Is she holding a plunger?
One of my readers was kind enough to link to my post on Fireproof on a Christian forum thread where the movie is being discussed. I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction of many of the readers there. However, commenter JaneFW (avatar to right) made a fairly standard denial of my point that the movie sends a message to wives that threatening divorce will give them power:
If you aren’t haaaapy, threaten divorce and let high status men compete for your heart!
I never, for one moment, ever, thought this – and have never heard anyone else say it. What a horrible concept.
For most normal people? Divorce is the last resort when the marrige is obviously in the dumpster. I would never hand over divorce papers expecting someone to fight for me. I would hand over divorce papers because we were done.
Just ugh.
And yet some people around here have said that it’s sinful to assume the worst about other people’s motives. Hmmm.
If I’m reading her correctly, not only is she denying that the movie contained this theme, but she is also suggesting that it might be sinful of me to point this out. The real problem with her statement however is it simply isn’t true. The theme that divorce gives women power and they can use it to invoke a fresh round of courtship from their husband and/or other men is extremely common. This is actually how I first started discussing this movie. Fireproof was one of five movies I pointed out which had this extremely common theme. Readers identified many other movies with this theme in the comments section of that post as well.
This message is most dangerous because it is communicated without the idea itself ever being directly stated. These kinds of themes in literature and movies can at times slip past our conscious thought process, and thereby prevent us from logically or morally evaluating them.
I mentioned these scenes previously, but you really have to see them for the full impact (warning the volume varies greatly on these clips). Here is a scene where Katherine is carrying on with the doctor. Shortly after this she tells Caleb that she doesn’t love him. Just in case the audience doesn’t understand that she has stopped caring about her husband, we then have this scene where she expresses almost no concern for him after he is dragged out of a burning building. Then we have the scene where Caleb finds the love letter she kept from the doctor and confronts him about it. Note that he doesn’t say what the man is doing is immoral or against God’s will, but instead he says he will fight for her heart. After that she learns that he has not only been doing the love challenge, but has exceeded the actual 40 day term and isn’t giving up. She isn’t impressed.
Finally we have the climax of the movie, where she learns that it wasn’t the doctor who was the highest bidder for her heart, but her husband instead. Note how her body language changes during this scene. She lights up and plays with her hair when talking about the doctor. Then when she learns it was from her husband there is a look of great confusion:
What is so troubling is that this idea has become so accepted that it found its way into a Christian movie which is supposed to strengthen marriage. Not only that, but apparently this wasn’t noticed by millions of Christians who watched it.
See also:
Mmm. Christians not seeing the truth that is in front of their eyes? really?
I didnt know about this movie. But this post and the short clips produced me an internal revulsion. I wonder, what are the people who are missing the message, actually seeing? just checking out the actors?
Just watched that last scene. WTF. So is this about how much you overcompensate and pay for love when its not returned? You go dude. Pay 24,000 USD and break your fucking back for a woman who is walking all over you… and some day for the grace of God, but only after she realized how much moolah you dropped on her, the flames of love will burn uncontainably inside of her…
Now what does this have to do with being a better person, being spiritual, or doing any good? I cant believe this trash is a Religion friendly movie.
Just so we’re clear, that guy had to pay $24K before his wife was able to ‘remember’ that her husband loved her? If I hadn’ read your previous posts on the Church’s stance on divorce, I wouldn’t believe that a Christian movie would herald such a message.
It’s one of the things that’s killing the faith these days. Christians ought to be as a city on a hill, welcoming and tolerant of outsiders, showing them by humble example that their’s is the way to live. Christians ought to reserve their judgment and constructive criticism for their own, holding each other to the high standards rightly demanded by God.
Instead? Christians are terrified of criticizing each other, particularly in any politically-incorrect way, as long as they can maintain the thin veneer of Churchliness. Remove Christ from the lives of the average Christian and all it would do is free up their Sunday morning. At the same time, Christians vent their judgment at the outside world – at the very people they should see as neighbors and potential converts, people who should be looking up to them as the aforementioned city on a hill, not down on as backward hypocrites.
This is why I keep my faith private, and why I don’t bother with going to church. It’s why I don’t bother to only date Christian girls – there’s zero difference between them and the “just spiritual” ones.
But hey! Dogma is messy and mean and inconvenient! Christ is what you feel in your heart, ergo any emotional, impulsive nonsense is justified! You go girl! *Real* Christians would never judge you for being you!
Ugh. Not even the common decency to admit to sin and just say, “I’ll answer for it when I’m dead.”
Dalrock, in order to notice the Indicators Of Interest (IOI’s) she is displaying in the last scene a man would have to either have natural Game or to have learned Game somewhere. Few men are naturals and outside of some parts of the blog world many men know nothing of Game.
Therefore it is not surprising that the IOI’s were missed by viewers. But your point about the reaction of the husband to his wife’s infidelity is very significant. I suggest that it is not a masculine reaction, either. It is feminized to some degree. It is anti-patriarchal as well. All in all, a sad commentary on the makers of the movie. Another data point supporting the idea that all modern Westerners have some number of feminist ideas floating around in their heads, unless they’ve actively chosen to reject such notions.
Lately I’ve been seeing a LOT of arab women-European men coupling going on. How can a pseudo-christian lily compete? I urge every western man to embrace this emerging cultural admixture. Even white girls know they can never, EVER compete with an arab woman when she is put together. Looks and values inclusive.
Complete fantasy bullshit. Intentionally leaving out the part where men get angry, scream, destroy, and retaliate. Come to think of it, all the people in this movie seem like neutered automatons. Lets seem some fist punching through drywall.
Aaaack! That was awful!
One line, One. Single. Line. MIGHT have been the very tiny beginning, of HER redemption: “I want what happened to you, to happen to me.” Maybe. If she had said that, and only that, she might one day be worthy of any man’s love. Technically, it’s possible for such a shallow, empty person to grow up. Right? Please? I’m grasping at straws here. Surely that minuscule display of humility shows that there might be just a smidgen of empathy rattling around in her dry little heart.
Not that I can figure out why he still gives a damn.
Men and women are confused. I don’t agree with everything he says but David Deida has done tremendous work in the field of relationships. Relationships have 3 stages: Dependent, Independent, and a 3rd one that combines the best of the 2 previous and then adds a 3rd dimension.
The problem is that most 21st century couples are in the 2nd stage and when they get frustrated with that they regress to the 1st stage (because these 2 stage are all they know) instead of moving forward to the 3rd.
Odds says:
“It’s one of the things that’s killing the faith these days. Christians ought to be as a city on a hill, welcoming and tolerant of outsiders, showing them by humble example that their’s is the way to live. Christians ought to reserve their judgment and constructive criticism for their own, holding each other to the high standards rightly demanded by God.”
Tolerance.
How I loath that word.
Its part of the very poison that is seeping through the west. You cannot be tolerant of outsiders and intolerant within without totally destroying yourself.
The west is highly intolerant of its core foundation and the men that make it up and tolerant of everyone else.
If you want your society to survive, Christian or otherwise, you need everyone held to the same expectations, outsider or not.
Finally, Dalrock, this is only troubling until you realize that the churches and almost every member of them are apostate. Couple that with the expectation/belief that God’s grace and blessings saturate the whole world and all you have to do is open your arms and receive them. (See the “Prayer of Jabez” for just one example of that) and you have nutrasweet religion.
This movie is evil, and we have a duty to do good and hate evil.
I strongly recommend that the elders of the church that funded it, the actors and the directors repent. In dust, sackcloth, and ashes.
Chris, that would imply that they could actually recognize their wrongfulness. They won’t. This shit earns them a lot of money, and that’s all that matters in evangelicalism today. Cater to the divorced women; bash the men, and make millions…
I made it through 21 seconds of the embedded video before hitting pause.
You know how they say it takes a great writer to create dialogue for two women that doesn’t involve men? BS. It takes a great writer to create dialogue for two women THAT’S INTERESTING ENOUGH TO BOTHER READING.
This video really drove home just how much useless nattering women engage in.
Complete fantasy bullshit. Intentionally leaving out the part where men get angry, scream, destroy, and retaliate. Come to think of it, all the people in this movie seem like neutered automatons. Lets seem some fist punching through drywall.
More likely, what got left out was the part where the husband walks out on the cheating whore, drinks for a year or two, wises up and eventually finds a younger, hotter, girlfriend. Meanwhile the doctor pumps and dumps Katherine, who ends up living alone with fifteen cats who… well, I was headed someplace kinda gruesome there, so I’ll just leave it at the Crazy Cat Lady stage.
But it is fantasy bullshit. The chick equivalent of something like Die Hard which leaves out the part where the would-be hero is gut shot and chucked in the river the first time he goes up against professional killers.
However, there is a difference between typical chick fantasy and typical guy fantasy. In chick fantasy, the goal of her unrealistic, dangerous gambits is always her own benefit. She gets the high status guy, the glamorous job, the personal rewards. In guy fantasy, the guy may or may not end up with the girl (Casaablanca, anyone?) but the goal of his antics is usually some benefit to society, or at least to some other person. Rescue his kid, get rid of the bad guys, save the entire freaking planet.
Whether Dalrock is right or wrong – and I am pretty sure he is right – this is not exactly a new theme. Most, if not many, movies are about the courtship process, and Firepower appears to be no different.
Although sadly I cannot remember the title or the actors, I recall watching an American film from the 1950s, in colour, set in some rural location, perhaps a western of sorts, where, a husband returns to his wife and she makes him go through the proving himself all over again, before she will take him back as a husband. Any movie buffs here recall the name of the picture?
Without wishing to go xtian-bashing, may I say that (particularily for a woman) identifying yourself as a xtian, can be a little like go-faster stripes on your car, or tats on your back. It is supposed to signify a certain ability or propensity, and may persuade the person like the multi-flagged (what is the one in front? I recognise the other two as English and Irish.), plunger-waving, aids-victim supporting holier-than-thou angel-winged Jane FW that she is not that kind of girl, but I suggest NAWALT does not wash.
For any woman, Christian or not, to admit that the threat of divorce gives them power is for them to implicitly admit the marriage deck is stacked in their favor from the start. Team Woman is loathe to draw attention to and possibly be forced to give up any advantages brought by feminism, no matter how unfair it is to men.
This is very sad for the ones of us who, despite our huge shortcomings, try to follow Christ’s message. Christianity in America does not exist anymore (with some minor exceptions). Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Churchianity is a matriarchal religion disguised with Christian clothing – that is, patriarchal clothing.
It is incredible how Christian Churches have fled from Christ’s message and embrace the MIghty Power of Gina Tingle in the area of sexual relationships. Examples abound:
1. Monogamy was a tenet of the Christian religion. Monogamy means “one sexual partner for all your life”. Now, the so-called “serial monogamy” (that is, serial polygamy) is considered to be a moral behavior. So the preferred form of promiscuity for females is good. But the preferred form of promiscuity for males (“simultaneous polygamy”) is a SIN with a capital S.
2. Sex before marriage used to be a sin. Now it is “who are you to judge? We are all fallen here.” (a misinterpretation of the Biblical verse and the concept of sin), with exception of the case that a man dumps a woman. Then he is a cad.
3. For JaneFW, the sin is not to divorce a husband. The sin is telling a woman who divorces that her intentions are to have men competing for her.
I would like to see the Biblical verse who supports this interpretation, something along the lines that “Thou shalt not judge divorcees, you judgmental pig.”
However, there is a difference between typical chick fantasy and typical guy fantasy.
There is another difference. No sane guy would imitate Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But American women see chick fantasies as a documentary about the reality. So, for example, “Eat, Pray, Love” spawns a set of divorces…
With regards to JaneFW, I think her opinion is in line with the last two letters of her name, FW. As in Feminist Women.
@Jack Amok
I really like that. The film, that for me, comes to mind, is The Searchers, where at the end John Wayne rescues (rather than kills – his original intention) Natalie Wood, and then at the end just walks away. A very enigmatic film where Ethan (Wayne’s characters) motives always remain unclear, but where there seems to be little in it for him, and he certainly isn’t finding himself, or acquiring a woman. If anything it is about the need for a cohesive society.
As I am mentioning movies, doesn’t blue-collar cop Bruce Willis, begin Die Hard somewhat estranged from his upwardly mobile corporate-drone wife (I suspect he gets her back – don’t know as I never got past the first ten minutes). Another EPL movie you might care to check out (more interesting than at first it appears) is Sphinx from 1981, where Egyptologist Leslie Anne Down, a woman who nothwithstanding her career gives the impression she couldn’t pin-point Egypt on a map, yet having failed, for no good reason, to follow her husband to his new job, hates men, but as soon as she reaches Egypt falls for a swarthy Egyptian – ‘but it would never work’ etc etc. That film is simply Sex-Tourism dressed as Woman-in-danger thriller – and what an entitled stupid bitch she is too – but very cute. Not a box-office success though.
@Opus, you might be thinking of the 1956 movie “Come Next Spring”.
This may be considered a rant.
I’m kinda tired of media being blamed for things. Anyone ever notice how slow media is? The only things more slow than media is government and slower than government is the catholic church.
EPL did not create or spawn the situation about which it chronicles. The widespread cultural experience of divorce and marriage and what not stuff going on is what created EPL and made it into a popular book. Women picked it up and read it, saying “yes, this is my experience.” For them, it was a mirror of what they have seen themselves go through.
In turn, women who feel the same way in their marriages may look to it as a model, but i don’t think it’s actually “spawning” things in and of itself — the culture is. The culture is spawning the divorces AND the culture is spawning the media that perpetuates a specific idea.
“[T]his idea has become so accepted that it found its way into a Christian movie which is supposed to strengthen marriage. Not only that, but apparently this wasn’t noticed by millions of Christians who watched it.”
This is precisely why men, having become aware, should boycott not only Marriage 2.0. but Church 2.0 and also the Game 2.0 it espouses. Starve the beasts. All of them.
Im the one who linked that to CF. In the battle of gender or whatever moniker you place on the gynocentric dynamic in the world, the church has its own ground zero. There is a contradiction there, one I understand perfectly well, where mens rights guys generally have little time for the church, church women, or even church men, so steeped in superficially harmless gynocentrism as the church is. Its painful from inside to realize that there SHOULD be a natural alliance from the men in church into these matters, but appeal to conventional wisdom and mans innate desire to please women create men in church who generally defer to the claims that men are bad and women are good and we need women to keep us straightened out.
I daily display my beliefs there, and am the object of ire from 96% of the Christian women and maybe 50% of the Christian men. But its where Ive chosen to do my advocacy. I engage pastors, personally and by email, I engage other Christian men, I openly express disdain for movies like this one and “Courageous” (review that one too, its about-yawn-men step up and be better dads) to the herds of Christians who gasp and ululate each time one of these goofy things comes out…”Hey go see this movie its Christian and its inspirational”……er, inspirational to whom?
Several times a year men are treated to a men step up sermon, with the veneer of balance offered by the preacher telling the ladies to be patient and support the men, not realizing how imbalanced that is, setting up the female morality superiority complex that defines western faith. So why do i want to go see a movie saying the same crap? Men seem to love self effacing, to nod and weep yet again, to rererererererererecommit to be better men…..again…..literally crying while the self satisfied wife empathizes and rubs circles on his back in support. Its a SICK dynamic, and its rotting men from the inside.
Good on you for this site, and these articles telling the cow how he ate the cabbage so to speak.
This is a movie made to cater to women, who make up the majority of Christian congregations and to bring in the shekels. The film producers are pandering to their customer. No surprise here.
Good point about the “continuous courtship and continuing to prove his love” theme in movies. Has this theme ever been shown as a bad decision resulting in a bad outcome for the woman in movies? Here’s two to consider, both from the 1950’s:
“The Quiet Man” – A comedy where hubby has to prove he’s not a coward and must fight to get wifey’s dowry, which he doesn’t want nor need but she insists on it. In the end, he does fight and does get the dowry, with no apparent long term consequences for his wife. Although a comedy, the message is – fight for what your wife wants and prove you are not a coward – man up. There’s one redeeming line in the movie when the two aren’t married yet and courting, something like: “the woman isn’t allowed to hit the man until they are married when he’s allowed to hit back”.
“The Big Country” – Serious western and another “let’s you and him fight” movie. Again, the female wants her fiancee to fight to prove his love. In this case, it backfires, she loses him and he hitches up with a woman who loves him for who he is. One of my favorite movies – it exposes and makes no apologies for several darker female traits. Same plot set in modern times would make a much more relevant Christian movie than the “Fireproof” garbage and the continuous Christian man-bashing.
My wife and her girlfriends went to see ‘Fireproof” as part of a churchlady outing and came home gushing about what a great movie it was. When a movie date was suggested for us to see it I said NO! Now, after reading Dalrock’s review I’m glad I put my foot down.
I have a question for the bible scholars out in Dalrockland…I’m not trying to be flippant either.
In the old testament the use of concubines was the norm. King David, on his deathbed, had a young virgin brought to him to lay naked with him ” for comfort”.
Q) when did the Christian faith adopt monogamy?
I’m not fishing for an excuse to cad around, I’m just curious. I believe the ideal is for two virgins to meet and stay together for life…alas, in modern America finding a woman with fewer than 5 partners is a virtual impossibility. (and of course if they admit to 5 you can bet the real number is 3 times that)
.
Why is my comment not here?
Watching that movie, I was caught in cognitive dissonance. I asked my husband to whom he felt the most sympathy, and he said the wife. I found it odd, as I was really disgusted by the wife, but NO ONE else in the whole big sanctuary seemed to feel the same way.
So glad to hear others saw the same thing I did.
Funny at the time when we watched this with the church, we were both closet ex-Christians, still wanting to believe, and still pretending to believe, in denial about our eventual exit.
The larger point Dalrock makes is such an important one it bears repeating.
Christianity in America (at least the mainline Protestant denominations) is largely run by women, for women and children. Men are pushed to the sidelines. Scripture is misinterpreted to hold women to lenient, divorce-friendly standards and men to more stringent, higher standards.
Most importantly, churches and their members almost always presume that if a marriage is in trouble, it must be because the husband is in the wrong, has done something wrong, or is otherwise somehow at fault for causing the problems. PromiseKeepers and other men’s “movements” within American Christianity reinforce this, with exhortations to men to “love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her”. But there is no concomitant exhortation to women to respect their husbands. Nor is there any consequence for wives for disobedience to Paul’s instruction. OTOH the consequences for husbands are dire: marital discord. The divorce meat grinder. No involvement in children’s lives.
@Buck –
Monogamy was always an ideal, even in the ancient Old Testament. The multiple wives of kings seemed to be an exception to a relatively flexible rule. It appears that there are occasions in the OT where men in the lineage of David were producing offspring at 8 or 9 years of age. Given the religious promises attached to the Davidic genestream, royal polygamy was probably a attempt to keep this family alive. If I remember correctly, although concubines were common, multiple marriage was relatively rare. Samuel’s father was an exception. Now that I think about it, the priestly caste (of whom Samuel was a member) was probably encouraged towards polygamy for the same reason as the Davidic kings.
By the time of the New Testament, polygamy and concubinage were practically extinct. I believe Herod had multiple wives and concubines, but all of the Maccabees were monogamous. Monogamy was pretty well set in place by the time Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism.
After watching Fireproof, I was strongly tempted to convert to Buddhism. It is a very bad movie. Another film by the same producers, Flywheel, is surprisingly good and much more traditionally Christian.
Hi. I’m a new lady staff writer at ForbedWoman, where I blog at the intersection of global feminism and Millennial Masculinity. Please drop by and post some comments to spike my “click traffic” towards getting a good word from my supervisor in my upcoming annual Encorpera CoWorker Performance Report :
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/12/01/outrage-mounts-as-forbes-woman-tries-to-export-millennial-burnout-syndrome-mbs-globally/
Opus, the flag in the front is that of the US state of Texas. It’s similar to the flag of Chile, but not the same.
Liberals, like Satan, know Mankind’s real weakness, is our women.
I think you’re all putting a bit too much blame on Christianity. White populations are caving under the load of feminist man hate enshrined in law everywhere, including the parts of Europe where Christianity’s been a bad joke for well over a century now.
Expecting churches, a bunch of for-profit operators skimming voluntary donations from the marks for a living, to stand up against broad social trends like feminism and multiculturalism and all their related ills is simply naive beyond measure.
Yep, this is why I do not regret my decision to stop going to church.
This is also why I’m not going to go back.
This is also why I’m not the only one to come to this conclusion.
Complete fantasy bullshit. Intentionally leaving out the part where men get angry, scream, destroy, and retaliate.
Yeah, it was fantasy bullshit. They left out the part about how he gets angry at her when he learns about the Doctor, and she calls the police and says she’s frightened, so he gets to spen the night in jail, gets a restraining order slapped on him so he can’t access anything in his house or even see his own kids, gets suspended from his fireman job due to the charges of DV, and the doctor moves into the house an starts banging his wife. The closing scene is the doctor and the fireman’s wife pulling up to church in the doctor’s BMW, the fireman’s wife beaming from ear to ear ….
@JHJ
Its shouldn’t be “naive beyond measure” though.
I’m not here or anywhere for that matter to debate existential things about God, the Bible, Christ, etc. So do not foist that on me for what I say here, but if all it takes to discourage advocating that the church actually teach as it should, and become the force for good it should is the pedestrian dismissal that its “for profit” etc. etc. I suspect there isn’t much they could really do that would change your mind anyway.
For some of us though, we think that the truth that is supposed to under gird the church is worth digging for, and if it ever was rediscovered, the matters gender would find huge right thinking groups in the church. Its a critical mass thing. Its not that so many women pull the direction they pull, its that so many MEN do, and one by one they are who must be convinced to be willing to stay the course over the cries of their histrionic spouses
@Brendan,
Let me give you a true life story, happened about 4 months ago in a large midwest city where I work.
Guy works long hours at a low wage job to support wife and 4 kids. He is an active church member with his wife…by all measures a real good guy. Wife starts fling with another church guy, much younger, no job, a punk.
Husband confronts wife about her activities, she screams at him and stabs him with a kitchen knife in the abdomen. Husband (latino, probably illegal) tells the ambulance and police that he accidentally cut himself…this to keep the mother of his children out of jail, save the family untold legal bills etc.
She watches the ambulance take him away to the ER and immediately tells the cops on scene that she is afraid of him, he’s out of control and she wants a restraining order…her new boy-toy drives her in the church van to the court the next day to get the restraining order. Hubby is released from the hospital and arrives home to find he’s locked out. Police are called by wife reporting that psycho boy hubby is kicking down her door threatening her. Hubby tells us his story, she remains in the house with her punk boy toy behind her, cat calling over her shoulder about how he’s banging hubby’s wife, what a good lay she is etc…he wants hubby to make a threat in front of the police, knowing the police have a state law mandating that they make an arrest for all domestic violence violations. Hubby is smart enough to clam up and walk away.
MEN!!!
Please listen up!
Women are capable of evil by reflex that a guy would spend days trying to plan…this gal had her husband give her a get out of jail free card and within minutes she figured a way to roll it up and jamb it up his ass so that she could ride her newest boy toy. She swung into motion and within 24 hours had a restraining order, custody of the kids, all of his shit, hubby locked out and a new resident fuckbuddy, hubby legally described as a violent psycho, church sympathy and help with her plan.
I wont give the sect, but these are alleged Christians…
The cops in these cases are forced hand servants of the devil…
All of this makes me think about the church I was raised in, though only go to with the family every now and then.
The high school and young adult dudes are there, hands raised to sky, outpourings of love to God, devoutness in all of them. They are so nice and caring, and give God their everything. It’s almost creepy.
The church girls in high school will have none of their counterparts, and think most are losers. These young men were not taught strong Chrisitainity, but dainty feel-good be-nice-to-every-body, and are total pansies in every meaning of the word. I rejected my church after a brief stint in their pussifying youth group.
The young women at my church, well, I’ve banged half of them.
This is the United States. Due to how our law is set up, it’s probably cheaper for our fireman to pay the 24,000 USD than to divorce cleanly. Granted, he has to keep a woman who could continually put him through this, but that’s his fault for marrying her.
There are still virgin Christian women : Four virgin 29 years old women from British Colombia have started a blog and are looking for a man. They are evangelical Christians :
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/01/b-c-virgins-online-search-for-holy-sex-lands-them-on-ellen-degeneres/
Their blog : http://www.confessionsofa29yearoldvirgin.com/
If every kiss begins with Kay, your wife is a whore.
Virgins, yea whatever, for how long and under what circumstances. Remember guys, unless it’s straight missionary with a long gem boyfriend she can rationalize anything.
Some Christian women just use God/Jesus as their eternal validator for their drives, impulses, and selfish needs.
Good post Dalrock,
I’m elated men are starting to wake up to the Western woman behavior. Little Angels can do no wrong. What planet are you from?
“The young women at my church, well, I’ve banged half of them.”
Don’t worry, within five years or so they’ll all be “born again” and ready to marry one of those nice Christian guys they ignored while they were fooling around with you.
It seems to be all about the money. In this case, I guess the woman is a whore.
If your love is for sale, you are a whore.
@Retrenched
Undoubtedly. I already know of one who is husband shopping.
To most of these girls, “college never happened”. It’s memories of crazy parties, getting hammed, and taking walks of shame on Sunday mornings. Church? What church?
They go into the real world and get serious about everything, including church. All the sudden they’re the most devout chicks in the congregation. HA. Hence, PMAFT’s killer pick up strategy, which I have no trouble at all believing works.
Heck, it’s like Twilight only w/o vampires and werewolves. Bella’s got Edward and wolf-boy competing over her, much to the Twilight Moms’ excitement.
I think the lack of slut shaming is probably the most damaging legacy of feminism even if the laws were still as stupid as they are now, no woman can handle social shaming. They just can’t flirting with another man when you are married SLUT, divorcing your husband because he is not exciting to bang a new boy toy SLUT, having sex with the hot guys while you are young SLUT! I have to give credit to feminists. I usually though they were overdoing it by devoting so much resources and time to stop slut shaming. They were the clever ones, once there is not value in committing to your word to the man of your choice and being a decent woman, everything else follows. Clever vermin the girls were and it looked so innocent for so long….
Buck says:
“I have a question for the bible scholars out in Dalrockland…I’m not trying to be flippant either.
In the old testament the use of concubines was the norm. King David, on his deathbed, had a young virgin brought to him to lay naked with him ” for comfort”.
Q) when did the Christian faith adopt monogamy?”
It was the policy for an Elder or Deacon to be “a one woman man” during the Apostolic Age, as we see in Timothy and Titus. One can only speculate as to why this was the case, since monogamy was not required of the rank and file. As more Gentiles began to come into the Church, bringing pagan ideas with them, and the Jewish flavor of the Church dissipated, the Greek and Roman ideas about marriage dominated. By 150AD you’ve even got people like Tertullian and the Montanists telling married couples they are not to have sex with each other. By 400, you’ve got Jerome saying a man commits adultery with his own wife if he’s really into the sex. These ideas are far, far from Biblical teaching.
asinusspinasmasticans says:
“Monogamy was always an ideal, even in the ancient Old Testament.”
Where does the Bible make this statement?
asinusspinasmasticans says:
“The multiple wives of kings seemed to be an exception to a relatively flexible rule. It appears that there are occasions in the OT where men in the lineage of David were producing offspring at 8 or 9 years of age. Given the religious promises attached to the Davidic genestream, royal polygamy was probably a attempt to keep this family alive. If I remember correctly, although concubines were common, multiple marriage was relatively rare. Samuel’s father was an exception. Now that I think about it, the priestly caste (of whom Samuel was a member) was probably encouraged towards polygamy for the same reason as the Davidic kings.”
Nope. Almost every marriage modeled for us in the Bible is polygynous (one man, two or more wives and/or concubines), included non-royals. Almost all the patriarchs are specifically shown to be polygynous. The Mosaic Law spills lots of ink on all the rules for polygynous marriage. God portrays himself as a husband with two unfaithful wives, Judah and Israel.
asinusspinasmasticans says:
“By the time of the New Testament, polygamy and concubinage were practically extinct. I believe Herod had multiple wives and concubines, but all of the Maccabees were monogamous. Monogamy was pretty well set in place by the time Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism.”
Again, not the case. Men who had the financial wherewithal could and did have wives and concubines in Judea. In the case of Levirate marriage, it was actually required. Judaism, from which Christianity sprang, did not ban polygny until around 1000 AD, and that was the Ashkenazi branch. The Sephardic can still have wives in theory.
Buck,
“When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; … Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” Deuteronomy 17:14,17
The Bible accurately records David and Solomon’s disregard of this command. Solomon, it seems, did weary of his host of wives and concubines and admonished men that one woman is best.
“For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:
But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. … Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”
Proverbs 5:3-4; 15-19
“Instead of getting married again, I’m going to find a woman I don’t like and just give her a house.”
–Rod Stewart
caballarius1,
“Nope. Almost every marriage modeled for us in the Bible is polygynous (one man, two or more wives and/or concubines), included non-royals. Almost all the patriarchs are specifically shown to be polygynous”
Abraham had only one wife until late in life (the spawn through his lesser wives would later become the enemies of the children of Israel). Isaac only had one wife. Jacob had four, only one of whom he wanted and dearly loved. Moses, one. Joshua, one.
I have not seen Fireproof, but the give and take between the husband and wife sounds eerily familiar to The Last Boyscout.
Not as specifically dedicated to the world of Christian romance, but a great flick that might prove the same thing and you get to see Bruce Willis kick ass.
Well Dalrock, they banned me over there at the place I posted your link. Hope I can cozy in here.
They had been spoiling to ban me and a couple other guys who were anti gynocentric, and they done done it, the ultimate SHUT UP.
Any fool who tried to “win” his wife back using the Fireproof plan would only invite her scorn. Kirk would have been better off using his fireman hero clout to rouse the attention of a few other women and flaunt it in front of his wife. Fear of loss of what she had (now of higher value since he is desired by her competition) would have trumped the uncertainty of a future with her doctor friend.
@conservativation says:
I’m very sorry to hear that. I hesitated to reference that thread at first because I don’t want to discourage readers from linking to my posts. That one created a trackback however so I decided the link was already there. You are certainly welcome here. In fact, if you decide to start your own blog let me know and after you have your first few posts up I’ll do a linkage post to let people know about it. One thing about the internet is it is impossible to silence those who aren’t conforming to PC.
Pingback: Baseball Whores | realfreemarket.org
Mark Slater says:
December 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm
“Abraham had only one wife until late in life (the spawn through his lesser wives would later become the enemies of the children of Israel). Isaac only had one wife. Jacob had four, only one of whom he wanted and dearly loved. Moses, one. Joshua, one.”
Abraham’s lesser wives and concubines still count toward making him a practitioner of polygyny. We don’t know how many wives he had in total at any time. The Bible may or may not record them all. The same is true for Isaac. Jacob was also clearly a practitioner of polygyny with at least four women in his harem. Moses had at least two wives, since the Bible mentions the Midianite woman Zipporah and an unnamed Ethiopian wife. Those are the only two mentioned in the Bible.
So, all those you have mentioned were, according to the Bible, practitioners of polygyny, with the sole exception of Isaac. I guess he had oneitis.
Oh, yeah. I overlooked Joshua. He’s not a patriarch, but the first Judge of Israel. Again, he may or may not have been polygynous. It’s most likely he was, since before entering the promised land Moses laid out the Law of God on adding captive women to one’s harem. After all, the Bible never relates to us when Moses added his Ethiopian wife, she just appears in the storyline.
Jack Amok says:
December 2, 2011 at 1:48 am
“Meanwhile the doctor pumps and dumps Katherine, who ends up living alone with fifteen cats who…”
…feed of her body for 6 monthes after she dies.
You made it like Star Trek. For me to boldly go where you have not.
And the best part is that since being a “born again virgin” is nothing but a con for them, as soon as you call them out on it, they will put out for you.
cold rage is all i feel towards this movie. evil doesn’t announce itself, but creeps into your life when you aren’t watching.
Dalrock:
No issue about linking, that had zero to do with my banning and the timing is completely coincident. Well, back up, to my knowledge it is. One never knows the lengths useful idiots and white knights will go to silence reason and considered discourse. The moderation is held forth as only wanting tranquility, when tranquility means subscribing to men bad woman good, full stop.
The recent article on AVFM where the writer talks about the “must be” tendency is descriptive of the dynamic there and on any other Christian forum where marriage is discussed.
You necessarily must logically choke on the truth, when you realize that the relational gender is the pro-divorce gender….in church. Unbelievable.
@conservativation
“but if all it takes to discourage advocating that the church actually teach as it should, and become the force for good it should is the pedestrian dismissal that its “for profit” etc. etc. ”
In principle, I agree. In practice, churches don’t matter enough that I think it’s worth bothering with. If all churches went back to absolute old-Catholic style orthodoxy tomorrow, would it change anything at all in divorce-rape, domestic violence assumption-America? It would not. A bunch of “I’m not haaapy” females would leave their local church for greener pastures at the local New Age temple, that’s about all. Marriage would still be dead, the white population would still be replaced.
@Anacaona
“I think the lack of slut shaming is probably the most damaging legacy of feminism even if the laws were still as stupid as they are now, no woman can handle social shaming.”
I’d say the effects of slut shaming in the past are vastly overrated in these online circles. Women don’t have a sense of honour in the same way men do. Alte has written about this on her blog. The reason women avoided sluttish behavior was not that they were afraid of acquiring the ‘slut’ label in itself, it was that acquiring that label had very concrete and obvious social consequences. In pre-feminism eras, sluts were vulnerable social pariahs. Not even beta chumps married them, their families excommunicated them, nobody paid for their bastard spawn because there was no welfare state, and they faced a big risk of pregnancy because legal abortion and reliable contraceptives didn’t exist.
The reason why sluttishness has become normalized and tolerated isn’t that feminists have dismantled slut shaming, it’s that it no longer has hard-hitting consequences. The nanny state subsidizes single mothers with tax dollars confiscated mostly from beta chumps, abortion is legal, contraceptives are accessible, and the feminist brainwashing system churns out a steady supply of emasculated beta chumps willing to marry banged-out sluts. As a result, young women become sluts because they can.
Pingback: Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere? | Dalrock
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
I always thought it was her pot pipe……I’m not really seeing a plunger.
Pingback: Marriage 2.0 and The Church « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Stanton’s Heroes | Dalrock
Pingback: From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage. | Dalrock
Pingback: Christians washing their hands of sexual morality. | Dalrock
Pingback: Firebombed | Dalrock
Pingback: Cutting leaders off at the knees. | Dalrock
Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance. | Dalrock
Pingback: Don’t be a prig. | Dark Brightness
Dalrock, your movie links are toast. Considering that such short clips for debate and/or socio-political analysis clearly falls within fair use doctrine one can only assume Sony utilizing it’s copyright-enabled censorship powers!
Pingback: Conveniently induce vomiting with “Fireproof,” the “Christian” movie about a careerist harpy extorting her husband with divorce threats | Murica Derp