Yesterday I made a broad generalization of the people who denounce hypocrites. I pointed out that they tend to be lazy bastards who feel threatened by anyone who manages to escape the cycle of mediocrity and make some positive mark upon the world. It is, after all, very comfortable to keep doing whatever nonsense you have been doing, even though you’re not really improving your own lot in life by so doing. The one thing that the comfortable hate most is to see another man transcend the cycle through work and contemplation.
Earl came around to provide himself as a living, breathing, typing counterexample.
I tend to believe that Earl is who he says he is. He probably is a decent fellow who grew up grounded in Catholic morality. Earl has probably not gone out to the nightclub to fuck skank-ho wimminz, He’s probably a good man and he probably does stand all aghast at the stories I tell here.
Conceded.
While I’m not about to excuse all the hypocrite-bashers in the Dalrock insane asylum, I’ll modify my own thesis, in light of Earl’s point.
The few non-hypocrites who aren’t scumbags are saints.
I imagine that Earl, who says he believes in original sin, will agree with Boxer, who believes in the id. Based upon this, I further imagine that we’ll both admit that people aren’t born with the innate desire to be chaste, or functional, or to delay gratification.
Earl writes:
Well I don’t deride self-improvement or working class fathers…but divorce and then marrying another woman (regardless if she’s a single mother or not) is not something that self-improves a man.
What I’d like to know from people like Earl, is what people like Scott and Mrs. Scott are supposed to do, if they want to better themselves.
Say you’ve got a typical skank-ho slut, who goes out to the club one night, and meets the typical skank-ho male slut, and both commence to fucking.
Now say you’ve got said skank-ho sluts who decide that it’d be easier to fuck each other the next weekend, than to bother going out and meeting new sluts.
Now say you’ve got the same two skank-ho sluts who, fifty-two weekends in a row, make the similar choice, and say they have never once slipped up and fucked anyone else.
Now say you’ve got the same two skank-ho sluts who decide that, since they’ve been exclusively fucking for a year, they may as well just hold themselves out as belonging one with the other. Furthermore, they make these declarations in front of their families and communities.
Of course, one might begin objecting, all ship of Theseus like, that at some point these two people ceased to be skank-ho sluts. Now they’re a regular couple. The question then becomes whether they are or not, and if not, when they ceased to be.
In fact, one doesn’t need to wax all metaphysical. Let’s just do what our grandfathers did, and their grandfathers did, all the way back to the first civilization known to man, and call it what it is.
When a man speaks his wedding vows, everything changes. Suddenly, through that male skank-ho slut’s masculine authority, he has ceased to be a skank-ho slut. Moreover, the slut he met to fuck, a year prior, simultaneously ceases to be a skank-ho slut.
What have these people done that is blameworthy? They’ve both transcended their own earlier situation and continue in the process of becoming something greater.
I mean I don’t know if he would be in the same class as some other Dalrock posters who like to brag about how they got tons of cash and got the one woman who is the unicorn and have the most perfect daughters that any man should want (but will have to pass their father’s ‘high’ standards)…and then falls apart the minute people start questioning how that story just seems unreal……but I’d bet it’s not all that it seems.
So, both Scott and I are pretenders. We’re both skank-ho male sluts who warn younger bros about the inherent pitfalls in that lifestyle.
I frequently get on this blog to warn the young brothers about wasting time on good-lookin’ sluts. I warn my brothers about this because I wasted years of my youth on such nonsense. Had I not wasted time running hoez, I might be a millionaire businessman, with a chain of dry-cleaners, or maybe I’d be a pro golfer, with a shelf full of trophies. Who knows what I could have accomplished, if I’d have been more serious in my late teens and early twenties.
I’ve fucked hundreds of sluts, and I’m here to tell the young bros that it is a waste of time to make this the focus of your most productive years. I am a hypocrite, and I’m good with that. Older men, it’s said, ought not to dispense advice, lest they lose the ability to act poorly; but, I’ve had my fill of bad acting.
Moreover, in transcending the cycle of mediocrity which was my earlier wont, I’ve had to learn new habits. Aristotelians call this hexis. One doesn’t merely break out of the cycle of time-wasting all at once. It takes work and time, and there is backsliding along the way, all as one drags himself by the collar, kicking and screaming, into a better behavioral constellation. One doesn’t know virtue in the way he knows Shakespeare. One knows virtue in the way he knows how to ride a bicycle. Earl probably had a father to teach him. I had to teach myself. So, it seems, did Scott.
Well in the example you provided…he was divorced and then remarried…so that’s an adulterous union. He already spoke his wedding vows to another woman with which he was the authority over and then at some point they decided to let man separate them. It’s not a means of improvement when adultery is involved because that’s explicitly against one of God’s commandments.
Is adultery worse than staying single and fornicating? We don’t know how bad Scott’s first marriage was. Maybe remarrying was an improvement. Boxer’s point is that Scott is now content with one woman, and that’s definitely an improvement over the past.
This is a false dilemma: do neither.
Two days ago I wrote about this. Jesus denounced men who frivolously no-fault divorced their wives (so they could marry another woman). These men were guilty of adultery and publicly implying falsely that their wives were whores.
The highest standard is no divorce, but if you must divorce it better be under the most serious of circumstances.and not your fault. Many in the manosphere were frivorced by their wives.their money taken and their reputations trashed. I believe that Jack was the aggrieved party in his divorce. I don’t know Scott’s story well enough to know if he or his new wife were the “not-at-fault” parties.
When there is a remarriage following a divorce, this can’t be solved by divorcing again. Two wrong actions do not make a right action. What if they have children? You can’t save marriage by breaking up families. As Boxer has stated, once a man marries a woman, the deed is done. Patriarchy demands this. In the case Jesus was talking about, the adultery, such as it was, took place when the man divorced his wife and married another. It wasn’t the divorce or the marriage, per se, but the whole corrupt scheme.
Consider the following:
This language has lost its power. Let’s put this into more modern inflammatory language to nail the sense of this:
Yes…we don’t know the circumstances as to why the first marriage led to divorce…but the divorce is why I pushed against Boxer’s assertion.
I know of another man who married a single mother and became her daughter’s father legally. Both of them at no point were married before. That’s the scenerio I think Boxer has stated in general and I agree with.
Nah I’m a sinner who through a long and arduous process finally realized why God, the Catholic church, and various saints pointed out why lust is something you don’t want to be under the influence of. Chastity is something I didn’t place too much importance on for a long time until I finally understood the reason behind it (namely following God’s will when it comes to sexuality). In a sense I understand St. Augustine much better now. Much like many have recently discovered what E Michael Jones was talking about when it came to the sexual revolution and the nefarious reasons behind it…I think many are starting to have a similar conversion process and change in mindset to why God and the church stated these things.
That’s not to say conversion is an overnight thing but it is a process…we are seeing it with Roosh now.
I am a former addict. I did enough cocaine between 1997-2005 that would even make some rock stars, and Hollywood folks raise an eyebrow. I blew through so much money and wasted so much time during those perma-grinned San Francisco nights of the dot.com era and just after………tie askew, always looking for adventure and the plain silliness that city never seems to run out of.
During college I dropped enough LSD that according to state legal records…..any testimony I make in any court could be considered invalid. In between all of this I smoked some of the finest marijuana that was cultivated in California. Dumping copious amounts of cold beer down my throat to cut that “cotton mouth” that marijuana seems to give people. A burning thirst the finest beer, or coldest water that cannot cut it.
Sure I handled it for many years…..but it caught up with me……badly.
Now, I tell people to stay away from drugs. Including alcohol. Hypocrite am I? Sure, I did drugs, had a ton of fun, cut loose and now I am telling you “not to do that” and I am one of the lucky ones who came out of it with most of my brain still working, and not being spoon-fed by a nurse in some skilled care facility.
What I will never do, and what makes I believe people upset is the following:
The half-assed apology. The cop-out defense of their past……whatever it was……..be it a drug addict, a playa, the PUA, the thief, the ladies man, the grifter………
“Well, yeah, I did that…..but I wouldn’t be the man I am today if I didn’t have those experiences”
No kidding. “I would have never voted and pushed for NAFTA if I know what I know now” said one Hillary Clinton. No kidding. Abscoding blame, but “smirking” smugly over their past like some Roman merchant….
To the non-christian who hears these sanctimonious statements from people who have changed their lives because of god, church, finding jesus it comes off as “yeah, I was wrong, but so what, I have the blood / a faith tradition / holiness now and don’t you do what I did because it’s sinful and god hates sin”
Personally here, it’s better to fess up that you were indeed wrong. It was bad. It wasn’t proper, it was sin…..whatever. The pride of “defending” that past is what makes the hypocrite statements come out……and causes people to raise an eyebrow of “huh, okay for you…but not for anyone else? what else are they justifying, or would justify?”
Paul never did this. He turned from it, had confidence in and through christ but never once said “well, I did it because I was a jew of jews and this is what I was supposed to do and god would have never used me if he didn’t”