# Raiders of the Lost Covenant

I hate to begin an essay with an apology, but I feel like one is in order this time. For the past year and a half I’ve been invested in writing my fourth book, The Rational Male – Religion. This required a degree of perseverance, dedication in research, feedback, interviews and general behind the scenes dialoging that I’ve never had to involve myself in before. As a result, I’m less able to devote myself to writing this blog as well or as regularly as I believe I should. For that I’m apologizing here for skipping a week more often than I should.

I’m enjoying every minute of the work I’m putting into the new book, but it is taxing. A criticism I always get is that my books are just re-edits of this blog’s essays, and “Why should anyone buy your books if they can get it all for free here?” Ironically, these are also the critics who berate me for selling out, or they assume pushing my Red Pill books is all I do for a living [insert eye-roll here].

Well, not this time. This time the book will be (almost) entirely fresh material and this takes time, effort and concentration. There will be some material from a handful of past essays, but about 85% of the book is new material.

This process began prior to my publishing Positive Masculinity in July of 2017. I knew then, while still writing my third book, I wanted to do a book on how the Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics intertwined with religions and religious mindsets for the series. I began to do some casual research in Spring of 2017 as an aside to the third book. This quickly snowballed into a part time job for me. Now, add this to my schedule with:

• The Red Man Group
• A few regular live spots and interviews I do
• Red Pill 101 I do with Pat Campbell every Sunday
• The keynote talks I’ll be giving at three 21 Conventions in 2019
• Producing a new liquor brand for my real job this year

Anyway, that’s my way of saying I feel bad for missing a week or two on this blog. The Rational Male will always be my comfortable place to come home to and I want to let you all know, just because I’m posting less in the comments doesn’t mean I don’t read every one. In fact, this is one of the only forums, among dozens, I make a point to keep up with consistently.

Covenant vs. Contractual Marriage

Since digging into the new book I’ve gotten in the habit of comparing notes with various religious personalities who I think might give me a better perspective into how aspects of the Red Pill dovetail into religion. Everyone from Jewish Rabbis to Greek Orthodox ministers (?), to the Muslim faithful, to Evangelical pastors have been on my discussion list for two years now. One notable of late was Dr. Everett Piper, the recently retired president (chancellor?) of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.

Dr. Piper has a regular segment on the Pat Campbell radio show that comes on a half hour before I go on with Pat every Friday morning at 9:05am EST. The link to all our archives is in the sidebar.

Listen to the full discussion here

Last Friday Dr. Piper and I had a discussion about the state of marriage today. I’m loathe to call it a proper “debate” because there’s a lot that he and I agree on with respect to the value of marriage for men and women – at least, the value of what marriage had in the past and should mean to men and women going forward. Marriage is always going to be a persistent hot button issue in the Manosphere. Depending on what your personal, moral and/or rational beliefs are, marriage is something to be actively avoided or something only to enter into with the most serious degree of vetting and caution. Today’s marriage is defined by the dangers it poses to men. Unfortunately, this caution is rarely a consideration for most Blue Pill conditioned, Beta men.

Another area that Dr. Piper and I (and the Manosphere) agree on is the ‘feels before reals‘ priority our feminine-primary social order has embedded in our social consciousness. Today, the “correct” way to address a decision is to lead with our emotions, but it’s exactly this ‘feelings first’ idea that leads men to disregard the life-damaging potential that modern marriage poses to them.

I took the pro-avoidance side of this discussion. And, as usual, I always have to qualify my doing so first; Yes, I’ll be married for 23 years in July. Yes, I’m still happily married to the same woman and have never been divorced, nor have I ever considered divorce. My marriage’s success is directly attributable to my Red Pill awareness and putting it into practice. Mrs. Tomassi and I are still very much in love, we’ve raised a gorgeous and smart daughter to adulthood, and I think my marriage is as close to most people’s ideal as can be.

And yes, I would still never remarry were I to find myself single tomorrow – I simply cannot endorse marriage, as it exists today, as a good idea for any young man. Remember, this is coming from a guy with a damn good marriage. As MGTOWs are fond of saying, endorsing marriage today is leading the lambs to slaughter. I agree. It is simply, statistically, the worst decision a man can make in his life at present, yet so many men want to believe they won’t be one of those statistics.

This confuses a lot of people. Fundamentally, I think the institution of monogamous marriage has been one of the bedrocks of success for western civilization. Marriage is a good idea; it’s how we execute it in the late 20th and 21st centuries that makes it one of the worst prospects imaginable for men. So, I’m technically not anti-marriage; I’m anti-never-saw-it-coming-Pollyana-how-could-she-do-this-to-me?-hypergamy’s-doesn’t-care marriage.

This was my position going in to this talk with Dr. Piper. Have a listen to the whole segment if you have the time, but what we distilled it down to is the idea of a Covenant Marriage vs. a Contractual Marriage. This was the premise used to describe the divide between marriage how it should be done – religiously, personally, devotionally, how it was done in the past – and the way marriage is now – the worst contractual liability a man can enter into. Needless to say a lot of qualifications followed this.

By my understanding a Covenant marriage presumes a mutual religious reverence and understanding of what is expected of a man and a woman before they enter into marriage. It is founded on the agreement of two individuals who believe they are better together than they are apart. On paper this sounds good, but it presupposes quite a bit – particularly on the part of that woman today. I’ll detail the reasons why in a bit, but I take the Covenant definition of marriage to mean that there’s a mutual understanding between the man and woman that they are marrying for love in accordance to what they believe is their religious and monogamous obligation. Fine. We’ve got a model for marriage that is set apart from the Contractual model.

The Contractual marriage is one based on mutual support and an insurance that this support will continue even if the marriage itself dissolves. MGTOWs liken this to a bad business contract that, were it not marriage, no right-thinking man would ever agree to sign off on.

Contractual marriage is the standard for today. Dr. Piper sees this model as the “what can I get from my partner marriage“, but you can decide for yourself if you listen to the discussion. I think this is a bit disingenuous since it implies that men’s only consideration for agreeing to what amounts to a bad business contract would in any way make sense due to a desire for getting what he can out of what’s already a bad deal. Why marry at all if what you’re taking away from it is nothing you can’t get outside of marriage without the risk?

Essentially, Contractual marriage is the marriage-divorce-support structure that men are wisely hesitant about today. Dalrock once noted that sometime after the Sexual Revolutionwe moved away from the marriage model of child rearing and into the child-support model of child rearing“, and I think the Contractual model of marriage becoming the default was an integral part of this.

If you’ve ever watched the documentary Divorce Incorporated you can see the machinations of the Contractual form of marriage at work. This is just a taste of some of the real world consequences that accompany Contractual marriage’s liabilities. However, I think going in – and with the emphasis on leading with our feelings – most men have idealistic, Covenant marriage, expectations for their marriages.

It sounds pretty good, right?

And for the premarital sex mindset it’s the only game in town if they want sexual access. So, it serves a purpose to convince oneself that a man’s spouse is necessarily on the same page as they are with respect to his idealistic concept of love (versus a woman’s opportunistic concept of love). This is where most Beta men get themselves into trouble. They presume their ‘bride‘ to be shares his mutual idea of love, and combined with a potent cocktail of dopamine and endorphins, he leads with his Emotional Process rather than his Rational Process.

Off the Books Marriage

While we also discussed the issue of Responsibility vs. Authority in marriage, what got me was his marching back the question about separating a ‘Covenant’ marriage from the ‘Contractual’ marriage. This is something I’ve discussed with MGTOWs occasionally. Would marriage work if you removed the state and any entitlement to the cash & prizes liabilities from the equation?

I brought this up because this “private ceremony”, off-the-books unofficial marriage is what saved my friend Anthony Johnson from losing his ass in his own divorce. He wasn’t wise enough to see through his ex’s deceits, but he was smart enough not to involve the state in his marriage.

I was genuinely surprised to hear Dr. Piper disagree with the idea of separating the marriage models we’d discussed at the time, but to have him state that he wasn’t willing to somehow give up on the heroic fight to reform the ‘Contractual’ marriage was, in hindsight, kind of disingenuous. In both instances, with respect to headship and authority, and the reluctance to let go of the contractual definition of marriage (especially after making such an impassioned case for a covenant marriage) I can only come to the conclusion that Dr. Piper’s position on marriage is influenced by the feminist undercurrent prevalent in the church today – and without his really realizing it too.

Once again the fiscal considerations of not offending women’s (feminist influenced) sensibilities comes to the fore in another religious leader. This has been a constant theme among the Pastors and church leaders I’ve been interviewing since I started the fourth book.

Churches are business franchises today and if you want to keep the tithe checks forthcoming in order to keep the lights on pastors and church leaders need to prioritize the sensibilities of the primary consumer in the western world – women. It’s gotten to the point now that church leaders have internalized that women’s eyes and ears will be judging their words minutely in sermons and public appearances to ensure their Pastor is on ‘team woman’. This is why opposing a separation of Covenant marriage vs. the Contractual is literally a ‘no brainer’ for these men. They don’t ever think about it any other way because they’ve already adopted the feminist zeitgeist that’s assimilated their churches. To endorse that separation is to deny women their potential for cash & prizes if a man displeases God by making them unhappy.

I think maybe I expected more from Dr. Piper. I was hoping to find some common ground, but I think he may be committed to a doctrine that panders to the Feminine Imperative without realizing it. When we got to the part about headship (Corinthians) he came right out the gate with pre-qualifying headship vs. being a domineering asshole. I’ve come to expect this from a female-primary church that deemphasizes male authority. In fact, it redefines that ‘authority’ as responsibility before you get to discuss any other aspect of what women might allow as “headship”.

It’s like a mental illness with these people. If a wife isn’t perfectly happy and beautiful it’s the husbands fault.

It’s a disgusting view of marriage which can only increase unhappiness for the average Christian couple because there’s no way to keep a woman happy all the time, and, age means women are going to get old. It’s part of life, and it is enough for a woman to age gracefully without these Pastors trying to brainwash men into thinking that any lack of beauty is their fault.

7817 dalrocks Blog

Imperfect Men Vet Imperfect Women for Imperfect Marriages

The “You should’ve vetted better” or “You should’ve married a ‘real’ Christian woman” excuses are something I encounter a LOT from Christian church leaders. Dr. Piper also used this one too. It’s really the Christian version of the Quality Woman dilemma.

As I’m working my way through my fourth book and on The Red Pill & Religion this is one cop out I get regularly. Apparently no ‘real’ Christian woman would ever initiate divorce and if men were only Godly and wise enough to discern from the outset of ‘courting’ that their “bride” wasn’t a fully devoted woman of Christ then it’s their fault for marrying her – or their fault for screwing up God’s perfect plan for his married life later in the marriage. This is ex post facto rationalization that reinforces moralistic beliefs, but also justifies the reaming you’re going to take in divorce court for not being wise and Godly.

It’s basically another play on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. “They not ‘real’ Christians/Muslims/Jews/Krishnas/etc.” should be the subtitle for my new book, I’ve heard so many times.

Deus Vult

When it comes to debating church leaders I simply cannot win the “God says so” clause. This is another obstacle to discussing Red Pill ideas in a religious context. It’s an appeal to faith that is always the go-to response to issues I bring up that they have no real answer to. That, or they don’t want to answer for fear of offending the Feminine Imperative in the church today.

Contractual” marriage is an all-downside proposition for men today. I tried to make my best case for why men shun it in the discussion. Naturally, there’s a common impulse for Publicity Pastors to AMOG from the pulpit and shame men for avoiding marriage, but they can’t argue against the marriage stats and the life-destroying fallout of divorce for men. It’s all too verifiable. The marriage & divorce rates today are unignorable, so men deductively go with the pragmatic response and avoid marriage or go MGTOW.

All that means nothing to the faithful Christian mindset. “It doesn’t matter if contractual marriage is one of the worst decisions a man can make today – “God says you should marry.”

What about the incentive of cash & prizes women have in divorce?

Doesn’t matter, God said get married

So I can’t argue with the divine creator of the universe. God says jump, so you jump. That’s the absolutist-moralist win button for any rational argument to the contrary.

Alternative link to the interview is here

Discussion at Dalrock’s Blog

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

## 181 comments on “Raiders of the Lost Covenant”

1. Playdontpay says:

Fuck what “god says” he doesn’t exist. End of discussion.

2. George Dinius says:

Excellent thank you.

3. Jafyk says:

Great blog Rollo and a very funny and frustrating one at that.

4. kfg says:

“Doesn’t matter, God said get married”

Let us, for the sake of argument, stipulate the Biblical prescription.

Paul was and is not God. Christian marriage involves a contract with God, not the state. I have previously addressed the fact that historically, in the US until after the Civil War, marriage did not involve a contract with the state, that contract with the state was not universal among the states until after WWI and that the origins of the contract were strictly for the purposes of racial discrimination.

Marriage was simply a matter of attesting to the marriage in front of witnesses and perhaps recording the event in the family Bible. The religious authority stood as a proxy witness for God.

The phrase is not, “What the state has licensed and certified . . .”

If a contract with the state as a party is required for a marriage to be legitimate than most of your ancestors, possibly including some in the 20th century, were bastards.

God said get married”

Funny thing, there’s some quotes in the Bible about the duties of wives. “God said” those too, but somehow these preachers never quiiiite get around to those parts.

A bunch of p-whipped whiny manbabies.

As I said over at Dalrock’s, vetting is necessary but not sufficient.

Call it “headship”, call it “leadership”, call it “managing”, whatever; either maintain Frame and Game a wife, or you are stepping on the slope to ruin of various forms. The good news is it’s almost never too late to Game.

7. ThePatriarch says:

There are answers to the question of faith. Unfortunately most church leaders, and most everyone else down to those in the pews don’t want to hear them. Specifically 1 Peter 3:1-6. Let’s apply this section to the wives. Especially since it is explicitly addressed to the wives.

My question has been, and always will be, Why don’t the women of the church have sufficient faith to follow “what God says” in his word. Not making the argument that “they are’t real christians”, but rather making the statement that if you’re going to believe the Bible as the word of God then why aren’t you believing ALL of it (and yes, there are a LOT of denominations that are throwing that doctrine out, unfortunately).

8. foxguy says:

Rollo,

I listened to the interview I smiled and said something the lines of “gotcha” when after signing the praises of covenant marriage, he was unwilling to step away from contractual marriage and even semi denounce it, yo got him. I knew he was full of shit at that moment and stopped listening as he was exposed as yet another individual who is having to do mental gymnastics to keep the business going or outright lying. Christianity is slowing dying but there are at least a few good pastors/priests out there still, I know one but they are by far the exception. This Piper guy is far from it, I also wonder what is about the evangelical church that is just seems to attract guys like this in boatloads.

The only major religion even attempting to hold the line on women is Islam, and even there I can see major cracks begining to form as business/money interests are beginning to collide with it’s teachings in places such as Saudi Arabia, money/power always wins and I don’t see them holding out as maistream Islam is closely tied to the governments where it is a majority/size-able religion and monetizing women is a way to grow economically for those governments.

Individual churches are a business/franchise, it’s as simple as that. Religions themselves are a business also but they did serve to provide societal/nation cohesion so there are clear benefits to the belief aspect of the religion and provide some true benefits to the world/society at large, they have been a net positive throughout human history. I believe in a higher power, but the relationship is between myself and the higher power and I am accountable to the higher power and myself only, not some third party individual, whether it’s the state or a religion, same thing really. Anyone who enters a religion or a church you must have your wits on DefCON 1 , as it’s only natural to lower your guard as you believe you are safe/in a holy place and guys like this Piper guy are counting on exactly that.

9. Yollo Comanche says:

Now men are supposed to look like Good Christian Men so the women can find those men, pair up with those men, and benefit from a man that built his whole existence around being a…………RELIABLE SUCKER. None of them fucking read.

Jezebel was thrown off a building by Incels, run over by a chariot, and eaten by dogs. And guess who did the throwing?

The Reds can say what they want about the Bible but the eunuchs who were living in the Palace at the time were the ones who threw her out a fucking window!

They aught to remember DEM APPLEs. The Bible is funny and truthful.

10. IAS says:

@Rollo: it surprises me a bit that you are religious, particularly considering your father was rather atheist.

I used to be quite religious (no pre-marital sex and all).
I’m now an atheist, that happened a bit gradually and a few years before I got Red Pilled.

Churches are business franchises today (…)<\em>
Today? 🙂
Surely organized religion was always about power.

11. Ofelas says:

Great one, thank you.

P. S.
In “that they are marrying for love in accordance to what they believe is their religious and monogamous obligation” – should it really be “love”, not “life”?

12. Brilliant, Rollo. Just brilliant.

Only yesterday, I was sat outside in the sun talking with my twenty-one-year-old son who asked, ‘What’s the point of marriage?’ As his mother and I are divorced, I did not have a good answer for him, but I was also reluctant to condemn marriage out of hand. To me, a total rejection of marriage was throwing the baby out with the bathwater, although I couldn’t say why. But the distinction between a covenant marriage and a contractual marriage is why. That’s where the line is drawn. It was certainly true in my experience.

Thank you.

13. Vernon Williams says:

I like how you interview religious leaders to get to were thier mind set is at. For someone who has abandoned his faith due to the fact that I can’t unsee TRP and it always clashes with my reasoning Faculty. I can clearly see The Rational Male’s point.

The men that cling to these ideals are either low smv men or it works for them. E.g The pastors in my church with 6 children and an obedient wife or the guy who finally has a girlfriend that secretly despises him.

14. Rollo , who would think a man would hit his most productive years after 50? HT.

15. Novaseeker says:

Greek Orthodox have priests, actually.

Deep Strength just published a book that translates RP principles, or at least some of them, into Christian language that may be worth taking a look at as you finish your own book.

16. Sentient says:

Here we go again…

“What’s the point of marriage?”

The point of marriage is to have a Wife.

Not sure there is much difference between the “covenant” and “contractual” distinctions? Surely historically contractual has been primary. No contract is one sided if you have agency.

http://streamline.filmstruck.com/2007/04/26/they-called-him-a-wanderer/

17. Centuries says:

Sentient –
[Here we go again…
“What’s the point of marriage?” The point of marriage is to have a Wife.]

Really Sentient you jest

Not sure about that, marriage is to have a wife thing….I’ve heard it said marriage is for having kids…..

18. Rudd says:

Just another example of men not strong enough to lead their life on their own terms. Honestly, fuck em and let them rot in misery if they are so fucking blind to understand how the world really works.

19. toomahs says:

Rollo, do you have an alternative link for the interview. The website hosting the interview killed it.

20. Blaximus says:

Sentient

I think large swaths of men cannot distinguish between a wife, gf/fb/ltr. They accept that the only difference between a wife and a gf/fb is that piece of paper. As we’ve heard a couple of years ago, ” name one benefit of promising monogamy and having a legal document blah blah blah.. “.

Rollo make a.good point re: covenant. Yet society over the decades has leaned more and more towards legal requirements and remedies. Handshakes and a person’s wore are no longer to be trusted without contractual back up.

Without agency and headship/leadership, men are at the mercy of various incarnations of teh system. The easy thing to do is to dismiss marriage altogether, or equate it to any manner of ltr type relationship.

It’s not the same thing though. Not if you’re doing it right.

21. 70s AntiHero says:

Rollo,

If the essential moral tenant of all religions is Altruism. And if Altruism is in meaning and practice Self-Sacrifice. The antithesis of Center Point of Origin btw. Then how in the world in the context of a Feminen Primary Socail Order, (women good, men bad & unfettered female Hypergamy) are you going to argue, intorduce an old/new set of books where the woman agrees to a traditional Covenant Marriage? In other words the acceptance of woman to submit to the man as head of household. Egaulitarian equalism rules the day. I see a lot, most married couples, where the wife rules the roost.

Also, It’s an order of magnitude. As you pointed out Rollo in your debate, our Federal and State LAWS supersede or trump religious doctrine. In other words women, subjectively opt out because the can with cash and prizes and sympathy in largess from most of western culture.

As an atheist that uses Occam’s Razor of Science, (evolutionary biology & Freud’s psychological framework) over the sublime ambiguity and subordination of thought to the ‘metaphysical’ truth of Religion. I would much rather accept the strait forward logical argument duduced with reason as opposed to a ‘Platonic Duality’ or if you will, and be your pardon, a mile of horse shit with coils of obfuscation.

A bridge to far IMO?

Perhaps you’re a modern day Thomas Aquinas who came as close as you possible can to proving the existence of God,(City of God, City of Man). Where you can introduce a doctrine say the ‘Sovereign of Man and the Sovereign of Women’ and strike a ‘beautiful symbiotic balance that could be embraced by enough to give traction. You’re an intellectual juggernaut, I wish you well.

Christianity has given many gifts in the name of a greater good, forgiveness and redemption and enforced monogoamy wich enabled the family and invested parenting.

The idea of God sometimes is much more powerful that the actual existence of one.

Good Luck!

Peace

22. “What’s the point of marriage?”

If fathers are baffled about the above then we’ve none to blame but ourselves why our sons are cynics and our family trees are upside down.

kfg intimated about the meaning of marriage, Rollo debates downstream from the meaning, so guys tend to make up their own marriage meanings which have all the puzzle pieces but no picture. Marriage is then insufficient from the get go.

There’s a lot of egotism going on here making men judges in their own case. Bad idea as it yields buffered, collapsed lives.

Man accurately measures himself with something external and suited for man. There are absolutes in this marriage debate though no requirement to abide by them, or define them. The further a man lives from that absolute, the less juice for the squeeze, the conflicted the relationship, the more anxious the children, the more buffers needed to shore up all of the ignorance of upstream absolutes.

Again, it’s up to every individual to choose how to approach, or not approach, marriage. Not choosing is also a choice so looking at anything beyond yourself in this debate is weak.

23. kfg says:

“If the essential moral tenant of all religions is Altruism . . .”

It isn’t. So far as I can tell it wasn’t even a religious thing until about 500 BC.

The essential moral tenet of all religions is that you should stay on the good side of the spirits if you don’t want them to bend you over and do you sideways. Abraham was willing and ready to slit the throat of his own son just to appease one of these spirits.

24. kfg says:

I’ve just come in from watching the newly arrived geese preparing their nesting grounds. They seem to have figured it out.

25. Sentient says:

Centuries

“I’ve heard it said marriage is for having kids”

Well you can have kids and not be married and not have a wife…

So no.

26. EhIntellect says:

Marriage is the most effective method in creatively perpetuating one’s self.

Marriage isn’t an act. It’s a concept that when two people subjugate themselves to a greater idea than themselves ATM, they elicit sustainable meaning for themselves in the now and inperpetuity.

It’s not about egg-to-sperm-making kids. All animals can have children and marriage isn’t required. Not so with humans if we’d like to stay out of the trees.

Marriage is about raising children. It’s about creating an environment of not-fucked-up kids who 20 yrs down the road know how and when their genitals are most useful for them in their own attempt to be creative and immortal.

There’s truth and goodness and beauty in marriage when the premise is correct and both man and woman stick to the script.

Again it’s your choice. Do as you will. The law yet remains.

27. EhIntellect says:

BTW,

The only reason present-day divorce exists is man’s overinflated brittle ego requires excuses and a socially acceptable process to destroy something of beauty and limitless potential value.

Masochism by another name is still masochism.

28. Blaximus says:

Subjugation isn’t a requirement for marriage.

If either party must subjugate, that’s a very bad match. Complementary.

29. kfg says:

Let us pray to Queen Ashtoreth
While we do it on the flooreth
And that’s good enough for me﻿

Let us pray with Aphrodite
Let us pray with Aphrodite
She wears that see through nighty
And that’s good enough for me

Let us pray with those old druids
They drink fermented fluids
Waltzing naked through the woo-ids
And that’s good enough for me

Old Time Religion had a lot to do with fertility (lilies and rabbits and eggs, oh my!), and thus a lot to do with the FI. The FI might be ruining your religion, but it is not ruining Religion. Far from it, it is implementing it.

30. Sentient says:

“A writer joins the talk. So welcome me.”

Writer my ass… Now fuck off SaucyQueer…

[Incel self promoter and sock puppet manager most recently inflicting itself on the residents of Le Chateau]

31. “Subjugation isn’t a requirement for marriage.”

Let me explain…..

If a man likes himself as is, sees no need to improve, that’s stasis. He’s confident though doesn’t get a man far. He subjugates himself to no one but himself.

Imagine a young boxer, first week in the gym, satisfied with his skills. How likely will he improve if he dismisses the coaches and senior men there? Not likely.

Imagine a young man who likes himself as is and sees marriage as a refuge where he can remain static. How’s that likely to turn out?

A man must measure himself against his impossibly-achievable-best selves to reach full potential. Man must subjugate himself to that unattainable ideal…otherwise he just might accomplish his objective fully, call it done then stasis again.

Bucket lists are kinda like that. All I gotta do is 1,2,3,4,5…..then I’m complete. Who the fuck wants to live a micromanaged life that’s a race to some achievable end? I don’t.

Marriage, when properly understood and lived, subjugates man to an ideal. The ideal is worth the subjugation. Marriage is a means to that best-self end. When used as designed, marriage offers sustainable consequence, much more than one could accomplish alone or outside of marriage.

32. kfg says:

Sorcerygod is one of our perennial spammers, but he is at least seasonal. He’ll wilt soon enough.

Vernon
The men that cling to these ideals are either low smv men or it works for them. E.g The pastors in my church with 6 children and an obedient wife

Or they take their religion seriously, and all around them are men like this pastor Piper peddling the same blue-pill blather. Those men need to know the truth about women. They need to know what all women are capable of, both the good and the bad. Because those truths will improve the lives of such men, and the lives of their children.

It’s measure of how far down the FI rabbit hole the culture has run that Rollo can interview these religious leaders and get pretty much the same answer time after time.

34. Rabbi KABA says:

I’m not familiar with the history of the covenant marriage, did it ever include financial payments in event of the marriage ending?
Or simple we are in love, let’s formalize that with a religious ceremony without making any financial arrangements

As I mentioned in our interview, Jewish marriage contracts provided for a year of support (food) if there was divorce, and a widow was supported by the estate as long as she was in the household raising the kids. The default was kids stay with the father. The financial clause was enforceable by the local rabbinical court which could sell a man’s fields to pay the wife. The Jewish marriage contract obligates a man to provide food, clothing, and regular intimacy to his wife (the first two she can waive if she is independently wealthy).

Our Sage Maimonides explains that history of marriage, noting that prior to the institution of marriage, marriage was defined by the man and woman agreeing to start living together. There was no contract at all. The marriage contract was initiated to protect women from being divorced on a whim by an angry husband. Obviously paying one year of food is a reasonable contract compared to what happens to a man in modern secular divorce, which is arguably void in practice as a contract of adhesion

On a practical level, the genie is out of the bottle with contractual marriage, women are taught they can win big prizes in divorce and are encouraged to wreck their family in search of elusive self satisfaction.
I don’t think many / any American women would sign up for a covenant marriage over contractual, unless the covenant marriage had some protections for her. Women are always worried about the future

[Thanks for joining us Rabbi]

35. Westray says:

“Marriage, when properly understood and lived, subjugates man to an ideal. The ideal is worth the subjugation. Marriage is a means to that best-self end.”

Are women saying this too? No, they’re not. They’re gaining 7-15 pounds a year post honeymoon. So until they are on board with this above, let’s call it a contract, then it’s null and void.

Sounds like you’re married and you’ve recently gotten yourself to do 30 situps every morning or something.

The “Man Up” shame-call comes in all kinds of Trojan horses these days in the manosphere.

36. EhIntellect says:

“Are women saying this too? No, they’re not. They’re gaining 7-15 pounds a year post honeymoon. So until they are on board with this above, let’s call it a contract, then it’s null and void.”

Well then, to hell with dem bitches and Il’ll save a tree branch for ya.

37. EhIntellect says:

Oh and I’m up to 6 push ups too.

38. Blaximus says:

7-15 pounds every year post honeymoon????

😂😂😂

This is why these kind of subjects are so hilarious sometimes. Someone will always< i/> pipe up with.some statistics pulled directly from their rectum.

So… After 10 years your wife is supposed to have gained 150 pounds? I’m 20+ years in, and my wife weighs less than she did prior to marriage and didn’t gain 300 pounds according to your brilliant deduction..

😂 can’t make this shit up…..

39. Blaximus says:

Great and timely Rollo.

Last word for today,

Before all of the crying commenters come sashaying in with cries of ” shaming/man up ” stuff, y’all dudes need to relax and cool your unmarried heels and stop being so sensitive and think a little.

Nobody’s shaming you. Personally I don’t give a half a fuck if you ” man up ” or wear fucking evening gowns every day. Just don’t complain here because nobody here is doing anything to you irl.

Pathetic.

….. Made me go all ” scribs “.😂

Have a good night, to all my non-shamed brethren.

40. Al Du Clur says:

What most Christian clergy have no interest in understanding is that feminism and the contractual marriage are cornerstones, as is the Divorce Industrial Complex, in the war against Christianity and the family. By enabling the system the clergy is actually working against everything they are supposed to value and fight for leader

41. Westray says:

Oh guess what? It’s an OMG fluff party in the comments…Same names, same boilerplate, same puffed up chests, year in, year out, the OMGs getting all snuggly.

42. Arthur says:

Great post Rollo. As always, Rational Mind Wins.
When your new book is coming out?

43. The winning answer to “God said get married,” is that what is called marriage today is not marriage as God intended. In fact, we should call marriage today by a different (derogatory) word to distinguish it from actual marriage as existed in the past. I would argue that the main reason men get married today is that on some level they think they are getting the old kind of marriage, because the propagandists who created the new marriage intentionally used the same word marriage for something completely different.

44. EhIntellect says:

“In fact, we should call marriage today by a different (derogatory) word to distinguish it from actual marriage…”

Yay. This guy gets Grammar > Logic > Rhetoric.

Btw, just try claiming marriage isn’t two dudes proclaiming their mutual love and financials and in a New York second you’ll be publicly pilloried.

45. scribblerg says:

Re: @Blax – On Blax’s best day, he’s never “gone all scribs” – he doesn’t have the requisite knowledge or intellectual depth to do so, but he does like to take cheap shots which is what he did in that comment. Note how he doesn’t engage with a scintilla of the substantive analysis and commentary I make typically. Keep taking cheap shots, Blax, it only reveals what a dick you are IRL, beyond the pose you put God knows how many hours into creating here. Lol, as usual, dealing with Blax is light work.

46. scribblerg says:

@KFG and @Sentient killin’ it and grillin’ it as usual. A few thoughts.

What should a man do? Different answers for different men. Young men thinking about marriage and starting a family? Middle-aged guy, post-divorce trying to re-assemble a life? OMGs? Atheists? Fundo Christians?

Got it yet? There is no one answer. All decisions have risks. Women have never been “locked down” by a man, especially by men who are incompetent at masculinity and and Blue Pilled and a pussy, this just in.

I think the best approach would be to create the frame of “covenant marriage” and that this is the real marriage with a woman. Whether religious or not, it’s good to discuss this with potential mates cuz most of them are so steeped in femcentric ideas about marriage that they will tell you who they are.

After the dissolution of my marriage due to my ex’s “frivorce”, which she later told me was the biggest mistake of her life (not mine, her going full cunt on me gave me the excuse to push away from the table and make her choose, something she never would have done, and I’m glad she didn’t choose me cuz she’s a cunt), I had a lot of time to think about what went wrong.

I realized it was simple (this is way pre-Red Pill for me), that marriage vows didn’t mean anything. So, when I’d begin dating a future long term prospect, I’d get around their views on marriage pretty quickly. Fyi, I never dated divorced girls seriously, they were only for fucking. But the single ones? I had numerous occasions when I thought I’d found “the one”. So I developed a “conversation” that would help me figure out how they actually saw marriage and family and me etc. The results were astonishing and the reason I never remarried.

I’d say the following in some way. “Marriage is a promise to stay together forever – despite the “reasons” you might come up with. If I ever married you, I’d promise to never leave you, no matter what. I’d simply never get divorced, I’d commit to working out whatever we have to work out. That’s what makes marriage what it is, that unreasonable commitment to God, the world, yourself and your partner. In fact, this is what makes marriage what it is – that commitment to create a new family that you’ll never destroy. I can promise that I’ll never leave, can you do that? Because I can never, ever lose another family. If I had another divorce and had to be a non-custodial Dad to another child I don’t think I could take it. So, if we get to that point, would you be able to make a promise to stay with me forever?”

Lol. Try having this convo with any woman you are dating, the responses are instructive. Now, I’m not talking about “vetting” for a “good girl”. I’m just talking about how the postmodern woman sees marriage. Not one woman could look me in the eye and say they could make that commitment to me or any man. My response was easy, cuz I knew I’d never get divorced again. I’d say it to them when they brought the question up, “I’ll get married again, I’ll just never get divorced again. It was the most painful experience of my life, worse than being horrifically abused as a child or the death of my mother. I simply will not get divorced again, so until I meet a woman who can promise to never get divorced and mean it, I’ll not get married again.” Fyi, this is a great way to keep that marriage convo at bay if a woman is trying to lock you down.

They will all bring up, “What if you are abusing me?” My reply, “I’ve never hit a woman in my life. Not once, I’m a protector of women. I may get pissed off at you at times, but you will never be physically unsafe or not protected.” They run out of gas after that. They may have stories about bad marriages they trot out, whatevs. What you’ll find is that no women is actually willing to give up the right to divorce a man.

Given this context, that the majority of Western women are “you go gurl” on divorce, uhh, why the fuck would anyone marry them? Contract or covenant? At least in the covenant marriage the state and the law are less involved, but either way, if she thinks she’s got the option to up and leave, she’s not marriage material in the first place.

Be in the world we are in, guys. Not the mythology of a past world that didn’t exist the way conservatives think it did. Hint, just 200 years ago the choices for men and women are much more grim and high stakes, like there was still famine in the world, marriage was much more about one’s family and your spouses family too in many cases. Choices were not nearly as varied in many settings, like a woman nor a man felt like they had endless time and oppty to get married and settle down. There was much more social conditioning in favor of marriage and monogamy, aside from the laws.

The West today? Fallen. You are witnessing its death rattles. Trying to re-assert a social order that has been the successfully undermined for 200 years by the Left is in part why the Right is so useless in preserving anything. Conservatives ceded the cultural battlefield long ago, preferring to dismiss the new culture as just dissent and minority politicking.

Sure, some small number of guys will make it work. I think those few guys will know who they are. But I don’t hear young guys saying they can, I only hear guys like Rollo, older and married for a while saying it’s doable for them, while acknowledging their own exceptional success.

I do think having Game is mandatory to make marriage work though, for any man. Dread, spiking, shit tests – daily life for a married guy. Without game, you are a lamb being led to slaughter. I don’t know how much better your chances are with game but they are better for sure.

47. EhIntellect says:

“scintilla of the substantive analysis…”

ScribblerG should put his scintilla money where his overwrought mouth is.

Comments should be like miniskirts: short enough to keep interest, long enough to cover the content.

Brevity is the soul.

48. Blaximus says:

Lol, you know I’m going to tear you a brand new asshole on that blue pilled shit you called a conversation right?

” I’m a protector… “…

😂

” I’ll never hit you.. ”

😂😂

Gameless.

Demonstrate don’t exolicate. Sound familiar?

You still have a ways to go in your red pill journey. You’re not ” getting it ” fully. Intellectually ( 😂😂) you still insist on rationality at the end of the day with females. Your example of the conversation is sad for a.man that insists he is Alpha, again and again.

More like Alpo.

49. kfg says:

” . . . what is called marriage today is not marriage . . .”

Civil Union(tm) killed marriage, gutted it, and is now walking around wearing its skin and demanding its respect.

” . . . we should call marriage today by a different (derogatory) word to distinguish it from actual marriage . . .”

Just call it what it is and let its own nature color the meaning.

50. Sentient says:

westray

They’re gaining 7-15 pounds a year post honeymoon.

Nah. Sure there are some women who do, but this is not universal by any means. In my demo at least half of the late 40’s mid 50s women (all with children) are slender and well put together and work at it with their abundant free time. Married ones. If you marry, marry a hottie, she will have too much vanity to get fat… she’s competed her whole life, she ain’t giving it up now… But even so.. cue the joke:

Wife: Honey… will you still wuv me if I got fat??? [blinky blinky]
Husband: Baby… I will always love you… but I sure will miss you.

Burden?

Scribbs –

Women have never been “locked down” by a man, especially by men who are incompetent at masculinity and and Blue Pilled and a pussy, this just in.

Burden again… and I see it… I get it… So many hot married mommies… mid 30’s, casting eyes about… ready to play if you scratch the surface… Try it, next time you see a woman with her husband and her kid and she looks your way for that half sec… give her a little wink and nod and see how she reacts – the smile, the pursed lips, a little chuckle, maybe a knowing glance… and she is back to attending to her kid or answering her husbands question etc…

I’d simply never get divorced,

This is the key here. Interestingly when I met my wife of nearly 30 years, she harbored all the “never get married” feminism of the divorced late 80-‘s kids… Of course that went right out the window without a second thought… and we never really talked about getting married, made any plans… Just happened, I asked her, she said yes and was over the moon. Now she did have something there…

In fact, this is what makes marriage what it is – that commitment to create a new family that you’ll never destroy.

And this ^^^ is a big part of that. without ever vocalizing it at all. I understood she was going to be in it for good. Of course, I had been lectured by my unhappily married and soon to be divorced dad to NEVER get married… NEVER EVER!!! He though I was insane at 23. he asked “why her” and I thought, she has a morality that I simply didn’t have… Not religious mind you. Not top down, but a bottom up. Not a cynical bone in her body. I think part of that is from being out on the tail in looks.

But you hit on the crux of it. Marriage is one way in and one way out. That is what makes it work. Now it ain’t all sunshine and roses etc… but when you learn to live with yourself within the structure, it is quite pleasant. Close to having everything… The key to remember is the structure is what YOU make it…

But I don’t hear young guys saying they can

Well they are still giving it a shot. My now 27 YO is getting married soon. I was asked by the future SIL for his blessing. It was interesting. I first told him put her to the side, why would you ever get married??? He went back she is amazing this and that…. I said no put her to the side… This isn’t about her, why would YOU do it? Took a few times to get him to break out of his schtick… Boiled down to similar reason to me back when… It was time, he wanted to MOVE ON with his life… I asked him if anyone tried to talk him out of it, his brothers, family, bros etc… He said not until now… lol

So I said well understand this… This is a one way deal… The only way YOU get out is in a box. And no backs! I’m not taking back a daughter with a kid or two. Not happening Hoss. Drama Free get it? Now I don’t care what you do or who with but these are the rules comprendo? AND don’t think about putting your hand in my pocket…

We will see, no way to know know know…

51. 70s AntiHero says:

@ Kfg

“The essential moral tenet of all religions is that you should stay on the good side of the spirits if you don’t want them to bend you over and do you sideways. Abraham was willing and ready to slit the throat of his own son just to appease one of these spirits.”

Isn’t this in practice, self sacrifice and therefore Altruism?

Who is the arbitor of “staying on the good side of the spirits”? A subordination of ones own self, judgement to the/an authority?

Altruism is the moral bases of religion. The meaning, debatable?

As far as marriage goes, perhaps that questions gets put aside.

One could argue that the formula for a successful marriage is to be a strong enough man in which he can implicitly perform, using game to hold frame, as ‘head of household’ while explicitly collaborating a mutually agreed upon understanding of the spiritual guidance of religion and the heart felt apprectiaion of the sembiotic complimentary roles between a husband and wife. Trust being paramount.

52. Sentient says:

70’santihero

One could argue that the formula for a successful marriage is to be a strong enough man in which he can implicitly perform, using game to hold frame, as ‘head of household’ while explicitly collaborating a mutually agreed upon understanding of the spiritual guidance of religion and the heart felt apprectiaion of the sembiotic complimentary roles between a husband and wife. Trust being paramount.

One could just boil all that down to: Ride or Die…

Surely a 1970’s anti-hero can get behind that.?

Sentient
My now 27 YO is getting married soon

That makes her quite typical. Average, even.

54. “Isn’t this in practice, self sacrifice and therefore Altruism?

Who is the arbitor of “staying on the good side of the spirits”? A subordination of ones own self, judgement to the/an authority?

Altruism is the moral bases of religion. The meaning, debatable?”

Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse?

I’d call it a false premise. Altruism takes place in marriage and kids and in religion. Sure, but it is not the basis. I am not a religion practitioner, but near as I can figure and know a bit, a man has himself live each day the way the divine God wants you to live (or if he has wisdom, how he deems to live well). If he lives well, downstream a man has abundance in order to actually be altruistic without protest. Right?

“As far as marriage goes, perhaps that questions gets put aside.

One could argue that the formula for a successful marriage is to be a strong enough man in which he can implicitly perform, using game to hold frame, as ‘head of household’ while explicitly collaborating a mutually agreed upon understanding of the spiritual guidance of religion and the heart felt apprectiaion of the sembiotic complimentary roles between a husband and wife. Trust being paramount.”

So what you are saying is that religion is a heuristic for doing well, living well, and going home to the family where all is well.

I agree. It is not necessary, but can be of benefit in the right hands.

Thanks.

55. kfg says:

” Isn’t this in practice, self sacrifice and therefore Altruism? ”

No, and people who tell you it is are after something from you that is in their benefit, but against yours. “It hurts me more than it hurts you,” is bullshit.

Altruistic self sacrifice is slitting your own throat to save the life of another. If Abraham were to behave altruistically he should have offered himself in Isaac’s place.

“Altruism is the moral bases of religion.”

Sales brochure nonsense to get you to buy certain religions. Other religions offer self serving ends for harming others. Could it be, oooooooooooh, worship of . . . SATAN!? So Christianity lures you in with the sales pitch that Religion is altruistic, but once you have bought the package they start scaring the shit out of you with the fact that that was a lie, do what we say or the non-altruistic religions will get you.

Even before Christianity that shit’s all over the OT. Abraham wasn’t offered an opportunity for altruism, he was offered a deal: I’ll swap you that kid for a gazillion more.

As the sales brochure offers you a deal, that death is really eternal life in paradise. So you just toddle off over there and off yourself for me, there’s a good lad.

Altruism!

Hogwash.

Religion is a deal with the spirits to give you a good deal, or at least not fuck you over. That’s all. And some of those spirits seem to want very nasty, very non-altruistic things to curry their favor.

kfg

Civil Union(tm) The Child Support model killed marriage, gutted it, and is now walking around wearing its skin and demanding its respect.

FIFY.

The Child Support model predates Civll Union by at least a generation.

This is a fact that beta cucks like Piper simply cannot grasp, and as a result they offer bad advice to men. Because they don’t have any good advice.

57. Testi says:

I did a traditional marriage in 2016, only signed the govt papers this year.
2 small kids so far with wife, she has gained weight. The little time I spend with her during the day when I’m not at work, she does no exercise whatsoever. She said she wants to join a gym, but gym requires discipline. I doubt she will last a week.
A female personal trainer looks like a better idea, but wife has not even done one pushup/squat/plank ever since we started looking for a trainer 3 weeks ago.

I don’t know what to do.
Should I start exercising IN FRONT OF HER while she does the dishes/cleans the house? I do play frisbee and throw around a ball with her.

Any tips? I’m not in the best of shape myself. I have built some tone in my arms but my beer gut is still problematic. her gut is still bigger than mine though.

How can I get this wreck back on track?

58. Sentient says:

testi

How can I get this wreck back on track?

Focus on you for a few months. Get your shit together. Then start passing her shit tests… then start demonstrating that other women find you attractive… Proceed form there.

59. O.B.I.T. says:

God and faith are still relevant, but organized religion has folded its hand and now answers to a higher authority — the mass media. Which of course is increasingly driven by the Feminine Imperative.

As a companion to Rollo’s great piece I recommend an essay called Addicted to Distraction, looking at how opinions and feelings have largely replaced or inverted objective facts, truth and moral guidance

60. kfg says:

“God said get married”

God said “Marry your childless brother’s widow.”* Onan spilled his seed on the ground so as not pay child support and disinherit himself. Marriage is about inheritance rights, i.e. “child support.”

The modern Child Support Political Economy, which is something different from simple child support, is a consequence of legal divorce. For the purposes of Empire building the replacement of marriage with Civil Union started in Britain well before it did in America, ahead of the Tender Years Doctrine. No civil divorce, no need for the Tender Years Doctrine to have arisen.

*Jesus said some men make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul said that that was the best course, but that marriage was better than falling into sin.

Disclaimer of Bias: My mother was born as the modern Child Support Political Economy began, so I was first/second generation to be at least partially supported by it: Monies paid by men into the public coffers to be transferred to unmarried mothers (mine was widowed in her 20s, far more common then than now).

61. O.B.I.T. says:

Here’s the link, since it seems there’s a shitload of similar titles online. Amazingly prescient for 2014, it pegs in passing how “the working man” has gone from hero to villain

62. kfg says:

“She said she wants to join a gym”

The bedridden lose weight. Exercise is not for losing weight. In fact in a clinically ideal world exercise would always result in weight gain.

Blaximus
Demonstrate don’t exolicate. Sound familiar?

Not really. Something women do with their legs? Something the US Army did in ‘Nam jungles? A step in some industrial chemical process?

64. kfg says:

“Amazingly prescient for 2014”

Clifford Simak predicted it in the 50s, leading to hikikomori and eventually an almost universal agoraphobia. He didn’t predict the Internet specifically, but he predicted what the Internet does.

“. . . “the working man” has gone from hero to villain . . .”

Ironically, mostly by people who consider themselves Marxists.

65. 70's AntiHero says:

Kfg

Like I said, the definition of Altruism perhaps is debatable.

From Dictionary.com

al·tru·ism
/ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
“some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism”
synonyms: unselfishness, selflessness, self-sacrifice, self-denial; More
ZOOLOGY
behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

For consideration-

It is my own self interest to provide for my daughter. My greatest value. Any small or subordinate sacrifice made along the way, that I make in this behalf is done so in deference to MY greater value.

I am not disinterested and my concern in not self less.

It is to my own personal benefit to be a team player. A Centered Point of Origin?

Charity starts at home.

Sentient

“Ride or Die”. Yes, I’m driving because I’m the guy. Lol

66. Blaximus says:

AR

” explicate “. Spellchecker doing it’s thing.

67. The fundamentals of the covenant and the contract have always existed in religion (including in secular versions). They are paradigms with archetypes that reflect tangible phenomena. We witness a struggle to come to terms with either retaining them as they are, or redefining them in the face of real change. This change is initiated by a departure from natural biology. This departure from natural biology is initiated by man made agents that alter the natural process. Nothing has changed about people except new people are born who replace old people in the life cycle. Humans are still born as humans, same as they have been for 150,000 + years. There is a new generation, but this new generation is imbibed with the same innate drives, relative abilities (and lack thereof) and opportunity differentials, same as in the past. The only NEW real phenomena are better protection from nature, more humans, legally medically safer universal availability of fetal homicide, and cheap effective relatively risk free biochemically synthesized hormonal contraception. All other real factors remain the same. The imagined factors are as bizarre, numerous and delusional as ever.

No amount of proselytizing and pontificating can change the effects of biology including biological consequential effects resulting from man made agents. Changing “points of view”, “connecting dots”…. intellectual analysis cannot reverse the effects those agents induce or alter their consequence. Although, education and awareness can be advantageous, any significant mass change in social phenomena provides opportunity for those willing to orchestrate plans to capitalize on it.

The biological partly determines the psychological. The psychological CANNOT determine any amount of the biological (to the chagrin of most). All paradigms, including covenants and contracts, are the result of physiological realities and a desire for social control. The contract-covenant will have to be redefined to more closely coincide with the biological consequences of the agents. Or, the use of the agents will have to be discontinued (Individuals and couples make choices concerning this consciously or not). Otherwise, confusion, the dissonance between genders and repression of reproduction will continue most extensively in the groups who use the agents the most.

68. “I was genuinely surprised to hear Dr. Piper disagree with the idea of separating the marriage models we’d discussed at the time, but to have him state that he wasn’t willing to somehow give up on the heroic fight to reform the ‘Contractual’ marriage was, in hindsight, kind of disingenuous. In both instances, with respect to headship and authority, and the reluctance to let go of the contractual definition of marriage.”

Dr. Piper spoke eloquently. If more time were available I wonder if he might have queried Rollo’s take on contractual marriage.

Dr. Piper: Rollo, in the event a marriage ends in divorce. Do you believe some arrangement should be made for the children?

Rollo: Of course, although this should be an agreement between the former couple. The state shouldn’t get involved.

Dr. Piper: In your opinion Rollo, would this informal agreement require enforcement, if one of the parties reneges on the terms they initially accepted?

Rollo: Possibly, but the authorities should be left out of it..

Obviously it would involve some government entity and if pressed the point would’ve been conceded. The discussion might then have moved onto the punitive nature of those contractual obligations.

Marriage is akin to smoking. No one can claim they aren’t aware of the health risks, as the box of cigarettes contains them in big letters, with graphic pictures.

The penny has dropped (and dropped hard) for those with something to lose.

Stick to your guns and let her walk if need be.

69. “my marriage due to my ex’s “frivorce”.

Nothing learned.

ScribblerG’s headslap example. Much heat, little light.

70. Paniym says:

Just wondering if Rollo has maybe considered this argument from the scriptures in his newest book.

Gen 3:16
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It might have been that God did originally intend men and women to live egalitarian but that all changed at the fall (Gen 3:16) and God literally changed the character of women to desire, long and crave their husband (Strongs H8669 Hebrew lexicon) and that men would now rule over women. If this is indeed true then women’s overall general character was ordained by God to now serve their husbands and be subservient to them. If God did indeed change women’s base longing, desires etc then generally women would be happiest, most fulfilled, most satisfied in that position.

Studies have shown that since the 50s that women’s happiness and contentment has dropped dramatically since the egalitarian bull has taken over. This still isn’t an argument against complementarianism. But it can be argued that women’s base character is to submit and support their husbands and that they will find the most happiness and fulfillment there. And this is what should be preached from the pulpit.

I think this should be the general argument against the feminist apologist pastors in the church. I’ve been a Christian for almost 50 years and I’ve slowly seen the feminist cancer kill the evangelical Church and kill my 35 year marriage. I believe they are beyond hope and have been hopelessly corrupted. And any efforts should really be addressed to freeing the beta slaves in the church. Confronting the deluded pastors is one way to do this if for no other reason they might backoff from their weekly onslaught against men.

Pniym
I think this should be the general argument against the feminist apologist pastors in the church. I’ve been a Christian for almost 50 years

I do not mean to discourage you, and absolutely no offense intended, but have you ever tried that general argument on any pastor or priest? There’s several different forms of deflection / squid ink that can be used, from “In the Hebrew…” to “New translations…” to “Why do you hate women?” and so forth. Bible quotes can be bent, folded and tortured into some odd shapes. Generally you won’t get a logical response, but rather an emotional one.

Because in general, feminism in the churches is an emotional argument not a rational one.

PS:
Lesbian feminist pastors won’t even care, because “Gawd is Luv and Luv Wins” so game over, you lousy bigot.

72. foxguy says:

A lot of handwringing on the red pill about marriage, a lot of people know it’s a shit show anyway, even non red pill. I cringed when a very beta guy at work said he was taking wedding pictures one day at the foosball, his mindset is deep beta, doesn’t stand a chance.

The community seems to be stuck on embracing the decline of the west vs trying to keep it going. All this shit isn’t even really about women when you think deeply on it, it’s about men and doing the hard work both physical and emotional, and some e-course on how to be master sure as hell isn’t going to fix it.

Put in the work both physical and emotional.

73. @Testi Rollo says exactly what to do about this in “THE RATIONAL MALE” (Volume One) Book and Audiobook.

74. dolph says:

Be careful when discussing anything, including religion, let alone the relations between the sexes, in an American context.

Remember guys, the religion of America is America. All of the following are subreligions: Christianity, Judaism, money making, consumerism, celebrity and athlete worship, suburban house/cars/college, etc.

A Christian pastor is not interested in getting Christian men and women together, supporting Christian families, and making sure there is a next generation of Christians. He is interested in getting American men and women together, supporting American families, and making sure there is a next generation of Americans.

Americans are conditioned from birth to see themselves as American first and foremost. All other considerations, including Christianity, are secondary.

To illustrate this clearly:
If I say, I think Christianity is useless and should go away, you will react with mild indignation.
If I say, I think America is useless and should go away, you will seek me out in person and kill me on the spot.

75. Centuries says:

@Sentient
[Centuries “I’ve heard it said marriage is for having kids”

 Well you can have kids and not be married and not have a wife… So no.] 

So now I never said having kids couldn’t be accomplished w/o marriage or a wife, now that would be silly, of course the current state of the FI has that covered.

I also didn’t define marriage or wife. How would you propose raising kids?

76. Sentient says:

J

So much for looksmaxing eh?

Behold the manlet…

Keep chopping wood. You will get there yet.

77. Jafyk says:

https://therationalmale.com/2019/04/20/raiders-of-the-lost-covenant/#comment-273326

Well, the answer is that people in general do not really believe in God as they claim at least in terms of having a day to day basis and influence in their lives. You may disagree but surely, your actions betray you.

Something else to consider is that human nature existed long before religion. All religion does is try to rewire that human nature and half of the time it is unsuccessful or creates a hybrid of that human nature. In other words we compartmentalize religion and our daily lives. An example of this is we go to church and read biblical stories and believe them at that moment to have happened. Yet if your mechanic tells you they couldn’t find the fault with your malfunctioning brake and that they’ve prayed over it and you should drive it on faith and everything will be fine. You would probably think he’s crazy and risking your life.

This is why for me red pill Christianity has holes in it. People will always think of red pill based on their own set of self serving values. Some guys will expect unwavering loyalty from their women as a form red pill alignment even if those guys are acting in the way most their society in general acknowledge as immoral or illegal. They will claim that loyal woman is a good woman.

So, why don’t women adhere to the parts of the Bible that puts them to task? Well, it doesn’t serve their feminist imperative or hypergamous needs. It also depends on your society and how far entrenched in feminism it is. Most practice of Christianity is a reflection of the society it finds itself in.

78. Blaximus says:

Jettisoned ” religion ” 40 years ago and never once looked back. I’m mostly in line with jafyk’s sentient on the subject.

Imo, the problem stems from people searching for ways to shirk responsibility for their own lives and actions. ” God, instruct me how to live and think so I can have a unquestionable excuse handy “.

The bulk of ” Christians ” I’ve ever met in life never bothered to actually read the bible itself, and they have been some of the most judgemental and mean spirited folks I’ve ever run across. The exact opposite of those ” words in red ” from the New testament. Manny religions have become just another from of gang activity.

Pastors, priests, reverends, imams, rabbis, are only men. No more deserving of reverence than any other average guy. But people demand pageantry and some measure of entertainment in a fairly pleasant setting. ” Faith ” is not putting yourself at the mercy of the dude in the pulpit, because he’s just as subject to degrees of fuckery as any other swinging dick.

Hence the feminism creep.

There’s more than one red pill.

Rollo, I’m sure you’re mindful of writing a book that might cast dispersion on the world’s largest Gang. It’s not really about people’s beliefs as it is about ” my gang ” . Religion has been morphing more and more at warp speed into something that practically serves no true purpose for the overwhelming majority of practitioners, and this is what has made it vulnerable to outside influence of worldly thought and practice.

It would be good to discuss the impact of the feminising of the church conglomerate, as some men are losing their religion without understanding what’s going so wrong. I don’t hold out hope that any sizeable number of religious leaders would agree with the red pill message flowing from the pulpit, even though there’s a lot of rp in most religious text.

Like I said, I’ve abandoned ” religion ” , but I haven’t abandoned my beliefs/spirituality. I’m past the need for a spiritual personal trainer. To me the question is, can organized crime…. Er…. Religion be saved without destroying it? And is the solution worse than the problem?

79. Limitless says:

Any flavour of religion is crutch for week minded people who needs someone in authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. Said that I also admit that there are no unbelievers in trenches.
However until one must cling to imaginary hope to withstand unbearable psychological pressure, there are no use for any religion. Today likes of Jordan Peterson proclaim that Christian religion is basis of western morality. I beg to differ. If one would look, same western morality and even more so are found in Nordic, Baltic and Russian pre-Christian myths and sagas. Same goes for Greek classical civilisation.
So there are no point in looking at religion for wisdom in regard of marriage, or relationships as religion is not origin of morality, but just a superstructure on innate morality and not really more elaborate than any pagan sagas.

80. kfg says:

” God, instruct me how to live and think so I can have a unquestionable excuse handy “

Gods instructing people on how to live is a rather recent invention. Back in the day the spirits messed with you (for your benefit or harm) and left you on your own to figure out what the hell (as it were) they wanted. And figuring it out wasn’t a question of morals, it was a question of life and death. Questions of religion were something like figuring out if it was safe to cross the street or not, only the cars were invisible.

Religion wasn’t about absolutes, it was about mysteries. That’s the whole point of it.

You can still see a fair amount of the ancient approach to religion surviving today in Shinto, although it has acquired a fair amount of priests and cruft over the millennia. Hints of ancient Keltic religion remain in “fairy tales.”

81. kfg says:

“. . . Christian religion is basis of western morality.”

The author of Ethics, indeed the inventor of the term, championed to The Church by Saint Francis, was a pagan.

82. Sentient says:

Centuries

I also didn’t define marriage or wife.

Well they have real historical and cultural definitions. A Wife is different from a baby mama, a partner, a [fill in the blank] and there are reasons for that.

How would you propose raising kids?

Been down this road, in brief, within a marriage.

83. EhIntellect says:

“Any flavour of religion is crutch for week minded people who needs someone in authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.”

The tool is as good as the person wielding it.

Religion attempts a written and spoken codification of human existence that perpetuates man.

It is not the whole story and such is vulnerable to misinterpretation and corruption.

It’s a crutch for some, a liberation for others.

Blax does not need religion. Fine. IMO, we need religion in our aggregate as when right and wrong is up for public debate, which it is, we might want to ask the ancients how they successfully dealt with similar attempts at the true, the good and the beautiful.

The answers are there. It’s not religion’s fault we reinvent wheels.

84. “The author of Ethics, indeed the inventor of the term, championed to The Church by Saint Francis, was a pagan.”

Coming out of the 12th century St. Francis redefined man’s relationship to the created world. There was a lot of nature worship going on prior. The Church had underwent a pagan purge only just.

The relevance to RP is this: A pagan reverence of nature, which often included women eroticised beyond their true value, steers men off the rails. They’re just girls. So let’s not say they are something else as if you do they then can become your god.

85. Sentient says:

eh

They’re just girls. So let’s not say they are something else as if you do they then can become your god.

So Mother Mary came to me… speaking words of wisdom. Let it beeeee…..

86. Testi says:

Focus on me for a few months.
Rational Male vol 1. Got it. Will keep posting.
As for marriage, here in South Africa its the go-to step in “growing up”. Plus, theres a dowry to be paid for the bride-to-be, one of my cousins just paid R80 000.
And thats for a girl he dated BEFORE his 2 failed marriages.
Yeah, its tough out here.

87. @Testi

If you are new to married red pill, there is a wealth of information and discussion on Married Red Pill Reddit. The new version of it buries what is called “The Sidebar Material” for the discussion forum.

That sidebar material can be found here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/wiki/config/sidebar

In your situation, at this point in time, it would be best to work on yourself over the next 18 months to be on more solid ground in the future. With your wife taking care of the youngsters, they are her first priority and you are distant 4th or 5th in line for her paying attention to you.

And you can’t go all Rambo Red Pill in this time in your relationship career. It’s generally regarded as best for you to lose your belly fat, get better by working on you now without trying to change her. Be attractive, don’t be unattractive. Don’t be bitter or butt-hurt over her fatness. In the future she may or may not come around to your Frame. But you develop strong frame, so one day she will. Do it for the kids at this point.

@KFG

In regards to St. Francis basing his worldview/theology in the Church on “Ethics” based on pagan philosophy , I assume you mean Aristotelian Ethics, right. IDK.

88. Sentient says:

Testi

That’s \$5,600 USD. Could be worse… EE girls go for a lot more!

89. EhIntellect says:

@ Testi

Hey man, thx for commenting. What’s the tipping point for a man not to have to pay a dowry?

I’m positive not all South African men pay dowries nor are all South African women soullessly monitized.

Cultural norms ate a thing and I respect that. Then again a lot of the FI driven cultural expectations around me are selectively applied and dismissed in certain cases.

No different in South Africa, I expect.

90. Fact says:

You settled for sex once a week in the missionary position, while she did ALL those things with other men before she met you, that she refuses do with you now.

We all know how this is going to end.

91. kfg says:

” . . . for a man not to have to pay a dowry?”

The word is gendered. The masculine is dower.

It is a fact that the majority of men in the US are religious one way or another, and a majority of them are some flavor of Christian. No, I will not play the game of “No True Christian”. Yeah, ok, “no god”, fine, “mah spirits” whatever, “don’t need no religion” cool by me.

In the real world, away from the “mah EGO’ of manosphere comments, men are not going to give up their religion, and they are getting bad advice from their preacher / priest / etc. Telling those men “hurr durr, yer stupid” is not an argument.

Rollo is doing a good service to religious men by interviewing all these leaders and asking the hard, Red Pill / Glasses level questions. I will bet that in every single case there’s a gaping hole in either knowledge or honesty … or both … regarding said religious leader about the religion.

Again, Rollo’s doing a good service. The fact that he’s also extending his brand is no accident, but branding always has to be based on quality one way or another.

By the way, I know a pagan / Wicca (yes, kfg, I know) who is just as Blue Pill as any church “guy”, so there’s nothing magical (heh) about which path a man follows.

Still reading on Deep Strength’s book, but have no real opinion yet beyond this: his target audience is committed, serious Christians. An audience that is very badly treated by just about everyone in modern culture.

93. @Testi

This thread about you should really be in the Field Reports section.

And there is some framework to Married Red Pill. There was an old distiller of the manosphere back in like 2011 called Athol Kay from New Zealand. He was a beta that marshaled his mindset and found and married an American girl. He used the distilled manosphere info to generate some male action plans for males and then wrote about it.

But then he got the feminine involved (in monetizing his site) and his method and credibility devolved. But he gets credit for having started on good footing for MRP.

But back about 4 or 5 years ago one of the Married Red Pill guys took his stuff and returned it back to masculine male oriented stuff.

A Male Action Plan was turned into a 12 stages of Dread in getting a married guy back on track. That was done by MRP reddit’s BluePillProfessor. (a sociology law professor, lawyer, etc.), his name is deceiving.

https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/

He wrote a fantastic book. See that link.

Anyhow, today I was watching a video that takes BluePillProfessor’s stuff and runs with it.

The video is by a fantastic purveyor of Red Pill Content: Rian Stone.

In this video, he is distracted but utterly coherent. It is a rundown on video that runs 70 minutes an runs through this archetypal MRP plan.

It’s an encapsulation of Married Red Pill, thousands of hours of experience.

The plan actually just gets you to the starting line in terms of designing your purpose and mission in marriage. It doesn’t have cheat codes and involves doing the work. It gets you to the point where you can then proceed with actual red pill agency. Everyone is different. Every plan is different. But there are guides along the way.

The video one of the best MRP one’s I’ve ever seen:

https://youtu.be/51leL9sCbBw

94. EhIntellect says:

“The masculine is dower.”

Nice and Danke schoen.

I will use that in at least 3 conversations this week.

95. foxguy says:

Sigh, and this from s guy who fashions himself as awake. The Red Queen principle, nature is ruthless, religion used to help fill this void.

https://markmanson.net/whats-the-problem-with-masculinity

“But the biggest problem with these external metrics – making more money, being stronger and more domineering than the competition, having sex as much as possible – is that they never end. If you measure yourself by how much money you make, then whatever you earn will never be enough. If you measure yourself by how strong and dominant you can be, then no amount of power will ever satisfy you. If you measure yourself by how much sex you can have, then no number of partners will ever be enough.”