The Curse

Not being a Christian, but discovering just how politically and culturally I am invested in Christianity (and so perhaps I ought to become one—I’m not sure), the subject of “the curse” on Eve has come up recently.

I don’t personally consider this notion to be unique to any particular religion in terms of the nature of femininity. Moreover, I do look at the picture differently than say the average Christian.

The way I see it is that when analyzing the differences between femininity and masculinity, a male person might look at and pity the masculine deficiencies of women. This might inspire chivalry, say, or even identification, or elevation, or “equalization” of women. It is almost a given when it comes to a marginal or immature man with regard to the Oedipus Complex that women would be looked upon this way, as creatures “victimized” by Patriarchy and God.

Whereas having a “curse” on her by God pretty well assures that any man with such a notion of rescuing womanhood will be seen as having hubris, and the inevitable disaster which ensues, eventually, as the trend fully matures (i.e., Feminism) can be looked back upon as hubris with regard to the individuals (men that is) who decided to elevate womanhood to be “equal” to man. The only way to destroy this psychological device of “curse” is to destroy the notion of God such as to be an Atheist.

In my view, there is no “equal.” There cannot possibly be “equal” such that in fact every attempt to elevate womanhood to the level of man (or suppress if one is a gynocentrist) will inevitably result in societal downfall, eventually, regardless of whether that “equalization” is benevolent or maleficent. Just like the “equivalence” of benevolence and maleficence, attempts to monkey around with it results in destruction. This is the mathematical, psychological, demographical inevitability a.k.a. Apocalypse.

My “problem” is that I don’t see it as a “curse”. I think it’s a blessing. Specifically, I think God loves women as much as God loves men, however, the expression of that love is not “Equal” in the eyes of most human beings, because, most human beings do not have the attention span, time horizon, historical reference, etc., in order to be able to fully comprehend Love not to mention God. Trends management and prediction is the business of both the internet and the stock market. The longer one’s time horizon, and ability to weather volatility, the more likely one is to come out on top and otherwise owning everything.

Such is the conundrum with regard to “the curse”. Since women don’t know what they want and men don’t know what women want, why not give women self-determination? Uh. Better not! But isn’t self-determination Love? Only if one is talking about a man. Of course, some level of self-determination is necessarily afforded to women, particularly in the absence of men; but, there’s such a thing as too much. From the vantage point of a man or privileged woman, this notion is very difficult to fully comprehend. Does not “the pursuit of happiness” require self-determination? My answer is, not if one is a woman.

What kind of diabolical regressive creature am I to call this a feature not a bug? I’ll tell you. I am a woman who has not been protected from the darkest forces of evil but yet, somehow, God decided that I should live. I believe this is my purpose, to declare that to be a woman, and to be subordinate to a man in terms of even self-determination is not a curse but rather an expression of God’s Love. By being subordinated, I am free to Love and Obey. How could that not be a gift?

However, if a man wants to destroy another man, eventually, or his entire bloodline, eventually, one way to do that is to elevate his women, such as to offer them a fruit from the tree of knowledge. Once she eats it she will believe that her sheltered “goodness” is wisdom. This starts an inexorable chain of events.

17 thoughts on “The Curse

  1. Pingback: The Curse – Manosphere.com

  2. Interesting thoughts…

    One thread that you touched on is the reflexive disrespect that women have to their long term mates these days. Granted the spectrum is from gentile teasing all we way to outright contempt. But the default attitude of “what am I going to do with this witless oaf” is very off putting.

    I’m old school and get the menfolk separated quickly with beer and grill duty. But I have left social gatherings early when a woman starts demeaning her man. It’s like I see red and I just want to smack these uppity privileged burb shrews like a bean bag.

    Nothing seems to work unless I go into full comedic entertainment mode to distract the neg vibe. Then I get sparkling eye looks from the complainer… like I want a woman who openly disrespects her man in my life.

    I’ve tried teasing the negativity on the female.
    I’ve tried to get the mangina to be more assertive.
    I’ve tried to redirect conversation.

    It’s also interesting how the woman I’m with reacts. She usually looks at me apologetic like. Almost saying, “I would never be like this”.

    I have always wondered about the reason why a woman does this in public. Is it because most men will not confront their women in public? I would normally say this is the issue. On the rare occasions this harping has gotten out of hand. I have left a woman on the spot. The change in female behavior around me in my circle of friends was remarkable.

    A close friend told me she didn’t like “walking on eggshells” with me. Which kind of concerned me, until I realized that the females in the group were much more polite to me afterword. And I did like that behavior.

    • When women engage in misandric talk in my home, I have been known to stand up, raise my arms and spread them, and at my size that gets everyone to pay attention, and say in my professionally-trained voice of projection, “I will not stand for misandric talk in my home!”

      My home is tobacco friendly but not misandric friendly–a difficult concept for many but not difficult for anyone worth associating with in my view.

      If I am at someone else’s home or in a woman’s car, say, I’ll generally just bite my tongue and avoid her from then on, but I have also lost respect for her man even if I might well retain sympathy or pity. It is not my place to interfere with their relationship, I just don’t want to be around them.

      Of course, just the slightest verbal queue from her that she expects my affirmation of her feelings will result in something like, “don’t ask me that unless you really want to know what I think.” It is not as if anyone actually listens to advice that they don’t solicit as some sort of affirmation-gathering mechanism. I see no reason to shoot my mouth off to a non-receptive audience. In that sense I believe it is more effective to pull my punches.

      If such a thing occurs in a public place, then I might even make a spectacle, but here’s the thing: One of the reasons I know that I’m “still hot” is that in a public space, women don’t generally bash their men in front of me, as that might get me the idea, I suppose, that he’s worth “rescuing” or “stealing.” That’s what I imagine is what is going through their minds. The irony–and here goes my sexism–is that a man who will put up with such a woman is already ineligible for me to even harmlessly flirt with him.

      All of this stuff is very anti-arousal, castrating, and anti-sex, which, of course, reveals the sociological and demographic effect of Feminism–population reduction. Or such is how it would be if women weren’t being paid to make fatherless children. What a dystopia. Can’t end well. Hopefully not by means of Islamists right now training in camps on how to attack, rape, and murder civilians–of both sexes.

  3. I think that cultures which have a story about women like that of Eve, or cultures who practice separated menstruation, are doing so to limit women’s self esteem. Follow me here….the idea is that the women should respect ALL men as superior to her, not just the ones who prove worthy. When she reaches puberty and becomes a woman, she doesn’t have the superiority complex over men that modern (often pretty) young ladies do. She is more predisposed to accept any man that is willing to provide for her (ideally her family signs off too).

    I think this benefits society as whole because men are easily able to win over the women they like provided they temper their masculinity with some gentleness. Women are less likely to turn their noses up at a man who in reality is well suited, less likely to risk spinsterhood.

    • There’s logic there too. It’s a great multidimensional plan. The other part is that women, I believe, need a good cry once in a while and moreover “self esteem” is a curse if there ever was one.

      Generations of children given “self esteem” just for showing up just staged a tantrum over Trump. As for me, I don’t think these trends are either unpredictable or unintended.

      Personally, when it comes to primitive courtship rituals, my favorite is the one described once in detail in a presentation by Fakir Musafar (fakir.org). I hope I can do it justice here.

      It was an African tribe. The young men and women formed two concentric circles with the men on the inside. The job of the young women was to shake it. The job of the young men was to refrain from flinching. A similar game is played among various sorts of “tribes” here in the U.S. with a card table and hookers beneath it. However, in this African game, the ladies get to pick, and the ones they pick are the men who are the most impervious to her charms–at least that’s what the wiser ones best schooled in these arts by family members pick. The foolish ones pick the ones who fall to pieces.

  4. Silly girl…

    Whereas having a “curse” on her by God pretty well assures that any man with such a notion of rescuing womanhood will be seen as having hubris, and the inevitable disaster which ensues, eventually, as the trend fully matures (i.e., Feminism) can be looked back upon as hubris with regard to the individuals (men that is) who decided to elevate womanhood to be “equal” to man. The only way to destroy this psychological device of “curse” is to destroy the notion of God such as to be an Atheist.

    You have to look at Numbers 30 in order to understand this. It isn’t hubris for men to have notions (can we come up with a better word than notions?) of rescuing individual women from the idiocy of their hypergamous decisions, both fathers and husbands were *commanded* with that responsibility. The idea that the curse is a “psychological device” is just as much a repudiation of God as the idea of denying that God exists.

    In my view, there is no “equal.” There cannot possibly be “equal” such that in fact every attempt to elevate womanhood to the level of man (or suppress if one is a gynocentrist) will inevitably result in societal downfall, eventually, regardless of whether that “equalization” is benevolent or maleficent. Just like the “equivalence” of benevolence and maleficence, attempts to monkey around with it results in destruction. This is the mathematical, psychological, demographical inevitability a.k.a. Apocalypse.

    Look at what you just did. You stated a philosophical construct (“there is no ‘equal.'”), pointed to the evidence of its truth (adoption of said lie results in destruction), but neatly left God out of the equation. As long as you keep in mind that all such fantasies of “equality” are a literal defiance of God and His will for all of mankind, you’re on the right path. It is an intellectual sophistry to seek out rational observations of the effects of rejecting God and assign the cause to a philosophical concept called “equalism.” This is one of those areas in which having the requisite level of intelligence to engage in such sophistry simply places a greater measure of responsibility on such a person. “To those to whom much has been given, much is required.”

    My “problem” is that I don’t see it as a “curse”. I think it’s a blessing.

    No, dear, it is not a blessing. The curse of hypergamous behavior is the spring from which the poisonous fountain of feminist folly flows. You are conflating the curse, i.e., hypergamy, with the effect of the curse, that men are to rule over women. It is because of the curse that the protocol is now in place, and as such, the protocol of submission is a blessing.

    Babies are the result of receiving a batch of baby-batter in the vagina, via a man’s penis. As one of the dead white guys so aptly observed, it’s a procedure for which the cost is high, the pleasure fleeting and the position, ridiculous. Yet, babies require men and God obviously intended that such acts be pleasurable, otherwise He wouldn’t have given women a clitoris. The curse begins with women being cursed to bring forth their babies in pain. And what is the root cause of that pain? Sex with men. “Yet, your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

    Look at the evo-psych descriptions of hypergamy, the evolutionary desire of women to seek out the fittest mate and propagate his DNA. Perfectly explained by Genesis 3:16. Bearing those babies in pain means it had better be worth it, so her desire is to find a man who is worthy to rule over him and women want to be ruled by a man who is fit to rule them and to completely submit to him. That’s why women never stop shit-testing men and when he starts failing the shit-tests she starts losing attraction for him.

    Specifically, I think God loves women as much as God loves men,

    Of course He does. John 3:16, probably the most famous Bible verse in the world. “For God so loved the world that He sent His only son (to die as an innocent man and pay the price for all of humanity’s sins), that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life (that is, be forgiven of their sins).

    however, the expression of that love is not “Equal” in the eyes of most human beings, because, most human beings do not have the attention span, time horizon, historical reference, etc., in order to be able to fully comprehend Love not to mention God.

    It is fair and loving to treat equals with equality and to treat unequals with equity. All one has to do to understand this concept is raise a large family of children. Attempts to treat the children equally rather than with fairness and justice in love will end in disaster. This is one of the reasons why the ancients understood this far better than the moderns do.

    However, we do have the capacity to fully comprehend God’s Love for us in the most basic of ways and through the development of a relationship with God, we come to understand God over time in deeper and more meaningful ways.

    Such is the conundrum with regard to “the curse”. Since women don’t know what they want and men don’t know what women want, why not give women self-determination? Uh. Better not! But isn’t self-determination Love? Only if one is talking about a man.

    The clearest expression of this is found in Numbers 30. Men are held to their word, women (either as wives or daughters) are held to the accountability of the men who rule them (their fathers or husbands) and any agreement they make may be annulled at the time he hears of it or allowed to stand.

    However, this is merely an issue and the subject is actually slavery. Consider the paradox of the feminist opposition to what the Bible says about women, that they are to be ruled over by men and held accountable by men; contrasted with the prevalence of rape fantasies and the willingness of women to submit to virtually anything if the man in question is sufficiently attractive to them.

    One of the key points of Christianity is that everyone is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. In fact, God has absolutely no problem with slavery and any Christian who is opposed to slavery is deluded as to how God actually sees things. Imagine a modern-day legal system in which women could be owned as chattel property, yet afforded certain protections within that system. I suspect that far more women would opt to be owned than opt for some form of self-determination and the evidence in the form of observable happiness and contentedness in the two groups would be a powerful testimony. Naturally, any such discussions are anathema to feminists, especially those emasculated male feminists.

    Of course, some level of self-determination is necessarily afforded to women, particularly in the absence of men; but, there’s such a thing as too much. From the vantage point of a man or privileged woman, this notion is very difficult to fully comprehend. Does not “the pursuit of happiness” require self-determination? My answer is, not if one is a woman.

    And it is an excellent answer, in that it is completely correct. Correct, not because of the opinion of any man or woman, but because God made it that way.

    What kind of diabolical regressive creature am I to call this a feature not a bug? I’ll tell you. I am a woman who has not been protected from the darkest forces of evil but yet, somehow, God decided that I should live. I believe this is my purpose, to declare that to be a woman, and to be subordinate to a man in terms of even self-determination is not a curse but rather an expression of God’s Love. By being subordinated, I am free to Love and Obey. How could that not be a gift?

    Diabolically regressive creature? Methinks the lady doth protest too much, or perhaps she’s desirous of tormenting others by knotting up their panties until they scream. You are a very naughty girl to twist the shriveled balls of feminist men in such a manner while at the same time fueling the secret domination fantasies of their female masters. Keep up the good work.

    Despite the fact that I agree with the overall position you’ve taken, you are conflating the prescription, which was God’s curse on Eve (“your desire shall be for your husband”) with the descriptive effect of that curse, which created a protocol of submission that applies to all women (“and he shall rule over you”).

    Genesis 3:16 points to the spot in time and place at which God cursed women with hypergamy. If you desire a Bible study on that I’ll give you one, but I suspect for the majority of your readers and perhaps even you, there would be little interest. Yet, the ways in which people seek to deny God is somewhat analogous to sexual positions. After a certain point, it’s just variations on a familiar theme.

    What fascinates me more than anything else is the view of the Dom/sub “protocol” as a sexual fetish intended for emotional and sexual gratification. That protocol naturally pushes the envelope into S&M as the theme of Dom/sub is further sexualized and fetishized. This is just another way of taking God’s design, eliminating God from the equation and still getting the benefits of a relationship that conforms to God’s design. It is truly hilarious to me that many women who identify as subs (but only for an appropriate master) are living their lives far more in obedience to God than the vast, vast majority of wives one can find in the church singing loudly about their devotion and love for God. Then again, perhaps more sad than hilarious.

    • “The idea that the curse is a “psychological device” is just as much a repudiation of God as the idea of denying that God exists. ”

      I disagree. Where does “the psyche” come from? Who made it?

      “As long as you keep in mind that all such fantasies of “equality” are a literal defiance of God and His will for all of mankind, you’re on the right path. It is an intellectual sophistry to seek out rational observations of the effects of rejecting God and assign the cause to a philosophical concept called “equalism.”

      Who made “rationality”?

      Who invented language, to include words like “curse” or “blessing” ?

      Who invented humor?

      “No, dear, it is not a blessing.” Says you and a book written using language written by men for men. This would prove to me that you are male. I’ve no doubt that given enough time, I could prove mathematically that you are male given this belief of yours. It’s rational. It’s logical. Teaching women to read that book however might not have been the best move. 😀

      “You are conflating the curse, i.e., hypergamy, with the effect of the curse, that men are to rule over women.”

      It’s a feedback loop. Time, when viewed from a vantage point outside of the universe, does not entirely move in progressive fashion. Time is the prison of man’s rationality in life.

      “It is because of the curse that the protocol is now in place, and as such, the protocol of submission is a blessing.”

      Q.E.D.

      ” Yet, babies require men and God obviously intended that such acts be pleasurable, otherwise He wouldn’t have given women a clitoris. The curse begins with women being cursed to bring forth their babies in pain. ”

      There is more to the female sexual pleasure than the clitoris. There’s the U spot, G spot, cervix, uterus, stomach, heart, brain, breasts, hair, and skin. The entire female body is made for sex and babies like a Cello is made for music. Sometimes you’ve got to hurt that Cello to make it sing.

      By the way, some women, while giving birth orgasm. Pain. Oh dear. Pain. That’s such a “curse”. LOL

      ” Methinks the lady doth protest too much, or perhaps she’s desirous of tormenting others by knotting up their panties until they scream. You are a very naughty girl to twist the shriveled balls of feminist men in such a manner while at the same time fueling the secret domination fantasies of their female masters. Keep up the good work.”

      Thank you, Sir. 😉

      “This is just another way of taking God’s design, eliminating God from the equation and still getting the benefits of a relationship that conforms to God’s design. ”

      Not everyone in the BDSM scene is an Atheist. In fact, there are quite a few Christians therein. It is my observation that the Atheists and even some Agnostics in the scene have become more and more Communitarian over time whereas the Christians have largely left or otherwise act in secret.

      I believe in, and the point of my piece is to prove, the existence of God.

      The fact that I found God without resorting to “Priestcraft” just proves God to me all the more.

      I am sorry if this piece made you sad.

    • I was going to call a foul on your point about orgasm in childbirth (because pain) and the fact you can get away with saying such things as a woman; but if I were to point out that some women orgasm as a result of violent rape (you know- because penetration) I’d be vilified because I’m a man, but then I realized it would simply further prove that I’m rational and you’ve already made that point. So, yeah.

      Now, I once had a woman orgasm as a result of me braiding her hair. She swore up and down that it had nothing to do with being reverse-cowgirl on me while I was doing it. How do women do that?

  5. Pingback: The Insidious Clitoris | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s