Gems From Heartiste

Blade Runner said:
Do they not have the ability to go to different places (resources)?
Click to expand...

Of course they do. In the example I wrote of above, this friend is going through a difficult spiritual awakening. Moving from addiction to Christ has been hard and not without setbacks and tragedy, but he is staying the course. If the right woman presents herself, he will be ready to make it happen. After all, he was a player on his former path. But bible study and prayer has shown him that sex can make a man relapse in just the same way as a beer or joint. And as any addict knows, a hug from a whore is just as bad as a puff from a pipe.

PurpleUrkel said:
Addiction is killing us. It's the addiction to women, physical touch, affection, unhealthy food, money, and material possessions that are killing us. Men, when conditioned properly, need very little to be free and to thrive. But when they are raised to be sex and food and gambling addicts they become unhappy slaves.

Physical touch and companionship can no doubt help certain types of men, but if men are going without women, then that means that women are going without men. Sure, women have the luxury of riding the c*ck carousel via serial monogamy, but they can still only be with one man at a time.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I came here from RVF and looking back to those early days most of us were hardcore sex addicts. I know I am, even though I am happily married. I wrestled with monogamy for years and it took hard self reflection and the check of my ego to lead me back to Christ and where I was helped onto the right path. But I still battle every day as I am sure many of us do.
 
PurpleUrkel said:
Physical touch and companionship can no doubt help certain types of men, but if men are going without women, then that means that women are going without men. Sure, women have the luxury of riding the c*ck carousel via serial monogamy, but they can still only be with one man at a time.
Click to expand...
Yes, I must say as well I don't really understand this either. To a certain degree I understand the desire for companionship, but largely if you consider all things, unless the woman is a caretaker of you to some degree, why would you want someone to just be "around"? That's what I see in most wives these days, to be honest. They just want to get paid to have kids, and do very little beyond that. There are some exceptions, but few point out how much guys give up in freedom and how hard they work ... and for what? I don't see the return.

I think if we're honest, if sex weren't on the table, men wouldn't bother with women almost at all. That's why it's going this way in this epoch. Legacy and family are important, but they are still more ego manifestations for most of the people I see, to be honest. Big picture, if you're not one of these men who is anti-marriage or anti-children, how can you be blamed? If God raises up so few women in your time, that's fine, but let's be mature and calls those things as they are. Our genes and/or earthly life is dead in the long run. While I'd like to be part of a family and legacy that is akin to what I had growing up, it may be better to help others in the times of crisis that are coming, since the age to come is much more important than this one. Fr. Anthony Bloom was a good looking man who had many women in his time that wanted to marry him, but he was given the gift (he had many) of numerous spiritual children instead. Perhaps that is what is most important; I'm unsure, though I do know all children can be a blessing.
 
Laner said:
But bible study and prayer has shown him that sex can make a man relapse in just the same way as a beer or joint.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think the desire for that kind of thing is both natural, so that people will actually have children and the earth won't be void of human life, and a lot of it is ego driven. For me it is, I think it's quite clear, and I think the tricks of those demons know that's in the details since some of it is technically true. There is a reason why St. Anthony the Great said that lust never goes away for your lifetime, which means it is something that is required to master, if one can.
Laner said:
But I still battle every day as I am sure many of us do.
Click to expand...
Having said the above, the difference I find with it, and I'm not married so I don't know, is that with booze or drugs you tend to need/want to do them all the time and replicate them - they are a different category of use and misuse. For sex I think that the proper outlet (marriage) is reasonable, but I tend to think that going long periods of time without being a real monk is somewhat unreasonable, so to speak. At least until age 60 or so, and that's the point - at that time it's easier to shut it down both physiologically and in the reality that your older partner probably doesn't care, certainly women don't care ever as much, especially as older women. What I'm getting at is an important forum topic since so many are in this area of being forgotten from age 35-55 in the modern era, when they have both high levels of T and high potential or value that only the western world does everything in its power to deny. In such a scenario it is a real conundrum for a man who is trying to be faithful, but isn't a monk, and knows in the back of his mind, or in his dirtied soul, that this sex thing ain't going away for another 20 years ...
 
Blade Runner said:
Yes, I must say as well I don't really understand this either. To a certain degree I understand the desire for companionship, but largely if you consider all things, unless the woman is a caretaker of you to some degree, why would you want someone to just be "around"? That's what I see in most wives these days, to be honest. They just want to get paid to have kids, and do very little beyond that. There are some exceptions, but few point out how much guys give up in freedom and how hard they work ... and for what? I don't see the return.

I think if we're honest, if sex weren't on the table, men wouldn't bother with women almost at all. That's why it's going this way in this epoch. Legacy and family are important, but they are still more ego manifestations for most of the people I see, to be honest. Big picture, if you're not one of these men who is anti-marriage or anti-children, how can you be blamed? If God raises up so few women in your time, that's fine, but let's be mature and calls those things as they are. Our genes and/or earthly life is dead in the long run. While I'd like to be part of a family and legacy that is akin to what I had growing up, it may be better to help others in the times of crisis that are coming, since the age to come is much more important than this one. Fr. Anthony Bloom was a good looking man who had many women in his time that wanted to marry him, but he was given the gift (he had many) of numerous spiritual children instead. Perhaps that is what is most important; I'm unsure, though I do know all children can be a blessing.
Click to expand...

Much of my social time is spent around other married couples, and what you say is mostly true. Guys that I used to run with ended up with girls that we met while in this scene. For the first years of marriage it was great - they had a babe that could be brought out to all the nice night spots around town. It felt good (ego). But when kids enter the arrangement, most of those ego factors go away. Then, if marriage is a secular one, many of these couples end up living separate lives where their arrangement becomes financial. Two incomes is huge and divorce is expensive.

Blade Runner said:
Yes, I think the desire for that kind of thing is both natural, so that people will actually have children and the earth won't be void of human life, and a lot of it is ego driven. For me it is, I think it's quite clear, and I think the tricks of those demons know that's in the details since some of it is technically true. There is a reason why St. Anthony the Great said that lust never goes away for your lifetime, which means it is something that is required to master, if one can.

Having said the above, the difference I find with it, and I'm not married so I don't know, is that with booze or drugs you tend to need/want to do them all the time and replicate them - they are a different category of use and misuse. For sex I think that the proper outlet (marriage) is reasonable, but I tend to think that going long periods of time without being a real monk is somewhat unreasonable, so to speak. At least until age 60 or so, and that's the point - at that time it's easier to shut it down both physiologically and in the reality that your older partner probably doesn't care, certainly women don't care ever as much, especially as older women. What I'm getting at is an important forum topic since so many are in this area of being forgotten from age 35-55 in the modern era, when they have both high levels of T and high potential or value that only the western world does everything in its power to deny. In such a scenario it is a real conundrum for a man who is trying to be faithful, but isn't a monk, and knows in the back of his mind, or in his dirtied soul, that this sex thing ain't going away for another 20 years ...
Click to expand...

Living in a home with resentment is probably the main reason for divorce. But the courts never take into account that so many women rarely ever touch their husbands in an intimate way, and instead take into account that the husband found sex outside of the marriage. It's not surprising that women based social media seems to encourage this as a way to get money out of a divorce. Drive the husband to cheat then take it all.
 
Laner said:
But the courts never take into account that so many women rarely ever touch their husbands in an intimate way, and instead take into account that the husband found sex outside of the marriage.
Click to expand...
This is a very misunderstood point because for some reason it is hard to be honest for most people about what men value and what they need in the same way that women value and need other things. That is, for some reason sex isn't looked at as necessary, while resources always are. I used to joke that if you are giving a woman money upon divorce, she should also be required to swing around weekly for a sex act, otherwise the guy basically is just getting money stolen from him for no reason. The whole thing is a joke which shows that the farce that divorce is.
 
Blade Runner said:
Yes, I must say as well I don't really understand this either. To a certain degree I understand the desire for companionship, but largely if you consider all things, unless the woman is a caretaker of you to some degree, why would you want someone to just be "around"?

I think if we're honest, if sex weren't on the table, men wouldn't bother with women almost at all.
Click to expand...
I disagree about the companionship. My wife passed away a couple of years ago. Our marriage was difficult, but there were good times. One of the things I miss the most was just having someone to spend time with, to do things with. Someone to share my life.

Now that I am alone, I consider the possibility of remarriage vs the freedom of remaining single. Obviously as a Christian, marriage is the only way to be sexually active, and I want that. However, beyond sex, I'd like to have somebody to go with me when I do things I am interested in.

I have good Christian male friends, and while I certainly enjoy their company, I don't see that hanging around with the guys could ever replace the companionship of a wife.
 
PurpleUrkel said:
You either have low reading comprehension skills or just want to argue because you don't believe in God. There is nothing more freeing than not needing a "job" (because you live like Jesus did and require very little money to comfortably exist), and therefore you don't have to show up to any interviews ever where the humiliation ritual requires you to jump through hoops like a circus animal in an attempt to out-clown the more "energetic" candidate.

You've already lost the long game of life if everyday you spend all your time and energy helping another man build his business and fortune. I don't care how much money he's paying you to bend over and take it. F*ck him, start a competing business and put your "boss" out of business. I'll sleep in my car before ever again bowing down to a landlord, woman, or an "employer."
Click to expand...

Sir I was not the one who mentioned a job first in this thread, so your post to me is not warranted. I was replying to a person who said that this person Heartiste advice applies to job interviews. Go back, read the thread again, and reevaluate before posting a long diatribe aimed at the wrong poster.
 
Thomas More said:
I have good Christian male friends, and while I certainly enjoy their company, I don't see that hanging around with the guys could ever replace the companionship of a wife.
Click to expand...
As I said before, I don't understand this, but note that you could be confusing two of the topics that I am not. Companionship with male friends is quite clearly superior to female ones - I think it goes without saying. Now, what I think you are confusing is companionship with sex (since you mentioned being married) which is hardly an apples to apples comparison. I would argue, and others who have been or are married can weigh in, the reason that companionship is valuable is because of the constant prospect of sex and the connection, which makes the interaction in other realms far more palatable with a woman. Put another way - you can put up with the nonsense or boring stuff they talk about much easier because you are constantly focused on the part that you actually look forward to and enjoy. Sorry to be so blunt, but that seems pretty obvious to me.
 
Samseau said:
I won't be telling you anything about my life, troll, and the fact you're making assumptions about me has earned you a week ban. Furthermore, no one needs to justify anything to you.

Most of the world goes to school and gets nothing for it, troll, which any cursory examination of the stats will reveal. Your pathetic shaming attempts will not work here.

Finally, the 3rd world breeding rates are utterly unsustainable and would result in mass starvation without the responsible 1st world providing for them.
Click to expand...

You are truly dense aren’t you? Look at the average yearly or lifetime earnings for high school vs university vs graduate degrees. Do a cursory examination shows you are mistaken. I did not bring up anything about 3rd world, even poorer people in developed countries like the immigrants in the United States have many kids. Final, you have no strength and are a weak if a comment online bruises your ego so much that you react like a child.
 
Blade Runner said:
As I said before, I don't understand this, but note that you could be confusing two of the topics that I am not. Companionship with male friends is quite clearly superior to female ones - I think it goes without saying. Now, what I think you are confusing is companionship with sex (since you mentioned being married) which is hardly an apples to apples comparison. I would argue, and others who have been or are married can weigh in, the reason that companionship is valuable is because of the constant prospect of sex and the connection, which makes the interaction in other realms far more palatable with a woman. Put another way - you can put up with the nonsense or boring stuff they talk about much easier because you are constantly focused on the part that you actually look forward to and enjoy. Sorry to be so blunt, but that seems pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...
I partly agree, and partly don't. It is true that women talk about boring stuff, and want to watch shows on TV that I have no interest in. You can have much more interesting conversations with men.

However, if I hang out with a guy, then I'm ready to go home after couple of hours. Even if I work all day with them, and then socialize outside of work too, there comes a point where I am ready to say good night.

I find female companionship completely different. It seems clear in my own mind that it's not just about sex. Companionship with a woman makes a house a home. That's just not true with a man.
 
Thomas More said:
I partly agree, and partly don't. It is true that women talk about boring stuff, and want to watch shows on TV that I have no interest in. You can have much more interesting conversations with men.

However, if I hang out with a guy, then I'm ready to go home after couple of hours. Even if I work all day with them, and then socialize outside of work too, there comes a point where I am ready to say good night.

I find female companionship completely different. It seems clear in my own mind that it's not just about sex. Companionship with a woman makes a house a home. That's just not true with a man.
Click to expand...
On average, I enjoy talking with women more than I enjoy talking with men. Is the flirtatiousness and sexual tension a factor? Sure, but that is not all that they have to offer.

Many of the qualities that you appreciate in other men, you already possess within yourself as a man. The feminine qualities are designed to be complementary to your masculine qualities.

And so I love women for what they are, and do not expect them to be something that they are not. The same goes for other men. The same goes for my dog.
 
Last edited:
SerbRebel said:
You are truly dense aren’t you? Look at the average yearly or lifetime earnings for high school vs university vs graduate degrees. Do a cursory examination shows you are mistaken. I did not bring up anything about 3rd world, even poorer people in developed countries like the immigrants in the United States have many kids. Final, you have no strength and are a weak if a comment online bruises your ego so much that you react like a child.
Click to expand...

Look at birthrates, which was your original measure of fruitfulness. You moved goalposts - first you said children are the measure of fruit, then you changed it to income.

Obviously income means nothing if you have to become a slave to earn it. If college degrees gave a return on value, then it would actually be self-replicating and self-sustainable. But they aren't, the birthrates of the educated are the lowest in the world, troll.

Insulting me right after a ban?

Then insulting other members, making more assumptions, trying to dox members... I won't be casting pearls before swine for you anymore. You're gone.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
Obviously income means nothing if you have to become a slave to earn it. If college degrees gave a return on value, then it would actually be self-replicating and self-sustainable. But they aren't, the birthrates of the educated are the lowest in the world, troll.
Click to expand...
Let's circle back to normal debate. For the masses, "college degrees" aren't good, but for hard sciences and that kind of training, they might be.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
Many of the qualities that you appreciate in other men, you already possess within yourself as a man. The feminine qualities are designed to be complementary to your masculine qualities.
Click to expand...
Because you possess something doesn't mean you don't want interaction, entertainment, novel ideas, or comedy. I'm hard pressed to find feminine qualities that you speak of; if they existed in any ubiquity I'd have been married long ago.

Let's face it, women don't do, or talk about, very much that is interesting. Do you know how many friends I have that hate it when their husbands talk to me? It's because they're actually interested in what I'm saying and women hate that (lol) - seeing that kind of male elation at interesting stuff someone is able to spew, that they aren't.

If you are married to a woman and you have a world to reflect on and consider, your world becomes much bigger. That's not what we are talking about here, though.
 
I have a bit of history with this guys blog. In the days when I was returning to Christianity it was my second Bible. I had a partner very young and I spoke about her in another thread. I went through a dry spell after her and picked up the Chateau. And lo and behold - his stuff worked! His ideas scored me lays and even landed a long term relationship. However, the Chateau has its limits. It can’t bring you a genuine connection. Still read Roissy on gab though.

I find it interesting that when the Chateau was removed from Wordpress is exactly when me and my long time girlfriend started having trouble.
 
The West at this point is short term nonsense with generally oldies, unless you try to fake the sugar stuff on apps, and possibly longer term stuff but the only time you get social connections or matches otherwise, unless you're one of the 1% who matched up in your 20s (somehow), is with women people feel sorry for for being old. Which usually means, nice, maybe religious, but of course chubbier and likely not that good looking. I put in another thread the only women I can even think of that might escape this would somehow be an ethnic/religious girl that slipped through the cracks of not being enthralled about matches, and still wanted to please her community or family. How often is this 7 going to be around from 28-early 30s, ok with some age gap with a quality man? 1 in 10,000?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top