Empath’s really big radio debut, sorta

Alternative Title:

Quiver(s) full my @ss, He Dugger, no, that’s not right…..He dug her, her and her too

OK it was just a call in show but I’m expecting to be contacted by the weekend. The one where they  offer me the drive time slot.

The topic was about this man. He has filled the quivers of an entire Olympic archery team’s worth of women.

The Quivers Full Movement starts now. The guy has 25 kids, ±.  And he ain’t takin’ care of them worth a dayum.

One lucky woman got $9.00 per month in child support. Another $6.00. My outrage spiked as I read on. One women received a paltry $1.26. Does this man Terry Turnage (aka TYB, or “Take your bitch”) not realize what is costs these days to raise 25 kids? I know, I get his pain….you send a buck twenty six over here a buck twenty six over there (repeat at eight times…Pretty soon you out (a) fwahty……..bucks.

One of the most upset of the 8, er, mothers,  chose a confusing way to emphasize her point:

“He’s going to tell me; I don’t care if the President say he mine. He ain’t mine,” Davis said.

She got you there TYB.

Don’t answer this. I know that you know…

What would a thirty something male conservative Christian local (and syndicated) radio talk show host, famous since he was an outspoken Christian teen and known for writing a book about staying pure in college, (uhem, cough, sputter….BenFerguson, …cough, phlem), what would that guy say about the poor feckless innocent women who lay with him, and the state sponsored flash mob worth of kids he has sired?

Nuthin. Of course.

But he sure was sharpening his scissors making ready to go “vasectomize” one playa. Before I knew what was even happening a call screening producer was asking me what my point would be when he put me through. “Simple”, I answered, “I want Ben to explain the push button blood lust for this man”.

Calling in to a radio show hosted by an impetuous young man whose livelihood has been earned by parroting the most basic of conservative talking points and expecting to have a men’s issue discussion is stupid. But I did it.

At laid out, quickly, a half a dozen ways men are held accountable in gender relational matters. he tried selling the notion that “Dude, its twenty five!!!! kids”. I calmly said he was making a useless subjective point. Pissed him off and he talked over me until the break music fired up.

I was good. Coulda been great. Coulda been ….a….huh?…..a what? A Contendah!!!      Ding ding ding.

,

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “Empath’s really big radio debut, sorta

  1. We do what we can, when we can. Taking the time to call in was worth it, even if you only got out the little bug in the brain.

  2. Summon all of your moral outrage to pour forth in apoplexy on TYB because what this man did was incomprehensible. I mean these poor, vulnerable pillars of budding womanhood were deceived into procreating. We must rally in uniform support to shielded them from the terribly unjust consequences from which no sentient being could reasonably have anticipated, such as pregnancy and subsequent mouths to feed. They had all the societal protections that come from exchanging sacred vows in front of witnesses, all the good faith that accompanies the exchanging of rings, all the legal protections of a marriage certificate. Their snow-white purity forever now soot-covered by this duplicitous husband…

    Oh, wait.

  3. Turnage and this cretin seem to the real ‘Founding Fathers’ of Tennessee:

    http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/45871127.html

    So…ummm…where have ‘all the good men gone’ again? LOL

    Combined, these two idiots have 46 (known) children by 26 different women. But hold a job, learn how to read, take a bath daily, stay out of jail, and women ignore you.

  4. But Eric?

    Didn’t you just tell me that women should follow their natural inclinations and they’d be all good?

    LOL.

    Oh, congrats on the radio debut Empath.

  5. I was lyin’. Though never on that program, I used to wear the radio hosts out in Houston, especially when was an elected minor Republican party apparatchik in the county where I lived, having unseated the incumbent Republican (and semi neighbor) in an election that had at least 2 or 3 people glued to the internet as the 600 votes were counted and I won handily. Those were me, my wife and maybe one of my kids was asleep nearby.

  6. Eric, this guy has a job and a fairly lavish life style, he isnt what i would call thugish looking. Lets call him a member of the thugristocracy.
    The comment that women ignore the men you describe is not a fit here/now. Apples to edemame.
    Send some-o-those clean bathed dudes to see these ladies from the story. No, these ladies wont lay with’em, but you STILL cant use that fact for the point you made. Its wayyyyyy out sideways from this story

  7. It’s interesting how on the one hand talk radio hosts insist that they care about issues, but on the other hand ratings also matter. Probably there is some balance point where enough audience is having its issues petted on, but the topic range is still wide enough to attract a bigger set of listeners.

    I don’ t listen to such shows much because they often interfere with attention to something I’m doing, but when I have it seemed to me some controversy was good (ratings) but too much was bad (offended audience).

    Radio is a business. They sell access to people’s ears, and must convince enough advertisers to pay up. Not enough advertising? The radio station will change format.

    Talk radio hosts have to be quick witted, but not necessarily all that intelligent or knowledgable. It’s like the loudest guy in the bar, sort of.

    I’m impressed you got through, though, as the call screeners definitely bear all the above (ratings, controversy, offending advertisers, etc.) in mind.

  8. AR, I have a window of 8 minutes in morning and 8 minutes in evening, plus any lunch time driving. I live that close to where I work. There are no bike trails or any way to even finagle a bike route or Id not even bother with a car for that.
    The call screener is actually a very bright kid who has his own call in show no on weekends, at 21 years old or so. I dialed three times. When he answered and asked my point my strident tone, I think, made him pop me in front because as soon as the person who was on w/ the host when I called in, was done, I was up.

  9. Why do none of the women own up to deliberately choosing a bad man? Every single one claims to have believed he wasn’t as bad as he seemed, even though he was chosen specifically for being bad.

  10. Every single one claims to have believed he wasn’t as bad as he seemed, even though he was chosen specifically for being bad.

    No, I don’t think he was “chosen specifically for being bad.” He was a bad choice, which should have been obvious, but if you think most women choose men for being bad, you’re wrong.

    It is certainly soothing in its way to believe that, but he was chosen for the confidence, the flash, the utter lack of apprehensiveness when he approached them. And they thought, “perhaps I will be the one to tie him down here with me. He’s good down deep. He must be because that’s the only thing that explains the way he makes me feel. If he was as bad as they say I wouldn’t want him.”

    I’ve heard it expressed by numerous women in one way or other.

    I said it myself when people said I should choose someone a little less “out there” than my own husband. Except in my case, I was right. LOL. Snowflake that I am 😉 .

    That was a joke.

  11. @Elspeth, I agree in part and disagree in part. I think you know what I disagree with, which is that women don’t choose men based on badness. (coolness, flashiness, dangerness, strangerness, outlawness, evilness, etc). I specifically disagree that women actually believe “If he was as bad as they say I wouldn’t want him.” (although certainly women would verbally rationalize that way)

    In fact, I know from experience in all my decades of prior life, and more recently experiments some of which I’m discussed elsewhere, that spreading false rumors about a man’s badness(specifically,how evil and bad-treating he is towards his many women) is a great way to get women interested in him. I’ve literally had women ask me, later, for a guy’s phone number, after us seeing him ill-treat a woman in public, or her hearing about how bad he was from me or someone else.

    What I agree with is that women *feel* that a 90% bad man with 10% good is somehow gooder than a 90% good man with 10% bad, the same way that women will call an alpha considerate if he brought flowers once many years ago, but will call a beta inconsiderate if he forgot once to bring flowers I do not agree that women are correct to feel that way.

  12. from the article “We be trying to warn females, some females or other people that be coming to us asking about him, but they don’t listen. They don’t listen at all.”

    Ha! Warning females (“or other people”!) about a man is like free advertising for him.

  13. I never bought into the supposed reasoning that “I’ll just keep treating my bad man good *because* of hopes that he will turn good to me some day.” Before reading in the manosphere, I figured women were simply generally insane. Now I know women are insane in a particular way.

  14. Seriously, Emp? Are you kidding me?

    I never bought into the supposed reasoning that “I’ll just keep treating my bad man good *because* of hopes that he will turn good to me some day.” Before reading in the manosphere, I figured women were simply generally insane. Now I know women are insane in a particular way.

    I still think you are missing some of the nuance involved here, but yeah. That [some] women have powerful powers of rationalization when it comes to the kinds of men they are attracted to isn’t news. Even in the good old days that never were, Sally secretly drooled over Jimmy the Rogue. She just had enough fear of her parents, desire for a good reputation, and enough of a long view of things that she wouldn’t act on it. Things like the plot of Grease were no doubt very rare.

  15. jf12
    I never bought into the supposed reasoning that “I’ll just keep treating my bad man good *because* of hopes that he will turn good to me some day.”

    Hmm. Would you buy into the reverse: “I’ll just keep on treating my formerly good, now bad, woman *because* of hopes that she’ll turn good some day”?

  16. Elspeth:
    LOL—I’ll go into more detail about that on your blog, But to summarize if they listened to their instincts instead of the culture they wouldn’t chase thugs (or thugocrats).

    Jf12:
    The problem is that our culture glamorizes ghetto/thug/trash culture and denigrates masculinity. Women are simply following the herd, the bad-boys have been elevated into heroes by the media/academia perverts and women are responding to that.

  17. @AR re: “Would you buy into the reverse: “I’ll just keep on treating my formerly good, now bad, woman *because* of hopes that she’ll turn good some day”?”

    Great question. I’ve been trying to psych myself up for almost three years for the exact opposite: since I know that treating my wife very well makes her very spoiled, I want to want to treat her badly, with Dread etc, to force her to turn good.

  18. You know jf12, I’m always left wondering exactly what you mean when you claim that a woman is only good to a man who “treats her badly”. I suspect that your definition of “treating badly” is anything that falls short of niceness and deference, which I don’t think is good at all frankly.

    Then you see badness is anything that makes clear to her what her proper role is on his ship. You call it dread, and other such nonsense. Perhaps because it’s your nature to kind of go along to get along. Guys like that usually do marry women who are just the opposite, while men who are not inclined to be steamrolled (those you call “bad”) seem to choose women who are less difficult. Not because they are “afraid of a strong independent woman”, but because the other type of woman is a complete turnoff.

    Bringing it home, as a woman married to a no-nonsense man who doesn’t roll over and take any foolishness I dish out, I am most assuredly not treated badly or treated to any sense of “dread”. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  19. @Elspeth re: me always leaving you wondering.

    It’s not my fault. I try to leave no room for misunderstanding. My claim is that women will treat a man better when he is more evil. When he is more likely to abuse her, to cheat on her, to steal from her. That’s when women act right.

  20. When he is more likely to abuse her, to cheat on her, to steal from her.

    Okay, got it. Well then now you just sound crazy.

  21. What I mean is, that the parameters you outlined above sound different from what you usually say, which is more ambiguous.

    It’s crazy because those things you outlines are sin. As such, you cannot in good conscience engage in any of them out of some misguided attempt to extract better behavior from your Mrs. Perhaps you are called to continue in long suffering.

    After all you did say you ceded the possibility of a more submissive wife in favor of looks because you despaired that no such creature (a submissive woman) even existed.

  22. re: “you cannot in good conscience engage in any of them”

    Yes, I know. Maybe it my tendency to tentativeness towards sinning, i.e. to sin non-boldly, that sounded like ambuiguity. We all know there no such thing as “just a little” sin, i.e. “just a little” lying, “just a little” cheating, “just a little” destroying. But, I think, maybe, ambiguously, a woman can sufficiently react to the “just a little” possibility of a man acting in bad conscience.

    re: “you despaired that no such creature (a submissive woman) even existed.”

    Yes. And five decades later all of my experience has continually proven me correct; there is no woman who is willing to be submissive to me to the extent that I am trying to be a good man. The results of my unfortunately not-tentative-enough experiments in the past couple of years have shown me there are a fair number of women willing to treat me right to the extent that I am willing to be bad.

    Yeah, probably NAWALT, but probably not all unicorns look the same either. Granted few of my several bad-boy “conquests” would register as ideal women, but none were desperate. The best-looking one was very reminiscent of a brunette Ali Larter (and Ali Larter’s age), with an overall personality like Bewitched’s Serena but she was increasingly sweet and submissive to bad me.

  23. I’ve been trying to psych myself up for almost three years for the exact opposite: since I know that treating my wife very well makes her very spoiled, I want to want to treat her badly, with Dread etc, to force her to turn good.

    Bear in mind that the bad behavior may worsen at first. When a woman has gotten used to getting away with bad stuff, Gaming her is all but certain to lead to a doubling-down on the bad stuff. In evo-psych / Game terms, you would be responding to fitness tests that had previously been failed, and her unconscious reaction would be to amp up fitness testing. Thus more bad behavior, for a time, until your consistent and firm reaction in dealing with the behavior calmed down her unconscious to the point where she’d not feel the need to fitness test as much.

    It is totally reasonable to figure out scenarios before hand. To take typical bad behavior from the past and figure out what would have been a better response than what you did (withdrawing, appeasing, supplication, whatever). “When she hollered at me in the parking lot of the restaurant, instead of silently fuming I should have….” and fit known Game responses to your personality. Agree & Amplify, etc. whatever you can be confident in deploying.

    It’s a campaign. Some planning beforehand is needed (Athol’s MAP maybe?), and some “what ifs” thought out in advance. That includes thinking through your response if she goes totally ballistic and starts talking about divorce, as some women will.

    It is tempting to say to yourself, “Eh, I’lll just try this one Game technique and evaluate the results”, but that can make things worse. A better way: “I’m going to manage her behavior, I will do so with certain Game methods and I will try them one by one to see what results I get, but I’m not going to stop”. Followthrough is important.

  24. @AR re: “to the point where she’d not feel the need to fitness test as much.”

    It would probably help if I believed there was such a point. My observations etc lead me to believe that once fit tested always fit tested, and if it wasn’t killed before it reproduces then it never dies away. Going a kindler gentler Dread route certainly didn’t work for me like I hoped, but harder meaner Dread worked better than it should.

  25. It would probably help if I believed there was such a point. My observations etc lead me to believe that once fit tested always fit tested, and if it wasn’t killed before it reproduces then it never dies away. Going a kindler gentler Dread route certainly didn’t work for me like I hoped, but harder meaner Dread worked better than it should.

    The important thing is to be respected, rather than held in contempt. Fear can be a form of respect, and hard Dread usually induces some fear. Don’t overdo it, though, if she reaches a point where it seems to her that no matter what she does, it isn’t good enough…that can be her “I’m done” point. She needs to know when her behavior is good, one way or another.

    Just as in cases where a man is getting contempt from his wife no matter what he does, and he decides “No matter what I do, it will never be good enough for Her Highness, so I quit this rigged game”. He may not divorce, but he may well check out one way or another.

  26. jf12 has been around enough sites to know what’s what, I’m just reminding him of some of the details. If Empath has a problem, he’ll tell us.

    There’s really only two choices for a man in some situations: either learn how to manage the woman, or leave. He doesn’t have to physically leave, he can remain in the house but spend as much time away from Her Highness as possible. He can remain the house and check out via reading, the web, gaming, etc.

    And of course he can always die. Jack up his blood pressure enough times over 20-30 years, chances of a stroke or heart attack are pretty good. Her Highness can yell at a dead man all day, it won’t make any diff. Some women don’t realize that until they are widows. Then it’s a bit late to reconcile.

    Those men who don’t want that “out” need to find another way out. And managing her via applied psychology is one way.

    Of course, if the woman in the situation would just stop trying to be his competitor / mother / enemy /etc. and instead try being his helper, that is best. Only she can do that. I repeat, only she can do that. In the current society a man cannot make a woman submit to him. But he can manage her until she does. If that ever happens.

  27. re: “And of course he can always die.” Gottman’s original work on predicting divorce highlighted the wife’s contempt as causing the husband’s stress and causing the husband to withdraw.

  28. I have delved deeply into Gottman. He says he can predict divorce to something like 90% accuracy. He offers several metrics he watches for. Of course the synopsis of his work , the sell hook in other words, very much infers female innocence. Power struggle manifestation, meaning one party tries to control the other, micro manage, is writ large but he seems to see that as overbearing men.

    But, buried in his studies (all listed and linked -at least summary-on his site) he found and clearly states that in marriages where one party is controlling to the point of marital dysfunction, it is significantly more likely to be the wife.

    At Christian forums the ladies loved citing Gottman, I liked citing him back at them

    I dont care who wears the game jargon tee shirt, even in hear. Game being described or used in discussion, in and of itself, doesn’t bother me at all. I cannot take it when folks start trying to define it and go on for pages, all basically peacocking in the sense they want to seem to be in an exclusive club of game understanding men,. Soon it is obvious they want the club membership list to be one name, their own….exclusivity. Close second is when anyone expresses an iota of skepticism, well, they just don’t get it yet, and would be all in if they did. Whats most frustrating is when this behavior is exhibited by really intelligent men who, when writing on other topics, have excellent and original insight, yet miss the herd-of-pedestrians effect of their game posture.

    OK then…..I watch from my secure seat here in the 3rd most crime ridden city in the country.

  29. Jf 12:

    Game is the male feminist version of thug-chasing. It teaches men to feel empowered for scoring with low-value women.

    Real women don’t need to be Gamed. Forget all this ‘Dread’ bullshit, it’s counterproductive nonsense. So is the belief that you have to ‘manage the woman or leave’ although the second option is advisable in serious cases.

    The root of these problems is a power struggle and that is the opposite of a harmonious relationship. Women who chase thugs and bad-boys are by definition going to treat good men with contempt. The solution is not to engage with those kinds of women in the first place, because no amount of ‘Game’ is going to change them. Leave them to the thugs they want, and move on.

  30. Describe a ‘real woman’ first, Eric. For example, do you mean that she is from an intact family? What is the breakdown in the US now, percentage-wise?

  31. @empathologism re: “Of course the synopsis of his work, the sell hook in other words, very much infers female innocence.”

    Yes, but not originally. The original data and original publications, one cite being

    Gottman, J.M., (1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriages, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17 (1), 3-7.

    said that the wife’ contempt was the cause, of the stress, the source of the problem. Almost instantly the “men do it too!” backlash, along with the appeasement factor and the purse-strings factor, caused Gottman to refocus on the man causing the woman’s emotions. Gottman decided to teach that the husband’s anxiety from walking on eggshells, his learned helplessness in the face of irrational anger, his withdrawing, etc. were (unexplainedly) causing his wife to behave in her awful ways. Literally, this decision said that the husband’s increased heart rate and debilitating blood pressure rises were (somehow) *causing* his wife to be so bitchy to him. Maybe she could smell the fear and it caused blood-lust, I dunno.

  32. Empath, thanks for the points on Gottman. I delved a bit deeper into online sources last night including the come-on site for Gottman and Gottman’s marriage repair center up in Washington. One amusing claim was the notion that only men refuse to allow the other partner to influence them, with the implication that if only a man would really listen to his wife all conflicts could be peacefully resolved. Yet their own process stresses both need to learn to really hear what’s being said. So it’s clear the come-on text is intended for female eyeballs.

    It is interesting to see myself in text. Some of the things Gottman states in the research are things I already figured out on my own, such as the issue of a conflict-averse person paired with a non-averse person. They have a whole section on childbirth in marriage & effects but I didn’t read it very deeply, so no opinion.

    They do admit, in a kind of indirect way, that both the man and the woman have to take an interest in resolving conflict, else it won’t work. I can’t help but wonder how they pitch that to the women in only 2 days.

    Eric, could you share with us how many years you’ve either been married, or been in an LTR? I’m genuinely curious.

  33. jf12

    Yes, but not originally. The original data and original publications, one cite being

    I thought I said the same thing you are saying, perhaps wording my paraphrase differently but from what I can tell I was calling attention to the same thing you are from the earlier works.

    Lets be general….and say that the devil is in the details and the details do not support the silly mass market model that eventually made him famous. After all, we all know that its women who are the stewards of marriage, they buy the books and stuff, dontcha know

  34. jf12:
    “Women…treat good men with contempt.”

    So the solution, I guess is not to be a good man since most women don’t like good men.

    LOL, who says Game doesn’t empower men? Male feminism tells men to succeed with women by being weak. Game tells you succeed by being a bad-boy. Just do whatever women want, and that makes you an ‘Alpha’.

  35. Exfernal:
    “Describe a real woman first.”

    Does this actually need a description?

    AR:
    “Could you share with us how many years you’ve been married or been in an LTR?”

    If you can tell me how it’s relevant to anything first.

  36. Exfernal

    Words without definition are meaningless.

    I could equivocate and offer some counter examples but overall I agree with your point.

    What about the same statement with an selection of descriptors inserted:

    Words without a/an …agreed/single/coherent/clear…definition are meaningless.

    Game has a cohesive sort of label or overarching functional description, but it certainly has nothing like a definition. The most strident, devoted, researched (lack better word), the most well spoken and ponderous, game gurus and followers , love to endlessly “up-define” ame into gtheir own version. I cannot name what happens but I can describe it.

    The most respected game guru(s) are very well written, very cyber alpha, and maintain a no nonsense frame partly by doing a very subtle version of the redefining trick. Sycophants wish to emulate them as they see them (pick one) as game incarnate. So they rush into other spaces and try to be a blunt instrument by showing confidence and most importantly, something exclusive that only they get, and no matter how hard other try, some in supplication and others also trying to claim top-o-heap, none will give up on the attempt to prove that THEIR game has one special ingredient. It is unknowable.

    Well it was unknowable. Its like a rare mineral, unob-game-ium.

  37. “Street smarts” is similar in this regard. Doesn’t prevent from being used. There are two approaches, one starting with an overgeneralization and shaving it away later, another with a strict, ‘reductionist’, definition and loosening it gradually. I guess that a consensus will be reached someday. Somewhere between ‘anything related to interacting with women’ and ‘parroting certain canned lines and imitating theatrical gestures’.
    I’m no expert, but still can’t deny that differences in testosterone level, especially during development, are reflected in behavior, personality traits and cognitive habits.

  38. You’ve described exactly what happens. I could have done similarly, but the mode or pattern of reductionism or loosening doesn’t matter to me. Its my peeve, I’m not trying to sell it to anyone. I don’t limit this peeve to game discussions. I equally disdain similar approaches to discussions of political ideologies or anything that lends itself to people trying to “in-group” themselves to the point where there are infinite groups of just one individual because, as they say, no one else gets what they are saying and they have the absolute epistemological description.

  39. none will give up on the attempt to prove that THEIR game has one special ingredient. It is unknowable.

    I’ve seen movies from Hong Kong with that as a plot device.

    “My Game-Fu is superior to all others! Hiiii-YAH!”

  40. You got that take-away didn’t you AR? No way you stir fried that up yourself.

    (just bustin metaphors with ya)

    They (the self love obsessionists) call the ingredient Wax off or Jacket off. Cause Kalate heah, and heah…..kalate nevuh heah.

  41. Empath:
    What troubles me about Game—especially mixed with Churchianity—is that it really borders on a species of Gnosticism. They have this orientation that the spiritual and earthly realms are separated from one another; but by learning their ‘inside info’ and ‘special revelations’ a man can evolve into some kind of superior super-Alpha being that’s wholly measured by his sexual success. There’s nothing in their philosophies about producing better men or women; in fact, they take it for granted that women really exist for no other purpose than male sexual satisfaction and are otherwise irrelevant.

    If you’ve read some of the comments at Dalrock’s recently, these guys are talking about using surrogate mothers, and the joys of single fatherhood, and serial male monogamy—nothing Christian about any of this garbage—if they were really concerned about the state of Christian marriage, the Gamers would talk about finding/making better women. What today’s men really lack are better women, not sinking to the level of the ones the femihags have produced for us.

  42. Exfernal:
    This is a fair point. The problem with coming up a hard-and-fast definition of a ‘real woman’ is that women are by nature the passive sex, so it manifests itself more by attitudes and character than outward signs like their family structure, how they dress, or even what they say. Real women are those who are grounded in their feminine natures. They don’t try to act like, compete with, or imitate men or invade male spaces. They have a certain strength of character—though not a feminist-type of strength.

    It is hard to define, but something men more know it when they see it.

  43. jf12
    Gottman, J.M., (1991). Predicting the longitudinal course of marriages, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17 (1), 3-7.

    I see this paper cited all over the place. In books, in other papers, in graduate theses, etc. but so far have not been able to find the actual document online. There are a few hints here
    http://www.camft.org/ScriptContent/Professional_Ex/Articles/GottmanApproach.htm
    of the original 1991 research. This was real science. They kept track of the men’s blood pressure, for example, as well as video recording interactions with multiple cameras. The original paper included a number of risk factors, starting with the one you mentioned, contempt. This article specified four:

    Wife showing contempt during conflict with the husband
    Husband and wife being defensive
    Wife complaining, husband stonewalling (Demand/withdraw pattern)
    Wife emotionally detached

    Another way to describe the third point would be nag / withdraw patter but that would be not as scientific. As you observe, this was modified by 1998 to add:

    Negative start-up by the wife
    Husband refusing to accept influence from his wife
    Husband not de-escalating low intensity negativity by wife

    Here is what this site states about the term “refusal to accept influence”

    Refusal to accept influence means not accepting any part of what one’s partner is saying. When a person refuses to accept influence it usually reflects a fear of being controlled by another and an unwillingness to compromise.

    Another way to view this would be that when a man concludes his wife is not trustworthy, he will not accept any part of what she is saying. This goes along with an observation by Athol that men tend to have a binary trust mode, either “on” or “off”.

    It is interesting to me to read some of Gottman’s work because he verified in the late 80’s to early 90’s things that various androsphere writers have concluded via reason and observation 20+ years later. What a pity that the general truths he demonstrated about women’s contempt and the effects on men have not been more generally disseminated. A lot of trouble would have been avoided or at least reduced.

  44. @AR, the conclusion is inescapable that hen-pecking is bad. Apparently Gottman decided, after his original research, that telling the hens to cease pecking DID NOT WORK. Clearly,the reason that it doesn’t work is because hens are just plain awful at relationships, and this behavior should be negatively reinforced with extreme prejudice. Instead, Gottman chickened out and decided to pretend that the roosters’ were making the hens peck them.

  45. @AR, the conclusion is inescapable that hen-pecking is bad.

    Yes, provably so. Not just opinion, but blood pressure, heart rate, observed behavior and last but very much not least, cortisol. A man can learn to control these, via exercise, mindset (visualization, retraining the amygdala) and an attitude of outcome independence / abundance rather than dependence/scarcity. He can control his own reaction to bad behavior, in some cases this can reduce the bad behavior, eventually.

    It certainly appears that Gottman and Gottman decided not to base a career on teaching women to stop picking fights as a recreational habit / means of control / etc.
    Since they built their business model in the 1990’s, that isn’t a huge surprise. I guess in a glass-half-full sense the fact that they still mention female contempt as a danger sign in a relationship is a good thing.

    That one fact deserves wider dissemination. Much, much wider.

  46. @Eric, yes but the real problem is that women do not respond properly to nice men.

    I suppose everyone has seen the recent reports about the chimp bully study.
    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)01348-7

    It has long been known that bad boy i.e. evil abusive male chimps were much more sexually successful (number of females, and especially the frequency of mating per female). This study showed conclusively, to the dismay of the authors, that not only were the abusive chimps more likely to impregnate females, but the females specifically sought out abusive chimps *extremely* preferentially to be impregnated.

  47. Eric, it appears that you are still stuck somewhere between what in your mind “should be”, and “what is” in reality. Between “ought” and “is”. Frustrating place to be, I know full well, you’re like a truck that is high centered on a muddy track. All that engine revving gets you nowhere.

    jf12, thanks for a reference to the chimp bully study. Do you have any pointer to the 1991 Gottman paper? I still can only find references to it and that is interesting, more than once in a different area of life I’ve found papers that include popular references but don’t really refer to them. I’m wondering if Gottman’s ’91 work is popular to talk around, rather than to actually read and refer to.

    sfcton, I tossed the URL’s on Manson’s squirrely 20something to a pedestalizer I know. He’s all full of “well, yeah, but…” stuff, but he admitted that, yeah, some chicks dig killers in prison.

  48. @AR, it’s only six bucks if you want to buy the article. ERIC summarizes it thusly
    “Reviews studies which indicated physiological arousal, particularly of husband, as well as husband’s stonewalling and the wife’s verbal expressions of contempt, predicted longitudinal deterioration of marital satisfaction. Presents stages of disengagement and emotional withdrawal.”
    http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ426743
    which matches exactly with Gottman’s own summary
    https://www.gottman.com/wp-content/uploads/EmpiricalBasis-Update3.pdf

    Gottman also claims that husband who *refuse* to be soothed by their wives is the bigger problem, and Gottman refuses to acknowledge that it is wives who refuse to be soothing.

  49. AR:
    So you’re saying that Feminism is reality.

    Actually it’s women who are collectively stuck since they’re conflicted between their natural inclinations and their social feminist programming. All Game accomplishes is rewarding women with sex for being feminists.

  50. jf12:
    Human beings are not chimpanzees. Humans have free will and can make choices not to behave like monkeys.

    The reason women chase thugs is because thugs have been elevated to national-icon status by the Radical Left. Women can choose not to follow that social paradigm, if they want to. The fact that many (at least in our culture) choose to chase thugs doesn’t equate it to it being normal. The Political Left doesn’t offer normality, but people choose to follow it anyway: that doesn’t make them morally right.

  51. @Eric re: women can choose.

    They can, but they don’t; women have never pursued nice guys. It’s never the nice guys’ fault.

  52. So you’re saying that Feminism is reality.

    Well, Feminism is part of reality. So is Communism and Fascism. What’s your point?

    Actually it’s women who are collectively stuck since they’re conflicted between their natural inclinations and their social feminist programming.

    Which natural inclinations are you referring to?

    All Game accomplishes is rewarding women with sex for being feminists.

    Nope. You are wrong. Some men who are married or otherwise in LTR’s have found that application of Game results in less feminist claptrap.

  53. The reason women chase thugs is because thugs have been elevated to national-icon status by the Radical Left.

    The reason some women chase thugs is the same reason poorly written fiction like 50 Shades is not only a best seller but can be found in airport bookstores. Because women are women, not cartoon figures or Barbies that walk and talk or goddesses or any other such thing.

    Your “ought” is not reality. No matter how hard you try, you won’t change women.
    If you believe in evolution, there’s a clear explanation for dark triad traits as a chick magnet. If you are a 6-day creationist, then Genesis explains female nature clearly if you read it without blinders on.

    Putting women on a pedestal doesn’t work for a lot of reasons, the most obvious one being : they’re only human.

  54. Jf12:
    You still haven’t explained why women’s bad behavior justifies a man rewarding it with sex.

  55. AR:
    “No matter how hard you try you won’t change women.”

    This is why both feminism and Game fail. Both teach women to go against their natures.

    “Which natural inclinations are you referring to?”

    The ones typically associated with feminine virtues—which have been present since recorded history began.

    “Putting women on a pedestal doesn’t work.”

    Another reason why Game fails. Gamers pedestalize women like no others; although they take the worst examples of feminist cultural programming in women and pedestalize THAT. Game doesn’t teach men (or women) anything about femininity: it simply takes feminism as a natural female attitude and teaches men to bend their own characters to accommodate it.

  56. His own is as far from it like ‘pastoral’ is from ‘pastoralism’.

    Two links to Wikipedia would land this comment in moderation.

  57. @Erica, re: “You still haven’t explained why women’s bad behavior justifies a man rewarding it with sex.”

    All is now clear about your womanly point of view. All of your man-blaming, all of your gender-flipping, all of your reality-inverting, now it’s obvious why you do it.

  58. The correct response to the horror of feral human behavior should not be denial, but instead a clarion call to repentance. An individual should not attempt to cover up or excuse another’s sin because
    1. The need for the sinner to repent MUST be emphasized.To do anything less will make it LESS likely that the sinner can be saved.
    2. It is incumbentand commended for the Church Militant to demonstrate and example the abhorrence of sin.
    3. It gives glory to God that He alone provides forgiveness and blood-coverage. The strange fire of acting in persona Christi without conforming to apostolic authority is, bluntly, terrifyingly blasphemous.
    4. Feel-good-ism is of the devil.

  59. Heh, neither of the meanings I’d like to link to have anything to do with any Church. I just wanted to illustrate the difference between theory (especially idealistic, romantic understanding of it) and practice (which almost never lives up to expectations).

  60. jf12:
    No: the masculine response to dealing with bad women is to ignore them. The mangina/male feminist/Game response is lower yourself to their levels.

    Your second post has nothing to do with anything I said.

  61. Exfernal:
    In ‘actual practice’ as you call it: feminists have taught women to dominate and control men. Bad-boys are not ‘alphas’ they’re weaklings who wouldn’t last a week without female enablement. Women’s natural inclinations are not to be dominant: Game teaches men to be submissive to feminist dominance by lowering their value as men.

  62. Sfcton:
    I read the link—“Bad boys give off a confident persona and women are attracted to men who would ‘commit violence on her behalf”??? WTF????

    Women are naturally attracted to men capable of protecting them: but bad-boys are ANYTHING but confident, or protective. And any woman who wants a man who’d commit random violence for her is psychotic.

  63. @Eric, the woman transgresses when deceived, and she is condemned to death for so doing (Genesis 3, 1 Timothy 2). Her being deceived is so far from being an *excuse*, from being a *covering* for her sin, that it is counted as the sin: that she allowed herself to be deceived was her sin. That was her specific fault.

  64. I’ll throw the question out again since no Gamers want to answer it:

    If most women are behaving badly today—how does Game empower men by teaching men to lower themselves to acomodate that level of behavior and reward such women with sex?

  65. And a follow-up question for Churchian Gamers:

    Where does the Bible speak approvingly of ‘Dread Game’ or ‘Dark Triad’ PUA tactics?

  66. Women trying to make men do their bidding are hardly a feminist invention. I see it rather as their ‘natural’ tendency. Eric, either you are not honest here, or you have led a very sheltered life. Either way, no point to arguing with you.

  67. A free ‘Game’ lesson: In Japanese language, the term for a mate-poaching woman is ‘thieving cat’. What does that tell you? A supposedly very patriarchal culture and ‘thieving cat’? Did men invent and perpetuate this expression? Or women? First, ‘cat’ refers to female whimsical nature. And ‘thieving’ refers to the opinion that once married, she owns your ass. What is another term for this kind of arrangement? A marriage to a woman with that attitude is doomed from the start. It’s your job to make that clear to her.

    Another dot to connect: Things that come easy to you are not valued. If you relentlessly pursuit her and only her, where does that put you in her mind? I don’t have the time nor patience to convince you of things that my own father neglected to tell me.

  68. And by doomed I mean that she will make you miserable, then proceed to dump your ass for being miserable. I’m not surprised she would – who wants to be around miserable people anyway?

  69. @Erica, re: point: my point clearly is that it wasn’t men that caused women to sin. Women’s faults are women’s fault. Period. Pretending to misunderstand something so clear is girly.

    re: Game question answer. Most men, being naturally nice guys, need external permission to feel empowered enough to act badly enough towards women. Game rewards women with the bad behavior they crave, and the women pay the men (for exerting themselves to be bad) with sex. It has been answered repeatedly to you specifically over a period of years and years, looking back through manosphere archives. The fact that you keep asking it means that you recognize that the actual solution has already been given, but just like a girl you think that re-asking again communicates to us the unsatisfactoriness of the answer and that we should think your dissatisfaction is somehow germane to the truth.

    re: Church answer. I’m not one to defend the morality of Game. In fact, I insist that the immorality is key to its success.

  70. once again eric your position if from that of a total beta supplicant male. perhaps you are a troll or a woman…. which are pretty much trolls around these parts

    game is about giving men the tools to successfully navigate the current smp/ mmp. It’s about his reward and not about women.

    The Bible doesn’t say using a gun or a hammer is good or bad. They are all simply tools. How you use the tool dictates morality. I will also say I followed the church script and the results were all bad. I’ll not repeat that mistake again

  71. Eric, or perhaps Erica:
    “No matter how hard you try you won’t change women.”
    This is why both feminism and Game fail. Both teach women to go against their natures.

    Non sequitur. You are ignorant of Game.

    “Which natural inclinations are you referring to?”
    The ones typically associated with feminine virtues—which have been present since recorded history began.

    Oh. So greed, envy, anger, jealousy, fear, etc. are not natural to women?
    But they are natural inclinations of men, right?

    “Putting women on a pedestal doesn’t work.”
    Another reason why Game fails. Gamers pedestalize women like no others; although they take the worst examples of feminist cultural programming in women and pedestalize THAT. Game doesn’t teach men (or women) anything about femininity: it simply takes feminism as a natural female attitude and teaches men to bend their own characters to accommodate it.

    No. You are the one putting women on a pedestal by claiming that virtues are natural to women, and once again you display your ignorance of Game. Women don’t understand Game, but then neither do very immature young men. So you could be at the level of a 14 year old young man, or you could be a woman, but you tend to ignore things that you are told in order to maintain your butthurt “Waaaaah!” frame.

    So it is not possible to have an adult discussion with you.

  72. Eric(a)
    Where does the Bible speak approvingly of ‘Dread Game’ or ‘Dark Triad’ PUA tactics?

    What does the Bible teach regarding women and men, Eric(a)?

  73. :
    Men sinned too, so what’s your point?

    Oh, ok, Men Did That Too, a classic female rejoinder to any criticism of women.
    Eric(a), you are pretty much a waste of time.

  74. jf12 to Eric(a)
    It has been answered repeatedly to you specifically over a period of years and years, looking back through manosphere archives. The fact that you keep asking it means that you recognize that the actual solution has already been given, but just like a girl you think that re-asking again communicates to us the unsatisfactoriness of the answer and that we should think your dissatisfaction is somehow germane to the truth.

    This reminds me of the “Jennifer” poster who used to troll Spearhead and a few other sites. Her complaint was against Game from time to time, and also to denounce those men who spanked their wives. Her need was pretty obvious. Eric(a) looks similar, in need of tingles and fishing for them on various sites.

  75. So far all you Gamecocks are proving is that you’re a collection of male feminists. No wonder you learn ‘techniques’ for scoring with women—you’re the same bunch of Omega losers and Beta chumps you’re projecting onto everybody else.

    But that’s to be expected since according to the dipshit Rollo Tommassi ‘90% of men are beta chumps.’ Yeah, that’s a real pro-male attitude.

    The point is—none of you Gamers WANT better women. Just like feminists, you have a vested interest in keeping the ‘gender wars’ going. And it’s because—again just like male feminists—you couldn’t compete in a culture where men are actually valued.

  76. AR

    I haven’t read the comments today, so I’m behind by 40 or so. Moving from the bottom up I found this:

    I have zero opinion about whatever Eric has written because I haven’t even read it. Hence, its important you take this comment as outside the fray. No dog in the specific fight at all.

    Non sequitur. You are ignorant of Game.

    You are not really going to use that are you? You are too intelligent to do this. We have differences but i can read your comments and see weight even in points I disagree with, but the above is precisely why I don’t do game discussions. This is something a university colleague would say in the wee hours, minds altered by various, in defense of the rambling global governance template he’s just expounded and one of us challenged. Its ironic you call out a non sequitur and use that remark as the exclamation mark. While not a non sequitor, its a non-anything-of-substance.

    One may be ignorant of game, someone. But at the level of discourse that exists when someone who frequents a certain grouping of blogs for years takes issue with game, you simply have to do better than say what amounts to ‘if you just were able to grasp the thing, you’d agree with the thing’s efficacy”.

    Come on man. You have better than that. It throws manure on whatever compelling arguments you may have made (I will read through tomorrow).

  77. Just a cursory reading, not slowly not every comment. It looks like the issue is that Eric is making a value judgement of game that is unpalatable to some. That is even more awkward to refute with “you don’t understand it”.

    This means someone can say that the reason I find their behavior objectionable is not valid, its really that if I actually understood it Id see its virtue?

    Note, Ive said nothing whatsoever about game. Nothing about its existence as something real and efficacious, nothing of a value judgement nature, nothing equivocating on an aspect of it, no denial of it nor suggested modification of it, etc. Any thinking that “Empath doesn’t understand it either” is proof I’m on to something.

    Its exactly the reason I do not even bother to discuss game, to ask questions, to show interest, to run hypothetical tests in my mind, nothing….because it devolves to this ever elusiveness.

    In math , understanding game would be called an asymptote. Some defend their faith with this device. Its ineffective unless you are engaged with someone who is, in the non-insulting sense of the word, totally ignorant.

  78. Would ‘use of deception in male-female interactions’ be more palatable than ‘Game’? Appeals to some Golden Age that never was, when female nature was different than now, are to me at the same level of ‘unpalatable’.

  79. Would ‘impression management’ be more palatable? Now I am supposed to make some clever analogy to makeup of women and foam shoulder pads in corporate execs’ suits, but I’m tired already of hopping back and forth across the language barrier. OK, I’ll try: makeup signals ‘available’, while ‘Game’ signals ‘imposing’.

  80. Empath
    You are not really going to use that are you? You are too intelligent to do this. We have differences but i can read your comments and see weight even in points I disagree with, but the above is precisely why I don’t do game discussions. This is something a university colleague would say in the wee hours, minds altered by various, in defense of the rambling global governance template he’s just expounded and one of us challenged. Its ironic you call out a non sequitur and use that remark as the exclamation mark. While not a non sequitor, its a non-anything-of-substance.

    Yes, I’m going to use that because it fits. Suppose that we were discussing how to train a dog, and Eric(a) popped in babbling that there’s no way to train dogs you just appeal to their better nature and find a good one and anyone who attempts to train a dog is just rewarding bad dogs for being bad and dog trainers are servants of Satan.

    My reply would be: “Non sequitur. You are ignorant of dog training”.
    That reply would be a true statement. First sentence: the rant does not follow from the subject at hand. Second sentence: true by demonstration.

    Eric(a) has been running this same rant on multiple blogs for multiple years, as jf12 pointed out. Eric(a) does not present any logical objections to Game, but only emotional tirades, passive-aggressive snark, and a deliberate pose of utter ignorance. He/she is memoryless – what is patiently explained today is absolutely forgotten tomorrow, or even an hour hence.

    Eric(a) does not actually make any moral objections, nor any sensible objections, to Game. Rather Eric(a) spouts collections of words apparently gathered from other individuals here and there, that are trotted out solely for emotional reaction. There’s more than a little of the rule-based AI ‘bot in Erica’s postings, although I do not argue that he/she/it is another Serdar Argic.

    We can roll around in the weeds about whether Game is “good” or not, but insisting on the one hand that it doesn’t’ exist at all, while on the other hand insisting that it’s doubleplussungood, while on the gripping hand insisting that it doesn’t work – this is not a logical or coherent position, this is just empty-headed gainsaying on a par with a dorm-room imitation of The Argument Sketch. And I’m weary of it, frankly, because as jf12 reminded all of us, this has been Eric(a)’s shtick for some years now.

    He/she/it tends to degrade any comment stream to some low level alt.flame thread. Waste of time.

  81. Emapth
    Just a cursory reading, not slowly not every comment.

    That can lead to an error or two.

    It looks like the issue is that Eric is making a value judgement of game that is unpalatable to some.

    That’s part of the shtick, but if you look closer over a period of time it is a mix of moralizing, strawman fallacy, ad hominem fallacy, refusal to ever concede any point, redefinition of terms, and so forth. It is, therefore, an attempt to troll a comment stream.

    That is even more awkward to refute with “you don’t understand it”.

    I can discuss any number of topics with people. But someone who refuses to acknowledge science, who refuses to answer basic questions such as “What does the Bible teach about men and women”, who refuses to acknowledge today something that was stated yesterday, that person is not actually debating or discussing anything. That person isn’t acting in good faith.

    That person is just attempting to jam the signal, to shut down discussion, to turn every thread focus to themselves. This is what Eric(a) is doing here, and has done at other sites.

  82. Empath
    In math , understanding game would be called an asymptote.

    Maybe. I’ll have to think about that. Another way to describe Game would be a local minima in a 3-D manifold, with other local minimas and even a global minima possible. So in the state space of the manifold we’d be discussing which minima is stable vs. which minima is unstable, whether the global minima exists or not, whether every process can traverse the space to reach a minima or not (some processes may be too energetic and thus might shoot into and back out of a minima).

    The point of the discussion would be how to achieve a stable state. Not an endless, pointless argument over whether the state space exists, whether momentum exists, whether a local minima is “more moral” than another local minima, the inherent immorality of attempting to control any system within any state space, whether using feedback and an error term is “moral” or not, and so forth. That’s what some people do, you know. They just want to disrupt any discussion of the actual problem, to jam anyone attempting to communicate on the issue.

    Some defend their faith with this device. Its ineffective unless you are engaged with someone who is, in the non-insulting sense of the word, totally ignorant.

    It’s ineffective to attempt communication with people who have no interest in communicating. It’s pointless to send a signal to a jammer, because the jammer receives nothing, its sole function is to occupy a part of the signal spectrum and deny use of that spectrum to others.

  83. AR I wrote my math analogy incorrectly.

    I do not mean that game and understanding game is like an asymptote, where one never gets there. Though that’s what my words say. I meant to say that game champions would have that it be an asymptote that they and they alone found a way to reach the end point. They (you) have found something to plug into the asymptotic equation that makes it hit the number it is approaching. Maybe you guys also have had coffee with Laplace’s demon. But it doesn’t change my point’s validity. Nor does it mitigate my surprise that you actually said that.

    Your other remark about communication and frustrations that arise, that is a valid point, one that can be debated but its not esoteric. Im not saying this about Eric, just that your point has function. It can be laid out and examined. “You don’t understand game” cannot. Its fallacious used as such, and lacking another word I have to say its childish….or child like…..not in the smarmy way as if Im denigrating folks reading level or something……ok….its pedestrian, thats the right word. If used at me…..and it has been a lot….i could write the same communication frustrations about the dialog because its not communication, its not helpful, it may or may not be true, but frankly……whether I understand, or I should say whether or not I really UNDERSTAND it, even if I clearly do not grasp some aspect, some nuance, whatever, are you telling me game is like immigration reform? There is a comprehensive version…..or the task is impossible. The whole stance is weak. I can make a value judgement about game based on a single fact, because thats the fact Im not liking. To tell me that more understanding will make me reverse my judgement on that single fact or aspect is just silly. The whole thing makes men look silly. Not game…..the nature of the debate about it.

  84. It is, therefore, an attempt to troll a comment stream.

    My point isnt tit for tat, or “so are you”, when I say that the esoteric arguments about game are maybe one of the most perfect examples of trolling that exist. One can hide ion plain site because its the folks who are NOT trolling who are the outsiders. Not referring to my blog or this thread. Any quasi gamish big blog where the locals start that crap about understanding is a flipping troll convention.

  85. I’d like to point this out that I commented about the understanding of ‘natural’ [adjective], after Eric began waxing romantic about some mythical ‘real women’ who ‘naturally’ fall into whatever role they are supposed to play in your life. Nothing with ‘Game’ whatsoever.

  86. Here’s a statement of Eric’s I can heartily “Amen!”: “What today’s men really lack are better women”

    But Erica’s head-in-sand refuses to acknowledge that it by better women every man means women who would respond more properly to being treated good, morally, hsubandly, nicely, etc. And that is what we lack. Men being better is not the solution to this problem of un-better women.

  87. Your other remark about communication and frustrations that arise, that is a valid point, one that can be debated but its not esoteric. Im not saying this about Eric, just that your point has function. It can be laid out and examined. “You don’t understand game” cannot. Its fallacious used as such, and lacking another word I have to say its childish….or child like…..not in the smarmy way as if Im denigrating folks reading level or something……ok….its pedestrian, thats the right word. If used at me…..and it has been a lot….i could write the same communication frustrations about the dialog because its not communication, its not helpful, it may or may not be true, but frankly……whether I understand, or I should say whether or not I really UNDERSTAND it, even if I clearly do not grasp some aspect, some nuance, whatever, are you telling me game is like immigration reform?

    Analogy:
    Suppose that you and I are playing Chess. Someone comes along and starts asking questions like “Where’s your marshall? Are you out of bombs? Why can’t I see your flag?”. What’s the best answer? One simple one is this: This is chess. You are ignorant about this game. Why is that a fallacy? Attempting to apply the rules of Stratego to the game of Chess indicates ignorance of the rules of Chess. It is a factual statement that someone who clearly does not know the rules of Chess is, therefore, ignorant of the game of chess.

    Eric(a):
    Similarly, asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over….while refusing to pay any attention whatsoever to the answers, indicates that the questioner is not interested in learning about the topic. Someone who is not interested in learning about the topic is ignorant, obviously, because they refuse to learn. To state that the questioner is ignorant, therfore, is a statement of fact. It is like stating that a toddler is ignorant of calculus – it’s true by inspection.

    So I don’t understand why a statement of fact directed at Eric(a), “you are ignorant of Game”, arouses you in this manner. But I’m willing to try to understand.

  88. It is, therefore, an attempt to troll a comment stream.

    My point isnt tit for tat, or “so are you”, when I say that the esoteric arguments about game are maybe one of the most perfect examples of trolling that exist. One can hide ion plain site because its the folks who are NOT trolling who are the outsiders.

    But Eric(a) does not engage in esoteric arguments. Eric(a) asks questions and ignores the answers. Eric(a) asserts that the premises of Game are false but refuses to offer any alternate explanations for human behavior. Eric(a) uses Bible quotes not to support any argument, or to illuminate any point, but as a club to beat men up with.

    Eric(a) has been on mulitiple androsphere blogs with the same fallacies for a few years now. If Eric(a) was actually interacting in good faith, then he/she/it would by now at least have something useful to say. I don’t see anything useful. I see provocative statements made in an attempt to evoke an emotional reply that focuses attention on the individual making the statements.

    That’s not called “debate”, or “discussion”, or “conversation”.

    That’s called “trolling for flames”, as you should be fully aware.

    It is a way to jam communications in newsgroups or on websites. Eric(a) is a jammer, not a communicator.

  89. Empath on math analogy:
    I meant to say that SOME game champions would have that it be an asymptote that they and they alone found a way to reach the end point.

    Fixed it for you.

  90. Im not the least bit exercised about Eris and what he has or hasnt written in this thread. You may be exactly right AR, he may be doing all that as you describe. I dont know and dont care. I fvdo care about men ostensibly conversing about something, anything, and the “you just dont get it” trick being used. I dont really even care about that, very much. You can say it as much as you like, here and elsewhere. its not something Id remember should we sopmeday ever occupy the same space and meet in person, for example. Thats more less just an offshoot to my game apathy, which even though I do not and cannot grasp that which is known as game, aloof and apathetic seems like they both have nooks in the game tool box so maybe Im the opposite. I DO understand game, I just dont realize it.

  91. Empath:
    This is the level of argument Gamers always fall back on, and I’ve seen them a lot. You can’t expect anything more. Game is a religion to them—they don’t need to explain it, it’s simply what IS.

    Pro-Game arguments boil down to this:

    “Game works. Believe it or be a clueless Beta and be damned.”

  92. AR:
    Before you throw out the ‘troll’ accusation remember that YOU were the one who interjected your silly Gamecock theories into this thread to start with.

    I keep asking the same questions over and over because you Gamers keep dodging them. What you’re all trying desperately not to admit is that feminine nature CAN change—for the better. It’s because Game has to rely on feminism to work that you claim that women are irredeemably bad.

  93. jf12:
    “men being better is not the solution to un-better women.”

    Men being better would cause them to ignore bad women and reward better women for being better. The example would teach bad women that being that way doesn’t pay.

  94. i would say manson having 4 kids and marrying a 26 year old at 80 proves so called better men will not inspire women to become better

  95. PS game doesn’t rely on feminism to work. Being a PUA might require feiminms but all girls have a tingle factory and game goes right to that factory

  96. “Men being better would cause” nothing. Women do not react to men’s goodness, to men’s niceness, to men’s moralness,etc. Men being better would simply cause more nothing from women.

    “The example would teach bad women” nothing. Not just bad women either; women are completely unteachable by good men. This is the problem.

  97. I have seen this before. The usual answer would be “Men becoming better at being men” ought to make somehow the difference, but it was never clarified how, AFAIK. Well, is it possible that ‘being better at being men’ means the same as ‘being worse as people’? I don’t advocate that, personally.

  98. The pore pore women. How awful all the other menz must be!, that these here pore pore womynz were forced to have all these here babies by this bad man!

  99. sfcton:
    I’d say that if you look at the Tate-LaBianca Murders, it disproves your thesis that women want men who’d commit violence for them. Manson was so much of wussy he had to have his female groupies carry out his crimes for him.

    And Game DOES rely on feminism. Take away the component of male/female power struggles and neither Game nor Feminism has any purpose.

  100. jf12:
    You’re completely missing the point. Better men should keep themselves for better women. By rewarding the good women with good men, it incentivizes the bad women to copy their more successful sisters.

    I do agree with you that good men don’t change bad women; but bad women will follow the example of good women if good women are rewarded. I’m not arguing the femiservative position that ‘bad men make bad women.; But what bad men actually do is reinforce the negative stereotypes of men promulgated by femihag culture. PUAs and Gamers play right into that.

  101. Eric, your repetition of demostrable falsehoods makes you that much more of a liar and servant of Satan. The topic of discussion is women deliberately choosing bad men over good men. The good men are utterly and completely blameless. You lose, but you cannot drag me down with you.

  102. jf12:
    What falsehoods are you talking about? That women who value men choose good men? Women who don’t value men choose scum.

    “The good men are utterly and completely blameless”: yes I agree with that.

  103. @Eric, re: “yes I agree with that.”

    I’ll hold you to it. Every time, and there will be many, in the near future that you will write “It must be the good men’s fault for not being even better.”, you’ll remember this.

  104. jf12:
    I’ve never said anything like that. I oppose Game because it teaches exactly what you said: “It’s the man’s fault for not being even better (or more ‘alpha)”.

  105. I will reword 1f12’s position for you, Eric, for the last time. Female choice presents ‘good men’ a choice of their own: either be good monks (contrary to their natures as men), or act contrary to their personalities.

  106. the only that will improve women’s behavior is the pimp hand

    manson didn’t need to do the dirty deed himself. That hardly makes him a coward. If so every officer and police chief would be a coward ( most are for other reasons but not this)

    men had Game or mojo or whatever the hell you want to call it way before feminism. Some men have always done better with women then others. That is game

    at every step of the way you show you understand nothing.

  107. OK I will bite.

    This last point, about good men not not changing bad women, and that good women, jf12 said it another way…”women who value men” ….choose good men…..is incomplete….by a lot. It is kind of obvious, a “Duh” type statement. And it has little to do with value judgement of game, or the efficacy of game. Those are usually the two macro categories of discord.

    I cannot confirm of deny the efficacy of game. The information/facts one would collate for determining efficacy is erratic. Add to that each man’s sort of psych evaluation of women based on his own and his shared (between men) experiences and whether the idea of game passes his mental smell test.

    The easy part for me is yes, it passes the mental smell test as efficacious. It fits like a glove. It unfolds daily before our eyes. Or does it? Could something else be happening, and game is, rather than a proactive foot forward programmatic, is it a recounting of what has occurred and been observed, put forth in linear code like some kind of app because that’s the way most men’s minds tend to work? If the latter, then the game debate can be addressed with a silly loose analogy that was used in the film Gods Not Dead. The protagonist said, “That’s like me saying Spam is the best food there is because at no other time has there ever been a better food than Spam”. Or the true but simplistic “Christians cannot prove God exists, but His existence cannot be disproved either. Objects of circular reasoning are faith based. Surely AR would agree that there is not empirical evidence so overwhelming as to make game efficacy a throw down certainty.

    One of the most important weaknesses is the tendency to swerve into defining, hair splitting tedium. At least there isn’t an “Austrian School” type historical reference point, and the associated quotations from ancient philosophers with names like “Obscurious” trumped only by the rare scroll known as “Evenium Mora Obscurium” , or reading game discourse would be fall under the choice….Today I will…….Root Canal? Game debate? Hmmmmmm. A anecdotal funny observation Ive noted is that there is a correlation between guys with the biggest, er, Game, are the same guys who seemed to have spent a significant portion of their live’s in the library stacks reading ancient texts. How does that happen?

    The reason it passes the smell test is that it explains female behavior at a macro level. Its about proclivity. that’s why I disagree with the women who value men choose good men, as an absolute. Its relative. There is movement between the groups as named here, good women and bad women, over time. ALL women have a proclivity as do men. From there its a daily choice to do the right thing. This is soundly Biblical and a far less rigid explanation of behavior in terms of its outcome predictability. “Why do I fail to do what I should, why do I do what I should not?” Paul asked that. Men and women face that based on proclivities.

    As to evidence, the jury is at best hung. Some of the magnates of Game online have been exposed as frauds, some have been shown to have an occupied bed nightly. But none have really shown, because it is not possible to show, that a man, game or no game, is A or B in terms of success (lack better word). In general terms my personal anecdote is one that leans massively away from game being the clincher. I have mentioned the specifics before. I dislike the story, but its my story.

    Finally, why does anyone really care? It seems to me that something to get exercised about, more so anyway, is getting agreement that women are prone to sin , sexual sin, as men are, and the drivers to it are slightly different than men’s. The drivers are more subtle and less likely to be admonished like men because men use porn and all manner of evil while women can sleep serially with many men but they have “been deceived” and such. This is something that can be agreed, and though not fixed…..awareness can be spread.

  108. lol I would not try to define Game myself Empath. Way to many variables.Then natural vs learned and… but there is nothing new under the sun so there is no way game is new. New term, new words etc but not new to our generation or 2014

  109. re: definition

    I don’t mind the potential for failing, so I’ll give it a shot. Game is veiled pimp hand. What personalizes it is the degree of and styles of veiling.

  110. Defining is the wrong term. Its more like refining the discussion. It is usually just peacocking, which i guess is the guy doing that refining just running game on the men in the discussion

  111. Surely AR would agree that there is not empirical evidence so overwhelming as to make game efficacy a throw down certainty.

    AR would say this: given a choice between believing what I have seen, heard, and experienced in my own life, with my own eyes and ears, or taking Eric(a)’s whining as the utter, unquestionable, perpettual truth, I shall have to go with my lying eyes. Regretfully.

    Pay attention to Eric(a)’s replies to me. I requested him/her/them/it to tell me what the Bible says about men and women? Reply? More trolling for flames. That alone tells me all I need to know about him/her/them/it i.e. the purpose is to jam, to obstruct, not to communicate. Eric(a) could be any of several entities – a frustrated adolscent male human, a conservitive feminist human, a bored human who likes to make others dance around answering the same questions over and over, not to mention some other options.

    But what Eric(a) is not is: a human sincerely attempting to learn something. That has been amply demonstrated in this thread alone.

    Here is but one exhibit:

    Eric(a)
    I keep asking the same questions over and over because you Gamers keep dodging them.

    Right here he/she/they/it self-convict. Because blunt, clear answers have been given to Eric(a)’s quesitons time after time after time, on mulitple web sites. This statement is false, it is demonstrably false, and therefore Eric(a) is telling us little porky-pie lies.

    What you’re all trying desperately not to admit is that feminine nature CAN change—for the better. It’s because Game has to rely on feminism to work that you claim that women are irredeemably bad.

    Two strawman arguments for the price of one, and further confirmation that Erica is female.

    The important concepts I wish to stress:

    Game scares a lot of people, mostly women but some men, for a variety of reasons.

    Some people don’t want to communicate about Game, they want to stop the rest of us from doing so.

    Or to put it another way, any time men are discussing the behavior of women, it is all but certain that a woman will show up and try to put a stop to it, because of the herd behavior of “team woman” that is likely genetic in origin.

  112. Empath
    Finally, why does anyone really care?

    For the obvious reason that if a body of knowledge exists that may enable a man to better manage the woman in his life, then to endlessly try to jam discussions of that knowledge is clearly a deliberate attempt to keep men ignorant. Up thread jf12 pointed out the 1991 paper by Gottman that documented the physical harm caused to men by women expressing their contempt. Spiking cortisol over and over again with no letup in sight is a good way to raise blood pressure over 120 / 80 with all the known harm caused such as stroke, heart attack, kidney damage, and so forth. It’s not opinion, no matter what jammers like Erica(a) may claim, it’s medical science. Stoking up the fight/freeze/flight response over and over for a couple of decades with no end in sight is harmful.

    Any technique that could enable a man to deal with that contempt is worth teaching.
    Yes, it would be grand if women in question could learn to control themselves, but a man cannot expect that to happen. What can he do? He can deal with himself, of course.

    The first thing a man can do is change the way he reacts to contempt. The second thing a man can do is manage the woman such that she is less likely to express contempt. One way to do that is Game.

    Therefore, to continually jam any discussion of Game is to deliberately keep men from this knowledge. Keeping men from this knowledge indirectly cases harm to men.

    Therefor, Eric(a) and other jammers want men to suffer more, physically, here and right now, for years to come. They don’t want men to succeed, they want men to fail.

    That is why it is worth getting exercised about. What jammers like Eric(a) do is the same as telling pre-diabetics “Don’t cut back on sugar, that’s just a myth!”, it is deliberately jamming communications about real, physical harm that could be avoided.

    That is why it is worth getting exercised about. Because basic male/female leadership techniques work to some degree, where all the other options fail.

    It seems to me that something to get exercised about, more so anyway, is getting agreement that women are prone to sin , sexual sin, as men are, and the drivers to it are slightly different than men’s.

    I agree with this. However, once two or more men agree on this, what next? What action can be taken on the basis of that knowledge? What use can be made of this fact?

    For a start, those who agree on that could also agree that men and women have different psychology and respond to certain stimuli in a different way. Oh, no, that’s a premise of Game! Run away, run away!

  113. Eric(a)
    You’re completely missing the point. Better men should keep themselves for better women. By rewarding the good women with good men, it incentivizes the bad women to copy their more successful sisters.

    What do you suggest that a married man do when his wife has become more and more in rebellion, eh?

    I predict that Eric(a) won’t answer this simple question, but rather will continue trolling for flames. Because Eric(a) is a jammer, an account whose sole purpose is to disrupt communication.

  114. AR:
    What are you, retarded or something? I’ve been here for nearly two years.

    Ho-hum…now for the ‘birds and bees’ lesson of the day:

    “What do you suggest a married man do when his wife has become more and more in rebellion, eh?”

    Ummm…probably determine why she’s ‘more and more in rebellion’ and work from there. See, that’s why it’s called a ‘relationship’, Dum-Dum. It takes two people to make one work.

    “Those who agree on that could agree that men and women have a different psychology.”

    Duh…what a revelation!

    “But that’s a basic premise of Game.”

    No, it isn’t, you moron. Game, like Feminism, teaches that men and women have the SAME psychology and even their opinions on male psychology are radically flawed.

  115. jf12:
    “Game is veiled pimp hand.”

    So, according to Game, the Pimp is the archetype men should all aspire to.

    Yeah…really empowering to men…

  116. Erica
    AR:
    What are you, retarded or something? I’ve been here for nearly two years.

    Yes, I’m aware of how long you’ve been trying to jam this and other channels of discourse.

    Ho-hum…now for the ‘birds and bees’ lesson of the day:
    “What do you suggest a married man do when his wife has become more and more in rebellion, eh?”
    Ummm…probably determine why she’s ‘more and more in rebellion’ and work from there.

    Ok.How should one go about doing that? Be specific. Give examples of actions and behavior you have personally seen, or make something up. You’re good at making things up, so it should be easy for you.

    I predict that Eric(a) wil have no answer to this other than trolling for flames yet again.

    See, that’s why it’s called a ‘relationship’, Dum-Dum. It takes two people to make one work.

    But a woman in rebellion does not want to make anything work. That’s what “in rebelliion” means. So what does the man do all by himself? I also predict no meaningful answer to this.

    “Those who agree on that could agree that men and women have a different psychology.”

    Duh…what a revelation!

    Yet the world is full of those who deny this.

    “But that’s a basic premise of Game.”

    No, it isn’t, you moron.

    You either know nothing about Game, or you are lying. Either way your opinion is worthless and once again we see that you are just a jammer.

    Game, like Feminism, teaches that men and women have the SAME psychology and even their opinions on male psychology are radically flawed.

    Cowshit. Complete, utter cowshit. Empath, do you see my point, yet? This Eric(a) account has had Game explained to it mulitple times, and yet trots out cowshit like this.

    For any lurkers, Game is completely premised on men and women being different at the biological level. Eric(a) is either totally and wilfully ignorant or lying.

    Note also the use of childish insults such as “moron”, “dum-dum” and so forth in a passive-aggressive attempt to troll me for a flame or two. This is typical of an immature person, a category that includes many women.

  117. AR:
    May I remind you for the 3rd or 4th time, that YOU were the one who invaded this thread with Gamecock nonsense, so stop playing the victim card and start acting like a man.

    As for Game being “completely premised on men and women being different at the biological level”—another thing that most people know by the time they’re 5 years old or so— you said previously that it was at the ‘psychological level’ they are different. And so far, all you’ve told us is that the fundamental difference is that men are pimps and women are whores.

    As for not giving a specific example, you didn’t give a specific question. All you said was “How do you deal with a rebellious wife?” How can anyone with a brain take a question like that seriously? You mean to argue—like your gurus Dalrock, Vox, and Tomassi always do—that women are expendable? How does that make you any different from a femihag who argues that men need to be controlled?

    See, grown-ups realize that people have to co-operate in relationships. You don’t, so don’t throw out the ‘immature’ canard until you stop arguing like a 12 y/o boy who’s just read his first edition of ‘Playboy’ and thinks that makes him a relationship expert.

  118. jf12:
    Wives are rebellious for two reasons:

    1. They’ve been educated by feminists and gamers to believe that they are supposed to compete with men; or

    2. They are dissatisfied in someway with the relationship and are acting out their frustrations.

    In the first case, there isn’t much a man can do except leave; unless he has the patience to prove those theories wrong and convince her that it’s OK to be a woman. In the second, find the source of her dissatisfaction and fix it.

  119. Eric(a)
    AR:
    May I remind you for the 3rd or 4th time, that YOU were the one who invaded this thread with Gamecock nonsense,

    Could be true. So what?

    so stop playing the victim card and start acting like a man.

    Dearie, arguing with logic is what I do, and do far better than you. It’s part of being a man.

    As for Game being “completely premised on men and women being different at the biological level”—another thing that most people know by the time they’re 5 years old or so—
    you said previously that it was at the ‘psychological level’ they are different.

    Yawn. Psychology is in part driven by biology. Your quibble is pathetic.

    And so far, all you’ve told us is that the fundamental difference is that men are pimps and women are whores.

    No, you are once again making things up and pretending that I claimed them. This is the strawman logical fallacy. Logical fallacies don’t prove anything.

    As for not giving a specific example, you didn’t give a specific question. All you said was “How do you deal with a rebellious wife?”

    That is a specific question. Do you often refute your own lies immediately after lying?

    How can anyone with a brain take a question like that seriously?

    A man who knows something about women would take it seriously.

    You mean to argue—like your gurus Dalrock, Vox, and Tomassi always do—that women are expendable?

    Strawman fallacy, again.

    How does that make you any different from a femihag who argues that men need to be controlled?

    Another fallacy, probably false equivalence. But really, you’re just getting hysterical.

    See, grown-ups realize that people have to co-operate in relationships.

    Is that what your Bible says? Why is it that you like to play the Christian card until someone challenges you to actually quote the book, and then you run away, hmm?

    You don’t, so don’t throw out the ‘immature’ canard until you stop arguing like a 12 y/o boy who’s just read his first edition of ‘Playboy’ and thinks that makes him a relationship expert.

    Let’s see, fake claim of mindreading, another ad hominem…and approaching hysteria.
    Eric(a), you need to get a grip on yourself. Thre are better ways to get attention from men than this “pull your dress over your head and screech” approach, you know.

  120. Eric(a)
    jf12:
    Wives are rebellious for two reasons:

    Well, an answer. That’s interesting.

    1. They’ve been educated by feminists and gamers to believe that they are supposed to compete with men; or

    2. They are dissatisfied in someway with the relationship and are acting out their frustrations.

    That’s it? More confirmation that Eric(a) is female. No mention of, for example, women who enjoy starting fights because they can profit from the results, or women who feel they must control a man and therefore resist any leadership from him, or women who have physical problems (hormone imbalance, for example), or women who develop Bi-Polar disorder, or women who are actually very narcissistic but hide it well…

    In a Bible term, Eric(a) is saying that women do not ever sin. More confirmation of Eric(a)’s sex.

    In the first case, there isn’t much a man can do except leave; unless he has the patience to prove those theories wrong and convince her that it’s OK to be a woman. In the second, find the source of her dissatisfaction and fix it.

    And again we see Eric(a)’s gynocentric point of view. In one posting she claims that people ahve to work together, but when it comes to fixing a woman’s rebellion it’s all up to the man. The woman doesn’t have to do anything.

    Interesting that Eric(a) endorses divorce, isn’t it?

    And, of course, the obligatory tard-con equaiting of Game with feminism. Anyone who has actually ever read what feminists have to say would know that they hate and fear Game, because Game makes it possible for a man to stop being manipulated by women. Feminists and trad-cons are all about women controlling men – for their own good, of course.

    PS: Eric(a) is either ignorant of what Game is, or lying about it. And she’s here to jam the conversation, not to participate in any sort of dialog.

  121. AR:
    No, I’m not female. Perfect confirmation that Game teaches you nothing; since you obviously can’t even distinguish between genders.

    I’ve had to tone my responses to you, since I’m obviously talking to a MINOR, I don’t want to run afoul of the usage terms. But some more advice from an elder:

    “When it comes to fixing a woman’s rebellion, it’s all up to the man!!!!”

    Ummm…yeah. You see, AR, when mommies and daddies get married, they pledge to support one another. A rebellious man (I know Gamecocks don’t believe in such things, but such men do exist), of course, is up to the woman to fix.

    See, boys and girls have to do certain things together. Otherwise, they couldn’t make babies, or have families…you know, grown-up things. I’m sure you’ll understand all this once you get through puberty.

    “Is that what your Bible says???????”

    Yes, in lots of places. The Bible talks a lot about loving and supporting one another. ‘Pimp hands’ and ‘Dread Game’—-not so much.

  122. Eric(a)
    AR:
    No, I’m not female. Perfect confirmation that Game teaches you nothing; since you obviously can’t even distinguish between genders.

    Your mere assertion proves nothing, given your emotion-driven, feminine writing style.

    I’ve had to tone my responses to you, since I’m obviously talking to a MINOR, I don’t want to run afoul of the usage terms.

    By all means stop holding back. Jack up the insults, namecalling and other displays of petulance all you want.

    But some more advice from an elder:
    “When it comes to fixing a woman’s rebellion, it’s all up to the man!!!!”

    Yes, that is your position, Eric(a).

    Ummm…yeah. You see, AR, when mommies and daddies get married, they pledge to support one another.

    Here we see the standard “equalitarian” notion of marriage that modern feminists like to peddle. They like it because it leads to a female-dominated relationship. Older marriage vows were different for husband and wife; the husband vowed to cherish (love) his wife, the wife vowed to honor and obey (respect) her husband. Different vows because of different roles due to different biology (and yes, Erica, different psychology as a result).

    Meanwhile, Eric(a) has no idea how a man is to deal with a rebellious wife, for reasons that are obvious: she is a conservative feminist.

    A rebellious man (I know Gamecocks don’t believe in such things, but such men do exist), of course, is up to the woman to fix.

    No, Eric(a), wives are not to have authority over husbands, as a Bible-thumper like yourself should be quite aware. Except, of course, that you don’t actually ever quote that book. Probably because you cannot do so.

    See, boys and girls have to do certain things together. Otherwise, they couldn’t make babies, or have families…you know, grown-up things. I’m sure you’ll understand all this once you get through puberty.

    Yawn. Your flame-trolling in this posting is quite sub par. Try again?

    “Is that what your Bible says???????”

    Yes, in lots of places.

    Quotes, please. Book / chapter / verse. Put up or shut up. Feminists like you are big on talk, short on actually producing something. So I predict that as in the past Eric(a) will not provide any quotes from the Bible to support her egalitarian (fem-dom) marriage notion.

    The Bible talks a lot about loving and supporting one another.

    More evidence that Eric(a) hasn’t read the book. I read all of the book of Proverbs over some months. What does Proverbs say about women, Eric(a)? Not just verse 31, mind you…

    ‘Pimp hands’ and ‘Dread Game’—-not so much.

    Submission of men to women…none at all. No matter how hard feminists try to claim otherwise.

  123. Eric doesn’t have to be biologically female; most men, particularly Christain men have been so thoroughly feminized their is little to no difference in their frame.

  124. AR:
    What’s the matter? The girls in your gym class not impressed with your Game techniques? LOL

    “Here we see the standard equalitarian notion of marriage that feminists love to peddle.”

    Ummm…no. Now to explain something else grown-ups understand: there’s something called ‘gender polarity’. Feminists and Gamecocks oppose this idea, but nonetheless it exists.

    “Wives are not to have authority over their husbands {referencing a wife supporting a husband}”

    This is where you Gamers show yourselves to be complete fools. What you’re trying hard NOT to say is that a husband has unilateral rights over a wife; but a wife has none whatsoever over her husband. No wonder Churchian Game has degenerated to a lot of bullshit about ‘surrogate fathers’ like you read on Dalrock’s blog. And where does the Bible say anything about that? LOL

    “Quotes and verses please!!!!”

    ‘Husbands, likewise dwelling with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the female as the weaker vessel and as co-heirs to the grace of life…and be of one mind having compassion of one another, being lovers in the brotherhood; merciful, modest, humble, not returning evil for evil or railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing. For this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing.’ (I Pet. iii:7-8)

    ‘There is no fear in love; but a perfect love casts away fear, because fear is torment. And he who fears is not perfected in love.’ (I Jno. iv:18)

    ‘Let the husband render his duty to his wife, and the wife also to her husband. The wife has no power over her own body, but the husband. Likewise, the husband has no power of his own body, but the wife.’ (I Cor. vii: 3-4)

  125. sfcton
    Eric doesn’t have to be biologically female; most men, particularly Christain men have been so thoroughly feminized their is little to no difference in their frame.

    True. Cail Corishev suggested Eric is a teenaged boy, chronologically. There could be a 28 day cycle in postings, and that still would not confirm anything.

  126. Eric(a)
    <iUmmm…yeah. You see, AR, when mommies and daddies get married, they pledge to support one another.

    In other words, the same old lame “equalitarian” marriage that feminists like Eric(a) love to pitch. Now Eric(a) whines:

    Ummm…no. Now to explain something else grown-ups understand: there’s something called ‘gender polarity’. Feminists and Gamecocks oppose this idea, but nonetheless it exists.

    Thus we see Eric(a) once again posting self contradiction. Although to a gynocentric, man hating feminist like Eric(a) this is probably not obvious.

    Previously, Eric(a) insisted that the job of dealing with a rebellious wife (who is rebellious because the man made her that way, lol) is up to the man. Then this :

    Eric(a)
    A rebellious man (I know Gamecocks don’t believe in such things, but such men do exist), of course, is up to the woman to fix.

    We see the feminist cant at work: who is the man in rebellion against? Obviously he’s rejecting his wife’s feminist authority over him, an authority that does not exist anywhere in the Bible.

    Erica misquotes this:
    “Wives are not to have authority over their husbands {referencing a wife supporting a husband}”

    Then goes on:
    This is where you Gamers show yourselves to be complete fools. What you’re trying hard NOT to say is that a husband has unilateral rights over a wife; but a wife has none whatsoever over her husband.

    Again self contradiction. Eric(a) has peddled the standard feminist “equalitarian” line, I pointed this out, now this pathetic attempt to back track, but it fails. Eric(a)’s all about men submitting to women. Period. Because feminist.

    Note that Eric(a) failed to quote Ephesians 5, or 2nd Peter 3.

    Gosh, I wonder why….

  127. And, of course, it is important to Eric(a) to deny that men and women are different both physically and mentally, and therefore applied psychology known as Game works. Because jamming any discussion of the reality of women is very important to Eric(a).

    Because Eric(a) is a feminist.

  128. AR:
    No kidding??? Cail Gorbachev really said that? LOL

    Please send me a link—I’ve got to put this one in my scrapbook next to MackPUA and THF’s depictions LOL

  129. Eric(a)
    Perhaps I have confused a remark Corishev made about some one else with a remark about you. I’ll withdraw the assertion that Corishev made it, and I’ll state it instead: Eric(a) is either a feminized male (possibly a teen) or a female. But, hey, maybe there’s female – to – male transition going on, complete with hormones and surgical mutilation in the future, who knows? Or cares?

    In any event, Eric(a), you have nothing useful to add to any discussion. You’re just noise, as has been demonstrated mulitiple times in this comment thread.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s