A Quote From a Manosphere Commenter

From this post:

Adam was a zoned out coward. He should have had better outcome independence and killed Eve on the spot and asked for God for a better Helpmate who wouldn’t betray him. His sin is that of loving Eve more than God. But that isn’t a sin against Eve, but against God. Eve sinned against both Adam and God.

None here are denying Adam’s sin or the nature of it. It is the nature of the sin of Eve which is being denied, and that is the same then as it is today: Unchained Hypergamy, IE being an opportunistic whore.
Adam’s sin is that as it is today: Being an idiotic White Knight.

Yes, the sin of Adam was not killing Eve on the spot and asking God to do him one better. I wish I was making this up. I really, truly do.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to A Quote From a Manosphere Commenter

  1. Crude says:

    I always wonder if crap like this is a parody or what.

    • I was honestly not sure. I had to look back through the thread at this guy’s other comments and click on his blog before I felt confident posting this.

      As an aside, that comment thread at Sunshine Mary’s place is exactly what my problem is with game culture and the manosphere. Their minor god, Rollo, is a nihilistic ass who at one point in time used women as a sexual toilet and apparently feels that if you’re a virgin there’s literally no value to your input in discussions like the one linked. Seriously. Go read through that monstrosity if you’re feeling brave.

    • Their attitudes (Rollo and ilk) really seem to be, no exaggeration, that:

      . When women disagree with them, it’s because they’re irrational.
      . Insults to make a point are fair game, but only when you’re insulting women or beta males.
      . If you’re really losing, just stop, because it’s obviously ONLY because you’re outnumbered; not like the women could be making good points, amirite? Maybe you can wait until after they’re all done, like, PMS’ing or have finished their wine, then you can wade in with your obviously correct man-response.

      I mean, geez.

      • Crude says:

        Well, the funny thing is, there’s going to be a lot of guys who keep telling themselves “I’m an alpha!” when really, it’s just another pissant online. Especially in a situation like that.

        I take Game similar to the way I take science and philosophy. I like science, I like philosopher. I really can’t stand most scientists and philosophers.

    • I almost feel dirty that I’m basically accusing the manosphere of sexism. Like, am I really agreeing with the FEMINISTS right now???

      But what can I do? It’s an honest appraisal.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Yes, that comment is *way* over the top — just as one would expect of those who have swallowed the “Game” BS.

    At the same time, it really is true that Adam sinned because he loved Eve more than he loved God — or, to put it another way, he loved his relationship/connection to a woman more than he loved truth.

    I almost feel dirty that I’m basically accusing the manosphere of sexism. Like, am I really agreeing with the FEMINISTS right now???

    But what can I do? It’s an honest appraisal.

    Only if you want to accuse nearly every woman in the world of “sexism”.

    Understand, this “Game” BS, or “manosphere”, or whatever one wants to call it, is feminists throwing a tantrum because the promise of feminism — free “nookie” with no strings … and yet a cache of “good women” in reserve for when they are “ready to settle down”– turned out to be a lie.

    These are not people who reject feminism, who desire that they themselves and society as a whole return to a sound Christian understanding of the relationships between the sexes; these are people who want to eat their wild-oat cake and have it too.

    • The thing is, I actually agree with a good deal of their thoughts on feminism. But like you said, these people, for the most part, aren’t just anti-feminists. They’re almost animalistic in the way they conceive of sexual relationships.

      At the same time, it really is true that Adam sinned because he loved Eve more than he loved God — or, to put it another way, he loved his relationship/connection to a woman more than he loved truth.

      This I can get behind, and I think Original Sin has a lot of interesting components to it that can be discussed. But this:

      He should have had better outcome independence and killed Eve on the spot and asked for God for a better Helpmate who wouldn’t betray him.

      … is beyond stupid and runs right off the cliff into insanity.

      • Ilíon says:

        But like you said, these people, for the most part, aren’t just anti-feminists.
        They don’t even begin to be anti-feminists.

        … is beyond stupid and runs right off the cliff into insanity.

        That’s why I said that it was *way* over the top.

        Consider this part of the comment — “It is the nature of the sin of Eve which is being denied, and that is the same then as it is today: Unchained Hypergamy, IE being an opportunistic whore.

        Even taking into account that when these fools say ‘whore’, they mean ‘slut’ (*):
        1) the term ‘hypergamy’ has nothing to do with “being an opportunistic whore”
        2) Eve’s sin had nothing to do with “being an opportunistic whore”

        The term ‘hypergamy’ means “marying up”, no more, no less. In most cultures, it tends to be women, rather than men, who “marying up” — it seems to be the natural state of humans.

        But marrying, mutual committment between a man an a woman, is the very last thing “Game” addicts have in mind — they approach all of life as a mass meat-market.

        (*) More precisely, they mean either “a woman whom I have used as a slut, but whom I no longer care to bang” or “a woman, who may or may not be a slut, and who isn’t interested in letting me use her as a slut”.

  3. gunlord500 says:

    That guy you quoted has a pretty strange definition of “outcome independent.” If the woman of an “outcome independent” man does something he dislikes, he just shrugs, maybe dismisses her, and then goes back to doing his own thing. The only guys who care enough about women to actually hurt them are by definition not “outcome independent.” It may have been a bad idea for Adam to follow Eve’s lead, but I don’t think that commenter would have done much better.

  4. sunshinemary says:

    Go read through that monstrosity if you’re feeling brave.

    My goodness, you didn’t read all 770 comments, I hope! Even I started skimming after awhile, and it’s my blog.

    Now about ar10308’s original comment, which you did not agree with.

    Killing Eve obviously would not have been the right response, yet what should Adam have done? I imagine he ought to have refused the fruit and then told God, “The woman you put here with me is not the suitable helper You intended her to be.” What then, would God have done? Exiled Eve alone? She would have died anyway. So even though killing her directly would have been wrong, either way Eve’s fate without Adam joining her in sin would have been a fairly quick death.

    The thing is, I actually agree with a good deal of their thoughts on feminism. But like you said, these people, for the most part, aren’t just anti-feminists. They’re almost animalistic in the way they conceive of sexual relationships.

    Can you specify to whom you are referring? On my particular blog, “they” are comprised of a rather odd mix of people, including both devout Christians and non-religious people, traditionalists and people from both the manosphere and the reactionary sphere. We quite often don’t agree with one another.

    • Hello SSM! I’m glad you found my blog, I enjoy yours the times I pass by.

      (I didn’t read every comment, but I got pretty far down.)

      Killing Eve obviously would not have been the right response, yet what should Adam have done?

      That’s a good question and I need to think some more before I formulate my answer, but I don’t think the right thing to do is to say, “God, you really messed up with this one” – because that is, essentially what he’d be saying. It strikes me as presumptuous to the point of extreme pride (in the “seven deadly sins” way).

      As for who “they” is” – On your blog, yeah, I wouldn’t qualify everybody the same way. But it seems to me that the people most gung-ho about Game tend to be jerks, basically. Like Rollo – I know you treat him nicely on your blog and respect him, and I commend you for that, but he strikes me as a nihilistic ass who dismisses people he doesn’t like or agree with by painting them as inferior to him in some way. A virgin? STFU. A woman? STFU. A Beta? STFU. And then even if he cares to respond you it will be insulting and condescending. And he’s considered a minor god of Game, and is almost universally respected. Even Dalrock, one of the only Christian Manosphere bloggers I’ve scene, had a post where he applauded a man who got a vasectomy. I find this very backward and rather disturbing.

  5. sunshinemary says:

    I don’t think Dalrock exactly applauded Professor Mentu for getting a vasectomy. I think (but I don’t speak for him, of course) that he was trying to point it out what an incredible indictment of modern society the story was. I believe the praise was meant for the literary aspects more than the procedure itself, but I may be wrong.

    As to Rollo – I try to be respectful to him, and sometimes he returns the favor if he is feeling so inclined, but I am in deep disagreement with him on a number of issues, including our most foundational world views. He and I actually have a rather contentious relationship because I have written several posts strongly disagreeing with him, and he has written two posts strongly disagreeing with me. Having said all that, and agreeing with some of your assessment of him, I still have to say that he does have some keen observations on unspoken female motivations.

    Ilion

    Understand, this “Game” BS, or “manosphere”, or whatever one wants to call it, is feminists throwing a tantrum because the promise of feminism — free “nookie” with no strings … and yet a cache of “good women” in reserve for when they are “ready to settle down”– turned out to be a lie.

    I didn’t quite understand this. Could you explain what you mean here?

    • Having said all that, and agreeing with some of your assessment of him, I still have to say that he does have some keen observations on unspoken female motivations.

      Rollo is no dummy, but any observations he makes are colored by his narcissism and nihilism (I don’t know if he actually considers himself nihilist but from what I’ve read of him he seems like one). They’re useful, but only in a limited way.

      Dalrock seemed to be praising the literary aspects, but don’t you find it a little bit… wrong? Off-key? That a Christian is looking at an article like that with anything but disgust, or perhaps pity if they’re so inclined?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s