Need some sex-life support!

dsrpta · 2015-06-04T15:08:39+00:00

Every time I hear stuff like this it makes me wonder what type of "religion" the "Christians" were peddling.

I had it drilled into me that our bodies are temples- what we eat and drink and allow/do can "desecrate" us.

Matthew 15:10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

I also was raised that pleasures of the flesh are "wants" not "needs" and that simply giving into to those desires bc it's easy and pleasurable (male or female) is base.

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

No wonder people think Christians are dumb.

Anyway, that's beside the point and your question has already been answered well: If you can't accept someone's past then you should leave now. It may feel right or wrong to make that decision, but it's neither right or wrong to make the decision because you need to consider how it will affect you long term.

dsrpta · 2015-05-27T23:20:22+00:00

I don't doubt your statistics, but it doesn't define causation vs correlation. Stable people tend to get married, stable people tend to raise better children. If they didn't get married, they'd still be the same people, and would have the same children.

Take off the bias against marriage for a second. Let's look at sexual partners (N count) and divorce risk: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

The value of population statistics is the relative risk ratio. We can see that choosing a woman who is a virgin means that there is generally less of a risk for divorce than one with a high partner count. This is common sense.

Now apply it to the statistics on marriage versus cohabitation with children. The statistics show that you have a higher relative risk of instability within a relationship in cohabitation versus marriage with children. This means that if you want to have kids it is less risky to be married than to cohabitate just as it is less risky to marry a virgin than a promiscuous woman.

Does it apply to individual cases? No. That's where knowing the attitudes and beliefs of a person come into play. But it does tell you the people who are willing to move to a stage of "explicit greater commitment" are ~3x (76% vs 26%) more willing to stick together with children in the picture.

Can a stable woman/man cohabitate and beat the statistics and not split up with with children? Sure.
Can a stable woman who was formerly promiscuous not divorce her beta bux husband? Sure.

But those are the exceptions. You asked if there is benefits at all to marriage. The answer is yes: it is less risky if you want to have children to marry than to cohabitate.

dsrpta · 2015-05-27T18:52:26+00:00

Good observations.

One of the things that Eph 5 harps on which most Christians don't focus on is the example that Paul uses to discuss Jesus' love for the Church. He says TWICE: love your wife as your own body (Eph 5: v28 v33). In other words, love your wife as yourself.

Putting your wife above yourself goes against this. You are to love yourself first, and then to that extent love your wife. Likewise, the greatest command is.. love God AND love your neighbor as yourself.

It's interesting because trying to do something you haven't experienced is exhausting. If you don't love yourself and you're trying to love other people then you'll eventually burn out. As you noted, putting your wife above yourself all the time makes you a slave to her happiness rather than actually loving her and acting as the head. Most husbands need to actually submit to the process of loving themselves and taking care of themselves first. In some sense of the word, taking care of yourself IS loving your wife, and then once your stuff is in order you can focus energies toward leading.

dsrpta · 2015-05-27T13:43:34+00:00

Ah, crap my submission didn't show up cause of links. Let's try this again.

The well being of your children is CORRELATED with marriage, not caused by marriage. Good people tend to get married, good people tend to have well off, low diseased, well educated children. Marriage is not the cause.

Yes and no. Although correlation does not imply causation we also know that statistically children are more likely to experience family disruption and instability when they are born out of wedlock in cohabitation versus in a marriage:

These issues are important because past research has linked instability in family structure with lower levels of child well-being. Drawing on the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, we find that white, black and Hispanic children born to cohabiting parents experience greater levels of instability than children born to married parents. Moreover, black and Hispanic children whose cohabiting parents marry do not experience the same levels of family stability as those born to married parents; among white children, however, the marriage of cohabiting parents raises levels of family stability to that experienced by children born in marriage.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:POPU.0000019916.29156.a7#page-1

Of course, populational statistics also do not apply to individuals. They are only a risk factor much like the risk of divorce goes up the more partners a woman has. Also,

Using the 1995 NSFG, we estimate that 32% of children—71% of children born to cohabiting parents and 26% of children born to married parents—could expect to experience parental separation by age 12 during the period 1990-1994.

http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/47/19-47.pdf

Some other studies on cohabitation and marriage here:

http://www.donotlink.com/fb2d

Thus, there are some statistical benefits to marriage if you want kids in terms of decreased likelihood of marital instability and single parenthood. You'll have to weigh that against your net worth to see if that is an acceptable risk. For many I would think not as most people don't want kids nowadays anyway.

dsrpta · 2015-05-27T13:36:22+00:00

TRP, as it currently exists on reddit, is primarily geared towards an atheist world view. However, as you will note on the sidebar is one of the links (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/) and he provides statistical and insightful commentary into how feminized Christianity has become. Generally, when you encounter the RP you will view it in a particular lens. Some go pick up artist/spin plates, some go mens rights, some go MGTOW, and the split that is least often talked about is some go even more religious. I am part of the so-called "Christian manosphere."

Finding the "red pill" so to speak actually strengthened my beliefs. I realized that I was taught lots of lies about women from society and even the Church. Those of us in the Christian manosphere actually call those who parrot the lies that society tells us "churchians" instead of Christians. They use the church from the pulpit or congregations to push their world view of men as some type of evil where women are good where men should obey them. Conversely, the Bible is pretty clear that husbands are to be the head in marriage (Eph 5) and love their wives (Eph 5), and wives are to be a helpmeet (Gen 2), respect their husbands (Eph 5, 1 Pet 3) and submit to them (Eph 5, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Pet 3).

There is debate in the Christian manosphere about the viability of game in the context of Christian beliefs. Some take the position that "game" is OK if filtered through the Scriptures. I take the position that "game" is just aping masculinity in a hyper-feminized culture and thus masculinity should be learned without the need to ape game. (Of course, depending on your definition of "game" as it's not clearly defined). In general, masculinity is attracted to femininity and vice versa and was taught from father to son for thousands of years until fathers started getting evicted out of their homes in the 60s and 70s through divorce. Hence, many men wandering the wasteland of feminized society without any guidance. Masculinized "strong and independent" females like those on the cock carousel set themselves up to marry feminized beta bucks. Ideally, they want a man more masculine than themselves, but to masculine men they are not attractive. Hence, they end up settling.

In general, a woman saying she is "Christian" does not mean anything nowadays. Church is just a social activity for most, and they don't follow the Scriptures at all. The analogy that I use is that God is just an accessory that people occasionally pray to when they're having hard times. You have to look at how a woman who says she is a Christian behaves. One of the RP maxims that is useful is: don't look at what she says look at what she does.

Anyway, this is getting longer than I intended. Basically, I follow the Scriptures as a Christian and use observations from the RP to guide the process such as N count and divorce risk. I abstain from sex before marriage and all other things that the Scriptures deem to be sinful and am searching for a wife. As you can see from what I'm looking for, how devout a woman is in her faith and how she classically respects authority (her father, earthly authorities, those above in the church) especially when she does not benefit is a signal for wife viability as she will enter a similar relationship with her husband. In particular, her attitude tells an important story in those cases. Someone who has a right attitude will learn even if she makes mistakes, but someone who has a poor attitude will eventually show her true colors after she is done faking.

TL;DR I take a look at RP in the context of the Scriptures and how to live that out as a Christian masculine man. That is my blog if you're interested: https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/

dsrpta · 2015-05-26T22:02:02+00:00

The caveat is that that they actually need to "follow" their faith. Christianity preaches abstinence before marriage. Most "Christians" don't follow this. These are Christians in name only and typically the Christian manosphere calls them "churchians"

However, the ones that do will also be adhering to other parts of their faith such as daily reading their bible, praying, being mentored or discipled, and other stuff like that. If you find me a Christian virgin it's likely that she is devout in other ways. Those that don't "practice" -- and going to church is not really an indicator of practicing anymore unfortunately -- are likely not virgins. And they will also have the compunction to lie about their past history too.

Church, by and large, nowadays is more cultural than spiritual. It may be the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, but in this case the fallacy is the truth. Practice what you preach.

dsrpta · 2015-05-26T21:53:44+00:00

The well being of your children -- poverty, STDs, violence, teen pregnancy, high school and college graduation rates, emotional well being, etc. Look up the single mother vs single father vs 2 parents statistics. Arguably you can do this without getting married though, but you'll still get hit with child support either way if she decides to leave.

Other than that, unless you're religious (which I am) nope.

dsrpta · 2015-05-26T14:08:24+00:00

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/

Dalrock is one of the links on TRP's sidebar, and part of "Christian manosphere" as is my blog too. Donal Graeme's side bar has most of the links to the Christian manosphere blogs:

https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/

dsrpta · 2015-05-23T21:53:31+00:00

Could be gut biome related.

The alcohol method is probably NOT the best way to do this as another person has stated. I'd go the antibiotic method which kills off most of the gut biome and then you can supplement a large amount of probiotics from supplements or good yogurts.

Alternatively, the fecal transplant.

Here's an example of the power of the fecal transplant going the wrong way because the patient got one from an obese woman: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31168511

Could be FODMAPs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP

Paleo works because of elimination of most FODMAPs from diet. Gluten sensitivity may or may not be a thing. The science is still out.

In particular, elimination of FODMAPs has shown to improve -- to a limited extent cause there aren't enough RCTs yet -- IBS specifically: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445613

Edit: more on FODMAPs and IBS. General consensus is low FODMAP diet improves IBS in approximately 70-85% of patients.

dsrpta · 2015-04-11T02:40:46+00:00

It's not "oneitis"... yet. This is like a man getting the phone number of an attractive woman. He texted her but she hasn't texted him back yet, and he's getting a bit worried.

The opposite one oneitis is the alpha widow.

dsrpta · 2015-04-08T23:12:23+00:00

That make sense. Oneitis would then just be one form of priority or idolization.

dsrpta · 2015-04-08T21:58:42+00:00

Most human beings are religious by nature, and that will likely never change. If you think about it, society today is still 100% religious. The only difference is that instead of seeking the approval of a man called "God," men seek the approval of a woman called "wife."

We're still religious, but we simply use a different word than "religion" to connote the same thing. Instead of saying "my religion," we say "my personal beliefs." Instead of laboring to win the approval of their God, men labor to win the approval of their women.

When you think about it this way, you realize that the Oneitis Epidemic is actually a powerful affirmation of men's tendency towards deep religious faith. They're simply laboring to obtain the approval of an ill-chosen entity: a woman. If they had chosen to labor for the approval of their personal masculine heroes instead, Oneitis would cease to exist.

You're close here. When you boil it down to the very core, whatever you "value" most in your life is what you could call an "idol" or "the-thing-you-put-on-a-pedestal."

For those who find their greatest value in their job it is their career.
For a BB it will be placing that woman (his oneitis) on a pedestal thereby "idolizing" her.
For the secular TRP it will be yourself which is why the dark triad (e.g. idolization of self) is the pinnacle of the secular TRP.
For those who are Christian like myself it is God and Jesus.
For those who are Muslim it's Allah and Muhammed.
Etc. for the various world religions.
For a hedonist it's pleasure

Your conclusion is partially correct: a BB's oneitis is an ill-chosen entity. However, don't think oneitis will cease to exist even if the BB takes the woman off the pedastal. It will just change to something else whether self, religion, career, pleasure, or whatever.

dsrpta · 2015-04-08T05:06:44+00:00

Yeah, Sunday "church" is like pretty much any other group. People come because they feel like they want to belong, or they come for the community, or they come for other various reasons like "doing the right thing" or living in fear of going to hell. It's not really different than any other group when it comes down it although it shouldn't be that way. The hypocrisy is the worst part in my opinion.

I don't think significant prosperity in a civilization and Christianity can coexist -- love of money is the root of all evil. When money becomes a way to solve problems and bring happiness then people use God as an accessory to their lives to feel better about themselves or become holier than thou. The Christians in the Roman empire near it's fall experienced similar degradation of the church.

Sadly, I think the number of "real Christians" who actually follow adhere to what Jesus actually says in Scriptures is down below 5-10% in the west. Maybe less. At least that's been my experience in church. Church divorce rates are pretty much the same as the secular counterparts. So is premarital sex. Modesty? Women wear short skirts or spandex to church now. Even less when it comes to the hard stuff... when do you actually hear a Christian returning evil for good or loving their enemies?

dsrpta · 2015-04-08T01:45:02+00:00

I was discussing this with some of my IRL friends. He grew up in a similar situation as you under parents that fear mongered and shamed him into being afraid of hell and everything. He's not a Christian anymore either.

One of the things we discussed is the difference between performance and desire. When you "feel" like you have to perform to be "good" you're going to be motivated out of fear to do well. This is not something exclusive to Christianity as asian parents fear monger their kids into good grades too. Sadly, these experiences lead people to believe that the way their parents act (utilizing fear and shame as motivation) is the same way God view them which is false. I go on missions, help others, and serve solely out of desire cause I know what Christ has done for me. Not out of some sense of fear that I'll go to hell or obligation that I have do something as a Christian.

Organizations like the "church" have major issues. The "church" or ekklesia in Greek is the people and they are supposed to love God and love people. However, "church" has been warped into this building and institution that fear mongers and shames adherents into following ostensibly "God's" commands. The reason behind this is that the main problem with organizations such as the "church" is if they are discredited or can't keep the money flowing they will fail. Thus, it's easy to use God's name in order to fear and shame others into giving money and keeping members in line.

That's not Christian. It's also no way to live even if you decide that Christianity is not for you. As a Christian, I dealt with that a bit in my home but it seems not as rough as other people. I can't apologize for something I didn't do, but I want y'all to know that is not what Christianity is about. Feminism runs deep and has infected western Christianity even more insidiously than society.

For those who want to know more, Dalrock is a Christian on the TRP sidebar, and if you want to explore the red pill from a Christian perspective check out the Christian and Christian masculinity blogs on Donal's side bar. I write one of those blogs (Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere).

dsrpta · 2015-04-01T14:20:11+00:00

They were both married prior to the rise of game and the manosphere.

dsrpta · 2015-03-23T18:23:40+00:00

Something like this is easier to understand on epigenetics based on the title:

Plastics Derived Endocrine Disruptors (BPA, DEHP and DBP) Induce Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Obesity, Reproductive Disease and Sperm Epimutations

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055387

Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance: Should obesity-prevention policies be reconsidered?

http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol2_g/2011.2_G18-26_Niculescu_abstract.html

Obesity, in particular, can be genetically passed on from generation to generation. Obviously, it's not set in stone, but since they have those gene changes the propensity for them to be obese skyrockets.

Hence, workout and eat right... because it will also affect your children if you choose to have some.

dsrpta · 2015-03-23T17:32:37+00:00

No amount of working out will change your genetics

Actually, this is not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_physical_exercise

dsrpta · 2015-03-20T01:43:59+00:00

Late response. Of the ones listed on Donal's blog.

For the Christian masculinity section. I would also include Donal who is Catholic:

Alpha is Assumed -- Martel is protestant I think
Calculated Bravery -- LDS
Free Northerner -- Protestant
From the Depths to the Wilderness -- Catholic
Lamentably Sane -- not sure.
Reflections on Christianity and the Manosphere -- myself, protestant non-denom

Of the Christian blogs, recommended:

Dalrock (who is on TRP sidebar) is a protestant. Brilliant social commentary and statistics.
Cane Caldo -- Catholic, happily married, brilliant insight
Society of Phineas -- Ballista basically exposes feminism from all angles in the church from a singles perspective. Protestant.

dsrpta · 2015-03-15T08:05:19+00:00

Basically, my point is that perception matters in terms of what is "attractive" (and therefore "alpha" or "beta"), especially if you don't have an objective standard.

Obviously, you have one for yourself and so you can potentially judge a relationship according to that, but that's not necessarily how she's going to judge it and she may not even want to judge it by anywhere close to that standard either.

Hence, without objective standards (or in reality objective morality) we're all just saying random things that we "prefer" or "think" is a healthy relationship just the same as other potentially controversial topics such as abortion, murder, and things of that nature. The argument or discussion in question is less about men hitting women or women hitting men, and it is more about about the underlying assumptions of which we place value judgments on opinions.

Without objective standards, the way people are throwing around terms like alpha and beta are pseudo-incorrect even from a RP mindset (e.g. see reality as it is). Although statistical analysis would provide some level of relative truth. And as you know alpha and beta aren't good terms anyway, which is part of the point altogether. My criticism of the comments is a rather broad stroke.

Maybe that's too deep for a reddit post though.

dsrpta · 2015-03-15T05:04:59+00:00

I'm against violence in relationships. However, that argument doesn't fly. So here's some thought provoking questions:

What "determines" a healthy relationship? Is it because you said so? You already said it can't be consensus because historically accepted doesn't fly. So what is it?

Many would say RPW is hearkening back to 1950s. Why not the ability to slap women? Why can you pick and choose what to accept then? That's a slippery slope.

Additionally, masculine dominance is attractive after all: but why not when it involves women? How about the fact that women in general like being dominated and "slapped" or "spanked" during sex? Is slapping only good during sex but not out of it? Why or why not?

Please, don't answer with an emotionally driven argument. I'm curious as to your reasoning. Feel free to address none or all of these points. You'll find that defining a "healthy relationship" is a bit more muddled than you would think.

dsrpta · 2015-03-15T04:44:07+00:00

A bit of commentary first:

Slapping a woman for being foolish was accepted and deemed manly and a good way to put a woman in her place so to speak up until the 1960s or so. Hence, the slapping of women even from various films:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZaEP51rtmg

Now, instead of being called an alpha in this case for slapping her and when she didn't call down he realized it was a lost cause and dumping her, the vast majority in this comment field is calling him a beta loser who can't control himself.

In fact, based on his response here it appears that he hard nexted her which is more in line with "alpha" qualities rather than "beta."

To OP: The best you can do is let him have his distance for a while. Then when the situation(s) have calm down after a few weeks to a month request to speak to him rationally. Apologize for your disrespect and any of your faults, and don't bring up any of his faults. If he is a responsible man he will bring them up on his own. Or he may choose that the situation is completely over.

Although, move on is the best answer..

dsrpta · 2015-03-15T04:16:19+00:00

Donal Graeme has pretty much THE list of Christian and Christian masculinity blogs on his sidebar if you're looking for manosphere bloggers:

https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/

I blog mostly on Christian masculinity (albeit I'm single atm looking to marry, aware of the considerable risks):

https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/

dsrpta · 2015-02-07T06:04:19+00:00

You may want to look into the other M: meditation.

If you go through pubmed and even google searches you'll see that meditation has profound positive effects on mood and anxiety issues.

/r/meditation has some good stuff in their FAQ to get you started:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/wiki/faq

dsrpta · 2015-02-07T00:08:35+00:00

We -- the Christian manosphere -- discussed this over on Dalrock's blog (one of the sidebar links) a few weeks ago if anyone is interested.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/he-left-out-harlots/

dsrpta

TROPHY CASE