Sexual immorality in the Bible

Just a reminder for the PUAs lurking. You are not traditional and certainly not Christian. You’re not even cucks, you’re not right-wing at all, let alone Alt Right.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6&version=NIV

Sexual Immorality

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

If degenerate, if r-selected, not right-wing!

18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. 

Louder for the fake Bible-thumpers at the back.

Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

No fornication. It’s a hard rule. An absolute.

You don’t get to play Call out the Degenerate, when you are one.

The eternal r-type

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/unbelievable-mother-of-15-kids-somebody-needs-to-pay-somebody-needs-to-be-held-accountable_12012011

for the Title alone

“Somebody needs to pay! Somebody needs to be held accountable!”

comment

“At what number of children does a woman loose her ‘reproductive rights’ to bring even more children into this world that she is unable to care for? Why are you and I ‘forced’ to support children that we had no part in creating? I had no part in the pleasure of any of the orgasms required to create these children …… so why am I required to support them and their mother?
I am informed that here in Florida, the grandmother of the children will go to DCF and allege that her daughter is unfit to care for and raise her grandchildren. Once the mother is declared “unfit”, then the grandmother will gain legal custody of the children and then become their “foster parent”. This changes the whole nature of the situation from a welfare issue to a foster care issue. Grandma can then collect approximately 2.5X more as a foster care provider than her daughter can receive as a welfare recipient.
At this point, the daughter moves back in with her mother and her children and they all live happily after ….. at our expense. How about after the delivery of two welfare babies we also provide the mother with a tubal ligation; at our expense of course. To be completely fare about the whole thing, we also give the father a free vasectomy.
Food for thought homies. Too cold on my part?”

This sex-positive Sexual Revolution propaganda is all about dem dollars.

It’s a wealth transfer to the immature dependents (high time pref) from the actual adults (low time pref). The productive are being vampirised for the leeches, that’s why they can’t afford to breed themselves!

You have a ‘right’ to breed as many children as you like, under our construct of consensual=moral, but you do not have a right to force others to pay for it. At most, your own relations ought to pay for them, not strangers. I find it funny the men complaining about free birth control are the ones (sluts) who benefit from it, they never want to shut down free STD clinics or the abortion clinics, do they?

Replacement-level only is too generous, one child only. You need to breed those genes OUT.
The old rule was all those claiming any welfare go on birth control OR forsake all right to support for any child they produce while claiming.

“This angers me because I remember trying not to cry when I went in for my tubal ligation. We wanted more kids but knew in our hearts we couldn’t afford more. We stopped at three, wanted five originally. It was hard but I figured if I was ever in a position to truly support another lil guy then I could afford a reversal or in vitro. Made sense to me then, makes sense to me now. I don’t regret it because I know my kids would have less if I had been emotional and selfish.

And then to think of the poor couples who can’t have any at all! Really makes me sick. And more and more people have no responsibility for thier actions in any way anymore. I have to wonder, if there were no such thing as welfare, would she have had all those kids?”

It hurts other, better women most of all, the ones who keep their legs shut.

In a way, it’s deeply sexist against K-women. We have a shorter breeding period where we’re forced to pay for welfare trash babies instead of saving for our own.

“Let’s be fair…
Norplant as long as you are on welfare.
Once you start on welfare no more children are added to the payouts.
You lose the right to vote as long as you are on welfare.
to collect welfare you need to turn in the father with a DNA test to prove it.
So if you are down on your luck you get help, and if you turn your life around you get to have as many children as you want, vote, and collect child support from dad(s)”

Why should anyone’s sex life (lifestyle choice) be subsidized by the taxpayer?

The assumption nobody ever attacks.

There is no such thing as a human right to orgasms.

You have no right to a sex life, especially at the expense of others. This goes from free contraception to rape. Within marriage, you have a right to sex. That is literally the ‘conjugal right‘. You don’t have conjugal rights over anyone you’re not married to. That’s the real issue, they refuse to marry.

They want all the perks of marriage: sex, children, financial providence but no obligations or responsibilities.

In a patriarchy, it’s always the father’s responsibility as the provider, this is more a paternal failure but the women are almost as bad. Simply extract all the mother’s costs from the father, or he can work it off in prison. That’s the only way to do this, the traditional way.

Without promiscuity culture, this would never have happened.

Social shame would have prevented it but who wants to name the Beast of lust? All both parents want is ‘fun’.

They had sex knowing the biological consequence. You are taught this before puberty. You can have ‘fun’ in a thousand other ways or take up a masturbation habit if orgasms are so core to your self-esteem. Too much sex and the wrong sex (out of marriage, with strangers) is bad for your body and mind. It’s also common sense. There is NO such thing as ‘casual sex’. It has one, clear outcome.

comment
“If you can’t feed em, don’t breed em.”
“The bitch and her bastards belong in the gas chamber.”
“How’s about the Dads pay and you keep your legs together. I don’t owe you anything.”

If anything, they owe society.

In these cases, it’s always unfair to blame only the mother when it takes two to horizontal tango.
Always ask: where’s the father?

comment on a previously linked article, relevant
Long before you start saving money for your own kids, you pay for someone else’s. Get some single mother’s kid set up with toys, clothes and food and THEN you can start putting aside some money for your OWN kid, but not before. First some brown kid somewhere gets a Tonka truck, new jeans, KFC, ice cream sandwiches with your money. See what’s left, stick it in the piggy bank for your kid. Fuck it.”

The welfare system is unjust.

Our future is stolen.

Hatefacts to trigger

I use ‘fact’ with caution. One study doesn’t make a fact, but it’s something.

http://archive.is/LRe05
“Here are about 700 hatefacts (politically incorrect but true statements) on Islam, race, gender relations, ethnocentrism, diversity, and more. These facts and other commentary were originally posted on the @LibrarianofHate twitter account. This is by far the largest listing of politically incorrect facts to date, but it’s only a small sampling of everything out there. After all this research, I don’t believe hatefacts are meaningful or convincing, since they only have value as part of a larger narrative that makes sense of the world, but perhaps someone will find this list worthwhile. If you find an error, typo, or just want to call me an evil nazi KKK member, you’re out of luck.”

e.g. “All available studies find that non-European immigrants to Britain cost about $10 billion/year. Source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk#kp3

The gender section mostly attacks women but otherwise pretty fair where it covers both (aka the scientific standard).
“40% of women with more than 20 sex partners have an STD. Source: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf#page=19
How does that not apply to men unless they’re all lesbians?
Oh wait, I looked up the link and it’s the guy that ONLY studies women (on heterosexual sex?!) and then acts like it’s scientific. Yeah, check the links first before using, guys. Severe quality issue in places. The obvious question would be, which sluts (men) are infecting these sluts? And the sample is at least ten years old.
“All the charts and data in this report refer to sexually active women; girls and women who have never been sexually active are excluded.” ….So it doesn’t even study all women, of that age, in that country. #facepalm
But this other one doesn’t study male happiness in marriage either…
Reassessing the Link between Women’s Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Quality
https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/91/2/635/2235785/Reassessing-the-Link-between-Women-s-Premarital

Do they not care about men too? Or is it just hostility with a poor methodology?
It’s men doing the studies…. why aren’t they studying men? What kind of data are they hiding?
Like the promiscuity divorce risk….

Not one has the balls to look at it.

And they call themselves redpill.

Where’s the data, dude?

You can’t just ignore half the dataset. I’m so disappointed. I have nothing to talk about if there’s only half, on a topic predicated on the need to compare BOTH. Still, some of the immigration links are useful. They have decent methods.

“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.


Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.


Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

Comic: The hypocrisy of men

hypocrisyofmen

So many places I could go with this one, I’ll just leave it, for posterity. [see signalling right]

Because it’s completely moral to select a wife that’s had more dick than ancient whores*, while insisting other men only settle for The Best, but don’t dare bring up what you literally did.

*or Mata Hari

*or Maya Angelou (yes, a hooker)

Why can’t slutty men find non-slutty wives?

It’s the big question, isn’t it?

Manwhores complaining about not finding a ‘good’ wife after admitting/bragging they can’t keep it in their pants?

teadrinking sipping pretentious sarcastic bitch mmhmm not my problem lol

World’s biggest mystery.

You should totally start a male supremacy cult based on it. That’ll get all the babes.

You deserve a good woman, right? Hey, when you went psycho manipulator on those other women, it was funny! It wasn’t abuse! Take a joke! You’ll brag forever about how many women you ruined and wonder why only the broken ones are attracted to that.

Yes, it’s all pesky woman’s fault.

Thanks to birth control, today’s degenerates are tomorrow’s genetic suicides.

For the rest of us, there’s matched pairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating#In_humans

Outside of physical appearance, assortative mating in humans occurs over a wide array of traits. These include socio-economic status, educational level, various attitudes (religious, political, racial and ethnic), personality, psychological traits and mental disorders…

If only the ugly sluts are attracted to you… guess what.

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Have it All is a lie you purchased instead of long-term happiness. Now you’re a bachelor, the male spinster. You wanted a reputation, it’s a beacon, a loud and clear signal for one type to come and another to run away. Maybe your red pill should be a cyanide cap.

inspired by

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/are-you-new-to-the-manosphere/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/is-game-or-pick-up-a-con/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/r-types-want-r-types/

Provision requires fidelity. You fail as a man. You lose. Good day, Sir.