Lately a lot of regular commenters have been getting their comments thrown into the spam brig unnecessarily. Late yesterday I activated a script that will automatically remove messages from the spam bin within a minute of them being posted. If your comments do not show up after sending them, just wait a minute to see if they show up before sending me an email or trying to post another comment.
From that Clueless: Autism and the PUA Community article in 2014(that explains a lot of the ”prone to latching on to such black and white dichotomies” Derek has spoken of in the manosphere ).
https://kirstenlindsmith.com/2014/02/21/clueless-autism-and-the-pua-community/
An example that embodies both of these issues is one of the most common elements of PUA literature, as well as one of the most controversial: the “HB” rating scale.
Practical in concept, albeit fairly problematic for (hopefully) obvious reasons, large portions of PUA approach and connection techniques rely on on the context-dependent status of the targeted individual. Put simply, this means that if the aspiring PUA wants to approach and “pick up” a woman, his methods, and how she reacts to them, will depend on her social status.
Common sense, right?
This method becomes problematic because PUAs distill this complex, valid concept into a high school romcom style 1-10 rating scale, called the “HB” scale. “HB” stands for “Hot Babe” (yes, really).
In concept, an “HB5” is going to respond to a direct compliment differently from an “HB10.” This is true, when one keeps in mind that in theory the status described refers not only to physical appearance, but also to social standing, presentation, and context. A pretty girl dressed in a t-shirt and sweatpants, listening to her iPod on the bus, is going to respond to direct approach differently from that same girl in heels and a cocktail dress standing at the bar in a club. Yet not only does this scale inherently objectify women by reducing them to “HB”s, and implying that the whole of their presentation can be condensed to a number from 1 to 10, but this scale completely warps the individual PUA’s view of women.
Take, for example, this self-styled PUA’s explanation of the HB scale:
HB6: would be glad to get approached, feel flattered by a decent compliment
HB7: appreciates flattering attention, but it doesn’t make her day
HB8: probably only wants compliments/cold direct approaches from guys she already has interest in. Will turn down most approaches politely
HB9-10: Expects free drinks at bars, expects to be hit on, interprets men asking for directions on the street as hitting on her (and she’s usually right), might hold out all night, shooting down with sass every guy that approaches, then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night.
A naïve autistic man who struggles with cognitive empathy will have a hard time putting himself into the figurative shoes of these hypothetical woman, and may nod along with this description: “Ah, I get it! That makes perfect sense! I’m probably about a 5 or a 6, and I would definitely feel flattered if a stranger complimented me!” Even many neurotypical men often think this way; it’s the catch 22 of privilege. “Flattering attention is always appreciated,” seems like a logical conclusion to these people.
Men often have a hard time empathizing when women don’t appreciate such flattery because they do not live in a world where their physical appearance matters more than every other character trait they possess, where they are raised to believe “men only want one thing,” where that “one thing” is given a very weighty social value that can make or break a woman’s standing, and where she is taught from childhood that men can, and may, take this “one thing” from her through force.
A man perceives a compliment on his physical appearance as flattering, an indication of potential romantic interest, and a comment on a positive quality about himself. While a woman may perceive a compliment from an unknown man on her physical appearance as flattering, in many instances it simply serves as a reminder of things she’d rather not think about (or worse, she may be intimidated). In addition, these condensed scales often ignore context. An “HB6” walking on the sidewalk is not universally “glad to get approached” by a stranger looking to compliment her; she might be late to work, preoccupied with her day and not looking to ward off the potentially violent advances of a cat-caller. Men often seem to forget that women are raised in a world where they are taught from a young age that male sexuality is a violent, uncontrollable thing, and she has no way of knowing whether a compliment from a stranger is really “just” a compliment.
That description of the HB scale also brings to light the toxic view many PUAs have of beautiful, “high status” women.
This PUA’s description of an “HB9-10” woman is that of someone who not only is flirted with often, but also is incredibly entitled. She expects free drinks? She’s probably going to sass every guy that approaches her? The “women are bitches” trope is rampant in the PUA community. PUA literature in no uncertain terms reinforces the idea that beautiful, confident women are mean, selfish people. I can say with certainty that I know a great number of exceptionally beautiful, confident women of high social status who are also incredibly kind, polite, and conscientious. These women don’t sass guys who hit on them, and they don’t treat men like competing bucks and peacocks, “hold[ing] out all night” for the one bellowing alpha male who “impressed her the most.” Sure there are shallow, high status women out there, and there are plenty of normal girls who appreciate unprompted compliments from strangers, but PUA guides instill the message in their readers that all high status women are shallow, and all average, everyday women are desperate for male attention. And we all know that autistics are prone to latching on to such black and white dichotomies.
MOST PUA techniques were designed for bars and dance-nightclubs, and that easily explains ALL that is said above, yes?:
”HB9-10: Expects free drinks at bars, expects to be hit on, interprets men asking for directions on the street as hitting on her (and she’s usually right), might hold out all night, shooting down with sass every guy that approaches, then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night. ”
What else would that context imply, especially where it says ” expects free drinks at bars ”& ” then maybe go home with the guy who impressed her the most that night.”-where did all the thinking it could easily be used elsewhere?
Such as ”day-game” mainly come from-was it NOT MEN on the autism-aspergers-ocd spectrum who couldn’t stand ALL the people, light & LOUD noise of most bars/dance-nightclubs?
This led to such as this: https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/j9okm5/is_daygame_a_waste_of_time_400_approaches_and_1/
Sorry, this post was deleted by the person who originally posted it.
quinnmcd
MOD
•
5y ago
•
Stickied comment
I absolutely hate posts like this. When your results are this bad then that means you are messing up with something basic and fundamental. Too many guys see cold approach as a game. “I say this and do this then dates will come” it doesn’t work like that. You can just spam approaching until it works. You need to focus on the quality of your interaction.
If you’re getting numbers and no text back then you’re not making a connection and you’re not doing something memorable. Again it’s the quality of the interaction that’s important. I used have the same results. Make approaches, gets numbers then get frustrated after she doesn’t text back. It wasn’t until a guy approached a friend of mine when I had my “oh that’s where I’m messing up moment.” A guy’s approached my friend and talk to her for 10 minutes (maybe longer) most of my approaches for barley 2 minutes. Once I started making my approaches (5 minutes) I got more replies back and dates. I had more time to show my personality, build interest and learn about her. I stopped going for her number just because I knew it could get it. You want girls to be excited to see you once the interaction is over.
Start making approaches with girls that give you IOIs. Girls that check you out, give eye contact or look and smile in your direction.
Write down your approaches and see what to Ed well and what goes back. Focus on your weak areas and turn them into strengths.
After 400 approaches you should be able to read body language, know which openers work the best and what type girls are most receptive. You should be learning after every approach and getting better.
Cold approach isn’t for everyone trying doing things to give you more opportunities. Try online dating, meeting girls through friends and meeting girls from your interests.
Most importantly always be trying to better yourself. Focus on your career and your happiness. Always be trying to get better. Read books aren’t about self improvement or pick up. Watch documentaries and movies. Find out other things that interest you and start new hobbies.
Best of luck to you dude.
norwegiandoggo
•
5y ago
•
Edited 5y ago
Just my personal experience with this “day game” thing.
Approaching 10 girls randomly each day is indeed something that never worked for me. I definitely moved away from this. It’s good to get rid of approach anxiety but that’s about it. Like you said, success rate is low. Keep in mind that when you see a video online of a dating coach getting a number, you don’t see the 50 women that blew him off. There’s also no video of the girls not replying to his messages afterwards.
What I found to work is to be much more picky as to who I approach. I only approach if I consider it to be a high chance of working. For example, the girl returns eye contact and smiles at me. Or she’s walking super slow with her friend downtown on a Friday night – clearly borred and looking for something to do. When I was single i would keep my eyes open to such golden opportunties and be ready to approach at a moment’s notice. And I would also try to connect eyes with and smile and every hot girl I saw to see if she would smile back. As a “test” before I even bother to approach
I might approach 2 girls per week this way, and I wouldn’t go out just to meet girls. I would just go about my daily life and if I happen to come across a good opportunity I would take it. My success rate with this approach was much closer to 50% than the 0.5% from random approaches.
Upvote
5
Downvote
Share
Share
u/Xavier501 avatar
Xavier501
•
5y ago
Great perspective. Yeah I understand the dating coaches not showing the failures, but they do show stats and by the very least they are getting far more dates then me (definitely more then 1 date for 400 approaches lol)
And thats what bothers me. I’ve gotten far enough to realise this is a numbers game and improving my skill actually isnt yielding me better results, cause after i got rid of AA and could conversate better, any improvement above that didnt yield any further results.
I think approaching over the top vs when i just begun in march with only doing like 5 per day for 5 days, had a negative impact on my psyche
I think I will just focus on going for 5 approaches per day, so that way I will stick to daygame but also not waste my time getting nowhere, and if nothing comes out of a number, oh well.
I truly believe this is a numbers game, daygame isnt mind control, if she isnt physically attracted, nothing will work
–
Contrary to what MOST autistics think,who can’t at all stand crowds,light and loud noise like Sheldon Cooper, most women are only ready to be ”picked up” at bars and danceclubs.
WHY else would the women who respond easily to PUA be going to them?
Main thing i don’t like people doing to Autistic boys?
Making them(especially) think that people want hugs from them and such.
What happens when they become teens & adults and then want a girlfriend or wife?
Maybe something similar to what happened with this autistic MAN concerning parking?
https://www.instagram.com/russl.co/reel/C8Z82gHPWc5/
Authentic Adult Autism Meltdown.
I’m not melting down simply because I couldn’t find parking. There’s MUCH more to it than that due to the intricacies of my autistic thought and functioning processes, which I describe in this video.
The way I think (i.e. my autism), gets in the way of my life quite often, and it is beyond frustrating when I am unable to do things I want to do.
My autism is severe. My meltdowns are common and they’re always devastating. I’m literally brought to my knees time and time again by my own devices.
Would anyone want that to happen to some autistic friend or family member they know?
i didn’t really understand how most autistic/aspergers/ocd MEN , expect everything to conform easily to their ”wants”, desires and requirements until i first watched an episode of Big Bang Theory in September 2011(when i could easily watch it in syndication every night) and saw Sheldon Cooper as guy in his twenties making that made Felix on Odd couple in the 70s & MONK on MONK look near normal in their demands of/on others.
The extreme of Sheldon’s autism-aspergers-ocd traits compared to other (at the time, i didn’t know they were MILD in comparison )ones i had seen did subtly shock me(it’s rare anything even barely shocks me).
Off-topic
Pseudonymous commenter Deti right here as guys like ANAKIN NICEGUY{(& GBFM prototype?)was too NICE as his name implied }:
thedeti says:
29 March, 2025 at 8:04 pm
I was too nice. Mostly because I was specifically taught and trained to be nice. Polite. Unassuming. Unquestioning. Compliant. Cooperative. Go along to get along. Affable. Friendly. Agreeable.
Turns out everyone uses, exploits, and takes advantage of you when you’re like that. Turns out you get nowhere when you cooperate. It doesn’t work when you’re trained for a high trust society premised on Churchian morals and you’re then sent out into a low trust society premised on no morals at all. It doesn’t work when you’re trained by paleoconservatives and then sent into a post-liberal, post-Christian society. (Conservatives are not conservative at all – the power structure are country clubbers who want economic frugality coupled with sexual license. Man did I learn that the hard way.)
You can’t get anywhere by following the rules. Nice guys finish last, and the above is why.
Liked by 3 people
The MAGESTIC & ENIGMATIC GBFM was one of those 3/three people who liked that comment.
thedeti says:
29 March, 2025 at 8:05 pm
I also had to destroy my marriage in order to save it. I had to get to the point of “I’m going to save myself. If that saves the marriage, so be it. If that kills the marriage, so be it.”
i can understand that pseudonymous commenter Deti had seen the MAGESTY & ENIGMATICNESS of THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN & s wanted their larger than life FREEDOM and tried his BEST doing it the way he thought he could.
IOW?
Pseudonymous commenter Deti knew the following words first spoken by actor Sean Connery were really about THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN AKA THE PRINCES OF THE UNIVERSE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HykXoTTgdQ
Highlander (intro 1986)
“From the dawn of time we came; moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret RP ® lives, struggling to reach the time of the GREAT Renaissance®; when the few GREAT MEN who remain to battle & debate to the last at Derek’s-a land/blog WE didn’t know existed until the end of the manosphere was upon us, no one has ever knew WE were among you until 2010.😉”
Can anyone blame Pseudonymous commenter Deti for wanting to be one of the GREATEST MEN in HISTORY(let alone one of the few GREAT MEN who remain to battle & debate to the last at Derek’s-a land/blog WE didn’t know existed until the end of the manosphere was upon us,”)?
THIS comment is for a particular GBFM friend (of some nearly 14 years, e.g., him knowing about Roissy & GBFM-the nicest of nice ”badboys”)out there who goes on and on and on about ”niceguys” and ”badboys”:
How To Increase Your Beta Male Margin Of Error
June 9, 2014 by CH
If you should understand one thing about niceguy beta male behavior, it’s this: A little goes a long way, especially if it’s opposed by an anti-beta force.
A lot of men are constitutional romantics, and enjoy lavishing pretty women with displays of beta piety. This is a dangerous compulsion to have, as such behavior left unchecked will sour a woman’s love more surely than it will earn her loyal affection.
So if it’s a compulsion you must indulge, you need to a) limit its scope and frequency and b) bracket instances of it with the general demeanor of its opposite; namely, alpha male conceit.
Commenter English Dude passes along a personal observation that illustrates how a man can afford a beta margin of error.
As daft as this is, [jerkboy entitlement] allows the meanest guys to be pretty beta, or completely braindead in other ways too.
Sat behind a couple on the bus the other day, the guy was one of the typical “arseholes” in my area, (average height, early 20s braindead, drug dealer, could hardly string a sentence together besides “U wanna fite? I’ll bang u out” sorta stuff), on the bus with his gf. She was pretty attractive, not as much to me but other people would consider her “hot” etc.
He’d obviously done something wrong as I saw him giving her a pink glittery “I’m sorry” card, curious I peeked over to see what was inside as she was holding it open while reading.
“To my dearest prettiest princess, I’m so so sorry for what I have dun and I promise I will never do it to u ever again
I luv u with all my heart and u will always be my princess forever if u will have me. Lots of luv [guy’s name] xxxxxxxxxxx”
Paraphrasing a bit there and I’m sure it had more “sorrys” and “princess” in that, but it almost made me feel sick at how wimpy it was heh. No idea what he’d done, probably cheated or something. She read it and looked a bit embarrassed but said ok and gave him a kiss on the cheek.
The next month I saw them still together, he was shouting at and hitting her (in public), as well as trying to fight anyone else in the vicinity. Seem them since too, still together..
I completely realise and understand that if I did something like that (not that I would), it would be shown off to ALL her friends (probably put on facebook too) to be laughed at, then I’d end up dumped the next day in whatever rottenest way she could conjure heh.
Sometimes you get trolls and/or knaves coming to this outpost of love to vociferously declaim anecdotes about this one guy they saw who “acted like a total beta pussboy yet still got the girl”. Of the ones who aren’t lying about what they saw, you can bet that a good many of these stories were observed by our intrepid beta defenders missing any vital context. They saw a man nauseatingly profess his love for his girlfriend, but they didn’t see all the other times he behaved more like the chav in English Dude’s slice of life above.
Without that crucial alpha male context, you can’t know that beta male antics are what got the girl.
Maybe then it won’t come as a surprise to know that it’s not uncommon for the most egregious beta male supplication to issue from the hardened husks of some really unsavory alpha males. That alpha male love is a wicked concoction of fury, caprice, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and occasional heady romantic abandon. It works, because beta ballads tend to be appreciated more by girls when they’re rare and unexpected events rather than daily rituals.
What about the opposite ratio? Are beta males who drop stealth alpha bombs attractive to girls? Well, they’re certainly more attractive than all beta-all the time autobots. But the vajmagic (it’s vagical!) doesn’t work quite the same way as majority alpha-minority beta. One, girls will more conspicuously forgive the incongruence of an alpha wolf donning beta wool than they will the incongruence of a beta boob slipping into an alpha push-up bra. The tuning fork of female desire vibrates primarily for “arseholes”, which means that if a beta male doesn’t evince some degree of alpha attitude during the opening salvos it’s probable that the girl’s asexual impression of him will solidify and close off any romantic avenues.
If you’re curious what an all beta-all the time autobot sounds like, here’s an animated confessional of a beta male orbiter with a chronic case of one-itis who started beta, stayed beta, and finished beta, tragically true to the beta male credo that predictability is the hobgoblin of emasculated minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hJbVTfj68
« Big MistakeEntitlement, Narcissism, Ambivalent Sexism: Choose Any Three »
How To Increase Your Beta Male Margin Of Error
June 9, 2014 by CH
If you should understand one thing about niceguy beta male behavior, it’s this: A little goes a long way, especially if it’s opposed by an anti-beta force.
A lot of men are constitutional romantics, and enjoy lavishing pretty women with displays of beta piety. This is a dangerous compulsion to have, as such behavior left unchecked will sour a woman’s love more surely than it will earn her loyal affection.
So if it’s a compulsion you must indulge, you need to a) limit its scope and frequency and b) bracket instances of it with the general demeanor of its opposite; namely, alpha male conceit.
Commenter English Dude passes along a personal observation that illustrates how a man can afford a beta margin of error.
As daft as this is, [jerkboy entitlement] allows the meanest guys to be pretty beta, or completely braindead in other ways too.
Sat behind a couple on the bus the other day, the guy was one of the typical “arseholes” in my area, (average height, early 20s braindead, drug dealer, could hardly string a sentence together besides “U wanna fite? I’ll bang u out” sorta stuff), on the bus with his gf. She was pretty attractive, not as much to me but other people would consider her “hot” etc.
He’d obviously done something wrong as I saw him giving her a pink glittery “I’m sorry” card, curious I peeked over to see what was inside as she was holding it open while reading.
“To my dearest prettiest princess, I’m so so sorry for what I have dun and I promise I will never do it to u ever again
I luv u with all my heart and u will always be my princess forever if u will have me. Lots of luv [guy’s name] xxxxxxxxxxx”
Paraphrasing a bit there and I’m sure it had more “sorrys” and “princess” in that, but it almost made me feel sick at how wimpy it was heh. No idea what he’d done, probably cheated or something. She read it and looked a bit embarrassed but said ok and gave him a kiss on the cheek.
The next month I saw them still together, he was shouting at and hitting her (in public), as well as trying to fight anyone else in the vicinity. Seem them since too, still together..
I completely realise and understand that if I did something like that (not that I would), it would be shown off to ALL her friends (probably put on facebook too) to be laughed at, then I’d end up dumped the next day in whatever rottenest way she could conjure heh.
Sometimes you get trolls and/or knaves coming to this outpost of love to vociferously declaim anecdotes about this one guy they saw who “acted like a total beta pussboy yet still got the girl”. Of the ones who aren’t lying about what they saw, you can bet that a good many of these stories were observed by our intrepid beta defenders missing any vital context. They saw a man nauseatingly profess his love for his girlfriend, but they didn’t see all the other times he behaved more like the chav in English Dude’s slice of life above.
Without that crucial alpha male context, you can’t know that beta male antics are what got the girl.
Maybe then it won’t come as a surprise to know that it’s not uncommon for the most egregious beta male supplication to issue from the hardened husks of some really unsavory alpha males. That alpha male love is a wicked concoction of fury, caprice, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and occasional heady romantic abandon. It works, because beta ballads tend to be appreciated more by girls when they’re rare and unexpected events rather than daily rituals.
What about the opposite ratio? Are beta males who drop stealth alpha bombs attractive to girls? Well, they’re certainly more attractive than all beta-all the time autobots. But the vajmagic (it’s vagical!) doesn’t work quite the same way as majority alpha-minority beta. One, girls will more conspicuously forgive the incongruence of an alpha wolf donning beta wool than they will the incongruence of a beta boob slipping into an alpha push-up bra. The tuning fork of female desire vibrates primarily for “arseholes”, which means that if a beta male doesn’t evince some degree of alpha attitude during the opening salvos it’s probable that the girl’s asexual impression of him will solidify and close off any romantic avenues.
If you’re curious what an all beta-all the time autobot sounds like, here’s an animated confessional of a beta male orbiter with a chronic case of one-itis who started beta, stayed beta, and finished beta, tragically true to the beta male credo that predictability is the hobgoblin of emasculated minds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3hJbVTfj68
Family Ties – Marry Me Mallory
{That wasn’t necessarily the video back then, but it fits the supposed ”bad boy” turned ”beta” stereotype}
You can increase your behavioral beta male margin of error by, in most ways and at most times, acting behaviorally alpha. The more alpha you are, the larger your beta margin of error when you backslide, intentionally or accidentally.
One thing you’ll observe about charismatic jerkboys… when they “go beta”, they do it differently than actual betas. Their sappy romanticism tends to be more self-centered and entitled — “you’ll always be my princess” “we’ll be together forever, and I’ll show you the end of the rainbow” — rather than pleading or appeasing. At the heart of the alpha’s (temporary) beta male capitulation is a throbbing male entitlement that chicks love.
Posted in Alpha, Beta, Game, Rules of Manhood | 194 Comments
194 Responses
Also, here is some bonus advice & commentary from GBFM(&asdgamer-who wanted to be an ”Alpha dancer” (as he hated MGTOWS & ”betas” in his heart*] even though he was autistic, as that is what the asd meant)in the comment section:
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)on June 9, 2014 at 1:50 pm
hey herateietstzte! heratstsruietetztz!!! da GBFM noticedz some spellingz errorz and went ahead and corrected demz zlzlzoozozozozoz :
One thing you’ll observe about charismatic jerkboys… when they “go beta”, they do it differently than actual betas. Their sappy romanticism tends to be more self-centered and entitled — “you’ll always be my bukkakekz princess” “we’ll be together forever or until i cumz on your facesz whichever cumz firtsz, and I’ll show you the end of my cockasz” — rather than pleading or appeasing. At the heart of the alpha’s (temporary) beta male capitulation is a throbbing male entitlement that chicks love.
zlozozozozolzo
theasdgamer on June 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm
I want one of the Great Checkbooks For Men that Bernazkelolz is giving away.
on June 9, 2014 at 5:58 pmGreat Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)on June 9, 2014 at 5:58 pm
zlzloozooz yaha datz would rozkasz!
(as he hated MGTOWS & ”betas” in his heart*]
*& before Derek asks for a citation:https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/is-mgtow-just-escapism/
Over at The Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi just posted “The Price of Nice“. His post examines two letters. One is by a beta nice guy to women complaining about how women treat nice guys and shaming women. The other is by a woman responding to the shaming and putting down betas. This post generated many comments by betas, especially MGTOWs. Most were blaming women and it started me thinking about why a man would choose MGTOW.
Betas are the primary victims of feminist propaganda. Of that there can be no doubt. Betas are demoralized by their failure in the mating pool. When they realize that they’ve been defrauded of sex because of hostile propaganda, they look for someone to blame. Naturally, they blame women. After all women get to have lots of sex with hot men. So, they are the culprits, right?
No, most women are oblivious to how men are propagandized. Women are also propagandized, though women aren’t hurt by it like betas are. And, of course, women fundamentally don’t understand men, because women are solipsistic. Women really only care about what directly impacts them and their children. And maybe their men, if their men are hot. Ok, I’m rambling a bit down an interesting path. But it’s needed to support my main point. Women don’t understand men feeling betrayed. It’s an idealism thing. Men are idealistic and women are solipsistic. Because men are idealistic, we feel betrayal differently than women do. It hits our ego hard and tests our frame. Betrayal is an attack on our self-respect as well as breaking trust. Men want to strike back to restore our self-respect. And betas see women as the beneficiaries and conclude that women betrayed them. Of course, most women are propagandized like men, so most women aren’t the ones who consciously propagandized men. After all, there are plenty of men who are White Knights and/or feminists who spread propaganda which hurts betas. Lots of men do this. Likely the majority of men. So blaming women is foolish. Blaming and looking to strike back is foolish even though it feels right to betas.
& GBFMS particular GBFM friend (of some nearly 14 years, e.g., him knowing about Roissy & GBFM-the nicest of nice ”badboys”)out there who goes on and on and on about ”niceguys” and ”badboys”said NOT 1/one word in defense of ”niceguys”, ”betas” nor ”MGTOWS” on that post!
WHY!!!???
GBFMS particular GBFM friend is NOW making GBFMS case for defending ”niceguys” and ”badboys”!
thedeti says:
31 March, 2025 at 2:23 pm
The best explanation I’ve seen on why everyone hammers on boys to “be nice” is because “nice” and “considerate” and “thoughtful” are the behaviors women want from men they’re sexually attracted to and men they fux. Women really like fuxxing those hot men, and they want those hot men to be nice to them; to treat them with kindness and consideration.
A hot man is an “a-hole” when he doesn’t take her wants and needs into consideration or doesn’t do what he says he’ll do. Or when he won’t give her the relationship she claimed to want.
Women will also use the term “respect”. Women want unattractive men to “respect” them. Translated, that means women want unattractive men to stay away from them unless the women want or need something; do whatever those women tell them to do; and spend money on them and do favors for them.
When a woman is dating a man she’s kind of “meh” about, she will go on and on about how she expects him to “respect” her and “be respectful”. By that, she means he is to cede all control over the sex part of the relationship to her; by which she can use sex to manipulate him.
Note how women never, ever want good looking, sexually attractive men to “respect” them, BUT as KISS said and sang in ’85 to ”Uh! All Night” as I quote & they wrote”
[Chorus]
Well, we work all day
And we don’t know why
Well, there’s just one thing that money can’t buy
When your body’s been starved
Feed your appetite
When you work all day, you gotta Uh! all night
Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, whoo
[Verse 2]
Take me to the jungle, honey
We’re living in a human zoo
Getcha turning tricks for money
I’d rather roll around with you
‘Cause when the waiting is over
I come a-running to you
I got the whole night to show you
I get excited, I’m so excited
Ooh, let me hear you
Uh, right, uh, uh, uh, yeah
[Chorus]
(Well, we work all day)
(And we don’t know why)
(Well, there’s just one thing that money can’t buy)
(When your body’s been starved)
(Feed your appetite)
(When you work all day, you gotta) Uh
with them gently and romantically like Roissy & GBFM use to much more politely say back in Da day!
They love the “disrespect”=”Uh! All Night” they get from hot men like Roissy & GBFM. It’s just that women want hot men to be “nice”=all night to them (see above).
The Satanic feminist movement had always been about sex, it is just that back between the 1850s to the early 1880’s they had to wear Amish-like clothing to keep their cravings mostly unnoticed. For more proof, read this https://www.mappingwomenssuffrage.org.uk/post/sex-suffrage
From the campaign against the Contagious Diseases Acts in the 1870s and 1880s onwards, British feminists have been talking about sex. This conversation was primarily about ways to protect women from undesired sex and of preventing men acting out their undesirable sexual advances.
‘In or about December, 1910, human character changed’, wrote Virginia Woolf in her essay ‘Character in Fiction’ (1924), as a moment of social evolution. Before and long after this date, the women’s movement had been involved in long discussions about relationships, from free love to chastity. Marriage was another topic: the ideal state for some but legalised slavery for others. Then there was the question of men – were they allies or brutes?
The suffrage campaigner, Elizabeth Wolstenholme, lived with Ben Elmy and only married when she became pregnant in 1874.[1] She made a significant contribution to feminist ideas on sexuality through her books and articles. In The Human Flower (1892), a book for older children, Elizabeth described the plight of the married woman in relation to sex and reproduction, giving the idea of a woman’s right to choose:
Seeing the still existent unjust social conditions, legal or social, in marriage and noting the misery so frequently the lot of the wife – too usually led or left to accept marriage ignorant of the actual incidents of matrimony which, unless of reciprocal impulse, may prove repugnant and intolerable to her; involving moreover the sufferings and dangers of repeated and undesired childbearing….the functions of wifehood and motherhood must remain solely and entirely within the wife’s own option.[2]
In Baby Buds (1895), Elizabeth explained relationships for a younger audience:
We found in talking and writing to one another that our thoughts and desires and general wishes were so much the same, that we began to love each other. So at last we resolved to marry – that is to live together for the sake of our sweet companionship and also to more readily do our duty as tender parents, to any dear little child which our love might cause and bring to life.[3]
The overall message of Elizabeth’s writings was the removal of couverture and right of the woman to control her own body, which comes across powerfully in her poem Woman Free (1893):
For but a slave himself [man] must ever be / Till she to shape her own career be free / Free from all uninvited touch of man / Free mistress of her person’s sacred plan.[4]
The composer, Elisabeth Lutyens, described her mother’s ignorance about marriage at the beginning of an oral history conducted by Brian Harrison in the 1970s.[5] Emily, daughter of the Earl of Lytton and Viceroy of India, married Edwin Lutyens in 1897, when his career as an architect was just beginning. Emily had little idea about what married life entailed beyond the chilling advice of her mother who told her never to refuse her husband and to always keep a pot of cold cream near at hand. Ned wrote to Emily: ‘I am so unhappy to think that my selfishness may have been causing you pain. Teach me to pray, even as my mother used to teach me, teach me to have control.’[6] As Elisabeth Lutyens explained in an oral history about her mother, it was not the thing for women to take pleasure in sex. After the birth of Emily’s third child in 1904, she asked Ned: ‘I want more of you, not your body, but your soul and intellect.’[7] In trying to fill this void, Emily first became involved with the Moral Education League and then the suffrage movement, initially through Mrs Pethick Lawrence (Ned designed The Dutch House at Holmwood in Surrey in 1901-1904), and then through her sisters, Constance Lytton and Betty Balfour.[8] Emily did sit on the Executive Committee of the London Society of Women’s Suffrage. However, it was theosophy that brought Emily the fulfilment that her marriage had failed to do.[9] By the start of the First World War, Emily wrote: ‘…if our love is to continue it can only be on my side by the severance of our physical relationship…I have suffered intensely physically during all my married life….I believe and hold firmly that a woman has the right over her own body. Where she gives it willingly the relationship is beautiful – where she gives it because she must it becomes prostitution whether in or out of marriage and is degradation.’[10]
Ideas of ‘sexual excess’ and ‘continence’ can also be found in feminist writings. Frances Swiney, President of the Cheltenham Women’s Suffrage Society from 1903 and a theosophist, took these ideas to create her own unique brand of theosophy.[11] Beginning in 1899 with The Awakening of Women, or Woman’s Part in Evolution, Frances argued for the biological superiority of women, saying man was “a waste product of Nature.”[12] She explained how women’s oppression was due to her sexual subjugation to men and how “women, to their lasting shame, have pandered to men’s passions, instead of controlling them.”[13] Instead, women could be free from men’s ‘sexual excess’ through the natural law of ‘continence’ and the natural law of reproduction. Frances promoted these ideas through the League of Isis which she founded in 1907. In her pamphlet The Bar of Isis or the law of the mother, Frances proclaimed that there should be no sex during gestation or lactation. Moreover, women should not bear more than three or four children and, as “the most highly evolved organism”, she should have at least four to six years between each child.[14] In this way, Frances believed that “with the natural restrictions placed on sexual relations, she is gradually teaching man self-respect, self-reverence, self-control and the exercise of a love that worketh no evil.”[15] Frances, herself, produced six children in quick succession.
The journal The Freewoman devoted much copy to the topic of sex, particularly in its correspondence pages.[18] The journal was founded by Dora Marsden, along with Mary Gawthorpe, who had both been part of the Manchester suffragette group.[19] The Freewoman was a short-lived journal with its first issue appearing in November 1911, and the last in October 1912. The paper reappeared in 1913 as The New Freewoman, a literary journal, folding a year later to come back as The Egoist, edited by Erza Pound.[20] For many of the writers in The Freewoman, there was more to reproduction alone. As a letter from ‘a grandmother’ stated: ‘In these modern discussions on sex people are too apt to focus attention on parenthood, and to forgot the more important aspect of the question, the human passion of love…’[21] She also separated the ‘love problem’ as ‘human and spiritual’ from the ‘parenthood problem’ which was ‘the animal prosaic side’ of sex.[22]
Urania, a journal privately printed from 1916 to 1940, sought to challenge gender norms.[23] Its founder Eva Gore-Booth, and her partner, Esther Roper, were involved in suffrage movement, and together with Thomas Baty, formed the Aethnic Union in 1911, a feminist revolutionary group. In Urania, the group brought together hidden stories of lesbians, transsexuals, cross-dressers and of intersexuality. The journal’s mission was to convey ‘sex is an accident’, the phrase credited to Eva Gore-Booth. Urania presented numerous articles on gender passing: women who ‘disguised’ themselves as men or vice versa. Into the 1930s, Urania devoted space to stories about individuals who underwent surgical sex changes.[24] Like other feminists, Urania argued for the rejection of marriage.
‘In or about December, 1910, human character changed’
NOW see why GBFM ZLOLZLOLZZZLOLLZZ so much!??
Ideas of ‘sexual excess’ and ‘continence’ can also be found in feminist writings.
Moreover, women should not bear more than three or four children and, as “the most highly evolved organism”, she should have at least four to six years between each child.[14] In this way, Frances believed that “with the natural restrictions placed on sexual relations, she is gradually teaching man self-respect, self-reverence, self-control and the exercise of a love that worketh no evil.”[15] Frances, herself, produced six children in quick succession.
Still think(like the supposed manosphere who NEVER even attempts to tell Trump and Musk to do it ”the LORDS WAY”-out of fear of disobeying their wives & GAE overlords that OWN Trump & Musk* )the ”evilz of feminism” didn’t come before the 1960s?
the supposed manosphere who NEVER even attempts to tell Trump and Musk to do it ”the LORDS WAY”-out of fear of disobeying their wives & GAE overlords that OWN Trump & Musk*
* https://henrymakow.com/2025/02/feb-9—thank-god-for-trump-mu.html
If it weren’t for Zionist (Fascist) Jews like Trump and Musk,
Commie Jews like Soros would loot the US Treasury forever.
The USAID Scam EXPOSED: Over $1 BILLION for Holocaust Studies and Israeli Universities
EX-USAID CHIEF SAMANTHA POWER’S NET WORTH SKYROCKETS–FROM $6.7M TO $30M ON A $180K SALARY
Samantha Power, Biden’s ex-USAID chief, saw her wealth explode while earning just $180K per year.
Where did the extra $23.3M come from? And all of this in just 3 years! USAID oversees billions in global funding- was she cashing in?
Is the supposed ”conservative” manosphere, FOX, or NEWSMAX telling you the above?
If it weren’t for Zionist (Fascist) Jews like Trump and Musk,
Commie Jews like Soros would loot the US Treasury forever.
That as GBFMS friend GUNNERQ has been also saying, sounds possible, yes?
“I’m beginning to think I’ve been duped.”
This isn’t what the so-called RP geniuses will claim if 2029 comes and ALL of Trump & Musk’s efforts don’t live up to their self-induced ideals of who and what Trump & Musk are doing doesn’t match their imagined ideals of them?
https://letterandliturgy.wordpress.com/2021/02/01/im-beginning-to-think-ive-been-duped/
A post-Christian culture cannot own up to mistakes. It can only blame-shift to survive.
That above isn’t TRUE??
To me the entire story of America and COVID-19 is such a densely fogged event that I honestly don’t know how we’ll ever learn anything from it. I’m not sure how you extract meaningful lessons from a disaster about which there is almost no uniformed agreement: whether regarding causes, or Who Was to Blame, or how to respond, or even what the accursed virus even is! I am, however, coming around to one conclusion. I’m starting to believe that at some point in this whole saga at least 50% of the information that politicians, pundits, and even health officials were operating on was incorrect. As the virus and its suffocating political and cultural effects linger far longer than most of us ever thought we or the nation could endure, it’s becoming clearer that important people with their hands on important levers have been getting important questions wrong.
This should not be a particularly scandalous thing to say. People get stuff wrong all the time, and important people with official channels are not less human than the rest. I don’t even think it’s particularly important or relevant that, say, the CDC was wrong about masks, or that WHO was wrong about the nature of the epidemic. Yes, those blunders had consequences. But what relevance do those mistakes have now? No amount of recriminations can undo loss of life or livelihood. Excepting those who may have intentionally misled the world for some kind of gain, I don’t see the point of making COVID “about” the people or institutions or governments that got stuff wrong.
But I’m starting to realize that increasingly few people agree with me. To say, “I don’t think it matters that [group X] got this wrong” is to be met immediately with incredulity, perhaps even suspicions of malice. It seems to me that we’re losing, as a culture, the category of error, and we are replacing it by greatly expanding the category of malevolence. In the political and social context of today, nobody is just wrong. To be wrong is “actually” to be ignorant, or naive, or untrustworthy, or unqualified, or just plain wicked. It seems like just about everyone is operating under the assumption that meaningful errors are too implausible to be honest, and people who make them are too smart/elite to have made them sincerely.
This isn’t also TRUE??
HEY, PSUDEONYMOUS COMMENTER DETI
Does you/Dr. TARABAN
know anything about this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hp91mtsST0
Too Many Americans Still Live In “Bubbles”, Have No Contact With People Who Are Different
Or the study its based on?:
https://www.prri.org/research/american-democracy-in-crisis-the-fate-of-pluralism-in-a-divided-nation/
American Democracy in Crisis: The Fate of Pluralism in a Divided Nation
Experiences With Diversity
Frequency of Interactions With Diversity
Overall, Americans report that they frequently interact with people who are different than them in various ways. Approximately six-in-ten Americans say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity (62%), someone who does not share their religion (60%), or someone who does not share their political party (57%). Americans are less likely to say that they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their sexual orientation (41%).
A substantial minority of Americans, however, report less frequent interactions with people who are different than they are. About one in five Americans say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity (21%) or religion (22%), nearly one quarter (23%) say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their political party, and nearly one third (31%) say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their sexual orientation. Slightly smaller numbers of Americans fall between the two extremes, saying they interact with people who do not share their sexual orientation (23%), religion (16%), political party (16%), or race (14%) at least a few times a year.
There are noteworthy differences between various demographic groups in terms of the frequency with which they interact with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Among racial groups, white (64%), black (63%), and Hispanic (60%) Americans are about equally likely to say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity. However, higher proportions of Hispanic (25%) and white (21%) Americans than black Americans (14%) say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity.
Among white Americans, whites with a college degree (78%) are substantially likelier than whites without a college degree (56%) to say they interact with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity at least once a week. Only 10% of whites with a college degree say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity, compared to more than one-quarter (26%) of whites without a college degree.
Young Americans (ages 18-29) are somewhat more likely than seniors (ages 65 and older) to say they frequently interact with people who do not share their racial or ethnic background. More than six in ten (62%) young Americans say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity, compared to only half (50%) of seniors. Fully 30% of seniors say they seldom or never interact with someone who does not share their race or ethnicity, compared to 19% of young Americans.
There are also divisions on this question by partisan affiliation. Seven in ten (70%) Democrats say they interact at least once a week with people who have a different racial or ethnic background, compared to 60% of Republicans and 57% of independents. More than one in five Republicans (21%), compared to 13% of Democrats, say they seldom or never interact with someone of a different race.
The frequency with which Americans interact with people who do not share their sexual orientation varies most substantially by age. Young Americans (49%) are nearly twice as likely as seniors (27%) to say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their sexual orientation. Religiously unaffiliated Americans (57%) are also likelier than white mainline Protestants (47%), Catholics (37%), nonwhite Protestants (35%), and white evangelical Protestants (32%) to say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their sexual orientation. Democrats (50%) and independents (42%) are also more likely than Republicans (28%) to say they interact with someone who has a different sexual orientation at least once a week.
Americans are, overall, relatively consistent in how frequently they report interacting with someone of a different political party. There are few substantial divisions by party affiliation or age on this question. However, white Americans (63%) are more likely than black (45%) or Hispanic (47%) Americans to say they interact with someone of a different political party at least once a week.
Across the board, there are also relatively few differences in how frequently Americans say they interact with people from different religious backgrounds. There are few substantial divisions among religious groups on this question. Young Americans (57%) are, however, more likely than seniors (47%) to say they interact at least once a week with someone who does not share their religion. White Americans (63%) are also slightly likelier than black (54%) and Hispanic (57%) Americans to say they interact at least once a week with someone of a different religious background.
Location of Interactions With Diversity
Among Americans who say they have at least some interactions with people of different backgrounds, these interactions are likelier, overall, to happen in the workplace and in friendship circles, rather than within families, in school settings, at religious services, or in local civic gatherings.[3]
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans who have at least some interactions with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds say they have these interactions in the workplace[4], and 46% say they have them in friendship circles. Smaller numbers say they have these interactions at a school their child is attending (23%)[5], within their family (22%), at local civic gatherings such as club or PTA meetings (17%), at religious services (14%), or at a school they are attending (7%).
The setting where Americans say they interact with people of different racial and ethnic groups varies across several demographic groups, particularly when it comes to whether these interactions happen in family settings. More than one-third (34%) of Hispanic Americans who have some interactions with people of different races and ethnic backgrounds say these interactions happen in family settings, compared to 27% of black Americans and only 18% of white Americans. Among religious groups, nonwhite Protestants (30%), white mainline Protestants (26%), and Catholics (25%) are likelier than white evangelical Protestants (13%) to say they interact with people who do not share their race or ethnicity within their family. Seniors (55%) are also substantially more likely than young Americans (38%) to say they interact with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds within their friendship circles.
Similarly, Americans who have at least some interactions with people who do not share their sexual orientation are likeliest to say these interactions occur in the workplace (60%) or in friendship circles (42%). Approximately one-quarter (26%) say these interactions happen within their family, while less than one in five say these interactions happen at local civic gatherings (14%), at a school their child is attending (11%), at religious services (7%), or at a school they are attending (5%). In general, the setting where Americans interact with people who do not share their sexual orientation does not vary substantially across demographic subgroups. One exception to this is among different religious traditions. Among religiously unaffiliated Americans who have at least some interactions with people who do not share their sexual orientation, over half (54%) say these interactions happen frequently within their friendship circles, compared to less than half of white mainline Protestants (43%), nonwhite Protestants (41%), Catholics (38%) and white evangelical Protestants (31%) who report the same.
Compared to other interactions with diversity, Americans are more likely to report interacting with people of different political parties or religious backgrounds within their family, although these interactions are still most common in the workplace or among friends. Nearly three-quarters of Americans who have some interactions with people of different political backgrounds say these interactions occur in the workplace (74%), while less than half say these interactions occur in friendship circles (48%) or within their family (39%). They are less likely to report interacting with people who have different political affiliations at a school their child is attending (15%), at civic gatherings (14%), religious services (12%), or at a school, they are attending (5%).
When asked where they interact with people who have different political affiliations, black and Hispanic Americans are less likely than white Americans to say these interactions happen in their family (22% and 34% vs. 44%) or their friendship circles (40% and 40% vs. 51%). Young Americans (38%) are also less likely than seniors (57%) to say that they interact with people of different political backgrounds in their friendship circles. There are, notably, no substantial divisions among partisans in terms of where their interactions with people who have different political affiliations occur.
Along the same lines, Americans who have at least some interactions with people of different religious backgrounds are likeliest to say these interactions happen in the workplace (70%), in friendship circles (48%), or in their family (32%). Interactions with people of different religious backgrounds are less likely to happen at a school their child (16%) is attending, in civic gatherings (14%), at religious services (5%), or at a school they are attending (5%).
There are a few noteworthy differences in where various groups interact with people who do not share their religious faith. Fully half (50%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they interact with people who do not share their religious affiliation within their family, compared to 32% of white mainline Protestants, 30% of Catholics, 26% of nonwhite Protestants, and 25% of white evangelical Protestants. Seniors (60%) are also much likelier than young Americans (37%) to say they have interactions within their friendship circles with people who do not share their religious affiliation.
Tenor of Interactions With Diversity
When asked about the tenor of their interactions with people of different backgrounds, Americans are generally likely to say these interactions are least somewhat positive, or neither positive nor negative. With the exception of political background, relatively few Americans characterize their interactions with people who are different than they are as negative.
For example, 59% of Americans say their interactions with people who do not share their race or ethnicity are somewhat or mostly positive, while 30% say these interactions are neither positive nor negative and only six percent say they are somewhat or mostly negative. Similarly, 55% of Americans say their interactions with people who do not share their sexual orientation are somewhat or mostly positive, while 33% say they are neither positive nor negative, and seven percent say they are somewhat or mostly negative. A majority (54%) of Americans also say their interactions with people who do not share their religious background are somewhat or mostly positive, while 35% say they are neither positive nor negative, and eight percent say they are somewhat or mostly negative.
Notably, Americans are more likely to view their interactions with people who do not share their political affiliation in a negative light. Only 40% of Americans say their interactions with people of a different political persuasion are mostly or somewhat positive, 36% say they are neither positive nor negative, and almost one in five (19%) say these interactions are somewhat or mostly negative. Notably, there are no significant differences between partisans on this question.
There are relatively few divisions among demographic subgroups in how they characterize the tenor of people who do not share their political affiliation or religion. White evangelical Protestants are the only religious group with less than a majority (47%) reporting that their interactions with people of different sexual orientation are positive. Majorities of Catholics (55%), nonwhite Protestants (55%), white mainline Protestants (59%), and the religiously unaffiliated (66%) all report that their interactions with people who do not share their sexual orientation are positive.
There are also significant differences in experiences among racial subgroups. Nonwhite Americans are more likely than white Americans to say they have negative interactions with people who do not share their race or ethnicity. More than one in ten black (12%) and Hispanic (11%) Americans report that their interactions with people of different races are at least somewhat negative, compared to only four percent of white Americans. There are also notable divisions among white Americans in terms of how positively they view their interactions with people who do not share their race or ethnicity: more than three-quarters (77%) of whites with a college degree say their interactions with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds are positive, compared to 58% of whites without a college degree.
Derek like Roissy (&?)GBFM( or are they one and the same like some use to say-such as Mark Minter as some also now do about Deti (&? or are they one and the same?)Dr. TARABAN) go out of their ”bubbles” regulary.
More on bubbles & churchianity that is passed off as Christianity in the dead as doorknob text based manosphere.
https://paulmadson.com/2012/02/16/consumer-christianity-moving-from-man-centered-living-to-god-centered-abandon/
Consumer Christianity: Moving from Man-Centered Living to God-Centered Abandon
Feb 16, 2012
—by
admin
Now for my blog post for this week….
A few years ago, Chuck Colson wrote an article entitled: “Beyond ‘Jesus and Me’.” The article described “Christian culture” in America today in a poignant way.
Colson wrote…
What is the Christian faith all about? One thing’s for sure-it’s about a lot more than your, or my, personal happiness.
Christian Smith of the University of North Carolina…a sociologist, has studied American Christianity in depth. In his book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Life of American Teenagers, Smith writes that the “de facto dominant religion” among American teenagers is what he calls “moral therapeutic deism.”
According to this “religion,” God created and watches over the world but otherwise is only to be called upon to solve problems. All He requires is that people be nice and fair to each other, “as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” Not surprisingly, “the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”
Smith notes that moral therapeutic deism is “more than a little visible” among conservative protestant teenagers. And it’s not only teenagers. As theologian Albert Mohler has pointed out, what Smith describes is a belief “held by a large percentage of Americans.”
This kind of pabulum is the logical outcome of reducing the entirety of the Christian faith to “Jesus and me.” This Jesus does not challenge the way we see the world, much less how we live in it because He wants us to be happy; so He sanctions our desires.
Of course, as I’ve argued in my most recent book, The Faith, this Jesus bears little, if any, resemblance to the Jesus of the Scriptures and historic Christianity.
Back in the Fall of 1993 (when our young church plant was only three years old) I preached a series of sermons (six month’s worth) entitled: “Consumer Christianity: Moving from Man-Centered Living to God-Centered Abandon.”
I began the series with this statement: “I believe that we (the Christian church nationwide) have bought into the ‘man-centered, consumer-driven, convenience-oriented mentality’ when it comes to the church in America… and it’s not honoring to God.”
The first passage we looked at was 2 Timothy 3:1-5, where it says…
“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self,…” (NASB)
Here are several of the quotes that were peppered throughout the series…
“So while the church may seem to be experiencing a season of growth and prosperity [my note: which, by the way, it was back in the early 90’s], it is failing to move people to commitment and sacrifice. The hard truth is that we have substituted an institutionalized religion for the life-changing dynamic of a living faith.” (Chuck Colson)
Colson goes on to say, “I have long been bewildered by the paradox Gallup describes as ‘religion up, morality down.’”
It reminds me of what the Apostle Paul writes in Titus 1:16, “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him…” (NASB).
“The roots of the church’s identity crisis are found in the consumer mentality so pervasive in our culture. Aside from those hierarchical denominations that assign members to the parish in which they live, most Americans are free to choose which church they will join or attend. And choose they do.
Ask people what they look for in a church and the number one response is “fellowship.”
Other answers range from “good sermons” to “the music program” to “youth activities for the kids” to “it makes me feel good”. People flit about in search of what suits their taste at the moment. It’s what some have called the”McChurch” mentality. Today it might be McDonald’s for a Big Mac; tomorrow it’s Wendy’s salad bar; or perhaps the wonderful chicken sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A. Thus, the church becomes just another retail outlet, faith just another commodity. People change congregations and preachers and even denominations as readily as they change banks or grocery stores!”
As someone once put it: “We are not selling a product to a consumer, but proclaiming a savior to a sinner.”
Gregory Lewis once said, “God is not a product to be pushed, but a King to be obeyed!”
The late Leonard Ravenhill, the well-known writer on revival, once said: “The church in America is 20 miles wide but only one inch deep!”
I have always been intrigued when traveling through the Majority World as to how Christians in most of these countries have no concept of what we refer to here as“church hopping.” In most of these nations, there is only one church within a several mile proximity (with no cars to get around) that they can attend – they haveno choice! And they learn to make it work – and learn to grow together as a body through the good times and bad times.
This is what ”they” did to the Roissyosphere: they turned it into the churchanity for unhappily married & miserably divorced beta MEN blankslatist manosphere -where anyone could have the success of Roissy with women & net traffic- but it didn’t work, did it?
When was the last time anyone in the manosphere was written about by Charlotte Allen, for instance?
Which in itself was talked about on numerous other sites.
https://allaboutromance.com/modern-romance/
For some time I’ve been browsing sites written by men about men and how they see the dating market. I interloaned a copy of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists by Neil Strauss. I went though post after post on Roissy in DC, which The Weekly Standard references as a main site for guys who are focused on bettering their game so they can “pump and dump” the highest number of women possible. The site is pure hedonistic nihilism, but it doesn’t flinch in saying exactly what men today want [Warning: do NOT go there if you can’t handle a lot of female bashing; it’s raw, it’s angry, and it’s deliberately offensive]. I checked out Manhood101.com and a number of other places in the blogosphere. There are a lot of angry guys out there, and many of them appear to have cause. But all of them pretty much agree that the women referenced in the article in The Atlantic – the party girls who seek out Tucker Max, the girls featured on hotchickswithdouchebags.com – as well as your average woman looking for love in bars or clubs or the places men go, can be brought to heel and to bed with Game – a series of psychological ploys that manipulate a woman’s desire for high status or dominant men. They feel Game is the great leveler, the thing that will make regular Joes into Casanovas and give them the power in the relationship, specifically the power to pump and dump.
Conclusion?
The unhappily married & miserably divorced beta MEN(of churchanity inc.) blankslatist manosphere -where anyone could have the success of Roissy with women & net traffic happily destroyed the MGTOWosphere, the Roissyosphere & the manosphere then still effeminately complain
WHY WON’T ANYONE HELPZ MEZ???
Roissy & GBFM did, but ye spiteful sumb!tches knew best, huh?
Then why don’t you get the sex & pats on the back that ”geniuses” usually get???
Look at all the hawt sex Blossom gives Sheldon Cooper, for instance, yes?😉
Forever Saturday Morning! And Misadventures
There was a time……when we would awake early Saturday mornings to watch our favorite cartoons and shows. Before the era of cartoons on 24 hrs a day and specific kids networks….
They were once made all in Los Angeles.
The Hannah Barbera Studios have long since folded and have been merged, merged, co-opted and merged again into conglomerates going back to the mid 1990s.
But the studios still stand. Excellent examples of commercial mid-century architecture and have been converted into apartments (better than being demolished) and I am getting a tour of the property from the manager (connection in property management has its slight advantages)
Countless forgotten Saturday mornings ….Superfriends, Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo, Speed Buggy, Laff-A-Lympics, The Flintstones, The Jestsons, Johnny Quest…….and countless other produced and made here from the 1950’s thru the late 1980’s
Cant wait! Yabba Dadda Doo!!!!!
Speaking of old toons and restoring Jim Jones/David Koresh-style ”patriarchy ”,Jack comes with this comment thread that will save America and the world- even though that’s Trump and Musk’s job!
Jack says:
2025-04-03 at 10:36 am
Before I started searching for images of Snow White to add to this post, I had the notion that she had blue eyes. But all the images I found, including the older, pre-W0ke concepts, portray her as having light brown eyes.
I was mildly surprised that my imagination was that different. I’m wondering if anyone else had that notion.
…except Kristin Stewart’s 2012 portrayal in The Huntsman. In some scenes, Stewart has hazel eyes, and in others, she has blue grey eyes.
One thing Disney got right is choosing a young Snow White. Zegler was almost 20 when filming began.
“I can’t think of an actress today that fits the look.”
To find an appropriate actor this young, talent scouts would have to find a girl who just finished high school. If they want to find a girl who still has an innocent charm, I guess they’d have to go looking in Eastern Europe or some backwoods burg yet untouched by Feminism.
Joe2 says:
2025-04-03 at 3:03 pm
Jack,
The comic book, “Walt Disney’s Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs Dell #282”, published in 1944, portrayed Snow White with blue eyes. The cover art work was done by Walt Disney himself.
The same cover art work appeared on “Top comics”, published circa 1960’s. Here it seems Snow White may have even bluer eyes.
These comics can be found on ebay. I didn’t post the links because they require a huge amount of space to appear.
Liked by 2 people
Maniac says:
2025-04-02 at 9:27 pm
Should’ve been called “No White.”
Liked by 3 people
Reply
Oscar says:
2025-04-03 at 3:00 am
Rachel Zegler is Hispanic with a German name. I might know something about that…
Like
Reply
jvangeld says:
2025-04-03 at 4:21 am
Tolkien thought very poorly of Disney’s first “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” It didn’t take the source material seriously enough. Mostly he objected to how Disney turned the dwarfs into comic relief. But he also thought that Walt didn’t portray the seriousness of the life or death struggle very well. After seeing Disney disrespect so many fairy tales, he banned Disney from ever producing any of his own works.
The rot goes back almost a century.
Liked by 2 people
Reply
jvangeld says:
2025-04-03 at 4:35 am
Of course, Tolkien’s own idea of dwarves was a change from the old Germanic one. He even changed the pluralization from “dwarfs” to “dwarves.”
Anyways, you all need some Wind Rose in your day:
{Some metal band named Wind Rose & song called Mine Mine Mine! (Official Video)-helping to restore ”patriarchy” or something- ask that ”good” Jim Jones/ David Koresh that comes around here if needed}
Zeglers boobs got bigger in between the reshoots.
Hey MOD!
Remember all the talk at places like Dalrock that women are concerned about themselves AND
Supposedly, their future children(that they’re NOT having)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zQ34fbHYE
A Lot Of WOMEN Are Going Into DEBT For VACATIONS: Only Living Once Mentality
i know of a millennial woman right now on vacation in Florida while pleading poverty (as usual)
It is NOT that far off from almost ALL the guys who were ”redpilled” telling GBFM,EARL & ERIC(who got banned @ DAL’S in 2011 or so for NOT agreeing with ”married” game) they were wrong about their needing to be a GREAT Renaissance to restore the CHRISTian SOUL in marriage, churches, universities & schools and instead like the majority of ”redpillers” cheered on
”JUST LEARN GAME, BRO(THAT’LL FIX IT ALLSZ)”
Yet here is JOKER saying nearly the same thing (about NOT catering to women’s lusts) a decade+later & now so many cheer that on(cuz almost everyone is a variation of ”blackpill” e.g
” Game doesn’t fix everything BRO!”
now):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suB6Qn5b2rk
Why would men step up for women and a society that hates them?
A co-worker of mine is in New Zealand right now. She’s been there for a month. She is probably “finding herself” with very attractive Kiwi men.
Mind you, she is 34 years old. She makes less than me. In fact, out of all us managers, she has the smallest portfolio out of eight of us. She drives a WAY nice car than me (mid level Benz). Lives in a nicer area of LA than me (apartment in West LA). Still has well over 120K of “student loan debt” (that she believes should be forgiven…..and Trump is “mean”). She is a USC graduate. She is pretty. Not *hot* or *sensual* but she’s def pretty!
She asks me sometimes at work “Why do men do this / say that / not txt right away / not call back right away / ghost you”
I smile, “you went to a much better college than I did, you probably have the answer already, or the one you want to hear and believe.”
I imagine she is in debt up past her hips! She does an okay job. But, typical of mist women here in LA. A way inflated self-worth of her physical appearance. A massive Ego that convinces her she is never wrong, on anything. Also, an entitlement….she once said “any man I date has to still be taller than me when I’m wearing heels, or it will ‘never work'”
She brought the one dude she was obviously getting horizontal with to our Christmas party as her guest. Tall? Yes. Blonde? Yes. Blue-eyed? Yes. In decent shape? Yes. Decent job? Yes (works in accounting at a movie studio)
She broke up with him. Why? He was “too nice” according to her. I have no idea what that means. Probably if truth be told. He got what he wanted and ghosted her. Easy for a guy like that to do I’m sure with those credentials.
Anyway….she’s in New Zealand, I have no idea how she afforded this much vacation….and frankly it doesnt matter in the end. This gal could have all the boxes checked and one of her “friends” just has to say “I dont like his socks” and she would dump him. Ra Ra Sisterhood! They all want everyone to be miserable! 🙂
No doubt she is strung out on credit (in addition to the massive student debt).
And (as you mention) she expects someone else to pay the bill.
Mike and I have started watching “Sex and the City” for its entertainment value.
When if first came out, I’d do plank poses next to our newborn son, late at night watching it. I was in my 20s, and it didn’t give me a FOMO feeling but very much the contrary. I was very grateful I wasn’t living that sort of life (which looked really terrible then, and even more so now).
I have an Italian cousin my age who kind of lived this experience. When we were stationed in Italy, all of the pilots were in love with her, pretty much. She was engaged to someone she had been dating 8 years then. It wasn’t just the pilots, the Italians were in love with her too. She was a dish, for sure.
Her boyfriend (we’re still friends with him) asked her to marry him about 100 times but she was having too much fun and didn’t want kids anyway.
So…he broke up with her around the 10 year point, and found someone else.
She asked him to pretend to still be dating her for about the next year (which was a mistake, but her was kind and attended events with her because the family liked him so much).
He got married and has two sons (adults now). I can’t imagine she is still happy with her choices now that she’s over 50 and alone. It happens.
When I was doing those plank poses watching the show, for context, I was living in Eagle Trace apts outside of Nellis. Now off limits due to the crime rate. I’d have to watch my toddler when we walked, there were used needles in the playground and used condoms in the bushes.
I still thought life was a thousand times better than the one those ladies were living in Manhattan.
In the late 1990’s I was living in San Francisco. Still working for IBM. You would *think* I had it all. Living in a very cool city (it really was a nice place to live back then, even with the cost of living there), had my own apartment in a decent neighborhood. A good job, I didnt have to worry about the rent or other expenses. No, I couldnt go on crazy vacations or go shopping every day. I still had to save for “nicer things” (suits, clothing and the like). I was still young. I still had a full head of blonde hair (though you could see it was very fine, like baby hair….anyone with smarts could see I would be bald in the future, like Prince William).
I didnt have a cellphone. A lot of people…..correction….most people didnt back then.
I didnt have “friends” I had people I went out and partied with. DJ-ed with. I was using cocaine, but it wasnt a problem……………yet
I perhaps didnt realize at the time how “good” I had it. I am sure people from my hometown back in New York State…..if they had heard what I was up to probably did have some sort of envy. Not that it matters. Then or now.
I recall back to those days as not a golden age for me. College was that. I just remember the heavy cold rain on the bus window as I gazed out. Hot cup of coffee in a cafe. The steam licking the windows in a small Vietnamese restaurant, enjoying hot well made food while it was raining outside. Getting off work, and back into San Francisco…..jumping on the cable car at Powell to take me up the hill to my neighborhood. Late nights dancing to soul music. Walking. I walked a lot in that city.
Impossible to date but attractive women everywhere. Simpler times. Was it because I was just “young” or was it indeed “better” back then????
Times seem to be worse now, but myself? I feel better mentally than I ever did back then. That is a truth
Times seem to be worse now, but myself? I feel better mentally than I ever did back then. That is a truth
I’m starting to believe more every day what Michael Savage used to say BY 2007 (especially):
”DO YOU THINK MAYBE IT IS ALL TWO CARD MONTE & THAT THEY SAY YOU BE IN-CHARGE (IN THE WHITE HOUSE )NEXT THEN WE(IN THE WHITE HOUSE ) NEXT TIME TO MAKE SURE THE BLAME IS EVENLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE RS & DS.”
Exhibit A?:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/investors-flee-equities-trump-driven-uncertainty-sparks-economic-worry-2025-03-10/
US stock market loses $4 trillion in value as Trump plows ahead on tariffs
S&P 500 down over 8% from Feb 19 all-time high
Nasdaq confirmed 10% correction from its Dec peak last week
S&P 500 P/E moderates but still high vs historical average
Delta Air Lines cuts forecast on growing economic uncertainty
Tesla loses more than $125 bln in value in one day
NEW YORK, March 10 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s tariffs have spooked investors, with fears of an economic downturn driving a stock market sell-off that has wiped out $4 trillion from the S&P 500’s peak last month, when Wall Street was cheering much of Trump’s agenda.
A barrage of new Trump policies has increased uncertainty for businesses, consumers and investors, notably back-and-forth tariff moves against major trading partners like Canada, Mexico and China.
Conclusion?:
Trump, NOT Biden or Kamala, will be blamed now for the bad economy.
So then, i guess it will either be Vance or, more than likely now, some maybe unknown Democrat in ’28 to take over the blame-sharing between the ”two parties”.
Listened to a very smart guy named Naval Ravikant recently.
He said “your resume is essentially a catalogue of your suffering”.
What he meant by that is, people learn from their mistakes (unless you have someone saving you from your mistakes, like Hunter Biden, in which case typically nothing is learned).
The former sphere commentator BV (I cannot speak for him, but I think he would say your liberal arts college was a gem, as he went to a private liberal arts college too and values the experience also) reposted a poem along the same lines. It is about a person…but could be anything. Beautiful, sad, profound.
The title is “Wound”
” I’ve loved you
as a man loves an old wound picked up in a razor fight
on a street nobody remembers.
Look at him:
even in the dark he touches it gently.”
Speaking of lessons, I’ll try to start making my posts more upbeat in the future. Heh.
Though Jack’s got me down, no reason to become one of the downers.
College in Vermont. I see the value in a Liberal arts backed education. Which I had. I was trained to be a teacher (elementary school / special ed) and had backing requirements in literature, sociology, science, math, foreign language which at my college you had to take every year…my college offered Welsh, which I already spoke. History of the Methodist church (it was a Methodist affiliate college).
We also had “artist and lecture” series we had to go to three or four per semester. And “reader to reader” where many of my college professors would read plays or classics aloud to the audience. Fires in the fireplace in the dorm lounge, meeting the professors in their homes for dinner.
It was to make you “well rounded” outside your main focus of study. There is something so beautiful in this. Its a tradition that is dying, and it did have a good run….well over 250 years in the USA
Im so glad I was part of that. Experienced that. Had that.
This is on Jack’s latest post:
Women are easily deceived because they’re burdened with latent guilt.
Like men are always chasing after material possessions, women, and worldly accomplishments to displace the loneliness in their souls (which only Jesus can do for Christian men), women will unreservedly bet the whole farm in the hope of tapping into that glorious life. The risks and potential losses are seen as insignificant compared to the payoff.
This also illustrates why women find it easy to believe that their hypergamic / romantic / sexual desires are holy, sacred, and sanctifying.
Or the ‘sin’ of lacking moxie, or ‘repenting’ of sexual morality, or the cult of women’s self-esteem, or their self-centered solipsism.
As St. Dalrock wrote,
“There is a key lie that is used to sell the idea that women become more moral by being self-centered. This is the lie that women’s nature, their great fault, is to forever put others before themselves, and to feel guilty whenever they don’t put others first. This is exactly the message self-centered women want to hear most, and it is why the message of virtuous self-centeredness, of holy selfishness, is so wildly popular in all forms of media aimed at women.”
Add
Women are easily deceived because they’re burdened with latent guilt.
+
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1ayh2w7/so_are_you_guys_familiar_with_the_ways_feminists/
Fallen-Shadow-1214
left-wing male advocate
So are you guys familiar with the ways Feminists remove agency from women?
discussion
Don’t want all my posts to be about AskFeminists but I went over there again to ask about what misogyny even means if it’s used in the most arbitrary and contradictory circumstances and I got some good answers before I got sucked into the most insane argument I could’ve ever conceived.
One of the things I said was dumb to call misogynistic is calling a female coworker cute and the response I got to this was insane:
“You shouldn’t call them cute because you’re discounting their skills”
“Cute implied that you think they’re lesser than you”
“Women don’t like compliments on appearance but they won’t tell you because they were raised to take compliments” (I thought everyone was, huh?)
But more than anything it’s the way how they take away all the agency of a woman to assert her own boundaries and put it on you to infantilise them and assert their boundaries for them.
How is that not harming women? What? How is this even remotely accepted? You’re literally putting the boundaries of women in men’s hands?
Is this not the very definition of benevolent sexism? Wouldn’t I need to see women as literal inept babies incapable of asserting themselves in any way without a man to do it for them?
This is insane.
BKEnjoyerV2
•
1y ago
Yes- learned it firsthand from my Title IX case
Upvote
25
Fallen-Shadow-1214
OP
•
1y ago
left-wing male advocate
The one where the changed how the rules work in the middle or right before a sexual assault casre tight?
Upvote
9
AskingToFeminists
•
1y ago
Time for my regular relinking to my post Feminism, traditionalism, double standards. One cause : malagency
Upvote
19
u/FightHateWithLove avatar
FightHateWithLove
•
1y ago
This is spot on. I’ve come to recognize malagency as an essential ingredient in restrictive gender roles. Agency plays such a huge part in how we see gender that it changes the very way we think about men and women. If you see an article about Men, the focus is always on what men are doing, what impact are they having, and what that means for society as a whole. But if it’s about Women, the focus will be on how women are, what’s being done to them, what is or isn’t being done for them, and what that says about society as a whole.
trowaway123453199
•
1y ago
not sure if im reading too much into it, but as it is a topic that interests me, isn’t this agency problem closely related to a lot incels issues? specifically how society responds to their points, it makes a lot of sense that if men are seen as these hyper-agents, then it goes to show that they are just not doing enough to be appealing to women, who just cant help but not be attracted to whatever characteristic incels are perceived to have.
Upvote
3
u/TacticusThrowaway avatar
TacticusThrowaway
•
1y ago
I’ve seen feminists basically argue that women who abuse men are just hitting them lightly, after he provoked them.
This week.
“You shouldn’t call them cute because you’re discounting their skills”
“Cute implied that you think they’re lesser than you”
MakingUpAGuyToGetMadAt.png
I can call a dog cute and still admire his herding skills. I can call a woman cute and not think any lesser of her.
“Women don’t like compliments on appearance but they won’t tell you because they were raised to take compliments” (I thought everyone was, huh?)
Is that why so many women go out of their way to look good, and even many feminists argue that looking good is to benefit the women, not male attention?
Upvote
23
SpicyMarshmellow
•
1y ago
Is that why so many women go out of their way to look good, and even many feminists argue that looking good is to benefit the women, not male attention?
When they want to complain about how much work it is and how expensive it is, and it’s this huge burden that men don’t have to deal with… they’re doing it out of obligation to men’s expectations and we should feel collective guilt for the hubris of our gender demanding these expenses and efforts of women for our benefit.
When men talk about how they don’t like excessive make-up, compliment a women’s appearance, or reject being held responsible for women’s decision to put so much effort into their appearance, then women do this for themselves and how dare we assume it’s about us.
Upvote
10
Vegetable_Camera5042
•
1y ago
“You shouldn’t call them cute because you’re discounting their skills”
“Cute implied that you think they’re lesser than you”
“Women don’t like compliments on appearance but they won’t tell you because they were raised to take compliments”
I mean I agree with all of this lol. 😂😂
it all depends on how the individual woman feels about being called cute though. If she is fine with it, nobody should be white knighting for her. But if she doesn’t like it, then she has every right to express her boundaries and say no she doesn’t like that.
The problem here women aren’t given agency in both cases. Women are told they are not ok with being called cute by men. While also people not telling women to express how they feel when they are uncomfortable.
So yeah I agree with you when it comes to women getting their agency taken away.
Upvote
13
Fallen-Shadow-1214
OP
•
1y ago
left-wing male advocate
Yeah, you get me, you don’t know how validating it is to have someone understand me.
Because I get it, sometimes compliments are things forced upon women, but it is insane for the expectation to be that they say nothing and the man has to baby her and mind read her to enforce her boundaries.
Conclusion
Is it just me, or do these ”lefties seem to have it more RIGHT than Jack or St. Dalrock(on women,agency, and society?
It’s like one of them(who was really ranting about his status at this very site/blog) said so many days ago at Spawnys:
” If WE neurodivergent tradcon trolls(who live to blame others for our faults & massive failures of 7+ years of just wallowing in our misery of being divorce &/or unhappily married and inviting others to join it) would get our act together, maybe people would care about personal responsibility and our Jim Jones/David Koresh dic(k)tatorship numbskullness asylum that WE call ”Patriarchy”.”
Is it just me, or do these ”lefties seem to have it more RIGHT than Jack or St. Dalrock(on women,agency, and society?
It’s like one of them(who was really ranting about his status at this very site/blog) said so many days ago at Spawnys:
” If WE neurodivergent tradcon trolls(who live to blame others for our faults & massive failures of 7+ years of just wallowing in our misery of being divorce &/or unhappily married and inviting others to join it) would get our act together, maybe people would care about personal responsibility and our Jim Jones/David Koresh dic(k)tatorship numbskullness asylum that WE call ”Patriarchy”.”
i after ALL these years also know that it doesn’t matter if it’s lefties”, neurodivergent tradcon trolls, or Jim Jones/David Koresh dic(k)tatorship numbskullness asylum,Almost every one of them will side with the ”evilz wimminz” they talk crap about in the end.
Like MOD says sometimes, ” You REAL MAN® guys would be the first to have a ”talk” with me at your churches(& then tell the women there how you handled the potential ”evil brute” who might harm their innocent virginal feminity”).
i have seen that play out that exact same way(when ”Tough” MEN -who supposedly don’t take no lip from ”evilz”wimminz, but chivalrously ”protects” the same and your NOT suppose to notice or your a ”evil brute’) before the WWW internet went mainstream in the mid-90’s or pastor Mark Driscol started his REAL MAN® Mars hill church in 1996.
Interesting write-up.
Correlates more with BLM and white privilege/manufactured guilt than I suspect Jack intended to convey.
In my youth I did feel some guilt and a lot of conflict, I’ll admit.
Mostly because I was raised by a mom who wanted an extension of herself through me and didn’t want me to marry (unless it was for money, much later in life), ever have children (“you don’t have ’em you never miss ’em”), and to have a very very good and lucrative career.
I was pretty much the opposite of her expectations.
Took me a while to be comfortable with that and have no guilt about my much better life choices.
LIZ,
Sex in the City to me was to i, just an extra sexed-up R-rated version of Golden Girls meets Dynasty.
What shocked{really, because i was comparing it to the standard ”Family -Friendly” broadcast TV at the time, e.g.ABCS TGIF-Which, strangely was already dead by the time i had seen it=”Real Sex” on HBO, even though everybody was supposedly crying out for ”Family-Friendly” programming on standard broadcast TV, just like they were supposedly demanding more ”learning ” programs while NOT watching PBS or TLC-when it was actually still THE LEARNING CHANNEL ( “A place for learning minds”)& NOT ”just dwarves on the farm & getting it done” & ”400-900LPS people trying to lose it through surgery”)}me on HBO was ”Real Sex”, When i had HBO free for a weekend in 2001, they kept showing commercials for it constantly, including a ”strapon class” teaching women how to strapon their boyfriend, that’s where i thought Jack was going with the Mike Davis stuff, e.g.”One hand washes the other” describes a transaction in which two people help each other, two people work toward the same goal, or two people exchange favors.
As was/ is stated here https://grammarist.com/proverb/one-hand-washes-the-other/
As the ”CHRISTian manosphere” has always been at war with the Scriptures that supposedly makes them the ”CHRISTian manosphere”
Such as:
Ephesians 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Ephesians 5:33 – However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Genesis 2:18 – Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Matthew 19:4-6 – He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Colossians 3:18-19 – Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
1 Peter 4:8 – Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
Proverbs 31:10 – An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
Mark 10:6-9 – But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Romans 8:28 – And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Ephesians 5:22-33 – Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Yet the ”CHRISTian manosphere” still says and acts like
Where oh where are the ANWSERS I’m looking for?
Monday misadventure:
https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1909331815317602811
Dire wolves are back.
Now we just need some saber tooth tigers!
No possible downside. Release them in Colorado!
They can play at the dog park with the hybrid wolves the occasional hippy brings around.
(they are super cute pups, must admit…I’m sure saver tooth will make adorable kittens too)
Liz,
Alas, there is no such thing as a completely or fully sequenced genome of any organism.
The more I learn about “science” the more I realize how much of what is claimed to be fact or data is in fact just a computer model. This applies to Dire wolves just as much as it applies to the historical temperature records used in climate “science.”
Peace,
DR
No – Smilodon fatalis is a cat. Saber toothed cat. They’re not tigers. I was a bigtime dino (and prehistoric mammal) dork as a little boy.
Heh thanks for the correction(s) Cameron and Derek.
Whatever they are I don’t even like the release of significantly smaller wolves out here in Colorado (which have now been tracked to where we live and the dippy hippies in Denver are excited)
See no reason to bring apex predators back.
We have wolves up here too – I don’t think they were reintroduced – we’re pretty far north.
Yeah…if they have enough area to roam (and enough chow) it’s okay.
Colorado has come open areas, but is overall pretty packed with humanity.
Wyoming is fine (maybe) for wolf populations.
In fall we’d see mountain lions just walking along the road up here (occasionally). Very friendly black fox (guess they call them “silver”, but it was mostly black and I thought it was a dog at first) got eaten, except for the head.
When lions are brazen enough to walk on the road in daylight you’ve got a bit of a predator problem.
When they voted on wolves (this is not an issue that should have been up for vote…especially by a population that smokes too much weed and takes mushrooms), I’m told they wouldn’t let the wildlife resource experts in Colorado to speak publicly about the issue. It was pretty much, “Hey do you think wolves would be cool? Look at the wonderful biodiversity they brought to Yellowstone national park!”
At any rate, they’ll figure it out. They aren’t even from the same line of wolves that originally inhabited CO (they’re like a Siberian hybrid or something, I’m told). We’re planning on moving anyway. I don’t think we can take another winter at 9500+ feet up in Colorado.
Someone just posted an image on X that looks like a wolf/coyote hybrid, in Florida. Wandering around a neighborhood at night. That is terrifying, never seen a coyote that large.
https://x.com/Ladylaw31256058/status/1911414362784387350