Trump probably on track

Its true, the intensity of the game dampens as (if) the relationship matures.
And its true that wills must align to a common purpose.
But I correct me if Im wrong but you seem to be implying the “partnership” model. This doesn’t work. She must give him children , and raise his children as he directs.She must submit and align her will to his. The game of taming the shrew doesn’t end in truce but submission. This is necessary because otherwise every decision will again become a contest of wills, and the ship will have no captain and founder. Or the decisions will be reached through oppression and bitterness and resentment will grow until the marriage is toxic.Marriages where the woman has not been convinced through the game that the man is worthy of her submission, or with women who are to leftist to submit will not be marriages these will be tactical alliances, and unsatisfying to the human condition. Marriage is already a stretch for us apes, neither men nor women will feel secure in these wary truces, children will be raised with no clear direction, more often than not the default direction ends up being the children can choose for them selves even if the parents dont explicitly allow them this freedom they will sense a power vacuum and exploit it.As I said I am not convinced Jims model of a woman in every betas bed works. And I dont see a way back to where we must be there are very few women prepared for the role of a woman anymore or men prepared to assume command. War is the only thing I can think of that could reorder the sexual dynamics. But I simply cant imagine the past two generations of western men winning a war.

When I’m hanging out with Nazis, I consciously avoid pronouncing words like chipotle or tsunami with the consonant clusters. That’s driven by social status, same as liberals consciously using the consonant clusters.

I once dated this Israeli Jewish chick who smugly smirked after she said “Jesus Christ!” when she almost bumped her car into something.

I’m under no illusion that I’ll ever lead anything, but someday I’ll buy the missus an ouse and be king o me own cassel.

>We have letters written between them in their own hand.

And in those letters, they do not speak like slaves and prostitutes’ children.

>But B is wrong in calling the present day high high status dialect of Harvard “aristocratic”.

As usual, you do not read what B writes, because B never wrote such a thing.

Tsunami
was Soonawmee
Now it’s Tsunami
Not Soonawmee

Why did Soonawmee get the works?
Because Skypes like B are evil jerks.

Jim, obviously either you are an idiot or our Sages are idiots.

I’m sure the near future (next few decades) will make it obvious which is the case.

Anonymous, I’m not sure what your point is. This is not a case of “do not read X, read Y.” Whatever the Christians and Muslims do is their business. We believe that a woman is a man’s counterpart, not equal, and that an unmarried man is not whole precisely because he needs a counterpart.

In all societies, women influence men much more than vice versa.

Here’s another one, probably even better, from Megillah 14:
_________
Apropos Abigail, the Gemara explains additional details in the story. Abigail said to David: “Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bond of life with the Lord your God” (I Samuel 25:29), and when she parted from him she said to him: “And when the Lord shall have dealt well with my lord, and you shall remember your handmaid” (I Samuel 25:31).

Rav Naḥman said that this explains the folk saying that people say: While a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle, i.e., while a woman is engaged in one activity she is already taking steps with regard to another. Abigail came to David in order to save her husband Nabal, but at the same time she indicates that if her husband dies, David should remember her and marry her. And indeed, after Nabal’s death David took Abigail for his wife. Some say that Rav Naḥman referred to a different saying: The goose stoops its head as it goes along, but its eyes look on from afar to find what it is looking for. So too, Abigail acted in similar fashion.
______

In other words, R Nahman is hinting that Abigail was interested in her husband’s death, in order to get to top status male, King David. The death of Nabal, indeed, was a strange affair.

So far, jim is correct: women (like children) are more evil by nature, by virtue of not being able to control their animalistic desires, letting them drive their high-level being. Talmud does not disagree but in fact illustrates this.

>Overall attitude towards women is quite low, as you can see.

This is one Tanna, with no context.

There’s some amount of this sort of thing (disgust with physicality) in the Talmud. For instance, the Pirkei Avot says “Know from where you have come, from a stinking drop, and to where you are going, to a place of dirt, worms and maggots.”

On the other hand, there is a fair amount of exhortation to enjoy every physical pleasure which can lawfully be enjoyed. The Jerusalem Talmud says “A person will have to give account on the judgment day for every good permissible thing that he might have enjoyed and did not.”

Maimonides has these two viewpoints at the same time!

On one hand:

“Those who desire to be men in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance and shape of men, must constantly endeavor to reduce the wants of the body, such as eating, love, drinking, anger, and all manners originating in lust and passion; they must feel ashamed of them and set limits to them for themselves.”

On the other hand:
“Since a man’s wife is permitted to him, he may act with her in any manner whatsoever.”

>cannot be separated from the commandment to *the community* (and hence its elders) to keep women in check, not give them an inch

Not only women, but men as well. Maimonides says in Mishne Torah:

Before the Torah was given, when a man would meet a woman in the marketplace, and he and she desired, he could give her payment, engage in relations with her wherever they desired, and then depart. Such a woman is referred to as a harlot.

When the Torah was given, [relations with] a harlot became forbidden, as [Deuteronomy 23:18] states: “There shall not be a harlot among the children of Israel.”4 Therefore, a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin, receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah, because he had relations with a harlot.

Also,

“A woman who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a moredet (“a rebel”). She is asked why she has rebelled. If she answers: “Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him,” her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, [to be forced] to engage in relations with one she loathes”

>In other words, R Nahman is hinting that Abigail was interested in her husband’s death, in order to get to top status male, King David.

Your interpretation of his words can not be correct, because it is contrary to the plain text, where Abigail goes out to intercept David who is on his way to kill her husband already, and persuades him not to do it.

>This is not a metaphor — you need to be quite “dafook” to read it in non-literal way, to imply that community authorities ought to administer such minute-to-minute punishments

Let’s see what the Mishne Torah says specifically:

“Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod.16 When a husband complains that [his wife] does not perform [her required tasks], and [the wife] claims that she does, [the dispute should be clarified by having] a [neutral] woman dwell with them or [by asking] the neighbors.17 The judges should clarify the matter in the best way they see fit.”

I think that from the text it seems that if it were at the husband’s discretion to beat his wife, there would be no need for judges, no room for a neutral woman, etc.

Regardless, it’s obvious that a man should be the man of the house, and the leader. But the woman has rights and is not property, or his slave.

>women (like children) are more evil by nature, by virtue of not being able to control their animalistic desires

You don’t know the story of King David and Batsheva?

When I wrote about old-infertile-female, young-unattractive-male couples, what I had in mind is childless old women, not mommies or grannies –> not divorcees or cheatin’ cunts.

If a woman reached 50 without reproducing, and a man is mate-less and has only a slim chance to find a fertile pussy to nut inside, it is best if he nuts inside the old woman, rather than jerking-off forever, and she (and whoever is affected by her) will also benefit from having a real dick between her legs instead of a dildo; and if that is so, then it’s best if they marry.

This is also not about niggers, again, I had white people in mind when describing this scenario, not a race-mixing case. Wew, you’re almost as obsessed with niggershines as I am with kikery. You do realize that not every white slut is having niggers, right? Most white sluts fuck white men (perhaps these men are goofballs – still white though), I’m not sure why you’re even bringing niggers into the discussion.

Yeah, a childless 50 y/o woman could find herself some negroid drug-dealin’ gangsta from da hood, but could also find herself some unattractive low-status WHITE MALE who at least has a job and is not a total fuck-up, and the latter case is much more common than the former, if only because demography, but really because contrary to kike-brainwashing, most human females aren’t mudshark coalburners.

Srsly peppe, sluts and otherwise maladjusted women are not all husband-cuckers or nigger-fuckers. Some women just failed at life, but if they make some lonely and quite-hopeless WHITE MALE happy, and if with such mating we can save society the trouble of dealing with lonely sexless people who by-nature are apt to cause problems until they stop being lonely and sexless, so that a sort of social harmony is established, then what’s your beef?

I’m acquainted with cuckoldry (not a cuck myself) and some inter-racial sex, but the case of an old, married, child-having woman ditching hubby and neglecting the kiddos so she can fuck random thug niggers off the street is simply not something I’ve personally witnessed. Your mileage may vary, and I don’t deny that these cases exist, but it’s not as common as you make it out to be.

Let me illustrate with a specific case I’m familiar with.

40 year old woman, all of her life was a raging mad slut; up until recently, had orgies on a weekly or fortnightly basis with strangers. I know of/about several similar women, but let’s focus on her. So this 40 year old slut now has a younger boyfriend who is schizophrenic. She doesn’t want kids, afraid she would be a “bad mother”. She had plenty of boyfriends before this guy, but ultimately it always ended in failure due to “incompatibility” i.e degeneracy. This one though, seems to be going okay – I don’t know much about the schizo dude, but pretty sure he’s not gonna reproduce, so dysgenics is out of the question.

Now tell me, is it better that she keeps slutting it up in drunken orgies where men penetrate her from both holes simultaneously, or that she eventually marries the young schizo? Isn’t he also better off living with her, assuming his sterility is maintained?

That’s what I had in mind when describing the old woman (who is either infertile, or doesn’t want to be fertile, as in this case) and young very low-status man dynamic. As long as no reproduction occurs, aren’t these people better off together than alone? Shouldn’t they marry, if only as a technicality? This is not about niggers.

would you prefer to have gays fucking 1000 guys a night and spreading GRIDS, or would you prefer them getting married?

B, sorry very late reply (tons of stuff to do at work). If divorce under pretense of disgust were a common practice, there would not be the problem of the agunot. The rabbis specifically suspect that a woman who wishes to divorce her husband wants to do so, because she has eyed another man. I remember reading about this from authoritative source, though don’t remember exactly where. That is the default mode: suspicion of the woman’s intentions.

The whole thing about get/divorce: only a husband can issue it, and he can only be compelled in extraordinary situations — this is Halakha. There are, of course, interesting legal devices when it comes to the issue of unintended mamzers (a cooperating husband can divorce “retroactively,” to prevent his wife’s child by another man to be absolved of mamzerhood — such issues were extremely pertinent after Holocaust, where people got separated and didn’t know if their spouses were alive).

Again, the woman is not granted divorce on the capricious pretense of “repulsion.” Yes, I know that Maimonides wished it to be so in his Mishne Torah, but the majority of rabbis (rightfully) are of different opinion. Here:

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/divorce-halakhic-perspective

Here:

______

Rabbenu Tam and the Rosh both take issue with Maimonides’s position that it is possible to coerce a husband to give a divorce to his rebellious wife who abhors him. The Shulhan Arukh (Even ha-Ezer 77:3) resolves this debate: A rebellious wife cannot be forced to have intercourse with her repulsive husband; but her husband cannot be forced to divorce her. He has the choice of keeping her to serve all his needs except his sexual ones; or to divorce her, at his discretion.

Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen of Haifa has claimed that cases today should be decided in accordance with the Legislation of the Academy. A similar position could be attributed to Rabbi Eliezer Judah Waldenberg (b. 1912) regarding young women who, if their husbands refuse to divorce them, may be tempted to “act immodestly” i.e.: to ignore the need for the get and cohabit with other men (Ziz Eliezer 5:26).

Supreme Court Justice Moshe Silberg took the position that the debate between the Rosh, Rabbenu Tam and Maimonides did not refer to the cases in which the claim of the rebellious woman was reliable, sincere and above suspicion. He claimed that the Rosh and Rabbenu Tam, like Maimonides, would certainly agree to coerce a husband to give his rebellious wife a get, if the following could be proven:

a) that the wife truly despises her husband;

b) that such revulsion was for good reason (i.e.: the fault lies with her husband); and

c) that she does not merely “have her eye” on an alternative lover.

Zilberg’s claim is that the Rosh and Rabbenu Tam objected to the coercion of a blameless husband to release a wayward wife, but that they certainly would not object to such coercion if the husband were the cause of his wife’s suffering. This position was also taken by Rabbi Shlomo Dechovski, at least in one case.

Unfortunately, most contemporary rabbinic court judges do not order husbands to give their wives a get on the basis of their revulsion towards them.

》 The baby would be fine in a good Christian family.

You are the most vile anti-White I have ever encountered. This ideology is the reason the mulattoes I personally know exist. They didn’t have good Christian families, however, because “sadly” White men aren’t by and large christcucked enough to want to be cucked. For that reason, presumably you think White men deserve to die out and be replaced by niggers willing to be “married” to women who birth niggers, since niggers don’t have the same family instincts humans do.

Fortunately your kind is dying out. Unfortunately the process is slow. At some point the alt-right will begin speeding it along, asking christcucks if Whites have the right to exist, slapping them each time they say no, and seeing how many believe in heaven strongly enough to get slapped to death.

Derp, I mentioned her father was a freedumb rider. I only have any feelings for her children.