Well, one of our old topical standbys is being discussed again. So we’re going to take a brief break from our series to discuss it.
A Bit of History
Back in 2020, Jack @ Sigma Frame discovered the ESV’s version of Genesis 3:16, which at the time read as follows:
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to* your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
* Genesis 3:16 Or shall be toward (see 4:7).
And he asked:
And after a very long analysis concluded that:
Here was his primary reason:
This was an interesting critique. What followed was this detailed discussion in the comment section, in which I took a major part. I encourage anyone interested to read the technical arguments laid out there.
Later, I followed this up with two posts in 2023…
“An Analysis of Genesis 3:16”
“The Context of Genesis 3:16”
…and one post in 2024:
“Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse”
Well, it looks like the topic has come up again at Sigma Frame in the post “A Long Hidden Truth is Now Uncovered” and in its comment section.
In the Here and Now
Oscar responded:
Although I grew up in church, like Oscar, I never heard this idea either … until one day (at the age of 48), I happened to read Genesis 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a newer version (first published in 2001) that I didn’t normally read. I was confused about the wording because it didn’t agree with my prior understanding of the passage. So I had to do some research to find out what it means.
I wrote of these chin scratching bordering on harrowing discoveries in a previous post, “What is a woman’s desire for her husband according to Genesis 3:16?” (2020/10/23). (Side Note: I found that the older translations are suggestive of a sexual desire, but the newer translations make it out to be a desire to control the husband.)
Since then, and not before, I’ve heard and read discussions about women’s intrinsic desire to control men.
Per “Hypergamy and the Early Manosphere,” F. Roger Devlin proposed the concept of hypergamy as women seeking to be under the authority of “better” men, that this is their feral nature. This is why inexperienced women, supposedly, always seek better, experienced, older men in positions of authority. Deep down they want to be dominated by a real man in authority over them.
Yet, women can’t simultaneously have a deep-seated feral nature to desire to be dominated while also having an intrinsic desire to control—assert authority over—those same men. It’s got to be one or the other (or neither, of course).
I’ve been trying to remember where I first heard the traditional and correct interpretation of Genesis 3:16, and I think it was on a radio broadcast of a sermon that was originally preached in the ’70s. The details are all hazy, but the feeling of “holy crap, that makes so much sense” is vivid.
Since then, the only churches where I’ve heard that preached are Calvary Chapel churches, and those affiliated with Pastor Doug Wilson.
Yes, of course, it’s all so obvious in retrospect. Per their feral hypergamous natures, women have a deep-seated natural desire to submit to—be dominated and subjected by—a real complete man while acting on their deep-seated natural desire to dominate that same man by usurping control and authority away from him. To that, I say…
…to a lunatic, maybe.
As we continue, keep in mind that he thinks the traditional and correct interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is:
Got it? Good. Continuing…
In the latest, 2025 edition, the translators reverted it to the original 2001 translation:
It is noted in the footnotes that for can also be rendered as to, toward, or against. I understand that this rendering is more literal, but the 2016 rendering more clearly communicates women’s nature, so I wasn’t too happy to see that change.
Again we have another commenter who is asserting that “women’s nature” is to usurp their husband’s rightful authority.
But then comes Reader Malcolm Reynolds to set them all straight:
“These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman’s desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination.”
Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83. [PDF]
This is new doctrine created in 1975 by a woman.
What does scripture say about listening to woman teachers?
The belief that “men ruled women easily before the fall, but now women seek to usurp their husband’s divinely appointed leadership unless he masters her through power and domination” is a modern fabrication.
Jack responded:
I don’t know where you get the idea that this interpretation of scripture is a ‘new doctrine’. If anything, it is an old doctrine that has been buried and forgotten for decades.
Even if you don’t believe that Genesis 3:16 specifically means that women desire to control men, it is still evident in nature, as I pointed out above [in the OP].
— 1 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV)
You don’t even need to be a Christian to observe this female behavior. It is obvious to nonbelievers who are willing to look at nature, i.e. Illimitable Men, Rollo, et al.
Seems like you’re trying hard to discredit this insight.
And then Malcolm Reynolds moved in for the kill:
But where is this old doctrine buried then? There are literally no pre-1975 sources that view sexes as adversaries in Genesis 3:16. This is the misinterpretation of a single woman in Westminster Seminary projecting her own issues into the text after reading the similar language of Genesis 4:7.
A Brief Look At History
Malcolm Reynold’s claim is not a new one, and it shouldn’t be unclear to Jack where this idea comes from. Why? Because I’ve already pointed it out. I did so most recently in 2024’s “Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse”:
That Cochran’s “ancient” patriarchal viewpoint is the one used by female complimentarians—since the 1970s—is probably ringing alarm bells in some people reading this.
Or, at least, it would have rung alarm bells if people were rational and self-aware.
In yesterday’s post, we got to see—step by step—how Devlin developed his myth of hypergamy. Here too we see a hint of how mythical development happens. This new doctrine has a well-defined source as part of the sexual revolution and the rise of modern feminism, but the mythical engines of rationalization build around it the myth of old doctrine that has been “buried and forgotten for decades.”
Just like Oscar, Jax, Jack, and Devlin, blogger Matthew E. Cochran had stated that…
Since the Fall, women sinfully desire to control the men in their lives. Naturally, their sexuality is one of the most powerful means at their disposal for doing so, and they don’t want it impeded.
The only problem is, as Malcolm Reynolds pointed out above, this isn’t the ancient viewpoint. The antagonsitic viewpoint—the one that Jack and the others have adopted—depends on the 1975 modern feminist interpretation that they have mistaken for being ancient.
It’s a modern viewpoint created in the 1970s by a woman who was steeped in the modern feminist notion that male/female relationships are inherently about power dynamics. Let’s emphasize that: the preferred interpretation of these men accept is the feminist framing that male/female relationships are primarily about power dynamics.
Feminists and Dalrockian Red Pillowspherians disagree on who should be in power, but they all agree that power is what is being referred to in Genesis 3:16, and that power dynamics are the essence of male/female relationships. Here is Jack making this exact point:
…even though somehow that “evident” nature was somehow lost for decades or more. And it is only now known as esoteric Red Pill lore to the (s)elect. So not very evident at all.
Yesterday’s examination of F. Roger Devlin showed that he and the early Manosphere adopted this feminist philosophy and that it has—without intention—parroted a feminist talking point as its central tenant ever since: misattributing the feminist framing as “female nature.”
I say this as a hereditarian: not everything women may choose to do is the result of their intrinsic nature. There are other explanations.
An Inconsistent Interpretation
It’s not just that the feminist interpretation of Genesis 3:16 was a modern invention, it’s that the logical consequence of that intepretation leads to a logical contradiction. Let’s look at what one commenter had to say:
The doctrine of sexual enmity has been around since Genesis was written down. The passage is a Hebrew poem with the format where the first two sections mirror each other and a third section contrasts.
- The Serpent is cursed bodily.
- God puts enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the serpent’s offspring and her offspring.
- The offspring of the woman is reaffirmed as possessing dominance over the offspring of the Serpent.
- The woman is cursed bodily.
- God puts enmity between womankind and mankind.
- Men’s dominion over women is reaffirmed by God.
- God does not curse His own image bodily but instead curses the earth from which Adam had been taken.
- Men are set at enmity (toiling for food) against the substitutionally cursed earth’s weeds and briars.
- The unduly troubled earth, over which Adam originally held uncontested immortal dominion, now resists men’s efforts, dominating and beslaving men, consuming us bodily, as men all are eventually returned to its dust.
See if you can spot the 3 curses, 3 enmities, and 3 subjections in the poem:
Genesis 3:14(ESV) The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
Let’s pay special attention to what he said:
Here are the three curses…
Serpent
Ground
Life to death
…the three enmities…
Serpent and woman
Serpent’s and woman’s seed
Humanity and earth
…and the three subjections:
Pain in childbirth
Woman to her husband
Man’s toilsome labor
Frankly, this is quite vague and arbitrary. Why these? Who really knows. They could be something else entirely. There are better than even odds that the commenter had a different list in mind, but I don’t know what it might be. The Commenter’s novelty does not even pass the Ultra Google Sanity Check™.
Why isn’t the hostility between husband and wife an enmity? By my count that makes four emnities, not three. Or maybe it is just two—or even one—because God was very meticulous to only using the word enmity in a single verse (v15) to describe two closely related concepts that could be grouped together as one. So not four or three, but actually two. Or it could just be one, if you treat this single reference as a single enmity.
And guess what? Just like enmities, there are only two explicit curses: one in v14 (serpent) and one in v17 (ground).
Now, wouldn’t you know, for subjection, there is only one explicit reference: in verse 16. But that verse doesn’t even unambiguously use a word for subjection.
So by my strict count, that’s one (or two) enmities, two curses, and one (or zero) subjections.
This is a good time to take a short break for a side discussion.
In Genesis 3:16, the word for subjection (or rule) is the Hebrew mashal and it is directed at the husband, not the wife. The word means to lead, rule, have dominion, or to govern. It may imply domination and control, but it is notably not the more intense word used in Genesis 1:26-28 when God tells Adam to rule over the earth (and makes no mention of ruling over Eve).
When this word is translated into the Septuagint, the phrase used is “kai autos sou kyrieusei” where “kyrieusei” is the Greek word used in place of the Hebrew word. The phrase means “to have authority over,” “to rule,” or “to be lord over.” The verb is in the Active Voice. So, from the perspective of the woman, the subjection is involuntary.
By contrast, Ephesians 5’s word is “hypotassō” and it is used of the woman in the Middle Voice, with the implication of voluntary submission.
Here is a summary:
This subjection mentioned in Eve’s curse is not the same type as referred to by Paul in Ephesians 5. Genesis 3:16 describes a punishment where a husband rules over his wife. Paul describes a situation where this curse has been removed and the imposition of authority has been replaced by mutuality and unity.
Let’s look at this “subjection”… or is it an “enmity”… or maybe it is a “curse.” Who knows, because the Bible doesn’t actually say there are 3 curses, enmities, or subjections, and it doesn’t explicitly say that Eve’s curse is (or isn’t) any of these.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
Do you see it? The Commenter is arguing that the subjection is due to the Fall. Or rather, he should be if he read this in context. It’s the plain implication of what he is saying. Yet, he actually says…
…but this does not logically follow from the text. In fact, it is begging-the-question. The fact is, the passage implies precisely the opposite of what he claims it means, but he’s special pleading for a different conclusion other than the one his argument implies (see here and here).
And he’s not the only one. Cochran did the same thing:
…and my response as the same:
Got all that? Per Cochran, it is now a sin to resist a man’s authority (but it is circular reasoning).
I’ll let Chrysostom explain the problem:
…
But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, “your turning shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16).
That’s right, nowhere prior to the Fall did God ever say that men were in charge of women. He never gave such a word. God very carefully and meticulously did not state that women were the domain of men. In fact, he used a completely different Hebrew word in each context to, presumably, indicate that one was normative for mankind’s dominion/subjugation (rada) over creation and the other was a curse of a husbands lead/rule (mashal) his wife.
In fact, the word rada (katakurieuō in the Greek Septuagint) is a much stronger, intense, more absolute sense of rule than the more general word mashal (kyrieusei in the Greek Septuagint).
The Fall altered the default state of man and woman from the harmony, partnership, unity, and assistance of the original design into a corruption of hierarchy, rule, and oppression. There is no notion that this was a continuation of an older arrangement, nor that she would seek to control him.
Both the commenter and Cochran believe that the curse merely altered the nature of what God had already established. When the commenter says…
“Men’s dominion over women is reaffirmed by God,”
…Cochran says…
“God pronounces Adam is still in charge,”
…Oscar says…
“women will desire to usurp their husbands’ [rightful] authority,”
…Jax says…
“women’s nature” is contrary to her husband,
…or Jack says…
“Women[‘s] desire to control men [is] evident in nature,”
…they are making stuff up that isn’t actually there. They are putting words in the mouth of God. God could have said that man had authority over women before the Fall if he wanted to, but he didn’t. He even chose to use two different words to describe two different concepts of dominion and authority, keeping them separate.
Can you see what has been done here? Genesis 1-2 does not say that women were under subjection prior to the Fall described in Genesis 3: that’s an inference based on something that isn’t stated. Neither does Genesis 3 say that women are now in conflict over some prior subjection. That too is an inference based on something that isn’t stated, which is based on another inference to something unstated.
The explanation I gave to Cochran applies equally to the commenter:
Since women are sinful when they try to subvert the curse of men ruling their lives, then everyone must agree that it is sinning when…
- …women subvert the curse of painful labor by using epidurals.
- …men subvert sweaty field work by working a desk job in A/C.
- …men subvert the punishment of having to eat plants by enjoying them or by eating mostly meat. Terrible-tasting veganism for all men!
After all, they did all these things before the Fall, only now it hurts.
It’s just as absurd to say that women who try to control their husbands are sinning because they’ve failed to enthusiastically embrace Eve’s Curse.
Of course men subvert their subjections/enmities/curses all the time. In fact, I’ve never once seen any man in the Manosphere complain about men avoiding them. They only ever complain about women doing the same, and only when it pertains to their ability to control women. They do not, after all, care if women avoid pain in childbirth by taking modern pain medications, nor do they care one-way-or-the-other whether women have to do sweaty work or eat meat-based vs. plant-based diets.
Men want men to resist all the other things that God declared for men at the Fall, but they don’t want women to do the same. If a woman has a domineering husband? That’s just too bad. She should just accept her punishment like a man. Well, except that men don’t accept their own punishments like men, do they? They weasel out of them at every opportunity they can get: they eat meat and sit in their air conditioned homes, cars, offices, and supermarkets while having access to the finest in prepackaged food and life-sustaining and life-extending medical care.
While the Manosphere wants to redeem all the other punishments, it wants to strengthen and perpetuate just one of them.
Deep down they know, as we all do, that the consequences of the Fall are not good. They should be fought, because they are evil. And Christ has turned those curses around, including Eve’s curse. Eve’s curse should not be perpetuated, it should be conquered.
The fact is, the adversarial 1970s feminist interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that is so near-and-dear to the Manosphere leads to logically incoherent explanations. This leads us to conclude that the so-called “female nature” is, in fact, not evident in nature at all.
Genesis 3:16 Isn’t Adversarial
The problem with both the Feminists and the Manosphere is that Gensis 3:16 isn’t adversarial. The adversarial view is that the woman opposes the man’s right and proper rule (rather than her opposing his cursed oppressive role or her simply having some motivation other than opposition). This view is not biblical.
We’ll let Reader Malcolm Reynolds—who we may start lovingly calling “Pseudonymous Commenter Firefly“—explain:
They did because this “translation” never existed outside the English language. Scripture has been translated into 3,765 languages, but no other translation contains this doctrine. Few examples:
Dutch (BasisBijbel):
French: (NEG1979):
Italian (CEI):
They all say the exact same thing, opposite to the few (!) remaining English translations keeping “control” (as the ESV has dropped it). Conclusion: This is a solely American idea existing within American Evangelicalism.
Here is the best simple explanation I’ve seen:
“Typically, the Hebrew preposition ’el means ‘to’ or ‘toward.’ All the major Hebrew lexicons agree on this. The adversative sense of the Hebrew preposition ’el does occur in some instances. However, even in those instances, the direction of action is still to or toward. So, for instance, ‘Cain rose up ’el Abel’ (Gen 4:8). Cain’s action of rising up is obviously toward Abel, but the translation ‘against’ makes sense because of the hostile nature of his movement toward his brother. In other words, the preposition ’el in Gen 4:8 does not determine the contrariness of Cain’s action. Instead, it’s his hostile action that permits the translation ‘against’ for the sake of clarity in translation.”
Neither the Hebrew word tshuwqah nor the Hebrew preposition el actually have an adversarial sense. They are just used in an adversarial context in Genesis 4:7-8. It is a lexical misuse of a lexicon to import the lexical context of Genesis 4:8 into Genesis 3:16 in order to make the lexical value adversarial. It’s a category error.
The English interpretation is only found in English because only in English is the English word against (found in Genesis 4) back-ported into Genesis 3. It’s literally an eisegetical interpretation placed onto the text by English-speaking translators influenced by a feminist attempt to introduce the idea that male/female relationships are fundamentally about power dynamics, a feminist/modernist premise that the Manosphere has bought hook, line, and sinker.
Moreover, in ancient and early texts prior to Jerome‘s Latin Vulgate, the word tshuwqah means turning. This includes the original Hebrew, the Greek of the Septuagint, and the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and Ephrem the Syrian.
Let’s look at some translations without the antagonistic sense. Here is George Lamsa’s English translation from the Aramaic Peshitta—from a culture very similar to that of the time of Christ—:
Notice how the wife’s viewpoint is not antagonistic. Now, here is a overly verbose translation from the Septuagint:
It’s pretty much the same thing as the Lamsa translation, just a lot more wordy. Now, here are a few more:
In none of these is the wife’s perspective antagonistic towards her husband, but in some of them the the husband’s role is considered antagonistic. In the first and third translations, he is antagonistic despite her lack of antagonism —her devotion—towards him.
Since we have not established that the wife’s perspective is antagonistic, thus we ask: “What is Eve’s Curse?” Is it “you will turn towards your husband” or “he will dominate you?” Since turning towards your husband is not antagonistic in the text and conforms well with the one-flesh bond, it can’t really be a curse. Only one answer seems plausible: the punishment is the man’s domination over the woman. And Christ has lifted the curse.
That reminds me of a Dalrock post based on his German born but American wife’s love of the original (uncensored & NOT polite) versions of fairy tales before they became ”cleaned-up” by Disney who was only imitating MGMS policy of ” the world is all sunshine, singing and dancing” , who in turn was imitating Mary Pockford’s G-rated films from the late 1910s/early 20s.
I misunderstood this one at first, until my wife pointed me in the right direction. The Willful Child:
But i just got reminded of the below by a college professor in the 2000s while looking for the Dalrock version i came across this below:
A couple weeks ago I read an article that I really related with. In the article, the author asks the question, “do men simply struggle with ‘worse’ sins than women? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Here’s what the article said.
Do Women sin? It’s happened to me three times now so I need to ask you about it. All three times were so similar it’s eerie. In a spiritual formation class we work on how Christians can get victory over sin as a part of their spiritual growth. To start the unit I ask students to list the sins Christians face most today. They list four sins immediately:
Internet Porn
Pride
Lust
Anger
Then they pause…they run out of sins. These four got listed quickly each time. In fact I’ve come to call them the “foul four” sins. Then they run out of gas and just sit there thinking. At the pause I usually ask, “OK, for each sin on our list let’s decide as a class if men or women are more inclined to this sin. In all three classes they have agreed that while women are sometimes tempted in these areas men are more inclined to these four sins. So I say, “Only women participate now—decide among yourselves what four sins you’d add to the list to that you think women are more inclined toward. Silence. Furrowed brows. Thinking… [long pause] Really! Each time the women who (along with the men) had quickly offered the “foul four” are at a loss to quickly add “besetting sins” that women seem more inclined toward. And now for the part that got me to write on this subject. The last two times I did this activity the women unanimously agreed on what they considered the chief besetting sin of women:
Lack of self esteem
I’m serious. So were they. The last two times I did this when a women offered “Self esteem” the entire group of women audibly responded, “Yeah—that’s it!” You see where I’m headed? Lack of self esteem? To the men in the class these co-eds were saying, “While you men struggle with pornography, lust, pride and anger we women struggle with not thinking highly enough of ourselves.” (Several men in the class always visibly roll their eyes.) To be fair, the women (after considerably time) usually add three other sins: resentment, bitterness, and lack of trust. But even their expanded list appeared to the guys in the class that men struggle with really bad sins while women fight minor sins. This male response was actually summed up the last time I did this. One male student exclaimed, “Gee, if I just struggled with those sins I’d be a saint!” To him “women’s temptations” were misdemeanors while his own besetting sins were obviously capital crimes. So, it got thinking. Are men more really inclined to sin than women—are they somehow in the grip of original sin more than women? Can this be true? In much of the ancient world women were considered weaker moral creatures with a greater inclination to sin them males—has this been reversed in the modern world? Or, have we labeled “male sins” crimes while mislabeling the temptations of women as less severe? Or, are female college students (at least in my college) more unaware of sin than males? Or what other explanation is there for this repeated phenomenon I’ve seen? Now, I know that dealing with sin and gender differences is touchy territory—all generalizations have exceptions and are not always true (or they would not be generalizations). But I keep sensing that my students are uncovering something interesting. What is it? What are they discovering about themselves, the church culture or theology? What do you think? How would you explain this?
These comments stand out:
(also I know you stole this post but it’s still a good topic to discuss)
i have known a lot of women(and so-called ”MEN” especially in the sphere) who think they know best and will try to enforce it(by acting like ””ALL of us” have been attacked/accused/”convicted in the Spirit” when it was really just myself by mean ‘ole Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM” with(with simpish cries for help,mobbery, and white knightry), help from any willing hench thugs be they male or female and by threats of ”I’ll call the police on you” to get there way.
Is that controlling of others in women(and so-called ”MEN” especially in the sphere) part of the curse of Eve or is it just part of their general(simp)-{since both sexes do it} sin condition after the fall of MAN is the Question for the so-called RP® Genius Leaders in the op above to ponder, yes?
The following video is interesting in light of ALL the above.
How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Women | Dr. Carrie Gress | Franciscan University Presents
What isn’t told as usual is that the ”Patriarchy” started collapsing and committing adultery with Satan long before the 1920s-50s.
”MEN” thought they could better control ”other” MEN through their wives,mothers and teachers as early as the 1820s in America.
Promoting moderation (1820s–1830s)
Songbook used at the Women’s Temperance Organization from Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania.
The temperance movement in the United States began at a national level in the 1820s, having been popularized by evangelical temperance reformers and among the middle classes.[6]: 109 [14][4]: 38 [note 1] There was a concentration on advice against hard spirits rather than on abstinence from all alcohol, and on moral reform rather than legal measures against alcohol.[16][note 2] An earlier temperance movement had begun during the American Revolution in Connecticut, Virginia and New York state, with farmers forming associations to ban whiskey distilling. The movement spread to eight states, advocating temperance rather than abstinence and taking positions on religious issues such as observance of the Sabbath.[3]
After the American Revolution there was a new emphasis on good citizenship for the new republic.[15] With the Evangelical Protestant religious revival of the 1820s and 1830s, called the Second Great Awakening, social movements began aiming for a perfect society. This included abolitionism and temperance.[15][14][4]: 23 The Awakening brought with it an optimism about moral reform, achieved through volunteer organizations.[18]: 6 Although the temperance movement was nonsectarian in principle, the movement consisted mostly of church-goers.[15]
The temperance movement promoted temperance and emphasized the moral, economical and medical effects of overindulgence.[17] Connecticut-born minister Lyman Beecher published a book in 1826 called Six Sermons on…Intemperance. Beecher described inebriation as a “national sin” and suggested legislation to prohibit the sales of alcohol.[4]: 24–25 He believed that it was only possible for drinkers to reform in the early stages of addiction, because anyone in advanced stages of addiction, according to Beecher, had damaged their morality and could not be saved.[6]: 110 Early temperance reformers often viewed drunkards as warnings rather than as victims of a disease, leaving the state to take care of them and their conduct.[6]: 110 In the same year, the American Temperance Society (ATS) was formed in Boston, Massachusetts, within 12 years claiming more than 8,000 local groups and over 1,250,000 members.[19][20]: 93 Presbyterian preacher Charles Grandison Finney taught abstinence from ardent spirits. In the Rochester, New York revival of 1831, individuals were required to sign a temperance pledge in order to receive salvation. Finney believed and taught that the body represented the “temple of God” and anything that harmed the “temple”, including alcohol, must be avoided.[4]: 24 By 1833, several thousand groups similar to the ATS had been formed in most states. In some of these large communities, temperance almanacs were released which gave information about planting and harvesting as well as current information about temperance-related issues.[4]: 39
Temperance societies were being organized in England about the same time, many inspired by a Belfast professor of theology, and Presbyterian Church of Ireland minister John Edgar,[21] who poured his stock of whiskey out of his window in 1829.Was this in England or Ireland?[clarification needed] He mainly concentrated on the elimination of spirits rather than wine and beer.[16][22][23] On August 14, 1829, he wrote a letter in the Belfast Telegraph publicizing his views on temperance. He also formed the Ulster Temperance Movement with other Presbyterian clergy, initially enduring ridicule from members of his community.[24]
The 1830s saw a tremendous growth in temperance groups, not just in England and the United States, but also in British colonies, especially New Zealand[25] and Australia.[26] The Pequot writer and minister William Apess (1798–1839) established the first formal Native American temperance society among the Maspee Indians on 11 October 1833.[27]
Out of the religious revival and reform appeared the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Seventh-day Adventism, new Christian denominations that established criteria for healthy living as a part of their religious teachings, namely temperance.[4]: 23
But why was 1960s-style feminism created?:
Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO – Aaron Russo
Now see why i don’t listen to how the so-called”Patriarchy” has innocent hands by{ abdicating responsibility like the so-called manosphere ”Patriarchists”(which they only claim cuz of the Doug Wilsons of the world(who have much more respect for God,MOSES,JESUS ,GBFM and Derek than say sodomy gay porn promoters & makers like biblicalgenderroles=bgr=larrysolomon=matt perkins as the so-called manosphere ”Patriarchists”do while giving each other high fives and pats on the back while watching gay porn together in ”private”), would look down on them yelling ””Christian” PUAGamers BUT Godly married® dudes”)in the sphere also did and do in their marriages but would NEVER allow society to become like that huh?-How did they do in their ever -failing marriages?}allowing and fully consenting to the rise of evilz,evilz, evilz Satanic femininism?
The original Hebrew is lost. Orthodox Christianity used the Greek Septuagint supplemented by Jerome’s Latin translation in the Western Church later. The Masoretic Text has been compiled during the 7th to 10th century and defined the Urtext for Protestant Christianity from 16th century onwards.
Joseph Fitzmyer noted the following regarding the findings at Qumran Cave 4 in particular:
Getting in biblical archeology destroys the (pretty American) idea that there was a single “authentic scripture” to follow, this is 17th century wishful thinking (mechanical dictation theory).
Señor Firefly,
How many times do I have to tell you to stop plagiarizing your sources? If you cannot behave in a proper manner without engaging in deceptive practices and intellectual theft, you should cease commenting here. Go to another blog where they have lower (or no) standards (I hear that Sigma Frame allows you to comment there, and they are big fans of plagiarism). Otherwise, have some respect for the others who read and comment here.
I fixed it for you this time, but it’s time for you to act like an adult.
Your observations are interesting, but they are also well-known here at this blog. You are not telling us anything we didn’t already know. We are not the typical Manosphere (or American) blog.
But, once again you betray your sheer ignorance in your haste to attack American Christianity.
That quote attributed to Fitzmeyer is, according to Wikipedia, from The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years, written in 1990 and published in 1991. After performing the Ultra Google Sanity Check™, I discovered that Wikipedia quotation likely comes from Farrell Till in a 1990 paper which lists the quote as coming from
When I checked the 1992 version of the book (here), which is only 85 pages long, the quote was not there. If it is a real quote, then there must have been an earlier, much longer edition of the book attributed to a completely different author. Considering he allegedly didn’t publish anything on the subject in that era, I’m inclined to conclude that the quotation is fake.
————————————————————————
Speaking of fake quotes, here is Farrell Till’s wikipedia description:
Till was a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the National Center for Science Education, and the Council for Secular Humanism.
Till was a part-time minister and missionary for the Church of Christ, but left the church in 1963 and later became an atheist. In addition to having edited The Skeptical Review, Till ran the “Errancy” list, which discusses biblical contradictions and errors. He formally and informally debated with numerous Christian thinkers and evangelists, including Christian apologist Norman Geisler and Young Earth creationism advocate Kent Hovind.
What a guy. Truly, the kind of person who would never, ever completely make up a citation and quote in order to attack Christianity.
So, MR, are you too an atheist who is intent on trying to discredit Christianity? You certainly seem intent upon discrediting inerrancy and American Christianity. Your repeated dishonesty in your lack of citations certainly suggests a poor motive.
————————————————————————
So, that quote, even if it were real, was made before the computer era. Over the last 35 or 40 years, every interesting Old Testament variant from the Dead Sea Scrolls has been analyzed and analyzed again. The “quote” is a full generation out of date. What was said simply does not apply anymore.
One of the things you’ve failed to grasp is that the greater the number of textual variants, the closer one gets to a determination of a “standard” or “original” source. This conclusion is counter-intuitive, but is nonetheless still true.
So, unless you have some evidence of relevant textual variants, then in the present discussion your observations are orthogonal concerns. They especially don’t matter in this case because the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words used in Genesis 3:16 are not particularly contested. The Hebrew/Greek translations for mashal/kyrieusei and rada/katakurieuō are both reasonable, and I don’t believe anyone has claimed that they are bad translations. That’s why I cited both Hebrew and Greek in the first place.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: A True Heresy | Σ Frame
: A True Heresy ?
From some blog called Σ Frame?
WHY do they say the manosphere started in 2010-which is itself a heresy?
When Lefty blank slatists were already trying to copy Roissy=Heartist long before that during the Roissyosphere,when tons of MEN & some women(namely one aging lefty college’ ho’s hookingupwith ”marriage dedicated-semi-rich betas”(sounds familiar to that Σ Frame blog since it went Radix Fidem in August, above huh? -loving ”aunty” known as Susan Walsh) too said ”me too-that could have his success=popularity of telling it like it is in the highly hypergamous(politicians using and abusing America’s daughters while supposedly ”good” parents and grandparents smiled & saluted knowing that God was somehow applauding them in Heaven) places of Washington D.C. & every nightclub & bar across supposedly ”Christian” and ”Conservative” America?
Such as right after Roissy=Heartist’s first post below on Apr 9th, 2007, BUT i thought talk of hypergamy,(endless) dating & women didn’t start until 2010? (according to some latter-day RP ®Genius Leader who most likely has a reading comprehension problem as 2007 is NOT 2010)
Endless Dating
Apr 9th, 2007 by CH
How long is too long to stay in the dating game? The primary reason for the psychological unease and emotional instability of so many modern women and to a different extent modern men resides in the irresolvable tension between our ancient biological inheritance and the relatively recent emergence of the high-tech rootless world of unparalleled mate choice we now inhabit.
It would shock most people if they were to be transported back in time to when humans lived in small tribes to see young girls having babies at 14 and again at 14 years and 9.5 months. There are subsistence cultures that behave this way today. The bulk of our pre-history was spent in conditions like this so it is no wonder that our brains are having trouble coping with a radically different environment where childbirth is routinely put off until the mid-30s, if at all, and rejection by a woman no longer means banishment to the icy wastelands of celibate metadeath when a man need merely walk to the other side of a bar to try again.
One consequence of this new paradigm is the absurd number of years spent in the dating circuit.
Women are designed by nature to begin the next generation not much older than age 25. Her risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities increases each year after that and exponentially so after 35. Her body begins to wear down which affects how much energy she can devote to raising small children. If she has not found a suitable mate by her late 20s she will begin to notice that those powerful feelings of infatuation she felt for crushes when she was younger, perfectly created by evolution to bring a man and woman together to make babies, now seem muted and foggy. This in turn will sap the dating experience of the best things it has going for it – namely, the spontaneity, the euphoria, the intense drive to connect – and leave behind a desiccated simulacra of dating that more closely resembles haggling over a business deal or suffering through a job interview. Overthinking replaces lust.
It is an embittering realization.
Men, too, have had to adjust under the new system. Anthropologically-speaking, it wasn’t so long ago that a man (or his immediate kin) blew his entire wad of hard-earned social and material capital wooing one or two women over the course of his natural lifespan. In a pre-birth control age when the first deflowering blast inside a woman often meant conception followed by years of fatherhood there were limits on just how many female sex partners the average man could accumulate in a lifetime. The rigorous experience of winning over and keeping the best quality woman he could afford and then providing for their kids soon thereafter meant that serial dating was not a typical feature of life. Dating 40 or 50 different women in a year and jumping haphazardly in and out of 3-month mini-relationships is a peculiarity of modern life for which men are not optimized. The energy requirement is enormous. Men have adapted to this stressful cycle of meet-attract-close-keep by either settling and marrying the first girl that would have them (usually high school sweethearts who have not lived enough to acquire unrealistically picky standards) or by hardening themselves against the judgment of women and learning to play the numbers game.
The game begat the player.
In the gigantic atomized urban tribe of any big city playing the numbers is not the high risk strategy it once was for our distant male ancestors who were often locked out of any future matings when a pickup attempt went awry and the target or cockblock would run and tell the whole tribe what a loser he is. Today, the proximity of exes has very little impact on potential future conquests. For men, this has bought them virtually unlimited opportunity to get laid. For women, this has robbed them of one of their most potent weapons in ensuring that only the fittest males get access to their vaginas — the withering ostracization of their sexual rejection.
On the flipside, men have lost confidence in the fidelity of their chosen partners while women have gained unstigmatized sexual freedom allowing them to play the field until the perfect man finally arrives to sweep them off their feet.
I do not think the current reality of endless dating can last. Something must give. Either humans will evolve into different social animals capable of withstanding decades of hookups and fragmentary relationships without turning to the comforts of cats and internet porn, or those people who serially date and delay childbirth will not have enough kids and natural selection will remove them from the gene pool as a failed experiment. Either way, change is in the air.”
If she has not found a suitable mate by her late 20s she will begin to notice that those powerful feelings of infatuation she felt for crushes when she was younger, perfectly created by evolution to bring a man and woman together to make babies, now seem muted and foggy. This in turn will sap the dating experience of the best things it has going for it – namely, the spontaneity, the euphoria, the intense drive to connect – and leave behind a desiccated simulacra of dating that more closely resembles haggling over a business deal or suffering through a job interview. Overthinking replaces lust.
That part sounds definitely like the ever more failourous lefty blankslatist latter-day ”manosphere” WE know, yes?
The same ”pro-marriage” one that thinks wimminz I.E. ”my daughters who tell me I’m Da ”only relz MAN in the room” unlike my dastardly wife(but still hurry up and get married young single ladsz, don’t take my unMANly & dishonorable whining & complaining too serious and become an evilz blackpiller ) and if they marry and start having younguns, I won’t be hearing that from them enough-sniff, sniff” are too young for marriage & having babies before 18 so how about 25 or 28 like other Feminists like MOI say, bro?”
…
according to some latter-day RP ®Genius Leader who most likely has a reading comprehension problem as 2007 is NOT 2010
Please clarify what you mean. Did someone actually say that the Manosphere began in 2010? Post a link or quotation!
Where this part is said thus :
”The Manosphere’s Red Pill revelations of Women’s Nature (since ~2010).”
YET
https://heartiste.org/2007/04/09/endless-dating/
That above post isn’t ”red pill”(originally Keoni Galt as Dave from Hawiia referred to Roissy’s dating advice as modified into marriage advice as ”redpill” in 2008-)but WE are discussing Women’s Nature in the manosphere then that leads back to Roissy inD.C. in April 2007 B UT what is called the ”manosphere” is based entirely on Roissy and the Roissyosphere even their precious ”married game” even though Keoni Galt as himself in ’09 clarified that game without the ”married” qualifier was the ”redpill”.
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/09/game-is-red-pill.html
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Game is the Red Pill
Now that it appears the debate between the PUA/MGTOW/MRA blogosphere about Game and it’s relevance and morality has cooled down a bit, I would like to reiterate the one point I believe is most relevant for why all men should take an effort to understand Game without trying to marginalize it or write it off as completely erroneous, simply because you object to the morality espoused by the PUA…or that you think Game is a silly, manipulative script that men follow simply to get laid.
To use the Matrix allegory, Game is the Red Pill.
…something happens which makes us question those very rituals we’ve blindly followed and we are confronted with a choice – shall we take the blue pill and choose to ignore any inconsistencies with our own paradigm which works pretty well, or shall we take the red pill and explore these inconsistencies knowing that it could lead us into a world we aren’t familiar with… one that questions the very foundations of our current perspective.
In this context, I think it’s perfectly fitting to describe the social engineering by cultural indoctrination and conditioning that has been effected for the last century regarding gender roles and attitudes towards institutions like the Patriarchal nuclear family; the confusion engendered by the “battle of the sexes” and the legal system of sexual/social politics; is all really best described as a mass delusion…an epidemic of blue pill-addiction.
Symptoms of blue pill delusions are ubiquitous, and it manifests itself all over the place. Only the few red pill takers…those that understand the reality of gender relations…are even aware of just how widespread the mass delusion of distorted gender roles is inculcated into mainstream consciousness.
And this is where “Game” comes in. Game is the red pill because it is based on men analyzing what behaviors are attractive to women, and what behaviors are not.
It is the basis for just about all social dynamics amongst any human interaction…why men compete with other men (for access to women)..why women compete for the attention and affection of men they perceive as desirable to other women.
Game is the Red Pill because it deals with understanding the principles of observable truths that are field tested…and these truths are in direct contradiction to the blue pill delusions of preconceived notions regarding gender roles in our BraveNewWorldOrder.
Once we learn of that new paradigm, we can no longer hold the older belief as our truth. Not everyone can deal with this kind of thinking. Many people are perfectly content believing something to be as they’ve always known it to be, and reject this newer attempt at truth because it’s too painful to accept – they’ve been living their entire life based on this lie and only now they come to discover that the world is not what they thought it was.
Unlike the caricature portrayed by it’s detractors, Game is NOT a simple ruse…a routine or a schtick to manipulate or trick women into having sex with men. No, it’s about truly understanding social dynamics and the role that social hierarchy plays in any human interaction. Once you have this understanding, you begin to see “THE MATRIX” or false reality of delusions regarding gender relations.
So i don’t know what kind of ”game” or ”false reality of delusions regarding gender relations” that Σ Frame blog is playing with year dates and terms and such. BUT the above links show that they are wrong as 2007 and ’09 are(obviously) NOT 2010 is the main point.
I have not read the article at the pingback. Did I get the citation right?
The Manosphere’s Red Pill revelations of Women’s Nature (since ~2010).
Wow, that’s… umm… odd.
Devlin was talking about women’s nature in 2006. And you’ve cited Manosphere articles from 2007 to 2009. What does Jack think happened in 2010?
I know that Dalrock started writing in 2010, but Dalrock seems to have based some of his core ideas (e.g. Chivlary) on 2006’s Devlin and the earlier Manosphere.
And what’s the point anyway? If these ideas originated with the feminism of the 60s and 70s, what’s the point of saying that it originated in the 2010s? That hardly helps to establish their supposed ancient origins.
I’ve long joined Boxer and GBFM in noticing that the Manosphere was, in general, feminist, but I had no idea that it owed its origins to it until I did the post on Devlin. I had never bothered to look into the origins of the Manosphere. Now it’s become much clearer.
I have not read the article at the pingback. Did I get the citation right?
YES!
i also found the post where Roissy=Heartiste(who was obviously too flattered that married MEN were among the teens & guys in their 20s & 30s among some young women getting tinglozzlolzzz from reading him) opened the door that eventually led to the whole original MGTOWosphere & Roissyosphere being overlooked by the loudness & angriness of the miserably divorced and unhappily married MEN in the ”anyone can be a freedom-loving MGTOW & a ”gamer” too” manosphere-which after a few years led to the ”blackpillers”(who themselves developed a highly negative attitude mainly towards marriage from the ”married gamers” who claimed ”ALL one need do is learn game and the worlds your oyster”-while Roissy himself was more nuanced in usually saying by paraphrase ”it will help you live a better life” like the actor Wilford Brimley use to say on those late 80s/early 90s 1-800 -liberty medical diabetes commercials-remember too many new recruits of anything oversell what the gurus of the teaching don’t usually do-as new recruits are too much of on a emotional high on whatever they believe is TRUE ) emerging from all the self-pitying, whining and complaining of the miserably divorced and unhappily married MEN that had fully made it their home by late 2015/early’16.
https://heartiste.org/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
Relationship Game Week: A Reader’s Journey
Aug 14th, 2009 by CH
The coda to this week’s relationship game posts is a sampling of comments from reader Dave from Hawaii, a guy who kills wild boar with a knife for fun, wherein he discusses his transformation from nagged beta husband of a contemptuous wife to alpha husband of a loving, grateful, gina tingly wife (same woman!), all by assiduously applying to his marriage the core principles and yes, even the specific tactics, of Game. Read and be inspired. You too can improve your love life, inside and outside of marriage.
I got married young, and simply did not understand anything about game, or the benefits of assertive masculinity. I put my wife on a pedestal and spent 7 years or so of a very contentious, walking on egg-shell type of relationship that teetered towards divorce more than a few times.
I discovered PUA/Game sites like this one a few years ago, and after a bit of reading on sh!t tests, and the subconscious mating desires of females, I began to “run game” on my wife.
The transformation of our relationship is astounding.
Yes, she put on a good 40 lbs. a couple of years after we got married.
Once I learned to game her subconscious, competitive instincts and began to plant suggestions in her mind that I was desirable to other women…she’s gotten motivated and lost the weight, and her affection towards me reverted back to the way she was before got married.
Once I started recognizing her shit tests and began to not just “pass them” but literally blow them up, the passive-aggressive emotionally driven conflict that had been the hallmark of our relationship has all but disappeared.
We don’t fight anymore.
My wife, who used to grumble and complain and tell all her closest friends and family that we had a “difficult relationship with lots of problems that needs working on” now tells everyone she’s happily married without blinking an eye.
Game… it does a body good!
******
I changed our relationship dynamic after learning about game.I stopped always asking her what she wants and started being decisive while playing up the mysterious angle.
Here was a typical scenario back then:
HER: “I’m hungry.”
ME: “What do you want to eat?”
HER: “I don’t know…”
ME: “How about McDonalds?”
HER: “I dunno.”
ME: “How about Taco bell?”
HER: {shrugs}
ME: “KFC? I know you really like the original recipe chicken dinner…”
HER: “well yeah…”
ME: “OK, great, let’s go!”
Drives to the KFC drive-thru.
ME: I’ll have the Zesty Crispy Chicken Wrap…what do you want, honey?”
HER: “I don’t want to eat here.”
ME: “What? I thought you said…”
HER: “I never said I wanted KFC.”
ME: “But…what do you want then? Whatever you want, just let me know, and we’ll go there!”
HER: “It’s too late, you’ve already ordered here.”
ME: “Fine then. So what do you want?”
HER: “Nothing, just take me home. I’ll figure out what I’m going to eat later. {Said in a grouchy tone}.
ME: “Why do you have to be like that?
HER: “Be like what? I never said I wanted KFC!”
ME: “Well what do you want then?”
HER: “Don’t worry about me already! Just get YOUR food and take me home!”
ME: “I’ve asked you how many times to tell me what you want and I’ll take you there! Why do you always have to act like this?”
HER: “Act like what? Nevermind already! It’s obvious you don’t really care about what I want…it’s only about what you want! I didn’t want KFC and yet you’re trying to make like it’s all my fault just because I don’t want to eat here! I never wanted to eat here in the first place!!!!”
ME: “$*%^(YT@#($)(#&!!!!!”
Same scenario, now:
HER: “I’m hungry”
ME: “So am I. Let’s go.”
HER: “Go where?”
ME: “You’ll see.”
HER: “C’mon, tell me…”
ME {Rolling my eyes and turning away from her, getting ready to head out with or without her.}: “Are you gonna sit here and play twenty questions like a spoiled little princess or are you gonna come along and eat with me?”
HER {Now she starts getting ready to go.}: “C’mon…why don’t you tell me…”
At that point, I could take her to a fine-dining restaurant or McDonalds, it doesn’t matter.
What mattered was that I passed her sh!t test and played the role of the ‘provider.’
I stopped treating my wife like I was an enslaved sycophant willing to do whatever the goddess desired and started treating her like the kid sister with the backhanded compliments, light-hearted teasing, and over-the-top sarcasm to deal with her shit-tests…all within the “frame” of subconsciously reinforcing the notion that I’m attractive to other women.
For another example, I remember one instance where we went to a dinner party, and there was a, beautiful, blond girl that was a friend of a mutual friend, and it was the first time we met her. Her and I hit it off immediately on a conversational level.
After the dinner, on the ride home she started in…
“So tell me, is _______ better looking than me?”
Now the reality is that why yes, she was…and we both knew it. (Turns out, she was a former swimsuit model…)
I was scared to death to admit this to her. I immediately and reflexively lied to her. She became infuriated.
“Why’d you keep talking to her all night long? Where you attracted to her? Don’t lie, I saw you looking at her while you were talking!”
I uncomfortably whimpered “Well, she was sitting directly across from me all night long…”
Needless to say, the conversation continued to escalate in that vain, with her continually getting angrier and angrier as she played the role of hostile interrogator, and I, the hapless idiot husband, caught doing something wrong…trying to squirm out of the pending punishment.
She “dominated” this conversation from the beginning, she set the frame and I unwittingly relinquished my backbone.
Eventually it turned into a full blown argument as I got angry at her for getting angry, because in reality I had done nothing wrong but have the temerity to have conversation with a beautiful woman at the same dinner table.
Contrast that with how I handle a similar incidents now, after I had figured out the underlying dynamics behind why we would always get into those types of fights and arguments…
(generic paraphrasing of a typical situation}
ME: “Of course she was talking to me! Most beautiful women do! That’s EXACTLY why you married me! What lady can resist these?” (Thrn I would just flex my biceps and like I’m the world’s baddest man…all with a smirk on my face.)
HER: She rolls her eyes, chuckles and responds, “Yeah right…no woman would want you if you were the last guy on earth.”
ME: “That’s not what your {name of her best friend} said the other night when she was begging me to kiss her…”
HER: {giggling} “You’re so silly…”
In other words, I learned to turn those “sh!t tests” into playful banter with a subtle frame of reference (treating her like she’s the “younger sister w/ cooties” instead of the goddess who I’d be most fortunate if only she’d let me kiss her feet), rather than address them at face value. In short, learned to “lead the conversation…i.e. “dominate.”
I used to tell her the typical lies of a cowed and fearful married man that is the ubiquitous caricature of men in today’s feminist warped mass media… “No honey, I ONLY have eyes for you! I promise! I don’t even LOOK at other women!”
In retrospect, I can’t believe I spent YEARS protesting innocence and begging her to not get upset, and never realized that taking that tact ALWAYS resulted in bad feelings and “relationship problems.”
At the same time, I reinforce the notion that I’m desirable to other woman (remember – no one wants to go to the club that is empty…everyone wants to get in to the one with the line around the block.)
And I tell you, I really REALLY felt silly and ridiculous when I first started acting like that whenever the shit tests came up.
Now, it comes to me like a second reflex.
Most betas, when they first learn game and apply it to their dealings with women, are utterly taken aback by how effective it is. A light goes on, and they feel the spiritual alpha surge of a thousand ancient warriors coursing through their veins and guiding them on the path of righteousness. Swing your two-handed skin sword and drink heartily from the scrotal-shaped chalice, Warrior-Poet! Your dominion over the gina tingle is assured.
******
The more I tried to supplicate [my wife]…to plead with her…to beg her “why do you have to be so angry? Can’t we just get along? Is this really that big of a deal? Look, I’m sorry….”
Oh yes, I was ALWAYS apologizing. Oh, and I usually begged for s#x.
I would try to use logic and reason to deal with her emotional state. Never worked. Ever.
In other words, I was letting her emotional state dictate my response. I was trying to appease her mood.
After reading up on game, I gained insight into the basic, biological motivations of females. I quickly realized that I was acting beta, and she was no longer attracted to me…making her angrier and angrier by the day because she couldn’t stand the fact that she was married to and living with a spineless, grovelling chump always searching for appeasement and begging for sex.
Once I was conscious of that dynamic…I became conscientious about how I began acting around her.
For a recent an example of that change of mindset I’m talking about:
Just the other night, I called her to let her know I was coming home so she could time dinner to be ready when I got home.
I was dead tired from my martial arts training that day (I was doing full contact kickboxing training, very rigorous)…and I stopped at my friends house at around 5:00pm to drop something off that I had borrowed from them and have a quick drink before heading home.
After one drink, I lay down on my friend’s couch for a moment…and the next thing I know, it’s 2:30am in the morning.
I drove home, and got into bed. I thought she was asleep…but she promptly said in a real bitchy tone “Where you having fun tonight?!?!”
I simply said “I fell asleep on _____’s couch. I’m tired, good night, dear.”
And promptly rolled over and went to sleep. I don’t even remember what she said to me in response.
The “old” me would have been begging her for forgiveness and apologizing profusely.
She was still upset the next morning…so I let her be upset. She tried to argue with me about it, and I would just shrug, and go start cooking breakfast. She would say something pointed, and I would change the subject.
When she kept pushing me, I just told her straight up – I was dead tired, I lay down for a moment and literally passed out form exhaustion. What is their to apologize for? I’m going to eat breakfast now and enjoy the beautiful morning…care to join me?”
She may have grumbled a bit more, but in the end, we ended up having a nice breakfast, and the topic was dead…other than the occasional, off-hand joke from her about how “You don’t come home anymore,” over the next few days…to which I would either ignore it, change the subject or “agree and amplify” to the point of absurdity.
“Of course dear, don’t you know us pimp daddies have a lot of hoes that take up all our time!”
The old, beta me would have been banished to the couch, subjected to a few days of silent treatment and begging for her forgiveness…only making it worse and worse the more I would grovel and beg.
Whenever there is a marital fight, no man should ever choose to take the couch. That way is the way of the beta. You either sleep in your own g-d@mned bed and let smoke come out of her ears all night as you snore loudly next to her, or she chooses to take the couch.
There’s more to that post at the link for those who want to read the rest.
Pingback: Genesis 3:16 Revisted Again - Derek L. Ramsey
Here’s some self-help for ALL the unMANly & dishonorable whiners & complainers at places like Σ Frame & someplace that’s a laf?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQMQ-AhiW40
Doctor Jordan Peterson: BECOMING THE BEST VERSION OF YOURSELF
Peterson is a FAVE of the latter-day failing manosphere cuz he is like them looking to live off the laurels of GREATER MEN’S work like Roissy=Heartist & THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN who built the Roissyosphere into a juggernaut of success and popularity that they enviously try to associate with it through the failourous(blank slatist from the beginning-as they could NEVER duplicate the MAJESTY, GLORY NOR CHRISMA of Roissy=Heartist & THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN (like how once GBFM left the Dalrock ”manosphere” blog it quickly crumbled in success and popularity-WHY?Cus it was the MAJESTY, GLORY NOR CHRISMA of Roissy=Heartist & THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN that made the Dalrock blog successful and popular, don’t believe it huh?-think it was the charts & graphs of the decline of Western Civ maybe?-SEE how good he was doing before GBFM showed up and after GBFM left-sort of like what happened to that unknown Σ Frame site above it lived off of GBFMS laurels and then collapsed when he wasn’t there anymore mainly cuz of its NEVER ending and constant blue pilled heresies and its allowance of simped and cucked dorks running rebelously loose from Bellevue there too! ) manosphere whom Doctor Jordan Peterson found was popular with young MEN in the 2010s.
Also in this Doctor Jordan Peterson video, he tells the ”virginal and innocent as any little feminist ”manosphere they could be ”getting what they want”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0fcQg0M07M
Jordan Peterson: Transforming Your Failures into Wisdom. (Mind Blowing Motivational Speech)
Why NOT yell at Peterson(who speaketh in that video like what y’all are saying about Derek) for saying you have a hand in your ”luck” huh?
What y’all are chicken$#its(HOW can that be if you are ”redpilled?”?)
Professor,
You know what’s odd? If a woman says “I just want a guy with a good sense of humor,” the Dalrockian Manosphere will say that she’s lying and that she really just wants to sleep with them or control and usurp their authority. But look at those examples of Dave from Hawaii “gaming” the so-called fitness tests his wife gave:
…and…
ME: “Of course she was talking to me! Most beautiful women do! That’s EXACTLY why you married me! What lady can resist these?” (Thrn I would just flex my biceps and like I’m the world’s baddest man…all with a smirk on my face.)
HER: She rolls her eyes, chuckles and responds, “Yeah right…no woman would want you if you were the last guy on earth.”
ME: “That’s not what your {name of her best friend} said the other night when she was begging me to kiss her…”
HER: {giggling} “You’re so silly…”
…and…
…and…
ME: “She’s hot, isn’t she?”
What do I see? A woman who wants a man who is lighthearted, funny, and playful…. just like she said she wanted.
The thing is, this works for almost everyone. This is a good strategy to employ to people you know in general, including both women and men. In the 70s and 80s people would have called this charisma. Now teenagers call it ‘Rizz’.
People like a person with a good sense of humor. This isn’t “game,” it’s human nature.
———————————————————————————
You know what else is odd? Men think that it is normal and typical to lie to your wife. But it is such a terrible idea, as Dave from Hawaii discovered:
But in each of these situations, Dave deflected with sarcastic and hyperbolic humor, not with honesty. He’s still treating his wife with kid gloves, like a bomb waiting to go off if he “fails her fitness test.” Humor is fine for some—even most—situations, but what if you are in a situation where your wit is too slow or it is inappropriate to the situation? Try it at a funeral, and you’ll look like the real jerk that you are.
These men are not in relationships where a man can be honest and truthful with his wife. No wonder these men are having such trouble with women and constantly live in fear of infidelity: they don’t have relationships built on loyalty and trust.
Wouldn’t it be better if your wife knew in advance that you would never lie to her (and she would never lie to you)? She’ll know exactly what to expect from you and will know better than to ask silly questions like “Am I the ugliest/prettiest woman in all the lands?” No need to play games. Just, as they say, maintain your super-ultra-alpha frame by never lying. Does a woman want a stable, reliable man—one who never lies—or an unstable one—whose game or frame may fail at any moment?
One of the reasons the church is in the sad state it is in is because dishonesty and “white lies” have been normalized, even mandatory. I find these game techniques to be cringe-worthy and, frankly, exhausting. It’s play-acting or LARPing.
Reading Dave from Hawaii’s interactions with his wife feels awkward, fake, juvenile, and immature. These are adult men who don’t know how to act naturally around women. The humor seems forced. It’s obviously better than nothing, as the results are better than doing nothing, but the Manosphere just stops there. It’s like finding out that you can get by with a high school diploma and a calculator so you don’t bother truly learning how to do math (let alone taking higher level courses!).
Game treats women like they are animals to be psychologically manipulated. The Manosphere goes on-and-on about “female nature” (but then complains when you talk about the role of intelligence: actual human nature). That’s because the Manosphere is full of black-and-white males who want the world to be static.
Static is “every woman is this way” with the idea that “you can follow this script for success.” But dynamic is “each woman behaves differently according to her intelligence” with the idea that “there is no one-size-fits-all approach.” The Manosphere really does not like the idea that women have meaningful differences. Nope, one-size-fits-all doctrines is what they prefer.
Peace,
DR