Two years ago, James White got censored by YouTube because he had the gall to criticize “gender affirming care” and condemning infantile, childish, emotional responses of adults. The video, found here, is strongly worded but speaks truth about the state of culture. It’s worth about 40 minutes of your time.
A few years ago, Dalrock refused to deadname a transwoman because of his fear of censorship.
Note: Nathan reiterated at the end of our process that he may be adding further replies in the podcast. Also, in our email exchange I referred to a famous crossdressing man. I’ve changed those references to generic terms given the WordPress rules on “deadnaming”.
One of these men is influential. The other is not.
YEAH! But here’s the beginning of the modern” Dalrockian” ”vet”osphere, which began with DAL’ enemies the ”churchians” since DAL’ thought ”tight game” was all a Christian needed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/2fawyl/an_alternative_view_of_marriage_dalrock/#:~:text=Dalrock%20is%20a%20blogger%20who,protest%20over%20what%20he%20writes.
Orthodox-Reactionary
Reactionary Catholic-Leaning Protestant
An alternative view of marriage (Dalrock).
Dalrock is a blogger who has very strong opinions on the traditional model of marriage and its decay in contemporary society. His words on the nature of sex, love, and romance:
The biblical model says marry if you burn with passion, then do it like rabbits with tight @ss Biblically-based game(by way of bars & nightclubs ROISSYIAN game) like DAL’ says. The churchian model says to prove you really are in love by waiting to marry, most often several years, in a celibate romantic relationship. The modern (unbiblical) view is that romantic love is purer than sex, and is what makes sex and marriage moral. This overlooks the fact that like sex, romantic love is for marriage, and marriage is what makes sex and romantic love moral.
In another post, Dalrock comments:
The biblical solution to sexual desire is to marry and have sex(with tight @ss Biblically-based game(by way of bars & nightclubs ROISSYIAN game), but the vast majority of modern Christians are horrified at the idea of young marriage, especially for women.
Something that is also true like the manosphere was first based around ROISSY’s ”over-the top”=cra@ss writings on whores, HBD& highly eloquent Washington D.C. restaurant reviews as the ROISSYosphere.
His observations are spot-on. Unfortunately, the church has largely failed to resist the culture in this regard.
Plenty of people–the churchians, Dalrock calls them–will protest over what he writes. They will tell you that you need to “vet” your spouse in a lengthy courtship process in which you will spend romantic evenings alone, but don’t you dare have sex. Ladies, keep those legs crossed! Fellas, keep your hands to yourself! Now do this for the next 2-3 years while you determine if this other person is marriage material, then you have a wedding, then you can have sex.
Yep, that’s going to happen.
This is a recipe for failure because it ignores the importance of sexuality in a relationship. This “wisdom” translates to what we’ve seen: infidelity, promiscuity, divorce.
What is Dalrock’s definition of “the biblical model of marriage,” and what is the true “biblical model of marriage”? Because there seem to be many “special/outdated cases” in the Bible, such as Jacob having to wait 7 years and then waiting another 7 years for Rachel (if I remember correctly), and Solomon’s hundreds of wives and concubines.
Fundamentalist Baptist
Jacob married Rachel a week after marrying Leah, but was required to work an extra seven years for the privilege.
3rd Wave Charismatic
Solomon’s hundreds of wives and concubines.
Pretty easy to see that that situation is descriptive and not prescriptive.
Right, and my question is, is there a prescriptive view of marriage in the Bible (I bet there is but it’s not at the top of my head), and if so, what is it?
3rd Wave Charismatic
Genesis 2 and Jesus confirms in Matthew 19 (I think). One man, one woman for the whole of their lives. Anything done sexually, even looking lustfully at another woman, outside of this union is adultery (Matthew 5). This places a high standard on your pre-marriage relationships.
Now, we see deviations from this scripture especially in the OT. But these relationships are never glorified or set as a standard we should attain. Song of Solomon glorifies a loving relationship between one man and woman. Anytime extra women are brought in as second or third wives there is always a problem (Hannah, Rachel and Leah led to Joseph getting sold to slavery, Abraham and his maid).
Add to this the main point of marriage as described in Ephesians 5 is that is given as a covenant to us to mirror the relationship that Jesus has with the church. Jesus is the groom and the church is the bride. Jesus is faithful to us and we are faithful to Him. It carries the theme of one man/one woman for eternity. In fact, there are tons of times that Jesus speaks using Jewish marriage references.
Christian
Exactly, I think what the OP and the poster has failed to see is that this advice on marriage from Paul to the church in Corinth (I think?) is to specifically address the failings of the people of that church. Thats not to say that his reasons are wrong, but more that this is not the full picture of marriage.
This guy seems to have looked at only part of scripture and not all of it!
Fundamentalist Baptist
I’ve heard of Dalrock, and although there’s some merit to what he says, OP does not day if Dalrock provides any solutions. And a solution is necessary. If Christians are to wait until marriage to have sex, but are not to participate in the standard 20th century created dating process (and he may very well be right), he should provide an alternate solution, and a Biblical justification his proposal.
Southern Baptist
He has a point. I am not familiar with Dalrock, but I will chime in with my $.02- Even if you spend 2-3 years getting to know someone before marrying them, people change. I have been married 12 years- I am a different person than I was when I married the lovely and gracious woman that is my wife, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse (surely more cantankerous). But we are committed to each other and we live, grow, and face life together- day by day. We married young and if I had to do it all over again I would.
Christian
So, I have a question about my own relationship:
Is doing intimate things (ie: sexual things) immoral, if done pre-marriage? I agree that sexuality is important within a relationship, but because of current societal reasons (finances, college) me and my SO won’t be getting married for another 3-4 years, at least. Am I expected to completely obstain from all forms of sexual interaction? Or is it safe to say I can express my sexual attraction to my SO, while setting boundaries on what is clearly inappropriate.
NSFW TL DR: Me and my girlfriend do everything, but sexual intercourse. Is that okay?
If this is the woman you want to marry, why wait? Face school as a team. I married my wife while we were in school and it was a much more enjoyable experience. Hanging out with my wife, shared domestic duties, no slobs for roommates, peace and quiet, it was great
Lutheran (LCC, aka Canada’s LCMS)
Wow, now that you mention it I (not op, or courting anyone) realize that would have worked out pretty well for my situation. No annoying roommates. Shared meals, it would have even been cheaper. Someone to talk to who wasn’t a computer science person, it would have been a nice change from school.
Even my internship would provided a theoretical married couple their own apartment. Instead I was paired with a weedhead.
Its not like you get disqualified from student loans. Plus living expenses don’t double thanks to the more efficient food situation so you even save money.
After hanging out with my wife, stoners are a close second… Tidy stoners…
Non-denominational
If you want to marry her, marry her.
Questioning, Catholic-leaning
What does finances and college have to do with when you get married? If you two really want to get married, then get married? Why wait until you have more money? That is not what marriage is about.
3rd Wave Charismatic
Me and my girlfriend do everything, but sexual intercourse. Is that okay?
Short answer, no.
Reactionary Catholic-Leaning Protestant
Given how divorce court works against men, I would advise against civil marriage. Religious ceremony without the legal binding might be better.
”Plenty of people–the churchians, Dalrock calls them–will protest over what he writes. They will tell you that you need to “vet” your spouse in a lengthy courtship process in which you will spend romantic evenings alone, but don’t you dare have sex. Ladies, keep those legs crossed! Fellas, keep your hands to yourself! Now do this for the next 2-3 years while you determine if this other person is marriage material, then you have a wedding, then you can have sex.”
See now why i thought all the current ”vetting” talk in the ‘sphere didn’t pass the DALrockian smell test back in 2021?
This is basically what Jason has said many times over the years.
On Twitter, with millions of users, someone mentions Dalrock a few times per week, mostly from a handful of former Dalrock readers like “Shoo Thai” (222 followers), “PhilTheoWaters” (18 followers), “Heiliger Lakewooder” (552 followers), and “Roderick Mariner” (640 followers). They are pulling up roughly the level of engagement that I get, which is insignificant.
Even Tim Kauffman’s debate (with 91 YouTube views and 16 likes) has better engagement than Dalrock’s material is getting. But, for some reason, I don’t see much Saint Kauffman talk!
By contrast, one of James White’s recent debates got over 100,000 views and nearly 4,000 comments.
My mutual on Twitter, former Manosphere blogger Free Northerner has 6,875 followers and averages dozens of follower comments per day. In terms of strict comparison, he’s roughly comparable in engagement to Dalrock at his peak. Have you ever heard of him? He’s followed by Steve Sailer, who has 172,000 followers and only follows 1,500 accounts. Sailer’s numbers are on the same tier as Rollo Tomassi. Rollo hasn’t mentioned Dalrock since 2024.
More interestingly, Rollo gets around 2,000 to 4,000 views per post from his nearly 170k followers, while Free Northerner is getting 400 to 600 views from only 7k followers. Sailer’s posts routinely get five digit views. Rollo’s engagement signficantly under-performs his peers.
On Twitter, with millions of users, someone mentions Dalrock a few times per week, mostly from a handful of former Dalrock readers like “Shoo Thai” (222 followers), “PhilTheoWaters” (18 followers), “Heiliger Lakewooder” (552 followers), and “Roderick Mariner” (640 followers). By contrast, one of James White’s recent debates got over 100,000 views and nearly 4,000 comments.
You know the main reason why? Superficial listening! As ROISSY says here https://heartiste.org/2008/03/19/big-rapport-mistake/
One of the biggest mistakes a man will make is superficial listening. This is where he gets wrapped up inside his head thinking hard about a clever response he can impress her with while she’s still talking to him. Usually he will latch onto a “keyword” to launch his diatribe before she has finished her thoughts. The result is an uncomfortable, forced rapport where the guy is interrupting her every other word trying to find common ground and leaving her feeling like she is not being heard.
THAT is TRUE for betafactory ”game geniuses” who do superficial listening to reality too! Hence why once GBFM wasn’t at DAL’S any longer, his pageviews & number of comments dropped MASSIVELY from their peak in mid-late 2012/’13.
”One of the biggest mistakes a man will make is superficial listening. This is where he gets wrapped up inside his head thinking hard about a clever response he can impress her with while she’s still talking to him. Usually he will latch onto a “keyword” to launch his diatribe before she has finished her thoughts. The result is an uncomfortable, forced rapport where the guy is interrupting her every other word trying to find common ground and leaving her feeling like she is not being heard.
Example
Him: What’s your ideal vacation spot?
Her: Well, I would really love to go scuba diving along a coral reef in warm Caribbean waters. The colors of the fish are amazing, and you can feel so peaceful under the water, away from all the stress of your normal life…
Him: Oh yeah! Scuba diving is fun! My favorite part was falling backwards off the boat into the water.
***
This guy made the typical man mistake of grasping at the solid object — the noun– in her answer instead of discerning what was really important, which was the feeling scuba diving gave her and her hint at what she values in life.
If you do this, train yourself to step out of your head. The simplest way to improve this part of your game is to shut up, nod, and say uh huh… uh huh… a lot while she’s speaking. Don’t worry about what you’re going to say next while she’s talking. Give her room to talk. Never argue or get obsessed with the details in her stories. Don’t correct her like some nerd study partner when she flubs an inconsequential fact. If she’s giving her opinion, don’t judge her for it. This is the rapport stage, not the attraction stage. You want to build a connection and the easiest way to do that is to let her feel comfortable around you revealing her hopes and desires. You’ll get into a smooth conversational rhythm faster if you stop being anxious about responding to every one of her points.
Be mentally flexible.”
How mentally flexible are leftist modernist ”RPGenius” ”leaders”?Hence why they fail even harder than ”game genius” DAL’ did!
The Manosphere gets all excited when pop culture started using Manosphere terms… like Sigma. Except in pop culture, “Sigma” doesn’t mean Sigma. It means more-or-less the same thing that “Alpha” has always meant. Pop culture has appropriated Manosphere language and twisted it into an unrecognizable form.
You know the main reason why? Superficial listening! The 2nd reason why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1eohfxf/the_less_talent_they_have_the_more_pride_vanity/
Any_College5526
“The less talent they have, the more pride, vanity, and arrogance they have. All these fools, however, find other fools to applaud them.” Erasmus 1509
WT Can’t Stop Me
Sounds just like the Governing Body (and a whole lot of their minions, as well.)
Edit: thank you all who have corrected the source of this quote. It makes a world of difference to my opinion.
“It’s the words that count. Not the source.” You can quote me on that.
“The less talent they have, the more pride, vanity, and arrogance they have. All these fools, however, find other fools to applaud them.” Erasmus 1509
*
No longer will a fool be called noble, nor a scoundrel be respected. For a fool speaks foolishness; his mind plots iniquity. He practices ungodliness and speaks falsely about the LORD; he leaves the hungry empty and deprives the thirsty of drink. The weapons of the scoundrel are destructive; he hatches plots to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. But a noble man makes honorable plans; he stands up for worthy causes. – Isaiah 32: 5 – 8
It is not from any of Erasmus works.
Ok
nice AI, bro. Now, can you find me the book where its written? lmfao
More on how ”RPGenius” ”leaders”(like ALL leftists) waste MEN’s time by living In Their OWN GOPLGBTQ+ churchian emasculated, pussified soccerdad Reality😬 !
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L-GcZDyzhRc
churchian emasculated, pussified soccerdad GOPLGBTQ+”RPGenius” ”leaders”/redpillers Live In Their OWN GOPLGBTQ+ Reality😬
When can DEREK readers expect a post(co-written with churchian enemy number #1 checkerpants{redacted)GOPLGBTQ+supporter perhaps?) On this DEREK?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-skull-could-rewrite-human-evolution-timeline-study/
World
Million-year-old skull found in China could rewrite human evolution timeline, study finds: “This changes a lot of thinking”
September 26, 2025 / 10:56 AM EDT / CBS/AFP
A digital reconstruction of a million-year-old skull suggests humans may have diverged from our ancient ancestors 400,000 years earlier than thought and in Asia, not Africa, a study found.
The findings, published Thursday, are based on a reconstruction of a crushed skull discovered in China in 1990 and have the potential to resolve the long-standing “Muddle in the Middle” of human evolution, researchers said.
But experts not involved in the work cautioned that the findings were likely to be disputed and pointed to ongoing uncertainties in the timeline of human evolution.
The skull, labelled Yunxian 2, was previously thought to belong to a human forerunner called Homo erectus.
But modern reconstruction technologies revealed features closer to a species previously thought to have existed only later in human evolution, including the recently discovered Homo longi and our own Homo sapiens.
World
Million-year-old skull found in China could rewrite human evolution timeline, study finds: “This changes a lot of thinking”
September 26, 2025 / 10:56 AM EDT / CBS/AFP
A digital reconstruction of a million-year-old skull suggests humans may have diverged from our ancient ancestors 400,000 years earlier than thought and in Asia, not Africa, a study found.
The findings, published Thursday, are based on a reconstruction of a crushed skull discovered in China in 1990 and have the potential to resolve the long-standing “Muddle in the Middle” of human evolution, researchers said.
But experts not involved in the work cautioned that the findings were likely to be disputed and pointed to ongoing uncertainties in the timeline of human evolution.
The skull, labelled Yunxian 2, was previously thought to belong to a human forerunner called Homo erectus.
But modern reconstruction technologies revealed features closer to a species previously thought to have existed only later in human evolution, including the recently discovered Homo longi and our own Homo sapiens.
“This changes a lot of thinking,” said Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum, London, who was part of the research team.
“It suggests that by 1 million years ago, our ancestors had already split into distinct groups, pointing to a much earlier and more complex human evolutionary split than previously believed,” he added.
The findings shocked the research team.
“From the very beginning, when we got the result, we thought it was unbelievable. How could that be so deep into the past?” Xijun Ni, a professor at Fudan University who co-led the analysis, told BBC News. “But we tested it again and again to test all the models, use all the methods, and we are now confident about the result, and we’re actually very excited.”
If the findings are correct, it suggests there could have been much earlier members of other early hominins, including Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, the researchers said.
World
Million-year-old skull found in China could rewrite human evolution timeline, study finds: “This changes a lot of thinking”
September 26, 2025 / 10:56 AM EDT / CBS/AFP
A digital reconstruction of a million-year-old skull suggests humans may have diverged from our ancient ancestors 400,000 years earlier than thought and in Asia, not Africa, a study found.
The findings, published Thursday, are based on a reconstruction of a crushed skull discovered in China in 1990 and have the potential to resolve the long-standing “Muddle in the Middle” of human evolution, researchers said.
But experts not involved in the work cautioned that the findings were likely to be disputed and pointed to ongoing uncertainties in the timeline of human evolution.
The skull, labelled Yunxian 2, was previously thought to belong to a human forerunner called Homo erectus.
But modern reconstruction technologies revealed features closer to a species previously thought to have existed only later in human evolution, including the recently discovered Homo longi and our own Homo sapiens.
“This changes a lot of thinking,” said Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum, London, who was part of the research team.
“It suggests that by 1 million years ago, our ancestors had already split into distinct groups, pointing to a much earlier and more complex human evolutionary split than previously believed,” he added.
The findings shocked the research team.
“From the very beginning, when we got the result, we thought it was unbelievable. How could that be so deep into the past?” Xijun Ni, a professor at Fudan University who co-led the analysis, told BBC News. “But we tested it again and again to test all the models, use all the methods, and we are now confident about the result, and we’re actually very excited.”
Deformed ancient skull from China offers insight into human origins
This artist’s impression shows a group of archaic humans hunting in a forest roughly 1 million years ago in China’s Hubei Province.
Jiannan Bai and Xijun Ni/Handout via Reuters
If the findings are correct, it suggests there could have been much earlier members of other early hominins, including Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, the researchers said.
It also “muddies the waters” on long-standing assumptions that early humans dispersed from Africa, said Michael Petraglia, director of Griffith University’s Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution, who was not involved in the study.
“There’s a big change potentially happening here, where east Asia is now playing a very key role in hominin evolution,” he told the Agence France-Presse.
“A lot of questions”
The research, published in the journal Science, used advanced CT scanning, structure light imaging and virtual reconstruction techniques to model a complete Yunxian 2. The team then printed replicas on a 3D printer, according to BBC News.
The scientists relied in part on another similar skull to shape their model, and then compared it to over 100 other specimens.
The resulting model “shows a distinctive combination of traits,” the researchers said, some of them similar to Homo erectus, including a projecting lower face.
But other aspects, including its apparently larger brain capacity, are closer to Homo longi and Homo sapiens, according to the study.
“Yunxian 2 may help us resolve what’s been called the ‘Muddle in the Middle,’ the confusing array of human fossils from between 1 million and 300,000 years ago,” Stringer said in a press release.
Much about human evolution remains debated, and Petraglia said the study’s findings were “provocative” though grounded in solid work.
“It’s sound, but I think the jury’s still out. I think there will be a lot of questions raised,” he said.
Andy Herries, an archeologist at La Trobe University, said he was not convinced by the conclusions and that genetic analysis had shown fossil morphology, or shape, was “not always a perfect indicator for human evolution.”
“They’ve got this interpretation that I just don’t really think is taking into account the genetic histories of these things that we do know,” he told AFP.
Dr. Aylwyn Scally, an evolutionary geneticist at Cambridge University, told BBC News that although the study’s conclusions were plausible, they were far from certain, and that more evidence was needed to be sure.
“That picture is still quite unclear to us, so if the conclusions of this research are supported by other analyses, ideally from some genetic data, then I think we would start to be increasingly confident about it,” he told BBC News.
The findings are only the latest in a string of recent research that has complicated what we thought we know about our origins.
Homo longi, also known as “Dragon Man,” was itself only named as a new species and close human relative in 2021, by a team that included Stringer.
The authors said their work illustrates the complexity of our shared history.
“Fossils like Yunxian 2 show just how much we still have to learn about our origins,” said Stringer.
Update on ”bi-winning” of the ”culture wars”!
surfdumb says:
26 September, 2025 at 8:18 pm
Sinclair backs down with Kimmel’s ST.Kirk h8.
My side sucks. Just talking with truly pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ conservative guys this morning. They can’t deal with race or feminism issues very well, and only if pushed. They’ll talk guns and redpillic schlongs as long as the day(like checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+ supporter diesTBH) , and use them, but are clueless to the battle that’s brewing in their wives’ ginas & butts. Sinclair is a subtle example of decay, but, how many hacks on a head does a conservative pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ need before they realize that no institution will help them churchian and GOPLGBTQ+, and that to gain churchian GOPLGBTQ+ peace, an ugly messy war will be required.
Probably.
Maybe we need to only step to the edge of the Jordan, and God will vanquish our non-GOPLGBTQ+ enemies like the dastardly DEMLGBTQ+, but right now, ”Churchian GOPLGBTQ+ still have more interest in fighting me and believing in an effortless victory will happen than stepping into the river.
Liked by 2 deceitfully painted ”redpill” bluepill soul people
CP(proud troll by any name) says:
26 September, 2025 at 8:37 pm
“My side sucks.”
If it makes you feel any better, they’re not really on your pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ side.
Liked by 2 deceitfully painted ”redpill” bluepill soul people
checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+ supporter says:
26 September, 2025 at 9:10 pm
The good news is that to fundamentally change our country, we only need to get 3-5% of the deceitfully painted ”redpill” blue pill soul people willing to work for our pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ side. If we can get 3% or more of the deceitfully painted ”redpill” blue pill soul people willing to churchian & agitate for our pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ beliefs, we will be able to change the status quo of non-pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ beliefs . Far more than 3% of ”men” today have been divorced, the church and society wish these disposable incelized by wives,betafactory, and themselves ” men” weren’t here still, but they are, and they should be fertile ground for finding people willing to take up our cause and actually work for the cause. And young men and teen boys are a ripe and still impressionable audience to preach to, who will have growing influence as they grow older. And our emasculated pussified BOLD N BIBLICAL (with a hint of manly) churchian and checkerpants GOPLGBTQ+ friendly and respectful to traitor churchians like ourselves message is an easier sell to them than the current faltering message of “sacrifice yourselves to save the status quo of ”good” & ”HOLY” R’S elrushbo, Trump, and their zionist masters.”
Why is there so many deceitfully painted ”redpill” blue pill soul people that are pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ conservatives in the supposedly ”holy order of patriarchy” redpillosphere society, as this Quora post asks too? https://www.quora.com/Why-does-society-seem-to-accept-lesbian-and-bisexual-women-better-than-gay-men-Why-is-this
Why does society seem to accept lesbian and bisexual women better than gay men? Why is this?
Sort
Profile photo for Erin Devereau
Erin Devereau
Insert Credential HereAuthor has 186 answers and 3.6M answer viewsUpdated 3y
Originally Answered: How come the GOPLGBTQ+ conservative society sees it as okay for females to be gay but not males? I personally don’t have anything against gay people period no matter what the gender, but why the double standard in the deceitfully painted ”redpill” blue pill soul people that are pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ conservative”redpillers” in the manosphere?
I think you’re wildly overestimating how accepted gay women are. It’s not that we’re accepted, we’re just not taken seriously since the deceitfully painted ”redpill” blue pill soul people that are pro -feminist churchian GOPLGBTQ+ conservative”redpillers” think they can game our collective ginas & butts.
First of all, if you’re a feminine woman or assumed to be one, it’s assumed you’re doing that for a man and should be with a man no matter what you say you want. This is often really harmful to us and makes it harder for us to realize we’re gay, and also leads our families to harass us about finding a husband and men to think their dicks are the magical right one that will turn us straight. And if you’re a masculine woman or assumed to be one, that’s assumed to revolve around men too, because you either hate men or have given up on yourself because you can’t get one, and being a masc or gnc gay woman is often met with physical violence and heightened discrimination and hypervisibility in the forms of both misogyny AND homophobia and gaming our ginas & butts in day & night game.
Also, this FAMOUS deciever & liar & false teacher ”redpiller” says the following…
checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+ supporter says:
25 September, 2025 at 7:13 am
“… their behavior represented a very clear rejection of God and His ordained order.”
Plus, DEMLGBTQ+ fags are blasphemously buggering the image of God unlike checkerpants GOPLGBTQ+ ones. Which is likely most of why buggery is a capital sin while being a DEMLGBTQ+ fag, and such an abomination. Whereas lesbians can only make fools of themselves by their unnatural acts with ginas & butts, leaving the image of God uninvolved in their deviancy. The Bible prescribes no punishment for being lesbian as they have . Being such an undesirable woman that you can’t even get any man to have sex with you, is seemingly enough punishment from God already. Being subject to such self-erasing mental depravity that deserves praise to become a lesbian(like ‘ole Susan B.Anthony or Elizabeth Stanton Cady is its own self-inflicted punishment, as they are still and forever Holy, holy, holy, as always, AKA the lez c@nt holes & butts that should still be gamed by us emasculated pussified BOLD N BIBLICAL (with a hint of manly) churchian and checkerpants GOPLGBTQ+ ”redpillers”.
That checkerpants{redacted}GOPLGBTQ+ supporter thinks I don’t know why he grew a beard(to subordinate himself to natural & inferior defilers in general) after his ( supposed subordinate & lesser) defiler kicked him (the supposed king of his supposed castle) to the curb?https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201607/do-women-prefer-men-with-beards
Do Women Prefer Men With Beards?
Research reveals what type of signals a full beard (or a smooth cheek) sends.
Updated May 24, 2024 | Reviewed by Lybi Ma
Share on FacebookShare
Share on XTweet
Share on BlueskyShare on Bluesky
Share on LinkedInShare
Share via EmailEmail
Key points
Women find men with light stubble most attractive, and men with full beards as most masculine.
A fuller beard is perceived as indicative of good fathering ability and more investment in offspring.
Some women do not care for men’s facial hair at all.
El Nariz/Shutterstock
Source: El Nariz/Shutterstock
When I was in school, a beard seemed to be a distinguishing mark of the male doctor and psychologist. I often grew one myself to look the part, to avoid the bother of daily shaving—and to have something to scratch while I was thinking “deep thoughts.” However, most other guys stuck with the general clean-shaven norm.
Now it seems that facial hair for men is becoming closer to the norm, or at least a relatively well-established trend. Men now sport everything from closely-cropped stubble to a long, wizard-like beard. While talking about the trend with a bearded friend, he asked whether I thought facial hair made a man more or less attractive to women.
i, a TRUE PATRIARCHAL MAN who NEVER shames his patriarchal ancestors & GOD by shying away(& being ashamed of TRUE TAKE-NO-PRISONERS patriarchy) from doing what’s right, had instinctively known that for decades, but i mainly have been bearded since I was a teen as that’s how i roll & i don’t follow trends like checkerpantsGOPLGBTQ+ supporters that are supposedly ”redpillers”either!