Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
Part 9 — Hypergamy or Adultery
Today we will discuss:
Part 10 — Hypergamy and Adultery
My health was not 100% this past week and my ongoing conversation with Cameron has been quite involved. This contributed to a rushed writing and production of “Hypergamy or Adultery” in order to meet Friday’s publication deadline. It’s not that it was wrong—I’m not taking back anything I wrote—but it is quite a bit incomplete or unclear. Rather than edit and revise that post further, I want to discuss a few issues here in more detail.
First Time Marriage
Let’s begin by illustrating the difference between hypergamy and adultery. Consider the statistic that I have cited here quite regularly:
~60% of first time marriages do not end in divorce.
First, if researchers consistently and properly differentiated between virgins who biblically married vs. everyone else, we could cite that statistic instead which would show a markedly better result for those with no previous experience. The 60% stat clumps together virgins who married each other before the wedding with chaste couples who had previous experience with someone else. I use this stat because it corrects the misleading statistic that “most marriages end in divorce.”
Second, these refer to the first legal marriage, not the first biblical marriage. The divorce rate of these “first” marriages is about 40%. For “second,” “third,” and so forth marriages, the divorce rate is considerably higher.
Adultery provides an adequate explanation for this effect. The more adultery a person commits, the more likely their legal marriage(s) will end in failure as a consequence of that (repeated) sin.
By contrast, hypergamy does not provide an adequate explanation for this statistical effect. For example, the alpha widow effect is one attempt to explain this, but it does not account for homogamous or heterogamous situations or where the woman did not start with an alpha or end with a beta.
Third, virtually all first biblical marriages are early marriages. A large reason that first legal marriages are as successful as they are (and not even worse) is because they include so many first biblical marriages.
Most of the first biblical marriages are included in the first legal marriages, that is, those formed without adultery. Thus, the lack of adultery partially explains why first legal marriages are much more successful.
By contrast, hypergamy does not provide an adequate explanation for why first time marriages—whether biblical or legal—are so much more successful.
Fourth, adultery is both illicit and marriage. Although I did not cover this in my previous post, I have previously written that adultery is an implicit declaration of intent to divorce and remarry. It’s, quite literally, leaving your spouse (or “sending away” in biblical parlance) and marrying another. Thus does adultery explain why men and women almost never go back to their first biblical marriage partner once they’ve decided to replace them with another. It happens, but not very often.
By contrast, hypergamy does not provide an adequate explanation for why women do not always seek to “return” to their alpha partner(s) (no matter what order she bedded her men).
Fifth, neither hypergamy nor adultery provide a first-order explanation of divorce for the purpose of remaining single. Adultery, despite its higher explanatory power, does not explain everything. That said, it’s at least possible those who do this are the subject of prior acts of adultery or influenced by others who have.
The Opposite of Hypergamy
Without adultery, there is no hypergamy. Hypergamy—if even real—is dependent on adultery. Notice how the Dalrockian Manosphere defines hypergamy in terms of multiple relationships:
Dalrock always described marriage as largely lateral in terms of both sexual capital and social status. Assortive pairing. The Dalrockian narrative is that (some unspecified fraction of) women have sexual-capital (which isn’t just “looks”) hypergamous STRs before their lateral LTR. And that there is a sexual capital AND social status hypergamy-of-desire in women not just in the sense of wanting better (just like men) but of having an aversion to lateral or lower “deals.” Low romantic sexual attraction to their assortively-paired equals.
This framing is also found within the claim that women are discontent with the relationship choices they have made and are aiming for other, better choices. And it is found in the claim that happily married men just have not had their luck run out yet.
Look at the various definitions of hypergamy I discussed in “What Is Hypergamy? (Part 1).”
- Boxer’s definition explicitly involves multiple relationships.
- Adam Piggott’s citation of Keoni Galt didn’t explicitly involve multiple relationships, but it did involve comparisons between multiple men. That’s because Galt defined hypergamy by what it isn’t, not what it is. Yet, Galt opened by acknowledging that “trading up” to a better man was the most common definition in the ‘sphere.
- Dalrock understood hypergamy to be a the primal fear of women limiting themselves to a single relationship and being unable to make a better choice.
- One of Badger’s three definitions explicitly involved “trading up” (i.e. multiple relationships).
In short:
Dalrockian hypergamy presumes adultery
The alternative or solution to hypergamy among wed women is not homogamy or heterogamy, it is fidelity (i.e. not committing adultery). Fidelity opposes hypergamy. Thus, the solution to hypergamy is not “be content with same-tier men,” it is “stop committing adultery.”
The alternative or solution to hypergamy among unwed single women is not future homogamy or future heterogamy, it is celibacy (i.e. not committing adultery). Celibacy opposes hypergamy. Thus, the solution to hypergamy is not “start being content with same-tier men,” it is “stop committing adultery by being celibate instead.”
There is an important distinction here, and it bears special attention.
If the Red Pill proponents could eliminate hypergamy with their magic wands, it would not solve the problem, because it would not undo the adultery. Divorce would remain almost as high, because contentment with same-tier assortatively paired relationships is not good enough. The only way to solve “hypergamy” is through celibacy, that is, by not committing adultery. This is why adultery is what must actually be solved, not hypergamy. Solving hypergamy would be a non-starter, even if it were real.
If you were a single man looking to find a wife among the non-virgins (something forbidden to Christians) and your wand had just eliminated all traces of hypergamy, would you still want to marry any of the available specimens? Would you expect the result of you marrying another man’s wife to have a better outcome just because hypergamy was gone?
Exceptional Circumstances
When Artisanal Toad introduced these ideas, many commenters wanted to focus on the exceptional circumstances rather than the normative teachings. I suspect that the same thing applies here. People who have engaged in adultery through multiple biblical marriages want to know how this applies to them and their specific circumstances.
The first thing to note is that a second (or third…) marriage is not an “adulterous marriage.” Though it was illicitly formed in an act of abominable sin (just like rape) subject to real-world consequences and punishment, it still nevertheless produced a one-flesh bond. Marriage is marriage, not adultery. Adultery is an action, not a state of being. So if you’ve married someone in an act of adultery, you are now married to both your old and new partners. Since you can’t live with two separate spouses—polygamy is not legal to practice—you’ll have to pick one of your spouses and stay with them exclusively. Or, if none will have you, consign yourself to a celibate life.
The act of marriage may be licit or illicit. If the latter, we call it adultery. Adultery is the illicit act of marriage. It is not on-going. So, Artisanal Toad is incorrect when he says…
…because adultery is an act, not a state of being. Toad believed that it was possible to commit adultery separate from marriage in certain circumstances.
Now, if you really want an example of how complex it is to unwind yourself from this mess, here is Artisanal Toad’s advice (remember, he believes that there is such a thing as an “adulterous marriage”):
But, let’s say you’re seeing a woman and she isn’t eligible to marry (meaning she’s already married, whether she knows it or not) and for whatever reason you have sex with her. That is what is known as adultery. What I know to be true is that virtually any “single” woman a guy meets that isn’t a virgin is already married and banging her is adultery. And… can you trust her if she tells you she is a virgin?
At this point any man seriously considering marriage to any non-virgin woman should go over the passages in question with her and her father, explain what they mean, have her confess to her father and ask him to annul her marriage. Failing that, locate the guy she gave her virginity to and if he isn’t a Christian get him to give her a certificate of divorce. Failing that, the only question is whether he’s willing to live with her as her husband. If he won’t, she’s free because he’s the unbelieving husband who won’t consent to live with her. If he is willing, her choice is to be reconciled with her husband or to remain separate, unmarried and chaste. Her choice.
The only way out for a Christian woman who married a Christian man is if she married him while in her youth, living in her father’s house and he didn’t know about it. Not having given his approval, her father has the right to annul the marriage in the day he hears about it and Numbers 30 doesn’t have any time limits. If he won’t (her guilt would be on him) then she’s stuck with the guy she married until the day he dies.
Nobody has to like it, they just have to obey.
In general, if you’ve engaged in adultery and are currently in a marriage, you should maintain your marriage to that person. The only action items are (1) to not commit adultery again; and (2) to not get remarried so long as any of your spouses are still alive.
Divorce is Final
The Law of Moses, which Jesus did not overturn, states that if a man gives his wife a certificate of divorce, he may not return to her under any circumstances. No man who has filed for divorce may return to his wife, even though he is still married to her in the eyes of God. If he is currently unmarried, he must remain celibate while she still lives.
The Mosaic certificate of divorce is a public declaration by the man that his wife was unfaithful. There is no coming back from that. By publicly divorcing her in this manner, he has given up his legal right to return to her. Any Christian man who wants the option to return to his wife—to be reconciled—must not divorce her.
However, if she divorces him, that divorce is not binding on him. Only if he divorces her is that binding on him. Her legal divorce is not binding, and so they can reconcile by mutual agreement or else remain celibate.
Since divorce is completely forbidden for all Christians, no obedient Christian man should ever find himself in the situation where he divorced her and she wants to return.
Marital Rights
A man only owes marital rights to his wife if she consents to live with him. If she chooses to leave (including through a legal divorce), both his rights and obligations cease, even though he is still biblically married. Biblically speaking, he is supposed to retain full familial rights (i.e. to the children and the family wealth) because she chose to leave voluntarily, but modern law will dictate otherwise.
Polygamy
The Bible does not teach that polygamy is a sin (outside of matters of conscience, anyway). It does teach that it is a bad idea and should be avoided. It also teaches that anyone who has been divorced and remarried or in a polygamous relationship is forbidden from being a leader in the church. For the church to fix itself, it needs to remove everyone from leadership who is not a virgin or the husband of the first (and only) biblical wife.
See: “On the Role of Divorced Men”
Being in an intentionally polygamous relationship is not forbidden, but this nevertheless does not allow for divorce. Thus, if a man married another woman while already married, this is not adultery presuming the intention is to be married to multiple women. A polygamist must actually live with all his wives to be in compliance with scripture. Because this does not happen—because its forbidden as a matter of secular law and a matter of actual practice—the issue of biblically permitted polygamy is essentially irrelevant, even though it often gets brought up in these types of discussions.
So rare is the actual polygamist relationship, that no modern man can claim that he’s simply married to multiple women in order to avoid the charge of adultery. No one can say “adultery doesn’t actually exist, because it’s all just polygamous marriage.”
It Ain’t Logical
Sin isn’t logical and the consequences of sin cannot be easily unraveled. I’ve warned on numerous occasions that if a man or woman marries two people at the same time through an act of adultery, then they’ve created a hopeless contradiction of God’s plan for marriage. There is no way to unravel this mess in a satisfactory manner. It’s fundamentally fallen.
God’s grace can provide forgiveness, but it can’t eliminate the actual inherent failure that is actual sin. Sin can’t be polished, it can only be repented.
Say a man has a previous biblical wife and then marries another. His initial act of marriage is infidelity to his first wife. He’s now in the situation where he’s—ideally—obligated to live with both women while fulfilling his duties and obligations to both. But this is not possible. It’s even worse if any of his wives are claimed by another man!
There is no logical solution to this conundrum. Sin isn’t logical. That’s why adultery is so harmful, it creates an unsolvable conflict. For example, the man can’t divorce his new wife in order to solve this problem, because divorce is forbidden. Nor, if he formally divorced her, can he take back his first wife. There simply isn’t a clean solution.
Not even Paul—warning that joining with a prostitute joined her with the body of Christ—had any solution to the problem once it occurred. Marriage is for life, and messing it up has no solution aside from (eventually) death.
The clean solution to adultery is don’t do it in the first place.
Given that there is no solution to adultery this side of death, the man and his wives will have to muddle through by fulfilling their duties as best as they can according to biblical principles while not perpetuating their mistake further.
Derek,
i want to bring something up that Deti didn’t.Was/is the ”market” right to have made Dalrock learn game again from Roissy to make his wife happy when ”she felt unloved”?
And why does Deti say” game failed” when DAL’ said ” I still tell my wife I love her, and I do surprise her with flowers from time to time, but I also gently tease her and make sure she knows she is my woman. We are both far happier now; game has truly done incredible things for our marriage.”
She felt unloved.
Posted on November 21, 2011 by Dalrock
There are a couple of unfair criticisms of game which I see fairly regularly. The first is the idea that what game teaches is painfully obvious. Deti took some heat on a previous post for pointing out that what game teaches goes against the programming men today are given:
…most men who came of age in the 1980s and 90s were not learning these things to be attractive to women. We were not taught any of these things,but what was gay ladsz.
I was taught there are absolutely no differences whatsoever between women and men wrt thought patterns, perceptions, the way they experience events, the way they process information, or their feelings. I was taught that any man who pursues women aggressively or goes after what he wants is a pig, a chauvinist, a possible rapist, and probably a criminal. I was taught that women find soft, caring, good-hearted, kind, and nice men attractive. I was taught never, never, NEVER to escalate sexually without express permission, and that doing otherwise would subject me to possible criminal prosecution.
I was taught that a woman’s thought processes are never to be challenged. I was taught that a woman’s feelings are paramount and that you must do everything possible to “make your woman happy”. I was taught that any man who challenges a woman is an aggressor, is probably physically violent, and is overbearing and domineering. I was taught that if my woman was unhappy it was because I was not being “nice” enough to her; I was not “doing enough” for her; and/or I was not being “sensitive enough to her needs/wants/feelings”.
In response he received a fairly standard rebuttal that of course everyone knew that women don’t like men who follow those rules. But I agree with Deti, beta men have been taught exactly the kind of nonsense he describes; because we are polite rule followers who want to please our wives and the other women in our lives, we very often follow the terrible advice nearly everyone would give us. Once you understand why the advice is so terrible it is painfully obvious why it is wrong. But for me, Deti, and I would guess a large number of other men this isn’t obvious until you learn game.
The other unfair indictment against game which I see fairly regularly is that it teaches men not to love women. Blogger Bonald from Throne and Altar made this basic point in his recent post Pile up on social conservatives (emphasis his):
When we realize that true eros desires an I-Thou union, we see that Game is actually hostile to eros because it teaches the man to regard his partner as an It to be manipulated rather than a Thou to be communicated with.
As I mentioned in one of my very first posts, I’ve been married to my wife for over a decade and a half now and we have grown so close over the years that friends and relatives often tease that we are really one entity. Even so, there have been times where our marriage has been under strain. Even at its worst it has never been the kind of truly difficult marriage that I often read about though. The first difficult period came fairly early in our marriage. My wife was still in school and I had slipped into a more beta frame. The combination of my increased betaness and her being surrounded by other men created some strain on our marriage. She fitness tested me with some regularity, and while I generally passed them I didn’t always come through with flying colors. During this period my wife actually figured out part of what was going on. She would lay into me for something trivial, and after a period of trying to placate her I would eventually find something else to do which was away from her. My thought process wasn’t to try to game her, but I figured why hang around the apartment for the weekend to get bitched out when I could be hunting or fishing instead? On the weekends where she wasn’t testing me we were very close and I would stick around. Then at some point she would test again and I’d be out the door with a gun or a fishing rod. She actually figured out the pattern at some point and came to me about it. She said she would get into a mood where she felt absolutely compelled to piss me off. Every cell in her body was telling her she would feel better if only she provoked a fight. Then she would do it, and I’d be out the door. Once the fight was started but especially once I had left she felt miserable. So she made a conscious effort not to give in to the urge; we fought less and as a result spent much more time together.
After that things improved a great deal, and by normal standards we had a very good marriage. However, for the first seven of the last ten years she was telling me she didn’t feel loved. This was maddening to me because no matter what I tried it didn’t help. I knew enough game intuitively to not go overboard on flowers, cards, etc, but when I surprised her with those it still didn’t help. She is a natural leader so I also tried letting her make more of the decisions; any time an opportunity came up I would make it a point to defer to her preference to show her that I loved her. This only made the problem worse, although I didn’t make the connection at the time. This wasn’t an acute problem, but it was a chronic one and I absolutely hated it when she brought it up because nothing I could do would make her happier. She knew I loved her, but she didn’t feel it the way she wanted to. It of course was equally frustrating for her as well because she kept telling me something was wrong and I wasn’t making it better.
About two years ago I stumbled onto Roissy’s site. I knew some game informally from having watched my natural PUA roommate fornicating freely in college but I had not learned any of the theory. What I had put into practice when I met my wife I had mostly lost in an effort to make my wife feel more loved. Roissy was extremely painful to read. I kept finding myself wanting to unknow what he had just explained, but I couldn’t stop myself from reading more. My curiosity was more intense than my desire to hold onto the pretty lies. After about four months of reading Roissy and the comments I had a rudimentary sense of how game worked and started experimenting on my wife with it (she didn’t even know I was reading about it). I stopped sending her the frequent “I love you!” texts* which I had been doing in an effort to make her feel more loved. Instead I started shooting for upped attraction. I’ve never experienced the sexual denial that I’ve read about other husbands experiencing, but I figured a little more attraction wouldn’t hurt anything anyway. I started objectifying my wife more, and treating her more like a possession. I love you was out, C’mere woman! and Hey sexy wife! was in. Instead of loving gentle hugs, I’d forcefully grab her and pull her into me; I would mischievously cop a feel from time to time as well.
It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well. Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly. I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one. This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife. The results were as expected more attraction from my wife. As I mentioned this wasn’t ever a real problem before but I could tell a difference in her response to me. Then something very startling happened; she thanked me for finally making her feel more loved! I had given up on that goal for the time being, and yet along with more attraction I had also inadvertently filled that nagging void which she had been feeling for so many years.
This was a huge breakthrough for me, and as I’ve learned more about game I also am able to mix in more of the comfort/beta traits. I still tell my wife I love her, and I do surprise her with flowers from time to time, but I also gently tease her and make sure she knows she is my woman. We are both far happier now; game has truly done incredible things for our marriage.
*Yeah, I know. I hate to admit that I was that guy.”
So can Deti better explain his ”game failed” commentary from Spawnys in Summer 2023?
Or his ”MGTOW failed ” commentary from then to in light of stuff like the following(which was nearly a year after you said that too?
MGTOW is winning
Men aren’t approaching women anymore. Women picked the bear.
Showing 31-45 of 127 comments
Chocobo & Moogle Jul 14, 2024 @ 7:27am
Originally posted by gugnihr:
Originally posted by KaibaCorp:
Men aren’t approaching women anymore. Women picked the bear.
You seem very concerned and resentful.
It is not winning if you do it with anger.
MGTOW is not a race and it is not about beating somebody else, MGTOW is only about giving to your own personal interests and personal happines the top priority and not being used by others.
You should leave this kind of incel – like mentality out of it. If you are not happy to go your own way then it means that it was not your own way at all after all.
No, I’m happy that it’s happening. It means women can’t be entitled to things anymore.
#31
Chocobo & Moogle Jul 14, 2024 @ 7:29am
I just came here to rub it in the face of people
#32
RedAkula749 Jul 14, 2024 @ 7:29am
Originally posted by KaibaCorp:
Originally posted by gugnihr:
You seem very concerned and resentful.
It is not winning if you do it with anger.
MGTOW is not a race and it is not about beating somebody else, MGTOW is only about giving to your own personal interests and personal happines the top priority and not being used by others.
You should leave this kind of incel – like mentality out of it. If you are not happy to go your own way then it means that it was not your own way at all after all.
No, I’m happy that it’s happening. It means women can’t be entitled to things anymore.
To be honest, you seem to be rather frustrated that you can’t find a female partner to have a good and happy relationship with, hence you are evading to hate, to try to find some sort of higher purpose in your failure rather than facing the actual problem and trying to work on it.
#33
gugnihr Jul 14, 2024 @ 7:30am
Originally posted by KaibaCorp:
Originally posted by gugnihr:
You seem very concerned and resentful.
It is not winning if you do it with anger.
MGTOW is not a race and it is not about beating somebody else, MGTOW is only about giving to your own personal interests and personal happines the top priority and not being used by others.
You should leave this kind of incel – like mentality out of it. If you are not happy to go your own way then it means that it was not your own way at all after all.
No, I’m happy that it’s happening. It means women can’t be entitled to things anymore.
You might be happy, but it sounds like you are also angry anyway. This is not MGTOW, it is something else like say Deti saying ” MGTOW failed”or especially Sharkly yelling about the adultrea periscope.
& if the ”manosphere/redpill failed” Deti how do explain this then?:”It’s not something that I like, but unfortunately after much thought I’ve discovered that what they say is mostly true. Perhaps it shouldn’t be relevant but I am a woman and initially had the same reaction to TRP as everyone else. I thought they were just a bunch of men that hated women. Even though this might be partially true, I don’t think this invalidates what they say. It is very upsetting to me that someone that hates me would be right, but that doesn’t make what they say not true.”
r/changemyview icon
Go to changemyview
r/changemyview
•
9 yr. ago
coratoad
CMV: I think the Red Pill is mostly correct about women and society.
[∆(s) from OP]
I’m on the verge of “taking the red pill” and would like someone to talk me out of it if possible. It’s not something that I like, but unfortunately after much thought I’ve discovered that what they say is mostly true. Perhaps it shouldn’t be relevant but I am a woman and initially had the same reaction to TRP as everyone else. I thought they were just a bunch of men that hated women. Even though this might be partially true, I don’t think this invalidates what they say. It is very upsetting to me that someone that hates me would be right, but that doesn’t make what they say not true. Here is a list of things I think they are right about.
We live in a very gynocentric society that is sexist against men. To give a few examples, men get longer prison sentences, are convicted at higher rates for the same crimes, and receive longer sentences for killing women than for killing men. (i.e. men are disposable)
We always assume men to be the aggressor in any encounter. Women actually commit more domestic violence than men, yet we always assume it’s the man who is abusive. Another example, “My husband tells me what I should wear” Sounds bad right? How about “My wife tells me what I should wear.” The first sounds worse because we assume that a man with some power in the relationship will abuse his power, but we don’t assume the same for women.
Men have to be extraordinarily careful not to sound like they are blaming women whenever they vent any sort of frustration or emotion. For instance, “Why do women like that asshole and not me?” is something that you might find mocked in r/niceguys or r/justneckbeardthings. Yet if a woman says something like “Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?” she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.
Male sexuality is considered shameful. Men are considered creepy if they have a blow up doll, for an example. Yet it’s perfectly normal for a woman to have a collection of dildos. Men are shamed if they date much younger women, even if she is a consenting adult.
Perhaps this isn’t too controversial, but women are attracted to status, masculinity, power, and good looks. They are more attracted to a man if other women want him. They are no less superficial in their sexual preferences than men. Weakness is unattractive to women. Being an emotional, sensitive man is a death sentence in the dating world.
RPillers have a right to be angry and upset because men are almost always blamed for everything. They are assumed to be the bad guy. TRP is the one place that they can get relief from this and where women can be the bad guy for once. I also feel like all women are partially responsible for their state. We should have been the ones to stand up and defend men. Men have a hard time standing up for themselves without being perceived as weak or misogynist.
The more power the man has in the relationship, the longer the relationship lasts and the more power the woman has, the unhappier the relationship.
I don’t agree with all of RP views, and I hate that they are correct about these things, but I believe they are more right than the current mainstream narrative. Part of me wonders if I am just suffering from Stockholm syndrome, because I spend a lot of time reading their subreddit. CMV.
EDIT: I am taking a break from answering questions for a few hours but i’ll be back. In the meantime, here is a compilation of men’s issues put together by another user. https://www.reddit.com/r/rbomi/
Here is a source on pro female bias in both men and women http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
There is no logical solution to this conundrum. Sin isn’t logical. That’s why adultery is so harmful, it creates an unsolvable conflict. For example, the man can’t divorce his new wife in order to solve this problem, because divorce is forbidden. Nor, if he formally divorced her, can he take back his first wife. There simply isn’t a clean solution.
Deti knows that, he just wanted to put you on the defensive like he was that chicken$#it known as Sparkly or his ”cheer me up and on” handful of fanboys that he pretends are millions strong and that no one really disagrees with simp-filled tradconnic” women are the center of my universe” worldview, theology and nonsensical foolish life.
Deti likes to put Derek on the defensive, so i thought maybe Deti should do some defending of his own, (for what mainly caused poor ‘ole sensitive Sparkly to write that ”P-P-People
I call trolls cuz they scaredeth me and best bud and fellow RP failure coach Corey Jack Wayne with DaTRUTH that frightens me to no clear end at Spawnys recently” post in late ”23) for a change😉
Yet if a woman says something like “Why does that guy like the hot girl but not me?” she would be most likely receive sympathy. Men have to be super careful in choosing their words, which is ironic because we encourage men to express their emotions more. Yet when they do, we shame them for it.
Men have to be super careful in choosing their words
Now see why i thought coach Corey Jack Wayne , Sparkly and his handful of fanboys were women trolls instead of just envious of what i got?(I.E.A ”presence” or perhaps ” relaxed yet intense” charisma and attitude that they can’t copy, buy or learn through game/red pill or through reading ”how to lie to friends & dupe people while pretending to be an upright Christian to others and society” by Dale Carnegie.
Here’s a secret i didn’t copy, buy or learn through game/red pill or through reading ”how to lie to friends & Dupe People while Pretending to be an Upright ”Conservative” Republican® ”Christian” to Others and Society” by Dale Carnegie.
It came from me wanting to be me but ”Amplified”?
Of course, tradconnic ”MEN” who look to a”cucked,simped that loves anal, oral and opioids”culture and society for approval won’t understand what i tell them which is why MOSES, JESUS, and GBFM are NOT sent to such as them but to those who are ”like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 and upon finding a single pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.”-Matthew 13:45-46Amplified Bible (AMP)
Professor,
Let’s consider your question…
“Was/is the ”market” right to have made Dalrock learn game again from Roissy to make his wife happy when ”she felt unloved”?”
…in light of Dalrock’s claims:
I was taught there are absolutely no differences whatsoever between women and men wrt thought patterns, perceptions, the way they experience events, the way they process information, or their feelings.
Behind both of these lurks blankslatism, the idea that everyone is an interchangeable cog differing only in their environmental programming, which can be changed if only you turn the right screws.
But women, like men, are inherently diverse, with diverse thoughts, opinions, motivations, desires, and feelings. They are not interchangeable, neither is there a standardized approach to male/female relationships.
It’s not just that women are different from men—as Dalrock asserts—it’s that they are different from each other.
Read what Rock Kitaro wrote under his most recent post (which I recommend everyone read):
I get what people are trying to say when they advocate for such approaches [like Game], but it’s kinda of like when you see the ladies on those Whatever podcasts, or the Fresh and Fit girls. My approach would not work, on women like them!
That’s right. Dalrock apparently wanted the kind of wife—perhaps “younger, hotter, tighter, and free”—that such things are effective on, but other men do not. Dalrock didn’t seem to have one of these in mind:
There is a real division between people who think that there is a single kind of woman (and a single kind of approach) and the rest of us.
What Dalrock was taught—what he calls nonsense—is actually effective on certain kinds of women. It’s quietly effective. The people who are giving the advice are the people for whom it has actually worked. Those people—for whom it is effective—notably do not get online to go on-and-on about how you must do it or else divorce. They quietly go about their days with normal marriages to normal wives while the Dalrockians struggle with the choices that they prefer.
So Bonald is right when he says…
Game is actually hostile to eros because it teaches the man to regard his partner as an It to be manipulated rather than a Thou to be communicated with.
…and you can tell that Bonald likes a different kind of women than Dalrock by how he says stuff like this!
By contrast, Dalrock has nothing but disdain for men who have wives they like and don’t have to play games with. After all, his wife “fitness tested” him, so apparently yours must too! But all this shows is that he is, apparently, attracted to that kind of woman.
Dalrock’s approach…
I started objectifying my wife more, and treating her more like a possession.
…would be fatal to a marriage to a different kind of woman.
So the question is this: why are so many men attracted to women where the standard “nonsense” advice is ineffective?
I can tell from Scott’s, Jack’s, Saint Dalrock’s, Deti’s, Sharkly’s, and Porn Pill Apostle’s descriptions of their partners that I would not have ever been interested in that kind of woman and that type of woman would have never been interested in me. And those men would have had no interest my kind of woman. In fact, given their description of what a good woman is like, they’d absolutely hate my preferences. I suspect that I found a wife whose temperament is more akin to the likes of Liz or the wives of Keoni Galt, Rock Kitaro, or Bonald. Either that, or I’m not an INTJ.
Peace,
DR
What really went wrong within the Dalrockian manosphere?
Girl game wasn’t pushed like guy game was!
DAL’, MOSES, JESUS & GBFMS bro Deti explains it, from the above ”she felt unloved” post :
deti says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Men can’t game all the time, every day. Nor are men expected to game all the time. Only the very worst women have to be gamed hard all the time, it seems to me. Everyone has an off day. And women have to bring their game too.
Guy game: aloof, cocky-funny, straightforward, makes firm decisions, pursues what he wants without apology, claims what is his
Girl game: physically appealing, kind, pleasant, nondemanding, compliant, submits to her man’s decisions, nurturing
Guy anti-game: cloying, fishing for compliments, supplicating, asking for affection, nice, unassuming
Girl anti-game: profane, vulgar, crass, pushy, demanding, insists on her own way
Girl game: physically appealing, kind, pleasant, nondemanding, compliant, submits to her man’s decisions, nurturing
And women have to bring their game too.
YEP!
D@RN RIGHT Deti!!!
girl game got pushed aside in favor of guy game or as one quiet eloquent fellow put it on August 6th 2012 during the GREAT game/charisma/relaxed yet intense war between Dalrock and VOX versus MOSES, JESUS & GBFM of ’12 to ’14!:
”before bringing an embittered buttoccked owmen
into your home
who you have to game
to try and keep her
from taking your assettss
and alimoniez?
Pushing girl game of physically appealing, kind, pleasant, nondemanding, compliant, submits to her man’s decisions, nurturing”
-could have saved marriage and Western civilization but dudes like Athol Kay, DAL’, Deti & VOX kept only pushing MEN to learn guy game of ”aloof, cocky-funny, straightforward, makes firm decisions, pursues what he wants without apology, claims what is his”
Or maybe instead of teaching guy or girl game maybe taught this instead from almost 2000 years ago?
1But as for you, teach the things which are in agreement with sound doctrine [which produces men and women of good character whose lifestyle identifies them as true Christians]. 2Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in steadfastness [Christlike in character].
3Older women similarly are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor addicted to much wine, teaching what is right and good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to tenderly love their husbands and their children, 5to be sensible, pure, makers of a home [where God is honored], good-natured, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
6In a similar way urge the young men to be sensible and self-controlled and to behave wisely [taking life seriously]. 7And in all things show yourself to be an example of good works, with purity in doctrine [having the strictest regard for integrity and truth], dignified, 8sound and beyond reproach in instruction, so that the opponent [of the faith] will be shamed, having nothing bad to say about us.
9Urge bond-servants to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be pleasing and not talk back, 10not stealing [things, regardless of value], but proving themselves trustworthy, so that in every respect they will adorn and do credit to the teaching of God our Savior.
11For the [remarkable, undeserved] grace of God that [a]brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to reject ungodliness and worldly (immoral) desires, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives [with a purpose that reflect spiritual maturity] in this present age, 13awaiting and confidently expecting the [fulfillment of our] blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14who [willingly] gave Himself [to be crucified] on our behalf to redeem us and purchase our freedom from all wickedness, and to purify for Himself a chosen and very special people to be His own possession, who are enthusiastic for doing what is good.
15Tell them these things. Encourage and rebuke with full authority. Let no one disregard or despise you [conduct yourself and your teaching so as to command respect].
-Titus 2:1-15-Amplified Bible
That’s what MOSES,JESUS & GBFM did as nearly everyone else said ”MAN UP & LEARN GUY GAME of aloof, cocky-funny, straightforward, makes firm decisions, pursues what he wants without apology, claims what is his…
Now 13 years later marriage and Western Civilization is almost over though.
Coincidence?
Or did it ALL just play out as written here?:
1What leads to [the unending] [a]quarrels and conflicts among you? Do they not come from your [hedonistic] desires that wage war in your [bodily] members [fighting for control over you]? 2You are jealous and covet [what others have] and [b]your lust goes unfulfilled; so you [c]murder. You are envious and cannot obtain [the object of your envy]; so you fight and battle. You do not have because you do not ask [it of God]. 3You ask [God for something] and do not receive it, because you ask [d]with wrong motives [out of selfishness or with an unrighteous agenda], so that [when you get what you want] you may spend it on your [hedonistic] desires. 4You adulteresses [disloyal sinners–flirting with the world and breaking your vow to God]! Do you not know that being the world’s friend [that is, loving the things of the world] is being God’s enemy? So whoever chooses to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5Or do you think that the Scripture says to no purpose [e]that the [human] [f]spirit which He has made to dwell in us lusts with envy? 6But He gives us more and more grace [through the power of the Holy Spirit to defy sin and live an obedient life that reflects both our faith and our gratitude for our salvation]. Therefore, it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD and HAUGHTY, BUT [continually] GIVES [the gift of] GRACE TO THE HUMBLE [who turn away from self-righteousness].” 7So submit to [the authority of] God. Resist the devil [stand firm against him] and he will flee from you. 8Come close to God [with a contrite heart] and He will come close to you. Wash your hands, you sinners; and purify your [unfaithful] hearts, you double-minded [people]. 9Be miserable and grieve and weep [over your sin]. Let your [foolish] laughter be turned to mourning and your [reckless] joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves [with an attitude of repentance and insignificance] in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you [He will lift you up, He will give you purpose].
11Believers, do not speak against or slander one another. He who speaks [self-righteously] against a brother or [g]judges his brother [hypocritically], speaks against the Law and judges the Law. If you judge the Law, you are not a doer of the Law but a judge of it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy [the one God who has the absolute power of life and death]; but who are you to [hypocritically or self-righteously] pass judgment on your neighbor?
13Come now [and pay attention to this], you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and carry on our business and make a profit.” 14[h]Yet you do not know [the least thing] [i]about what may happen in your life tomorrow. [What is secure in your life?] You are merely a vapor [like a puff of smoke or a wisp of steam from a cooking pot] that is visible for a little while and then vanishes [into thin air]. 15Instead [j]you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and we will do this or that.” 16But as it is, you boast [vainly] in your pretension and arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:1-13-Amplified Bible
17So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin.
Now the latter-day self-proclaimed RP® Geniuse Leaders claim to understand that then where is all their deep and ”helpful” teaching to women to be thus” teach the things which are in agreement with sound doctrine [which produces men and women of good character whose lifestyle identifies them as true Christians]. 2Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in steadfastness [Christlike in character].”
So let it be!
AMEN!!😉😁😎😇
I’m going to lower the boom with “Red Pilled Men” who have “Game” and ‘lore” and “Frame” and were absolute zeros with women, and in their marriages until Rollo / Roissy / Dalrock and the who crew of experts came along and “fixed” everything
Are no going to hairsplit of what MGTOW is or isnt. What model over another model. What graph over another graph. What Jesus “really” meant or Paul, or what the “passed down traditions” from Jesus all the way til now work.
The incessant nuances, time wasted, debated.
I recall in the Bible when Paul arrived in Athens it mentioned how “The Athenians spent all day hanging out discussing the latest ideas, trends, theories” (and trivial things mind you, nothing mind blowing had come out of Athenian culture in a century or two at that point…..a culture on the skids, a decline and only a city / Acropolis of marble to its memory of a better past)
These men have WAY too much free time, and in another generation, probably the Victorian Age, they would have been set right by actual men for “wasting time, idleness and frivolous discussion” when actual work in their own lives needed to be done.
For this “feminzied” culture we live in, these men have plenty of time to discuss the rehashed “foolproof” things to make your wife “obey” or listen to you, or to “only submit and follow you”
If she doesnt???? Oh, again…..”you’re doing it wrong” or some other excuse / insanity to try the method again…and of course “throw her to the curb / explain divorce and she will get nothing (tell that to Family Court) / we have to support Trump 100% because he is chosen by God” or some other new study or chart, or metric, or subset to the appendix of the subset of said Axiom and “immoveable” rule.
I was re-reading William Shire’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” from the early sixties the other noght. The outright foolishness by the German, and other EUropean players before the war….signing this or that treaty or agreement…none of them worth the paper they were printed on. Promises are “made to be broken” and actual duty, honor and having your “yes” mean yes and your “no” mean no meant nothing…….the same issue that goes back to the days of the Bible being written. Hairsplitting over anguage and what words “really” mean.
That age, like now had too many lawyers and supposed “experts”
When for the fact that German regime at that time should have been plainly called out. Held accountable. Perhaps a lot more people would have indeed lived.
Your life as a man has ALWAYS had its challenges and perils and fears of its time. Always resulting in wounds, loss, betrayal, and even death. These men need to be just thanking God they have it easy as they do.
You can blame women for the next 1000 years, you can be stuck on what models, or methods or “proven” science; yet if the culture doesnt bend that way. Or human psychology doesnt work they demand it should…..
Well, there is no hope there either.
I find men who are married defining MGTOW. It would be like me telling men how they should behave in a marriage.
There are no barriers to entry online. Anyone—including the manifestly unqualified—can have an opinion. In the past, “qualified” men would decide these things according to some measure of authority and (perhaps) merit.
Or divorced men and men with troubled marriages giving marital advice. It’s the blind leading the blind.
“I can tell from Scott’s……”
Scott married a virgin raised in the conservative Restorationist church. After his divorce, when things had cooled down, they talked about “why?” Scott’s wife told him that when they married, she considered him “a good start.” He didn’t grow into her expectations.
I was referring to Scott’s current partner. I don’t know anything about his previous partners.
In any case, my observation wasn’t a dig. I’m simply acknowledging that there is a major different in personal preference, and that applies to the application of Game and other Manosphere or Red Pill concepts. When Dalrock says…
…I hear “do that and you’ll be in divorce court within the year.”
So, someone like Dalrock’s wife or Scott’s current wife would never even be a blip on my radar, and no woman of her type would ever find me on her radar either. I wouldn’t even be possible for me to be with a woman who I would need to start treating more like a posession.
But regarding your point, the conversation we are not having is “why did he pick her in the first place?” and “why don’t successful men pick women like that?” The answer is not luck or random chance, and the core topics of the Manosphere—including hypergamy—completely miss that point.
He did what you are “supposed to do” and married among the 5% or whatever of women are virgins. WRT his second wife, by the time the first marriage was over and he recovered, I’m guessing there weren’t a lot of Mennonite virgins left for him to choose from.
While I understand that “luck” is just a superstition, it seems that by your reasoning, if a man has a bad outcome, that’s an indication that he got a non-random (strictly speaking, true) outcome and therefore he assortively paired by instinct towards an adulteress. Scott had an adulteress detector or some such.
Cameron,
I’m going to discuss the topic of selection and results in tomorrow’s post. There I will address the core issue that bad results seem to cluster with certain people and good results seem to cluster with certain other people in a non-random manner.
—————————————
If you look at what I said above, I’m making the point that there is something different about each man’s selection.
Are “Meet Cute” the key to marital success, or only the key to finding a woman that will want to be with a man like Scott (i.e. selection bias)? I believe that “Meet Cute” Scott is going to find a certain kind of woman that another man—one who has never received a “Meet Cute”—is not ever going to connect with.
In all likelihood, there will never be an overlap between the kind of women these two men have access to. This is extremely important when it comes to questions like why one finds success and the other does not: they are not accessing the same pool of women, despite how similar they might be “on paper.”
I suspect that, like Dalrock, Scott was following a script designed for a different kind of man, a more average kind of man. But Scott is no average man. Neither is, I suspect, Dalrock.
You talk about a certain type—young, chaste Mennonite (or Amish) girls—but it just takes half a second of reasoning to figure out that they’d be instantly turned off by the foul language, crude manner, and musical tastes of men like Scott, Oscar, or Deti. Ask a woman like Liz or Elspeth if they find the manner of those men alluring.
There is a close to 0% chance that those men could acquire such a woman, even if the world was filled with an unlimited supply of conservative virgin Anabaptists. They’d have to be a different person, which is the point.
I’ve seen men in the sphere argue vigorously that Jesus used insulting language so they can too. Can you see how that instantly disqualifies them? (Meanwhile, all that people tell me is “stop blaming the men.”)
Who you are matters. Who you are largely determines your outcomes.
Yes, men do get assortatively paired with people who are prone to adultery because who you are determines who you will pair with. Yes, some perfectly good people are much more likely to have bad results than others because they are attracted to riskier people. This shouldn’t be controversial, but simply an observation that results exist on statistical distributions.
We can’t point to any specific reason for this to be the case. It’s complex and there are probably hundreds, thousands or who knows even millions of variables that go into who you are as a person, who you surround yourself with, and who would be interested in you. I’ve suggested that INTJ is a significant risk factor, but even that is just a very coarse-grained explanation. But our inability to determine those variables does not change the fact that we can identify statistically significant “types” that people prefer and predict their relationship outcomes.
I posit that hypergamy is one of those types and it is evolutionarily associated with stuff that many men are attracted to.
—————————————
Just consider genetics and the types thereof. People mate with people who are genetically similar. This excludes many possible options. Can a person easily acquire an ethnic Anabaptist? My father did, but then I ended up finding another non-pureblood hybrid like me. Coincidence? Probably not. Nor is it coincidence that there are landmarks named after my matrilineal ancestor and her patrilineal ancestors.
Marrying outside your ethnic group is risky. If you have no ethnic group or your ethnic group has a high divorce rate, your odds are not great.
The point is, outcomes get clustered into certain ethnic groups. These are generally outside anyone’s control, but they still matter.
People can’t just marry anyone they want and expect the same results as someone else.
Peace,
DR
“You talk about a certain type—young, chaste Mennonite (or Amish) girls—but it just takes half a second of reasoning to figure out that they’d be instantly turned off by the foul language, crude manner, and musical tastes of men like Scott, Oscar, or Deti. Ask a woman like Liz or Elspeth if they find the manner of those men alluring.”
Conservative Amish/Mennonites like the picture you show are an extreme, six-sigma outlier. Almost none of these men had access to Amish women.
I went to a conservative, Weslyan Holiness church (the “no, drinking, no dancing types). I don’t think there were a bunch of virgins there – the pastor’s daughter got knocked up in HS by a dude that bailed. I’m pretty sure you would’ve been a creep in danger of hellfire who didn’t understand the gospel if you had inquired into the girls’ virginity.
Deti has indicated he was a nice church boy. It rather seems that he has changed (at least as to how he acts on the internet) by his experiences.
I love our ladies’ auxillary, they are real sweethearts but I don’t think they’re Amish/Mennonites. Kind of hard for me to imagine that SAM was more docile than Scott – since SAM got another woman pregnant, I would assume he would be out for Mennonite women too – and I would guess that Elspeth was less bashful than the Mennonite women. I don’t know about Mike. My guess is he wasn’t a dweeby boyscout who just listened to Baroque music. I worked with fighter pilots for 25+ years – lots of them – I never met one who only had a PG-13 mode. Liz reminds me of my wife – not super shy about coarse language – I mean she hung out at SS for years. Ladies auxillary not a good example.
Cameron,
As I pointed out in “A Case Study on Marriage,” the effect is too large for your critique to apply. The Amish make up ~8% of the population. Even accounting for other Anabaptists—including the more liberal ones—there are far too few people in those categories to account for the lopsided population statistics. It’s a cultural thing, going well beyond the Anabaptists themselves into the general population.
In any case, it’s more like two sigma. That’s well within the reach, presuming it’s not mostly genetically predetermined. And if it is predetermined, then the entire Red Pill is totally irrelevant and you’ve all been wasting your time. So assuming it’s not all predetermined, Lancaster County provides the perfect example of something that is achievable and not an impossible outlier.
I’m not clear on what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that “Lancaster’s results can’t be replicated?” If so, why can’t they be? Worldwide there are 2 million Anabaptists, 17 million Mormons, and 1.9 billion Muslims. You can find a system that “works” at any scale you desire, from the anecodote all the way up to the national norm.
Peace,
DR
All these “real men” who “know what they want” and have “meet cutes” and access to dates, test drives, helping their dates in question get a higher “n count” are forgetting a big pink elephant in the middle of the room.
Back in the “good ol days” in a “biblical sense” and life-path (which they all claim to be leaders in)
Marriages were pretty much arranged. One didnt chat the girls on the temple steps in Jerusalam after Sabbath. One didnt go to the theater of the era ( Roman / Greek theater which was bawdy, very unholy and a place that the righteous didnt set foot in). Jesus didnt go there. Also the “gymnasiums” of the time of Jesus…..that era. Very sexual. Lots of homosexual acts and a very homo-erotic type of place, which “devout Jews” didnt go to. Nor nice “virginal women” would associate with.
Marriages were arranged.
You were a fisherman? You married another fishermans daughter or someone involved with that industry or work. Pottery maker? Perhaps a daughter of a smaller merchant who dealt and sold your family’s pottery to one of the markets. Farmer? Herder? You were not at the Temple talking to the “hottest” girl who was the Rabbis daughter or someone with authority in the town, village or city.
The marriages that were not arranged were reserved for very, very few. Most were not the exception (though all of them probably think themselves as that)
This tradition we have in the modern world is relatively new. Even well into 20th century, many communities and smaller towns across all the states…marriages were arranged / or a pairing was encouraged / decided by the local community church and the like
Lastmod,
At some point in this series, I’ll discuss arranged marriages (with respect to Bruce Charlton’s article on the subject). But the simplest point is that (the lack of) arranged marriages explains hypergamy better than hypergamy explains hypergamy.
Peace,
DR
I’m sorry – you mean 8% of Lancaster? Amish are about 0.1% of the U.S. population. They lead insular lives, are geographically concentrated, have farms, speak Plattdeutsche. I guess the point is that the Amish weren’t really accessible to Scott so he had to choose a Church of Christ virgin – top 5% instead of the six sigma. I guess Scott should have figured out to move to Lancaster County – “sorry, you picked the wrong denomination, the correct answer was the Mormons.”
Cameron,
So we are on the same page: in A Case Study on Marriage I noted that Lancaster is an outlier on divorce. But there are not enough Anabaptists in Lancaster (whether Plain or otherwise) to account for the statistics.
Except that the entire culture of Lancaster (and surrounding areas)—both religious and secular—shows the statistical effects of a better environment. It’s not just the Amish, or if it is, then the Amish have “infected” everyone else. So much for being insular!
I mean no offense, but this sounds almost bitter or defeatist: focused on group differences as if they have moral weight, rather than a description of how things are and a clinical examination of why.
If you want to know why Scott wasn’t born into a different family, a different location, or why he married who he married, you’ll have to ask Scott or God. But, if you want to examine a very large dataset that highlights an entire population that experiences positive outcomes, we have one. You seem to be dismissing it as if it has no relevance, and I’m curious why you are doing that.
Peace,
DR
Ok – I won’t dismiss it. I think people should learn from successes and make the sacrifices to emulate them. I’ve told men in the sphere to move to where there’s a high number of unicorns and then to select the best unicorns and it’s not the best looking unicorns I recommended. I got pushback from an illustrious ‘sphere commenter as if the only acceptable position is MGTOW.
I put my money where my mouth is and quit a moderately high paying corporate job to move 1500 miles to give my kids a chance in a tradish community.
I suppose my point is that from the perspective of a guy who picks a virgin CoC bride, she commits adultery because he didn’t grow into what she really wanted, it’s easy to see how it all seems random and “luck.” I mean hindsight is 20/20.
Cameron,
I’ve never been hostile to MGTOW. It’s a valid choice. Brother Earl, another Roman Catholic, was a big proponent. I believe Jason identifies as MGTOW, though he doesn’t talk about it much anymore. It is acceptable and I don’t argue with any man who goes that route unless he says it is the only route.
From what I can tell, the Church of Christ (Restorationist) have a 2 in 25 chance of divorce. That’s rare, in the ballpark of what I’ve experienced, but it’s still not zero. I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater because it’s not 0%, nor advise MGTOW as a global strategy.
I can’t say whether that situation was bad luck or whether it was the logical consequence of personal choices, or some combination of factors. I know very little about it. Sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes it really is bad luck. We’ve talked a lot about various statistics, but when it comes down to individuals, the general statistics don’t matter quite so much. If there were a 1000 identical clones, we’d be able to predict most of their outcomes on the basis of a few, but there would always be outliers. There always are.
The best we can offer other men is ways to improve their odds. We can’t really promise more than that. After all, as one group teaches that being nice will help your marital prospects while another teaches that being nice will sink it (it is, apparently, a beta trait).
But I can say this. If you take people who have succeeded and compare them to those who have failed, a majority will experience the same outcome no matter how many attempts. People who get divorces will tend to divorce, while people who marry successfully will do so again successfully (i.e. after they become widows). It seems to me that in order to avoid this cycle one must either become MGTOW or identify the cause of the problem and do something about it.
————————————————————————
I’m impressed that you moved to find your kids a better chance. Few are willing to do that. I’ve considered doing the same, but it’s not an easy choice, especially with the state of the institutional church at large being what it is. I’ve tried to do best by my kids in other ways. And we are not that far away. I also try not to complain to others about the choices I’ve freely made.
Peace,
DR
Just read an article about how Classical Christian education is being corrupted by things like lingo, niche-talk, and how cliches have obscured the classical renewal in education. How “truth, goodness, beauty, wonder, etc” have lost their punch and are little more than key words on the brochures of classical schools that have long watered down these concepts in favor of attracting a particular clientele.
I have concluded that the red pill is similar. Lots of coded language and lingo that no one knows what it means and Truth has been discarded for subjective “truth”.
As for the former “ladies auxilary”, I have never claimed to be the demurest of the demure or the most righteous woman. We’re Calvinists, so the idea that anyone, no matter how well they have behaved would claim such is laughable.
That said, I actually WAS a well-behaved, highly sheltered church girl when I met my husband. I was a white-washed tomb, as it were, and the sin that was in my heart poured out in numerous ways.
But I’ve been married 31 years and going strong. The proof in the pudding. Meet cutes get divorced, while we have a marital tree loaded with spiritual fruit. There is no need defend against who I was then, or who my husband was then, because we’re not those people anymore.
Yet another truth the so-called red pill has bastardized, even in Christian circles. Anyone who claims to be Christ’s and still thinks, walks, and talks the same way after 10, 15, 20 or more years is probably not regenerate. And anyone who treats fellow believers as if the work God has done in them doesn’t matter is probably not regenerate either.
That’s a good reminder. Thank you.
I apologize and regret typing that – my purpose was to say that it seems to me SAM was not so different from Scott and that the ladies’ auxillary was not somehow morally above or immune to choosing someone like Scott. I suppose what I was feeling was defensiveness on behalf of Scott. I did not mean to use things you’ve mentioned in the past to hurt you. I sometimes wince when we mention this stuff. If I could edit my comment, I would.
My point about the demure Amish women in the picture is Derek is bringing up extreme outliers. Almost no men can choose an Amish woman. From your story I have always concluded that you are a woman of deep and sincere faith. If you remember, you once objected to me referring to you as “a Godly woman.”
In other words, Scott wouldn’t get within a mile of an Amish or old order Mennonite woman. Scott did get close to a Church of Christ virgin and it wrecked him.
Cameron,
See my response above.
In any case, I agree with you. Scott wouldn’t get within a mile of those kind of women. He also wouldn’t get within a mile of the majority of the non-plain Mennonites. I’m not sure what point you are making, but it probably wasn’t to agree with me!
To me, this just illustrates what I’ve been saying all along, and what I’ll emphasize tomorrow: who you are determines your likelihood of success. It’s not random. If you have a good or bad result, it is largely because of the forces and preferences that make up who you are.
Most people—a majority—get precisely what you’d expect them to get. A few people buck the trend and get a different result.
Peace,
DR
He got to marry a virgin Church of Christ (the conservative Restorationists) bride which is top 5%. I’m saying that if he gets adulteress because who he was determined his fate then MGTOW is looking awfully good.
I understood what you meant, Cam. My comments were as much directed towards Derek’s statistical scientism as towards your referencing of me directly.
The choices we make every day matter. They matter A LOT. Even if we weren’t mature enough, righteous enough, or wise enough to be married when we got married, we made choices every day to stay together no matter what, and by God’s grace every day we continued to make better and better choices.
It is not an exaggeration to say that we have not had a bad relational year in nearly 20 years. Annoyances and miscommunications here and there, of course. But nothing even close to resembling a marital crisis. How’s that for two people who came from a high divorce rate ethnic group and a working class background while statistically better situated couples all around us have crashed and burned?
So many Christians seem to have a knowledge of God and understand the forms of godliness while denying the possibility of true power.
With that, I’ll stop my chattering. Sounds too much like a woman preaching and I can’t stand women preachers. Can’t believe there’s actually one on the White House. Ugh, LOL!
I suppose the fact that my husband and I both came from intact families (a minority in both our neighborhoods growing up) is not a small variable.
Now I’m really done.
No, it is not a minor factor. Having an intact family roughly halves your risk on that variable alone.
Elspeth,
I would take issue to calling it scientism, but that’s a minor quibble. I am focused on cause-and-effect from what people can choose to do. It’s the topic of discussion, but it’s not the only thing I care about. I can’t exactly account for what God does, as his moves go beyond the realm of earthly prediction and mathematics. I’m focused on the amoral aspects of this discussion. Others can weigh in on the moral implications of what I write (if anything).
I make no apology for not making this about right and wrong; not making moral judgments about outcomes. This is a blog about ideas, not persons. It is not my place to decide if someone is being punished or rewarded by God or the role of the grace of God in their lives. For that, your testimony speaks for itself.
If you meant your comments about God’s grace to be a criticism of my topic, I failed to take it that way. I appreciate what you had to say and the perspective you have to offer. So when you say this…
…I don’t know if you think I’m denying the possibility of God’s power. Because I’m not and I don’t take it that way. If it was your intent to criticize me, it has fallen flat. In fact, I agree with you. I generally find little, if anything, to disagree with most of what you have to say when you comment here.
Peace,
DR
Nevertheless, it’s rude to bash you over the head with that stuff (not really my intention but still) when you just come to read and offer some (valuable) comments.
As far as being regenerate, our original sin and actual sin is washed by baptism. We retain concupiscence, the ability to choose good or evil and the ability to hurt others, etc. I will have to think about whether that needs confession but there was no malice behind it.
CAM,
Derek isn’t attacking Scott.
As pointed out here:
“To me, this just illustrates what I’ve been saying all along, and what I’ll emphasize tomorrow: who you are determines your likelihood of success. It’s not random. If you have a good or bad result, it is largely because of the forces and preferences that make up who you are.”
“Most people—a majority—get precisely what you’d expect them to get. A few people buck the trend and get a different result.”
Scott wanted what he wanted, just as WE all do. He couldn’t change that as much as you or i couldn’t.
Some wants, just have a much lower chance of divorce is all.
“If you have a good or bad result, it is largely because of the forces and preferences that make up who you are.”
i for one wanted to make sure my woman=wife really wanted to be with me(as i wouldn’t want her to be with me otherwise for just my own consciousness’s sake-yes it would actually worry me to think a girl didn’t really want to be with me), but i have thought like that before i was a teen, ever since i was first in love at age 7/8-it was nothing new to me to think like that is the main point.