tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post8065982313751975925..comments2024-03-29T20:21:24.821+11:00Comments on The Social Pathologist: Fops.The Social Pathologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-89517474724252939682014-02-12T21:07:29.954+11:002014-02-12T21:07:29.954+11:00„Because this is a combox discussion and vows of c...„Because this is a combox discussion and vows of celibacy are a commitment to God not an avoidance of commitment to women.”<br />No. They are actually both of those. Marital commitment to a woman is incompatible with a vow of celibacy. Having said that, your point of view apparently is that a commitment to God is the only way a man can avoid commitment to a woman and still be considered biblically masculine, so to speak. Is that right?<br />„It's one thing to be unable its another not to want to.”<br />Indeed it is. The objective truth today is that a certain minority of men – those in the bottom of the male sexual hierarchy – are sexually unwanted by all women. It’s mainly due to unrestricted hypergamy as a current social norm, and many other things. These are men that cannot find mates even if they want to, or wanted to. There is another group of men, slightly different from the other one, that are unable to find mates they are sexually attracted to. These circumstances are beyond their control. In your view, what would be the correct masculine behavior on their part?<br />„You've constantly advocated a strategy of giving up, not a strategy of doing the best that you can.”<br />Of course I actually advocate doing the bast one can as a man. I just don’t think that it’s Marriage 2.0.<br />„that does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses the current marital environment.”<br />So is Marriage 2.0 legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism or not? Is it fitting and acceptable for a Catholic man to sign up for it or not?<br />„„A man can have a good Catholic marriage even in toxic marital environment in the U.S.”<br />Yes – as long as both spouses agree to live by rules that aren’t enforced or even widely respected anymore. Indeed, theoretically it’s possible to have a good Muslim or Hindu marriage in the same way.<br />„Rainman, don't you understand context?” <br />Again, your words: „Something perverse in that attitude WHEN A MAN takes it on board.” It’s safe to conclude from that choice of words that you don’t have the same view when a woman takes it on board.Höllenhundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-83150142546788007572014-02-08T12:38:24.111+11:002014-02-08T12:38:24.111+11:00which encompasses "the desire not to mate and...<i>which encompasses "the desire not to mate and procreate"</i><br /><br />Should be (without "not"):<br /><br /><i>which encompasses "the desire to mate and procreate"</i>MarcusDhttp://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-70961906244637820512014-02-07T15:00:38.947+11:002014-02-07T15:00:38.947+11:00The Church doesn't promote a "single"...<i>The Church doesn't promote a "single" life, it promotes a consecrated life.</i><br /><br />The reason I ask is that [it seems] there is promotion of a single, unconsecrated life:<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />http://www.msf-america.org/about-single-life.html<br /><br />http://www.nelsondiocese.org/our-catholic-faith/vocation/call-to-the-single-life.html<br /><br />http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1292/single_by_vocation.aspx<br /><br />http://catholicexchange.com/a-vocation-to-the-single-life<br /><br />http://www.catholicozvocations.org.au/Home/My-Vocation/Single-Life<br /><br />"Along the same line the Second Vatican Council states: "This lay spirituality should take its particular character from the circumstances of one's state in life (married and familylife, celibacy, widowhood), from one's state of health and from one's professional and social activity. All should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life and should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit"(208)." - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html<br /><br />"The Mystery of Love for the Single: A guide for those who follow the single vocation in the world" - Fr. Dominic J. Unger, OFM Cap.<br /><br />Further to that, a "single, unconsecrated life" was actually extensively promoted to me (and my contemporaries) in the diocese I grew up in. (Though, perhaps I've just conflated things.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone.</i><br /><br />I'm curious as to how you interpret Paul's comments on marriage (which essentially state that one should not marry (unless sin would result)). <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.</i><br /><br />Are you distinguishing between "desire" and "intent"? Priests often have the desire to marry but decide against it. Are you saying that a man who desires marriage (which encompasses "the desire not to mate and procreate") but decides not to get married is not masculine?<br /><br /><br /><i>I agree that there's not much quality out there. But it's one thing to be actively looking and not being able to find and another to give up all together.</i><br /><br />The idea of "actively looking" brings to mind "searching cost." The cost of dating sites is around $150/year per site (if I'm marriageable for, say, 30 years, that's $5,000+). Obviously, the costs don't end there (but aren't exactly prohibitive either, but I suppose it's the issue of waste). <br /><br />That being said, a common piece of advice that I've heard and read is (basically) to not "actively seek," but rather "just remain open to marriage" (with the expectation that a potential spouse will appear). What is it to "give up all together"?MarcusDhttp://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-60761824609115675862014-02-05T10:07:42.500+11:002014-02-05T10:07:42.500+11:00Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative?...<i>Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone. These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.</i><br /><br />should be <br /><br />"Be fruitful and multiply" is the divine imperative. As is, "it is not good for man to be alone". These two commands are congruent with masculinity, hence, the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-28834241815446809962014-02-05T10:06:03.253+11:002014-02-05T10:06:03.253+11:00@MarcusD
I'm curious as to what your views ar...@MarcusD<br /><br /><i>I'm curious as to what your views are on the Church's promotion of the "single life".</i><br /><br />The Church doesn't promote a "single" life, it promotes a consecrated life. The single man is actually "devoted" to God. It's almost a pseudo marriage.<br /><br />Christian celibacy is not a escape from sexuality, rather, a subordination of it to God's will. <br /><br /><i>Also, unless I've missed something, how exactly is a man not masculine if he does not wish to get married? </i><br /><br />Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone. These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.<br /><br /><i>Beyond that, the minimum standards that some people set (e.g. no debt, no prior sexual partners) will almost entirely remove the possibility of them finding a mate.</i><br /><br />I agree that there's not much quality out there. But it's one thing to be actively looking and not being able to find and another to give up all together.<br /><br />HH is advocating the latter approach.<br /><br /><br />The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-7775295790639196922014-02-04T16:30:00.655+11:002014-02-04T16:30:00.655+11:00@SP
I'm curious as to what your views are on ...@SP<br /><br />I'm curious as to what your views are on the Church's promotion of the "single life".<br /><br />Also, unless I've missed something, how exactly is a man not masculine if he does not wish to get married? As others have mentioned, the current legal environment is not exactly friendly.<br /><br />Beyond that, the minimum standards that some people set (e.g. no debt, no prior sexual partners) will almost entirely remove the possibility of them finding a mate. Is shifting one's focus (in light of their low chances) from marriage-seeking to, say, volunteering an example of defeatism/giving up? Why or why not?MarcusDhttp://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-71332723053876790462014-02-04T13:47:13.776+11:002014-02-04T13:47:13.776+11:00I did the white knight manning up thing when I got...I did the white knight manning up thing when I got married many years ago. They have been the most unhappy, stress filled years of my life hands down. My warning to young men: listen to the voice of experience and ignore the calls to "man up" even if those calls are coming from church, your parents, or even your own head. You will thank me one day.Robert What?https://www.blogger.com/profile/03863449539859132763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-12195320463325422522014-02-01T07:30:49.820+11:002014-02-01T07:30:49.820+11:00Why the exception?
What's with the spergines...<i>Why the exception? </i><br /><br />What's with the sperginess?<br /><br />Because this is a combox discussion and vows of celibacy are a commitment to God not an avoidance of commitment to women. Many Priests are constantly tempted by the urge to fuck women and yet they maintain their celibacy by their commitment to God. They are the total opposite of the MGTOW crowd. Capish. <br /><br /><i>some men occupy the bottom of the male socio-sexual hierarchy through no fault of their own? </i><br /><br />It's one thing to be unable its another not to want to. You've constantly advocated a strategy of giving up, not a strategy of doing the best that you can. Defeatism is not masculine.<br /><br /><i>So marriage as it exists today in the US is legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism? Is that you view?</i><br /><br />Since the Tard is strong in you let me help you out. A man can have a good Catholic marriage even in toxic marital environment in the U.S. but that does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses the current marital environment.<br /><br /><i>So it's not perverse when a woman does it?</i><br /><br />Rainman, don't you understand context? The. reason. I. used. that. quote. is. because. it. illustrated. a. perverse. attitude. in. women. that. has. now. become. prevalent. in. Men. She. also. advocates. an. act. for. profit. only. philosophy. like. you. do.<br /><br />The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-6474724078617151362014-01-27T23:59:30.796+11:002014-01-27T23:59:30.796+11:00"A man is not masculine if he is not seeking ..."A man is not masculine if he is not seeking a mate (once again, exception here for the religious)."<br /><br />Why the exception? Because you're a Catholic? Or other reasons? And what about the men that literally no woman wants today because a) female hypergamy is completely unrestricted b) some men occupy the bottom of the male socio-sexual hierarchy through no fault of their own? (they were born very short, or got disfigured in an accident etc.) It makes no sense for them to keep seeking mates if there's objectively no chance of them finding one. Is it your view that there's no possibility of them being or becoming masculine?<br /><br />"Because I'm Catholic, the only context in which a man can do this is within marriage."<br /><br />So marriage as it exists today in the US is legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism? Is that you view?<br /><br />"Think of Naomi Campbell. "I won't get out of bed for less than 10,000 dollars a day." Something perverse in that attitude when a man takes it on board."<br /><br />So it's not perverse when a woman does it? I'm pretty sure the correct feminine path on Campbell's part would've been to get married, have children and be a SAHM instead of being a sperm bucket for the hottest men around.<br /><br />"Secondly, that a man uses his talents and labours to optimise the profit of his labours."<br /><br />What if he lives in a society where such profits are taken from him by a**holes? Does it make sense to keep optimising it? Is it moral to do so?Höllenhundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-74969677423433235502014-01-27T07:20:31.760+11:002014-01-27T07:20:31.760+11:00So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that ...<i>So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine?</i><br /><br />A man is not masculine if he is not seeking a mate (once again, exception here for the religious). Because I'm Catholic, the only context in which a man can do this is within marriage. Whom he chooses to marry is a matter for prudential consideration and not based on a calculation of profit.<br /><br /><i>So the expectation of incentives to work equals the lack of desire to work?</i><br /><br />They are two separate things. Think of Naomi Campbell. "I won't get out of bed for less than 10,000 dollars a day." Something perverse in that attitude when a man takes it on board.<br /><br />Being concerned about incentive matters but not wanting to work until a certain incentive point is reached is sponging off others. A man still needs resources to survive even if he doesn't work. <br /><br />The masculine attitude toward work is firstly, that a man pulls his own weight in the world and is not a burden on others. Secondly, that a man uses his talents and labours to optimise the profit of his labours.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-85088585069344213732014-01-26T23:17:43.733+11:002014-01-26T23:17:43.733+11:00"Men who have the capacity to work but do not..."Men who have the capacity to work but do not want to unless punished in some way. I understand that men can be unemployed due to circumstance but the man hustles for a job, the conditional man sits around waiting for enough incentive to get off his arse."<br /><br />So the expectation of incentives to work equals the lack of desire to work? Is that your point of view?<br />Höllenhundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-56455711250364999042014-01-26T23:16:04.324+11:002014-01-26T23:16:04.324+11:00"Do you mean in a specific instance or with r..."Do you mean in a specific instance or with reference to the current state of marriage in the U.S.?<br />"<br /><br />It makes no difference. A man can make such a decision whether he's from America or not. Just answer the question, please.Höllenhundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-4405203400204898192014-01-25T07:38:12.740+11:002014-01-25T07:38:12.740+11:00@Hollenhund
So if a man decides not to marry, on ...@Hollenhund<br /><br /><i>So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine?</i><br /><br />Do you mean in a specific instance or with reference to the current state of marriage in the U.S.?<br /><br />@JT<br /><br />I've not censored any of HH's comments on this thread and they're clear for everyone to see. HH's clarification came after my comments. I wasn't speaking for HH, I was speaking of my understanding of his position.<br /><br /><i>Since you don't seem to like quotes from the Bible</i><br /><br />Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.<br /><br /><i>Do you see now, that when you don't cherry-pick verses, the implication is entirely changed?</i><br /><br />Let me help you out. From my reply;<br /><br /><i>Due to a man's existential incompleteness he really does have an obligation to marry if possessed of Caritas. ((<b>let's avoid the religious celibacy issue for the moment</b>)</i><br /><br />Right, who pulls greater rank, God or Paul? The deficient existential state of man is <a href="http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-18.htm" rel="nofollow">explicitly stated by God Himself</a>. Paul's comment needs to be seen as an <i>legitimate exception</i> to the otherwise Divine Imperative.<br /><br /><i>To rephrase, the Bible, on marriage, taken in totality doesn't reduce to only "marriage is a good thing". It's bordering dishonest to leave the other portions out as well.</i><br /><br />This is a combox discussion and not a formal dissertation. A thorough treatment of the subject would take volumes. The Bible is strongly supportive of Marriage, Christ started his Ministry by providing the booze for a wedding. Christ feels his loneliness as a man (i.e. foxes have dens and the birds have their nests...) Celibacy seems to be more a New Testament thing.<br /><br /><i>To make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position, could you give an example of what you mean by a conditional man?</i><br /><br />Someone who views marriage as an exchange of sex for goods. Such a man only provides on the proviso he will get sex. They're happy, for example, to support the children as long as the wife is putting out, but when the wife stops and the couple divorce, the father refuses to provide for his children.<br /><br />Second example. Men who have the capacity to work but do not want to unless punished in some way. I understand that men can be unemployed due to circumstance but the man hustles for a job, the conditional man sits around waiting for enough incentive to get off his arse.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-38954412524407861362014-01-25T05:11:35.247+11:002014-01-25T05:11:35.247+11:00>I haven't mistaken HH's position. He i...>I haven't mistaken HH's position. He is looking for incentives otherwise he's out of the game. I think that is a fair summary of his opinion.<<br /><br />Oh? You and I both know which posts we're referring to, but the action you made that I took objection to, is where you 'explained' HH's position to a third party, Anon, from a position of authority. That's putting words in people's mouths, especially when HH later said, "No man should man up and marry a slut. I never said anything like that." and then has to further clarify his position.<br /><br />To reiterate, that's putting words in someone's mouth. At least use their actual words next time.<br /><br />>We can throw Biblical quotes at each other as much as we like but but the Bible taken in totality would suggest that marriage is a good thing.<<br /><br />Since you don't seem to like quotes from the Bible, I'll keep it simple. The Bible says that a *good marriage* is a blessing. The Bible also says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am." The Bible also says that a bad marriage is bad (paraphrasing). Claiming that the only thing the Bible says about marriage is that it's a good thing is cherry-picking. And if you cherry-pick when you're making a proposition, anything built on that is made of sand.<br /><br />To rephrase, the Bible, on marriage, taken <i>in totality</i> doesn't reduce to only "marriage is a good thing". It's bordering dishonest to leave the other portions out as well.<br /><br />Here's what you wrote earlier:<br />>If we start from the Biblical proposition that "it is not good for man to be alone", the implication is that a man is somehow "incomplete" by lack of being coupled.<<br /><br />Do you see now, that when you don't cherry-pick verses, the implication is entirely changed? Is Paul then, incomplete due to lack of being coupled? You might be thinking of it as religious celibacy, but you mentioned, "(let's avoid the religious celibacy issue for the moment)". Why in particular should it be avoided? How are you to assume that what Paul wrote could only possibly apply to the priests?<br /><br />I am not just mindlessly throwing Biblical quotes at you, I bring this up because it profoundly affects the rest of your position.<br /><br />>Well lets look at it the other way. The conditional man argues that "without incentive I won't be a man." What do we say of such a man's masculinity?<<br />I think you picked poor terms to define these concepts. Instead of "innate" and "conditional", it appears you're thinking instead of concepts like "Inner Game" vs "Outer Game".<br /><br />To make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position, could you give an example of what you mean by a conditional man? The nameless face and unfathomable argument paired with it doesn't quite paint a picture to me of the man you're talking about.<br /><br />Either way, you didn't even answer the concerns I had about using 'innate' as a description. That term implies that masculinity and manliness can never be taught or learned. Ergo, only conditional masculinity can be taught or learned, which we both know isn't true.John Titornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-42136373777063862362014-01-24T13:23:39.952+11:002014-01-24T13:23:39.952+11:00So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that ...So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine? Is that your view?Höllenhundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-86302882641668937482014-01-24T06:32:55.489+11:002014-01-24T06:32:55.489+11:00Apologies for the late replies but life's been...Apologies for the late replies but life's been a bit busy these days.<br /><br />@Hollenhund<br /><br /><i> Or is it? What do you make of that?</i><br /><br />The Bible makes several negative references to spinsterhood, describing it a s "shame" in some instances.<br /><br />@Shenpen<br /><br /><i>But somehow this does not attract most young Hungarian women. Big muscles, sunbed tans, designer clothes and BMWs attract them. Basically many would love a Jersey Shore type.</i><br /><br />I agree that women have lost the desire for the "quiet" virtues, at least until they grow up. GBFM's comment "alpha fux beta bux" is as much a life plan as it is a fact.<br /><br /><br />@John Titor<br /><br />I haven't mistaken HH's position. He is looking for incentives otherwise he's out of the game. I think that is a fair summary of his opinion.<br /><br />We can throw Biblical quotes at each other as much as we like but but the Bible taken <i>in totality</i> would suggest that marriage is a good thing.<br /><br /><i> That, to me, leads to such absurd thoughts as, "Turn down that pay increase, lest you respond to incentives and somehow become less of a man." Separating 'innate' and 'conditional' like that is a bit baffling to me.</i><br /><br />Well lets look at it the other way. The conditional man argues that "without incentive I won't be a man." What do we say of such a man's masculinity?<br /><br />@ Denise<br /><br /><i>but both genders can easily opt into it willingly.</i><br /><br />True, some men want to buy in to it since it gives them many benefits. Easy sex, freedom from responsibility and command and so on. Some men like being beta.<br /><br />@Marcus D<br /><br />The rot has set into both sexes.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-58959086927310106672014-01-23T14:20:18.033+11:002014-01-23T14:20:18.033+11:00And what they once were?:
http://kottke.org/14/01...And what they once were?:<br /><br />http://kottke.org/14/01/peter-freuchenMarcusDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-76916794919462675152014-01-23T12:46:29.499+11:002014-01-23T12:46:29.499+11:00Regarding what men have become:
Local 6 says Maru...Regarding what men have become:<br /><br /><i>Local 6 says Marucci’s mother was aware of what her son was doing and that he did so to support her financially.</i><br /><br /><i>“I think he’s the most awesome person in the world,” she said. “He stood up and he was the man of the house when I couldn’t be.”</i><br /><br /><br />http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2014/01/21/florida-teen-expelled-for-performing-in-porn-allowed-back-to-school/MarcusDhttp://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-60446036274654080052014-01-23T09:53:28.735+11:002014-01-23T09:53:28.735+11:00The concept of "executive function" as a...The concept of "executive function" as applied to masculinity is very useful. I have noticed that while there are many women blogs explicitly dedicated to things like cooking, cleaning, and general domesticity, that there isn't really a corresponding push for men to know how to, say, change the oil in the car, fix simple plumbing issues, or build a treehouse for their kids. <br /><br />Feminism is an ideology that was promoted primarily by women, but both genders can easily opt into it willingly. I'm not sure that I would underestimate the motives of some men who find relief in not having to live up to the pressure of providing for their family and having to take charge all the time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-37074570695883761502014-01-22T14:06:34.378+11:002014-01-22T14:06:34.378+11:00As well, the topic of "innate" masculini...As well, the topic of "innate" masculinity.<br /><br />>For some men, their masculinity is conditional, for others, it is innate. [....] That's the thing about innate masculinity, it is the triumph over adversity, it is the triumph of the will.<<br /><br />Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that some men are manly (masculine) "just because" (innate), whereas other men are manly when it suits them (conditional).<br /><br />My first objection stems from the act of defining masculinity as purely acts, self-sacrificial acts if your link is any evidence towards it. By that token, the hypothetical perfect father who never is in a position to face worldly adversity is less masculine than a hypothetical craven shell of a man who, assuming everything else he has done was wrong, has enough sense of duty to fall on a bomb for his friends. Self-sacrifice is not the end-all, be-all of manliness. Rather, I argue that it's not manliness at all. I put forth that self-sacrifice is a mark of love, be it eros, agape, or philia - and love is not something that is unique to men. So it is not a good hallmark of determining what is masculine and what is not.<br /><br />My second objection is with the term itself, "innate masculinity", because 'innate' is something inborn, and natural. Using those terms, you set up a dichotomy that men who are manly "just because" (and it's implied that it's far nobler and just, than the 'conditional' men) are that way because they have inborn, natural masculinity. They were just born with it, no one taught it to them, it just sprang up out of nowhere like some sort of masculine abiogenesis. It's what innate means - inborn, natural. If it were that way, that means masculinity cannot be taught, and cannot be learned. And the men who are taught, end up only being manly when it suits them according to that definition.<br /><br />My third objection is separating "innate" and "conditional" in the first place. Is it really so hard to imagine that there are men who are manly "just because", yet still find themselves responding even subconsciously to incentives? Responding to incentives seems to be your very definition of a 'conditional man', yet everyone does it whether they realize it or not. Therefore, not responding to incentives would be innate masculinity, and that was implied to be superior. That, to me, leads to such absurd thoughts as, "Turn down that pay increase, lest you respond to incentives and somehow become less of a man." Separating 'innate' and 'conditional' like that is a bit baffling to me.<br /><br />I think I'll end it there, lest I'll wind up typing for far too much. I didn't even get to what I was wanting to talk about on the main post itself, but I think there's more than enough here already.John Titornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-29507518192383152202014-01-22T14:05:46.693+11:002014-01-22T14:05:46.693+11:00Greetings, SP. I've posted a couple of times ...Greetings, SP. I've posted a couple of times on this blog before, but never quite before have I disagreed with something you've written.<br /><br />Before we get into what I had to say about the post, I'll have to first address the comments.<br /><br />>HH and I approach the topic from two different angles. If we start from the Biblical proposition that "it is not good for man to be alone", the implication is that a man is somehow "incomplete" by lack of being coupled.<<br /><br />Even though neither of you approach this concept, this is a false proposition to begin with. On one hand, God said that in Genesis 2:18, as well as in Proverbs 18:22, "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD."<br /><br /><b>However</b>, Proverbs 12:4, "A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones." and 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."<br /><br />Do note what Paul says, "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am". He basically addressed the issue of 'It is not good for man to be alone' in 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 completely.<br /><br />Calling 'It is not good for man to be alone' a Biblical proposition is to pick one verse out and ignore what the rest of the Bible says about it. Hardly Biblical, I should think.<br /><br />Also, you did a lot of talking <i>for</i> HH, which he later refuted what you claimed he believed. Please don't try to put words into other people's mouths, it's very unbecoming, and a bad habit to boot.<br /><br />My post ended up being too long, so I'll have to break it up into two here.John Titornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-49640818045515438552014-01-20T23:26:56.565+11:002014-01-20T23:26:56.565+11:00No man should man up and marry a slut. I never sai...No man should man up and marry a slut. I never said anything like that. Such a marriage is destined to be a trainwreck unless he's an alpha, but for an alpha there's no point whatsoever in marrying a slut. Marriage to a slut only benefits the slut.<br /><br />My point was that assuming the lifelong responsibility for a woman and her children is an act of sacrifice, and acts of sacrifice need to be incentivized if we are to make them common and ordinary instead of uncommon and extraordinary - which is clearly something all societies want to do with marriage.<br /><br />As far as the Biblical rule against bachelorhood is concerned, well yeah, I suppose it makes perfect sense for a man who lives in Paradise completely alone. Otherwise, not necessarily. The truth is that every society has punished or disincentivized bachelorhood one way or another in order to benefit the community instead of the man in question, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this rule was in fact written by a man with this idea in mind.<br /><br />Moreover, I cannot help but notice that there's no parallel Biblical rule against spinsterhood. Or is it? What do you make of that?Höllenhundhttp://thehoundfromhell.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-37805717575665423562014-01-20T21:43:56.276+11:002014-01-20T21:43:56.276+11:00"I grew up amongst men who were children and ...<br /><br />"I grew up amongst men who were children and adolescents in the post-WW2 carnage of Eastern Europe."<br /><br />Where are you from? Rural Hungarians are still like this, even today. <br /><br />But somehow this does not attract most young Hungarian women. Big muscles, sunbed tans, designer clothes and BMWs attract them. Basically many would love a Jersey Shore type.Shenpennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-35852695661886129792014-01-20T21:38:54.434+11:002014-01-20T21:38:54.434+11:00"Straight faggotry" is PRECISELY why the..."Straight faggotry" is PRECISELY why the average Redditor honestly cannot understand why an atheist or not strongly religious person could have any problem with gays - because in their circles men and women are really alike, so it is really optional what gender your mate is. They have girls playing guitar and videogames, and boys knitting and loving My Little Pony.<br /><br />For people who are used to strongly different gender roles, being gay is downright weird because we see a large difference between men and women, we are used to the opposites attracting each other. <br /><br />So for us being straight = being attracted to someone really different, and being gay = being attracted to someone similar.<br /><br />"Straight faggots" have no opposites, they are all alike.<br /><br />Because for us attraction requires the opposite, the truly different person, we see attraction to the similar as weird as a vegetarian tiger, just doesn't make sense.<br /><br />You need no Bible for this.Shenpennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-58536473322319052692014-01-19T07:58:18.986+11:002014-01-19T07:58:18.986+11:00@David Foster
It isn't so much the physical/m...@David Foster<br /><br />It isn't so much the physical/muscular difficulty of the work as the psychological effects (as our dear host mentioned above) and the sheer unnecessary hours.<br /><br /><a href="http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/what-is-it-with-the-germans/" rel="nofollow">We work longer hours with less time off than medieval peasants did.</a> <br /><br />They had about 1/3 of days dedicated to various feasts and such...the protestant 'reformation' put and end to that so we could work more for earthly lucre and neglect our families, enriching the (equivalent of) the big business elite.<br /><br />In any event you did not address the great majority of my argument via the linked posts.lozozlonoreply@blogger.com