Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Mom's Boyfriend Strikes Again

A local tragedy — Boyfriend arrested in Greece toddler's death.

Years ago, in posting a similar story, I suggested readers to "Google the terms 'mom's boyfriend' and find a litany of horrors" — Mom's Boyfriend. Of course, as was pointed out by this blogger even ealrier, "It is extremely politically incorrect to suggest that living together might not be the best living arrangement," so this post probably qualifies as hate speech — Shacking Up and the Abuse of Society's Most Vulnerable.

In the first of those posts, a dear and missed female commenter dared to disparage the type of "man who is perfectly happy to be the boyfriend of a single mother." I'm far more politically incorrect than I ever was, and have come to fully endorse this statement. Only a Darwinian dead end fool of a man would contemplate the raising of the genetic material of another living man. Unspeakable violence against the innocent occurs as a result of the absurdity of such arrangements, which our society is unable to even address.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

5 Comments:

Blogger Mark in Spokane said...

Just out of curiosity, do your views apply to adoption, say when an infertile couple adopts a child?

April 30, 2014 at 2:37 AM  
Blogger David Dickens said...

So love is dead and adoption a crime against one's manhood?

April 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

I realize I've become a bit of a Darwinian a-hole, but, no, I am not against adoption.

April 30, 2014 at 8:51 PM  
Blogger Mark in Spokane said...

If I might make a suggestion. You may want to stop reading PUA websites and spend a little bit more time studying the men that our faith and history tell us are truly great.

I would first recommend a detailed study of the life and work of St. Joseph, the Guardian of the Holy Family and the greatest purely human man who ever lived. He was far from a chump for taking the Blessed Virgin Mary into his home and living with her chastely while raising her Son as his own, teaching Him his trade and spending his resources to educate, train and bring to manhood the Son of God.

Second, I would turn to studying the ultimate American alpha male, George Washington. A man who had no children of his own, but instead raised up the son of the woman he married, as well as investing a significant amount of his resources in educating and training his own nephew (and eventual heir, Bushrod Washington). Washington was no beta chump, nor was he a pathetic omega or rage-filed sociopathic sigma. He was a man of honor, courage, and fortitude, the greatest single man in American history.

So, less Roissy, more St. Joseph, more George Washington. Unless, of course, you think that St. Joseph was (or rather, is) a loser and that Washington was a loser. In which case, you have a profound problem understanding the nature of moral virtue, both in terms of natural law ethics and theological ethics. I hope that isn't the case.

May 1, 2014 at 2:38 AM  
Blogger Iosue Andreas Sartorius said...

Yeah, I would have given myself this same suggestion a few years ago. The Manosphere was at first a guilty pleasure, but much of what I read there about human nature I had learned the hard way in ten years of dating and nearly fifteen years of marriage. Sure, a lot of it can be base, but it is a reaction to a base culture.

The way I see it, the "Dark Enlightenment" (the Manosphere, Human Biodiversity, etc.), "Biological Realism" we might call it, explains the truths about our fallen animal nature, which the heresy of Liberalism denies. The Catholic Faith is needed to complete the picture regarding our spiritual nature.

Without the latter, we are nothing but brutes. Without the former, we believe we are angels (except straight white males, of course).

May 2, 2014 at 9:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home