The statement in the title is true, but is often used as a canard to nullify headship. It is offered as fine print which secretly negates the clear terms of Christian marriage. As an example of how this is used to (practically) nullify submission, see Kathy Keller’s sermon Headship and Submission at FamilyLife. The folks at FamilyLife liked this part so much they called it out separately (second emphasis mine):
Kathy: If there are husbands out there that are saying, “Yes, I’m the head. This is good teaching. I like this head stuff.” It’s respectful submission between equals. Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand. Christ emptied Himself. He didn’t grasp equality with God. It was a voluntary submission. This proves that headship does not imply superiority, nor does submission imply inferiority.
The misdirection is nested in the word “demand”. If by demand she means force, this is technically true. But it gives the impression that it isn’t something a husband has a right to expect from his Christian wife, that she hasn’t already promised to give it by the very act of agreeing to marry him. She already made the choice to become his wife, and wives are to submit to their husbands.
To put it another way, here is a list of other things which a husband can’t force:
- His wife’s sexual fidelity; she has to freely choose not to pull the train at the local biker bar. The same goes for her having to freely choose not to divorce him and marry another man (adultery).
- His wife’s choice not to murder him and/or his children. She has to freely choose this.
- His wife’s choice to follow the instruction in 1 Cor 7 not to deny sex to him. She has to freely choose this.
Obsession with equality. If equality is by itself a moral good and not at best neutral, any system including marriage, hierarchy or any natural superiority or earned excellence must challenge this good. And if, as in liberal fashion, equality is the chief moral good, then no dissent of it can be brooked and society must be flattened by the jackboot of the state and its deputies, who in this case are shrews.
The wife can’t force her husband to provide for her and the family. He has to freely choose this.
The wife can’t force her husband to be her leader. He has to freely choose this.
The wife can’t force her husband to refrain from sex when she’s not in the mood. He has to freely choose this.
Hmm…
This is the point that the feminist churchianity people miss. They’re correct in that it’s not about “superiority” and “inferiority” but the frame of reference is completely wrong. It’s about the roles and responsibilities that GOD set forth for marriage.
The wife must choose to submit to her husband primarily because she wants to obey God. A wife does not choose to submit to her husband because of “superiority” or “inferiority” or because a husband demands it or because she wants to make her husband happy. If she does not submit to her husband she is in disobedience to God and it will bring strife to her marriage as a result.
Her obedience to God will bring about a marriage in unity and not a house that is divided against itself that will colllapse.
But it gives the impression that it isn’t something a husband has a right to expect from his wife, that she hasn’t already promised to give it by the very act of agreeing to marry him. She already made the choice to become his wife, and wives are to submit to their husbands.
True, but people lie and break promises every day. You know that Dalrock. This is why each of us has to make the decision to do the right thing every morning when we open our eyes and before our feet touch the floor. There is always the temptation to do wrong and it’s a woman’s s nature to rebel. Submission and obedience requires a belief and commitment to something greater than one self. The battle is constant:
For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. Galatians 5:17
I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.Romans 7:21-24
We have to fight to do the right thing, even after we’ve taken the vow. The decision to choose life and blessing over the curse and death is always before us and never goes away while we are in this life.
It’s an inconvenient truth, because we want to believe that when our mates choose us, there are no more choices to be made. It’s going to be all good from here on out. I am a witness that a marriage can have more good days than bad, but there are no guarantees. Only choices.
@Elspeth
Agreed. But the way she framed it is to imply that it is optional, at her discretion whether she owes it or not. You are I believe pointing out that wives should be given credit for resisting temptation, and that many would rob women in general and wives in specific of the chance to act morally by robbing them of agency. I agree with that.
What I’m arguing against is the encouragement to yield to temptation which is almost always the message when the term “voluntary” is used regarding a wife’s submission. It must be voluntary, but it is not optional.
Elspeth, don’t go anywhere. Stay here. Don’t let Cane make you go away….
@ Elspeth
This is also a point that most Christians miss. The default state of man is to rebel against God. Even after we have become Christians we have to continually take off the old and put on the new.
The default state of the wife is to be in rebellion to her husband. She must strive everyday for unity and not strife to obey what God has commanded to submit to her husband and respect him.
Likewise, the default state of husband is to not want to take responsibility to be the head. He must continually strive to love his wife as himself and wash her in the word and be considerate of her as the weaker vessel.
This is why cultivating good habits through prayer, reading and meditating on Scripture, etc are so important. The more you can become like God in true righteousness and holiness, the easier it is to obey His commands.
I know I’m preaching to the choir, but the “be a REAL MAN and she WILL submit” is totally ignorant of human nature and the legal climate. If a woman has it in her mind to give her husband shit, she has an array of social and legal options available to her. And most of the things a man might do to “be a man” are now defined as some form of abuse.
So again, I’m left with the image that marriage, AT BEST, is a man carrying a woman on his back who is yelling at him half the time and demanding he jump through flaming hoops lest she get angrier. No thanks!
Pingback: Submission to authority is voluntary. Submission to authority is mandatory. | Zippy Catholic
Nice again Heartiste!
Yes the three examples you cite:
“To put it another way, here is a list of other things which a husband can’t force:
His wife’s sexual fidelity; she has to freely choose not to pull the train at the local biker bar. The same goes for her having to freely choose not to divorce him and marry another man (adultery).
His wife’s choice not to murder him and/or his children. She has to freely choose this.
His wife’s choice to follow the instruction in 1 Cor 7 not to deny sex to him. She has to freely choose this.”
Are all foundational Laws in the Ten Commandments and Genesis–Laws which Christ came to fulfill.
The beenrkefieirerz have been busy removing these laws–the Ten Commandments and Genesis–the very *soul of civilization*–from our courts, schools, churches, and society, thusly destroying moral civilization.
The GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–the Bible and Homer–must be returned to our schools and universities.
^^^ I meant Nice again Dalrock! Sometimes da GBFM forgets when he is when he is reading wise words of HONOR. zolzlzlzlzlzlzo 🙂
I think you might be able to get past that. I need a woman’s opinion here but I think much of this is how you present yourself as a man to the woman.
I’ll give you an example. It’s late, you put the kids to bed, you had a hard day at work. You are feeling pent-up and frustrated. You need to relieve the tension. Your wife is in the bedroom watching Breaking Bad or whatever. If you creep into the bedroom and meekly ask her for oral sex, you are not going to get it. You are going to get a scowl from her most likely as she throws the popcorn bowl at you. But if you walk into the bedroom with a face absent all expression, and you just stand there until she looks at you right in the eye and you say without the least bit of humor or cornyness, “I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully, and (if I’m correct) the last thing she is going to be thinking about are the arrary of social and legal options available to her. Because if you present yourself in a manner that is very serious to a woman about NEEDING her to SUBMIT and submit RIGHT NOW (here is where I need Elspeth to step in and correct me maybe) there is something very erotic and appealing for women to hear that from a man, like she is fulfilling her ROLE so to speak. They want to submit to a MAN, not a boy. Tell her what you need, you are likely to get it.
“I know I’m preaching to the choir, but the “be a REAL MAN and she WILL submit” is totally ignorant of human nature and the legal climate. If a woman has it in her mind to give her husband shit, she has an array of social and legal options available to her. And most of the things a man might do to “be a man” are now defined as some form of abuse.”
Correct. I’ve been trying to say this for two days on the previous post.
Well sure, everything is voluntary. Murder is a sin but there’s nothing stopping anyone from committing it. You will face punishment, which I believe is the point. The woman’s choice to ‘voluntarily’ refuse to submit to her husband ended the day she got married and took her vows. To refuse to submit at any point after marriage means she is sinning and thus must be held to her actions.
lzozozzlozlozllo
innocentbystanderboston has figured it all out! the key to reforming culture and exalting civilization is to demand sodomy from your wife! WWJD? accoding to innocentbystanderboston, he’d demand a blowjob and all would be well! in serving Jesus, innocentbystanderboston would demand that his wife submit to sodomy, and she would be healed, saved, and exalted!
innocentbystanderboston writes, “I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully, and (if I’m correct) the last thing she is going to be thinking about are the arrary of social and legal options available to her. Because if you present yourself in a manner that is very serious to a woman about NEEDING her to SUBMIT and submit RIGHT NOW (here is where I need Elspeth to step in and correct me maybe) there is something very erotic and appealing for women to hear that from a man, like she is fulfilling her ROLE so to speak. They want to submit to a MAN, not a boy. Tell her what you need, you are likely to get it.”
and all ye churchians wonder why the family is being destroyed and your rights eroded ad children seized.
lzozoozozozoz
the churchians/innocentbystanderbostons are going to hate this!
zlzolozolzzlzo
GBFM,
All would be well? I wish it were that simple.
“I’ll give you an example. It’s late, you put the kids to bed, you had a hard day at work. You are feeling pent-up and frustrated. You need to relieve the tension. Your wife is in the bedroom watching Breaking Bad or whatever. If you creep into the bedroom and meekly ask her for oral sex, you are not going to get it. You are going to get a scowl from her most likely as she throws the popcorn bowl at you. But if you walk into the bedroom with a face absent all expression, and you just stand there until she looks at you right in the eye and you say without the least bit of humor or cornyness, “I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully, and (if I’m correct) the last thing she is going to be thinking about are the arrary of social and legal options available to her. Because if you present yourself in a manner that is very serious to a woman about NEEDING her to SUBMIT and submit RIGHT NOW (here is where I need Elspeth to step in and correct me maybe) there is something very erotic and appealing for women to hear that from a man, like she is fulfilling her ROLE so to speak. They want to submit to a MAN, not a boy. Tell her what you need, you are likely to get it.”
This is exactly what I am talking about. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, again–
In America, you can go to jail for this.
innocentbystanderboston, representing the very pinnacle of modern churchian leadership, truly believes that all the families can be reunited, and all the aborted babies resurrected, if men only demanded blowjobs/sodomy from their wives after a rough day at work.
Earlier Scott referenced how the “forest of civilization” is on fire, and churchians are unaware of this.
Yes, the churchians are unaware of the fire as they pour gasoline on it. In addition to pouring gasoline on the fire, innocentbystanderboston suggests that men must man up and pour splooge into their wive’s mouths so as to save God, Man, and Family.
lzozolozlozozozozolz
And again–I don’t LIKE that you can, nor am I trying to throw cold water on efforts to take back biblical headship. It is what it is.
@ innocentbystanderboston:
I think discretion is the best way to discuss the subject of sex and marriage. Specifics make me uncomfortable.
But the idea of my husband asking for sex at all, no matter he might frame the request, is foreign to me. I don’t really have an answer for your query.
I think I will (for real this time) leave this to the menfolk.
Very good post, Dalrock.
Well Scott, what is the alternative?
You see I agree that you could go to jail, but if you are doing everything and anything you must do to avoid jailtime, obviously one of those things you would never do is marry. That doesn’t help the men here at Dalrock’s blog who ARE married who DO love their wives and DO want their wives to submit. They are looking for ways to help their marriage.
They know the risks. They knew the risks. They know the kind of danger that exists in this country for men when they marry. But they got married and they want their wives to submit. Now what?
This is why I don’t want Elspeth to disappear. Her opinion on this one is valued and important.
GBFM,
I am only going to ask this one time. Do you want us to start treating you like Earl?
Everyone has awesome points! In my understanding now is a woman earns her keep by submission. What happens these days is that a lot of woman use the man’s time, money and resources. In exchange She treats him with disrespect, denies him sex, and when she does have sex it’s an attitude of “just hump me and get it over with”, he can’t do anything right. Like Dalrock says. The fact that she even marries him implies that very thing…to submit… because you don’t get stuff for free. She actively gives up her freedom temporarily until she submits. When she starts working for him and his cause he will reward her and the blessings of heaven will open. God gives us more freedom when we do what he says such is with the woman.
it’s taken me time, but, I’m starting to understand that the things the money i have isn’t really mine. I only deserve nice clothes, luxuries, affection, sex if i have submitted. Putting my husband as the head of the house. I also allow him to discipline me if i step out of line. I am an emotional creature and it’s understandable that woman should be in charge of somethings and not other things. Men should actively have a mission/goals that is not his family or wife. When a woman marries a man she is a servant to the husbands cause. With my husband he gives me task lists and things to do If i do them i get rewarded. This is how we become a family by working as a team together for a higher purpose. When we are together he is in charge. He takes my thoughts and concerns etc into consideration. My suggestion is that don’t get married if you are looking for a free ride. Make certain decisions before marriage. if you are married everything you want is outside your comfort zone. Working against the default state is uncomfortable and always will be. The man comes first. If both partners Give. you shall receive ten fold. We always get what we seek after and focus on.
“Where faith is there is no question, where faith is not there is no answer.”
You guys are awesome to learn from Thanks!
From: http://housewifesexuality.wordpress.com/
I am married too. I am in the same boat. I do not know the answers.
I, like probably many men, married BUYING INTO the egalitarian system, and then later looked at scripture and said “hey wait a minute. This isn’t right.” In a sense, that is my problem, right? I can’t demand a rule change in the middle of a contract.
What I have concluded, with painful clarity is that there is literally nothing that can be done legally. That is not to say the laws can’t change, but probably not in my lifetime. SSM has mentioned this before as well. She says essentially–“married men–do whatever you want. Try to lead, or don’t. No one can blame you. The risk is so high that it may not be worth it to you, and this is totally understandable.”
Which next forces me to come to the ultimate “beta” conclusion. It is not worth it to me to demand it. I have a home a career and 3 kids. If my wife submits, that’s cool. If not, I will not risk my livlihood, my dream home/ranch and all my stuff. I was simply born in the wrong century.
@mrsdarlings
I would like to copy and distribute this. I believe you have hit the nail on the head with the idea that women want a free ride in marriage.
A friend quoted someone on facebook the other day “a woman can bring something to the table, but it is the man’s responsibility to bring the table.” And again, the man has a requirement and the woman has an option.
go ahead innocentbystanderboston, if you want to shut me down to corrupt the the Divine Teachings of Jesus Christ and stipulate that Christ teaches men to demand to splooge in their wives mouths–if you want to shut me down to corrupt the the Divine Teachings of Jesus Christ and stipulate that Christ teaches men to demand sodomy from their wives, then go ahead innocentbystanderboston–on behalf of all the buttehxting, sodomite churchians–go ahead and make my day:
Watch GBFM (you too earl), this is how adult men have a serious conversation about women.
I am not sure there are any one-size-fits-all answers. I think as men, the best thing we can do is present ourselves in such a way as to appeal to that womanly instinct to “submit.” I think women ARE going to submit, it is just how to find out what it takes her to do so without running to police and lawyers for cash and prizes. Because I don’t think that makes her happy either.
I don’t think we can say we DEMAND it. But I do think as men we can look at our wives and say we NEED it. For many women (most women) need to be needed. When MGTOW they prove to women that they are NOT needed and (I’m of the opinon) that hurts women. That hurts the whole balance part for power. MGTOW takes away a woman’s power and that will cause more resentment than anything.
Women submitting to men is very powerful for women. Very powerful. Without a submissive, a man is just a man. And a woman knows that. But if a man presents himself in such a way that he NEEDS her to submit to him, and then she submits, I tend to think it makes a woman feel more womanly AND powerful. (She is giving you the blowjob because you need it. You think you have the power because you are getting what you want from her when you need it, but in reality, SHE has the power and she likes it.) And I think men are missing that entirely.
@Scott
So should Christian men who are single marry? Should they just toss whatever morals or principles they followed away and pump and dump prostitutes (because they burn and marriage, as you have described, isn’t worth the sex)? It feels like I’m born in the wrong century too. Should I Go My Own Way?
@Elspeth
Good call.
The question itself is problematic for a number of reasons. Part of it is discretion regarding what must be private in marriage*, and part of it is the disagreement on what kinds of sex are appropriate in the marriage bed. We won’t solve the latter question here and nothing positive comes from trying to do so.
*Cane Caldo is especially eloquent in this regard (emphasis mine):
@IBB
Earl is welcome here.
lzozozozozo
as demonstrated by innocentbystanderboston above, chruchians are always trying to sneak up behind you and recreate Jesus Christ in their own sodomy-loving, buttehxtuaalzlzll sodoizing image.
innocentbystanderboston teaches that Jesus Christ wants you to demand that your wife engage in sodomy. although you will not find it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, innocentbystanderboston teaches that Jesus Christ wants you to say “I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully, and (if I’m correct) the last thing she is going to be thinking about are the arrary of social and legal options available to her. Because if you present yourself in a manner that is very serious to a woman about NEEDING her to SUBMIT and submit RIGHT NOW (here is where I need Elspeth to step in and correct me maybe) there is something very erotic and appealing for women to hear that from a man, like she is fulfilling her ROLE so to speak. They want to submit to a MAN, not a boy. Tell her what you need, you are likely to get it.”
the churchains soution to all the world’s ills is always sodomy, butethxt, and blowjobszlzlzlzl
I know earl is welcome. But the married/divorced men are going to to tease him because he thinks he is some authority figure on marriage even though he has never done it.
GBFM seems to want to put certain discussions out of bounds for whatever reason. That’s fine. But what will end up happening is married/divorced men who come here for serious discussion will start to tease and taunt him the way they taunted earl on your other thread.
Your blog post is a serious one. Scott was taking it seriously. GBFM was not.
@chokingonredpills
can i respectfully say something…… You can disregard it since i’m a girl if you want….Growing up i was considered hopeless, and every negative term you can find. I turned around big time. I think that there are many girls out there! Some just need time and nourishment. The field is white and ready to harvest. You have the power and capacity to do ALL things through christ and through correct goals. You have enormous potential! We all underestimate the short term and overestimate what we can achieve in the long term. My husband would agree that You are christs hands or whomever hands you want to be! There is an awesome book called The Slight Edge. It changed my husbands life.
With our best regards to your dreams and desires. We know you can achieve them!
@hopeful
Ok 😀
Thanks
@IBB
Only until he stops.
GBFM is a special case. I consider him for lack of a better term a lovable troll. In almost all cases it is inadvisable to try to (seriously) argue with GBFM, because you are arguing with the character he uses as a literary device to make his point.
Got it.
So basically, don’t take GBFM seriously because he isn’t a serious person, he’s just a kid. That makes sense. I was almost going to do that anyway.
What is the definition of “churchian”, or “churchianity”?
I think of churchian as prioritizing the stuff of the church (as in church location) over Christianity. Then that can be also defined as church arrogance.
I have also thought of the term, “denominational arrogance”. I define this as prioritizing the unique stuff of a denomination over what the bible teaches.
I am curious how others define the commonly used term, churchianity and churchian??
Thanksz Dalrocks. 🙂 I like to thinkz dat I bring a serious gravitasz stern profundity dat nicely compliments your light-hearted banter and humor/comic reliefz. lzozlzlzlozlzzolzlzo. my teachersz always telled me i was a “special case” too and i forgive dem for misspleiingz “artistic” as “autisticz” on da schoolroomsz doorsz. first learn how to spellelz befor eyou teach! lzlzlzo. and my favored literary devicez is my swiss-army knife lostas cockas which someday will save my marriagez and teh church too when i walkz into my wivesz bedroom and find her watchingz firty shades of greay and say, “suckas my lsotas cokasz as da churchianz Jesusth Commandeth! lzlzozozol”
@IBB
More of a shakesperian fool. Either way, he is an acquired taste.
Edit From Wikipedia:
innocentbystanderboston says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“GBFM is a special case. I consider him for lack of a better term a lovable troll.
Got it.
So basically, don’t take GBFM seriously because he isn’t a serious person, he’s just a kid. That makes sense. I was almost going to do that anyway.”
tanksss youz!!! da gbfm like a kidz chidlz lzozlzloz
Matthew 18:2-4 – Childlike Faith
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:2-4 ESV)
innocentbystanderboston corrupts and rewrites Christ’s moral brilliance as, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn your wive’s head and become like lotsas coskasz, you will never enter her mouth. Whoever exalts himself like the sodomite and demands oral form his wife is the greatest in the kingdom of churchian heaven.”
lzozozozoz
@ IBB:
“I don’t think we can say we DEMAND it. But I do think as men we can look at our wives and say we NEED it. For many women (most women) need to be needed.”
Almost but not quite.
Women do not need to be needed. Women need to be LOVED. They need to feel loved. They need to feel desired, sexually and intellectually; that they’re an important part of his life.
I think a woman finds it much easier to submit to a man who loves her; and by that I don’t just mean he supplicates and pedestalizes her. He does what is best for her even if she doesn’t like it. He gives her what he thinks is best, and takes away what he thinks she should not have. He tells her “no”. He removes from her the heavy burdens of leadership and responsibility, and bears them himself. All these things show her she’s loved; but more importantly, make her feel loved.
I think this ties into the topic that a woman must voluntarily offer submission, because she doesn’t really owe her husband submission. In the first instance she is required to do it out of obedience to God.
Same with love. A man doesn’t have to love his wife. He doesn’t owe her that. He does owe God that.
Women don’t need to be needed. They need to be loved. Just as men’s most basic need is to be respected. Most men don’t want her to love him. They want her to respect him as their head and head of the house.
Mr. Dalrock originally posted:
See, the fabricated subtext gets you in trouble. I read Mrs. Keller’s words in plain English and spy no sabotage between the lines. I take the unadorned statement at face value, “Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand.” If it’s true for God the Father himself, it’s true for us! Even the Almighty does not force submission upon us wretched creatures, lowly worms. Rather he blessed us with the Götterfunken, the divine spark of free will, dignified us as something more than animal.
Now maybe on some video somewhere Mrs. Keller reveals her true intentions, which is all very interesting, but wide of the mark. In statements like the one above, she is reaching out to us in alliance, not corrupting the hothouse flowers of your audience with secret poison. You are better off focusing on that “video somewhere,” where she makes her feminist intentions explicit, and making the case against it, rather than in these statements where she is actually moving toward our position. Otherwise you make our opponents’ conversion impossible, and in destroying the possibility of their conversion you fashion them into a permanent enemy, and in gathering a list of enemies, you give up the best possible presentation of your thesis from lack of focus.
“This proves that headship does not imply superiority, nor does submission imply inferiority.” Yes! This is true. We are all equal in the eyes of God, all equally infinitesimal, all “created equal.” When a harridan is surprised by our agreement against a superiority/inferiority complex, she will become disposed to listening to the dominant/submissive, leader/follower, division-of-labor model, the one which we are confident still resonates even in a corrupted heart. We will have the opportunity we need to open her ears to our true message, which has been peremptorily dismissed as “misogyny.”
What matters is what the woman says, not what “is nested in” her words, nor what “impression” it gives you. Otherwise we will be fighting against disappearing and reappearing chimeras conjured from misapprehension, to which both sides are prone.
Matt
GBFM is the court jester of the manosphere. He’s funny and comical, but has something important to say and serves an essential function.
@Matt
She revealed her true intentions the moment she opened her mouth to give a sermon on submission to men.
This seems relevant:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/should-you-game-your-prospective-wife-into-submission/
To the uninitiated: Flattery gets GBFM everywhere.
Flattery as defined as flat on his back after swallowing his words and teeth?
@deti
Thanks. That was useful.
@mrsdarling
Thank you too.
Deti,
While I agree, I also tend to think that most wives are already getting that and still not submitting. Wives need to be loved by their husbands but I am not sure that is what causes a woman to submit to a man. Women quite often submit to men that are most certainly NOT their husbands. There is a reason for this. I tend to think it is because the man in question understands something about women that far too many husbands no longer understand about their wives.
vascularity777 asks:
August 20, 2013 at 12:15 pm
What is the definition of “churchian”, or “churchianity”?
Oracle on Mountaintop: Christianity is to Churchianity as Missionary Position is to Sectrely taped Buttehxtext by tuckeer maxx rhyems iwth godldlmzm sax zlzozo zlzlzlzozl.
Churcians oft say, “Christianity and Churchianity are pretty much the same thing except that Christian Teachings proceedeth out of the mouth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, while Churchian teachings proceedeth into and out of our bungholzizozlzo, and thus you can see how Churchianity is every bit as good as Christianity, if not better,” sayeth da Churchian as he demands oral/sodomy form his wifevz lzolzlzlzoz.
IBB, men need to be needed, not women. I don’t think of “need” as an erotic thing at all. Or powerful. It makes me think of the things I “need” that no one gives me, and I deal with it.
A man saying he needs this or he needs that is nice, but if she does not already care, it won’t be more than a passing thought to her. Your entire posts on need are solipsistic in their entirety. A woman simply does not need to be needed. If you said she needs to be desired by someone desirable, I might agree with you.
Here is a scenario–husband flat our rejects wife’s submission. Actually tells her “I don’t care if you are submissive”? Then what. He doesn’t like the whole dynamic and wants an equal wife, so does the wife try to turn off her submission and technically still submit to him by doing what he asks or does she keep submitting without an open receptor on the other end and getting no dominance in return.
@Scott, if you wrap your “head of household” dynamic in a kink flag you have legal footing. You are allowed to beat your wife, make her submit, and all that good stuff as long as it’s for her sexual gratification. BDSM isn’t illegal. Chew on that a second. In order to live this life, your life, the way you see fit you have to paint it as a kink. It’s utter BS but it’s utter BS we can use.
@lgrobins, I bet you anything if she submits he will naturally fall into dominance in one way or another. It doesn’t have to be declared or planned out for it to happen. Submission attracts dominance, pulls it right up and out of a man, just as femininity attracts masculinity.
“I tend to think it is because the man in question understands something about women that far too many husbands no longer understand about their wives.”
Nah, it is the curse interacting with the rebellion. Women will be ruled by someone (curse), but not their husband (rebellion). It has little to do with the husband at all.
I am not sure a man *needs* anything from his wife, or any woman. A successful marriage needs the wife to fulfill her role, but the man does not need her do anything, if we think away the ratio for marriage.
Noted without comment.
“To the uninitiated: Flattery gets GBFM everywhere.”
To the uninitiated Matt King is the friend of the world, making him an enemy of God.
Mr. Dalrock clarified:
See, that is just strategically counterproductive. I think the protestant pedestalizing of women as clergy and sermonizers is preposterous, a drag-queen diva farce. But I’m not going to ring a bell on the street corner and call for the heads of “Bishops” Katharine Jefferts Sciori or Elizabeth Eaton. (“Will no one rid me of these turbulent priestesses?”) The culture is simply not disposed to condemning a woman for “open[ing] her mouth to give a sermon on submission to men,” and you’re are not helping adjust that malign disposition.
Do I think her comments per se as a “spiritual” “leader” are inappropriate in any event? Yes. But it is more important to stifle or encourage her message as disseminated than it is to get into the weeds over a debate the culture is not prepared to have. What prepares the culture is to make our case on their own terms and in their own language. How persuasive to modern women (or men!) are Orthodox Jews who refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex? How many converts are they making in this rat’s nest of a culture with their ostentatious commitment to symbolic principle?
You don’t have to abrogate principle to translate that principle into terms they understand. If you are firm in your faith, you will have no trouble walking right up to that line, that border that divides us from hedonistic modernity, and beckon to the heathens who are raping their own souls into oblivion.
Get some mud on your boots, Christian.
Matt
lzozozozozoz
on this blog DALROCK is WILLIAM WALLACEZ
and da GBFM is da crazy irishamnz lzlzlzooolozozo
and King Matthew et al. are da imposterz trying to fragg the leadheshipz by stickings a swordz in dalrocksz back whne he isn’t lookingsz zllzlzoz
and so da GBFM/crazy ishrismansz must needs takes dem outz zllzlzo
zlzlzollzlzozozlozolz
I find this an intriguing read that SSM recommended to me. Is mutual submission biblical?http://www.wordsofhealing.org/2000/12/is_mutual_submission_biblical/
I find it interesting that most professing Christians believe that men have the authority in the family but they cannot rebuke or punishment their wife when they disobey him. This site is a perfect example http://www.talkjesus.com/ethics-morality/42605-disobedient-wifes.html everyone takes the wife’s side and blames the man even without knowing the details. Why would I want to get married when even the most “conservative” Christians say that I would not be able to rebuke or punish a disobedient wife but I must should all of the responsibilities of headship.
Ellie,
I pretty much agree with all of what you’ve said.
That is sort-of what I was saying.
The husband walks into the room saying he needs a blowjob from his wife. Now, take away the marrital relationship. A man walks into the room saying he needs a blowjob from that woman. The man desires the woman. If the woman still desires the man, then (giving him the blowjob) is fulfilling her womanly needs as well. That gives her power.
This I also totally agree with. It dovetails with my point that a woman will submit to a man. A wife might not submit to a husband but the woman (who may or may not be a wife) will be submitting to a man (who may or may not be her husband.) The curse and the rebellion might explain all that, but it is what it is.
lavazza, II think that the need to be needed is involved- men need to be important to someone. It is not needing something material, it is needing that place in someone’s life that proves that they are not disposable. My grandfather left my grandmother for a significantly uglier woman who really needed him, he felt like her hero. My grandmother was always this self-sufficient but sweet person. I may be seeing this “need” issue wrongly because of personal experience though.
@ Chokingonredpills:
“So should Christian men who are single marry? Should they just toss whatever morals or principles they followed away and pump and dump prostitutes (because they burn and marriage, as you have described, isn’t worth the sex)? It feels like I’m born in the wrong century too. Should I Go My Own Way?”
Wait for a woman who is willing to submit.
Change and fix yourself.
Don’t expect her to change. You cannot fix her. Expect her to stay the same.
I think you might benefit from this:
http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2013/08/when-there-is-no-alternative/
deti says:
“Wait for a woman who is willing to submit.”
Well, what if she changes her mind?
“A woman is an ever fickle and changeable thing.”― Virgil
So you can see why the Churchians teach Oral over Virgil. lzozlzlozoz
Desire is everywhere. It does not have meaning unless if a woman wants or invites it. You walk up to a thousand random women telling them you want that and you will get a thousand “get losts”. Women will not respond the way you say they will to your scenario. It just won’t happen. Women will think something like this- need me or need physical release?
Well Scott, what is the alternative?
IBB
That is a good question answered in many ways. One alternative is supplication as the Christian church has done becoming churchian and comfortable. Other married men have taken the defensive emasculated tactic of avoidance, shitty way to live. Some even go to the MGTOW route with in marriage smart move the route I’m taking. It is a prisoners dilemma but is something you have to do by law and for the kids. All my kids know and have been told I’m with their mother them. My wife knows she is lucky to even have a husband.
The other alternatives are a generation of men that are not driven to produce. (peter pans ,grass eaters) and passive men that don’t stand up. These are men that behave that way with out knowing why. Men just see no value in women period. That is why the big man-up push because it is having an effect.
Vascularity777 wondered:
No, that’s just the vehicle. He is tolerated on the sites where he praises the hosts in the most obsequious tones and regarded as spam on all others. The secret to his longevity despite his gibberish is that he plays up the High School clique ethos to which most of these websites’ comment sections are prone. Who’s in, who’s out, who is to be subjected to the Two Screens’ Hate today. He’s the retarded outcast who knows which people to howl at.
He’s not a court jester so much as one more sycophantic courtier whose unbearable style is rendered bearable to those he flatters: it’s how otherwise modest or humble hosts allow themselves to be praised, by pretending there is cryptic wisdom hidden under all the toady’s nonsense. If he’s right about my virtue, he must be wise! (even though he appears to be off his meds)
For all my disagreements with Mssrs. Tomassi and Dalrock, they don’t play webmaster games with misrepresenting or censoring critics like me. (Vox Day, and his self-flattering pontifications about open discourse, is notoriously insecure in this regard.) Whether Tomassi and Dalrock consider those with the temerity to disagree with them irrational or trolling or disruptive, they don’t treat them (me) as such, and that is to their tremendous credit. It’s a rare sign of integrity in the face of internet convenience which doubtlessly tempts them to take the easy way, even though such paranoia slowly destroys a readership.
Matt
Apparantly I draw the line between need and desire in a different way than many others. If you’re still alive and healthy the next day, it was desire, not a need.
Matt
What prepares the culture is to make our case on their own terms and in their own language
Like you do?
I take the unadorned statement at face value, “Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand.”
Its at face value where the problem begins. Such is the case with most evangelical feminist pontifications. The cheapest rhetorical tool is where they say something true but irrelevant so that skim readers see the correct statement and think, “yea, that’s right” about the entire statement. Her words here are more insidious.
Why should I not thereafter assume she means to use that expression as it has been used over and again for decades, to rebuke men for attempting to take command by force. She indirectly cites the red herring of abuse with her simple statement. That is its purpose. This red herring is so pervasive that even the most strident red pill Christian man will at least feel the pull of a need to disclaim same when he wades into this territory. They scored such a decisive victory with this that its in some ways deeper in the psyche than fear of appearing racist, so strong the assumption that abuse is the other end of the spectrum.
So, a couple of responses:
From IBB–“I don’t think we can say we DEMAND it. But I do think as men we can look at our wives and say we NEED it. For many women (most women) need to be needed.”
In general, when I tell my wife I need something from her, her response is some variation of:
1. I am already giving so much.
2. You have to set your needs aside because you are the man.
These are responses that I bet 90% of the married men on this site have heard.
What is left is “gaming” ones wife. I get it, and I try to do it. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But I have no authority to do anything about it when it doesn’t. And I risk EVERYTHING if I express it.
What cracks me up about (no offense to them) the women who post in the manosphere and say “oh it’s just such a turn off to be asked for sex. You need to just grab us and take us to the bedroom” is they really have no idea the risk. None.
How do I know you haven’t changed your mind since yesterday when I did that? Are you kidding?
From Chokingonredpills-“So should Christian men who are single marry? Should they just toss whatever morals or principles they followed away and pump and dump prostitutes (because they burn and marriage, as you have described, isn’t worth the sex)? It feels like I’m born in the wrong century too. Should I Go My Own Way?”
I am currently advising my son, if he wants to marry to pursue 1. Possibly a non-native US woman. 2. Church-only ceremony. 3. Some kind of binding contract that allows the church leadership to be involved in determining who is at fault, based on biblical principles in the case of divorce/custody.
The trick all of this is doing is using the worst traits of the population of men to convict the particular men in front of them.
Are there men throughout history and even in the present who would force their wives to submit to them? Yes.
Is it likely that a man attending a Christian marriage seminar or reading Christian marriage advice is one of those me? No, no it is not.
Yet, the trick works. The Beta-provider Christian man says, “Well, I certainly don’t want to be one of those barbarians who forces his wife’s submission! I better figure out what to do to win her allegiance!
—
The same thing happened below in general. Are there men who have completely failed to step up into their roles as husbands and fathers, playing video games and watching porn in their parents’ basement well into their 20’s? Sure.
Does this describe the type of man who would attend (with his wife’s permission) a marriage seminar or read marriage advice? Who works hard all day and may relax with a beer and a ballgame on nights and weekends? No, no it doesn’t.
But the reality of the former is used to shame the latter, and failing to stand up to your wife’s threats of divorce is the same as leaving a trail of illegitimate children you have no intention of being a father to. And, as mentioned, this can increase the temptation of women to rebel, as these differences are seen as being ones of degree rather than kind.
Ellie,
This I’m going to have to disagree with. I think you’ll get nine-hundred-fifty “get losts.” Fifty (give or take) might go for that for the reason you stated earlier, those fifty women (in question) find that person making that comment, desirable….
…and they will submit.
The misdirection is nested in the word “demand”. If by demand she means force, this is technically true. But it gives the impression that it isn’t something a husband has a right to expect from his Christian wife,
Dalrock is on the same page, here. Demand means abuse. Fearing a charge of abuse, the woman clearly has a choice exactly what HER submission shall look like. How shall she decide? Feelings of course. Close the though….if she feels like he is in authority, then necessarily his authority is ill gained….demanded (abuse). This means she goes on, lives her choices, and he damn well better see to it that that is all supported.
Then, on occasion, she can choose to submit, you know, when they agree and stuff.
GBFM Translation:
The Christian man comes home from a hard day of work. He has been busily building The Kingdom, according to the schedule he and his wife created at the beginning of the month. Tonight is his night to “wash his wife in the word” and to “be a priest in his own home.” He finds his woman in the BR watching a TV show produced by sodomites and nationaly reknowned prostitutes and transmitted on a cable pornography network. He takes her aside and corrects her using the word of the Lord and his the wisdom of Solomon, the Prophets, etc.
Upon completion of scheduled activities he finds that she is strangely, viscerally, craving him to come into her and conceieve. This night a child is conceieved, and his conception is the stuff of legends, and his arrival in The Kingdom is well recieved by an inumerable host of angels and souls filling the heavens.
Meanwhile, our obedient family’s neighbors, led by InnocentBystander, is in his room with his wife, waiting for her to finish her sodomit entertainment program so that he can sodomize her.
@ LGRobins:
“Here is a scenario–husband flat our rejects wife’s submission. Actually tells her “I don’t care if you are submissive”? Then what. He doesn’t like the whole dynamic and wants an equal wife, so does the wife try to turn off her submission and technically still submit to him by doing what he asks or does she keep submitting without an open receptor on the other end and getting no dominance in return.”
If he doesn’t care if she is submissive, then he does not love her. He does not care about her obedience to God either. But she has to submit technically by doing what he asks and sharing “equally”. By doing this, she’s obedient to God in her submission even if her husband doesn’t know this and doesn’t care.
What cracks me up about (no offense to them) the women who post in the manosphere and say “oh it’s just such a turn off to be asked for sex. You need to just grab us and take us to the bedroom” is they really have no idea the risk. None.
How do I know you haven’t changed your mind since yesterday when I did that? Are you kidding?
This is 100% true. Its men and women claiming this. Its BS if its meant as a general rule. I can say that it works sometimes, and when it works it works very very well. Ive concluded that the overture coincided with ovulation or some other trigger, because Ive also had her look at me like I’m nuts, and pull away to go do whatever she was doing. Me thinks those claiming this are expressing a fantasy.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100974434
Still wanna work to support the ladies?
Matt, a “drag-queen diva farce”? Must you with your own mouth always polish the petard upon which thou art hoist?
–Or, if the allusion baffles, shall we say: don’t you ever tire of writing your bashers’ material for them?
@mrsdarling @chokingonredpills “You have the power and capacity to do ALL things through christ and through correct goals.”
This verse is (unfortunately) a woman’s verse today. It is the one my wife quoted at me to “encourage” me to be spiritual according to her sense of the term. It is the one quoted at my wife to build her up in her rebellion– she can do “all things” in spite of the cross of the Archie Bunker buffoonish husband she has.
New Testament verses are not there to pump you up or make you feel good. They are not there to empower you. They are there so that you can step into God’s frame, nothing more… nothing less. The rah rah self help spinning hoo-doo adulterates it every time. Look, you can do what God has called you to do. But you still have to count the cost. The apostles spread the gospel across the globe. But almost all of them died a horrible violent death.
You want to get married and have a family? That’s a noble thing. Just know how what you can actually have differs from what you think you can have. Know that you can lose it all at any moment… on her whim. Know that if things go south, you get no sympathy, no help, and you’re presumed guilty. Even your tough guy manosphere “friends” will be ready to kick you when you’re down.
Do not sell yourself short. Do not undervalue yourself. Set the terms as far as you are able. Choose carefully. Once the knot is tied, you are basically without rights. If you are below the 50th percentile in Looks Assholery Moolah Patriachy (or whatever) then game is likely to be only marginally useful to you– but as a guide in what NOT to do, it will at least steer you clear of the major blunders that you’ve been programmed to commit.
Set up your life as well as possible before marriage… and compartmentalize your wife as best you can so that the damage she does is minimized. Think of her as a very large expense… and (potentially) a very nasty snare. She is not a refuge nor a help. She is a wild animal that can turn on you at any moment. She has no conscience, no sense of honor, and no sense of obligation. Any thing she says should be assumed to have “I feel like ____ right now” appended to it. Especially when she says, “I love you.”
“You need to just grab us and take us to the bedroom” is they really have no idea the risk. None.
How do I know you haven’t changed your mind since yesterday when I did that? Are you kidding?”
This only works when (1) she is attracted; and (2) she is in the mood.
If she is not attracted, forget it. If she’s not in the mood, forget it.
This is why I say about every woman: Right man, right time, right circumstances, low risk of detection; she’ll cheat, or she’ll at least very seriously consider it.
Oh don’t worry, just boil it down to its core fragment. “It’s only rape if you’re not attractive to her.” And remember, you have to be attractive till your death, else she will suddenly remember how you raped her by coercing her into having sex when she didn’t really feel like it.
Oh, and women say they liked to be roughed up a bit, making it all smexy and shit. Then of course they like the state and cops to intervene when you take it too far or another more attractive guy comes along. Typical women in the sphere, they will whisper into your one ear how they like sex but then remind you constantly that they need the police or else evil men will take advantage.
It’s all so much fun, till you get burned!
@Ellie said: “Desire is everywhere. It does not have meaning unless if a woman wants or invites it. You walk up to a thousand random women telling them you want that and you will get a thousand “get losts”. Women will not respond the way you say they will to your scenario. It just won’t happen. Women will think something like this- need me or need physical release?”
You need to do some more research into game. In your scenario above, the guy is likely to score–a lot–if he can present himself as an alpha male.
This is a perfect example of why men need to pay attention to what women do, and not what they say. No woman will admit that she’d have sex with some guy that just walked up to her on the street, but the fact is sexual encounters like that happen on a regular basis. The one-night-stand is just a variation of the above scenario–two strangers have sex relatively moments after meeting.
How many sexually active women have never had a ONS? How many have never even considered it? Few; very few.
Oh and ‘evil men’ is simply ‘ugly men’. To them it’s the same thing.
I am currently advising my son, if he wants to marry to pursue 1. Possibly a non-native US woman. 2. Church-only ceremony. 3. Some kind of binding contract that allows the church leadership to be involved in determining who is at fault, based on biblical principles in the case of divorce/custody.
The issue here is that one needs to be very aware of both the current law in that state regarding how family courts treat long term cohabitation relationships as well as what the current trend is regarding any changes in that treatment in that specific state. It’s generally impossible to sidestep the family courts regarding child custody in the event of a breakup, regardless of whether there was a legal marriage, formally or by implication. In some states it may be easier to sidestep some of the rest of family law by avoiding formal marriage, but the trend is against this – again, the degree to which that is so depends on the state in question. Also keep in mind that when people cross state lines due to marital/relationship disputes (not uncommon at all – people are pretty good at forum shopping), it’s not clear what State B will do if aggrieved person is in State B, and was never legally married in State A where she used to live with you (legally, regardless of what the church says), and State B’s law is friendlier to her than State A’s law is. Family courts are generally courts of equity in most states, which means they are less likely to find reasons why she wouldn’t be able to access the friendlier law which are purely legal/technical, if they don’t think the result is “equitable”. This is even more the case if there are children involved. And, of course, as you know, the DV stuff applies regardless of whether you are formally married or not.
Scott,
Which is the main reason why I believe the manosphere needs a good spokesperson. Everything you are saying you can be sure, these are the things far too many men have felt about our wives and about marriage in general. And its no surprise so many MGTOW now. And White Knights like Tucker Carlson are NOT going to be bothered by that UNTIL his daughter(s) find that there are NO MARRIAGE PROPISALS FOR THEM. Only then with White Knights understand that MGTOW mean business. But when that happens (and marriage disinintegrates in the suburbs faster than it already has in the inner-city) the economy will suffer for it, far worse than anything we are experiencing now because women will just find a way to vote themselves more money from men (single men if needs be.)
The rules for marriage must be clearly (legally) defined. If it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to rape his wife (because his wife is his property) and a man has pride of ownership, everything changes. That is way marriage used to be not so long ago, and it has all changed. Back then, men really liked that arrangement and (to a lesser degree) so did women, which is why so many women were married! Unfortunately, there were a tiny minority of women who were NOT getting married (a tiny minority of women who NEVER got married) and they decided to band together and change all the rules in marriage because marriage was not something that ever benefitted them….
…and they got too many women who WOULD be married to buy-in.
NS-Yep its a quandry. This is why I am so hell bent on the wife-picking part. I am hoping that the risk is mitigated somewhat at that end of the arrangement. Have you seen my site?
http://www.courtshippledge.com
Love to hear your take on it.
You want me to believe that if you walk up to a woman and say exactly what IBB suggested “I need a blowjob” that she will be falling all over herself to say yes? That sounds more like he is thinking of her as a prostitute. BTW, they did this experiment recently (youtube) with an attractive guy- all of the women said no.
Scott —
I think the approach on your site is a sound one. It may be hard to execute, but it’s worth trying to do so. It’s obvious that the current culture of dating and spouse selection is disastrous for many — pretty much all but the most naturally future time-oriented segment of the population, I think.
It seems like several people here are of the religious opinion that women will rebel unless they are only engaged by their husbands in procreative sex. The argument seems to be that unless we strictly adhere to RCC teachings on sex that rebellion is inevitable. I’ll grant that they have every right to believe that way, but I think they are falling in the trap of requiring sinless perfection from the man in order to earn submission from their wife. Is this somehow different than pedestalization? I wonder if there is some sort of magical temptation that befalls women if they are engaged sexually by their husband outside of ovulation.
Ellie,
Not all, or even most, just some. This would not happen Ellie if it wasn’t effective at least some of the time.
By the by, do you know how often situations very simliar to this happen in your average night club on a Friday Night between early-twenty-somethings?
That sounds more like he is thinking of her as a prostitute
Ellie
How so?
I agree its silly to imagine many women saying yes….that’s not the point. But why the prostitute comment? Where did that come from?
I have a theory why your mind went there, but I’d rather know if you know why
“It may be hard to execute,”
Yes, but if ALL the married couples with little ones (0-12 or so) start now–and have a network–it can work. “Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest!” What does it mean without action!!!
It seems like several people here are of the religious opinion that women will rebel unless they are only engaged by their husbands in procreative sex.
IAL, remember “beasty sex”? That was one of the famous CF commenters term for when a man wants sex because he physically desires his wife.
Add to the procreation that even then, the sex can have nothing to do with physical desire, and maybe thats the formula for submission
“How many sexually active women have never had a ONS? How many have never even considered it? Few; very few.”
Out of all the women I’ve ever known who had sex before they were married (several dozen), one had never had a ONS (or at least wouldn’t admit to it). The rest, once you dug down deep enough, admitted they’d had sex with at least one man they’d met a few hours before.
That prob cause all the women who said “no” were not submissive women. The great majority aren’t or at least they don’t think they are or are in deep denial so that hey would say no. Plus, directly asking “I need a blowjob” is tacky and cheap. A dominant man would simply say…”on your knees”. Its understood what this means.
By having that site, I am announcing to anyone who comes to it–If you have children around the same age as mine, and you are teaching them the same basic principles–we are willing to fly there, fly yours here–whatever it takes–to get these kids to meet. It doesn’t ensure attraction–I know. But it ensures they will be exposed to the kids with the same values and increases their liklihood of success.
@innocentbystanderboston: The Roman poet Martial, in his Epigrams Bk XI, no 104, offers a poem in the voice of a frustrated husband addressed to his (allegedly) frigid wife, in which the poet’s persona taunts her by imagining scenes of marriage-bed kink between great couples of heroic myth and Roman history. As James Michie loosely translates in part:
“You refuse to be buggered; but it’s a known fact/
That Gracchus’, Pompey’s and Brutus’ wives were willing partners in the act,” . . .
And so forth. Now, perhaps Martial is just playfully amusing himself by piling up these filthy absurdities, as if one of us were portraying Martha Washington as a “Cosmo” subscriber; or perhaps he’s hinting at a more somber meaning, the failure of contemporaries to live up to or even comprehend how their heroic ancestors lived and loved.
I’m not going to play censor over anyone’s marriage bed, but if da GBFM(TM) has offended you by waiving the bloody rag of sodomy, you must allow that you invited this by picturing, in some detail, a scenario of deadened fatigue and glassy-eyed subservience. Taken just as a literary scene, it wasn’t romantic and it wasn’t sensual. Oral ministrations by the glare of the tv? Camille Paglia might call that “Dantean”. It sure ain’t Song of Songs.
And though I’m not qualified to offer any sort of Thomistic itemizing of species of concupiscence, I think “need” and “want” are a bit tangled up here.
Unfortunately, there were a tiny minority of women who were NOT getting married (a tiny minority of women who NEVER got married) and they decided to band together and change all the rules in marriage because marriage was not something that ever benefitted them….
…and they got too many women who WOULD be married to buy-in.
That’s a part of the picture, but the overall dynamic was a bit different from that, I think. Chinweizu’s book “Anatomy of Female Power” describes the dynamic as well as any, I think, when he divides the activist feminists into types based on motives. There were some as you describe, but also there were tomboys who envied what men had and wanted social license to behave as the boys do, there were women who truly disliked men (some of whom were actually lesbian, but others who disliked men for various reasons, including in some cases because they were disfavored by men), there were women who wanted more sexual freedom and license (sluts have loved feminism from the beginning for obvious reasons), and then there were the ideologues. It was a mixed basket, and it still is if you look at even the contemporary outspoken feminists.
As to why women followed them? Women are a herd. That herd dynamic is most forcefully on display when a woman, or women in general, are in conflict with a man, or men in general. That’s the raison d’etre of the herd to begin with – it is a way of being that human women evolved due to being isolated from their own kin and marrying into men who were living in groups of kin-bonded males. It was adaptive for human females to learn to stick up for each other in the face of relatively more unified blood-bonded males – hence the herd was born, and that is its core function, and why it becomes hardest to “break” and easiest to manifest when there is conflict between men and women. That conflict is why the herd exists. Of course, today, men no longer live in kin-bonded communities, and we have developed a modern culture of very low trust among men when it comes to matters female (much lower than was the case in a male kin-bonded tribe, for example) – but we still have the herd which developed to counteract that. The result is that once democracy became the form of government, feminism was virtually inevitable, because there would be political conflicts between men and women, and the herd would rise up to address these (feminism is really just the political and social manifestation of the interests of the female herd over and against men) in a way that was structurally impossible in earlier political systems. It’s the intersection of political evolution towards democracy with social/biological responses to male/female conflict that give birth to feminism, almost inexorably, in a democratic political system eventually.
@Ellie,
Exactly as @IBB stated? No. With a little style and flair? Definitely.
What do you believe guys that go out looking for a one-night-stand are thinking. Here’s a hint: it starts with ” I want a” and rhymes with “job.”
The technique is to walk up to a woman and start talking to her. If he doesn’t get an IMMEDIATE vibe that she would be willing to sleep with him, he “nexts” her and moves on the next girl. Next, next, next, next, next, next, next, bingo! An hour later he’s getting a BJ from some girl he just met. His approach may be a little more smoother and sophisticated than @IBB’s approach, but at its core it’s the exact same process.
This method works. It works not only at parties and clubs, but anyplace where there are large numbers of people (stores, malls,parks, etc.) It works particularly well if the guy knows how to present himself to women as attractive (in other words: has some decent game).
Of course, you could argue that one-night-stands never happen; that women never sleep with a guy less than an hour after they meet him at a party, but know one will believe you, because too many people have seen it happen in real life.
Scott —
It’s worth doing, I agree.
And though I’m not qualified to offer any sort of Thomistic itemizing of species of concupiscence,
Well….at least we have that in common
I am not offended GBFM-alias because Dalrock informed me that GBFM is just a troll/kid. I don’t care what GBFM thinks about anyone’s marriage bed because I don’t take GBFM seriously.
Run along now and let the adults talk.
A man would not ask that question to a woman on the street unless if he thought he could get lucky… which means that he picked her out of a crowd as being likely to say yes. Even women who sleep around do not like being recognized as not picky. It would be like admitting to yourself that you have no value or personal standards. ONS after being at a bar is plausibly deniable… after all, maybe you were drunk. But on the street? You are cheaper than a streetwalker.
“But the married/divorced men are going to to tease him because he thinks he is some authority figure on marriage even though he has never done it.”
I’ve been teased by men before…I rather enjoy it.
Put it this way…the insane ramblings of a one eyed madman have produced 4 Dalrockian posts fueling more discussion.
I consider that a win.
Deti,
please email me
“BTW, they did this experiment recently (youtube) with an attractive guy- all of the women said no.”
Yeah, ellie, that was picked apart over at JudgyBitch’s place a couple weeks ago. First off, the guy was blunt and direct — said something like “I think you’re really attractive, and I was just wondering if any of you would like to have sex with me right now?” No finesse, no polish, no panache.
Second, the women weren’t sufficiently isolated. If she’s with her friends, she’s going to give the “correct” response and say no so as to let her anti slut defense kick in. She’s also in public, in broad daylight, in full view of many other people, many of whom might know her.
“You want me to believe that if you walk up to a woman and say exactly what IBB suggested “I need a blowjob” that she will be falling all over herself to say yes? That sounds more like he is thinking of her as a prostitute. BTW, they did this experiment recently (youtube) with an attractive guy- all of the women said no.”
There’s a difference between walking up to random women saying it…and your wife. Such as time put in and commitment.
Some of you people are just too funny!
innocentbystanderboston says:
“It’s late, you [YOU!] put the kids to bed, you had a hard day at work. You are feeling pent-up and frustrated. You need to relieve the tension. Your wife is in the bedroom watching Breaking Bad or whatever. If you creep into the bedroom and meekly ask her for oral sex, you are not going to get it. You are going to get a scowl from her most likely as she throws the popcorn bowl at you. But if you walk into the bedroom with a face absent all expression, and you just stand there until she looks at you right in the eye and you say without the least bit of humor or cornyness, “I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully …”
lzozozzlozlozllo
The “authority figure”, innocentbystanderboston, doesn’t realize that both versions will inspire the same feelings of revulsion in a woman.
Standing there “masterfully”, pleading that he NEEDS her to consume his lowly beta seed, as she is watching “Breaking Bad”, a show about a beta to thug conversion!
Innocentbystanderboston, GBFM is not the one who should be worrying about being teased and treated like Earl.
Take instruction from Ellie, who obviously knows more than you, and then study Sunshine Mary’s blog to learn the difference between dominance and supplication.
Note that I am NOT disagreeing with Scott, but merely mocking those who would point out a nonexistent mote of Earl in the eye of another, while overlooking his splooge in their own.
“I think they are falling in the trap of requiring sinless perfection from the man in order to earn submission from their wife. ”
Striving for sinless perfection does make a lot of things easier. The flip side is that it also makes a lot of things harder.
“Run along now and let the adults talk.”
Nah…let the kids talk. They have a better idea of how things work.
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 18: 1-4
With all of this wonderful writing in this comment thread, how on God’s green earth can anyone even consider marriage an even remotely viable option anymore. I envy no one that is having to adopt parenting 2.0 into their skillset. As if raising children was not fraught with enough peril, now parents have to somehow convince their sons of the potential terror of a once-sweet, now-vindictive devouring demon taking everything from him (mind, body and soul) while not scaring him permanently into their basement.
There flat out is no fix for this current situation, but for a reset. Those already married are casualties of war, war that was declared on men 60 years ago. Giving them hope of game, reason, or logic to influence their untamed shrews is having little to no effect in the real world.
In my experience, ignoring women is the only way to get them to respond. Starve them of attention for about 10 – 20 years and maybe, just maybe, you will see some humility on their part.
Keep fawning over them, and continue to enjoy the devouring while they burn it all to the ground.
Yes, that does seem familiar Empath, that men must walk the straight and narrow or all bets are off. That unless men perform exactly as prescribed by a given sect that their wives are practically expected to rebel, often encouraged to (Joel and Kathy). It seems like some here would rather talk about their sectarian theories of what constitutes the straight and narrow way to prevent wifely rebellion as a form of proselytizing for their brand of religion. I don’t see any group that hasn’t been cratered with feminism so this seem like a promotion of dogma over pragma.
I don’t see adherence to a religion as any kind of answer to the problem of feminism and how it affects the relationships with our wives. Play the ball (feminism) as it lays guys.
“Desire is everywhere. It does not have meaning unless if a woman wants or invites it.”
Not really…I have a desire to do lots of stuff that involves women not wanting it or inviting it. Those desires probably have more meaning.
For instance I know a lot of women that don’t want insults, suffering, rejection, adversity, or failure into their lives. I’m starting to enjoy all of those things…because they give life meaning.
I made a super mistake! Correction WE OVERESTIMATE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE SHORT TERM AND UNDERESTIMATE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE LONG TERM. ;D If you have and abundant solutions mindset, woman are abundant and are attracted to you. If you have a scarcity mindset women are scarce and repelled by you. Vice Versa. There are some guys and girls who have an abundant mentality. Those people attract the opposite sex like flies on poop! 😀
Yours truly
http://housewifesexuality.wordpress.com/
Ellie
Macking p**** isn’t luck it is a skill. In fact it is not enough to get the p**** the real game was to get the chick to say I love you. I had a chick I found out was married say I love you. I would never just go up to any woman to ask for anything but I will say the best time to have sex with a chick is when you first meet them. It is just something you just pick up on. And that is coming from a guy like me as far from a player as you can get.
I am shocked! – truly shocked to learn that a woman that one casually approaches on a street and soon thereafter has sex with is cheaper than a hooker. This is not my experience – had I realised that was the case I would certainly have offered money, but as it is, my manly charms were always more than sufficient.
“In my experience, ignoring women is the only way to get them to respond. Starve them of attention for about 10 – 20 years and maybe, just maybe, you will see some humility on their part.”
I doubt it. For if you ignore them…you will also end up hurting yourself. It’s pretty much the way of life.
Ignoring Satan and his demons haven’t got rid of them.
Thank God…He hasn’t ignored the human race when we decided to rebel several trillion times.
I’d say go with a light touch. You give them some time…you give them situations, you see how they react. Keep the dick in the pants. Judge accordingly. You don’t need to marry all women…just one that isn’t as corrupted as the rest.
@Earl, this is a low blow, and the better part of you does not deserve it:
But some of the allusions you make to your everyday life scream, “Thirty-two year old virgin approaching psychotic breakdown.”
I don’t think you’re psychotic. I don’t even believe in male “virginity” as such. Celibacy is not unhinged, self-depriving, or aberrant. Chastity, as I understand you practice it, is a worthy thing. Also, I don’t know that you’re thirty-two.
But the way you talk about treating women you are not even romantically inclined towards sounds like an abused child starting to torment puppies.
Just for public decency’s sake, have a little circumspection. Hold aloof from the world, if you like, but you need to shrug off this attitude that thinking of, or speaking towards, women as chattel is Christian, cool, or alpha. This path is not strengthening you; it’s something curdling inside you. Shake it off– and no, that’s not a euphemism for anything carnal. But shake it off.
Also, I’m older than you.
To put this another way, here’s my perception of the problem.
Since we are not perfect, we all have room for improvement as husbands and fathers. Maybe it’s in being better servants to our families, as the feminists would suggest. Maybe it’s in being stronger leaders, as most here would suggest. Maybe it’s something completely different. But non of us have absolutely nailed it. This should lead us to sorrow, confession, repentance, and a commitment to do better.
So far, so good.
What many commentators, both on the feminist side and sometimes on the manosphere side, suggest is that our falling short is the reason why our wives will not accept our leadership. The if we just scrubbed the dishes a little harder, or if we carried ourselves with more of an alpha swagger, then our wives would cheerfully accept our leadership. In fact, they have been hoping to do so and are even more frustrated than we are that this isn’t how things have turned out.
This is nonsense.
Does this amount to “blaming women?” Maybe. I guess I see it more as confirming men’s suspicions that there is a problem, and it’s not all their fault, and we can try to find solutions based on truth rather than fiction. Scrubbing the dishes harder hasn’t worked. The alpha swagger has had limited success. May be time to look for something else.
greyghost sez:
That really *is* tight game, right there. I’ll admit that I don’t have it.
I wonder if we ignore Earl if his white-knighty-ness will go away.
I’m not so sure it it white-knighty-ness so much as I believe it to be frustrated-angry-at-all-alpha-males-cause-I-am-not-getting-any-virgin-ness
“Thirty-two year old virgin approaching psychotic breakdown.”
Yeah I have. Only I’m 31 when it happened.
I’m not an adult anymore…I’m a kid again. I have broke down.
And when I was a kid…I had fun teasing, playing with, and scaring girls. But I also cared for them and liked them which is why I had the motivation to do all those things.
People these days get offended over every little thing. You say one thing and 50 different people take 50 different ways to be offended by it. I liked it as a kid where things didn’t offend me as much…I was having a good time, and usually everybody else was too. Probably because sin wasn’t involved.
I hope Earl has a sense of humor about himself. I really mean this as a jab–but half the time I literally don’t understand what he is talking about. Maybe he is just way more sophisticated than me. But reminds me of this guy:
I’m sure Earl has a sense of humor about himself or he wouldn’t be here. I admire that earl. But earl reminds me of this guy:
Yeah I got what that guy was saying.
And I get why Ben Stiller was getting pissed off. The statements are so mind numbingly easy….but at least he figured it out in the end.
Earl does have a sense of humor…but I’m more like this version of Steve Carell.
I consider the admonitions of Paul and Peter towards husbands, who are expected by God to lead and love their wives, under threat of losing an audience with God (hindered prayers). Should I marry I will enter into the institution fully aware of what I am expected to do. My wife will no doubt expect that from me as well.
So it seems right that if I am expected to lead and love (rule with benevolence) then I should expect from her (within the boundaries of scripture) submission and meekness in respect to my position as head. I am not expected to love my wife in response to her submission, but regardless of her submission. At the same time, she is expected to submit not in response to my headship, but regardless of my headship.
This whole idea of one partner fulfilling their roles only in response to the other is sort of childish. It pits two spouses against each other, with arms crossed, and each saying to the other, “No, you go first.”
Husband: “No, you submit first, then I’ll lead.”
Wife: “No, you lead first, then I’ll submit.”
And around and around and around we go …
IBB, I think that is the classic white knight motivation. They must protect the innocent virginzz from the ebil alpha’s who are corrupting their purity. By stripping the women of their agency they can target all of their animus towards the ebil alphas. I know when I used to be one that is what I thought. Man, was I stupid.
Miserman-+1
However–and this is a big HOWEVER. The message many husbands (even in “Christian” marriages) are getting isn’t “you lead first and I will submit.”
It’s “go ahead–try it. Maybe I will complain to the police, maybe I won’t. I dare you. “
I-A-L, well I never stopped being alpha even after I got married. But my whole outlook on betamales changed. So I kind of feel some solidarity with the betas who are married and miserable because they want a submissive wife (and they aren’t getting it.)
Agreed. A man, by being attractive and dominant, can do a lot to make a woman want to submit to him. But ultimately it’s a decision she has to make, and for it to last through bad days and sicknesses and career problems and all the other times when he’s not at his alpha-est, it’s going to have to be a commitment she made to God, not just a response to her tingles.
Some women (especially older ones and single moms) have had any submissive nature well-wrung out of them by being strongandindependent for too long and spending too much time with fun-but-irresponsible studs, to the point where they can’t imagine letting a man choose their dinner, let alone the serious decisions in their lives. These women will need a major shift in attitude, and a whole lot of Grace, to ever submit to a man in the full sense as a wife, no matter how much they might want to submit to him sexually. Most probably aren’t capable of it short of a miracle.
It’s not between the lines; she says it right out in the open here: “It’s respectful submission between equals.”
No, it’s not, any more than our submission to God is “respectful submission between equals.” St. Paul says, “Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.” It’s one-way. As soon as someone implies that it goes both ways, you know there’s an agenda, and it’s not friendly to scriptural husband/wife roles.
Scott,
I have to ask this.
How is your relationship with your in-laws? By that I mean if your wife goes and complains to the police about something that is bullsh*t, something, anything, are her parents automatically going to believe her OR (after many years of knowing you and how well you have treated their daughter) are they going to take your side in legal matters because if she did that, they would KNOW their daughter was LYING and went off her meds?
I only ask this because before I got married, I had a DOWRY offer (half ownership in his business) to marry a BPD girl from her daddy because DADDY KNEW his daughter was a f-cking basketcase and there was ZERO CHANCE any sane man would want to marry her and relieve him of his burden. That is a natural, sane judgement call, made by parents who want to marry off their insane daughters to a good guy but KNOW that they have to really make it worth the guy’s investment.
“It’s “go ahead–try it. Maybe I will complain to the police, maybe I won’t. I dare you. “
I told that to God once. He said…maybe you’ll condemn yourself to Hell…maybe you won’t. There are things you shouldn’t dare about.
Cail-
The “respectful submission between equals” comes in so many forms now. I have been in a heated 3-way debate between a female FB friend (and my wife–who, for all my complaining is reading SSM, “the Excellent Wife,” other sources, and really trying). Anyway, the FB friend argues that her husband is the “Master” of the castle, but, but, but.
When I tried to ask “well, what does the word ‘master’ mean if there are no servants” she went ballistic. Oh well.
The problem with what she’s saying (other than the obvious one I pointed out about mutual submission) is that her words are technically correct if looked at in the right light, but if you’ve been around for a while, you know that’s not really what she means. She’s not singing a new tune here; we all know the beat.
“I have to ask this.”
To be fair, I have never received anything this blatant. In fact, we were probably typing at the same time, and so you missed something very important.
I believe my wife is expereincing the very “miracle” Cail talks about one or two comments above. She seems to have reached a level of exasperation with me as I started taking a “MGTOW husband” approach (for lack of a better way of putting it) about a year ago.
She is trying (to be submissive). It is not natural to her, because she was a stongandindepent 35 year old (never married) when we met. So, really I am grateful to God for these signs.
Mostly, when you see me writing, I am writing in the abstract–because of my experiences with marrying a mid-thrities single mom, and lost of other stuff.
I still have to “game” and I hate it. It reminds me of high school. I got the “chicks like assholes” speech from my older brother back then and it worked on 17 year olds. I just didn’t think I would still be doing it at 42.
Scott,
Yes, I’ve heard women (and some men) really torture the language to find a way to make male headship meaningless or its opposite. One woman I know said, “My husband is the head of our household. He’d better be, if he knows what’s good for him.” On one hand, she does want him to be in charge, so she’s in better shape than most women today. But she still has a concept of what that should look like, and if he doesn’t fulfill it, guess who’s going to call him on the carpet, so who’s really the boss again?
There’s also the “servant leader” twist that I wrote about on my blog a while back, and others. It’s kind of amazing how many different ways there are to take the simple commands of male headship and wifely submission and twist them around to mean the opposite.
IBB-
In other words, I lead. I do the exact thing I am advising others to think very carefully about not doing, because of the risk. I lead, dragging the one I am leading, kicking and screaming behind me, because I think my Bible tells me to do so.
@ Scott:
“ It’s “go ahead–try it. Maybe I will complain to the police, maybe I won’t. I dare you. “”
Ah yes, yet another threatpoint. “You’ll do what I say, OR ELSE I’ll divorce you, take half the money and property, take the house, take the kids; put you under crushing child support and alimony obligations, start shtupping the pool boy, and eat steak and lobster off your money and f”ck in your bed while you never see your children again and never have sex again.”
I think when a married man is getting those kinds of messages one has to wonder how much marriage is really there to salvage. At that point there isn’t much for a man to lose, I’m afraid. He might be better off cutting his losses.
Maybe at that point he should say something like:
“Fine. No submission? If that’s the case, it’s clear that you don’t consider yourself a wife. You are in open rebellion against God and against me. This is marital abandonment and grounds for divorce. Repent now, or the marriage is over. By the time the divorce proceedings are over there will be no assets left to divide because they’ll have all been consumed or so heavily leveraged we’ll be upside down on them. I’ll bankrupt us both in legal fees and debt. I’ll drag us through the most excruciatingly, dreadfully lengthy divorce proceedings this state has ever seen. No matter what happens you’ll make me out to be the villain, so I may as well play the part with gusto. We’ll fight over everything: the wastebaskets; the microwave oven, the Springsteen CDs. All your dirty laundry will be aired for everyone to see. I’ll publicize and put in the divorce pleadings every rotten thing you ever did or said to me. It will all be there with names, approximate dates, and places. Since you’ll never let me see the kids anyway, I’ll expatriate to a country with no extradition. If I can’t expatriate, I’ll quit my job and start working at the gas station down the street. You won’t get a dime of child support or alimony. If you have me put in jail for nonpayment, then you’ll REALLY never see a dime.”
Scott,
That’s good. But I am still curious if you are on good with her folks. I’ve found that Marriage 2.0 works best for the man if he gets on great with her parents. In these cases, you have ALOT MORE LEVERAGE over your wife in getting her to “submit.”
Marriage 2.0 is darn hard for the man but it is so much better if you have ALLIES in HER family. It is BEST if her daddy is your GREATEST ally.
Well.. according to this blog feminism and media culture has resulted in women ‘freely choosing’ to:
1) Divorce
2) Legally Steal (Judgements, Lawyers, Child Support, Alimony)
3) Home Wreck
4) Commit Adultery
5) Neglect good men during their youth in favor of partying and racking up large numbers of sexual partners before settling down to get married.
So what’s the solution? Changing the laws? Is that going to stop young women 18-27 from spreading their legs for losers? The red pill game is too much work. Even if you could become Paul Janka there’s no guarantee you won’t become another divorce statistic.
And if Scott’s in-laws would be likely to side with their own daughter’s claim that he is abusing her over his denials, that’s his fault?
—
Forget all the stuff about alimony and child support. Just focus on access and influence to one’s children. It seems quite reasonable that his is something a man should care about, and something that is very much in jeopardy when a wife starts throwing the “d” word around.
Our duty to be fathers to our children comes before any need to adopt an “alpha” role.
Her dad has never been in the picture. Her mom thinks I saved her from certain spinsterhood. She thinks I am the hero of her grandson. So, from that perspective I’m good. Her daughter married an army officer/doctor, and she knows this was a big step up.
For those interested in my take on this male headship and wives submitting controversy; whether wifely submission should be unconditional or a strong principle regardless of the husband’s behavior or whether wifely submission is only a duty after the husband himself has shown obedience to God; I have just finished writing an article on this subject:
Cowards, Chauvinists, and Dalrock
http://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/cowards-chauvinists-and-dalrock/
The focus of my article is my observations on the significance of this controversy arising in the first place, my general interpretation of Dalrock’s stance in the controversy, and giving the context of what Mark Driscoll was saying in a way supportive of Mark Driscoll’s main points and intentions.
You list Dalrock amongst the “cowards” and “:chauvinists” while providing a defense for Driscoll? Bwhahahaha!
Changing the laws? Is that going to stop young women 18-27 from spreading their legs for losers? The red pill game is too much work.
The laws do need to be changed, but won’t be, and won’t have much impact on behavior anyway, without a cultural shift. The changes in the laws in the 60s-80s reflected a cultural shift that was already taking place towards increased promiscuity and sexual freedom in the later 50s. They certainly sped up/exacerbated the trend, but they didn’t create it against a contra trend. In order for changing the laws to be feasible in practicality, and impactful as well, that would have to represent a cultural trend in that direction — and we’re not close to that.
As to game, whether it is too much work is a personal decision. It’s true that it isn’t a guarantee.
Excellent.
Then I’d say you are in as good-a-shape in Marriage 2.0 as any man could be. You have allies in her family, I don’t see many cash-and-prizes threatpoints. Wife needs step-dad around to be dad. Mother-in-law needs stepson around to help with daughter. You are needed and not just for cash and prizes.
For those interested in my take on this male headship and wives submitting controversy;
I was, until I found this:
How can a sentient being read these last few blog entries and come away with this thought? I will tell you how. he didn’t read them in the literal sense. He scanned across words on a page and saw enough key terms and phrases to activate confidence that his preconception was accurate.
Fail
Vascularity 777 asked way up thread for any opinions on the definition of churchians/churchianity. This is just my take, and for me Titus 1:16 sums it up pretty well. “They profess to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for doing anything good”. Christians are Christ followers (not led)/ Christ imitators, whom continually strive to be obedient to The Word. False Christianity/churchianity is the result of the infestation of feminism in the church today. Two examples: most churches, I’d guess, are half full of “professing Christians” who are willfully living in adulterous marriages (following frivolous divorces), and they are being allowed to stay in the church, thus infecting others with their hypocrisy. This is all being done under the watch of pastoral leadership that has been infected by feminism. We need pastors who will “Christian up” and preach the truth (The Word).
So, from Jesse’s blog, Driscoll says (Jesse quotes):
“What happens to a guy who doesn’t do what Peter says [in the Bible], what does he say? Read it for yourself. It said “so your prayers may not be hindered.” If a guy doesn’t obey God on these issues, GOD DOES NOT LISTEN TO HIM! YOU MEN ARE DATING, MARRYING, GOD’S DAUGHTERS. DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HIT HER, NEGLECT HER, ABUSE HER, IMPREGNATE HER OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, PUT YOUR HANDS ALL OVER HER, LIE TO HER, MANIPULATE HER, ABUSE HER, NEGLECT HER, and then cry out to God, “Help me.” God’s saying “No way.” [God’s saying] “You don’t love my daughter, I don’t serve you. You don’t honor my daughter, I don’t honor you. YOU ARE OWN YOUR OWN!” [Driscoll speaking] AND MANY OF YOU MEN, THE REASON YOU HAVE A HARD TIME WALKING WITH GOD, IS BECAUSE YOU WALKED AWAY, AND HE [God] HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON YOU! YOU ARE DAMAGING HIS DAUGTER! GOD IS HER FATHER! YOU CANNOT THINK THAT IN ABUSING GOD’S DAUGHTER, THAT YOU CAN CRY OUT FOR GOD’S HELP IN YOUR ABUSING OF HIS DAUGHTER! I’ll tell you as a daddy, you hurt one of my girls, and ask for help to do it some more, you’re prayer will not be answered.”
Great!
Now for the other 97% of the men in the room, what does he have to say?
Waste of time…
@johnmcg:
Does this amount to “blaming women?” Maybe. I guess I see it more as confirming men’s suspicions that there is a problem, and it’s not all their fault, and we can try to find solutions based on truth rather than fiction.
What it amounts to, I believe, is simply acknowledging that women are moral agents too, that they rebel against their natural law duties too, and that alternative approaches or explanations – approaches that do not start with the premise that women are moral agents, responsible for their choices, and frequently in rebellion – are actually quite contemptuous of women.
Frequently acknowledgement of moral agency is reframed as “blaming women”; but we should not fall for that reframe, at least in part because that reframe requires us to hold women in contempt. If women aren’t “to blame” then they aren’t even human.
Modern liberalized men in general have definitely been too passive, having granted free reign to suffragette feminist and egalitarian nonsense; just as Louis XVI was no doubt partly responsible for the French Revolution. But it hardly follows from Louis’ failures that Robespierre was not a moral agent. And the question for today’s men is what to do _now_. I wish I had good answers, but I don’t. I have plenty of convictions about what not to do though.
“I read Mrs. Keller’s words in plain English and spy no sabotage between the lines. I take the unadorned statement at face value, “Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand.” If it’s true for God the Father himself, it’s true for us! Even the Almighty does not force submission upon us wretched creatures, lowly worms. ”
Wrong. You just ignored the distinction Dalrock in the post made between “demand” and “force” – God may not force us to love Him but He does command, demand, and expect it.
The laws are what set the culture. Just following the constitution would be a big first step. Getting as many as possible women into childless spinsterhood is a first step. There is now a male birth control pill sold in Indonesia (gandarusa) I would change male culture and not worry about women and society. Make it normal for men to use birth control. Make it normal for men to GTOW make it normal to be a PUA ,make it normal to not marry. Make it normal for men to have children with out wives even if it is a shame gay couple to adopt or use a surrogate. Women are helpers in the bible not necessary. Male birth control is key because with out a child a woman is truly a worthless burden in every sense of the word and must work until death.
That looks bad but we are changing laws for our sons not just trying to survive today. And damn sure better than the survival technique the churchian church is using.
@ Novaseeker
“The laws do need to be changed, but won’t be, and won’t have much impact on behavior anyway, without a cultural shift.”
– Perhaps not. But it should have an impact on marriage rates. Divorce rates will fall once the incentives for women to divorce are removed right? Wont this be good for the culture?
“As to game, whether it is too much work is a personal decision. It’s true that it isn’t a guarantee.”
In my opinion it’s way too much work.I’m going to skirt around this by going on a marriage tour to Ukraine. Hopefully I’ll find a girl in her twenties who really likes me and sees potential for marriage. Thank God I have money. I don’t want to waste my time with fake red pill game.
Micheal
Take your knowledge of female nature with you. The red pill is something you can’t unlearn.
@ GregC:
I’ve been attending my current church for about three or four months. The pastor is an outstanding teacher; very educated in the Old Testament. I believe I just might have found a long-term church for myself.
At a very large previous church there was much churchian feminism and other things I did not like. I gave up on church, but then somebody I know recommended my current church. I am so relieved that I received that recommendation. Church attendance at a competent church is such a wonderful blessing.
I encourage others to not totally give up on church attendance. Keep shopping. Perhaps the large churches are more apt to be churchian then the medium and small churches. My church attendance is a layer of MGTOW that I am able to shed and thereby be a healthier person and hopefully better emulator of our Savior.
As I’ve said before, I am a total work-in-process. Reading here is also quite a blessing.
Churchian? I always ran with the notion that it is a syncretism of the worst aspects of Western Civilization, primarily being cultural christianity with evangelical feminism, bible college CEO pastors (hirelings) and the stranglehold that men’s organizations and traditions have on the people who are members of the Body of Christ.
It is what Jesus warns us to come out of in the book of Revelation lest we partake of her judgments.
vas,
Did any member from your former church contact you and ask you if you were coming back or why you left?
YOU MEN ARE DATING, MARRYING, GOD’S DAUGHTERS. DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HIT HER, NEGLECT HER, ABUSE HER, IMPREGNATE HER OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, PUT YOUR HANDS ALL OVER HER, LIE TO HER, MANIPULATE HER, ABUSE HER, NEGLECT HER, …
Looks like part of what that Driscoll character is doing is yelling at Alphas – none of whom are in his audience, they are at 7-11 buying skittles – for the effect his yelling has on the women who are in his audience. AMOGing men who aren’t even present, who don’t even exist.
Show me where Driscoll frequently rants about those wicked hellbound wives who fail to submit meekly to their husbands, yea even and especially when her husband doesn’t “deserve” it in her mind, and I’ll start to believe that Dalrock’s coverage is out of balance.
Is that the sound of crickets?
Since the 97% of other men don’t matter to women in the least, they don’t matter to Marky Driscoll shithead either.
that doesn’t sell
@IBB:
Yes. I was attending the men’s ministry and honestly told them that I wanted to research denominational churches, as the one I attended was non-denominational. I had a couple of disagreements with one of the leading men in that group. My take was that I wasn’t sinless enough to fit in. It felt like Stepford-Wife Christianity; meaning that everybody acted so perfect and sinless. The leader of the men’s ministry emailed me a couple of times to let me know of their schedule in case I decided to return.
If women and Mark Driscoll think men are really that bad, I can only advise that a Christian women never, ever, ever marries.
If they were really God’s daughters they would not be having sex outside of marriage. They would seek after a righteous man and marry him and submit. Take their duties of being a wife and mother seriously and leave the other affairs to their husband to sort out as he sees fit.
Unless Marky is calling these men rapists, God’s little daughters are fully involved in every little fun and sexy decision they make.
{I hope to have some kind of affect on decreasing the divorce rate, and reducing the devastating effects divorce has on children, as well as the way these children of divorce affect future generations. Divorce hurts children. It makes them become emotionally and psychologically disabled in many ways. With over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, we are raising a generation of “quitters”, people who are unable for form deep and lasting emotional bonds with other people, the key factor in keeping a marriage together. As men and women become more connected to their essential natures and learn what it takes to create and maintain a successful long-term relationship, the ills of society will diminish. I hope the work we are doing will bring lasting benefit to our society. }
Sterling Institute
http://www.sterling-institute.com/sterling-institute-mensweekend.php
Feminist Hater said:
Nailed it.
Michael —
The trouble with the Ukraine option is that if you bring her back to the US, she’s going to acculturate to the US. I’ve seen this myself with quite a few FIS women.
My point on the laws is not that changing them doesn’t impact behavior at all, but that changing them in a way that is completely contrary to cultural trends just won’t happen. The most we’re going to see is possibly a trend toward shared parenting because increasing numbers of women may want that in the years ahead, but that’s going to be marginal. Maybe further curtailing of alimony in holdout states like MA once the current trend of women outearning men spreads further (because existing laws will start to hurt women, which will be the impetus to change them). We’re not going to see major family law reforms in terms of no fault and so on — goes entirely against the culture and no legislature will pass it, really.
@Matthew King:
If it’s true for God the Father himself, it’s true for us! Even the Almighty does not force submission upon us wretched creatures, lowly worms. Rather he blessed us with the Götterfunken, the divine spark of free will, dignified us as something more than animal.
Submitting to God is not “optional” except in the sense that rebellion is possible for creatures with free will.
Yeah, it is possible for free-willed creatures to choose hellfire for all eternity for themselves, rather than submitting to God. Choosing hellfire for all eternity is out there on the free-will menu.
Big fat hairy deal though. People who don’t want to leap into the Lake of Fire must (note the word “must”, which is to say, it is not optional) follow the moral law: must choose to love God and keep His commandments. That includes the natural law (and Biblical) obligation a wife has to esteem her husband above all others and meekly submit to his authority in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety.
Vas,
That is probably what I would do at our church. You handled that perfectly.
Mr. Corishev niggled:
Inane casuistry.
Since abuse of context is par for the course on this site — picking and choosing lines torn from pages to paste into your just-so ideological constructions — you force me to go back and look at that line from the primary source.
Of course you selected the single ambiguous line surrounded by a clear exposition of the opposite of your interpretation. Mrs. Keller goes on and on trying to convince women that submitting to husbands is not the horror story their feminism makes it out to be.
The pronoun “it” is antecedent to a mutual submission to Christ among equal sexes. No where does she promote submission to one another; in fact, quite the opposite:
You people are even more paranoid than I thought. Here I took your word for it that these modernist mainline liberal-types were trying to sneak a cryptofeminism into scripture, when in truth they are trying to eradicate that feminism in terms their corrupt audience might understand, specifically grounded in scripture.
What is the matter with that? She has translated the terms which the (female) audience can understand, an audience that is preoccupied with matters of “equality.”
In that way, I’m glad that your ignorant condemnations sent me to the primary source. Ideologues are not to be trusted because they distort evidence to always fit their predetermined conclusions.
You have much worse enemies with much more destructive positions than the Kellers. It doesn’t take a visionary to realize you have far more in common with them than you pretend for the sake of ginned-up, quixotic drama. Fight efficiently, for God’s sake.
Matt
Pingback: GreatBooksForMen(TM), for the win | Lucius Somesuch
“Second, Jesus revolutionizes the role of headship, which can also be called serving through leadership.”
And the naysayers here will say he got betrayed, denied, and crucified for that. His own government didn’t even bother to protect him….Pontius Pilate is still washing his hands.
Submitting actually takes a strong powerful will to do. Because the world is full of selfish and evil people…and evil will try to take advantage.
@Dalrock
In case I was not clear in my other comment on “Fragging”: johnmcg’s words are the plea of a man focused on saving marriage and children, yet not putting Christ first in that decision-making process. His focus is all on the immediate trade-offs and rewards. We are the people who cast others out for the destruction of their flesh so that their souls might be saved.
@Matthew King
Why are you here? If you suffer so reading here, why not do us all a favor and return to where you feel more comfortable. I gather from your comments
abovehere that you don’t suffer these problems on FeministX’s site. I propose a win-win. You can focus on your mission with lesbian feminists, and the rest of us can continue our discussion without your constant bitching.“Just as he shows us willing and not begrudging submission, He shows us ruling of one equal over another that always has service as its goal.”
Does this extend to Jesus’s relationship to the Church? Are we the equal to the head, are we equal with Jesus Christ? By my reading of Romans 8 I would say this is only possible after we have suffered as He has. That is what extending feminist “logic” dictates. Evangelical feminism strips all of this context out in order to serve the rebellious nature of women, seeing the strands in this tapestry is no great reach.
Seeing how Matt always comes down on the side of the feminists and egalitarianism isn’t hard to see either.
Dear Earl, et. al:
This is what the smart people call “the prisoner’s dillemma”. In any contract, constructed by multiple parties, there will always be the temptation to defect and steal the good stuff without delivering what was promised in return. What society has done specifically to the marriage discourse (and I think we all agree on this much, even if we’re hating on one another elsewise) is to remove all the obstacles for the female to deflect, leaving the male in the marriage construct to collect the “sucker’s payoff” of child support, lifetime alimony, and virtual enslavement.
I really like reading this stuff, but I hope the animosity dies down. From the perspective of the unbeliever, this is like watching a vicious fight between two factions of the same political party. You guys most vehemently disagree about things that look compatible to me. The devil’s in the details, and all that.
Peace, Boxer
Boxer, that is also seen in Adam Smith’s concept of the “Tragedy of the Commons” from “The Wealth of Nations”.
I look at it like this: a wife who won’t submit or feels like she has options in regards to submission is a rebellious wife. A rebellious wife is of no value. What should be done with rebellious wives? I recommend reading II Samuel Chapter 6 and Esther Chapter 1.
Matt,
Let me try this so we are on the same page: men and women are supposed to be equal before man’s law but they aren’t really equal. They are not physically equal. They are not emotionally equal. They are not spiritually equal. Men have a role. Women have role. Those roles are very clearly defined by God the Father and the Lord our Savior, Jesus Christ. And the roles matter, their differences matter.
Make no mistake, the above paragraph is a non-starter at the FeministX site that you blog at, but the above paragraph might be one of the key roots of this blog. The men here (myself included) want the Patriarchy back, even if it is an irrational pipedream to hope for its return. We think that might fix things. If a lesbian, FeministX harpy, wants to come over here and ask us calmly why we think the Patriarchy might fix things (even make those ladies who have lost Christ happier people), we’d be happy to explain it to them. You do not have to come here and explain to us how Dalrock misinterpretted Mrs Keller.
I wonder how Mathew King views women who intentionally parcel their youth away in their most fertile attractive years at parties clubs bars and traveling all with the most Unchristian of men – then have a “come to Jesus moment” at the church a few years before their looks start to slip. Let me guess: Any man without sin throw the first stone..
Funny how the above scenario seems to occur non-stop these days. I guess young women just make allot of mistakes and it takes them while to come around. Ever notice how it’s usually before during or after their looks start to slip. Funny how it always seems to occur around that time period. I suppose it’s just a coincidence..
Cane,
Is it short-term thinking and not Christ-focussed to not want to abandon one’s children to the care of someone who has already demonstrated she is moving away from Christ?
I will be held accountable for how I cared for my children. I am not going to say something like, “Gee, I sure would have liked to have raised my children in the Church, but my wife wouldn’t submit to me, and I figured it was better to live on my own than be part of a family where I’m not truly the head.”
Uh-uh. We have to maximize the positive influence we have on our children’s lives. Letting their mother take off with them is not part of that.
“Let me guess: Any man without sin throw the first stone..”
I understand this passage has been mis-used, but when you find yourself quoting Jesus’s words in a mocking manner, it might be a sign you’re on the wrong path.
johnmcg, when she leaves you anyway make sure to recover your balls from her purse, you may want them at some point in the future.
@innocentbystanderboston
I just want to know if you reciprocate the extra biblical inclusion when the wife puts the kids to bed and you are watching Sunday night football and she comes into the room squawking about what a rough day its been and she just needs her vagina siphoned with a finger in her anus, with a stern look mind you, not skittishly or meekly asking you for oral sex? Because I’m sure somewhere in our New Testament of innocentboston you are required to please your wife with sodomy. It’s a shame that you do not even understand how pathetic your scenario appears to those of us that take a biblical understanding to the marital bed, and yet it seemed as nothing to broadcast your personal fetish to those of us that understand what sodomy means. I liken it to the church of Howard Stern and rot. Your personal ’example’ would be better served with vague details to the sinful and personal acts of your personal bedroom and you were called out by many upon that fact, and not just the brilliant GBFM.
“innocentbystanderboston would demand that his wife submit to sodomy, and she would be healed, saved, and exalted!”
Pl
I’m curious what the Catholic church’s definition of sodomy has to do with anything? Can someone here please explain their perverse obsession with it?
I’m sorry, that last comment was not meant to implicate Catholics in general, just the commentators that can’t seem to get past IBB’s scenario.
So few seem able to come right and say that “equality” is not part of the contract. There is a reason for that truth in that if a decision needs to be made and the two parties disagree one of those parties needs to be the deciding partner…the dominant one…the one who can enforce is will in one way or the other.
I-A-L
LOL! All those GBFM-aliases are is hey… this whole discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because I am totally repressed about sex, lets put the entire discussion OUT OF BOUNDS. What I want to say to these people is “sodomy” is a term that came across in the Bible specifically in the sexual congress that was occuring at Sodom. Lot grabbed his wife and two daughter’s and high-tailed it out of town (on order of the Angels because the people in town wanted “TO KNOW THEM”) because Lot knew that God was very angry with the people of Sodom and lightning bolts would be on their way. God’s anger was NOT that they were engaging in un-natural sex acts, but INSTEAD because they turned the whole city into a giant adulturous orgy!
For you sexually repressed people who visit Dalrock’s blog, lets be very very clear here, the Lord our God has NO PROBLEM with ANY SEXUAL ACTS that occur between A MAN AND HIS WIFE because his wife IS HIS PROPERTY. If the wife asks her husband for cunninlingus that is going to be okay with God because the man IS TAKING CARE OF HIS PROPERTY.
That is Biblical people. Being a good man means pride of ownership. What you own needs caring and love, give her what she needs. Always.
@johnmcg
What we want has nothing to do with it.
But I will not. This is good news for me because I am often a bad parent.
And? Who said you have to say anything like that? What’s wrong with: “Woman, you had better get your heart right.”? Nothing. I don’t go to church with my wife. I take my family to church.
You seem to think this is all in our hands. It’s not. I have to seek to do what is good, and to present Christ–which necessarily means the Scriptures–as honestly and as whole-heartedly as I can with faith that He will give my wife and children what they need, as He has me. All I have to do is present it to them. That often (and always!) includes forgiveness with the belief that if a sinner like me can be saved, so can they. It never means ignoring it for the sake of peace now. I pray to never see my children come to harm, but I know that cannot be for their own sakes. Even if they die, God forbid, I will see them again if they love my Lord. When their time comes, I will not give them reason to doubt because, to all appearances including theirs, I made my wife my God.
My wife children will die, John, and it will be without me. That’s a very good thing if they are with Christ! He does not abandon them just because they had a bad father; which we all are.
This all sounds horrible if you are not sold out on the reality that this world is a shadow of things to come. The only reason to acquiesce is if you lack faith. The hard part is that–because I am a sinful person, too–I’m not always as joyful about these Truths as I should be. Sometimes I am, though, and those times are awesome.
@ Michael
I believe you are seeing a shift in dynamic at present.
Based on the shrill cries of church leaders, news pundits, & all other feminist ass-kissers…….the odds of all women executing on the ‘last minute marriage & kids’ is quickly slipping through their fingers, like so many Alpha cocks.
On a related topic, my wife has a client who just kicked her boyfriend to the curb.
He is the ‘good on paper’ guy, good job, assets, disease, drama, drug free, parents approved. Treated her like a lady, put a roof over her head free of charge.
She is never-married, mid-thirties, and WANTS both marriage & kids. She is attractive enough, could pass for late 20’s. She, in my opinion, suffers from choice addiction, as she could not love this excellent marriage material man.
I will give her some credit for bailing BEFORE children & marriage, rather than AFTER.
She has all but put herself out of the mother market by starting over again at 35; but she certainly cannot see that fact.
Instead, and in true chick fashion, she is distracting herself with her new job, and buying stuff she cannot afford.
So, so sad.
@ Cane, I was about to say something very similar to that in response, but laziness got the better part of me and I went with something more pithy. Bravo.
@ Michael
Careful with your Ukraine marriage tour. If there is one undeniable truth………..it’s that women talk.
Those that went before them will send word back to the old country of just HOW much crap they can pull in western societies.
You might…….just might get a 1st generation immigrant that won’t be a selfish fool, but her daughter sure as hell will be.
Until women are made to bear the consequences of their retched decisions……….we will continue to get men trapped by law, marriage, & government to provide for these foolish women.
But I will not
Yes. You will. Cane, I see the point you wish to make, but this statement is too plain, and in its plain form it is false.
Not all things require nuance friend. Some require straight talk even with explanations that everyone can relate to. It is possible that you, a sinner as you later state, can and will be held accountable for how you cared for, or didn’t care for, your children. You can turn this back on me if you choose, because you know things that you have commented on previously. Its an equal opportunity problem.
Civilization matters, family matters, kids matter. That they should not have primacy is clear in scripture. That they matter is also clear there.
@Scott
I’ve had a post in the works for some time on changing the way you view gaming your wife. I don’t know when I’ll get around to the post, but the takeaway is that you should look at it as giving the woman you love the leadership she needs.
However, it is possible in your case that she needs much more game than you are equipped to (consistently) give. One thing which may help is gently helping her understand reality. If you haven’t read the post I did on status and intrasexual competition, I would very much suggest it along with the upcoming follow up. You mention your MIL thinking you saved her from spinsterhood, and honestly your MIL is on track there. It is to everyone’s benefit that your wife find a way to appreciate how truly fortunate she is to have you as a husband. If she truly accepts this, she shouldn’t need “hard” gaming*. One thing you can do here is subtly (or not) help her see the reality of women she knows who are divorced, especially single mothers over 30. Women know this instinctively, so you won’t need to push hard, and pushing hard would come off as fearful beta. Part of it is reminding her of what she already knows: Men are afraid of commitment, especially with single mothers, and doubly so with single mothers with a track record of not being able to keep a man. All you need to do is help her wipe away the rationalization from the divorced women in your/her circle. Sure Sally says she has to fight off the doctors and lawyers, but did you ever notice that the only men she manages to keep around (for a while) are losers without a job, or men who are so beta they make every woman in the room glad they don’t have to have sex with that man?
Scott in his best sniveling beta impersonation:
The media and the divorcées have sold her a pile of BS, but the veneer of empowerment is only a millimeter thick. Let your wife have a laugh with you at the hapless post marital spinsters’ expense. Then let her feel grateful that her son has a father**.
*Roissy explains why this is the case here.
**But be careful not to do anything which would create a financial incentive for her to divorce you, like adoption or anything else which would cause the state to see you as Mr. moneybags.
It reminds me of high school. I got the “chicks like assholes” speech from my older brother back then and it worked on 17 year olds. I just didn’t think I would still be doing it at 42.
Other chicks liked the poseur non-asshole. I rang up quite some sales with the “I’m not like other guys” line, so much that it was to the chagrin of the natural gamers in the group. I raise this only to say that it takes being adroit and nimble, which is kind of like saying sometimes yes, sometimes no, for all the use that has in the practical world.
@Empath
No, I won’t.
Am I being too nuanced, or am I being too glib? It cannot be both. Will I receive a further inheritance once I’ve squandered my 1/3rd on worldly living? No, I will not. Will I, if I approach my Father as a willing servant, be forgiven, and had the fattened calf, robes, and ring that rightfully belong to both my Father and my Brother be given to me, and accepted as His son? Yes, I will. There’s no way I can call that as being held to account.
I think somewhere along this exchange you’re misreading me; possibly because you are expecting nuance where I have not used any. The nuance is that, yes, children, wives, family, civilization, and many more things are good because they are signs that point to THE Good, and simply because God made them. I can and have gone on about those things. I will again on another day.
Regardless, to quote one of my favorite Internet writers: “I have written a lot on why planes crash. Today, I am talking about the principle of lift.” The lift is that even when my wife is at her worst, and I am at my weakest, I can rely on the truths that I’ve laid out here. I very much take solace in the fact that I cannot screw up God’s plan for my children, or my wife. If you understand what I am saying, and you agree with it except for some bit of nuance: Why are you picking an argument with me?
Mr. Dalrock asked:
I am here because I respect your mission, because your mission is vital, and because you are fucking it up. You are turning in on yourself rather than moving outward. Where the sinners are.
Don’t worry too much, I know my conversion of you is as much of a lost cause as your conversion of the culture. I won’t pester you. I am not in the business of attempting to squeeze water out of a (dal?)rock. I am here mostly to respond to critics who address me directly, and yes, I am one of those types who will go away if you stop addressing me. So you will shortly be back to your unperturbed, incestuous, stagnant, fruitless discourse.
You see, I don’t consider it a put-down to attempt to bring Christ to the “lesbian feminists” and the hypocrite pastors and the PUA hedonists and the bitter haters and the rest of those whom you consider godforsaken. My Lord descended into hell for my unworthy little soul; these meager efforts are the least I can do to repay the unrepayable. They are unlikely missions which will almost certainly fail. But mine is not to achieve the victory — the strife is o’er, the battle done. Mine is merely to proclaim it.
Matt
“Once democracy became the form of government, feminism was virtually inevitable.”
True.
I live in an Islamic majority part of town and I am friends with a lot of hardcore Islamist Brotherhood types (not bad guys, just a narrow minded). And you know what? Even these guys are getting arse raped in divorce courts by their submissive little virgin brides.
Culture, authority and law are the key, everything else is just tilting at windmills.
Dalrock is doing a superhuman effort at reframing the culture, heck 15 years ago no one was even having these discussions.
Michael pouted:
Bad guess.
But then, isn’t this the way of lazy internet scapegoating? Nothing more than a series of bad guesses?
I won’t disabuse you. You chumps have to start doing some of the work here. It’s bad for your soul if you don’t earn the wisdom for yourselves. Slothful.
Matt
“Can I give you another footrub, Sally? It has been at least four hours since the last one! You are so perfect I only want to serve you! Did you see all of the “I love you” texts I sent you while you were at the store? Do you love me too Sally? Do you really? Forever and ever?”
Thank God this has never been me. When I say I hate “gaming” its not so much not being able to, it’s more like “I thought being a highly educated, sophisticated 1st world husband/dad would end all of that. Its kid stuff.” What I am describing is a resentment that it never ends.
I’ve noticed that by simply making eye contact with my wife until she looks away, then smirking like I know something she doesn’t gets me, umm, “attention.” Its easy–but I hate it. She knows I’m doing it too. Its like role playing. STUPID.
Your points are well taken. The truth is, she has gained much insight, and actually reads this stuff. I would have been scared of that 6 months ago. It is not inconceivable that she is reading these comments now. I agree, she needs to hear that when I swooped in, the red light was flashing and things might have turned out differently. She knows it, but hearing it sometimes is good.
There is more to what is going on in our relationship, but since I have recently stopped posting anonymously, I do not wish to disclose much more on an open forum. You can see both of us, and our real names on our courtship website. Not real hard. My main point is this–I really believe the praying and bringing hard truths to her, in a strong loving way is working–and she would openly agree to that. So often prayer and miracles are asked for on the pages of these websites, and I am here to say–if you are one of the people who prays for marriages to improve–I am grateful. We aren’t there yet. It takes a lot of “two steps forward, one step back” stuff.
Deti@ “Since you’ll never let me see the kids anyway, I’ll expatriate to a country with no extradition….”
I can see this if you haven’t a clue and get hit by her with the “I’m not haaapppppyyy”, and I want a divorce thing. But have you considered the 7P’s “Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance”?
At least these two. 1. All the man’s property should be corporately, not personally owned. 2. Preemptively strike – get a Mexican Annulment, which legally wipes out the sham marriage from the get-go.
Both these will save you a lot of money, time, effort, and wear and tear.
llzozozlozlzo
hey dalorkcsaz!! da GBFM is gonna get marriedsz!! have you ehard teh good newsz?
MY WIFE IS MY PROPERTY just like my PLAYSTIONSZ and M?Y XBOX360s except dat unlike ds PLAYSTIONAZ AND XBOX god GOD says i can butethxt her and cum on her faceezlzlzoozzozo in her moutzhz butthzozlzilzz lzzooz with my lostsas cokasz!!!
innocentbystanderboston has brought the GOOD NEWS! innocentbystanderboston writes:
“For you sexually repressed people who visit Dalrock’s blog, lets be very very clear here, the Lord our God has NO PROBLEM with ANY SEXUAL ACTS that occur between A MAN AND HIS WIFE because his wife IS HIS PROPERTY. If the wife asks her husband for cunninlingus, rimjobs, tossing the salad, butthext, benooitz ballz, frecnh tickelrz, a gian gbfm dildo,sextetrly taped buttehxt that is going to be okay with God because the man IS TAKING CARE OF HIS PROPERTY.
That is Biblical people. Being a good man means pride of ownership. What you own needs caring and love, give her what she needs in da bungzhozlzolozzizzlo. Always.”
When I say I hate “gaming” its not so much not being able to, it’s more like “I thought being a highly educated, sophisticated 1st world husband/dad would end all of that. Its kid stuff.” What I am describing is a resentment that it never ends.
That’s very true, Scott.
I’ve often thought that the main insight of game and red pill and all of that is that High School and the dynamics it has never really ends. It takes more veiled forms as we grow older, but the fundamental dynamic never ends, because it is based on fundamental human desire merely played out in HS in a more visceral, in-your-face, brutal way than later in life where things tend to be more veiled by design. But the dynamic is there. I think a lot of blue pilling is wishing this ended after HS or after college or … some bloody time. But it doesn’t, because the fundamental underlying human nature is the same at 15 as it is 55. The ways that this nature plays itself out change, of course, and it is more veiled and jumbled with other factors of adult life, but play itself out it does nonetheless.
No, I won’t.
Am I being too nuanced, or am I being too glib?
Too glib, fair.
Will I receive a further inheritance once I’ve squandered my 1/3rd on worldly living?
Left field, unless this is personal
Will I, if I approach my Father as a willing servant, be forgiven, and had the fattened calf, robes, and ring that rightfully belong to both my Father and my Brother be given to me, and accepted as His son? Yes, I will. There’s no way I can call that as being held to account.
All sinners who truly repent and turn have this. Its not really the issue
I think somewhere along this exchange you’re misreading me; possibly because you are expecting nuance where I have not used any. The nuance is that, yes, children, wives, family, civilization, and many more things are good because they are signs that point to THE Good, and simply because God made them. I can and have gone on about those things. I will again on another day.
Good, agreed
. I very much take solace in the fact that I cannot screw up God’s plan for my children, or my wife.
Oh here you are spot on.
If you understand what I am saying, and you agree with it except for some bit of nuance: Why are you picking an argument with me?
I’m not, I don’t pick arguments with you. I do pick arguments. But not with you because I respect you even when I feel annoyed.
I think it is misleading. After all, I am the READER so I get to say how i read it even if I am wrong . if you sexually abused your child, be sure, you will face some consequence, even if not eternal. Hence my nod to nuance.
.
@Scott
I think you will find that with time that smirk like you know something she doesn’t will become something you enjoy as much as her (perhaps because you realize that your smirk is because of something she does know, and she knows you know it). My favorite game writer is Dave From Hawaii/Hawaiian Libertarian because he perfectly captures the playful and fun essence of game. Your wife (as a woman) is different than a man, and often enough makes no sense; give yourself permission to love her for it while you give her permission to love you for grounding her. Have fun with those moments your high school self was too good for; you know better now, and this is part of the delight of life.
A few other quick thoughts (and I appreciate your indulgence). Roissy writes of “dread game”, and one group that has dread game down pat are mother in laws. Mentu wrote about his mom saying to his sister “Take care of that man [her husband], or another woman will!”. I’m guessing your MIL has Mentu’s mom topped in this category. I mention this because in the case of the mother using dread game on her daughter it truly comes from a place of love. She has seen more women than she can count think they could ditch a good man only to end up SOL while the ex husband shows up with his new younger/prettier wife or girlfriend. Her own mother loves her enough to neg her, with dread game no less! Your part is easy, you get to tease, joke, and overall have fun. Also, since you have a blog, you will attract plenty of female attention. First of course you should be careful not to do anything foolish, but you strike me as pretty grounded. The other side is your wife will be able to enjoy having the attention of the man the other women want to pay attention to them. You don’t need to say a word here, she will game herself.
@Empath
No, not personal. Those two bits you’ve separated are of a piece from the parable of the Prodigal Son. The prodigal son’s inheritance would have been a 1/3 under the Jewish custom. When he returns, everything that belongs to the father still belongs to the older brother. So that calf and robe and ring really belongs to the son who stayed.
The reality is that this story is about Christ. Where the older brother leaves the prodigal to his fate and sulks upon his return, Jesus made a return possible, and rejoices when the prodigal does. He gives freely of the robes and rings that belong to Him; where as the Jews–the older brother in the story–did not.
Well, yes that’s true. This strikes me as the same sort of argument that women make about submission and abuse, though. It’s a grenade meant to disrupt the conversation; not forward it.
@Novaseeker
Yes. This is the sort of thing I wrote in response to Dalrock in the Fragging thread. Why would immature young adult behavior among women end, when the very mechanism that ends it is thwarted them at every turn? This prolonged immaturity starts looking very much like how mental illnesses are described.
I always start writing on these things, and then get side-tracked.
@ Cane:
“You seem to think this is all in our hands. It’s not. I have to seek to do what is good, and to present Christ–which necessarily means the Scriptures–as honestly and as whole-heartedly as I can with faith that He will give my wife and children what they need, as He has me. All I have to do is present it to them. That often (and always!) includes forgiveness with the belief that if a sinner like me can be saved, so can they. It never means ignoring it for the sake of peace now. I pray to never see my children come to harm, but I know that cannot be for their own sakes. Even if they die, God forbid, I will see them again if they love my Lord. When their time comes, I will not give them reason to doubt because, to all appearances including theirs, I made my wife my God.”
I wish I had implemented this mindset years ago. This is a trusting of God. This is what we want from wives when we want them to submit to us. In order for them to submit to us they need to trust God first. Some life circumstances cause this mindset to be very hard to fully adopt though.
@ All
Who needs Barnes and Noble or a Kindle when you have Dalrock.com?
@ Mathew King:
“Why are you here?
I am here because I respect your mission, because your mission is vital, and because you are fucking it up. You are turning in on yourself rather than moving outward. Where the sinners are.”
Wow! I can’t believe you said that! This blog’s author has helped so many. Can’t you see that? I try to stay out of other’s squabbles, but I just had to chime in this time. You need to learn how to be respectful and appreciative. Dalrock’s admonishment that you are bitching is evidently correct.
@ johnmcg
I’m sorry I did not mean to mock. The verse about the adulterous women and judging others seem to be used as “do not judge others” cards. I’m sorry. I just would not have been surprised to hear him say something like it.
@ Michael
“I believe you are seeing a shift in dynamic at present.
Based on the shrill cries of church leaders, news pundits, & all other feminist ass-kissers…….the odds of all women executing on the ‘last minute marriage & kids’ is quickly slipping through their fingers, like so many Alpha cocks.”
– I hope so. I know I’ve been doing my part to dismiss, even acting like a snarky smart ass to these women. I’m getting up the gall to tel lone of them something like “Look I appreciate you talking to be and if you were 25 I would probably try to take this conversation further with you but I’m a nice guy and make a high income and your clearly past your expiration date you waited too long yada yada” I’ve always wondered what her facial expression at that point would be. Probably total shock. I’m guessing no man as ever had balls to say something like this to a stranger”
“On a related topic, my wife has a client who just kicked her boyfriend to the curb.
He is the ‘good on paper’ guy, good job, assets, disease, drama, drug free, parents approved. Treated her like a lady, put a roof over her head free of charge. She is never-married, mid-thirties, and WANTS both marriage & kids. She is attractive enough, could pass for late 20′s. She, in my opinion, suffers from choice addiction, as she could not love this excellent marriage material man. I will give her some credit for bailing BEFORE children & marriage, rather than AFTER. She has all but put herself out of the mother market by starting over again at 35; but she certainly cannot see that fact.”
-That’s insane. I don’t get WHY they can’t see it. Someone mentioned something on another blog called “momentum fallacy” where these women are used to a certain standard in their twenties and think the same rules apply in their thirties. Total denial. She’s lucky ANY guy like that is interested in her at 35. I had a women 35 or so a former hottie with no wedding ring I’ve seen in the building before pass me by and check me out only to give this bitchy “I’ve had better than him” look. I was thinking about what it would be like to wake up next to one of the girls I saw I love me . com as she was passing by. I was like yup there is that look again. Can’t wait to go on the tour! It would be well worth it just to see if the bitchy look is still when as I’m holding hands with a girl hotter and younger than her and GIVING HER a disdaining look..
@ Cane
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1Co 3:11-15)
@ Michael
GBFM:
WILLIAM WALLACE [Brave Heart]
Your island?
STEPHEN [Crazy Irish]
My island! Yup.
STEPHEN
[laughs, looking heavenward] Him? That can’t be William Wallace. I’m prettier than this man. [Heavenward] All right Father, I’ll ask him. [To William] If I risk my neck for you, will I get a chance to kill Englishmen?
HAMISH
Is your father a ghost, or do you converse with the Almighty?
STEPHEN
In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God. [Heavenward] Yes, Father! [to William and Hamish] The Almighty says don’t change the subject, just answer the fuckin’ question.
HAMISH
Mind your tongue.
CAMPBELL
Insane Irish.
STEPHEN
Smart enough to get a dagger past your guards, old man.
WILLIAM WALLACE
That’s my friend, Irishman. And the answer to your question is yes, if you fight for me, you get to kill the English.
STEPHEN
Excellent! [puts knife away] Stephen is my name. I’m the most wanted man on my island. Except I’m not on my island of course. More’s the pity.
HAMISH
Your island? You mean Ireland.
STEPHEN
Yeah, it’s mine.
HAMISH
You’re a madman.
STEPHEN
[laughs] I’ve come to the right place then…
Vascularity777 warned:
Who said I don’t acknowledge his accomplishments? My respect is manifest in my criticism. Can you respect a person too much to speak up when they are in error? By peddling in place he is now risking the obsolescence of all he has achieved, which would be tragic. You are either busy growing or you are busy dying. He needs to be kicked into gear.
I am certainly not the one to do it. But somebody native to this cozy little community has to wake it out of its dogmatic slumber already. My loudest alarm bells haven’t done the trick. It has to be done by someone he trusts with the courage to speak frankly. That’s the person I’ve been talking to over the last few posts. Too bad that person is probably busy nodding along (or off) with the hundredth iteration of the same insider article of faith — Mark Driscoll is the nemesis, “Churchianity” is blasphemous, and remember, don’t “man up” and marry a slut!
Who else will expend my kind of effort to rebuke him? Blunt criticism doesn’t indicate an absence of respect. Indifference does. After my experience here these past few days, I am sliding toward that latter state, and it’s a shame.
The likelier outcome is that old men will chit-chat themselves into a soporific stupor and ultimate exhaustion, while others will have to take up the mantle, if they haven’t already been alienated and disaffected by his (accidentally) divisive tendencies. Those others will be more invested in achieving the goal than in purging dissenters from under every rock.
Matt
@Matt King,
See, that is just strategically counterproductive.
No it isn’t. Because most women in Church no that this is a problem because it is pretty clear in Scripture. Sometimes they go nuclear and leave, but the strange thing is most will stay and enforce the rule. Our Church has a gal on the Church board. She chuckled one time that she was “you [my] elder” and I made it very clear she was not. She hasn’t pressed the issue again. A now ex-friend went nuclear after she said she wanted to write a book on patriachy and I suggest she busy herself with training young women. She left in a huff and hasn’t been back. That’s her choice. But to _not_ point it out is wrong.
No, that’s just the vehicle. He is tolerated on the sites where he praises the hosts in the most obsequious tones and regarded as spam on all others.
I pretty much despise GB4M and think he’s a troll. But this is flat out wrong.
@Vascularity,
I encourage others to not totally give up on church attendance. Keep shopping.
Don’t do that. There’s a good section in the Screwtape Letters about that.
GK,
What is the Screwtape Letters?
hey dalrocksaz!!
i found a video of gkchesterton’s, innocentbystandersboston’s, vascularity69’s, and king matthew’s white knightz trip to da beach!
lzlzzozlzlozozzo
Vas, C.S. Lewis. “The Screwtape Letters” a novel about a demon being mentored by a series of letters from his more experienced uncle. It tries to show the inner workings of the enemies plans.
Also, I attend a home church as well as the fellowship I find with my brothers and sisters wherever I meet them. Wherever there are two of us or more together we are having “Church”. Attendance is a “Churchian” development.
Pingback: Lightning Round -2013/08/21 | Free Northerner
@Matt
“”How persuasive to modern women (or men!) are Orthodox Jews who refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex? How many converts are they making in this rat’s nest of a culture with their ostentatious commitment to symbolic principle?””
Huh?………I am Orthodox Jewish and I shake women’s hands all the time. How many people have you ever seen “convert” to Judaism?……It is not a “recruiting religion”…….Where do you get this stuff?
Actually, with regards to the link about the need for a ritual to promise to submit and obey, this part,
This ritual already exists. It’s in the Anglican Church’s Book of Common Prayer 1662 version, up to today still the official liturgy book of the Church of England (albeit rarely used!) The priest will ask only the woman the following question,
The obey clause does not exist for the man’s vows. After the woman gives her consent by her “I will”, she then “gives her troth”, that is, make the promise with her own tongue saying,
Unfortunately for you Americans, the American Episcopal Church and even the more conservative Anglican Church there has eliminated the “obey” clause in the wedding vows, the alteration was done when the American Anglican Church church altered the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in 1928 (ah, how far back doth the rot of feminism extend!).
So, for those of you wanting this ritual, if it is possible, ask for the priest to use 1662 Book of Common Prayer wedding liturgy instead of whatever liturgy they now use.
@deti
“”Out of all the women I’ve ever known who had sex before they were married (several dozen), one had never had a ONS (or at least wouldn’t admit to it). The rest, once you dug down deep enough, admitted they’d had sex with at least one man they’d met a few hours before””
I saved this article just for you!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/17/shock-claim-40000-public-school-teachers-moonlight-on-sugar-daddy-website/#ixzz2cO2wZXg9
@I Art Laughing
“”You list Dalrock amongst the “cowards” and “:chauvinists” while providing a defense for Driscoll? Bwhahahaha!””
Ditto!
Once again Matt makes the tired claim that all we do is sit here and whine about women here on Dalrock’s blog, making the specious claim that he is the only one out of all of us actually doing anything in reality. Anyone that dares to decry that the world is unrighteous and in desperate need of a Savior to save it from the gross darkness it is drowning in is a “paranoiac” and yet somehow we are all lazy lay-abouts for not getting out there and following his example of running game on feminist and PUA blogs.
Hehe.
Pingback: Submission is something a wife must voluntarily...
It seems most of the commenters, here, are failing @Dalrock’s little test… We should be calling him out for using a woman’s words to instruct us!
It’s not that there’s something wrong with Mrs. Kellers words, it’s that there can’t be anything right. @Dalock almost revealed his hand when he wrote:
“She revealed her true intentions the moment she opened her mouth to give a sermon on submission to men.”
Put it into context and there you have IT – can’t get any plainer than that, folks.
A.J.P.
Taken at face value with no consideration to the cultural context, I wouldn’t have a problem with that statement. I would merely ask for clarification. It could mean “if you get your submission only from the demand thereof, it’s not really submission. She might do what you demand, but in a spirit other than submission. She is, however, sinning against God by not submitting. It is her sin, and her only, although you can do something to help her stop it in some circumstances, but there are no guarantees.”
But I strongly suspect that even if we give the benefit of doubt, and that is indeed what she means, it is still not how it will be understood by at least 95% of the female audience. They’ll just think of the totality of everything they have heard that sounds similar, and think she is agreeing with it. And that’s going to be mutual submission and servant leadership. Meeting the man half-way; he can have the totality of the responsibility, legal and moral, but not the means to do it. Hey, it’s 50%, right? Compromise is the word.
“Cane Caldo”
It seems that St. Matthew 22: 28-30 would support your position on priorities:
Holy Scripture quoted from the K.J.V.:
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
I caught up with an older family friend and his fiance last week’
The fiance was reading a book called ‘The Meaning of Marriage’ by Timothy and Kathy Keller and so naturally I picked it up to check what advice she’s applying to her marriage before the event 🙂 Our family friend told me it’s the best book and a MUST read for everyone.
Being the way that I am, this sort of recommendation raises my skepticism!
Truth is never that popular nor is it allowed to be mainstream….
So I photocopied an entire chapter (Yep the Submission one!) which interestingly or actually not surprisingly is the only chapter written by the wife….(Kathy Keller)
Here’s a gem of a paragraph for you:
“My mother was one of the only college-educated women among her acquaintances. I had grown up not even considering whether I was the equal of any boy – it just never occurred to me to divide the world into boys and girls, except when it came to restrooms. So, in some ways, the whole feminist movement was a terrible shock to me. You mean, I thought, there are women who have been mistreated, abused, exploited, marginalised, made to feel inferior? The proposed cure revealed to me that I had been oblivious to the disease.”
WTF???!!!! No differences between boys and girls and this is a GOOD thing?!??!
I have never ever come across this justification EVER. I have heard christian women say “I’m not a feminist BUT…..” But I’ve never heard it like this.
To wrap feminism up in this twisted ‘disease/cure’ concept just blows my mind.
I wish all the very best for my friend and his fiance…. but I can’t help but be concerned as their marriage will only be as strong as the foundations they build on. . .
What I’ve researched about Timothy and Kathy Keller since learning of this book is not comforting!
And now this post
I wanna warn the world!!!!!!!!
@Kathy Keller:
“It’s respectful submission between equals.”
“headship does not imply superiority, nor does submission imply inferiority.”
The foundation of her argument is 100% wrong.
I believe women ARE inferior!
God created an order in the beginning:
Father
Son
Spirit
Arch-angels
Kings
Man – Husband
Woman – Wife
Children
Animals
None of this changes just because FEELINGS get in the way!
Leonard Cohen once wrote “I don’t trust my inner feelings, inner feelings come and go.”
I agree, but women tend to let their feelings dictate their actions and then justify their actions with more feelings. Crazy! (Fathers and husbands do a good job here of reigning in the female’s tendencies with manly Logic.)
‘And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
…’And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2 v 18- 24
‘He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favour from the Lord.’
Proverbs 18:22
Within this God-ordained order, I find my freedom. I know who I am in Christ, I know who I am called to be on this earth – that I was created to fill a need… that I am a ‘good thing’ for my husband within my role as his helper. I am filled with joy as I live within my created nature that God intended. My husband was given the sphere of authority and I aim to please him and Him by respecting my husband’s authority.
‘For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.’
1 Corinthians 11 v 8-9
We women ARE inferior! But so what?!
Do I know the mind of God that I should question his ways? What I do know, is that Eve was deceived first, and yet God holds Adam accountable as he was appointed leader. I don’t want to cause my husband to sin before God.
We have a society that has an obsession with women and taking away power from men.
‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God’
Philippians 2 v 5-6
It is against God’s word to strive for equality… we are not to be puffed up, instead I believe we are to humble ourselves as servants.
Feminism and equality are corrupting much of what is good in society. Our culture is embracing beliefs that are opposed to God everywhere we look.
I believe this overturning of God’s created order is unholy and the root of much rebellion to God in the church.
“All this talk about equality. The only thing people really have in common is that they are all going to die.” Bob Dylan
There have been at least three times in my marriage where I have commanded my wife to submit to me. In each situation we discussed a decision we needed to make that involved the family or something she wanted to do. I listened to and considered her input but we did not arrive at a mutually agreeable, final decision. I firmly said something like, “God made me the husband, therefore I am in charge so we are going to do X.
Contrary to Kathy Keller’s lecture, my marriage has not been harmed by me asserting my headship. My wife has never threatened me with divorce, she still respects me and speaks well of me to others. I still love her and enjoy her.
Hanna-
“And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’”
Sometimes it is important to go back look at the basics. This passage is so simple, yet has so much to unpack doesn’t it?
It explains the 2 reasons for the creation of woman (and marriage).
1. To solve the problem of lonliness and
2. To provide the man with a helper for his mission.
All of the rest of scripture on this topic sheds light on the “how” part, but never really fails to tie into these two purposes. Too bad it gets so messed up.
If anyone thinks that a wife giving a husband a blowjob, or a husband going down on his wife is “sodomy”, and “evil” has OBVIOUSLY never read “Song of Solomon”. When the woman says “Let my lover come into his garden, and taste it’s choice fruits”, do you think she’s talking about him walking into an actual garden, and having a taste of the tomatoes and cucumbers? No. It’s a metaphorical way for her to say “Go down on me”. Notice she also says “HIS garden”, denoting ownership.
I swear, it’s like some of you people read a few passages, and want to twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
It is quite obvious that some of you have NO experience with women. Normal women WANT to be “owned” by their man. It sexually excites them, and turns them on. Why do you think Athol, an athiest, is having such success with his books and advice? It is because no woman is turned on by “Dear, can we have sex tonight, if it’s not too much trouble?”, but EVERY woman is turned on by a man striding confidently up to his wife, grabbing her and pulling her close, and saying “Woman, you are mine, and I am going to take you.” Disagree? Well then, you have to argue with the BILLIONS of dollars spent each year by women on romance novels where the hero does just that. Here’s a little secret, boys (and yes, I use that particular word purposely): When you sometimes treat your wife like nothing more than a sex object, not only will she like it, but YOU will like it too. That is, if you aren’t a cowering simp, afraid of your masculinity.
Slighty off topic, but…
Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing, people. There’s more than one here in these comments. The wolves who walk as wolves are only dangerous to new sheep; old sheep can spot them easily. Even old sheep can be tricked by wolves in sheep’s clothing, if they do not look carefully.
Dalrock, my only advice to you is that you be wary of those who tell you how to run your website, or what your mission “should be”, or that you are “fucking up”. Those who would burden you with heavy burdens, but not lift a finger to help you. Now where have I heard that last paraphrase before?
The order of authority given in the bible is VERY clear: God-Jesus-Husband-Wife. “What if the husband is abusing her” lament the women. Well, let her be a lesson to all the young women to CHOOSE CAREFULLY before you pick a man to be your husband. “Honey, if you choose Harley McBadboy, or Rockbandfuckbuddy, then know that is your outcome, and no one will save you.” would go a LONG way to solving our current problems with wives, girlfriends, and women in general.
And to the wolves in sheep’s clothing on this website: Get off Dalrock’s ass.
@Matt King
Matt it is time for some tough love. I’ve teased you about biting other men’s ankles instead of creating/doing something of your own, but I realize that I’ve enabled you by giving you a safe and comfortable way to pretend that you are something that you aren’t. I looked at your comment history and you’ve been telling me in great detail what I’m doing wrong for over a year now. In fact, unless I’ve missed an earlier comment yesterday was your one year anniversary of explaining to me all that I am doing wrong.
Either you have a great deal of blogging wisdom which you are wasting on me, or you are full of advice on a topic you have no actual wisdom on. As long as I let you keep commenting here you will never know. Today is the day, Matt, for you to make a baby step towards being your own man. Scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the link “Blog at wordpress.com”. It may be uncomfortable at first, so I advise you to start with what you are good at. Maybe your inaugural post should be 101 things Dalrock is doing wrong. From there you could move to why you are cooler than Rollo and smarter than Vox Day. Flushed with the feeling of being your own man, you could then write a post about how you are more your own man than Cane Caldo.
I’m obviously poking at you but it is still true that you would be better served to do/create something of your own. No one is impressed by the man who tries to make his reputation by seeking out men with accomplishment and telling everyone how he could do it better. Don’t tell everyone, do it. Put all of your blogging theory into practice. Click the link at the bottom of the page and start your own free blog. Do it now and don’t look back. You can thank me later.
From your comment to me 1 year ago yesterday:
@Vass,
One of the greatest books ever and it is a nice short read. I Art’s description is correct. Lewis wrote it as a series of radio plays during WWII. Read it.
Pingback: The Choice to Submit
Matt it is time for some tough love.
It’s easier to comment on other people’s efforts than it is to mount an effort of your own, so I applaud MK starting his own blog. He’s made “being smarter than everyone else” into an art form, and art like that needs it’s own gallery. 🙂
@Dalrock
“”I looked at your comment history and you’ve been telling me in great detail what I’m doing wrong for over a year now””
Good Call!………….maybe Matt can enlighten us as to why you are at the top of the list for Manosphere Blogs and you have so many committed readers and posters.
@Dalrock
My opinion as to how you run your Blog. Simple!……”You just keep doing what you are doing……….if it is not broken it does not need fixing”…..your readership is growing day by day. Congrats my friend!
“I have had a rough day at work, I NEED a blow job. I NEED it.” Don’t smile. Don’t look goofy. Just stand there masterfully, and (if I’m correct) the last thing she is going to be thinking about are the arrary of social and legal options available to her. ”
Is this what you mean by “Headship”?!?! Sign me up!!!
You know one of the reasons I started my blog two years ago was exactly due to members of the SoSuave forum urging me to collect all of my best posts in one spot. My good friend STR8UP asked me, “why do you waste your time posting all this great material on a forum where only a handful of people will ever benefit from it?”
That was all the prompting I needed after having posted there for a little over 6 years.
I think your intent is good Dal, but Matt fancies himself a John the Baptist crying in the manosphere wilderness. He knows damn well no one would come to him were he to write his own apocrypha blog,..well maybe Feministix until she got bored after the first week.
Rollo,
As a father of a daughter, I sometimes fear the White Knight-syndrome to be something along the lines of a man coming to the realization that his daughter might not get married (for whatever reason) and she will never give him grandchildren. That is a pretty frightening thing for some fathers to realize, something most fathers will not accept. There is nothing wrong with his daughter, all the young men got it wrong. And then once that happens, a man in the manosphre starts reverting into a Tucker Calrson and starts assuming that it MUST be men that are all defective since no man wants to marry my little girl. This is the default position because it allows a man to keep his pride while simultaneously assign blame to anyone other than the people he knows personally.
I don’t know if this is what is going on with Matt. But it wouldn’t surprise me if it is. Matt is scared of the manosphere. I truly believe that, he is scared of the movement that occurs at places like Dalrock’s blog. I don’t think he needs to be afraid because the manosphere is such a tiny percentage of men (and I don’t see it growing all that much without a proper spokesperson) but Matt is trying to nip things in the bud so to speak. That was his all-important purpose. I don’t know if his purpose originates from some kind of personal stake in crushing the men’s movement (because of something that is happening in his family), but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case.
^^^
Also know as Kay Hymowitz Syndrome.
@ Hanna
“What I do know, is that Eve was deceived first, and yet God holds Adam accountable as he was appointed leader.”
Check your knowledge. God held Adam accountable for listening to his wife’s foolishness and eating of the tree. He was NOT held accountable for Eve’s rebellion/sin; she was. (Genesis 3:16-19)
Adam wasn’t even deceived. He chose his wife before obedience to God. (1 Timothy 2:14)
@Rollo
You also have one of the top blogs in the Manosphere and you have done a lot of men a great service.I have read most of your blog but,I have never posted.I am a very avid reader but,one hell of a lazy typer……L*………Keep up the good work!
Rollo,
I think there has to be some kind of MOTIVE on Matt’s part. I don’t know for sure what that motive is, but I think he does have some kind of personal stake in making men believe that men (by their very nature) are corrupt and need feminism to step-in and keep us on the right track.
I’ve seen similar arguments to this with regards to marriage. A typical White Knight might come along and say that marriage (by its very nature) is designed to make men more tractable, easier to control and subvert. That is why we HAVE marriage, to calm and pacify a human gender that tends towards violence. I have seen those arguments. And Matt may be a big believer in that and he scours the Bible looking for scripture that would support that belief system.
@Mark, thanks for the props. I just hit the 2 year mark this week.
A couple of weeks back I had this comment for Matt in The Script:
I think this depiction is the most accurate for him.
@Rollo
“”Kay Hymowitz””
Another radical fem-tard! As you might notice she is Jewish(as are most of the leaders of the Femi-Nazi Movement).I consider these Jewish women to be an embarrassment to myself and my Jewish brethren…….as do many other Jewish men!
A typical White Knight might come along and say that marriage (by its very nature) is designed to make men more tractable, easier to control and subvert. That is why we HAVE marriage, to calm and pacify a human gender that tends towards violence.
OMG – that’s exactly how I felt about myself in my “blue-pill” days. What a lie straight from the pits of hell that was, and I’m glad to be rid of it!
Mark,
I’m going to defer to your expertise in this matter but I have a serious cultural question for you. Do you believe that Judaism (not from a spiritual sense, but a cultural one, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia) tends to point a person in the direction of communism? I am being semi-serious when I ask that. I only ask that because of your comment above and my believe that half of roots of feminism is just communism in a dress. The other half of my belief system on the root of feminism is that is meant to empower ugly women. I don’t know what Kay Hymonwitz looks like and I am too lazy to google right now.
innocentbystanderboston says:August 21, 2013 at 1:11 pm
half of roots of feminism is just communism in a dress
if feminists are willing to trade liberty, freedoms, and self-responsibility for “security”, then this is absolutely true.
@Rollo
Thats a risk I’m willing to take.
Isn’t that just Life of Julia? Even ugly women can marry government.
Thats a risk I’m willing to take.
Oh….man…..think it over. I picture you (or some generic proxy for you) grasping your ears, down on both knees screaming “what have I doooonnneee?”
Pingback: Equality is a lie. Our pleasures deceive. | - Dark Brightness
IBB, Mark, whoever else: For Feminism/Communism/Judaism, check out Henry Makow and Brother Nathaniel (“self-hating” Jews).
@IBB
“”Do you believe that Judaism (not from a spiritual sense, but a cultural one, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia) tends to point a person in the direction of communism?””
Yes it does!…….I say this because I always vote Conservative….most Jews vote Liberal. If you look at the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution,most of it leaders all had Jewish blood…..Leon Trotsky being the best example.From my own perspective(to answer your question),Jews have always been “communal”.We always lived together and helped one another….probably because no one else would help us.Look at the countries that we have been thrown out of! Even Roosevelt turned down a boat load of Jews during WWII.The best example that I can give you to answer your question would be in modern day Israel. The “Kibbutz” is communal. This ‘mentality” has been derived via centuries of “Jewish Self Reliance”
“”The other half of my belief system on the root of feminism is that is meant to empower ugly women””
Agreed!…..most Jewish Femi-Nazis are nothing to rave about in the looks department! Most of the Jew Fem-Tards were single when they got on the feminist bandwagon and became leaders of the movement.Some married(of which I consider a cop out) when they were older(what lucky men).I know a few that are leaders here in Toronto as they go to my Synagogue.Believe me my friend…..they are VERY ugly!…..but,the worst of it is not on the outside….but,on the inside.They are hate filled people no matter what their religion and I assure you that they are not very popular with the “Male Jewish Leadership”.
@Dalrock
“”Thats a risk I’m willing to take””
You are a very brave man!…..L*
@I Art Laughing
I started reading Henry Makow’s website before Dalrock’s. He is a fellow Canuck. “Self hating Jew”………quite possibly! From what I have read he is not very supportive of his brethren and I think that he buys into the “Jewish conspiracy theory” of world domination. He does make a few valid points though about Jews dominating the media,Hollywood,high finance…etc..etc……I believe that this is because of “work ethic” that was instilled in these people when they were young.Myself as an example.I was raised to ‘work hard and make our people proud”. A note to Christians here…..a good Pastor friend of mine has told me countless times that the “Anti-Christ” in the New Testament will be Jewish……..time will tell!
Dear IBB:
Whether you want to admit it or not, that actually is objectively true, in a general sense. For example: Who do you think will be better behaved and better adjusted, twenty years hence… Dalrock’s son, or the son I didn’t know I conceived with one of the skanks I banged, who grew up without any male role models, other than a long train of similar playas that his mother exposed him to? Which of these theoretical men will contribute more to society? Which is statistically more likely to get an advanced degree, and which is more likely to get a long prison sentence for some violent crime?
Marriage isn’t convenient or fun, for many men; but it does serve the long term interests of the social order.
This has been a very interesting argument, and despite the occasional flaming, it has been a fertile intellectual field, so I thank all the participants, even while I hope that we will remember we are all brothers (at least in a metaphorical sense) and that we have more in common than we might immediately assume.
Boxer
Ha. You guys are too much.
Yet another blawg? You’re missing the point. This is not about having some permanent address for regular bloviation (cf. Tomassi). It is about what to do once you have rallied the troops to your banner. It’s time to leverage your hard work here into something useful, rather than preaching to the choir. At least Rollo is publishing a book.
I appreciate the attempt at “tough love,” but I’m a couple steps ahead of you. I do not see a problem and start a blog about it. I work the problem and then consider using a website to report the activity, if that fits in with the mission. (And if I established a website — or already have one — it would be under another identity anyway; my purpose under this guise is simple investigation/reconnaissance.) You are giving me the advice you already followed years back because you approach a multifaceted problem with a single-dimensional tool: shout about it. Yours is the kind of suggestion that leads to “forming a committee to study the problem,” even though the problem has been studied and diagnosed for years now.
As for the rest of you, filling up the near-anonymous vessel of my online persona with your fears of villainy, you ought to check yourself. There is no substitute for self-examination, brothers. I can tell you that there are so many random mischaracterizations of me that I can’t keep up correcting them. And even when I do, you persist with your risible claims anyway. That’s on you. I wish I had the resources to minister to the paranoid personally, but, like I’m telling Mr. Dalrock, there are better uses for our time.
Matt
Mark, what opened my eyes was that I had believed for so long that Judaism was about the Torah and Moses. I didn’t realize that the Karaites were what I thought Orthodox Jews were. Once the origin of the Talmud was opened up to me I could see what the nature of Jesus Christ’s argument with the Pharisees was. He warned us again and again that the tradition that was eventually put down in the Talmud would be responsible for persecuting His followers. Paul made it pretty clear this would be the case in Galatians.
I have nothing against Jewish people, but I do think that the Talmud is evil.
Mark,
I remember watching that outstanding Paul Newman movie filmed in 1960, Exodus. I could understand the hunger strike to force the British Government to let the ship out of port in Cyprus, but what I could not understand is why everyone wanted to join the Kibbutz the instant they got to Israel. Of course that was supposed to be taking place in 1948 or whatever (just after WWII.)
About 20 years ago, my then GF was an American Jew who was a BU exchange student who studied at Haifa University. She told me that she worked in the IDF (chemical weapons division.) I don’t understand how an American student in Israel can do that, but I guess I just don’t know all the rules. In any event, she lived in a Kibbutz and she said she had a blast, loved every minute of it. She even showed me the naughty pictures she took of herself and her Kibbutz GFs when they grabbed all the IDF boys they could find and swam naked in the Dead Sea. Very liberated those American Jewish girls got the minute they got to the Holy Land.
From what I understand, pretty much all the Israeli Kibuttzes are bankrupt now anyway.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it from an ugly woman’s perspective. There is not much an ugly woman can do to charm a wealthy doctor or lawyer in marrying her and making her “whole.” If she’s ugly, there is only so much she can do (if you believe that all men choose women based on looks first.) I chose my wife based on her intelligence but maybe I’m an outlier, I don’t know. But if you are an ugly woman, of course be a feminist because…. the beautiful women can marry up in lifestyle and wealth. And you can’t. You were screwed at birth. Only feminism can make you whole NOT at the expense of other women but INSTEAD at the expense of men whom you are angry at because… they would never pick you.
I suppose it would be out of place on this blog to say what I think about the painfully unwatchable film Exodus, with yet another god-awful performance from Newman – so I won’t, other than to remind all, in case they have forgotten, that Israel exists because of the Balfour Declaration.
Opus, its okay if you didn’t like it. I liked it. What didn’t you like about Exodus? Was it the historical inaccuracies or the concept that Jews would be willing to “blow things up” in Israel (the way the Palestinians do today?) I thought the visuals in the movie (I believe it was filmed on location) were breathtaking.
I just read the Balfour Declaration in wiki. Interesting. I don’t think Israel “exists” because of that so much that it “exists” because of the United States giving so many different countries money. The US pays Egypt not to attack it. The US pays Turkey not to attack it. I don’t know if we pay Syria anymore given the civil war there. And we pay Israel about $10,000,000,000 a year because… because… I don’t know, they are our ally? They are a Democracy in the Middle East? Because AIPAC is strong and influences both the Democrat and Republican Party? Perhaps its because we here in the United States feel guilty that we sat out WWII so long (left England all alone against the Nazis for 27 months) and in doing so, we weren’t there to stop the death of so many millions of European Jews?
I guess any of those reasons Opus. We could argue til we are blue in the face, but I think it is US MONEY and not any silly 1917 British Declaration that Israel exists.
@I Art Laughing
“”the Talmud would be responsible for persecuting His followers.””
“Talmudic Jews”…….I know a few of them.They are the most virulent “Anti-Christians” that I have met among Jews………..Good Point! I find that the Talmudic Jews to be very historic.They hold grudges from a long time ago…..particularly when it comes to “Crusades & Inquisitions”. I find that they have a very deep and ingrained hatred of the Roman Catholic Church.
@IBB
“”she took of herself and her Kibbutz GFs when they grabbed all the IDF boys they could find and swam naked in the Dead Sea. Very liberated those American Jewish girls got the minute they got to the Holy Land.
From what I understand, pretty much all the Israeli Kibuttzes are bankrupt now “”
Financially bankrupt?….NO!………..Morally bankrupt?………YES!
@InnocentBystanderBoston
As indicated, I think it best if I say little about Israel, though I may perhaps observe that my father was a British Army Officer out there in 1946 so I am unlikely to be un-biased. I will however limit what I might say to Newman. He is, you will recall supposed to be a British Army Officer – like my father, a Captain.
Some American actors do English accents very well – Denzel Washington, does a superb Sarf Lonan (South London) accent and Renee Zellweger is spot-on as a certain sort of middle-class English girl in the Bridget Jones movies, and then there are what we like to think of as those actors who attended the Dick Van Dyke school off pronunciation. You will recall his cockney from Mary Poppins – which is unintentionally comical. Audrey Hepburn (Dutch) is good but somewhat laboured as Eliza Doolittle; Marlene Deitrich is as a bad (quite bizarre) as Van Dyke in Witness for the Prosecution. I reserve my loathing for Newman who doesn’t even make an effort and who looks for all the world as if he is an American in the wrong uniform and Peter Lawford obviously takes his cue from Newman. But Newman is dreadful most of the time anyway – good as Harper, I concede, but usually miscast – and between him and Julie Andrews and Hitchcock sacking the (then) best composer in Hollywood (Hermann) Torn Curtain (where as in The Prize Newman plays a physicist) is dreadful.
As I said I am prejudiced for my two favourite American actors (Cary Grant and Gary Cooper) are both English – or of English parentage. I am however pleased to have learned you – and this blog – about Balfour for I am guessing that somehow the declaration is omitted from the average American history lesson, and so I am only too happy to be able on this blog to correct that unfortunate and regrettable oversight.
Really, the bottom line is, as it is written, Israel exsists because of God.
@IBB
“”I don’t think Israel “exists” because of that so much that it “exists” because of the United States giving so many different countries money. The US pays Egypt not to attack it. The US pays Turkey not to attack it. I don’t know if we pay Syria anymore given the civil war there. And we pay Israel about $10,000,000,000 a year because… because… I don’t know, they are our ally? “”
Now you are getting it!…….Money talks!………Also,the Balfour Declaration is nothing but a “Rothschild State”……..the state of Israel was financed by the Rothschild Family….the wealthiest most powerful family in the world.Most Gentiles do not realize this.Also,Israel has a much greater influence in the US Polity than most people realize.Of the foreign spies that have been caught in the USA in the last 20 years…..who are they spying for?……Israel!…….more specifically the Mossad! Aren’t we supposed to be friends?….
“”Was it the historical inaccuracies or the concept that Jews would be willing to “blow things up” in Israel (the way the Palestinians do today?)””
Great point!………Remember prior 1967……the Israeli leaders of today were the “terrorists” of yesterday!……and they did what they did because of the Old Testament……”God’s chosen people….and their land(Israel). This makes sense.If you go back in history all the the countries that have denied the Jews…or mistreated them…have rapidly declined….. Spain,Britain are good examples. I believe(my own personal opinion) that the Obama Administration’s biggest failure will be the denial,subjugation and outright hatred of Israel. I cannot recite the Biblical Verse off my head….but,..”as you do to my chosen people I will do to you”……..history does repeat itself…and I do believe that God has kept his word to his “chosen people”
Opus,
I understand, your frustraton with that movie is Paul Newman focused. In that sense, I understand and agree. He makes as much of an attempt at British accent as Kevin Costner does in Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves, that is, no attempt what so ever.
Studying that part of the world and understanding how impacted the Middle East wasn’t in WWII (Nazis never made it East of Cairo, and Soviets never made it South of Caucus into Iran) I learned that Saudi Arabia promised England and also the United States from now until all eternity, we could buy all the oil we could ever want. Every drop, as a debt they want to pay to the Allies for keeping the Nazis and the Soviets and also the Japanese OUT of the Middle East. Of course that promise was made before Israel became a country and then all the rules changed…
You are absolutely right, I did not know about it. But I’m sorry, I don’t think your Balfour means anything. I agree with Mark, its all about the money. How much money does England pay Egypt not to attack Israel? We pay Egypt almost $2,000,000,000 annually. Money has been flowing in since the 1973 war between Egypt and Israel.
There was even talk in our Congress last week about ending that until Egypt gets its sh-t together, but (of course) Israel and AIPAC did all that they could in Washington DC to make sure the aid keeps flowing. They get it.
@GregC
“”Really, the bottom line is, as it is written, Israel exsists because of God.””
I believe this thoroughly!……..A good Pastor friend of mine explains it this way to me……..Israel was obliterated in 560BC to be taken into captivity because of their rebellion against God……..they were re-formulated in 1948. God has always promised that “I will return my chosen people to the land I have given them”………Makes sense to me! Then the fall of the USSR……..Israel was overwhelmed by the exodus from here. My Pastor friend also explained the number of years & days….I was taken back a bit but as the man of the cloth as I know him…he was not making this up….he backs up everything with Scripture. So you Christians have one up on me here!…..L*
@GregC
Sorry,as my Pastor friend tells me…….”The reformation of Israel is the greatest Biblical Prophecy to ever come true in the modern world……..and possibly the Bible as a whole”…………Wow!…..strong stuff!
@IBB
Wow!………we are so off topic!….Lmao!……..Poor Dalrock is wondering what the hell is going on…..L*
Mark, I love history.
I can’t make a living off of it, but I love it.
Opus, despite “a difficult day for England at the Oval (©Aggers), I think you ought to be cheered by Johnny Depp’s effortless and copious mastery of the Sassunaich mode. Some people actually do give a damn, my dear.
How odd. On your second topic, I was reading up on the Stern Gang just yesterday. Old Child’s bezzy mate’s dad was the subject of assorted attentats during his time in the Palestine police, which taking a local moslem wife did nothing to diminish, as one might expect. Mentioned as a part of a discussion over the latest US-backed coup in Egypt (by-the-bye, I have Persian friends who still boil over about the Mossadegh business).
I was particularly intrigued by the Lehi leadership’s instinctive attraction to .. Mussolini, and that shouty little Austrian dosser. I suppose it made a natural synergistic fit with the likes of Devalera, Collins, Casement and Eoin O’Duffy, against the Incredibly Evil British Empire™.
I sure would like to see another big bible prophecy that describes how towards the end of days Israel will be attacked by enemies from the north that are intent on destroying them completely, only to be turned back by God.
Heh, hey Opus,
I don’t mean to pile on the way Tam did with Johnny Depp, but how about Gweneth Paltrow in Sliding Doors or Shakespeare in Love? Hell how about Ben Afleck in Shakespeare in Love? Please do not judge us Yanks only on Paul Newman and Kevin Costner.
I forgot about Depp (weird or what) – Paltrow is good – never heard of Affleck. Costner? I thought that was Richard Todd.
It seems that once again America and Britain are two countries separated by a common past. Is there some cricket going on? I leave such frivolities to the Scots.
@Matt the destroyer: >>I am here because I respect your mission, because your mission is vital, and because you are fucking it up.
Translated: You are doing it wrong. You are doing it wrong.
@Matamoros: >>2. Preemptively strike – get a Mexican Annulment, which legally wipes out the sham marriage from the get-go
Sigh. Mexican law has outlawed quickie divorces for foreigners who are not permanent residents, many, many years ago.
Not that they would be recognized in the US anyway. It is never a good idea to write about things you know nothing about.
Your first suggestion, which seems to be a dummy corporation, judges routinely simply order a pay-out anyway.
Pingback: Links and Comments #15 (The “Where’s Poochie?” Edition) | The Society of Phineas
@8oxer
…it has been a fertile intellectual field, so I thank all the participants,,,
You are welcome.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
The volunteering takes place at the uttering of the vows. The taking of the husband’s name should be a part of that… if only as a proof that a wife has truly committed herself to the marriage… rather than remaining truly committed only to herself.
One of the very damaging consequences of the teaching that men should never ask for submission from their wives is that young men are not taught by their fathers, pastors, and priests that this is something they should expect, and sometimes demand, from their wives.
I have been reading, “Created to Need a Help Meet” by Michael Pearl. On the subject of submission he unfortunately teaches the same thing that Kathy Keller does.
For those new to “GBFM”, he exists solely in the comments sections. For those who think that there might be more to him… there is a blog… but that is it!
Best regards,
A.J.P.
DAMN does “Help Meet” rub me the wrong way, considering that one typically learns foreign languages in the logical mind, not intuitive mind like your native one. I want to scream “help that is meet for what purpose?!” ok, the Bible says “help meet for HIM”. Well, that is pretty much the same as if it said “help suitable for him” and you abbreviated it “help suitable”. It’s “suitable help”, dammit, and it should be “meet help”.
You can’t just leave an adjective dangling like that, it wants to CONNECT.
Sometimes I don’t know who is more confusing Tam the Bam or GBFM, and I am supposed to get all of Tam’s subtle allusions.
I am surprised that no one has taken me to task and asked, ‘what about all your British actors who play Americans in the movies?’ – and such a person would be correct: Does Michael Caine sound as odd when playing an American (Hurry Sundown for instance) as he does when assuming a British accent – trust me, no one actually speaks like that ‘You only had to blow the bloody doors off’, and then, though it doesn’t bother me, Sean Connery sounds no more old-English than he does new-Englander in Marnie, which is what he is supposed to be. One normally has to look to the character actors to hear English as she really is spoken: up-market Robert Morley, or down-market Sid James, are pretty much how it really sounds, and although I find Alec Guinness horribly mannered I could happily listen to Peter Cushing read the telephone directory. What most of those actors miserably fail in when playing Aristocrats is that unself-conscious and effortless and contemptuous superiority, that oozes from the real thing. Hugh Grant comes close but he is middle-class, as is Colin Firth. Peter O’Toole has the reticence. I tend to think that Ollie Reed came closest with his lascivious contempt. The man from Wimbledon would surely have made the perfect Bond.
As for the women I doubt that Julie Andrews could even pinpoint Austria on a map.
deti says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm
I’d qualify your otherwise good advice by saying ‘expect that she very well might change for the worse’. Prior to and early on in marriage many women are on their best behavior; it’s only over time that the hamster’s ramblings take hold.
If you can spot a problem beforehand, run.
Some Guy says:
August 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm
You are indeed without rights whatsoever once the knot is tied. Preach on, brutha.
See, I’ve always seen King as having a rather specific agenda. That agenda appears to be to shift the direction of the men’s community, or at least the more Christian-oriented part of it, away from Game, the internet, discussions of feminism, and so on, and towards action in the real world – not political activism, but cultural engagement, particularly with (a) those who may be somewhat like-minded (but different in many perspectives) and (b) those who are on the other side but with whom some bridges may be built. That is to say, he seems to have hated the self-referential aspects of the manosphere in particular, as well as the elements of it that he personally finds distasteful (e.g., lower ranked men, divorced men, and so on). The reason, as far as I could discern it, is that these male voices would serve no purpose in his idea of real world cultural engagement (people do not like low rank men and divorced men in general) and so served no purpose in his plan. In general, what he has been trying to do is either/both (i) move people like Dalrock and Vox away from what they are doing now and towards what he thinks should be done and (ii) move some of the supporters of these bloggers towards doing so and (iii) delete the rest of the people who participate in these blogs from any meaningful participation in the movement because they are broken divorced guys, or loser faggots and sissies and so on. In short, his agenda has always been about recruiting people for his own designs, and what he sees as being the relevant form of engagement around these issues and related ones.
Of course, in light of that Dalrock’s approach here makes perfect sense. If he is about recruiting people to do things differently, he should be doing that himself, rather than trying to skim off the success of others in this specific medium. There I expect he will face problems, however, due to his presentation and manner – rather obvious problems, I think. But it is the more honest way to go about what he appears to be trying to achieve.
If this sounds like a defense of him or his goals, I assure you it is not. It’s merely stating what I’ve observed, as I’ve seen this poster get banned from blog after blog after blog.
“Opus”
The proper way to speak English? Listen to the Mrs. Jane Austen fan.
Americans know how.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
P.S.
The “Austen” fan is, obviously, the one who isn’t so keen on “Dickens”, right Opus?
@Bee
I haven’t read that book, but “Created To Be His Helpmeet” was written by his wife, Debi Pearl, and it’s top notch. I could nitpick, but overall it teaches wives to shut up and submit to their husbands in every area. To be modest, feminine keepers of their home. Their books on child-training are likewise excellent. They are consistently attacked by feminist churchians, who are outraged by Debi’s book. The witches that run the Warberg Watch blog are typical.
@Novaseeker
I think this captures the (more) overt side of his agenda. I didn’t have an issue with this part. He is free to have an opinion like everyone else, and make his case within respectful limits as a guest of this blog. The respectful limits part is the issue, as you touch on:
Tied up in the boundaries issue is his more covert agenda. Even here it is fairly naked though. He wants to declare himself the leader and myself and others as his subjects. It is a clumsy but incredibly persistent attempt to AMOG me and everyone else. Instead of building something, he seeks to place himself above those who do.
This started off as merely laughable, but over time it became more and more tedious. The irony is he is constantly lecturing everyone about the right way to engage with others. He very obviously has no clue how to handle social relationships or influence people, so he is trying to enlist others to do this for him. But enlisting others would require excellent social relationship and influencing skills. If he really knew how to do what he wants to instruct me on, he wouldn’t need to instruct me. I explained this to him quite some time ago, but he always deflects and just comes back explaining that he is the master and I am the student, so why won’t I do as I’m told*? While it was entertaining at first, I have no more patience for it.
*This was the gist of his response (caught by the blacklist filter) to my tough love comment above. Basically his response was “We don’t need another blog. You’ve already created one”. Yes, I have.
Ah, but perhaps you only think so because he speaks truth with authority and you can’t countenance it.
Great, now we have a point of contention; it could be that, or he could be a tedious prick that’s an embarrassment to the entire manosphere. How, oh, how could we ever resolve this?
I know! He could start his own blog! If it’s the first, people will come and be persuaded of the truth. If it’s the second, crickets will come.
If only all problems were this simple.
I fished Matt’s final comment out of the spam filter and approved it (above). I’ll leave this as his last word on my blog.
Best of luck Matt. Even if you don’t succeed, you will be better for having tried to create something of your own.
@Artisanal Toad,
Glad to hear Debi’s book is good.
I had high hopes for Michael’s book because he projects a manly image:
cabinetmaker
mountain man beard
champion knife and tomahawk thrower
Michael also promotes physical location submission – inside the home (physical location) the man submits to the wife. From chapter 3 of his book, “A man’s home may be his castle, but she is lord of the manor. Bend to your wife’s wishes when it comes to the house. My wife owns the house and the kitchen. She tells me what to do and what not to do in the house, and I obey her. She can’t make me wash dishes but she can tell me where I can put my feet and where I can take my shoes off and where I can drop a dirty towel. Don’t contend with your wife over the home. It is her nest.”
Pearl, Michael; Pearl, Debi (2012-02-15). Created To Need A Help Meet: A Marriage Guide for Men (Kindle Locations 643-646). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.
I am going to give Mike some comps for this, as I partially agree and partially disagree.
She is your property and your house is your property. But in the house, (her nest) she has some power. In the livingroom, damn straight she can tell you where to put your feet and your shoes. I would even go as far as to say she has the power to tell you to DO the dishes. I would give her that power. 80% of the house is her nest….
…except for two rooms: Gararge and Master Bedroom.
In the garage and the Master Bedroom, those are the MAN’S nests and in those rooms (particularly the master bedroom) SHE submits. When she leaves the part of the home where she is in control and comes to bed, he is in charge.
I must be especlially slow witted, because I haven’t been able to extract from his comments a single concrete idea of what precisely King want’s Dalrock to do differently. That may be because I don’t read the ‘sphere as widely as others, I suppose.
One general caution (and obviously, I hope, not a defense of King’s commentary) is that truth and popularity have a tenuous relationship at best. So “start your own blog, and if you are right you will get a high ranking on Alexa” doesn’t carry much epistemic water. The one does not follow from the other.
Mind you, I do think Dalrock’s blog is popular mainly and precisely because he tells the truth, in an engaging way, against a background of modernist lies. But Hell man, HuffPo is really popular too.
In the livingroom, damn straight she can tell you where to put your feet and your shoes. I would even go as far as to say she has the power to tell you to DO the dishes.
Screw that. Is this really how the kids think these days?
Dalrock –
I agree that he was/is constantly trying to AMOG everyone. I remember he was like that from the beginning when he started to pop up on various blogs in this part of the internet. As you rightly point out, the ironic, and actually quite hilarious, aspect of this is how abysmal he is at it. At first, I thought the over-the-top style must have been some sort of straining-to-be-clever self-parody – that is, an ironic hipster take on male leadership characterized by exaggerate stereotypical emphases coupled with a rather obvious cluelessness about leadership that was intended to be obvious and tip us off to the joke. But over time it became obvious that this was not the case, which of course leads to more disturbing places.
All’s well that ends well, I suppose.
@Alan J Perrick
When I lived in the United States it was clear to me that Episcopalian types from Massachusetts were, very similar to native English speakers, but as with Jane Austen fan, above I was never going to mistake them for anything other than Americans – it’s that slight drawl – familiar from the actor James Stewart, that slightly gives it away.
Amongst the best spoken English you will usually find that the speaker is an immigrant – Lithuanian, German, or whatever – the native speaker is just that little bit careless – the immigrant tries just that bit too hard.
Opus —
Are you good at sussing out a Canadian accent (not maritimes, but mainstream Canadian) from US American one?
If you relegate man’s “power” to the garage and the bedroom, you have Marriage 2.0 in a nutshell. Even the most ball busting feminist equalist wants a strong man in the bedroom and a man who knows more about cars than she does.
Look at any comment Matt’s left at FeministiX blog and you’ll see his rhetoric change tone. He’s more than accommodating in dropping his religious prose to be sure she knows he’s the christo-prince of the manosphere.
http://feministx.wordpress.com/
Bingo. A writer like Vox will AMOG the occasional commenter who he thinks is being disingenuous or stupid and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, but Matt treated everyone he disagreed with that way. Every response dripped with amused contempt, but let’s face it — there are some pretty smart, insightful people here. Claiming that they’re all laughably stupid or corrupt and you’ve got all the answers just isn’t gonna fly for long. I’m less optimistic than Novaseeker about his goals: as far as I can tell, his only purpose was to derail conversations he disagreed with and make himself feel superior, which in the end is just trolling no matter how many fancy words you use to do it.
The only reason I hadn’t long ago added him to my script that hides the comments of trolls and other wastes of time was that, every once in a while, in the midst of his usual nonsense, he’d post something almost poetic in its righteousness. But now that I think about it, it’s been a loooong time since the last one of those.
@Zippy
The only common theme I see is You are doing it wrong. From his comment above (see full comment for more):
From his comment just over a year ago:
And from his response to my “tough love” comment above.
See the links for the full comments, as there is much more of the same. In the little over a year he has commented here he has left 193 comments, nearly all of them including advice to me along the same lines.
Except Matt’s advice is all about how to be a better blogger, how to do a better job at gaining a following, etc.
Yes unfortunately (tragically) that is where most marriages these days are ANYWAY but it is even worse than that when the husband is begging his wife for the BJ. He shouldn’t have to beg and that is what Marriage 2.0 is all about….
…your wife is your property and you would do best to take care of your property (Pride of Ownership, so to speak.) IMHO, the best way to take care of your property is to let her be Lord over most of the house, the ultimate exception of the bedroom. This is where Marriage 2.0 breaks down to Marriage 1.0, she enters the bedroom submissively, she knows that HE is in charge in the bedroom, and their relationship his now Man and HIs (submissive) Wife. And she goes there willingly and does whatever he says.
JMO. ymmv.
Read The Stand by Stephen King, specifically the part about Fran’s mom’s parlor, which her dad never entered, for a good example of what this can lead to.
Now, if you want to give her a room to do whatever she wants with, and say, “Decorate it how you like, within this budget,” fine. If you marry a sensible enough woman, it’s nice to think you could turn that kind of stuff over to her and not have to micromanage. And if you want to say, “Hey, I have a bad habit from my bachelor days of leaving my shoes everywhere; could you remind me when I do that?” that’s fine too, since you’re asking for it. But to give her carte blanche to order you around when you’re in a particular room or situation….no, that’s really not a good idea at all.
innocentbystanderinboston
She is your property and your house is your property.
I don’t quite see where you get the “she is your property” notion from. In any event, you contradict this immediately…
But in the house, (her nest) she has some power.
No, it’s not “her nest”, although many men grew up hearing that from their fathers; it is a traditional notion that perhaps has roots in 19th / early 20th century rural life. The house is properly speaking a physical location of the household. It is the property of the family, with each family member having areas of responsibility that in the practical world overlap quite a bit.
In the livingroom, damn straight she can tell you where to put your feet and your shoes.
No. She can tell the children where to put their feet and shoes. She can request of her husband that he deploy his feet and/or shoes in some manner, but if she gets the authority to order him where to put his feet and/or shoes, then she’s de facto head of the house.
I would even go as far as to say she has the power to tell you to DO the dishes. I would give her that power. 80% of the house is her nest….
This is a poor plan. It’s the road to marriage 2.0, frankly.
Apparently Matt would have gone into a monastery in the Middle Ages and told the scribes to stop wasting their time studying theology and copying the scriptures and other manuscripts, and get out in the streets preaching.
Which is an especially odd position for a Catholic to take, when you think about it. Some of our most revered saints spent most of their time in seclusion, praying and writing down their thoughts. If St. Thomas Aquinas were alive today, is there any question that he’d have a blog?
@Novaseeker
Interesting that you should ask me about Canadians. Once, some years ago, I got speaking to a passenger on a train parked at my local railway station. ‘You’re Canadian, aren’t you’ I said to him. He, in reply, said that I was the first person he had spoken to in England who had assumed that he was other than American. In those days I watched a lot of Second City T.V. so I had learned to distinguish the Canuck from the American, but I am not sure I can do it now.
AR,
The way I look at “Pride of Ownership” is like this: you have a real nice, classic, high performace car. That is YOUR property. You own it. And you want to take care of it. So (because it is old, way out of warrant classic car) you baby it. You listen to every little knock in the engine, you tend to its needs. You put exactly the right gasoline in it, the perfect synthetic oil in the engine, you wash and polish/wax the car, change the battery and spark plugs, you care for it. Pride of ownership.
The wife is your property. You have pride of ownership. She is yours, the most important asset you have because you love it so much. But you have to tend to her needs (the way you tend to the needs of that classic car parked in your garage) and I can’t begin to illustrate how important tending to the nest (and making sure everything inside the next) is exactly the way she wants it. Whether or not this is marriage 1.0 or 2.0 or 15.0, I guess I don’t really care. All I know is that (typically) women care more about what goes on inside the home than men do. Typically. This may be about how women show off their nest to other women, how they “keep score” (things men don’t give a damn about) I don’t know. Perhaps if another woman is over the house and she notices your filthy lawn mower sneakers on the floor inthe livingroom one will mention that to your wife and now (in your wife’s mind) she just lost status. Now the Marriage 2.0 shit is about to hit the fan when you get home and all of that could have been avoided if you keep those sneakers in the closet. You take care of the house and your take care to put your shoes where she wants you to put them, you wind up taking care of your wife which (in turn) is you taking great care of your property, your assets.
Matt King wrote:
Well, that explains the AMOGing. Matt King must be a nom de plume for Mark Driscoll.
After reading this again, I’m beginning to wonder about the whole Minter-gate affair. Interesting that Kate only breaks her manosphere silence to defend Matt,..hmmm,…
Since Zed isn’t here, I’ll just add +1 to Anonymous Age 71’s comment above – “Your’e Doing It All Wrong” is what killed off any number of useful groups of men in the 1980’s and 1990’s, as Anon 71 can testify from his first person experience. IMO the proper response to “You’re Doing It All Wrong” is this – “Then you go and set up your own group and Do It Right”, stop trying to kill this one. It’s not a new idea. It’s how the modern world wound up with so many different schools of empty-hand fighting, IMO, and we are better off for it. Bruce Lee is not the only man to comment “Take what is useful to you, leave what is not” in terms of different “denominations” of fighting, but he’s justly famous for saying it.
If Aquinas or Augustine were alive, and surely each had a blog, we can be sure some blowhard would show up to tell them “You’re doing it all wrong”…
I can see a parallel between the relationship between the fleet admiral (husband) and the captain of the ship the admiral is on (wife). The admiral outranks the captain, but the captain is the captain of the ship, period. The admiral tells the captain where the ship is to go but he doesn’t tell the captain how to run his ship. If the admiral doesn’t like the way the captain is running the ship, the admiral relieves the captain of command and gives it to somebody else.
As it applies to marriage, I think there are some parallels, but only if the relationship is thought of along those lines. The husband should have enough respect for his wife to be accommodating to her style of management, but the husband has the right to set policy within the house. A husband avoids micro-managing his wife by being mission oriented and assigning goals. How she accomplishes those goals should be up to her and is one way she can demonstrate how amazing she is and get praised for it.
After reading this again, I’m beginning to wonder about the whole Minter-gate affair. Interesting that Kate only breaks her manosphere silence to defend Matt,..hmmm,…
An interesting thought but the dissonance between the King projection entity and Minter is too much for both to be the same person. Dissonance not only in content but in style, tone, diction. It would take a really, really talented literary chameleon to pull that off, I think.
My own guess is that Kate’s affinity for the King projection is that she, like Minter, King and Fx, are all regulars at CH, and have a kind of affinity based around that.
I had learned to distinguish the Canuck from the American, but I am not sure I can do it now.
Opus —
One trick: Listen for any word containing “out” (“about”, “without”, or even simply “out”) and you will hear a very distinctive pronunciation that is virtually unknown in the US, even in places close to the border.
@Nova, read Matt’s comments on Feministix blog, you’ll see the kind of dissonance he’s capable of. On a few of them I had to double check that it was Matt actually commenting.
AT,
Perfect! This is taking care of the wife. Perfectly said. +1,000,000 internet points
I just thought of another example here (how to avoid Marriage 2.0 and give the wife, your most important asset power, all at the same time.) Kids have been begging you to take them to Disney World. They have been great all year and you want to do this for them because you are a great dad and you are proud of them. But money is tight. You can squirel away a few hundred from each paycheck for the next 4 months for the trip but you can’t afford to fly AND get a hotel IN the resort AND eat out for every meal and rent a car IF you want to take the kids to the parks every day. So you make an Admiral’s decision. You will drive the family SUV 1000+ miles (non-stop on I-95/I-75 if it needs be) and you rent a week of timesharing in Orlando with a kitchen. The first night you get to Orlando, the family will hit the WalMart one mile outside the park, buy all the food and gorceries AND all the souveniers because they are cheaper there. And now you can afford to do everything, the kids get what they want, Disney every day. But during the drive, the wife insists on no ketchup in the car. She is sick and tired of cleaning ketchup out of the apolstry. So she scolds the kids for grabbing ketchup to put on their fries and you make the mistake of doing the same thing and she grabs the ketchup out of your hand and gives you a look.
You are the Admiral. She is the Captain. The car is currently HER SHIP. YOU make the decision to drive and YOU decided where the family would stay in Orlando and YOU decided that you would eat at the timeshare and not restaurants every night but on HER SHIP she is running the ship.
Power. I don’t care if it is marraige 1.0, 2.0, whatever, but Admiral, when on the ship, do what the Captain says.
@Nova, read Matt’s comments on Feministix blog, you’ll see the kind of dissonance he’s capable of. On a few of them I had to double check that it was Matt actually commenting.
Yeah I’ve seen them. It’s possible that he is an alter-ego of Minter, but I would be surprised. Fx King is different from Dalrock/Rolle/Vox King, but I can still see the similarities. The main difference is that he isn’t trying to AMOG her.
When he used to comment at SSM’s he would very strikingly addressher very differently from how hoe would address thre commentariat there — he plays a different angle depending on whether he is largely trying to pull rank and AMOG other men. on the one hand, or trying to reach/convince a woman, on the other.
Well, that’s why most of us would not characterize it as Admiral/Captain, but as Captain/First Officer. The difference inheres in limited delegated authority, on the one hand, and absolute power dispersal, on the other.
I suddenly wonder if I should feel terribly put upon. As a general rule, I manage the day to day goings on our house as I think best. But if there is a domain that I usually manage that my husband has a different take on, he makes the call and I change course. There are no areas where he is uncomfortable interjecting his wishes.
The minute you have a domain in your household where the admiral cannot speak and be obeyed, you have serious problem, IMO. This doesn’t sound feasible to me nor does it acknowledge that the husband is the ultimate authority in his home.
I suspect the fear here is that the wife is relegated to the level of an automaton, but this fear is unwarranted. Many husbands (especially those who are the primary breadwinners) work 10, 12 hours a day. They have neither the time nor are they interested in micromanaging their wife. It would be burdensome to have a wife so inept you have to tell what brand of toilet paper to buy.
But if he can’t step in and say, “We’re buying the ketchup”, something is terribly wrong there. Households are not separate domains. The admiral/captain analogy breaks down because the admiral doesn’t regularly show up on the ship. A husband does, daily.
I think we should stick with the Captain/first officer analogy as it makes more sense.
No, no, no. This is just yet another attempt to switch the roles and somehow claim you didn’t. It might fool a Mark Driscoll audience, but it’s not going to fool anyone here.
The kids see mom grab ketchup from dad and giving him a look, are they going to think “clearly he is the admiral, this just means dad is in charge”? I think not.
But if you then spill the ketchup and make her clean it, then God will reward her act of submission, whereas you were kind of an asshole. You did have the right to do that as far as your mutual chain of command goes, but you definitely don’t want God to exercise HIS rights on you. You’ll probably much prefer mercy.
@Elspeth, when the fleet is not in port the admiral lives on his flag vessel.
I worked from home for more than a decade, wife was a homeschooling SAHM, which requires a bit of redefining how the home was run. Captain/exec model didn’t work for us because I wanted her to make decisions with respect to running the house and taking care of the kids and not come running to me every time a decision had to be made- which she frequently tried to do.
It was the nature of her passive-aggressive behavior that if I injected my opinion on something or suggested she do something differently within her areas of responsibility (usually to save her time/energy/money) I was micromanaging her. If I allowed her to bring all the decisions to me and then made those decisions, I was a control freak. In order to get her to grow up, I finally adopted the admiral/captain model.
IBB, your advice is terrible. Do you think for one minute that a real Admiral would put up with being disrespected by one of his Captains in front of the ordinary sailors? Not a chance. He would demote the Captain. A wife should never treat a husband like she treats the children.
Elspeth,
I never said that. Maybe I wasn’t clear. Let me be clear.
They are 634 mileson the I-95/I-75/I-10 into their 1143 mile trip from Michigan/Massachusetts/Missouri/Texas to Orlando Florida. It’s lunch time (the next day) and kids are hungry. The FATHER (the Admiral) made the call to drive to Disney World. They are not flying, they are driving (to save on airfare and rental car prices in Orlando) saves the family about $1500. But the kids are hungry. You stop at Mickey-Ds.
Kids like ketchup, but we have a schedule to keep, can’t eat IN the restaurant. Mom (the Captain) says, no ketchup on the fries in the car because I am sick and tired of cleaning it up when you get it on the apostry. That applies TO EVERONE (Admiral included.) She is the Captain of the Ship taking the ship where the Admiral ordered it to go. So yes, she takes away the Admiral’s ketchup (particularly because he is driving!) That SUV is her ship, she manages the ship that the Admiral ordered to drive 1143 miles.
Now is that more clear?
That is different. But I would say the Admiral/Captain analogy is perfect because the direction/guidance of where the family goes and how it gets there, that is dad’s job (the Admiral.) The Admiral needn’t worry too much about how the Captain (mom) manages things in the house and in the car (on the way to Disney.) No micro-managing. Let mom handle that.
Well since computer-based textual analysis is still notoriously shonky, and a happy hunting ground for mountebanks and confidence tricksters, I guess you could dump all nineteen parsecs of MattyBaby’s endlessly recursive and content-free hectoring into a networked grid, along with the others’ stuff, and we’ll still never know. Even if anybody could be arsed.
Flatulent spergequeen and tragic social isolate is my best estimate. And there’s heaps of them.
[Opus lolwut? Not at all, my dear old thing. The difference is that da GBFM is doing it on purpose. Whereas I am .. well, let’s just say I’m getting quite old now, and leave it at that, eh?]
So why “the look”? Is she perhaps confused about where the driver’s seat is, and has to make sure?
I don’t know, ISBB. If husband is in the car, he should be able to run the deal. Period. There should never be any area where a husband shouldn’t be able to speak up.
We’ve had seasons where my husband works from home as well. A wife shouldn’t be bothering her husband with minutiae while he works just because he is in the house. This seems so clear to me.
The day a wife can give her husband “the look”, take something from his hands, and put it back on the store shelf, things have seriously gone off the rails. It’s not going to kill her to clean up a small spot of ketchup, or better yet make the kids do it.
I stand by that.
Artisanal Toad, you’re saying you gave your wife more control over day-to-day decisions, which is fine. (I’m not sure why that fits any better with Admiral/Captain than Captain/XO, since the XO makes lots of the day-to-day decisions to avoid bothering the captain, but whatever terminology you’re comfortable with.) That’s very different from making her the boss of you in certain situations, which is what IBB is saying he does and calling it leadership.
It’s one thing to put your wife in charge of redecorating the kitchen, and leave it up to her to pick out the drapes and the colors and what kind of countertop to use. A husband who can do that and be confident that she’ll do a good job is a lucky man. It’s a very different thing to declare her Queen Of The Kitchen and say that you as the husband have no right to say that you don’t want the room done in pink with a wallpaper border of Disney princesses.
“the look” = I love you husband more than anything in the world, but when I say no ketchup in the car while we are driving, that means you too, and you should know better. If it were up to me we would be flying but I don’t get to make that call because you are the husband and I must submit to you and being a good wife I have done just that. But when I tell the people in the car, be it our kids or even my own mother no ketchup in the car I expect that people honor my wishes. You didn’t honor me when I said that, you embarassed me in front of our children, I love you, don’t do that again.
He wasn’t taking care of his property Markku.
That applies TO EVERONE ([Husband] included.)
No, it doesn’t. Rank has its privileges, and if I choose to have ketchup in my car on my trip, nobody who knows what is good for (him or her) will give me even the slightest hint of crap about it. And physically grabbing it from me is far beyond the pale. The kids might say “Dad has ketchup” … to which the right answer is “you aren’t Dad”.
I can hardly believe the dysfunctional attitude here.
And by the way, it isn’t Admiral to Captian or Captian to First Officer. Those are just analogies, and can – as demonstrated in this discussion – be easily pushed to the breaking point.
If a husband can biblically nullify a wife’s promise the first time he hears of it, he can nullify rules she makes that he does not agree with. If he is required to follow her house rules without being exempt, then she effectively is in total control. House rules are for children, not grown men. In your scenario, I would never have applied the ketchup rule to him. If he got it on the seat, it is his issue unless he asks me to do it. Grown men should be allowed to take their own risks and bear the consequences. I rule over my children, not my husband- especially in the details. It is always details.
That’s fine, but that’s not what we’re objecting to. You said the Captain has the right to dress down the Admiral in front of the troops if she doesn’t like something he does, because it’s Her Ship. While it’s true that a captain is the boss on his own ship even if there are higher-ranking officers aboard (although I’m not sure that isn’t more a Star Trek thing than a real-life thing), a captain who gives the admiral “a look” in front of the troops when he’s not happy with him probably won’t be a captain for long.
No, it doesn’t. Rank has its privileges, and if I choose to have ketchup in my car on my trip, nobody who knows what is good for (him or her) will give me even the slightest hint of crap about it. And physically grabbing it from me is far beyond the pale. The kids might say “Dad has ketchup” … to which the right answer is “you aren’t Dad”.
And this Zippy, is why you were number 1. 🙂 .
I don’t need to say anything else, now. I am not sure it can be expressed any better than this.
@Cail
Putting my wife in charge of the house didn’t exempt her from inspections and critiques. Authority can be delegated, not given away.
That’s not the kind of a look that people mean when they say “the look”.
Even if it was slightly unwise, and I’m not at all sure it was, the wife grabbing something from the husband’s hand and giving him the look is several orders of magnitude worse. Especially if the kids see it.
And by the way, no whining about the fact that we are driving rather than flying. That includes you, Woman. I’ll turn this car right around.
It is not about dressing down, it is about being the Captain and everyone listening to the Captain.
Maybe, just maybe, the Captain didn’t want to drive to Orlando. Captain didn’t get to make that call. Admiral did. Okay so if the Admiral is making those calls (all the calls, renting the timeshare, eating in instead of restaurants, everything) then the Admiral (as a passenger on the Captain’s ship) needs to abide by the rules the Captain puts forward because the Captain is following the Admiral’s orders.
Look every marriage is different. And I don’t think any of us here are an authority to tell anyone else what makes things work in their marriages. They will know that. They will also know if things aren’t working. But what I am saying is that men and women have specific roles in their marriages. And the wife must honor her husband’s role as master of the house, the Admiral of the fleet so to speak. And the man has chosen a wife to manage the ship (be the Captain.) She freely submits to him (the whole purpose of this thread) but in submitting, there are some calls that she makes (on a daily basis) that the Man and Husband (in his role) must acknowledge and respect.
No ketchup in the car. That “order” is reasonable enough. Honor it. If the man wants to properly take care of his property that freely submits to him (is property = his wife) then when she is Captain of the ship, no ketchup in the car.
@ innocentbystanderboston:
She freely submits to him (the whole purpose of this thread) but in submitting, there are some calls that she makes (on a daily basis) that the Man and Husband (in his role) must acknowledge and respect.
I think that by “acknowledge and respect” you meant “obey”. And you are wrong.
ALSO TRUE.
No whining. That is right, just submit. And the good wife will.
You keep saying it’s not what it is, and then go right back to showing that it is exactly what you said it wasn’t. No point in arguing any further, I guess; you’ve made it very clear.
Here’s the way it should work. Husband picks up the ketchup. Wife has a brief look of concern that the husband should be able to pick up on: Wife is implicitly or explicitly the one whose responsibility it is to clean the car. Husband understands the situation, and there is an unspoken agreement that if the husband now makes a mess, he will voluntarily clean it up.
If he doesn’t, wife gets spiritual brownie points for her act of submission, whereas husband is a bit of an asshole.
I don’t get from the first part where the admiral is making the grand plans to where he is required to abide by her rules about the details. What, besides the construct about a ship, puts her in charge of him when it comes to the details?
@ innocentbystanderboston :
No whining.
OK, but in this discussion you keep whining on her behalf, e.g.
Maybe, just maybe, the Captain didn’t want to drive to Orlando. Captain didn’t get to make that call. Admiral did.
No passive-aggressive non-verbal whining either.
Agreed. But it should never get to this point. Husband f-cked up because he wasn’t taking care of his property. And that might start to build some resentment in his wife and no one wants that.
She shouldn’t have had to grab the ketchup away from him in the first place. He wasn’t listening when she said “no ketchup in the car.”
Right. Admiral Blow Job can’t eat ketchup in the car. Got it.
He wasn’t listening when she said “no ketchup in the car.”
The reason for that rule was because those were kids. When kids make a mess, it is the adult who will practically always clean it up, especially if it involves chemicals. The command is reasonable for that reason, but the same reasoning doesn’t apply to the husband – he is an adult and can be expected to clean up his own mess. Husband understood this, and that is why he picked up the ketchup.
However, if the husband doesn’t live by the unspoken contract, THEN he has acted foolishly.
@ innocentbystanderboston :
Husband f-cked up because he wasn’t taking care of his property.
No he didn’t. If he wants ketchup he gets to have ketchup, and nobody is entitled to whine about it.
Ellie,
Here is the big difference between men and women and our roles in marriage. Men and women (both genders) respond to incentives. Those incentives are different. Best advice counselors give women to be great wives to their husbands (no matter the marriage, 1.0, 2.0, 15.0, whatever) is two fold:
#1) In the bedroom give the man whatever he needs!
#2) If the man comes up with an idea, you MUST be his GREATEST ally!!!!!
That’s it. Those are the two biggies (and they tie right in with submission, which a wife should give freely.)
It was her husband’s idea to drive 1143 miles to Disney, non-stop. To the wife, that might sound like 22 hours of non-stop agony and misery listening to three screaming kids say “…are we there yet?.” But to be the best wife she can be, SUBMIT, and get behind that idea (no whining as Zippy just said).
The details on what makes her HAPPIEST on her Submitting to her husband (ie: no ketchup in the car), that is just him taking care of his property.
Why does she get to tell him he can’t use ketchup in the car? Is it submissive to command a husband to obey? A wife cannot be submitting at the same time that she is commanding.
@ innocentbystanderboston:
But she isn’t going to be happy if she has a supplicating wimp for a husband who allows her to grab ketchup out of his hands and give him “the look” in front of the kids.
In fact I strongly encourage men to deliberately do the opposite of what you are suggesting. When she makes house rules that apply to children and guests, the man of the house should occasionally violate those house rules on purpose precisely to create the “yeah, but you are not Dad” situation, if it doesn’t naturally arise otherwise. Everyone is happier when Dad is not a supplicating wuss who tolerates “the look” and the ketchup-grab.
Are we there yet?
A wife cannot be submitting at the same time that she is commanding.
There may be a place in Patpong where they actually do have this sorted out
It makes me happiest when I am in control. So my husband would just be taking care of his property if he helped me to submit by letting me boss him around… I like this!
Is the house made for the man or the man for the house?
No ketchup in the car. That “order” is reasonable enough. Honor it. If the man wants to properly take care of his property that freely submits to him (is property = his wife) then when she is Captain of the ship, no ketchup in the car.
This effectively means that the husband is subject to his wife’s rule in the car. She is the boss over him in the car. And, as you said above, in every other place other than the bedroom and the garage. I understand how you are “spinning” that as being delegated authority, but it isn’t, because virtually all cases of delegated authority are capable of being subject to review and being overturned by the ultimate authority which has the power. The delegate has no “binding authority” over the one who delegated the authority to begin with, as is the case in your scenarios. What you have done is basically divided power, rather than delegated authority – you have divided power between husband and wife, such that in some areas her power is ultimate, even over him, while in other areas (such as the broad brush policy making, big decisions and the like) his power is ultimate. That isn’t really a delegated authority model that avoids micromanagement of the delegate, it’s a division of power model.
Yep. I’d bet good money that men who leave the toilet seat up once in a while get frivorced less often than those who conscientiously remember to put it down every single time after being nagged for it.
I understand what you are saying. You are missing a step in there.
Remember men and women have roles in marriage. And men and women respond to incentives. We already went over the two biggies for men. Women like it best when men acknowledge the very small things: “Pick up your dirty shoes, no ketchup in the car.”
The wife is his Property. He is a man with Pride of Ownership. Part of Ownership is taking good care of his Property. The way that is done is taking care of what his property NEEDS (just like my original example with the classic car, take care of what it needs.)
Right now, his property needs people to NOT have ketchup in the car. That is what his property NEEDS. If he IGNORES that (and does his own thing) he is not taking care of his property. Now we are going to wander into the netherworld of Marriage 2.0 which is BAD. Lets stay away from that.
She isn’t ordering HIM. This isn’t even about HIM. It is about what she NEEDS to Captain this ship and there are incentives (that he will get) by responding to her NEEDS. She is telling everyone what will make her HAPPIEST (in submitting freely to him) so of course, he should be the first one to agree to it. Get it? His property needs something and he has pride of ownership, he must take care of that. Taking care of that means while driving the car, eat the damn french fries without the f-cking ketchup. If the kids grab the ketchup, she will handle them. He shouldn’t have to be scolded.
IBB
She shouldn’t have had to grab the ketchup away from him in the first place. He wasn’t listening when she said “no ketchup in the car.”
I.E. he failed to obey his superior, the real leader of the family & head of the household.
didn’t exempt her from inspections
Ive heard it called a lot of things…
@innocentbystanderboston:
He wasn’t listening when she said “no ketchup in the car.”
Either that or he was simply aware of the fact that the rule doesn’t apply to him.
Wives don’t make rules for husbands. Wives suggest things to husbands, and good husbands do listen to their wives and address their concerns. But the notion that a wife makes rules for her husband that he must obey – ever – needs to be put down like a rabid dog, the moment it rears its mouth-foaming head.
Well, in marriage, men (typically) want the big decisions. I know I do. What we say goes in those circumstances. We are the Admirals. That is our role. Headship.
Small stuff like Ketchup in a car? Men shouldn’t be worrying about that.
IBB, I’m beginning to think you are a woman. Submission is not here to make women happy. No one ever promised that anywhere. Forget about her happiness as a goal, that is between her and God. I don’t need my husband to pick up after himself, I might like it. But the reality is that I don’t really care about those kinds of details until I’m looking for something to not like about him because I’m angry at him.
A wife’s needs can trump the biblical command to respect and submit to her husband. So can her happiness. Got it. Maybe you should start a Christian ministry to help wives teach their husbands this.
Wives don’t make rules for husbands. Wives suggest things to husbands, and good husbands do listen to their wives and address their concerns. But the notion that a wife makes rules for her husband that he must obey – ever – needs to be put down like a rabid dog, the moment it rears its mouth-foaming head.
@Markku Koponen said “Here’s the way it should work. Husband picks up the ketchup. Wife has a brief look of concern that the husband should be able to pick up on: Wife is implicitly or explicitly the one whose responsibility it is to clean the car. Husband understands the situation, and there is an unspoken agreement that if the husband now makes a mess, he will voluntarily clean it up.”
Sure, because expecting spouses to read each other’s minds and covert contracts are the hallmarks of communication in a marriage. And, if he doesn’t clean up his mess, rather than say anything she should keep her silence and let it stew and fester to the point that she refuses to have sex with him to “punish” him for not reading her mind in the car.
Your advice will only result in a passive-aggressive disaster.
Ellie,
raises eyebrows
Oh Ellie, I am so sorry but I do NOT think this is a good idea.
@innocentbystanderboston
Forgive a ship’s boy’s temerity, but did Nimitz not land that whale of a bj he was casting for?
What with all this talk about tending, feeding, and polishing your property, I’ve become doubtful whether you keep a wife or a pony-girl. Though the latter would seem to urge equine rather than maritime metaphors to paint all this masterly propertied (ketchup on the side) bliss.
We’re not missing any steps; we understand everything you’re saying. We’re just saying you’re wrong. The “she’s his property” analogy doesn’t work either, even if you see marriage that way, because my property doesn’t give me orders. I take care of it as *I* choose, not as it commands me. If I walk my dog every time she barks at me, instead of when I think it’s time, guess who’s really in charge? (Watch The Dog Whisperer to see lots of people whose dogs rule them. Many husbands who think they have shared-leadership marriages are the same way.)
If I delegate the authority of caring for my property to someone else, and that person needs me to do something to help her do that job — not buying ketchup on a road trip, for instance — she will ask me not to do so. Nothing wrong with that, but if I then say, “No, I really want ketchup; we’ll just have to do our best to be careful with it,” then that’s what’ll happen. If it makes a mess, I’ll ruefully clean it up and even admit that I made a dumb decision, because I’m a decent sort. But see how it’s my decision, and at no point did my delegate give me orders?
I can imagine the Alpha Game side menu a couple of days from now
Rational Male
The Lesson of Ketchupgate
Dr. Helen
The Look: Should She Have Grabbed the Ketchup?
Keoni Galt
NWO Ketchup – The First Mistake
You keep disingenuously trying to shift the argument to the issue of delegating tasks, which no one has objected to, instead of your claim that she should command him under certain circumstances (including while in most of their home). Those are two different and unrelated things. Are you unable to see that, or are you arguing in bad faith?
@Cail Corishev said: “Yep. I’d bet good money that men who leave the toilet seat up once in a while get frivorced less often than those who conscientiously remember to put it down every single time after being nagged for it.”
I called my wife on this years ago. She always complained about bad it looked when I left the seat up. Then it struck me that she never put down the LID. Her leaving the seat down (and the lid up) was no better than my leaving both the seat and lid up. It had nothing to do with looks and everything to do with her convenience.
So, I told her I would put both the seat and lid down IF they were both down beforehand, otherwise I did want to hear another word about it.
She never mentioned it again.
Your advice will only result in a passive-aggressive disaster.
Which advice? The only things that were actually DONE were that:
a) The husband picked up the ketchup, and
b) IF the husband then managed to make a mess, cleaned it up himself
The rest of it was simply a description of the dynamic that would have lead the husband to choose to do these two things.
So, which of these are you disagreeing with? Or did you somehow read me saying that the husband should have made a mess and then made the wife clean it?
IBB, is happiness something someone gives to you? Can a person generate it for themselves? I think that happiness is an “attitude of gratitude” towards God that radiates towards other people but is personally owned and personally controlled. I can become happy by choosing different thoughts. Grateful, thankful ones. I cannot become happy by people simply giving things to me, even nice things. Why? If I am not thankful for those gifts, they do not change my internal state.
You chase the wind if you intend to make a man love you by serving him or to make a woman happy by serving her.
And then the weekly highlight links:
“Ketchup on this weeks manosphere meanderings”
Cail,
Then you do NOT understand at ALL what I am saying.
The wife never gave HIM the order. She told everyone in the SUV, no ketchup in the car. Everyone. You seem to be hung up on the fact that what she is saying would never-EVER apply to her husband. I’m saying it does NOT because she is his boss. Oh no, he’s the boss. It applies to her husband because she is telling her husband what she needs and what he must do to take care of his property.
The hell with everything else you might be thinking. This is not about authority or orders. Toad’s analogy (Admiral/Captain) was a perfect analogy. It is just that some of you don’t like where that analogy takes you because some of you don’t think it is a good idea for a man to try and make his wife happy.
a passive-aggressive disaster
PAD, they happen once a month and last a few days
Ellie,
Husbands and wives are always giving to each other, but yours is not a boolean expression.
IBB before he met his wife = happy.
IBB after he met his wife = very happy.
IBB after he married his wife = EXTREMELY HAPPY!!!!!!!
I mean, measure it anyway you want.
Markku Koponen said: Your advice will only result in a passive-aggressive disaster.
Which advice? The only things that were actually DONE were that:
a) The husband picked up the ketchup, and
b) IF the husband then managed to make a mess, cleaned it up himself”
(1) Wife has a brief look of concern that the husband should be able to pick up on: mind reading expectation
(2) Wife is implicitly or explicitly the one whose responsibility it is to clean the car.
(3) Husband understands the situation, because he read his wife’s mind
(4) and there is an unspoken agreement that if the husband now makes a mess, he will voluntarily clean it up. covert contract
Wife gets mad, because husband broke the “unspoken contract” that he didn’t even know existed, because he failed to read his wife’s mind.
because some of you don’t think it is a good idea for a man to try and make his wife happy.
Nope. Because we know that is not our place, and it is not possible.
So she didn’t give him the order; she only gave everyone the order, which included him, but that’s not like ordering him at all. Got it.
Is that you, T?
I think Markku is just saying that, for couples who know each other well, there’s often an unspoken language by which they can pick up each other’s preferences without having an official discussion about it. So in that case, a man might ask for ketchup, and then sense his wife tensing up, and think, “Oh, she’s probably worried about the mess,” and say, “Wait, cancel the ketchup.” Or, “Okay guys, we’re going to have to be real careful with this; don’t make me regret asking for it.”
That’s not her giving him orders or him obeying her, because it’s still his decision. And if he doesn’t catch her vibe (read her mind) in that particular case, that doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy or she gets to criticize him for it. But when those unspoken communications happen, they’re nice and help things go more smoothly for everyone.
Wife gets mad, because husband broke the “unspoken contract” that he didn’t even know existed, because he failed to read his wife’s mind.
But he didn’t break it, he cleaned his own mess in my scenario if he accidentally made it. It should be common sense that if the wife first specifically says she doesn’t want to clean the car from spilled ketchup (hence the kids can’t have any), and you choose to ignore this because you’re sure you can manage to eat some ketchup without making a mess (you’re an adult after all), and then you manage to make a mess anyway, then that is the situation where you should just clean it yourself unprompted.
It isn’t that you’re supposed to be a mind reader, but that you should have a little bit of situational awareness; if you have delegated the cleaning to her, at least you shouldn’t make the job harder for her. What else could she possibly be concerned about when you pick up the ketchup bottle, when it is about the mess that ketchup makes that she has warned about only a few moments ago? She has a reasonable expectation that if you exempt yourself from the rule, then you’ll assume responsibility for the possible consequences.
If you don’t, the wife should still submit and clean, but now it has been you who was the asshole.
Maybe I’m missing something subtle here, but I just don’t see that there is an issue as long as everyone is actually talking to each other.
Wife: I’ve told the kids not to use ketchup in the car and I’d appreciate it you wouldn’t either, because I’m the one that keeps it clean.
Husband: That’s a good idea, but I’m not one of the children and I want ketchup.
Wife: That’s right, you’re not one of the children, which means you’re old enough to clean up your ketchup mess if you make one.
Husband: Fair enough.
Exactly. If I need actual spoken communication in such a patently obvious situation, then I’m an aspie, plain and simple.
The husband’s not the asshole because of the ketchup. He’s the asshole because of some unholy combination of postpartum depression, the seven year itch, and the fact the he is the closest male that can be blamed for everything. And according to the church, he is wrong by default.
@8to12
She’s still being a bitch, sorry.
Wife: I’ve told the kids not to use ketchup in the car and I’d appreciate it you wouldn’t either, because I’m the one that keeps it clean.
I assume the husband had just heard the wife say that the kids can’t have ketchup, after which he picks up a ketchup bottle from the shelf. Because if the wife gives “the look” for something that the husband didn’t even know about, then we’re entering a whole new level of bitch here.
8to12 :
Wife: I’ve told the kids not to use ketchup in the car and I’d appreciate it you wouldn’t either, because I’m the one that keeps it clean.
Husband: That’s a good idea, but I’m not one of the children and I want ketchup.
Wife: That’s right, you’re not one of the children, which means you’re old enough to clean up your ketchup mess if you make one.
Husband: Fair enough.
My response to that certainly wouldn’t be “fair enough”. I do all sorts of things that make messes – a household is a mess factory, generally speaking. You fellas gonna apply the “you made the mess Dad/Husband, you clean it up” rule everywhere else too? Or are you gonna take off the skirt and buy a pair of pants?
@IBB,
“Look every marriage is different. And I don’t think any of us here are an authority to tell anyone else what makes things work in their marriages.”
Michael Pearl, Kathy Keller, Dennis Rainey are authorities and they are telling church guys how to run their marriages. They are dishing out blue pills with abandon.
Welp, I am not one of them. And I am not sure that they are helping.
No, it is the specifics of this particular situation. First of all, it was a rough day anyway and second, she had the foresight as to what would happen, whereas you thought you knew better and overruled it. And then it turned out you didn’t. THAT’S why you clean up this time.
@Markku Koponen:
whereas you thought you knew better and overruled it. And then it turned out you didn’t.
False premise. I’ll have ketchup in my car if I choose to, independent of whether it will (or there is some chance that it will) be messy.
“First of all, it was a rough day”
That is always a valid justification for being bitchy, bossy, and/or not submitting. And what mom ever has a day that isn’t “rough”? I’ve never heard of it!
False premise. I’ll have ketchup in my car if I choose to, independent of whether it will (or there is some chance that it will) be messy.
Sure, but I notice you didn’t mention who you are expecting to clean the mess. If it’s you, then we agree as to how to handle the situation, and if it’s your wife, then I suspect you omitted it because it doesn’t sound quite as reasonable that way.
I’ll IGNORE the engine knocking on my 1973 mint condition Corvette independant of whether it will need a new spark plug, a new serpentine belt, or throw a rod.
Markku Koponen said: But he didn’t break it, he cleaned his own mess in my scenario if he accidentally made it. only because he read her mind and realized there was an unspoken contract.
It should be common sense that if the wife first specifically says she doesn’t want to clean the car from spilled ketchup (hence the kids can’t have any), and you choose to ignore this because you’re sure you can manage to eat some ketchup without making a mess (you’re an adult after all), and then you manage to make a mess anyway, then that is the situation where you should just clean it yourself unprompted.
It isn’t that you’re supposed to be a mind reader, but that you should have a little bit of situational awareness; if you have delegated the cleaning to her, at least you shouldn’t make the job harder for her. What else could she possibly be concerned about when you pick up the ketchup bottle, when it is about the mess that ketchup makes that she has warned about only a few moments ago? She has a reasonable expectation that if you exempt yourself from the rule, then you’ll assume responsibility for the possible consequences.
If you don’t, the wife should still submit and clean, but now it has been you who was the asshole.
If only the real world was that neat and organized. No one would ever forget the rules; no one would ever make a mess; and no one would ever forget to clean up after themselves.
But reality is far from perfect. A family with children trying to eat a meal in a car is akin to a juggling act. Common sense and “situational awareness” quickly give way to fatigue, frustration, and chaos. Heck, the wife’s ketchup speech to the children might not even have registered with the husband in that situation. Nobody’s first thought at the end of a family trip (particularly a long one) is “time to clean and scrub the car.” It’s more like “let’s get out of the car and into the house, because I’m exhausted.”
Nobody’s trying to be an a-hole in that situation; nobody’s thinking “I’m going to sluff off my work and make my submissive wife do it.” But, unless the couple is communicating–actually talking to each other instead of trading “meaningful glances” it would be easy for the wife to think the husband was being an a-hole. And, it could all be avoided by the husband and wife simply talking to each other.
That is always a valid justification for being bitchy, bossy, and/or not submitting. And what mom ever has a day that isn’t “rough”? I’ve never heard of it!
You seem to be confusing who said what. I held right from the beginning of this argument that the bitchy response in the original scenario entirely dwarfed the issue of whether it was wise to pick up the ketchup. I specifically said that the wife has the responsibility to submit and clean up the husband’s mess if he demands that, regardless of the warning. I merely held that such a thing would be foolish of the husband, but that wouldn’t be an offense against his WIFE.
If only the real world was that neat and organized.
Exactly why I said “Here’s the way it should work.” and not “Here’s the way it works.”
A car full of kids is no place for any sort of condom(ents).
Seriously, people should choose arugula when eating in the car anyway. Its more sustainable.
@Cail Corishev said: I think Markku is just saying that, for couples who know each other well, there’s often an unspoken language by which they can pick up each other’s preferences without having an official discussion about it. So in that case, a man might ask for ketchup, and then sense his wife tensing up, and think, “Oh, she’s probably worried about the mess,” and say, “Wait, cancel the ketchup.” Or, “Okay guys, we’re going to have to be real careful with this; don’t make me regret asking for it.”
That’s not her giving him orders or him obeying her, because it’s still his decision. And if he doesn’t catch her vibe (read her mind) in that particular case, that doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy or she gets to criticize him for it. But when those unspoken communications happen, they’re nice and help things go more smoothly for everyone.
What you are describing is a typical technique passive-aggressive people use to manipulate other people. There’s nothing “nice” about it. It is controlling, manipulative; a pure power play.
This is not submissive. It is in fact the wife giving the husband an order without explicitly stating it (the ultimate passive-aggressive move).
@Markku Koponen:
If it is ordinarily her job to clean the car it is still her job to clean the car when I choose to have ketchup with my fries. Just like every other household chore. If I choose spare ribs and it is messier than tofu burgers it doesn’t follow that I have to do the dishes, just because spare ribs are messier.
I’ll try to make life easier on her where I can, and in the manner I choose. But I’m not going to apologize, let alone rearrange responsibilities, for ketchup.
IBB:
I’ll IGNORE the engine knocking on my 1973 mint condition Corvette independant of whether it will need a new spark plug, a new serpentine belt, or throw a rod.
If she is going to throw a rod over ketchup you’ve got bigger problems than ketchup.
But I’m not going to apologize, let alone rearrange responsibilities, for ketchup.
Again, exactly why I said it isn’t an offense against HER if you then make a mess and have her clean it up. I’m merely stating that my assessment of you then would be that you probably are somewhat of an asshole. But it doesn’t mean that you owe an apology to anyone.
@Markku Koponen:
you probably are somewhat of an asshole.
Could be. But I’m wearing pants.
Since you quoted it like that, I probably should point out that “you” in this case meant “a man who I see acting in this specific way in this specific scenario.”
@Zippy, You have to pick your battles.
If you walk through the house with muddy boots right after she has cleaned the carpet, she’s going to throw a rod.
If she has to keep the car clean, and you don’t make any effort to keep from dirtying it (or worse, go out of your way to dirty it up), then yes she might throw a rod–even over ketchup.
yeah but see, HE wears the pants so he doesn’t have to worry about that, nor does he have to apologize.
@8to12:
If you walk through the house with muddy boots right after she has cleaned the carpet, she’s going to throw a rod.
Not any “she” that matters to me.
But I see a subtle reframe going on here. In fact, I do all sorts of things to make womens’ lives easier. In fact, if I have ketchup it is because I feel like having ketchup, even if it carries some risk – low risk but some – of making a mess. In fact, if a mess is made then the person who has the responsibility to clean it up cleans it up, even if I am the one who made it.
I wouldn’t tromp over newly cleaned carpet without either (1) a good reason or (2) it being an honest mistake. In neither case is anyone entitled to “blow a rod” or give me crap about it.
So the reframe basically says “if you are an inconsiderate ass, you will piss her off”. Uh, yeah. But what does that have to do with the ketchup scenario?
Getting back to ketchup in the car, it isn’t a question of whether I do or do not think it will make a mess. I’m not an idiot — ketchup in the car carries with it some probability of making a mess, as do many other daily activities. But I’m not going to apologize to anyone for having ketchup, for any mess that occurs, or for the fact that the person who has the responsibility for cleaning it up cleans it up.
You fellas really need to break out of this walk-on-eggshell “she’s gonna blow a rod!” mindset. People doing their bloody job, without whining, is what I expect of them. That includes situations where part of their workload is generated by Yours Truly.
No, I’m pretty sure what I described is exactly what I meant to describe. If a husband says, “And ketchup” and then senses some tension from his wife, yes, she could be passive-aggressively preparing a condemnation for later. But in the scenario I invented, she was thinking, “Oh, I wish he hadn’t said that; it’s going to cause a mess. But it’s done now, so I’ll just have to try to keep it clean.” If a bit of that thinking process shows in her body language and he picks up on it, that seems like a good thing to me.
Keep in mind that we were talking about a good relationship in Markku’s example. Granted, in a situation where the wife is rebellious and constantly challenging the husband’s authority, it’d be a different situation — it might be more important for him to stick to his guns in that case than to avoid the ketchup mess.
Zippy are you married or are you another earl?
Married 24 years to the same woman.
It sounds like Zippy is talking about a marriage where the husband has given the responsibility for all cleaning to the wife and some of the other commentors may be in marriages where the husband chooses to split those kinds of chores based on who made the mess or whose day it is.
Some marriages disavow the concept of areas of sole responsibility (car repair, bills, cleaning, etc), others are based upon it. I don’t mean IBB’s idea of sole responsibility though, where the wife has unrestrained power in her area. It is psychologically bad for a woman to not be in service to her family, but instead to force her husband into service for her.
Shocking.
No Ellie.
I’m talking about a marriage where the husband is aware of and responsive to his wife’s needs. That is my marriage. It does not appear to be Zippy’s.
Okay, so here is what I think is going on. IBB is a shrewish woman who found out that her husband is reading this site. She does not like the tone here and wants her husband to keep bowing to her demands by giving him a plausible theory about how he can be the admiral and keep his pride. The only problem is that she can’t seem to get people to agree to this asinine theory.
Mrs. Caldo: No, you kids can’t have any ketchup. You make a mess every time!
Cane: Good point. Babe, you’re going to need to ketchup mine individually.
Mrs. Caldo: Pssh! Whatever.
Cane: Woman, you better take this fry back and put some ketchup-stank on it!
Mrs. Caldo: You have got to be joking.
Cane: (ignoring her) Not too much, though. I don’t want you to make a mess.
Mrs. Caldo: You’ve got some nerve! (starts opening a ketchup packet)
Cane: Ye-ah! That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Kids: Awwww, that’s not fair!
Cane: Get yer own wives.
Kids: We’re girls, Dad…
Cane: Eesh! That sounds awful. It’s hard to countenance a life of ketchup-less fries, but we all have our burdens… Now where’s my fry? Mh-hmm! Ketchup! That’s what I’m talking about!
And, yes, I would expect each of my fries to be individually with teeny little dollops of ketchup because she knows how this ends: I’ll never back down from her. I’ll be petty, irritating, and demanding until she gets mad, and then I’ll say, “That’s an ugly heart you got there. Don’t talk to me until you got it right. ”
It’s a lot easier to fight with good cheer when you’re bringing it to them, instead of trying to avoid it. They want to provoke, be dramatic, feel involved, and interact more than they want to get their way. As the woman said: They just want to have fun. Sometimes it’s very hard for us to be of good cheer. That’s our burden.
These things go in circles, and not just the fights. Because of these interactions, and the equally aggressive AFFECTION I also display towards Mrs. Caldo, my girls fight to bring me drinks, a butter-knife…whatever. Sometimes Mrs. Caldo shoos them away because SHE wants to be the one bringing me coffee.
Perhaps other wives would react differently, but it has to be better than all the pussy-footing around; trying not to upset them. They want to be upset.
Perhaps other wives would react differently, but it has to be better than all the pussy-footing around; trying not to upset them. They want to be upset.
Remember though that the scenario involved a 1000 mile drive. This would be exhausting enough that it is completely reasonable that she’ll want to avoid having to clean up ketchup from a car (and possibly kids’ clothes) somewhat more than usual.
This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t respond to the bitchy response in the original scenario (which was just mentioned without comment, as it it was a perfectly reasonable one), but it does mean that you might be expected to make some adjustments to the usual “you make a mess, she cleans it up” arrangement due to the situation. Either by not having ketchup, or by deciding to clean up the possible mess yourself.
Cane, thanks for showing that this stuff doesn’t have to be (and probably shouldn’t be) so deadly serious.
Scotchguard
Also, Free range ketchup doesn’t stain as much
OMG. I say “admiral/captain” and leave for a few hours. 80 posts later, and the manosphere will be rocking the meme established on Dalrock of of ‘ketchup’ for the next two weeks. God. I want to crawl under a rock.
Mea Culpa
@IBB
Not only is Zippy married, but his argument is quite different than Earl’s. Earl’s assertion was/is that wives who are being “properly lead” won’t feel the temptation to rebel, and that the husband’s obligation is to lead/game her in such a way that she doesn’t rebel. Zippy’s argument is that of the Apostles Peter and Paul; her obligation is to submit, not rebel. He conducts himself as the head of the household, and while part of his obligation as a Christian husband is to treat her with love, he doesn’t tiptoe around her. Zippy please correct me if I’m wrong.
Zippy is of course spot on here, and then Cane delivered an excellent clinic on how this (Zippy/Peter/Paul’s) frame can work from a (don’t call it game) game perspective.
And I get it. And I agree with what you are saying. And (still) I don’t think the man is picking the right battle here.
Why dig your heels in on things that are not important to men? What is gained other than your pride and a terribly unhappy wife who starts to build resentment? Unless you believe that men can’t make their wives happy? I believe they can Dalrock, men have that power.
Artisanal Toad says:
OMG. I say “admiral/captain” and leave for a few hours. 80 posts later, and the manosphere will be rocking the meme established on Dalrock of of ‘ketchup’ for the next two weeks.
Nah, don’t fret, you can catch up to the rest of us soon enough. It’s not that big a mess, certainly no stain on your permanent record…
Empathalogicalism
Scotchguard
Yep. Then plain scotch, or bourbon or rum as preferred.
IBB:
I don’t think [Zippy] is picking the right battle here.
I don’t generally have to pick any battles, at least of this particular sort, because my authority is clear and nobody in the family would even consider challenging it. There is a reason for that, and a big part of the reason is that I do the opposite of what you recommend.
At the risk of pissing everybody off, I can see both Dalrock and Matthew King’s position from where I stand. I agree with Dalrock, but understand why Matthew King says what he says and his message is definetly going to be easier to swallow for the modern Christian woman….and I understand why that pisses everybody off. I’d rather not have to be a politician and speak politically correct but in this climate, barring a total meltdown and going back to third world conditions (and let’s be honest sooner or later that is going to happen) 98% of women aren’t swallowing Dalrock’s message (thank God my wife is in the 2%).
But this brings me to my main problem…why the modern feminist women are winning. It’s because the Sheila Gregoire’s of the world will stick together with other women even when the ideology & theology differ a great deal. I think it’s the herd thing. Again the vast, vast majority of women are going to fight for the woman team even if they are uncomfortable with it’s position or know the Bible speaks differently and we are over here duking it out over hard core patriarchy or a palatable to the female audience patriarchy that’s got 90% of the truth we believe in.
[D: Welcome to the blog oldschool.]
I can imagine the Alpha Game side menu a couple of days from now
Rational Male
The Lesson of Ketchupgate
Dr. Helen
The Look: Should She Have Grabbed the Ketchup?
Keoni Galt
NWO Ketchup – The First Mistake
lozlzolzolzol
Well done, Markku.
Since Cane gave his excellent hypothetical (don’t call it game) example, here’s what mine would look like:
Her: “Sorry kids, you know we’re not going to be eating any fast food french fries made with genetically modified, round-up ready soybean oil, nor are we going eat them with high fructose corn syrup-laden ketchup. You know how your Father is about any of us eating junk food. Here, eat some of the fruit I cut up and have some macadamia nuts and cheese.”
Me: — {Nod of approval with a wry smirk as I continue to drive. Nothing need be said, she knows how we run my ship, and how we feed the crew.}
@ Anonymous Reader:
Scotchguard
Yep. Then plain scotch, or bourbon or rum as preferred.
lozlzolzol
There is nothing plain about scotch, but it does need to be well guarded…
Very late to the ketchup party, but IBB, do you have any military background?
You’ve fallen in love with your analogy of Admiral/Captain (which is no different than Captain/XO, despite what you think), but your premises are wrong. The Captain of a ship–his own ship–will take the orders of his Admiral (Fleet Captain, Fleet Admiral, what have you), especially if the Captain is acting in accordance with the mission that the Admiral is carrying out at the time. This extends to how the Captain’s ship is run, down to the smallest detail, if that detail should affect outcome of the Admiral’s mission.
If the Admiral needs the ship’s fantail painted with ketchup to accomplish the mission, the Captain will do it, or he won’t be Captain any longer than it takes the Admiral to say “You are relieved of duty, Captain. Commander (or XO), you are now the Captain of this vessel.” The job of the military subordinate is to obey the orders of the superior, as these orders are given to complete the mission. The Captain does NOT order the Admiral; the XO does NOT order the Captain. The subordinate may recommend, but not ORDER in the simple situation you are describing. (The military analogy breaks down horribly if we get into positional authority versus authority from rank.)
Why? Because there must be accountability and responsibility–both are held by the Captain. The orders come from the Captain, not the XO. The XO only carries out the orders of the Captain. The XO may have extremely wide latitude as to *how* to execute the orders in many cases, but the XO cannot move outside the bounds of the Captain’s orders without violating the orders. If the mission fails, the burden ultimately falls on the Captain, even though he may have done everything “right”, and a subordinate actually caused the failure. The subordinate may be punished for a mistake that led to failure (as is appropriate), but the Captain owns the failure, not subordinate or the XO.
There is only ONE Captain. There CAN BE ONLY ONE Captain.
As others have said, IBB, you are wrong to assume the wife can order the husband if you believe in Marriage 1.0. Dalrock, Zippy, Cain, and the others who are working on guiding you have it right.
Some Guy said: “Right. Admiral Blow Job can’t eat ketchup in the car. Got it.”
That was the best laugh I have had in a very long time. Thanks for that!
Some Guy says:
August 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm
“Right. Admiral Blow Job can’t eat ketchup in the car. Got it.”
Says all that needs to be said about IBB’s argument right there. Please don’t take IBB’S advice if you wish to remain married.
@Novaseeker
“”One trick: Listen for any word containing “out” (“about”, “without”, or even simply “out”) and you will hear a very distinctive pronunciation that is virtually unknown in the US, even in places close to the border””
L*…..you are correct….as a Canuck I can vouch for that. Also,listen for “EH”…….”Nice day eh”…..”you are new here eh”…….I spend quite a bit of time in the US and I find that most Americans will pick up on that. I find that Americans I meet here to be from 4 regions where I can identify the region.The Eastern Seaboard(I say “Car Door”…they say “Cah dohr”,the South(can’t miss that southern drawl),West Coast(everybody is a “dude”) and Central(Montana etc) where they sound almost Canadian…L*
@Markku
It’s more important on the long trip. You’re all stuck together–things have to work, and it’s a lot better when it’s fun. Every fry will come over ketchup’d, but probably with some sarcasm or wise-cracking, too. Again: They like the fight…fight is the wrong word–they like the tussle, and I will give at least as good as I get.
Besides her and I, there are other issues, here.
1. It’s just a car. If it’s such a nice car, why are people eating in it? Why take it on a long wemusteatinhereorstarve trip? For that matter: Why put children in it? No one who has ever really seen children would put them in something nice: That’s why God gives them to humans.
2. Why can’t the kids have ketchup? Mom doesn’t dread cleaning ketchup. Mom dreads being Mom. The ketchup rule is to keep her from having to do motherly things. Any kid that can use ketchup in a car can clean up after themselves. She just doesn’t want to make them do it. It’s frustrating to get underlings to listen to you. You have to keep after them because they like to tussle, and do their own thing. It irritates them to do as they are told, you see.
3. You can’t undermine her authority without undermining your own authority, because her authority flows from the father. If Mom makes a rule: It sticks. If Mom makes a bad rule then: It sticks, and we show it to be a bad rule. My per-fry ketchup rule would keep in the spirit of “no mess no matter what”, but at a ridiculous burden. Sort of like having chicken fingers, french fries and drinks in the car, BUT NO KETCHUP! There’s a very good chance she says, “Oh, forget it! Eat the ketchtup, then!”, and I’ll grin big as day into the rearview mirror and everyone laughs.
I was kind of surprised no one said anything about my declaration that I would be petty, irritating, and demanding. It was my assumption that some folks would imagine that has to be the worst behavior ever of a husband, and that “men don’t do such things”. Generally, I go straight for the classics: I might pop her bra strap when I walk by. There’s always a towel round just waiting to be snapped at her butt. Respond to every comment (made to me or not) with “Your mom…” Maybe I’ll sit in the kitchen, holler across the house for her, and when she shows up with a basket of laundry ask her to get me a cup of coffee while she’s standing there resting.
I’m laughing as I type this. It’s just the best.
When she’s in a really bad mood she might decide to make an issue of it and get serious. If she does: Then I get serious, too. Last fall we got into a text argument (bad move on my part to let it go on so long) and Mrs. Caldo said something just to be cutting. At the time I was out of town. That last comment I never replied–not for the rest of the six days I was out of town. I didn’t answer her phone calls, or emails. After several days she started asking her family members and to call me, and I ignored or hung-up on them according to whether or not I knew the number. When I came home the place was spotless, coffee was made, and she had sent the kids to her parents house.
“I was really worried about you.”
“You said that just to be spiteful. Don’t do that.”
“I’m sorry, I won’t.”
Then the quiet house was put to rowdy use, and the whole congregation exulted.
@Dalrock
Haha! I deserve that.
But look: Game cannot be divorced from irrational confidence in yourself, the cult of self esteem, evolutionary psychology, and all the other gobbledygook that is not Christ-like. It’s adversarial in nature, and confused about what it means to do. The currency of a relationship is love, and Game is about hoarding it like a dragon. It’s ultimately nihilistic even if others do not like the associations that are conjured at that word. Not to mention the fact that even benevolent Game is almost impossible for the Christian to practice outside of marriage unless we make the term so broad that we actually mean “psychology”, or “worldview”.
What I talk about, and from where I pull my strength and ideas, doesn’t come from any of that. When you, KG, Vox, or anybody attributes it to Game I don’t argue (most of the time), but I don’t use the term myself.
@IBB
Read my list above. You’re not fighting your wife, but the spirit of this age that wants to turn your wife against you. You’re fighting for your wife; white knighting, even. That’s why you should do these things with good cheer. The cinematic example that conforms to what I’m trying to describe is the Spirit of Christmas Present; particularly as portrayed by Edward Woodward.
Women invariably turn any vehicle they are confined in for longer than 20 minutes into a reeking compost bin of snack/drink/toiletries waste. In a way they simply would not countenance in a house, still less in the (god forbid!) kitchen.
I used to think it was something to do with anxiety/control issues. Now I just don’t have a clue anymore, apart from “because they can”.
Over here we have numbers of mobile car valeting enterprises (OK a couple of dodgy geezers/pikeys in a transit van with a compressor, water tanks, vacuum cleaners and a generator). Much simpler to slip them a few quid and then head to the pub.
[continuing the sub-theme for Opus: not all of them talk funny. Clear as a bell this lot. Close your eyes and you’d think it was closing time in the pub in Stroud. I’m sure I heard one of the check shirt guys go “oooh-arrr”, and all. Proper.]
1. It’s just a car. If it’s such a nice car, why are people eating in it? Why take it on a long wemusteatinhereorstarve trip? For that matter: Why put children in it?
According to the original scenario, a Disneyland trip had been promised to them, but then a bit harder than expected financial times struck. Airplane was no longer a feasible option. So, the options were to either break the promise, or take an uncomfortable economy trip in a car. Husband made the latter choice.
So, you see, the scenario was designed in such a way that the wife would be more on edge than usual, for perfectly legitimate reasons. As would the husband, but since it is not HIS usual responsibility to clean the mess, this is not relevant* in this situation. The ketchup doesn’t involve an emotional risk for him. So, even though it normally would be her responsibility to clean the car without protest, be it her, the husband or the kids who make the mess, she decided that she just can’t handle it right now on top of everything else. The wider question here is if the husband should still insist on the ordinary rules, no matter how taxing the situation, or if it would perhaps be wise of him to cut her some slack on occasion. Ketchup was obviously chosen because it isn’t necessarily a trivial matter of just wiping something to make sure it doesn’t stain the fabric.
I should also point out that even though we have analyzed the scenario to absolutely preposterous degrees by now and it probably looks a lot more complex than it is, in reality it all happens in a few seconds:
-Wife thinks, “I can’t deal with this shit right now”
-Wife says no ketchup
-Husband thinks “well, surely I can manage to not make a mess” and picks up ketchup
And then we have two separate fights going on in the thread:
a) Is it reasonable for the wife to grab the ketchup from the husband the moment he picked it up and give him the look. To which my answer was no.
b) Is it wise of the husband to still leave the cleaning to the wife after these things, if he manages to make a mess with the ketchup. To which my answer was also no.
*”OMG HUSBAND’S FEELINGS DON’T MATTER?! CHURCHIAN, DRISCOLL, BETA BUX!”
No, in. this. situation. For specific reasons.
Women invariably turn any vehicle they are confined in for longer than 20 minutes into a reeking compost bin of snack/drink/toiletries waste.
This is what I was thinking. My wife and kids invade every nook of the car with blankets and pillows and crumbs and syrupy things and toys and wires, oh the wires, and that’s how we roll and we are fine with it. I have never once imagined a woman being tidy about a car interior….I obviously have not ridden with every woman.
When little children were involved it was even worse. And the end of the trip was as someone said, stumble exhausted into the house, not start cleaning.
@Markku —
The woman that decides she’s justified in being a bitch about the ketchup– dressing down the husband in front of the kids, snatching the ketchup away from him, giving him the glare of death, pretending to be the ultimate martyr of all time on the off chance that she might have to do a little work, completely resentful at the burden that has been laid on you by your husband– will behave this way about everything. Sex. Money. Parenting choices. Housework. Church.
Every interaction by the typical “nice” guy will be an opportunity for him to show just how big of an uncaring, mean spirited, brutish dolt he really is. And always, always… if he doesn’t do what SHE WANTS then HE is being SELFISH. But it’s so amazing…. Every interaction, it feels like a separate case… but there are so many reasons… and would it be so hard for him to see how she feels just once?
Suppose nice guy capitulates. It is after all just a little ketchup. Is that such a big sacrifice? How hard would it be for one person to be the grown up in this scenario? This is his chance to step up, man up, and be a leader by example! This is his moment to lead from behind! And behold what this family will now reap:
First, the children will apply these same tactics on the parents. Every time they are asked to do something, they will argue back about how mean the parents are being. They will not absorb the father’s patience, maturity, and reasonableness. They will pick up on the mom’s tactic of always having an exemption from showing respect. As far as she is concerned, if she isn’t inspired, it isn’t required.
Secondly… the nice guy husband will soon want to make a similar request on the lines of the ketchup rule. He capitulated before under the assumption that he didn’t want to be a dick. Not arbitrarily anyway. He felt comfortable doing that because of his tacit assumption of equality, reciprocity, and mutuality. But the truth is, if he had a bad day, if he was stressed, if he was suddenly a big party pooper because the wife was doing something that was going to add more work to his…. Then… if he says something and uses the exact sort of approach and argument as his wife did with the ketchup, HE suddenly looks like a whiny wussy bitch. He is contemptible and his wife will let him know it. The wife’s rationalization only works for her: she has created a battlefield in which she wins by default.
All of this encapsulates what every interaction in the typical Christian home is like. It’s how things play out when a woman chooses not to respect her husband.
Only a little while ago I said this:
And earlier I said, TO YOU, this:
So why are you still mentioning the bitchy response? I have said multiple times that in fight a) I’m on your side. In fight b), there is no bitchy response in the scenario.
IBB’s writings are decidely female.
Justified disrespect will always require this level of hairsplitting.
If we were at all comfortable with the idea of a wife merely submitting to her husband, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
@Markku Koponen —
“I’m on your side”
No you’re not. You represent the same sort of conventional wisdom that has emasculated the church, broken homes, and hurt children.
“there is no bitchy response in the scenario”
The whole scenario is a wife shit testing her husband. Full stop. Your posts here are just a shit test as well.
The whole scenario is a wife shit testing her husband. Full stop.
The original scenario, yes. And as you will notice, I vehemently disagreed with IBB right from the beginning. Then I offhandedly mentioned another scenario, thinking that it would be completely uncontroversial, and it turned out it wasn’t. That, then, became fight b).
IBB’s writings are decidely female
You just noticed that? It takes a while sometimes but a lot of people have to go through the “process” of getting the concern of including women out of their thinking. He/she still thinks women matter, they don’t, and having women matter makes for the madness we have today. Splitting hairs and arguing different nuances of the blue pill lies makes for very stimulating conversation that none of us ever get in our everyday lives, but it always comes down to the laws of misandry and women vote. The madness we have today is not the “right ” woman or about women at all really it is about the law and laws kill those that don’t comply and those laws are directed at you young man in the name of her, She wouldn’t have it any other way. By law you submit to her or else. Any other talk is just wishful thinking to avoid seeing the hell on earth you are in. Many men will double down on the blue pill to avoid it and just deny the truth. Hell the whole Christian church rolled over to avoid the truth and got on the blue pill and found a way to sooth their worldly soul. Own a rifle or get used to saying “yes sir boss”
So, you see, the scenario was designed in such a way that the wife would be more on edge than usual, for perfectly legitimate reasons. As would the husband, but since it is not HIS usual responsibility to clean the mess, this is not relevant* in this situation.
Well, gosh, when the husband is “more on edge than usual, for a good reason”, his wife should go to work for him and do his job.
If “The wife” is going to be edgy about a stupid bit of ketchup, can complaints about an income level that couldn’t pay to fly down to Disney be far behind?
@Markku Koponen:
You should, by now, be able to see how your conclusion takes the husband’s responsibilities qua husband seriously but does not take the wife’s responsibilities qua wife seriously. Nobody would argue that the husband should be able to skip work, and his wife should go in for him, because the wife (say) accidentally damaged the garbage disposal and it now needs fixing.
Feminism is a war on female responsibility in pursuit of “equality”. Your conclusion is a feminist conclusion.
You should, by now, be able to see how your conclusion takes the husband’s responsibilities qua husband seriously but does not take the wife’s responsibilities qua wife seriously.
Having no ketchup, or alternatively having it but assuming the risk of a mess of your own making is a trivial inconvenience. It must be compared to another trivial inconvenience, not a full working day.
I have never heard a man describe “the look” as loving. Only a woman could twist that.
For example, I remember once in the Finnish army, we had had really hard time at a camp. And the officers woke us up at 8AM the next day, and not 6AM. Happened exactly once. They didn’t say they would, they just did it.
The last thing on my mind was that they are clearly getting soft, perhaps we might afford to get a bit mutinous. No, what it told me was that they aren’t absolute total assholes. It made me trust their judgement more, not less.
Obviously, the concept of headship and submission will never be cut-and-dried. Even in the context of a religious/traditional family.
Individual personalities play a large factor: is your wife a happy and generous person, or is she a type-A shrew. This ‘ketchup’ incident could become a trivial thing that they both look back and laugh about later, or it could plant the bitter seeds of resentment between them that will ultimately destroy their family.
I am more concerned about “the gun in the room” and how it factors into the wife’s attitude over time, even at a subconscious level. She can promise to ‘submit’ to his ‘headship’, but the gun is always there.
Some Guy says:
August 23, 2013 at 6:13 am
Dude, were you following me around for the last for twenty years? Because your post describes my experience EXACTLY.
The most chilling part is how you so accurately describe the deleterious effect this stuff has on a father’s ability to parent his children. It is better, in 99.99% of instances, for kids to see their mother defer (submit) to their father, even if he was wrong. what most women can not see is that this deference makes everyone’s life so much easier.
@Tam the Bam
I was not previously aware of the existence of Tangier Island, but if I ever go there I will be as incomprehensible to its inhabitants as I surely am to the good people of Gloucestershire. I had heard that in certain inaccessible parts of The Appalachians that English is still spoken as it had been in the Seventeenth Century. I wonder what the other Americans make of those Tangier Island accents, never mind the very different accent of Jane Austen Fan.
Cane Caldo says:
August 22, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Cane,
Someone upthread proffered the idea that a husband should choose his battles as it relates to his wife’s fitness testing; your scenario suggest that you are not of this view. Am I reading this right?
I think I’d fall in the camp that says that a man should never tolerate such attacks, even to putatively ‘keep his powder dry’ to wage a supposedly more important battle.
Not to speak for Cane, but I think his example shows that, when you have the right balance in a relationship, it’s not so much about “battles” as it is about just a steady, low-level dose of dominance and teasing that keeps her from getting complacent enough to have bad ideas. He wasn’t saying that’s how you get a rebellious wife under control, but how you have fun with her on a regular basis in a way that keeps her tingling. (I hope he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.)
MK:
Having no ketchup, or alternatively having it but assuming the risk of a mess of your own making is a trivial inconvenience.
Life is made up of trivial inconveniences, etc. Refraining from using the garbage disposal is a trivial inconvenience. If she uses it and it breaks, are you the kind of husband who would insist that she broke it, she has to fix it, without using any of your resources? Or, supposing that you would never say that out loud, would you be resentful about having to fix it?
Cane has got game huh. Never thought I’d see the that biblical verse reciter ever add that to his personal wisdom. Nothing like the red pill added to the bible. Nothing more powerful than a red pill Christian man. Cane is a free man. And one more thing, I would introduce my daughter to a Christian man with game.
If you would be resentful of a broken garbage disposal you are probably a petty whiner. I don’t recommend enabling petty whining in any relationship; but that is especially true in a marriage.
@Cane
I have no doubt there are a number of readers frantically reciting Driscoll’s prayer for husbands right now while struggling to unbunch their panties. Once they get their undergarment issues smoothed out, I would direct them to this:
I left out the long trip part on purpose.
You just explained what I was trying to explain to Scott above.
Of course it can be divorced from those things. Someone once called Game the bastard child of feminism. I like that description and I think it fits. I’m a flowchart man so indulge me a chart-in-text. We started with biblical marriage, and it was good. But then Christians listened to the whining and bitching, and became ashamed of biblical headship and submission, and also encouraged their daughters to delay heeding the instruction in 1 Cor 7 until their late 20s or early 30s to maximize their girl-power and “find themselves” (under a parade of men). As generation after generation of Christians continued to rebel against the Bible, a glut of sluts built up in the system. Men like Roissy looked around and decided two things:
1) Christianity must be for suckers; look how foolish it makes you.
2) There must be something useful to do with all of these slutty daughters of foolish Christians before they age out of the carousel and marry.
The rest is history. It is true that we learned from Roissy and men like him, and this should bring us shame. But the shame shouldn’t be in rediscovering biblical marriage, but that we betrayed biblical marriage in the first place and created the very mess of sin we eventually learned from. We owe Roissy an apology for putting stumbling blocks 1 & 2 above in his path. But what Roissy discovered for the most part is simply the truth about men and women, something Christians by then were ashamed they ever knew. Israel rebelled, and God lead them back in Hosea. But the first step involved a bit of humbling. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be the same now.
Life is made up of trivial inconveniences, etc. Refraining from using the garbage disposal is a trivial inconvenience. If she uses it and it breaks, are you the kind of husband who would insist that she broke it, she has to fix it, without using any of your resources?
No, it is the specifics of the scenario that change the normal situation. IBB said the drive would be 22 hours. The scenario was deliberately designed to be an extreme, and extremely rare case.
I am fully aware that rare scenarios are often designed simply to distract. But if my principle cannot account even for the rare ones, then it’s obviously not a well-thought principle.
Normally if I make a mess, she cleans it up.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-pass-immigration-bill-boost-obamacare-enrollment
Here’s a woman who needs to learn to submit. Her head is full of nonsense. Ya, you can’t afford anything now but hey ho, let in millions of poor people and give them more free shit! America, forwards towards progressive utopia! All aboard!
I was kind of surprised no one said anything about my declaration that I would be petty, irritating, and demanding.
Don’t fret it @Cane Caldo. I find your writings inspiring. You’re a mighty fine individual, just best in small doses…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
@ Cane:
I found myself laughing at your comment. It all felt eerily familiar to me. Got the phone hung up on me a couple of days ago. Know what it’s like to have my calls go unanswered, too. Par for the course when I act up. It works itself out in the end and I learn the pertinent lessons until I forget them again and back to school I go.
I agree with you that it is most certainly NOT game, because there’s no strategy involved just a simple refusal to be manipulated, controlled, or treated with disrespect. That, and being unafraid of me and my emotions.
Husband and I discussed the issue yesterday on the heels of some advice he gave to a man who called with a conundrum. He told him, “As long as you’re afraid of her there’s nothing I can say that’s gonna to help you.” I am very thankful that he is not afraid of me.
I’ve tried that several years ago, by the way. Making a house rule and expecting him to abide by it. No television on a certain day of the week. He came right in and turned on the set. I complained and he basically said what Zippy said: “You don’t set rules in my house for me.”
Well okay, then.
My husband is the kind of guy who enjoys life and doesn’t take everything so seriously. If her were type A, he would be a tyrant. But because he is playful most of the time there’s a decent balance.
Not everything that works with us will work the same with someone else, but he is adamant that being afraid of her is a death knell regardless of a man’s personality type.
@Dalrock
Perhaps a better way to say it is that I’m not yet convinced I’m the one to do it; at least not overtly. Who knows what the future holds?
It’s like “servant leadership”. I metaphorically grind my teeth whenever someone uses it incorrectly, (pro or con) but most of the time I just let it pass without comment because I know why they’re doing it. It’s been misused a lot. It’s still a real thing.
The vast majority of Game blogs and commenters do believe in those things I listed above (irrational self-confidence, etc.) and if my endorsement of Game causes them to stumble upon that path then I bear some responsibility. It’s no good for (as penance for tripping up the Roissys) to trip up the betas.
In Hosea there is this point where God says:
The idea is that some Jews thought they were being faithful to God in spirit by claiming God as their personal Baal. It’s offensive to God on its face because it makes Baal the Thing aspired to, and God just sort of happens to be the person who fills that role for the person. I see “Game” and “love” this same way. In a similar line of thinking, this is why I refuse the “how to have naughty Christian sex” mode of discourse. It’s like saying, “How to please your Baal”. I’m not her Baal. I’m her husband. Game and love are not the same things. Love is what Game tries to imitate and replace. Love for God is replaced with irrational self-confidence, self-esteem, etc., and love for a wife is replaced with machinations and manipulations for the sake of self first and foremost, and maybe secondarily for hers.
It seems very possible to me that this is tough for others to understand because Game appears to have been useful to them. However; I will close this comment by saying that I it’s also possible that I’m not seeing the situation with full clarity. My doubt rests mostly on the fact that I respect you, KG, and others quite a bit. Since you all strongly disagree, I still mull it.
Elspeth
I agree with you that it is most certainly NOT game, because there’s no strategy involved just a simple refusal to be manipulated, controlled, or treated with disrespect. That, and being unafraid of me and my emotions.
Right. And he’s not an Alpha, he’s just extremely self confident, refuses to fear or kowtow to you, insists on being in charge, etc.
Ok, well, then, a Canadian Maple Leaf is not a gold coin, it is a disk with a picture on it that just happens to consist of 1 Troy ounce of .999 fine gold. But it’s not a coin. Don’t call it a coin. It’s not. Really it isn’t.
Modern electric ovens often come with a “sabbath setting”. The oven stays at 250 F or some such setting so that food can be kept warm, cooked at a moderate pace, etc. without anyone actually pushing a button like “temperature” or “start”. This enables orthodox Jewish women to cook food on a Saturday, while not “doing work”. Because turning on a switch is “doing work”, and “doing work” is prohibited on the Sabbath. So instead of “doing work” by turning on the oven, the “sabbath setting” enables work to be done[*] while preserving the fiction that work is not being done.
Just as some men insist they do not Game their wives, and some wives insist they are not Gamed.
Legalistic hair splitting is only entertaining in small doses, but everyone needs a hobby, I guess.
[*]Not just in the Physics 101 sense due to a flow of electric current through nickel-chromium wire being converted into heat, but also in the sense of raw-food-placed-into-a-hot-metal-box that later becomes cooked-food-taken-out-of-a-hot-metal-box-and-eaten. It’s work, just as surely as turning on a light switch, or opening up a can of gefiltefish by hand or by electric opener.
Cane,
(far up the chain)
I find that few Christians really understand the grace we live in today. So much of this, whichever side of the argument you are, falls back to our own works.
We should not purposefully sin so that grace can abound, but we can firmly rest in knowing that grace will abound in us if we do blow it, which we will all do.
Both the feminists and red-pillers preach a works salvation, with the focus just on different works.
But then Christians listened to the whining and bitching, and became ashamed of biblical headship and submission
Too simple.
There is always whining and bitching where women are involved. There always has been and there always will be. I do not think men suddenly decided to accommodate it and backed off or something. That is too simple a cause and effect. Men generally react to incentive more than disincentive, in fact often to a fault where men take disincentive as encouragement out of stubbornness.
It was positive reinforcement that made men start apologizing for biblical headship. The women’s whining morphed to the red herring about abuse, which grew from the cacophony of secular feminists speaking from outside, into the church women. Men took notice of what they accepted to be genuine FEAR. Men’s protective urges clouded the irrationality of all of it, and when men then began to “protect” women from the ogre headship men, men got feedback from women, good feed back, and therefore, man thinks, I’m on to something here because a woman is happy with me and what I am saying.
This leaves men not ashamed of biblical headship, but afraid of it. There is a difference. Then, align the laws, align the culture, align the zeitgeist to reinforce all that fear, make it a social norm that to be “in” you must adopt, and men did so. They coddled the irrational fear of women, got positive feed back, and now fear loosing the positive feedback.
This is not just a distinction. Its more insidious than merely reacting to bitching and whining. Its far more difficult to get men, collectively, to relinquish a source of attaboys than it is to convince men to go against bitching and whining.
Empathalogicalism
This leaves men not ashamed of biblical headship, but afraid of it. There is a difference. Then, align the laws, align the culture, align the zeitgeist to reinforce all that fear, make it a social norm that to be “in” you must adopt, and men did so. They coddled the irrational fear of women, got positive feed back, and now fear losing the positive feedback.
This is very insightful. Add in the modernist desire to cast away old, out of date “stuff” and replace it with new, “scientific stuff” and voila! the brainwashing that teaches men their natural inclination to lead is A Bad Thing, and submitting to screaming, shrieking women is A Good Thing.
Reality check: if Empath’s observation is correct, then when the carrot-and-stick gives way to the two-sticks method of “encouraging” men, then some men will start to wonder what went wrong. But as long as those men are a tiny minority, they can be shouted down, or shamed into silence. Only when some critical mass of men come to more or less the same conclusion can there be any serious questioning of the coddling. Only when the positive feedback is going away no matter what a man does – nothing is ever good enough to get any respect – will questions be asked.
Well, well, here we are. I’d say we have at least something of confirmation merely by being here.
There is an implication to Empath’s observation: it is not enough to be unmoved by women’s anger or tears, one also must not be particularly impressed by positive feedback, either, if it is for the wrong reason. So a man must know himself, and know right from wrong, and be unmoved by false notions – neither empty, shrill anger, nor manipulative tears, nor vain flattery should move him.
Well, well, well…
Zippy and Cane are on a roll here. I’ve had the Ketchup conversation, and for the record, its my damn car. And as Zippy points out what husband _wouldn’t_ fix the garbage disposal?
Let me be clear, if I gave my boss a look in front of lower ranked staff I would be headed for the door unless I had _their_ boss as my backup plan. You just don’t do that. Any captain/first officer/petty officer first class who did that crap would be in for a world of hurt.
And Cane, snapping bra straps, that sir was classic. There is nothing quite as fun as chasing them around the house. I do that with my mother-in-law who lives with us too. At eighty she still giggles and everyone feels more relaxed.
@AR
The argument is that Game is counterfeit, but appears to be real Love. We know that a good chunk of the coins in circulation are counterfeit; some with the metal of pedestalization, and some with the ore of hate. It’s so common, in fact, that you now assume all transactions can be measured in the type of counterfeit being traded: That guy’s Beta; this one’s Alpha.
When you stumble upon real gold–or when real gold is traded or gifted to you–you assume that it too is counterfeit. This assumption is based on an arrogance and sophistication (“You can’t fool me, buddy: I know the score!”). You also value real gold less because you are unable to tell the difference, and in ignorance you offend those who would give real gold by demanding more. It doesn’t seem to behoove you to assume any gold is real gold because you might get ripped off.
It’s a Prisoner’s Dilemma; which is literally the way of the world.
Just as some men insist they do not Game their wives, and some wives insist they are not Gamed.
Okay AR. I see your point. But isn’t Game only a Game if the player is strategizing a way to win it? It was never not my intent to imply that what my husband does or what Cane described isn’t to be found in the Game playbook. I’ve read enough to know that it is.
My husband married me when he was 20 years old, and that was almost 20 years ago. He has always been like this. The men in his family are all very similar in the way they deal with their women.
If something comes naturally, how is it Game?
Some women are thin no matter what they do, and what they eat. They don’t have to work at it as it is part of their DNA, a genetic gift as it were. I am not one of those women. I work out an hour a day every day and rarely eat a piece of bread.
The fact that I am fit means a very different thing to me than it does to the naturally slender woman. The result is the same: fitness. But if you don’t have to work at a thing, it’s wholly different than when you do.
This is why I insist that I am not being Gamed.
@Empath and AR
I think this is right on, but (as we’ve already seen in this thread) it’s an “and/both” scenario. However; the shame is worse than the fear. Everyone God tasks is afraid, but if they are ashamed of Him…well, they’re worthless.
I understand when my children are afraid that my rules might cause them to lose out on opportunities. I often agree with them. If they were ashamed of my way of life though, they would not be allowed to remain with me long.
When you stumble upon real gold–or when real gold is traded or gifted to you–you assume that it too is counterfeit. This assumption is based on an arrogance and sophistication (“You can’t fool me, buddy: I know the score!”). You also value real gold less because you are unable to tell the difference, and in ignorance you offend those who would give real gold by demanding more. It doesn’t seem to behoove you to assume any gold is real gold because you might get ripped off.
I wish I would have restrained myself from replying to AR. This is way, way better than the inanity I came up with. Very well said, Mr. Caldo.
I’m shutting up now, LOL.
Don’t let the term “game” spoil it for you. It was just a term used to identify a psychology that was discovered by regular men using common sense. Some are natural as Elspeth has described and the rest are a variation to learned and measured. I’m just happy to see the biggest Christian in the room talking about the psychology in a context that is not in a negative light. This is a good sign Dalrock , there is hope for the world.
IBB said the drive would be 22 hours. The scenario was deliberately designed to be an extreme, and extremely rare case.
You are trying to make the “unusual case” business do a lot of heavy lifting here, I see.
Oddly enough I just got back from an 1800 mile round trip in the car with the family. I am in a position to charter a private jet if I choose to; but we do it my way, and in this case the car was my way.
But again – yet again – the whole framing is just flat wrong. It is supposed to be the husband’s fault that the poor dears are being driven to Disney World rather than flying, the poor things, because Dad just isn’t making enough money. That sets up wifey – who maybe just doesn’t want to go on vacation at all if it means driving like those godforsaken rednecks, the poor thing – to be justified in being all cranky on the inside, even if she doesn’t show it on the outside, if Dad makes a ketchup mess in the car and creates oh so much extra work for the poor dear.
The whole thing is a web of dysfunction resting on bad framing.
What I’ve found in practice – though of course this is limited to personal experience and YMMV – is that worthwhile women don’t want to actually be (nor to be thought of as) high maintenance, touchy bitches. Any woman for which this would even be an issue is a high maintenance, touchy bitch. Thus even if she is that sort, you are doing her a favor in schooling her.
Now, in actual practice my family is always very – and overtly – thankful. If I take them on a trip in the manner I see fit, I always get plenty of thank-yous. And none of them would even think of suggesting the remotest possibility that I might not have some ketchup if I want some. I’m also pretty damn good to them, I would move (and have moved) mountains for their benefit, and I don’t make folks’ lives unnecessarily hard unless they need it as a learning experience. All the good humor of Cane’s example is there in the dynamic — but when push comes to shove, my authority is no joke.
The wife in the ketchup scenario should be grateful that she has a good man driving her and their kids on a family vacation, and ought to do everything in her power to show her appreciation. Full stop. She should be grateful that she can clean up the ketchup mess, as something she can do for him. If her attitude is anything other than that, other than for brief moments of human irritation followed by explicit mea culpa, you aren’t doing her any favors by enabling it.
Cane Caldo
The argument is that Game is counterfeit, but appears to be real Love.
No, the argument is that if certain actions, taken by a man with a certain mindset, are called “Game” then they are A Bad Thing, whereas if the exact same actions, taken by a man with the exact same mindset, are called “Headship” then they are A Good Thing.
We know that a good chunk of the coins in circulation are counterfeit; some with the metal of pedestalization, and some with the ore of hate. It’s so common, in fact, that you now assume all transactions can be measured in the type of counterfeit being traded: That guy’s Beta; this one’s Alpha.
Missing the point again. You are looking at a Canadian Maple Leaf and saying, “That is not a coin! It is not a coin! Coins are bad things! It is a collectable disk! Collectable disks are good!”.
You have decided that “Game” is bad, evil, terrible. But since you routinely Game your wife, you have to rationalize what you are doing, because it works, and you don’t want to give it up. So you have to use different labels, for the same thing, in order to convince yourself that what you are doing is good.
It is the same hair splitting legalistic thinking that insists while turning on the oven with the “On” switch is “doing work”, leaving it on all day at 250 degrees in order to cook is not “doing work”. Look, it is ok with me if you wish to relabel things to suit yourself (“That’s not a hammer fist! Hammer fist is a technique from Godless Asian martial arts! What I do is completely different! My technique is a David Slingshot! It’s Godly! It’s totally different from a hammer fist!). But the fact remains, a difference that is no difference, is no difference. A teasing form of leadership is a teasing form of leadership, whether it is that horrible “Game” or that righteous “Headship”.
Why does it matter? Because there are many beaten down men, quite a few of them in churches, who live with a wife that they refer to as “She Who Must Be Obeyed” and they are miserable. They are doing exactly what the vast, vast majority of church leaders teach them to do. They are “servant leaders”, submitting to their wives and bowing to every whim. You know this is reality.
You would deny them any knowledge that they might use to change that situation, because of your own, private rationalization that insists “Game” is bad, it is crimethink. That’s why it matters. Now, if you are teaching “David’s Slingshot” at your blog, then good for you, and I hope that churchgoing men and their wives and families benefit. But it is still a hammer fist..
Elspeth, how many times have men pointed out to you that your husband is a “natural”? More than once, I am certain. Every thing you have posted over the years about him screams “Natural Alpha”. If you do not want to believe, that, fine with me. But that doesn’t change the obvious facts.
@greyghost
I know you mean to be encouraging, but this is exactly why I say what I say, and do what I do. This is why I don’t call it Game. This is why I (as Novachaser said once) “hide the ball” in my comments and posts. It’s because you and AR and many others cannot divorce Game from irrational self-confidence, hedonism, and all the rest. For your sakes I cannot eat of the food of Game that is sacrificed to idols of the self.
Because your desire is that the “biggest Christian in the room”[1] embrace idolatrous sacrifice as a net good for society, rather than celebrate that (if the term Christian means anything) Christ is in the room. Period.
It’s for the sake of those who say things like, “I wouldn’t marry a chick I had not fucked in all her openings big guy.”; for the sakes of those who think that Christianity is one way to do things, but there are a lot of others just as good as long as we stay on the same Game page; for the sakes of those who spit upon marriage, children, church, and most of all worship of my Lord,
[1] Doubtful, and embarrassing if true, but I take it as a compliment.
Cane Caldo
It’s because you and AR and many others cannot divorce Game from irrational self-confidence, hedonism, and all the rest.
Doesn’t look that way to the outside observer. Rather, it appears it is because you cannot separate self confidence from Game, so you must invent different labels for the same actions taken with the same mindset in order that you can say to yourself “I do not use Game!”. Watching your convolutions is rather like watching a vegetarian eating a piece of fried bacon while insisting all the while that it’s really fried tofu, because that’s what the label on the package says.
Anonymous Reader
The best reply to Cane
“nice try asshole you are a good MAN whether you like it or not” Don’t sweat the small stuff AR just enjoy the show. We got us a new Christian playa. he won’t make love to all of her openings before but one hour with the man and she will sure feel like it. She’ll be in the kitchen with her shoes off making coffee talking about her dad.
Dalrock said (to Matthew King): “Why are you here? If you suffer so reading here, why not do us all a favor and return to where you feel more comfortable. I gather from your comments above here that you don’t suffer these problems on FeministX’s site. I propose a win-win. You can focus on your mission with lesbian feminists, and the rest of us can continue our discussion without your constant bitching.”
I may be coming to this conversation late, but I just want to add my own thoughts for the record. It hurts me to say this, but Matt King really does seem to be less comfortable in these parts than on “FeministX blog”, playing the gruff, affectionate, respectably conservative yet mischievous grandad. Talk of Jesus supping with sinners appears to be a smokescreen; I am concluding that he basically prefers feminist women to anti-feminist men.
@Elspeth
You are looking at it the wrong way. Imagine for a moment that an unmarked van pulls up while your husband is going to get his lunch and he is whisked away by masked men. These cruel men subject him to 6 months of beta reconditioning, with extra Driscoll. I know this is frightening, but just imagine the man who would come back. Instead of not putting up with crap, he responds with praise and requests permission to give you another footrub (is it ok if I touch you here?). Instead of leading, post-Driscoll Secret Agent Man constantly defers to you:
You being a faithful Christian wife would of course keep your marriage vows, but I think you can understand that this would be excruciating. If I encountered your husband at such a hypothetical point, I would beg him to learn game out of love for his wife. Sure it would be ideal if your husband hadn’t lost his “natural” game through the ordeal-of-extra-Driscoll, but him (re)learning game is an act of love, not that different than you working to remain thin. You explain that it is more loving that you remain thin since you aren’t a natural at remaining thin. Why then is it less loving for a husband to learn game if he isn’t a natural?
Some folks say IBB sounds like a female posing as a male.
I don’t see it that way at all. I grew up in a Church for which many husbands sound just like IBB, in which they were proud of the fact that their wives where the authority in the home.
Men for whom they referred to their wives as “their better half” and when talking to each other, would refer to the other men’s wives as “your better half.”
Men who would regularly joke about how they were the head of their household, and that they had HER permission to say so.
Men who would describe their wives bitching as “lovingly correcting me.”
The existence of such men as IBB is precisely why Dalrock has gotten so much blogging success in discussing the topic of submission, male headship and feminist rebellion to Ephesians 5:22 in the first place.
Admiral BJ sounds exactly like this sort of pussywhipped white knight of Churchianity.
@AR
1) It ain’t the same mindset. At all. One is focused on getting his wife to act in a way he desires. Another is getting her to act in a way God desires. These goals may align, but the difference will be stark when we have to make an accounting of what we did with our talents, and what our explanations are. We will all be accounted, but we will not all be held to account.
2) You need to decide whether you’re going to argue from the materialist standpoint, or from the spiritual. Mindset is about the mind, heart, and soul. Mindset is everything to the spiritualist, and the material follows from it. This is what the Bible teaches. But from the materialist perspective everything begins and ends in the physical world. This is what the world teaches. You, AR, shuffle between both depending on how you want to take down your opponent; the take-down being the most important thing to you. One minute mindset matters, the next it’s the action of the arm that matters. Which is it? My opinion has been clear for over a year now.
Your analogy is false because I haven’t made up a single thing. Actually, it is those who trumpet Game who claim to even as we speak be busy with the task of compiling the corpus of Game.
Your attempt here is to ridicule me; as if it mattered, and as if I really cared. I could boast that this is still the Caldonian Era; as one of my most prominent detractors once said with the utmost derision, and has been recently republished. All this garbage about kung fu, and bacon, and whatnot is chaff to cover that you simply don’t like what is being heard. It’s not an argument though; not a very good one.
@KG
100% agree. IBB is nearly all the men I know.
@greyghost
I rest my case.
@Dalrock said
These cruel men subject him to 6 months of beta reconditioning, with extra Driscoll.
Howling with laughter…
You are looking at it the wrong way. Imagine for a moment that an unmarked van pulls up while your husband is going to get his lunch and he is whisked away by masked men. These cruel men subject him to 6 months of beta reconditioning, with extra Driscoll. I know this is frightening, but just imagine the man who would come back. Instead of not putting up with crap, he responds with praise and requests permission to give you another footrub (is it ok if I touch you here?). Instead of leading, post-Driscoll Secret Agent Man constantly defers to you:
Sheesh, Dalrock. Are you trying to give me nightmares???
I understand your question, and I guess the answer is that the leadership is so much more potent because I know he acts from conviction. That he isn’t strategizing to extract a certain response from me but doing what he believes is right regardless of how I feel about it.
One comes from a position of strength, the other weakness.
But yes, I’d rather he learn to lead than refrain from leading at all. I concede your point. A little.
As a veteran of road trips both as a child and as an adult, I agree with Zippy’s and Cane’s take. At the same time, I’m incredulous at the volume of comments over the damn ketchup.
@Cane, as a Catholic, I understand your refusal to call anything you do “game”. On the other hand, a lot of what you do is synonymous with “game”. The take charge, take no shit, flip shit tests or destroy them, the sense of humor, these are all aspects of game. I like your results showing that it’s possible to have a Christian household with headship as in Ephesians 5. So as opposed to you I’m not going to quibble too much on the terminology. It just works and you (and zippy) made it work as Christians, embrace that.
As a general comment, I’ve come to realize that ideal marriages settings are right there in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s letters. That guy knew human nature. The only real quibble I still have is that there is almost nothing there telling men about the practical everyday aspects of dealing with the wife, the contexts of headship and submission, the inevitable shit tests, the mood swings, the bad days, the role of humor, etc. Only a little bit about vetting prospective wives. Which Dalrock expanded on. A friend once explained to me that “men were men in those days, it was implicitly understood and passed from one generation to the next, it didn’t need to be spelled out.” Well now many of us could do with a good bit of spelling out…
It’s a shame we’ve had to turn away from Christians to the likes of Roissy, et al, to get at the truth about the nature of women. But that has been the nature of most Christianity and culture of the last 70 years. Yes there are parts of game that are inimical to Christian marriage, but that does not mean there are no aspects of game that Christian men can use. Leading us back to marriage have been those like Keoni (Dave From Hawaii way back when), Athol, Dalrock, etc. To which I can add Cane and Zippy. Giving me guidance should the day come that I might try marriage again.
TLDR the whole combox, but I think there’s a lot of misuse and misunderstanding of submission, period. It’s not a gift a wife gives to a husband – it’s something she does (verb) because she IS A WIFE. If she doesn’t do it, she isn’t fulfilling her role. It occurs to me that “submitted wife” should be redundant, and “unsubmitted wife” is an oxymoron.
@Random Angeleno
It would be a mistake to believe my detractors that I just REFUSE to hear anything good of Game. My blog links to a bunch of pro-Game blogs. Dalrock is pro-Game, and I respect the fire out of him. Being pro-Game is not automatic strike against someone, and I don’t believe I’ve treated it that way, in general. Others may disagree.
In this thread, Dalrock ribbed me because I don’t like the term. We have a long chain of emails (currently in hibernation) arguing back and forth on how this all works.
Look, I know that there is good-to-eat meat in the Game offerings. Good for any and everyone, and I’ve said so before. There is no refusal on my part to understand that God made all meat, and means it as food for us. That’s not my problem.
My problem is that here, in this chain of websites, a whole bunch of my fellow Christians are more focused on the temple than on the meat, so I just don’t bring it up. This causes them to outrage that it tastes just like the food they used to eat back when they were idol worshipers, and I just ought to say that Baal Meat is the best meat out there, and that has nothing to do with their Christian faith.
Bullshit. That food is not from Baal. It is God’s, and I can’t understand how it’s pleasing to God to call it Baal’s Meat.
Rollo described this obstinance of mine as me being a “concern troll”. Perhaps he is right. So what?
@Saint Velvet
It’s both; like love.
It’s both.
I have a hard time with that notion because there’s a vanity/control issue in it, on the wife’s part, I mean – a gift implies it’s optional. It’s not really optional, and it’s not about feelings or chemistry or the other things that make up the emotion of love. What am I missing?
@SV
Well, you are a chick…
Seriously: You are duty-bound to give it because it has been given to you. Love works the same way. I’m not talking about feelings, “chemistry”, emotions, etc.
You are duty-bound to give it because it has been given to you.
That makes more sense. I am resistant to the “look at the pretty submission I have for you” way some women have of interpreting it. Yes, it’s a gift from God to wives for our purification. It is our DUTY to submit to our husbands, not something he’s required to earn or vie for or wait for a special occasion to receive. That’s what I mean about control/vanity.
Yep. He sounds like a man whose marriage seems pretty happy (as far as he can tell) with his wife in charge, and he doesn’t want to rock that boat, so he’s trying to find a way to redefine up as down so he can say he’s really in charge despite his own statements to the contrary. Pretty typical.
For the record, so did I at the time, but I’ve gained an appreciation for what you’re doing since then. I still think you split the hairs unnecessarily fine sometimes, but I can see the value in that aspect of the conversation that’s going on. Theologians who argued over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin weren’t wasting their time either. I take back calling you a troll, since a troll’s true purpose is to derail the conversation, and I no longer think that’s your intention.
I’m standing on the other side of the “Is Game OK?” question, but I’m not always comfortable there for a lot of the same reasons you gave. When I see comments like the one from Mr. All-Her-Holes, I cringe, thinking, “Man, can we kick this guy off the team somehow, or assign him to a job where he doesn’t have to talk to people?” I’m confident that there’s a place for what I think of as Game in Christian relationships, but I also realize that Game is a powerful thing and there are a lot of idiots out there.
I agree with you SV. 100%. I hate the “submission is a gift” line of thought too. It’s revolting. But we still have to choose to do our duty.
@Cail,
Mr. All Her Holes is fine in the “game-o-sphere”. Much like Christian take overs of any cultural phenomenon there could be “Christian Game” but that is going to be something stylistically different from “Game” since the objectives are different.
I think the much more fundamental theological problem at hand here in discussing the “materiality” of game is the lack of the distinction between the “Two Kingdoms” of God, the spiritual kingdom and the temporal kingdom of God, through which God reigns in the world. To give a snippet which I wrote with regards the Protestant doctrine of the two kingdoms in relation to the manosphere:
http://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-christian-faith-and-the-manosphere-an-application-of-the-doctrine-of-the-two-kingdoms/
@Dominic: that’s very helpful
@Cane: you are a bit like Bruce Lee: to paraphrase him, you accepted the game concepts that fitted Christian marriage and discarded the rest. Though in your case, the discarding consists of talking down the bad parts and refusing to accept “game” as a partial description of what you do in your own life. So of course many commenters will miss the Godly Meat you’re waving in front of them because they’re not seeing past your takedowns and your terminology.
@Cail
We’re square.
@Angeleno
Yes. This frustrates me sometimes, but I don’t see an alternative at this point. Every once in awhile I will sneak a positive note about Game into my posts, but I keep it light so that (I hope) it’s not taken seriously. Often this backfires and what others take away is a confirmation of Game, and a happiness that Christianity agrees with it. Facepalm, as the kids say. Well…what if it didn’t? What about when it doesn’t? What if Christianity means to destroy the same body Game means to pleasure? Because it does.
All I can do is show what the worldly thing is trying to look like; show what it points towards. Agreement and disagreement don’t even have much to do with it. Plenty of folks disagree with me, but still understand what I am trying to say.
Ultimately, this is out of my hands.
Cane Caldo
Back from work and glad to see the conversation about game is not about being a player. but on understanding female nature. And Cane not to be riding your jock but I smiled ear to ear at this comment is the whole reason for taking to Christian men as an MRA
“”1) It ain’t the same mindset. At all. One is focused on getting his wife to act in a way he desires. Another is getting her to act in a way God desires. These goals may align, but the difference will be stark when we have to make an accounting of what we did with our talents, and what our explanations are ” Getting her to act is a way god desires. about fuckin time a Christian man stood up and smelled the coffee. I like that and I sincerely hope that idea runs through all of the Christian blogs and churchian churches and forms some solid Christian men To give the involuntary childless spinsters a place to go and a place for young women to learn how to be Christian wives. Make a good foundation for family law too.
Elspeth,
I have noted to my wife in the past couple of days that I have much of what is called “game” come naturally to me. You could put me through Dalrock’s 6 month attempt and I would not be changed. I am and always have been quite stubborn like that. I may make some errors and going through the crud where our children all turned from us threw me quite a bit, but I have generally been a “I will do what I feel is right regardless of the cost” individual throughout my life. That has mostly been centered on God’s Word (even as a teen), so I kept out a lot of stuff that should have waylaid me.
I note that to say that some application of “game” is not something I need to work on at all. That is good because I doubt I would in the long run. I would lose interest and say “forget it” if I had to be someone other than myself most of the time. So someone can run a subconscious game.
I doubt I would be considered alpha by most and only sometimes sigma, so take this for what you will. I have made lots of “beta errors” with women throughout my life, but I think the core is the right place. I am likely far different from your husband, as I was never a “bad boy” in the world’s eyes, but I would bet the independent streak is similar.
AR and greyghost,
The sad thing with a lot of places like this is the almost exaltation of very ungodly things. “Using every hole” before marriage is not something a Christian should ever be proud of or make a boast. Anyone who will stray from God’s standard for marriage is not living up to His standard for life. You may find that useful, necessary, something to be proud of or whatever, but it is not a Christian way of walking out this life.
This sphere does look pretty raunchy from the outside. This place is much milder than say CH, but it has its moments. It may be necessary to discuss the concepts, but it certainly does not further righteousness.
It is also a show of very poor logic to have to jump to personal insults so quickly. I guess if you have nothing more that is what you must use though. I certainly don’t agree with Cane all the time (I left the RCC when I was much younger, for example), but I believe he is right in principle here.
I regularly see those who supposedly name the Name of Christ revel in things that are clearly condemned in the Scriptures. I can understand that for those apart from Jesus, but those who claim to be with Him don’t have Him as much of a Lord if they do not seek to obey His principles. They are at least as worst as any feminist enemy they seek to oppose. The way is straight and narrow, with ditches on both sides of the road.
@greyghost,
Your last post does confuse me a bit, because I am fully in agreement with the idea that we all should act consistent with God’s desires. We won’t always do that, male or female, but that should be our continual goal.
AR
You have just described the red pill blue pill process. Who are the men that are most likely to step out of the matrix? Those who have had their life become a 2 stick corrective with no incentive, that being those who have experienced some familial trauma like divorce, infidelity, etc. It indeed takes these two sticks which is why as you say the number remains low enough the the rest of the dudes in their comfy chairs simply ignore those men or shout them down.
Everyone God tasks is afraid, but if they are ashamed of Him…well, they’re worthless
Sure, fear the consequences, fear the unknown, fear a lack of resources, fear whatever, generally as a part of following a right path.
But I’m talking about specifically and with laser focus, fear of losing female approval. This fear moves men in more ways than just as it relates to scriptures and ordering of the marriage. It moves men tiny bit by bit, making a feedback loop for them as they live each day, adjusting their very lives not just to be husband and father with the attendant duties….that’s fine, but in everything so as to not draw ire from the harpies at home. I realize one can say its ALL under the scriptural ordering of marriage, but even the men utterly ignorant of scripture have this fear. That this fear is, from the pulpit, recognized and coddled is a major reason for mega churchian growth. These men can huddle together and pretend to not be afraid. The church even sanctions goofy events that they know women will endorse so the men can go there and eat meat and watch sports and the wife will be ok with it because the men will be taught to step up…..see guys, go do something fun and do not be afraid cause we gotcha covered.
I do not believe that the men are ashamed. To be ashamed of things male and leadership in scripture would mean they first understood it correctly, then they were ashamed of it. They never get that far. They don’t know to be ashamed of it, because motivated by fear that have taken on scriptural admonitions about marriage in the fear driven context from their first exposure, and they get good female feedback for doing so. They are not ashamed because they don’t even know what to be ashamed of.
If and when shame comes in it would be in that very small number of men who are not ignorant and know something about other churches and denominations, maybe one that is plain on headship, and they look askance at those neanderthals. But that’s embarrassment, a cousin of shame, shame is personal, embarrassment can be vicarious, and it is.
BradA
I live in this world not all of this world are theologian.
@ Brad:
much of what is called “game” come naturally to me.
I understand. That’s one of the reasons why I have a hard time calling it game. Was it game 100 years ago when most men were disinclined to follow their wife’s lead?
I would lose interest and say “forget it” if I had to be someone other than myself most of the time.
This describes my husband as well. No time for games, pretenses, obfuscation or walking on egg shells, much less in the house that he works 60 hours a week to keep over my head. The very notion seems ridiculous to him. That, and he takes quite seriously his place of authority and God-given role in helping to keep me on the right path.
@Empath
I disagree that shame isn’t a massive problem, but I do agree that fear is key in the mix. First I think we need to address the fear. Game is an important tool in this regard because it helps destroy the false paradigm the fear is based on. Once we have addressed the fear, or at least begun to address the fear, we need to start addressing repentance. For large numbers of both men and women this includes repenting from being embarrassed of, ashamed of, what the Bible says so clearly.
As for what to call Game, I don’t think we are ready to call it anything different. If Christians had “sanitized” game then we could coin a new term for what Rollo would probably call Christian Kosher Game. But the more I think about this the more I am convinced that we in the manosphere aren’t up to such a monumental task. I’m also not convinced that such a thing can/should be done at all*. The focus should be on returning to the Biblical model of marriage. Right now I think it is painfully clear that the churches and pastors are with very few exceptions ambivalent at best and outright hostile at worst to the biblical definition/frame of marriage. If you fix that problem how much “game” is actually needed?
*One danger we’ve witnessed just the past few days is the strong temptation to adopt Game not into the biblical frame of headship but into the anti-biblical marriage frame which prevails in the churches today (deny the feminist rebellion while blaming men for women’s rebellion). While the Bible puts the emphasis on the wife submitting and declares the husband head, there will always be the temptation to twist this to “if your Game were strong enough she wouldn’t need to actively submit”.
Dear Dalrock,
It is nice to see you exalting Christ and Moses over the precepts of game. That is what I have been saying all along. Men who live by game are slaves to a woman’s butt and gina-tingleszzlzlzoz which is the very opposite of what Jesus Christ taught.
It is nice to see you coming around. 🙂 I always had faith in ye–I always knew that deep down you preferred the tenets of Moses and Jesus over those of game:
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/dalrock-voxs-christianity-is-not-the-christianity-of-jesus-christ/
The bigger challenge, as you point out, is to man up and return the Bible to the churches and the Great Books for Men to the universities.
da GBFM 🙂
@Dalrock
Word.
2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV)
“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind”
I would like to thank IBB for introducing the Ketchup game. It has been very instructive to the discussion here and made for a great read in the comment section.
I’m not an Ed, IBB, I enjoy reading Ed’s theory on game and a man’s role. However it is important to understand that Ed’s experience of practice is limited and has not lived through the years to put in practice all this knowledge.
From a “broken divorced guy” perspective.
The focus should be on returning to the Biblical model of marriage. Right now I think it is painfully clear that the churches and pastors are with very few exceptions ambivalent at best and outright hostile at worst to the biblical definition/frame of marriage. If you fix that problem how much “game” is actually needed?
Palabra
But seriously, that is all the game we need. You cannot avoid guilt by association, deserved or otherwise….best leave it.
As to shame, still not so much. Those who are ashamed of God’s word are ashamed of all of it. Not just marriage and gender, man and woman stuff. The folks we are talking about are not ashamed of it. At most some of them don’t even have a clue what it says or they are convinced that the evangelical readings of it are correct, hence they are not ashamed.
If only I didn’t spill the ketchup ands g the look.
@Empath
So, do you think the pastors who always equivocate on a wife’s submission actually WANT to say “It means what it says, ladies.”, and are just afraid to do so? There’s not a cool kid, or progressive aspect to it?
To me, the shame aspect makes much more sense. It explains not just the awful teachings on headship in marriage, but the eternal quest for “church growth”, personal prestige, and the onslaught of female “pastors”.
Dalrock writes, “One danger we’ve witnessed just the past few days is the strong temptation to adopt Game not into the biblical frame of headship but into the anti-biblical marriage frame which prevails in the churches today (deny the feminist rebellion while blaming men for women’s rebellion).”
This is akin to writing, “One danger we’ve witnessed just the past few days is the strong temptation to adopt Communism not into the Capitalistic frame of private property ownership but into the anti-private property frame which prevails in the government today.”
The question is, why does Dalrock want to adopt Game into the biblical frame? Are the words and wisdom of Jesus Christ incomplete without “Game?” Why does the church/bible need “Game?” What all did Jesus/Moses et al. miss?
If this were going on in pre-Internet times, it’d naturally be a lot more segregated. The Christian Game guys would have their newsletter, and the PUA Game guys would have theirs, and they’d have separate meetings and so on. The lines would be drawn more clearly. The blogosphere creates so much crossover and blending that you’re never more than a click or two from something you’d find abhorrent.
I don’t think that means we should stop, but it does seem to require us to spend a lot of time restating our beliefs and inserting disclaimers about what we don’t mean.
Pingback: To Game or Not To Game? | Cail Corishev
Rollo,
I addressed your concern on a previous thread, but since you missed it, I’ll put it a different way. Your rationalization hamster is running rampant. Ask yourself: what makes more sense? Two people who used photos in their gravatars, one of whose linked to facebook, began communicating and formed a relationship. Or, an elaborate and extensive plot to discover your identity was formed involving multiple distinct personas posting for years in order to set you up and fool you. Like a woman in denial about the trauma she put her ex-husband through, it appears you are grasping at straws to avoid the responsibility of what you have done. You helped damage a person’s reputation; a person who was a loyal supporter and follower of yours. You withdrew your friendship at the first moment of disagreement. So, it has all been very instructive, actually. Now we all know the difference between friend and faux.
So, do you think the pastors who always equivocate on a wife’s submission actually WANT to say “It means what it says, ladies.”, and are just afraid to do so? There’s not a cool kid, or progressive aspect to it?
No, I don’t think that. That should be clear already. I’m on about the motive for not wanting to say “it means what it says”, not suggesting they want to. How did you get there from what I wrote?
Yes of course there is a “cool kid” aspect. I say so above like this:
These things are not mutually exclusive. I’m not saying that because its fear its not shame.
Im just saying it is fear and not shame.
Wait, is Kate saying she _is_ related to Matt in some way? I had a hard time parsing that.
GKChesterson: The Cliff’s Notes version is that Matt, Mark, and I are all separate and distinct people. I know this because I communicate with them off the blogs and as quirky as I may be, I know the difference between talking to other people and talking to myself 🙂
Your attempt here is to ridicule me; as if it mattered, and as if I really cared.
I don’t have to ridicule a man who is busy making himself look ridiculous.
You make yourself ridiculous by tying yourself into various knots, over and over again, on this issue. One day, in one posting, you insist that no man needs Game, that all he needs is the Bible; and then on another day, in another comment, you clearly demonstrate the utility of Game in your own marriage. You point to Game as a tool clearly used by men engaging in bad behavior, decrying it, and then you turn around and use it yourself. It’s like watching a teetotal fanatic rant about the evils of alcohol, then totter over to the sideboard for a little glass of 80-proof “nerve tonic”. It is as ridiculous as that absurdly long, and turgid, screed on Game-as-Matrix-except-not-really-but-maybe-so Dalrock generously let you post here some time back.
Clearly the rule of “Do as I say, not as I do” always applies. It’s different when you do it. Why? Because you say so. Why should anyone accept such a childish rationalization? Because you say so. Not because of any actual logic, but because the self-aggrandizing biggest something in the room says so.
I could boast that this is still the Caldonian Era; as one of my most prominent detractors once said with the utmost derision, and has been recently republished.
No idea what this means, and little interest in finding out. Just another example of random self-referential, self-aggrandizing Cane Caldoism, perhaps. An attempt to reframe? Who knows? Who cares?
All this garbage about kung fu, and bacon, and whatnot is chaff to cover that you simply don’t like what is being heard.
Oh, the irony! Thanks for displaying your habit of projection once again. Those are called examples, and I am using them to illustrate your legalistic, hair splitting, “I-am-not-pushing-the-ON-switch-on-the-oven-on-Saturday-so-I-am-not-doing-work” hypocrisy. You’d rather tie yourself into a pretzel than deal with the fact that you Game your wife, but you are on record insisting that no man needs Game. The truth obviously hurts.
And bellowing “It’s different when I do it” is not logical, not new, and definitely not impressive.
Cail Corishev
I’m standing on the other side of the “Is Game OK?” question, but I’m not always comfortable there for a lot of the same reasons you gave. When I see comments like the one from Mr. All-Her-Holes, I cringe, thinking, “Man, can we kick this guy off the team somehow, or assign him to a job where he doesn’t have to talk to people?” I’m confident that there’s a place for what I think of as Game in Christian relationships, but I also realize that Game is a powerful thing and there are a lot of idiots out there.
Automobiles are powerful things, and sometimes bank robbers use them to try to escape with stolen money. Are automobiles intrinsically good, or bad?
Electricity is powerful, it can cook food and light up the house, or kill someone dead in seconds. Intrinsically good or bad?
Some men drive recklessly and people get killed, a man can murder his wife by throwing a blowdrier in the tub with the GFI bypassed. Anyone ready to give up motor vehicles and/or electricity? Anyone?
Knowledge can be used for good, bad and indifferent purposes. The intent of the person using it clearly matters. Some people are no good. Try to avoid them. But don’t cast tools away in a fit of guilt-by-association, that’s simply foolish.
@AR
Sure it is.
I don’t do the things I do primarily for my own benefit. That is not irrational confidence. That is not a decision based on maintaining self esteem. I don’t have two in the kitty. I don’t peacock. I don’t intentionally DHV myself or DLV her for the sake of status-jockeying. I don’t withhold my praise and affection from her. I don’t believe (and this is a big one) that whoever loves less has the most power in a relationship. That is to say: I don’t adhere to the tenants of Game in any way that would be recognizable to anyone who prescribes to Game as it is laid out by the most prominent writers.
It’s like you’re saying it doesn’t matter who you pray to when you ask for healing; that it’s the and words that cause healing.
“What a hypocrite!, you say. “What a ridiculous charade! You tell me not to pray to an idol, and then you go over in your corner and pray to your god. You kneel like they kneel. You close your eyes like they close their eyes. You mumble like they mumble. You use English, even! YOU’RE DOING THE SAME THING! If it looks the same to the outsider, and has the same effect: It’s the same thing, fool!”
No, it ain’t.
By this measure we’d have to say it was the same authority that turned both Aaron’s staff, and the Egyptians’ staffs, to snakes.
I don’t do the things I do primarily for my own benefit. That is not irrational confidence. That is not a decision based on maintaining self esteem. I don’t have two in the kitty. I don’t peacock. I don’t intentionally DHV myself or DLV her for the sake of status-jockeying. I don’t withhold my praise and affection from her. I don’t believe (and this is a big one) that whoever loves less has the most power in a relationship. That is to say: I don’t adhere to the tenants of Game in any way that would be recognizable to anyone who prescribes to Game as it is laid out by the most prominent writers.
This is where the distinction lies. Well said, sir.
@greyghost,
> “I live in this world not all of this world are theologian.”
So you have no obligation to seek out God’s ways and conform yourself to them? Seems like a pretty big copout. Kind of like claiming to be a pool player and not knowing the rules at all. Anyone who claims to play pool should know at least some of the rules. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus should know the basics of His commands for living holy. Nice out you have there.
Her: “Sorry kids, you know we’re not going to be eating any fast food french fries made with genetically modified, round-up ready soybean oil, nor are we going eat them with high fructose corn syrup-laden ketchup. You know how your Father is about any of us eating junk food. Here, eat some of the fruit I cut up and have some macadamia nuts and cheese.”
I laughed. I also laugh at the sentence you left off, which is “Daddy’s gonna have to remind grandmawl yall can’t eat those cookies she made”. Happens here every. week.
What’s ketchup got to do with anything? And why are all these people eating in the car?
What’s ketchup got to do with anything? And why are all these people eating in the car?
Also a good question. I imagine if I did a survey most of the men folk would be far more hell bent on the kids not eating in the car.
AR
No need to argue with them. I’m just glad to see an acknowledgement of “game” and a good use for it. The real meaning is women have finally been taken off the pedestal.
BradA
Chill dude I’m married 13 years with 3 children to “that” woman. God has been taking good care of me and this family. Too many coincidences over the years not to think so.
greyghost,
Then I would ask why you think it is OK to even talk about “knowing her in every hole” (or whatever the exact phrasing was) when that clearly goes against the direction given to a Christian? It may be sarcasm, but many on these threads would take it hook, line and sinker and I could easily see a young man just finding this stuff justifying that kind of action, contrary to the Scriptures, due to that.
I would agree that the current system is horribly wrong, but must we still not be “wise as serpents, but harmless as doves?”
Agreed, and that’s why I’m ultimately on the “Game is OK” side. But I can acknowledge that automobiles are a useful tool, and yet not want to just toss someone the keys without making sure he knows about things like brakes and stop signs. And I can understand why someone might say, “Yeah, that’d be useful, but I’m going to pass, because I think the risks would outweigh the benefits for me,” as long as he doesn’t then tell me that my own driving is sinful.
Brad A
Last comment on the subject. I have no desire to compete on the righteousness field with you or anyone else. I have no desire for you to give up anything or convince you of anything. We are on the same side believe it or not.
I like the I idea of being as wise and deadly as a serpent and choosing to be as a dove. I am a family man and my family thrives what I’m thought of doesn’t matter and that is the best lesson I have gotten from the manosphere. God for some reason thinks so too because I cannot count the times things out of my control seem to work out.
Hey IBB, off topic a bit….
When Hannah Smith committed suicide after being viciously bullied on social media site Ask.fm, we vowed as a society to do more. We said we would force social media sites to be accountable for their lax moderation, and crack down on those tormenting teenagers to death with vile abuse. Why, then, less than a week after her funeral, did photos of a teenage girl performing oral sex on a boy in a field become the second worldwide trending topic on Twitter on Monday? And why were there endless jokes, insults and disapprobation slung her way, and not at the boy concerned?
The incident happened during an Eminem concert at Slane Castle in Ireland. And immediately the girl was branded a slut online with hashtags: ‘slanegirl’ and ‘slaneslut’ fast becoming trends.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10255283/Girl-performs-oral-sex-on-boy-in-field.-Photo-goes-viral.-Shes-a-slut.-Boys-a-hero.-What-should-we-do.html
Hey IBB, in light of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones separation.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/02/michael-douglas-oral-sex-cancer-facts
@GKChesteron, You wrote
“And Cane, snapping bra straps, that sir was classic. There is nothing quite as fun as chasing them around the house. I do that with my mother-in-law who lives with us too. At eighty she still giggles and everyone feels more relaxed.”
This is why women defy men’s leadership in the home. This is a stupid little boy response and for all the men who think this is cute and funny, it shows your ignorance. It also objectifies women.
Tell you arrogant punks something, how about us women poppin your jock strap or your condom?
Then we will go and pop your daddy’s jock strap. Like that?
Brad A is about the only man on this site who sounds like a real man who is a real head of his family, not a bully calling women bitches because they have opinions and want to make cleaning up not such a taxing job. If some of you men had the responsibility of cleaning up behind a nasty behind arrrogant behind husband, you wouldn’t enjoy it either. You see, some of you come on this blog using big terms and phrases and blowing hot air and saying nothing and you are showing the world, how small you are.. Keep calling wives bitches and talking about how they have to submit to you. How nasty and evil does that sound? that is not what God’s submit means!
It sounds like little immature boys trying to outdo each other with some words they looked up in the dictionary all for the sake of belittling women. so typical. Keep talking trash. I feel sorry for the women who are married to some of you, by the evil things some of you all write over and over again.
And Dalrock, I enjoyed your article, but there are many things a husband cannot force on his wife, not just three. I don’t know how men think that because God says wives submit, that, that means she loses her common sense around her husband. Husbands are many times some evil, sinful, selfish, non thinking, humans and a wife must keep her wits when she marries. Men are sinners and therefore, wives must obey God’s laws first. Read about man made doctrines. These doctrines are rampant and out of control all over the Earth. The men in the US cannot look down on the babaric men in two other certain countries that rape, disfigure, abuse and kill their women and children in the streets. Some of the men in this country are leaning to the same ideologies, with this crude way of thinking about dominating women. It is so sad. Keep writing your venom.
@Kate, still waiting on those photos,…
@Rollo, Promise me you won’t hold your breath while you wait because, despite all that has happened, I do still care about you and your mission and want to see you succeed. From a comment you wrote about knowing and seeing all, I thought you knew what was going on, and it wasn’t my intention to blindside you or anyone else. So, I apologize for the way in which you received the news. I hope this is something that can be worked out in time.
@J
I encourage Mrs. Caldo to put her hands all over my jock–as frequently as time and propriety allow, and I’d like to point out that it elicited such a response from even someone like you.
Let me put your passive-aggressive desire to rest: I will never attempt to objectify you in the way you really crave. As fun as it might be to let other women get on my jock, you’re simply not worthy. I know this makes you sad and angry, but it can’t be helped: You are unholy to me.
@J
I feel sorry for the women who are married to some of you, by the evil things some of you all write over and over again.
And we would feel sorry for you too, but we’re just too evil.
@J
Husbands are many times some evil, sinful, selfish, non thinking, humans and a wife must keep her wits when she marries. Men are sinners and therefore, wives must obey God’s laws first.
Such as?
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
(1Pe 3:1-2)
J can see that, no empathy. Such as:
If some of you men had the responsibility of cleaning up behind a nasty behind arrrogant behind husband, you wouldn’t enjoy it either.
Obviously she is the one that cleans the tiolet and gets angry at all the pubic hair and urine stains that the ‘nasty behind’ man has left for her to clean up. Never able to humble herself to the fact that she possesses a nasty behind and pubic hair herself. Never to give thanks to the MAN that invented the tiolet seat so all the unknowns didn’t scurry up her behind and elsewhere and never giving a second thought to all the tiolet engineers that bailed the bloody cotton paper from the scene of the crime.
Our J is still upset that she should she be the one to clean tiolets when she works also. Why can’t he clean tiolets? Why just because he has an ____ between his legs should he be the head of the household and why ?????
Also, our J obviously had someone in her life that took the ordinary bra strap fun a little too far and she has the scars and resentment to prove it so.
It took me years, but I eventually came around to forgiving the 19 year old jock that wasmaking the moves and ‘game’ stealing my 16 year old sweetheart’s hamster as he put my 12 year old little body on a tree limb by the back of my underwear that he had just wedged my balls in my throat with, as well as and the tightest string ever up my rear
@ herbie,
I clean the toilet, not a problem. But if my wife demands, nay asks me to clean the toilet she is going to have a shovel in her hand the next time we do any work on the septic system. Thawing out frozen feces at -30 F makes cleaning the toilet seem like a veritable pleasure.
Also, you should go beyond forgiving said 19 year old jock for teaching you a valuable lesson, you should thank him. Exposing your sweetheart’s hamster was a step in the red-pill direction. Practical demonstrations are often the most enduring lessons.
Nay! Asks me. Amen.
You are quite correct brother, I should thank him. lol
He truly was an awakening moment for me in my thoughtys about women and the carrot stick.
For a while though I blamed him due to the circumstances and eventually accepted the reality of full circle of Eve.
You are one of the reasons I love reading these threads.
Cane Caldo said to J:
Let me put your passive-aggressive desire to rest: I will never attempt to objectify you in the way you really crave. As fun as it might be to let other women get on my jock, you’re simply not worthy. I know this makes you sad and angry, but it can’t be helped: You are unholy to me.
I’m 0 for a thousand right now in trying to think of any man I know who would find sexual pleasure in having Godzilla pull at his jockstrap.
I am not sure my wife would agree with you J. I am quite opinionated on many things, even if I oppose some of the crassness in the red pill sphere.
Greyghost, cop out if you will. Christians like those at FotF and Family Life are part of the problem, but so are those who will not take Biblical stands of righteousness. I never made it a righteousness argument, though it does raise questions when those who claim to follow Christ have no answer for why they hold the positions they do, especially when those positions are at odds with what is written in the Scriptures.
I am glad to always explain why I hold to something. I could be wrong and I may even change in rare cases, but I always seek to base it on what the Scripture says, not being holier than anyone else.
I’ll just leave this here… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimmington
How times have changed.
I believe you are splitting hairs with this.
A woman’s true strength lies in submission. However, in our society, where genders receive conflicting and even harmful information, today’s women must *choose* to submit. At the same time, a traditional man should expect it. The genders must meet. It must be mutual. Just as a loyal wife expects the same loyalty from her husband, and he must be loyal of his own free will – *choosing* to be loyal. These expectations, combined with the correct choices, create the respect necessary for a happy relationship.
God gave us free will. Therefore, to be strong – or weak – is our choice. Our moral compasses tell us to expect these things, but in the end, free will is the determining factor. And by making the right choices, we reap healthy relationships and strong character.
It is just a historical fact that when a group of men, who call themselves “Christian”, start talking about sex among each other, at least half of them are homosexuals.
I wish that were not true, but it is.
It’s high time we address mens’ use of sexual discussions about “wives submitting” as a way to psychologically deny to themselves that they are homosexuals.
This is how is goes: “Gee, I’m broadcasting to everyone that I like women … so I must like women!” That is the true indicator of homosexuality; the more a man spends time reinforcing his love of women to other men, the more likely that person is a homosexual.
We should really use this method to discover who the homosexuals are among us, before they become outed publicly … making all of us, by association, look like fools! I already know who some of you are, and you should do exactly what the Bible says; confess to us that you are homosexuals.
I actually liked having my husband chase me around the house. He caught me on the turn when I fell and bruised my knee but it was fun. He said he’d eat ketchup in the car. I don’t mind cleaning the toilets, I grew up with one that didn’t work half the time and I’m so thankful that my husband keeps ours flushing along.
Submission has to be consensual. Yes, a woman accepts the husband in marriage, and yes, the husband has an absolute right in God to expect it, but for him to at any time ever try to force the issue is not good for him or for the marriage. If the woman is unagreeable, trying to force it isn’t going to make it better. Unfortunately there are whole churches, whole groups out there that advocate for physical force on the part of a husband, and that gives submission a very very bad connotation. It does nothing to glorify the marriage or the husband.
So you would apply the same principles to a woman expecting a man to work, even if that man wanted to play video games or watch sports all day? She should just sit back and let that happen?
I bet you have a double standard there.
And please name some of the groups you claim support the use of physical force to get a wife to do what a husband wants. I can’t think of a single one right now. Or admit is is a strawman and the false charge statement you know it is.