Deti Speaks on Gaming Married Women

[Note: This is an article by Brother Deti, who describes himself as a member of the legal profession. I believe he has been admitted to the bar in some American State, and he knows what he’s talking about. It’s reproduced from some of his comments, minimally edited by me.]

If you are the “other man” and you bang married women, you can be assured of a few things.

1) You are being used to validate her. Sure, she’s a hole for you to masturbate into. But make no mistake about it – she’s using you too, for any number of reasons – to make her feel “young again”, to prove to herself she’s “still got it” and can attract a man she wants to have sex with, for some form of human connection, to get back at her husband for real or imagined slights, whatever.

2) It will end at some point. She might be looking to branchswing, sure. But would you be her new branch? Of course you wouldn’t. Because if she’ll cheat with you, she’ll cheat on you. Or, she’ll start feeling guilty. Or she’ll know she can’t have a real relationship with you because husband/kids/job/life. And that’s not even counting the real possibility that she will get caught.

3) You’re both living out a fantasy. You, with no strings attached sex where you don’t have to pay for anything or live with her or support her or care about her or listen to her 24/7. You never have to watch her belch and fart and take dumps and pick her nose. She, with a man who is LARPing “caring” about her, and giving her a little bit of sex that she can’t get/won’t accept at home from a man she’s not attracted to, and getting a brief respite from her unhappiness and lack of satisfaction. It’s not sustainable, and it will end at some point.

4) One or both of you will catch feelz. And then it will REALLY hurt when it ends (not if, WHEN).

I do take issue at least a little bit with the availability of court testimony. You can’t always look up trial testimony in a routine humdrum divorce on the internet, in fact most of the time you can’t do it. You would have to know one of the lawyers involved and get a copy of the trial transcript, or get it from the court by physically walking to the courthouse and getting the hard file out. Or if online, you have to subscribe to a service. And even then the testimony isn’t always transcribed, even if it is audio recorded or a court reporter takes it down.

That said, anyone who really wants to find your sworn testimony will be able to find it.

And… yes, you had better tell the truth. Because if you are the “other man” in a divorce, and you get a subpoena, there’s no point in lying. The lawyers already know the wife cheated on her soon to be ex husband with you. And they know that because she told her husband who told her lawyer. Or her husband found the text messages and dick pics. Or someone saw the two of you together and told her husband.

If things go south, if you piss her off, if you end things with her and she becomes a woman scorned, or if she gets caught….

She could falsely accuse you of rape, so as to deflect attention from her conduct and project blame for the affair onto you. And it won’t matter that it was all enthusiastically consensual or that all the meetings were at hotels or at your place, where she had to come to you. All she has to do is say that you went just a bit too far, that you did something she didn’t consent to and forced the issue, that you had anal sex once when she didn’t really want to. And then you are not only the “other man” in a divorce case; you’re also the target of a felony investigation.

It doesn’t matter that the allegations are not all that credible. They will still be investigated. You will still get jammed up. You will have to lawyer up. You will have to give DNA samples. You might be advised to give an official statement to the police in which you have no choice but to describe, in graphic detail, in writing or on video, the sexual encounters you had with her. And you have no choice because you have to portray the sex as completely consensual. If you have photos or saved text messages (and you should, for this very reason), you will need to give them to the cops – again, because you have to portray this as a consensual relationship in which nothing nonconsensual ever took place.

You will have to take time off work. You will have to pay the lawyers. You will have to explain your absences to your employer and friends. You will undergo the stress of the uncertainty, your life on tenterhooks, your life on hold, until you’re cleared. Or if you’re not cleared, then you’ll be indicted, arrested, booked, arraigned, and bound over for trial. In which case you’ll have to decide whether to plead it down if you can, or stand trial and take your chances.

Not fun. Not fun at all.


Answering Deti and Opus

Down below, Deti writes…

I’d be honored to be one of your scumbag friends in the legal profession.

As a scumbag academic, I think we’re both at about the same level of respectability. I’d bet you make a bit more money than I do, though my job is probably easier. Both of us are several strata beneath the average used-car salesman in terms of respectability. I can accept this, and it appears you can too; which is good, because I don’t want to give undue offense.

This is my cue to say that I am not qualified to give legal advice, do not have a law degree of any sort, have never been admitted to practice. Of course, I don’t know Deti personally, but I believe that he is a part of the profession (why would he lie about that?).

My personal interest began when I was a member of a forum called Happy Bachelors, and a casual reader of The Spearhead. I had never been married (though I came close once), and wanted to know just how bad things were. The guys who wrote articles on these sites told such terrible stories, and they seemed to mirror my father’s story. At the time, I was still working my way through a graduate program, at a bank. My hours were long, and my days off were valuable. At one point, around 2010, I bit the bullet. I made the excuse of a dentist’s appointment, wandered on down to the big courthouse downtown, rode the elevator up to the third floor, and sat through a few hours of the so-called “family courts.”

What I ended up seeing was so much worse than anything I had expected, that I left completely nonplussed. Not only could I not write about the things I had seen transpire, I couldn’t even speak or think too deeply about them.

I do take issue at least a little bit with the availability of court testimony. You can’t always look up trial testimony in a routine humdrum divorce on the internet, in fact most of the time you can’t do it. You would have to know one of the lawyers involved and get a copy of the trial transcript, or get it from the court by physically walking to the courthouse and getting the hard file out. Or if online, you have to subscribe to a service. And even then the testimony isn’t always transcribed, even if it is audio recorded or a court reporter takes it down.

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 14.34.26

Here is the name of a poor fellow who was added to the abstract of a divorce proceeding. I know he wasn’t a police officer or an attorney, because at the end of his name you’d see (LEO) or (ATY) if he were. I have no idea why he was a witness in a divorce trial, and this is a random trial I looked up and found in about ten minutes. To get the screenshot, I went back to the same county that gave me such a wonderful education (mentioned above) in 2010. I don’t live there any longer, but during that time I got fairly familiar with the court viewer. I don’t have any reason to disbelieve Deti if he tells me this is not the norm, but I ain’t lying about it being a possibility. I would be able to read this guy’s testimony if I mailed a letter, with the court case number on it, to the county in question. It would cost me very little (they suggest sending a blank check, inscribed with “not more than twenty dollars” to pay the copy fees).

I guess my point is that banging a married chick carries the potential for a lot of long-term consequences.

Then Brother Opus writes:

I thought Boxer, that no-fault, no-questions-asked divorce was now universal throughout the American states.

My understanding (I hope Deti will correct me if I’m wrong) is that the divorce will be granted regardless of what happens. However (and this is the detail which houses the devil) the amount of easy money that skank-ho princess will receive in the settlement is partly at the judge’s discretion. This makes divorce attorneys a lot of money, as they like to get the couple to air all the dirty laundry they possibly can in the process (while racking up billable hours). In theory, an innocent woman who had to deal with an unstable, violent, drunk of a husband will come out financially much better off, than a skank-ho wimminz, who put a nice man through hell. Of course, the paramour who had a good time with said wimminz will be called by both parties and their counsel, as he will be presented as instigator and witness to her depravity, in turn.



Conversation With Toad (No. 2)

NOTE: Despite our obvious disagreements on a number of important issues, I really like Toad. He exemplifies what my average polygamous cousin would be like, if he took a shower, got off welfare, and went to get a Ph.D. or a law degree. My criticism of his positions should not be read as an attempt to belittle him. He’s a smart guy who has the ability to teach us all how to argue more succinctly. Of those who have been given much, much is expected.

In a number of recent articles, Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) has argued the incompleteness of the New Testament. He graciously expounded when I asked for details and I believe that I understand his position. I argue here that while Toad’s interpretation is reasonable, it throws up an important contradiction.

Like my polygamous cousins, Toad begins our conversation by noting that he has the one true way, and that I don’t. As such, I will never be able to fully understand his arguments.

One of the central problems we bang up against in these discussions is that you are not a Christian, you are a natural man who does not have the Spirit of God. That, by your own admission, so unless something has changed I believe that to be correct. That is a fatal issue with respect to this discussion…


In previous conversations, Toad has made it clear that he does not expect other men to live as he does, but he also makes clear that by “Christian” he does not mean participating in the traditional sacraments of Christianity.

Given that I don’t subscribe to the teachings of the magical book of medieval opinions (otherwise known as the teachings and traditions of the church), the idea that you would be a Christian because you were the subject of a baptismal ceremony (possibly as a child) is the equivalent of claiming you are a cage-fighter because you took a Tai Kwon Do class when you were a kid.


So, like a traditional polygamist, Toad implies that he has some hidden, occult knowledge which is unavailable to unwashed normies (like ya boy Boxer). Unlike a traditional polygamist, the means for the acquisition of knowledge is nowhere well-defined.

In the first place, Toad has drawn a line of differentiation between his version of Christian (which I’ll subsequently denote with an asterisk) and the normie Christians who imagine that a baptism is the prerequisite initiation into the mysteries of Christianity.

I’ll begin by conceding here that I am not a Christian*, by whatever standard Toad uses to define that term, and grant that I am not privy to whatever occult knowledge is available to Christians* so defined. I believe that I don’t need such knowledge, whether or not it exists, to make my point.

I’ll subsequently state that while I’m not a Christian*, I believe I can competently act as an advocate for average, normie Christians, who may not agree with Toad’s numerous innovations.

Toad argues that the King James Version of the New Testament, when taken at face value, is an incomplete symbol. He implies that Christians* can apprehend, or intuit, additional, abstract commandments, which form a model for Christianity*.

In other words, there are some things that are comprehended only by the Spirit of God. At the same time, the tendencies of the flesh (the natural man) are at war with the Spirit of God and we see this time after time with Christians who are swayed by peer pressure and the doctrines of men. A good historical example is the arrogance of Augustine:

In his treatise “Way Into The Will” he discusses the nature of good and evil.


I haven’t read Way Into The Will at all, and I haven’t read Augustine in years, so I can’t comment on specifics. Yet, I find it interesting that Toad needs to cite a historical Christian to make his point about Christianity*. My readers may note a certain circularity developing in Toad’s argument. Toad has secret knowledge, which is only available to those who have the Spirit of God, and which supplants a reading of the text. Even though this secret knowledge is coherent with the text, its existence is nowhere hinted at in the text, and demonstrations must be extra-textual.

In fact, the text of the Bible is very clear about those who innovate new teachings from it. In Deuteronomy 4:2, we read:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Later, in Deuteronomy 12:32, we read:

Whatsoever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

And elsewhere, in Revelations 22:18, we read:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Toad continues, explaining that the text was never meant to be taken at face value. Christians* are its intended audience, and the bible was intended to be an incomplete supplement or addendum to their intuition:

Even though Scripture informs us with God’s own testimony that we are not capable of understanding God, likewise we are informed that while some parts of Scripture are so simple and pure that the natural man can comprehend them, God’s Word is designed to be spiritually discerned. Even so we can see that even Christians who have the Spirit of God can be lured astray by everything from established (wrong) doctrine to their own prideful arrogance and confidence in their intellectual abilities.

When this is the case and we see that Christians have difficulty dealing with God’s Word, how can we have a discussion when the book we’re using as the standard for behavior clearly states that you can’t understand it?

(emphasis mine)

Toad only thinks he is arguing with his Brother Boxer, at this point. He is actually contradicting Saul of Tarsus, the author of most of the New Testament. From Galatians, Chapter 1, verses 6-12:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul warns Christians not to stray into Christianity*, nor to pursue innovations. He goes on to assert the completeness of his teachings.

More on Pietka’s Article

This is an alternate take on my analysis of Rachel Pietka’s Relevant article (posted here) by commenter Mich. Show him some love…

She didn’t say that abstinence leads to divorce or that modern Christianity should let up on premarital sex restrictions to avoid divorce. She cited one woman who believed she could have avoided divorce by engaging in premarital sex and mentioned that the benefits of waiting are exaggerated (they are). But, it seems the author attributes the divorce to the dishonesty surrounding no-sex-before-marriage ministries rather than to abstinence itself, which it looks like you both agree does not inherently result in happy marriages or bedrooms.

I agree with that. Young people in particular are being fed the lie that great sex is a reward for following the rules, and godless heathens will never really be able to have this transcendent sexual and marital experience that awaits pious virgins. That’s bunk, as I’m sure you know firsthand.

She explicitly states that bad sex is no reason to divorce or reduce martial investment. Great! But her notion of the “proper place” for sex in marriage is presumptuous. Sex is not icing on the cake; marriage and sex cannot be separated, and sex should never be relegated to the status of “gift” that some couples get and some just don’t. The loss of sex through mental or physical incapacitation is worth mourning.

Her musings about the “place” for sex is a far cry from an endorsement of premarital sex or divorce, but it’s just as far from being a practical solution for “incompatable” couples and provides no viable options for couples who really are suffering. She identified a problem, but took the easy way out on fixing it.