In this story the MC is a writer or a professor, and writes a book about women. In a TV interview he says that women use their bodies to pay for everything. The feminist establishment goes berserk and he loses his job, his family and ends chased by an angry mob. He manages to escape and goes into hiding.
I read it some years ago, it was incomplete then. I intended to keep reading it but I lost the link.
Anybody knows this story?
Anybody knows this story?
Sounds like a true story. Check the new sites. :)
In a TV interview he says that women use their bodies to pay for everything.
A lot of women will promise their bodies to pay for stuff they want, but then they cheat and refuse to pay up when they have what they want and the bill is due.
Anybody knows this story?
Yep.
1. He lost his family first.
2. It was a academic paper he wrote (he was a professor in the Netherlands) analyzing the impact of all women essentially being prostitutes of some form or the other.
3. The death threats really started when he lambasted the red pill crowd, who thought before then he was their prophet. (He really thought he was just doing interesting economic analysis that nobody had ever bothered with before.)
I have said that exactly same thing.the only difference between a wife and a hooker was a marriage license.wives get paid by mortgages and car payments and a hooker gets cash.
the only difference between a wife and a hooker was a marriage license.wives get paid by mortgages and car payments and a hooker gets cash.
A significant number of wives are cheats. They get their ring, mortgage, and car payments, but don't deliver on their end of the bargain.
The reason women are usually so rabidly against actual prostitution is that women are accustomed to selling the possibility of sex, rather than the guarantee of sex. The existence of those selling the guarantee of sex lowers the value of the possibility of sex.
The reason women are usually so rabidly against actual prostitution is that women are accustomed to selling the possibility of sex, rather than the guarantee of sex.
Again, most of the women trying to sell the possibility of sex are cheats and frauds. The don't intend to deliver more then minimally necessary.
Ah, but you see... that's why it's only the possibility. They only intend to follow through in specific instances (which they won't let be known in advance).
The raw economics are as follows:
assuming guaranteed sex with a reasonably attractive female is going to cost $100, for your expenditure of $100 you can be guaranteed sex with said reasonably attractive female (who is, of course, a honest whore)
Or, if you'd normally have a 10% chance of a successful hookup after spending at least $40 on a date, then for a slightly better than 65% chance of more than zero successful hookups, you'd spend $400 (yes, after spending four times as much on amateurs, you'd have ~35% chance of no nookie whatsoever).
These numbers were picked arbitrarily, the analysis can be done with whatever the going rate in your area is along with your own personally experienced success rate and local prostitute prices. In most cases you'll find that prostitutes wildly undercut on price.
Again, most of the women trying to sell the possibility of sex are cheats and frauds.
Just curious. How do you know it's "most" of the women? It could be 37 percent, or, say, 7 percent.
Just curious. How do you know it's "most" of the women? It could be 37 percent, or, say, 7 percent.
It's not most women. It's most women doing X, where X is inherently fraudulent. It's not all, because some women don't understand that what they are doing is a scam.
It's not most women. It's most women doing X
Do how do you know it's "most women doing X"? Are you sure it's not 27 percent?
Do how do you know it's "most women doing X"? Are you sure it's not 27 percent?
I'm not saying a majority of women are doing X. I'm saying that a majority of (the women who are doing X) are Y.
I don't care what it is that you're claiming. I'm asking about your calculations or evidence. Whatever it is you are claiming - you say it is a majority. How did you come up with that number? How do you know it is a majority?
I believe his comment was something like this:
In a given group of individuals, where every member of that group is engaged in some sort of fraudulent activity, only those members of the group who lack mens rea (by nature of not realizing the activity is fraudulent) are not guilty of fraud while the remainder are in fact guilty.
Now, if you believe that more than half of the women who indulge in such behavior are too stupid to realize what they're doing, then his claim about 'most' is suspect.
I'm asking about your calculations or evidence. Whatever it is you are claiming - you say it is a majority.
It's basic logic.
There is a group of people doing X.
X is fraudlent by nature.
Some (small) portion of the group doing X may not be aware that X is by nature fradulent.
Therefore I temper the statement by not saying the entire group are frauds and cheats.
I'm saying that a majority of (the women who are doing X) are Y.
If they are XY then those women are men..!!
:)
The reason women are usually so rabidly against actual prostitution is that women are accustomed to selling the possibility of sex, rather than the guarantee of sex.
May I respectfully suggest that the reason most women oppose prostitution is that it is criminalized - for the prostitute, not usually for the john. It is ironic, is it not, that most customers are male and it is the historically male dominated legislatures and clergy that have insisted that prostitution be a criminal offense. Ahem - think that over boys!
Historically, laws against prostitution or adversely impacting prostitutes were demanded by women - most often the wives of the men making the laws. And as for the clergy... well, recall that 'nunneries' were church-run whorehouses catering to priests (Shakespeare wasn't suggesting Hamlet's mother belonged in a convent, he was referring to her as a whore)... the most vocal critics of prostitution are invariably women. These days, those critics prefer a strategy of referring to prostitutes as victims, but they still oppose honest transactions involving guaranteed sex, rather than dishonest attempts to market the possibility thereof.
If you want to get hunted down by feminist, just go to a feminist rally and insist they make you a sandwich.
I always wondered why most of the cheating stories on this site had the wife as the cheater. Mystery solved.
I don't know that there are good stats for this or if this has been discussed before, but the impression I get is that most authors and readers here are male?
Blame the bible bashers for the criminal acts.
As most of them are not allowed to have sex so why should anyone else?
Blame the bible bashers for the criminal acts.
As most of them are not allowed to have sex so why should anyone else?
Actually, the problem lies not so much with Bible Bashers in general as it lies with those who support the distorted version of the Bible's teachings on sex established by the Papists back before the Protestant break offs. Because the distorted teachings had been so embedded in the Catholic Church teachings for so long before the break offs many of the break off groups also support most of the doctrinal distortions in the Biblical teachings.
the distorted version of the Bible's teachings on sex established by the Papists
Are you referring to the catholic's "let's not allow cardinal to become a hereditary position any more" rules?
Let's face it, the church's stance on official celibacy was backlash against the Borgias. (And actually led to those church-run brothels, so potential priests could know that they didn't have to rely on altar boys to get their ashes hauled.)
Are you referring to the catholic's "let's not allow cardinal to become a hereditary position any more" rules?
Nope. When you read the Bible itself there are only a few restrictions on sex in it.
1. Extreme promiscuity isn't allowed - i.e. sex with many different partners in a short time.
2. Adultery, that is a married person having unapproved sex outside of marriage is wrong - here I won't go into all of the old rules about approved sex for marrieds.
3. People sent out as missionaries should be unmarried males who are not to get married while on the mission.
4. Homosexuality is not approved of.
There is absolutely nothing said about unmarried people having sex or having to refrain from sex for religious reason, while culturally being a virgin bride was preferred.
Also, remember at that time weddings were civil affairs held before family and friends in the eyes of God, and not performed or controlled by the priests.
All of the rest of the rules on sex were introduced by various Popes as ways to control the people.
Add to that "elders are to be the husband of one wife" and have control of their children. That implies that multiple wives were allowed and known among the membership.
Add to that "elders are to be the husband of one wife" and have control of their children.
When you look at the actual pre-translation wording the word choice implies the one wife is a minimum and not a maximum. However, the important point is any church leaders are supposed to be married and skilled with raising children, which kind of kills off all of that celibate priesthood leadership stuff pushed in certain churches.
For myself, I see the wording on matters directly attributed to God or Christ as having the most bearing on an issue, while something a bishop or prophet wrote as advice to other church members is not that important.
The culture in the times of both the Old and New Testaments was for multiple wives and it is the standard referenced in the Bible with regards to the various laws handed down. Also, the accounts in the New Testament make it clear that Mary was not Joseph's first wife. The only clear item about Mary's place within the family is she is the lead household wife in charge of the kitchen and entertainment at the wedding of one of Jesus' older siblings when the water into wine miracle is done.
Historically, the ban on priests being married has waxed and waned. The first ban on it began in the fourth century. At the same conclave women were first banned from the priesthood. That was more strictly enforced but, again, was never totally enforced for extended periods. The most consistent ban on married priests has been among the Jesuits. In the 17th and 18th centuries married priest in other orders were nominally banned but if they married they were expected to be faithful husbands and support their wives and families. They couldn't rise in the priesthood and were often relegated to the role of curate in a smaller parish or, rarely, priest of a small, usually rural, parish. Even now, if a Lutheran, Anglican, or other "mainstream" Protestant married minister converts to being a Catholic priest he can remain married. Occasional other exceptions are granted but not commonly acknowledged. I have found some claims that not marrying is not a part of their vows per se, but, rather, a promise to the Bishop officiating their ordination. Likewise, I can't find confirmation to the claim that priests in Africa are given a blanket permission to marry or if it's just individuals to whose marriage a blind eye is turned.
Also, there has almost always been a very small but fluctuating number of ordained women priests. In the last century it has usually been to cope with special circumstances such as supplying priests in Soviet Women's prisons.
I've heard the story/rumor since high school way back when but never looked into it. From a quick dash through several sources the answer is maybe. What is known is that there is a lot of confusion about Papal history in the 800's. In the contemporary list of Popes at least one known to have existed isn't on the list. Others are questionable and there are gaps and/or overlaps when different records are compared. The first known written down version of the story is from 300-400 years later. The story is of a woman disguised as a man becoming pope. One story has her giving birth during a procession. Apparently, it was thought to be likely true up until about 150-200 years ago when it became considered less likely. The only physical positive evidence I could find out about is a type of small coin called a denier. During that century they had the French King's initials on one side and the Pope's on the other. There if one version known to be Pope John's, who had a similar name and an earlier one that could be hers or could be a very early version of his that was later changed. No one can be totally sure either way.
I've looked into that particular legend. It has been a persistent one, but no definitive proof is available that it is true. In saying that, Ioannes Anglicus may in fact, have been a pope for a short while. But the years and the Roman Catholic Church has had plenty of opportunities to bury the truth, if in fact it's true.
I can't say one way or the other if the RCC has deliberately tried to bury the story and the facts. I can say that that was nearly 1300 years ago, record keeping was not at it's best that far back, the ninth century, and especially the mid-ninth, had some of the worst kept records in church history. There isn't much but there is some evidence that the story may be true. A major argument against it is that the first known reference to the story is from 400 years later and that one is pretty vague. Most of the stories and anecdotes about her are from even later, making them more likely embellishments made out of whole cloth.
Like I said, no definitive proof. Without that, it must remain in the realm of fiction. I would also find it hard to believe the church would admit it even if it had been true.
I find it easy to believe that the church would find it hard to admit it if the story were true. I find it easy to believe that there are any number of other stories that the church finds it difficult to admit.
I find it easy to believe that there are any number of other stories that the church finds it difficult to admit.
Agreed.
They have a long history of killing, torture, etc of anyone that disagreed with them aka what they believed was heresy. People lived in mortal fear of the Inquisitor.
It was the Inquisitor's job to shut down heresy and anything else that brought into question the doctrine/dogma of the church.
The Knights who say Ni, never did get their shrubbery. The Rabbit of Caerbannog must have eaten them.
WAIT I HEAR . . . And Now For Somenthing . . . IT'S
Yes, yes... no one expects the Spanish Inquisition...except every Monty Python fan ever.
