Earlier this week, I took the time to rip apart ever-present game hater Justin for a blatantly obvious untruth he spilled over at Anakin Niceguy’s blog. Shockingly enough, Justin opted to pop in yesterday and respond. He’s got guts, I’ll give him that. Unfortunately, he squandered the opportunity to defend himself and only dug his hole deeper. Join me, studio audience, for Round 2 of Blogger Beatdown!
Wait, aren’t you the guy who said if you had a daughter, you would marry her to a good Mormon boy? What a hypocrite you are.
THAT’S your opening shot? A feeble me-too remark grasping at a tangentially related point? Weak, man – weak. In case you’re wondering, folks, here’s the post that Justin is referring to (which, interestingly enough, was a reply to another blogger I had intellectually eviscerated). Hypocrisy, you accuse? You’ve clearly never heard of the sexual double standard, which is here, near, dear, and not going anywhere.
You admit that men like you are scumbags and you wouldn’t want your own daughter to have anything to do with you. Yet, you persist in your self appointed role as Prophet of the Cult of Game in spreading its poisonous ideas as far and wide as you can.
And this is why I don’t want to bother debating you. Like Larry Auster and Todd White, you insist on substituting moral kvetching and barely-disguised insults for rational thought and debate. In absence of knowledge about what game is, you fill in the gaps with your own half-baked prejudices and biases. You’re like a hotheaded young atheist who reads two chapters of The God Delusion and bursts into the nearest church declaring Christianity to be a lie and a blight upon the earth. A hint, pal: when a large group of diverse individuals are claiming that you don’t know anything about the subject on which you are bloviating, the problem probably isn’t them – it’s YOU.
Your bull about game being a “cult” that doesn’t accept criticism is, like most of what you say, not substantiated by the facts. Just off the top of my head: Anakin Niceguy, Hestia, Mike T, Mark Richardson, Professor Hale, MarkyMark, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, RAMZPAUL, Slumlord, Obsidian, and Sparks123 are all bloggers who have criticized game and the attitudes of some of its practitioners in valid, reasonable, rational ways. Few accuse them of not understanding game, because they bothered to actually learn about it (and in the case of Obsidian and Sparks123, actually practice it) before writing about it, instead of sounding off like ignoramuses on a bully pulpit.
Dude, until you can answer the question seriously of what you will do with a daughter, you have earned the title of moral degenerate, which you apply by your own admission.
What do you do with a daughter in the modern world? You have three options:
- Tell her firmly and seriously that if she has sex out of wedlock, you will disown her without a second thought and throw her out of your house. Put the fear of the gods into her and she’ll stay chaste. It worked for my little sisters.
- Arrange her marriage for her.
- Join and raise your children in a strict, isolated religious sect.
Otherwise, she’s on her own in the stygian abyss, and her choices will more likely then not lead to disaster for her and heartbreak for you. Sucks, but there’s nothing you or I can do about it. We are but drops of rain in the storm. To quote Thursday:
Nothing will happen to reform our truly corrupt Western societies until something goes seriously, overwhelmingly wrong. It’s going to get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does. In such circumstances, there really are only two options: huddle down in a small religious community (the Benedict option) or make hay while the sun shines (the Roissy option). In any case, submitting to the practices of the mainstream of society is a not a realistic option for the truly aware. I can’t really believe so many people simply aquiesce to it.
And do you really think I’m injured by your barbs? Getting called a “moral degenerate” from the likes of you is a point of pride! It’s the writer’s equivalent of a war wound, something to brag about at the next Round Table meeting.
Oh, and to address your primary claim, that I lied. That is not true. I may have been mistaken in characterizing the questioner as a Gamer, but no lie was involved.
“May have been mistaken”? Nice copout. You were mistaken, full stop.
Now, you claim to have not lied in your assertion. Assuming for the sake for convenience that you’re being honest, I left a second possibility in the post – that you’re “a moron who can’t read.” Back during the Rathergate scandal, speculation swirled over whether Dan Rather knew that the documents were forgeries and put them on the air anyway. If he knew that the memos were fake, that would make him dishonest and thus unqualified for his job. If he didn’t know that the memos were fake, that would make him an idiot who didn’t bother to keep tabs on his people…and thus unqualified for his job. My friend, you are in a double bind. If you lied about the man that Elusive Wapiti responded to being a practitioner of game, that makes you dishonest and junks your credibility, or at the very least throws it into question. If you didn’t lie, as you claim, that makes you stupid…and junks your credibility, or at the very least throws it into question. Either way, you’re screwed.
Now, it’s a fact of life that it is much easier to destroy then to create. One incident of plagiarism can result in a student’s expulsion from university. One mistaken slip of the knife can cost a surgeon his medical license. One fabricated story can end a journalist’s career. In committing such a huge error, an error that no one else would easily make, you have torched your intellectual capital in one great bonfire of vanity. The next time you write on game, relationships, sexuality, or related topics, all your detractors need to do is cite your mistake here to ensure that no one will listen to you. Any hopes you had for providing a counter-voice to the Roissysphere are dead, done, finished. Not only that, you can’t even bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, which would undo some of the damage. You’re not just a fool, you’re a coward to boot.
As the title of my blog indicates, I hold truth in high regard.
You may “hold truth in high regard,” but this incident shows that you wouldn’t recognize it if it jumped your bones.
Your character attack on me is unwarranted, unbalanced, and unjust.
Oh, someone’s attacking you on the Internet? You poor wittle baby, you! You unfortunate creature of glass bones and paper skin! Another online tough guy who can dish it out but can’t take it.
This isn’t some fancy schmancy fencing match between gents – it’s brutal gladiatorial combat, where the loser gets his guts splattered all over the ground to the delight of the screaming crowds. And I’ve been enjoying splattering yours. If you’re so thin-skinned as to whine like a spoiled woman when someone challenges you, you don’t belong in this here thunderdome. You think this is abuse? You think this is “unjust”? If you can’t take this, how can you take the abuse you get in life? If you don’t like it, leave – delete your blog and move to a cabin in the mountains where nobody can bruise your oh-so-delicate ego.
Well, that’s that, Justin. Instead of being a pathologically dishonest thinker, you’re a terminally stupid one, and a coward who can’t even admit guilt when it’s plainly obvious to everyone. You’re like so many moralistic faux-macho chest-beaters – all bluster, no muster. And since you’re not a cute chick, you can’t count on the Save-a-Ho Brigade to swoop in and cover up your foolishness. In any event, your credibility is gone and you’ve been reduced to a joke, unqualified to lecture anyone on masculinity or game. And the truly hilarious part is that you were hoisted by your own petard, and have only yourself to blame. I suggest you take your own advice: “man up” and “stop talking like a bitch.” Oh, and enjoy the humble pie – it’s my specialty.
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
LOL. Somebody whining that the Internet bullies are too hard always makes me laugh. Attacks on the ego seems to be extremely painful. In most cases it isn’t too hard attack something that big.
“Game” a cult? Heh. Despite all the nebulous “art” bullshit that is spewed for the low quality payed trainers, Game is a science, a tool, a series of behaviors forged by trial and error about How to attract women. Just like any tools, is the guy using it that makes the difference.( In otehr note, I still think that the “Definition of Game” post should be right on the front of this blog, just for the annoyance of having to explain this a lot. Seems that in all attacks a wrong definition of Game is a constant).
Since the beginning of this mess, Justin doesn’t seems to grasp that a) no men wants to give another Sex and the City slut to the world and b)This society does a huge effort in turning all women into that. That is a situation that no male wants, but if the case shows, we need an strategy for that. That was the WHOLE point of the original post on The Spearhead.
Someone who isn’t capable of grasping those truths even when they are right into his face doesn’t “hold truth in high regard”, just his pseudo-religious beliefs that MUST BE TRUTH no matter what.
Ferdinand, as much as I adore you and you continue to crack me up, you must understand that your asshole abilities far exceed most other people so cut us all a bit of slack now and then. ;)
Ferdinand, I clicked through here from a trackback on Obsidian’s blog.
[They always come back.]
You would do well do spend some time there, contrasting his tone with yours.
[Obsidian is much like me, rationing respect for those who deserve it. He has no reservations about taking the gloves off when it comes to people he thinks are assholes.]
Truth is, I haven’t ever seen you intellectually eviscerate anyone.
[I would expect you to say that. Are you still smarting from the lashing I gave you last time? Don't be shy - there is enlightenment to be gained from the whip!]
You fall back on cheap shots and snark to get the job done. As I’ve said before, it’s intellectually lazy.
[Man oh man, the irony of a woman who throws around insults, ad hominems, and shaming language when's she cornered accusing ME of taking "cheap shots" is just too much.]
You’re sitting in front of your computer, grunting with your fist in the air, but those of us reading this are filled with a sense of embarrassment for you.
[Your fear of me oozes from every hollow word that you write. Don't worry, I don't bite...those who don't deserve it.]
Your three parenting options, if you are indeed serious, make you sound like a complete lunatic.
[My three parenting options were the preferred choices of both our ancestors and are of those who are procreating today. It's gonna be a real patriarchal future.]
But since you seem to be off the grid emotionally, let’s hope you go for option #3.
[The betas who are reproducing are doing likewise. Your precious urban, liberal geeks are being outbred by men who prefer their women to wear bonnets and walk four steps behind them. Long live reaction!]
P.S. You forgot to include Cless Alvein as an excellent writer who has his head on straight about Game.
[Look up the phrase "off the top of my head," dumbass.]
I didn’t follow the previous thread on this, but if I had a daughter I still wouldn’t be opposed to Game. Game is a strategy. A woman keeping her legs closed is a strategy. Both strategies can exist; the best one wins. Its up to me as a father to prevent the Game strategy from working on my daughter.
I want my daughter to drive too. I’ll teach her to watch out for the dipshits and yahoos who might be driving wrecklessly and putting her in danger.
But I’m still pro-driving.
Objections to game generally fall into two categories- 1) it’s immoral and 2) it is false. The answer to 1) is knowledge about things is morally neutral and can be used for either good or bad purposes.
Is game false? On the fundamental level, no, it is just basic truths about human behavior. To the extent that guys selling books, CDs, and seminars claim to have some special secret knowledge then yes, for the same reason.
Any man who lives in a culture without arranged marriages- even a very sexually conservative one- needs game or something like it, because on a basic psychological level a nice Amish girl wants the same thing a club slut wants- a strong man.
Game represents no threat at all to a woman with good judgment.
There is a small, ring-sized diamond in this rough. If a man is using game to get laid, rather than build a mature relationship, his daughter will be profoundly affected. He can only then appeal to her based on fear and hypocrisy since he is the very living example of the man she is being told to not marry.
Every father must try to be the kind of man he would want his son to be, and the template for most of what he’d want to see his daughter dating or married to. He can’t be hooking up with different women and such, and then expect his daughter to bring home someone a whole lot better than him.
That presupposes that the only end for “Game” is sex. Still, in general that is a valid issue. It just needs pointing out that, hypothetically, just getting sex is not inherently the end goal of “Game.”
Every father must try to be the kind of man he would want his son to be, and the template for most of what he’d want to see his daughter dating or married to. He can’t be hooking up with different women and such, and then expect his daughter to bring home someone a whole lot better than him.
*nods* and the same holds true for women/mothers as well. Parents are the first example of character, morals, and virtue in the lives of their children and also the example of how (ideally) a healthy family functions, including what a good marriage looks like.
Children have little minds that absorb everything in their world as a sponge absorbs water. They hardly miss a thing and it doesn’t take long for them to emulate poor character or notice hypocrisy in their parents.
Several months ago, right when my husband came home from his latest deployment, he used profanity within earshot of our toddler daughter. Like magic she picked up the word and began to use it when appropriate. When my husband corrected her and sent her to time out for her vulgar mouth, our daughter, perplexed, turned to him and told him to go too because he uses that word. And she’s right, she learned this word from his poor judgment, just as she has learned less than lovely behavior from myself as well.
Due to this reality I do believe the character and virtue we cultivate are important to consider even before children arrive. Their little eyes watch us. They learn from us. And the day comes very soon when the innocent little infant is imitating less than desirable behaviors we have modeled and calling us out on our hypocrisy.
I wouldn’t be opposed to anyone running game on my daughter. After all, I want her to be attracted to him. What I would object to is her sleeping with him before marriage. Even if you aren’t that strict, I assume the main problem would still be her sleeping with him too soon, not him being more attractive.
Thank you, Hestia and MikeT. That is exactly the point. We should all — male and female — behave the way we wish our children to behave.
There’s nothing wrong with seduction but using it to railroad through a population of loose women or men is morally bankrupt. Our children are watching and learning.
Susan Walsh tried to shame you. Dude, I am jealous!
Ok, here is my inferent problem with the logic of the above people.
If I have sons and daughters, what I want them to learn are opposed to each other.
I want my boys to not pedestal women, to think of women as an abundant resource, see women as a pleasant diversion, but not a worthy pursuit (because they are not) to realize that marriage is a sham and will destroy them and that there is nothing they can’t get without marriage.
For my daughter I want her to realize that if she has lots of unmarried premarital sex she will be unahppy and unable to bond with a man, that marriage in the cost benefit analysis is good for her. That the men she will find the most attractive are the ones that will use her.
Now if anyone cannot see the truth of the above statements, that the happiness of boys and girls are vastly different, then you’re lying to yourself.
Being a “good example” to the girl, makes a bad one to the boys and vice versa. So which would the moralists sacrifice?
The boys. They are expendable. Like always. This is just the same old pedestaling bullshit that got us where we are today.
There’s a double standard because the impact on each gender, and their mode of existence is completely different from sexulity on up.
Marriage is a good example. It benefits women and punishes men. That is not going to change in the near future.
“Hoisted by his own petard”
Always enjoyed that turn of phrase. Nice to see it used.
I wouldn’t include Cless. He is a good writer and has much to say, but in my opinion the jury is still out on his grasp and understanding of game.
No, state-licensed marriage does that. There is nothing stopping you from getting a marriage without a license. No major organized religion even requires it. There is nothing stopping a man, in a non-common law marriage state, from stopping the process at the exchange of vows.
If she leaves him, she’ll get child support, but she won’t get alimony or any of his assets.
Mike,
you are obviously clueless about the law. If you get married in a church, you are required to have a marriage license which priest, pastor or whatever has to sign.
They cannot legally perform a marriage without it.
Quite a few states recognize common-law marriage, and even thoughs that don’t, may find that you are married without the license if the woman says she thought it was legit with all the trappings of marriage you engaged in.
This is really bad advice. nay, it is shitty advice and will fuck over men if they follow it.
Talleyrand- How precisely is instilling morals and character in children placing women on pedestals or making boys expendable? Sexuality, gender relations, and preparation for marriage are not the only issues that fall under the morality umbrella, nor the most important. Teaching children to treat others well, have moral courage, possess self-control, be fiscally responsible, and to have integrity and empathy might play a role in relationships but they are essential for the rest of life as well. Modeling the art of love for children, and teaching them to care about their fellow man, isn’t solely about sex and romance, but platonic love, charity, and the love for life as well.
Proper morals also requires the teaching that one struggles with being selfless and caring about others. It requires a person learn to look at their own darkness and light, as well as that of others. Boys can, and should, be taught that women are not angels in the houses, but imperfect humans who struggle with right and wrong and are capable of harming others if they choose to do so. Girls should be taught the same about men. A large part of morality is being able to overcome the darkness in one’s self, so one must appreciate this to control one’s self, as well as to interact with others.
The state cannot stop you from arranging for a blessing over your relationship, anymore than it can stop your pastor from baptizing your child or praying for your dying grandmother. Just ignore the law and don’t claim that you are married under the law.
And the man would win the moment he appeals it because the “contract” lacks the proper form, and he should be able to reasonably prove that she was cognizant of the nature of the arrangement. If you have a verbal agreement to repay $5000, but no written contract, there is probably not a single state in the union that will enforce that agreement.
Your beef here is simply with common law marriage, and such would apply to most long-term relationships anyway if that’s a serious issue. The only real advice you could give your son to avoid them would be to just move onto another woman every few years or never live with her, even if he becomes a father.
1) Moral individuals get sacrificed in our society all the time. I have watched enough men that have had the courage to do the right thing get chewed up and spit up that teaching a son to be what our culture views as moral is setting him up to be used, abused and trampled by life.
2) Marriage is a poison for a man, I agree that marriage benefits society and women but it does not for men.
Any sons I have I would rather they live like James Bond, than attempt to be Ward Cleaver. Or if you prefer a more heroic template I would rather he be Batman and alone, than Spiderman and miserable. Marriage for the man generally leads to their soul crushing death.
The amount of mysandry in our culture means that any man with a son is going to spend a lot of effort just trying to counter that.
So yes, being moral is about sacrifice. If you don’t think it is, then you don’t understand morality. And raising a moral son is setting him up to be a human sacriice to this culture.
NO.
I don’t have a daughter, so I’m not sure how i’d feel, but I think the problem is that the question “how would you feel about someone running game on your daughter?” is simply too broad. As Thursday said, there are plenty of aspects of game that simply make men more appealing to women, and wouldn’t any father want his daughter to be attracted to whoever she ends up with? On the other hand, there are some aspects (let’s call it “asshole” game), that I wouldn’t want run on her, and I would try to teach her to (a) understand why it often works and (b) learn to manage and understand her impulses so that it doesn’t work. The problem with teaching her all that, of course, is that it will run counter to most feminist thought that she would be getting from the schools and elsewhere, so she probably won’t be able to believe it.
I also wouldn’t want somebody gaming her for pump and dump purposes, but I’m not sure how to easily avoid that in this world. The too easy answer is to say that she should “hold out” or be hard to get, but that doesn’t really work in this world for most guys, especially betas. The upshot of the sexual revolution and all that is that, 9 times out of ten, a guy can assume that if a woman is not willing to have sex with him, it’s probably because she simply isn’t attracted to him – especially if he’s beta. And he can probably be pretty sure that there were guys who she did (or will) put out for immediately because she was or will be more attracted to them. So it’s usually a fools errand for him to keep trying, because she isn’t going to suddenly become attracted to him as he further supplicates himself. It’s something of a catch 22. I suppose, if women want to adopt a holding out strategy, they will to figure out a way to make their attraction for a guy abundantly clear despite them not being willing to have sex right way.
anoukange:
I’m just a big ol’ kitty cat. Scratch my tummy and I purr – step on my tail and I claw you hard and deep.
Fear not, gentle maiden. My post tomorrow is aimed at letting the sun shine in.
Mike T:
Well said.
Talleyrand:
I do love getting under the skin of morons.
Alkibiades:
Hanging a deserving man with his own rope is one of the unsung joys of life.
“I’m just a big ol’ kitty cat. Scratch my tummy and I purr – step on my tail and I claw you hard and deep…”
well, it’s a shame you don’t bite then- I’ll have to do something to get you to….just in that playful, half kidding half firm bite/lick kind of way.
I would never advocate that a man teach his son to be what our culture values because what our culture values is not even basic goodness and decency. I would instead encourage him to instill the values of the ancient church into his children, some of which would teach his sons to avoid a marriage with any woman who won’t submit to him, and to teach his daughters that it is their proper role to submit to their husband’s natural authority over the family.
Mike, that I don’t object to.
My problem is the churches seem to be abandoning that wholesale for the new feminine god is love and forgiveness routine.
The danger with teaching a moral code ina scoiety that punishes it is that you get punished
Contrary to the “game will destroy civilization in general (and our daughters in particular)” view, I will suggest an alternative view related to your point.
Game is primarily harmful to women when women lack game of their own.
Game is about developing the tools and traits to get people what they want (consequently, male and female “game” is different, because men and women on average have different but overlapping preferences).
So in evaluating whether game will be good for society, women, and our daughters, we should ask: if men have it, what will they use it for?
And the answer to that question, ladies and gentlemen (probably mostly the latter), is… it depends. The reason it depends is that humans have multiple mating strategies.
All of us are descendants of a long line of homo sapiens who followed both long-term and short-term mating strategies. I propose that all humans are hardwired with a bunch of different types of long-term and short-term mating strategies, but the relative strength of those strategies differs between sexes and between individuals.
So, what a guy wants with a woman depends on whether he perceives her as a potential short-term or long-term mate. If he has game, he will probably use his game to bring about the type of interaction he desires with that woman.
Here’s the kicker: What type of interaction a guy wants depends on the woman, and whether he categorizes her as relationship material or not. That is a factor that is partially under a woman’s control, through her game!
Female game doesn’t merely “counter” or resist male game in an adversarial way. Female game redirects the goals that men use their game for (and male game redirects the goals that women use their game for).
People with game either redirect the goals of people the interact with by fulfilling their criteria, or they disengage to the degree that is necessarily. For instance, if a guy is into a woman who sees him only as a friend, then he should disengage from pursuing her unless he thinks he can turn it around. Similarly, if a woman’s goal is something long-term, then she should disengage from guys who obviously aren’t looking for something long-term.
A woman with game has nothing to fear from PUAs. If she meets one, then he will be likely to fall for her and want a relationship, because she has a lot going for her. (And if he doesn’t fall for her and she doesn’t want something casual, then she will sniff it out, and LJBF him or drop him.)
Saying that a future of men improving their game would be bad for women puts kind of a low vote of confidence in women. It implies that women will be unable to appeal to men with choices. But the reality is that plenty of women appeal to men as relationship material and wife material all the time; I have seen female “naturals,” who inspire crushes in a large percentage of guys who know them, which is not merely a function of looks. I’ve seen male naturals with mega-game fall for the right girl when she comes along. Unfortunately, many women are Average Frustrated Chicks, mirroring male Average Frustrated Chumps.
Women will just have to adapt to men’s preferences, similar to how men in the seduction community have been adapting to women’s preferences.
Left to their own devices in a world of AFChicks, men with game will indeed run amok and default to short-term mating tendencies, which will hurt society and our daughters.
Yet when women on average better fulfill male criteria for long term mates (or at least get liberated from some of the societal forces diminishing their potential as relationship material), men will be pulled in a more long-term direction, and use what game they have to take things in a long-term direction. There is potential overlap in the desired relationship structures of men and women; it’s just a matter of finding that overlap.
Men have been stepping up their game thanks to the seduction community. Now women will have to step up theirs. If they do so, I think everyone will be better off. I think women are perfectly capable of doing this, as long as society guides them in that direction, instead of in the direction of being AFChicks. (An ideal future might even have less of a need for conscious study of game by both sexes, because a big component of game now is not learning things, but unlearning things that society has been lying about.)
So, like Thursday, I’m fine with daughters of mine encountering guys with game (though definitely not all types of game or all philosophies), but I would want her to have game of her own. That way, she can identify and avoid interactions that won’t meet her goals, and even better, she can lead things to go her way from the start (e.g. she won’t get pumped and dumped if any guy she dates will be crazy about her and want her as a girlfriend).
See this post on LessWrong.com for my previous take on this subject where I put things slightly differently.
‘This isn’t some fancy schmancy fencing match between gents – it’s brutal gladiatorial combat, where the loser gets his guts splattered all over the ground to the delight of the screaming crowds. And I’ve been enjoying splattering yours. …enjoy the humble pie – it’s my specialty.’
Actually, it’s a verbal insult match. There’s no actual physical blood involved.
If you were capable of dominating a boxing ring like you dominate an insult match, you could be a prize-fighter.
In fact, you’re another verbally abusive jerk on the Internet who enjoys insulting people. You’re not going to make anyone humble by “serving humble pie.” You’re going to make some anonymous guy less popular with your claque of sycophants.
You’re not winning fights, insult-thrower – you’re winning a popularity contest on a blog that you operate. That’s not exactly as challenging as, say, being a prize-fighter in real life.
dagezhu, this sums up Ferdinand’s problem very well.
[Since you girls value faction so much, you ought to know that you're siding with a guy who wrote this.]
He has every right to behave however he wants to on his own blog, but you’re right, he isn’t building anything real here. Hurling insults is indeed not as challenging as most worthwhile endeavors, including stepping away from his laptop and having a real conversation with a woman.
[Well, it's a damn good thing I do both, sweetie.]
I fear it has been a very long time since Ferdie emptied his testicles, since he lives in Albany, prefers Amish women, and is perpetually red in the face with bitterness and loathing. Not a winning combination.
["Bitterness and loathing"? You are a living, breathing cliche.]
The urban, liberal geeks he derides are several steps above him on the food chain, far too busy hatching ideas, building companies and creating capital to stop by for a dose of Ferdie’s humble pie.
[I'm happy doing what I do. They aren't. Which is what matters, honey.]
“I fear it has been a very long time since Ferdie emptied his testicles, since he lives in Albany, prefers Amish women, and is perpetually red in the face with bitterness and loathing. Not a winning combination.”
Tsk tsk, Susie.
“I have no problem with your disagreeing with me, or even feeling sickened by me. However, unlike the Game sites you’re evidently used to, I don’t do hate fest. Life is just too short for all the snark, the judgment, the loathing, the hate that shows up in comments like yours. ”
Remember that comment in an email that you sent to me, Susie?
Practice what you preach,eh?
I don’t do hate fest on my blog. Ever. I didn’t tolerate your hate there, nor would I allow it from anyone else. However, I reserve the right to communicate in the native language of another blog when necessary. On this blog, Hate is spoken fluently, Rational Discourse is MIA. F. brooks no disagreement, the most telling sign of a weak mind.
[Which explains why I allow YOU to comment here.
My god you are so incredibly stupid.]
“most worthwhile endeavors, including . . . having a real conversation with a woman.”
Stop having unreal conversations with women, dude so you can find a way to “empty your testicles.”
The shaming is strong in her. Each time she does it, she steps farther into the dark side.
I have been having unreal conversations with women yet last night (and this morning) I “emptied my testicles”. How do you (or really susana) explain that?
Tell her firmly and seriously that if she has sex out of wedlock, you will disown her without a second thought and throw her out of your house. Put the fear of the gods into her and she’ll stay chaste. It worked for my little sisters.
My parents tried to do this and it miserably failed. But they don’t know it.
When I was 15, I was dating a 19 year old guy they thought was a bad influence, so they forbid me from seeing him. I went on a feigned trip to the mall, and actually got on a train to Toronto so we could see each other (though I wasn’t sexually active, to be fair). After locking me in the house for six months, they finally relented by the time I turned 16 & met him a couple times.
We took it slow physically, so I didn’t lose my virginity until much later, but I was still living under my parents roof at the time and they hadn’t a clue.
Explicitly forbidding something only makes the situation seem a lot more romantic and tempting. It was the craziest, most heart-racing thing whenever I would escape to Toronto.
He was also a really great guy, never pressured me physically in spite of the age difference, and we stayed together for years.
Point being, if you have a daughter, never, ever make the situation more romantic in her eyes.
Meet her boyfriends! Be friendly with them. This reduces the forbidden-factor, and makes her see him in a clear light.
My parents had an immigrant mentality, and were so super-strict when it came to boys, that aforementioned guy I dated who had a ridiculously high GPA, doctorate-bound, etc was deemed “bad”.
This left me so confused when it came to dating and relationships, basically leaving me like naive prey when I finally moved out.
The only remotely effective method in a liberated state in ensuring chastity is making sure she has the values and understands the myriad reasons from religious to practical to hormonal showing that sex out of wedlock is bad for her. With this frame, you need to give her the proper practical stories and situations that it leads to (STDs, pregnancy, emotional numbing, men using you when you want them for long-term, hellfire) and proper practical ways on how to avoid being in a sexual situation without being a social outcast (don’t be with a man you wouldn’t be proud of, avoid being close friends with a man, try not being alone with a guy). You also need to demonstrate quite strongly why marriage itself is good (statistics!) and not just a series of LTRs.
To use an analogy. A girl who thinks that thievery is wrong won’t do it under most circumstances and will try to keep herself out of situations where she will.
A girl who’s afraid of the consequences of thievery may not be able to resist but will make sure she doesn’t get caught.
I think kids should be treated as people who understand the language of facts and practicality. What they don’t understand is ‘I forbid it!’ That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say ‘I forbid it!’ But you’re much more likely to have favourable outcomes if this is combined with an approach where they think it’s their idea and they’re not mindlessly kowtowing to the parentals.
Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech”
“Stop having unreal conversations with women, dude so you can find a way to “empty your testicles.â€
I have been having unreal conversations with women yet last night (and this morning) I “emptied my testiclesâ€. How do you (or really susana) explain that?”
You know, when I think about it, there is some truth to her statement. Having a real conversation with a woman IS and endeavor (an undertaking or project), worthwhile or not is another question.
She said it, not I.
Sofia:
That’s why it didn’t work. What they should have done was throw your ass out without reservations.
Bhetti:
Egg-sa-lent.
“‘ I don’t do hate fest on my blog.”
” I reserve the right to communicate in the native language of another blog when necessary.”
Umm, yeah, so you’re a hypocrite. Tell us something new.
Why don’t you take your chameleon like carcass and park it back under the rock from whence it came sweetie? :-)
Heres a song especially for you Susie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEhXcEpajN0
(blows kiss)
That’s why it didn’t work. What they should have done was throw your ass out without reservations.
That would have prepared me even WORSE for relationships with boys. Keep in mind I wasn’t sexually active. If they barred me from seeing guys altogether, I would be even more naive and inexperienced than I am now.
‘Since you girls value faction so much, you ought to know that you’re siding with a guy who wrote this.’
http://fbardamu.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/women-are-stupid-and-amoral-a-double-feature/#comment-2521
Oh, wait, now I remember you, Bardamu, you’re the one trying to blame the Polacks for what the Jews do.
Polacks have PLENTY of faults all on their own. If you bother to get your facts straight, you’ll find plenty of reasons to hate Polacks for what they actually do.
Blaming the Polacks for the rape committed by a Jew – that’s just factually incorrect. Then again, insult-throwing is easier than fact-checking, and commenting on an insult-thrower’s blog is easier than either one – so I had better take my own advice and go do something constructive.
{ 2 trackbacks }