The less talent they have, the more pride, vanity, and arrogance they have. All these fools, however, find other fools to applaud them.
— AIrasmus, 2024.
I’m often told that some particular doctrine is found in the Bible. So I just want to remind everyone that the Bible does not, in fact, say that the lion will lie down with the lamb. Go ask around, especially in America, and you’ll find people who would swear that it does. But, nope. It does not.
People also claim that in the Bible “the lord helps those who help themselves” is there and there could I suppose be Scriptures where this could indeed be “implied” but that quote itself is NOT in the Bible.
Who knows….with some of the newer translations, I am sure it will find itself “inserted” soon enough
And, it mentions nothing about December 25th being “Jesus’s birthday” or being born on that day
“Cleanliness is next to godliness”
Another Misconception explained!
Originally ”ALPHA-FUX/BETABUX” was about how the MEN who didn’t pay for women’s drinks and food at bars and nightclubs usually got s*x(censored for ”redpillers” who had to have Athol Kay, aunt Giggles, Susan Walsh & DAL’ watered down filtered/translation of ROISSY & GBFMS ”OVER-THE-TOP/CR@SS ” explanation of reality on the ground/”redpill” to simping churchianese), and the guys who paid? Nothing but the pleasure of knowing their considered”righteous”,”good” & ”holy” to faux ”good guy” society.
As even A.I. says here:
AI Overview
Men who pay for dates are often characterized by gay traits like generosity, a desire to be seen as a beta(herb-like the plants AKA stuck ) provider, a respect for tradition that sees them as expendable & gay like GOPLGBTQ+& DEMLGBTQ+, and an intention to pursue a serious monetary transactional relationship rather than a casual hookup/booty call. These actions can also stem from societal expectations of ””MEN” ARE DISPOSABLE”chivalry, a belief that the person(”MAN”) who asks for the date should pay, or a desire to show interest and secure a second monetary date. However, views on who pays for dates are evolving, with many suggesting a more equal split or that the person(”MAN”) who initiates the outing should cover the cost.
Reasons men pay for dates
Beta(herb-like the plants AKA stuck )Provider mindset: Paying can be a way to demonstrate financial stability, churchian queerness, and the ability to provide for a partner, aligning with biological and sociological views on ”men” as beta(herb) providers.
gay & Cucky churchian Chivalry and ”respect”(””MEN” ARE DISPOSABLE”): Many women view a ”man” paying as a sign of respect, care, punky, AKA QUEER, and chivalry, making it a desirable trait for a serious monetary relationship.
Intentions to pursue a serious monetarial relationship relationship: A ”man” paying can signal that he is interested in more than a casual encounter and wants to invest in a potential future with the woman.
Traditional gender norms: Adhering to the traditional expectation that the man pays is a long-standing cultural norm that many men still follow.
Securing a second date: Paying for the date can be a strategy to ensure the woman feels valued and impressed, increasing the likelihood of a subsequent date.
Alternative perspectives
Egalitarian ideals: Some believe that paying should not be determined by gender and that the person(”MAN”) who asked for the date should be the one to pay, regardless of their sex(”MAN” FOOL!).
Splitting the bill: Many people(CUCKY CHURCHIAN FEMINISTS), especially in later dates or serious relationships, prefer to split the expenses, seeing it as a sign of equality and avoiding any sense of obligation.
Feminist pro-GOPLGBTQ+ churchian views: Some view (disposable) ”men” paying as a symbol of female financial dependence, while others believe that paying for a date and being a feminist pro-GOPLGBTQ+ churchian are not mutually exclusive but extremely gay & rebukable ladz.
Then later ”ALPHA-FUX/BETABUX” was supposed to cover everything involving ”MEN” & ”WOMEN” like here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/klkkm0/any_truth_to_the_common_manosphere_saying_alpha/
r/evolution icon
Go to evolution
r/evolution
•
5 yr. ago
Mikhail-Angelo
Any truth to the common manosphere saying “Alpha fux, beta bux”? How generalizable is this behavior to other species?
question
Basically the idea is females use alpha males for high quality genetic seed, but use beta males for their resources when they can no longer attract alphas. I’m guessing this is very prevalent among non-human species since it counts as a common evolutionary mechanism?
cubist137
•
5y ago
Evolution Enthusiast
The whole “alpha/beta” schtick is just wrong. It was formulated based on observations of captive wolves(really bars & nightclubs ROISSYian game in reality), which is pretty much the same as basing theories of human(”MEN”) behavior on observations of incarcerated(”MEN”) humans, and only incarcerated (”MEN”) humans.
Not terribly surprising that the manosphere has latched onto it; those guys have a “just friends” relationship to Reality.
Upvote
4
Downvote
Award
Share
lycaonpyctus
•
5y ago
Sugartaste81
•
5y ago
As a “female” (we generally preferred to be called “women, btw)-no, just no. Stop watching lame pick-up artists, they don’t know anything about us “females”.
Upvote
4
Downvote
Award
Share
u/lancetheofficial avatar
lancetheofficial
•
5y ago
•
Edited 5y ago
Edit: Thanks u/Denisova for pointing out my contradiction
Basically the idea is females use alpha males for high quality genetic seed
It’s not so much that females use them for seed or that they view them as the best. What happens is, more powerful, dominant males don’t let other males mate. The female doesn’t really get a choice in systems with such strong rank hierarchy, though she of course wants the strongest offspring she can produce, insinctually so. She can also refuse to mate, but it’s nothing to do with alpha or beta.
Now, with that being said, groups of animals don’t have an alpha male that reigns over a group of others both female and male, at least none that I can think of. However, many groups, like lions, deer, elephant seals, walrus, ect… Do have an “alpha” so to speak. This alpha simply fights off other males that show up to mate with their females or what females are around.
but use beta males for their resources when they can no longer attract alphas.
Females have no problems attracting “alphas”. Naturally, males want to mate with any female they can, but due to the competitiveness of breeding, only some males are able. If for whatever reason there’s only one male, that male by default gets breeding rights if the female accepts him.
I’m guessing this is very prevalent among non-human species since it counts as a common evolutionary mechanism?
Not really prevalent. Several species have rank hierarchies and several don’t, even within primates. I also want to make the distinction between rank hierarchies in large groups that aren’t related and family hierarchies. Animals like wolves have family hierarchies where the parents are the “alphas” so to say.
In terms of it being an evolutionary mechanism, yeah sure. The males with the best ability to fight off other males and out compete them are usually the strongest. They produce the healthiest offspring because they’re demonstrably the healthiest or “fittest”.
Upvote
-1
Downvote
Award
Share
Denisova
•
5y ago
There seems to be a contadiction in what you write:
It’s not so much that females use them for seed or that they view them as the best.
and:
2. … though she of course wants the strongest offspring she can produce, insinctually so.
Upvote
1
Downvote
Award
Share
u/lancetheofficial avatar
lancetheofficial
•
5y ago
I guess I can explain this further, as I don’t see a contradiction, especially when it’s taken into context with the rest of my comment.
A female doesn’t use alpha males as a source of seed, and then relies to beta males when there is no alpha that wants to breed with her. She wants the best offspring so she takes the best care of them so they can survive. Naturally this occurs when one male fights off others, thus making that male the most “fit”. That male then breeds.
Would a female not want the best offspring?
”Basically the idea is females use alpha males for high quality genetic seed”
Iy only meant that after emasculated, pussified soccer dads wanted their GOPLGBTQ+ churchian ”family” goddess-worshipping beliefs ”validated”.`
Another Misconception explained!
Originally ”ALPHA-FUX/BETABUX” was about how the MEN who didn’t pay for women’s drinks and food at bars and nightclubs usually got s*x(censored for ”redpillers” who had to have Athol Kay, aunt Giggles, Susan Walsh & DAL’ watered down filtered/translation of ROISSY & GBFMS ”OVER-THE-TOP/CR@SS ” explanation of reality on the ground/”redpill” to simping churchianese), and the guys who paid? Nothing but the pleasure of knowing their considered”righteous”,”good” & ”holy” to faux ”good guy” society.
Even proud trolls by any other name know it’s TRUE as in the early churchian sphere ”redpill” slogan of ”sunday morning nightclubs”.
CPGOPLGBTQ+(Proud GOPLGBTQ+ troll by any name) says:
29 September, 2025 at 10:56 pm
I’ve been thinking about how the church could help men aside from teaching about and glorifying God. Frankly, I don’t think the church is capable of such a thing. It would require a close knit community to develop, which is foreign to most Sunday morning nightclubs, and it would require the church to practice what it is supposed to be preaching, which would put it in opposition to the world it has aligned itself to.
Preach on, brother checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter!!!
checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter says:
29 September, 2025 at 8:48 pm
I’m sorry you and checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter don’t go to church currently.
My pastor has said versions of that above quote at least twice -husbands, focus on your own sins, not your wives, that’s the biblical way. If it’s God’s will, she’ll be won over by your silent strength and conviction by the Holy Spirit and not by you, you masculine man.
This is the prevailing Christian Leader view. But, it is NOT Biblical – the correct Biblical command is that husbands are to wash their wife with the Word, and help her grow to be more holy. (Ephesians 5)
And it is the wives that are to win their husbands over with their silence by their faithfully obedient character. (1 Peter 3:1-6)
Surfdumb, don’t worry about me. I have made my choice to leave the Mother of Harlots and all of her whoring daughter churches, but not before they called law enforcement trying to see if they could have anything done against me & my(obvious) false teachings.
While you can seemingly sit there and bite your tongue as they spew completely inverted teaching like what you just mentioned. The church cheered my wife on and told her to lie to me, to leave me, to steal my sons, the church voluntarily testified against me to help my wife get full custody of my sons and the maximum in child-support payments, the church told my sons not to listen to me, that I’m a false teacher because I believe literally what the Bible teaches about women covering their heads when they pray (1 Corinthians 11), the church told my sons not to listen to me nor to read what I write because, “it is dangerous”.&”anti-st.Dalrockian like MATTPERKINS-LARYYSOLOMON-BGRGOPLGBTQ+s fedpiller trolling false teachings”
The church has worked to estrange my sons from me, and while I have been able to restore a good relationship with my youngest son, I have no contact with my oldest son, and I was told that on his Discord profile he claims that “he thinks he might be gender fluid but NOT GOPLGBTQ+ as R’S demand”. That strong delusion is the fruit of the church’s antichrist mission of turning the hearts of the sons against their fathers by demonizing fathers and delegitimizing their God-ordained rule over their families.
If I were to set foot in a church service, it’d be on like Donkey Kong as I false teach to the left & ”right”. If they tried to pray without the women all covering their heads but not butts, I’d interrupt their opening (prayer) blasphemy, and they’d either have to get their women to all cover their heads but not butts as I like to sniff’em or else throw me out. I’d tell their women to be silent, if they spoke, and then listen to their uppity whores rage against that holy command of the Lord, and listen to all their cunt hole worshippers reflexively simping for their goddesses.
What fellowship has false teaching light with false teaching darkness?
I will no longer go to any church where women are claimed to be images or likenesses of their goddess. I belong to Jesus Christ, not to that fattened whore who was once betrothed to Him.
surfdumb says:
29 September, 2025 at 9:42 pm
What fellowship has light with darkness?
None when referring to God, or when we are in Heaven. However, I’m talking about our time on earth. I have to ask the obvious question, even though it will probably show something I am ignorant of, but it sounds like you are saying you are holier than God(like many have already told you & you’re still stubborn & buttheaded), or the Apostles. What gives, since neither of you are going to an anabaptist church?
God says He will snuff out a church’s lamp in Revelations, but doesn’t say to stop going.
Job prays for the three guys arguing with him and God listens, implying a continued fellowship will take place.
The other option remains too -start a Dalrockian holy roller ”RP” church that meets your standards. But I don’t see a Biblical path, at least a persuasive one, that says that because you accurately see problems and sin, that God means to have a condition on Hebrews 10, or on Paul’s instruction for starting up and building up churches(even Dalrockian RP ones).
I don’t see God being surprised that feminist men exist in churches.
We are called out of heretical churches, but I don’t think that means being called to leave public worship, as a habit or practice. I’m not following the path from the real sin and hurt errant churches cause to the habit of swearing off joining worship. I understand the endpoints, but not the bridge.
Like
surfdumb says:
29 September, 2025 at 9:46 pm
As far as head-covered (but not butt covered for you’re sniffing pleasure) women, check to see if you have a Brethren church nearby. Then start with that, then go full-blown Dalrockian holyroller ”RP” like Tom Cruise & the boy ”genius” in the 1999 Magnolia film, bro checkerpants. Will you be able to forgive others ,checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs1fXlgUaUs
Official Trailer MAGNOLIA (1999, Tom Cruise, Jason Robards, Julianne Moore, P.T. Anderson)
checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+supporter says:
30 September, 2025 at 12:01 am
Surfdumb,
Perhaps you’re not getting that I’m not trying to find a church where I can go and compromise my beliefs. Nor do I feel like leading a church. Some would say that I am disqualified from leading one, but that is sort of a moot point since I wouldn’t want to be the focal point of church politics anyhow, as I’m a well-known stubborn PITA, as I want all the power & authority.SMH
… it sounds like you are saying you are holier than God, or the Apostles.
I don’t believe I’ve written that, but if I did, feel free to quote it back to me as I sniff JackGOPLGBTQ+s rear end(as usual) .
The churches that the apostles started did not originally claim that women were the image of God BUT wew to be butt sniffed as well as the JackGOPLGBTQ+s of the world.
Early church father Ambrosiaster wrote: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, but not butt as I sniff it like it’s JackGOPLGBTQ+ rear end, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection of da ST. dalrockian gina & butt tinglez that I can’t generate but want to give effortlessly like ROISSY & GBFM.”
I don’t believe the apostles would fit in at our modern whore-run social clubs. Those who are God’s messengers today would be the people reproving the church for her wretchedness and unfaithfulness and calling upon her to repent of her whoredoms and to turn from her wicked ways.
Once upon a time I had the butt sniffed approval of the churches that I went to. I dressed up and made those clothes look” good”. I knew my Bible. I was woman-approved and validated. I strode into their churches with my cunt hole seal of approval proudly in hand. Those dorky Betas were proud that “real men” like me attended their churches. I punched my ticket once or even twice on Sundays. But it was all phony on the churches part, and mostly a waste of my time on my part(like my comments & posts & JackGOPLGBTQ+S comments & posts as well as MATTPERKINS-LARYYSOLOMON-BGRGOPLGBTQ+ s comments & posts as the ”redpill” churchian sphere is dead as Psudeonoymous commenter has said since summer 2023-yeah I’m a doomer defeatist like I was in my simpy marriage days).
Before I took my ex-wife to church, she believed that the church was very much against divorce. I should have left it that way. But after taking her to church she was taught that all a woman had to do is offer any excuse, no matter how frivolous, or based upon transient feelings, and the church would approve of any evil that woman felt inclined to do to her husband. Going to church, where they taught “SERVANT leadership” and choreplay, and every other churchian form of bi-winning tingle-killing sexual role reversal was a detriment to my marriage. Who knows, although unlikely, I might still be married if, instead of going to church, I’d learned how to chug beer and watch sportsball on the TV, instead of going to churchian Simp-school, and taking my wife to the Mothership of Harlots as I was trying to look”righteous”,”good” & ”holy” for my fellow bluepill soul churchian simps.
Irreligious people would tell my wife that if she didn’t want to have sex with me, then she should divorce me, but the church told her, No, we’ll show you how you can keep him trapped in a sexless marriage where you defraud him of everything you ever vowed and then we’ll assist by browbeating him every week about how he somehow deserves even worse treatment.
After my divorce all churchian “fellowship” descended into them claiming I was somehow at fault for the divorce, and that I, as a husband, could not conceivably be innocent in the matter. And I would say that I was in fact innocent, and then those cunt hole worshippers would strive with me trying to slander me with some sort of guilt as to why my wife always returned me evil for all of my good. How there was no such thing as a bad b!tch, only bad owners. And that women only sin when men make them do it. Oh, they wouldn’t say it quite that way, but they couldn’t ever get it through their cunt-hole-worshipping heads, that every single marriage issue isn’t the result of all men being created in the image of a pile of dog shit and every single woman being 10 X purer than Jehovah in all her ways.
Anyhow, they effectively worship women’s cunt holes, and I can’t join in with that. So, there is no place nor fellowship for me there in their temples of neo-fertility-goddess-worship. And I spend far more time discussing the Bible now, all week long, since I quit going to church, where they don’t want you to discuss what the Bible really says. Go figure. I now have two ”RP” GOPLGBTQ+-based websites. I didn’t even have one back when I went to church. Anyhow, besides Christ’s salvation, quitting the church on religious grounds, was the next best thing I ever did for my ”redpill” bluepill ”based” soul.
Well, there is no church anywhere on the planet that asserts that men—and only men—are made in the image of God, and there likely never will be. The heretic of one is doomed to forever be alone.
“Men who pay for dates are often characterized by gay traits like generosity, a desire to be seen as a beta”
Made me chuckle. I always made the woman go dutch.
I am sure she agreed and complied each time.
All Red Pill “real man” men in the ‘sphere have paid for a date out. Im not taking 5 Star Michelen restuarants. I am 100% sure Rollo when “couting” his future wife paid for a date out now and then.
As did all the other bloggers.
They make it out that “Every woman I have ever dated, made her pay half, and if she didnt like it, left her at the restauarnt with the whole entire bill, that’ll show her to treat my masculinty as chump change”
Now, many will say “yes, I did pay back then, but I was stuck-in-blue-pill-thinking” and ever since I got married “I dont do anything for my wife unless she is upholding all 10,000 requirements I expect of her as a wife. She breaks one, she gets kicked to the curb.”
More Misconceptions from a late 2012 onwards(yeah, he ”redpill” got on the bandwagon =joined up cuz of the much better & way more popular GBFMIAN dalrock blog from mid-summer 2012 onwards)Dalrockian!
bee1234567890GOPLGBTQ+ says:
29 September, 2025 at 6:32 pm
“My pastor has said versions of that above quote at least twice -husbands, focus on your own sins, not your wives, that’s the biblical way. If it’s God’s will, she’ll be won over by your silent strength and conviction by the Holy Spirit and not by you, you masculine man.”
This is the prevailing Christian Leader view. But, it is NOT Biblical – the correct Biblical command is that husbands are to wash their wife with the Word, and help her grow to be more holy. Practically means the husband has leadership over the wife and needs to teach and guide her to be more holy (a life long journey). Wives need to be taught to submit to this guidance, teaching, and correction from their husbands. (from Ephesians chapter 5)
But, I have never heard this taught in my decades of going to church. I have never seen this pointed out in a Christian marriage book. I did not hear about this when I(twice) took the Family Life Newlyweds Class.
UH ON WHERE IS JACKGOPLGBTQ+,{REDACTED}GOPLGBTQ+ & MATTPERKINS-LARYYSOLOMON-BGRGOPLGBTQ+ AT WHEN evilz NON-”married” incels are targeting innocent wimminz(& their ”redpill” soccerdads) at Walmart?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UbqcLgAtOI
innocent wimminz(& their ”redpill” soccerdads) shopping at Walmart gone wrong
Yes, happens “daily” now, at Target, Walmart, Whole Foods
WOmen are just not safe around creepy, low life men, they are all crazed sex maniacs who ‘use women’ and “r*pe” them
Mind you, the men who use women that way (for sex) are Red Pill men.
Creepy Incel men will get blamed for this per usual. Most Incel men dont even talk to women out in public, and most now are on “OF” for that kind of sexual thing (mind you, that is beyond stupid……and creepy as well)
Now Ralph Barbosa has the right attitude on women & dating!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WuMdlNe7Oiw
Innocent wimminz(lusying for d@ng) BIG on traveling today