There are no longer whores, only verbally abusive men. /S

Scantily clad whores in skimpy clothes. Prostitutes going for a slut walk. Only three things don't get cold in the winter, Polar Bears, Penguins, and Whores

Slut-Walks are now being organized by sluts to reclaim the word “Slut”.  Apparently the word “Slut” has a bad connotation. Slut-walk organizers say that the shaming connotation was caused by “The Patriarchy”, which is to say: all previous generations of the church that upheld God’s patriarchal order and laws condemning sexual immorality and effectively instilled their godly values throughout past generations of society.   But, no more!   The word “slut” now will mean; an empowered woman who seduces and copulates with whichever men of her choosing will dare to stick their dick into her.  Only “slut” will now supposedly mean that in a far more positive way, free from the shaming that societies influenced by an effective patriarchal church, previously maintained.

So how did we get to be such an immodest and immoral generation where women openly attend church dressed like the whores that they have become?

The immodesty and immorality of our generation is the legacy of cowardice and inaction on the part of the previous generation of leaders of our nation’s churches.  Cowardly leadership has led to a worthless “church” that today intentionally resembles the world, which has grown much more evil on those hirelings’ watch.  These apostate churches no longer lead our culture towards modesty and morality, but instead they follow the world into immodesty and immorality.  Will the churches of our children’s generation be returned to modesty under our watch?  If not, we’re not fighting hard enough or effectively enough.  You can read the lack of willingness to enforce modesty in today’s typical churchian assemblies in the following language from Whitewater Community Churches website:

Come as you are

Casual, Business Dress, Formal.   At Whitewater Community Church our concern is not on your outward appearance, but on the inward appearance of your heart.

While that sounds so “nice”, what that is really saying is; that they haven’t the balls to rein in attention-seeking immodest sluts.  Modesty won’t be forced to return while impotent churches lazily preach “come as you are”.  Profligate whores have slut-walked their way into these churches and the churchians esteem them as their pure hearted goddesses.   The goofballs that mismanage such churches are probably far more upset by my use of derisive words designed to shame their immodest and immoral congregations.

While floozies want to boldly reclaim the word “slut”, most misguided churchians try to assist by shaming upright men, hoping to just keep us from ever calling anyone a slut.   As you can see, Satan’s Feminist minions will continue to denounce God-fearing men as being “mean-spirited” or “verbally abusive” even after they have already restricted them from using anything more forceful than mere words to discourage immodesty. The whores and apostate churchians combined satanic goal is to “smash the patriarchy” removing all of men’s ability to correct wayward women, and rule over them well, as the Bible instructs men to do.  Eventually Satan will have the woman-controlled Beta-males at your local megachurch so thoroughly muzzled that you’ll have to ask those poor fools to blink twice if they don’t approve of the clothing-optional Sunday school class for polyamorous members.

Churchian men lack both the will and the loins to tell women to cover their heads when they pray, like God tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10.  Instead they twist God’s word, to nullify God’s commandment, because their actual lord and master whom they serve, wants them to subvert God’s commands.  And they are far too cowardly to tell women to cover their heads, or even to modestly clothe over their tits and asses while at their church.  When the choice is between obeying God and telling women to cover their heads, versus obeying Feminists, who don’t want such a God-ordained symbol of subjection on a woman’s head, to whom does that “church” give the worth-ship to be followed?  The churchians consistently worship women, the creature, above their Creator.

Head is covered

The churches will foolishly fall into Satan’s trap and repeat the sin of Adam and hearken unto the voice of the woman, instead of God, almost every time, even though we are clearly warned against this at the very beginning of the Bible, and the whole earth was cursed because of that very sin.  But that’s no matter to those spiritual retards that mislead today’s whoring churches.  They’ll not only hearken unto the weaker vessels, they’ll go whoring after the government too.

In Kansas our ugly butch-haired Democrat Governess has ordered that all people must cover their faces when in public, presumably to slow the spread of a coronavirus.  And I have no doubt that churchians obediently snapped their face coverings on the very next Sunday after the exalted governess spoke her command.  Whereas these same churches have effectively told God to piss-off, when His word commands that women should cover their heads, and/or veil their faces as the original churches practiced, whenever women might be seeking God’s presence in prayer.  For 1900 years straight every church everywhere throughout Christendom insisted that the women wear head coverings.  But, no longer.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.  6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So, if God says that the head and visage of a man, who is the image of God his glorious Father, should not be covered during prayer, and the Governess orders men’s faces be covered in public, who do you suppose wins in their church when those orders collide during public prayer?  Did all the men take their muzzles off like they would remove their hats according to godly tradition?   Do we even have to ask whom those apostates obeyed, and whom they scorned?

Satan likes to get foolish men to dishonor God, and humiliate themselves.

Just 100 years ago our ancestor’s wives all covered their heads in obedience to God when they went to church or prayed.  And they also weren’t wearing skintight tops or bottoms.  But now these cowardly beta-male preachers pretend the gates of hell won’t prevail against their whoring “churches”, while their spiritual whorehouse’s doors are hell’s gateway.  Satan has already prevailed over them and is now driving a victory lap, while those ignorant men are praying with their faces covered.  They’re just blind guides, leading other blinded people into the pit.  Unless you also want to worship their hefty whores in skin tight clothes, don’t waste your time attending their apostate woman-hearkening training centers.  Start your own home church, where God is feared.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

35 thoughts on “There are no longer whores, only verbally abusive men. /S

  1. re: your first pic

    Last time I was teaching a class of new RNs our EMR system it snowed about 3 inches the night before, which is a lot for around here, but we still had class start at 0700 because hospitals don’t close for snow.

    Now, about 10 or 11 out of the 30 girls show up with wet feet because they were wearing flip-flops with snow covering the side walks and parking lots. I joke about not knowing we had so many new people in town from Alaska and the Yukon Territory, but they didn’t get it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The state of the fairer gender is a sad example of devolution of woman. I am familiar with a few women who are real genuine moral icons and examples of true women as they used to be, They always take my breath away. No tattoos. No paint. (makeup) Modest dress. Simple but pure unadulterated beauty that starts on the inside of each of these rare gals and flows out and over and through anyone in close proximity to them. These are true daughters of Eve and I adore each and every one of them in their natural and genuine existence. Praise excellence.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Kentucky Headhunter,
    LOL They might have had to realize that their footwear was a strange choice considering the weather, to get the joke. I went to university in East Texas, and I lived by a student from Alaska that wore shorts and flip-flops all winter long in Texas.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I went to university in East Texas, and I lived by a student from Alaska that wore shorts and flip-flops all winter long in Texas.

    in florida we called those from the north, who wore shorts and t-shirts in the winter, ‘snowbirds.’ 🙂

    Like

  5. I was teaching a class of new RNs . . . Now, about 10 or 11 out of the 30 girls show up with wet feet because they were wearing flip-flops with snow

    one would like to think that RNs have a bit more intelligence than that.

    Like

  6. You’re right larryzb.
    I think the reason why the churchian preachers won’t condemn the filthy faggots is because a guy has to be little light in the loafers himself to become a “normal” modern preacher. Perhaps they require some homosexual acts to graduate seminary these days, I don’t know. But, it is as you say, and the homosexual agenda is taking the church by storm. As Dalrock pointed out, once churches opened the door for Feminism to redefine God’s word, making way for their beliefs, you can’t suddenly use the same scriptural basis you just pissed away to allow Feminism, to withstand the turd-traders.

    Like

  7. Perhaps they require some homosexual acts to graduate seminary these days
    No, but neither do they require or model acceptance of Biblical commands and teachings. Even the instructors are willing to throw out passages they do not like; I wish I was kidding.

    Like

  8. Brothers, you are mistaken to judge the show’s value before the final act.

    Roosh is merely approaching the climax of the plot, not its resolution. He is a ‘reformed bad boy’ now, entering the most elite club that girls pine for. Women want a bad boy that they can ‘fix’ and ‘domesticate’, but women also hang out at the finish line and select from the ‘winners’. The reformed bad boy is the ultimate female prize.

    He will secure himself a HB9+ who is at least 5 years younger, tighter, hotter and looks longingly into his eyes… a feature the slores before did not exhibit (they had the 1000 cock stare). He will get the poon AND devotion, the latter of which he previously did not enjoy.

    True repentance involves forgoing not only the content that was illicit, but the vehicles involved. Social media, financial/fame gains from the activities etc: it is all renounced. This has not occurred. The humility is left wanting: he is still projecting his worldview of self. Remember the man who devotedly followed all of God’s commandments, but Jesus (seeing the heart) tells him to sell everything, exposing that a repentance is either full or not. All gainz that were involved in the illicit pursuit must be surrendered, without exception.

    I never read him, never cared to. I can measure Everest by triangulation without having to climb to its peak and use a pitot tube with atmospheric pressure calculations. He is the male equivalence of the post-wall thot wahmenz.

    Like

  9. Someone needs to cut your dick off and shove it down your throat, you cocksucker! Or you need to be butt-fucked by a guy named Bubba. Fuck you, you vile piece of dog shit!🖕🖕🖕

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ikr,
    You are right that it is too soon to make a lot of judgements regarding Roosh. However, I have a little different take on his usefulness to God. While Roosh was talented enough to get myriads of women to sleep with him, to support himself as a traveling author, and become a public personality, he now has the opportunity to use that same talent, ambition, and boldness, that he once used for evil and for self, for God’s kingdom and for good. And he seems to be trying to do just that. Yes, he is a new believer in a denomination with many trinkets and traditions that they honor, and so we need to read his doctrine with a rather skeptical eye, but I found his writing thought provoking and generally aimed in the right direction.

    Like

  11. Wendy Wendy Wendy,
    I’m trying to understand your comment. If it is in reply to ikr, I agree he came down pretty hard on Roosh, and he needs to be careful to honor other men who are in the image of God, even though Roosh has done many very dishonorable acts, and thereby brought shame on himself and consequently the image of God. If in fact you were trying to stick up for Roosh, I agree, but you go to far when you start to dishonor another man while defending Roosh’s honor as a man, and a newly reformed man, I might add, much to his credit and the glory of God.

    Now, if you were actually upset with me, if something I wrote hurt you, then it’s too bad you’re not here for me to give you a big hug and some reassurance that I think women will really enjoy a lot of contentment once settled into God’s coming patriarchal kingdom. Please let me know what I wrote that has triggered you. I will use your input to work on becoming a better writer.

    I bought a black bandana to use as a face mask, since one is required at work whenever my management drops by. However, when I’m off work, it could probably make a really cute head covering for you, I bet. It’d be cool to pray with you just to try it out. Maybe we could pray that we all learn how to show men greater honor and their due dignity, and then afterwards you could try out some honoring statements on me, and I could grade you with the hug-o-meter. You’d love it!

    Like

  12. Come on Wendy, your comments are indeed harsh and not well thought out. Focus on the statements you disagree with and try to discredit them in part or whole.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I also think that women prefer their Bad Boys before they are reformed. The challenge is to reform them. Once the dangerous impulsive Bad Boy is reformed into a predictable Ned Flanders, the same woman that wanted a Bad Boy to reform no longer fears/respects him and he then becomes boring to her, no longer being untamed and exciting. If you let a woman get control of you, she’ll respect you less because of that.

    Like

  14. ikr,

    “True repentance involves forgoing not only the content that was illicit, but the vehicles involved. Social media, financial/fame gains from the activities etc: it is all renounced. This has not occurred.”

    Are you aware that Roosh has stopped selling his Bang and Game books? He has lost a lot of future revenue by removing those books from Amazon, his own website, and wherever else they were sold.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Two items from the comments
    1. The conclusion based on the tells I read is irrelevant. My stance in the assessment is what is correct. What if he is not legit? I read it correctly. What if he is legit? That is between him and God. My approval is applied in no way to the truth in his outcome. The practice of discernment alone is worth it (and commanded). He needs not impress nor argue his case. Moot.
    2. The tells. Indeed, a man has cut off his revenue stream. Shows a partial bearing of fruit, for sure. The error is assumption that the removal of 99% of the problem/temptation is adequate. Has he been so convicted that all the money made (what is left) is donated to the local Orthodox church of his attendence? Has he disappeared (denouncing fame) from the interwebz without hooplah (quietly into the night)? Before the assumption that I am being too harsh: God’s criteria would eclipse what is written here. I alluded to the prime example for gain. For temptation, the metaphor about poking out one’s eye..

    However, Sharkly, you are correct. Whenever there is a possibility a prodigal has returned to his Father, there is cause for prayer- and celebration. Both 1 and 2- important in the Now- are meaningless against Eternity.

    Like

  16. I also think that women prefer their Bad Boys before they are reformed. The challenge is to reform them. Once the dangerous impulsive Bad Boy is reformed into a predictable Ned Flanders, the same woman that wanted a Bad Boy to reform no longer fears/respects him and he then becomes boring to her, no longer being untamed and exciting. If you let a woman get control of you, she’ll respect you less because of that.

    You unwittingly proved my point.

    A reformed bad boy is a man who has not only expressed the potential for excitement but has proven it. He is a ‘catch’ for her excitement requirement. By being reformed, she cannot exercise her desire to control him- he is already in that state and thus immune to her assessing him as a beta over time as she domesticates him. He is a ‘catch’ for her domestication/provider requirement.

    His compliance to her dual-mating strategy she cannot assess to being her involvement. Both alpha and beta. He is the tortured soul, hell-on-wheels, docile plaything that she cannot influence. It is the perfect state of balance.

    Like

  17. “I also think that women prefer their Bad Boys before they are reformed. The challenge is to reform them.”

    This is true. The idea of taming the bad boy is the exciting part.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I just read this recent post by Dr. Ken Ham on music in church:
    https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/out-of-tune/

    As I don’t depend on various churches for my livelihood, like the good Doctor’s ministry does, I can afford to be far more blunt than he was, but I’d also like to read some of your opinions on this topic. Since I don’t personally enjoy singing myself, I haven’t spent too much time thinking about the topic. I often try to put unpleasant thoughts out of my mind. I once heard a radio preacher say that, “if you don’t like singing, you’re sure not going to like heaven”. His crappy line made me feel like abandoning Christianity. I imagined a hellacious heaven where we stood on choir risers and sang until we fainted and were then stood back up to continue for all of eternity. However, heaven is a place of rest. There will be a kingdom and a city, rivers, trees, streets, mansions, a temple, God’s servants will serve Him. We will eat at His table and drink the fruit of the vine with Him. Based upon our faithfulness here, we will be given charge over far greater things there. Our joy will be complete.

    Like

  19. I once heard a radio preacher say that, “if you don’t like singing, you’re sure not going to like heaven”. His crappy line made me feel like abandoning Christianity. I imagined a hellacious heaven where we stood on choir risers and sang until we fainted and were then stood back up to continue for all of eternity.

    You don’t encounter very many of them nowadays, but I remember in my youth, during our family’s “Baptist Phase,” hearing sermons from a series of visiting preachers who clearly specialized in “fire and brimstone” (most certainly nothing wrong with that kind of sermon). What was interesting was that this theme permeated ALL of their sermons, even those centered on the “loving Jesus,” and thus producing messages exactly like the one you heard on the radio (“you can never completely escape Hell, even in Heaven”). I’m led to wonder if this based on their misunderstanding of what Heaven is, or is it a reflection of their own psychology that delights in the idea of punishment being a perpetual “Sword of Damocles,” even in eternity? Is THAT their ideal Heaven?

    Like

  20. Larry Solomon and any interested person, Have you heard of Christian Universalism? If interested, you may google Christian Universalism and go to a website that explains what it is. It has been said that Christian Universalism was the majority doctrine for the first five hundred years after Christ.

    Like

  21. MLTrippied,
    No, I’m not too interested in Christian Universalism.(The belief that God eventually redeems all people to Himself) I did a little looking into it, and I’m more of a fan of “Special salvation” or limited atonement.(The belief that only some members of humankind will eventually enter heaven)
    Here is an article that I just found that seems to be fair, and the author concludes that although there were some universalists in the church, even though the New Testament teaches Special-Salvation, there is certainly no evidence that Christian Universalism was ever a prevailing dogma:
    https://credomag.com/2012/05/were-the-church-fathers-universalists/

    I can see why the idea might become popular. But we can’t just tell people whatever sounds nice about everybody’s eternal destination. We need to derive our beliefs from what the inspired scriptures actually tell us. And there are too many verses that contradict Christian Universalism for me to even list them all.

    I believe Larry Solomon is the pen name of “BGR”, who is the proprietor of Biblical Gender Roles. I don’t know how often he reads here.

    Also, I recommend people quit using Google and switch to one of the other search engines, since Google actively suppresses Conservative and Christian sites, and any other view they think should be suppressed.

    Like

  22. Pingback: A Ring of Gold in a Swine’s Snout | Σ Frame

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s