Month: September 2015

Alternate Investments For Alternative Lifestyles

Artisanal Toad6 Comments

Ginseng and China

Let’s say you’re living in Kentucky (near Frankfort), married with 3 boys, four, six and seven years old. You’re working as a janitor making $34k (take home) but there’s a nice health care plan. You want your wife to quit working, homeschool the boys and have a few more babies. She loves that idea but can’t see how to afford it because even with both parents working you can barely make ends meet. And what about the children? How could you ever afford to send them to college?
If one looked around carefully it would be possible to find something along the lines of a 40 acre parcel of land 20-30 miles outside of town for less than $1500 an acre. Typically these properties only have about 15 acres are even close to flat and the rest is hillside covered with ‘young timber’. That means it will be 30 years before the timber is worth anything, so for now it’s considered hunting land. Just to be sure, as of today (April 2017) a search for land was done in central Kentucky and several parcels from 40-75 acres were found that were priced at less than $1000 per acre.
The purpose of finding a farm like this is three-fold. First, you need enough land to have a farm where you can produce most of your food and almost all your high-value food. Second, having such a farm means you can arrange things the way you want them without having to worry about what the neighbors think. Third, such a parcel of land offers the correct habitat to grow ginseng.
Wild ginseng is almost extinct and when planted as “wild simulated” ginseng there is no difference between the wild and the wild simulated because all the planter did was help out nature by planting the seed. The price of wild ginseng has risen dramatically in recent years and has regularly been selling for over $1000 per pound of dried weight. The market for ginseng is China and it’s always been China. There is no reason to expect the price of ginseng to drop or the demand to dry up.

Ginseng is a business with an increasing demand and a declining supply.

Each acre, planted correctly, will yield about 200 pounds (dried weight) of 10 year old roots. By law, in order to comply with the international treaties governing endangered species, ginseng cannot be harvested before it’s 5 years old. However, after 5 years the roots can be dug out of the ground. The older the roots the bigger they are and the more valuable they are. If necessary roots could be dug to provide money every fall after the plants are 5 years old, but it’s far better to leave them in the ground to grow.
So, the idea is to find a place that will support all these requirements because once it’s planted it’s almost completely maintenance free.

An Example Of What To Look For

Of these, we’ll focus on one of the properties on sale now, a 74.15 acre parcel with an asking price of $65,000. That’s the asking price for the land, $875 per acre. I don’t know how long that listing will be up so the link is to the archived page. The price is excellent, but let’s look at why it’s a good deal. Because even at $850 an acre, the land might be completely unsuitable. This property is actually a very good option from what an be seen online.
What you can see from this property is that there are two sections of north-facing hillside that would be excellent for growing ginseng. This is a satellite view:
The ridge-top land can (and should) be cleared to create productive pasture land. That would probably come out to around 30 acres and a good bulldozer operator should be able to knock out clearing out the trees and some of the stumps in a week or so, running at $400 to $600 per day. To give you an idea of the lay of the land, this is more of a terrain photo from satellite imagery:
Just below that balloon, there is a good location to put in a large pond (lake) of 3-5 acres. The biggest problem in that part of the country is water. The ground is hydraulically tight and getting a water well is almost impossible. Putting in a good-sized lake would ensure that the farm had an adequate supply of water and after that it’s a matter of pumping it to where you want it.
This property is better than most when it comes to good land for growing ginseng because there’s at least ten acres of excellent terrain and perhaps another ten acres of terrain that would work but isn’t as good.
A very nice 2000 sq. ft. 4BR 3BA earth-sheltered (“underground”) house can be built for $30 to $35 a square foot ($60k – $70k). Monthly utilities would average around $100 per month. No TV, no cable, just internet and phone. The home can be designed to include steel that make it tornado proof. Along with a few other features, it’s a very secure, defensible home and the utility savings compared to normal homes is over half the mortgage payment. Best of all? Farm housing is exempt from the building code. You have a farm, it’s rural and it’s exempt from the building code so build the home any way you like it.
Combine that with a full-blown homesteading operation and plan on an 80% savings in food costs by producing your own veggies, meat and dairy products. Flour, rice, beans, spices, condiments and such are cheap.
Put the land into production and specialize only in items in demand locally in order to sell better, organic food at a lower price than the Tysons/Con Agra stuff in the local supermarket. And in most states, on-farm sales are exempt from sales taxes. Kentucky is one of them. Keeping costs low, the mortgage can be paid off quickly because the farm chores only take up two to three hours a day, which leaves plenty of time for full-time employment.
Plant 10 acres of wild simulated ginseng and after 5 years start harvesting seeds, which are worth $150 per pound. Let’s say you get 10 pounds per acre each year and sell them. There’s another $15k in income every year, or keep planting your own land if it will support ginseng. Start harvesting in year 10 and pull out as much as needed at $1000 per pound to pay for the following year plus have another $15k in cash for immediate emergencies. With that done, quit the day job and start scouting for farms for the sons. Buy each son a farm about 5 years before they’re ready to leave home and help him plant ginseng on it.
By the time the 20 year mark hits, there should still be at least 5 of the original acres left. 20+ year old ginseng roots are extremely valuable and rare. Ginseng is like money in the bank locked up in a 1-year CD that the government can’t steal.
This plan offers more opportunity to generate wealth with less risk than sending a kid to college and then out to find a job. Buying farms for sons when they’re 14-15, they get started with their own farm early. Plant the ginseng first, move him to the farm at 18-19 to get it into production. Live the first few years in a super-insulated cottage (can be an office later) and when he’s 24-27 years old he can pull out enough to build a home, be self employed and arguably have a net worth of several million dollars. Country girls looking at the farm, the debt-free home and the lifestyle it offers might be interested. At some point she’d find out about the ginseng, either before he marries her or after, because there’s no way a wife won’t find out about it.
Has he set himself up for divorce because he’s worth too much for the marriage to last? After all, women most often tend to frivorce their husbands when they’re young. Or should he make a big production of planting a new patch of ginseng in a different location, explaining that it would pay for the kids college and fund their retirement in 10 to 15 years. Presumably she would stick around for the maximum payout, right? If things start looking bad he can liquidate the old stuff as fast as he can and be in a position to hire a really good attorney.
There’s always the poison pill approach too: tell her that if she ever files for divorce, files false charges against him or anything like that, somebody will wander through that ginseng with a sprayer full of weed-killer and a few million dollars worth of ginseng will go poof.
I know of no other long-term investment that offers such excellent returns in such a short period of time and facilitates a rural, healthy and independent lifestyle than growing ginseng.

Theater, Improv and Game

Artisanal Toad1 Comment
When I was in HS I got some really good advice and joined the stage crew for the production of “Annie Get Your Gun.” I liked it. For the first year all I did was work backstage with sets and stuff but after I got a little more confidence I auditioned for parts and finally got a minor one. Fast forward 10 years, I was in San Diego, fresh out of the Corps and going to college. I was invited to audition for a play (cold- I hadn’t even looked at the script) and got type-cast on the spot as a knuckle-dragging neanderthal military character.
That got me involved in theater again and for the next 4 years I had parts in a half-dozen productions. We’re talking about community college theater, folks. All volunteer and most colleges make you enroll in theater classes if you get cast because that’s where the money comes from to put on the production. These tend to have a lot of younger college aged people. Other community theater groups skew heavily toward middle age and their money comes from donations and ticket sales, it just depends on the group.
If you’re shy, have difficulty with social interactions, approach anxiety or don’t have a lot of social skills, set your sights on community theater instead of game. Yes, hit the gym. Yes, learn game. Yes, approach women, but get involved with community theater. Here’s why:
The tools and techniques to become a better actor will help you to become better with not just women, but with all people. If you can develop the confidence to get on stage in front of an audience, giving a corporate presentation won’t be a big deal and neither will approaching women. I cannot think of a more brutal job interview than a casting call. The kind of practice you can get in a theater group that teaches, compliments and reinforces game is amazing. One of the things that will get trained is your wit and you’ll have professionals helping you understand how to present yourself in the best possible way. Learning how to connect with an audience will also teach how to connect with individual women.
The social aspects are also important because it’s involvement with a group that has a mission. Being a part of a theater production is to be part of a team that will be very close for a short period of time. It’s damned hard work learning your lines and blocking and you’ll spend a lot of time with the rest of the cast getting it right before the curtain goes up. However, hang in there because once accepted you’ll be a theater person forever after. One of the neat things about theater is most of the actors have a desire to improve their craft, so when actors get together in public it’s natural to do some improv. Why? Because that’s what theater people do.
Steroids are to gym workouts what improv is to game.
The goal of improv is something like dancing, in which the partners are working to bring their characters closer to each other and develop harmony of pattern and movement. It forces the participants to think on their feet and be prepared to change direction at a moments notice, because the secret is nobody is really in control. In fact, if someone dominates things, it loses all its charm. That’s why one of the primary rules is to listen, which teaches just how hard it is to listen. Another rule is to agree rather than disagree, which keeps the narrative flowing.
Getting a cast working well together is often a function of character development and interaction but the script only provides so much support for an actor getting into character. The thing about improv is each person has to stay in character and everyone is required to adapt and adjust to whatever anyone else says. The story is thus developed as you go along and is only limited by the imaginations of the people involved, provided they stay in character. There’s absolutely no way to know which way it’s going to go which makes it fun and forces each actor to refine their character. Game teaches rules and says go approach women to practice but the women have zero investment in the approach. Improv has women who are invested in their own growth as well as that of the others in the group. For guys who have a hard time talking to women, a few hours of improv every week with instruction will work wonders. That’s what theater classes are for.
If you take any courses in theater in college (one of the easiest ways to get into it) improv will be required and if you’re currently in college this is a great way to get some experience without auditioning for a part. After a few classes and with a bit of experience you’ll be ready to hit the casting call and audition. This usually requires a couple of short opposing monologues (no more than 2 minutes each) and some improv. Possibly a reading from the script, but that’s usually only for a call-back if/when you’re being considered for a particular part. Check schedules and sit in on a casting call and you’ll understand. Getting cast is a huge commitment because if you take the role and then can’t meet the rehearsal schedule, learn your lines and show up for performances you’ll wind up blacklisted. A reputation for reliability and teamwork is worth working for and a theater director can be one hell of a reference on a job application.
Casting calls can be brutal and seldom if ever will a director explain why any individual actor did or didn’t get a call-back. So, you get up there and give it your best and wait like everybody else to see if you get a callback. If you don’t, it’s like getting shot down on approach- she wasn’t interested, so move on and try again. If you get a callback the director is looking at the interaction of the actors, some of whom are already cast and others may or may not be cast depending on the “best fit” with the rest of the cast. I’ve seen inexperienced actors chosen over much more capable actors because of their onstage chemistry with other members of the cast and completely unexpected casting decisions if the director is trying to do something different. I’ve also been invited to audition by directors who saw me audition for other productions when I didn’t get a call-back.
Improv doesn’t need to have scripted characters and there have been plenty of times I’ve been with other actors who spontaneously created characters and a story line. Usually because they were getting bored (which can be a problem for actors). One of the things about improv in public is the people around you are often used as unwitting participants in your production and people on the periphery become the audience. Street theater if you will, because it gives legitimacy to saying the most outrageous things you can imagine, as well as the physical actions to back them up.
For guys who have a problem with shyness or social interaction with women, improv with a theater group is perfect. On one hand it’s a game and as long as you’re trying, nothing you say or do will be held against you later. OTOH, it’s real and you have to participate or else. If you’re new, experienced people will work with you and feed you slow easy ones right over the plate because it’s a challenge for them to try to guide both their character and yours in the direction they want it to go. I had friends who had “stock” characters they really liked and sometimes those characters became their alter-ego in a weird way. After a while you knew when they’d slipped into character just from their body language and the way they looked at you… and knew they were making decisions about who else was around that could be dragged into it and the overall intended audience. Because people are naturally voyeurs.
Improv can be demanding and mentally exhausting and forces the actors to be on their toes. Some people are naturals and others have to work hard at it but as much as anything it’s a matter of practice. I had friends I hung out with and we had a set of hand signals, mostly for body language and congruence so we could communicate without breaking character. Some people prefer to do improv in a sterile environment (focus on character, interaction and dialogue) others (like me) prefer more public forums because I like the idea of having an audience.
I had a final exam for an improv class on a spring afternoon at a crowded cafe in San Diego. I was paired with another non-traditional student (about 30, like me) and we decided on our characters, chose the subject and direction of what we were going to do. Part of our grade was our performance with each other and part of it was the effect our performance had on the audience we chose. We had a couple of people at different places in the local area holding tables at cafes looking for the right audience. We got a good hit from what had to be a bus tour and wound up with several tables of mostly “women of a certain age” from the Midwest sitting next to us.
The prof grading our performance arrived, got a seat with a good view and we got started. A classmate was across the street waiting for her cue. We got into character and into our ‘bubble’ and after a few minutes nobody else in the world existed except the two of us, and we were in love. Some risque comments were made and there was lots of touching. This was out of doors and there was a lot of street-noise, so we had to speak loudly enough to hear ourselves that the other tables could hear us. We were oblivious to that.
We had thirty minutes and the first 10 minutes was to get the intended audience’s attention as a young couple so in love with each other they were blind to the world around them. Total campy romance. We definitely had attention at the ten minute mark when Carol ramped it up into the second act.
“Darling, things have been getting a little stale lately. What do you think we could do to spice things up?”
I gave her steady eye contact for a while and smirked.
“Why don’t we get a girlfriend? You were into that in college so it shouldn’t be a problem and as long as she doesn’t get pregnant, hell, we would hire her as a live in housekeeper.”
Our eyes were completely focused on each other and she nodded. “That could be a solution, but we’d have to both agree on her and it’s always the two of us first, then her. If it’s ever a choice between her or us, she goes. Agreed?”
There was now total silence from the women at the tables next to us. We finally got service and ordered a round of wine, I moved around the table to sit beside her and what followed was a conversation about the physical aspects of various women within viewing, with descriptions good enough that the listeners could identify them and make their own evaluations. What they didn’t realize was we were using other women to discuss the appearance, physical attributes and deficiencies of the women who were sitting next to us listening in on our conversation. We moved back and forth, from talking about us to talking about other women and what we found attractive or unattractive.
We hit the end of the second 10 minutes with an uncomfortable audience. I made the signal and Terri (young and very attractive classmate) got up, walked down the sidewalk, crossed to our side of the street and approached in our direction.
“John, isn’t that your ex-girlfriend? Would that be too much like playing with fire?”
“I think she’d be perfect. Question is, who’s she going to respond to? We parted on really good terms but I don’t know if she’s still into guys.”
“Nobody would believe she was our housekeeper. My God. Look at the way the women are watching her and their men trying not to. Why did you two break up?”
“My last deployment was for 8 months and by the time I got back she’d moved on. We got together a few times, but it wasn’t the same… and then I met you and that was it.”
“If I’d realized she looked that good I’d have been a lot more concerned. I don’t remember her looking that good. How old is she?”
“Let’s see… she can’t be twenty-one yet. She’d just turned 18 when we got married, which is the only time you ever really met her and she looked like shit that day.”
Carol stared at me in shock. “That means you started dating her when she was what, fifteen?”
I shrugged. “Her mom is French and her dad is retired Navy. They both liked me and decided I was the best thing that ever happened to her. I didn’t know how old she was until her sixteenth birthday party because it never came up, but her folks didn’t care. They wanted me to marry her before the last deployment but she’d just turned seventeen and that would have caused problems.”
I stood, called Terri over to our table and invited her to join us. She came over, Carol rose as well, and I gave her a hug and a playful kiss on the mouth. Carol objected.
“Hey- if you kiss her don’t I get even time?” That part was scripted to make it sound like she wanted a kiss from me.
I look from Carol to Terri and shrugged. “Seems to me that’s up to her.”
Terri reached over, gave Carol a hug and a kiss on the cheek but in full view of the women next to us gave her ass a squeeze, which was hidden from me. We all sat down and full scale seduction was on. Terri and I caught up on each other’s lives. She was going to school at UCSD, not seeing anyone but doing a bit of modeling. Carol and Terri went back and forth with a little conversation and a lot of subtext. I ordered more wine and gave Terri a glass.
There was a lot of sexual tension and Carol (total improv) unhooked her bra, pulled the shoulder straps off her arms and pulled the bra out from under her shirt, putting it in her purse. She looked Terri in the eye and said something about hating to be restrained. Terri laughed and did likewise. Then Carol explained things were getting stale for us and we’d decided we needed a girlfriend. Our body language clearly said we were interested in her. She smiled and moved closer toward us but adjusted so she was slightly facing our audience.
Our goal for the final segment was to keep the audience in a “what will they do next” spell of intense interest, but while we were still in our bubble (now including Terri) and completely oblivious to them, Terri wasn’t and they knew it. Sometimes she’d make a comment looking at us, sometimes looking in their direction, making it obvious she knew they were listening and didn’t care. That was the final piece designed to draw them in, taking them from audience to participants.
We kept it up until we hit the 30 minute mark and called for the check, staying in character. The prof came over as we paid the bill and we turned it off. We stood, turned to the ladies and he told them what we’d done, thanked them for being such a gracious audience and we left to help other students prepare for their exam. He stayed and asked a few questions about how believable we’d been (he’d made notes of some of the reactions), thanked them and left to do another evaluation. We both got a B+ (“very believable”) and I got a reprimand for giving a minor (Terri) a glass of wine in a public place.
——————–
When participating in public improv there’s a fine line in these situations in which everyone should expect to be pushed based on individual capabilities. Are you not participating on level with everyone else? It’s OK, they’ll adjust. Be prepared for someone else to come up with a humorous or embarrassing reason why you’re in the dumps and explain it to the waitress or whoever. And that’s now part of your story and you have to deal with it. This is probably one of the greatest ways to learn how to blow away shit tests there is because it forces you to work to come back with something funny, witty or whatever. Agree and amplify is the go-to response because a but-hurt answer will get slammed.
The magic of theater is the emotions you are forced to project are real. They have to be in order for you to be convincing on stage and that’s the reason for the improv- learning to both control and project the emotions as needed. The structure on which the emotions rest is artificial, but again, the emotions are real. Learn how to guide the improv for the women and even though it’s just a game and they know it, the emotions take over and things happen. This is why relationships among actors tend to be fluid. Romantic leads often become an item during a production and then break it off afterward, as well as others in the cast and crew.
If the final exam I did with Carol and Terri had been in the early evening with no further commitments and we’d bounced to another venue together, that night would have ended with all of us in bed together. Carol was a red-headed bisexual living with another woman but getting her itch scratched when desired from a couple of guys in the group. She worked as a waitress, did theater and was working on a nursing degree. Terry was a beautiful but boring 20 year old student that I dated for a few months a year later after she turned 21. The sexual tension was real but the point is the attraction was the result of the emotions that had to be generated for the performance. The “relationship” aspect was pure fantasy but the emotions were real.
My experience with women in community theater was that they tended to be serious, because flaking on commitments is a huge violation of the code. Doing theater soaks up an enormous amount of time so these are not women who spend much time in nightclubs getting hit on. The demands and schedule of being in a production means you need a clear head almost all of the time and many of the women I met doing theater drank seldom, if ever and didn’t do drugs at all. They also care about their appearance. Theater requires a certain passion and commitment that most people simply don’t have, thus there are ‘theater people’ and everyone else.
Doing theater is a natural compliment to game. It’s a passion, an unusual hobby and introduces you to people that are amazing. Go out with a bunch of actors and wild things happen. Roll into a venue with a high-energy mixed group of friends having a good time, most or all of the women attractive. That’s all the social proof you’ll need. People will always ask if it’s a special occasion or something. When they find out it’s the cast of a theater production, you being part of it is an instant DHV. Other women will cheerfully allow themselves to be pulled away from their friends into the group because of the comfort and energy. After that it’s game and logistics, usually more logistics than anything else.
Being needy shouldn’t be an issue because in the experience of every guy I knew that had been cast a few times, they had zero problems getting laid. Maybe they weren’t pulling the hotties that got leading roles, but there were always plenty of good-looking cast and crew members available and willing. Understand, you have to make your bones, showing up on time, learning your lines and blocking, showing everyone you’re being seriously professional about the production and a team player before really being accepted. I have known people to quit good jobs because the boss changed their schedule and that interfered with a production they’d committed to. I’ve seen actors onstage when they should have been in a hospital. So, yeah, theater people can be weird, but it’s the kind of weird you can be proud of.

The, Ahem, Other Muscles

Artisanal Toad6 Comments
I look at this as an interesting matrix of technology in conflict with social norms where it impacts the feminine imperative. One of the foundational truths of red pill wisdom is to ignore what women say and watch what they do; and the internet is a pretty amazing thing. When given the chance to comment anonymously and without any male ego on the line about what size penis women really preferred, this is the result:
2008-06-16-0chart
Penis size is an area in which men pretty much had no control until very recently. Women will tell a guy what he wants to hear, but the chart above indicates why the idea of “Chad Thundercock” exists. The median penis length for a white man is about 5.7 inches fully erect. Assuming a normal curve (this is biological so the “fit” is not exact but it’s pretty close) the first standard deviation on men (68.2%) is between 4.8 and 6.6 inches in length. That’s the average guy.
The second standard deviation gets a guy out to about 7.6 inches and it isn’t until the third standard deviation (statistically that would be a little over 2% of men) that a guy has an erect penis between 7.5 and 8.5 inches long. However, if you notice the distribution on the chart, it’s skewed in a narrow range to favor girth instead of length. The median erect girth is 4.8 inches with a standard deviation of .5 inches. Thus, the average guy is 5.7 inches in length and 4.8 inches in girth. The 2nd standard deviation begins at 6.6 inches in length and 5.3 inches in girth. That is larger than 68.2% of all men. The 3rd standard deviation begins at 7.6 inches in length and 5.8 inches in girth.
Notice something about that chart, compared to the statistics:
penischart
Notice that small square on the left with the “50%” in it? That represents half the male population. Expand it out to the edge of the 1st standard deviation, which is 68.27% of the population. See where that gets you? Continue out to the edge of the 2nd standard deviation and now you’ve got a dick that’s 7.6 inches long with a girth of 5.8 inches and according to this chart, you’re barely in the “very satisfying but not ideal” range.
It took me a while to figure out how, if so few men had a tool that large that women knew what was the ideal size. That question was answered in two parts, the first with one word: “dildo.” They do not make “average sized guy” dildos, so it turns out that in at least some cases the guy is competing with a fantasy fueled by a dildo that’s bigger than the penis possessed by over 99% of the men out there. The second, it turns out, is women are horrible at guessing size and they tend not to carry around tape measures.
I worked my way through college as a waiter. One place I worked had a wine station right behind a couple of booths with a screen that prevented the customers from seeing us working, but we could hear every word. You cannot believe how many times I overheard conversations from groups of women that revolved around how good their new boyfriend was in bed and how big he was. Or how bad he was in bed or how small he was. Seriously. I think it’s why some guys have no trouble dating a woman and then working their way through her circle of friends. Granted, he has to have more going for him than just the size of his penis, but it seems to be something women talk about. Ever notice that one of the go-to insults a woman uses on a man is that he has a small penis?
Most guys are somewhat apprehensive about the size of their penis if they’ve ever overheard those kinds of conversations. The problem with the penis is it isn’t a muscle, it’s an exoskeleton. We know that working out with weights results in getting bigger muscles (for those with testosterone) but what could be done to grow the penis? That’s a problem of a different sort and as it turns out, very few people ever did any research on the penis (the scientific kind). Trust me, you will never hear a scientist (or for that matter any woman) so cheerfully discuss the subject of the penis in a non-sexual way as Diane Kelly does in her TED talk.
As it turns out, based in part on her research, there is a way to get the penis to grow. This is probably the ultimate review of the Bathmate, which is a hydrostatic penis extender that works to grow the penis (over time, permanently) in both length and girth. This guy is what I’d have to call a “true believer” and he posts pics of himself to prove it (don’t worry, there’s plenty of warning before getting to them). But this kind of begs the question of why a guy would want a bigger dick. In most cases it’s because he learned the lesson about listening to women who say “just be yourself” and he got a look at the chart above.
But, this is where the social aspects of all this get interesting. Why is it that the women want a guy with a big dick? I get that it’s an issue of how it feels, but this is a two sided equation. On one side is the size of the penis and on the other side is the “fit” if you will, of the vagina. If you read any PUA type blogs guys constantly talk about moving on after a divorce and getting with women who are younger, hotter and tighter. So, why don’t women take responsibility for their lady-bits? They do pilates and yoga to look good on the outside, why not work on the inside too?
Vaginal tightness was something which women pretty much had no control over until recently. About 5 years ago I got to know people in a local Russian expat community and the women talked about the problems in Russia (way more women than men) and said there was a school that taught “girl game.” Literally, how to be feminine, flirtatious, sweet, complimentary to men and how to manage the process of getting the guy from acquaintance to husband. One part of the school was physical training of the vagina. They called it VUM training and said once men had been with a woman who’d been through that training, they would never be satisfied with another woman again. Blew my mind, but it also made me curious. They use a device something like the Kegelmaster but its got a biofeedback component… some kind of lightbar that shows the women exactly what the muscles are doing. As the muscles got stronger the women learned how to control what their vagina was doing. You can imagine…
Of course, that’s Russia and the US medical establishment refuses to report on most Russian medical research. Amazingly, there’s been some bleed-over in spite of that.
It turns out there has been an explosion of childbirth related uterine prolapse problems in the US, attributed to a lack of exercise by women. Well, I guess anyone that looks around can see it, but that’s what drove the development of the Kegelmaster and other devices like that (Ladies, you simply must read the reviews on the Kegelmaster). Then came the feedback of the effect on sex and while the doctors and researchers who developed this knew it was coming they had no idea of the response. Women were like “OMG!” Then came the idea of combining a vaginal exerciser with a sex toy and we got the Magic Banana. Now there’s even an exerciser with its own smartphone app. You just can’t make this stuff up.
I’ve been watching the discussions around the sphere lately on sex robots and that sort of thing, which has highlighted the double standard between men and women. Women are praised as being empowered when they buy vibrators and other sex toys but men are shamed for buying something like a fleshlight. (If you don’t know, it’s an artificial vagina that looks like a flashlight). My fascination is with the trends. If one looks at the societal trends of the last 50 years, think about the trend in fitness and the accompanying societal standards.
If one looks at male models of the 1970’s and compares them with the male models of today, the most notable difference is the huge increase in muscle mass. The standard in what it means to be considered “good looking” for men has changed, probably on a permanent basis. Women’s standards haven’t changed much because men have always liked the same things in women. Annette Kellerman wouldn’t have any problems getting interest today.
My question is where the whole penis extension thing is going. If a guy got a Bathmate, used it and got a big dick, would that encourage him to stay in a relationship (especially if his wife was “lovin it”) or would the increased confidence cause him to go looking for something else? Of course, he’d have to find a way to hide it because if the wife/GF found out he was using a penis pump her automatic response would be shaming.
On the other side of the coin, if women got a lot more enjoyment out of sex because they exercised the right spot, where would that lead? Would they be more likely to stay in their (now) sexually satisfying relationship, or be more likely to figure that if it’s *this* good with the guy they’ve got, what would it be like with a guy that’s bigger? In other words how would her hypergamy react to having her own “chinese finger trap”?
According to the Bathmate people they’ve sold a lot of them and from what I can see of the evidence, they work. There are other devices that also work to one extent or another but evidently none as well as the Bathmate. According to the people who make the Kegelmaster 2000, they’ve sold a lot of them. There are also lots of other vaginal exercisers on the market. The point is, will we see a tipping point on either of these things? Will we see the point at which guys buy these things in high school in the same way gym rats are eating steroids like candy?
Would it still be the same chart if all the women in the sample had been using a vaginal exerciser and were as tight as they wanted to be? I have no idea. Is the chart at the top proof of the “Alpha Widow” phenomena? Could be.
Given the way women are, a normal sized guy gains an advantage with women by having a bigger dick, but especially with younger women. For obvious reasons and because women talk and it’s a talking point. When I was young a guy just needed to look reasonably good and not be needy in order to get laid. Charisma helped a lot and the ability to approach, but it wasn’t that difficult to get laid. Later, some game was required. The stories coming in from the field say that to be competitive in today’s sexual market a guy needs to be jacked and have tight game. How much longer until he not only has to be jacked and have tight game but needs to be hung as well? Another decade? Maybe, but I doubt more than two decades will pass before having a big dick is as important as hitting the gym. It’s called competition.
Women (especially those hitting or about to hit the wall) gain a huge advantage over their competitors by toning up down there. I know women in their 30’s and 40’s who complain about having to have sex by the second date or there won’t be a third. They’re all divorced, they’d all like to get married again and they are not happy with the fact the men they want not only don’t want them but their second choices don’t want to get married again (once bitten, twice shy). I’m thinking that really toning things up and being virginal tight might be a selling point.
They say the tipping point on vibrators and sex toys becoming socially acceptable for woman was the Sex In The City episode about the rabbit (1998) 17 years ago, and today they’re ubiquitous. I’m waiting for the scene in a movie where the woman tells the guy to put his finger in her and then after he does clamps down on it and says “OK, try to pull it out.” I guarantee it would be as famous as the orgasm scene in “When Harry Met Sally.” What’s so funny to me is a good FUD campaign would sell millions of these things because plenty of women are insecure about how tight they are just like men are insecure about the size of their package. Think of it as the modern-day “ring around the collar.”
Looks like I’ll need more popcorn.

You Can Smell The Gamma White Knight Fear

Artisanal Toad15 Comments
A thread at Vox’s has now run over 950 comments, although it’s been put in moderation and is now moving at glacial speed. It started off on the subject of my last post and moved on to the subject of polygyny and girl-on-girl sex. Yes, guilty as charged. For those of you who’ve seen me do this elsewhere before and wonder why I do this every year or two, part of it’s developmental and part of it is looking for patterns. As far as the argument goes I think it’s as developed as it’s going to get but I believe I’m finally seeing patterns of behavior associated with this argument and it don’t look good.
I’ve been through all the arguments before, so on this particular thread I took a new approach. I decided to grab the “third rail” of polygyny and bring the issue of “sleeping arrangements” and female-female sexual contact to the forefront and deal with it head-on. After months, my primary opponent was reduced to this:
I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin. Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes,how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?
Look at that: He said an attack “cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.” That’s an admission of defeat because according to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 “where there is no law there is no violation” and “there is no sin imputed when there is no law.” These passages define what sin is in the general sense, that is, applicable to all people for all time. In order to make a Biblical case that “it is a sin” where God was silent, one has to add to the Law, which is specifically forbidden at Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.
In other words, a Biblically correct case for sin on this issue cannot be made without either violating Scripture (adding to the law) or engaging in intellectual dishonesty (lying about what Scripture says). The argument is mature and ready for live audiences, it just needs a little polish. This is my exegesis of the matter:
If God had wanted to declare female-female sexual contact to be a sin, He would have done so. God chose not to do so. He didn’t forget and He didn’t accidentally leave it out because God is perfect. In Leviticus 18:22-23 God universally prohibited certain classes of sexual acts, but look at the sequence:
  • Men with men: prohibited
  • Men with animals: prohibited
  • Women with animals: prohibited
  • Women with women: *TOTAL SILENCE*
All other prohibited sexual contact is relationship based. God’s inclusion of women with animals as universally prohibited indicates He chose not to prohibit or condemn women with women. Quite often we see the male pronoun used to represent both men and women, but in some areas of the law we see both men and women mentioned. This generally means the men and women are being treated differently. Numbers 30 is another example, with the Law of Vows.
Where there is no law there is no violation and no sin is imputed when there is no law (Romans 4:15, 5:13) means sexual contact between women is not sin. Adding or taking away from the Law is prohibited (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), so Romans 1:25-27 cannot be construed as a prohibition or condemnation of whatever the women might do sexually with each other without placing Paul in violation of Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 with respect to what he wrote in Romans 1:25-27. I’m pretty sure Paul’s response to that charge would be “May it never be!”
After that are the minor quibbles that try to paint polygyny in a bad light.
  • Deuteronomy 17:17 says the king is not to multiply wives so more than one is wrong.
  • God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve and Amy. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman because this is how God created marriage.
  • Can you show me where God gave polygyny explicit moral approval?
  • 1st Timothy 3:2 Elders and Deacons are to be husbands of one wife, so obviously there are problems with polygyny if it keeps a man from assuming leadership.
God claimed to be the husband of two wives (Israel and Judah). See Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23. If God did it how can you claim it’s morally wrong? In 2nd Samuel 12:8 God took credit for giving David his 8 wives and said He would have given him more if that hadn’t been enough. Obviously 8 wives is not “multiplying” wives and God was pointing out that the multiple wives were a good thing and I’d call that explicit moral approval.
In 1st Timothy 3:2 the word translated as “one” is “mia” and it can mean “first,” “one,” or “a”. (article adjective) — and is used elsewhere by Paul in those ways. Let’s see how this works: “The [bishop, elder, overseer] should be… the husband of his first wife.” (or, “a wife”, if you prefer. Both are better, or at LEAST equally good, renderings.) There is another textual argument but there isn’t much point in making it.
  • Show me where God established or commanded polygyny
God established marriage (with no regard to the number of wives) at Genesis 2:24 when God gave the man the authority to initiated marriage but didn’t limit the man to one wife. God commanded polygyny at Deuteronomy 25:5-20 in the law of the Levirate (childless wife to marry her husband’s brother if her husband dies in order to carry on his name).
Based on that exegesis this is the challenge he was responding to:
Either show me where God said sexual contact between wives married to the same man is sin, or show me your delegation of authority that allows you to arbitrarily step into another mans’ family and declare something to be a sin when God didn’t.
Again, this was his response:
“I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin. Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse ?“
He also put out a call for help, saying
“I [am not] trained in Scripture. I am a laity, doing my job. If there is anybody of the faith, who has the training and intellect to lead this battle I appeal to them to step forward”
“Artisanal Toad’s argument is, as I have stated previously, attractive and coherent within the mano-sphere. It does nothing less than invite lost souls into a false doctrine under the label of Christianity. Like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.”
He admits there is no passage anywhere in Scripture that prohibits or condemns female-female sexual activity, then ignores Romans 4:15“Where there is no law there is no violation” and Romans 5:13“there is no sin imputed when there is no law” and then calls it a “false doctrine” and says “like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.” This is a guy who cannot let go of the false tradition he’s been taught all his life. He calls polygyny a sin and defends monogamy even though he knows it’s a losing proposition for men. Why? Because tradition? I wonder.
So, I ask the question: why do men fight and white knight so hard over this subject? Why is the idea of two or three naked women enjoying group sex with their husband so frightening? I made one off-hand comment about the popularity of lesbian porn and the screeching was amazing. I was called a serpent, trickster, degenerate, tempter, a vile reptile, satan, the dark one, a heretic; I was accused of leading my brothers into sin, of being corrupt, of wallowing in sin, of desiring only the pleasures of the flesh… it was amazing.
On top of that it seems like this issue brings out the blue-pill, gamma, churchian white knights in droves. Why? Because it destroys their blue-pill gamma worldview? Just like this kid I’ve been arguing with, he already knows he’s wrong but he can’t allow himself to admit it. Why would an otherwise bright and very logical man act this way?
Oh- and he’s quite sure the sweet little wives are being violated in bed, commanded by a husband acting like Caesar who makes them do that which is against God’s will for their lives; convinced they hate every second of it. He truly believes they need to be rescued and it is the duty of the church to step into their marriage and straighten things out.
Why do so many Christian men white knight so hard over this? Maybe for some of them it’s baggage from the past, but I’m about convinced a man’s reaction to polygyny (and all the possibilities available with multiple wives) is a good indicator of his socio-sexual rank.
From alphas and a lot of betas there’s no objection in the practical sense and the benefits are obvious and substantial, but people just don’t do that. These guys play by the rules and doing something like this could threaten their position, so they’ve either got the balls to agree and maybe even go for it, or they shrug their shoulders and say “I’m OK with what I’ve got. If we get divorced I’ll think about it.”
From the lower betas and high deltas a lot of suspicion and logical concerns come to the surface but these can be dealt with and if they’re aware these guys already know they’re prime candidates for divorce court drama. Then come the questions. Lots of them. After that it’s frame and state control with a reasonable level of game. Most of the guys I know with multiple wives started out as lower beta or mid to high delta. The structure makes them situational alpha. The rest (unsurprisingly) are sigmas. I have yet to meet a guy I’d call a serious alpha with more than one wife.
From the lower deltas, gammas and omegas, I get fear, loathing and hatred. They will stop at nothing to find an objection or reason why monogamy must be enforced. I’m fairly sure at least some of them see the acceptance of polygyny as the final nail in the coffin that forever imprisons their hopes of finding a wife.
Acceptance of polygyny would change the entire SMP and MMP landscape for both men and women but especially for men. Let’s say you’ve got a tall, reasonably good looking, successful guy that marries a solid 8.5 beauty. He’s feeling like he’s at the top of the game until he meets an average-looking guy with three wives going from 6.5 to 7.5. And… wow. They’re feminine, sweet and submissive. When he tells them to do something (hey- why doesn’t he ever be gentle and just ask them?) they smile and do it. Immediately. Then he notices his wife is treating their husband differently and after a while starts being deferential, almost submissive! He’s thinking “Why is she acting that way toward him but not me?”
Anybody that understands game knows the answer. Multiple wives is massive pre-selection bias and a huge demonstration of high value. He comes across as alpha and she’s attracted. She begins to mimic the behavior of his wives (deferential, submissive, obedient) to fit in with the herd and doesn’t realize what she’s doing (competing for his attention). Later, alone with hubby, she isn’t as attracted to him, throws a few shit tests his way and he picks up on that too.
How does that make him feel? Like he just met a serious threat that needs to be destroyed. How much more so the gamma?

Nobody Understands The Gay Marriage Ruling

Artisanal Toad4 Comments
On a conservative discussion forum there were a few Christians getting worked up into a lather about refusing to do a gay marriage. One of the resident trolls responded with this:
The ruling, simply put for other ass clowns from this imaginary religion, states that same sex marriage is legal throughtout [sic] the United States. Nowhere does it state that pastors are being forced to marry same sex couples or hetrosexual [sic] couples.
In this case the troll proved that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because the sodomite* marriage issue will have a tremendous impact on the churches for a variety of reasons.
Unfortunately, virtually all Christians are clueless about this subject. If they did some research on the Faith Baptist Church of Louisville, Nebraska** they’d learn what the issue actually is. Ask yourself: what do the churches and that famously fined bakery have in common? No, it isn’t their religious faith, it’s the fact they’re all incorporated. You may want to read Hale v Henkel and learn what a corporation’s responsibility to the state is:

“…the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.“

That isn’t dicta and the Hale case has been cited in over 1600 other rulings.
Other than Amish, Mennonite, some Missionary Baptist and some Brethren Fellowships, I don’t know of any so-called churches in the US that are not incorporated. They may call themselves churches (a DBA name), but in reality they are corporations. The first thing that happens if they get hauled into court is the judge takes notice they’re a corporation and all the stuff like the Bible, doctrine and articles of faith goes out the window. The decision is made based solely on the State Code, which says the employees of the corporation are forbidden to discriminate. Does the corporation provide marital services to heterosexual couples? Yes? Then they are required to not discriminate and marry homosexuals if they show up with a marriage license. Does the corporation bake wedding cakes for heterosexuals? Then it has to bake wedding cakes for sodomites or suffer the penalties for violating the state laws.
The next problem is almost no-one understands what marriage is or how it really works. For anyone who wonders what the big deal about marriage licenses is, I suggest they find a Blacks Law Dictionary and look up the word “license.” A license is:

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a trespass or a tort.

What does that mean? Simple: if you have to get a license (permission) then you don’t have the right to do the thing you had to get a license for. Now with that in mind, let’s check the definition of “Marriage License.”

“License or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.”

It turns out a marriage license is a *special* permission granted for persons who desire to intermarry. Well, first is sounds like we don’t have the right to get married… but wait; what does “intermarry” mean? We can’t find “intermarry” but there is a listing for “intermarriage.” It says “See: Miscegenation.” Following the instructions we look up Miscegenation and discover it’s defined as the mixing of the races, as between a white and a negro. So, we find that a marriage license is a special license issued for the purpose of mixing the races. But if you’re of the same race as your wife, does that mean you don’t need a marriage license? Well, it’s complicated, but in general the answer is no, you don’t, but it has nothing to do with miscegenation.
But isn’t there a state law requiring a marriage license for those who intend to marry?
Well, yes, every state has one of those laws, but as I said, it’s complicated. The question is who the law applies to. Does it apply (by definition) only to those who desire miscegenation, or (as the laws state) to everyone? Or are there other issues involved? Let’s see… In 1877 the Supreme Court held in Meister v Moore that:

“A statute may declare that no marriages shall be valid unless they are solemnized in a prescribed manner, but such an enactment is a very different thing from a law requiring all marriages to be entered into in the presence of a magistrate or a clergyman or that it be preceded by a license, or publication of banns, or be attested by witnesses. Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent.
…marriage is a thing of common right“

Did you see that last part? Marriage is a right, therefore you don’t need a marriage license. Open your legal dictionary and look up “directory.”

“Directory: A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, that is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force and involves no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed.”

How about that- it turns out the law requiring a marriage license is nothing more than a polite suggestion. There have been maybe a half-dozen cases before the Supreme Court since then that dealt with marriage in one way or another, but that ruling has never been overturned. In 1967 Loving v Virginia, (striking down the Virginia law banning inter-racial marriage) held that

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.“

The problem is the church invaded the marriage in the late dark ages to the point of regulating the marital bed. Their control of marriage fell apart with the protestant reformation and was immediately seized by the state. So strongly does the state feel about this aspect of its police powers, observe the holding of Maynard v Hill (1888):

It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. (Emphasis added)

You see, marriage existed long antecedent to the creation of the State. Like it or not, the record says God created lawful marriage and lawful marriage is regulated by God; therefore, for those who have the right to get married under God’s law marriage is a fundamental right. But, what about those who don’t have the right to marry under God’s law (mixing of the races or homosexuals)? That’s the purpose of the marriage license: to provide permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. The state is saying “come to me and I’ll be your god, I’ll give you the permission you seek***, but I’ll also be a party to this marriage and gain an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage. In fact, we’ve passed a law requiring you to get a license in order to marry.”
This is a matter of law and jurisdiction. Simply put, the creator has the right to govern its creation. God created lawful marriage and granted to the man the authority to initiate marriage by right (Genesis 2:24), provided His authority structure in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-24) and regulated marriage (1st Corinthians 7:1-40; 1st Peter 3:1-7; Ephesians 5:22-33; Deuteronomy 21:15-16, 24:1-4, 25:5-20; Exodus 21:10; Leviticus 18:18, 20:14; Matthew 5:32-33 and many others). In general God claims to be a party to the covenant entity that is marriage. God’s Word does not change no matter when or where you live.
The state created legal marriage, requiring a license to marry, regulates the marriage through statutes which may be changed at the whim of the legislature and claims to be a party to the marriage and thereby gain an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage. The laws of the various states differ depending which state you live in but all states make it insanely easy to destroy the family with divorce for any or no reason at all.
Which one would you want? For a Christian this should be a no-brainer, but they are betrayed by their own leaders who insist they get a marriage license. Why? For two reasons. The first is their ignorance of the law and history of marriage licenses. The second (probably more important) is while the law requiring a couple to get a license is directory, the law punishing anyone authorized to solemnize a marriage if they solemnize a marriage without a license is imperative. That is, the pastor will get fined.
The ruling in Meister v Moore didn’t strike down marriage license schemes as unconstitutional, they ruled such laws were “merely directory.” So, it’s still a law but the State isn’t required to tell anybody it’s a special law and no penalties can be applied for disobeying such a law. In other words, it’s a scam designed to gain control of marriage and thereby control the population. The exact same thing the church was doing over a thousand years ago.
Why is that important? Because anyone can get married with a signed contract of marriage, by right, without the permission of the state and have a lawful marriage. Even in States that have outlawed common law marriage, they cannot outlaw a fundamental right. That means the state does not become a party to the marriage, nor do they get an equitable interest in the children or any other asset of the marriage.
The other side of the coin is that if someone is in possession of a state issued license, the legality of what they’re doing cannot be questioned. Having given its permission, who are the creatures of the state to refuse to do their creators bidding?
To get back to the point, all these incorporated not-for-profit business entities that provide services to the general public of a religious nature will most certainly be required to obey the law of their creator, the state. One of those laws is they are not to discriminate. That is, if they’re open to the public they are required to provide their services to all of the public (within reason). A restaurant is not discriminating against any particular class of persons if it requires a shirt and shoes for entry, because it’s a condition that can be remedied. A bar is not discriminating if it requires its patrons to be at least 21 years of age, because they are required to do so by law. But the day you hang a sign up that says “Straights Only” or “Whites Only” then you’ve got yourself a real problem.
  • Who creates a not for profit corporation? The state.
  • Who owns a not for profit corporation? The state.
  • Who regulates a not for profit corporation? The state.
The people spending time together on Sunday in that building with a steeple on it may think they’re a church and believe that Jesus Christ is their Creator and Head, but in reality their creator is the state and the state owns every asset the business has because they voluntarily incorporated. Because the state is their creator and regulator, they either obey the law or get punished with either fines and/or jailed on a civil contempt charge.** In fact, for egregious offenses the state could revoke the charter of the corporation and seize everything. If they were a real church they could stand on the law of their Creator and cheerfully, lawfully refuse to perform a gay marriage. ****
I believe, as a conservative Christian, that homosexuals demanding to be married in a church is a very good thing because it exposes the underlying hypocrisy and idolatry of the church that has incorporated in order to participate in commerce. The fact is, bank accounts, checks, credit cards, loans and things like that are all aspects of government regulated commerce. Churches are not required to use or receive such negotiable instruments, but they want to. I won’t even start with the issue of payroll taxes, but I will say the churches voluntarily gave up their position of power and bowed down to Caesar with the act of incorporation. Why? For convenience.
That act of bowing down to the state will now come back to haunt them. Yes, even the most conservative of churches could be forced to perform a sodomite wedding. Does the church marry people in the main sanctuary? Then they won’t be able to shuffle them off to a “wedding chapel” to keep them out of the worship center. Anybody with a brain has to realize the reason they’d want to be married in a conservative church.
What if, after pronouncing them married, the couple had planned to do something other than kiss each other? Think of the things you’d see at a gay pride parade. I guarantee you that certain very conservative churches will have homosexual couples demanding to be married there, if for no other reason than to be legally allowed to desecrate the sanctuary.
What the church leadership and laity don’t realize or don’t want to admit is their entire church has already been desecrated through the voluntary act of incorporation. Unlike the bogus law requiring a marriage license, there is no law requiring churches to incorporate or register as an IRS 501 (c) 3 “church organization.” And since I brought it up, the power is conferred to the state with incorporation, the 501 (c) 3 status is simply another added level of control.
_________________________________________
* I specifically said “sodomites” to differentiate men from women. Leviticus 18:22-23 is very specific, prohibiting male-male sex, male-animal sex and female-animal sex. Nothing in the bible forbids whatever it is that the girls do when they get in bed together, which brings in Romans 4:15 and 5:13: it’s not a sin. That pulls in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, which means Paul neither prohibited or condemned lesbians in Romans 1:26. God’s design for marriage requires a man, so from a Biblical perspective there would be nothing unlawful about a couple of women getting married to the same guy… but polygyny is a different subject for a different day.
** Google the Faith Baptist Church of Louisville Nebraska (look for the testimony of Dr. Everett Ramsey). In their case the issue was operating a private (religious) school but the subject of a corporations responsibility to obey state laws is the same as with Gay Marriage. One of the key points in that case is they were years into the case and Pastor Ramsey had been jailed repeatedly (his wife and daughter fled to another state to avoid warrants for their arrest) before anyone told him it was because they were a corporation.
Civil contempt sentences typically run from 30 to 90 days. However, the concept of civil contempt is it’s a coercive measure to get the individual to comply with the order of the court. As soon as they comply (or agree to comply) they get out. In other words, they hold the keys to their own freedom. But, what if the individual cannot comply but at the same time cannot prove they can’t comply? That’s a problem. The longest incarceration for contempt I know of was Beatty Chadwick, who was incarcerated for 14 years. Think about that. Is your faith that strong, you corporate officers who have bowed down to Caesar and blasphemed the name of Christ? John Bunyan spent 12 years in jail because he refused to stop preaching.
*** Ahhhh, yes. If a man and a woman shack up for a year or two, even though they never got married the woman can drag the man into family court. The court can “deem” the couple to have been married and proceed to divorce-rape him. Up until now, homosexuals were exempt from this treatment because homosexual marriage was contrary to public policy. In other words, there was no way for a court to recognize such an arrangement as a marriage… thus there could be no divorce, no dividing of assets, no alimony. The homosexuals just got what they wanted and the marriage rules now apply to their unions.
They’re about to experience a whole new way of getting screwed. The first case of a spousal support demand has already been filed by a woman against her former lesbian partner. More will come. Much more. It won’t just be the torrent of tears from whichever one gets raped by the system, because as the statistics reliably show us, those people have a high tendency for violence and a low degree of impulse control. In fact, family court could become a quality entertainment venue as these cases start getting on the docket.
And the States will get screwed as well. Let’s say that close to death a very wealthy man marries his son. When father dies there is no inheritance tax because by law it passes to the spouse, who is free to remarry. Instant inter-generational transfer of wealth, tax free. Lather, rinse and repeat. This might be tricky due to incest rules, but a same-sex union cannot produce offspring so I’m sure some judge will rule that they shouldn’t apply to a gay marriage. Father-daughter or Mother-son could be handled by somebody claiming to have gone Jenner. Call it the homoheritance loophole.
Think about it. Most wealthy individuals put a lot of hard work into earning their money and they hate handing it over to the government. If the choice is between quietly doing a gay wedding with their chosen heir or having said heir write an obscene check to the government, does anyone doubt this will become a recommended estate planning tool?
**** I find it hard to believe that people like Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, are so ignorant as to not understand this issue. Recently Franklin tweeted
“Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman ­ Almighty God ­ and His decisions are not subject to review or revision by any manmade court.
“God gave us marriage. Period. And God doesn’t change his mind,” Graham told Fox Nation. “If pastors are going to be forced to provide marriage services for gay couples, I’m not going to do it,”
The likelihood of someone like Franklin Graham being jailed for contempt is extremely small, if for no other reason that his ministries don’t officiate weddings. The problem is he encourages other pastors to stand in the middle of the target in order to get blasted instead of helping his fellow pastors understand how to avoid it completely.
I predict this will be a source of great amusement for years to come as the unintended consequences work their way through the system. Enjoy the decline folks!