to the very same cues he simply pointed out.
Anyone who has observed the backstabbing and subtle aggression in female social groups has seen this scenario unfold firsthand, but this study provides evidence that, in a microeconomic sense, women are predisposed to undermine other women who allow easy access to their sexuality.
“Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”
This is a perfect example of a Prisoner’s Dilemma, the classic behavioral economics paradigm. The fictional parameters of this game are as follows: two gang members are accused of a crime, arrested, and put into solitary confinement. To gather evidence, the police attempt to get each suspect to betray the other and offer evidence against his partner. If both suspects cooperate with each other and stay silent, they both get reduced sentences. If both betray each other, they both receive a moderate prison sentence. If one cooperates and one betrays, the cooperator gets a full prison sentence and the defector goes free. They cannot communicate with each other. How should each suspect behave?
The fascinating thing is that, even if they can communicate, in both cases each suspect’s best move is to betray his compatriot. If he knows the friend is going to betray him, he gets a lesser sentence by also betraying. If he knows the friend is staying silent, he goes free if he betrays him.
In the case of female social groups, the “betraying” is offering one’s sexuality at little cost (sluttiness), and “cooperating” is remaining chaste and limiting the supply of easy sex. Female sexuality is undeniably valuable in any society—if women limit its supply, they maximize the gender’s overall ability to keep male behavior in check and promote their reproductive aims of finding high-value men. If an individual woman defects from this tacit agreement, though, she has access to more high-value males because of her willingness to engage in quicker sex. If they all defect, you witness a free-for-all of devalued sex and emotional backstabbing. Enter modern western culture.
Women innately understand that their compatriots are going to outcompete them if they offer quicker sex. Despite society’s macro message supporting unrestricted female sexuality via slut walks, easily available contraception, and the “You can have it all” Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks dichotomy, at a micro level women will still punish defection with non-violent measures like passive aggressive pressure, withholding of approval, and exclusion from social groups. This happens regardless of the closeness of their relationship. The interesting part is that it is in a female’s rational self-interest to enforce cooperation in other women while they themselves secretly defect. We see this played out when girls will call their friends sluts for actions that they themselves have participated in in the recent past.
We live in a society where the male contribution to slut-shaming is light in comparison, and only in the context of the increasingly poor choice of long-term commitment. The male role in slut-shaming is further muted by a media and culture that has imbued them with the sense of learned helplessness at assessing the meaning of a female’s sexual past. After all, it doesn’t matter how many partners she had before you! Evaluate her on her actions now and forgive her follies of youth! The majority of men have taken this rubbish to heart.
Make no mistake — the true reason for outrage at Tuthmosis’s slut tells list is that identifying the defectors punches holes in the “You cooperate, I defect” best-fit strategy of modern women. The existence and identifiability of promiscuous women makes the cooperation they strive to enforce in others more difficult to achieve and reduces the mate-getting value of their individual sexual availability. Despite modernist teeth-gnashing to the contrary, science often shows us that we ultimately remain subject to the innate psychological schemas of our evolutionary biology.
Read More: So What If She’s A Slut?
Terrific read, and good find on the research study. All social outcry and infantile tantrums aside, science proves once again that those who argue with nothing but opinion and emotion are just spinning their wheels.
This goes right along with how women feed off of perpetuating drama and hypocritical in-gender shaming. How many of you have taken part in, or even just overheard a couple of hens squawking about how “so-and-so is such a slut!” – women will pull the slut card when they see another girl walking on the street with a nice frame wearing yoga pants. It’s unreal.
It is for the same reason feminists won’t let prostitution become legalized. It undermines their power and creates competition. Something most women abhor. Nice observation of a real-life game theoretical application BTW.
Before women could vote, prostitution was accepted in the US. Brothels were common.
As they say, the first two things to go after women got the right to vote: alcohol and brothels.
Wow, none of this is true. Please don’t sit here and rewrite history in order to support your agenda. Only during prohibition — when all manner of seedy establishments were merely tolerated provided they served liquor — could one argue brothels were ‘accepted’.
Other than that, there has NEVER been a period before or since that they were accepted or common. The passage of the 19th amendment has no bearing on the prevalence or attitudes toward brothels. The argument against them has always been a heath moral or often religious one.
From antiquity to the early 20th century when it was MEN who made the laws and rules, prostitution was never widely accepted. In fact, in many countries prostitutes were ordered — BY LAW — to dress a certain way or color, live in certain districts apart from “decent people”, etc. Your argument would have more merit had the opposite been the case and America (and elsewhere) had been some sort of sexual free for all until women got the vote.
“Colonial-era brothels did not hang out shingles or post flyers, but a would-be patron could learn about their services in a tavern or from his shipmates. Despite Mather’s early efforts, there was no systematic attempt to close the urban brothels. Men were almost never prosecuted for soliciting a prostitute, and the prostitutes themselves were only occasionally brought before a judge. When government officials did order a raid, the police didn’t always cooperate. Many police officers protected the brothels in exchange for money, food, or other payments. Working-class neighbors, irritated by official inaction, would periodically riot and burn down a brothel.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/03/were_there_sex_shops_in_the_time_of_george_washington.html
“From antiquity to the early 20th century when it was MEN who made the laws and rules, prostitution was never widely accepted.”
It wasn’t men — it was religious nuts. And in antiquity, escorts plied their trade in the holy temples.
So because they were religous nuts they weren’t men? In Victorian England, when prostitution was rampant there still wasn’t a wide-scale tolorence of brothels until some fanatical women came along as you imply. Yes, in the American West there were Salons, in in europe there were bordellos, etc no one is saying they didn’t exist but they certainly weren’t celebrated establishments on every street corner.
And then you have men who were as vocal about spewing anti-prostitution
propaganda as any woman dare dream, though rather hypocritically, many
were propagandists by day and patrons by night.
If anything prostitution is the most tolerated it has ever been in history except for a brief period on the middle ages to the point it is often glamorized. Hell, the Moonlight Bunny Ranch had its own show on HBO, sex tourism is a widely accepted and acknowledged practice today.
For the record, I’m a woman and ALL FOR legalizing prostitution as I’ve always found it silly two people can’t exchange sex for money or goods privately but with a cameraman and a set, it’s perfectly legal and called “pornography”.
In some countries like Iceland and I think other scandinavian countries, laws have been passed to criminalize prostitutes’ clients, but not the clients themselves. In other words if you go to a prostitute, she commits no crime but you can be arrested if caught. Can the war against men get any more slimy?
Feminists hate studies like this because they re-affirm two eternal truths: 1) that female behavior and aggression is motivated by access to (desirable) men, and 2) that women are wired to view sex as a resource to be exchanged for value (ie, money, emotional investment, paternal investment, etc). I can’t think of any two ideas that are more damaging to the feminist lies we’ve had rammed down our throats the past 50 years.
Turns out we don’t even need to bring the red pill to the mainstream—all we need to do is sit back and let fair and impartial researchers do their work. And the truth will out.
“that women are wired to view sex as a resource to be exchanged for value (ie, money, emotional investment, paternal investment, etc).”
This is a truth no one wants to discuss (especially married folks).
Whenever I hear of an escort being prosecuted, I wonder: what woman gives it for free?
A worthless woman.
Giving free sex doesn’t make a woman worthless. It means she likes pleasure. Nothing wrong with that.
You said it yourself.
Supply and demand.
Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Chaste virgins who snag an alpha for a husband and worker for life is much smarter than a career skank who has to stressfully work and eventually die forever alone with her army of cats.
It’s the societal double standard that will never change. Sluts are great for sexual experience, but make terrible monogamous wives.
I meant worthless as a long term commitment prospect.
Long term commitments rarely work anyway. And of those who do stay together do so only by cauterizing their natural desires and few of them are happy.
“Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?”
I agree. Which is why you shouldn’t pay for it. Sexual liberation of women and birth control means sexual liberation for men. I get casual sex today because of it. Today, I don’t have to marry or go to a prostitute for sex or (what was common in the old days) nail married women (married women were free to have promiscuous sex on the sly because the child would be attributed to the husband).
“It means she likes pleasure.”
That’s too easy an explanation, brother. From what I’ve experienced, women who really lack control when it comes to giving it up are doing one of three things:
1) using easy sex as bait for the hook to force a romantic relationship with a high value man, or otherwise try to control him for her purposes, (attention, money);
2) using easy sex as narcissistic supply, where she’s using sex with high value men to, in reality, masturbate, where the quality of man reinforces her belief in the value of her performed persona, (ie. this hot guy wants me, therefore, i’m a hot girl);
3) using sexual pleasure as a coping mechanism for her unhappiness, the way fat girls have an unhealthy emotional-relationship to food and eat when they’re unhappy. Some girls fuck to be used and degraded to reinforce their own self-hatred.
None of these girls are going to bring quality to a man’s life. They’re emotionally-toxic. Don’t be thirsty enough that you to put up with it.
LOL!! I AGREE! At least an escort will actually get $ out of the deal… An idiot, “bad ass” chick, will suck one in the bar bathroom if the guy is “hot” enough.. But that same chick will put DOWN any one who would do it for $$ … lol!
Again liberals believe the “free lunch” myth and zero sum game myth.
You pay through opportunity cost. Instead of that date, you could be making more money, learning something more useful that will increase your sexual market value to get a hotter sexier chick later.
Actually you’re wrong about married women. Back in the old days there was at fault divorces, hence the woman risked losing everything.
Yup that’s today.. once you’re in your 80s and need the little blue pill to satisfy that low sex drive. You’ll have other priorities like facing mortality and leaving a legacy, which most can be only overcome through family.
Oh well with name like beautiful logos, you prob think you’re God.
Even if liberals did believe in “the ‘free lunch’ myth and zero sum game myth, it would still remain a fact that women’s liberation and birth control liberated men too.
“Actually you’re wrong about married women. Back in the old days there was at fault divorces, hence the woman risked losing everything.”
Don’t be naive. Cheating has been going on since the beginning of time — otherwise, we never would have evolved with the strong urge to cheat.
“Oh well with name like beautiful logos, you prob think you’re God.”
It’s beautiful reason — and I know I’m a god.
You are not a god
Aristotle said that man is a social animal. (In other words, man creates families, cities, concerts and other fabulous things.)
But what if one becomes extremely individualized? By individualization, I mean cutting off one’s family, mocking Nature, and marching to the drums of rhetoric from quacks. Aristotle answered that such highly individualized beings are either gods or beasts. (Keep in mind that in Aristotle’s time, the Greek gods were the religion.)
Arrogance of the soul is the cause of disasters such as feminism. Many women literally believe they are ‘goddesses’. Like an ancient Greek god, they believe they are above Nature itself. “I will do all these wonderful things!” she says, which the ‘wonderful’ usually means a new pair of shoes, a bigger house, and a more glitzy car. She believes she is ‘beyond’ the gender known as ‘female’. “I am a strong woman,” she proclaims. “I write worthless poetry and dream of an empty glamourous life.” (OK, she doesn’t say ‘worthless’ and ’empy’, I couldn’t resist typing that in). She literally lives her a life in the World of Image, trapped within Maya.
Men, trapped in the Matriarchy (i.e. the Maya), fall under a similiar spell. As their soul becomes arrogant, they become more deluded, more easily fooled by the images. They imagine themselves gods with their notches to their bedpost, working a grand career, or some other materialistic trapping.
I tell them, “You are not a god.” This, they protest. “I too am a god,” they proclaim. “See how wonderful I am?” They may or may not have worshippers. This may explain why many people (especially women) worship celebrities as, to them, they appear like gods. They are the center of the swirling storm, the spinning disc of Maya (the illusion).
And no, I am not trying to be funny. People literally think they are gods and goddesses. If a religion is not what they desire, they can easily re-write it so they become god-like in it (one of the reasons why people, especially women, love the occult and trash like the Da Vinci Code).
But if Aristotle is correct, then the other swing is the beast. These self-seen gods and goddesses are, actually, nothing more than beasts. You think you have a ‘grand career’? No, your purpose is to make the owners rich. You think you are the star of the world just because you have a ‘wife’? Or have you actually become a beast of burden? We work hard and then play harder.
All manipulators are armed with descendant fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Get *that* girl or *that* career and you will have paradise on Earth. Whenever we see ourselves as invincible and god-like, we have a veil so tight around our eyes that we cannot see the truth… that we were acting like beasts.
The only way to be free from being Human is to become a god or to become a beast. Let this be a reality check, you will never become a god. People will often attempt to trick you into thinking of how ‘wonderful’ you are, but this is so they can use you as a beast of burden.
The Matriarchy is about one promise: freeing us from being Human. To females, it promises them freedom from being a woman. To men, it promises freedom from being a man. To glorify this promise, there are exciting images to see from movies and television, many dumbed down books and universities to let people have the image of being smart, and the ever present image of materialism promised by an endless parade of commercials.
To ask your soul to become free of being a Human is like asking a fish to become free of water. You might as well ask the birds to be free from the air or squirrels to be free from trees.
Freedom is only found in embracing your humanity. For a matriarchial female, she will find happiness and a content soul only in becoming a woman. For a feminized male, he will find happiness and content only in becoming a man.
So this is a friendly post from your neighborly Pook to remind you that, “Yes Virginia! I am not a god! I am, instead, like an actor on a stage of Nature. So farewell folly-filled pompousness that had me thought I would become god-like in image, influence, and intelligence.” You nod to the stage director, “His name is Time, and he, alone, determines when the play will end. But what I do on this stage is up to me.”
‘But Pook! Where are those arrogant ones on the stage?’ Friend, they are TOO CHICKEN to come onto the stage of Nature, Life’s Play, and act. They live out their narcissism in their bizzaro-world of illusions and never become who they are. So no matter how much you stumble up there on that stage, you are taking real steps in life while the fools take false ones.
I’ve known quite a few women who simply like to have sex
You’re very emotional and quite imaginative.
Check out the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle describes what a man becomes when he philosophizes. You’re not going to like it.
You’re very emotional and quite imaginative.
Check out the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle describes what a man becomes when he philosophizes. You’re not going to like it.
It’s not always that convoluted. Some women just like sex. Radical concept, eh?
It’s not always that convoluted. Some women just like sex. Radical concept, eh?
Are you still pretending you’re special and have a special connection to God?
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
“To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” Deut. 32:35
Stop pretending you have special magic powers to decipher the meaning of that text.
Let me ask you this: when you pray do you speak to God as if He’s a child?
When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God because God’s messengers (Angels) and the Holy Spirit which dwells in each believer will understand, translate and communicate on behalf of the individual.
There are several factors that sometimes make the Bible hard to understand. First, there is a time and culture difference. Depending on what part of the Bible you are studying, there is between 3400 and 1900 years between when the Bible was written and us today. The culture in which the Bible was written was very different from most of the cultures that exist today. The actions of nomadic shepherds in 1800 B.C. in the Middle East often do not make much sense to computer programmers in 21st-century America. It is crucially important that, when trying to understand the Bible, we remove the 21st-century “lenses” we have and try to recognize the culture in which the Bible was written.
Second, there is the fact that the Bible contains different types of literature. The Bible contains history, law, poetry, songs, wisdom literature, prophecy, personal letters, and apocalyptic literature. Historical literature must be interpreted differently from wisdom literature. Poetry cannot be understood in the same way as apocalyptic writings. A personal letter, while having meaning for us today, may not have the exact application to us as it did to the person(s) to whom it was written. Recognizing the fact that the Bible contains different genres is key in avoiding confusion and misunderstanding.
Third, we are all sinners; we all make mistakes (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8). As much as we strive not to read our preconceived biases into the Bible, it is inevitable that we all occasionally do so. Sadly, at some point everyone misinterprets a Scripture due to a presupposed understanding of what a particular Scripture can or cannot mean. When we study the Bible, we must ask God to remove the biases from our minds and help us interpret His Word apart from our presuppositions. This is often a difficult step to take, as admitting presuppositions requires humility and a willingness to admit mistakes.
By no means are the three steps outlined above all that is needed to properly understand the Bible. Entire books have been written on how to interpret the Bible. Biblical hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. However, the three steps above are an excellent start in how to understand the Bible. We must recognize the cultural differences between ourselves and the people in Bible times. The different genres of literature must be taken into account. We must strive to allow the Bible to speak for itself, not allowing our presuppositions to determine the interpretation.
Trying to understand the Bible can sometimes be a difficult task, but with God’s help, it is possible. Remember, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, God’s Spirit indwells you (Romans 8:9). The same God who “breathed out” Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), is the same God who indwells you and will open your mind to the truth and understanding of His Word if you rely on Him. This is not to say that God will always make it easy. God desires us to search His Word and to fully explore its treasures. Understanding the Bible is not always easy, but it is always eminently rewarding.
You think you can understand 66 books written by 44 writers over night?
We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a soldier seeks to understand a dispatch from his commander. Obeying God’s commands brings honor to Him and guides us in the way of life (Psalm 119). Those commands are found in the Bible (John 14:15).
We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a mechanic seeks to understand a repair manual. Things go wrong in this world, and the Bible not only diagnoses the problem (sin) but also points out the solution (faith in Christ). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).
We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a driver seeks to understand traffic signals. The Bible gives us guidance through life, showing us the road of safety and wisdom (Psalm 119:11, 105).
We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason someone in the path of a storm seeks to understand the weather report. The Bible predicts what the end times will be like, sounding a clear warning of impending judgment (Matthew 24-25) and how to avoid it (Romans 8:1).
We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason an avid reader seeks to understand his favorite author’s books. The Bible reveals to us the person and glory of God, as expressed in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18). The more we read and understand the Bible, the more intimately we know the Author.
As Philip was traveling to Gaza, the Holy Spirit led him to a man who was reading a portion of Isaiah. Philip approached the man, saw what he was reading, and asked this very important question: “Do you understand what you are reading?” (Acts 8:30). Philip knew that understanding was the starting point for faith. Without understanding the Bible, we cannot apply it, obey it, or believe it.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
“When a Christian prays their prayers are heard by God ”
You have no idea what God hears. You’re guessing.
Perhaps you should comprehend what you profess to have read.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2009/10/nichomanchean-game.html
“Is there evidence that God answers prayer?”
Answer: Countless stories could be cited of diseases cured, exams passed, repentance and forgiveness granted, relationships restored, hungry children fed, bills paid and lives and souls saved through the efficacy of prayer. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence that God answers prayer. Most of the evidence is anecdotal and personal, however, and that bothers many who think of “evidence” only as that which is observable, measureable, and reproducible.
Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are answered. James 5:16 states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Jesus taught His disciples that “if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). First John 3:22 echoes this truth, saying that we “receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.”
Scripture, moreover, is replete with stories of answered prayer. Elijah’s prayer for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:12), Hezekiah’s prayer for deliverance (2 Kings 19:19), and the apostles’ prayer for boldness (Acts 4:29) are just three examples. Since these accounts were written by eyewitnesses to the events, they constitute clear evidence of answered prayer. One might, of course, counter that Scripture does not present observable evidence in the “scientific” sense. However, no statement of Scripture has ever been conclusively disproved, so there is no reason to doubt its testimony. In fact, labeling some kinds of evidence as “scientific” and other kinds as “non-scientific” is a fuzzy and artificial distinction at best. Such a distinction can only be made a priori, i.e., prior to the evaluation of the data. In other words, the choice to evaluate the efficacy of prayer only in light of observable evidence is not a choice motivated by the data but by prior philosophical commitments. When this arbitrary restriction is relaxed, the biblical data speaks clearly for itself.
Occasionally, a group of researchers will conduct a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer. Their findings are usually that prayer has no effect (or possibly even a negative effect) on, for instance, the average recovery time of people in medical care. How are we to understand the results of studies such as these? Are there any biblical reasons for unanswered prayer?
Psalm 66:18 says, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (NASB). Likewise, 1 John 5:15 qualifies our receiving “anything we ask” with our obedience to God’s commands. James notes that “when you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (4:3). So, a couple reasons for unanswered prayer are unconfessed sin and wrong motivations.
Another reason for unanswered prayer is lack of faith: “When you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6-7). Hebrews 11:6 also identifies faith as a necessary condition for a relationship with God, something always mediated by prayer in the name of Christ: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Faith, then, is necessary for answered prayer.
Finally, some critics of Christianity make the case that, since Jesus instructs His disciples to “ask whatever you wish,” all prayers should be answered. However, such criticisms completely ignore the conditions to the promise in the first part of the verse: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you.” This is clearly a prescription for praying within the will of God; in other words, genuine prayer which God always answers is, in fact, that sort which requests, explicitly or implicitly, that God’s will be accomplished. The will of the petitioner is secondary. Jesus Himself prayed this way in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42). The humble prayer of faith allows that the prayer may be answered with a “no”; anyone not offering such a prayer—anyone who demands to be answered—has no right to expect an answer.
Another reason why so many studies report the inefficacy of prayer is that it is impossible to eliminate the variables associated with the spiritual condition of those praying (is the petitioner even a believer?), the motivation for which they offer the prayer (is it to provide evidence or because the Holy Spirit has moved them to pray?), the way in which they offer their prayer (are they praying a formulaic expression or intentionally bringing requests to God?), and so on.
Even if all such lurking variables could be eliminated, one overarching problem would remain: if prayer could be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. We cannot “discover” God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
Does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer.
Next time you get sick, don’t go to the doctor and pray. Next time your child gets sick, don’t take him to the doctor. Take him to church.
I’ve never been so sick that I’ve had to visit a doctor.
Question: “Why does God allow sickness?”
Answer: The issue of sickness is always a difficult one to deal with. The key is remembering that God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:9). When we are suffering with a sickness, disease, or injury, we usually focus solely on our own suffering. In the midst of a trial of sickness, it is very difficult to focus on what good God might bring about as a result. Romans 8:28 reminds us that God can bring about good from any situation. Many people look back on times of sickness as times when they grew closer to God, learned to trust Him more, and/or learned how to truly value life. This is the perspective God has because He is sovereign and knows the end result.
This does not mean sickness is always from God or that God always inflicts us with sickness to teach us a spiritual lesson. In a world tainted by sin, sickness, disease, and death will always be with us. We are fallen beings, with physical bodies prone to disease and illness. Some sickness is simply a result of the natural course of things in this world. Sickness can also be the result of a demonic attack. The Bible describes several instances when physical suffering was caused by Satan and his demons (Matthew 17:14-18; Luke 13:10-16). So, some sickness is not from God, but from Satan. Even in these instances, God is still in control. God sometimes allows sin and/or Satan to cause physical suffering. Even when sickness is not directly from God, He will still use it according to His perfect will.
It is undeniable, though, that God sometimes intentionally allows, or even causes sickness to accomplish His sovereign purposes. While sickness is not directly addressed in the passage, Hebrews 12:5-11 describes God disciplining us to “produce a harvest of righteousness” (verse 11). Sickness can be a means of God’s loving discipline. It is difficult for us to comprehend why God would work in this manner. But, believing in the sovereignty of God, there is no other option than suffering being something God allows and/or causes.
The clearest example of this in Scripture is found is Psalm 119. Notice the progression through verses 67, 71, and 75 – “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word…It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees…I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me.” The author of Psalm 119 was looking at suffering from God’s perspective. It was good for him to be afflicted. It was faithfulness that caused God to afflict him. The result of the affliction was so that he could learn God’s decrees and obey His Word.
Again, sickness and suffering is never an easy thing to deal with. One thing is for sure, sickness should not cause us to lose faith in God. God is good, even when we are suffering. Even the ultimate of suffering—death—is an act of God’s goodness. It is hard to imagine that anyone who is in Heaven as a result of sickness or suffering regrets what they went through in this life.
One final note—when people are suffering, it is our responsibility to minister to them, care for them, pray for them, and comfort them. When a person is suffering, it is not always appropriate to emphasize that God will bring good out of the suffering. Yes, that is the truth. However, in the midst of suffering, it is not always the best time to share that truth. Suffering people need our love and encouragement, not necessarily a reminder of sound biblical theology.
Part II:
Question: “Is it sometimes God’s will for believers to be sick?”
Answer: The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God states that God is almighty over all. He is in complete control of all things—past, present and future—and nothing happens that is out of His jurisdiction. Either He directly causes—or He passively allows—everything that happens. But allowing something to happen and causing something to happen are two different things. For example, God caused the creation of the perfect, sinless Adam and Eve; then He allowed them to rebel against Him. He did not cause them to sin, and He certainly could have stopped them, but He chose not to for His own purposes and to bring about His perfect plan. That rebellion brought about all manner of evil, evil that was not caused by God but which was allowed by Him to exist.
Sickness is one manifestation of the two broad types of evil—moral and natural. Moral evil is man’s inhumanity to man. Natural evil is composed of things like natural disasters and physical sickness. Evil itself is a perversion or corruption of something that was originally good, but is now missing something. In the case of sickness, illness is a state where good health is missing. The Greek word for evil, ponerous, actually implies a malignancy, something that is corrupting a good and healthy state of being.
When Adam sinned, he condemned all of humanity to suffer the consequences of that sin, one of which is sickness. Romans 8:20-22 says, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” God—the “one who subjected” the creation to frustration following the Fall—has a plan to eventually liberate creation from its bondage to sin, just as He liberates us from that bondage through Christ.
Until that day, God uses sickness and other evils to bring about His sovereign purpose, to glorify Himself, and to exalt His holy name. At times, He miraculously heals sickness. Jesus went through Israel healing all manner of sickness and disease (Matthew 4:23) and even raised Lazurus from the dead after illness killed him. At other times, God uses sickness as a method of discipline or as a judgment against sin. King Uzziah in the Old Testament was struck with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:19-20). Nebuchadnezzar was driven to madness by God until he came to understand that “the Most High rules in the affairs of men” (Daniel 4). Herod was struck down and eaten by worms because he took God’s glory upon himself (Acts 12:21-23). There is even at least one case where God allowed disease—blindness—not as punishment for sin, but to reveal Himself and His mighty works through that blindness (John 9:1-3).
When illness does come, it may not be the result of God’s direct intervention in our lives, but is rather the result of the fallen world, fallen bodies, and poor health and lifestyle choices. And although there are scriptural indicators that God wants us to be in good health, (3 John 2), all sickness and disease are allowed by Him for His purposes, whether we understand them or not.
Sickness is certainly the result of the fall of man into sin, but God is very much in control, and He does indeed determine how far evil can go (just as He did with Satan and Job’s trials—Satan was not allowed to exceed those boundaries). He tells us He is all-powerful over fifty times in the Bible, and it is amazing to see how His sovereignty unites with the choices we make (both bad and good) to work out His perfect plan (Romans 8:28).
For those who are believers and suffering with sickness, illness, and/or disease in this life, the knowledge that they can glorify God through their suffering tempers the uncertainty as to why He has allowed it, something they may not truly understand until they stand in His presence in eternity. At that time, all questions will be answered, or perhaps more accurately, we will no longer care about the questions themselves.
We get it. You think you have a special magic connection to God. You think you’re special.
Genesis was not literally true. The Torah does not depict history.
“I’ve never been so sick that I’ve had to visit a doctor.”
But when you or your child get that sick, don’t go to a doctor. Go to church and pray — and if you don’t, it means you don’t believe what you’re saying right now.
I addressed those arguments in the reply, but since you’re so sensitive you can’t seem to comprehend logic and fail at reading comprehension
You must be a woman, homosexual or an effeminate to resort to hysterics and do the mental gymnastics that you do.
You should look up cognitive dissonance, denial and reaction formation.
“but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy.” 2 Chronicles 36:16
“He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” Proverbs 29:1
“You must be a woman, homosexual or an effeminate”
I call that the Little Boy in the Sandbox argument in which a little boy thumps his chest and calls his opponent a girl.
It’s also the genetic fallacy. Even if I were a woman, gay, or effeminate, I would still be right and you would still be deluded and wrong.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html
Right on what?
Me getting all the ladies? lozlzlzlzl
Libtards like you are slimier than an eel covered in Ky jelly, but you probably like that. Trying to intellectually justify every sin & debating using Hegelian dialectic.
Enjoy your existence as an animal and brute. The civilized society mocks your ignorance and loser philosophy and lifestyle.
I already figured out that “Kalos” was a woman a week or so ago. Sheesh, we get rid of Mint Chocolate Cjip and we get Kalos and The Bible Thumper. We cant win.
So you are a Jewish female?
So you’re a 12 year old little boy calling a man a girl?
Civilized society? You’re an uneducated moron and you attempt to make up for it by pretending to know things of the after-world.
Leave the big questions to the big boys and go back to your clock-punching job, your steel-toe boots, your cheap beer, and your meager animal existence.
3) It sticks the shiv right into the heart of the feminist narrative of universal female solidarity.
Feminists love to hide behind the false notion that they speak for all women; that an attack on their ideology is an attack on all women everywhere.
This in spite of the fact that only around 20% of women identify as a feminist.
Although I understand the very nice analogy to the prisoners’ dilemma, the real issue is that women are not even aware of the real game: that they could choose to not be a prisoner, but a free woman.
They hate sluts who giving pussy easily, because that makes the game of manipulating men harder. The key word here is MANIPULATION. They are “never” interested in providing actual value to us. Their only goal is to keep us nice and henpecked for as long as possible, so they can suck us dry of all our money and energy. They are like this because they provide no value to men besides sex, which makes them completely interchangeable once a man knows game. They claim high and loud: “I don’t need a man!” Well, we’re fine without them too. There’s the door.
The few feminine wholesome women who actually can provide value to a man’s life do not have to play this cheap zero-sum game. They have their choice of commitment from many high value men.
Only way to do it is to kill.
I’m about Free Speech, following the Rule of Law and Due Process from our Western constitutional heritages, and I’m pretty sure this site is too. Go troll others with the Muslim fanaticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone)
Spot the fuck on dude. And a feminine wholesome woman should be concerned with only a few things. Sexually pleasing her husband at all times, cleaning and cooking, caring for the children, and obeying him. Even a moderately attractive woman who does those things is valuable. Only a woman like this could be worth the time,effort, and money of a “relationship.” If a man does not have a woman like this he should stick to running a harem, building his body and wealth, and focus on his personal ambitions.
Yeah you can add sexually pleasing her husband at all times in big gold letters to the top of the list… a cleaner, housekeeper, cook i can always hire, or buy ready made food… kids can go to day care or have a nanny…… but SEX is quick, free, healthy and simple for a married couple….. how many divorces would be stopped if she would just do a few more handjobs in the shower… it’s less work than all the other crap she mindlessly consumes her time with….
Here in lies the problem in marriages… women are trained from a young age to withhold sex…. but in a marriage they need to be more active than a mega brothel at happy hour…..
Every row, every bad day, money worries, stresses etc. can all be resolved if she’s just bend over or get down on her knees… it really is that simple….
If you had a girl friend that fucked like a porn star everynight, every morning and hit you up for a lunch time one as well… you’d slap that ring on her finger and wine and dine her until she was old and grey and all used up.
Some women could provide all the sex her man ever asks for (and MORE) yet in return still get cheated on because he’s “bored”. It’s as simple as that. Despite how many shower handjobs, afternoon blowjobs or threesomes (which, REALLY? I’m not down for that) she offers, in the end, she will have the same few holes she’s always had and after a while, they get boring.
I am IN NO WAY advocating withholding sex however, lets not sit here and pretend all a woman ever has to do is find a decent guy, spread her legs for him on a regular basis and he’ll treat her right in the long term.
Stepford wives don’t exist — or do they? Dream on, man.
Actually, what is pejoratively dismissed as “stepford wives” was just basic human social organization for about 10,000 years in most parts of the world. Secondly, if a woman is NOT providing this to a man she is not worth committing to. If you are a high value man with money and game commitment is a colossal scam. Simply use women as pump and dumps. Never spend a penny on them and use them only for sex unless they wholeheartedly agree to the “stepford wives” program.
My comment is aptly descriptive, not pejorative. Good luck finding such a woman. It’s slim pickings out there.
I already have man. But you are right. They are are rare as hell. But only a woman of that caliber could possibly be worth hanging up the jersey.
Meanwhile, feminists have managed to redefine “misandry”, tagging it with words that I did not know existed:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=misandry
“privilege, heterocentricity, homophobia transphobia, gender roles, oppression, patriarchy, masculist paranoia, victim masculism, victim complex, masculist disingenuity, masculist smear campaign, masculist hypocrisy, masculist irrationality dogma, conservatism, right-wing, regressive”
Votes: 30054 up, 4207 down
Feminism, a village of idiots.
True to the letter.
True to the letter.
Everything you just said is true, albeit disproportionately represented. Just ’cause the “feminine, wholesome” women are harder to “find” (because, you know, they aren’t hanging out at bars every night like the “sluts”, making themselves readily available) doesn’t mean there are fewer of them. As a woman who married young (in the eyes of our current generation, anyway–at 22) I constantly feel like shouting from the rooftops at all the clueless women out there to stop self-sabotaging. But it doesn’t have to be like this–it must be acknowledged that our society has, and has had for a while, some seriously fucked up dissonance between what is “moral” and what is simply “acceptable”. It is moral (in our monogamous Western lifestyle) for a woman to withhold sex and participate in good, old-fashioned courting. It is acceptable, however, to indulge our sexuality up until the point we feel we want to settle down. Now, that sounds just like the standard for men, right? So where does the negative connotation come from that gets attached to slutty women? Or even men who are perceived as man-whores? THAT is the question that needs our attention. THAT is the roadblock that needs to be cleared in order to further develop a gender-equal society. Some of the blame lies at the feet of media and entertainment and the mass of guilt and insecurity it burdens both men and women with, some lies in our biological hardwiring as mammals competing for mates, some lies in simple human stubbornness and stupidity. A lot of our immediate struggle with gender equality stems from the (relatively) recent dissolving of traditional gender roles. The confusion, acting out, and anger is understandable, I think. Men and women both feel it. But it’s goddamn ridiculous that I make friends with chicks SO MUCH MORE EASILY the instant she hears me utter the “I’m married” line. I’m married. I’m out of the competition. I’m no longer a threat. Really? I never WAS a threat because I, like any other sane, rational human being, can see past this bullshit and choose simply not to partake and feed into it. But unless we talk about it, the masses will remain unaware and basically trapped. Despite my anger, all I really fucking want is just some goddamned communication so we can work towards a happier society for EVERYONE. So lame, I know. But thank you for helping to open people’s minds; I feel less alone now. And that’s what it’s really all about.
Last para. YES.
Um… um… straw man!!! Um… ad hominem!!!
Um… oh no…. what else….
Rape apologist!!!! Help!
We can’t let them win with simple facts… this can’t be…. oh, what a world…
Very rarely (read: never) have I ever heard a guy say, “Wow, what a slut,” upon hearing of some sexcapade of some girl. I’ve really only heard a guy say that about a girl when she’s cheated on a close friend of his and he’s trying to cheer his buddy up.
You hear girls say, “Wow, what a slut” all the time, often about their own close friends.
The whole “slut-shaming” hullabaloo is mostly about “rape culture” (i.e. I should receive nun treatment whilst dressed as a whore) and about guys not wanting to marry girls who’ve taken innumerable dicks.
I don’t know about you, but when I hear a story about some broad who let herself be a pin cushion, I most certainly label her a slut. A woman who gives it up to a lot of different men and/or gives it up easily = slut. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
I agree. But that’s 100% of all city women, at least here in Chicago.
My girlfriend has had over 30 cocks in the past 2 (two) years right after she got divorced(married virgin, no lie). Can you imagine a slut giving birth to your child through the same hole that took over 30 (thirty) cocks?… I’m sure White knights and some betas wouldn’t mind. I would!
…you willingly girlfriend up with a divorcee who’s had more different flavors sausage in 24 months than a German deli?
Girlfriend to me is just meat I stick my cock into….Do you not like getting your dick sucked? Only betas who wish to get married one day hate sluts, hurts them to know everyone else got a chance to stuff his soon to be future ex-wife. If you pass up any decent, clean, free pussy you are an idiot.
Banging her is one thing; girlfriending her is another.
great argument! And your point?
You know the point: It’s unwise to girlfriend a slut.
But it’s your life. Have a ball.
I agree, man. But I don’t see any harm if you’re just stuffing her. I usually keep them until they start disobeying(lack of a better term). Then get a different model, women are all used up, you will not find a chick with a low notch count…
Sounds like you don’t respect her. I would not call a broad my “girlfriend” or give any kind of exclusivity, faith, or trust to her if I can’t respect her. I would call that a FWB. PnD material all day.
We often use ‘girlfriend’ around here differently than the blue-pill tradition, as in spinning plates. Maybe p2daniell is spinnning one plate at present. His prior comment did read more traditional, but let’s not quibble on this microblog format.
If you’re just “stuffing her” that’s what’s called a fuckbuddy. Not a girlfriend. Your just confusing the matter here or your in a state of confusion yourself.
i never met a bitch that didn’t need a little guidance, so i dismiss her past until she disappoints your highness
You’re right. A lot of guys will label such a woman a slut, but what men don’t do is go through lengths to campaign against her. Instead, I’ve noticed most men will modify their behavior so they don’t respond to her promiscuous actions.
Beyond this, men are fine with allowing a slut be a slut. They’ll just choose not to associate with her.
Either that, or they’ll just use for what she’s good for. Sloots gonna sloot.
It is tough for women though, imagine if every time you got mad after the age of 14 where you started a fight for no reason or were so pissed you punched a wall you could’ve instead “let” a couple chicks double team you to take out your frustrations and show society the power of your teen angst.
Oh come on now, I have heard PLENTY of guys bemoan the perceived sluttiness of a girl. I have a guy friend who only recently told me he was ‘freaked out’ and ‘turned off’ by a girl because she was eager to have sex with him after a few dates. In his words ‘Nah, she’s just to slutty’.
On campuses across the country guys are lining up to call a girl a hoe, a slut, whore, cumdumpster, you name it. Albeit perhaps not as many as girls but male slut-shamers definitely do exist and in abundance.
That’s nice to know. Women shouldn’t be sluts.
Men who can get sex only will call a woman a slut in regards to her looks / what she’s wearing because real men don’t have the wool pulled over their eyes and pretty much know the majority of American women now are sluts. So why call them sluts? It’s like calling them women we all know that. I see a chick with half her ass and tits falling out, completely drunk and obnoxious and loud with tons of tats I’ll call her a slut by her behavior.
I was telling my buddy the other day that it would actually be refreshing to meet a girl where I felt like I had to work for it, where there was a challenge to sink it. I can still remember a period where I felt the complete opposite because it was tough to get laid so you wanted her to put out.
I can’t count the amount of times where after banging a slut she wants to get serious and actually gets upset when I say I like it how it is. As if she’s completely taken aback that by putting out not even knowing my last name that I wouldn’t want things to go further. Even better is when I say having sex with a woman is easy as shit, hell if women would learn to cook that’s how they hook a man since most don’t even cook.
A-list truth right there.
Stop having sex with random women and start going to church. I guarantee you that you will find virgin women for which you have to work.
As far as I’m concerned, slut is a term that can be applied to both genders. So stop acting like a slut and go out and find a nice girl.
If you want a slut, be a slut. If you want a “good girl” then be a “good boy.”
No thank you. Being a virgin and a church-goer doesn’t make a girl high quality.
Yeah, go to church. Where all the born-again sluts go. No thanks.
Stop having sex with random women and start going to church. I guarantee you that you will find virgin^^^^^^reformed slutly women for which you have to work.
Not sure what kind of churches to which you have gone…
There are plenty of young women who are staying virgins and waiting for husbands. Many have been raised in a Christian household.
Also, if you are a reformed slut yourself, should you really discriminate against other reformed sluts?
Thanks for the Saturday afternoon laugh. Church. Thats a good one. You dont like horses by any chance do you?
Females run church doctrine now days and church has become a hostile place to masculinity and men. If you consider yourself a true christian woman, try this one on for size:
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states: “As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”
If the women in your church behave like this, I might consider it.
“The male role in slut-shaming is further muted by a media and culture
that has imbued them with the sense of learned helplessness at assessing
the meaning of a female’s sexual past. After all, it doesn’t matter how
many partners she had before you!”
I think it’s safe to say that ROK and the manosphere in general has been able to demystify all the smoke and mirrors the media puts out when it says “you can’t figure out what a woman wants…they don’t even know.” Well that’s bullshit. Five years after discovering Roissy, Roosh and other fellow bloggers, I know exactly what they want.
the “female mystique” is just a myth to keep betas in the dark.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/07/the-feminine-mystique/
Gasp. You mean the media is full of politically correct lies? NO! IT CANNOT BE!!
If women started to behave sexually as men do, what man would complain? Other than a few nuts who think sex is a sin, we would rejoice.
The real reason prudes hate promiscuous women — it’s pure economics, it’s supply and demand. Promiscuous women increase the supply of sex thus lowering the price prudish women may charge or receive in exchange for sex. Promiscuous women thus lower the SMV of all women. Think about it. Your demanding little queen will moderate her demands if she knew you can get easy pussy from a young hottie.
This is also why alpha men rule their relationships. If your a good looking, built, well off dude, sex is freely available everywhere. If you have not married her or formally committed to her – if your a detached stud. She will do everything in her power to maintain your interest. If on the other hand your a whiny, beta, kitchen bitch, your life is miserable and you suck. That this is not imminently obvious to the entire male population shows the incredible efficacy of the feminists and their white knight enablers.
Even for alphas it’s a constant battle. In an LTR it’s in a woman’s nature to domesticate and dominate you, to turn you into her nest helper. Even Rollo admits that and advises on the necessity of game in an LTR. I’ve seen a few tire of the unrelenting battle (especially after the arrival of children) and cave in submission. It’s a sad sight to behold. And be careful you don’t poke fun at them or you risk losing a buddy.
“If on the other hand your a whiny, beta, kitchen bitch, your life is miserable and you suck.”
Betas don’t suck unless they cock block. They just haven’t been taught or mentored properly by their brothers, fathers, and buddies.
Fair points. That is why I should have emphasized the pre-marriage, pre-committal phase as the most powerful position for any high vale man. At present I am with a woman, not married and have no kids. She is high enough quality that I stopped banging other chicks… but I am ceaselessly debating the merits of marriage+kids vs perpetual bachelor. In either case, it will be an informed, calculated decision. Everything is a risk. The key is to determine which risks are worth your time and which are not.
What about mistresses?? Are the French/Euros correct to have the Mother-of-your-Children /Wifey AND a mistress for sex holed up in a shag pad?? I know Jaque (sp?) Cousteau and Francois Mitterand ( former French PM) had mistresses ( and children by them) and it was NO BIG DEAL. That Taki the Greek guy ( from TakiMag) talks openly about his gals-on-the-side. Perhaps do away with all this “death do us part” b.s
It’s a difficult decision. I’ve come to the conclusion that bachelorhood and LTRs bring equal burdens and benefits — just different burdens and benefits.
That said, I would advise you not to marry as it’s wholly unnecessary and against a man’s interest. Imagine if a buddy demanded a property contract with you giving him equal access to half of your property, your home, and everything you make? Imagine if he refused to be your buddy unless you entered that contract. Wouldn’t you suspect he wasn’t a true friend, that he’s trying to use you and that, if he were really your friend, he wouldn’t demand access to your property?
lol. I envy Europe.
I suspect we may have have differing philosophical views on the subject. My buddy is presumably an equal for whom I would never give half my property too. My woman is not my equal. She is ultimately, a subordinate. Her tasks are what I tell her. Namely, cooking, cleaning, sucking, and fucking. Fetch me a beer, do my laundry – that kinda thing. In exchange I care for her physical needs, like shelter, food, physical and emotional protection, etc. The woman I am with now fully embraces this traditional division of labor and thinks it’s more than a fair exchange. Of course the feminists would scream about it but for about 10,000 years this was just the natural order. Modern society is an aberration which will collapse like a house of cards when the shit hits the fan. As to the necessity of marriage: chalk it up to my particular flavor of metaphysical beliefs.
This whole thing is just a schtick, right? You’re really a Stephen Colbert type character, right?
It’s a pretty brilliant schtick, I have to say. But I’m afraid there are too many neanderthals who are taking you seriously.
We’re not that far apart.
But be careful. A really good buddy has a marriage such as you anticipate. He has to battle society, the media, magazines, newspapers, television,. movies, his wife’s friends, even the wives of his friends — all of which barrage her with the message that the submissive husband is he norm and if a wife is submissive it means the husband is abusive.
That is the American culture — submissive husband is the norm and it’s seen there is something deeply wrong if the wife is the submissive party. I challenge you to identify one TV show or movie in the last 20 years in which a dominant husband is treated positively as a nurturing force.
Excellent point Kalos. Excellent fucking point. One way this can be mitigated is by living in a region that is less terrible. It’s absolutely disgusting. And the lists of media that continues to perpetuate what your describing is long. Think Malcom in The Middle vs Father Knows Best. Just look at how the man is always the weak,bumbling, idiot, while the wife is the de facto head of the household. Dee-fucking-scusting. How a nation like this hopes to remain a superpower is beyond me.
Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens . . .
In Leave it to Beaver, Ward the father was strong, wise, and knowing while the wife was a bumbling shallow twit. Today, it’s just the opposite.
Gotta disagree with this. The reasons men dislike promiscuous women are like the reasons people dislike public toilets and used toilet paper.
Slut = Public Toilet (useful but not respected)
Shitting is dirty and filthy. You defile a toilet. You do not poop out of your dick. Sex is not dirty. Sex is wholesome.
> You defile a toilet.
Per Merriam-Webster, it also applies to loose women:
de·file
: to make unclean or impure: as
a : to corrupt the purity or perfection of : debase -the countryside defiled by billboards
b : to violate the chastity of : deflower
c : to make physically unclean especially with something unpleasant or contaminating -boots defiled with blood
d : to violate the sanctity of : desecrate – defile a sanctuary
e : sully, dishonor
The compilers of that dictionary have been heavily influenced by wacko religion which taught them that sex is a sin or is dirty. It is not. Sex is perfectly wholesome. Human sex is one of the things –along with language, music, etc — that makes us human.
Feces does not come out of your dick. Semen does. Semen is clean. I’ve witnessed many women swallow my semen. It’s healthy for a woman to swallow semen.
I hope you overcome your hangup that sex is dirty.
The compilers of that dictionary have been heavily influenced by wacko religion which taught them that sex is a sin or is dirty. It is not. Sex is perfectly wholesome. Human sex is one of the things –along with language, music, etc — that makes us human.
Feces does not come out of your dick. Semen does. Semen is clean. I’ve witnessed many women swallow my semen. It’s healthy for a woman to swallow semen.
I hope you overcome your hangup that sex is dirty.
Yup because back then we had libtards coming up with popping cherries and other cute euphemisms.
If all semen is “clean” why don’t you go to a HIV positive person and rub that all over your face? Bodily fluid is nothing special and can be dirty or clean depending on the individual.
Sex is not dirty between a husband and wife. It’s dirty when you stick your prick into a STD infected slut/whore/prostitute/slag.
“And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people,” Lev. 21
Please keep your wacko schoolmarmish religious morality to yourself. Sex between a husband and wife is typically really bad sex.
Also, if you’re going to buy into the Bible then you have to take the whole of it — you can’t simply pick and choose only those parts you like. And Leviticus says we must execute homosexuals and adulterers and that we cannot eat pork and shellfish.
Prove it, instead of spewing your ignorant unsupported garbage.
Dr. Waite, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago whose research focuses on family structure, drew from various resources in her work, including the National Survey of Families and Households, a sampling of 13,000 adults, which was conducted in the late 1980’s, with a followup in the early 1990’s.
Her audience seemed most interested in the fact that married people report having more and better sex than single people have.
She cited the 1992 National Health and Social Life survey to support the notion that a readily available and willing married partner resulted in married men having sex twice as frequently as most of the single men surveyed, and the married men reported higher levels of satisfaction with their sex lives than either single or cohabitating men. She attributed this to the partners’ investment in “skills” to please one specific person, and to an emotional investment in a relationship that should result in increasing the frequency and quality of sex.
What part of Thou shalt not kill do you not understand?
Don’t worry they will “die” a second spiritual death in hell if their lifestyle choices won’t get them there first. Did you know the average age of death is 39 for those living the homosexual lifestyle?
Also go read about the new covenant. Just like blood sacrifices are unnecessary, Jesus came and reestablished new rules.
Prove it? Nearly all monogamous relationships fail — most end in break up. Of those that end up in marriage, a majority get divorced and a majority cheat. Monogamy and therewith marriage simply doesn’t work. It’s a failed formula in the long run — although it may work well for some in the short run for purposes of rearing children.
“What part of Thou shalt not kill do you not understand?”
Leviticus says we must execute homosexuals and adulterers. You can’t pick and choose only those parts you like.
“Also go read about the new covenant.”
I’ve read about it. So stop quoting the old one if you think it lacks autoirity.
“Don’t worry they will “die” a second spiritual death”
You have no idea what happens after we die. You can only guess and speculate.
Again where is the scientific proof? You’re going by personal anecdotal evidence. While I quoted a meta-study with a sample size of 13,000 by a professional sociologist.
http://pastortubbs.com/does-the-bible-say-to-kill-homosexuals.html
Perhaps you should study the bible more and so you won’t be repeating the same ignorant arguments over and over again.
You need scientific proof that most relationships fail, that a majority of marriages end in divorce and that a majority of married people cheat? Do you need scientific proof the sky is blue and dogs bark?
Marriage is a decent way for average men to settle. But marriage is largely against a man’s best interest. Marriage is a form of prostitution.
“Perhaps you should study the bible more and so you won’t be repeating the same ignorant arguments over and over again.”
So Leviticus does not say we must execute homosexuals and adulterers? It does not say we must not eat pork and shellfish? You’re a typical believer in magic — you want Leviticus to apply only when it suits you.
I was specifically addressing your point that…
“Sex between a husband and wife is typically really bad sex.”
Great job picking and choosing.
Question: “What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?”
Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, every sin we commit should result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8).
When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). This should not be used to indicate that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all instances. Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law; they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?) God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Jesus would support capital punishment in some instances. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-7).
How should a Christian view the death penalty? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.
Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes.
You not only believe in magic, you not only believe you’re special and can see into the after world, you lie and you cheat. You just lifted what you claim to have written from a web page and presented it as if you wrote it. So not only can you not think, you’re dishonest.
Here’s where you stole your words. You are a coward and a cheater.
http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html
But let me ask you this: if there is nothing wrong with the death penalty, then you should have no problem with your children watching criminals being executed. Right?
I’ll remember to cite using MLA style all my sources… cuz u know not citing anything on the INTERNETz is cheating. lzozlzlzlzl
Great job trying to distract from the issue tranny. The argument still wrecks your emotional drivel.
I don’t have children. I’m 18 and not fucked in the head like you. But who cares if one wanted to you can find those vile trash “executions” on Youtube. If I had children, I wouldn’t because I wouldn’t want them to grow up all mentally and emotionally messed up like yourself.
I caught you cheating and lying. I caught you stealing from a website. You have zero credibility left.
You are a lying, cheating little boy. A real man would apologize and admit his error. You now have zero credibility on this site.
Scarcity vs Abundance
Scarcity increases the value of something while abundance decreases the value of something.
Why is oil more expensive than wood? Scarcity
Why is copper cheaper than gold? Abundance
Since women are the gatekeepers of sex. They rely on keeping sex as scarcely available to men as possible to make it high value, the objective? To make us men fight, backstab, bend over backwards and sometimes literally kill each other to have access to sex. Creating a competitive environment which only the most alpha men win. The higher value of pussy…the more PICKY a women can be with men. Putting them in a position of control. In fact the access of pussy is the only leverage a woman has over a man and they know it.
The sexual promiscuity of women is a threat to maintaining the high value of pussy. Hence the unrelenting shaming and hatred of sluts from other women. The slut in relation to other women is like what renewable(solar,wind) energy is to non-renewable(coal,oil) energy. Oil companies hate the fact there are alternative energies supplies available.
Alpha males-Scarce(high value)
Beta Males-Abundant(low value)
Virtuous females-Scarce(high value)
Sluts-abundant(low value)
Alpha males-Scarce(high value)
Beta Males-Abundant(low value)
Virtuous females-Scarce(high value)
Sluts-abundant(low value)
Exactly. Beta males are emotional and commitment sluts. Easy women are sexual sluts. Women try to get a man’s commitment and emotional attachment, whereas men try to get teh poontang.
Schema. I haven’t heard that word used outside of university. It’s a good word, with a rather difficult definition. It represents the inter-connections between ideas, impulses, and emotions in the brain. Its about the organizing structure of the branching web of neural circuitry, although they rarely talk about it in terms of physical brain matter, ie. hardware. They prefer to think of it like pre-installed software, which misses the mark though. The brain is neat, because it rewires itself, so it is both hardware and software at the same time. Just my opinion.
Used often in the tech world as well. A model of organization… synonymous with schematic.
All oppression of women is carried out originally by OTHER WOMEN. Men are just handed the blame after the fact. This is a scientific and historical fact, known by every archaeologist and historical. Feminists have just twisted the truth to support their little
–Genital Mutilation: organized and carried out by mothers and older women “to keep girls chaste so they can land better husbands”
–Footbinding: organized and carried out by mothers and older women
–Slut shaming: by women
–Oppression of sex workers: by women
When are people going to admit the truth? Male and female societies are completely different and run by different rules.
Women in power oppress other women, especially young women, in order to maintain the status quo, using sexual access as the ultimate tool.
Men have traditionally run male society, and they focus on men and boys only. They don’t mess with women’s society or rules at all.
Women’s society has ALWAYS been run by older women, the mothers and grandmothers. Always, always, always. They make the decisions about how girls are raised, and the degree of oppression girls face or don’t face.
Privileged female executives and college professors exhort women to “lean in” and have it all, while their own kids are at home with the nanny, thereby gaining status while driving other women to make insane decisions.
Older women tell younger women to delay marriage and Eat, Pray, Fuck so they can eliminate competition from nubile women.
Women lie to their female “friends” telling them they look great and do not need to lose weight, thereby reducing or eliminating competition for men.
Women hate each other and derive satanic joy from stabbing each other in the back.
Women dislike sluts because they lower the price of pussy. You can’t trade resources and commitment for sex with high-value men if other women are giving them sex for free. For women this isn’t just a broad social issue; it’s highly personal. If you’re playing a “long game” to extract commitment from a man and another woman distracts him with “short game” sex, that is a direct attack on your reproductive imperative and demands a counter-attack. Gossip, exclusion and social shaming are the primary means of warfare between women. Beta men never fail to be shocked by the viciousness of female intrasocial warfare, but at the end of the day we’re just as invested as you are in protecting our interests.
Men, on the other hand, have long-term interests in slut shaming (i.e. more cuckolding, fewer faithful wives in the long run), but short-term interests in encouraging slutty behavior. That’s why a lot of men will passively admit that more sluts = more social decline, but they still won’t participate in slut shaming because it means cutting off opportunities for easy sex. Of course feminists twisted it ALL up, and like to blame men and “rape culture” for slut shaming when in reality it’s WOMEN who have an imminent interest in discouraging slutty behavior. More smoke and mirrors to amass power by making privileged Western women look like victims who need even more attention and resources dumped into their coffers.
Men want to fuck a slut, but they don’t want to marry one.
“Women dislike sluts because they lower the price of pussy.” Not true if women are solopstic, and they are. They only care about there individual price of sex, not the market price.
In another misunderstanding, women want sex as much as men. However, women only want sex with alpha the one. So when men say women don’t want sex as much, they confound her desires for him and all men not alpha the one with her desire for sex at all. Women don’t want sex with beta men as much as beta men want sex with women. Everything is bizarre and wonderful in the alpha world microcosm, so I’ve heard.
If this is all true then women have a HUGE problem coming: sex robots.
Agreed. I find humor in the fact that as a species we can record every electronic (and likely non-electronic) communication in a country of 330 million people, we can split the atom to generate electricity, and we can send space vehicles to Mars, yet “sex robots” are still underdeveloped despite likely huge demand.
I strongly suspect it’s because of the tremendous upset it would cause to civilized society. Same goes for reliable male birth control.
Next time you meet a “modern, I can do anything I want and you’ll accept and applaud it and expect special treatment” woman when it comes to sex ask her how many men has she been with. Every single time your reply will be less than 5 or if around that number they will preface it by saying most were from “long term relationships”. Why the lie? If you are a modern woman where you can do anything a man can do and demand to not be slut slammed for it why lie? We all know why and they prove it 100% of the time by lying about it. Perhaps modern feminist women would be taken seriously instead of a joke if they would at least adhere to what the scream about. Still would hate them but at least there would be a level of respect that they practice what they preach. More than anything men hate phonies regardless of the person’s sex. Feminist women are 100% phonies.
I will make two points.
First of all, the reason why Tuthmosis and the rest of us got and get so much shit for pointing out slut behavior in chicks is because we are not part of the “Club”. The “Club” is comprised of feminist, women, gays, & manginias. We are none of those things and that’s is why the femnazis rain hell-fire upon us for pointing out slut behavior in chicks.
Second point: Woman “Slut” Shame for a number of reasons. 3 reasons stick out.
1. A woman who is popular with the guys is seen as competition by the other females.
2. If a chick has a boyfriend or a guy she is “talking” to, she is afraid that the hotter, more popular chick will steal her man.
3. Woman have a strong herd or group-think mentality. When one member of the crew is seen as a slut by the other members of the crew, they exile that girl out the group so outside people won’t think that the rest of the group members are sluts & hoes as well.
You are right on, and a lot of that behavior is explainable by science believe it or not. The part of their brain that controls their emotional response to negative sensory input is very small, much smaller than people who for example love competition, are logic-minded and who can accept negative sensory input and respond with productive output. Women are by and large Liberal and men are by and large more right-leaning and the (politically) left vs right difference in brain architecture and function is proven. I have been posting the Anonymous Conservative’s information for a few days and I don’t want to wear out my welcome, but if you have interest check out his r/K selection theory of evolutionary biology. It really does explain it all perfectly.
Agreed.
I would argue that patriarch isn’t really what it appears to be either. Granted there were periods in history where we valued women far more than we do today (goddess civilizations), and these times (along with “pre”-history) no doubt create a feeling of nostalgia in women (and men) who are aware of it if only on an unconscious level. Even so, men have always been the ones who’ve done society. Always. There is no society without man, society makes and shapes man just as man makes and shapes society, and society is what has allowed the species to be so successful. So what is patriarchy? They say it’s oppression, but that’s just another way of saying repression. And ALL repression is self-repression, since in the last moment, we will always have a “choice” (to either follow our desires and ideals, or identify with the desires and ideals of another (based on our weakness/need for security our fear of punishment/death, our addiction to pleasure). Men, in general, are okay with this “repression” because we spent millennia cooperating with each other – hunting, war games, companies. Our cooperation is based not necessarily on “repression”/”incorporation” (the way women cluster together for security at the expense of their individuality and identity), rather it is based on “adaption” – the tacit understanding that “he” is doing something I could not do, and it’s best to work with him as this increases both of our chances of survival.
The K-selected are productive and they create the things that society needs and wants and the result is prosperity. Once resources become plentiful and there is “more than enough for everyone” the r-selected come along and demand the resources be distributed among all – which thereby suppresses all motivation to compete which decreases prosperity, and starts to limit resources. Civilization becomes corrupt – morals and mores decline and civilization collapses. From there, the K-selected are productive and create the things that society needs and wants and the result is prosperity … and on and on. We are witness to the decline of our civilization. Rome fell in almost the same way.
Exactly. Don’t forget to give Anonymous Conservative a plug:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/
Thank you!
Winners are crapped on all the time by losers. That goes in all walks of life. From being successful in the working world to being a coach or player that constantly wins.
Losers hate Winners and the only way they feel empowered is to shame Winners.
When you write a piece or make a ton of money or bang a lot of great looking chicks and get ripped for it, take it like a badge of honor.
You make it sound like slut-shaming is a bad thing. It’s a wonderful thing to shame an exploitative and selfish bitch who uses her body as a weapon to manipulate and unfairly burden men with her bullshit. “Slut Shaming” is a feminist term used to to demonize men who have the balls to hold females accountable for their reckless behavior. Never let propaganda get in the way of common sense.
Oh, Biology… The Great feminists’ fear. Their reaper.
This is a very insightful article. And it contains a very subtle insight into the psyche of feminism: feminazis go ballistic and try to silence people who merely point to something that already exists. It’s not like the authors at ROK create reality or in any way affect the workings of the human– male or female– psyche; they are simply publicizing observable, measurable facts. When those facts run contrary to feminism, the feminazis want to silence and shoot the messenger. Literally. That’s totalitarianism in a nutshell: when facts conflict with theory, feminists don’t alter their theory to fit the facts, they try to deny the facts to save their theory. That’s actual madness. Perhaps this point alone could serve as an article in itself.
The truth is hate to people who hate the truth.
Agree 100%.
Hey ROK, you’re killing it these days!
http://jezebel.com/ladies-quit-paying-attention-to-this-vile-troll-websit-1469942571
God, feminist women are so retarded. If I buy a pack of donuts from the store and want them all to myself I don’t put them in the cabinet with a note saying “pay no attention to these donuts.” Really? “Pay no attention to Return of Kings.” *writes bigass post about return of kings*
FEMINIST-WOMEN LOGIC
calling roosh a ‘psychopathic misogynist’ is like putting a sign on his back that says ‘bang me’.
I wouldn’t put it past those types to go for him either.
Lol. Because they are all so mature. Read the comments section of their JIzzabel article ” gee lets all go to the Blue Pill subreddit of Reddit so we can have fun making fun of Rok”…..are those women serious? Geez they are like children.
I just found that comment tree too. And you’re right, those Jizzabells really do act like little kids. Only difference is that unlike little kids, they have no common sense.
Whenever a feminazi refuses to be challenged on her bitter, emotional views or parrots some biased feminazi myth like the wage gap or the rape culture myth
Just remember
Feminazis hate hate men
Feminazis are defective non-women by default
Real women are submissive and respectful and appreciative towards men. Always expect your female to follow your lead and respect your dominance. If not, she needs to be trained, and if you’re a real man, you’ll learn how to train a bitch into a proper lady.
As you said, this is old news to males who have been around awhile.
I was sitting in a bar last week, with a really cute bartender. There were maybe 6 people in the whole bar. There were only 2 females; the bartender and her friend, who I think was a plant to draw in passer-by men. Anyway, after about 30 minutes, another female walks in. She has big tits, and a really low cut shirt. Her tits are practically exploding out of her top. No surprise, the bartender pretended to be friendly. The moment big titties walked out of the bar, the bartender and her friend started gossiping about how slutty big tit girl looked.
It was hilarious because it was so predictable.
“Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”
For this exact reason, women hate prostitutes as well.
FYI, another fantastic academic article on this same topic: Baumeister & Twenge (2002) “Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality” It’s available here: http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
Hello my question is what is best way to beat woman and leave no marks so her tribe no see them?
I Don’t have a lot of experience in this, but you know who you can ask for advice? Western Women.
Western Women have tremendous experience beating on their husbands and treating them like dirt. Don’t take my word for it, just ask your nearest Western Woman and ask her “MA’AM, how do you hit, poke, assault, abuse and castrate your husband”
Western Women love to give advice, Saudi Arabia Man
Fantastic article. Easily one of the best I’ve read this month. I really loved the prisoner’s dilemma analogy; there are very few people that realize how powerful and widespread is that way of thinking.
Hi what is best way to beat woman thank you?
I Don’t have a lot of experience in this, but you know who you can ask for advice? Western Women.
Western Women have tremendous experience beating on their husbands
and treating them like dirt. Don’t take my word for it, just ask your
nearest Western Woman and ask her “MA’AM, how do you hit, poke, assault,
abuse and castrate your husband”
Western Women love to give advice, ishkafar
hi what is best way to dispose of woman body thank you?
I Don’t have a lot of experience in this, but you know who you can ask for advice? Western Women.
Western Women have tremendous experience beating on their husbands
and treating them like dirt. Don’t take my word for it, just ask your
nearest Western Woman and ask her “MA’AM, how do you hit, poke, assault,
abuse and castrate your husband”
Western Women love to give advice, Mr Ishkafar
Yes, you see a lot of shaming from women, and this is the truth. Hypocritical shaming and “alpha fucks/neta bucks” is the reason why I’ve gone my own way.
If you want these bucks ladies, you better get ready to fuck.
Nailed it. Absolutely. ROK is on a fucking roll lately.
Though there’s also a very real reason why men slut shame: they need to be certain of paternity. There is no worse biological defeat and humiliation than laboring for and utilizing resources to provide for a child that isn’t yours.
That’s absolutely true — men are hard-wired to prefer more chaste women for that very reason. However, I would contend that the male stance on sluts is more just avoidance for long-term commitment, since any overt attempt to “shame” them is met with vociferous resistance from the feminist establishment.
Thanks for the comment.
The intense reaction they have to men using the word “slut” as a descriptive probably stems from women mistakenly perceiving it as having the same motivation and hostility is it would have if the source was other women.
I have been with a lot of of women of every race and age. With contemporary white educated woman age 20-24 I typically have sex when we meet or the first date. My range is 7-8.5( 9’s are rare and 10 is subjective) once we have sex a few times we typically go out or attend get togethers with her friends. The question always come up ” how did you meet” without fail ( either it is a pre discussed falsehood , or spontaneous lie on her part) a lie is told especially if time of first kiss or sexual encounter is included in the story. This is far more pronounced with white, Jewish , or highly educated black women ( ” act white” black women). My game is not tight it is OK, I am tall, muscular, funny and ambitious so most of my sex is achived pure sexual attraction and aggression . After the sex women often try to reset the relationship frame , in effect self policing their own permiscuity and availability with deflecting statements ( I have never done that, you made me act different , ect.) or escalating the relationship ( let’s go to breakfast, lets hang out today, tell me about yourself,ect) . Women are more aware than they let on about slut shaming being a female led phenomon , even when it is just how they precive themselves . Good post.
Look women were given a chance to run the country and get everything they’ve always wanted and they have miserably failed in every aspect. Hell women quit after they’ve worked to have kids so they’ve proven that the woman should ultimately be at home raising kids. The ones who aren’t are the fat ball busting worthless ones no man would ever put his stick in.
It’s time for the big boys to take back their ball and right the ship the little kids were given responsibilities that they’ve proven can’t handle.
This is a great analysis. It essentially shows that contemporary feminism is working against itself. By encouraging sluts, they lower the value of the vagina. V-day indeed.
Brownmiller (1975) points out that, “Women are inhabitants of a male-dominated culture, which is supportive of rape myths and restrictive beliefs about women’s roles.” … I can see a lot of educated people read this site *eye roll*
So we can conclude Brownmiller is wrong
Team Woman should usually be (and has been) doing this.
You are fk*n wise!!! I have been convcerting my friends over to this type of critical thinking of todays women for years!!!
If men had the same solidarity as females we’d share our women around… the same way i might let you drive my new Ferrari for the weekend…
The wives are being bitchy we can do swap for a week or two.
Go out with a buddy and his girlfriend with an arrangement between you to make them play switcheroo… or he breaks up with her and lines you up to date her right afterwards…
If men locked down this solidarity and dropped quite so much of the male ego…. the women would crumble…..
and they truly would be nothing more than play things…
Feminist trolls on here will baulk of course, but if guys were more laid back between solid amigos and cut down the disease issue, they could pass women around between them and it would slowly become the norm….
Muses to rock bands are often held in high regard but also treated like this.. Antony Keidis recounts a story of a girl they had hang out them them recording a record and she’d bed hop between all four of them of an evening…. why not…. i bet she never bitched at them once… hahahahaha….
Amazing. And we women would have zero choice in the matter I imagine…
WOMEN ARE JUST PLAIN NOT THAT COMPLICATED
lol Slut shaming from both sexes is worth considering if we are intellectually honest. However, I must disagree with the prisoner’s delimma analysis, as interesting as it is. Women live in the moment to the point of manufacturing their past and future to fit the ‘persona’ that gives her the highest rank right now. Women are hardwired for pre-cultural, pre-wealth reproductive competition. In no way to women form a union because they are non-cultural beings. Women are wholly individualistic because they are motived purely by expedient reproductive advantage of best sperm (alphas) and best non-sperm (betas) resources. A hotter chick lowers her RELATIVE advantage. If a woman could become #1 by lowering her own living standard (so necessarily everyone elses, those initially above by more than her loss), she would do it because in the pre-cultural wild relative rank translates to absolute standard of living.
Other women being promiscuous does NOT prevent her from getting the BEST sperm IN FERAL TERMS overall: it gives her social permission, social cover to do the same, ALPHA FUX delivered faster than Dominos pizza. If she is relatively less pretty, it could hurt her chances, but there is no saved virginity in the evolutionary firmament of female nature. What she loses in relative rank is non-sperm provisioning from all men, alphas and betas. She gets BETA BUX on pussy credit she would rather not redeem. She is a hardwired charlatan. She needs to rear her children, she needs to be the least expendable female or member of the pack to survive conflicts with other human packs. No prisoner’s delimma. She instinctively ‘knows’ she is loosing out on non-sperm resources and uses the same old female sociality–the postmodern blue-pill social norms–to destructively (bad for her society overall; she’s non-cultural) go after what she wants for her localized ‘making a difference’ benefit with greater socialized costs on everyone else. As far as getting the best sperm goes, having to wait in a longer line is more than offset by the liberation to be in line and pursue casual sex in the first place.
But women don’t like math and don’t instinctively weigh these things. Women are primeval reproductive freelancers who preferentially fight in covert and psychological ways. They are armed with woman’s ‘love’ for her man as the biggest lie of all. They can’t cooperate on their own. They are cooperative feminists only by taking on the mission of the establishment as DADDY GOV ALPHA. Women are simple, primevally so, and it is an error to ascribe more complexity to them than they have. Their power is deception and they sorely need it for how emotionally primitive they are–IN THE WILD. In society, especially civilization, they are better off being put in their place. That is what a real man does. That is what rape fantasy does. That is prerequisite to building and maintaining cultural discipline and the relationships of society and especially civilization.
Slower evolution of women–calibrated for irrational cunning in the wild that is all the better disguised by the woman actually believing the opposite of her primal motives, believing in her ‘love’ and her communist generosity and her threatened purity–makes women fluid personas of expedience whoring their sexuality in good faith and bad for maximum reproductive competitiveness. Nice women and nice men did not evolve in the wild. Kindness is a civilized man’s recent evolutionary fruit, but there is no civilization without conquest, so being nice with communist generousity is not civilized. Women are simple and perfect measures of a man’s crude abililties, but for refinement men should trust only men starting with themselves, for women are deceivers. They can’t help it. Real men are husbands practicing husbandry. We have a ways to go with red-pill theory and practice, brothers.
LOL i said this a long time ago. The only reason the world “slut” exist is because of women’s jealously of each other.
I think men have a benchmark; a woman can show off what she’s got to a point and still come off in the sexy/wifey range, but if a woman shows off too much (like, when she sits down her skirt is so short you can see up it with zero effort too much) then the man is thinking “one night.” But a jealous woman would dislike her regardless.
My question is where are all the women telling us how wrong we are?
What’s that I hear? Crickets.
If there was a way for guys to be slut-shamed, women are welcome to it. At least the playing field would be level and they’d quit complaining. Too bad it doesn’t work against guys though.
Excellente point, its like when women say I’m dressing for me, or this boob job isnt for men. The reality is A) To attract men and or B) to compete with other women, but god forbid anyone actually admit to there being a competition. That seems to be part of the current retardation, women want(expect) exceptional men, but don’t think they actually have to do anything to get them, then are shocked if the man ignores here or just does the pump’n’dump.
I think when women say they’re doing something “for them” it’s partially true. If an itty bitty titty chick grows up hating what she sees in the mirror and goes out and buys DDs, it is,frankly, because SHE wants to feel better about HERSELF. The additional male attention is a bonus and might also be the result of her renewed confidence as well.
I’ve spent alot of time in Latin America, where there is alot of plastic surgery…no one there talks about getting boobs for herself, its like the clothes, the makeup the heels, another tool to catch a guy. This is the feminism egocentricity talking..umm yeah im doing it for me, not to impress a guy or girl, its going to make me feel great to put a pair of plastic lumps under my skin for the rest of my life(as the hamster wheel spins)
I have thought of female slut-shaming as a social form of the economic concept of “monopolism” or “price fixing.” Women know that reproductive/vaginal access is a commodity, and want to raise the price of this commodity by “fixing” the price at a high level. Women act as unconscious–and perhaps the original–monopolists, in the sense that they don’t want sluts “lowering” the price of pussy by increasing access to it.
Sluts upset the pussy price-fixing game. Too easy access means that their overall power as a group is eroded.
I don’t think that your article did anything to prove that those women were operating “independent of male influence.” Taking men out of the room does not eliminate the effect of patriarchal societies.
Also how convenient that you explicitly ban women from posting in your “about” section….
Interesting comment.
Kill all the men tomorrow and…..”patriarchal influences” still reside.
Once again — with feeling — women are at fault for slut shaming.
Or do you want do deny women agency?
A fair point, but the fact remains that the women were the ones directly and observably producing the slut-shaming actions. As 2Wycked said, do you wish to deny that women have any agency? If you’re going to just explain away every woman’s actions on the “oppressive patriarchy,” I don’t think we can really have a rational discussion about this.
The jizzabells made a pact not to come here. A PACT for an INACTION. As a group. So much for “strong independent woman.”
Women know that being slutty devalues them as relationship material, yet they still crave the alpha cock. That’s why they always say, “I don’t usually do this…” when you have them in bed and are just about to plow them. As if every girl doesn’t utter that phrase.
girls who like to have sex aren’t sluts. girls that have sex to manipulate men for money and status etc, are sluts. they will fake pleasure during sex (ex: a porn star) and do anything they can to make themselves more desirable, even if they don’t like the guy. if a girl is true to herself, likes a guy and asserts her own sexual needs to her partner, she is only giving what she’s getting, using fair trade and she is genuinely enjoying the sex. it doesn’t mean she will give herself to any guy, good looking or not, just the ones she is really attracted to on more than a superficial level. and thats normal. it isn’t slutty to have a healthy sex life.
I couldn’t agree more- so nice to here some sense on this sight!
“it isn’t slutty to have a healthy sex life.”
But it isn’t healthy to have a slutty sex life, as many women do. That’s kind of why the HPV vaccine exists.
both guys and girls are to blame for slut shaming.
Excellent article finally a breathe of reality
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Black Knight is a wanker
Femmie trolls act like children since only children think that stamping their feet and shouting “you’re a [something defamatory]” over and over again is somehow effective.
[Translation: “I cannot argue with the actual points in the article, so I’m just going to throw a tantrum because I don’t like them.”]
I don’t respect sluts whatsoever. If that’s slut shaming, so be it. To me its the same as thief shaming or psycho axe murderer shaming.
wow fuck all of you monumental shitheads right up the jolly arse
“Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not. This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women.” That certainly doesn’t sound like slut shaming all.
“A worsted woman always, either silently or volubly, calls down a curse upon her successful rival.—And ‘t is a curse that too often fails.
Many women handicap other women; and they handicap them in multifarious ways. Probably the one most frequently used is lavishness of favors.
The woman who is lavish of favors is hated of her stricter sisters. But, before these, what an air of bravado she wears!”
How is this a surprise? Have people been living under a rock? If women deny this, they’re lying, or have unusually nice friends.
of course they’re lying…its what they do best.
Damn straight women are responsible for slut shaming. I never shame sluts. I love sluts.