Market Analysis: Penny Stocks

This post is a continuation of my Market Analysis series, which began with my post Market Watch. Today I want to cover a topic which was brought up by Elspeth in a couple of comments. Here is the first:

I’m just done, done, done, with pretending that Christ cannot change people deep down and for real. Suppose Paul had been deemed of no earthly use to the Church because of his previous persecution of it.

Which is followed by this:

None of that changes my original assertion that people can and do have sincere changes of heart, and that any person’s decision to reject a certain group of people as mates is fine but let’s kill the “even real and true Christians are damaged beyond any kind of repair as potential mates”.

The issue here is whether some people are so “damaged” that there is no realistic hope of recovery, and thus, eventual marriageability. In the past the word “ruined” might have been used of such cases- as in, ruined for marriage.

First to define “damage” in this context.  A simple explanation would be strains or burdens on someone’s physical/mental/emotional well-being which impair his or her ability to have a successful/stable marriage. [If someone has thoughts on a better explanation please mention below.] I mention all of these because they can and do all affect one’s capacity to be a good spouse.

It is also worth mentioning that these factors- these burdens- are not necessarily the fault of the person in question. Some are- the products of sin, for example. But others might simply be the product of nature (think certain illnesses) or the willful actions of others (the trauma created by abuse, for example).

The way I see it, what we are talking about here is a spectrum of “damage.” Everyone has at least some damage- small things which would get in the way of their being a good husband or wife. However, there is a spread which takes place. Some people have relatively little damage (a few bad habits), and others have a huge amount of damage (think of some stories from the ‘sphere). Now, somewhere on this spectrum is a point where someone is too damaged to be considered marriageable. That is, they are too burdened, as they are at that time, to make a good spouse. [I suspect this point is not fixed- it is heavily influenced by culture and the overall environment- thoughts for another post.]

Now all of this needs to take into account that where people fall in this spectrum changes over time. Sometimes damage is “healed.” Sometimes it gets worse or new damage takes place. So the real question is whether some damage cannot “heal” or get better.

Well, having thought it over some, I think there are some people who are beyond simply “damaged.” These people are broken. I suspect most of my readers know people like this. People who have experienced terrible trauma and struggle with it daily. They are enduring burdens which go beyond the need for ordinary healing- they need out and out miracles. And not the everyday miracles we often overlook- I mean the the kind which are unmistakable.

Now, these miracles do happen. Perhaps my readers know of some instances, either with people they know or have heard of through the grapevine. But all the same, without such miracles those people would not have improved.  Thankfully they are not common. But they do exist.

At the same time, all of this has gotten me thinking about how exactly people “heal.” And how Christian transformations work. I know they work- I have seen them happen first hand. But I have been wondering about the process. Since Elspeth mentioned St. Paul, I think this seems appropriate to ponder:

I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. ² I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. ³ And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— ⁴ and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. ⁵ On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. ⁶ Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. ⁷ And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. ⁸ Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; ⁹ but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. ¹⁰ For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

(2 Corinthians 12:1-10)

Part of me wonders if the transformation is not always about healing. That is, it isn’t about removing the harm or burden. Instead, it is about lending strength to the person in question such that they are able to carry on despite the burden. If so, this is important to understand because there is a marked difference in how they operate.

If the burden is gone, then it should hopefully not come back to haunt someone in the future. But if the burden remains and is covered by grace, then a lapse in faith by the person means that it comes out full force again.

Perhaps my readers have some thoughts on this they would like to share. I am curious to hear what you folks have to say.

Tissue-Paper Walls

A few days ago a first time commenter left a comment on an old post of mine, A Must Read Story. There is a small part of her rather longish comment that I want to examine. The key part is in bold:

it’s very difficult to have high self-esteem when you do everything “right” but still have poor luck with the opposite sex, and it creates a very lonely feeling when you follow your values but end up getting victimized for it. Our society is simply set up so that selfish people appear to get ahead–that goes for Chads sleeping with hundreds of women, and the slutty girls having “fun.” Eva is the equivalent of the beta male looking on confused, and just because you can’t imagine a woman sharing that experience with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, most women are profoundly insecure. The ones who are open about it–like Eva–haven’t learned the lesson that YOU perceive all women to be adept at–hiding their feelings and vulnerabilities.

Most women are profoundly insecure.

That little tidbit is the subject of today’s post. I’ve written on it before, in my post Beta Farming. I explained my reasoning at the time of why women might be insecure. Some of my reasoning:

Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.

Having thought about it more, I can think of additional reasons for female insecurity.  One of them is that women know (mostly at an unconscious level) how vulnerable pregnancy and child-raising makes them. Another is that women, again unconsciously, realize how limited their peak fertility and SMV window is. They worry about optimizing that time, and covering for when they are no longer at their peak. There is plenty of room for speculation there, and my commenters can feel free to contribute.

However, I want talk about how the insecurity should be handled. One of the problems with that insecurity is that ill-intentioned men can exploit it. Often times quite easily. And course, it usually isn’t entirely unwillingly. But exploitable it still remains.

At the same time, I think that this insecurity is something that good men can relieve or buttress. They can, in the right scenario, build up women’s confidence in a positive way. This can help women resist that lure of exploitation or build up a wall against it. Men can supplement the tissue paper or paper mache walls that women may have with walls of stone and gates of iron.

Unfortunately, our society isn’t exactly eager to see this happen. Fatherhood has been trashed, both as a social as well as a legal force. Fathers are essentially powerless to protect their daughters these days, especially when they are older. Likewise, our society does its level best to keep women away from actual good men, who though few in number still exist. Certainly it tries hard to keep women from marrying such men when they are young.

Now, what I am saying gets awfully close to white knighting. I will admit that gives me pause. All the same, I think the argument is potent indeed that strong men are needed to protect women- from themselves. But for that to happen men need actual power to go with that responsibility. Our present cadre of White Knights, especially in Churchian circles, is what you get when you take that power away from men. Men become modern caricatures of Don Quixote, assaulting windmills left and right and ignoring the real threats all around them.

I will leave with two questions I want to pose to my readers.

First, what methods can be used to protect women, assuming the necessary social structure was in place?

Second, if that structure is not in place, how can it be created, or what workarounds can be used if it cannot?

 

The Necessity Of A Secret Identity

Post full title: Superheroes And The Necessity Of A Secret Identity From A “Red Pill” Perspective

 

[I enjoyed my last comic book post so much I decided to write another one. It should go without saying that this might be less than entirely serious.]

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a friend wherein the subject of superheroes came up. One of the things we talked about, that was interesting from a sociological perspective, was the effect that the presence of superheroes would have on general society. But what really got me thinking was to wonder what it would be like to actually be a superhero.

Oh, I’m not talking about what it would feel like to be able to fly, or have super strength or speed. No, what I was wondering about was the effects that superpowers and a superhero persona would have on someone’s everyday life. Would an everyday life be even possible? Maybe, but it might not be ordinary. Guess it depends.

There is one area of life, however, that would be dramatically affected by one’s superpowers and super-heroic persona: romance.

As I was pondering the impacts that being a super would have on one’s love life, I came to the realization that any hero, male or female, who wanted to marry would need a secret identity. I would go so far as to argue that in today’s climate a secret identity would be a necessity, even.

Why? Well, lets examine it for men and for women separately.

For men who don’t want to marry, and who otherwise don’t care about the possible benefits of a secret identity, then being an “open” Super would be quite a perk. The PSALM/LAMPS boost that a man would enjoy from being a super would have to be enormous. The Status alone would push you into the very top tier of men (unless powers were super-plentiful, I suppose). Then throw in a likely boost to Masculine Power from the confidence of super-powers, and possible athleticism boosts, and yeah… you are set. Oh, and you could probably make bank with endorsements, too. You would be the ultimate player.

But what if you want to marry? Well, here is the problem- that huge PSALM/LAMPS boost from being an open Super would make you a huge target for gold diggers and ultra-hypergamous women. [I imagine that female Supers would fall here.] Sure you might be able to get a 10… but will she stick by you? The thing about Supers is that their Status would probably fluctuate. Just like sports teams, some Supers might be seen as more “hot” at one time than at another. If your “stock” as a Super goes down then your attractiveness will drop (and your bankroll as well re: endorsements). This risks your wife leaving you if she is ultra-hypergamous and thinks she can find greener/fresher pastures elsewhere.

Besides all of the regular problems with divorce, any Supervillain foes you might have could possibly use that ex-wife as a source of info. She might blab all kinds of secrets that you don’t want out. Whether that is any kind of weakness (like kryponite), or merely something embarrassing, it could really hinder your heroics. Even if she didn’t leave you, she would be an obvious target for seduction. And lets face it, if anyone could pull off “Game”, it would be a Supervillain.

Heck, even if she doesn’t leave you, you might still need to constantly “game” her if she is “needy.” Since super-heroism is probably pretty demanding all the time, is that really worth it? I would say not.

Given all of this, a secret identity makes perfect sense. Setting aside all the other benefits, it means you can woo women without the danger they are marrying you just because of your powers. It also makes her less likely to blab your secrets, and reduces the potential of her being targeted for seduction by a foe.

Now on to women…

As a female Super, you would have a number of things to worry about as well. One thing worth mentioning is that the status of being a Super won’t be a boost to your attractiveness like it is with men. Since female attractiveness/beauty is nearly all physical, unless your powers affect your looks, it is a wash- at best.

The first issue that I can think of is that some male Super would marry you just to have super-powered children. That assumes it is genetic, of course. But if it is, then you risk being used as a breeder. Maybe it isn’t so malevolent, but still, there is always the possibility that he marries you just to marry a female super. Perhaps it is a family dynasty thing, like race can be.

Another issue is the concern over being perceived as an Alpha Widow. An open female Super who dated male Supers in the past will have trouble with non-Super men. And I mean trouble aside from her own hypergamy. The problem is that non-Super men might worry (reasonably, I might add) that they would have trouble competing with a male Super, either in terms of memories or future faithfulness.

A secret identity would protect against both problems. Men looking for genetic mothers of super-powered kids would skip you by. At the same time female Supers would be mostly insulated from the association of uber-Alphaness with male Supers and being able to compete.

I am sure there are more reasons to use a secret identity for both male and female super-heroes, so if my readers think of any feel free to add them below. Also feel free to critique my thoughts to your heart’s desire.

An Unsettling Evaluation

In the past couple of days I have been carrying on a discussion with a reader of mine about my “The Way We Met” series. The principal topic has been the question of “settling.” It was prompted by his observation that a number of the more traditional minded Catholic unmarried Catholic women are in their late 20s and early 30s. [The how and why of that is not the topic of this post.] From his perspective they at least seemed outwardly chaste.

What he was curious about was the effect of their settling versus a woman with a long and/or troubled “history.” Here are some questions he asked:

• As a man, should you care if a woman is settling for you, assuming that she has been chaste?
• Does it even make a difference that she has been chaste?
• How do you find out or realize this is happening?
• What should you consider if you find yourself in this scenario?

Those are his questions, slightly rephrased. And good questions they are, too. I invite my readers to try and answer them to the best of their abilities. At the same time, I would like to keep the conversation focused on this particular topic.

[Note: In a couple of days I intend to create a post in reverse of this- advice for women about men settling. Mayhaps it might be useful for some of my female readers, or women they know.]

In Defense Of George

In my recent posts The Way We Met and None The Wiser I was accused of being uncharitable towards George and the young woman he had been infatuated with for a long time. Looking back, I can see that this was true. Pretty much nearly every inference was drawn against both George and the young woman on my part. I implied that he was being foolish, and pointed out numerous indicators that she was probably poor relationship material. Mind you, I didn’t accuse her of being malicious or manipulative. [One thing to keep in mind is that she always appreciated his good qualities; they just didn’t matter until she saw him as sexually attractive]. Rather, I just pointed out that she was questionable as a partner, and said George could have probably done better.

People came to a lot more conclusions about the two of them than I was intending with that post. This is my fault- I tried to do too much in a single post. My original focus was on how the young woman’s change in feelings towards George was based on his SMV growth over anything else. However, at the same time I also  devoted space in the post towards expressing sympathy towards George, in that I believed he was making a poor choice by entering into a relationship with her. Given that I had included photos of them, that put me on morally shaky ground- especially without any defense of them in that post or admonition against coming to unwarranted conclusions.

Today I will, in the spirit of fairness, offer the defense I should have included from the beginning. I will draw all the inferences in their favor this time. Of course, to do that I need to cover where I drew it against them. So what where my inferences again? Here they are:

• George was a Beta Orbiter
• She has had numerous bad relationships where George had to help her pick up the pieces- a.k.a., she had numerous failed sexual relationships in the past
• She believes in soul mates
• Her mother was probably a divorcee

Those are the big ones, anyways. So lets flip them around, and then extrapolate on what they mean.

The first one is about him and his behavior. If we assume the best about him than he wasn’t infatuated with her for 10 years. Instead, he was using that time to build himself up, and perhaps consider other options as far as female company are concerned. In those ten year he was a friend, but not someone stuck in the friendzone. This conclusion would make George more confident and aware of his own value. His decision is not the product of years of frustrated pining for a woman who ignores him, but a more deliberate, and hopefully informed choice.

For the second inference, and first red flag, we assume that those were not sexual relationships. Perhaps the reason they ended badly was because the young woman wasn’t sleeping with her boyfriends. It would certainly be understandable to see how she could have numerous failed relationships if she was saving herself for marriage. Given how rare chastity is these days, most men she would run across, including the “Christian” ones, would likely dump her if she wasn’t putting out. Now, if this were true- that the reason for her failed relationships was because she was saving herself- then it would be a huge green flag. It would be a huge sign in her favor, one that George would be a fool to ignore. [There is of course the whole frigidity thing, but I believe that is reasonably rare as to be a minor concern- especially since she is still in her 20s.]

The third inference was the most solid of all- that she believes in soul mates. For those curious, that is not a good thing- those who do believe in soul mates are more likely to divorce. To draw it in her favor would mean to assume she was just making a figure of speech. She didn’t really mean soul mate in the typical -pagan- way of looking at it. Rather, she just wanted to say that her relationship with George felt like it was destined.

Finally, we have the fourth inference. To infer in her favor would be to assume that her mother was a widow. In this case, she did have a father, but lost him at some point. Hopefully it would mean that she had a strong and positive male influence in her life. Also, it would mean that she would have a living example in her life of how marriage is “until death do us part.” This is not so much a “green flag”, but would obviate the harm that comes from being a child of divorce.

If all four of these points were true- George wasn’t a Beta Orbiter, the woman wasn’t sleeping around, she didn’t believe in soul mates, and her mother was a widow, then it would change how we would view the relationship. George wouldn’t be a fool. After all, she appears to have long recognized his good qualities- he just needed to become more attractive for them to really shine. He would be in a relationship with someone who valued those qualities, who valued her body, and who saw that marriage was until “death do us part.” Compared to your average American female, she would be well ahead of the pack. One could even argue he would be a fool not to pursue her.

And that brings my defense of George and his woman to a conclusion. If you can see other ways to buttress that, feel free to add them in the comments below.

The Way We Met

[See update at the bottom of the post.]

I ran across the following story via a friend. Apparently it is part of some Facebook feed called The Way We Met:

“I was best friends with George for 10 years before we started dating. We met in High School and developed a really special friendship over the years. I always felt more comfortable telling George something than anyone else I knew. He became my most trusted companion and we hung out all the time. People who didn’t know us always thought we were dating. When we went our separate ways for college, we didn’t talk as much anymore but our friendship remained just as strong. George was always there for me after every bad relationship ended to help me pick up the pieces. I would often say to people, “I think friends can be soul mates, I really think George is mine.” It was odd how we would say the same thing at the same time and always knew what the other person was thinking. I always knew how much George meant to me, but it wasn’t until after my Mom got remarried that I started to look at him in a different light. The day of my Mom’s wedding I came down the stairs and he looked up at me with a big smile and said, “You look beautiful baby,” and then kissed me on the cheek. I don’t know why but something about that moment has always stuck out so strongly to me. The rest of the evening I kept staring at him and thinking about how handsome he was, what a gentleman he was, and how much I cared about him. We danced with each other all night and I realized how perfectly we fit together. It felt like home. After that, it took a couple weeks of nervous deliberation but we finally decided we wanted to be together. It’s crazy to think that my soul mate has been with me this whole time, I just wasn’t ready to accept it yet.”

There are a couple of images that accompany this. They are side by side for comparison:

Now some of you might recognize these images. That is because I featured them in my recent post, Telling Photos. Now that I have included the text that accompanies the photos we can finally start with the making of sense.

So what do we learn from both of them together? Here are a few things:

• The guy (George), was a beta orbiter for a long, long time.
• The gal (whose name I don’t have), had numerous broken relationships. A reasonable inference can be made that [those relationships, or at least some of them, were sexual, although it is not certain].
• The gal believes in Soul Mates. Ouch.
• The gal’s mom was either a divorcee or was a widow. That is not good news for good ol’ George [if it is the latter].
• They are probably somewhere between 24 and 28 years old.
• George majorly stepped up his attractiveness over those ten years.
• She was somewhat overweight at first, and it seems she has managed to get at least some of that weight off.

[A number of these are red flags. They are indicators of possible problems with her as LTR material. That doesn’t necessarily mean she is poor material, but they should prompt caution.]

Here is the thing- if someone who wasn’t “Red Pill” savvy read this piece, they would probably find it sweet. Those of us who are savvy, however, would probably have an entirely different reaction. I found the story sad, not sweet.

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront, and before you know it you have this:

“I realized how perfectly we fit together.”

Among other things, this story serves as further evidence in support of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV chart:

What happened here is that the girl’s SMV started out much higher than George’s. However, as time went on his SMV continued to climb and climb. Meanwhile, age has reduced the girl’s potential SMV. However, her (presumed) weight loss had the effect of reducing the effective loss of SMV that she felt. The end result of all of this is that both are pretty close in comparative SMV at the time of this photo.

I mentioned before that I find this sad. The reason why is simple: George is now attractive enough that he can get the attention of decent looking girls (I suspect that while most readers would disagree about the actual number, most would agree that she is at least attractive). Yet what does he do with that newfound power? He goes after the girl he has been crushing on for a decade. A girl with all kinds of baggage (which she freely admits to). A girl whose mother probably was a divorcee. A girl who might very well be reaching her “Epiphany phase,” and thus looking to “cash out”on what remains of her SMV.

George seems like a decent guy, and now probably one with options. He should have focused on younger women with less baggage. Instead he married a girl with more red flags than a Communist parade.

Now that I have fleshed out the rest of this story, I invite my readers to comment further. I believe some good solid lessons can be derived here. Sure, most will already know them, but a refresher course never hurts. Plus you never know, there is always the chance for some newfound wisdom.

*For the record, the couple put all of this out there. They made it public, not me. I am merely commenting on what is effectively a public statement of theirs.

Update: Made a few corrections to try and clarify things; they are in brackets. People came to more conclusions than I was expecting in this post.

Update 2: I wrote a followup post which addresses the problems with this one- In Defense of George.

Groundless Fears Of Men About Their Daughters

[DG Note: Today’s post is a guest post by reader/commenter Tigersault (formerly A Visitor)]

 

Men today, regarding their daughters, act and think like women.  Sure, being foolish is a surefire way to end up with your genetic lineage being annihilated but I’m not talking about that here.  What I’m talking about is how men when confronted with the painfully obvious fact that most women (I’m talking a majority well over 50%) do not and, more importantly, SHOULD NOT attend a university/college, they immediately start thinking and acting like women regarding a range of possible scenarios that more often than not DO NOT COME TO PASS.

 

This post will examine three points: 1) the obvious dangers of sending your daughter(s) to a university/college 2) the various scenarios that men come up with to rationalize sending their daughters to university/college and 3) what happens in the rare scenario that something does happen.  All three of these will be backed up with personal anecdotes when possible.  Yes, exceptions do not break the rule but bear with me here.

 

Before delving into these three points, an aside about myself:  I come from a very well-to-do upper class background and, in the current occupation I am in, I deal with death on a semi-regular basis as part of my job duties.  Beyond that, I am prepared to say nothing more due to wishing to keep my anonymity.

 

First, the obvious dangers of sending your daughter(s) to university/college.  They bear repeating.  One of two things (or possibly both) will happen:  1)  your daughter will come out a flaming liberal and/or feminist and/or 2) she will lose her virginity, potentially becoming an alpha widow, and/or have so many sexual partners that she will become unmarriable except to the most beta schlub.

 

In my family’s case, one sibling came out a raging feminist.  Even in a certain situation where she disliked someone who was a woman, when hearing that a certain requirement had to be met of all individuals, regardless of gender, she was quick to ascertain the woman was not being asked to fulfill said requirement only due to gender.  Furthermore, she buys the campus rape myth.  My girlfriend asked the following question, “Was [your sibling] like this before she went to college?”  My response, “Not that I recall.”  My sibling’s feminism is complimented by acceptance of homosexuality and transsexualism.  In another sibling’s case, she wears the pants in the relationship with my in-law.  She may not admit it but she’d be happier submitting to his headship.  And yes, this sibling views anti-homosexuality as being bigoted.

 

Finally, on the obvious dangers point, although a woman’s promiscuity may precede her time at a college/university, being in that environment certainly will not do wonders in terms of maintaining her chastity.  Whether it be the greeters of a southern university or two (Google it if you don’t believe me) being recruited as de-facto geishas to entice high school senior football players to attend their university for obvious benefits or just your run of the mill attractive girl, the environment in college/universities is generally not conducive to maintaining one of her most prized assets, namely being chaste.  In one instance, I was at a tailgate with an individual that I had met the previous night.  We were talking when suddenly he recognized one of my classmates and decided to leave.  The reason?  He had had a one night stand with her.

 

Second, when you bring up to men that their daughters would be better off not going to college/university a stream of woman rationalizations comes forth.

 

1) “What if she can’t find a man to marry?”

 

2) “What if her husband turns out to be horrid and she has to separate due to physical security concerns?”

 

3) “What if she needs to hold herself over with work for a bit before she marries?”

 

4) “What if her husband dies and she has to go back to work?”

 

“What if….”

 

The above questions can be perceived as legitimate concerns but upon further examination are debunked easily.  However, as one can see, this line of questioning can go on indefinitely.  Before moving on to point 3 of the post (the rare case the worst comes to pass), ask yourself this question: is it really, assuming she’ll be attending a four year in state public university, worth shelling out roughly $80,000 for a piece of paper that in many cases is worth as much as a high school degree due to market over saturation or, in the case of worthless majors like ethnic studies or women’s studies, worth less than a normal degree AND a huge red flag to future employers?  Keep in mind too that beyond all the time and effort they spend on said degree, they will have a lot of down time around alcohol and late teens/early 20’s men with the same amount of raging hormones they do.

 

So, what if the worst comes to pass?  We’ll hit this in the order of the questions numbered in the paragraph on point two of this post.  1) What if she can’t find a man to marry?  Well, it may certainly not be too late.  However, ask yourself this?  What can a man bring to the table nowadays if women are told, from an extremely young age, that they can be anything they want AND do anything as well, if not better, than a man?  If she can’t find a man, don’t despair.  If she’s young enough, keep an eye on quality boys that she interacts with regularly.  If she is post college, put her in situations where she is around eligible men, especially parish life.  Make a point to strike up conversations with parents of men who are looking to marry.  Make sure she dresses modestly and that she acts like a woman.  These two things alone separate from the vast majority of bottom feeders in women’s bodies nowadays.  If she cannot in fact, despite your and her best efforts, find a man to marry, through no fault of her own, see to it that she’s well taken care of: have her work for a family member or friend in a secure line of work.  Support her as needed, emotionally, spiritually, monetarily.

 

2)  “What if her husband turns out to be horrid and she has to separate due to physical security concerns?”  Those vows she took in the Sacrament of Marriage are binding until death due them part.  So, what now?  Do what is needed to make sure he won’t harm her: i.e. restraining order, firearms training for her, followed by making sure she is in a safe place to live, whether it be your house, a trusted family friend, etc.

 

3) “What if she needs to hold herself over with work for a bit before she marries?” Pretty much see point 1.  Introduce her to God-fearing righteous men, looking to marry.  Let her live in your house until marriage.  So far it’s worked out fine for my parents.  From personal experience, one sibling is married and the other is in the house until she marries.  It is working fine thus far.

 

4) “What if her husband dies and she has to go back to work?”

 

I have two experiences with this.  First, a friend of mine who is advanced in years had a daughter he supports due to her husband no longer being in the picture.  My friend is not very well off and yet manages to do it.  I cannot recall for certain if her husband is deceased but I believe he is.

 

Second, in my course of work, someone I knew professionally was murdered along with several others in a random killing several months back.  Besides my professional obligations in aiding his widow, others in the state, as well as her parish have banded together to help the family of the deceased.  This is not a one time thing either, regarding the parishioners.  This is a continued process of supporting her as she works to support her family.

 

As horrible and tragic as the situation is for her and her children, we are committed to continuing to help her.  Everyone, regardless of how desolate their situation seems, knows at least one other person that would help them in their time of need.  And yes, to my knowledge, his widow did not attend college.  I say that due to knowing them enough professionally that it is obvious and will say nothing further on it.

 

To conclude, men today, especially regarding their daughters, will delve into irrational thinking and acting like women when it comes to the subject of their daughters not attending college/university.  Is it worth them a) turning their backs on what you’ve taught them re: the Faith, b) becoming flaming liberals c) losing their virginity/being so unchaste as to be unmarriable due to N count, STD(s), being an alpha widow and/or d) spending a great deal of your money on an investment that most likely will not be worth it?  There are several “what ifs” addressed above with personal experiences where appropriate and likely scenarios when no personal anecdote was available.

 

In closing, as my girlfriend and I have discussed before if we get married, we are looking to marry off our daughters as soon as possible.  Raising chaste, Catholic, feminine princesses to be queens, imbued with truly traditional values, who have God first, their husbands and families close behind, rather than a career, is worth dividends in the end, as well as a way to continue our way of life.

Think Of The Children

Reader and occasional commenter A Visitor recently alerted me to this post over at Vox Day’s blog: N Matters, a lot.  The key point of the post is this graph:

The study, and graph, reaffirm similar findings in the past about how a woman’s N (her sexual partner count) affects the odds of divorce. Studies and charts like this have been discussed before, both on this blog and plenty of others, so I won’t go into depth on it. I do like this one part from Vox’s post, though:

The interesting thing about this study is the way that it shows how the second-greatest risk is marrying a woman with only 2 partners; the researcher’s theory is that this might be the result of over-emphasized comparisons; the woman has just enough experience to realize that there is something else out there, but not enough to realize that most of it isn’t an improvement.

While not sold on it, it is a pretty solid theory. But I digress.

The reason for this post, and the reason for this post’s title, is to emphasis the importance of visual cues. This chart is a powerful visual aid to explain to others the perils of marrying non-virgin women. It is bright, simple to understand and gets the point across without the reader needing to have any skill with statistics.

So for the time being, I will probably use this graph as my primary visual explanation for why I insist on marrying a woman with an N of 0. Setting aside all other concerns (of which I have plenty), the divorce angle cannot be ignored.

Most especially, I cannot ignore the impact divorce might have on any children that arise from the marriage before hand. If I am stupid and marry poorly, knowing that I should do better, than that is on me now. I will deserve it. But my kids don’t deserve to be put through the wringer. They deserve to have a stable and loving home- not one that is ripped apart. In addition, I would never want them exposed to a myriad of “boyfriends” and “step-dads” that their mother (whom I should have never married) will bring into her, and their, life.

Men, there are many ways to respond to someone who tries to shame you into marrying a non-virgin. But few will have quite the punch as pointing out that it greatly increases the chances of divorce, and the impact that will have on your children. Flip their shaming right back at them, and ask them why they want to make it more likely that your children will be put through the horrors of divorce. Ask them how they could be so callous. And remind them to think of the children.

Sympathy for a Stranger

I was out and about town yesterday when I overheard a conversation between several older ladies. Probably very early Boomers, if I was to guess. It wasn’t my intent to overhear them, and I missed most of what they said. However, I caught some of it, and will paraphrase the small part that I did hear.

Lady 1: …and she [grand-daughter, I think- I never heard for certain] is going with a new guy now. He treats her well, is very respectful and considerate.

Lady 2: He seems nice.

Lady 1: Oh, he is. I like him. He has a good job and seems very responsible. I hope that it works out between them.

Lady 3: Oh, so you think it/he [not sure which was said] has potential?

Lady 1: I think so. She is [in her late twenties] and is starting to think about settling down now. He would be a good choice.

The first thing that ran through my head upon hearing this was as follows:

That poor son of a #@$*&, he has no idea what he is getting himself into it.

After a moment I realized what I had thought, and further realized that I didn’t know these people. I didn’t know the ladies, I didn’t know the grand-daughter, and I didn’t know the man. What was I doing making all of these assumptions and coming to these conclusions?

Yet, the thing is, I’m more likely right than wrong, and I know it. I’ve seen this before. I caught that conversation because of some of the “trigger” words used by those ladies. A minute’s worth of conversation had me convinced that this guy was your typical Beta White-Knight. I could always be wrong, but I don’t think I am. The way that the ladies described him fits that profile to a T. The grand-daughter I was less certain about, but that comment about settling down (coupled with her age), made me think that she was at or approaching her Epiphany Phase. The tone used by the [presumed] grandmother also lent credence to that inference [I almost thought I picked up a hint that the woman in question might have some regrets].

As I contemplated that conversation later that day, I couldn’t help but feel sympathy for that unknown man. I have no idea who is he, but that didn’t stop me all the same. And while it is possible that I misread everything, and that my sympathy is unneeded, the sentiment was still expressed. Having seen what can happen to a man who falls for that particular trap, I would have trouble wishing it on my worst enemies. What I am curious about is if I am alone in feeling this. Do some of my male readers experience similar sympathies? Or is this just me? I ask because it isn’t an isolated occurrence for me- I often feel for men who are caught, or look to be caught, in the web of lies that is sometimes referred to as “Blue Pill land.” Feel free to add your thoughts on this, and anything else related to the subject, in the comments.

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Emptier

Background: One of the deepest writers in the entire ‘sphere also happens to be one of those who writes the least: Ace of Spades. His posts can sometimes be just a few short sentences in length, spaced apart by the occasional break. When added together they rarely amount to more than a paragraph or two. However, each word is fraught with meaning (almost always on multiple levels), and he can accomplish with a few lines what others need an essay to convey. Yet the insight he hopes to convey isn’t always obvious, and all of his posts need to be “unpacked” (or unzipped, to use computer terminology) to some degree. I’ve unpacked posts of his before, and he expressed appreciation for my effort. At the same time he asked me to make similar efforts in the future, and this post follows in that path.

The post I want to examine today is “… [there’s] oh so many ways for me to show you how your dogma has abandoned you…” Like nearly all of his posts, it begins with a song which helps set tone and context. I suggest listening to it before reading further. I intend to analyze his post line by line, so it may help to read the full post at his site, as I don’t intend to post it all together here. Also, while each line will have analysis, much of it will be at the end of the post as well. Now to get to it:

All pig-tails and patent-leather shoes.

These two features together hint at femininity in a juvenile context- a young school-age girl. She is young and innocent, and looks the part- wearing her hair in pig-tails and dressing up in nice looking clothes for when she goes to school. This sets up the point of view of the post- that of a young girl (at least in the beginning).

Daddy never seems to care.

The key language in this line is the word “seems.” Ace included that word on purpose. Whatever “Daddy’s” actual intentions might be, they are ultimately irrelevant in this context. What matters is how the young girl from the above line perceives his concern, his lack of care about her.

This is important because “Daddy” might care, but not be in a position to do anything about it. If the father of a young girl has been kicked out of the home and separated from his children by force of law because “Mommy” decide to frivorce him, then what he wants or intends doesn’t matter. The amount of time he can spend with his daughter will be limited, in some cases quite severely. And no matter how much Daddy tells his daughter that he loves her, that he cares for her, that he wants to spend time with her… she won’t believe him if he doesn’t spend much time with her. She cannot help but rationalize his limited contact as a lack of care on his part, no matter how much the matter is explained to her. For a child, a father’s presence, or the lack thereof, is not something which is guided and directed by a rational thought process (no matter how smart the child).

As a side note, even if the biological father is present, but he doesn’t act like an actual father (that is, as a masculine man exercising the office of fatherhood), it is like he isn’t even there at all.

And fathers are the first glimpse of God all children see.

The fact that this line alone is in bold makes it clear that this is the most important line in the whole post. So why bold it?

Numerous studies have shown that it is the father, not the mother, who has the greatest influence on a child’s faith. A devout father can lead his children to follow his faith, no matter the beliefs of the mother. Yet not amount of holiness by the mother can compensate for a father’s disbelief. The reason why is as Ace describes- in their father children see their first real glimpse of God. How so? A father- a true father who can act as such, acts much as God: he admonishes and disciplines when necessary, he provides strength and comfort in times of distress, he pushes for improvement as required, and he loves throughout.

A child’s relationship with his or (in this case) her father helps that child understand boundaries, to understand authority, to get a sense of what is right, and what is wrong. Nothing can replace this understanding.

Left little choice, you choose to sin.

An interesting line. choice in what? By itself this line is incomplete.

Just to get some attention.

Now the previous line makes sense. The young girl from before is feeling the effects of her father’s absence. Without realizing it, without understanding it, part of her- deep in her subconscious- needs a strong male presence in her life. Specifically, she needs the presence of a father. Only she cannot comprehend that. She can only understand that she wants male attention. And so she seeks it. She seeks it from other men, to get that attention and validation that she knows she wants, without understanding why. Without that firm foundation which can only be build over years by a strong and loving father, she will invariably seek that attention in a sinful fashion. Fornication cannot help but seem like love to her.

But boys are not the Almighty.

This line hints at two things, neither of which is mutually exclusive. And when you get down to it, they derive from the same point. Why “Almighty,” when the previous lines suggest that it is a father that the young woman (for she is no longer a girl at this point) seeks? Because she is also seeking God. For just as her need for a father’s presence was not met, so too her need for a sense of God’s presence in her life is not met. For as was indicated earlier, our ability to know God is in large part shaped by our father. To not know the former is to inhibit our connection to the latter.

The men she is sleeping around with cannot (and even if they could, likely would not) give her the love that she seeks. Eros is what her hormones tell her to seek, but it is Agape that her soul longs for- the true, lasting and selfless love of a father, both one of this world, and Eternal. Sadly, this is beyond her ken.

Thus, the emptiness still grows—

Eros without Agape is poison to the soul. We cannot fill ourselves solely with Eros, no matter how hard we try. Instead we simply feed into our hunger, demanding more and more. [Edit: Think of it like salt and water. Salt is good and necessary for our health, and adds much flavor to life. But too much salt, and not enough water, and we throw our electrolyte balance off. This can kill our body if not swiftly correct. Just as Eros can add flavor to our life, without Agape to keep us balanced we risk death, only of the eternal sort for it is our soul which is threatened.]

All the while the emptier and emptier we feel. For the young woman caught in this trap, there is seemingly no escape. She moves from man to man, and yet her need for that male presence only grows greater. She thirsts, and goes to the well, but cannot be satisfied. All because she is going to the wrong well, which she knows not.

regardless of how much they put in you.

The obvious inference here is what this double entendre suggests: the sexual act, which literally involves putting something in the young woman. However, it is more than just that. Some of the men might mean well or even be serious in their attentions/intentions. They might actually love the young woman. But that doesn’t matter- they cannot provide what she needs.

The years fall away and that little girl continues to struggle.

This is a trap from which the young woman cannot seem to escape [but I repeat myself]. Ironically, while she is no longer a little girl in body, in many ways her mind and emotional state never advanced beyond the tender years. How could they?

(Still wearing pigtails and patent-leather shoes.)

Once again, two meanings are present. As the previous line hinted at, the young woman is still mentally and emotionally a little girl. Her maturation process was incomplete, as a core ingredient was missing.

The other meaning hints at the sexualized lifestyle of the young woman, as well as her increasing age. In an effort to try and recapture her youth, and that sense of innocence from before, she tries to adopt a more youthful appearance. She wears clothing and hairstyles that make her seem younger, or otherwise bear some connection to her youth. On the one hand this ties into her sexuality, and a desire to keep it at its peak (even though that is only a brief window). On the other hand, this attempt to recapture her youth is a desperate attempt by the woman to try and repeat her childhood. To have a youth again where that strong man she desperately needs will be present this time.

To wrestle love from the unloving.

Yet another reminder that those men she associates with, those men she sleeps with and gives herself to, cannot give her what she wants needs. Nor can they be truly blamed in this [absence on her part], as it is not their place.

But it is not only men who she attempts to wrestle with. It is causes and movements. Anything and everything that gives even the faintest flicker of potential meaning and purpose. She longs for a place where she can belong. But causes and movements are cold. Unloving. They too cannot give her what she wants needs: a family as it was meant to be.

To punish herself until absolution arrives.

Self-loathing invariably becomes a part of this. The young woman is miserable, and no matter how much she may deny it to others, she knows it deep down inside. Her misery is something she knows is a result of having done something wrong, although she may not know what. Her sense of guilt, as ill-formed as it is, drives her to yet further misery. All in the hope that it will end someday. That she will finally have paid a heavy enough price for whatever it was that she did wrong. A wrong for which she was punished by not having a real father in her life.

Yet it never does.

Of course, she was not responsible for her father not being in her life. Her upbringing is not something she shares blame in. But this is something she never hears, or rather, never hears as she should. She might be told that it isn’t her fault. But that is meaningless or ultimately futile without being told whose fault it is, without understanding why things were wrong in the first place.

The humanist sacristy is empty.

A sacristy is a place where clergy prepare for services. So what does Ace mean by this line? He is trying to indicate that humanism has nothing, has no one, to actually carry out services in the first place. Its very nature is to leave people to fend for themselves, to suffer through life’s trials without solace or guide… or absolution.

The progressive wine is soured.

I take this to mean that much of the appeal of progressivism is gone now. It has sat at the same place for so long it has gone stale. No one wants to drink it, although they may feel compelled to do so. After all, it is a liturgical center-piece of the present-age “social gospel,” and so cannot simply be dispensed with.

And no one listens in the digital confessional…

We, all of us, seek absolution. We may not realize the need to repent and confess our sins, but we have it all the same. Sometimes (perhaps even most of the time), we rationalize away this impulse. We call it something else. But its essence remains the same- after all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Alas, the internet is no proper confessional. Ace says that no on listens, because to hear, and to listen, are two different things. To listen to something is to pay attention to it, to recognize its meaning and to try and understand what is being said, even as we hear it. But over the internet true listening is not possible. Only hearing. Too much is lost in the process of putting words onto digital ink, of spilling it across monitors the world over. There is something inhumanly mechanical about the internet which disconnects us, even as it helps bring us together like never before. Because of this, the internet can never replace the confession booth.

save the echo.

Interestingly enough, part of us still knows what we are saying, even if we cannot accept that truth. So ultimately a digital confession merely rebounds at us and amplifies the need we feel.

You were forgiven – and loved – long before you strayed.

This line applies both to the young woman’s earthly father, as well as her father in heaven. The theology involved should be pretty basic to most any Christian, and so I won’t go into too much depth. But it is worth pointing out that God knows we are going to stray, that we are going to sin, long before we ever do. His sacrifice at Calvary was not merely for what we have done, but for what we have yet to do. It is a sacrificial love that persists throughout the ages.

Underlying this is the call by both Daddy and our Father to return. To come home. To seek him/Him out and to try and create a proper relationship this time.

Oh, child, who told you that you were naked?

The end is always a good place to return to the beginning, to Genesis. Here Ace alludes to the Fall, to the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Yes, I know, obvious. So why include it? To remind us that no one told Adam and Eve they were naked. They knew it themselves as a result of eating the Forbidden Fruit. Likewise, the young woman (or should I say women?) featured here was never told that she was on the wrong path. No one needed to tell her. The understanding that she is naked, that she is in a shameful place, is intrinsic to her nature. When we revolt against the natural law, we cannot help but recognize that a crime (of sorts) has taken place.

So what is the full context of what Ace is trying to say? Again, there are many layers here.

On one level Ace states that the absence of a strong father in a young woman’s life will almost invariably lead her towards a life of dissolution and sin. The absence of a strong masculine presence will ache within her akin to hunger pains, and she will gorge herself upon men (seeking masculinity) in order to try and sate that hunger. Sadly, such binge eating will never alleviate her need.

Ace is also explaining that the crisis of faith we are seeing now in Christianity is the product of the destruction of the institution or office of fatherhood. Without strong fathers in their lives many children cannot help but abandon the faith. Of course to them there is no abandonment; without a father they never really knew God in the first place.

He is also pointing out that the humanist and progressive institutions of our day cannot replace what they destroyed. They are, at best, base mockeries of something greater. Though they may mimic the form of Faith, they can never replicate the function. Just as realizing their nakedness was innate to Adam and Eve after taking the fruit, the desire to confess and be absolved of our sins is also innate within us. The present progressive paradigm, however, cannot meet that need, as it rejects its existence in the first place. You cannot heal a spiritual injury when you refuse to recognize there is an injury in the first place, or even anything spiritual.

I am sure there is more to it, but my time is limited and so I must cap my analysis here. Mayhaps Ace will fill in what I could not.

[Update: I fixed a number of typos and grammatical errors, plus added a few words and an example to the post. Hopefully it will be easier to read now. Sorry for any confusion or post ugliness- I hadn’t intended for this post to go public when it did.]