Other than those who have served in the military, and except for the occasional news videos or photographs of executions or assassinations, most of us have not seen real, violent human death firsthand. To some, the simulated violence and death in a television program or movie is so troubling that they want it banned or extensively curtailed. It is certainly unpleasant to watch anyone die, even a relatively peaceful death.

Have you ever seen a person die, perhaps a close relative? I have not. Although I was with some of my loved ones during their last hours of life, for some reason, God did not allow me to be present at the actual moment when my baby son died, when my mother died, or when my wife’s mother and father died.

Somehow, human death does not seem quite as unacceptable when the person is very old and has enjoyed a good, long life, or when his death is peaceful and nonviolent. On the negative side, we normally do not question a person’s death when he has flagrantly and selfishly abused his health or is guilty of a violent crime. Human death seems so much worse when the person is young—a child, a youth, or a young man or woman in his or her prime of life; when the person is either relatively or absolutely innocent; or when the death is painful, traumatic, or violent.

The Lamb of God (Jesus), whose life was of an infinitely higher value than the sum of all human life, was just thirty-three years old when He sacrificed Himself for our salvation. He was in the very prime of His physical life and, like no other adult human before or since, He was one hundred percent innocent of sin. Yet He suffered the most painful, traumatic, violent and shameful death that the human mind could invent. Jesus died for your sins that you may be free. Will you believe on him today and accept him into your heart?

This leads to behavior rather like a squid or cuttlefish – spray of ink to cloud the waters, that covers a hasty retreat to safety.

SSM at least can stand up to debate. But let’s bear in mind, as Rollo noted, the inherent limitations in women’s thinking, when the topic is “women’s thinking”.

And Ferdz, I’m quite annoyed at a ban hammer on you, because your reply to Clarence on the topic of cheating is very well thought out. I was kinda sorta groping towards some of that, and here is the bottom line that occurred to me while reading that interchange between you and Clarence. I’ll post it here, rather than over at SSM’s.

Cheating:

Women’s cheating must have an emotional component, axiomatically, and therefore an emotional affair, even with no sex, may be just as satisfying to a woman as a sexual affair with no emotion is to a man.

To flesh this out just a tiny bit: women have emotional needs, and they may not get them met at home, especially if a man has become betaized due to external events (childbirth, extra hours at work, loss of job, ddeath in family, etc.). She may gravitate towards some man who will fulfill those needs, at work, or some other place. Not out of a sexual need, but out of an emotional need. If he presses for sex, it might happen. But if he doesn’t, she still gets to respect a man who shows some degree of affection for her. However, this will affect her relationship with whats-his-name at home; he will pale by comparison, her respect will dwindle and may even become contempt, and the sex will dry up leaving him in the all too common AFC state.

The emotional affair of a woman, even if there is no sex involved, therefore is just as dangerous for a marriage or LTR as a sexual affair by a man. But since it is covert – who can object to a woman that serves her boss well, and is never seen in any sort of compromising situation with him – it is not seen as “cheating”. Because, as Ferdz pointed out, “cheating” is defined only in the terms that refer to men’s form of cheating.

Good work. Ferdz.

Prior to launching the blog I had no idea who Susan Walsh was and in fact I only discovered her because she took personal issue with my Wait For It? post on HUS and linked back to. This then began an exchange over other posts and my evaluating her propositions and advice as little more than the want of an aging mother to build better betas to marry women like her daughters rapidly approaching the Wall.

Similarly I had no idea who SSM was or that she’d even started a blog until she linked back to my posts being critical of the concept of the feminine imperative. Once again I made the attempt to set her understanding straight over the course of 3 posts she’d made. That is until she took it upon herself to canonize some definitive terms about the Feminine Imperative. It was at this point I began to see the Susan Walsh theme being played out as it had before. Which then led to my most recent (Friday’s) post about women’s attempts to control the messaging in the manosphere.

It’s apparent to me now that SSM is fishing in the same waters as Aunt Giggles (and employing her same policing of her blog), I half expect she’ll sign on with the BlogHer network before the end of January.

That said, and as upset as you may be for having her censor you, I’ll remind you that isolation is dangerous. If nothing else this experience has only reinforced the perception that women will fluidly attempt to redefine red pill truths to cater to their imperative. An untested principle is worthless. I can sit in my ivory tower and not engage with opponents and theorize to my heart’s content, but it does nothing to validate the concepts I come up with.

Aunt Giggles virtually never engages anyone beyond her own blog because she knows she lacks the popular support her echo chamber provides her. SSM at least ventures off her blog to engage others at my blog and Dalrock’s. If you feel like I’ve been kissing her ass, I’ll point you towards my most recent post calling her to the carpet. I’ll also point out that you yourself participated in her discussion often enough to pose a threat to her ideology – enough so to ban.

https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/sanitizing-the-imperative/

I realize that acknowledging a gnat only places more significance on it, but likewise, you must engage and test your ideas by criticism and opposition to validate them.

Sunshine Mary, for example, just banned me from her blog for suggesting that her flaunting of her panties is not just “innocent.”

Yet, you show up at her blog sticking your tongue in her unmentionables simply to “justify” your position in the sexual dynamic.

Surely you, of all people, Rollo, understand why SSM’s blog has become so instantly more popular than your own blog. It is because there is a woman behind the voice, and men find this acceptable, because the female imperative has given its approval.

And yet, you support these women that have nothing but contempt for men, and, I have to say, it puzzles me deeply.

Why do you do it, man? Is it because you are married and have to succumb to this bullshit, or what?