Six years ago, someone named Eddie Kaufholz published at Relevant Magazine a piece called Why Don't the Guys in My Church Ask Women on Dates?" In it, Kaufholz discusses a letter to the editor from "Erica" bemoaning how she just HAS to go out with nonChristian men because her church guy friends can't, won't or don't ask her out. Kaufholz responds by, yes, you guessed it, shaming and blaming Christian men. Those nice Christian girls need good Christian boyfriends they can use and exploit, so you Christian men need to step it up and start opening your hearts, minds and wallets.
Translation: Christian men need to ask Christian women out, so those women can use those men for free food and drinks. Christian women go out with nonChristian men because those nonChristian men aren't afraid to push for sex. When Christian men push for sex, they're told that they're not Christian and they're going to hell. Shit, when Christian men act overtly sexual and act attracted BEFORE pushing for sex, they're shit on and abused and told that they're not being "nice" or "gentlemanly".
End translation.
Message: Casual dating is not good. Reality: Casual dating to get to know someone is good—and necessary—if you’re ever going to, you know, move past your mom. The fear is that casual dating means casual sex, casual deep intimacy or casual love—which are all by nature not casual.
Fine. Then I don't ever ever ever want to hear, ever again, about how Christian men are "bad" or "not nice" or "not Christian" for showing overtly sexual interest in women. You are not allowed, ever again, to take a Christian man to task because he took a woman out and did not immediately offer more, and that all he wanted was the date. No more criticisms of Christian men for taking a woman out and rejecting her because he's no longer interested. No. You don't get to do or say that to men anymore.
Message: Women’s hearts must be guarded. Reality: Women can guard their own hearts, make their own decisions, and suffer the highs and lows of emotional intimacy just like the rest of us (if not better than the rest of us).
Fine. Then please spare us the goddamn wailing and bitching about how men were so MEAN to women. Stop talking about how men are required to do this or that for women. We aren't required to do anything for women, give them anything, or protect them from anything. If you're such big girls, then suck it up, be big girls, and STOP COMPLAINING.
Message: Romantic relationships should be walking toward marriage. Reality: OK, maybe it’s a good idea to have a distant goal in mind
If casual dating is OK, if you are going to demand that Christian men invest time and effort and money into it, then Christian men should get something out of it. What, exactly, are you going to offer to Christian men for all this? If they're not going to get casual sex out of it, what are they going to get?
What do these Christian women offer these Christian men? Friendship? "companionship"? Fuck. Don't give me that bullshit. You know what this sounds like to me? Christian women demanding free food and drinks, attention, validation, and effort from Christian men they aren't interested in; while those men get NOTHING.
I want an answer to this question:
What do Christian men get out of all this? What will Christian women give Christian men for doing all this?
Christian men: Any time this issue gets brought up, you ask them: What's in it for me? What will I get out of taking this woman out for coffee/drinks? What return on investment will I get?
Listen, Christian ladies: You might be fooling this "Eddie Kaufholz" guy, but you don't fool me. I know exactly what's going on here. We red pilled men know what you're doing. We know you date nonChristian men, we know you have sex with them, and we know you lie about it. We know you put on a show for the blue hairs and the dodderers and the pastors at church, about what a paragon of female virtue, sweetness, and light you claim to be. We know you claim to be this good church girl, a sweet vestal virgin who'd "never do anything like that".
Except you DO do "things like that", all the time. I know damn well you do. But you won't with Christian men, because they're not good enough, attractive enough, assertive enough, or whatever enough. Fine. Date/fuck who you want. But don't think you're fooling all the men. Because I know. We of the Red Pill know. We know all about you and what you do. We know damn well you show up at church on Sunday morning with panty liners firmly in place to make sure Chad's cum doesn't leak onto the pew cushion.
We know, because we and men like us have fucked you and women like you. We've watched you text your boyfriends while you run to the bathroom after we've just dumped cum in you. We've watched you get ready for church after a night of getting turned out by Chad the night before. We've listened to you complain about how Harley won't marry you; so you're just going to have to settle for Ned Niceguy from church.
We know. Don't think you're fooling us. You're not. The jig is up, the news is out, your cover's blown.
We know.
moorekom Mod 2y ago
No, “religious” women go out with “non-religious” men because they are more masculine and hot. Non-Christian men who are not hot will be left in the friendzone as well. Hot, Christian men will be chased after, primarily for commitment but these “religious” women are not going to say no to sex from these men since these women are not really “religious”. They label themselves “religious” or “traditional” to lock a religious beta down.
Frankly, I can even forgive these women to an extent. But I cannot and will not forgive the institutions that raise men up on a false belief (traditional marriage) only to betray them to benefit these whores (chivalry). On that regard, any religious/societal institution that has failed to keep its side of the promise needs to accept that their version of reality does not exist and that they are lying and stringing men along to benefit the women. Since they will not do that, this will continue and will get worse until the paradigm changes. Buckle up buttercups, you are in for a ride. It only gets precarious from here.