As I mentioned in Lovestruck, once you recognize the modern inversion of the moral relationship between romantic love, sex, and marriage you will begin to see this everywhere. A while back Rollo pointed out a couple of posts by a Christian blogger named Joy who tied herself in knots trying to write about Christian sexual morality without offending modern culture. The first post is News Flash: You Probably Won’t Marry a Virgin. Even more interesting than the post itself however are the comments. Commenter Gunnar Tveiten was offended that Joy even tepidly suggested that chastity was a good thing. He referred to reserving sex for biblical marriage as “a sad and perverted thing”, and explained that romantic love is what matters when considering the morality of sex:
You go on: “God is a God of second chances, and no mistake” in other words, if you’re among the 96% who ignore the nonsense, then you blew your “first chance”, you did something wrong, but God forgives your mistake and gives you a second chance. Here’s the thing though: what if it *wasn’t* a mistake ? What if it was, as it often is, *deliberate* and *repeated* and with a person you love – perhaps even the person you end up marrying ? Do you imagine the 96% generally had sex once, or a handful of times ? That would again, be a rejection of reality.
Then you come out and say it explicitly: “Now, I’m not saying go out and have lots of sex. It’s best to save sex for marriage for many reasons, spiritual and otherwise.”
In other words, we all do it wrong. 96% of us. You, like most churches, live in a alternative universe where this is true. The overwhelming majority of us REJECTS that universe and substitute our own. In *our* universe, intimacy between people who love oneanother is a thing of beauty – the deepest expression of trust, love and compassion. Created by God himself. Glorious and wonderful.
By insisting that celibacy has spiritual and other advantages, you become part of the problem: you contribute to the shame, instead of talking about love.
He elaborates in response to another commenter who chose not to have sex outside of biblical marriage:
My bible is a book about love. Love is the highest and most important commandment I find when I read it with an open mind. Intimacy and sex is one (of many!) ways we express our love. I do not think that love among adult consenting human beings, can ever be a sin. This is my understanding.
Commenter Gwen explains that while she has repented for some of her past fornication, some of it she won’t ever repent for because it occurred in the context of romantic love and her sacred path to marriage:
When I met the man I was certain I was going to marry, I thought long and hard about what I wanted and what he wanted (he was not a virgin), and finally landed on the decision to responsibly and lovingly have pre-marital sex. Months later, we ended our relationship, and I was devastated. I told myself that I was being punished for my sins, and that no good man would ever love me.
Many years and many relationships later, I have a much healthier perspective. He and I absolutely were not meant to be husband and wife, and our marriage, had it occurred, would have ended miserably. However, our relationship, in the beginning, was loving and wonderful, and our sex life, including our first time, was also loving and wonderful. Even now, I do not doubt that he loved me at the time, nor do I doubt that I truly loved him. My first time was gentle and full of respect and caring and mutual understanding, and for that, now that I’ve worked through the guilt and shame dumped on me by the culture, I am grateful.
…
I have made choices that I regret, and decisions I’ve asked forgiveness for, but my first time is not, nor will it ever be, one of them.
Commenter Joel wants to bring this back to the Bible, and starts off at least somewhat well. However, even he ends up suggesting that romantic love is something which confers morality to sex in biblical marriage:
If you consider yourself a believer, you must acknowledge that there is a gigantic list of scripture that indicates that we are avoid sexual temptation, which let’s be honest, except for the argument of consensual sex between two nearly (or on the road to being) married people deeply in love, much of our sexual craving is rooted in lust.
Note that not claiming romantic love gives moral cover to sex doesn’t mean that romantic love doesn’t have a place in biblical marriage. As I pointed out in the last post, the problem is the moral inversion. Romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage, instead of marriage being seen as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex.
Joy then wrote a follow up post On Virginity: What I Did and Did Not Mean where she apologizes to anyone who felt shamed by her previous post’s fleeting brush with biblical sexual morality:
While I tried my best to respond in the comments, and even modified my post to try to make things more clear, some people still felt shamed by the post. I regret that deeply and want to try to clarify a few things.
And clarify she does. She explains that sex outside of marriage is not shameful, but that it must be within the context of romantic love:
Choosing not to abstain from sexual intercourse before marriage is
finenot shameful.As I wrote above, we are sexual beings. We desire the pleasure and connection of sexual relationships. When we love someone, we want to demonstrate it in real and tangible ways, and physical acts of kissing, touching, and intercourse is very much a part of that. I encourage you to be wise in who you choose to interact with in this way. Many people use sex to manipulate and abuse their partner – watch out for this.
But again the comments were even more telling than the post itself. This time manosphere veteran Jack explained why he won’t marry a woman he views as having a history of promiscuity:
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment.
I refuse to give commitment to a woman who did not guard her virtue. She gave it away to other men, and I find it unattractive. No judgment implied. Just not attracted to women with a past.
This brought the following response (emphasis mine):
So a woman’s value is only as good as her virtue? And if she loved another and expressed that love physically with that person before you, she’s too unattractive and not worthy of your attention, attraction, commitment?
I’m a virgin in my thirties. If there was ever a more telling confirmation of why I should avoid any woman who hasn’t kept her legs closed before I met her, this article would be it. My goodness. Imagine me marrying someone who didn’t think some of her previous rides on the carousels were wrong or sinful because, LOOOOVE!
Yes, that’s my dream marriage, to perpetually and subconsciously be compared to former “lovers.”
Whatever it is that they are talking about, it isn’t Christianity. Some form of paganism, I’m just not sure which.
This is the only gift you can bring to your wedding night that so few others can give. The gift of self cannot be from a second-hand store.
(I exclude widows and widowers, but death does a reset – marriage is the other form of chastity).
There is redemption for those who did not guard virtue, but this is worse – saying there is no sin so no redemption is necessary. What is the point of the Passion and Cross if we are fine without it?
This is not Christianity…it’s a sick sad form of traditionalism brought on by the advance of chivalry in the minds of women and consequently the skirt-wearing pastors and taught into the wide populace. Romance is not love…ever.
How about it’s best to save sex for marriage because to do anything otherwise is to disobey God’s word?
Frank – Imagine me marrying someone who didn’t think some of her previous rides on the carousels were wrong or sinful because, LOOOOVE!
Yes, that’s my dream marriage, to perpetually and subconsciously be compared to former “lovers.”
More to the point, if LOOOOVE! makes premarital sex not just permissable but laudable, why doesn’t LOOOOVE make affairs and divorce not just permissable, but laudable?
Sex outside of marriage, according to the clear Scriptural view, is sin, and those who excuse any form of it will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9) If you choose not to believe this, that’s fine, but don’t insult me by calling yourself a Christian. You don’t get to cherry pick elements of Christianity you like and discard the rest. You either believe all, or none of it.
Because it’s possible to fall OUT of love, doncha know? 😉 Doesn’t anyone read 1 Corinthians 13 anymore? “Love endures ALL things. Love NEVER fails”
quite sad to see so many so called christians deliberately rationalizing their mistakes….even as a hindu girl, i think i understand bible better than these fools…..
anyways, thanks for the blog….i love it.
Nice Dalrock, 🙂
The Ten Commandments, which Jesus came not to abolish, but to fulfill, state thusly:
1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.
Does love make murder or theft OK? What if one truly loves the car one steals? What if one dishonors one’s parents because they love? What if one loves their neighbor’s wife? Is it then OK to covet her in the name of love? What if someone loves the idea of killing a rival? Does that make murder OK?
Is only adultery OK in the name of love? Or is violating any commandment OK, so long as love is involved?
lzozozozozo 🙂
The elevation of love above marriage; and the imagination that love confers moral status upon extramarital sex, are both crucial to an understanding of today’s sexual market place.
I think this has happened because of:
1. The mistaking of limerence, or lust, or sexual attraction, for love.
2. The belief that marital commitment can and should be easily broken if one or both parties decide the commitment is no longer worthwhile.
3. Women’s unwillingness to commit until time and/or circumstances force a decision.
I would have loved to have avoided fornication and adultery; I desired to marry a Christian woman when I was a young man: all I got for my efforts was, “You don’t make enough money” and “You’re a nice guy (not rough enough).” When churches raise their women to desire the men whose character was formed by growing up in the church, then we can properly discuss avoiding sex before marriage. I find no moral qualities in marrying for money or because he is “rough enough;” which means the fellow has plenty of experience in pre-marital sex.
I am sixty-three and never married and I was not a cad or a bounder; I dated those women whom I thought were a possibility.
OT, but modern Christians need to coalesce around what marriage is. Is it the state? A promise made to God? A sacrament only administered in church? Given that it’s mostly just contract law at the state level, it’s an issue that has to be addressed.
yes njartist!
“I would have loved to have avoided fornication and adultery; I desired to marry a Christian woman when I was a young man: all I got for my efforts was, “You don’t make enough money” and “You’re a nice guy (not rough enough).” ”
suppose a young man tells a young “christian” woman today:
1. let us save ourselves for marriage as the Bible states
2. when we are married, i will be the head of the household as the Bible states
3. you will not be able to flirt with any others as the Bible stipulates
what would happen to said man?
the good “christian” would find another to satiate her “needs.”
and then, at the age of 30, she would complain there are no good men left, and that her butt is very, very sore. zozlzlzozzloz
You can also leave religion out of it, and still get the same answer. Every study I’ve ever heard of on the subject shows that a married couple will give children their best chance at a successful life. And while there is a slight correlation between the number of partners a man has had, and his propensity to divorce, there is a very high correlation between the number of partners a woman has had and her propensity to divorce. This alone is a sufficient reason to avoid the sluts when it comes to marriage and children.
Therefore, a man who wants to have a successful family will find and marry a woman with relatively few sex partners – or maybe no partners before marriage – to give himself and his children their best chance at a happy, healthy life.
(BTW, separate studies performed in the US, UK and Sweden show that the best outcome for children is achieved in a marriage between a man and a woman. A household with two gay men, two lesbian women or a single father come next (I can’t remember the order). The worst possible situation? Being raised by a single mother.)
The first post is News Flash: You Probably Won’t Marry a Virgin.
This is going to get me slapped, or disdained, but why? Why? Why?
What is it with these Anglicized women and their revulsion, almost vampirish reaction to virginity, as if it were garlic or sunlight? They would freak out at the image or statue of the Latin Roman Catholic Virgin Mary I’m sure.
Anglo culture is a sick, twisted freak when it comes to “purity”. One always notices how (no matter the stripe), Anglo cultured women hate, hate, hate (actual) virginity all while singing about Victorianism and Puritan mores.
There is also what anon7 wrote, but marriage isn’t about children and the future. It’s about wuv and a transient period of agreed upon togetherness. Get with the program.
Even the whole definition of sluts is different in Anglo culture. It’s all about love right?
@ Alcest
“Anglo culture is a sick, twisted freak when it comes to “purity”. One always notices how (no matter the stripe), Anglo cultured women hate, hate, hate (actual) virginity all while singing about Victorianism and Puritan mores.”
I don’t find much appreciation for Puritan mores here in the USA, in either words or deeds. Rather, I think that the attitudes you describe are a rejection of those mores and a dramatic swing in the other direction, towards “sexual liberation” (actually, a reversion back to the state of nature).
Not me. My heart hearts your virginity. Don’t ever let anyone treat you like something less of a human being because of it.
Note that not claiming romantic love gives moral cover to sex doesn’t mean that romantic love doesn’t have a place in biblical marriage. As I pointed out in the last post, the problem is the moral inversion.
The moral inversion can be changed back to its truthful place, but various entities will try to twist it again. Any ideas on how to derail them?
Not me. My heart hearts your virginity. Don’t ever let anyone treat you like something less of a human being because of it.
Thank you Frank but don’t repeat the compliment. I don’t need a beta orbiter.
I’m just asking what is wrong with Anglo culture? How do they conceive of purity, sluts, etc.? What is it wrong across the board? Did they drink this water out of somewhere?
Eric Statton: I don’t find as a Christian I need to add much more to Adam’s definition from Genesis, which the LORD reiterated in the gospel: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be as one flesh. Wherefore what God has put together, let no man separate.”
So much profound exegesis can be drawn just from that one simple verse (a man’s independence from his parents and thus ability to care for a new family, setting the stage for a successful marriage, etc.)
Anyhow, it seems I’m veering off topic so sorry for that.
Duly noted. *puts alcestiseshtemoa on ignore* 😀
@alcest: “I’m just asking what is wrong with Anglo culture? How do they conceive of purity, sluts, etc.? What is it wrong across the board? Did they drink this water out of somewhere?”
The Anglo-Saxon, Israelite-Christian values were destroyed by those who brought us the “Judeo-” values; and no the Jews are not descended from Hebrews.
The church in America fell for the old temptation (far older than Constantine) and allied itself with the State, so it could use the State’s power to enforce its values on everyone, e.g. “blue laws”, State-supported celebrations of religious holidays (but only for the majority religion of course), State control of education (force other people to pay for “educating” your children—in their values), and… State support of marriage. Which has now become State control and definition of marriage. Deals with the Devil always end the same.
LOL, the JEWS did it!!!1111111
But, but…. but!! Don’t judge me!!!!!!!!!!
She explains that sex outside of marriage is not shameful, but that it must be within the context of romantic love
Combination of serial monogamy (as female promiscuity) and love making sex moral.
To many people today, it does. I’ve certainly heard people talk about those things in positive terms, using LOOOVE as the rationale. Especially in the negative: “We just fell out of love, so it was really for the best that we split up.” Or, “His wife doesn’t love him anymore, and he has so much love to give, so that’s why it’s right for me to do the reverse cowboy with him on Tuesday afternoons.”
Hm. So in secular jargon “slut” is someone who had sex without romantic love? I might be beginning to understand…
The problem you get here is that modern “Christians” have coalesced around what marriage is, and that answer is a ungodly and unbiblical one (and I know, many posts at my blog are about exactly this). It’s nothing that needs addressed per se but something that they need to repent of doing. For all of the crying they do about protecting “the sanctity of marriage” vis-a-vis homosexual marriage, that horse already galloped out of the barn door 50 years ago at the behest of feminists and with the full support of the church of every stripe and denomination.
But there’s a misnomer when it comes to your last statement, too. It’s not “contract law at the state level”. It’s parallel to the covenant marriage (Marriage 1.0) that God created. But it’s not a marriage between husband and wife with the State’s blessing. The State enters itself into the marriage directly, defining its terms and acting in its interests in every step of it in many many other legal terms. This starts with the marriage license and the legal concessions the State gets from a couple who gets one. Remember as well, that marriage disputes are not settled in civil courts according to rules of contract law, but in family courts according to quite different rules.
The battle for “the sanctity of marriage” was lost specifically when the Church rendered what is God’s over to Caesar. This is the first step of repentance required.
And to go back to the posts in the original topic, some of the things I read both in the main parts and the comments almost made me wretch and vomit literally. Why should I marry and violate God’s law in doing so (almost literally guaranteed), when even the “Christian” women would represent an unequal yoking? (1 cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 6:14-18)
But as v11 says, “such were some of you”. Grace and forgiveness comes into play upon repentance, which I do not see the presence of in any of the “Christian women” (and the skirt-wearing “men”) represented in that thread. It’s okay to accept a non-virgin, but not okay to accept a non-repentant non-virgin. I don’t see individuals in that thread with fruits of that repentance, but people who are celebrating their sin. That should be disgusting to anyone who has any streak of true Godliness in them.
One wacky side issue to the Puritan mores is that the Puritans were a living rejection of Communism. They actually tried what the supposed communism was to look like, nearly died, then created something like a market economy and enforced property rights. The Leftists have been on a mission to destroy their history for quite a long time, mostly as they’re a practical reminder of the failures of an ideology… that wouldn’t be formed for a few hundred years after they rejected it.
Considering how the Puritans came to their decisions on the topics would stem from their basic philosophy and theology, that a Marxist infused ideology like Feminism would vehemently oppose the basic understandings of a group that historically rejected their thinking isn’t too much of a stretch.
Frank – To expand my point, how shall we cleave? The lack of clarity can provide wiggle room. Or increase the divorce rate exponentially. (“I thought we were just having a good time!!!!”)
Doctor, that’s why I feel sex is the consummation of marriage: you literally become one flesh. It’s hard to argue the virtues of being “one flesh” with multiple partners after that.
This is clear departure from the scriptures and sound reasoning.
Allow me to suggest that when any person who starts with “saved by grace” or “G_D is a G_D of second chances (Never mind David / Bathsheba story)
What they actually mean is they have bought into false teaching that “favor/grace” nullifies, does away with, minimizes, overrides, and/or replaces the stern commandment of Yahshua & apostles as well as the law of reaping and sowing.
Here are a couple examples.
Yahshua said if we love Him- we will keep is His commandments.
Grace says if we love Jesus but we dont have to keep His commandments.
Paul said For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
Grace says you can live according to the flesh, and you wont die etc..
It is lawlessness & the “thou shall not die in death” lie or which cannot stand in scrutiny of the scriptures nor the findings of well designed social/medica/economic studies.
Shalom
Whatever it is that they are talking about, it isn’t Christianity. Some form of paganism, I’m just not sure which.
Inner goddess New Age paganism?
An alternative view: “Nothing Higher to Live For: A Buddhist View of Romantic Love”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/price/bl124.html
A different tradition, yes, but includes insights of universal applicability. It all depends on what you think you’re living for.
What’s the point of marriage if everyone just has sex outside of it?
Article sounds a lot like trying to sell damaged goods under the cover that they’re somehow magically fixed… ya right! Whores!
News flash to the wimmenz. I made a solemn vow to myself and God to be a virgin till my wedding night and get married to a virgin on my wedding night. If that does not materialise, I don’t get married. This will not change unless God himself, or his son, decide to pay me a visit. I, however, do not think I’m that important. Nor do I think my future marriage is as important to God as my soul. Therefore, as such, it is my decision and I have made it thus.
Damaged goods end up in a dumpster, in the trash heap. In the context of women who fucked around ‘fuckey, fuckey, lots of suckey’ type shit, they might not end up on a trash heap but I am not interested in marriage to them. I’m not interest in their baggage, nor in them regaling me of their one night stands and ‘romantic’ lovers of old. There are plenty of other suckers out there for you nice recycled ‘virgins’ to pick from. Please stop trying to shame those men who are not interested and take those White Knighting men instead.
Just FYI. There is no sex outside of marriage that is sanctified by God. It is a sin. You can repent or not, such is life. However, make no beans about it, it is sin and in direct conflict with God’s word as written. If one does not believe and have faith in this, it is obvious that they’re not a Christian. It is plain as day!
@Anon7 – Assortive mating is one of the best ingredients for marriage. Like with like.
I’m immediately reminded of the analogy of Mister Fatballs. Mister Fatballs is a glutton, who continues in his gluttony until one such day when he acknowledges his gluttony is sin, and repents.
There’s just one thing: HE’S STILL FAT. As in, despite repentance, despite accepting in faith that God has forgiven him, he has not been absolved of the CONSEQUENCES of his sin. He must now make amends, and change his life.
God does grant second chances (and third, and fourth and…), but He’s not going to make Mister Fatballs’s fat evaporate into thin air the minute he repents. He still has to reap the consequences of his sin. If he persists in doing well though, after enough time he will reap the benefits of living a holy, and healthy life.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”
This is something carousel riding sluts who profess Christianity absolutely do not understand. They feel they will NEVER reap corruption in the flesh as a result of disobeying God.
ACTIONS. HAVE. CONSEQUENCES.
It is sad, really, to read the quoted comment from the much deluded rationalising Gwen, which put me in mind of another rationalising deluded woman who had never considered that enthusiastically acting as my all-purpose fuck-toy might (at least in my mind) not imply that Marriage was a destination in which I was also travelling – not that I think that she would have remained faithful for any proper length of time given her track record of female empowerment (say a week). As it happened I just became disgusted. This is what she wrote: ‘I refuse to believe you were never in love.’ and much much more in similar Hamster-on-speed vein for what was only a month of, to me, casual sex – always rude to refuse a woman.
Marriage avoids the pain of failed but passionate relationships, and of course, embarking on a sex-based relationship neither party can know whether they will not be the one to fall in love – though no one is saying that the course of chaster courtship always runs smooth. Sex before marriage is a bit like eating the ice-cream and peaches before the main-course. I, of course, like Ice Cream and Peaches – lots of it – and without the need for a first-course – though it tends to make me feel sick. Jack’s quoted comment ‘No judgement implied. Just not attracted to women with a past’ needs to be carved in stone and widely circulated. Gatekeepers of sex leaving the door open; lock and all-purpose key. Men with options do not marry sluts; sluts are sluts and not wives for a reason. Their body; their choice.
Why the hell are these women calling being a slut as romance & love?
You can really only have romance & love, in a life-long committed relationship
To have REAL love & then DEVELOP the REAL romance to express that REAL love, takes YEARS
Romance is an expression of DEVELOPED love
A 2 year, shallow relationship with a live in bf, is nothing compared to the romance & love of a 10 year married couple
True romance takes years to develop & express
A string of boyfriends, doesnt make you romantic … it makes you an unchaste woman who cant keep her legs shut …
All these women are doing is rationalising their gina tingles, for wanting to sleep with hot guys …
What I find ironic, these women will NEVER experience true love or true romance, precisely because theyve slept with too many men, to form a bond strong enough to experience true love or true romance
Their biology & ability to bond is ruined
re: the last line:
Let’s imaginge I divorced because I “wasn’t happy” or fulfilled in my marriage, or hell, any reason other than ongoing abuse. So – what does my track record of committing so shallowly say about wisely choosing a partner and my ability to stick through with my commitments?
Also a thought.
So perhaps this puritanical move towards things like organic foods (some actually being healthier, most of it just hokum) and all sorts of other “pure” things – perhaps a reaction, via pointless and relatively costless feel-good actions, to the lack of real purity?
BTW, just to espouse on one possible consequence of Gwen’s failed relationship after sex, the sudden failure would undoubtedly leave her paranoid that any subsequent relationship could fail without warning. Clearly the consequences of that relationship is now extending to future ones. (since by her admission she’s had MANY relationships, uh huh.) Well isn’t that just swell for guys like me hoping to avoid that kind of drama? So now it’s not just her paying the price, it’s also all the guys she winds up being with paying the price too. In a way both she and her new “love” are reaping the consequences of her past behavior.
“What’s the point of marriage if everyone just has sex outside of it? ”
That’s the part the women don’t seem to grasp. If there’s no shame to having sex outside of marriage, then why on earth would a man want to marry them. If she spent her younger years being promiscuous, then the smart move for me when she starts pushing for marriage is to ditch her for another young woman who is still attached to her promiscuous “phase”.
I’m old enough now that having kids at this point seems silly. So marriage really doesn’t have anything to offer me at this point, based on how much feminism has diluted it.
What women think is love and what love actually is are two different things.
Now I’m no saint…but I despise all the sins I commit and seek to have them forgiven ASAP…because I’m not proud of them. They cause nothing but death inside. If women rationalizes or justifies their fornication because of whatever emotion was in their head…you aren’t for me. You are harboring death inside.
“News flash to the wimmenz. I made a solemn vow to myself and God to be a virgin till my wedding night and get married to a virgin on my wedding night. If that does not materialise, I don’t get married. This will not change unless God himself, or his son, decide to pay me a visit. I, however, do not think I’m that important. Nor do I think my future marriage is as important to God as my soul. Therefore, as such, it is my decision and I have made it thus.”
Me too. If people treated their soul as the most important thing they have…a lot would change.
@alcestishmsoasjflaksjdfaslfajskf:
That’s twice you’ve mentioned assortive mating, and particularly how it’s a boon to relationships. I can’t speak to that since I haven’t thought about it, but since you have an interest in the topic, I will share one tidbit I’ve had related to it: how widespread chastity forces assortive mating.
In slut/cad land, it’s easy to get a swelled head if you’re a slut. Every guy wants you! You totally slept with the quarterback! Can’t get higher than that!
In first-marriage-THEN-baby-in-carriage-land, shit gets real. Alpha McRockstar is going to be much more choosy if he’s looking for a wife rather than a roll in the hay, and Flora the Five has a new clarity regarding her situation.
Fortunately for her, if she’s looking for marriage (and I think we have neglected this point in the manosphere), once Alpha McRockstar gets hitched, he’s off the market, and every guy left seems a bit more alpha by comparison. This isn’t females seeing their options decline and making a conscious choice to settle—their attraction is actually pegged to a guy’s relative social status, so it can jump by changing the male sexual hierarchy in which he resides.
but we’re in love so sex is ordained up on high. because don’t judge me lest you be judged you evil bastard!
Man judges by the outward appearance but the Lord judges by the heart. The issue is not some childish pitter-patter of the heart but one of intent, and that is something that only God judges. Marriage in today’s West as a social institution is dead and the only thing left is the intent of the heart, which is between that person and God.
One can be certain that one is not sexually sinning by refraining from all sex, but simply getting a marriage license issued by the imperial state is not necessarily an indication of sexual purity. Conversely, since legal marriage no longer has any connection with God-ordained marriage the lack of a marriage license is not necessarily an indication of sexual sin.
That said, there is probably some rough, statistical correlation between the two.
The bible says that what God has joined together let no man separate not that what the State of XXX has joined let no man separate.
Consider the following scenario:
Two young people verbally commit their lives to one another. One makes that commitment to God in their hearts and the other doesn’t. Later, the one who doesn’t gets bored and ends the relationship. In this case, the one who genuinely made the commitment before God is blameless and the sin of sexual impurity is solely attributable to the one who ended the relationship.
I knew a woman who “married” a much older man when she was eighteen. It turns out that he lied about getting a marriage license and that they were not legally married. Did that woman sin? Very quickly she discovered that he was a closeted homosexual who like pubescent teenage boys and that he only married her to get a child and stop his family’s question and the “marriage” ended
From my reading of the Bible God wants sex to be a part of a spiritual joining between a man and a woman for his glory and I simply do not see how the imprimatur from the post-modern secular state has anything to do with glorifying God and advancing His will.
Except that not one of these women who bumped uglies aforementioned in the article considered themselves married, legal or otherwise, and I suspect neither did the men they slept with. Your argument is invalid.
But let’s assume your torturous hamster spinning is valid. If they were married absent a license, technically then, they’re STILL MARRIED even when they move on to new relationships.
So rather than merely committing fornication, they’re committing adultery instead, and whoever subsequently marries them is committing adultery as well. Still arriving at the same place here, really.
Yes Frank, his argument only holds water if a couple who have sex are deemed to have been married by the community and hold this commitment til death.
As a Christian man, most Christian men disgust me, sackless sacks of goo on their best day.
The Bible is also book of furry and wrath, judgement and punishment, righteous war and God commanded genocide. Butch up buttercups
Missed it by thatmuch….
I’m curious, Dalrock, about your views on the impact of premarital sex on young men. We know what it does to women, but is there a similar moral degradation on the men’s side? How much responsibility, if any, do men have to maintain the virtue of today’s women? How does a man go about finding a godly spouse in this era of promiscuity? I’d do it myself, but I’ve got, at best, a Sunday school understanding of Christian teaching.
@ Feminist Hater
What community? I don’t see any community. Anywhere. At all. Would that we had a community by which to publicly sactify the union of a man and woman, but we don’t. The final logical conclusion of your premise is that all sex is impure where there is no God-fearing exant community to sanctify it.
The church has entirely forfeited its role as leader and shepherd, so individuals are really on their own in these matters. I hae this but it is the currently reality.
As I already noted, the only real way to remain sexually pure, and certain of it, is to avoid all sex regardless of the situation.
@ Frank, Feminist Hater
My cousin married a church-raised, seemingly wonderful woman right out of highschool. During college she became infected with feminist ideology and divorced him to pursue “her dreams”. Durng their marriage neither cheated and he had no choice in the matter due to no-fault divorce. Is he still married to her in God’s eyes?
If he is, and if his remarriage is adultery isn’t it likely that applying such standards is likely to even further reduce the likelihood of God-ordained mariages?
Btw, I have spoken t Christians who say that the Biblical course for my cousin would be to stay chaste and that God will bring her back to him. But that is simply magical thinking and turns God into some sort of djinn, granting wishes to those who wish hard enough.
The only valid reason for divorce in adherence to Scripture is adultery, so while legally divorced, he’s not free to marry again until his ex has sex with someone else. From what I remember, the reason for this is to hold out for reconciliation for as long as possible. Once she broke that sexual bond however, he’s free to marry again, regardless of what the law says (no fault, etc.) She would be the one guilty of adultery while he remains innocent.
From the original post:
My bible is a book about love.
Statements like this reveal what I have always felt is a major problem in American Christianity. There is an utterly lack of church authority, a lack of respected, educated, and authoritative elders drawing finalized conclusions about what marriage is. And if there is recogized church authority, it is being utterly shunned.
Frank writes,
Because it’s possible to fall OUT of love, doncha know? … Doesn’t anyone read 1 Corinthians 13 anymore? “Love endures ALL things. Love NEVER fails”
Exactly.
Without some sort of human authority, some fixed point this side of heaven, to govern and guide Christian thought, some established leadership to declare a fixed standard, everyone can use scripture however they see fit to justify whatever idea they desire. Religious teaching is functioning in a free-for-all state of anarchy. Everyone can say, “My bible is about such and such …” and “My God says and does such and such …” Whatever you want your bible to say or your god to do, you can have it. Our government may be by the people, of the people, and for the people, but the church is by Christ, of Christ, and for Christ.
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did whatever he wanted. – Judges 17:6, 21:25 HCSB
So many teachers with so many ideas and each claiming authority in Christ’s name.
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. – James 3:1 NRSV
Aszher, this has happened before. History of the late Roman Empire shows how early Christians dealt with pagan Gods from the old republic and rampant sex. When I say community, I don’t mean the State or the general community as exists around you. I mean specifically created communities that choose to stick to their beliefs and therefore place restrictions on their children and on those that wish to join.
We have to start where we can do the most good. With ourselves, then move on by being specific on who we marry. Then choose who your children hang out with, where they go to school or whether you should home school them. We can start or join Churches that respect the Scripture and God. I know many people have misgivings about abandoning the current Church, and that worries me too, but how does one start when the Church is so corrupt. It becomes extremely difficult to keep oneself from committing sin, on an ongoing basis, if one belongs to a corrupt group.
Christ is our Shepherd, in him you MUST trust. There is no better force in this world than him and his Father’s word. They are constant. Pray for forgiveness, pray for the chance to find such a community or be given the strength to create one and pray, if you’re single, for a honest, chaste and Christian spouse; if you’re married, pray your family grows from strength to strength. We are God’s people and thus we must offer his son our troubles and our sins.
We are all in this together, don’t forget that. We are your community Aszher.
I don’t understand why people can’t accept that to marry in America today, you will probably have to marry a slut. Unless you are Tim Tebow, if you want to marry a semi-attractive virgin you are going to have to make huge concessions like she will be fat and unattractive. The non slutty women usually have a huge host of mental issues and think that being non slutty entitles them to an awesome high status husband.
Maybe it’s not what you want, but that’s the reality we live in. Just accept it and make the best of it. Complaining about it does nothing, maybe it can change the course of the future but it won’t do anything for today’s people or culture.
Traditional view — marriage provides context for romantic love and marriage.
Modern view — romantic love provides context for sex and marriage.
Future view — sex provides context for romantic love and marriage.
First of all, I was deeply gratified by the number of men on those two threads who borrowed their wife’s purse long enough to try and slap me with it.
Sackless tools, all of you, if you are reading this.
Anyway, the other missing element is the false definition of love.
Fornication is okay if you are “in love”?
Care to define “love”, then, you fornicating hussies?
Go back to your own Bible, you Evangeli-sluts and read all the definitions of love:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Maybe it’s just me, But I’m missing the place where it is okay to fornicate because it’s so damned yummy, because looooovvve.
We have allowed a generation of women to reclassify their hypergamous lust as “love”, and to fornicate accordingly.
I love that word, by the way, and I encourage men to use it as much as possible when talking to these women. Extra points to the first guy who calls such a woman a fornicator right to her face.
As far as that other mangina and his “96% of us are doing it wrong??” argument, I offer only this:
What you are doing is SO WRONG that even with 96% support from the world around you, you still need to come on Christian sites and try and tamp down the thin remnant of those who speak against you. You are SO FRAGILE that even 4% truth is enough to bring waves of judgment crashing down on you.
This is why God tells us in His Word that even a small number of righteous can turn a nation. The power of God’s truth burns a hole through the heart and pride of “men” such as him. They buck and strain against hearing it – even from a teeny little portion of the human race.
Now THAT is how you own these bi—es.
You are such a Debbie Downer.
Alcest etc,
The church no longer teaches assortative mating, but niceness. Asd does not require this, as frank demonstrated, but additional frame control.
Outside the church leadership team, i’ve most often seen this demonstrated in parachurch organisations.
Food for thought, perhaps.
BTW, I’m much better looking than Tim Tebow, and I play football a whole lot better than he does.
Ok… more than half of America can play football better than he does, but still. 😀
This Joy’s blog is absolutely fantastic. Feminist navel-gazing, with a Psalm in the header!
Red Pill Theory:
If Dalrock will indulge me I’ll take a crack at your questions.
I’ll take the easy question first. The best posts I have ever seen on how a man should select a wife are Dalrock’s posts on “interviewing a prospective wife”. Go to the search function on this site, type in “Interviewing a prospective wife”. Dalrock did two posts on this topic. They are excellent and spot on.
“How much responsibility, if any, do men have to maintain the virtue of today’s women?”
Unless the woman we are talking about is the man’s minor daughter, none whatsoever. Women are fully responsible morally, legally, financially and otherwise for the maintenance of their own virtue. Women are spiritually responsible for their own moral failures as well. God holds men and women equally responsible for their sins and transgressions. God does not hold men responsible for women’s failures. Again: The only exception is a father’s moral responsibility to safeguard the virtue and moral education of his minor daughter.
“I’m curious, Dalrock, about your views on the impact of premarital sex on young men. We know what it does to women, but is there a similar moral degradation on the men’s side?”
I’m not Dalrock, so this answer consists of my views alone. I don’t have any science to back this up, so my answer is based only on my own experience and observations.
I suspect there is some effect that premarital sex has on young men but the effect is different from man to man in nature and extent. My chief observation is that men handle breakups with serious GFs much harder than women do; especially if sex was involved. I suspect that most of the men who don’t handle breakups well don’t have a lot of sexual experience.
Some men have intense sexual experiences that bond them to the women they had the experiences with; and the inevitable end of the relationship produces a great deal of pain they aren’t prepared for. Having said that, it’s my experience that men can more easily resist bonding to a particular woman. But once he does pair bond to a woman, breaking that bond is exceedingly difficult and painful.
I have heard isolated reports of players, men with high Ns, who report boredom and disinterest in women and inability to fall in love. It’s hard to tell exactly what the issue is here. But based on what I have read from some players (some of whom are commenters and bloggers in the manosphere), they are so acclimated to the lifestyle, the bars, the pickup, the sex, and the aftermath that it no longer holds any challenge or enjoyment. It becomes simply part of everyday routine life. It becomes humdrum and mundane. Even the sex is commonplace and simple, like eating or breathing or working a 9 to 5 job. Since the process is usually devoid of any real human connection, sex and dating don’t hold their interest. These men simply find themselves unable to make a connection or unwilling to put in any effort to make or keep such a connection with another human being.
At least this is what it looks like to me based on the reports I have read and what I’ve seen and heard.
And Jack, rock on, that was absolutely fantastic over there.
@Frank,
You have to face reality. First, Tim Tebow is extremely handsome to women, so I doubt you are better looking, but you might be. Even so, that doesn’t even matter. Looks on a guy are simply a plus especially for marriage consideration. You would have better luck getting hook ups if that’s what you have going for you.
Just because a woman has slept around doesn’t mean you should discount her. You are not in a power position here. Even slutty women can be tamed if you add enough value.
I mean the ultimate solution is not to get married and play the field but I do understand and respect your choice. However you must face the reality of the situation.
Fat and unattractive? If that were the only options, then bring on the sex bots.
But there are remnant outliers of feminity. Getting angry wont help in finding them.
No thanks.
“Fat and unattractive? If that were the only options, then bring on the sex bots.
But there are remnant outliers of feminity. Getting angry wont help in finding them.
”
Who is angry?
Femininity is a personality trait. The vast majority of Americans are or will become fat. A non slutty feminine American woman is going to have her door beaten down by attractive guys including hot alphas when they want to settle down. Attractive alphas might play the field with sluts but they also are the ones that marry the hot good women when they decide to marry.
I would marry a hot whore than a fat dumpy chaste woman.
I know what you mean, BUT, the only basis from which I can contemplate a non-virgin from a Christian standpoint is if she’s repented of it, and truly repentant, not like the half wits in Dalrock’s linked article that tried to validate one or two past experiences by couching it in “love.”
And given the state of affairs, it just seems too dangerous to trust a girl at her word that she’s repented of her past relationships, because even repentance doesn’t absolve or do away with the consequences of her past. Virgins might have their own issues (I certainly do) but juxtaposed with those with a sexual history, our baggage is minimal in comparison. At least I like to think it is…. nooo, I’m pretty sure it is. 🙂
It’s the ideal of course, but it doesn’t mean I should strive for any less.
FF, what ‘power position’?! This is quite clearly a point on principle. If women are sexin it up and expecting marriage afterwards because they are in the catbird seat, as it were, then why marry such a power hungry slut anyway. They are not fit for marriage, just no. Better to be alone than with a miserable slut who fucked away her pain.
“Better to be alone than with a miserable slut who fucked away her pain.”
This isn’t possible for the vast majority of men. I like my movie theatres bullet free.
Yes, and they will marry these fine lasses and be miserable anyway.
“Yes, and they will marry these fine lasses and be miserable anyway.”
“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” – Thoreau
Same as it ever was.
“Just because a woman has slept around doesn’t mean you should discount her. You are not in a power position here.”
Afraid we are honey. We got the commitment side of things. Just because women decided to devalue themselves doesn’t mean we have to.
Deti,
Chateau said that to treat women with disdain, he had to achieve the frame where none of them were special, a stunning woman could be seen as plain, and seduction was his to either exercise or not.
He advocating achieving this to assist frame control of the process.
Your point? Shall we just leave it as is then? No point to strive for something better? No reason to really live, since it’s just a miserable existence anyway? By doing nothing, this gets worse. We have a finite life on this planet, I would rather try my best to live it free from the woes brought on by others and live in God’s grace to the best of my ability. That means I help people but does not mean I need to marry someone I can’t bond to or who can’t bond to me. Marriage is wonderful in the context of a truly Christian marriage. That is what I strive for, a secular marriage just doesn’t cut it…
I’m not saying you should marry a slut. All I’m trying convey is that you have to realistic here.
If you want to marry a chaste woman, she’s not going to be attractive on average. If she is, she probably won’t want you. If that’s cool with you then do it.
If you want a semi attractive woman you will have to improve yourself first and foremost. Then be ok with a girl that has had premarital sex.
Frankly, Frank is in the zone. He has the commitment card and the track record of self discipline. The slutty women just have a history of poor impulse control.
Not what they say, but what they do. By their attitude, it is quite clear that even repentent sluts are unchanged.
Better to be alone than with an unrepentant slut who will butthext your ass when her five minutes of alpha drive her to hisfault divorce.
To be accurate, a repentant slut who is unchanged is not repentant. I would consider the modern equivalent of Mary Magdalene, who I’m confident did not make excuses for her sin and truly did change her life.
@ Frank
The only valid reason for divorce in adherence to Scripture is adultery
I have read several highly respected theologians who assert that even in the case of adultery remarriage is not permitted and that to do so is adultery.
From what I remember, the reason for this is to hold out for reconciliation for as long as possible
Just because she commits adultery via remarriage that does not mean that they still can’t be reconciled. I could just say “he doesn’t have enough faith” and that he “isn’t praying hard enough” – a position that I have actually encountered. I have seen people who have been divorced by their partners counselled to remain true to them and have faith in God to reconcile the marriage despite remarriage by the other party.
Consider the following scenario: a woman with no interest in sex discovers this early in her marriage and divorces her husband.without any subsequent remarriage. Would you council such a man to spend the rest of his life celibate? Wouldn’t such rules lead to men fleeing the church?
Here’s the thing about true authority: it has to have real-world consequences. Further, it has obligations to those who seek its protection. Until my mid-twenties I genuinely sought true authority in place after place and was brutally let down every, single time, often after long periods of time thinking I had finally found community. The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is to simply withdraw from the world and lead an ascetic life.
“If you want to marry a chaste woman, she’s not going to be attractive on average. If she is, she probably won’t want you. If that’s cool with you then do it.”
And sluts are attractive? Most I’ve seen have tattoos, piercings, wild hair, a laundry list of baggage, and poor impulse control. Even if they have physical beauty…being a slut ages them in dog years.
And I imagine a chaste woman would want a man who knows how to practice self control and enforces boundaries.
That 96% statistic sounds like BS to me. In any case, if it is true, you can be certain the virgins are all concentrated in conservative religious communities. If you want a virgin, join the Amish, the Hutterites, traditionalist Catholics, etc. Or hang out there and try to get one of their women to fall in love with you.
I think I’ll take what the Bible says over the word of any theologian.
You’re overthinking this. It’s about reconciliation before the sanctity of marriage is broken by adultery. Of course anything could happen after that, but this is about the point from which a man or woman is finally free to move on and marry again without sinning.
The disciples had more or less the same reaction to what Jesus said. “If this is the case, it’s better not to marry!” I’m still trying to understand His response to that.
FuriousFerret, your scarcity mentality is showing.
“My cousin married a church-raised, seemingly wonderful woman right out of highschool. During college she became infected with feminist ideology and divorced him to pursue “her dreams”. Durng their marriage neither cheated and he had no choice in the matter due to no-fault divorce. Is he still married to her in God’s eyes?”
If both did not cheat, they are still married in Gods eyes and neither can get remarried. Most likely, since she is the one who left, she will have sex with someone before he does and when that happens, he is free. If she goes on her merry way with her newfound poisonous ideology and never sleeps with another man…..they are still married.
If he is, and if his remarriage is adultery isn’t it likely that applying such standards is likely to even further reduce the likelihood of God-ordained mariages?”
His remarriage is only adultery if his EX has yet to sleep with someone else. If she initiated the no-fault divorce; they are still married. She initiates and goes through with the divorce legally; they are still married in Gods Eyes. She initiates, goes through with the divorce and fucks another guy (most likely the example you gave, this is what happened) then he has grounds to make the divorce official thus freeing him from any bonds that he was responsible for while still married.
This is where it gets a little more….complicated/nuanced
They are still married in Gods eyes (after she initiates divorce and fucks another dude) and they both have obligations to God, they are one flesh for the very fact that they are married. Now God has cause to punish the “one flesh” (or more accurately half of the flesh) but now the man has an out (she sexed someone else beside her husband) thus a way to escape the punishment that they (which the woman brought on the one flesh) should receive.
This is just my legalistic view. Ideally, God would want you to reconcile (both parties repent though in the case you provided, i bet lunch money that she has to do more of the repenting)
I am not surprised by these opinions: I know the modern worldview includes the justification of promiscuity.
But, being a foreigner, I don’t get that these people call themselves Christian and think they are following the Bible, when they do exactly the opposite.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not a virgin either. And I struggle to be a Christian (being faith and sex my weak points). But I admit that this is my fault and the Bible demands virginity. I am a weak and sinful man but I ‘m not trying to justify myself saying that what I did was right in the eyes of God. It was not. And it’s my fault.
But these people are outraged at the Biblical message about sex and marriage. Why not be coherent and leave the Christian faith?
You guys are being too hard on these girls. They can’t go against pop culture and not be a slut, and they can’t be an atheist because that’s not popular either (yet).
They’re no more Christian than they are the rock stars they pretend to be on Instagram.
If the definition of the word Christian is “Christ like,” then by definition, Christian women absolutely cannot promote sex outside of marriage. So the OP chick isn’t just wrong, she’s a fraud.
Call her a bad name and move on.
Oh, and Frank, you’re a fag dude. “I don’t need a beta orbiter.” Hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha. Called out by a chick in your own corner of the web.
Priceless.
@ Feminist Hater
specifically created communities that choose to stick to their beliefs and therefore place restrictions on their children and on those that wish to join.
Do any such communities exist? Isn’t the very nature of post-modern liberalism to subvert such communities? In the Roman Empire such communities were generally left alone as long as they weren’t subverting the secular powers. However, there is a mean streak of intellectual totalitarianism in post-modern liberalism that I think would prevent such communities from forming today and the only such isolate communities I see are heretical cults.
We have to start where we can do the most good. With ourselves, then move on by being specific on who we marry.
Ah, yes, reducing everything to the personal – something my mom was fond of doing. You do understand that this is just a conservative mirror-image of feminism, right? The smallest community is the lone individual and the sure solution to avoiding sexual sin is to abstain from sex completely. Why not just take your reasoning to its logical conclusion and teach everyone to abstain from all sex.
Christ is our Shepherd, in him you MUST trust.
Now you contradict yourself. If Christ is all we need then we don’t need community, at all.
We are all in this together, don’t forget that. We are your community Aszher.
No, we are simply debating over the internet. We are not a community and that you make this assertion is evidence for just how fractured the post-modern world has made us. You are tilting at windmills no differently from feminists who want a gender-free world.
“a repentant slut who is unchanged is not repentant.”
Far too many of the ‘good church girls’ never repent of acting on their hypergamic, hind brain lust. If they ‘repent’, it is usually with tears, but no accompanying confession of responsibility.
The outcome is fairly predictable. She grows a chip on her shoulder that all men are bastards and not to be trusted or believed. At least until the next player charms her pants off.
Repent and repeat.
Now fast forward to her late twenties and her ovaries start ticking. The nice guys in church are now being told to manu up, as she interviews them for their suitability. No mention of submission to theit leadership, hardened attitude, you go girl platitudes.
Have to be nuts to wife that up. But they do.
“So a woman’s value is only as good as her virtue? And if she loved another and expressed that love physically with that person before you, she’s too unattractive and not worthy of your attention, attraction, commitment?”
Pretty much. Deal with it, accept responsibility (as a chorus of shrieks makes the cathedral tremble). Only argument is the “only” above, which is the typical female way of framing issues, a rhetorical slight-of-hand.
“Better to be alone than with an unrepentant slut who will butthext your ass when her five minutes of alpha drive her to hisfault divorce.”
Is that the GBFM version of Proverbs?
Pingback: Click Worthy 4/18/2013 | the Life of Liz
@ jack
Yeah, there are that 4 percent. I’ve met some of them. They come from happy, loving families that nurtured and supported them. I did not.
I am no more an acceptable marital partner for that 4 percent than is a reformed crack whore, regardless of any status as a virgin that I had. That 4 percent is a sub-culture within the church and it is something that one inherits from one’s family. I can no more make an individual choice to be a part of that 4 percent than I could make a choice to be black.
My real option was a lifetime of celibacy and that is the option people such as yourself are offering to people such as myself.
Asher, you obviously have a bone to pick so have at it. You are an individual, you can only change yourself. Outside consequences not withstanding, you can seek to change others through your actions. However, that is basically it without engaging in forced coercion.
Christ is our saviour. The Church, which is us, is Christ’s bride. We submit to him.
If you choose not to be apart of a community, even one on the Interwebs, so be it.
“If you want a semi attractive woman you will have to improve yourself first and foremost. Then be ok with a girl that has had premarital sex.”
There are all types of people in the world, while certain types may be uncommon, they are not unheard of. And you can always go for the young ones. I had a chance couple years ago with an extraordinary 17 year old beauty and if I’d been wiser I had a shot. It may be too late now but I believe if I were at my best I could win an attractive virgin. However, one thing is certain: the whole society, her friends, the pastor, the parents at the church, will attempt to prevent a union. Because they would rather these girls screw around in college than marry an older man at church. Anti-religious sentiment and resentment of religious morality is sometimes strongest in the churches. Most “Christians” are spiteful, petty creatures.
“FuriousFerret, your scarcity mentality is showing.”
I thought slut on this blog referred to women that have premarital sex. I stick by guns then that if you want to marry hot you will have to marry a slut in modern day America especially after the early twenties.
It’s just reality. Scarcity mentality is doing crazy shit and acting stupid for a girl because you think she’s the last one in the world that will ever talk to you.
Man some of you guys are in for a rude awakening if you think you can marry chaste and hot especially when you leave college.
I think the best path for marrying a real good girl that’s chaste is college Christian circles. I believe that’s better odds. I have seen that. However, most of these guys were ruled by these women. They had all the traits of a high value man except they were pussies to women. Such a shame.
@ Frank
It’s about reconciliation before the sanctity of marriage is broken by adultery.
What God has joined let no man cast asunder. I see no evidence in the bible that adultery causes God to view what he has joined as being unjoined. By my reading once two people are married in God’s eyes not even adultery can cause him to view them as unjoined. The “sanctity of marriage” that you’re talking about is a human convention.
“If you want a semi attractive woman you will have to improve yourself first and foremost. Then be ok with a girl that has had premarital sex.”
So I should improve myself to get a better woman and then be okay with a girl who devalued herself. Tell me again the incentive?
@ Frank
I’m still trying to understand His response to that.
Which is why we are shepherd-less and without community and authority. That you don’t have an answer to that question places the entire notion of when we sin and when we don’t into limbo.
The solution: tell everyone to abstain from all sex until someone figures it out. Seriously.
The other solution, of course, is a political one.
The best strategy, is to keep a low profile. Remain mysterious. Tell as little about yourself as possible. As soon as people in a typical church know anything about you they will attempt to put you in their pecking order. If you’re a reasonable looking fellow who is chaste and in good strength and spirits within a few months the young maidens will stop being so coy. You have to find out the ages of the girls, and then start to secretly meet with them. When they turn 18 you elope, and marry.
It can be done, but it’s about the only way a fellow our age is going to get to marry a pretty young virgin.
“So I should improve myself to get a better woman and then be okay with a girl who devalued herself. Tell me again the incentive?”
You should go to eastern Europe. I think it would be really worth it for you. You could find a bride that fits your standards. For a guy with your convictions, I think that’s the best option.
Hey man, at least you stand up for them. Just don’t be delusional of the environment though.
Lol JoeS, that’s plan C, or is it B?
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication
Seems pretty clear to me.
It’s almost like you coordinated with my blog, Dalrock, but you didn’t. Virtuous, Christian, marriageable men are valuable, and they should not be shamed into to marrying used-up former sluts. They should recognize their value and look for a woman worthy of them.
You might like my most recent post, “Judge Harshly, For Ye Are Constantly Judged.”
http://metalutheran.blogspot.mx/2013/04/judge-harshly-for-ye-are-constantly.html
Plan A was to believe that the people were serious Christians who would rather their daughter marry and have children than be a career girl who screws around. The fathers of these girls are paranoid/delusional idiots, the priests and ministers hate you, and the women will call you a pervert.
I’ve always wanted to visit Eastern Europe, if for no other reason than curiosity and if there really is a sea change in how women treat men like I keep hearing. Maybe I’ll get a Europass and book a flight to Poland this summer. 😀
Asher,
Christ is our Shepherd, in him you MUST trust.
Now you contradict yourself. If Christ is all we need then we don’t need community, at all.
Well, we are talking about marriage right? Christ is the head of the church and the church is actually his bride. They will eventually become one flesh after Christs 2nd coming. Church is community or there is a community in church correct? I mean, we are to be part of his body no?
Besides, he said “in him you must trust”. He did not say “only trust in him” (which is accurate, if you only trust in Christ, including the rest of the Trinity).
He did not say “all we need is Christ” which is also accurate. This statement can be true in an absolute sense too. If all we need is Christ, and he provides someone to provide for us, given that person came to us through Christ, than the statement of “all we need is Christ” still stands true. Just because it was someone else who provided our need that did not directly come from Christ does not mean that Christ did not send that person.
A good percentage of devout homeschooled girls under 18 will be virgins. If you can get one of those to swoon over you, you have a slim chance. But understand you will be hated, no matter how sincere and honorable you are, for liking a girl like that. These so-called Christians really believe in jus prima noctis for the pagan jerks at the universities. And Christian man who doesn’t want to comply with that is a “pervert.” That’s the new morality.
@ RedPillPaul
but now the man has an out (she sexed someone else beside her husband) thus a way to escape the punishment that they (which the woman brought on the one flesh) should receive.
Hilarious. What you are essentially saying is that the man is technically sinning because they are always one flesh married.but that he gets to escape punishment – of which you offer no specifics – because he also gets a technical “out”. You are turning your God into the sort of God of bells and whistles advocated by the Pharisees.
This is where it gets a little more….complicated/nuanced
You are making it complicated where it really isn’t. Let’s say that a man and woman come from destructive family backgrounds and have no social reason to hold an official “wedding” but that they both search their hearts and both make a commitment to God and each other to honor and love each other for the rest of their lives. Let’s say they remain true to that commitment, bring children into the world and both die having honored that commitment. Was that adultery all along? Will they be punished for not having gotten a state-issued marriage license?
Notice that I am not talking about some pitter-patter of the heart some call “love”. I am talking about having searched their hearts and made a commitment to each other and living out that commitment in the eyes of God.
Asher,
Read what Jesus had to say about marriage. The teachers of the law asked Jesus why Moses permitted Divorce.
Paul later talks about marriage and states that if one is a believer and a non-believing spouse leaves, we are not bound to them.
A lot of women who claim to be Christian are not. Something about in the last days many saying “Lord Lord” and Jesus replying “I never knew you”
The phony conservative fathers broke the social contract. If they wanted men to marry their daughters and not take advantage of them then they would show favor to honorable men with honorable intentions. But in fact, those men are the only ones they can abuse. So that’s what they do. So I will never respect a father’s wishes again, unless he is a good man who truly has the same values that I do.
This. We’re not shepherd-less, but I can understand Ashley’s perspective here as it seems to be rooted in Catholic thinking. My church is spiritual thankfully, and so is my Shepherd.
I’m not worried if there are many parts of Scripture I don’t understand, because that only means they’re not relevant to me (yet). I trust God to reveal to me by His Holy Spirit any truth I WOULD need to know in order to grow in my own personal walk. God promises to grant wisdom liberally to all who ask of Him. I can either believe this and walk by it, or I don’t.
@ Asher
I’m not sure if you are a Christian or not, but Jesus is pretty clear about the nature of marriage. Try reading Matthew 19:10-12. A man forced to be celibate because his wife left him is an example of a eunuch made a eunuch by others.
You cannot use what the State has done to marriage in the West as an excuse to commit sins. We are called to live lives of Righteousness, not to find loopholes.
@ RedPillPaul
Church is community or there is a community in church correct? I mean, we are to be part of his body no?
What church? What community? I have never encountered it.
Just because it was someone else who provided our need that did not directly come from Christ does not mean that Christ did not send that person.
Given the current state of affairs the only real way we have to assess whether or not someone else is sent from God is for us, individually, to assess their fruits as individuals. In that case, why do we need community? The bible tells us to be in communion with other believers but it does not specify the structure of that activity.
This post-modern liberal social order has stuck the vast majority of us into a situation where we really as atomized individuals without any visible authority and most of us have no choice in that matter. Look, I went to conservative, evangelical churches growing up and I was very aware that there were communities within the church that was not really open to everyone. The main distinction was a class-based one and the families involved were high-income and well-functioning.
Most of us don’t have any access to any sort of community aside from individual relationships that we foster as individuals.
“I’m not sure if you are a Christian or not, but Jesus is pretty clear about the nature of marriage. Try reading Matthew 19:10-12. A man forced to be celibate because his wife left him is an example of a eunuch made a eunuch by others. ”
Nah I think a eunuch made a eunuch by others was when they actually cut the balls of a guy.
If your wife leaves you and then screws around, you’re in the spiritual clear.
Leave Mary Magdalene out of the slut talk. Mary Magdalene is referenced in the beginning of Luke 8 (and other Gospels) as a woman out of whom Christ cast devils and the first to whom Christ appeared after His Resurrection. The unnamed “prostitute” who anointed Christ’s feet in front of the Pharisees appears at the end of Luke 7. The mistaken identity is based on the proximity of their references in Luke.
Per GBFM, read your Bible.
In related news, Sharon Olds, known not so much for navel-gazing poems as those gazing into another orifice, won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry this week for her book “Stag’s Leap” about her divorce. Here’s the link, if you can stomach it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/pulitzer-prize-winner-sha_n_3102558.html
@ sally
Needs to be retitled “Slab’s Leap”
I know of a young devout man, who seems to have good prospects, who wanted to marry his sweetheart that he met at 18. The hatred exhibited towards this couple by busy-bodies who hate to see young women marry was simply unbelievable. The priests delayed the marriage so now the fellow is 21, and will be married in a couple. The only thing one can reasonably conclude is that most clergy are against virginity at marriage. And this is among people who claim to be the most traditional. There really does not seem to be true faith anymore in more than a small minority of clergy.
@ RedPillPaul
Paul later talks about marriage and states that if one is a believer and a non-believing spouse leaves, we are not bound to them.
A lot of women who claim to be Christian are not.
By this reasoning, all a man has to do is decide that the woman he married was never a Christian and voila!, grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Asher,
I want our conversation to be ordered for the benefit of us and the community.
One way we can achieve this is by knowing where we stand. Here is a little about me. I was born and raised in a Christian family, im almost 29 and I am still a virgin. Why? Simply, because that I know that fornication is a sin and it is clearly stated as such in the Bible.
I am better looking than my brother, taller, stronger, more educated both in school and I know more than him when it comes to the Bible, on a higher tier than my brother. He is not a virgin. He does well with the ladies. I would give myself a solid 8 while my brother self assess himself at a 9. Getting laid is not hard and for me to lay the girls that my brother gets (whom are no lower than 7s) would not be hard either.
This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage.
This above stuff is written for the purpose of establishing some credibility that I take what the Bible says.
This is the context of where I am coming from when I write what I do.
It would be nice to know rather or not you identify with being a Christian or not. This is where i think a lot of the “disorder” comes from our conversation.
You can list what ever scenario you want and I will give you my output according to my understanding of the Bible.
It seems that you are taking out of context what I wrote so hopefully my above will give you some clarification. Also knowing rather or not you are a Christian will give clarification for the rest of us in responding to you.
Right now, it seems like we are running off of mismatched assumptions. As in, one of us may assume something and also assume the other side is running off the same assumption (being on the same page) but we are on different pages. Lets try to be on the same page as much as possible and let our discussions flow from there.
Good on you Jack. Except that Jack should have implied judgement, because women (and specifically hypergamy) is only restrained from the outside.
btw, Dalrock I notice you mention marriage being the sacred place for sex and romantic love, which is much better than whats status quo now, but look at the history of courtly/romantic love. Its no good
@ JoeS
The phony conservative fathers broke the social contract.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. I enjoy telling people of all political walks that if somehow I became dictator of the US I would round up the ten thousand most prominent feminists and crucify them at the national monument, televising it nationally. Conservatives are equally horrified by this comment as liberals and that is why conservatives are part of the problem.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
The problem is that we don’t have any authority against which to rebel.
@ Frank
My church is spiritual thankfully, and so is my Shepherd.
I thought this, too, many times and every time I was brutally let down. At this point I am not going to waste my time hoping that some community I find is irreparably corrupt.. I will take my communion with other believers on a person by person basis.
@Dr Eric Stratton
OT, but modern Christians need to coalesce around what marriage is. Is it the state? A promise made to God? A sacrament only administered in church? Given that it’s mostly just contract law at the state level, it’s an issue that has to be addressed.
Bingo, but a pipe dream.
Because the understanding of marriage is one of the fundamental differences which separates the Christian denominations. Hence any common agreement on marriage would result in one of the denominations saying, “Sorry, we got it wrong.” There is still too much denominational hate.
Marriage is either permanent or it is not. The Catholic position is that it is and tough shit if you’re unhappy. (Personally, I think that the Church needs to cut some slack to those who have done no wrong in their marriage and have been personally screwed. I not arguing for divorce here, but a recognition of a state of non-culpable adultery should the aggrieved partner “pair up” with someone else. That is that is for a different post.)
Other Churches see marriage as dissolvable and where they differ is on what are legitimate grounds. What’s changed over time are the culturally legitimate reasons of inconvenience. Previously, marriage was seen as an institution of convenience to the state (We need a male heir!), and divorce was only permitted on the grounds of national interest, but as times have changed and the influence of “romantic” thought has gained dominance, marriage is seen as a vehicle useful to personal hedonic satisfaction(I want to be haaaaapy!) and divorce is legitimised when it fails to make people haaaapy!
The modern soft polygamy is a result of a culture which legitimises both divorce and romantic thought. Fighting it means attacking it on two fronts.
@ RedPillPaul
Paul later talks about marriage and states that if one is a believer and a non-believing spouse leaves, we are not bound to them.
A lot of women who claim to be Christian are not.
By this reasoning, all a man has to do is decide that the woman he married was never a Christian and voila!, grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Exactly! That is how it can be abused. Paul also wrote something about grace. The argument presented to Paul was that if we have grace, and God is gloried through the grace he shows, and that grace is show when we “sin”, then we should glorify God by sinning some more/why are our sins held against us/let us do evil so that good may come forth?
But to what you wrote, yeah. You can tell what something is by their fruits. If she aint acting Christian, she may not be. And while married, and claiming to be Christian, she up and left and slept with someone else? She aint Christian.
And I though I already established this already, divorce is only “acceptable” in Gods eyes when one party sleeps around.
One, you shouldnt be unequally yoked. (i know I didnt write this down but Im Christian so this is an automatic assumption)
and since you should not be unequally yoked (given you are a believer) then the scenario you are reffering to is more accurate that both man and women were not Christian, they happen to marry, one of them becomes Christian and if that happens, you cant leave. Paul says that but goes on to say that if the unbeliver leaves, your not bound to them. So if you find yourself in this scenario
1. not christian for both man and woman
2. get married
3 one of you becomes Christian
In this case, you can only divorce your spouse if they sleep around or if they leave.
If you are
1. Christian for both man and woman
2. Married
you can only divorce or God will allow divorce if one of you sleeps around. It is permitted but not what God wants.
Im not sure if you are serious or a confused white knight. what are you advocating? You make others take a stance in something while you seem to shift around.
@Asher
If they really believed abortion was murder they would have a ferocious hatred for feminism and would never put their daughter on a typical college campus. Although, to be honest, sometimes it’s just a matter of these people being simple-minded and refusing to follow things to their logical conclusion.
@ donalgraeme
You cannot use what the State has done to marriage in the West as an excuse to commit sins.
And to him who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it to him it is sin. At this point of corruption and dissolution in Western Civilization I am not even able to say who is and who is not married and what that even means.
If I don’t even have a firm basis to identify God-ordained marriage then how can I possibly know if I am or am not sinning? However, I would direct you to …
@ Frank
God promises to grant wisdom liberally to all who ask of Him
And if he grants that wisdom to us an individuals then we do not need community and any shepherd, except Christ. The marriage that you are all talking about is that of human social convention and is NOT God-ordained marriage. Sure, there is probably some correlation but they are not the same thing.
If you think it is important for two individuals to seek recognition by some social body then you are doing so for temporal reasons, which is not a bad thing. But you are still solely judging by outward appearances, not by the heart.
How do you know that two people are really walking together with God as one flesh? By some exensive ceremony with white dresses and garter throws? No, by the fruit of that relationship, a fruit not assessed until well after the ceremony. But the ceremony is important in some situations. Why? Because it is a symbol that elicits support in the wider community, if one exists.
Consider rural early Medieval Europe, where the peasants rarely had the opportunity to have a formal marriage. Often a travelling priest would perform a ceremony years, even decades, after the consummation. Were the individuals fornicating before that time? What if they remained faithful to each other until death? Would that still be fornication?
“The modern soft polygamy is a result of a culture which legitimises both divorce and romantic thought. ”
No, it has to do with acceptance of contraception. The only reason more than a small minority women go to college, develop careers, and are used in “soft polygamy” is because of contraception. That’s the reason and the only reason.
“Consider rural early Medieval Europe, where the peasants rarely had the opportunity to have a formal marriage.”
I’ve come to the conclusion that non-heretical Catholic clergy are almost inaccessible. I would still try to find a priest, but I’m almost to the point in believing in a marriage without clergy, despite the Council of Trent, because things have reached a crisis point where the official church is no longer qualified to exercise authority on the validity of marriage.
No, it has to do with acceptance of contraception. The only reason more than a small minority women go to college, develop careers, and are used in “soft polygamy” is because of contraception. That’s the reason and the only reason.
Proof?
… you will begin to see this everywhere.
Spot on. The idea that romantic love is the wellspring of morality crops up all over the place.
Feminists say that marriage (to a beta provider) is no more than prostitution.
Of course, when such a marriage is dissolved, they’ll take the alimony. They aren’t fools. Equating marriage with prostitution makes feminists feel good, and provides rationalization for following one’s “heart”.
Marriage is prostitution; she exchanges sex for access to his resources.
“No, it has to do with acceptance of contraception. The only reason more than a small minority women go to college, develop careers, and are used in “soft polygamy” is because of contraception. That’s the reason and the only reason.”
All these changes have taken place since the birth control pill. Before that a small subset of upper middle class women might have engaged in this behavior. It has become almost universal in the middle class because of contraception. No contraception, no college. Give me break, coed dormitories on universities without a birth control pill? Such a thing would NEVER have happened. Women who wanted to have sex in the past generally had to get married, unless they were willing to resort to abortion of have their social status destroyed. Only the birth control pill could change that.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because one compliment regarding someone’s virginity totally makes me a beta orbiter. Bus. Ted.
@ RedPillPaul
I was born and raised in a Christian family, im almost 29 and I am still a virgin.
Then stay a virgin. Most men in you situation could not stay a virgin without drowning themselves in booze, sports, porn, etc. I stayed a virgin till 25 and ended up drinking to cope with my desire to be with women. It is a crime that we have a society that no longer considers it important to foster a healthy environment that would allow men like myself to get married at a reasonable age.
Believe it or not, the prime age to burn with lust has already passed for you and you would do best to die a virgin. Dedicate your life to serving Christ because having a wife will distract you from that.
This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage.
I don’t believe you. Sorry, but I don’t. I know men who view themselves in the way you do. They do sometimes end up marrying women who is a virgin and it is a very tepid thing and they manage to squeeze out a kid, maybe two. You are best dedicating your life to serving Christ and dying a virgin. Do that. At 29 you have already passed the age of pent-up sexual passion and there is simply no reason for you to marry. Living a life dedicated to Christ is your best option.
It would be nice to know rather or not you identify with being a Christian or not.
The verse in Acts clearly indicates that the believers were called “Christians” by the outside world. I respect the authority of the Bible and try to live by it, and that is all I can say.
Right now, it seems like we are running off of mismatched assumptions.
You have yet to give me a description for what you consider marriage, so I am not sure of the assumptions under which you are operating. My definition of marriage is one man and one woman making an explicit commitment in their hearts to each other and to God to remain faithful to each other until death and there is no mandatory reason for a state license or public ceremony. Yes, such a thing may make a statement to the outside world but that is just about fitting in with social convention.
Since you chose to completely disregard the verses that contradict your view, I’ll end this with saying we’ll just agree to disagree.
@Joe S
What is the percentage of girls on contraception in U.S. colleges?
Correlation is not causation. There was a lot of screwing around well before the pill became available.
I never said there wasn’t. But screwing around could never be institutionalized like it has been without contraception. The median age of marriage was a few months after 20 in the fifities. Saying there was a a “a lot of screwing around” is a typical fallacy of denying the immense change that has taken place. When my mother was in Catholic nursing school in the late 60s things were much different than they are now. She told me none of her friends spoke of having sex then. You won’t find that today, anywhere.
a large percentage of girls are put on birth control at age 16. I would imagine by college age, once they can go to the college clinic and keep it secret, it’s a very high percentage.
Right right, I mean the repentant prostitute then. Well, I’m assuming she was repentant. 😀
But here again, we have the word “love” or “romance”. I pointed out that the latter word did not correspond to any of CS Lewis “four loves”.
“But I was infatuated to the point of being mesmerized by him, and Svengali always gets his woman!” (There is an old Steve Taylor Video…).
Marriage is Agape love for the other person merged with an exchange of persons.
I’ve not read the comments, but they mentioned contraception. That is the point of Theology of the Body. “I give my all to you” is a lie when fertility is withheld.
I loved the earlier person romantically but was not willing to risk making a baby with him (abortion if it failed? Or marriage? what?).
I would prefer an honest prostitute that truly found Jesus, repented in weeping, sackcloth and ashes, and was completely chaste from that day forward to one of these pseudo-christian bitches saying that they were/are not justified by faith, not justified by grace, but justified by “romance”. If you are claiming remission of sins from “romance” you had better define it and realize what you are saying.
@Miserman
Without some sort of human authority, some fixed point this side of heaven, to govern and guide Christian thought, some established leadership to declare a fixed standard, everyone can use scripture however they see fit to justify whatever idea they desire. Religious teaching is functioning in a free-for-all state of anarchy. Everyone can say, “My bible is about such and such …” and “My God says and does such and such …” Whatever you want your bible to say or your god to do, you can have it.
E-XACT-LY. And this is my main beef with the Protestant churches and the main reason why I am not a Protestant myself, although I admit that Protestant people are usually more devout than us Catholics. I love Protestant books about religion and I greatly admire Protestant people.
As Ibn Warraq says in “Why I am not a Muslim”, the Reformation was, in reality, the first successful attack to religious authority in the Western world. This started a slippery slope: from rejection of the Catholic authority, then rejection of any Church’s authority, then rejection of the Bible, ending in modern moral relativism (in which everyone is judge of their own moral behavior).
The history of religion in America has followed this pattern. Each new step has attacked Church’s authority and given to the individual believer freedom to make their own rules in the moral realm. The Great Awakenings were a step in this direction, deemphasizing a rational conversion based on learning Christian religion for years within a Church tradition in favor of a sudden conversion produced by a temporary emotion during the revivals.
The result: false prophets like Joel and Kathy Davisson speaking as a Christian authority (which they could not do in other traditions because the path to become a religious authority is long and controlled by the Church). It’s the democratization of religious authority. Every man in America is a king. Every believer in America is a Pope and has a straight line to the Almighty
What good old Marty didn’t realize, is that, if you rely on Sola Scriptura and you reject the authority of a Church to interpret the Bible, you end up with as many interpretations as believers exist. Every believer is, at the same time, his own Pope and his own Church. And the temptation of bending the Biblical message to rationalize your own sinful behavior is too big. (We are sinners, after all).
@ RedPillPaul
Im not sure if you are serious
I am serious. You are conflating marriage as God joining two people into one flesh and marriage as social institution. What *thing* makes two into one flesh? I will tell you: searching your heart and making a commitment to God and that person to remain faithful to them until death. But you need neither a state license nor a public ceremony for such a thing.
BTW, as someone who came from a family with a great deal of dysfunction but who went to conservative churches with a wide array of social class I will say that your desire for some glorious virgin wedding smacks of pride and vainglory. I do think it is a good thing to only be with one person sexually in one’s life but I also think glorifying that can be, itself, a source of false pride.
I’m getting that feeling from you, and I experienced it in the conservative Christian environment in which I was raised.
Look, you can allay that feeling I’m getting from you by committing to me right now that you’ll remain celibate for the rest of your life and commit yourself to serving Christ.
That’s my challenge. You’ve gone this far in celibacy and the hardest part has already passed.
@ JoeS
because things have reached a crisis point where the official church is no longer qualified to exercise authority on the validity of marriage.
I would say that the situation is nearly as bad even among conservative protestants. I would love to say that there is some proper authority under which I can say that a marriage is sanctified but I see very little evidence for any.
@Aszher
You are right. It is the loss of community that is responsible for many of our ills. Without community, a common set of values will wither away.
The factors that caused the loss of community are technological: the motor car, the telephone, and television. Each one enables us to live while shutting ourselves off from our neighbors.
“Believe it or not, the prime age to burn with lust has already passed for you and you would do best to die a virgin.”
Man, what ever happened to late bloomers?
@ Frank
Since you chose to completely disregard the verses that contradict your view, I’ll end this with saying we’ll just agree to disagree.
We don’t disagree. You’re just wrong. At no place does the Bible specify the criteria for what is considered to “be married”. It only gives us direction regarding divorce.
The bible is nearly silent on the question of “what is marriage” aside from instructing us on how to live IN marriage. But in order to live IN marriage we first have to BE married, right? The bible is silent on the latter.
Let’s say two people were visiting from out of state and you struck up a conversation with them at a coffee shop. They tell you they are married. Would you assume the following:
A) They have a state-issued marriage license
B) They had a big, public ceremony
C) They intend to faithfully live the rest of their lives with each other
For bonus points, which of these is the most important?
LOL
Yes Paul, it was your fault for staying a virgin all these years. Now you must die a virgin and never get married. Sounds like a plan. Since the median age for marriages keeps on getting pushed up by choices out of our control, it’s best if everyone just forgoes marriage all together. What is the cut off date? Since Paul is 29, could it be 28. Nah, that’s too close to 29. 25 seems a better cut off age. If you haven’t married by 25, don’t bother, your sexual lust has burnt out by this time. Never mind though, it’s not like you can marry before that because you cannot provide for your family and women won’t consider you anyway.
Enjoy the decline. I will continue to seek God and be happy if I find a like minded woman to marry.
@ James
Exactly. This is why I am saying that marriage is currently down to making a commitment to God and the other person in your heart and explicitly agreeing with them to remain faithful to them until death.
I am not talking about “heart” in the juvenile emotive sense of how it is often used today.
@ Frank
LOL
Then present the verses that specify the criteria whereby we are to judge two people married.
Marriage can include a priest, a witness and the bride and groom. That is all. You’re intentionally being obtuse Asher. Faithfulness is by far the most important. If two people decide to elope and stay married for life, I will not complain and I will not interfere.
@ Frank
I live in the state of washington. Does the bible state that what the Revised Code of Washington 26.04 has joined let no man cast asunder? Can you direct me to that verse?
Frank,
If I were twenty years younger and less settled into my community, knowing what I know now, I’d be taking a serious look at Poland. I may anyway in the next couple years, if the US continues to fall apart politically and economically.
@ Feminist Hater
Marriage can include a priest, a witness and the bride and groom.
Or it can just include two people and God. Look, few people are very competent to search their own heart and bringing in witnesses is often a very good thing.
That is all. You’re intentionally being obtuse Asher. Faithfulness is by far the most important. If two people decide to elope and stay married for life, I will not complain and I will not interfere.
Then we are entirely in agreement.
This conversation reminds me of the abomination known as the Lord’s Pray which ends up being some magic talisman that “saves” a person. Just because two people get some state license doesn’t mean squat.
Asher
Needs to be retitled “Slab’s Leap”
Nah. “Slag’s Leap” is mo’ better.
Nope.
@ anon reader
doh, mistype. I meant “Slag’s Leap”
@JoeS
Oh please!
No one is arguing that there haven’t been changes, its the mechanism of the change that is being argued about. I’m not saying the pill hasn’t been influential, but its an easy target to attribute blame to when other (more important) factors were at play.
Here is an interesting study. Take home message–only 18% of women aged 15-44 are on the OCP. There figures are broadly in line with my experience here in Australia. The pill many have been more important culturally rather than actually
You’re going to have to try harder.
Any particular reason for Poland? Visit I would, but to live there…… not sure if living under the potential threat of Mother Russia coming to squat on our heads beats living in Femimatrix here.
I hear the food is good though.
This country is lost. I advise all non christian men to never get married and all christian men to marry foreigners or make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom. Come Lord Jesus, come.
@ Feminist Hater
Sometimes I run into young people who say they’re “in love”. I respond by telling them a story about a nursing home I worked at during my teens. There was a resident in her late 60s with a husband in his early 70s. The wife was severely incapacitated via stroke, while the husband was spry and lively. He spent 6 to 8 hours, seven days a week at her side.
That’s love. Love isn’t some vague infatuation and it sullies the word by conflating the two.
@ RedPillPaul
The One has come advice for you:
make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom.
Asher says:
April 18, 2013 at 6:45 pm
@ RedPillPaul
Im not sure if you are serious
I am serious. You are conflating marriage as God joining two people into one flesh and marriage as social institution. What *thing* makes two into one flesh? I will tell you: searching your heart and making a commitment to God and that person to remain faithful to them until death. But you need neither a state license nor a public ceremony for such a thing.
BTW, as someone who came from a family with a great deal of dysfunction but who went to conservative churches with a wide array of social class I will say that your desire for some glorious virgin wedding smacks of pride and vainglory. I do think it is a good thing to only be with one person sexually in one’s life but I also think glorifying that can be, itself, a source of false pride.
I’m getting that feeling from you, and I experienced it in the conservative Christian environment in which I was raised.
Look, you can allay that feeling I’m getting from you by committing to me right now that you’ll remain celibate for the rest of your life and commit yourself to serving Christ.
That’s my challenge. You’ve gone this far in celibacy and the hardest part has already passed.
My walk with Christ is MY walk. I dont have to commit anything with you. I havent even established if you are Christian yet. Are you Christian? Going to a conservative church just tells me you are churchian. Are you a virgin? Where do you stand? What is your purpose of “forcing me” to do what I have been doing? I dont get it, its like a redundant “challenge”
I dont want a wedding, i want a wife and the best wife I can get. I dont see how this has anything to do with pride unless you are confusing that with self respect. The chemical processes that people experience when in “love” and the lack of being able to bond with your current partner the more previous partners you had, and other biological factors are just a few things and major when it comes to increasing the probabilities of having a good, lasting, fruitful marriage
How has anything I have written about marriage conflate what God has joined together and marriage as a social institution? Even God allowed divorce (though it is not his ideal) and within his “allowance” for divorce, the only grounds for divorce is adultery (sleeping with anyone else but your husband/wife)
What exactly did I write confuses Marriage as a Godly institution and Marriage as a Social institution when I have been saying that the only grounds for divorce for both is adultery (sexing someone else who is not your husband/wife)
Since so many people are commenting your comments, maybe you are mixing other people’s views and frame with mine.
All your scenarios of people getting together and being “married” with out some piece of paper is just a red herring.
Since we are talking “in Gods eyes”, anyone you (you plural) sleep with, you (you plural) are married to that person “in Gods eyes” and you (you plural) doing what the world does and continuing to sleep with people means you (you plural) are a perpetual adulterer so when you die, you (you plural) die in sin and end up not in heaven.
The above view on sex, which = marriage in Gods eyes, should clarify my stance neutralize your anecdotes and hypothetical/what ifs.
Miserman, Asher, imnobody:
I noticed all three of you complaining in some regard about a lack of mortal-side religious authority. If you were not previously, I’d like to make you aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which I am a member, claims that such authority was taken from the earth some time after early church fell into apostasy, has been restored by angelic messengers, and is still held by men called of God today. As a matter of comment, our divorce rates of faithful members are very low. It is my assertion that the claims the church makes are true, and the fruits of it support its claim. You can find out more by contacting me directly, or visiting mormon.org.
Dalrock, if this is inappropriate here feel free to delete it/notify me. I do not desire to be a badly-behaved guest in someone else’s house.
@Frank
No, pretty sure it does.
And there’s no such thing as a male virgin. Just a guy who can’t get laid.
As a man, you can’t be a virgin any more than you can be a good mother. It’s a chick term for a specific chick purpose that in no way applies to men.
I don’t like you.
Asher says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm
@ RedPillPaul
The One has come advice for you:
make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom.
Asher, im just going to say it. You are a real piece of shit. You are right. I can be a eunich the kingdom. But that to me is like when people pray out loud and make the following prayer “Dear God, I am so pissed off at this piece of shit in front of me, please give me the patience from bashing the head of this sinful whore/heathen/curseword and while I say this prayer out loud lord, make it know that I am righteous (self righteous) in my anger….amen”
That above prayer is bull and a mockery of God.
Is this what you did? No but are a real piece of work.
I know what you are doing an I highly doubt you are Christian although my response is not very “christian” right now. In a way, i just did the prayer above.
I wonder if you get it.
” desire for some glorious virgin wedding smacks of pride and vainglory. . .”
And here we have the acceptance of deviance as normal. Amongst christians, two virgins marrying should be unremarkable. But feminism has infested the church. Fornication is not sin, ‘we were in love.’
Contempory churches are just niche social clubs, with sexual mores to match. State sactioned marriage is the authorised wealth redistibution process.
Little wonder the mgtow movement grows.
Whatever I said to offend you, I’m sorry and I promise I’ll never do it again *he says in his best beta/delta/gamma/omega voice*
Hugsies? *holds out arms*
The whole point is this is divorce. The Dalrock men are not so mad that women have had premarital sex but that the men ultimately bear the consequences of it. And pictures are worth a 1000 words.
All links in this post are to images of graphs and not articles.
Divorce rates among churchgoers: Male, Female non-weekly attenders, Male-Female Weekly attenders. It will come as no shock to Dalrock men, that Divorce rates among all other 3 categories is higher than men that attend church weekly. Twisting the stats a little, it is 1/3 higher for “religious” women than men, 41% vs 32%. I would assume because the men deserve to have “booms lowered” on them for their bad, bad behavior.
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5331a8a803d5235806e094fe62ca5a3a
Could be that we muddle the data a bit. The data makes no distinction between lifelong church attendance and more “recent” re-birth of morality. Perhaps, our data gatherer merely asked regular attendees about recent church going habits and any incidence of divorce. And therefore it just be so unfair to lump our recently “re-born” Christian women with these women:
Stable Marriage as a function of the number of sexual partners
http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a7b5e21430fd5301fd40938178ef3cdc
This is an old Dalrock standby piece of data. I do not know if I have the same graph but I do believe is shows the same data. 80% of virgin brides had stable marriages. It dropped down to 75% if they had pre-marital sex withe person they married. 52% one other partner other than the husband. 16-20 partners had 17.8% stable marriages. Interesting that super sluts with 20+ partners actually had better rates at 20% than mere sluts. And sluts often start early:
Correlation and the age at which first sex occured.
I do not have a graph for this. The data came from an artilce Huff Post which referred to data from the Journal of Marriage and Family which is behind a pay wall.
“The study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, surveyed the responses of 3,793 women and found that 31 percent who lost their virginity as teens divorced within five years, and 47 percent divorced within 10 years. On the flip side, the divorce rate for women who had waited to have sex was only 15 percent at the five year mark, and 27 percent by the time 10 years rolled around. ”
The article did not specify what “waited to have sex” meant. Also keep in mind this data was “self reported” and explains this rationalization from Stephanie Marcus, the HuffPo editor who wrote the piece:
[Hamster]
“But the study also found that a first sexual experience before the age of 16 — wanted or not — was still strongly associated with divorce.
“Of course early sexual experiences can have lasting effects on relationships later in life. So it’s not surprising that with 42 percent of participants claiming their first sexual experience before the age of 18 wasn’t completely wanted, that it could affect them in their adult life.
But the study also found that a first sexual experience before the age of 16 — wanted or not — was still strongly associated with divorce.
Of course early sexual experiences can have lasting effects on relationships later in life. So it’s not surprising that with 42 percent of participants claiming their first sexual experience before the age of 18 wasn’t completely wanted, that it could affect them in their adult life. ”
[/Hamster]
So then the poor dears get a pass if the first sex wasn’t a self-reported “completely wanted”. So we can presume that 42% of American women were raped as virgins and that explains the high divorce rate. I personally have never raped a virgin so shame shame shame on the rest of you virgin rapers.
But I would say this data is associative rather than strictly causative. Other bloggers have pointed out and sociological data has shown, more attractive girls tend to have first sex at an earlier age. And it can follow that they also have higher partner counts due to earlier starts and being in demand. So I end to hold that hypergamy is more responsible for divorce than other factors. Which can explain:
First-Time Divorce Rate Tied to Education
“Among women in a first marriage, the rate of first divorce is highest for those who received some education after high school, but have not earned a bachelor’s degree — 23 per 1,000. The association between education and divorce is also curvilinear. The least (no high school diploma or GED) and the highest (college degree) educated women share the lowest rate of first divorce, with 14.4 and 14.2 per 1,000, respectively.”
So often not being able to improve her situation via divorce will cause the woman to abstain from divorce. Keep in mind that a full 30% of degreed women do not marry due to hypergamy and these women could actually surpress this data for this group, meaning hypergamistic women prone to playting “musical chairs” for hypergamy’s sake, the “Where are all the good men?” crowd.
I often hold despite the stats that show married men make more money, and that one could assume that being married leads to higher income. I hold that higher income leads to marriage and staying married. To a degree:
Occupation and divorce
“OK, here the ten jobs with the highest relative divorce rates: massage therapists, bartenders, dancers and choreographers, health diagnosing and treating practitioners (all other), physicians and surgeons, gaming services workers, mathematicians, fish and game wardens, pile-driver operators, and first-line supervisor of gaming workers.
Here are the ten jobs with the lowest relative divorce rates: religious workers (all other), audiologists, first-line enlisted military supervisors/managers, shuttle car operators, optometrists, clergy, transit and railroad police, religious activities and education directors, agricultural engineers, and media and communication equipment workers (all other).”
Some of the highest divorce occupations are not surprising. Gambling and anything to with gambling. But the two healthcare professions could be surprising. It could be the hours and the stress of the profession. But it also could hamster driven divorce rate. “He never had enough time for me, so I divorced him and collected the alimoney and child support I deserved”. Manosphere observations are that doctors are often quite quite beta, studious fellows, that often have a horrible time with women. So I think the woman jumps in for cash, then dumps the beta becuase he is beta and the settlement can be quite lucratuve. My opinion is that there is a threshold of income, maybe $300,000, that makes divorce highly inevitable, a mixture of beta tendencies required to earn that money, advanced education, etc, and the lure of the potential cash and prizes.
Here is the last stat that is somewhat interesting and I would say quite self-fulfilling boding for a bad outcome for most of you:
If your parents were divorced, you’re at least 40 percent more likely to get divorced than if they weren’t. If your parents married others after divorcing, you’re 91 percent more likely to get divorced.
This could be because witnessing our parents’ divorces reinforces our ambivalence about commitment in a “disposable society,” says Divorce Magazine publisher Dan Couvrette. “In most people’s minds, it’s easier to get a new car than fix the one you’ve got.”
Divorce Magazine. I didn’t know there was such a thing. The slogan is “help for generation ‘ex'”. I wonder if it would be too too tacky to give a gift subscription to a typical American bride with a card that said “I felt everyone might be giving you kitchen items. I wanted to get something you could actually use”. Like the legendary comment from a woman says, “I have been planning this divorce every since I was little girl.”
So this data does beg a question as to whom it would be best to avoid as a bride. My advise is to check their drivers license. If the gender says “Female”, then you are entering a high risk category.
@Frank
I just can’t believe the women aren’t all over you. I hear snark is the new spine, so I’m sure you’ll get some female attention eventually.
So………….. no hugs then?
Three main reasons Poland would be first on my list to consider (assuming they’d have me):
1. I’m Catholic and Poland is something like 85% Catholic, and unlike much of Europe, most of them still practice it. Fairly traditionally, too (I couldn’t live where there’s not a Latin Mass).
2. The Muslim/African immigrants who have swarmed into Europe have given Poland the miss, so it’s still mostly full of Polish people. Cultural homogeneity is a good thing.
3. They still remember Soviet Communism well enough to be more resistant to liberalism than most Western countries. Their economy is still recovering, but growing pretty well these days.
Thatch just tweeted the biggest gaybot ever so I had to check it out. Lo and behold, what do I see but the Thirstiest Comment of the Day:
“Not me. My heart hearts your virginity. Don’t ever let anyone treat you like something less of a human being because of it.”
I was just about to vomit, but then I see the WWE Thursday Night Comment Smackdown!
“Thank you Frank but don’t repeat the compliment. I don’t need a beta orbiter.”
Boom! People’s elbow straight to the self-confidence. I’m sure that set the lower lip a’quivering. No wonder this dude a 35 year old virgin. Don’t worry fella, I’m sure there’s some virginal foreign chick out there just waiting for the white knight pod person of her dreams.
@Frank
No thanks dude. I told you I’m straight.
Seriously though, I just wanted to drop by and tell you that I really and truly have zero respect for you as a person, you as a Christian, and you as a man.
I normally just read Dalrock’s posts and move on since he’s one of my long-time favorite writers, but you remind me of the little self-righteous arrogant bible-twisting fags I used to have the displeasure of knowing in church back in the day.
Nice to see you guys grow up to be just as annoying.
If the body of Christ has a vagina, it’s you, bub.
I was wondering how they were recovering ever since they lost a sizable chunk of their entire government to a plane crash a few years back. I’m more inclined to save my travel budget for Israel before visiting Europe, so it will probably have to wait.
the bible specifically warns against the love gospel. I always thought that would mean the dangerous doctrine of saying that we should just love everyone, no matter their choices, and not judge or condemn anyone or their behavior. And I know that’s the love gospel ( with them also forgetting that love includes rebuke) but I never imagined the angle where the love gospel would extend to the purpose of excusing promiscuity. As long as you have love in your heart, it doesnt matter what you do. A slippery slope indeed.
I never have gotten this right myself, this sexual purity stuff. So its hard to pontificate. I do hold to the biblical stance as the standard, but have never lived up to it, no matter how I tried. I am ok with telling a young lady that chastity is a good thing and no sex until marriage is the ideal, but I have to offer this disclaimer, that I only know this because I have traveled the road of suffering that those sexual sins lead to. Above all, I would only wish to help someone avoid that grief and preserve their joy.
as the old quote goes-
“discipline is a vehicle for joy”
36, but feel free to round down.
I’ll send you wedding photos once it happens!
Sooooooooo much hate. We’ve got therapy for those kinds of PTSD you know, well, assuming you have insurance.
Well, my work here is done. The old “pretend to argue so they expose themselves to passive readers thus undermining their authority on any subject from here on out” thing really does work.
I’ll be damned (then promptly forgiven).
“:Any particular reason for Poland?”
Yes, it is large farming area that does not have particularly large cities and a high degree of trade, travel, and interaction with western Europe over most of its history. My data leads to a conclusion that women from western Europe and its subsequent colonies tend to be more of beta hating group. My presumption is that a subconscious desire for immunocompetency was bred into western Europe over its long history and they are attracted to men that show the signals of testosterone as a display of immunocompetency. And also that those from lesser intergrated, lesser traveled farm regions have immunocompetence due to the exposure to germs “in the dirt”. So thusly, Poland, Ukraine, much of Russia, Colombia, Peru, are all areas with predominately isolated regions with agricultural pasts. Colombia is a very unique case in that the female mitochrondrial genes are 98% from indigenous women or african women and almost no genes from Western Europe. On the contrary, Argentina contains some of most difficult women in Latin America and reputedly the world. Argentina was second only to the United States as a destination for western European immigrants, particularly Italian, both male and female. It also has one of the largest cities in the world in Buenos Aires. So both are risk factors in breeding beta haters.
So any area, that has been secluded from travel of Western Europeans, particularly western European women is probably a better place to find women.
Some intriguing and fascinating research there. Respect.
Your study is not credible, slumlord. Without effective birth control, feminism is literally impossible.
“• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44). Those who are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method, are at risk of unintended pregnancy.[1,2]
• Forty-three million women of childbearing age (69%) are at risk of unintended pregnancy.[2]
• Thirty-one percent of women of reproductive age do not need a contraceptive method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.[1,2]
• Couples who do not use any method of contraception have an approximately 85% chance of experiencing a pregnancy over the course of a year.[3]
• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.[4]
WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?
• More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2]
• The proportion of all women of reproductive age who are currently using a contraceptive method increased from 56% in 1982 to 64% in 1995. It declined to 62% in 2002 and remained at that level in 2006–2008.[2]
• Among women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy, 89% are currently using contraceptives.[2]”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
@ RedPill
My walk with Christ is MY walk.
If it’s really that cut and dried then you don’t need any community at all. There is no reason for you to judge anyone else by any criteria for any reason. Just walk YOUR walk. This is just more churchianity.
ou
I dont get it, its like a redundant “challenge”
It’s not. In fact, Paul is very clear that if one can remain celibate then the most benefit you can be for God is to never touch a woman. EVER. The only reason to get married is if you have a burning desire to be with womankind. That you have made it to 29 indicates that you don’t have that sort of desire.
Therefore, it is logical that yuu live by God’s best as explicitly stated in scripture: a lifetime of celibacy. There’s no reason for you to get married, except for pride in “a virgin wedding”, since you obviously don’t burn with a desire to be with women. I’m not challenging you to merely “keep doing what you’re doing” but to commit to never be with a woman since you clearly are capable of it and the bible says it is better to never be married, if possible, for God’s glory.
You’ve made it to 29 and there’s no reason for you to get married now, except pride.
i want a wife and the best wife I can get.
Pride. Called it. This is just a churchian manifestation of always striving for something better, something more. Always more. The rot is as prevalent in the church as it is in the world.
My brother waited three years for a good, Christian girl who was a virgin and they married around thirty. She is just horrible to him – he told me that they only have sex a couple of times a year. She is a regular church-goer and treats him with contempt in public despite the fact that he is a great father and good provider – he is now a staunch atheist because of her.
How has anything I have written about marriage conflate what God has joined together and marriage as a social institution?
You haven’t specified what “marriage” means. The Bible is pretty much silent on it – it doesn’t lay out any criteria for what it means to “get married”, therefore, your notion of marriage is that of the socially conventional one.
Oh, and Frank, you’re a fag dude.
Edward Thatch, that was disrespectful of Frank. He’s not a fag (virgin men are not fags). Just leave him alone.
State sactioned marriage is the authorised wealth redistibution process.
Marriage has become increasingly state institutionalized in the Western world. The Spearhead did a post about this —> http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/04/06/the-triumph-of-institutional-marriage/
Maybe that explains how the frame changed from marriage as the basis to child support/welfare as the basis.
Leave Mary Magdalene out of the slut talk.
Agreed 100%. The modern version of sluthood doesn’t want true repentance and comparing it to Mary Magdalene is whacked out. It’s almost like a different species of fruit.
Any particular reason for Poland? Visit I would, but to live there…… not sure if living under the potential threat of Mother Russia coming to squat on our heads beats living in Femimatrix here.
Eastern Europe, Russia, and East Asian countries like Japan or Southern American countries like Argentina, have their own problems, have a tweaked version of modernity trying to rise and establish itself, but the results are mostly dysfunctional whenever it mixes with the native (religious) culture. The result of modern life in Russia has been sky high abortion rates and a lot of alcohol.
@ RedPillPaul
All your scenarios of people getting together and being “married” with out some piece of paper is just a red herring.
There not a red herring. You are saying that divorce, fornication and adultery are wrong … but you don’t actually say what marriage *is*. It is a piece of paper from the state? Is it a big, fancy ceremony? What is *it*? You don’t say and the Bible certainly doesn’t say what *it* is.
Since we are talking “in Gods eyes”, anyone you (you plural) sleep with, you (you plural) are married to that person “in Gods eyes” and you (you plural) doing what the world does and continuing to sleep with people means you (you plural) are a perpetual adulterer so when you die, you (you plural) die in sin and end up not in heaven.
I lost my virginity at 25 while dead drunk to a woman who was very stoned and it was very much a one-night affair.. We have both subsequently pledged our lives to other people and are what I would consider married. Are you saying that in God’s eyes I am still really married to that woman and that I am now committing adultery to the woman that I have publicly committed to be faithful to for the rest of my life? Seriously?
The above view on sex, which = marriage in Gods eyes
Where in the hell does it say that sex = marriage in God’s eyes? In some states in the US the age of consent is still 14. So, what you’re saying is that if some 40 year old guy smooth talks a 14 year old girl into sex one time then she is an adulteress if she ever has sex with anyone else again? Seriously?
Hypotheticals are invaluable in testing criteria for general applicability. If a criterion doesn’t have general applicability then it is just ad hoc reasoning.
Thanks for the defense, dear sister. Now shut up and go get me my sandwich. Don’t forget the pickles either! You ALWAYS forget the pickles. 😛
There have been in the past couple of decades high profile cases of married middle aged teachers having sex with their high school students, most of them in the 15 – 17 age range. Now, from a strictly legal standpoint a 16 year old student is considered incapable of consenting to sex with a teacher, even if the student is male and the teacher female.
But the age limit is strictly for legal purposes and I know that at 16 I was fully capable of consent and that if I had a teacher seduce me at that age I would be fully capable of understanding what was going on. If sex = marriage then a post-pubescent student who gets seduced by a teacher is committing adultery every time then have sex with anyone else after that. Preposterous.
The reason for my hypotheticals is to test for general applicability and you’re failing to give good answers to them.
Not to be a spoilsport here but Asher is right, the Scriptures clearly denote a distinction between sex and marriage. They are not the same, which is why I normally say sex is the consummation of marriage rather than the act of marriage itself.
I honestly thought it was at one point, but reading through all the marriages in the Old Testament revealed otherwise.
@ RedPillPal
Asher, im just going to say it. You are a real piece of shit.
Yes, pride doesn’t like being exposed. It’s a common response I get.
That above prayer is bull and a mockery of God.
So, is your claim that you want the best wife you can get, when what you really want is a wife that will be the envy of other men. It’s just more social status whoring.
I wonder if you get it.
Oh, I get it alright. I have exposed your pride and it stings you.
I think if both you make a vow before God you can be married in a biblical sense.
However, I don’t think the burning with passion thing goes away until like really old age. Some guys lose interest in sex when they are married to a whale but lo and behold when an attractive woman is around that interest starts to spike back up. LOL.
I think the guys that are called to never be married would be the really low T types. Most of the men at church have been brainwashed about basic human sexuality. They wait because that mind control is stronger than the sexual drive and also they simply can’t get laid. Combine those two and it’s a killer.
Where I do think these guys need to let go of is the whole Madonna/whore complex. In America, most women are free whores. Having such a lofty requirement is destroying their options. If they were in college, I would say go for it but at 29, c’mon man, relax the standards a little. It’s going to hard enough already, why make it harder.
Note. Phillipines follows the same pattern as Colombia. If haven’t gethered, I have much love for the women of Colombia, but I think you enter a higher risk group with those from Bogota. Bogota was an early Spanish Capital, the capital of Gran Colombia, consisting of present day, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, and Honduras. It did have to deal with some European epidemics, but the beta hating is moderated because really until 1900 no city anywhere was self sustaining in its population and Bogota was certainly such. All required people moving in from the countryside to maintain population.
Just think where was a better place for a germ to live than in a large city. The requirement for a germ to propagate itself is that it most infect at least one other person. Just think, there is universal revulsion to both feces and vommit. Both are the prime way germs can be passed. Vommit really only occurs when a person is ill. Feces and Urine is the normal day to day the body expells waste material of digested food and filtered germs. And prior to 1900 sewage was quite an issue, often thrown out the window into the streets.
A second factor is the rate of domestication of animals. The Americas had almost no domesticated animals and no where in the world comes close to the domestication and variety of domestication of animals in western Europe. The other place that has a high level of domestication of various breeds, and some rather exotic dietary habits is China.
So, just think, from the Earliest times in history, at least going back to the Romans, people moving to and from Europe through to areas in southern Asia, and after 1000, China, all dragging germs, epidemics, strains of social diseases, small pox, cholera, measles, heck you name it, into Rome, then later Venice, then transporting those up into central and western Europe. Even as late as World War I, more people were killed from disease than bullets. The last great killer epidemic was the Flu epidemic of 1918 which actually started at an army base in Kansas and killed 20 million people.
It has become somewhat of this obsession with me. I took the data that said women despise men that do not show the traits of testosterone. They are attracted to the traits of testosterone but less than they are repulsed by the lack of them. The traits they preferred “Muscles, confrontational, arrogance, stupid, unfaithful” and the traits they despise “Nice, warm, intelligent, faithful”, I combined that with study of Signaling Theory that concentrates on testosterone in Animals. But this given short shrift in humans with Signaling Theory referring more to signals of status, wealth, etc in humans. But in animals it is entirely based on immunosuppressant tendencies of testosterone and signal of immunocompetency.
And I thought, “Why would something so important in animals, immocompetency be less so among humans, especially given the history of epidemic and disease that dominated human history until 50 years ago?” Especially when the women made preference choices that were so irrational when you consider the Sexual Selection Theory that says they had so much investment in reproduction that were more picky in the choice of “Good Father” qualties and the data showed they were quite the opposite. This site exists exactly because they are not and throw themselves at the most ridiculous of qualities.
So why would they throw themselves at these signals of testosterone AND despise those men that would be delighted to partner and assist them in child rearing were it not for some reason that were biolgocial in its basis and entirely beyond the realm of conscious self control. Because babies and children tended to die more from illness and germs than any other cause before the invention of modern medicine.
So more than you should assume that they love alphas with testosterone signals, you should assume far more that they hate betas that do not have those signals. The manosphere is full of anecdotal evidence of this. They fucking hate betas. Detest them? And why? Why would a woman with the power to choose any man just spit on the best men, those men that would be devoted to her, that have the means, the desire, and the tendency to make an excellent husband for her and her children? Why?
Their primary biological job is “egg protector” and that slimy beta sperm cannot get at those eggs. Betas “creep” them out. They are nervous around the beta, and calm around the alpha. And their pass/fail judgement of beta or alpha, testosterone or not, that it percolates up from the subconscious and manifests itself as judgement of men in negative ways. “I don’t like him” “I don’t trust him” “He’s a creep”.
So assume that and then let me ask you some questions.
Why are the vast majority of women so antogonistic to the vast majority of men?
Why is Rape the number 1 crime, far and above, for women, more hated than murder?
Why do ads always seem to have women in them? Even stupid adds like rip-off re-finance schems on the internet. Why are more “spokepersons” on tv women?
Why is date rape, jobs, divorce such supreme issues for feminists? And dominate the political issues of women far more than taxes, defense, the judiciary, anything.
Why does the workplace and various occupations tend to be so sexually segregated?
Why has “sexual harrassment” taken such a front line issue with women and has changed from bosses using positions of authority to even mere comments by male co-workers offending women?
Why is it that average women on OK Cupid, just average women, reporting that over 80% of the men on the site are disgusting and a high percentage of them given a rating of 0?
Why is that a women will not be satifified with a man unless he has an SMV of 2 points higher than her?
I can go on and on. To me this is the basis of feminism, GET THOSE BETAS AWAY FROM ME. THEY DUSGUST ME.
They despise the vast majority of men and this colors their viewpoint and judgement of men.
Just assume this conclusion, that women despise betas, don’t even worry about the “why”, immunocompetence theory, and then start looking at situations with that assumption in mind, and just see how many things it explains to you.
Mary Magdalene was a repentant (former) prostitute and is an icon. She wasn’t a modern day slut running around with serial monogamy, rationalizing her choices and decisions as full of “romantic love”.
@ an observer
And here we have the acceptance of deviance as normal. Amongst christians, two virgins marrying should be unremarkable. But feminism has infested the church.
See, the solution isn’t acts of individual willpower. The solution is political. You want to live in a place where marrying a virgin is unremarkable? Great, so do I. Now, what would it take to make that a reality?
More bloodshed than that required to conquer Canaan by the Children of Israel. I hear you all piteously bleating over pagan aborting their own children when to achieve the reality you want would require massive bloodshed, by your own hands.
Do you not see the disconnect?
Basically she’s not even in the same league as most modern sluts.
Actually, Mary Magdalene wasn’t the prostitute, as there’s no verse in Scripture indicating what her past sins were, as another commenter pointed out. I actually knew this, but then watching the film Passion of the Christ a while back threw me off again. Regardless, she’s a very clear example of what true repentance would look like.
Dalrock,
I’m also interested in your opinion on Red Pill Theory’s question about premarital sex:
We know what it does to women, but is there a similar moral degradation on the men’s side?
I think deti gives a strong answer for men who bond with the woman they have sex with before marriage. Those men commit themselves. As someone who has loved and lost in that manner, it was painful and I felt like I lost my sense of self for awhile. Looking back it’s obvious: don’t commit to a woman you aren’t sure you’ll marry.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure about deti’s answer for players. I don’t think women can get permanently boring. I think most men love women like we love food. Sure, after a big meal you can’t bear the thought of more food, but wait a few hours and food is great again. As long as a player doesn’t commit to any women, it seems to me like he’s fine. Players can still get the hottest sweet young things/good girls/virgins no problem when they feel like finally settling down.
I don’t think having premarital sex causes much moral degradation on the man side. Giving premarital commitment causes moral degradation on the man side. It seems to me that a man giving premarital commitment is analogous to a woman giving premarital sex.
I think a lot of other men would be interested in your opinion on Red Pill Theory’s question as well. My apologies if you have written on this topic in a post I missed.
@ Solomon
I never imagined the angle where the love gospel would extend to the purpose of excusing promiscuity
Agreed. Marriage means non-promiscuous. What my opposition is is to people who want to give the state authority by equating marriage with a state issued license.
Actually, Mary Magdalene wasn’t the prostitute, as there’s no verse in Scripture indicating what her past sins were, as another commenter pointed out.
Good point. Sorry for that.
@ Furious Ferret
No, the sex drive begins getting seriously more manageable in the late twenties.
One of the things that really chafes me about church marriages it hat the church is absolutely negligent in providing the support and political impetus in facilitating marriage. Two of my siblings held their marriages in a country club instead of a church for expressly that reason: they didn’t feel the church deserved the honor of presiding over their marriages.
Asher
I have no problem admitting that I have Pride just as I can see what I see in myself in you. That must sting. Not really. This too is just a red herring.
Are you Christian or not?
Deuteronomy 22
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
Well, your not an Israelite and if your not Christian, you’re not of his people so I guess this doesn’t apply to you.
“We know what it does to women, but is there a similar moral degradation on the men’s side? ”
I think the reason is biological. Neuroscience shows the act of sex leads to bonding. I made a long comment on the mechanism yesterday. The bonded pair is imprinted on the other through repeated sex. And scent of the bonded partner is important. Men have stress chemicals that build up on their brain that could cause depression but do not, as long as they remain with their bonded partner. But once separated then these chemicals induce the state of depression and pain so common in men at separation, heartbreak, the blues, but not in women.
But once the man has passed through this depressive phase and these chemicals are phased out, then he can and does bond again. He has more of a “clean slate”. And this occurs throughout his life. Scientist recently noted that a man will fall in love one more time in his 50s, quite possibly with his wife, if he is still married to her.
But the statitics show this doesn’t occur in women. The Alpha widow syndrome infers that the original imprinting on a young girls psyche does not leave and possibly cannot be replaced by bonding with a subsequent male. And the statistics that I show above reflects that women with high partner counts have a lack of an ability to bond. Even a feminist author said “some shit about using up your bonding juice”.
I think it would be very hard to deduce the opposite given the data available and that women initiate more than 80% of divorces. The mere fact that a man is or isn’t divorced doesn’t show a lack of an ability to bond. The data shows men are not the ones to initiate divorce. There could be an association made possibly by saying X percent of men will partner counts over 15-20 or 20+ have this level of divorce. But that would merely be a very associative relationship and probably not causative at all.
I would also offer that if the case could be convincingly made that high partner count in men is a divorce risk, then it would have been. The women would have been jumping up and down on it.
And I would also add that historically people locked up their daughters but not their sons. A lot of could be made about which gender suffered the greater consequence of pre-marital sex. But I think there was a folk wisdom that said daughters that slutted would not become good wives.
And there was no such folk wisdom for men and boys.
It is fairly clear in the bible that it’s a lot easier on a man, and a lot better for him, to avoid having a quarellsome and contentious wife. It’d be better to live on a roof, or in the desert, than with one.
Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife. – Proverbs 21:19
Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. – Proverbs 25:24
However, it even goes farther than that. Advice from one of the early, and wise church fathers, is that if you can avoid marriage, and live outside of it without sinning because of that choice, it is better that you do so. To give context, he does say that at least some of his advice is in responce to “the present chrisis”, however we have our own crises caused by the trends of modernity. Further, the writer seems to be earnestly in favor of the idea of a chaste life.
1 Corinthians 7 25-28, 36-38
25Now concerninge the betrothed,f I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26I think that in view of the presentg distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed womanh marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
…
36If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed,i if hisj passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
Now, maybe some men can’t do without marriage. The above advice to stay single is not for them. But for those of us who can… it seems sound advice.
Now, as far as re-marrying goes, from the same book:
1 Corinthians 7: 39-40
39A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Even if an acceptable divorce occurs, there is still a bond there, one which is not severed until death.
Further, we have Matthew 5:32:
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Which states that if a woman isn’t already adulterous, a husband divorcing her (and durring that time, thus likely forcing her to marry another for support), forces her to commit adultery. There is no statement that if the husband has re-married (or had a second wife), and has had sex with other women since, that the wife he divorced will be free from adultery.
Given that it was men who were allowed to put away their wives, and not visa versa durring this period (possibly a protection against hypergamy), there is no reason to give complimentary warnings about what happenes when wives put away their husbands.
I am not convinced that this is unassailable logic, and thus is indellibly a consequence of the word of god, but it makes sense to me that the same standards hold here for husbands, as for wives.
Just because one of the people in the marriage adultered, and had sex outside of marriage, doesn’t make it right for the other person to have sex with someone else later.
In other words, the bonds formed in marriage realy are meant to last until death, and to try to completely discard those bonds, and re-make them with another person is as much a sin in betraying that marriage before god, as acknowledging those bonds, but having sex with someone else anyway.
” Do you not see the disconnect? ”
Not entirely sure we’re reading the same book, let alone page.
Women delaying marriage to ride the carousel is a choice of rebellion. I have minimal expectations of secular girls, but good church girls do this too. This is not a political problem. It is the sin of rebellion, believing in equality and chafing against the outcomes of the fall, to delay submitting to a husband, then only enter in a modern marriage of coleadership where she can pull the plug at any time for no real reason.
The secular girl can do what she wants. But good church girls have prostituted their faith for a self worshipping cult that reduces their chance of a good marriage, ruins their pair bonding ability and aprorpiates through divorce the proceeds of her husbands accumulation.
That is a problem, to be sure. Not a political one, though. Looking to the state is just substituting another pagan stool of worship.
@ RedPillPaul
If a man takes a wife
What does it mean to “take a wife”. The Bible doesn’t explicate any set of criteria for what this means.
I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
This passage is describing marriage as a social institution. Marriage in the west is no longer a social institution at all but an accessory that the upper-classes adopt, sort of like sports cars. Also, the passage is describing the civil institutions particular to the children of the covenant.
Well, your not an Israelite and if your not Christian
I am not an Israelite. Further, I see no warrant for “Christian” as a particular identifier. The sole reference in the Bible to the term is in Acts where the followers were called (by others) Christians. I don’t call myself a “christian” because of all the associations that term brings.
just as I can see what I see in myself in you.
Despite the twists and turns I’ve taken in my life the one thing I have always striven for is the elimination of pride in my life.
Prima facie, if they were both baptized Christians then yes despite being separated because of a faithless wife they are still married.
Through no fault of his own, your cousin has a heavy cross to bear Aszher. If there are no grounds for finding out that despite a wedding ceremony he was never really married due to some defect at the time of the wedding, then his remarriage is adultery.
Yes, almost certainly. As people wise up to what’s going on they are going to be much, much more cautious and selective before pledging their troth. I expect that given the much higher propensity of females to divorce, men may well begin insisting that before he takes a bride he expects a dowry to be pledged, a dowry that is forfeit if she divorces. A good lawyer can draw up the necessary documents, get everything settled before any formal engagement or setting any wedding date. Those old customs existed for good reasons, our ancestors weren’t dummies.
@James and Asher
I think you’re right about the disappearance of community via technology being a cause of many of our ills. It seems to me that our DGAF culture emulates those who are most able to shed the vestiges of community. Dependence is looked down upon in all its forms. Sex still binds us, which is why I think romantic love is seen as the wellspring of morality. It’s the only relationship in which it still makes sense to need someone else. The home/family/community is declining because everyone is supposed to be independent and making money for themselves. I see the women’s movement as just one outgrowth of the radical individualism that endangers us. The only thing that most of us all do is watch screens. TVs are set up like alters in family living rooms or worse, in each separate room in the house. As has been said many times, aliens that visited Earth would think we worshipped screens.
@ an observer
Women delaying marriage to ride the carousel is a choice of rebellion.
Rebellion against … what? God? Most of them haven’t the faintest clue of what God wants for them. Society? Society says “love” sanctifies everything. I don’t see any rebellion, at all.
You can’t have rebellion without authority and there is precious little authority in these parts.
It is the sin of rebellion, believing in equality
Against whom are they rebelling? I mean, sure, God is the ultimate authority, but his full judgement doesn’t happen until the end of time. If the ruling ideology is that of equality then it is not rebellion to believe in equality.
But good church girls have prostituted their faith for a self worshipping cult that reduces their chance of a good marriage, ruins their pair bonding ability and aprorpiates through divorce the proceeds of her husbands accumulation.
Sorry, but I grew up in conservative Christian settings. Yes, I understand that church girls often behave very badly but it’s quite clear looking back that they are not the sole root of the problem. The problem is a political one and is not simply solved by wagging your finger at church girls.
Looking to the state is just substituting another pagan stool of worship.
The authorities that exist have been established by God … to do you good. Government, in itself, is not idolatry, although it can become that.
@ Micha Elyi
Through no fault of his own, your cousin has a heavy cross to bear Aszher.
Well, he’s no longer church-going, so I don’t suppose it really matters. The effect of not using political force to reign in women is that men forced to manage such women are going to manage it in any way they can. Yours is just another version of white-knighting.
Yes, almost certainly. As people wise up to what’s going on they are going to be much, much more cautious and selective before pledging their troth.
No. What’s most likely to happen is that there is going to be a steady decline of people attending church, combined with some people giving up on sex altogether. I did the latter for a very long time … helped by lots of alcohol. If you really want to reduce premarital sex then offer all men under 30 unlimited beer, a huge flat-screen TV, PS3, Xbox360, etc. and they’re be too zoned out to really pursue sex. I know of plenty of men who have pretty much given up on getting sex and just zone out on beer, sports and video games.
There’s a great foundation for society.
Asher: ” If you really want to reduce premarital sex then offer all men under 30 unlimited beer, a huge flat-screen TV, PS3, Xbox360, etc. and they’re be too zoned out to really pursue sex. I know of plenty of men who have pretty much given up on getting sex and just zone out on beer, sports and video games.
There’s a great foundation for society.”
Don’t forget the porn! I agree with you.
@ D_Johnny
Look, there is one solution to what we’re facing and that is a political solution. That solution is like to involve kill millions, maybe more, people in the West. Given the mewling over reprobate pagans killing their own children (abortion) I doubt today’s traditionalists have the stomach for that sort of killing.
Free porn + free beer + free video games = less premarital sex
I suppose I might marry a serial fornicator if she showed some serious remorse about the decisions (i.e. “mistakes”) she made.
What I reject is any woman who tries to make the argument that these decisions were valid and necessary to finding herself or some such nonsense.
Man. Not to heap on you guys, but I just went to youth group at church (I’m 21) and marriage in this country… is doomed. 100%. Youth group began with me meeting the two cute girls sitting behind me–and ended, after the man-up sermon on marriage with me so bummed out I lost the urge to actually try talking to either of those girls. Bleh… And it was a fairly seriously youth group/church. Echo youth group at North Metro church, north of Atlanta.
@ jack
One of the great corruptors is college. Realistically, probably around fifteen percent of all people have the intellectual capacity to utilize sixteen years of education. So, why is it that we are sending such a higher percentage of people than that to colllege …
Google Duke v Griggs to find out.
@ RedPillPaul
Here’s what I’m getting at:
If you live in proximity to a major US city and manage to marry a virgin then it is due to some combination of your social class and your family structure, not some personal act of submitting your will to God.
Would I have liked to have had the resources and family support necessary to have married a virgin at around the age of 23? Certainly. Was that available to me? Not even close.
I suppose I might marry a serial fornicator if she showed some serious remorse about the decisions (i.e. “mistakes”) she made.
While I don’t think anyone should marry a “serial fornicator”, there are a lot of girls who had one or two partners, who seem quite sincere about their regrets. You’ll find these among the good girl lot. These will be the women who aren’t at the nightclub, grinding on your leg, in other words.
Press gently for details, and watch carefully for pupil dilation and/or for a blush response. (Do a web search if you don’t know what I’m talking about… there are “tells” if someone is genuinely remorseful and/or embarrassed about their past behaviour). If the woman makes any excuses like “we were in love” then clearly the current articles on dalrock’s blog should be used in response. There’s also the old “I was raped/molested” thing. Whenever I hear that I get very sympathetic and ask how much time the brute is doing in the state reformatory. I’ve never yet heard of one of these “rape” incidents substantiated by an actual arrest, not to mention conviction.
I’ll be honest and cop to the fact that I don’t think anyone should get married, but if you absolutely must, be very careful. A majority of women in this society really aren’t worth it. You have the right to be choosy. Exercise it and hopefully your kids will grow up in an intact family.
Regards, Boxer
If someone can’t commit to their relationship with God, and honoring their vow to serve and love and be loyal to God, then how could you ever expect them to love and be loyal to you? Or else, if you accept that they don’t have the will power to submit to God, then don’t be shocked if they are not loyal to you. What? Do you think you deserve better than God? Are you that much greater than God that you can inspire greater loyalty?
“What? Just because I had sex before marriage, that means I should suffer and never have sex again?”
Yes. That would show a willingness to submit to Gods Word and His will. If you’re unwilling to do this…the moral thing…then why would anyone believe that you’re going to submit to Gods other laws?
The problem with promiscuity and virginity is that it is framed from the position that men’s reactions to the female state are free willed ‘choices’.
If it can be shown that men are biologically geared towards providing emotional protective commitment to 0 or low n women the power of the frame of the argument is removed, you can’t argue against biology.
Thats why this post is so seminal, it’s the masculine equivalent of hyperagamy.
https://freenortherner.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/the-two-male-sexual-appetites/
” The authorities that exist have been established by God … to do you good. ”
Those who seriously believe this. . . have my deepest sympathy.
@Mark Minter.
Your comments make for interesting reading. This neurochemical thingy and bonding must be known to women on a visceral level.
On Vox’s Alpha Game Blog, I left the following comment :
I was in a stripclub once, and one of my friends told the strippers that I was a virgin, which I was. Those strippers wouldn’t leave me alone. I mean it.
I was blushing and acting all uncomfortable when those strippers came near me. And this behaviour just seemed to egg them on.
I just kept on feeling more and more uncomfortable. They seemed to sense it, and the attention became even more brazen.
I couldn’t understand this.
I still don’t.
The replies said the behaviour was monetarily motivated, until commenter Markku replied with this :
On this thread where women discuss sleeping with male virgins, this comment leapt out at me :
@ family, liberty … blah, blah, blah
You do understand that this is just another example of scraping and bowing to the feminine imperative. Men create order and structure, but what you are offering is a personal retreat from chaos into a private, personal order. Such a personal ordering is an effeminate parody of masculinity.
Men thrive by forming things, creating structure and order, and advising men to retreat into monasticism is asking them to be voluntary eunuchs.
I’m just asking what is wrong with Anglo culture?
Nothing at all. It’s simply that most Anglos no longer follow historic Anglo culture — which was strongly Christian and chaste for many centuries. The sluttery you see, is not Anglo culture at all — it is the wreckage of a deracinated and apostate counterculture which has unfortunately achieved ascendancy.
@ an observer
Those who seriously believe this. . . have my deepest sympathy.
Might I suggest you read Hobbes’ Leviathan. The nation-state may be bad but anarchy is even worse.
And there’s no such thing as a male virgin. Just a guy who can’t get laid.
Untrue. I turned down offers from several different girls, before I got married. I was well able to get laid out of wedlock — I just didn’t believe in it.
Whatever you think of Frank, it’s pretty much obvious from this exchange that you never, ever, EVER say something nice to a wimminz, lest she unleashes instant obnoxious bitch on you.
Untrue. I turned down offers from several different girls, before I got married. I was well able to get laid out of wedlock — I just didn’t believe in it.
Yes, I did the same in college more than once. It cost me the relationship both times, but I was okay with that, although it was painful in one instance in particular. You simply have to have the courage of your convictions, and not be ruled by your penis. It’s true that most male virgins past a certain age are incels, but it isn’t true of all of them, particularly the ones who are religious/moral and have had GFs.
Man. Not to heap on you guys, but I just went to youth group at church (I’m 21) and marriage in this country… is doomed. 100%. Youth group began with me meeting the two cute girls sitting behind me–and ended, after the man-up sermon on marriage with me so bummed out I lost the urge to actually try talking to either of those girls. Bleh… And it was a fairly seriously youth group/church. Echo youth group at North Metro church, north of Atlanta.
Youth churches are a modern thing too. In the past you had churches, places, full of adults, young people and children together. Getting them apart is a nice way of dividing churches and tearing them apart.
It’s one thing to have youth night, it’s another thing altogether to have youth churches.
Yes, I know about Hobbes. Just do what you’re told, surrender to the state and you’ll be fine.
Hobbes insisted that it was a better deal to trade personal liberty for the pretend protection offered by the all-seeing state.
The all-protective state is a parasite, a monopolist supplier of force and coercion in a particular geographic area. It has issues: ongoing war, suspension of habeus corpus, travel restrictions, invasion of sovereign states, use of nuclear weapons, torture, and premeditated killing of civilians, to think of a few.
I suppose those thousands of drones overhead, the fema camps and the billions of DHS bullets are just lies put about by extremist conspiracists living in garages …
No such thing as a male virgin? Some of these comments crack me up . . . stop it, my ribs hurt. . .
Brendan,
The ‘ol double standard applies especially in church. In my time there were a number of church girls that were DTF, hence the sunday morning nightclub scene.
Even ‘ordinary’ beta men get sexual offers, albeit from lower status women. Its all relative.
Those unmarried men that chose to resist the good church girl charms (in their tight fitting worship shirts and shapely jeans, usually) eventually heard the rumours about their sexuality. Women of couse believe other women over men, and since pastors are just big girls, they often believed the women as well.
The playas amongst us may choose to embrace temptation; that’s they’re call.
Those unmarried men that chose to resist the good church girl charms (in their tight fitting worship shirts and shapely jeans, usually) eventually heard the rumours about their sexuality.
That’s sad. Virgin men, celibate men, are LGBTQPPI according to cads and harlots.
It has occured to me, given that two commenters here – Brendan and anonymous – both turned girls down for sex, that perhaps the Game community of PUAs have got it back to front. The way to drive women crazy with desire, is not to demonstrate value, but simply to feign indifference. Men may then bask in the same ‘I’m too sexy for my shirt’ attitude, erstwhile the province of females. it is however a cruel pleasure to enjoy women knocking on ones door seeking admittance but being able to tell them to go away and leave on in peace unless they want a visit from the local Police.
Church nice guys don’t learn, and are never taught, indifference.
They are taught to pedestalise and worship the feminine as the more mature, more spiritual sex.
:@Opus
Fully agree, acting confident & aloof is being indifferent to women
The less you give a crap about what they want, the more submissive they become to what you want
Its how women have always worked
Which is why doing the chores & housework, just pisses women off
Which is why MGTOW is such a powerful phenomenon,
The more men stop giving women what they want, ie kids & marriage
The more women stop being sluts & whores
Take away a womans safety net of marriage, & force them to wander around in the sexual market place
The only thing keeping womens delusions afloat is radical feminism
Being a slut & a whore is radical feminism
Which is why its so poisonous & dangerous to women
I submit Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as a cautionary tale about being in love.
Wth is a youth church …
A church where they play video-games & count zits ? … lol
@ Mark Minter
Excellent work. My years in the manosphere has lead to the conclusion that women fucking hate beta’s. And no amount of evo-psych can explain this as making perfect sense. It is simply fucked up and no way to keep a civilization humming along.
35-year-old virgin men saving themselves for marriage is not gonna change anything, lol. You would be better serving the manosphere (and Christianity, even) by laying a slew of women and then never calling them again. At least then you know these sluts might wake up one day, even if not in your lifetime. Plus you get your rocks off.
Even in my bluest of blue pill times…I could have got laid easily. Had the girls waiting in the bed and everything and then my conscious really started yelling.
In the long run I dodged many bullets.
@mack
“The less you give a crap about what they want, the more submissive they become to what you want”
It takes some practice and will power. But if you don’t give a crap about whatever emotion they are displaying…they soon line up to the one you are displaying.
Emotions are all they have…if that doesn’t phase you then they will eventually submit.
Dalrock’s blog is a treasure of clarity. Mark Minter is fascinating and most of the other posters here seem well-intentioned and thoughtful. Overall, this is ‘must read’ internet.
I do, however, admit to being amused and somewhat puzzled by the those posters (male and female) who seem to be here solely to establish their “alpha” cred or some other such nonsense.
A poster Frank makes a supportive comment to another poster and he is instantly labeled a “beta orbiter” (ahahahaha… jeesh!) by the very poster he was supporting. He is also jeered and called a “faggot” by another — obviously exceedingly manly (LOL) — self-professed follower of Christ. Unless I am missing some back story between the particular posters involved, this seems preposterous and hilarious in a pathetic sort of way…..Unless, of course, my copy of the Gospels is missing the part where Christ sought out perceived weakness and immediately attacked the people displaying it in order to somehow boost his own reputation.
What gives?
Otherwise…. I love this place.
You want something or to do something, which your personal code says, ‘no.’ – so you twist logic, appeal to vague Authority, form a ‘new paradigm (’cause this one time, it’s different)’, talk to friends – eventually you get to do whatever you like.
The ability of humans (at all times and in all locations) to rationalize, justify and ‘cherry-pick’ appropriate quotations from the Books of Authority, relevant to that culture and time, so they get to say/do what they wanted in the first place, is little short of amazing.
Nope, it won’t. But it’s not about changing things, it’s simply about doing the right thing, which by itself can help you avoid so much grief (loveless relationships, unwanted kids, divorce, herpes…)
And eat cookies too! And no, I’m not kidding.
Opus:
It has occured to me, given that two commenters here – Brendan and anonymous – both turned girls down for sex, that perhaps the Game community of PUAs have got it back to front. The way to drive women crazy with desire, is not to demonstrate value, but simply to feign indifference.
I don’t think that’s it. There is a huge difference between Omega-7 doing that, and, say, Tim Tebow.
Rather, I think it’s shit test:
Men are easily controlled through sex or offers thereof. For omegas a simple smile will do, for alphas it takes a steady diet of blowjobs.
This one is attractive enough to require at least a handjob, but he’s NOT RESPONDING when I shake my thang in front of him. WTF? UNCONTROLLED BETA RED ALERT RED ALERT SOMEONE GET TO HIM HAVE SEX WITH HIM WHATEVER IT TAKES
A guy with really any ability to affect things, who is beyond the reach of sex, is a threat to the feminine imperative. That’s why no one cares is some omega is “aloof”—he’s not worth controlling.
—It’s not just through positive implicit offers of sex that the FI attempts to control men, btw: it’s also through negative threats of witholding of sex. On the Internet, this manifests both indirectly as shaming language (“Real men don’t need tricks to attract women,” subtext:I only have sex with real men, and you better be one, buddy), and directly as…well, I think we know the score: “You guys are embittered losers who can’t get laid.”
The alternative to sexual attention (or threat) is maternal attention, manifesting in the form of the concerned college student: “Wow, reading through these posts it seems like you guys have been hurt badly by women in your past” subtext:Hey there big guy. Tough day being a man, huh? Here, have some sympathy. Accept this victim/child frame, and I’ll give you Internet cookies
In the long run I dodged many bullets.
Like in the film “The Matrix”.
It makes me wonder how many men had their misson ruined because they decided to have sex with some slut.
I know I wouldn’t be where I am today and do what I always wanted to do had I got some disease, false rape claim, or a bastard child because I decided to give into my urges. But I’ve seen plenty of men have their mission robbed from them.
In summary, the FI will go to great lengths to discourage independent male thought/action. Whether you see this as a society-wide shit test, a genes-deep striving for matriarchy, or the literal manifestation of the Whore of Babylon, I don’t know. I would suggest that this is described scripturally in Genesis, though: “Your desire shall be for your husband.”
@ Mark Minter:
That is some good stuff you found re neurochemical bonding and how it seems to affect men and women differently. Men can bond. If and when the bond breaks the man feels depression and pain but after a time can bond again. Women bond, but the bond to her first partner seems to imprint on her and remain with her throughout life such that it can inhibit or prevent future bonding. At the very least she doesn’t forget the first partner.
This seems to line up with what I have seen and with my experience and observations.
Cross post from Unmasking Feminism …
This is precisely what happens to women when chastity & virginity are no longer on the table
Women only really offer men an orgasm, & children from that orgasm
With no real bonding or maternal instinct
Instead of becoming real mothers & real wives, bonded to their husbands through their virginity
Women become consumers of men, precisely because they have nothing to offer apart from meaningless sex & kids out meaningless relationships
Without a womans virginity, or chastity, to bond themselves to men, women have nothing to offer men
The alpha whoring theyve done will always haunt them, to the point they no longer are able to bond to men or their children, becoming consumers of men
Attention whoring their husbands & kids to compensate for their inability to bond or form meaningful relationships with their own children
The consumerism of women, seeing men & children as objects to be used as a social pussy pass
Is a direct result of womens slutdom & whoredom, creating an inability to bond with their men & their family
Unless women, WOMAN UP & start taking back their chastity & virginity, they will always be only consumers of men
Instead of real mothers & wives bonded to their families through the biology of their virginity
Srslypls:-
Where does the cat-calling “you’re gay!” type shaming fit?
I used to get this a lot as a young man (unfortunately, as our family are ve-e-ry slow developers. I was ethereally and revoltingly “pretty” well into adulthood, despite being a rough-as-get-out manual worker and built and tanned like it. Even now at the end of my sixth decade I pass for 40-something. Which is a tad awkward, when 35-y.o. bar bores want to fight you for no reason).
The local girls (98%, terrifying borderline-deformed, odoriferous drunken warpigs; <1%, faery-folk of world-class but otherwordly beauty) invariably responded to my polite and smiling (flattery will get you everywhere with me, I'm shallow!) declinations of attachment with violently expressed aspersions on my gender alignment in the bedroom department. I was a virgin until I was 20, due to my aesthetic inhibition, and have been remarkably abstemious since, by modern standards, until I met 'er Indoors 25+ years back, and Game Over. Am I just a damned snob? It doesn't feel like it, if I coulda, I woulda.
I must confess to my discredit that merely for the sake of peace I did nothing to discourage these canards, as there was nothing to lose (faery-girls were either fixated on Daddy still, or equally repulsed by my giant child-like physiognomy). Indeed I played up as much as I dared, short of getting a beating from the local queerbashers, until I was able to quit the benighted freak-farm for a land of even vaguely female women, and never return. My belated apologies to all gay men everywhere etc. etc.
I very much like Deti’s above comment and the larger one he left yesterday in reply to Red Pill at 4.32pm. It seems to me that if he is right about bonding (and I suspect that in the main he is correct, though there may be exceptions), the worst example of female failure to bond is caused when that first experience of sexual love is of the incestuous variety. Incest appears to be very difficult to get beyond, and Deti’s comment made me wonder whether writers on Incest have overlooked its primacy as being the root cause of the problem, rather than the degree of consanguinity.
I agree with Deti, that a broken relationship causes far more pain for a man than it does for a woman – women will get over it in a mere three months – I think, because it is in the nature of man to want to protect and provide, and a failed relationship affects a man as a failure of himself as a man. Notice how whenever a relationship does end everyone, male and female, always blame the man. He can however, given time, get beyond, that, entirely. Women (perhaps because they are not concerned with protection and provisioning, but merely with the biggest beast in the jungle), always seem to be looking back to that first big beast. What bigger beast could there be than her father. My obsession with Incest is, by the way, not of a personal nature, but – certainly one and possibly two (my researches are ongoing) of my – prior romantic attachments were seriously affected by the same, and unable to get past it. Again I quote, ‘cannot wrench [myself] free from now’. That was what she wrote – the concommitent promiscuity was, I thought, a way of saying,’ look, I am having copious sex and I am not related to any of these men’. Didn’t work of course – couldn’t get passed it.
Recently, don’t know where, I came across the most visually telling photo of female promiscuity. I will describe it: A women – back to the camera – is sitting on her bed, head down. Along the wall at the head of the bed, and extending into the next wall are four rows of photos of parts of the face of men. Attached to each photo is a used condom. I counted approximately 130 photos. My above ex, would have needed a lot more walls and a lot more rows.
Commenter jack really carried the water on that thread.
Here’s one of his best quotes:
“The discussion always ends up being an indictment against men like me for being unforgiving. What I never see is any repentance toward the future husband for what she defrauded him of. Ever. It is always “well, that is between be and God, Mr. Judgy Guy”.
“The truly repentant care more about righting the wrong they have done, and making it right to the harmed person, rather than endless wailing about how judged they feel.
“But the women don’t really care about how men feel. They don’t care about the good Christian men who had to spend their 20s and 30s building a life and career, abstaining from sex while their future wife was out “having a little fun” and trying to get jerks and bad boys to commit.
“They then want to jump ship from that life and come over and participate in the life that I built, ALL BY MYSELF, and have me pretend it is like nothing ever happened.
“She gave away her time, comfort, help, attention, and yes, sex to other men. Sometimes just because they were soooo exciting. Meanwhile, I am a self-made man in every sense of the word. What about the giant deficit in my life? what about the days I came home to an empty house, while she was out “making mistakes” (weasel term there) which were more deliberate than accidental.”
***
And let us never forget who is STILL UNWILLING to confront the full devastation of her actions, preferring instead to lecture men to “just get over it”.
END QUOTE
*******************
@Opus
Maybe your obsessed with incest, because you cant be bothered to hold women accountable, for their inane behaviour
When it comes to women, women will use incest, rape, anything to cover up their being sluts & uselessness to men & society in general
Addendum:
Women will use incest, rape, anything to cover up their being sluts & uselessness to men & society in general
In the exact same way, women used being pure virgins & the weaker sex, to avoid work & cover up their refusal to work & basic inability to build society
It would behoove women (and men as well) to repent of their sins.
God doesn’t send anybody to Hell because He wants to or gets some sick joy from judgement…if you decide to hang onto your sins and even be proud of them you give yourself a one way ticket.
@Dalrock,
Forget the quotes you gave. Listen to that “Ty” guy. I have to wonder what Bible he is reading. Evidently sin has _zero_ effect. It’s a sort of uber-gnosticism. It is so fantastically unchristian that my head wants to explode. And everyone just trips by the chick endorsing extra-marital and who _actively denigrates virginity_ (St. Mary pray for her!) sex to dump on Jack _as if that is a Christian position_. I makes me want to fashion a whip of ropes and clear out the joint.
@Dr. Statton,
Is it the state? A promise made to God? A sacrament only administered in church? Given that it’s mostly just contract law at the state level, it’s an issue that has to be addressed.
It is not the State, as it precedes it. It is a sacrament but it is not only administered in Church. It does create a contract as a secondary effect. The State may see to the enforcement of the same but it does such as a caretaker not as an originator as marriage precedes the State. This is the historic Western tradition.
@NJArt,
The Anglo-Saxon, Israelite-Christian values were destroyed by those who brought us the “Judeo-” values; and no the Jews are not descended from Hebrews.
One wonders where they came from then. God must be wrong about that whole Jewish thing. Thanks for correcting me.
@Asher,
I have read several highly respected theologians who assert that even in the case of adultery remarriage is not permitted and that to do so is adultery.
This is the historical teaching.
From what I remember, the reason for this is to hold out for reconciliation for as long as possible
No. It is because you don’t “own” marriage. God does. Reconciliation has little to nothing to do with it.
Consider the following scenario: a woman with no interest in sex discovers this early in her marriage and divorces her husband.without any subsequent remarriage. Would you council such a man to spend the rest of his life celibate? Wouldn’t such rules lead to men fleeing the church?
It could. It would be wrong. Of course the primary problem is that we tend not to address the root cause as posited by your scenario. What you posit is a violation of St. Paul’s commands to married couples.
@Frank,
I think I’ll take what the Bible says over the word of any theologian.
Which is why the theologians say this. The protestant position on remarriage is not supported by any Biblical text. You show me one and we’ll talk. I’ll warn you right now that this is a trap.
@Slumlord,
Personally, I think that the Church needs to cut some slack to those who have done no wrong in their marriage and have been personally screwed. I not arguing for divorce here, but a recognition of a state of non-culpable adultery should the aggrieved partner “pair up” with someone else. That is that is for a different post
The east has sort of taken that position and as an Easterner I don’t think it has worked out well. I personally vacillate on this myself but I can’t see either a sound theological reason for taking the position or a group that has that has resulted in a more stable marriage environment.
@Asher,
Consider rural early Medieval Europe, where the peasants rarely had the opportunity to have a formal marriage. Often a travelling priest would perform a ceremony years, even decades, after the consummation. Were the individuals fornicating before that time? What if they remained faithful to each other until death? Would that still be fornication?
Isn’t the Western position that the pair involved is the ordinary minister of the sacrament? If so aren’t they married “officially” in that case? The priest just acting to solemnize a previous act? I thought the medieval problem was guilds refusing the right of marriage…
@Brenden,
Yes, I did the same in college more than once. It cost me the relationship both times, but I was okay with that, although it was painful in one instance in particular.
I came from a very conservative community so the first time I was offered I actually “accidentally alpha’d”. Immediately after the offer I laughed and said, “you can’t be serious!” She pined after me for years.
@Opus,
Social Pathologist posted that on his blog once I think…I don’t think he said where it came from. It was a very sad picture.
I don’t know what protestant position you’r referring to, as I simply accept the biblical text as is, which to me is self-explanatory in many respects. I think many of us are merely spinning our wheels because so many simply cannot handle just how strictly God defines marital infidelity.
@GKC
I found the photo shocking – visualising as it did; putting flesh on ther number. When a woman says she has slept with N, well, that is just a number. When she assures you that the others meant nothing but that you are THE ONE it is tempting – as one is flattered – to think it may be true, after all one does not hear such things every day. When however you see that photo, and can see that there are 130 men, not different from oneself, indeed one may suspect physically and perhaps in other ways more desirable, men with mothers and sisters and families and jobs with desires and dreams and feelings, indeed real people, and not just a component of the integer N, one realises that there is something seriously wrong with a female who in addition to giving it away for some momentary itch-relieving pleasure can do so without even considering that the men are human beings with feelings of their own. Bar a few, most of those men (the 80%) will have been incel for months if not years; men who have not despite the talk of Rape Culture forced themselves on anyone, ever – not withstanding their high testosterone – yet they are to be tossed aside on the whim of a woman who thinks a good match is hers just as soon as she decides thatshe is ready – the bitch I referred to in her last letter to me, the one wherein she was ascribing her feelings to me – was, so she said – hoping to find an Army Officer! Scorpions sting because that is what scorpions do, but no one thinks scorpions make good pets. Yet we are told however by all advanced people that to doubt the wisdom or morality of the woman in the photo, is to hold back women’s emancipation and their empowerment and that to suggest that that number N makes that woman any less marriagable is nothing less than mysogyny. Men will man-up when women decide they are ready, doubtless, but not for that!
Another great way to identify dealbreakers is to check out the chins and brows on her illegitimate offspring.
Daughter got a manjaw? Alpha widow!
My manosphere street name should be Cruel-T.
We live in interesting times. I understand where the backlash is coming from though. Women are attracted to strength. Feminism tells us this is a sexist lie because women are strong and independent, or something. So this yields the conclusion that rather than project strength, men should project sensitivity in order to attract women. They can sing this song all day long, but it’s not going to change what’s hardwired in our genetics. Women absolutely cannot stand any perceived weakness, so the sensitive man is seen as the weak man.
The backlash though has been just as extreme, to the point where: compliment = puppy love = beta = weakness = FAIL. You cannot compliment a woman without being perceived as weak. You cannot express a desire to be with them without being seen as weak. Hence alpha douchetards will always get laid over nice guys, because they project strength, which is the overriding attractive factor. So whereas treating a girl with civility is perceived as weakness, regarding them with mild disdain, aloofness and apathy is perceived as strength. Welcome to post-feminist cray cray.
There was a time, in my view at least where a man could project strength while being as “beta” as they’d like, or least where those qualities were more acceptable and not treated with outright revulsion. Like say, fighting in WW2 and coming back alive. Their strength/alpha qualities have been proven and established in combat, so even if they exhibit beta qualities, women will still be drawn to them because of their clear track record of alpha-ness.
So I’m inclined to believe certain beta qualities are acceptable and even laudable so long as it’s couched in enough alpha-like traits to satisfy a woman’s need for a strong man/leader.
I didn’t make the connection before. But it occurs to me Dalrock has found yet another tenet of the false Christian theology that has sprung up around feminism.
That new tenet is:
If you love the person you’re having sex with, your conduct is moral and biblical and Christian. This is because God is love. So if you love a person and have sex with him/her, then it must be of God.
@ Deti
“If you love the person you’re having sex with, your conduct is moral and biblical and Christian. This is because God is love. So if you love a person and have sex with him/her, then it must be of God.”
All of which hinges around the notion of love as feeling, not love as doing.
I am a being with God given intelligence and an eternal soul. Buying into the “alpha” “beta” etc. grading nonsense makes me nothing more than animate meat. If you label me, you negate me. So I don’t buy in.
It is folly to deny the biology of the situation, of course. Both men and women prefer the fittest mate. For men this means symmetry, muscles and confidence. For women it means symmetry, the optimal waist to hip ratio, and submissive pleasantness (i.e., a nurturing personality).
However, for people to be slapping (Greek) letter grades on themselves and others is, to put it mildly, an absurd oversimplification of an infinitely complex process — mate choice and extended male/female relationships. To actually deride other human beings because you think they fit under the inferior label is plain idiocy. To take it a step further and start play acting in daily life to try to make yourself fit into some silly idea of an “alpha” male is insane behavior.
God made you who you are. Not to be thankful for that is foolish. Not to live that truth is tragic.
How sweet. However, how many 18-year olds these days understand what the marriage vocation truly is and are ready and able to live the commitment? Next to none, in my experience.
The smoke of feminism is now within the walls of the Church.
I suppose some of the busy-bodies are eager to counsel young women considering marriage to wait until they finish college and establish themselves in a career “just in case”. By the way, making plans to exit ones future marriage indicates that one is not able to make the lifetime commitment required of a Christian marriage.
Those priests gave wise counsel, in my opinion. Many are surprised to discover just how frequently couples enter marriage preparation with attitudes and behaviors that are grounds for finding that their attempted marriage is a nullity (i.e., grounds for annulment).
In this age of extended adolescence, few young people are ready to take up the vocation of marriage at age 18. And even fewer 18-year old young men are capable of stable provision for a family. A little delay to give time for him and his intended to learn and be counseled about Christian marriage, for his prospects to ripen, and to test her faithfulness is only prudent.
I disagree. Rather, I reasonably conclude that you are unreasonable. A reasonable conclusion is that most clergy are against couples incapable of marriage at marriage. Given the track record of marriages among American Christians since 1960 (to pick a year) a lot of priests are understandably reluctant to see fools rush in to marriage.
One more thing: I was a virgin at 21. It can be done. A young man can do it too.
Clearly, then, it is acceptable to mouth-fornicate with a endless boxes of chips ahoy cookies, then as well, since fat women really love cookies. Or ice cream. Love trumps any proscription against gluttony.
Hey, let’s keep going!
Lazy (slothful) husbands can no claim that they “love” watching football more than housework. No more honey-do lists.
Greed? Well, I love having more things and money than other people have. Love trumps again.
If you are experiencing feelings of “love” which is obviously left purposely ambiguous, all accountability is avoided.
a
Deti hypothesizes another bit of Churchianity:
If you love the person you’re having sex with, your conduct is moral and biblical and Christian. This is because God is love. So if you love a person and have sex with him/her, then it must be of God.
Let us test this by observing the inverse. A woman married, she loves her husband, but alas, “is no longer in love”. What should she do? Oh, what should she do?
Follow her heart, of course. God’s approval on this is certain – maybe because of her bestest boyfriend Jesus will make it work, or maybe because God is Love and only wants love for her, maybe because God is all about teh happiness, and wants her to be haaapy.
Deti, it works. It definitely works.
BONUS ROUND: Teh woman simply must have cash and prizes as she leaves, because God surely wants to “prosper her”, y’know…
“…I’d like to make you aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which I am a member, claims that such authority was taken from the earth some time after early church fell into apostasy, has been restored by angelic messengers, and is still held by men called of God today.”
Please. There was no great apostasy. This is the same claim all post-renaissance heretics make. At some point in the distant past, the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, and I, appointed by God, am just bringing Christianity back to what it was originally. Sorry Joseph Smith, you’re about 1800 years too late.
Read what St. Irenaeus, a bishop in the early Church, wrote around 180 AD about authority. The Church was intact, and Irenaeus claimed authority by tracing the succession of bishops back to the Apostles and Christ Jesus. He even provides a list. St. Augustine does the same thing in the late 4th century. This is how authority is reckoned in Christianity until Protestants invent sola scriptura. They lean on the Bible, and the Bible leans on nothing, neither defining what books belong in the Bible nor claiming authority for itself. Actually, the protestant Bible leans on Luther, since he fancied himself a suitable editor of the holy book. So they all lean on one another and all together lean on nothing.
I’m just a dumb grunt but the Bible seem clear a man can divorce and remarry if his ex wife was unfaithful
http://bible.cc/matthew/19-9.htm
Remarriage after a wife leaves/ abandons her husband isn’t as clear but seems feasible. Especially given a man’s sex drive, how few men are called to being sexless and marriage being the only lawful place for sex.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10-16&version=NIV
Mostly I think theologians are full of shit, the Bible clear in areas of major importance and God loves to use the simple to confound the wise. But theologians would lose their sense of self importance, self righteousness and cushy office jobs if they didn’t try to confound the simple with thousands and thousands of words. Words usually full of sound and furry but signifying nothing
If you love the person you’re having sex with, your conduct is moral and biblical and Christian. This is because God is love. So if you love a person and have sex with him/her, then it must be of God.
I have never heard anyone say anything remotely close to this in real life, and I’ve been in and around the church all my life. Fornication has always been preached as sinful. Always.
This “new tenet” is not a tenet of the faith even in the most liberal churches. It’s madness, this blog Dalrock found.
Most theologians are the religious equivalence of lawyers.
One final question.
Suppose a woman really, really loves sweets, and has an orgiastic evening of Dove bars and cupcakes.
If the result is that she discovers a bulge in her midsection soon after, and thusly regrets her indulgence, can she claim rape?
Seriously, these poor girls are victims of predacious men who malevolently cook up scrumptious desserts against which women are powerless. Game? Who needs game when you can seduce her tongue with chocolate?
Who needs sex when I can exert my patriarchal control over women with cocoa, cane sugar and cream? It has the added benefit of making them alpha-proof as well, since their more cushion-y aspect makes them invisible to the merciless alpha eye.
Keep an eye out for my new book “CHOMP”, which will tell you all you ever need to know about controlling women. Regional volumes to follow soon, such as “CHOMP New Orleans”.
@ jack
Keep up the good fight. Some things you may want to consider adding to arguments:
1. There are physical and spiritual consequences to actions. Fornication/promiscuity is spiritually a sin and also has physical consequences (pregnancy, STDs, decreased pair bonding, etc). Just because God forgives does not mean physical consequences disappear.
2. Would you lend money to a chronic gambler? So why is it bad to make an smart decision on not to marry someone with a promiscuous past?
3. I think you touched on this, but I’ll repeat anyway.
Jesus said to the adulterous woman “go and sin no more.” There’s no grace without repentance.
Repentance does not say “don’t judge me” as that is a pitiful attempt at justification for a sinful action; repentance accepts you have sinned and have turned from the sin with a contrite heart.
Those unwilling to repent will not inherit the kingdom of God.
@ The Scolds’ Bridle
As I’ve said before, Feminism (spirit of Jezebel) and modern food reward resulting in obesity et al (aka gluttony) are clearly talked about in Revelation 2 of the church in Thyatira:
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
Scary.
No, it’s about bullying the young men. Young men who want to court the right way need to be treated with respect. Not made to wait out a two year engagement. Clergy care about feminine fickleness and feminist attitudes, they don’t care about girls marrying as virgins, truly following Christian morality. There is just no doubt about it.
Frank:
I’ve been having similar thoughts lately. I even talked about that with HHG last night. Why should men change and rearrange themselves and read books about how to cut off parts of their personalities in order to make women all tingly? I was bemoaning this fact, but HHG just shrugged and said, “It’s that or no girl. Guys do that which gets them what they want.” But it still seems not quite right to me somehow.
@ Scold’s Bridle
Good humor, thank you for the laugh.
Sigh. Jezebel wins again.
Your cousin’s story is a sad one. “Take up your cross and follow me,” Jesus said to His disciples. We are weak and afraid so we often throw down our cross and run away. Been there, done that. Got the T-shirt. And another and another… So I sympathize with your cousin. Alas, I have no special works-like-a-magic-bullet advice to offer. Still, God is a father always on the road looking for His lost sons and ready to receive them home.
Ha. If you believed that you’d have skipped right past my post. Let’s review. I made no excuses for your cousin’s wife. As you told the story she clearly did him wrong and put him in a terrible fix. If instead you’d told me that some female DUI driver smashed into him and left him a cripple for life, then for that too I would have judged “Through no fault of his own, your cousin has a heavy cross to bear Aszher.”
So you don’t think the wising up process is very far along, do you? Well, I didn’t say it had already become a mass movement. And your pessimism is certainly well justified by the trend of the past 50 years. But there’s always Herb Stein’s wisecrack to keep in mind, “What can’t go on forever, won’t.”
I hear your frustration. By the way, you may have just solved the Fermi Paradox. (My favorite working hypothesis is along these lines.)
Yet – getting back to being serious – why concede that “getting sex” or pursuit of some other transient jollies is the foundation of a well-lived life?
@Ton
That passage(Matthew 5:32) can be read two ways.
1) Firstly, the way you read it.
2) Secondly, it could be read that when a man divorces his wife, he compels his wife to become an adulteress, except in the case where she herself committed adultery. In other words, divorcing a woman puts her in a position where she has to sin (remember, there was no social welfare back then and a woman would have to shack up with someone to survive.) It’s not the clear cut approval of divorce that people think it is.
3) If you take all the other passages in the Bible you see that God hates divorce.
It does appear though that there is some “toleration” (i.e he may not seen you to Hell in certain instances) of it but definitely no approval. I think he recognises that mankind is hopeless, stupid and hard of heart.
@ SSM
“Why should men change and rearrange themselves and read books about how to cut off parts of their personalities in order to make women all tingly? I was bemoaning this fact, but HHG just shrugged and said, “It’s that or no girl. Guys do that which gets them what they want.” But it still seems not quite right to me somehow.”
The same applies to women as well, when you think about it. Men have to adjust their behavior to gain sexual attention from women, yes. But women must adjust their behaviors in order to gain commitment from men.
As a man, I may not want to have to demonstrate Alpha behaviors all the time. I may want to be quiet, peaceful, nice, not work out, not have a great job or any status in society but still attract women. But in order to be considered worthy of female sexual attention, I must act Alpha. Women, on the other hand, may want to be able to sleep with as many men as they want and waste their youthful years on hedonism and still be considered worthy of male commitment. But men don’t want to commit to a high N-count woman; no man wants to pay for what others got for free.
This is not unfair. What is unfair is that present society forces men to adjust their behavior for the sake of female preferences, but tells men that they cannot force women to adjust their behavior for the sake of male preferences.
SSM
It doesnt sound right some how because although you yourself have a higher capacity to understand the men here and understand and accept the critical things we have said about women, you may be mistaking your understanding on the rest of the female population.
It doesnt sound right because women are not doing their fair share as well. If women continue to be status quo, then you get the slow elimination/breading out of positive “beta” traits.
People are selfish. Society has it now where it excuses women’s selfishness. If this does not change, men will, in time, become more selfish. I think feminism has laid the ground work for the attitudes of the end times
2 Timothy 3:1-9
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be LOVERS OF THEMSELVES, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
Notice how in verse 6 and 7, the “evil” is brought/spread to the world through (gullible) women.
Cause and effect, its nice to see women starting to grasp it.
SSM, some beta traits can be given voice in a man’s relationship with his God, if not otherwise.
I was irked when I saw those responses to Frank. You called them out much better than I would have, HawkandRock.
I was irked when I saw those responses to Frank. You called them out much better than I would have, HawkandRock.
We live in interesting times.
Frank, sorry if my actions/words were wrong. I guess the words “beta orbiter” were the easiest/fastest I could find, but weren’t the best to describe the reply. Also, the dude who called you a “fag” was a head case and a horrible person.
Apologies for the confusion.
I didn’t make the connection before. But it occurs to me Dalrock has found yet another tenet of the false Christian theology that has sprung up around feminism.
That new tenet is:
If you love the person you’re having sex with, your conduct is moral and biblical and Christian. This is because God is love. So if you love a person and have sex with him/her, then it must be of God.
Another commandment of Churchianity found.
Seriouslyplease sez:
I noticed all three of you complaining in some regard about a lack of mortal-side religious authority. If you were not previously, I’d like to make you aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which I am a member, claims… blah blah blah
Pe Le El my brother. I am also a Mormon.
My parents were both Mormons. What’s interesting is that when my skank ho mother decided to take my sister and I across the international border, while my dad was hard at work busting his ass to buy her all the useless crap she wanted, the bishop helped her. The church subsequently helped her falsely accuse my Mormon dad of all manner of bullshit, and helped her find a Mormon attorney to fuck him over to the furthest possible extent. The church “helped” further by blaming him for everything. Then it “helped” by setting skank ho mummy up with a new stepdad, who later became the bishop of our new ward, and who abused my sister and I growing up in a variety of different ways.
Fuck the Mormons, you understand? Mormons HATE men. The Mormons are the biggest worshippers of women out there. They’re worse than the Christians, worse than the Jews, and worse than the Atheists.
See you in the temple,
Boxer
This “new tenet” is not a tenet of the faith even in the most liberal churches.
Maybe it’s an unspoken tenet at liberal churches? Everybody does it but nobody hears it explicitly? Only inside masks?
Churches are like women – look at the actions not the words to see the truth. Don’t believe what they say, even if what they say happens to exist in Scripture. Believe their actions and whether they are matching up with what Scripture happens to say.
@Asher:
You indicated the following:
“This conversation reminds me of the abomination known as the Lord’s Pray which ends up being some magic talisman that “saves” a person. Just because two people get some state license doesn’t mean squat.”
You seemed to indicate that you are a Christian. If you are, then receive my admonishment in the context I direct it: You should not refer to the Lord’s prayer as an abomination. Our Creator provided us with that prayer as a template for our communications with Him.
Dalrock, this comment isn’t so much for publication, but could you please contact me via the e-mail addy attached? You have a troll attack in progress on this thread.
What is unfair is that present society forces men to adjust their behavior for the sake of female preferences, but tells men that they cannot force women to adjust their behavior for the sake of male preferences.
It can be described that way, but I think it’s more productive to simply see it as slanted, because that avoids the mental anguish (and anger) that gets parceled along with the word “unfair”.
Every period of time has things people need to deal with that could be deemed “unfair”. I don’t think God cares very much about which unfairnesses you have to deal with in your lifetime, as compared to people who lived centuries ago or who will live centuries from now, but that whenever you do live and whatever you do face you don’t view it as a cause of bitterness based on being treated unfairly (I know you personally don’t — I’m just making a more general point).
It’s certainly slanted, but that’s just what we have to work with. As men, we work with what we’ve got. Women who are consciously abusing the current slant in their favor will be held to account by God, no doubt of it – and that’s His job, not ours.
“It can be described that way, but I think it’s more productive to simply see it as slanted, because that avoids the mental anguish (and anger) that gets parceled along with the word “unfair”. “
Good point. Unfair was a poor choice of words; it didn’t mirror the language used by SSM. Slanted works better because conveys the image of a scale and the balancing act that is constantly underway between male and female interests.
@Deti, @Markminter, @furious ferret, @Opus Thanks for responding. I guess a subtext of my comment was trying to reconcile premarital sex with Christianity, which is a fools errand. I’ve seen the posts Dalrock did on getting a wife, and it’s very good stuff. Athol did something along those lines a while back. But I could go a decade without meeting a woman who fits that criteria and is within a reasonable socio sexual margin of me. And then she has to want to sleep with me! (Most of pickup is a raw numbers game. Women respond to men who correlate with their archetype of masculinity and discard others. A lot of people forget that.)
What am I supposed to do in the interim? Not have sex, ever? And I agree with you that developing the mental schema necessary for tight game robs the interaction of some of its excitement.
But this discussion (about 80,000 words worth on this thread alone) of how women are sluts (not you guys, but other commentators,) worthless, and are alone responsible for sexual morality seems to be self-serving and pointless. It may be the case that Christianity and modern reality have diverged enough to be mutually exclusive. You can accept one or the other. It’s definitely a subject, for a journeyman player, that bears a great deal more thought.
” A poster Frank makes a supportive comment to another poster … ”
The name calling by men can be any number of things, like amoging.
Discouraging further ‘encouragement’ can be seen as typical female lack of empathy. I saw it as consistent with alcests self description posted elsewhere.
End result i took was a reminder to use compliments sparingly.
Carry on…
Use of the phrase “good church girls” was meant to reflect the hypocrisy and grace abuse by our sisters in the faith.
Issues like those raised by jack can come across as a bad case of ‘older brother syndrome’, for failing to rejoice that his errant sisters have come ‘home’. The analogy fails and fails badly, meant to be encapsulated in the phrase “good church girls”.
Error is meant to be followed by repentance, and changed actions. Despite the apparent presence of the former, the complete lack of the latter suggests the former was inadequate.
Churches have invertec morality by celebrating repeat acts of ‘repentance’ and disdaing virtue, self restraint and obedience (‘go and sin no more’, anyone?). Sluttery can be forgiven, but like the younger brother would have experienced ongoing issues despite forgveness, sluttery has consequences like reduced ability to pair bond, disease and spiritual consequences we cannot see.
The focus on grace and the ‘dont judge me’ attitude results in these issues being ocerlooked, downplayed or ignored.
Thus, we wind up with obedient, beta men portrayed as sexless dupes, disdained for being virgins by men and women alike, and criticised for failing to man up and marry the sluts.
I am unconvinced grace was intended to be so abused, or so meted out in abundance just to women.
“… Women are… alone responsible for sexual morality. . .”
I dont recall this idea being promoted or implied.
The takeaway i see is that feminists attempt to evade the negative consequences of freely expressed female sexuality attempts. Often by projecting onto men.
1. There are no good men (apex fallacy)
2. Men wont commit (most would much earlier, were the women not chasing rpthe elusicecalphas)
3. I am a strong, independent woman (no bicycle required, then?)
4. I believe in equality (and deserve special treatment to achieve it)
5. Marriage is forever (until i decide otherwise)
Tempting to continue…
This is what I’m supposed to put my entire life on hold and work myself to death for: a woman with nothing to offer but a worn out pussy, a princess complex, and a mountain of debt that I have to pay off even after she deserts me. And if I complain openly I’M the one with the problem.
@Dan
Stay on topic. The topic on sexuality and how christian theology relates to it. Nothing more. Move to another forum about such a topic to discuss.
Jacks responses on the other thread are incredibly noteworthy.
Kudos dude !!
If commenter jack is on this thread, standing ovation to you. You were a one-man tour de force, took all comers, and dispatched them with ease. Bravo, brother.
Someone has to substantiate the “96%” canard. That sounds preposterously high. Like the thin-air assertions of Nancy Pelosi about 98% of Catholic women using birth control. Does anyone ever look stuff up? As far as I can trace it, the number comes from some Swedish SWPL comment-pimple called “Gunnar Tveiten,” and everyone else took it at face value. It’s not even worth a Google search for me. Burden of proof lies with the wild-ass-guesser who cited the stat. Until we see linkage, ignore the Fidel-Castro-election-level propaganda.
So. “News flash: you probably won’t marry a virgin” is the sarcastic answer of the culture to our concerns. The moralistic therapeutic deism has extended so far into the collective consciousness that it is inspiring even Christians to join the other team, at least on this issue. What are we going to do about it? Jack is a great example of identifying the scam and dispassionately refusing to play the rube.
But this doesn’t address the general problem. Refusing to marry carousel-departing 30-somethings won’t alter the supply of carousel-entering 20-somethings (although it’s a good start). The lie remains operative enough to younger women to maintain their promiscuous behavior. Even the testimony of true-believing, wall-flattened spinsters won’t be convincing enough to their little sisters just beginning to feel the first exhilarations of peak sexual power.
The point-of-no-return for virgins is crossed by women aged 15-25, at the top of their asset value, and under the influence of unrestrained hypergamy, with only corny, token, self-parodic attempts to persuade them “It’s Great To Wait!” Cautionary tales are impotent in the face of that newly-discovered power. They are queens of the sexual market place — stupid, inexperienced, and megalomaniacal though they be. Shame campaigns will have no effect. Cultural enforcements only adorn the real dynamics of power beneath them. Logic has no place here. You can wag your finger at young women and tell them how miserable they will be in twenty years, but such efforts are pointless — other than to make elderly people feel holier-than-thou. “Like, that’s a whole lifetime away,” the young woman in the big city thinks. “I’ll figure something out by then!”
No, what has to happen is a power shift. Young men must be brought up to snuff. Older men must start dipping down into “inappropriate” ages without shame. Girls who persist and enter the sexual marketplace anyway (often with betadad’s encouragement) must be introduced to consequences sooner rather than later, before a decade of getting hollowed out by diversiform myriad cock. This cannot be done by activist campaign. The MRA-types and bible thumping crusaders can’t lock arms and hold up picket signs to convince young girls (and, more important, their dads) to retain their virtue. They will have to be restrained and forced, by dogma, by jealous guardians, by well-formed consciences, and by shotgun.
The dynamic can only shift if we approach the promiscuity of young women systematically. Alpha missionaries seducing women, holding their fates in their hands. Scaring them straight. You know, there is nothing intrinsic to “Five Minutes of Alpha” that requires the theft of “Many Prime Years of Girls’ Lives.” Alpha fathers build up their girls; they don’t “steal” their youth. Alphas can use their power to “leave a girl better than they found her,” rather than acting like petty thieves, thigh-humping sex addicts, and con artists. It is simply a matter of discipline: the discipline supported by brotherhoods of faith. These are our sisters, not disposable cum rags.
The accident of PUA sociopathy and the early-millennium renaissance of men is nothing that should be accepted. We men are regaining power, and with power comes responsibility. Small-minded and short-sighted former AFC’s can only think about directing this awesome new power into their leaky bucket of passions, rather than to shape the culture in a salutary direction, to make it a place where our daughters can be chaste and our sons admirable again.
Just who are these PUA poseurs, and why in the world would we allow them to corrupt/squander this new resource? If they displayed any sort of strategic coherence or philosophical self-awareness, they might be trustworthy. But instead they are taken by some of the least sophisticated ideologies, such as pedestalizing “the dark triad” like a bunch of kids who think it’s the height of rebellion to worship evil because they happened across The Satanic Bible. This is a sign that they are in way over their heads.
And the revenge-minded, reformed omegas are similarly flailing in the deep end of the pool. These sad former-dorks want to fuck the pain away and are similarly led astray by philosophies that not only won’t work for very long, but will actively add to their own frustrations down the road. Last come the new age poseurs who conflate all human freedom with the liberation of their pants, proclaiming libertinism to be end-state liberty, rather than just the beginning shadows in a long, grueling enlightenment.
You need to become ecumenical with the various churches of the manosphere. You must develop your cause through comprehensive visions, leaving no one — no man or woman, no MRA or PUA, no Christian or atheist, no alpha or omega, no feminist or SWPL — out of the equation. And you have to dedicate yourself to bringing forth the Kingdom, right from the start, or it will all be in vain.
Matt
I’m reading the comments of those two posts in a little more depth right now. Good responses, Jack. For the others who are getting into this stuff, it’s a good clinic being put on in there about what feminist shaming language and expressions of woman worship looks like (daughters of Jezebel).
Great job with the comments, Jack! For the others who are new to this, that second post’s comments is a good clinic on what feminist shaming language and expressions of woman worship looks like. Plenty of examples of both!
Yo Dalrock!
Athol wrote a book.
Rollo is writing a book. ( http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-evolution-of-game/ )
You’re up next. The world is waiting.
Michael Singer: Ok, I’m tired, which other thread?
Oh. I made my comment because that was unclear in your earlier comment. Seemed plausible to me that you meant your fellow congregants were comfortable and unironic in referring to those females as such.
True, but even quitting something as simple as a fingernail-biting habit can be difficult with frequent backsliding for a long time. Giving up the slut habit, the sexual teasing habit, or the carousel habit is probably more difficult – even tougher than a man or boy giving up masterbation maybe, nowhere on the telly or movies or womens magazines or popular Internet sites are nail-biting or masterbation glorified or linked to celebrity idolatry. Changed actions, as you say, are the outward sign of sincere repentance. They are difficult to fully realize.
How many times are we to forgive? Seven times seventy-seven is a number that comes to mind (and it is a metaphor for “as many times as necessary”). God does no less. Of course, forgiving the reformed “errant sisters” doesn’t require any man to marry one of them. We are called to be both peaceful as doves and wise as serpents.
Repeat acts of apparently genuine repentance are to be celebrated by the Church. We are told that they are celebrated in heaven and that’s where the Church Triumphant resides. So of course the Church Militant here on Earth celebrates too for whether on heaven or Earth, the Church strives to be one as the Father and Son are One. The command to “Go and sin no more” is not permission to disdain virtue, self-restraint or obedience to God’s will. But we are sinners. The Church is not a museum of plaster saints but a hospital for sinners. We are not helping our errant brothers and sisters grow in spiritual health if we fail to counsel them when they risk slipping into temptation themselves or into leading others into temptation.
True. “Sluttery”, or – to put it more generally – choosing to deny chastity, certainly does include those consequences. Would that more be done to teach and warn young people and their parents about the consequences of denying chastity. And teaching the repentant fallen how to leave the unchaste life and heal what brokenness can be healed this side of the veil. Scripture teaches that the prayers of the righteous avail much and that our God is the God of the living; therefore I ask Saint Mary of Egypt please pray for us sinners.
Sigh. That admonishment of Jesus to “judge not” is so often misinterpreted, twisted, and used as a club to beat up those who perform the spiritual work of mercy that is admonishing the sinner. We are not to judge the state of another’s soul – that only God in his perfect judgment and abundant mercy knows. The same Scripture that warns us to judge not lest we be judged also warns us not to contribute to the causes of the sins of others and further instructs us what to do if a fellow believer offends against us and refuses to reconcile with us. (I leave the finding of those particular Scripture passages as a spiritual exercise for the interested reader.)
I agree. We are warned not to cast pearls before swine.
As denoted by Dalrock.
http://joyinthisjourney.com/2013/02/on-virginity-what-i-did-and-did-not-mean/comment-page-1/#comment-35000
Jacks responses are truly insightful.
To talk this talk- one has to be walking the walk. Semper Paratus !
Yep, modern Churchianity, better not offend anyone, they might just get offended and then they might, I don’t know, judge you or something. Lol lol lol, funny shits, they can judge you but you better not call them out on their sins, no sireee!
Lost interest in their babbling long time ago.
My favourite statement to women who decided to ride and wait for marriage much later…
Wasn’t good enough for you then, not good enough for you now. You go get em sista!
Would just like to point out that Connie posted on the comments section of Joy’s blog, in direct response to Jack.
Much respect to Jack on those comments. A lot of what he said is what I would say too.
And you can tell it scares the hell out of women when men think this way. Your backup plans are waking up.
But to look at the silver lining in the clouds…
Women acting this way make me want to work harder and improve myself for the glory of God. At least I know He’s got my back…and I’ll get a great reward.
Christians need to remember that the Bible clearly tells us that we as Christians should judge other Christians. In fact, there is a verse that clearly talks about what we are talking about (sexual immorality/fornication) and Judging other Christians for engaging in the things that was listed.
1 Corinthians All of chapter 5 for context but the relevant passage below.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are YOU NOT TO JUDGE THOSE INSIDE? 13 God will judge those outside. “EXPEL the wicked person from among you.”[d]
We are allowed to JUDGE other people claiming to be Christian and EXPEL them out of church. I really dont like how church accepts so many “sinners”. What i mean is, we are not saving people by allowing “sinners” to stay at church. Christians who continue to “sin” after being rebuked by a fellow Christian and then if that dont work, 2 more people, and if that dont work, with the whole assembly of the church. After that, we send them out of the church so that Satan can have his was with the “christian” and thus braking that person to a point where he/she really repents and comes back to God/Jesus in repentance and then the church accepting that person again and rejoicing that a lost son/daughter has returned.
Christians, judge other Christians (hold them accountable, rebuke them in hopes that they see their error and change, then expel them from church if the do not)
What is quite interesting from the comments on the other blog:
– Justification of fornication
– Hypocritical higher expectations for men than for themselves
– The blatant disregard for the scriptures
As “redpillpaul” mentioned 1 Cor 5 a couple post up from this, if one reads a little bit further in chapter 6 (see below) the warnings of sexual immorality of which seems to carry a bit more “concern” than other vices.
When the Apostle Paul said not to be unequally yolked – this is far more encompassing of which includes virtue, morality, integrity, honesty, spiritual maturity, among many other things including sexual partners.
1 Cor 6
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For the two, He says, shall become one flesh.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Translate that to shrieking today.
MY BODY, MY CHOICE!!!!!!! ST. PAUL OR ANY OTHER MAN IS NOT GOING TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY!!!!
That’s why St. Paul is one of my favorite psychopaths. He told the truth and didn’t care about people’s feelings or the abuse he took. If he lived in today’s world…the wailing and gnashing of teeth he would of had to endure from women and white knights would take godlike patience to get through. Just look at what happens to Jack when he brought this stuff up.
Michael Singer
Was That supposed to be a christian blog Jack made the comment on? The reaction from the female commenters was gold. He was one guy making a judgement call on dating women. I guess they felt Jack meant them. Because each one of those christian hoes had their own special dick they suck on the weekends while they are in love so he shouldn’t judge. The excuses they came up with and the anger was off the charts and as MRA greyghost fun to see.
Once again The PUA are doing the lords work. Women have no natural virtue and will behave with virtue when it is in there best interest. Based on the comments women have made, just having no one voice the lack of virtue is good enough. No rings for sluts and enjoy the pussy young man. Don’t expect more than that. PS when you get tired of that pussy be nice to her and tell her how much you need her and depend on her she will find her a realman and then you are free to get you a new piece of ass. Christian church women wouldn’t have it any other way.
@Michael Singer,
“As “redpillpaul” mentioned 1 Cor 5 a couple post up from this, if one reads a little bit further in chapter 6 (see below) the warnings of sexual immorality of which seems to carry a bit more “concern” than other vices.”
You make a very good point that most Christians ignore or miss. Sexual sin is more serious than other sin.
It’s also amazing the reaction you get when you don’t subscribe to Groupthink™.
You must be a loser and will live a pitiful existence if you don’t realize dating and marrying a slut will be the only thing that will judge your worth as a man. Holding out for something better means you are bitter and hate women. She deserves the right to make “a few mistakes”…and your reward is living with the consequences.
Enjoy the alpha widow memories ladies….they’ll be all you have to look back on once 30 and beyond rolls around. Husband and family…not so much.
@Greyghost – very very true. Jacks comments were the heavy hammer of truth coming down squarely on a nail placed in very soft wood. I have become throughly convinced many Western Women are their own worst enemy due to lack of virtue (virtue has a ineffable attractiveness that can be felt and has a unique magnetic quality much like a magnet & steel.
Btw, thanks again for the ever so true reminder.
PS …” be nice to her and tell her how much you need her and depend on her she will find her a realman and then you are free to get you a new piece of a_s. Christian church women wouldn’t have it any other way.”
“Women have no natural virtue and will behave with virtue when it is in there best interest.”
Yup women are like milk duds…sweet on the outside, poison on the inside.
On the subject of virtue – I took a look at Proverb 31:10 the “who can find a virtuous woman? verse.
And the Hebrew word for “virtuous” is quite different than I expected as translated – “chayil” which is the following: strength, efficiency, wealth, army, able, activity, band of men soldiers, company, great forces, goods, host. This is far different than the English translation of virtue ie morals.
@jack
I commend you for taking on that blasphemous blogette! I read the whole thread and you really struck a nerve. The white knights that piped in we’re sickening. What type of hamster shit was that? There must be a new term to define stuff like that.
’twas a fight that will be remembered!
Personally I think the gals get scared or angry when a guy like Jack brings up the subject because it unleashes a truth they don’t want to face.
They couldn’t get alpha f*ckbuddy to commit because he knows better than to commit to a slut…plus he has options. They think strong men with virtue and morals will “accept them for who they are”, “forgive and forget”, and be ready to invest his life for her because reality says he doesn’t have options. It’s a newsflash when they discover men of virtue don’t want to commit to sluts either.
What are they left with…betas, manginas, white knights who are weak men that will accept any old crumb that comes their way or cats. Hope that sexual awakening was worth it.
@earl “They couldn’t get alpha f*ckbuddy to commit because he knows better than to commit to a slut…plus he has options.”
This is where it gets a bit sticky for most women. They will use pregnancy out of wedlock to con the alphas into marriage.
This fait acompli scenario results in a abortion or single motherhood or marriage to a man who is unfit to care for a woman / child.
As you mentioned ” Hope that sexual awakening was worth it.” is very fitting.
@Asher
Your overly emotional rant had nothing to say about my original comments.
@Faggots
A celebrate man has less in common with a homo than a promiscuous man. Both the homo and the “player” are navel gazing hedonists who are overly preoccupied with their own pleasure.
Why should men change and rearrange themselves and read books about how to cut off parts of their personalities in order to make women all tingly? – SSM
SSM, you have never contemplated dating a man who has said these words: “My heart hearts your virginity.” To somehow imply that this man should not change this part of his personality is a disservice. It is the “continue being a nice guy, someday a nice girl will come along and appreciate how nice you are.” You know it’s a lie.
The responses he got from saying this were the same. One was complete honesty from a woman who probably read it just like I did, with revulsion, and she responded accordingly. Being a woman and seeing that a *big bully bad guy came in and shamed him, she is now backtracking to protect the poor wounded lass. Again, a lie – and the very thing these men have complained about, being lied to and buying into that lie.
*big bully bad guy did this man a favor and is the best friend he’s got to convince him that he will never have success with women using statements like he did. However, I’ve noticed an awful lot of “It’s not what you said, it’s the way you said it that is wrong.” I can’t stand it when women say these things.
If reading “Return of Kings” causes this man to cut off the part of his personality that even thinks: “My heart hearts your virginity,” much less expresses it, a great service has been done.
This is literally the advice we teach our son.
“But it still seems not quite right to me somehow.”
You want to believe a man knows instinctively what to do with women and didn’t have to be taught. Or he saw the whole society as a sh*t test…and didn’t subscribe to group think.
Just get it.
Well men know instinctively what to do with women…but then are shamed or brainwashed about it…or told incorrectly the things that will bring them the reward. They have to be told again what they are supposed to do. It’s taking out a cancer rather than cutting off parts of a personality.
I also want to thank Jack for his work on those “joyinthisjourney” blog threads – and I’m an agnostic!
Two themes were made VERY clear to me over there:
– The “white knighting” men were not at all ‘patriarchical’ or leaders. That fellow Ty, for example, has links to some New Age site, which explains why he kept trying to cloud, or spin things away from, Jack’s citing of Scripture.
– The other clear theme was just how *addicted* the women were to “affirmation”, and how upset they became when Jack wasn’t providing it. Some of the responders have blogs of their own, and to cite an example, one of them linked to this article:
Respecting Women Is Respecting Life
Sheesh!
I knew how addicted women are to affirmation when you see a pretty gal put up a picture on facebook.
@FeministHater,
“Would just like to point out that Connie posted on the comments section of Joy’s blog, in direct response to Jack.”
http://joyinthisjourney.com/2013/02/on-virginity-what-i-did-and-did-not-mean/comment-page-1/#comment-35014
Connie is bragging that she fornicated before marrying her husband. (Not sure if this is the same Connie. If it is, was this Husband 1 or Husband 2?) She says other women can fornicate because they might learn a good lesson from it. Why not play with matches? Why not play in the middle of the road? Why not jump into the tiger den at the zoo? Why not jump out of an airplane with just an umbrella? You might learn some lesson from those things also.
She ignores that sexual sin is worse than pride or envy.
She ignores the fact that SELF CONTROL is a fruit of the Spirit.
She ignores that as SALT, we should be moving the culture to righteousness, not license.
No, Connie; I do not hate you. Hate has nothing to do with this. Criticism is not hate. Refuting errors is not hate. Disagreeing with you is not hate.
@Sarah’s Daughter
Agreed. File this under “Women make us the assholes women want us to be”.
“My heart hearts your virginity” is insufferable corny and cheesy but reveals a man who is sensitive, who has a heart, who has empathy, who values women, who values virginity and God’s law. All these characteristics that women despise in their search for the über-alpha who makes them tingle.
IOW, he is what ancients called “a good man”, which is like being a leper in the modern sexual market. You can do everything: you can be aggressive, you can do drugs, you can have soft harems. You can treat women like sh*t. Women will love it and ask for more. Women will give you all the sex you want (and more). The only thing you have to avoid is being a good man. Women will react as if you had offended them. This guy, Frank, tried to be empathetic to another human being and was shamed and ridiculed.
I remember being like this guy when I was young. I remember decades of celibacy and women despising me Of course, I have changed now and I treat women like sh*t and they love it. The opinion I have of women couldn’t be lower. I have a soft harem and every woman knows she is not the only one. They protest mildly from time to time (usually while laughing: “Don’t be evil my man, hahah”).
We have to give women what omen want. Women want assholes and they will have assholes. Every nice guy must endure this conversion.
The only part of me that revels at this state of affairs is the realization that, because of some stinky pussy (which I can’t help wanting because of my biology), I have given up the best part of me. Only to please entitled children (women) who are not worth it and cannot appreciate kindness and a good man. The same thing that happened to Frank.
The sin is bothering for obvious reasons…but what disgusts me more is the proudness about it.
Like a child saying….”haha I did it and got away with it and you can’t do anything about it”. That’s pouring gas onto a fire next to a dynamite factory.
Connie is stupid. She says not to judge or be judgmental of sluts or her slutty past, yet works as a lawyer and tried to be, ah huh, a freaking Judge. Irony of freaking ironies. Stupid sluttart!
It really boils down to this. A murderer who has repented still must face consequences, such as life in prison or death. A non-virgin woman, who has repented, must still face consequences, such as no marriage or marriage to a lower class man. Both, however, since they have repented, will be allowed into the house of the Lord.
You can be damn sure it’s the same Connie. How do you think she found this site?
Yes earl, like the article by Joy, rubbing it in that most men will never marry a virgin because Christian women couldn’t keep their legs closed…
Here’s a good question for them. If it’s not a sin to have sex outside a marriage then why have marriage. It serves no purpose. Men have the same rights in or outside of marriage. They can get more sex outside than in, more variety and when the current s gets boring, you can change her for a newer model. No harm, no foul, without the instruction of marriage being the place of sanctified sex between husband and wife and all else being sin, there really is little reason to get married.
The women have made the argument for men to abandon marriage.
And since marriage for men is a bucket of obligations and no rewards, lol lol lol lol lol lol lol!
And because of that on one side…what would be the point improving for a man if you are going to get attached to a woman who is proud she devalued the only thing she brings to the table. At least a X-box doesn’t nag you.
On the other side…I choose to improve myself for basically me and should a unicorn cross my path for her too. It is a jungle out there.
@ Frank
This is for you Frank
“Stay golden man,stay golden”.
Actually, you need to start banging some chicks asap.
@ vasularity777
You should not refer to the Lord’s prayer as an abomination
Opps, I was tired when I made this comment. What I meant to say was “sinner’s prayer”, which is the abomination.
If it wasn’t for fornication being a sin or kids…I’d never have a desire to get married. Give up freedom for sex and putting out the fires she sets.
I get sex out of the deal…which has been priced to nearly 0 in this day and age. Women get a masculine heart…which in the day and age of betas and white knights puts the value into diamond territory.
And women ask what power we have in this situation. I’d say we have the demand…since the pussy supply from women is plentiful.
Michael Singer
Thank you for bringing up 1Corinthians 6.
This scripture helped with my understanding of “marriage” as Paul is stating that anytime we have sex with someone else, we become “one flesh”. Parlay this to an understanding of married people being “one flesh” and that was my response to Asher.ie..sleeping with people is like being married to them in Gods eyes. Continually sinning in this way is like being judged for perpetual adultery (which adultery is a sin).
Like people have been saying, forgiveness from God is available to us when we repent but that does not mean that we are “forgiven” or rather spared from the consequences of our sin.
If I recall correctly, King David would be a prime example of this.
He took another mans (Uriah) wife (Bathsheba) Gets her pregnant and plans to cuckold Uriah by giving him leave from battle, invited to the palace fed lots of alcohol in hopes that Uriah would drunk fuck his wife . This “dunk fuck” plan didnt work out so David has Uriah killed in battle and takes Bathsheba as his wife.
When the child is born, Nathan comes and rebukes David by telling him a story of a rich man with many sheep and a poor man with 1 sheep whom he loved dearly. Rich man has a guest and instead of serving the guest a sheep from his flock, he steals the poor mans sheep and serves it to his guest.
David is enraged and say ““As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.””
Nathan replies “YOU ARE THAT MAN” and there is a lot more which is very interesting such as God would have given David more wives if he wanted (because David had God #1 in his life and God knew that nomatter what worldly thing he gave David, David would always have God as #1 in his life, hence, “he is a man after my (Gods) own heart”.
Anyways, to the point im trying to make, Nathan goes on to say that he will have suffer consequences for his actions (his child will die and war within his one family will erupt and his kingdom divided) but he is “forgiven”
“The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
You can be forgiven but that does not mean that you will be spared from the consequence of sin. Women today try to blend those 2 where they are entitled to forgiveness and expect to suffer not negative consequences.
Or all their negative consequences were the result of what a man did.
With Christian sheep like those, who needs wolves?
imnobody00: “My heart hearts your virginity” is insufferable corny and cheesy but reveals a man who is sensitive, who has a heart, who has empathy, who values women, who values virginity and God’s law. All these characteristics that women despise in their search for the über-alpha who makes them tingle.”
You are entirely missing the point, and sarahsdaughter is correct, lies are a disservice to frank. What is unattractive about the statement is not those things that it indicates on the surface, which are indeed good and desirable. I could rephrase the same thing in a much more manly (or at least less…gross) manner:
I’m glad you’ve kept your virtue.
or better:
It is good that you’ve kept your virtue. (Why does “I” come into it?)
What was unattractive about frank’s statement was not the literal content, but the phrasing (and the reason behind the phrasing) he chose:
—the parallel structure of “heart -> hearts.” This is kind of funny*, but only if he’s mocking the concept of reassurance by using infantile language. The problem is that everything surrounding it indicates that he is not. So he either means to reassure, but is too cowardly to come out and say it, or (more likely) he doesn’t mean it any of it, and is using the entire communication as a vehicle for obtaining validation from someone with a flower avatar while still retaining a white cloak of plausible deniability (“Validation! No! Just reassuring a sweet girl!”).
Frank, this may come off as harsh, but it is absolutely what’s going on here. The problem is that you’re seeking validation from us, or women, or whatever, when you should be seeking it from God. Be honest, keeping your above postings in mind: were you Samson, would you have told Delilah about your hair?
*indeed, it might be used as actual sarcasm, for instance, to a reformed slut: “My heart hearts your second virginity.”
@Ton,
I’m just a dumb grunt but the Bible seem clear a man can divorce and remarry if his ex wife was unfaithful
Math 19:9 which you link, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” I see to be missing where that quote says the fellow in question can remarry. Now the _Church_ at least in the East has allowed for this as a sad secondary effect of the Fall (which is why the second marriage is done as essentially a funeral service). However, you will be hard pressed to find anywhere in the NT that “re-marriage” is discussed as being allowed (the wording here is all in the negative).
Then of course there is what Slumlord said. You are “reading in” your perspective with little actual support from the text.
To which of course the response by the _Apostles_ is classic and another reason why this is a VERY old problem.
@Michael Singer, thanks for the pointer. Jack certainly got the henhouse in a flutter.
The New Agey links out of there are no surprise. I have a question to ponder: in ancient times, there were fertility cults. Looking at their symbols, their totems, their rituals clearly centered entirely around women’s ability to give birth. The New Agey ragey cults are almost always woman-centered, and even cite birthing as a attribute of women, but given the actual birth rate in the West – US, Europe – there is no way to call them “fertility cutls”. More like infertility cults; worship of women, theoretical childbirth as a virtue, but little to no actual production of babies. I’m trying to think of some nation in the ancient world that had a fertility cult, but did not want babies. A few stray references are coming up, and I don’t like what I’m recalling.
Thoughts?
Elspeth, Deti’s new Churchian hypothesis may not be preached with words on a Sunday, but it certainly is preached with actions every day of the week, in more places than you might expect. Again, to point to the AL Anon’s: from what I gather, people who fall off of the water wagon will be accepted back into the meetings, but they have to be sober first. An alkie can’t go to an AA meeting stinking drunk, or even smelling of alcohol, and expect anything other than “There’s the door, come back later when you are ready to be serious”. How many churches would dare to ever take that approach to promiscuous women, vs. yet another altar call and laying on of hands?
Frank, basically what they are saying is this. Don’t give a crap what they think, just do. Whatever it is you need to do to live God’s will for you, do it. That is all. Everything else they say is crap.
BTW, how do you post on that thread? Is it subscriber only (just not going to happen…)?
I’m trying to think of some nation in the ancient world that had a fertility cult, but did not want babies. A few stray references are coming up, and I don’t like what I’m recalling.
Carthaginians? I’m also trying to remember the Greek Godess that required human sacrifice (she’s all the rage now) but the name isn’t coming to me…
That comment thread and blog and their resident chief priest of white knighting Ty is definitely NOT Christian, and as Anonymouse Reader noted, the whole thing seems like a femcentric new age cult — which is basically what feminism is, complete with the sacrament of child sacrifice (abortion).
Episodes like Frank’s (sorry to pile on buddy, but…) perfectly illustrate the need for all-male spaces. It’s not for the same reason (fear) that females need all-female spaces*, but to minimize temptation to betray the group for sex. Alternately, the particular females in question can actively work to show that such a betrayal will not be rewarded (thanks alcest).
I have written more about this here.
*The Manosphere does fear its members being exposed, but this is not so much for fear of offending women, but for fear that other men will arrest/not hire/fire (although possibly at the behest of women).
@ Sarah’s Daughter
Oh, I’m not arguing against the idea that men rearranging their personalities works in getting women turned on and interested. I know it does. I’m just sorry that it’s like that, is all. All this is true. I acknowledge it. But I don’t have to like it. HHG’s response to me was essentially, “C’est la vie.” And I can’t argue, but I can still be sorry that it is like that.
But Donal Graeme’s response made sense. Women have to do stuff to change themselves if they want male interest, too, and the biggest problem lies in the fact that women’s preferences are to be obeyed but men’s preferences are to be shamed.
@ liberty, family blah blah blah
In the ancient world the terms used by every language, of which I’m aware, that are translated as “virtue” meant a strength exercise toward the external world. What you are doing is inverting that and talking about a strength that is asserted against oneself.
My comments directly addressed your inversion. What you are doing is just another aspect of turning the masculine into the feminine. Masculinity is about imposing order in this world, not about retreating into self-denial. When you invert the male “virtue” into an inward-looking feminine one what you get are people like Frank.
The bottom line is that there is no masculinity without the imposition of order, i.e. politics.
+1.
Ain’t a whole lot in the Bible about how men should alter their personalities to “make women all tingly”, either. Surely if a Christian guy has the choice between honing his Game and humbling himself as Christ did and serving others, he chooses the latter and loses the chicks? I know it’s not always a straight either-or, but given what women are (or at least what western women have become), it’s pleasing them or pleasing Jesus, really. And yeah, I reckon that sucks, too.
And a guy who is sensitive enough both to treat women considerately and to be hurt by what women say to him (i.e. a guy who hasn’t got a hide like a rhino) now has to unlearn his Christ-like qualities and tenderness and behave more like an alpha/player/PUA — being cocky, negging & ignoring women, and so on — or he’s just a ‘p*ssy’? Something’s seriously screwed up with this.
Surely women aren’t that important? Doesn’t this make winning a helpmeet into a Golden Calf?
Yes, so far those are their actions but not yet what they say. At this time they probably don’t even consciously believe those are their actions. They sincerely want to help the, ahem, blemished sisters among the congregation. Their intentions are good, they’re sure of that. Therefore they’re not looking too closely at what they’re actually doing and what message they send by their actions.
Still, I’m confident that right now if what their actions and the messages those actions are sending were clearly put before them, they’d reject it, repent and reform. However, left unquestioned and unobjected-to, eventually their beliefs will fall in line with their actions and eventually their preaching will follow their beliefs…
I like your AA analogy. Consider this: if a man arrived at Sunday services and prowled through the congregation propositioning every woman, wouldn’t he be shown the door and told to stay away until he changed his behavior?
Now, contemplate the sex-reversal of such a man. There’s a female who comes to Sunday worship dressed with her cleavage exposed down to here, her skirt up to here, sometimes a bared midriff, always lots of skin, and clothing that displays a state of partial or potential undress. Let’s not leave out her warpaint of simulated bedroom eyes and lips pretending to be flush with aroused sexual excitement. What is she doing? She’s propositioning every man and adolescent boy whose eyes happen to pass her! (She’s much more indiscriminate in her trolling for sex than the aforementioned hypothetical man.) So why isn’t she shown the door and told to stay out until she changes her behavior?
Temple prostitution? Gynolatry? Both.
In the Bible, Solomon’s various strange/foreign women (he was a polygamist with 700 wives and 300 concubines) lead him astray from the true God. That’s another piece showing the badness of polygamy and the goodness of monogamy.
A couple of Solomon’s descendants encountered human sacrifice in their region, with children sacrificed on the altar of the idol Baal. A great example would Jezebel, a woman wholly dedicated to Baal. She was a princess, daughter of Ethbaal (King of Tyre) and wife of Ahab, King of Israel (Northern Israel).
And Jezebel was a nasty piece of work. Neatly shows the ideal of the female gone wild and into utter depravity. A fallen woman. Sometimes, while reading the Bible, I’d thought she was possessed by demons or something. Jezebel, enraged that the prophet Elijah had ordered the deaths of her priests, threatened to kill Elijah (1 Kings 19:1–13).
The New Agey links out of there are no surprise. I have a question to ponder: in ancient times, there were fertility cults. Looking at their symbols, their totems, their rituals clearly centered entirely around women’s ability to give birth. The New Agey ragey cults are almost always woman-centered, and even cite birthing as a attribute of women, but given the actual birth rate in the West – US, Europe – there is no way to call them “fertility cutls”. More like infertility cults; worship of women, theoretical childbirth as a virtue, but little to no actual production of babies. I’m trying to think of some nation in the ancient world that had a fertility cult, but did not want babies. A few stray references are coming up, and I don’t like what I’m recalling.
The link between child sacrifice with the worship of the New Age inner goddess paganism is correct. It’s called a “fertility cult” but it’s anything but. Words don’t have meaning in that worldview.
But Donal Graeme’s response made sense. Women have to do stuff to change themselves if they want male interest, too, and the biggest problem lies in the fact that women’s preferences are to be obeyed but men’s preferences are to be shamed.
Basically, it’s called having their own cake and eating it too.
@ redpillpaul, frank, etc
I was just reading in Corinthians how sexual purity given as a command to the church as a whole. The church is supposed to foster an environment in which individuals can follow a path of sexual purity. In the ancient world much of the focus on sex was masculine (sex for childbearing) while the modern world makes it gynocentric (sex for fulfillment0. Neither are biblical.
Sexual purity is about honoring God and walking with him and for his glory. That is both a personal and a communal commandment. Yes, individuals can still maintain an aspect of sexual purity on their own through self-denial but that is not the fullness of God’s blessing. The fullness can only be achieved through a communal, political act of imposing order.
If a feeling of the heart (the sorty of love that is really infatuation) is what sanctifies sex then can cheating really be wrong? The more radical feminists are really clear that they want to see lifelong commit relegated to the past.
Let’s just say that infatuation is what sanctifies sex. Now, let’s say that a woman legally marries a man and then, at some point afterwards, loses her infatuation with him. Since infatuation is what sanctifies sex then, at that point, we have the odd conclusion that it is immoral to have sex with a legally married spouse when you are no longer infatuated with them.
Hilarious stuff.
@ Bee10:22 a.m.
Some of this stuff is the most distressing I have ever read. Connie says: “God does not define us by our sex lives. He defines us by our faith. God blesses women who have chosen to remain virtuous and women who have entered the gates of sexual passion.” Cam says: “Also, you should probably just get over it. Most people are going to have sex before marriage. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. How much sex a person has is really not an accurate indicator of their level of respect for themselves or a measure of their morality. Though I’m sure you’d think that a sexually promiscuous woman who spends all of her free time (ya know, when she’s not on her back), doing charitable works, is far more abhorrent than the virgin who would scoff at the homeless or kick puppies.”
I am just dumbstruck. Have these “Christian” women EVER read the Scriptures? Are they not aware of these verses:
“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. . . Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” (I Cor. 6:9-11, 18-20)
A primary, if not THE primary mark, of a person who follows Jesus and is obedient to God is sexual purity. It says it in black and white throughout the New Testament, both for individuals and by extension, the Church (e.g., which shall be presented “without spot or blemish” to the Lord). That means chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.
It is always amusing (for me) to witness professed Christian women re-interpreting the NT so as to make it confirm to their own habits (always sexual) and without seeming to see that that is what they are doing. Consider the quote from Connie above (couurtey of Kaehu); in the first of her three sentences she says that God does not judge women by their sex lives (lets take her at her word for the moment) and then in the third sentence has God doing just that! – God supports those with a Vagina seems to be Connie’s interpretation of the NT.
As for Cam she sets up the most blatant of straw-woman arguments so as to justify any woman’s level of promiscuity – again God loves those with a Vagina.
Where is a Jesuit when you need one!
Things look bad for America. Thanks to our women’s preference for alpha qualities, beta qualities will continously disappear as men adapt by becoming more and more selfish. Children will be increasingly more twisted. Not to mention countless other problems that are unrelated to sexuality.
This craze for alpha men seem to be exclusive to western civilizations. Visit other parts of the world and you can see women quite content with comparatively beta husbands. It’s very interesting to see how much women’s sexual preferences can negatively impact a country.
I wonder if any women around these parts seriously think about what’s it like to be a man, and how little they offer in comparison to what they get from us. Getting married is the only way for a woman to reach true happiness. For a man, it is a good way to die early, and fill a significant chunk of your life with angst, stress and confusion.
You have to love her. Provide for her. Put up with her moods. Deal with her aging looks. Play various psychological angles for her amusement. All of this, and more for years, unless she divorces you and takes your livelihood. All you get in return, is 10 seconds of pleasure and deluding yourself into thinking she loves you. No, she loves none other than herself and her children. For if she truly loved you, you wouldn’t have to game her.
Why would a Red Pill man get married -at all-? Is there any practical benefit to getting married, seeing as how women are unable to love us for who we are, and how even Red Pill women think we should internalize relationship game for their tingles? I’d say we just leave them alone into miserable, unfullfilled lives. We don’t need them for our own happiness. Or more accurately, we need a LACK of them.
It would seem not…
Paul again…
That’s addressed to Christians, and directed against those who call themselves Christians and who fornicate (i.e. who have sex outside of marriage — and which does not lead to marriage).
The Apostle whom Jesus loved puts it most bluntly…
See my comment on the ‘Lovestruck’ thread about women and their attitude to sexual sin.
Here’s one… 😉
Dalrock, I am surprised that you didn’t include a picture of a hamster in this post.
Maybe photoshop a little suit on him with a cross necklace or something…not far from the truth.
I have been reading the Illiad by Homer and I was struck by this.
” Here was a song-and-dance [khoros] of youths and of maidens whom anyone would want to woo for a wife, all with their hands on one another’s wrists. The maidens wore robes of light linen, and the youths wore well woven tunics that were slightly oiled. The girls were crowned with garlands,
while the young men had daggers of gold that hung by silver baldrics; sometimes they would dance deftly in a ring with merry twinkling feet, as it were a potter sitting at his work
and making trial of his wheel to see whether it will run, and sometimes they would go all in line with one another, and many people was gathered joyously about the place of dancing [khoros]. “
Hi there, Asher. How’s your wife and kids these days?
@ Sigyn
Busy.
I’m guessing that you were calling me a troll. Still blatantly misinterpreting the Bible? Just so you know, Vox is very poorly read in many areas, especially philosophy. He relies far too much on his personal intellect and I don’t recall him referencing anything from philosophy post-Aristotle, barring a few Nietzsche quotes.
If I got Vox in a neutral venue he would get his*ss handed to him, not because of lack of intelligence but because he is just very poorly read. He egregiously misleads the ilk, for example, his misunderstanding of the concepts of rhetoric and dialectic. He is also exceptionally arrogant and I suspect that it this arrogance for which he was passed over to succeed William F Buckley at National Review.
You are welcome to continue to be misled by him but you have been warned.
@ Sigyn
Vox banned me for asserting that there’s nothing in the Bible to support the modern notion of retirement – a topic that has been addressed by serious biblical scholars and for which I claim no credit.. He is petty, impatient and arrogant. Yes, he is very smart and often posts excellent assessments of various current events but beneficial nature of the things he writes is more than outweighed by the rot and venom of his style.
If I were to sum him up in one term it would be “self-serving”.
Only men go to Hell for their sins…women get off scott free from their sins and don’t go to Hell because God loves them so much.
Or do they?
http://www.americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/the-letter-from-beyond.html?utm_campaign=20536&utm_content=E0473&utm_medium=email&utm_term=E0473
Vox once claimed that the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic was of a purely analytic nature, a claim with which not one philosopher writing in the past century, or so, would agree. I pointed this out to him numerous time and he never bothered to respond. I would add that his sustained nonresponsiveness to many queries borders on intellectual dishonesty.
From the original post: She explains that sex outside of marriage is not shameful, but that it must be within the context of romantic love.
I wrote an article on Christians being obsessed with sex and why it is a good thing. Based on the first chapter of Romans I see a three-part decay of a society:
1. Citizens turn away from God
2. Citizens are given over to sexual depravity
3. Citizens turn selfish and cruel.
The concepts of chastity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, and loyalty to the institution of marriage are more than just feelings. They are the cornerstone to a compassionate society.
@Miserman- Good point, especially the last sentence. A commitment to marriage, to another person, of different physiology, is an education in compassion. A cavalier regard for such a commitment is to remain self-absorbed, and so cruel to all others outside of one’s self.
@ Miserman
Fantastic article. I have been linking sexual depravity with cruelty for years. In the ancient world a lot of sex involved brutality and torture. FWIR, tantric sex began as a group of noblemen gangbanging a servant or slave girl and withholding their orgasms for as long as possible to prolong the sexual torture of the object of their torture.
Nasty stuff.
the second half of romans should be seared into the hearts of anyone wishing to guard themselves and their loved ones against sin
Gee. I sure hope Jack doesn’t get turned off of Christianity because he feels judged by Christians. Someone should have told him that not all Christians are hateful judgmental fundamentalists. What if Jack never returns to a church because of how judged he feels? The church is supposed to be accepting and loving like Jesus.
Christians are not forbidden from judging, only from judging by false scales as it were.
@ Tom
From everything I’ve read the prohibitions involve judging in the way God judges: claiming to know who lives in heaven with Him forever. When we claim to know someone is going to heaven or hell what we are really claiming is that we have absolute knowledge of that person’s heart. Of course, this would put the lie to God’s claim that humans can only judge outward appearances but that God judges by the heart.
I’m a male virgin in my 30s. Not even a kiss on the lips, because I take this seriously.
What disturbed me most about Joy’s post is that there were no links to studies. No citing of theologians. No Bible verses at all. On what authority is she saying these things, and why is it that no one is asking her for some sort of authority? I will take Bible verses, good theologians, and good studies, for example. But this woman had nothing. And the other women – they didn’t want to be rational or evidential either. They just wanted to know about Jack personally so they could attack him.
By the way, not only is the Bible for chastity: (which is where I get my orders)
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/fornication.html
And here is one recent study, which is one more than Joy linked to:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/new-study-delaying-sexual-activity-produces-improves-relationship-quality-and-stability/
Why think that Joy is a Christian at all? It seems to me that the Bible and the evidence agree. Who the Hell is she?
>>At no place does the Bible specify the criteria for what is considered to “be married”.
See my comment about Rachel and Leah’s wedding below. Looks like a clear criteria to me.
So, what is marriage? In the US, for example, most people assume marriage is what happens when a man and woman go to the courthouse, apply for a marriage license, then have someone perform the marriage and sign the license and return it to the government office. If you don’t do that, you are “shacking up.” That is, you are not married.
This was one of the main cultural shocks for me in Mexico. They have a concept called “free union”. To an ignorant North American it looks like shacking up. The difference is the couple really view themselves as married, and so do their family and friends. She calls him her husband, he calls her his wife.
I had trouble with this for a long time. Then, I learned that at one time in history, all marriages were like that, Marriages between the couple, with no one involved, except in some places and times, the parents or family.
If you want to read about a private marriage, look in the Bible when the fellow worked for 7 years for the father of Rachel as a wife. The day of the wedding, unknown to him, the father shoved the ugly one into the marriage chamber, and that was his wife. He went back and complained he did not get the pretty one, the one with the bright eyes. So, as soon as the wedding festivities were over, he also got the one he wanted, and agreed to work for 7 more years to pay for the second one.
There is no mention of government documents. No mention of clerical ceremonies. Yet, they were considered married in the eyes of the community and in the eyes of God.
Later, the religious clergy said, “Nothing doing. We represent God on earth, so WE decide who is married.” After that time, you were not considered married unless you had a religious marriage.
Even later, the government realized they had more control if they took charge of weddings, and as we all know, eventually divorces. Money to be made. And, of course, having learned there is control and money from civil weddings, it is common for governments to decree that it is a crime to live together without first marrying with a government marriage. Even tossing people in prison at various times, for any other choice.
First, control; then money; and now transferring ownership of all a man has to a woman.
In Mexico, being Catholic, of course, in older times, weddings were a function of the church. Benito Juarez was an Indian who was adopted by a rich white family and became an attorney. His first case was against a priest who had beaten and badly injured an old man. The court told him the priest had immunity, and could not be sued. I guarantee you Benito WAS a man to bear a grudge. And, when he became president of Mexico, he got into conflict with them. One result was church weddings became essentially void as far as the law was concerned.
That was about the time of Abe Lincoln. The problem was, poor people didn’t have the money for a government marriage with all the legal paperwork. So, poor people simply moved in together, declared themselves married and society rapidly accepted this. My wife’s aunt was in a private marriage with her husband for over 70 years, and they died within 72 hours of each other.
In general, there is little property transfer without being legally married. And, legal marriage includes a powerful pre-nup. Once signed, it is binding, period. Only if they agree when they sign, does she get part of his property. It’s all spelled out. fi she signs off, she gets virtually nothing.
I think in some states if they live together, she gets dower rights of 1/5 of his estate ONLY IF HE DIES. She can’t file for divorce and get anything. I read that one state now allows full rights after living together for a while, which does mean she can file and get something. You can be sure that private marriage disappeared fast in that state, as well as legal marriages.
Also, you can be sure that both government and church try to shame those in a private marriage by every possible means to force them into the government trap.
After some years of observing couples here, you can be sure if I become a widow, I will not marry by the law.
GKChesteron says:
April 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“I’m trying to think of some nation in the ancient world that had a fertility cult, but did not want babies. A few stray references are coming up, and I don’t like what I’m recalling.
Carthaginians? I’m also trying to remember the Greek Godess that required human sacrifice (she’s all the rage now) but the name isn’t coming to me…”
I believe that would be Hecate. The really nasty one IMO, though, would be the Indian (dot not feather) goddess Kali. She liked to have adolescent boys ceremonially castrated and bleed to death from the injury, with the blood caught in a bowl (to be used some way later). Her worshipers had specific holidays where this was the main attraction. Modern marriage and divorce in the West seems more than a little like a Kali rite….
Also, on the current cuckoldry rate in the U.S., U.K, Germany, etc.:
from the defunct site http://www.nomarriage.com (have to go through archive.org to see it):
http://web.archive.org/web/20050405214901/http://www.nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml
From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.
From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.
From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”
From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.
From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.
From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.
From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.
From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.
From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.
In my comment I asked where a Jesuit was when needed. WWW links to a picture of a man dressed in white as the answer to my request, but I believe I am correct in saying that the man (who looks like an Argie to me) is infact a FRANCISCAN! – though they are hardly intellectual slouches either.
Opus, the current Pontiff is/was a Jesuit, although he took Francis as his pontifical name in honor of Francis of Assisi. Or is that sarcasm and I am missing it because of the hour?
@donalgraeme
You know, I think you are right and it is I who am confused but as it is a bright sunny morning here I have little excuse.
‘No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.’
Hey Dalrock !
What’s your stance on unmarried PUA, gamers, and men who practice pump and dump- from a moral point of view ?
Are they morally equivalent to sluts ?
If memory serves, Kali wore a belt made of baby skulls and severed penis. Sure sounds like the perfect feminist icon
The killings of the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition is overrated and misinterpreted. Talk about taking good for evil and evil for good. They killed and tortured people, but it wasn’t as much as others claim and it was done with good reason. It was anywhere between 3000 and half a million (500,000) people.
The Spanish Inquisition is like a beaten dead horse. It’s always on enlightened modern people’s mind but leftist dictators like Chinese Mao, Pol Pot and former Soviet Union Stalin are all but a fallen, forgotten memory. They killed about 100 million people. The Nazis, with their flaws and all, managed to kill less (about 25 million people).
The Spanish Inquisition lasted for centuries, thereby the 3000 to 500000 figure is from the 15th century to the 19th century. It just shows how much self control they had.
This craze for alpha men seem to be exclusive to western civilizations. Visit other parts of the world and you can see women quite content with comparatively beta husbands. It’s very interesting to see how much women’s sexual preferences can negatively impact a country.
This is an interesting point, maybe could use more delving…I noted this also as I traveled to every armpit and bright spot of the planet. Ive always noticed a weird inconsistency between western European women and American women, not only the seeming contentment with beta traits, but also the ability to maintain feminine qualities and be quite raging feminists ideologically. Something outside the anglosphere sets this apart.
In easter Europe, hell seems like there are enough good looking people, men and women, that at least the pairs LOOK balanced, but indeed they seem less alpha motivated. Moving on to India, I just received an invitation to attend a wedding there that I wish I could go to. But its next week….a bit short. The guy whose daughter is getting married is a business associate of mine there, and he and I discussed the arranged marriage idea over many a meal. This marriage is a the culmination of two entire extended families vetting the boy and the girl and their worth to each other, and the compatibility of the entire families with each other. Alpha? Beta? No…..but…..by virtue of mores, the guy will more less BE alpha, and she will fully submit, and this stuff works. We are not talking about a place where women are beaten or abused to control them as a tenet of a religion….not at all….these are secular capitalist people who hold to traditions that have worked for a long time.
Alpha chasing indeed. Yes, the amount of discontentment that the women of a culture have with regular men, and the preference for overly gym-muscled shaved head goatee wearing psychos is a leading indicator. It was all foretold by the oracles of the 80’s who made movies like Mad Max or any other with heavily tattooed, pierced, and unshaven heathens dragging a gaggle of giggling women around with them
It is not women’s sexual preferences that are the problem. It is the lack of consequences good or bad. Women in the west behave the way they do by laws of misandry. Women is western culture are pedistalized. If women in the est were truely treated as men are under the law you would see a noticable difference in the behavior and culture of western women.
Asher, Vox banned you because you called him a liar and refused to back down when you were proven wrong–a direct violation of the rules of his blog. Of all your many, many bad behaviors, that was the only reason he banned you. Don’t make more of it than it was, or else you’re bearing false witness.
For the record, folks, I’m not trying to engage Asher in a flame-war. I just intended to point out that he himself was not willing to practice what he preached–absolute, permanent celibacy regardless of the availability of a suitable wife–so that you wouldn’t get the wrong impression that he was suffering alongside you. That he spent three posts “answering” things I didn’t say should tell you something that you probably already figured out.
Carry on, ladies and gentlemen! The discussions here are always interesting! *waves hat*
@ Sygne
Here’s the comment that invoked VD’s wrath:
http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/mailvox-failed-metaphor.html#c6911608683164725096
IN that comment I compared him to Amanda Marcotte and called him effeminate. He warned me to retract that comment rather than answering to its substance. Vox argues like a shrill feminist and I stand by that position.
I probably have used the word “liar” less than three times in the past ten years, and that is based on a very specific reading of what we are doing when we are calling people a “liar”. For me to call someone a “liar” is, for me, to call them a child of Satan. Since I have made it very clear that humans rarely, if ever, have the capacity to make such a judgement it would be odd for me to suddenly claim such a capacity.
Vox is not a liar. But he is very intellectually dishonest stemming from his arrogance and impatience of which he has admitted. Vox’s intellectual dishonesty stems from his talking on subjects about which he is virtually ignorant. The ilk seem to hold Vox as someone deeply knowledgeable about philosophy when he is no such thing. It seems pretty clear that, for him, philosophy ended with Aristotle, and I can recall no reference to any other philosopher aside from a few pithy quotes from Nietzsche. Yeah, he did once refer to Thomas Kuhn but that post was not deep and anyone could have made the same post after looking at wikipedia for five minutes.
I suspect that he is also very intellectually lazy, as evidenced by his lack of interest in engaging in discussion with anything besides morons like Tad.
No. Vox is a fraud and he is misleading the ilk. If you try and pull the kind of stunts outside of the circle jerk that is VP that Vox pulls there then you will get your ass handed to you. Vox certainly knows this but then he also knows that the ilk are mostly at VP because they are outsiders in the greater liberal world of the west and they come there for emotional nourishment.
VP mainly exists as a place of belonging for those who feel alienated from the greater liberal ruling etthos, not as some place where ideas get seriously discussed.
At no point did I call Vox a liar. You can go to that post and do a quick search for the term, where it is used once by Loki and directed at A. Man.
@ Sgyne
, I’m not trying to engage Asher in a flame-war. I just intended to point out that he himself was not willing to practice what he preached–absolute, permanent celibacy regardless of the availability of a suitable wife–so that you wouldn’t get the wrong impression that he was suffering alongside you.
Your problem is that you’re just not very bright. I am not preaching celibacy. I am mocking redpillpaul’s pride and vainglory. The bible is very clear that it is best for people who do not burn with passion to stay celibate for their entire lives. As paul is a virgin at 29 he clearly does not burn with passion for women and would do best to stay a self made eunuch.
I fully admitted that I burn with passion for women and got married for it.
If paul is still a virgin at 29 then he is clearly not suffering at all, unless he really is a virgin as the result fo being awkward around women – he claims otherwise and I’ll take him at his word.
@Anonymous age 71 is completely right. Marriage used to be a private matter, like in Mexico, even in Western countries. (The free union Anonymous describes in Mexico also exists in Central America but with other name – acompañamiento)
By the XII century, a priest has been involved in the ceremony, but only as a witness. Pictures at that time see the bride and the groom married each other by holding hands to each other and the priest is behind them watching the ceremony happen.
By the XIII century, a change had happened. Pictures show the priest making the bride and the groom holding hands. It is the priest who unites both spouses by the authority granted by Heaven. The priest, who was a passive observer, becomes the one that celebrates the ceremony and makes the marriage become real.
(Sometimes I wonder if this has something to do with the feminization that took place by the XII century. It was the time of the trobadours (the original pedestalizers, creators of the prevalence of the feminine imperative in Western society). It was by this time when women conquered the Catholic Church, which was a masculine Church and which has been feminized ever since – see “The Church Impotent”)
Some centuries later, with the secularization of the society, the State took charge and we know how this turned out….
@ Sgyne
What’s bizarre about your comment is that I, generally, take people at their word, unless given clear evidence that it is not trustworthy. The reason for this is that if someone is really nefarious and deceitful then they will eventually get trapped in their lies, in which case calling them a “liar” is not necessary. I stated this several times at VP and was mocked for it.
But I misspoke in claiming that you are not bright – no, you’re just dumb.
@ Sigyne
I would also point out that in that comment thread Vox claimed that I had been “proven wrong”. Hell, he can’t even distinguish “proven” from “demonstrated”. “Proven” applies to the logic of an argument while “demonstrated” applies to the objects of an argument. Vox made that error several times over the past several months.
@ Asher : is the biblical advice not to marry the same for a thirty-year old virgin women ?
How about for non-virgins (men and women) who have been celibate for many years without having a problem with it ?
I’m not trying to engage Asher in a flame-war. I just intended to point out that he himself was not willing to practice what he preached–absolute, permanent celibacy regardless of the availability of a suitable wife–so that you wouldn’t get the wrong impression that he was suffering alongside you.
Plenty of married brothers read and participate here. In fact, if you read the heading of this blog, the admin is a married father. So, if anyone is out of place, it’s us single dudes.
@Asher:
Your critic appeared here to “warn” us that you were a troll (a very feminine thing to do lol), and then commenced to trolling you. I’m confident that few here care who likes you and who doesn’t, or what happened elsewhere. So, you were banned from some other blog, and you’re respecting the other admin’s wishes and not going back. Great. Keep making salient points on this blog and resist being trolled into flaming or bringing irrelevant shit from elsewhere over here. We all have our critics. Let their squealing serve as entertainment and otherwise ignore them.
Just my two cents,
Boxer
I like this Asher guy. He and I can hang out.
The “Vox Dei” puffery baffles me. Anyone who attended college seriously can spot a charlatan like him from miles away — indeed, it is a basic survival skill of higher education: graduate studies are loaded with bold and transparent bullshitters, sometimes teaching the courses. He enthralls people who possess no other frame of reference for advanced analysis beyond the unsubstantiated assertions he feeds them.
Beware of any tool who cites his membership in Mensa as dispositive of anything other than an insecurity/paranoia that he will be exposed for the fraud he is. His expanded Lambda, Sigma, Omicron, Zeta, Eta, Theta “socio-sexual” taxonomy is a complete embarrassment to anyone attempting to elucidate a working philosophy for this community. The glossary of twee insider-terms, the refusal to attribute sources, the shock-value pronouncements, the presumption that opponents are at his level or lower — it’s all so insufferable. His playground bravado and perpetual pissing matches make for not just an unreliable ally but a positively bad advertisement for our shared philosophies. It’s not even good entertainment.
I am discouraged that Asher is only one of few individuals in “Vox’s” ambit with the insight to detect patent phoniness and who possesses the wherewithal to give right back at its most egregious perpetrators. Bravo, brother.
Matt
@ Nina
The issue is really about intent and calling. Redpillpaul’s reason for staying a virgin until 29 was that of pride: we wanted a *better* wife, wonderful wedding, etc. In short, he wants to think of himself as a better man than the next guy. There was no mention about his celibacy being about serving God.
I was simply shining a light on his real motivation: pride.
With regards to Alpha chasing,..
I have a running theory that the “Empowerment” pushed by feminism is behind it. I think that women’s preferences in men, in terms of how much “Alpha” or “Beta” they are looking for, are determined by chemical responses which influenced by environmental conditions. Empowerment, in telling a woman she can be anything a man can be, is in fact subconsciously telling the woman that she cannot count on a man helping her out. This triggers chemical processes in the brain which correlate to an extreme danger situation. In such an environment, “Beta” traits in males, which help the male act as a father and thereby help children not simply survive but thrive, are considered much less essential. Alpha traits on the other hand, which relate to survival, become much more valued. In short, Empowerment convinces women that they cannot count on men being in their lives, so they stop looking for a mate who will stick by them, and instead look for a mate who will give her children which are likely to survive without any paternal guidance.
@ Boxer, Matt
The “Vox Dei” puffery baffles me. Anyone who attended college seriously can spot a charlatan like him from miles away
Vox IS very, very smart and sometimes writes incredibly insightful posts on economics. In fact, the majority of his post are quite good … but the comments section is an absolute abomination. He seems to have read fantas/scifi, economics, Aristotle and history, in that order. I see zero evidence that he has read anything else, not even the Bible.
Vox’s main intellectual sin is in talking out of his ass about stuff which he is clearly ignorant. He has probably been able to do this most of his life because of a sky-high IQ, which he uses to mislead the ilk and feed his own ego.
His playground bravado and perpetual pissing matches make for not just an unreliable ally but a positively bad advertisement for our shared philosophies.
Yeah, that was why I started commenting there in the first place. I was reading his blog for about a year before I even bothered reading the comments. What I found was appalling and some little New York lawyer turdling had the commenters claiming that schizophrenics have an absolute right to own nuclear weapons that was protected by the Second Amendment, and Vox wasn’t even bothering to police his own comment section for such idiocy.
Whatever the merits of some, even many, of his posts it is outweighed by his arrogance, unwillingness to answer challenges, lack of patience and the idiocy of his commenters. You are spot-on that such a person makes for an unreliable all – hell, I probably agree with him on a host of political issues. But what is so telling is that Vox plays very coy, and that is what you are calling phoniness. I cannot once recall him making a substantive stand on what he actually believes or advocates, and his entire blog seems devoted to critiquing those he disagrees with, most of whom deserve it.
Vox claims to be a Christian but I cannot possibly see how his behavior on his blog glorifies God, and that is the real crime of his blog.
@Luke about the cuckoldry rate:
My husband wrote a bit about this at his/our blog. Before you go making assumptions about what the numbers mean, maybe look it over? It’s more than a little abrasive in tone, but if you can get past that…
@ Matt
I wasn’t really aware of the level of his pride and just how much of a circle jerk VP had become until Vox and the commenters began lumping me in with an effeminate, leftist, New York lawyer named Tad. I believe it was Vox who asserted that what he calls “rabbits” were not able to distinguish between the rumblings of a semi-truck and the growing of a bear – they will run away from both, although only one is dangerous.
What was so bizarre was that Tad and myself had almost nothing in common, yet, they couldn’t distinguish between us. Yes, leftists swamps like Whatever are rabbit warrens but VP is, itself, a warren with just a different breed of rabbit.
@ Matt
I am discouraged that Asher is only one of few individuals in “Vox’s” ambit with the insight to detect patent phoniness
I would take heart, as I’m quite certain that lots of people detect his phoniness. I am only of the few naive enough to think I could provide some corrective dissent, due to being blessed in having been raised in an environment absent the rank arrogance found at VP.
Hey, Boxer, look, you’re entitled to think anything you like about anyone. You’re even entitled to think that a guy who blasts out four angry and irrelevant posts per one from someone else in response to things she didn’t even say and wasn’t going to is not a troll and she is.
I did try, upthread, to reach Dalrock more quietly to warn him about what you’re going to get in the near future. Unfortunately, I didn’t and don’t know how to do that more directly. (And yes, I’m aware of the married men here and of Dalrock’s status. I do lurk and occasionally toss something in.) That’s my bad, I suppose, for jumping the gun.
*shrug* Well, good intentions and all that. You’ll see in time enough. I’m back to lurking with the occasional toss-in.
The comment section here will be worthless if posters like Asher and Matthew King become the norm.
@ Sygne
You’re even entitled to think that a guy who blasts out four angry and irrelevant posts
The only person I see even approaching anger in this entire comment thread was redpillpaul and that was when I pointed out the real reason for “saving it for marriage”, which is pride. Also, my comments are directly relevant, and if you could specify how my comments were not relevant then you should have already done so.
The more I began commenting at VP the more that place resembled the sort of secret club mentality that one would encounter at places like Jezebel. Now, I am a little angry, and that is a good thing. Vox is a very intelligent man who often makes insightful, sometimes brilliant, observations. However, the value of those posts are more than outweighed by his hubris.
Your last comment is typical of what one would find at Jezebel, Whatever or, even, VP and it is a depressing thing.
about what you’re going to get in the near future
Unlike Vox, Dalrock isn’t arrogant and doesn’t try to speak out of ignorance while relying on his ample intelligence to carry the day, which is Vox’s stock in trade. I have been reading Dalrock for longer than I did Vox and there is a world of difference between the two.
@ BradA\
The comment section here will be worthless if posters like Asher and Matthew King become the norm.
How so Brad? My initial foray into this post was to try and get a handle of what it means to “get married”. Most of the commenters don’t seem to have the vaguest notion of what that means. Next, I pointed out that redpillpaul’s celibacy was out of pride and not out of service to God. The Bible nowhere tells us to “save ourselves for marriage”, but it does tell us to live our lives in service to God and that we can best serve God by never sexually touching another person. If we burn with sexual passion then that is a reason to get married.
Again, like Sigyn you are evincing the same sort of mentality one finds at leftist and feminist websites, a refusal to deal with the content of comments, instead, offering vague denunciations.
Brad,
If you have a problem with something I’ve said then name it and be specific.
Asher, if you could bother to read complete sentences, the “she” I used in what you’re trying to respond to would clue you that I’m talking about your reactions to my comments.
Now, can I go back to lurking, or are you going to keep trying to pick fights with me?
@ Sigyn
My responses were neither angry nor irrelevant, although your repeated inability to specify your allegations are irksome.
I didn’t know we get to vote on which reality we will live in. Majority rules?
@ Sigyn
Now, can I go back to lurking, or are you going to keep trying to pick fights with me?
This is a joke, right? What are you? Seven? You come on here insinuating that there’s a troll, me in this case, then proceed to say that my responses were “angry and irrelevant”, neither of which is correct. And I’m the one picking the fight with you?
That’s surreal. Grow up.
*sigh* He chooses the fight. I apologize to Dalrock for this off-topic diversion.
Asher said: Also, my comments are directly relevant, and if you could specify how my comments were not relevant then you should have already done so.
My response: I said to you: “Hi there, Asher. How are the wife and kids these days?”
You then made a jab at me for allegedly “blatantly misinterpreting” Scripture and then proceeded on a three-comment rant about Vox. These are relevant to neither this thread nor the question of your wife and kids–sort of like this entire exchange, for which I apologize again to Dalrock and the others. Now I’m for lurking, if you don’t mind.
@ Sigyn
You then made a jab at me for allegedly “blatantly misinterpreting” Scripture and then proceeded on a three-comment rant about Vox.
Prior to this thread our only contact was at VP so any warnings about my being a “troll” are directly related to that interaction. Therefore, the comments are relevant. Stop acting like a Jezzie. Dalrock’s a big boy, he can handle himself and doesn’t need to be warned about a “troll attack”.
Sygne wrote:
Anyone preaching simple celibacy/fidelity to this post-sexual-revolution culture misapprehends and underestimates the scope of the problem. Cite a thousand scriptural justifications, Pharisees. You are not working the problem from any angle that will ever be effective.
Bl. John Paul the Great proclaimed, “the Church does not impose but freely proposes.” Doctrine, dogma, law, catechism, scripture, and inspired advice — all of it — are guidelines meant to construct healthy and reliable consciences, not to set easy-to-remember moralism, such as do not heal the sick on the sabbath. Now, let’s grant that it is better to err on the side of legalism and to avoid all temptation to construct the law according to one’s unconscious and therefore selfish mortal preferences. But “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” When adherence to statute competes with loving your brother, Jesus made it clear what to do.
A man with an inspired, well-built, and well-maintained conscience has subsumed the law of God to the point of being embodied by it. The holy man’s actions do not define the law so much as the law has internally inspired his actions. He is congruent to the truth in all its ineffable ambiguity, even when our Pharisaical tendencies confuse ambiguity for cryptic willfulness.
The truth is, in 99% of all matters of conscience, Solomon is not needed. In almost every case, we know what is right. But we complicate matters through a desire to rationalize our sin and moral turpitude. In the man of magnanimous conscience, however, that desire is sublimated back into his conscientious considerations, and he is instinctively suspicious of temptations to pride. In other words, the self-critique and precautions against pride are already-present, key contributors to the health of his conscience. Citing legalisms to such consciences goes beyond superfluous to malignantly scrupulous, and through envy, it can erect a stumbling block preventing a good man from performing good works.
Not that everyone or anyone should try this at home. But citing commandments and scriptural directives is not the end of the investigation for the man of mature conscience but rather just the beginning.
We must become sin scientists. We must become wise as Solomon. Such was not possible until Christ made priests, prophets, and kings of us all. Anno Domini we have it within us, by the grace of our Dominus, to act as He did, to be “perfect as [our] Father in heaven is perfect.”
Alternatively, “God became man so that men might become God.” — St. Athanasius.
Insisting to the typical western 20-year-old that he should not fornicate is the equivalent of getting in his face and telling him, taunting him, that his god is dead. Even though he indeed worships a dead god, our method of anti-empathic proselytizing indicates that we have no true interest in his soul, that we want to simply luxuriate in the articulation of our righteousness rather than getting that lost sheep into the headspace where he can enthusiastically (or fearfully, tremblingly) make good decisions for himself.
Do this “regardless of the availability of a suitable wife”? You might as well force him to fail. Our faith does not call for heroism in order to be saved — all the heroism was accomplished for us on the cross. Christ indeed does call us to heroism, and it is forced on saints for the greater glory of God. But ours is the common faith, salvation for all, the method for typical sinners standing in the need of reconciliation.
Christ calls us to chastity not as a minimum requisite for entry into his kingdom but rather as a positive expression of his power to make all things possible. To be so scrupulously vigilant about bare minimums is to miss the wonders of the Lord and the angelic potential resident in even the most God-forsaken souls. Circumspection, yes. Prudence, yes. Suspicion of pride, yes yes yes. But leave room for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in particular, Awe of the Lord. With our spiritual lives in Olympic-competition condition, “all things are possible with God.”
This gathering of opinions lists too far into holier-than-thou territory, as if demanding perfection from sinners is the sign of one’s personal sensitivity to the Perfection of God. Rather we must learn to become comfortable operating through one another’s imperfections, the distinguishing mark of the human. To that end, preaching about personal failure gives the general culpability of the culture too much of a pass. We must unite with fornicators and adulterers and sinners of every stripe, not just because we are sinners like them, and not only because that was what Jesus taught by example, but because we have a common enemy in the broad demonic culture which encourages all of us together to “do the very thing [we] hate.” That communion with our prodigal brothers begins in an empathy for their plight, which holier-than-thou preachers have the least experience and skill to effect.
Matt
Anyone preaching simple celibacy/fidelity to this post-sexual-revolution culture misapprehends and underestimates the scope of the problem. Cite a thousand scriptural justifications, Pharisees. You are not working the problem from any angle that will ever be effective…Do this “regardless of the availability of a suitable wife”? You might as well force him to fail. Our faith does not call for heroism in order to be saved — all the heroism was accomplished for us on the cross.
I totally agree with this. Celibacy is something that very, very few people can do without “burning”, so marriage is a mercy for hot-blooded folks like us.
I am a bit puzzled by what you say here, though, Matt:
That communion with our prodigal brothers begins in an empathy for their plight, which holier-than-thou preachers have the least experience and skill to effect.
Are you talking about evangelism, or what do you mean?
Sexual purity is not about having a gift to give to the person we wind up marrying but about offering our lives to God and submitting to his will. Take Frank, who is 36 and still a virgin. Is he engaged? Does he have any prospects on the horizon? Let’s say he manages to get married at 40. Will his wife be of suitable child-bearing age?
Years ago I met a could who married as virgins around 40 and who really wanted children. It didn’t happen because of their ages and caused immense grief and misery. Do you really think a world with millions like them is a good thing?
Other than that, I defer to Matt’s magnificent comment above.
@ Matt
” You are not working the problem from any angle that will ever be effective.”
What angle are you suggesting then? And what do you mean by effective? What is your purpose, your goal?
I think I am starting to understand your point, but you seem to have missed that old lesson:
Eschew Obfuscation.
I’ve been waiting long enough to converse with someone about the mass delusions of the manosphere, so soggy complainers like the sniffling BradA can get bent.
Asher wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see much evidence of the “very, very smart.” It’s all moot anyway. One’s absolute level of “intelligence” (for lack of a better word) is infinitesimal in light of the infinite wisdom of God, and one’s relative superiority to others is irrelevant as all differences converge to zero against the omniscience of God’s sovereignty.
The distinguishing characteristic is humility, which, besides for being a truthful estimation of one’s human capacity, aligns a man with God’s will and therefore His power. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” So for noisy gongs and clanging cymbals like Theodore, his preposterous, prideful, and anti-holy self-estimation “outweigh[s]” what little good he brings to the conversation. “Whatever the merits.”
And, let’s be frank. It is a very little good. Strip away the only-child theatrics and there is not much left. I used to read his output because his one appreciable talent is editorial — he has a knack for provocation through intriguing subject matter. But I have not once found a single observation of his worth remembering or quoting. He falls on his face repeatedly in his attempt to represent the manly position, and his bratty know-it-all presumption makes it impossible to benefit from editorial streamlining and/or correction. If he presented the slightest opening for the smallest humility, all would be forgiven. But the insecure are constitutionally incapable of risking self-critique, the smallest crack in the façade representing to them abject humiliation.
“Rabbit people” is fucking stupid. O those shorthand, ad-hom neologisms are so irritating, so nerdly, so feminist-bitchy. Anyone who mistakes them for argument deserves to be bounded inside “Vox’s” nutshell of an investigation method, calling themselves kings of infinite space for consolation.
That said, I hate wasting my life on sussing out the fraudulent and shaking them from their rickety pedestals. People like that feed on attention they don’t deserve. But “Vox” is a good case study in how the good kind of manly pride can be manipulated into the bad kind of baseless godless arrogance when poseurs are not exposed for what they truly are. In contrast, our host Dalrock is an example of how the superior man lets his work speak for him, rather than the eternal schoolboy thinking he can impress the world by waving around a report card he wrote to himself.
Matt
@ Matt
One’s absolute level of “intelligence” (for lack of a better word) is infinitesimal in light of the infinite wisdom of God, and one’s relative superiority to others is irrelevant as all differences converge to zero against the omniscience of God’s sovereignty.
Bingo! I have said this exact same thing to Vox with zero acknowledgement. I am one of those sky-high IQ guys, too, but I loathe even talking about it.
The distinguishing characteristic is humility,
Up through my mid-teens I was an conceited, little turn and God dealt with me. Harshly.
If he presented the slightest opening for the smallest humility, all would be forgiven.
Yes, preach it. I have begged him to present the same material with more humility and his only response is that some people are patient and others are not. He prattles on and on about dialectic but one facet of true dialectic is a rejection that one’s every position is correct, a priori.
“Rabbit people” is fucking stupid.
It would be a good one, were they not rabbits themselves. My prediction is that within a year or two that label will have no currency due to their hypocrisy.
But I have not once found a single observation of his worth remembering or quoting
I have a BA in Econ and some of his econ stuff is pretty damned impressive.
Asher,
Mind if I jump in your little spat?
“Sexual purity is not about having a gift to give to the person we wind up marrying…”
I think it is!
“…but about offering our lives to God and submitting to his will.”
Also true, but is not mutually exclusive with the first statement.
“Take Frank, who is 36 and still a virgin. Is he engaged? Does he have any prospects on the horizon?”
Even if Frank has no current prospects, does this matter? If Frank’s goal is to marry one day,
he will do so. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
“Let’s say he manages to get married at 40. Will his wife be of suitable child-bearing age?”
Frank’s future wife does not have to be the same age as Frank. Frank’s future wife could be 18.
“Years ago I met a could who married as virgins around 40 and who really wanted children. It didn’t happen because of their ages and caused immense grief and misery.”
Terrible outcome for this couple, agreed.
But one couple’s infertility issues does not cancel out the general principle of chastity before marriage.
Even if Frank’s virginity is ‘prideful’, he is still better off morally than someone who wilfully flouts God’s laws on sexuality but is ‘humble about it’.
In any case, I think a male virgin of Frank’s age has every reason to be ‘proud’, even more so than a female virgin of the same age, because of the higher risk of failure inherent in men due to their physiology.
Sadly, men like Frank are not ‘rewarded’ by most of society for this Herculean task of remaining chaste, but let us not beat him down in THIS forum of all places, where we purport to know better than the average person on the street on all matters SMP.
Frank has clearly raised the bar for himself – good on him – why are you punishing him by raising the bar even higher for him?
Is it not enough that he does the will of God (as Frank sees it) but now it has to be for the reason YOU wish? Is that not a tad unfair to Frank?
Or do I misunderstand your comment? If so, could you explain to me why you are not being unreasonable with Frank?
Really, I am not a Frank-supporter. I just don’t understand what you need from Frank…or anyone else in his position. Care to elaborate for the cheap seats at the back, so to speak?
Sigyn asked:
I am talking about any celibate — or any chaste person, for that matter — who reads to strangers from an alien book and thinks it will persuade crowds disposed in their bones from birth to despise the first hint of such authority. Our suddenly scripture-illiterate culture will not listen to people who do not talk like them or have no frame of reference for their predicament. Yes, that includes holy rollers, and foot-in-the-door-jamb Jehovah salesmen.
Begin with the assumption that there is no cultural capital available to Christianity any longer, and you will begin to fathom the enormity before us. We are the Christians in the catacombs, drawing secret Ichtyses in the sand to recognize a brother. We are subterranean again, subversive, and even beyond countercultural. We are anti-culture. Only, unlike the glorious martyrs, we have the burden of nominal Christianity to contend with, a nicey-nice, insipid Oprah cult which claims the name Christian and turns people (especially men) from the true faith more decisively than the threat of persecution ever did. See: moralistic therapeutic deism.
Asher wrote:
Excellent demonstration of my point. God simply did not make us to be virgins at 40. For those who are capable of heroic chastity, religious vocations establish cultures that help support their calling. You cannot convince a sex-besotted brain from birth to twist his life in knots to avoid marginal sexual peccadilloes, like committing adultery in one’s mind. For that matter, you cannot convince me.
Reading the bible like a straightforward guidebook is an insult to the human capacity for judgment, even in the face of modern depravity. God gives us grace and discernment. Now, while we may have taken this rationalism far past the point of rebellion, the answer will always be found at the equilibrium point between fideism and blind materialism. “Work out your salvation in fear and trembling,” and the balance will reveal itself.
At the same time, neither did God make us capable of enduring the miasma of the sexual-revolution fuck-all any more than he made the body capable of withstanding decades of Dollar Menu gluttony.
Our culture destroys those under its influence rather than sustains them. The only question is, how best might we reach tortured souls and gain their trust? The promise of virginity is nice, but that’s writing a check we cannot cash. We have to get down in the dirt, where the rubber meets the road, and live among sinners. Once there, the holy roller will find many more similarities with themselves than differences. These are abused souls: self-abused, pedagogically-abused, sexually-abused, culturally-abused, intellectually-abused.
We are missionaries, and missionaries go as native as possible. Without becoming Conrad’s Kurtz.
donalgraeme wrote:
My goal? To gather the souls of my enemies, my haters, and the most damnable souls that yet live into the bosom of Christ, who descended into hell, who traveled to the furthest place of God-forsakenness, to bring back the worst sinners, whom he loved as much as us, perhaps more than us.
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:12-13)
“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray.” (Matthew 18:12-13)
In short, you love them. You work the problem from their angle. You become intimate enough that they become able to recognize the light in you, and believe in it. You show them by your bodily presence that there is another way besides their slow suicide. You understand them, you learn their language, you speak in terms that do not spook them, you guide them in baby-steps. Nocturnal creatures cannot be brought up into the light all at once without frightening them back down into their familiar holes.
Criticism noted. But you don’t give the impression of meeting me halfway across this thorny thicket of a multifaceted and treacherous landscape.
Matt
@ spacetraveller
My comments about pride were directed toward redpillpaul, not Frank. As for the blithe suggestion that Frank might meet 40 married to a 20 year old … that is the churchian version of special snowflake reasoning. The reality is that the vast majority of women prefer a man just a couple of years older than they.
@ Matt
I have had several encounters with Sygne over at VP. Her ability to maintain an intelligent conversation is just about nonexistent.
Sigyn, your snark to Ashur in incredible. What kind of pagan are you?
The reality is that the vast majority of women prefer a man just a couple of years older than they.
Not in Central America, where I live. But yes, it’s true in the States.
@RedPillPaul,
Three reasons to ignore Asher’s admonition that you should not marry:
1. New Testament teaching on celibacy gives no age or cutoff time. (Asher pulled “29” out of his rear end.) If you burn with passion you should get married. 2,000 years of observation on New Testament Christian life show that it is a very small number of Christians that have the “gift” to remain single like St. Paul.
2. Many men find their passion increases in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Just because you made it to age 29 doesn’t mean God intends you to grit your teeth and endure until you are 80.
3. Finding a wife in your 20’s is much more difficult than it was 60 years ago. Today most modern, western Christian women are delaying marriage. That just makes it harder for a guy in his 20’s to find a good, Christian wife. Most of the eligible women are focused on graduate degree/s, travel, career, and “finding themselves.”
” But you don’t give the impression of meeting me halfway across this thorny thicket of a multifaceted and treacherous landscape.”
Its hard to meet someone half-way when you don’t even know where he is. Now that I understand where you are coming from, I’m not sure that meeting you half-way is necessary. We both seem to be in agreement on many matters.
@ Bee
I am going to assume you are a woman because no man would say that they are more aroused in passion in their 30s than in their 20s. The curve of male testosterone is a biological fact and anyone telling you differently is grossly ignorant or lying. As for those career women who are “finding themselves”, yeah, I’m quite aware of them and if more than one in a thousand is a virgin by thirty I will suck Dan Savage’s c*ck. Seriously.
BTW, I was not giving paul advice to avoid marriage but chiding him for his pridefulness in why he was waiting. He is doing so out of wanting to think himself superior to the guy next to him, not out of service to God.
See, the issue is not merely a personal one but one of the political management of a society and the church.
There is a difference between (1) “not burning with sexual passion”, on the one hand and (2) being able to exercise discipline and self-control, on the other. Assuming that any may who can do (2) therefore is also (1) doesn’t really follow. Some people are capable of greater self-control in the sexual area than others, “out of the box”, as it where (although I do think everyone is *capable* of it, with some training, just as is the case with respect to other physical and mental disciplines. I therefore think it’s wrong to conclude that because someone is a virgin when he marries in his late 20s, he therefore doesn’t burn with sexual passion, and therefore should remain unmarried.
I was a virgin when I married at 27. It wasn’t due to a lack of opportunities. I pushed women away twice in college, and a couple of times thereafter before meeting my ex-wife. It wasn’t because I wasn’t passionate about them physically, but rather that sex outside of marriage is not something I wanted to do then, and not something I want to do now, for moral reasons. I agree that this should not be a source of pride (i.e., “I’m better than you guys who can’t keep it zipped”), but at the same time to conclude that my ability to be continent was and is indicative of a lack of sexual passion, meaning I should be celibate, is to draw the wrong conclusion. in my view. In practice, of course, I *have* been celibate for long periods of my life, both before my marriage and after it (and during it as well, as is also fairly common …), and I am chaste with my girlfriend. One can. however, burn with sexual passion and yet still be chaste — it takes discipline and continence, fueled by motivation and conscience. That is rather different from someone who simply does not burn with passion and is relatively indifferent to sex — relatively asexual.
@ Novaseeker
The point is that sexual purity requires both individual and communal effort. In the second half of Romans 1 the nouns used to refer to people are plural.
It is easier with communal effort, I agree, but that can be supplied from families even in a hostile culture. I do think that my own ability to remain sexually continent while unmarried does not really result from any heroic characteristics of me personally (that would be rather funny, actually), but from moral ideas that were instilled in me when I was a child from my family. My family was dysfunctional in many ways, but in this area there was a value installed pretty strongly, I think, which is probably the primary source of my ability to maintain continence in this area.
I think a big problem is that of “whatever the low classes do I must not do” philosophy of the middle class and up Christians.
So if the low class rednecks get married young then we shouldn’t do that either. We are better than them and we should follow what the upper class does regardless if it fits our situation or not.
Apply that mentality to any social issues and bam you get insane shit that’s meant for liberal upper-mid class when it’s applied to supposedly traditional Christianity.
What’s funny is Asher sticking it to unattractive people for being unattractive. Couldn’t find a woman in your early – mid twenties for your chaste marriage, forever alone. You prideful prideful man. LOL.
Dude these guys are chasing unicorns that are probably hard for attractive men. I wasn’t really involved in Inner Varsity or other groups like that but what I saw on the outside was that there were two groups that got married right after college: the attractive guys to often simply mediocre women that had all the control in the relationship by the way and clueless really unattractive couples. The rest were plain but affluent women hoping to marry Mr.Big when they moved to the city and Billy Betas. I hated the church hierarchy system and control so that’s why I stayed away. It’s all after discovering these sites that I know why I was innately repulsed. I think a lot of guys feel the same way.
@Asher,
I said, “many men” not “all men”. Many men are outliers.
Testosterone is not the only factor in passion.
Pride is not a reason not to get married.
As dalrock is incomparably sane in the otherwise perverse manosphere, his commentors are incomparably insane. I once heard them described as pod people, I think there might be something to that.
Great post dalrock. Commentors… go see a shrink or a priest or something. Just get out of the house in general.
@ furiosferret
In no way was I mocking anyone. What I am pointing out is that there are plenty of virgins who are so for lack of ability to get sex in this environment and sometimes virginity is just posturing. Again, I have to go back to the communal and political aspects of sexual purity.
@ Bee
No. For any particular individual, no matter their upbringing, testosterone is the predictor of sex drive. Period. No men are more passionate at 35 than they were at 25. No such man has ever existed. Now there may be some men who are more passionate at 27 than other men are at 22 but that is because of individual difference, not age difference.
Pride is not a reason not to get married.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I was pointing out that some, probably many, stay chaste out of pridefulness not out of a desire to seek God’s will for their life.
I was urging redpillpaul to demonstrate that he was not engaging in pride by staying chaste for the rest of his life because his statements betrayed pridefulness. The pride he was exhibiting was in his virginity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have to be kidding here. I’m surprised any guy ever admits it.
Asher said:
In no way was I mocking anyone. What I am pointing out is that there are plenty of virgins who are so for lack of ability to get sex in this environment and sometimes virginity is just posturing. Again, I have to go back to the communal and political aspects of sexual purity.
They are called whores. You do know what a whore is, right?
Asher said:
“Years ago I met a could who married as virgins around 40 and who really wanted children. It didn’t happen because of their ages”
Uh, NO. It almost certainly didn’t happen because of HER age. A woman is about done at that age (shouldn’t even try, given birth defect rates), while a man probably still has many years left reproductively. Too, if he does have some borderline fertility issue, commonly using a younger (much as possible) women to have children with can compensate to a large degree for any age issues his gametes have. I conceived my very healthy twin daughters at age 49, using 23-YO egg donors.
===============================================================
Frank, you said you are celibate, but have a girlfriend? What’s the point of the commitment (foreclosing opportunities elsewhere), expense of money and time, etc., if there’s no sex in the relationship? You can have friends and companions (with whom you do just about everything you do with a non-sexual GF).
Matt, you are likely confused about what meaning is conveyed by the terminology “rabbit people” simply because you understand nothing about to what it refers. It’s about r/K Theory. Here is a decent summary of how all that works:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
Mathew King:
The “Vox Dei” puffery baffles me. Anyone who attended college seriously can spot a charlatan like him from miles away — indeed, it is a basic survival skill of higher education: graduate studies are loaded with bold and transparent bullshitters, sometimes teaching the courses. He enthralls people who possess no other frame of reference for advanced analysis beyond the unsubstantiated assertions he feeds them.
Mathew tried to AMOG Vox. It didn’t work. His but still hurts.
My thoughts on virginity:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/no-one-misses-a-slice-from-a-cut-loaf/
And look what I found today on Facebook. The debate gets interesting.
http://bugbrennan.com/2013/04/20/statement-from-rad-fem-2013/
Now that’s separation of Church and State!
Had young Benito Juarez understood Mexican law, he’d have known to take the case to the eccliastical courts instead of the Mexican government courts.
Anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism are part of the dominant ideology of Mexico’s wealthy class and remains so today. Mexican politics is difficult to make sense of if one doesn’t know that.
Now that’s separation of Church and State!
Had young Benito Juarez understood Mexican law, he’d have known to take the case to the ecclesiastical courts instead of the Mexican government courts.
Anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism was the dominant ideology of Mexico’s wealthy class and remains so today.
I posted a response to John the 51 yr old virgin, at the “News Flash — you probably won’t marry a virgin” thread linked above. Currently in moderation. Here it is:
John Morgan…I’m one of those “rare breeds” you will never know. And I’m a guy. Oh, and I guess I’m in the 0.0000001% because I’m 51 and a virgin… This is just comedy for Christian singles who are waiting
Hear ya there, brother. At 14, long before I got religion, I somehow discerned that I could not go “all the way” (as we called it then) with a girl, til my wedding night. Becoming a Christian at 19 only reinforced the preexisting conviction. Naturally, I wanted to marry at 19…
…Alas, through no choice of my own, and (as far as I know) through no fault of my own, I was not able to marry til age 38. That was a HELL of a long time to wait. And how was my virginity treated in church? I was snubbed, mocked, broken-up-with, accused of perversion, and faced with seduction attempts by “Christian” women, as a result. When I was weak, I fell for the heavy petting game and went farhter than I should, though never all the way. When I was strong, I was dumped quite hastily.
At best the Christian women would tell me, “Oh, you’re so tall and handsome, you have a good job, you’re a strong believer, some girl someday will be glad to have you…..” Ironically, some worldlings actually respected my choice to wait, but the Christians usually didn’t.
Was I doing something statistically foolish, like holding out for a fellow virgin?
Was I pharasaically passing judgement on nonvirgins?
NO!
From early on I “got” the idea of redemption, and I realized, how could I judge someone whose sins were different from mine? As a result, I had no hesitation about dating a Christian exprostitute that I met in Bible study (I loved her but she was too damaged to sustain a relationship). Also, probably 1/3 of the women I dated were rape victims, many of whom had lost their virginity against their will. (I didn’t seek out victims, they were drawn to me because as a virgin I was “safe”).
No, I wasn’t doing anything wrong. I was just trying to obey God. And MOST CHRISTIAN WOMEN WERE NOT. They made, instead, the most ridiculous rationalizations, and would NOT REPENT.
OH, and the purity culture? Allow me to respond to the accusations above:
1. The Purity Culture denies that God created human sexuality, and that it is good.
BRAZEN LIE.. Neither my conservative but nonreligious parents, nor ANY church or singles ministry I ever attended, EVER conveyed the idea that sex was dirty or evil. NEVER NEVER NEVER. It was always, “It’s a great thing, God made it to be great…. and it’s reserved for marriage”.
2. The Purity Culture denies that most people engage in sexual activity before they marry.
BRAZEN LIE…. Nobody ever said this. The consistent message is, “Most people, including most so-called Christians, ARE doing it…and they SHOULD NOT BE. The Bible is crystal clear on this point.”
Also…. you must understand that our present “Forniculture” is a very NEW THING in history.
For a bit of perspective: Almost all human societies, throughout almost all history, in almost all parts of the world, have taken saving sex for marriage as a GIVEN. It was not some high and holy but unrealistic aspiration, nor was it a crowning jewel on the head of a few superspiritual heroes… No, it was considered NORMAL, a basic social obligation, to be violated only at the cost of great shame. Even in the English speaking West, from the dawn of our history right up through our own grandparents’ time, saving it til marriage was considered the norm. Just ask anybody who’s old enough to remember what America was like before the 1960s.
So… should we save sex til marriage? Yes, and, there’s something radically wrong with our society if we even have to ask the question! OF COURSE we should wait. For almost all of humanity, for almost all history, this was a “no brainer”.
It’s true that the pages of history describe a FEW promiscuous societies (eg terminal Rome) and even religions (eg, the ancient Canaanite cults). But it’s also true that these do not persist down through history. A probable reason can be found, in the extinction of the Tasmanians and the decimation of the New Guineans and the Maori of New Zealand. These people were not particularly monogamous, and as long as they were isolated, this didn’t seem to hurt them. But on contact with the outside world, a few of them contracted sexually transmitted diseases, which spread like wildfire, killing many and sterilizing the survivors.
In Tasmania, missionaries and the government made concerted efforts to protect the remaining fullblood natives, but after 1823 they produced NO MORE CHILDREN, having all been sterilized by STDs, mainly gonorrhea. Likewise the Maoris are reported to have bitterly lamented at the fact that the white settlers, sent to NZ by the Church of England, produced large families easily, while their tribe was dwindling as many of their own tribeswomen were sterile (having caught STDs from the less religious sort of whites.)
Chillingly, in the present day West, despite antibiotics and condoms, we now have an epidemic of fertility destroying chlamydia infections. And a new gonorrhea strain has arisen in Japan, and has recently spread to Europe and the USA, which is immune to all antibiotics, and which sterilizes 40% of those infected. 25% of all couples in the West have fertility problems, and STD damage is one of the major reasons.
So….Should we save sex till marriage? Um… do you want kids?
And finally..
3. The Purity Culture promises that hot sex is easy, even (especially?) for the inexperienced.
BRAZEN LIE. Purity culture told us plainly that sex was a cultivated skill, that engaged couples should read some good books on the subject in preparation, and not to expect the first night or even the first few weeks to be earthshattering. They were VERY realistic and helpful.
And I can say, after 10 1/2 years of marriage, that any time we can get all 3 kids to sleep at the same time, the sex is better than ever. We are STILL INVENTING news things, still trying new stuff. At age 49, when most guys are starting to wind down, I’m still on the up-curve.
But what on earth am I going to tell my 3 sons, when they hit 16 and are ready to date? That most “Christian” women make NO PRETENSE of obeying the Lord in sexuality? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going to have to tell them.
Your comment is awaiting moderation
@anonymous. Kudos to you. Your one of few who understand what it means to be a disciple (deny oneself, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus). More than likely you married a moral women and hopefully the both of treated each other with respect.
Allow me to suggest, there isn’t to much you can say to your kids. as actions speak much much louder than words. Give you kids a good example as it says “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.”
Apples dont far fall from trees.
Shalom
Let’s just see if that comment gets out of moderation. I suspect it won’t.
Congrats Dalrock,
You have some powerful commenters doing their stuff on this blog.
Government as we understand it was not established in that land at the time. And other than the obscure mention of the priest Melchizedek, there was no ministerial priesthood in the land established by God. There was only the priesthood of believers by which Laban, the father of Leah and Rachel, was head priest of his household. Therefore it is doubly fitting that Jacob asked Laban’s permission to marry Rachel. And Laban’s substitution of Leah for Rachel shows his authority over the marriage of his daughters. When Laban said to Jacob the Supplanter, “It is not the custom in our country to marry off a younger daughter before an older one,” Jacob accepted Laban’s decree.
Also, where does Scripture say the lovely-eyed Leah is ugly?
I disagree with your just-so story.
First the clergy in apostolic succession do “represent God” and they didn’t make this up themselves. I refer doubters to the passages of the Gospel in which Jesus confers authority to bind and loosen upon the Apostles. There are additional confirming Scriptures. “He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you, rejects Me” might ring a bell.
Second, the Church recognizes natural marriage and among Christians the ordinary ministers of sacramental marriage are the couple themselves. Odinary Catholic Christian practice is that a representative of the Church must be present at a wedding of a Catholic Christian; this is to help assure that the marrieds are pledging their troth of their own free will. A sacramental marriage requires the free consent of each of the couple. No more trickery, not even by Labans tricking tricksters. Who would have it otherwise? Not Protestants or the Orthodox, even after separating from the universal Church they kept the practice.
I don’t know about weddings being a consistent money maker for governments but one of the grievances of the colonists due to the Stamp Act was the act’s interference3 with otherwise lawful weddings. Marriage documents were subject to the Stamp Act and obtaining the stamp was troublesome and expensive the farther away one was from the town in which the colonial governor resided.
I am unaware of any popular objections in either the U.S. or Mexico to any religious requirement that marriages of its adherents be sanctioned by that religion’s clerics that were as tightly linked to a cause for revolution as was the Stamp Act. If you know of any, please let me know; citations to appropriate historical works will be especially appreciated.
I don’t get it. I’m not religious, which might be the reason, but from what I can see marriage is nothing but a state mechanism to control people. Marriage didn’t even exist for most people (including those who were Christian) throughout history, it was the preserve of the rich. Why should getting hitched make any difference to sex, it’s just words on paper and rings on fingers.
Second, I don’t think it’s wise to bind yourself to someone for life if you don’t know what they’re like in bed. I find sex an immensely powerful way to understand someone on an emotional level, and I would hate to marry someone only to find out they were unbalanced and uncapable of expressing their emotions.
I’ve had premarital sex, and I may well never hav any other, because while my partner and I are monogamous we’re not interested in state or religious recognition of our relationship. I feel no shame for this…why should I? The comments here talk about justification, but I think they’ve got it backwards. Can you justify telling people to avoid premarital sex?
anonymous:
“Also, probably 1/3 of the women I dated were rape victims, many of whom had lost their virginity against their will.”
Did they press charges?
“Also, probably 1/3 of the women I dated were rape victims, many of whom had lost their virginity against their will.”
If one re-reads that sentence carefully you will see that it does not make sense (apart from being utterly implausible) although it is possible that anonymous was responsible for these alleged rapes. We should be told.
LOL
@ Asher,
Apologies for mixing up your comment to RedPillPaul to Frank. But my query to you still stands, though.
Whilst I get that you wish these men to be virgins not to turn their noses up at the rest of humanity, but rather as a humble fulfilment of God’s law, I failed to see in your comments any upholding of the sentiment that these men are actually doing the right thing.
In the absence of marriage, abstention from sex is the next best thing.
Again, forgive me if I didn’t see you express this in your message to RedPillPaul.
All I got from your comment was, ‘the reason for your self-restraint is not noble enough, guys!’ and that is what I am reacting so viscerally to. It is knocking a man down when he is actually doing good.
It is what the secular world does best these days.
I am surprised that a commenter on Dalrock’s blog also holds these views.
I want to be proved wrong here. I want you to prove to me that I read you wrong…
Anonymous says something that is along the lines of my defence of RedPillPaul/Frank:
“…Alas, through no choice of my own, and (as far as I know) through no fault of my own, I was not able to marry til age 38. That was a HELL of a long time to wait. And how was my virginity treated in church? I was snubbed, mocked, broken-up-with, accused of perversion, and faced with seduction attempts by “Christian” women, as a result.”
We should hold these people up as good role models – Anonymous, Frank, RedPillPaul are doing what most of the population cannot pull off – waiting until they are married to have sex.
I am sure if these 3 men found suitable women to marry at a younger age, they would have. In the meantime, they are trying very hard (against all the odds) to do the right thing.
Let’s not bash them for this. There are a lot worse things to reproach someone for, surely.
From this site and written over ten years ago :
My comments are directed at the men of this country, who over the past decades:
Sit back in their easy chair reading Newsweek or spend their time bare chested at a football game, well filled with suds to maintain those obscene beer bellies, while they have put their wives and children at risk. This nation is being invaded wholesale with illegal aliens who come into this country and kidnap, rape and murder our women and children. Some are caught, most are not. Why do the men turn a blind eye in pursuit of good times?
Today the men in this country sit around watching mindless trash like Survivor or Friends on the boob tube, instead of shouting down the roof against state and federal systems that are utterly and completely rotten beyond redemption. Systems and agencies that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary servitude for all their lives. Instead they sit back with nary a whisper while state and federal judges to uphold this carnage against the people. Why is this?
Black robed judges continue to hand out welfare and benefits to illegal aliens who are legally entitled to nothing but deportation. Instead of holding their elected public servants accountable for this insanity, men just get up in the morning, go to work at the company store, then return home in the evening to their false sense of security. Why is this? Back in 1776, this breed of men would be called cowards.
While the IRS bleeds a family dry, forcing the woman into the workplace and leaving the children to be raised by strangers, many of whom are pedophiles, the man of the house spends his free time doing the “guy thing” at a NASCAR speedway. Why is this? Why won’t these men stand up to this rogue agency called the IRS?
Over the past 40 years, the men of this country have sat back and allowed themselves to be brow beaten into submission and castrated by so-called “feminists” like Rosie O’Donnell and Hillary Clinton (although I defy anyone to show me one single feminine attribute of those females) instead of stand up and saying, “Hell No!”
Hard core feminists aren’t out there for equal pay, they’re out there to destroy the male and the family unit. How it must gall them that the only way lesbians can “impregnate” their female lovers is artificial insemination by a male sperm.
PC is a cancer on this nation that has turned a Godly nation into a moral sewer. These men have put their children in harms way via mandatory social indoctrination in the anti-God public school system. Why is this?
The men of this country will go to extraordinary lengths to find the right fishing hole, but they refuse to lift a finger to ensure that their women and children will not be forced into global citizenship under the UN. Why is this?
Women in this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on “romance books” whose pages are filled with knights in shining armor and genuine heroes coming to rescue the damsel in distress. Why do you suppose that is?
Why do you suppose the men are allowing their women and children to be put at risk in all the ways described above?
Why are the women the ones out there on the front lines battling this government tooth and nail for our children – ready and willing to die if necessary to protect our own?
Because America has lost it’s manhood.
I don’t know what to make of this.
Amerca’s “manhood” was voted out of office with women sufferage. That little rant is what it looks like. Don’t worry honey terrorist and and the government police state are going to make it worse. And then maybe it won’t matter any more (SHTF). That will be when america gets to try out that second amendment.
Marellus, I remember that as the first “man up” type article I ever read. It was then re-posted countless times on Christian blogs.
Of course it makes no sense. Look up some older Dalrock entries on Conservatives inadvertently pushing feminism for more of the same.
If one re-reads that sentence carefully you will see that it does not make sense (apart from being utterly implausible) although it is possible that anonymous was responsible for these alleged rapes.
Fuck you.
As to the rest of you, who might actually want to know the answer, NO. Victims of various stripes gravitated to me, Mr Nice Guy Virgin, because — as I was told by them over and over — they felt “safe” with me (which was true – they were indeed safe with me.).
I don’t for one moment believe that 1/3 of “all women” are victims, either — they disproportionally gravitated towards me. FWIW, my wife is NOT a victim.
many of whom had lost their virginity against their will.”…that it does not make sense
Although Opus is not owed a civil answer, for the sake of others I will clarify. Some lost their virginity against their will — their rape was their first sex. Others, had voluntarily engaged in sex first, and then ended up getting raped later. Duh.
And Julian — some of them would not tell me their complete stories, but of those who did, NONE went to the cops. There are a couple of stories that, I would NOT call rape — drunken oopsie bitterly regretted is more like it. But unless the rest of the women were totally fabricating things, they were indeed victims of real rape, eg, tackled down and dragged off, or molested in-family as small children unable to resist.
unless the rest of the women were totally fabricating things, they were indeed victims of real rape, eg, tackled down and dragged off, or molested in-family …</I
..and I might add, the damage showed in their lives. Even if (implausibly) all these stories were fabricated to gain sympathy, these women were really damaged, somehow, along the way. If their stories of victimization are untrue, then, how do you explain how they got so messed up? In most cases there was no other “life damaging event” of comparable magnitude. THat’s why I believe them.
The question is one of causation. You are right that suffering serious abuse would mess them up. …But then so would other things. Including rampant promiscuity, for example. They would be deeply screwed up by that. …Screwed up enough to feed you a pack of lies about their past.
Only they (and God) know the truth, ultimately.
It seems to me that the sort of women anonymous is describing are most unfortunate – we usually however spell that S-L-U-T.
Heaven forfend that I might suggest (in his sincerity) that Anonymous should be spelt G-U-L-L-I-B-L-E.
How by the way does one voluntarily engage in sex and then, as anonymous says, get raped later? Am I by the way entitled to claim as a result of the ‘fuck you’, addressed to me by anonymous that I too have now been Raped, as I certainly did not consent to that? Is this the first case of blog rape – at least at Dalrock’s? My life had been ruined, will I ever recover??
🙂 🙂 🙂
“I am one of those sky-high IQ guys, too, but I loathe even talking about it.”
Yes, yes. Your modesty is glaring. Never more so than in your lectures on pride.
Never fear ladies. Although they seem relatively rare out in the real world, the internet is absolutely awash in lady killer alphas with sky-high IQs. They just might be hard to spot because they’re very modest and unassuming….
LOL
Opus
I wouldn’t dog anonymous too it looks like he didn’t marry one of those crazy bitches and he does have sons now to worry about. And if he is getting regular ass from his sons mother good on him. That is all that matters.
For all of you sluts out there. Pull that one off, give your beta chump kids and fuck him regularly and live your life in such a way that he brags about his wife. (not hard to do relative to how worthless wives are today) That is all it takes, too bad that is too much to ask of a woman. It is the cock carousel and affirmation from other sluts and a supplicating church and whiteknights as the other route to take.
Somebody help explain Asher he is talking over my head. I wanna use the word “fuck” in one of my replies to one of his comments but he is just so far above me that I can’t reach him. Maybe one of you worthless wives can help me.
Legion, I reviewed my comments to Asher and I’m baffled as to where you see snark. I’m also totally confused as to why you think that snark is the sole territory of unbelievers.
Because you ask, I answer that I am not a pagan. I am saved through the death and resurrection of Christ, Who was crucified for the sins of all, and through obedience to Whom is the only path to the Father. I make often-faltering attempts to do what He says as best the Holy Spirit and my older brethren can help me understand, and I repent where I fail.
I am not perfect, but I believe I am forgiven, and I do my best to walk with Him. I call myself “Christian” as a result.
Fair enough? Can I get out of this spotlight now? I’m not that exciting.
Oh, Legion, I wasn’t asking for proof of snark, by the way. If you see snark, I’m sorry for not being more dry and clinical. My style is not felicitous, and I’m not wanting to cause any more disruption.
@ HawkNRock
The PIE roots for “modesty” involve oneself as the measure of something. It’s about setting oneself up as the standard of measure – In common language it’s like saying “I am the way everyone should be”.
Since we are discussing ideas on the internet the sole standard is the arguments that one presents; no other standard exists. Having a high IQ doesn’t necessarily mean that one makes good arguments, as the history of humanity is replete with very smart people expending vast amounts of intellectual energy arguing for very bad ideas.
The origins of the term involve drawing attention to oneself. Vox does this constantly. Redpillpaul does this when he says he wants a better wife and is saving himself for marriage, one that will be “special”.
I have my temptations but pride is not one of them. I tend more toward fear and sloth.
the internet is absolutely awash in lady killer alphas with sky-high IQs
I have certainly never described myself as alpha.
The term “modest” is pretty ambiguous. Consider the following statement “he owns a modest hut”. Does that mean he is a modest person? It could mean that. Or it could mean that he just doesn’t have much money. What if someone with lots of money owns a modest hut? Would that imply that he is modest? Maybe, but what if he runs around telling people that he has lots of money and still manages to live humbly? That certainly wouldn’t indicate modesty.
About the only time I will label someone prideful on the internet is if they make some sort of statement that implies they are the standard by which all others are measured.
@ greyghost
Somebody help explain Asher he is talking over my head.
What I am saying is not intellectually complex. Redpillpaul’s own words betray that his virginity is rooted in his desire to be seen as elevated in status above the next guy. He is taking Godly virtues and putting them in service of human pride.
@ Sigyn
You put yourself in the spotlight via your baseless insinuations. The masculine tends to have a withering dislike for baseless insinuation and will hound you for it until you walk it back or simply disappear. No one is forcing you to stay and read this blog.
Am I by the way entitled to claim as a result of the ‘fuck you’, addressed to me by anonymous that I too have now been Raped, as I certainly did not consent to that?
Don’t get your hopes up. I only like girls. “Fuck you” is a figure of speech, I didn’t mean it literally.
Opus: How by the way does one voluntarily engage in sex and then, as anonymous says, get raped later?
Opus, are you really that dense, or are you trolling? A girl could have sex, voluntarily, with a boyfriend, or even her husband. Then, sometime later, a thug could grab her and pull her into the bushes. The fact that she consented to one sexual act, does not negate the fact that the other sexual act was coerced by violence.
I suppose next you’ll be claiming that because I voluntarily gave a homeless man a few dollars, that I couldn’t possibly ever be robbed in the future. That’s how bad your logic is.
WWW: You are right that suffering serious abuse would mess them up. …But then so would other things. Including rampant promiscuity, for example.
Opus: It seems to me that the sort of women anonymous is describing are most unfortunate – we usually however spell that S-L-U-T.
WWW is correct in questioning the causation. However, I’ll say this, plenty of young girls grow up thinking, “I”m saving it til marriage”, and then, upon being raped, say, “to hell with it, it doesn’t matter any more”. I’ve heard these stories enough to think there is some truth to it. All too often, a “slut” gets her start as a victim. First comes the rape, then comes the promiscuity… especially if the rape was her FIRST sex. Professional counsellors have said as much.
I”m tired of this subject. I only mentioned the fact that several ex-GFs were rape victims, in order to establish the fact that I, a virgin, was willing to date nonvirgins., however they got that way. The fact that certain people try to make me out to be the bad guy for that, is repulsive.
I didn’t expect the Spanish inquisition…
@anonymous
You must forgive my scepticism. As I have written here on more than one occasion, I have a certain amount of experience of Rape both Professionally and Personally and I have got to tell you that I have never come across a woman who was doing anything other than lieing or fantasizing. Rape is as rare as hen’s teeth, and as such I can only suppose that you appear to be allowing your natural sympathy for women to cloud your judgement. It may be that where you are Rape is common, but as that seems to me to be unlikely (wherever you are) I have to deduce that even if the women have come to believe their own stories (and women seem to love the idea that that sexual encounter that did not go quite as they hoped must therefore have been against their will and thus Rape) you are having the wool pulled over your eyes. Trust me… I’m a lawyer.
@ anonymous
The lesson, here, is that if you make such a stark statement your initial comment should be as detailed and specific as possible. In the comment you made regarding one-third of your gf’s being raped you should have included a disclaimer that you are a quiet, gentle guy to whom traumatized women are naturally drawn.
@ Opus
Not sure that rape is quite as uncommon as you’re making it seem. My mom and one of my sisters were raped, the latter three different times. In my sisters case all three times happened in a case of her meeting more than one strange guy and going somewhere alone with them combined with inebriating quantities of alcohol and, possibly, roofies.
In most cases of rape of which I know and am convinced happened every single time involved serious substance, i.e. alcohol/drugs, factors. The real lesson is don’t get inebriated without considerable social safeguards.
@Spacetraveller,
“We should hold these people up as good role models – Anonymous, Frank, RedPillPaul are doing what most of the population cannot pull off – waiting until they are married to have sex.”
I agree! The Christian community and the world need to see examples of purity and chastity. Contrary to the Hollywood/Playboy philosopy, “not everyone is doing it.”
I am not convinced that RedPillPaul is guilty of pride. Two examples from the Bible of righteous boasting:
1. David boasted before and after he killed Goliath. He boasted to build up and encourage the faith of the troops. After he killed a giant, other Israeli’s were confident that they could do the same thing. “He killed an Egyptian, a man of great stature five cubits tall.” I Chronicles 11:23
2. St. Paul boasted to increase his “street cred” with the Corinthians. To contrast himself with the teachers who only taught and did not do missionary work.
@anonymous You must forgive my scepticism. .. I have a certain amount of experience of Rape both Professionally and Personally and I have got to tell you that I have never come across a woman who was doing anything other than lieing or fantasizing…. I’m a lawyer
Opus, I would have been more inclined to listen to you, if you’d said so up front, instead of falsely accusing ME of being a perpetrator. Naturally that set me off. And as a lawyer, you should know better.
That said… I’d be sincerely interested in hearing more of your professional experience in the area, if you could do so (a) without being salacious, as all kinds of pervs read this blog, and (b) withouth jepoardizing your law careeer. How exactly do I respond when a woman tearfully tells me that her father molested her, or that she was run down and tackled while out taking a hike? How would I know it’s a lie?
@Asher,
“No. For any particular individual, no matter their upbringing, testosterone is the predictor of sex drive.”
Passion is a multi-variable function. You are trying to force fit a single variable function onto it. The real world is more complex than that.
“Pride is not a reason not to get married.
I have no idea what you mean by this.”
You don’t understand my riddle. See Proverbs 1: 6
the comment you made regarding one-third of your gf’s being raped you should have included a disclaimer that you are a quiet, gentle guy to whom traumatized women are naturally drawn.
I DID say that in the original post:
(I didn’t seek out victims, they were drawn to me because as a virgin I was “safe”)
I wouldn’t call myself quiet though. Rather too loud for my own good. And at 6’3″ I’m rather intimidating. But, yes, I am quite gentle with women, and they see it in my eyes (or so they tell me).
@ Bee
Passion is a multi-variable function. You are trying to force fit a single variable function onto it. The real world is more complex than that.
We are talking about sexual passion. Period. And that is a function of testosterone and a particular woman. Period.
At 18 I could masturbate to the mental picture of some hot girl I’d seen 8 hours earlier. Today, I rarely masturbate. Yes, men, over time, develop passions that women find attractive, but the male sexual passion is solely a function of age and how hot a particular woman is.
Think of stamp collecting. It is mostly done by retired men. It could be labelled a passion. by that metric 70 year old men are more passionate than 17 year old boys.
@ Bee,
Exactly.
If we are lamenting that the world has gone mad and no-one is doing the right thing anymore, then we should be pleased when we hear of people like Frank/Anonymous/RedPillPaul who are doing the right thing.
(Indeed, it would be even better if we hear more of women too who are doing the right thing in this context, because as someone pointed out before (I forget who), a bunch of male virgins is not going to change the world as much as the same number of female virgins simply because of the way man-woman interactions are wired – but that’s a topic for another day :-)).
The efforts of people like the above guys are laudable and not to be sneezed at.
It is shameful for anyone to accuse them of the sin of ‘pride’ in order to take away from them the incredibly gigantic feat of achieving the (near) impossible.
When this is done in the blue pill world out there, it is bad enough. When it is done here, it is worse, because Dalrock’s good work is being polluted.
Not cool.
(But I am willing to withdraw all of my harsh words against Asher if he shows me in a convincing manner that I have misconstrued his words).
as someone pointed out before (I forget who), a bunch of male virgins is not going to change the world as much as the same number of female virgins
That was me…
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/haunted-by-a-number/#comment-76010
@anonymous
Every case has to be judged on its merits. You weren’t there (and neither was I) but women do I am afraid have a tendency to shift any culpability they can to the other person. Women, you see are never at fault and Virginity, a low partner-count, and the like, even if entirely fabricated are important to them, (because it makes them desirable for more than pump and dump) which is why the rule of thumb is that if a woman claims N partners you mentally make it 2N.
There are a number of tells. When for example you are being told that a woman who is simply by any standards unattractive and that she has been Raped, you have to ask yourself whether she is saying this to raise her SMV (someone is prepared to risk gaol to have sex with her, so even if you cannot see it she must be hot, is the unspoken sub-text). Telling you that she has been raped will also bring out the protective instinct in you and she will be able to play on that for cuddles, sympathy or to send you into the LJBF zone. You will be putty in her hands. It is very difficult for guys. You know: you meet a girl, you are keen you escalate, but then she throws a fitness-test. What do you do? Go home and become the butt of your male friends jokes the next day? or press on. If you press on, you run the risk that it is just not going right for her (the fact that she never cares whether it goes right for you is immaterial of course). The onus is always on the guy. You may go home pleased with yourself : you scored and she seemed to like it. The next day however the Police call and they question you. You say something perfectly true but which in cross-examination looks dreadful, something like, I bought her dinner and we went back to her place, so I thought that…).
These are not I think real rapes. these are silly young women keen to try sex and then getting retro-spective cold feet. They acted like sluts (in training) and now have buyer’s remorse. That is not Rape. Even the stranger rape is not what it sometimes appears to me. Strangers do sometimes disappear into the bushes minutes after meeting (trust me, I have 😉 ), yet again, in Court who is going to believe that the demure young woman standing there with the quivering lip is really a horney bitch who for reasons unknown to you is keen to distance herself from her actions. You may ask what reasons? On this occasions I won’t go into the example I am thinking of (it would take a bit too long to explain) but I do not approve of men being sent to prison for eighteen months for something entirely consensual.
It is hard for young men to grasp that women are the more devious sex and will do and say anything that suits them – they really are economical with the truth, and remember that even when they are found out Judges are most reluctant to punish – they really can play the Pussy-Pass.
I would therefore just say this to you, and I rely for this on Steve Moxon’s book The Woman Racket – a very scholarly work. He says that studies show that in even the worst cases of Rape the woman will at worst suffer no more than mild depression for no longer than three months. Rape after all is Sex, and every one likes Sex: sex after all is not the same as being punched in the guts or having a crowbar beaten across your head. Strange as it may seem, when a Rape does take place the woman will quickly relax into sex as if it were entirely consensual – and lets not forget that the only female sexual fantasy is being forced against her will to submit. Hence the popularity of novels like Shades of Grey. Rape is not as such a crime against women but (imv) a crime against men – the rapist is a cheater who is taking what is above his station. That is really what he is being punished for: for making a woman unmarriagable or for effective cuckoldry.
I hope these random thoughts are of some use.
When for example you are being told that a woman who is simply by any standards unattractive and that she has been Raped,
They were all at least reasonably attractive.
Telling you that she has been raped will also bring out the protective instinct in you and she will be able to play on that for cuddles, sympathy or to send you into the LJBF zone./i>
Not in my case, the LJBF heartbreakers and the “woe is me, I was raped” girls were 2 totally separate categories. I never heard a rape story from an LJBF, only from women who were actually intertested enough to date.
You know: you meet a girl, you are keen you escalate, but then she throws a fitness-test. What do you do? Go home and become the butt of your male friends jokes the next day?
I didn’t have that kind of male friends. All my male friends shared my values.
You may go home pleased with yourself : you scored and she seemed to like it.
Waiting til the wedding night, prevents this. Although of course it’s possible for a TOTAL lie to be fabricated, if no sex occurred at all there will be no forensic evidence.
@ spacetraveller
we should be pleased when we hear of people like Frank/Anonymous/RedPillPaul who are doing the right thing
Are they doing the right thing? I’m not convinced that’s the case.
It is shameful for anyone to accuse them of the sin of ‘pride’ in order to take away from them the incredibly gigantic feat of achieving the (near) impossible.
Anything human can be a source of pride. Anything. If a man reaches this thirties and is still a virgin it is usually up to two reasons, although there are probably some outliers:
A) The inability to get laid
B) A dedication to God
In the case of redpillpaul he exhibits no indications that his virginity is about dedicating his life to God but that he wants to be seen as better than those around him. That is pride, so, no, by itself it’s not “the right thing”. I doubt God gives a shit whether or not redpillpaul is a virgin or not. Sure, there may be this-worldly consequences to that status but it probably has no bearing in the next world for him as a particular person.
Thank you Anonymous!
I can see the logic of your theory/hypothesis. It makes sense to me…
So whilst I may ponder the necessity of Frank and RedPillPaul’s virginity privately, there is no doubt that for each of these men personally, it is a good and respect-worthy path that they are on.
Asher’s attempt to tackle them on this issue is therefore, in my humble opinion both uncalled for and wrong.
Asher,
“In the case of redpillpaul he exhibits no indications that his virginity is about dedicating his life to God but that he wants to be seen as better than those around him.”
Is this the definition of pride?
Really??
Hmm. I can see that this is where I don’t see eye-to-eye with you.
A student works extra hard in class because he wants to get good grades and be better than the other students…
That is pride?
If that is pride, then yes, we should all be proud. I postulate that this kind of pride is ‘good pride’.
It is a different matter if RedPillPaul said to everyone else here, “You are all losers for not being virgins” then yes, you might have a case.
But I don’t think he has done this.
He has simply stated that he is a virgin, and perhaps he is waiting for a like-minded woman before he commits.
What is so wrong with that?
What is the motivation behind your hounding of these men?
I know EXACTLY what is going on when women do this to other women.
But I have never seen a man hound a male virgin like this before. This is new territory for me. I would like to understand this new beast.
Please help me understand, Asher, I beseech thee.
@ spacetraveller
I did not tackle “them”, I pointed out redpillpaul’s pride. Period. I see no evidence for any reason in paul’s virginity other than pride. Look at his own damn comments, which I have noted at least three different times.. Jesus, can’t people follow a direct line of reasoning? No wonder the world treats the church with such scorn.
Asher’s attempt to tackle them on this issue is therefore, in my humble opinion both uncalled for and wrong.
I think that what he is saying is correct as far as it goes (i.e., being prideful about sexual purity negates to a significant degree the actual good of it), but his division of the chaste world into simply two categories (incels and folks who should be celibate for God) pretty much eliminates the possibility of people existing who are not incels, and who are also not asexual, but who are continent sexually. I get the impression he may admit that these people exist, but they are so small in number as to be unimportant to the conversation, and that even if they do exist, they are prideful about their sexual continence and therefore it as no value anyway.
So what I read him as saying is that there are three types of guys:
(i) incels who can’t get laid, so their virginity is simply a function of inability rather than virtue;
(ii) relatively asexual guys who have an easier time avoiding extramarital sex than almost all other guys, and who therefore do not “burn with passion” like most guys, and who therefore should remain celibate; and
(iii) everyone else, of which 99% have sex outside marriage, and the remaining 1% who still have sexual passion (so are not in category (ii)) and are not incels are so stuffed up with pride about their continence that it has virtually negated any spiritual benefit of such continence and has led them away from God rather than toward Him, such that they would have been better off if they had just gotten laid and been done with it, and avoided the pridefulness associated with their continence.
What’s missing is the category of people who can be continent without being prideful and without being an incel or an asexual personality — I think he may admit that we exist, but he thinks there aren’t enough of us to really be relevant to the conversation.
Asher,
We will have to agree to disagree.
A man shows great restraint and perhaps brags a little about it, and he is accused of being ‘prideful’.
No mention of the effort he put in…
The world treats the Church with scorn because it is now populated with people (mentioning no names) who join the world in mocking their own Church brothers.
Give the good guy a break.
Refrain from charging him with a sin he has not committed.
That is what the world does best. You don’t have to join them.
RedPillPaul and Frank have done well.
Say that to them, or keep your peace.
Otherwise, you are part of the problem.
Just another member of ‘the world’ looking to knock them down.
@ Novaseeker
I explicitly acknowledged that some do remain pure in service to God. However, I suspect that they can be identified by marrying during or before their early 20s. If someone is still carrying a torch for women and have reached thirty then they are either unable to get laid or they do not burn with passion.
Sure, there are isolated outliers. Myself, for example, stayed a virgin til 25 simply out of a fear of going to hell but that is not the same thing as living one’s life for God.
I explicitly acknowledged that some do remain pure in service to God. However, I suspect that they can be identified by marrying during or before their early 20s. If someone is still carrying a torch for women and have reached thirty then they are either unable to get laid or they do not burn with passion.
Ahem. NO. I badly, badly WANTED to marry in my early 20s, and I definitely burned with passion, and secular women (and even some Christians) made it clear I could get laid sinfully any time I wanted……
It was NOT MY CHOICE that my marriage was delayed til my late 30s.
@ Novaseeker
I definitely have met a number of guys in their thirties who wanted to get married but who did not burn with a passion for women. So, why did they want to get married? Simply, because they didn’t want to seem weird and get lumped with the men who are regarded as weirdos who can’t get laid.
I may be wrong and paul may not be prideful but then his case is almost certainly that he wants to get married just so that people don’ think he’s weird. There is always that possibility.
Asher needs to ask his mommy to explain to him what a whore is.
Asher said:
Anything human can be a source of pride. Anything. If a man reaches this thirties and is still a virgin it is usually up to two reasons, although there are probably some outliers:
A) The inability to get laid
B) A dedication to God
Spacetraveller, thanks for spotting Asher saying on how virgin men are prideful. That was a good eye. Maybe it’s a new code of woman speak besides the typical “cowards”, “arrogant” and “losers” retort. Virginity can lead to pride, but is that truly its function? No.
It’s extremely difficult for various entities to conceive of a virgin man, who is celibate towards God and loves God, but isn’t self hating. They are “unchristian”. That’s the biggest problem with these discussions. That’s why the Protestant Church disdains and criticizes the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Protestants are more “Christian” than Roman Catholics.
Some throw out words such losers, cowards, unChristian so many times that sooner or later these trump cards lose their effect. Nobody knows whether it’s true anymore. Like the boy who cried wolf, and when the real wolf came to destroy the flock of sheep, few of the villagers cared and believed. Words lose their meaning.
It’s like one wants to believe them, and help them, maybe just this time they are telling the truth, but it becomes dangerous. The trust is lost.
If a virgin/celibate person is prideful, then that is bad. But if this is another strawman, then no thanks.
Yes, the phenomenon is well-known. It is frequently the case that a girl/woman who was sexually abused embarks on a course of promiscuity, just like you say — abuse is often used as an springboard to indulge one’s worst appetites. (It happens with boys/men, too.) Satan will tell us that, “Look, you’ve done this (or had this done to you) — so you might as well now go and do that, too!” — and our sin-nature happily does the rest, whether it be indulging in sexual sin, drugs, or violence.
Unfortunately in our therapeutic culture, sin like this is not called out for what it is, but is instead simply excused as being merely the unavoidable consequence of previous abuse. …But that’s not God’s teaching: even if raped/abused/etc., we are still moral beings with free will, and we are all ultimately accountable for our own wicked deeds (although God also says that He will punish those who put stumbling blocks in others’ way which cause them to sin).
I definitely have met a number of guys in their thirties who wanted to get married but who did not burn with a passion for women
I used to be a part of a substantial group of such men, late 20s through to mid 30s, who wanted to get married… and ALL of us burned with an insane intensity of passion. And despite the fact that we had good character, decent looks, and good jobs, the ultrahypergamist Christian women just didn’t want us.
Have you learned NOTHING from the manosphere?
Unfortunately in our therapeutic culture, sin like this is not called out for what it is, but is instead simply excused as being merely the unavoidable consequence of previous abuse. …But that’s not God’s teaching: even if raped/abused/etc., we are still moral beings with free will
True, and tragic. It may not be totally her fault that she “got that way”, but it’s her responsibility to change herself, since nobody else can. And using other people’s sin as an excuse for your own, just doesn’t fly Biblically. God will punish the rapist, the molester, the long-dead slaveowner, or whomever — but YOU still need to live right.
Though with some types of damage, this is easier said than done.
@ Novaseeker,
Hmm.
Interesting breakdown of Asher’s logic for me.
I find it educational, thanks.
Just a brief question: is your theory applicable to female virgins? Can a female virgin be deemed to be ‘prideful’ by virtue of her being proud of her virginity??
What I don’t get is, why are we concentrating on a negative aspect of this? Is it not enpugh that these people have done one good thing? Why are we nitpicking?
Is there a subtext I am missing?
@ anonymous
I’m sure there are various rare reasons someone could managed to get into their thirties burning with passion and still a virgin. In my case it was twenty-five, I was deathly terrified of hell and drank a lot.
Is there a subtext I am missing?
I think that the subtext is: you guys who are virgins at 30 are either incels, or you’re kind of asexual, so don’t be going around thinking you’re better than guys who had extra-marital sex when you’re really no better than they are because your virginity comes from either a lack of opportunity or a lack of desire. If you’re not one of those, you’re an extremely rare person, and probably only have maintained your virginity out of fear, pride or both, and therefore it has no spiritual or moral value. That’s my read of what he is saying. I’m not saying I agree with it, but that’s what I see him saying.
So here is a question (to see if I can determine how common Rape is in America).
Have any of you guys ever knowingly forced yourselves on any woman? Do you have any close friend (of whom you would know) who had done so?
I would answer No to both questions. I know a number of people (myself included) who have been accused to our horror and shock by young women of Attempted Rape/Harrassement. Indeed it is so common, one would be suspicious of a guy who said it had never happened to him.
A friend of mine tells this story: one day a chap he knew a little came to him and said that he had been accused of attempted Rape. He was very upset. My friend thinking that there was no smoke without fire naturally wondered whether the accusation was correct. That was until one day when inveigling himself with a young woman (who lived with another guy though that didn’t stop her from visiting him for manual and oral pleasures) threatened to go to the Police because my friend had attempted to escalate (as you do). He was shocked and began to realise that his other friend had surely after all been telling the truth.
The story has a delicious ending: a few days later the girl who had after all not gone to the Police, turned up at my friends Condo. He refused to let her in. She was puzzled as to why he would not do so. He reminded her of her allegation and threat the last time she was with him. ‘But’, she replied, ‘I was only joking’. Like hell she was! As TFH always says women are hopeless at grasping cause and effect. My friend went on to bigger and better pastures.
Alcest…
Yes, something about this discussion makes me uneasy…
It seems to me that we are in danger of buying the secular rhetoric that pervades our thinking. We must guard against that. This sort of thing creeps in when no-one is watching. We require hyper-vigilance to keep it out.
I see parallels with feminism.
No-one was on guard duty when it crept into our societies. Now, it is part of the establishment.
Melodramatic?
You bet 🙂
But unfortunately, oh so true…
This is roughly the position taken with the laws governing rape in Deuteronomy 22. I think they’re right (since God gave them), but I’ve chewed on them a lot over the years. It occurred to me that God didn’t really draw much of a distinction between an unmarried woman’s losing her virginity to rape or to premarital sex — the solution was the same, namely marriage (subject to the father’s consent, given the qualification in Exodus 22:16-17, which would permit a veto on marriage — and presumably men haven’t changed so much since then that the father wouldn’t consider the girl’s wishes). I think that seasoned sluts who are used to risky casual sex and being stuffed routinely by strangers would, if genuinely raped, indeed just give up after they saw that they were overpowered and treat it as a normal Saturday night special: they’re so used to having strangers coming and going inside them that it’s hardly any great trauma to have someone just come along and take what everyone else has, albeit more roughly and without paying for dinner or drinks.
…But for a virgin, I imagine that a genuine rape (as in being dragged off down an alley by a stranger whilst minding one’s own business) would indeed be terrifying, since she would have no previous experience at all of what being penetrated by a stranger was like and the fear of the unknown would only heighten the trauma. Plus, if she’d pinned her hopes on waiting for Mr. Right, then it’s a crushing blow to her. I don’t like the “born again virgin” nonsense, but if there’s a deserving recipient for such a title, then virgins who are raped must be that special case. I’m reminded of the reaction of Tamar in Scripture (not the trickster in Genesis 38, but the innocent in 2 Samuel 13): she’d been really raped — by her half-brother, no less — yet she was prepared to marry him, once it was clear that the damage was already done. Interesting.
Somebody made a comment earlier about a troll coming in here to mess things up. Was that comment about you Asher.
Novaseeker,
If your theory about the subtext is true, then Asher is simply shaming Frank and RedPillPaul albeit in a much more sophisticated way than I have previously seen it done.
If that is the case, then my thoughts about hypervigilance still stand.
To spot the sophisticated new beast with the fancy shaming technique, one must be on the highest alert because it is heavily disguised, like a chameleon…
@ Novaseeker
I do not think such people are so rare. I think there is a pretty fair percentage of the male population that does not burn with a passion for women In fact, part of my project, here, is to make clear the problem for men who do not burn with that passion, which is that they are likely to be considered weird.
It’s entirely possible that paul wants to get married because he simply doesn’t want people to consider him weird. What I do know is that his own words betray that he remains a virgin out of pride. Or it may sound like pride when what he really is trying to avoid is people thinking him weird. What I do know is that nothing in what he said implies that his virginity is about living his life to glorify God.
@ spacetraveller
If your theory about the subtext is true, then Asher is simply shaming Frank and RedPillPaul
Frank? No. Paul? Hell, yeah, I’m trying to shame him, not for being a virgin but for being prideful. I loathe, loathe, loathe pride. I have met few with more self-control and serenity than I, but there are few who get the slow, ice-cold rage that I get when I encounter blatant manifestations of pride.
I seriously doubt God gives a shit whether or not paul is a virgin or remains one. Paul’s own words betray his pridefulness:
This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage. … I dont want a wedding, i want a wife and the best wife I can get.
Pride. Game. Set. Match. And in the next sentence:
I dont see how this has anything to do with pride unless you are confusing that with self respect.
Two things. First, he blatantly makes prideful statements and then says he doesn’t see how they are prideful. If he is living his life to glorify God then God will seek the best for his life and it may or may not be marriage. But a virgin wedding isn’t a carnal reward for living your life according to some set of standards. God is not a God of magic and invocations. Second, he brings up the psychologistic concept of self-respect which is nowhere in the Bible. We respect our bodies and sexual purity not out of respect for our *self* but out of gratitude and in fear and trembling in walking out the gifts that God has granted. It’s not about respecting ourselves but about respecting God.
Then he says:
My walk with Christ is MY walk. I dont have to commit anything with you.
Once you publicly state your walk then expect others to hold your walk up too public inspection. That is all I’m doing, examining it for pride, inconsistency and hypocrisy. That he publicly talks about walking with God and then denies that others can inspect his public statements for validity is a manifestation of pride.
If I make a public statement then I am offering it up to everyone for inspection and criticism. The same goes for everyone.
Sigyn says:
April 22, 2013 at 10:37 am
Oh, so your snarking is christian based then.
Asher wrote :
… which means Frank knew how to deal with your ad hominem attacks, but Paul, God bless that man, is having some trouble.
I see you’re making use of straw-men too.
Be that as it may Asher, I’ve seen only two kinds of men that could make a woman jump through hoops for them :
Womanizers, and (late) Virgins … and that is because neither of them are afraid of women withholding sex from them.
It’s a turn-on too …
Hmmm. We must see the world through different eyes, then, because I don’t think there is a significant percentage of heterosexual men who do not burn with passion for women. If anything, this relatively asexual group is very small. There are of course quite a lot of incels, especially if you include the guys who got through long periods of being incel even if they have had a few experiences in their lives and are not virgins. But in my experience there isn’t a significant number of heterosexual men who do not burn with passion for women.
@ Marcellus
which means Frank knew how to deal with your ad hominem attacks, but Paul, God bless that man, is having some trouble.
Um, no. First, you obviously don’t know what an ad hom attack means. It is a logical fallacy that attempts to infer the invalidity of an argument from some particular fact about the arguer. I’m not even sure that Paul was making much of an argument, not one that I could discern. I asked paul at least three times to specify how we come to regard a man and woman as “married” and he didn’t give any specific answer.
The reason I didn’t identify Frank’s virginity with pride was that he gave me no reason to, while paul gave me ample reason.
Stop arguing like a feminist. When men make an argument they give a reason for that argument.
I see you’re making use of straw-men too.
Indicating that you don’t know what a straw-man fallacy is, either. Let me quote paul for the third (or sixth, or whatever time): This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage. … I dont want a wedding, i want a wife and the best wife I can get.
Paul is not making an argument so the entire notion of a straw-man is a category error. But that is a clear statement of pride on his part. His virginity isn’t about dedicating his life to God but about gratifying his own ego. It’s one thing to do so privately but to broadcast it in public is vile.
I’ve seen only two kinds of men that could make a woman jump through hoops for them :
Womanizers, and (late) Virgins …
And that is something that this society, as a whole, deserves shame heaped on its collective head. The solution is a communal and political one. The solution is not to delve into an intricate Pharisaical system of rules that mandates a set standard of behaviors for everyone.
loathe, loathe, loathe pride. I have met few with more self-control and serenity than I, but there are few who get the slow, ice-cold rage that I get when I encounter blatant manifestations of pride..
And you see no irony in this? No self-awareness? You seem so….. proud of yourself…. for loathing pride in others.
I do not think such people are so rare. I think there is a pretty fair percentage of the male population that does not burn with a passion for women… in all probability [he] wants to get married because he simply doesn’t want people to consider him weird
Never in my life have I met even one such man Never. No, not one.
The very few who are honestly content to be single, don’t want to deal with the hassles of marriage — they don’t care if anyone thinks they’re “weird”. Their message to women, universally, is, “let’s just be friends”….
Never in my life have I met even one such man Never. No, not one.
Unless you meant to include homosexuals? But I don’t think thats’ what you meant…
@ Novaseeker
I don’t think there is a significant percentage of heterosexual men who do not burn with passion for women. If anything, this relatively asexual group is very small.
Yeah, at this point the percentage would be complete conjecture. I’m quite certain that I have met many such men that didn’t manifest such passion but it’s also quite likely that this lack of manifestation was due to sedating themselves via sports, video games, booze, work, etc. My virginity until twenty-five was nothing to be proud of as it came from a combination of fear of hell, booze and an addiction to reading/education and work.
I did burn with passion but I doubt anyone would have been able to identify it.
My entire line of conversation is about condemning the current social environment, not judging or praising individuals.
in my experience there isn’t a significant number of heterosexual men who do not burn with passion for women.
You may be correct and barring the mass of diversionary entertainment available today most men would manifest a burning passion for women. My reaction was to paul and his prideful attitude, which is an obstacle to shaming the society in which we live. Much of my life was spent relating to a mother who was all about a meaningless “personal responsibility and I am particularly sensitive to that sort of thing.
@ anonymous
And you see no irony in this? No self-awareness? You seem so….. proud of yourself…. for loathing pride in others.
No, not, at all. I have my faults: fear and sloth. Pride just doesn’t happen to be among my faults. And when I say that I’m slow to wrath don’t think that I say that in pride. In fact, I have often not become angry when I *should* feel a righteous anger, and that is not at all a good thing.
The very few who are honestly content to be single,
Given the myriad of ways available to sedate oneself it is impossible to tell who is really content and who is just sedating themselves. It may also be that paul has some way of sedating himself that he isn’t sharing and that his talk about why he wants a virgin wedding is simply an ex ante rationalization for his sedation.
I suppose I should add a third category for men who have reached their thirties and are still virgins:
Self-sedators, men who aren’t sure of what category into which they fit and who sedate themselves to avoid answering that question, altogether.
Asher.
You wrote :
And here is what Merriam-Webster says about ad hominem :
You’re attacking him by slapping a pride-label on him, and expressing disgust with it, which is why it’s a straw-man too :
Here’s the deal guys:
If you obsess on shaming and policing individual behavior then that is an obstacle to changing the overall environment.
If you obsess on shaming and policing individual behavior then that is an obstacle to changing the overall environment.
But isn’t that what you’re doing to RedPillPaul?
I’m with anonymous/vR on this one. I have never, ever, met a heterosexual man who did not want to bang half the women he saw. That includes Christian men, incels, atheists, weirdos, Trekkies, computer nerds, and lesser omegas who wouldn’t be able to get a HB 2 for a night.
@ Asher,
Well, whilst I do see where you are coming from, I stand by my previous assertion that it is a bit high-handed…
About pride, I understand that it is one of the vices of scripture. But what you call pride, I think, in this case is nothing more than ‘deserved self-admiration for one’s own efforts’.
But somehow, it ticks you off. Which I cannot get my head around.
There must be a good reason for it. I have no need or wish to delve into that.
But somehow I felt it strange that a man abstaining from premarital sex was something to complain about…
In an alternate universe where everyone is so virtuous that the worst crime a man could commit is to be ‘prideful’, your complaint would be valid.
But in this current SMP?
No. These guys are unicorns. Let’s at least give credit where it is due, Asher.
Play nice, as someone I know would say.
If you obsess on shaming and policing individual behavior then that is an obstacle to changing the overall environment.
Why?
@ Marellus
marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Which is more or less what I said. One problem with that definition is that the term “character” can be assumed to mean a character defect when the reality it can many any characteristic. An example:
John is a catholic, therefore, John’s arguments regarding abortion a false
Which is a logically invalid inference. But this is not what I was doing. Paul gave no real argument for virginity except to explain his own virginity, which was egoistic and self-serving. Sometimes it is fine to bring in a personal anecdote to argue for a position and I do it myself on occasion. What is not fine is to bring up a personal anecdote and then claim it is an ad hom attack to criticize the nature of that anecdote. At worst, I am mis-assessing paul’s comments as being prideful but that is not the same thing as offering an ad hom fallacy.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument
And I did nothing of the sort. Pauls reasons for virginity were in the context of a greater argument for sexual chastity, therefore, his personal reasons are part of his argument. If you do not think Paul’s reasons are prideful then I invite you to offer a different interpretation of his following comments:
This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage. … I dont want a wedding, i want a wife and the best wife I can get.
How are those comments anything besides prideful and self-serving. I see no reference to any reason any individual would stay a virgin before marriage besides pride and self-serving ones. Since paul offered these comments about himself, personally, they are part of his argument, whatever it may be.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
Except paul’s own stated reasons for virginity were prideful and self-serving. Contrast that with my situation. I was a virgin until twenty-five, neither proud nor ashamed of it and was so because I was terrified of hell and addicted to reading books and drank to sedate myself. No greater good was served. In service of what greater good is paul’s virginity? He doesn’t say and, instead, his statements smack of wanting to think of himself as better than others.
If it is something else then he needs too be more clear about his virginity – is it in service of some greater good? Is he spending his time dedicated in service to God? He doesn’t say, and he has had ample time to correct the record, but he doesn’t. Why not? The best answer is the simplest one, which is that he is not spending all that time in the service to some greater good and my comments have realized the vanity of his proclamations. Note that I am not saying that his virginity is vanity but that his reasons for it are.
@ anonymous
But isn’t that what you’re doing to RedPillPaul?
Yes, but it’s not an obsession with me. Policing individuals and society at large are equally important. You want people getting married as virgins? Great, so do I. Then make marriage feasible for 22 year-olds. Until the church focuses its efforts on making it feasible for people to get married at a reasonable age I will mock and shame it for its hypocrisy.
@ spacetravelller
But what you call pride, I think, in this case is nothing more than ‘deserved self-admiration for one’s own efforts’.
Then it shouldn’t be stated in public. I have a lot of admiration for some of the stuff I’ve accomplished and the obstacles I’ve overcome but I don’t tell anyone about them.
@But somehow, it ticks you off. Which I cannot get my head around.
There must be a good reason for it. I have no need or wish to delve into that.
Because by stating it publicly one is making oneself the standard for everyone else. See above.
But somehow I felt it strange that a man abstaining from premarital sex was something to complain about…
It’s not. It was the reasons given for that abstention. The way for paul to offer the reasons for his virginity would have been something like the following:
I thank God for granting me the grace to abstain from sex so that I can minister to runaway, druggies who molested by their mother’s boyfriends and get them the care and help they need
But his reasons were all about him.
@ novaseeker
If you obsess on shaming and policing individual behavior then that is an obstacle to changing the overall environment.
Why?
You’re kidding, right? I mean, if it really is all up to individual choice then we can all have the absolute best no matter what environment into which we’re thrust. The average age of first marriage has steadily increased over the past several decades. Is this because every individual just made an autonomous *choice* to be irresponsible or is it because of societal pressures and trends over which individuals have little to no control?
If you only focus on the former then you’ll never address the latter.
You’re kidding, right? I mean, if it really is all up to individual choice then we can all have the absolute best no matter what environment into which we’re thrust. The average age of first marriage has steadily increased over the past several decades. Is this because every individual just made an autonomous *choice* to be irresponsible or is it because of societal pressures and trends over which individuals have little to no control?
If you only focus on the former then you’ll never address the latter.
To be honest, Asher, I don’t think anyone who writes in these blogs has ever suggested that the environment and the culture are irrelevant. They are corrupt. Any true solution will require a broader approach on the cultural level — that is true. But this in no way undermines, or trivializes, the importance of individual personal responsibility — regardless of the context.
Every age since the time of Christ’s death has had its own challenges. No environment has ever been close to being perfectly Christian, but there are some that have been a bit closer than others, and Christianity began in a fairly hostile environment — nevertheless, the apostles themselves emphasized personal behavior and personal responsibility, even as they lived in a hostile context, in cultural and spiritual terms.
So, I don’t see why a recognition that there are broader cultural issues at play requires us to put personal choices, and personal responsibility for these choices, on a cold back burner so that we can focus on the political and cultural issues. The latter take a long time to fix, and in the meantime, Christians are certainly called to personal responsibility for their own decisions. I don’t see how reminding people of this is harmful — in fact, it seems quite necessary.
You want people getting married as virgins? Great, so do I. Then make marriage feasible for 22 year-olds. Until the church focuses its efforts on making it feasible for people to get married at a reasonable age I will mock and shame it for its hypocrisy.
On this point I actually agree. I am trying to make it possible for my boys to marry before 20. But the resistance from fellow Christian parents… really, MOTHERS… stuns me.
I expect seculars to say, settle down and marry at 30+. They are operating on a presumption that you’ll spend your 20s “having fun”… not agonizing in celibacy. But drives me crazy when Christians say that. When I say that I want my sons married before 20, they are aghast, and say, “TOO YOUNG!”… to which I answer… “You cannot simultaneously tell kids,don’t have sex til marriage — and, don’t get married til you’re over 30! Most won’t even try to wait; of those who try, many will break down; and [pointing to myself] the few who succeed, will be severely psychologically damaged by it!” Always the answer then is, “Oh yeah, I see your point”, LOL
But it bothers me that none of them have figured this out before. Few if any of them married young. Most of them followed the standard late 20th/early 21st century middle-class lifescript — high school, college, maybe a postgrad degree, then go build a career…. and THEN settle down and marry, around 30 or so. And yet they clearly have no concept of how awful it is to be a struggling 20-something celibate, because — apparently — THEY WEREN’T celibate during those years. And might I add, it’s the mothers who raise the objections…..
Now. granted, some of these womenh may have become Christians later in life, after marrying. But I suspect that many of them grew up in church, and walked away to party for a decade or so before returning. Are they okay with their kids following this path? Does God’s law mean ANYTHING to these people???? If not, why are they wastiing time in church?
@ novaseeker
To be honest, Asher, I don’t think anyone who writes in these blogs has ever suggested that the environment and the culture are irrelevant.
Then I simply don’t understand your answer “why?” when the correct answer was “I agree”. For anyone to answer “why?” indicates that changing the broader culture does not matter. BTW, for purposes of clarifying I would note that I had a mother for whom broader societal trends didn’t matter, at all, and all that mattered was individual choice. My mother had many great qualities but her major failing was pride, hence, my allergy to and loathing of pride.
The latter take a long time to fix, and in the meantime, Christians are certainly called to personal responsibility for their own decisions.
To him who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it to him it is sin.
I asked “why”, because I don’t see how emphasizing personal responsibility is necessarily an obstacle to talking about, and trying to change, the broader culture — you said as much, which is what I was reacting to. You seem to think this is the case. I don’t agree with that.
Christianity is hardly aloof from trying to change the culture. But that’s at best a long-term issue, something that the Church needs to work on, and is working on, over a longer term — because the culture is not going to be changed quickly. In the meantime, many people, and probably many generations, will come and go and have to deal with the corruption in the culture by taking personal responsibility for their own actions despite the ambient corruption. The degree of challenge involved in this underscores, to me, the need for the Church to emphasize it, while of course not forgetting about the broader problems and being present in the culture, trying to guide it away from its corrupt state. If we de-emphasize personal responsibility we simply encourage more Christians to behave in a culturally-determined way, like the more liberal mainline churches have done — this accomplishes nothing at all.
I’m sorry to hear that your mother’s approach impacted you negatively about things like this. We all have our own family of origin issues, I think. I’d encourage you to try to see how personal responsibility is extremely important and relevant in a cultural context that is hostile to Christian morality, and needs to remain a prime emphasis of the Church (more than it is currently, where, from where I am sitting at least, there is rampant tolerance for all manner of deviations from these norms as long as one is heterosexual), while the Church also needs to continue to try to move the culture towards a place where these norms are a bit easier to live out, and the resulting environment is less coarse generally as a result.
Lucky for us, the Holy Spirit seems quite adept at walking and chewing gum at the same time.
@ anonymous
On this point I actually agree. I am trying to make it possible for my boys to marry before 20. But the resistance from fellow Christian parents… really, MOTHERS… stuns me.
Yes, but many, probably most, parents in your church don’t have this goal. This means that your kids will have the good fortune to marry at 20, while others will have to suck it up until they’re 30 or later, and the distinction isn’t due to the choices of those particular children.
I spent my late teens and early 20s in a church with a large array of social classes. The upper-class kids had the opportunity to marry at a reasonable age, while the lower-class kids either had to suck it up to 30 or fornicate. Telling everyone who can’t marry at a reasonable age to “suck it up” isn’t exactly a recipe for church growth an outreach.
You cannot simultaneously tell kids,don’t have sex til marriage — and, don’t get married til you’re over 30! Most won’t even try to wait; of those who try, many will break down; and [pointing to myself] the few who succeed, will be severely psychologically damaged by it!” Always the answer then is, “Oh yeah, I see your point”, LOL
Bingo! This is the sense I was getting from paul’s comments and the source of my response.
@ novaseeker
Christianity is hardly aloof from trying to change the culture.
America is not just culture, but many cultures, most of which the typical conservative christian church has zero influence. America is an empire comprised of many different not just cultures of many different societies. If I had to compare America, as a political entity, to a historic political entity then I would compare it to the Persian Empire.
Now, Persia at its apex ruled from Bactria to Anatolia, something like 4500 miles distance. It would be like Bactrians trying to change the culture of the Anatolians: does not compute. When I walk out of my house in the morning most of the people I meet are as culturally similar to me as the Bactrians were to the Anatolians and while I can relate just fine to any individual over time that does not mean I have any broader impact on the culture when whence they originate.
I would refer you to Corinthians where it says we cannot be equally yoked with unbelievers. If conservative American churches were culturally serious they would be marching on DC to have the US Empire broken up into 20 to 30 different countries so that the various peoples ruled by the American Imperial class would be free to self-determine. Until that day comes I will take nothing conservative Christians say about cultural change seriously.
If we de-emphasize personal responsibility we simply encourage more Christians to behave in a culturally-determined way,
As I noted above different individuals have different resources to handle those challenges of personal responsibility. If we tell everyone to get financially stable and then get married then some will have the resources to marry in their early 20s and some will have to suck it up until their 30s. If you set up a standard of personal responsibility that few can attain then you’re just going to condemn the church to irrelevancy.
The issue is a political one.
move the culture
There is no one culture, but many cultures, each with little influence or impact on the others outside of economic contact. The solution is to break up the American Empire so the individual cultures can have their own sovereign political bodies.
Lucky for us, the Holy Spirit seems quite adept at walking and chewing gum at the same time.
The power of the Holy Spirit does not give up the permission to be politically yoked with unbelievers.
I spent my late teens and early 20s in a church with a large array of social classes. The upper-class kids had the opportunity to marry at a reasonable age, while the lower-class kids either had to suck it up to 30 or fornicate
That’s the opposite of my observations. Maybe it’s a regional thing, but around here, at least among the whites, it was the “low” class kids, who went straight from high-school into jobs or skilled trade apprenticeships, who got married fairly young. The “upper” class kids, the ones who’d be disowned by their parents if they didn’t get a postgrad degree first — they are the ones who put off marriage.
Telling everyone who can’t marry at a reasonable age to “suck it up” isn’t exactly a recipe for church growth an outreach.
But, as it happens, that’s Biblical. If for whatever reason you can’t marry — at the age you’d hoped, or, at all — you are indeed commanded to “suck it up”.
That said… the carrot as well as the stick needs to be applied — the churches could do a LOT MORE in promoting marriage. Like, advising early marriage…. scrap “no dating” policies in singles miinistries (WTF?)…. burn every book written by Joshua Harris…hold regular multi-church singles social events, dances, hikes…..
And most of all proactively PREPARE the youth for marriage. I have several times made the observation that, a lot of the “marriage prep” material taught in the engaged-couples class, could usefully taught to singles in order to make them more fit marriage partners, well in advance of actually “FINDING SOMEONE” — and indeed, some of it could sharpen their discernment in their search. (Why, to take only one example, do we wait til coupled are engaged before we teach them biblical money management? Why not get that issue under control while they’re all still single, so it’s not a problem when they pair off?) Pretty much everything except sexual techniques and individual compatibility questionnaires, could usefully be taught to a singles group.
Start the course 7 weeks before Valentine’s, call it t “6 weeks of preparation for marriage”, and hold a dance on Valentine’s Day to finish the course. And do it EVERY year….
This fell on deaf ears. I guess I’ll have to do it myself, when my oldest hits 16 and is ready to date.
@ anonymous
But, as it happens, that’s Biblical. If for whatever reason you can’t marry — at the age you’d hoped, or, at all — you are indeed commanded to “suck it up”.
You got a citation for that? Look, it’s quite clear that God hates promiscuity and that he wants to see men and women joined together as one body in service to him, but I see very little indication to what the Bible means by “getting married”.
You got a citation for that?
Marriage is to be held honorable by all, and the bed must be undefiled, because fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God. — Hebrews 13:4.
It doesn’t get clearer than that.
Except that the entire chapter is a collective command to the church, as a whole. Add to that the fact that the promises and almost all commands given to the Jews in the OT were collective makes that a collective admonition. Simply the fact that the church makes no effort to facilitate marriage means that the church, as a whole, isn’t hold marriage as honorable. Which is the greater sin? Fornication or the collective abandonment of facilitating marriage?
I’d argue they’re equal. But which gets far more press in Christian circles?
If I have time I’ll try and get into the original group because I’d bet dollars to donuts the term “all” is a collective noun in that context.
Asher,
Your beef with Anonymous is this quote :
This being said, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage. … I dont want a wedding, i want a wife and the best wife I can get.
… and you responded by labeling this as pride ?
Wrong.
It’s hope. Good old fashioned honest-to-goodness hope. In this case the idea that there is a reward for noble effort.
And somehow you disparage this ?
Look how Spacetraveller commented on this, which btw, you neither mentioned nor attacked :
In an alternate universe where everyone is so virtuous that the worst crime a man could commit is to be ‘prideful’, your complaint would be valid.
But in this current SMP?
No. These guys are unicorns. Let’s at least give credit where it is due, Asher.
I am making a ledgitimate appeal to authority Asher. Spacetraveller is a woman. And a woman calls these men unicorns …
Are you a unicorn Asher ?
Considering you said this :
My virginity until twenty-five was nothing to be proud of as it came from a combination of fear of hell, booze and an addiction to reading/education and work.
I did burn with passion but I doubt anyone would have been able to identify it.
My entire line of conversation is about condemning the current social environment, not judging or praising individuals.
Have sex with a woman then Asher.
I recommend it.
@ Marellus
It’s hope. Good old fashioned honest-to-goodness hope. In this case the idea that there is a reward for noble effort.
Where is a virgin marriage as a reward for “noble effort” mentioned in the Bible? Yours is just another worldly philosophy. Let’s say that somehow paul doesn’t get married; wouldn’t that mean that his “noble effort” went unrewarded? I would refer you to the admonition to store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. Even that pussy, no matter how virgin it is when you marry, is going to get old and dry.
Look how Spacetraveller commented on this, which btw, you neither mentioned nor attacked :
In an alternate universe where everyone is so virtuous that the worst crime a man could commit is to be ‘prideful’, your complaint would be valid.
The first sin *was* pride. He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 The context of that verse was in relation to the burnt offerings and sacrifices of the Temple and how they foreshadow the sacrifice that redeems, Jesus’ sacrifice. The Jews in their arrogance turned the act of sacrifice, itself, into the core of religious belief, ignoring its symbolism.
Walk humbly with God. Is abstaining from fornication important? Absolutely, but the real point is in living justly, showing mercy and walking humbly with God.
I am making a ledgitimate appeal to authority Asher. Spacetraveller is a woman.
Well, there’s your problem. Apparently, I stumbled onto http://www.whiteknightsrus.com without realizing it.
Have sex with a woman then Asher.
Married. Got two kids.
btw, are unicorns in the Bible? Spacetraveller can say whatever she wants but her only reference is what paul says about himself online.
There is no one culture, but many cultures, each with little influence or impact on the others outside of economic contact. The solution is to break up the American Empire so the individual cultures can have their own sovereign political bodies.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. That’s about as possible as setting up a Christian colony on Mars. It’s quite rich to accuse the Church of not being realistic, when your own proposal is to break up the United STates so that the Christians can have Christian-Land.
@ Novaseeker
It’s quite rich to accuse the Church of not being realistic, when your own proposal is to break up the United STates so that the Christians can have Christian-Land.
It’s far more realistic than expecting the first age of sex to be the early 30s as the norm. The difference is that it is far less emotionally daunting to scold individual than it is to do the necessary work to break up the US empire.
Wanna know why? One big reason is that lots of modern Christian leaders derive their fame and fortune from being nationally renowned in the most powerful political entity the world has ever seen. Another big reason is that lots of otherwise devout Christians have a secret, prideful yearning to impose God’s Word on pagan peoples via force of arms.
Case in point: abortion.
Now, I am not pro-choice and find the notion of some inviolable “woman’s right to choose” to be preposterous. Further, there is no question that God is repulsed by abortion. That said, when a people rejects Him as God then He gives them over to depravity to do what ought not to be done. So, when Christians try and impose the Word of God on pagan peoples via the secular force of the State they are trying to impose God’s Law on peoples who reject his authority.
That is heresy. It is also pride.
@ Marellus
In an alternate universe where everyone is so virtuous that the worst crime a man could commit is to be ‘prideful’, your complaint would be valid.
I just have to go back to this quote. If I the foremost source for sin could be summed up i none word that word would be “pride”. So, the description of “n alternate universe where everyone is so virtuous that the worst crime a man could commit is to be ‘prideful’” is just bizarre. Pride, according to the Bible, IS the worst sin one can commit – it is the greatest source of sin we have.
True, the problem lies in making men walk towards God.
Shame won’t do it.
You’re very misguided, Asher. I’m sorry about that.
We are to be in the world, but not of it. We are judged by our personal actions. The Church is not a fulcrum to establish a separatist Christian theocracy.
Asher,
Pride, according to the Bible, IS the worst sin one can commit – it is the greatest source of sin we have.
True, and while God loves all men, he gives more attention to the proud, so that they may one day extoll the excellence of being humble …
@ Novaseeker
The very notion of theocratic is a modern one. The notion of separate peoples having self-determination is also a modern one and the core of the modern state; all I am doing is holding modernism to its own standard, that of self-determination, on which the modern state is based. For the modern world, laws significantly restricting abortion relative to the present regime are theocratic. Anti-abortion activists are advocating theocratic law in some areas – but not in others.
My family and several families close to us did not engage in politics because to do so would involve being yoked with unbelievers and there is something to be said for that position.
We are to be in the world, but not of it. We are judged by our personal actions.
Not in this world, we’re not, and this is a serious misunderstanding of the bible. God causes the rain to fall on both the just and the wicked. He often judges peoples, in this-world, collectively. Yes, at the end of days He will give to each person according to what he has done.
Even in a Christian society we would still be in the world, and I see no evidence that the Bible prohibits the formation of a Christian society.
That so many Christians don’t seem to know that pride is the greatest source of sin for us blows my mind. Here’s Matthew Henry’s commentary on Micah 6:
What will be a satisfaction to God’s justice? In whose name must we come, as we have nothing to plead as our own? In what righteousness shall we appear before him? The proposals betray ignorance, though they show zeal. They offer that which is very rich and costly. … Men will part with any thing rather than their sins; but they part with nothing so as to be accepted of God, unless they do part with their sins. Moral duties are commanded because they are good for man.
Yes, keeping God’s commands is good for us but we don’t get to pick and choose what that good is. To claim that one is rewarded by God with virgin marriage for staying chaste is to turn God into a God of soothsaying and magic.
I disagree, Asher.
Have a nice day.
@ Marellus
True, and while God loves all men, he gives more attention to the proud, so that they may one day extoll the excellence of being humble …
Then why highlight the comment about “if pride were the biggest sin one could commit”, implying that there are bigger sins.
@ novaseeker
Disagree with what? In what way? Do you vote? If so, why? I mean if you are simply judged by your individual actions then what’s the point in voting? You don’t need to vote to follow God’s Law and if following God’s Law as an individual is our purpose in this world then isn’t voting an example of being “of this world”?
Btw, there are all kinds of different peoples who call themselves “christians”, so I place little stock in that term.
@ novaseeker
Answer this specific challenge:
If our purpose on this earth is solely to walk with God as individuals and be judged by him then what possible reason would we have to vote or engage in politics, at all.
We are in the world, but not of it. Voting is something we do by virtue of living “in the world”. Voting in a worldly way, to achieve personal gain, motivated by worldly ideologies and so on, would be living in a way that is “of the world”. This is exegesis 101.
Voting can be a moral action, of course, depending on the situation, but that also involves motives, and whether those of are of the world or merely in the world and of God. But the idea that the Church exists to make a Christian society and state is to misunderstand the function of the Church. The Church exists to save sinners, full stop. It is a hospital for sinners, not a political party. It is the icon of the Kingdom, not a political faction. We are not Muslims. The Church exists not to submit the world to the will of God, as is the case for Muslims, but rather to bring sinners to Christ, something which involves missionary activity and free will. We are told that this world is condemned. We are told that the perfection of the world comes only with Christ’s return. This does not mean that we are indifferent to the world, but we reach out to it in love and charity to save persons as persons, not to create a perfected Christian society or state.
If Christians want to work for that, this is of course fine in a political sense, but it isn’t why the Church exists.
@Asher
Then why highlight the comment about “if pride were the biggest sin one could commit”, implying that there are bigger sins.
Then why highlight the proud walk of a man, instead of the direction he’s going ?
Pride is committed when one disobeys God because of his vanity. It’s not simply feeling good about accomplishments and actions. I think the definition of pride has become warped by our equalist culture as means to take better people down a peg. It’s not supposed to be used as psychological warfare tool.
@ novaseeker
On what basis do we vote on specific issues, then? Human reason. Sure, in some specific instances we might get some direction from the bible but that is probably the rule rather than the exception. Also, in what sort of way could I, as an individual, vote for personal gain? In fact, isn’t democracy, itself, a worldly ideology?
The full message of the bible is that of our sin and God’s saving grace. In fact, the NT is almost completely silent on anything regarding politics as we understand it. What God does give us to manage our political affairs is human reason. Calling for the break up of the US empire is simply holding modern political ideology to one of its primary theses, that of self-determination.
@ novaseeker
In short, since one of the primary theses of modern politics is self-determination the act of calling for self-determination by the different peoples of the US *is* living in the world. “The church” is simply a reference to the believers as a whole and not some formal organization like the US Army. When a believer is involved in politics that is simply “the church” exercising influence over the state and those the state rules. When large groups of believers seek to impose a law that is largely opposed by non-believers that is tantamount to theocracy.
The term “morality” comes from the Latin “mores”, meaning “customs”. Every single group of people alive develops customs and whatever is customary is moral, but I believe you are conflating human morality and God’s Law. Yes, Nazism was a moral system, just not my moral system.
reach out to it in love and charity to save persons as persons, not to create a perfected Christian society or state.
Who said anything about perfected? I just don’t want to be ruled by the US Imperial ruling class and I’m guessing that plenty of non-believers feel the same way.
If Christians want to work for that, this is of course fine in a political sense, but it isn’t why the Church exists.
See, the church isn’t some formal entity, it’s just the believers.
@b Marellus
Then why highlight the proud walk of a man, instead of the direction he’s going ?
The only thing I *know* about paul is what he says on the internet.
@ furiosferret
Pride is committed when one disobeys God because of his vanity.
The greek term for pride was hubris, meaning not knowing one’s limits, one’s place. You have it mostly backwards: pride is what causes disobedience. When we do not respect our limits, our place, we sin in our hearts and that is manifested in committing the specific acts we call sin.
Man Asher you can be a real irritating commenter. You would make a great troll for us on a feminist or mangina web site.
Whatever, Asher.
I have no further interest in this discussion, now that you have shown your cards, as it were.
I do not have that conception of Church, or of its mission. I do not share your view of ecclesial/political interface, or agree that this is of the Church (and, no, I do not agree with how you define Church, either). It’s not a productive discussion, from my perspective.
well, i guess this argument is toast. thanks to all for the enlightening discourse. now,
if’n you’ll all excuse me, i have a smoking hot 75-year old waiting. she goes to the gym every day, and even has a few of her original teeth. you boys be good now, and don’t wait up.
@Asher- I’d suggest that your point is a bit of a red herring. Man is not capable of judging as god judges, but that’s hardly a prohibition against man judging as a man judges. There are any number of passages in the Bible in fact that require a man judge as a man may judge. As I said in my previous post, the only form of judgement that is prohibited is by false scales. Judge as you would be judged, and do not stand by to let evil be done unchallenged. You can’t do the latter half of that from a relativist or a ‘don’t judge’ worldview.
@ FuriousFerret,
“I think the definition of pride has become warped by our equalist culture as means to take better people down a peg.”
You have expressed in a much more succinct way than I ever could, what I think Asher is doing – perhaps subconsciously (?) in his case.
RedPillPaul and Frank are to be taken down immediately if not before. How dare they revel in their own moral success and tell the rest of us about how good they have been?
But it is a dangerous thing to do, because it discourages people from doing the right thing for fear of being labelled ‘perfectionists’, when in fact we should ALL be striving towards perfection even if we don’t make it…
This whole discussion reminds me of the first time I came across this type of phenomenon…
I was a nervous wreck awaiting my national exam results as a teenager (for the Brits here, I am referring to ‘A-level’ results).
To pass the time, I watched a few news items about super-bright kids who were being profiled on TV because they had achieved excellent results at an extremely young age.
An 8 year old boy had achieved something like 4 A-grades at A-level (these exams are usually taken by 17-18 year olds) and he was suitably exhuberant and proud about this achievement. The journalist interviewing him then asked him if he felt like a ‘swat’ (this is shaming language of the bright kids of course). The little boy looked so cowed you could almost see the immediate impact of this word on him. It was quite eye-opening.
Instead of joy at achieving so much at a young age, he was made to feel ‘uncool’.
It was already likely he was made to feel ‘uncool’ by his friends (if he had any) all his life – he really looked super-intellectual for an 8 year old…and yes, quite geeky…but this was the ONE time he should have been given a break from all that – the moment of sharing his (unbeatable) exam results on national television. But even then, he was shamed for his intelligence and hard work, because a less bright person could not stand his success.
Even as a teenager, I was struck by how dangerous this sort of thing can be…
And sadly, it occurs far too often in this world. And sometimes it happens in places one would least expect it…
It takes immense courage to be on the receiving end of it and successfully resist it.
Or at the very least, see it for what it is – this is why I mention ‘hypervigilance’.
Pride is committed when one disobeys God because of his vanity. It’s not simply feeling good about accomplishments and actions. I think the definition of pride has become warped by our equalist culture as means to take better people down a peg. It’s not supposed to be used as psychological warfare tool.
FuriousFerret, this is a gold comment on this issue.
It takes immense courage to be on the receiving end of it and successfully resist it.
Tell me about it.
A man without pride is a lion without teeth
I think the points about pride (@FuriousFerret, @Spacetraveller, @alcestiseshtemoa), are good ones. In the Bible, pride always carries the connotation of rebellion against God or his appointed authorities, rather than pleasure in following His path. Our culture & society — which, after all, lie under the sway of the Evil One — have twisted this successfully and redefined the sin. (And sadly the churches have listened to the culture rather than searching God’s Word for wisdom on this.) Interesting discussion…
Asher says: If our purpose on this earth is solely to walk with God as individuals and be judged by him then what possible reason would we have to vote or engage in politics, at all.
Oh, I don’t know. Ask Joseph, Prime Minister of Egypt. Or Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, high ranking goverment officials of the Babylonian Empire. Or the Roman Centurion — a high ranking military officer of a pagan empire who impressed Jesus with his faith! (Luke7:9). Or King Tiridates III of Armenia, or Prince Vladimir the Great of Russia, who used their positions to Christianize their countries. Or the abolitionist movement, which started in the churches (and included some of my forefathers), destroyed slavery and liberated millions. Or the Catholic Solidarity movement in Poland, which ultimately brought down the Soviet slave empire. Yeah, there’s just no place in history where God used government officials to further His kingdom. None at all. /sarcasm>
God is Lord of ALL, including politics and government. True, church and state are separate, but both are instiuted by God — with different missions, to be sure, but both are accountable to Him and are in need of His guiding light. As for legislating morality — hello, ALL laws do that. We “impose our morality” when we outlaw murder, rape, and robbery; our barbaric forefathers knew no such laws til they learned them from Christianity. So yes, stopping abortion — which is obviously murder — is a righteous political goal, and in the much more Christian America of the past, those laws were utterly uncontroversial.
God says: Marriage is to be held honorable by all, and the bed must be undefiled, because fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God. — Hebrews 13:4.
Asher says: Except that the entire chapter is a collective command to the church
Your true nature is now clear. You have outed yourself, as being in the ranks of those men who knowingly refuse God’s sexual commands, and will come up with all kinds of ridiculous self-evidently false excuses (“… it’s a collective command”….) in a desperate bid to escape that knowledge. You cast all kinds of stones at other people’s pride, yet you are making excuses for fornication.
No further discussion is possible with you, since you reject basic sexual morality. “With such a one, do not even blog.”
Oh yeah, Asher — the real problem wasn’t RedPillPaul’s pride, but your own SHAME… and your attempt to escape your shame, by reframing the righteous counterexample as being “proud”. Just like the gays, who reframe their inner shame by claiming that those who tell them they’re wrong, are “judgemental”.
It’s a lot easier to just repent.
@ anonymous
It is “christians” like yourself who are the reason I refuse to identify myself by that label. It’s difficult to feel shame about something that happened fourteen years ago in a social situation into which I now realize was mostly beyond my control and for which I do not go seeking. Did I feel shame about it for awhile? You bet. Now? I feel more shame about my intellectual pride during my early teen years than I do for blundering into very drunken sex that I wasn’t looking for and that I nearly passed out in the process – I actually ran to the toilet and puked during the act.
The part goes for novaseeker, as well.
If the church is not willing to take responsibility to create an environment for living a fulfilling life then it is pure hypocrisy to try and shame individuals for isolated blunders. If you want less promiscuity then launch a crusade to purify the culture, the only strategy for which is breaking up the US empire. Until that time all you are doing is offering hypocrisy.
You cannot assert authority where you refuse to accept responsibility. The church, as evidenced by novaseeker’s comments, is rejecting any notion of political responsibility, therefore, it can have no political authority.
@ novaseeker
In the OT examples you gave God used specific individuals, in a non-democratic setting, to protect a specific people. As for people like Lincoln they used their God-given human reason to govern – there is no specific admonition in the Bible to abolish slavery.
I am not saying that the church should call for the breakup of the US empire on a biblical basis but solely on the basis of human reason. Church leaders in their desire to judge the pagans but not protect the believers are forfeiting any authority they might otherwise exercise in the political realm.
@ novaseeker
Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world and the NT is pretty much silent on politics. There are only two instances, both involving a command to use human reason in politics. If, and when, christians involve themselves in politics they are using their God-given human reason to guide them, not the Bible. Personally, I don’ think involvement in politics violates the command to be in the world but not of it. however, christians are fooling themselves when if they think their involvement is the function of nothing besides human reason.
It is “christians” like yourself who are the reason I refuse to identify myself by that label.
That’s on you. It won’t fly at judgement day.
It’s difficult to feel shame about something that happened fourteen years ago in a social situation into which I now realize was mostly beyond my control…blundering into very drunken sex that I wasn’t looking for ….
Sorry, all this time I thought I was talking to a man. Only a certain breed of unusually degenerate woman talks that way.
Man or woman, you’ll have a lot more peace if you can just look yourself in the mirror and say, “I was wrong. I won’t do it again.” Trying to rationalize away responsibility will cause you to be haunted by it forever. I recall a situation I placed myself in (not sexual, something totally unrelated), which haunted my memories and sometimes kept me up at night, bothered by it… for YEARS afterward…. till one day I did a more mature moral calcuation and said, “The other person was right. And I was WRONG” It’s enormously freeing.
@ anonymous
Ah, yes, doubling down. The admonition to “judge not” is about not sitting in judgement as God will on judgement day and this is the exact admonition you are violating. It is not your place to tell me how God will judge me on judgment day. Judge sins in this world? Certainly, and I do that, but not the “you’re going to hell” sort of judgement.
Human beings lack the capacity to judge as God does and when you try you are placing yourself in the place of God. More pride, and why the church is so loathesome to the world.
Sorry, all this time I thought I was talking to a man. Only a certain breed of unusually degenerate woman talks that way.
So, you’re telling me that in a lifetime of sin a man, gender specific, builds up a continuous emotion of shame over the course of his lifetime that grows into a mountainous burden? Do you have a biblical reference for the notion that we are to build up a mountain of shame over the course of our lives for every sin we’ve ever committed? No, the degenerate woman you’re talking about declares with defiance that what she did was not wrong, and that is simply not what I’m saying. That degenerate woman is manifesting the sin of pride and refusing to humble herself What I did was certainly a failing but I no longer feel any shame over it because I rarely think about it and I have sufficiently humbled myself and admitted my guilt both to God and others.
More pride. Pride, pride, pride. No wonder the church is hated.
Trying to rationalize away responsibility
What does this even mean? Responsible for what? i don’t deny the sin, but I’m pointing out the communal guilt that contributed to it. See, the problem with obsessing on individual guilt means that you are too busy doing that to shame the society that contributes to that guilt. In Romans 1 where God talks about giving them over to shameful lusts the term “them” is a collective noun. Sure, at the end of the day individuals commit the physical act of fornication but the guilt is both individual and collective.
Both I, the woman and the entire society are equally guilty. If I were trying to abdicate responsibility then I would be blaming society. What I would like to see happen is that future young men are not thrust into such situations and that can only come about through collective action. I am not thinking of myself, at all, but of the young men of the next generation facing even bleaker futures and environments than I faced.
Hard-hearted, whitened sepulchers, such as yourself, stand in the way of that message.
“The other person was right. And I was WRONG”
Were that things were so cut and dried. In many, probably most, situations many parties are in the wrong. The idea that in any particular situation involving sin one party is wrong and all others blameless has no biblical warrant. What that leads to is where the Jews went wrong: a legalistic, litigious mind-set where everyone is consumed with placing blame on the one, ultimate guilty party.
It’s enormously freeing.
Sometimes. But if you are accepting, or placing, blame on one individual’s shoulders in every particular instance then what you are doing is absolving everyone else for blame. You sound just like my mother, always prattling on about personal responsibility and absolving everyone else of blame once she thinks she’s discovered the “culprit”.
Your mindset is unbiblical, and, rightly, makes the term “christian” hated.
@ anonymous
If I am solely responsible for that night then society doesn’t need to change, at all.
@ anonymous
I’ve met guys with “notch” counts in the several hundreds, who are always on the prowl for casual sex. Do you not see a difference in “heart” and consequences between someone like that and someone who happens to stumble onto one night of casual sex while stone drunk and not looking for it? Would those two people have equal work to get their hearts right with God?
Consider the difference between King David and the surrounding Canaanite kings. King David had a man killed so he could take that man’s wife, while the surrounding people’s rulers engaged in systemic sexual cruelty and depravity. Do you not see the difference in consequences for those different societies.
As I said to novaseeker, if the church is not willing to accept responsibility then it has no business asserting authority.
@ anonymous
Samson was specially called by God and, yet, consorted with foreign harlots. It appears as if he did not repent until the very end of his life. The thing is that the repentance to which each are called is probably quite different depending on the person’s heart and understanding and when we browbeat people into how we think they should repent then we are putting ourselves in God’s place.
@ anonymous
I think why so many Christians, of which you appear one, enjoy telling people they”re going to hell is that it is easy to do, whereas enacting political change is an enormous task. It’s easy to march against abortion because no real change is going to happen and it doesn’t really affect most churches – really how many of the women attending conservative churches have had abortions. On the other hand, how many female attendees of conservative churches have frivolously filed for divorce? Sin is sin, so why is the church trying to change the outside world when it doesn’t even police itself? Why isn’t the church fighting tooth and nail to protect fathers in the female-dominated family courts?
The answer is that the church really doesn’t want political responsibility, see novaseeker’s comments, and its involvement in politics is purely emotive posturing.
If I am solely responsible for that night then society doesn’t need to change, at all.
Don’t be silly. You know that’s not what I meant.
You are responsible for YOUR choices. Society also should change, to avoid being a stumbling block, but, that doesn’t absolve you of the need to look your choices with sober, cold-eyed SELF-judgement (1st Cor 11:31) and say, “This was wrong, I shouldn’t have made that choice”.
Or even, “Going to that party with those people, was not the wisest idea, I set myself up to fall.” And arguably, such parties should never be thrown in the first place. But… they ARE thrown, and you might be wise to avoid them.
But if you are accepting, or placing, blame on one individual’s shoulders in every particular instance then what you are doing is absolving everyone else for blame.
In certain circumstances of my life, YES, I really was 100% at fault for certain things. I had to repent and I could not blame anyone else. That’s just the TRUTH: sometimes there really is only one culprit. Sometimes it’s me.
I’ve met guys with “notch” counts in the several hundreds, who are always on the prowl for casual sex. Do you not see a difference in “heart” and consequences between someone like that and someone who happens to stumble onto one night of casual sex while stone drunk and not looking for it?
Yes, of course there’s a difference . One is a stumble, the other is a mindset.
Would those two people have equal work to get their hearts right with God?
It’s not by works. Both can get right with God again instantly, if they so choose. Realistically, the hardened pickup artist is a lot less likely to do that…but it CAN happen.
QFT. Here is the problem, literally, when it comes to the modern church. When the light is hidden and the salt is spoiled, why expect to have any effect whatsoever?
I think why so many Christians, of which you appear one, enjoy telling people they”re going to hell
Where did you get that idea? That is simply (a) untrue, and (b) not even remotely derivable from ANYTHING i have said. You’re projecting someone else from your past, onto me, I suspect.
whereas enacting political change is an enormous task. It’s easy to march against abortion because no real change is going to happen
Not now, clearly. The nation is just too hardened and abortion is too politically entrenched. God himself will have to force us to stop it.
and it doesn’t really affect most churches – really how many of the women attending conservative churches have had abortions.
A lot more than you’d imagine. Remember that most girls raised in church, walk out around age ~20 and don’t return til ~30, when they are about to marry or are seeking marriage. What are they doing during that lost decade? Hint: they get a lot of secret abortions afterwards.
(I count my blessings in that I became a Christian at 19… I was just getting INTO the faith at the age when so many churchborn are fleeing it. I spent the lost decade in church, waiting for the girls to come back so I could get married.)
On the other hand, how many female attendees of conservative churches have frivolously filed for divorce?
Again, a lot. I agree, it’s not addressed enough. I fight that mentality wherever I encounter it.
Asher: Sin is sin, so why is the church trying to change the outside world when it doesn’t even police itself?
Ballista74: QFT. Here is the problem, literally, when it comes to the modern church. When the light is hidden and the salt is spoiled, why expect to have any effect whatsoever?
Therein lies the rub. If Christians of both sexes would, EN MASSE, embrace no-sex-til-marriage, their own natural hormones would FORCE them to rethink the whole “don’t marry til 30” nonsense, and younger marriage (and a much cleaner youth culture) would AUTOMATICALLY flow from that decision. And happier marriages and healthier families would result. Just by getting our sexual act together, we’d be vastly different, different enough to notice.
And then there’s feeding the poor… Average giving is 2.6%, whereas God wants 10% — not for a glass catheral., but that there may be “meat in my house”. Christans are indeed noticeably more charitable, but we could be doing a LOT more….
@ anonymous
Don’t be silly. You know that’s not what I meant.
No, it IS what you meant. You just didn’t realize the logical implications of what you were saying. Once you start with a premise you don’t get to deny the logical implication of that premise.
You are responsible for YOUR choices.
The logical implication being that every individual is responsible for their individual choice. If that’s that case then politics is pure folly, even church management, christians never need to be involved in politics. Don’t bother to try and change society because every single individual is autonomous and is responsible for their own actions. That IS the logical conclusion of that premise.
d arguably, such parties should never be thrown in the first place.
Wasn’t much of a party. It was about ten people, including my brother and two sisters we had known for a couple of years from our church. It was one of those two sisters with whom the incident occurred and there had never been anything sexual between us in even the remotest sense.
You want to reduce the incidence of such events? So do I. The way to do it is a social environment where people get married at a reasonable age but I see little evidence that the church, or you, is interested in such a thing.
sometimes there really is only one culprit. Sometimes it’s me.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. By using the term “sometimes” you’re already conceding the point. Either every bad thing that happens in your life is your fault or it is only some of your fault. If everything is always your fault then there’s no need to involve oneself in politics, at all.
Yes, of course there’s a difference . One is a stumble, the other is a mindset.
well, now you’ve completely conceded the point. Thanks for playing. Look, if part of the conversation regarding sin doesn’t involve collective change then why are we even commenting on this blog?
@ anonymous
Look, this discussion has gone far afield. The initial post by Dalrock was that emotional infatuation does not sanctify sex. I agree with him completely. My point is that supposed christian leaders have completely abdicated any responsibility to work for an environment whereby individuals have an environment to avoid getting themselves into such situations.
You’re really wasting my time at this point, I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, but there’s two points I must answer:
You want to reduce the incidence of such events? So do I. The way to do it is a social environment where people get married at a reasonable age but I see little evidence that the church, or you, is interested in such a thing.
First, plenty of people DO avoid such events, without general social support — or even in defiance of peer pressure to act the other way. And secondly, I have for YEARS advocated MUCH younger marriage, and I am raising my own sons in such a way for them as to be ready for it. (Here’s hoping that somebody out there is raising Christian daughters the same way, otherwise my sons will be like me — wanting to marry at 19 and forced to wait till well past 30… ugh)
you’re already conceding the point. Either every bad thing that happens in your life is your fault or it is only some of your fault. If everything is always your fault then there’s no need to involve oneself in politics, at all.
That’s ABSURD. The fatal flaw in your rationalization, is that you fail to distinguish between “every bad thing that happens” versus “every bad thing that you do”. Government, rightly constituted, CAN prevent a lot of bad things from “happening:” to you — it can, for instance, purity the city water supply, or punish criminals harshly enough that you have a much lesser chance of getting robbed, or build a safe bridge over a river that won’t collapse when you drive over it.
However, the government can’t stop you from personally sinning. They may, if it’s a sin of larger social consequence, disincentivize it so as to make it a lot less common (eg, robbery) but if you’re willing to risk paying the price, you ultimately can do anything you want.
External social pressure, even if expressed by laws, is at best only a stumbling block to enable sin, or an incentive to avoid it. And at the macro level these DO have social effects, so politics is not wholly without value. But you STILL have to own your own choices, and repent where necessary. As do it.
The initial post by Dalrock was that emotional infatuation does not sanctify sex. I agree with him completely.
So do I.
My point is that supposed christian leaders have completely abdicated any responsibility to work for an environment whereby individuals have an environment to avoid getting themselves into such situations.
Some do counsel, that we should avoid the occasion of sin (eg, don’t go to that party). But in terms of promoting young marriage, YES they have dropped the ball. And as I mentioned before, too many singles ministries seem hellbent on *keeping* people single; one might almost imagine that they are funded (or worse, judged) purely by attendance, and that “losing” a pair of their members to the “young marrieds” ministry is seen as a bad thing in their eyes….
No I don’t want you to go to hell, and we’re not as far apart as you seem to think.
I assumed it was impossible for someone to rape a slut. It seems kinda like joyriding. Sure its wrong, but is not like murder or anything. Raping a virgin is murder, the rapist basically erased her whole future life. When we use the word rape, when it isn’t, we dilute the horrific meaning behind the word.
@ Novaseeker,
Ah, NOW I get it.
I think the ‘missing subtext’ has finally been revealed, Novaseeker. And it isn’t that far off from what you proposed upthread.
It seems I am the ‘slow’ one here, because I am sure a few commenters have already figured out what I am about to say next.
There is a (sexual) incident in Asher’s life that he is not so proud of. So naturally, RePillPaul’s obvious lack of such a transgression grates on him. So RedPillPaul gets shamed when it is in fact Asher who feels shame.
We are all human. We all sin.
But we should not hide from our own sins by looking to make another (who has in fact not sinned) into a sinner in an attempt to make ourselves feel better. This strategy does not work in the long run, and our own shame is in danger of being exposed.
I called this a ‘new beast’ because I honestly do not often (ever?) see this in men. As I said upthread, this is a phenomenon I have seen on Planet Woman, and I notice that someone else also wondered whether Asher was a woman.
But I can see from Asher’s case that this kind of deep shame from sexual encounters can very much manifest itself in men too, although perhaps this is a minority of men (?) which makes Asher a special if not a unique case.
No-one here is a monster, Asher. No-one wants to see you suffer emotionally from something you are clearly labouring under. I notice how gentle Anonymous has been in responding to your little ‘confession’. I think he gives good advice: it is so much easier to do your own penance for what you believe is a transgression – it is indeed much easier than looking for someone else to blame (society in general), or to shame (RedPillPaul, by levelling a bogus charge of ‘pride’ at him).
Many women fall into this trap of either shaming others or worse, goading younger women into doing the same wrong they themselves committed so that another feels the pain that they are going through. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and must be avoided at all cost.
What you should have said to RedPillPaul:
“Wow, good on you, mate. I also wanted to remain chaste until my own wedding, but I didn’t make it. It tears me up, but I will work on my own ‘resolution’ with God. But you, well done mate, and keep it up. Don’t make the same mistake I made – it was not entirely my fault I stumbled, but I do accept some responsibility for my actions.
I have children now, and I want to help them to avoid the kind of mistakes I made. Perhaps you could advise me on how to help them…”
Something like that. You would command a lot of respect with that kind of humility because it takes a lot of courage to do something like that when you are not particularly feeling charitable towards RedPillPaul.
And the happy side effect of that is that you would enlist the help of someone you probably secretly admire – for free.
That would be a win-win situation for you.
The alternative route (which you took) was educational for me in the sense that I have learned something new here, (as I explained above, met a ‘new beast’, figuratively speaking), but if my education is at the expense of your personal progress then of course I would rather not be educated…
So I can see that you are indeed not a troll as you have been accused of, but the sentiment that you might be ‘misguided’ is probably accurate, inasmuchas we are all misguided about our own motives until someone else who is observing us closely spells it out for us.
And now, in the interests of fairplay, feel free to reciprocate by calling me out on my unsollicited ‘amateur psychology’.
I am afraid I would deserve such an accusation…
This is just my nerdy side coming out/too much time on me hands…forgive… and forget…
@ anonymous
If you think I’m arguing in bad faith you’re going to have to specify where and how.
plenty of people DO avoid such events, without general social support
Here’s the thing. I noticed distinct patterns of who did and who did not attend such parties, distinctions like functional families, income levels, personality differences, etc. In short, things not chosen by the individual.
I have for YEARS advocated MUCH younger marriage, and I am raising my own sons in such a way for them as to be ready for it. (Here’s hoping that somebody out there is raising Christian daughters the same way, otherwise my sons will be like me — wanting to marry at 19 and forced to wait till well past 30… ugh)
Do you not see the tension, even contradiction, in this comment? Even were you to individually raise your sons to buck the system over the course of time fewer and fewer people will have the ability to resist the undertow of the welfare state. The thing you are advocating requires the financial ability to marry young and that is a function of public policy.
If you’re not advocating a political solution then you’re just flapping your gums – emotional masturbation.
The fatal flaw in your rationalization, is that you fail to distinguish between “every bad thing that happens” versus “every bad thing that you do”.
No, the fatal flaw in your position is that we all sin and that it’s not exactly clear until after the fact when and what the sin is, if any. I still have yet to establish a definitive set of rules on what and when is appropriate physical intimacy. One pastor’s position was that making out was okay as long as you didn’t get a hard-on; it was all I could do to not bust out laughing at him. I remember being nineteen and walking around the king county fair holding hands with a girl with a hard-on for four straight hours.
The solution HAS to involve enormous political action, and I don’t mean gettin’ out and votin’.
Government, rightly constituted, CAN prevent a lot of bad things from “happening:” to you
Government can also facilitate a bunch of things happening to you, like massive taxation and a welfare state that prompts moral rot and corruption. The logical conclusion of focusing solely on individual choice is chastity and asceticism; become a monk.
However, the government can’t stop you from personally sinning.
YOU can’t stop yourself from sinning and to focus on individual choice to social governance ignores the communal factors in sin.
“I assumed it was impossible for someone to rape a slut. It seems kinda like joyriding. Sure its wrong, but is not like murder or anything. Raping a virgin is murder, the rapist basically erased her whole future life. When we use the word rape, when it isn’t, we dilute the horrific meaning behind the word.”
Its possible to commit the crime of rape against almost anyone, even men, so I hear. However a virgin’s “whole future life” is not “erased” by rape. How could that even be? AIDS? In that case I understand.
@ anonymous
Some do counsel, that we should avoid the occasion of sin (eg, don’t go to that party). But in terms of promoting young marriage, YES they have dropped the ball.
It’s not enough to council individuals. What is required is a tangible political environment that facilitates such actions. If you’re not advocating massive political change then you’re a part of the problem.
@Asher
“Your problem is that you’re just not very bright. I am not preaching celibacy. I am mocking redpillpaul’s pride and vainglory. The bible is very clear that it is best for people who do not burn with passion to stay celibate for their entire lives. As paul is a virgin at 29 he clearly does not burn with passion for women and would do best to stay a self made eunuch.
I fully admitted that I burn with passion for women and got married for it.
If paul is still a virgin at 29 then he is clearly not suffering at all, unless he really is a virgin as the result fo being awkward around women – he claims otherwise and I’ll take him at his word.”
Hey Asher, nice straw man.
Exactly how was I being proud and showing vainglory? Challenging your views maybe but that makes you assume that I am proud and show vainglory? When I have been trying to get you to take a stance on something?
I think you are confusing things. Apostle Paul wrote that it was good for believers to stay celibate, to be like him (1 Corinthians 7), not in just celibacy but in advancing the gospel. 1 Corinthians 7 states to get married to avoid sexual temptation but if you have that covered, then the celibacy is for a different reason.
Apostle Paul writes that it is better for him (personally) to die, because he would be in heaven with the Lord (thus ending Pauls suffering that he faced on earth) but he lives for Christ through his suffering in hopes to bring more believers to Christ (Philippians 1:21-24). Paul’s call for Celibacy is there so that you can focus everything on advancing Christ’s kingdom and I would make the argument that he was coming from that point (his prime focus in his life after his conversion was bringing/saving more souls to/for Christ). I make this argument through PAUL’s writing (important part being that it was from the same author).
I fully admit that I do not have ONLY Gods kingdom in mind. I have my own “selfish” desires. You assume that I do not burn with passion. Have you ever considered that I may have better self control in this regard than you? I mean, I do “fall” into temptation in smoking so if you don’t smoke or have and quit, you have better self control than me in regards to smoking. You assume that I do not suffer. I am human, I have a soul, mind and body and they all have their own needs. My body hungers for food as well as it “hungers” for flesh. Its nice that you have taken my word at face value so far, here are some more to take at face value, since that is what you claim.
@ spacetraveller
There is a (sexual) incident in Asher’s life that he is not so proud of. So naturally, RePillPaul’s obvious lack of such a transgression grates on him. So RedPillPaul gets shamed when it is in fact Asher who feels shame.
You are a sanctimonious jackass, and a perfect example of why so many rightfully detest the church. Ever wonder why so many young people make such a cause out of gay marriage? They do it to stick it in the eye of sanctimonious prigs like yourself.
I was ashamed of the incident immediately and it was following by much dread and confession – that is not the behavior of someone seeking out sin with a hard heart. As for paul, my reaction to him is the same as my reaction to you. Your pride and hardness of heart stands in the way of making real political changes to the overall social environment.
we should not hide from our own sins by looking to make another
And no one here is doing that. My concern is with my children, my nieces and nephews and the environment they inherit from us. Sanctimonious prigs like you and paul are an obstacle to my goals and concerns.
I can see from Asher’s case that this kind of deep shame from sexual encounters
What a jackass. I get complements from women at how amazed they are that during conversations my eyes never stray from their face and I have been getting that complement regularly since my teens. Your pride and sanctimony is not only vile but it is destructive as well. The women you are talking about defiantly claim that what they did was not wrong, at all. My sole concern is with the future and coming generations and your priggishness and nagging, shrewish scolding is nothing but destructive.
What are you? An eighty year old woman?
No-one here is a monster, Asher.
Correct. What you are is a priggish, sanctimonious shrew, wallowing in conceit and pride.
in responding to your little ‘confession’.
Nice scare quotes. You talk like a woman with innuendo and scolding. My confession was made fourteen years ago two days after the event to both God and spiritual authorities. What? Should I show up in church every Sunday for the rest of my life confessing every sin I’ve ever committed? Walk around every second of every day feeling shame over it?
Prig.
@ spacetraveller
What you should have said to RedPillPaul:
I already make the point of my response. If paul had said I am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when and if God sends me a wife then I would have responded to him with “good on ya mate”. But that’s not what he said. His reasons were ego-driven and clearly about considering himself superior to those around him. I was responding to his pride.
You would command a lot of respect with that kind of humility
This is the internet. We are here to discuss ideas and this is not some social club – take that crap over to Vox’s blog. Paul’s own words were prideful, mine are not. Nothing I’m saying is about paul as a person or myself as a person but about the ideas expressed in the words. If I explicitly express pride in something I’ve done then by all means chastise that. But it is not prideful to object to bad ideas and sentiments.
I gave paul specific reasons for why I regarded his words as prideful and I invited him to clarify and revise them. It’s been a day and a half and he has yet to do so, which indicates pride on his part.
@ redpillpaul
Consider the two following sstatements:
I am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when or if he graces me with a wife.
I want to marry a virgin because that is special, and am staying a virgin so that I can have the best wife I can get
The first is glorification of God and the second the glorification of the ego and the self. You did the latter. I invited you to revise and clarify and you responded with wounded anger, indicating tHat I was correct and that you are operating in pride.
I fully admit that I do not have ONLY Gods kingdom in mind. I have my own “selfish” desires.
Yes, and one of those selfish desires is in regarding yourself as better than others – pride.
I mean, I do “fall” into temptation in smoking
I don’t smoke but so what. You seriously consider smoking some sort of sin? You are conflating social norms with God’s Law. One thing I will say about smoking is that the kids who smoked early tended to promiscuity but if it doesn’t lead to that sort of thing then how is smoking a sin, in itself? Is saying the f-word a sin? I say it sometimes and I don’t regard it as sinful, but for my wife it is often a gateway for her anger problem.
It depends on the person and if smoking isn’t leading to more tangible fruit then I don’t see why it concerns you. This is just rank legalism that you’re imposing on yourself.
I used to smoke a couple of dozen cigars a year and quit because it’s a time investment, I had to smoke outside in the wet seattle weather, and I’m a lightweight so half a cigar would get me woozy. Was that a sin? Sheesh. Anyways, I quit because of the factors I mentioned not because of any sort of notion of sin.
Its nice that you have taken my word at face value so far, here are some more to take at face value, since that is what you claim.
The face value of your words was prideful.
Look, I am concerned about politics and about a general environment where people can marry at a reasonable age and have families without worry about getting into their thirties while still a virgin.
Asher,
What did I say that was ego driven. Though I did not directly say ” am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when and if God sends me a wife” from what I wrote, in the words and body of what I wrote, you should have been able to see that.
I still dont know where you stand. Are you “angry” at the current laws in place that make marriage a bum deal for men? Are you “angry” at the culture that it is not “Christian” according to the Bible?
Both are understandable and I feel the same way but you have yet to clarify. You expected me to write to you “am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when and if God sends me a wife” so you can know where you stand. Have you made any such statements yourself? Kind of hypocritical dont you think? Holding people to a place to clarify where they stand yet avoiding to do so yourself.
What really frustrates me is you anger directed in the wrong place. A lot of guys here are angry, probably for the same reasons you are (I agree that there should be political change), its just we dont know why you are angry since you never stated where you stand.
@ spacetraveller
In my teens I wanted at least four kids but even thought about six or seven. Instead, I have two and that is all I am likely to get. I blame society for THAT and not for my having drunken sex at twenty-five, so that’s where the “blaming” shows up.
Asher
The part on smoking was to show an area of self control, not to point out it is a “sin” though if the body is a temple for the Holy Spirit, i would be grieving him.
Asher
“Look, I am concerned about politics and about a general environment where people can marry at a reasonable age and have families without worry about getting into their thirties while still a virgin.”
Thank you. That is very reasonable and I do feel the same way. So it seems that you are “angry” that society as a whole was not in a place where the probabilities of marrying while young were greatly reduced due to current laws and political attitudes?
Asher,
“I am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when or if he graces me with a wife.
I want to marry a virgin because that is special, and am staying a virgin so that I can have the best wife I can get”
Neither is what I said. I first said that I remain a virgin due to what is written in the Bible. I also want the best wife I can get. I also realize that virginity is special. You assumed or just missed what I said.
@ redpillpaul
from what I wrote, in the words and body of what I wrote, you should have been able to see that.
I don’t even see a hint of it. Could you please point me to where it’s even implied? I sure can’t find it.
Are you “angry” at the current laws in place that make marriage a bum deal for men? Are you “angry” at the culture that it is not “Christian” according to the Bible?
All of the above and more. I loathe leaders who want the glory of authority with any responsibility.
You expected me to write to you “am staying a virgin for the glory of God until when and if God sends me a wife”
Correct. I did. I still do. There is nothing particularly special about virgin weddings. My brother’s wife was a virgin and he waited for her three years to marry her. Their marriage is awful and she’s a miserable person. But, hey, she was a virgin.
Have you made any such statements yourself?
No, I haven’t made such statements, myself.
Holding people to a place to clarify where they stand yet avoiding to do so yourself.
You are unlikely to encounter someone as concise as myself in your life.
What really frustrates me is you anger directed in the wrong place.
My anger is at anyone who sees that things are wrong but who is not calling for a breakup of the rotten, corrupt monstrosity that is the US empire.
you never stated where you stand.
Huh? My entire body of comments is a statement of where I stand.
@ redpillpaul
By that measure pretty much any activity could indicate a lack of self-control. I used to go snowboarding every other day during the best part of the season. Was that a lack of self-control? I mean, look, if smoking is somehow hindering your walk with God, then, sure, but is it really doing that? I guess I would have to know more.
Btw, when the bible talks about our bodies being temples of the holy spirit I’m pretty sure it is only talking about sexual sin. It’s in 1 cor 6.
@ Asher,
Thank you for the name-calling (sanctimonious, jackass, prig, etc).
I fully expected some sort of retribution and I certainly got it.
No problem. As I already mentioned, I see this often enough among women…I am very tuned in to this sort of thing these days. You are way too late to the party on this issue, so to speak.
Your name-calling tells me that my words to you hit home…hard.
Good.
The truth always hurts. We all know this.
I react the same way when bad things I have done are pointed out to me. It is afterall, human nature.
You are wrong that I am being sanctimonious in this case.
Here’s why:
My primary concern actually was that you do not ‘corrupt’ someone else in your own quest to dump your guilt. That too is a human tendency, but it is grave when done to an impressionable person. Thankfully, RedPillPaul is clearly not some impressionable youngster, so perhaps I am not so concerned for him. However, there may be younger readers here who may have swallowed your ‘prideful’ accusation at RedPillPaul without understanding that it is YOU with the problem and not RedPillPaul.
Like I said, I have learned a new lesson here. I shall reflect on this, as I hope you will too.
Many of your comments are filled with the notion that society owes you something. That you put all or at least a significant part of your personal failings squarely at society’s door.
This sentiment, if adopted by a critical mass of individuals will lead to a host of problems.
Alas, we have already arrived at that nightmare situation in the current world we live in.
You appear to be an embodiment of that.
We all are potentially ‘hookable’ by this rhetoric.
But it is a falsehood that leads nowhere good, as current trends show.
So, the wise thing to do is get rid of this attitude before it destroys you.
Name-calling does not really bother me.
What’s more important is that you ‘get’ what I am saying to you.
I am not eighty (yet). I have quite a number of years before I get there (if ever). But hidden in that insult somewhere is a compliment, I am sure.
So I thank you for that.
(You should know that I believe empty name-calling is ineffective and reveals a vulnerability on the part of the person throwing insults around).
I am glad I persisted with my probing of your arguments against RedPillPaul, because in the end it got you to reveal your true motives.
You have been unfair to him and you know it deep inside you.
If you won’t compliment him on his great achievement, at least have the decency to keep your peace and don’t pollute the clean waters of the wisdom about morality that our kind host is trying to impart to the rest of us, by dropping falsehoods designed to make you feel better at the expense of someone else’s education about what is right or wrong.
Some of us want to learn the right way, and don’t want to be confused/led astray by those who wish to turn the waters murky…
Paradoxically, it is precisely because we are indeed imperfect that we seek The Truth,
That, I believe, is mutually exclusive with ‘sanctimonious’, for a truly sanctimonious person believes that they have reached the pinnacle of perfection and don’t need any further improvement.
Neither RedPillPaul nor I (nor anyone else that has commented with respect to this particular discussion) express such a notion.
Pick a better (read: more accurate) insult to describe me next time.
I promise I will tell you if I find it a ‘suitable’ insult.
I will ‘play nice’ as I asked you to do. 🙂
I think Asher is just having fun at playing devil’s advocate.
@ spacetraveller
I fully expected some sort of retribution
Retribution? You’re kidding, right? We’re discussing idea. On the internet. You are behaving like a sanctimonious prig and I called you out on it. How you confuse that with retribution is bewildering. If I got your IP and confronted you with a gun … sure, that would be retribution (no, I have better things to do with my time).
Good Lord, you’re a delicate flower.
Your name-calling tells me that my words to you hit home…hard.
No, I get very irritated when someone refuses to address the ideas under discussion and tries to divert into the psychology of the other person.
BTW, I did not do this to paul. His own words were prideful and I was pointing it out. I already gave a wording that paul could have described his same situation that would not have elicited by responses to him.
Womanizers, and (late) Virgins
Womanizers? By definition. Late virgins? Uh, maybe one in a hundred. Probably less than one in a thousand. I spent a couple of years hanging out with the local county young republicans and it had several male virgins in their mid to late thirties. Trust me, these guys were not pulling string with the ladies, and I don’t say that with any joy.
You are wrong that I am being sanctimonious in this case.
Here’s why:
My primary concern actually was that you do not ‘corrupt’ someone else in your own quest to dump your guilt.
I have dealt with whatever guilt I had quite nicely many years ago. I am interested in politics. I am interested in the collective rot and corruption that is called the US and I am interested in gutting that monster. All of you scolding hags who prattle on about “individual responsibility” without addressing the endemic corruption are a massive part of the problem.
Would I advise individuals to guard their actions zealously and try and maintain personal responsibility? Absolutely. And I do so. Is that going to make a difference on a large scale? Hell no. If it did there would be no reason for Christians to involve themselves in politics.
Thankfully, RedPillPaul is clearly not some impressionable youngster, so perhaps I am not so concerned for him.
The only advice I gave redpillpaul was to adjust his attitude. He offered that I should have inferred that he was doing it for God. But guess what? What is in the heart comes out of the mouth, and his words were quite clear that his virginity were about having a “special” wedding/marriage and so that he could get the best wife possible.
there may be younger readers here who may have swallowed your ‘prideful’
I doubt any of them are as reading impaired as you. I’m quite certain that they can see the difference between noting false pride in one’s virginity versus a suggestion that fornication is just fine. I’m guessing it would take an elementary school level of reading to not understand the difference.
Many of your comments are filled with the notion that society owes you something.
Yes, it does. Just like I, as a full-grown member of society owes something to the next generation. If you follow your own advice then don’t vote or try to affect any larger change, because that is the manifestation of not owing anything to anyone else. “Society” is just the collective expression of the individuals of which it is comprised and if “society” owes nothing to the next generation then I owe nothing to the next generation.
Do you even bother paying attention to the posts at this blog? It is replete with condemnations of the older generations who let so much just go to hell in a handbasket.
Take my wife who has a serious anger problem she will probably be dealing with for the rest of her life. If she decided to let that anger go she could just spite me and screw me over in the family courts. Your response? Society owes you nothing. No wonder Christians are so hated. See, the thing is that the really good ones do get scooped up early and the rest of us have to accept people with serious flaws and work with them (and ourselves), and the further entrenchment of those flaws over time.
You may be, or may have been if you’re married, a really good catch with little trouble finding your place. What you are doing is telling the rest of us “I got mine. F*ck you losers”. Trust me, that sentiment is not lost on the rest of us and on subsequent generations.
That you put all or at least a significant part of your personal failings squarely at society’s door.
which I explicitly did not do. Learn to read you f*cking retard. What you interpret as anger is just extreme irritation at your lack of ability to follow a pretty simple conversation.
You appear to be an embodiment of that nightmare
Uh, let’s see. I’m a faithfully married man with two kids who attends church regularly and hates feminism. Your notion of nightmare is delusional.
Name-calling does not really bother me.
It’s not intended too bother you but intended to alert others to your abject lack of rational thought.
in the end it got you to reveal your true motives.
Motives I made explicitly clear, which is a massive political change.
You have been unfair to him
I have not. I was already starting to lost interest and faith in the church at the point of losing my virginity. I had the same reaction to people who spoke like paul years before losing my virginity. Despite my “purity” at the time I still was aware of the political issues facing our society and the future generations. By twenty I saw loads of thirty-something christians who were still single and who would have seemingly made decent mates with whom to have a family.
I knew something was wrong and I knew that it had nothing to do with doubling down on the message of individual purity.
If you won’t compliment him on his great achievement,
It still isn’t clear that it is an achievement. Hell, if it weren’t for alcohol I would have probably made it much further without losing my virginity.
Some of us want to learn the right way
The “right way” has equally important individual and collective components. Men working together create collective order and structure. Yours is a typical woman’s perspective and if men listened to you then they would bother engaging in the organizing activity that men do and that is necessary for the world you enjoy.
truly sanctimonious person believes that they have reached the pinnacle of perfection and don’t need any further improvement.
Then you don’t know what the word “sanctimonious” means. It simply is someone who makes a show of being morally superior, which does not imply perfect. It is why I used the more cutting “sanctimonious” with you and the less cutting “prideful” with paul. With him, I really didnt get the impression that he was very aware of it.
Neither RedPillPaul nor I (nor anyone else that has commented with respect to this particular discussion) express such a notion.
Paul? No. You? In spades. One can have areas of pride without be sanctimonious. You exhibit the latter in spades.
I will ‘play nice’ as I asked you to do.
Politics is deadly serious business. I’m not playing and I am not interested in anyone being nice. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about nice.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/24 | Free Northerner
Asher,
“In my teens I wanted at least four kids but even thought about six or seven. Instead, I have two and that is all I am likely to get. I blame society for THAT…”
Well Sir, most of us wanted stuff we will never get.
If we all went about blaming Society for what we didn’t get (nevermind that in your case you have plenty that so many other people don’t have) then poor old Society will be getting quite a bashing.
WE are Society, Asher. Collectively, we all make Society great or a total fail by taking personal responsibilty for our own actions.
Notice that I make no comments about what you yourself describe as your ‘sin’ except to identify it as the source of your displeasure with RedPillPaul (RPP).
In fact I specifically stated that I neither needed nor wanted to know…
It is you who volunteered what I would consider ‘classical information’.
But that is not even the issue. The beef I have with you is that you are attempting to ‘shift’ the goalposts and put the dust in other people’s eyes (by re-defining for us all what ‘pride’ means) in an attempt to assuage your own discontent with your own previous actions.
But I postulate that this was unnecessary. You have dealt with your guilt? It is gone? Erased from memory?
Great. Now act like it.
Your wife’s anger issues are regrettable, yes. But instead of blaming Society propspectively for what she might or might not do as a result of it, why not require of her that she sort out her issues, or perhaps help her deal with it in whatever way you can?
That would show leadership/compassion towards her, and if you and she are successful, it will solve the problem of what you anticipate – eventual divorce because she is ‘angry’ with you, or ‘unhappy’ with you.
But ultimately, it lies with her to sort out such issues. Personal responsibility, remember?
Fair enough. You made your point and I made mine.
Neither of us has the edge on the other.
We are both trying to make sense of this world.
If it helps, then OK; I hereby accept the charge of ‘sanctimonious jackass’.
So now we are even.
Perhaps I shall need to work on myself to reduce this tendency of mine.
I shall take personal responsibilty for this, I assure you.
Society is most definitely not the cause of my errant personality, I might add.
@Asher
Whatever our differences, I must admit that you’re a skilled debater. Be that as it may, whatever happened to you on that night 14 years ago, I believe it was not your fault. You’ve lived an exemplary life since then. It’s not often, that such a thing happens – living an exemplary life.
There are women who come here – such as Connie – who are merely seeking attention and rant and rave and stamp their pretty little feet when they find no one wants to give it to them, and then there is Asher. It should surely be a rule on Internet Etiquette that one leaves ones Hair Shirt off when entering.
Pingback: Seduction To Wickedness (Part 2) | The Society of Phineas
@ spacetraveller
Well Sir, most of us wanted stuff we will never get.
I see. So, you’re fine with the fruits of my labor being used to subsidize the bastard children of whores. Are you trying to lose your society and culture? The problem with your sanctimoniousness is that it is liable to chase away those who would be ripe to be your allies.
WE are Society, Asher. Collectively, we all make Society great or a total fail by taking personal responsibilty for our own actions.
Typical female drivel. No society is not simply the sum of the actions of autonomous individuals. Society exists above and beyond individual choice and requires the order and structure that is provided by men working together to create it, a structure and order that you enjoy, do not provide and spit on.
Notice that I make no comments about what you yourself describe as your ‘sin’ except to identify it as the source of your displeasure with RedPillPaul (RPP).
Were that to be correct then you might have a point, but you are incorrect. My displeasure with paul is over the fact that his attitude is an impediment to the necessary political correctives.
The beef I have with you is that you are attempting to ‘shift’ the goalposts and put the dust in other people’s eyes
The goalposts *are* shifted and it has nothing to do with what I’ve said or done. That is the reality of the present situation. I don’t like it but that is the way it is. Any shifting back of the goalposts can only come via political action.
(by re-defining for us all what ‘pride’ means)
I am not redifining what pride means, you are. What was the first sin? Satan trying to ascend to the throne of God. The first human sin? Eating the fruit that brought the knowledge that God had reserved for him alone. Both involve not knowing one’s proper place. When paul talks about a virgin marriage what he is doing is setting himself up as a standard by which other people are measured, and that is not his place – to him who is given much, much is expected.
Great. Now act like it.
I do, you sanctimonious prig.
instead of blaming Society propspectively for what she might or might not do as a result of it, why not require of her that she sort out her issues
She is and I have. The fact is that she had a mother who was involved in witchcraft, married a gay man who wanted a son early in her life and wound up involved in witchcraft, herself. It’s preposterous to compare someone like her to some sanctimonious prig like yourself. Yours is just another manifestation of the feminine imperative.
But ultimately, it lies with her to sort out such issues. Personal responsibility, remember?
I would rather to have someone like her raised up in a society without the seducing factors she encountered. No, not personal responsibility. Sanctimonious prigs, such as yourself, with your mantra of personal responsibility are an impediment to that necessary collective action.
Personal responsibility is something we owe to God and to him alone. Everything else is equally personal and collective responsibility.
Society is most definitely not the cause of my errant personality, I might add.
But it is and you just lack the capacity to grasp it.
Asher,
Me at April 18 6:06pm (which is the first time I speak about myself)
” I was born and raised in a Christian family, im almost 29 and I am still a virgin. Why? Simply, because that I know that fornication is a sin and it is clearly stated as such in the Bible.”
Then, followed up by
“THIS BEING SAID, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage.”
Follwed up by
“It seems that you are taking out of context what I wrote so hopefully my above will give you some clarification.”
This was all written in the same post. The only “fault” i see and what I believe what you are going to do is take the “THIS BEING SAID, I hold to my virginity because I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage.” and say “SEE, he didnt do it because he loved/followed/obey/whatever God, he did it because he wants a special virgin wife” while ignoring my first statement, which takes president, hence the order.
@ Marellus
*sigh*. No, no, no. I have not led an exemplary life since then, it’s just that my particular failings don’t tend to involve areas like pride or lust. This is not about me, personally, at all, and the only reason I offered the anecdote was to demonstrate the point I was making.
Some do counsel, that we should avoid the occasion of sin (eg, don’t go to that party). But in terms of promoting young marriage, YES they have dropped the ball.
It’s not enough to counse individuals. What is required is a tangible political environment that facilitates such actions. If you’re not advocating massive political change then you’re a part of the problem.
I wholeheartedly advocate massive political change. I would give anything to restore America to the social conditions of the 1950s (except for segregation, which was sin.) But — reality check — it’s not going to happen any time soon. We simply don’t have the power at this time — there are not enough of us For this reason, choosing the right path, individually, despite the high cost and the difficulties that our messed up society imposes, is the only path available to us. Either swim against the undertow, or surrrender to it — we cannot, at this time, meaningfully affect the direction of the tide.
In my teens I wanted at least four kids but even thought about six or seven. Instead, I have two and that is all I am likely to get.
Hear ya there. I wanted 12, only got 3. Not coincidentally, I wanted to marry at 19 but instead was forced to wait til 38.
I blame society for THAT
Agree. Feminism in particular. When I was 19, it wasn’t just that I “couldn’t find” a suitable partner, it was that none of the girls of my generation even had that mindset. By my early 30s they were finally in the “marriage mindset”. I don’t see how laws could change this though — only preaching can.
and not for my having drunken sex at twenty-five, so that’s where the “blaming” shows up.
Okay, I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were blaming society/church/family/etc for the drunksex, and that is what I took issue with.. Blaming someone else makes it impossible to repent, but from what I’ve read since, you DID repent and have lived an “exemplary life” since…. which I am relieved to hear, since — contrary to your earlier assertions, I do NOT want anyone to go to hell.
@ redpillpaul
Let’s talk marriage for a second. what is the foundational purpose for marriage? Love, per liberal autonomy doctrine? Or heterosexual monogamy? It’s either one or the other, but not both. Sure, you can *have* both but one is foundational and the other is derivative.
It’s the same for your virginity. Either it is premised on avoiding sin and following God or it is premised on wanting to be special and get a better wife than those around you. Sure, you might wind up with both but, even in that case, one is foundational and the other derivative.
As I noted previously, plenty of virgins have gotten hitched without it turning out to be a wonderful, special thing.
@ redpillpaul
I really believe there is a high payoff that is unique virgin marriage.
What you are doing is turning the god of the bible into a God of incantation and magic. IF paul stays a virgin THEN God will give paul a virgin to marry and they will have a special, fulfilling life together. That’s not the way it works.
What if God already sent that virgin to you and you rejected her because she looks like Roseanne Barr, has a body odor like my work boots and a virtually non-existent sex drive – but, hey, she was a virgin. See, my point is that it is a communal duty to expand the pool of marriageable women and reduce the numbers of women seduced by all the vain ideologies and temptations we see, today.
I am angry? Well, you *should* be righteously pissed that you’re 29 and still a virgin. An upright society would have provided an environment where men like you are married by 25, probably several years earlier. It blows my mind that you’re not in a frothing rage over it.
what is the foundational purpose for marriage?
Heterosexual monogamy, avoidance of sin, godly offspring. So says the Bible.
It’s the same for your virginity. Either it is premised on avoiding sin and following God or it is premised on wanting to be special and get a better wife than those around you.
Virginity is somewhat oversold, to be sure. YES, you avoid sin, sexuallly transmitted disease, unwanted pregnancy, soulties with people who don’t stick around — it’s a much safer path. That much is true.
BUT.. staying a virgin does NOT guarantee a great sex life or a happy marriage in general. It’ doesn’t guarantee you’ll get magically get a great spouse, or any spouse at all. As Ross Clark so eloquently puts it,
“..finding a mate has little to do with yielded rights. That a right has been yielded does not mean that the matching need or desire will be met, any more than not yielding rights means that the need or desire will not be met.”
http://www.singleness.org/talkdown.shtml
(disclaimer: I don’t endorse the rest of the content at singleness.org, most of it I found to be useless “Job’s comforter” counsel”. But this one essay, is gold.)
@ spacetraveller
I would give anything to restore America to the social conditions of the 1950s (except for segregation, which was sin.)
Ten years ago I would have said the same thing but I ended up taking a cold, hard look at reality. The reality is that the vast majority of black people are a blight to the vast majority of white people. Are there specific black individuals who can integrate into white societies and adopt western behaviors and norms? Sure, but they’re less than 20 percent of the black population and probably closer to 10 percent of it.
Do you have any biblical justification for segregation being a sin?
BTW, I don’t think that segregation is a very effective policy. A section of the US should have been portioned off and given to blacks so they could have their own society and rule themselves. Sure, they’d turn it into Africa in short order but that is just what black people do.
Every single political issue today has been twisted and warped trying to bend over backwards for black people, pretending that whites and black are no different, except for skin color.
@ spacetraveller, redpillpaul
Why is redpillpaul still single? Black people. That’s right, you heard me, black people.
Why? Because of civil rights. How does that connect to white people staying single until their thirties? Because of disparate impact and other applications of civil rights legislation to employment.
The reality is that very few jobs require 16 years of formal schooling, much less post graduate work. However, the doctrine of disparate impact requires employers and employees alike to jump through all sorts of hoops in order to avoid “racist” hiring practices. One big loophole in disparate impact doctrine is in allowing employers to use college degrees to filter out employees. This has the effect of filtering out lots of black people but the university system is an integral part of the leftist coalition so a blind eye is turned to this practice. But requiring a college degree costs lots of money and pushes back the age where an individual is in a position to marry.
Another huge factor that the presence of black people in the US plays on the marriage market for whites is in how social environment is created. White families simply cannot thrive in a locale where the social environment has significant black input. steve sailer, IIRC, once posted an analysis on how the tipping point for concentrations of black people is around fifteen percent – at that level of black population white people either stop having babies or have to move to a place where there are fewer black people. Of course, this requires white people to expend lots of resources to find a social environment in which to raise families that is less black.
This is a huge impact on the white marriage and mating market and the presence of black people in the US is probably white paul is still single.
me: I would give anything to restore America to the social conditions of the 1950s (except for segregation, which was sin.)
Asher: Ten years ago I would have said the same thing but I ended up taking a cold, hard look at reality. The reality is that the vast majority of black people are a blight to the vast majority of white people
Unfortunately you’re right. But God would have spared Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous Sodomites. Also, we hate with an unspeakbly intense passion, being wrongfully blamed for crimes of the past just because we are white — so we must extend the same courtesy to the righteous minority of blacks.
In a true libertarian society, people could voluntarily self-segregate using property rights, or freely integrate, or even intermarry, as they pleased — but the LAW would not compel any of these outcomes, focusing instead on prosecuting crimes of force and fraud.
I have corresponded with two nationally known conservative intellectuals/pundits about the issue of Republicans and voting demographics and marriage. I was asking them why republicans weren’t promoting pro-marriage policies and they seemed to be interested. But they weren’t stupid and when it became obvious that pro-marriage is going to be implicitly pro-white they lost interest.
Do you really think that any set of policies are going to stop black people in groups from creating the sorts of social environments that black people create?
@ anonymous
I was a staunch libertarian for many years but there is a problem with libertarianism. That problem is that there is a human nature and that nature isn’t libertarian. Humans are inherently tribal – okay, there’s a smattering of people who aren’t tribal but we’re talking less than one percent – and will always develop tribal groupings.
Do you really think that any set of policies are going to stop black people in groups from creating the sorts of social environments that black people create?
Severe law enforcement — which most would regard as “raciss oppression”, but which the righteous minority would welcome. When the National Guard was finally, belatedly sent to South Central LA after the 1992 riots, for a few days the streets were so safe that some of the black residents were PRAISING the guardsmen for the fact that — for the first time in years (if ever), they could walk down the streets at night without fear.
What kind of social environment do black people create exactly?
@ hopefu
Africa. Cities in the US like Detroit and Camden are basically Africa with white taxpayer money thrown in to maintain th facade of civilization
And what is the problem with this?
this thread is about to go nowhere good.
bye
Asher,
What you are doing is turning the god of the bible into a God of incantation and magic. IF paul stays a virgin THEN God will give paul a virgin to marry and they will have a special, fulfilling life together. That’s not the way it works.
No, that is what you are doing and assuming that is what I am doing. I already stated that fornication is clearly laid out in the Bible as sin and by refraining from it, am a virgin.
You assume that I think like you, that God “owes” me something. I want a virgin wife because I think there are many more benefits to marry a virgin wife than a non-virgin wife.
When I was in my teens, I absolutely desired a virgin wife. In college, I was “OK” or more open with the idea having a non-virgin wife. In grad school, my eyes were open to the RedPill and found myself going back to a state similar to when I was in highschool, a reaffirmation for my desire for a virgin wife.
I wanted to get married by 25 at 16.
By 26, I said in my heart “God, I don’t know how long I can hold out. I don’t want to marry just anyone due to my understanding of the world/laws/peoples attitudes and realize that I open myself up to a lot of risks by marrying anyone. I know its wrong, and I know you gave me free will, so I think I will take it and by 30, if I remain as I am, Im just going to disobey what you said and just do my thing, wander around like Satan, hope that I don’t die in my sin, and return to you broken, squandering my inheritance like the prodigal son, yet at the end of the day, still being your son”
I struggled with that up until now. I have just over a year by that point but find myself going away from that heart motive. Part of the reasons why is being encouraged by others who practice what they preach and just feeling sorry/guilty towards God that I felt (and mildly still do) that way.
You can call my struggle of choosing of myself over God “pride” all you want. This accusation is a wash relative to me and you because you do it too and it is not the kind of “pride” you accuse me of.
And to beat the dead horse again, I remain a virgin because of my desire to obey God’s law. I want a virgin wife because it is better than a non-virgin wife. I want to start a family. I want children. Not because I think that
IF paul stays a virgin AND God gives paul a virgin to marry THEN they will have a higher probability of having a special, fulfilling life together.
IF Paul does not stay a virgin, AND God gives Paul a non-virgin to marry THEN they will have a lower probability of having a special, fulfilling life together.
IF Paul does not stay a virgin, AND god gives Paul a virgin to marry THEN they will have a higher probability of having a special, fulfilling life together but not as high a probability if Paul stayed a virgin.
Asher.
This is not about me, personally, at all, and the only reason I offered the anecdote was to demonstrate the point I was making.
She was the one that isolated the both of you.
Hi Dalrock – thanks for this blog. It’s excellent. Here’s a shout out for your great work from a Catholic man all the way down in New Zealand trying to make sense of this insane feminist world we live in.
For your edification, check out this article in my local newspaper today….a “sociologist” who confirms exactly what you say, but perhaps from a rather different point of view:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=108800393
“Marriage 2.0” would be some kind of farce or joke if it’s consequences weren’t so serious.
Thanks heythatsmycar. That link resolves to their main page for me. Do you have the title of the article?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/relationships/news/article.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10880039
Bells still ring for traditional weddings
Is my guess
“Bells still ring true for traditional weddings” by Simons Collins (Saturday 27 April 2013)
Sorry. “Bells still ring for traditional weddings”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10880039
“Segregation is a sin”
Right … Everything labelled with stigma by society as bad is a sin
Segregation is the normal result of two cultures trying to keep their cultures intact
ALL cultures when confronted by another race, segregate
Italians, indians when moving to another country naturally segregate into ghettos or communities segregated from white culture
Its also important to remember black people were the aggressors in the civil rights movements
The main reason black people were discontent, they refused to segregate themselves from white communities
Instead of confining themselves to their own communities, like other immigrants …. africans preferred strategy is to drive white ppl out of their communities & take over the white mom & pop stores, with their own African centred shops
Africans then went onto enforce their culture onto white ppl, taking over local white folk music & traditional white forms of courtship
So it all comes down to Elvis’s hips, huh mackPUA? It’s not the dumbest theory espoused here in the past few days but don’t take that as a compliment.
Pingback: The Society of Phineas – One Year | The Society of Phineas
Summary of the essence of African culture:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924795/posts
“Let Africa Sink
Kim du Toit May 26, 2002
When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.”
Africa has to heal itself. The West can’t help it. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself.
Pingback: Why Christian Men Don’t Deserve Virgins
” But they weren’t stupid and when it became obvious that pro-marriage is going to be implicitly pro-white they lost interest.”
I don’t see the connection between pro-marriage and pro-white. Marriage is good for all people and promoting it amongst everyone makes for a better world.
“Do you really think that any set of policies are going to stop black people in groups from creating the sorts of social environments that black people create?”
The high crime rate amongst black people is a result of being raised in unstable single parent households. This leads us back to the pro-marriage promotion idea. Promote marriage and there will be less crime and degeneracy amongst all peoples. We see that blacks from stable in tact families are not committing crimes at all.
“The main reason black people were discontent, they refused to segregate themselves from white communities”
Plenty did. And the KKK burned down homes and businesses.
“Instead of confining themselves to their own communities, like other immigrants”
Apples and oranges.
Other immigrants, like the Poles, Irish and Italians were not refused meals in restaurants or beaten up and possibly killed for using drinking fountains, nor were they relegated to the backs of the buss. Nor if they were part of a music group was that group banned from performing at an already scheduled venue unless they sat out the performance.
Also, if an Italian girl from the Bronx and a holy rollin’ charismatic hillbilly boy from the hollers of Kentucky were to marry, you’d get plenty of raised eyebrows at the wedding, or maybe they’d elope, but it wasn’t ILLEGAL.
“Africans then went onto enforce their culture onto white ppl, taking over local white folk music & traditional white forms of courtship”
Taking over traditional white forms of courtship? What do you mean?
http://ismarriageforwhitepeople.stanford.edu/
What goes on in the usa with blacks is exactly what goes on in Africa. You cannot believe how messed up that place is until you’ve been. It’s hard to fathom how great the people are one moment and how utterly evil the next.
Many dysfunctional black cities and nations were thriving a generation ago when they were majority White or White ruled. Haiti has been independent for close to 200 years now. During that time frame it went from fabulously wealthy to unimaginable poverty. If memory serves, Somalia was never colonized. At some point you have to stop blaming black dysfunction on Whites, racism etc all and start letting blacks take responsibility for and pay the price of their failures. Long term, that will be much kinder for blacks despite what ever growing pains they suffer.
And yes Poles , Italians etc had similar problems. The second version of the Klan was in response to White ethnic immigration which is why it was so popular in the north.
That comment thread and blog and their resident chief priest of white knighting Ty is definitely NOT Christian, and as Anonymouse Reader noted, the whole thing seems like a femcentric new age cult — which is basically what feminism is, complete with the sacrament of child sacrifice (abortion).
Yeah, noticed that. Rachel Held Evans, too, and several other “liberal Christian” bloggers I”ve had the misfortune to run across. They make excuses for fornication and homosexuality… they talk “social justice” (once a useful term, but it’s been redefined to mean something horrible”,… they yap and yap about white/straight/male/cisgender/blah blah blah “privilege”…some (eg Dianna Anderson) kvetch about women not being allowed as pastors….
BUT when you really dig all the way down to the root of their philosophy — always, you will eventually find, THEY WANT ABORTION. That’s at the root of everything. They endorse the sacrament of demons, and have the unmitigated gall to call themselves “Christians”.
PS. Evans CLAIMS to be “pro-life” personally… but doesn’t vote that way. In other words, she’s pro-abortion but won’t admit it.
666th post on this thread! I can hear the Iron Maiden music in the background….
I am going to ruin the 666th post mark, which is epic. And I felt the need to post simply to say @Aszher is right, about pretty much everything, and @Frank is a fag.
dude, i stumbled upon your blog and have been trying to make sense of it for the past hour. unfortunately, it’s full of phrases such as “Note that not claiming romantic love gives moral cover to sex doesn’t mean that romantic love doesn’t have a place in biblical marriage.” Read that out loud without the contractions. It’s hilarious! What the hell are you trying to say?
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas
““She gave away her time, comfort, help, attention, and yes, sex to other men. Sometimes just because they were soooo exciting. Meanwhile, I am a self-made man in every sense of the word. What about the giant deficit in my life? what about the days I came home to an empty house, while she was out “making mistakes” (weasel term there) which were more deliberate than accidental.””
Wow! Who is this Jack guy and how did he get inside my head? This is EXACTLY how I feel and what happened to me recently with a teen that liked me when I was young, but decided later on to ride the carousel with players instead because she was ‘Oh-So-Pretty’ as Stephen Kings writes often (and she was!!). Men would line up for her phone number and she even met celebrities inviting her to after hour parties. BUT now middle-age, she is scared to death of being alone, with 2 kids, but still plays with other women’s husbands, thinking she can lure them out of a committed marriage for sex…and she’s 38 and still looks good, but fading quickly now. What I wonder is why did a sweet girl gave up all that for fun? She was so CONFIDENT in her 20’s and even early 30’s, but now seems more INSECURE than a 16 year-old virgin (if that even exist anymore).
Can any woman in this blog-space explain why such a girl, who could have married a doctor or a lawyer EASILY, would throw all that away for many rolls in sack? Is youth really wasted on the young?
Really, STD’s are likely the biggest problem and have increased dramatically as morality has declined. We’ve seen increases in infertility and deaths from uterine cancer which have been linked to STD’s. Research is exploring the possibility of a link between viruses and breast cancer, which has been confirmed in mice already. So _what_ of this love if it causes your lover to become infertile or to die from cancer? What kind of love is that? Antibiotics don’t kill viruses and some deadly viruses show no symptoms in men–but kill women. What if you marry your lover and she can’t have children because of PID which she got from you?
Understand this is an older post, but just came across it and wanna post my thoughts.
Frank, I agree with you.
RedPillPaul, you’re right-on too.
Earl, you’re right too.
RJ… I also agree with your salient points about women who “rode the carousel” too frequently.
You older virgin Christian men, I admire you & your determination.
I wasn’t an older virgin. Unfortunately, lost mine last year in high school before I became a Christian next year in college. But it’s my biggest life regret, which I posted about here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7668309/ (Posted to give some perspective of my life).
Because I wasn’t a virgin, that didn’t mean I was promiscuous or anything. I feared God and, looking back, I now see that for most of my 20s, maintained a too unhealthy fear of sex.
From 19-30, only had sex all of 2X.
I think I was like many Christian men. We stumbled here and there but if we’d met a good Christian girl, we’d likely return to “more enthusiasm” in our faith.
Being alone through your 30s — and living as “invisible” to Christian women — changes a guy’s views, trust me.
Have more to say but plan to post later.
I don’t understand the complaint about being invisible to Christian women. Did other (non-Christian) women pay attention to you? I’ve been hit on at least twice in the last week by attractive women and I’m married and trying my best to keep them away–I advertise on my intro in meetups that I’m married. I haven’t been wearing my wedding ring because I lost it and didn’t want to spend money to get a new one until I was sure I couldn’t find it. Well, tomorrow I plunk the bucks down for a new one. I’m tired of fighting the women off. Oh, and I’m fat, bald, and in my late 50’s. I don’t see how it’s possible to be invisible to women. Maybe you are infatuated with one of them and ignore the rest?
@Tom,
I considered myself this “good Christian man” in my 20s after I became a Christian first year in college. I somehow thought God would “reward me” with a good Christian wife.
I followed all the rules, of course, & wouldn’t engage in sex nor do the things I did in high school, which in reality, wasn’t that much.
I had a terrible time attracting a girlfriend & getting 2nd dates. Recently counted the number of single dates I had through all my 20s. I don’t think I exceeded my 5 fingers, same with the years immediately after college.
I think I did better @ dating in HIGH SCHOOL when I wasn’t so interested in a relationship & protecting a Christian woman’s morality…..
@RJ,
on “riding the carousel,” when there are so many good Christian men in their midst, isn’t it crazy these good Christian girls will go for the nonChristian “bad boys?.”
Not sure why, but it really bugs me that Christian women would “pass over” us “good guys” & go for the wrong kind of men…
Why would they give their Christian innocence to such men?
It grieves me to read accounts of players seducing Christian girls.
One account really struck me & I saw myself in the story. He literally BRAGGED about how this girl he dated ignored all the good Christian men in her church who were in love with her & gave HIM her virginity. Guess where I saw myself in that story 😦
http://www.christianforums.com/t7648531-10/#post61223452
I think I was a victim of that in my 20s when I was pretty much “invisible” to the good Christian women & the sinful choices they made. Maybe I seemed “too average” and not so aggressive like the bad boys they pursued…
God… I could’ve been a good husband to them. I’d never have harmed or jeopardized their Christian innocence. I don’t think I ever got a kiss until 26….
It all comes to me now why things may have been the way they were then…
@FloridaMan
Maybe you just hid your libido? It’s quite Ok to let a woman know that you have one. Flirting is one way to let a woman know. You don’t have to be gross or obnoxious about it, either. For example, while walking thru a park with a date, you might mention that you have a fantasy about making love to your wife someday in the park. Or you could mention that your date looks so exquisite that she really ramps up the rpm’s on your motor. You probably need to flirt many times during a date, but preferably with wit and taste.
Even as a married man, I can flirt appropriately as long as the boundaries and limitations are clear. It’s merely for amusement–say, while dancing with a partner. What happens on the dance floor stays on the dance floor. Of course, this assumes that you are mature enough to watch your emotions and desires and to be honest with yourself about them.
Oh, I had a fling as a non-Christian at 18 with an older woman, then had a Christian girlfriend at 21 (no sex), then was married at 24. Didn’t have a lot of dates either, but then I have Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and have difficulty negotiating dating.
ASD dating aside:
Case 1: I had my first date with a pretty college sophomore studying in the library. She kept looking up from her textbook and catching my eye. I was shy and didn’t really understand what was going on. After this went on for about five minutes, I got up and walked over to ask her what she wanted. I sat on the floor next to her chair; she move her head near mine and parted her lips. Even as an autist, I understood what she wanted and we kissed for the first time. My girlfriend later said that she wondered if I was ever going to kiss her that time in the library. This gives you an idea of what the spouses of autists face and what autists face while trying to date.
Case 2: Got caught in mixed-signals recently (maybe from my ASD) and it was embarrassing and uncomfortable for both of us. She was a lot of fun and extraordinarily charming and I thought her interest was platonic like mine, but not so. Didn’t flirt with her at all during the group hike or at the restaurant afterwards, but wasn’t wearing a ring either. I lost it years ago apparently and never bothered to get another since my wife was always with me at social events, but she wasn’t with me at the group hike. I bought a ring post-haste.
Pingback: Marriage Doesn’t Wait For True Love | The Society of Phineas
alcestiseshtemoa,
What WERE you thinking when you labeled that other fellow, slurring him as a “beta orbiter?”
That was downright rude — and mean.
I have much more respect for virgin men like him who have acted in sexually responsible ways toward the Christian women they dated… only to be “shamed” by the world ( and sadly, the supposed “Christian” women ) for being virgins, which we should aspire to.
***I *** never pressured women into doing things they shouldn’t do with me & would hope Christian women would respect men like myself.
I use to hold virgin Christian women as something “special,” but now realize that was wrong.
Judging by the way some of them view and treat their Brothers In Christ….. they’re really no different than nonChristian women.
@Sarah’s Daughter:
“…This is literally the advice we teach our son…”
I feel for your son, if you’re teaching him to be more of an alpha, a “bad boy” who could care less about a woman’s feelings and only go for what HE wants.
“…..SSM, you have never contemplated dating a man who has said these words: “My heart hearts your virginity.” To somehow imply that this man should not change this part of his personality is a disservice. It is the “continue being a nice guy, someday a nice girl will come along and appreciate how nice you are.” You know it’s a lie…..”
I find Frank’s comment as a thoughtful and sensitive statement lacking in many “men.”
Growing up in the 1970s, it was everywhere how “women wanted guys with feelings” and how women wanted men to be “more sensitive” and care more about women’s needs, etc.
Was that all A LIE ??
Here you have a man like Frank doing just what women SAID they wanted, yet he’s trashed.
I find the trashing particularly repugnant coming from a “Christian” woman.
Re: the 96% “statistic…”
“….Do you imagine the 96% generally had sex once, or a handful of times ? That would again, be a rejection of reality….”
That may be correct for the general population, but the statistic is dubious.
According to stats I’ve read, about 40% of Christians enter marriage as non-virgins.
Though most would like that number to be lower, it shows us that even in this sex-infested day and age, A MAJORITY of Christians are sexually responsible before marriage.
At TheMarriageBed.com, a Christian marital sex forum, a poll on when posters first had sex with their spouse, about half said before the marriage, so around 50% would sound right.
4 years later…
And Alcest still remains supreme with status of CUNT
Pingback: Premarital Sex Brought Her Closer to God |