Christian mommyblogger Jenny Erikson is furious that her pastor first ruined the surprise she had in store for her husband and then called her out on her sin, but she is understandably delighted with blogger Matt Walsh. Yesterday Ms. Erikson tweeted (H/T Keoni Galt):
Married men: your porn habit is an adultery habit http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/11/25/married-men-your-porn-habit-is-an-adultery-habit/ … (I love this guy)
See Cane Caldo’s expert takedown of the blog post Jenny finds so comforting in her time of rebellion: Matt Walsh Gets Bored and Blows Up Families
The link to Matt Walsh’s blog is not working. I think that the three periods or ellipsis after the URL got parsed as being part of the URL. If you remove the space and the 3 periods the link should work.
Is Jenny technically a baby mama? I thought only single-moms (not frivorced moms) could be baby mamas because the baby is still going to remember what it was like to have mom and dad married and dad is still going to be in baby’s life?
Thanks Dalrock!
Her tweet was how I found Matt Walsh’s post.
Who is Matt Walsh anyway? Another lift seeking putz jumping on the easy train of anti-porn evangelical nonsense. It shows him with a headset as if a broadcaster. Is he? Anyone know?
I was delighted with cane’s unpack of that crap.
We had Tal Prince at our church lately. I somehow, dangit, missed it. Same stuff but in group form. these shameless pandering lift seekers are under my skin. Walsh declares porn is cause of 50% of divorces. Well, maybe, in the way that the people responsible for the discovery of fermentation are responsible for drunk driving deaths. Omission of all that’s in between. No matter what, if there is porn, or if there is physicality, or if a man yells, adultery and abuse are labels that stick and offer succor to the woman seeking an escape.
The moronic bleating that the men doing this are courageous is too much to take and maintain blood pressure and respiration.
And forgot…”.I love this guy” is what the guy craves. These men who, as Cane suggests, may be taking attention off themselves and their own sticky fingers by writing these things, they gladly accept the other craving men have that is not sexual. That is the approval of women. It is a form of pornography in the same way a woman gets a porn like effect from romance novels, even those lacking physical explicit sex scenes. Men want sex, they use porn as a substitute, often when getting no sex from wife. Men want female approval and use the lift as a substitute, often when getting no approval from wife. Now we see how there is synergy between these two things, sex and approval and their substitutes.
That whore can make all the justifications she wants to, she still broke up her family.
What is sickening is that she thinks she is the victim in her whole ordeal.
Wow. 1400 comments later and 85% are “Hoorays!” from the Hamster brigade and 15% are from men reacting with a “Wait a minute…” only to be shouted down by the Hamster brigade.
I shared Matt’s blog yesterday with the hope that we can get more Red Pill men in there to start confronting the Hamster Chorus. I was able to send a couple of men to places like Athol Kay’s and Dalrock’s because they seemed to really agree with some Red Pill truths and talked about being denied in their marriages.
I also commented early so it made it to the very first page which yielded about 40-some Hamster screeching replies in only a few hours.
Lol I tweeted a response to her on that and she rolled her eyes at me.
I suppose looking at Porn and regarding that as adultery is a bit like looking at the collapsing twin towers and acknowledging yourself as a terrorist.
It looks like Jenny is the new go-to person who examples of what’s wrong with the n.w.o. of the marriage/divorce/hypergamy charade.
Let’s not forget the Churchian’s favorite means of equating teh Pr0n with adultery, as Matt wrote in that blog post:
“Christ laid it out very clearly: if you lust after another woman, you have committed adultery. ”
I do believe the point Jesus was making here is that sin starts in the heart (mind). Once you seriously contemplate (fantasize) committing adultery, your far more likely to indulge in it should the opportunity arise.
I don’t believe Jesus was saying Visual and Mental Lust is the sinful equivalent of actual fornication and adultery, but rather it was a warning to guard your thoughts from such temptation in the first place.
But of course, the first Book of Oprah clarifies this rather confusing issue:
Men looking at teh Pr0n = adultery and justification for
frivorcedivorce.Women reading 50 Shades of Gray and “bodice rippers” are the fault of emotionally unavailable and/or controlling and abusive husbands who need marital counseling and to do more of their fair share of the housework.
Matthew 5, folks. Christ does tell us that our rage is a sin on the lines of murder, and lusting after someone else is a sin on the order of adultery. Thank God we have a Savior.
That said, let us assume we’re to take Walsh at face value–possibly using Walsh’s argument to frivorce “Leif” or someone like him. And what does that person do?
Well, we see her anger indicating she’s equivalent to a murderer, and just a few verses later, we find that the person who divorces his/her spouse is complicit in…..adultery.
Seems to me that the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t really give much comfort to Mrs. Erikson and like-mindless souls like her. She’s straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Men chasing female approval by writing articles that clearly are chumming for the lift are, then, also committing adultery
The great thing about Ms Erikson is that she has no sense of irony.
Looking at her Twitter just now she is on her fifth Tweet of the day, and what does she say? She links to her own article about a dating app where you can rate guys. She does not approve of this – the rating I mean. Clearly the dating is what she is up to right now or will be very soon. What she says is that Digital is great but Revenge isn’t.
This from a woman who has been rubbing her husband’s nose in it on-line on both Twitter and her blog.
Well unfortunately the verse that’s used most often EVERYWHERE is translated poorly and interpreted badly.
I’ll explain : Matthew 5:28 standard text
But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks) at a 2(woman) 3(lustfully) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
We think this says :
But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes or imagines one in their head) at 2(girl/boy/man/woman in the flesh or an image of one – paintings/magazines /tv/movies/novels/snapchat) 3(with sexual attraction/desire/fantasy) has already committed adultery with them in his heart.
What the greek actually says is :
But I tell you that anyone who 1(looks with eyes) at 2(someone’s wife) 3(desires and covets her with passion) has already committed adultery with her in their heart.
Its not talking about looking at images or movies or novels or having sexual fantasies.
You need 3 things to commit adultery in your heart according to the verse above :
1. Looking at her (not an image or a thought)
2. Someone’s wife (not single female or male)
3. Covetousness* of her with passion (not sexual desire\arousal\fantasy)
* Marked by extreme desire to acquire or possess, excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of another.
And Jesus is right, if you do this you will have the same feelings in your heart as if you had committed adultery.
Jesus was filling in the ‘work around’ that jews were using as they couldnt covet their neighbours wife, nor commit adultery with someone, the inbetween was coveting a non neighbours wife, which is what this is addressing.
It’s so ridiculous to equate this action, which is harmful even from a secular perspective and certainly harmful to the participants, as adultery. It is unliked by women, even who do not keep their husbands satisfied. They equate it with addiction and much else, but most of the men are probably OK with it, even if mildly guilty, like you are if you eat too many snacks. Look, men have needs, and if they’re not met, they’ll be met in some way. When you’re married you’re the agreed, monopoly provider of sex to your spouse. If you don’t do that, you’re not upholding your end of the bargain. Is that cause for divorce? No. But it’s not good, not right, and it has consequences.
Once or twice a week is a reasonable expectation. If that goes, you’re not doing your job. Call the pron use whatever you want, but it ain’t adultery. Even the Catholic Catechism says that, even though it says it’s a grave sin as well.
I think part of the problem here is this novel idea that adultery is a proper grounds for divorce. It is not. There are no such grounds. There may be grounds for separation, but not divorce. There is no divorce in a sacramental, Christian marriage.
Well, I think Matt Walsh has carved out a rewarding niche for himself as a guy who writes articles that housewives share on FB and give each other virtual high fives over. See: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/09/youre-a-stay-at-home-mom-what-do-you-do-all-day/
—
I didn’t find either article terribly convincing.
Walsh does a reasonable job of demonstrating that porn is *bad*, he never gets around to actually making an argument that it is the same as adultery. The closest he comes is summarily dismissing those who claim it’s not as engaging in semantic equivocation.
We wouldn’t like it if our wives did it? True, yes. That doesn’t make it the same as adultery. Is the porn industry exploitive, in some cases criminally so? Yes. That doesn’t make porn the same as adultery. Is it bad that our children can find it so easily or even accidentally stumble upon it? No. That doesn’t make it the same as adultery.
I’m also not entirely moved by the “But what about 50 Shades of Grey?” defense. Are there modes of entertainment enjoyed by women with little condemnation that can be just as damaging as men’s consumption of porn? Yes. That doesn’t make porn OK, or even “not cheating.”
Catholic Teaching on Divorce is completely sound, as expressed in the Catechism (pardon the footnotes from the original):
Divorce
2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175 (1614)
Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”176
2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177 (1649)
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: (1650)
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179 (1640)
I left this on the blog:
@Matt,
You may want to follow this up with how equating porn with adultery has created a huge loophole that has allowed “Christian” wives to manipulate their husbands into committing a sin they can divorce them over.
1) She cuts him off from sex (in violation of 1 Cor 7:5, but when was the last time you heard a wife condemned for that).
2) The husband is temped by Satan due to his lack of self control (again, from 1 Cor 7:5).
3) The husband eventually falls to temptation.
4) BAM! The wife now has grounds to get a divorce, because the husband has committed “adultery” by viewing porn.
This is the exact scenario and justification used for the wife’s divorce in the movie “Fireproof.” Which, btw, you never hear anyone condemn when discussing the movie.
There is also another set of Bible verses that apply:
“And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, Even if someone sins against you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times and says, ‘I am changing my ways,’ you must forgive that person.” (Luke 17:1-4)
The wife who has temped her husband to sin by cutting him off has actually committed a more grievous sin than the husband. Plus, if the husband repents she is supposed to forgive him, not divorce him.
But, by lumping pornography with adultery (the one unforgivable marriage sin; the one golden ticket for divorce) we’ve not only hardened the hearts of wives, we’ve also tempted them to follow the Fireproof scenario to gain the divorce golden ticket.
What the red pill advocates fail to understand is that you can give STDs to your wife by viewing pr0n. After all, viewing pr0n is aldultery and you can always get STDs by committing adultery. Oh wait….
Keoni Galt says:
“Men looking at teh Pr0n = adultery and justification for frivorce divorce.
Women reading 50 Shades of Gray and “bodice rippers” are the fault of emotionally unavailable and/or controlling and abusive husbands who need marital counseling and to do more of their fair share of the housework.”
I’ve heard it explained that “50 shades” is just fantasy–no real people are involved–while video involves real people.
Of course, I guess that means anime porn isn’t adultery either, since no real people are involve–it’s just fantasy.
Yet, somehow I doubt that women would be OK with their husbands watching anime porn.
Let’s not forget just how wide a latitude the doctrine from the Book of Oprah (as taught at the Sermon on the Mound by Pastorix Gregoire) gives feminist Churchian Housewives in justifying their frivorces. If Porn Use = Adultery, why catching her husband looking at the Victoria Secrets catalog or a Playboy is just as sinful as logging on teh Interwebz to view inter-racial threesomes.
I cannot see how Erotica (to give Porn its correct name) is in any way a bad thing. Men respond to the female form, just as they respond to an attractive scantily-clad woman. That is merely instinct and I deprecate the attempts to castigate men for being normal. It is that sort of shaming that turns men to Pederasty and such like. Studies show, apparently that where erotica is available the rate of sexual assault goes down. In the case of Ms Erikson it of course seems to have prevented her from receiving unwanted attention – and then she has the absolute nerve to blame her husband. There must be a circle of hell for such hypocrites. It might be a lot better were men not to respond to images of young naked women, but unfortunately we are human being and not machines and blaming men for doing so is a bit like blaming lions for chasing gazelles or Bees for sniffing out honey.
The reason that women dislike Erotica so much (apart from their not being motivated by it) is of course to raise their general market value. I understand the Christian angle but that merely plays into the hands of women like Erikson. Having had enough of that stuff forced down my throat as a schoolboy where possession of Erotica merited caning (if found) my views may become comprehensible.
It is also worth remembering that women not only get paid very well but seem to enjoy posing in various states of nakedness – as anyone who has ever had a girlfriend will surely testify. A bored model makes for dull erotica.
Looks like CH got my email.
8to12
I’ve heard it explained that “50 shades” is just fantasy–no real people are involved–while video involves real people.
Of course, I guess that means anime porn isn’t adultery either, since no real people are involve–it’s just fantasy.
Yes, I’ve read that particular excuse as well. Apparently that whole “lust in your heart” thang is different when women do it, surprise, surprise. So maybe the next time I run across it, I’ll point out that the “not real people” excuse is clearly a green light for not just anime, but also tentacle porn…
That should get a response. Of some sort or other.
I don’t get it. How is a man choosing to have sex with himself vs. having sex with his wife a good thing? She’s just supposed to stay in a marriage where the husband is more interested in porn? No, thank you. I was married for 6 years to that guy who was never interested after we got married in sex, kissing, hugging, etc, and I’m beyond glad that I left him. It’s not right to deprive your spouse of sex whether you’re male or female, and some people will not change their ways no matter what the other spouse needs.
I am currently moderated. But I just posted this on Matt’s blog…
…I doubt he’ll let that through.
The reason that women dislike Erotica so much (apart from their not being motivated by it) is of course to raise their general market value.
They’ll go to their graves before they’ll ever admit it, but I also think that to many married women, porn serves as a stark and painful reminder of their own dereliction of duty to their husbands.
You know these egomaniancs read everything written about them on the internets.
Guys, “what about 50 shades of Grey????” is NOT a dismantling.
TFH,
I’m sure she knows. In fact mark my words, Jennifer will become to the Churchianity community what Anita Sarkeesian is to the geek community an example of a “poor poor girl picked on by the mean old manoshpere”
I’m also not entirely moved by the “But what about 50 Shades of Grey?” defense.
Just curious where you read the 50 shades defense. See, you are creating things from whole cloth. Its not meant to excuse porn. Its meant to show that if the consequence of porn is divorce over adultery, be prepared to suffer the same. You fall into the type of discourse that is used by the Matts and his sycophant ladies to make a porn bust the end all, and all alse is forever off limits.
if nothing else let the 50 shades comments kick a leg from under female churchian’s moral high horse
I don’t think pron=adultery, but I do think it’s harmful, and I have known women who were not denying their husbands, but the husbands still managed to develop compulsive pron problems. However, the fact that Jenny Erickson thinks she has moral leg to stand on to tell anyone anything about anything is just astonishing. Has she not checked her blog recently and seen the avalanche of comments, I wonder?
I agree that Matt Walsh’s post, and much commentary about marriage in general, made too much about porn. As I said, Walsh never gets around to actually making an argument for the supposed thesis of his piece.
But the vast majority of what he wrote about it being wrong, evil, and explotive is correct. And it is not sanctified by the fact that many of the women who would condemn men for watching porn enjoy entertainment that can be just as damaging.
One could cite several differences between things like “50 Shades” and porn, for example that there is not an exploitive industry behind the production of romance novels. Is that difference more or less specious than the difference between porn and adultery?
—
It seems like what we’re creating is separate trenches where we congratulate ourselves for kicking the other sides butt. Walsh and Erickson will whoop it up over showing that porn is adultery (even if they did no such thing). Over here, folks will celebrate hosting them on their petard because they don’t have a problem with bodice rippers.
And nothing will get better.
minor edit:
has *a* moral leg
The point about 50 Shades isn’t that it excuses men’s use of porn, but rather that women have a similar issue — which goes more or less totally unaddressed in the focus on men’s use of porn. And if we think that 50 shades is a smaller issue than porn, we’re quite wrong. Sexy, raunchy romance novels, which create the fodder for female masturbation sessions, have been a long-standing staple in American women’s culture for decades. It just gets a pass because it doesn’t involve looking at pictures/videos of actual people — even though in both cases, whether it is pictures or text, it is being used as the fodder for personal sex fantasization that does not involve one’s spouse. That’s the point of the 50 Shades/romance novels issue. And, no, the counterargument that the two are different because porn involves pictures of people whereas romance/smut novels directed at women do not is not convincing at all — in both cases it is the preferred mode of fantasization, and leads to the same kinds of issues developing. And, to be honest, that’s becoming more of a red herring nowadays, because the fact that the culture is thoroughly suffused with internet porn is now resulting in the first generations of women coming of age who are nearly as tuned to respond to visual stimulation as men are. So soon enough the only difference in porn use between men and women will be that there are more men who resort to it than there are women, even though both do, because women have access to real sex more easily on average than men do.
Note: I am against porn use – it’s damaging to men in many ways. But, the argument that it is any different from 50 shades is garbage.
@sunshinemary says: “…I have known women who were not denying their husbands, but the husbands still managed to develop compulsive pron problems.”
One of the themes running though the comments at Walsh’s blog are women like you describe who say porn damaged their marriages, because it cause their husbands to treat them like sex objects. Which brings up several questions:
1) Is it wrong for a husband to treat his wife like a sex object?
2) Was it the porn that caused the husbands to change their attitude, or was that their attitude all along?
My gut feeling is there are a lot of women than blame porn for their husbands wanting sex to be, well…like sex. And sometimes sex is spelled with a capital F.
The point about 50 Shades isn’t that it excuses men’s use of porn, but rather that women have a similar issue — which goes more or less totally unaddressed in the focus on men’s use of porn.
To put it in another way – imagine if a man blogged about initiating divorce and blowing up his family because he caught his wife reading 50 shades of Gray and masturbating? How much support do you think he’d garner for the rationale that his Divorce was justified because of her adultery?
The point about 50 Shades isn’t that it excuses men’s use of porn, but rather that women have a similar issue — which goes more or less totally unaddressed in the focus on men’s use of porn.
To put it in another way – imagine if a man blogged about initiating divorce and blowing up his family because he caught his wife reading 50 shades of Gray and masturbating? How much support do you think he’d garner for the rationale that his Divorce was justified because of her “adultery?”
The point about 50 Shades isn’t that it excuses men’s use of porn, but rather that women have a similar issue — which goes more or less totally unaddressed in the focus on men’s use of porn.
To put it in another way – imagine if a man blogged about initiating divorce and blowing up his family because he caught his wife reading 50 shades of Gray and masturbating? How much support do you think he’d garner for the rationale that his Divorce was justified because of her “adultery?”
You know there might be a simple solution to this “porn == adultery == legit grounds for divorce” idea.
Take the idea seriously and do the same thing in the other direction.
A wife refusing her husband is at the very least an act of sexual unfaithfulness on par with porn usage. If sexual unfaithfulness that doesn’t involve a third party is a legitimate grounds for divorce then constant sexual refusal by a wife is a legitimate grounds for divorce as much as porn usage is.
I think if you could sell that idea then the porn == adultery idea would vanish over night
My gut feeling is there are a lot of women than blame porn for their husbands wanting sex to be, well…like sex. And sometimes sex is spelled with a capital F.
Hmmm, might this just go back to that thorny question about women whether certain women are (still) sexually attracted to their husbands? (I’ll let deti take it from here…)
I haven’t read most of the comments. I had a post on porn a way back. My basic assessment was that it was a symptom of a larger problem and that focusing it is polishing brass on the Titanic.
What I will say about women and porn is that they hate it for the same reason Marlboro hates nicotine gum: it gives a man options. Porn can allow a man to hold out indefinitely against a sex strike, rendering a wife’s refusal to capitulate to scripture as potent as a toddler holding his breath. Is it moral? I don’t think any Bible-reading believer would say so. Is it less immoral than involving another living human being in your lust? Absolutely. And kudos to Cane for reminding us that female fantasies, less graphic as many (but not all) may be, are still fantasies and adulterous desires.
Time to smell the coffee ladies. Porn is not what ails us. It’s just a nightcap sipped morosely as the world washes away.
@Jason
The problem is that men wouldn’t be willing to do that. They would see the consequences for themselves and their children and wouldn’t be able to justify blowing up their families to make a point.
There are a lot of areas where the dedication men have to their families and their honor restrains them in a way that women are not restrained (or are not taught to be restrained). This can be a major disadvantage when society does not act to restrain a woman’s impulses in constructive ways.
We’re in a battle where the other side uses WMDs and doesn’t care about the damage they do. Our honor restrains us from using these kinds of weapons because of the collateral damage and because we typically don’t have the vindictiveness required to use them.
I’m not sure what the constructive approach is in this case. The linked article makes the case that if porn isn’t good, then it’s adultery. It’s as logically sound as a sieve is seaworthy. But it’s unlikely that anyone reading it would be open to seeing how wrong it is; most likely they read it to confirm their biases. I’m not sure what an attack on this foolish thinking which would have any efficacy in swaying women would look like.
Has anyone read any articles with a lot of female commenters indicating that they may have changed their opinion? We may have to get into the mud and make silly emotional appeals if we want to win women over, even if it makes us feel dirty or logically unsound.
8to12
The women I described told me that pron damaged their marriages because their husbands developed impotence from heavy usage of it, not because it caused their husband to sexually objectify them. The women felt deeply rejected by that. Naturally I can’t assess whether they were being honest with me or not, that’s just what they said, FWIW.
I didn’t read the comments on Matt Walsh’s blog; the women complained about being objectified by their husbands? That’s silly. I like being sexually objectified by my husband. I had assumed most women did.
The problem is that men wouldn’t be willing to do that. They would see the consequences for themselves and their children and wouldn’t be able to justify blowing up their families to make a point.
I know this wasn’t really your point, however it needs to be said the problem is NOT that Men are less likely to Frivorce over a wife using erotic literature versus men’s use of teh Pr0n, but that so many so-called Christian women have embraced the notion that male use of teh pr0n equals adultery, which then gives her a get-out-of-marriage-free card.
In most of these cases, these women are not “haaaaapppppyyyy” in their marriages, and their beta-fied husbands who no longer give them the tingles are probably doing nothing abusive or “controlling” and have turned to teh Pr0n because their wives no longer willingly have sex with him (which of course, does not excuse his sin – two wrongs don’t make a right and all that).
Then the wives find out and gets to use ADULTERY as the excuse to do what they wanted to do all along, but now they have a moral cover and rationalizations to avoid dealing with their true motivations for their behavior (they want to find new men for new tingles).
Porn is not an excuse for divorce anymore than “romance” novels are. They both produce the same chemical reactions in the brains of the target audience. They both potentially inspire lust in the heart of the consumer.
If Jesus intended for physical penalties in this life for matters of the heart, then those of us who have hated our brothers (sisters, wives, husbands) in our hearts are guilty of murder and need to go to prison.
I think social media like facebook is the female equivalent of porn.
If you measured the time spent by husbands on porn compared to their wives on social media it would pale into insignificance.
Gossip, idleness, vanity, backbitting, flattery, murmuring, boasting, cursing etc. are virtues for these dolts but knocking one out is the equivalent of eating babies.
@JDG
That’s an excellent point, JDG. For anyone who says that Jesus was saying that lust is literally the same as adultery, does anyone think that a man who lusted for another man’s wife in his heart would be subject to the same punishments under the Jewish law as a man who slept with another man’s wife? Would he be liable to pay the penalty for murder if he hated another man?
I think that would be absurd, and when you imagine a society trying to actually enforce it, it becomes more absurd.
And what about movies that show ‘soft’ porn, which are quite common now. There was a time when those kinds of scenes were understood to be pornographic (and to some of us they still are – what ever happened to the camera panning away to the curtain fluttering in the wind?). From a Biblical perspective I would guess that much of what is consumed by media viewers is actually pornographic.
@Minesweeper
I think you’re onto something about how this modern canonical interpretation doesn’t make sense:
I’m of the opinion that this was probably a dual statement – simultaneously closing a door of a particularly narrow and over-lawyered interpretation the Jews might have clung to at the time, and also explaining, once again, that sin beings in the heart and the visualizing or the lusting after sinful behavior would lead to the doing of sinful behavior, and so the Father wanted even the pining for the sinful pleasure of doing something wrong to be tamped out.
But, it’s funny to play their game and think through the literalist scoundrel’s interpretation (for all of these, tongue firmly planted in cheek):
1. If she’s single and I’m single, and I know she’s single, how is that adultery? At best, haven’t I committed fornication in my heart?
2. If she’s computer generated, how is that adultery? At best, haven’t I committed some strange form of bestiality or idolatry in my heart?
3. What if it’s a picture of a dead woman, how is that adultery? At best, haven’t I committed some form of necrophilia in my heart?
4. If it only applies to men, does mean, yet again, if you take the feminist reading of things, and women don’t get to inherit the male lines of scripture, that women are inferior beings and justifiably chattel, or at least justifiably incapable of full communion?
When it goes so quickly off the rails when taken to its extremes, but it’s just too convenient for countenancing something somebody wants to do, you know it’s a phony interpretation of the words.
As a frequent user of porn I can safely say that porn is bad for you. However, we live in a nation that goes to great lengths to prevent average men from having a wife that does her duty. Drinking dirty water when clean water is denied you is better than nothing. Besides a few out-liners most men don’t really enjoy porn that much. Most would prefer to have sex with a faithful wife/girl friend day after day.
The fundamental problem with the church it’s inability to pair up men and women into families to keep those families happy and whole. This is not a problem the early christens had. Christian women where known for their great virtue and chastity and were frequently sought out by the roman elites for marriage. Christian marriages were amazing solid because of how the christian elders treated christian women and how modestly christian women behaved.
the only safe option is to abandon women forever and stick to nothing but porn. can’t commit adultery when you’re not currently engaged, and you can never have sex withheld from you this way either.
“And what about movies that show ‘soft’ porn, which are quite common now. There was a time when those kinds of scenes were understood to be pornographic (and to some of us they still are – what ever happened to the camera panning away to the curtain fluttering in the wind?). From a Biblical perspective I would guess that much of what is consumed by media viewers is actually pornographic.”
hm. so if a woman in a relationship happens to catch a glimpse of two people in a movie or on tv kissing, she is guilty of cheating.
good.
@sunshinemary says: The women I described told me that pron damaged their marriages because their husbands developed impotence from heavy usage of it… The women felt deeply rejected by that.
Hmmmm.
I’m having a hard time grasping the concept that a man would prefer porn to a real live woman. Not denying it happens, but I just haven’t come across it.
I can relate to the idea that sex with someone is more trouble than it’s worth. The idea that all men are horn-dogs ready to jump anything that moves simply isn’t true.
Maybe these women need to take an honest assessment of themselves and ask themselves: “other than being married to me, why would my husband want to have sex with me?”
@Johnmcg
Let me know when you find a Christian post saying wives are adulterers for reading Cosmo, listening to pop hits all day (the HUGE majority of which concern illicit sexual relationships), and then capping off the day with a good dose of Scandal…in sweats.
I’ll be interested to know you’re right there on the front lines fighting the good fight.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/25/about-half-of-kids-with-single-moms-live-in-poverty/?mod=e2tw
@sunshinemary,
Any chance the ladies were just using the “porn defense” to justify their behavior?
Also, were you able to ascertain if the porn started before or after the sex life tanked? And how many of the woman you talked to showed up dressed in a slovenly manner, no makeup, wearing sweats, etc.?
Yes johnmcg, I don’t know what you are on about. You are getting the best of those windmills though. Most men here are not pro porn and are not defending porn. We are pointing out femcentric hypocrisy.
The nerve of him: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/bode_miller_custody_battle_new_york_family_court_made_a_terrible_ruling.html
What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
By equating porn with adultery, Matt Walsh is providing potential divorcees with spurious justification for frivorcing their husbands. He gives succor to women who use sex as a weapon against their husbands.
Matt Walsh may not currently be a sinner of the porn kind but he is no friend of marriage. Shame on him.
Matt Walsh, another man who cannot resist AMOGing Christian husbands and fathers on the Internet.
@TFH
“I am not saying that VR Sex is a good thing”
Good or bad, it will almost certainly be outlawed. Feminists will quickly spot the creeping loss of control, and will come up with contorted theories that it leads to rape or abuse in order to have it banned, even though the opposite is probably true. We already see how up in arms they are about the potential loss of control that regular porn presents:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/
SSM is correct. There are instances of porn based utter dysfunction. But there are also instances where porn is linked to men acting out on pedophilia, etc. these cases are so statistically rare as to be irrelevant. It should be sufficient that we agree its not good, that we should not use it…etc. we KNOW that sexual refusal is legion in church. Ten comes guys like the one I parsed today who was busted using porn and more and whose penance is now to pay homage to the refusing wife….to say sex isn’t a need…..to recommend sexual fasting…..to say the wife as an equal, needs her right to control access…basically to hand the woman, who is no longer attracted to her man because she wants hot NEW alpha sex, to hand her the gift of not having to mess with her beta until her craving reaches an undeniable level and she puts out. Then, satisfied for awhile, she can go back to Christian grey and BOB.
hm. so if a woman in a relationship happens to catch a glimpse of two people in a movie or on tv kissing, she is guilty of cheating.
I wasn’t referring to kissing scenes. I was thinking more a long the lines of pretend intercourse and nudity scenes, the hallmark of many a movie today. But that’s ok because it’s not ‘porn’ porn.
Or what about movies that portray fornication and adultery as perfectly acceptable because ‘we were in luuuuv’? Why aren’t these considered bad viewing? Please understand I am not defending porn usage, only questioning the motives of the porn = adultery crowd.
Problems from porn aren’t rare and it is completely legitimate for wives to not like it. I also agree that women are not held to a similar standard and that they are blind to it/don’t care. We can see what happens when women’s power is unchecked–they ruin everything while simultaneously leaving themselves and everyone around them miserable.
This woman divorcing her husband and ruining her daughters lives is a piece of shit.
I was just going by the standards that women have set for men as far as using porn (or male sexuality in general) as a weapon to attack men with.
JDC
Porn porn as opposed to porn, I like that.
Male sexuality, porn porn = bad.
Female sexuality, porn = good.
Pingback: Classic AWALT Story - A Case Study into Hypergamy - Page 3
“which feminists have no clue about”
Wait until you read what feminists have to say about technology (and the Internet, etc).
It works the same way as the attractiveness argument (e.g. they aren’t attractive [in general], therefore attractiveness is bad): they don’t get technology, therefore technology is bad in some way.
@jaybeespancakes
Thanks, when you look at the greek or hebrew, which is something I have to do more of these days as alot of the verses related to sex have been translated into something that wouldn’t offend our church culture or been done by translators who are steeped in our culture and are reaffirming this in their translations.
But again its once you look at these in the original language things begin to make sense. That verse anyway seems to related to covetousness rather than lusting in our cultures sense of the word.
I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer 2 if your interested in your own research. Its free as well.
Sad thing is that some of our current translations place an impossible burden on some.
What they say is meaningless.
In that regard, quite often. Entertainment value, mostly.
The only gains feminists make is when a group of men can use feminism for profit (divorce lawyers profit from misandric laws, criminal defense lawyers profit from false rape accusations, etc.).
The whole dynamic of those situations is quite ironic.
It reminds me a book by Andy Sokal (it covers some stuff done by feminist “scholars”).
http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078/
From a review of the book:
The feminist ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton’s Principia (a “rape manual”), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a “sexed equation”. Why? Because “it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us” (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an ‘in’ word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray’s thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. “Masculine physics” privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray’s thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
@Vader,
“The fundamental problem with the church it’s inability to pair up men and women into families to keep those families happy and whole. This is not a problem the early christens had. Christian women where known for their great virtue and chastity and were frequently sought out by the roman elites for marriage. Christian marriages were amazing solid because of how the christian elders treated christian women and how modestly christian women behaved.”
You make a good point here. What if Christian women today were known for being good wives? Taught and shamed not to divorce, taught and shamed not to be sex-refusers. What if they actually had a reputation for being sexually available to their husbands? Think of the church growth and evangelism that would happen. Sure, some men would be phonies just to get a Christian wife, but that would be better than what we have today. Church leaders are missing a whole big area of church growth and evangelism.
Matt Walsh’s blog is currently ranked 3rd in popularity for WordPress overall. Everything is proceeding according to plan…
@Opus
“The reason that women dislike Erotica so much (apart from their not being motivated by it)”
I beg to differ. If a woman is watching porn with her partner, she gets into it as much as a man does. By herself, not so much, except for calendars.
“possession of Erotica merited caning” So, was it administered by a woman, and did you enjoy it?
@Jason
“A wife refusing her husband is at the very least an act of sexual unfaithfulness on par with porn usage. If sexual unfaithfulness that doesn’t involve a third party is a legitimate grounds for divorce then constant sexual refusal by a wife is a legitimate grounds for divorce as much as porn usage is.”
Ubetcha! A sex strike is definitely unfaithfulness to the vows “to have and to hold.” It’s sexually immoral for a wife to refuse sex to her husband as well as it being rebellion against her husband and against God.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/27 | Free Northerner
Jenny so wants to hop back on and riiiiiiiiiiiiide that hung horse!
@TFH
“Also, it is a way for women to remain in denial about their own obesity being a huge factor in the man losing interest in her. I bet the women who are quickest to shriek about porn are themselves on the less attractive side.
One problem I see even here is that it is assumed that it is always the man who wants sex, that the woman is denying.
It is just as likely that it is the woman who no longer seems attractive to the man, whether due to obesity, henpecking him, or some other way that makes him lose all attraction for her.”
Absolutely and they are then blaming the his porn addictionfor the dissolution of their sex life.
Well lets face it, its not like most females today can objectively look at an issue that they have caused and understand how to resolve it. Its beyond them.
As it just might hurt their feelings if they had to look in the mirror, so this must be avoided at all costs with legislation if necessary.
On a side issue is there a doc guide containing the embed codes for wordpress or is it just standard HTML ? Had a look in the wordpress docs, the easy to embded code guide didnt pop out.
Not much to say to this that I haven’t already, so I’ll leave this:
These people who advocate against porn are hypocrites.
Sex in marriage 1.0 and the application of the porn question
Any justification of porn as a grounds for divorce shows immediately that the person making this charge was never committed to the marriage to begin with.
So, when “50 Shades of Grey” becomes a movie, can we finally call it Porn?
Ms. Erikson and her ilk are all a twitter over the latest gossip about the cast …. oh, but that’s not the same at that filthy p0rn men look at.
@novaseeker
“ It just gets a pass because it doesn’t involve looking at pictures/videos of actual people”
No it gets a pass because it’s a female orientated activity.
“I am against porn use – it’s damaging to men in many ways” – no it’s damaging to some, enriching to others, and the rest don’t see what the fuss is about as they can take it or leave it.
@TFH
“Oh, but men deciding that marriage is too risky for too few rewards, and choosing to live life for themselves, DOES constitute a form of ‘getting better’. Given how unfair the laws around marriage are to men, the reaction by men to such an adverse incentive, is long overdue.”
Indeed , the odious matrimonial laws are a killing field for men.
Hence our own rebellion !
Jenny is a whore! She is a Jezebel. Reading her tweet about the death of her marriage by a ‘thousand cuts’ reminded me that frivorce is but a small cut away from being laid thick on a unsuspecting husband. Her husband never cheated, never abused her, never called her names, paid for his kids, seemed to be loving and cheerful and was a good man.
This piece of shit woman literally has no excuse, none. I’m gobsmacked, that there is actually one person willing to defend her at all, never mind that she has 10000 followers and oodles of beta white knights and Christian whores coming to her rescue.
And she has the audacity to speak down to men on the issue of porn?? Really Jen, go get yourself fucked. Jenny Erikson, get thee to a nunnery!
@Jason
“You know there might be a simple solution to this “porn == adultery == legit grounds for divorce” idea. Take the idea seriously and do the same thing in the other direction. A wife refusing her husband is at the very least an act of sexual unfaithfulness on par with porn usage. If sexual unfaithfulness that doesn’t involve a third party is a legitimate grounds for divorce then constant sexual refusal by a wife is a legitimate grounds for divorce as much as porn usage is.”
That’s a great idea, add to that her becoming morbidly obese also = fair grounds I would say !
@The Karamazov Idea
“What I will say about women and porn is that they hate it for the same reason Marlboro hates nicotine gum: it gives a man options. “
I would say options aren’t so much of an issue as control is, and we all know how strong the desire of the female to control every aspect of the males life in marriage is. It’s overpowering destructive force for her.
And anything that can cause a deviation from total control has to be destroyed immediately.
@MarcusD
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids… From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.”
They truly are mentally ill arnt they. As is all feminism, it’s BPD legislated.
Historically, refusal to pay “the marital debt” or “the conjugal debt” was actually was a grounds for divorce. Most of the commentaries I run into always focus on the wife (I wonder why…). For instance (John Gill on 1 Corinthians 7:3, quoting Mosis Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 81.):
It’s not hard to see that this was considered a major concern until the feminists took the Church.
Pingback: Soothing words for the unrepentant baby mama. |...
@ empathologismE says:…we KNOW that sexual refusal is legion in church.
And that it is common for men to use porn as a coping mechanism. And I agree, it’s bad to use porn even for a coping mechanism, because it makes it too easy to not address the core problem: a wife that is no longer interested in having sex with her husband.
@Minesweeper,
“Thanks, when you look at the greek or hebrew, which is something I have to do more of these days as alot of the verses related to sex have been translated into something that wouldn’t offend our church culture or been done by translators who are steeped in our culture and are reaffirming this in their translations.”
Could you list a few of the most egregious verses related to sex where the English deviates from the Hebrew of Greek?
Thanks for the tip on ISA.
@ballista74
Excellent comment!
As for porn being a grounds for divorce, it would have to be a really extreme case IMO. If a man knows it’s a sin and is taking steps to repent and stop the habit, his wife should be graceful and work with him. And yes, that should include a vigorous sex life. Unfortunately, many of us have found out that the opposite (i.e., a sexless marriage) is what they get instead.
If a man is completely unrepentant and totally enslaved by porn, there could be an argument for it eventually morphing into adultery. However, that’s a case-by-case thing, and certainly doesn’t fit the “all porn use = adultery, now I have my free divorce card!” model. BTW, enslaved is the correct Biblical term, not “addicted.”
“Our righteousness is like filthy menstrual cloths.” This is an example of the greek whose meaning has been sanitized for churchianity.
Another is: “May it never be!” Emotionally, it would be better translated as “Hell no!” That really isn’t cursing since “hell” is merely being used for emotional emphasis.
Already tried to over in UK
The peasants are making futile petition to their crimson-jowled overlords, but we all know how that goes.
I laughed when I saw the remit had already overreached into taking down chick-crack (a.k.a. “esoteric”) sites along with almost anything else they could think of.
Jimmy Wales is pissing blood over the proposals, and all. lol.
“Angela Pritchard, author and researcher into the universal nature of spirituality and consciousness, and co-author of two books on ancient sacred mysteries, says that, “‘Esoteric material’ which implies all manner of spiritual knowledge and practice, has been lumped in with the worst of human behaviour in this filter—forming one of 9 categories, which includes pornography, violence, and suicide related websites.” “
The best bit is that the backbone of the whole of Brit intertubes is operated by Huawei, and has been for some time (arguably complements W e*n.di D*en+g being inserted as controller of the country’s most powerful traditional media mogul. Now his whole operation is under intense political/spook scrutiny and basically shitcanned as a result of Leveson, she’s outta there, with some compensatory loot).
” HomeSafe is being run by Huawei, a Chinese company founded by a former China People’s Liberation Army officer.
The UK government already knows about the connection, as an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report released last month expressed concern over the “alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State” as they “generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or are more political.””
[@D. Please bin this if there’s any bits that might alert Messrs. Sue, Grabbit & Runne on behalf of aforementioned psychotically litigious mogul (or the CP of the PRC, for that matter! What a palaver)]
Silllly old man forgot to add I was replying to TFH
“What they say is meaningless. They have no power to shut it down in the least.
Again, they have not shut down even strip clubs, after decades and decades. Nor can they stop technology in China, Korea, etc.”
@John says: If a man knows it’s a sin and is taking steps to repent and stop the habit, his wife should be graceful and work with him. And yes, that should include a vigorous sex life. Unfortunately, many of us have found out that the opposite (i.e., a sexless marriage) is what they get instead.
I wonder if there is more at play here. Is the wife really repulsed by the sexual nature of the porn, or is she now repulsed by her husband who has engaged in an activity that only beta/losers engage in?
We know about the Christian girl paradox. She says she wants a chaste man who is also a “real man.” And by her definition real men not only want sex, but are able to get girls to have sex with him. So any truly chaste men who are waiting until marriage (which includes not pushing her for sex) is seen as not being a “real man.”
Women (imho) associate porn with beta loses in their mom’s basement whackin off in between playing video games. Real men, in their minds, should never have to resort to porn, because they can go out and find a woman or are attractive enough to get their wives to satisfy them.
For a Christian woman even if this were true it would not help her. She is still bound by marriage. Adultery is only grounds for divorce if the wife is unfaithful and the husband wants the divorce. Go back and read Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 again more carefully.
@Chris Nystrom,
What’s being argued (particularly by the posters) at Walsh’s blog is that “lusting in your heart” is no different than physical sex.
I tried making the point that every man has lusted in his heart, so Walsh’s viewpoint would technically make every man guilty of a divorce worthy offense. I was trying to point out the absurdity of his position.
Instead, the responses I got was “that’s right, any wife can divorce her husband at any time, because all men are adulterers.”
@8to12
Nailed it. A post on this has been brewing in my mind.
Lol gents, don’t get married. There is not one possible reason for it at all, none. Don’t get married.
@8to12
“Real men, in their minds, should never have to resort to porn, because they can go out and find a woman or are attractive enough to get their wives to satisfy them”
Porn doesn’t whine at you that the sex isn’t as good as her ex-boyfriends’. Porn doesn’t have bacterial vaginosis. Porn doesn’t nag you to do chores. Porn doesn’t whine when you want to go out alone at night with your buddies or hunting deer. Porn doesn’t produce kids that you have to support. And I don’t even use porn, lol.
@John
“If a man is completely unrepentant and totally enslaved by porn, there could be an argument for it eventually morphing into adultery.” Shit, might as well go out and do the actual thing. I mean, I got into such an emo relationship with Tracy Lords, lol, it must have been unfaithfulness. Yeah, totally joking here, but the point is that porn doesn’t produce emotional intimacy. If the wimmenz wants emo intimacy, they need to stop withholding. Sex produces emotional intimacy. I pair-bonded hard with my first lover after a week of frenzied sex and it was a ton of emotional pain for a few months after that. She passed away a while back, but I still feel a strong emotional connection with her. I deliberately avoided contacting her while I’ve been married because of that emotional connection. All that emotional bonding all came from one week of sex decades ago. So, wimmenz, get it on with your menz if you wanna have a good marriage. But if you’re planning on leaving the AFC, why bother? Which brings me to my final point: A good woman is hard to find.
A married man checking out porn is giving his piece of shit wife a break. The fact he is checking out porn and not out with other women shows he is a good man. The best answer to any woman complaining about her husband looking at porn is “maybe you should try fucking husband regularly and see how that works” No need to dress it up with moral arguments because there are none, it was taken care of the day the bitch said I do. Any woman or mangina that thinks otherwise is a POS that doesn’t deserve or belong as a member of a civilized society.
This is just another reason why marriage is stupid. By law of misandry and culture of misandry a woman does not in the slightest feel any obligation to her marriage and damn sure has no obligation to her husband at all at any level. Anything said or done is based on the pleasure she gets from it and at present by law of misandry ,culture of misandry and churchianship of the feminine imperative her presence in the house is good enough. The only check on her behavior is gina tingle and having to take care of herself with a judgment made about her as a person. Law, culture and the church fully armed with misandry guided by the feminine imperative are working overtime to remove any and all checks. Hypergamy must be free at all cost. Always remember 50 million + human children have been aborted (killed) since 1973 in the name of liberated hypergamy and women wouldn’t have it any other way not even churchian women.
Fuck your husband whenever and however he wants wife and there will be no use for porn.
@Tom H,
I was trying to highlight how the typical woman thinks. That’s not my opinion.
No porn fan here. If you cultivate that kind of itch, it can never be permanently scratched, either by watching corporate porn or even by your wife enthusiastically becoming your own personal porn star. Tend your own garden.
That said, most, if not all, of the women’s outrage on Matt Walsh’s blog is hurt pride, nothing more. They find out the truth about men’s sexual preferences and it disgusts them, much as the “androsphere” is a reaction of disgust toward the discovery of women’s sexual preferences. We need to move beyond disgusting each other, but telling lies about ourselves to each other is not the way to do that.
Maybe Matt works in family law and is using his blog to drum up business the way a Personal Injury lawyer chases and ambulance?
8to12,Cane Caldo
You got that shit right. A wife will tell everybody her husband is a porn addict when she cuts him off and he “respects” her wishes and continues on as a good husband anyway. This triggers weak loser on her tingle meter (fuck what god says) He follows the law and culture “good man” (fool, also actually working toward sinful) Badboy types doesn’t marry her and he decides to fuck her friends and he wakes up to blow jobs in the morning before she goes to work. His sin is he is fucking outside of marriage but he sure as hell isn’t following that sluts lead. Culture and laws should be written to reflect that.
asinusspinasmasticans: Spot on.
greyghost: Not spot on. Rambling beta bitterness never solved anything.
In the news, the morning after pill has been found to lack efficacy for women over a certain weight. In the story they mentioned the average American woman weights above 160 pounds. I confess to being shocked by that despite knowing that they are gone big.
I failed to add weight gain to sexual refusal. Others raised it. It fits as another cause. It has its own set of feminist rationale talking points.
The first defense is that these are blaming the victim. Well, yea, it is…..not making the victim literally responsible for the mans porn use. But blaming her for what she is doing wrong….yes.
Blame the victim is till now an iron clad defense for sexual issues and the other favorite divorce excuse…..abuse. Her provocations cannot be cited.
Think about where this leaves men. They must take the offenses of women and not respond directly, nor may they accommodate indirectly. Shut up and sit down sir. Then, when she grows bored and files divorce, it can be because he did not react, that he did not share his heart, hat he was cold and removed. It is perfect.
Single women (who wanted to BE married) have told me that their main outrage with porn is not that it objectifies women but that it exists which means part of their “power” has been taken from them. What leverage does a shrill unmarried woman have to negotiate on her own best interests to get marriage from lonely men who have no female alternatives, if those lonely men can turn to free, streaming, HD internet porn, vaseline, and a dark room? They have none. And they get lonely. But more importantly, they get poorer.
Women are still net resource consumers. That will never change. Men are net resource creators. That better never change. A woman who is a net resourse consumer (and she will know if she is) can’t extract resources from a male porn star. She needs a husband (or government.) If MGTOW and part of that W is going to porn, those women who need the resources that marriage provides, have no one to provide it outside of government.
Porn reduces a woman’s power. That is really what the problem is. It fills a void that men need to fill (if real women aren’t there to fill it) and in doing so, gives men options. Women don’t want men to have options. Men with options is bad for feminism.
Whenever someone writes or says “Real men do/don’t” I know I am reading or listening to a total idiot. Walsh has no idea what a “real man” is, because if he did he wouldn’t use that silly, effeminate phrase.
I will say I am a fan of Matt Forney’s ideas on porn. One can have a much better life without it, or at least by cutting back on it. Constant masturbation to hardcore desensitizes a man, lowers his testosterone and makes him more complacent and less aggressive. Some men (young ones) need to be more complacent and less aggressive, but most of you brothers don’t.
All that aside I do not condemn anyone for whatever they do in that regard.
There is also a huge difference between “Max Hardcore” videos and the pinups which used to decorate my grandfather’s garage. The latter is more similar to classical nude sculpture. Some porn is tasteful and not offensive to any normal person. Beautiful women ought to be admired and there is nothing wrong with doing so.
8to12 and Cane, I don’t think it’s either of those things. Her outrage at porn itself is faux because it relies on half truths and hyperbole. The women are drugged victims being forced to do porn, and the man who looks is a full on addict needing in patient care. Read the comments at Walsh, those are necessarily where they must go to sustain the loathing.
They already have placed the husband in beta disgusting loser category or she would be sexing him up. Once he is there it’s near impossible to break out.
There is no real fix. Telling women they must have sex is not a fix, though it should be told the, anyway. Biblical admonishment fails. It becomes that he is only after ax, and not the real stuff god intended in marriage.
The fix may come a generation later after the teaching gets corrected as girls grow up and marry. But fixing the married woman, not much chance. Deti notwithstanding, threats to get wife sexually active are low percentage plays.
Game is also not the answer. He may get more sex, but he is paying to play all the same.
It’s her nature. She is not content with one Normal man. All this while men are branded as beasts needing spicy sex farm fake women to be happy.
Had this discussion in college once. The tasteful porn vs the untasteful porn, we were comparing Playboy to Hustler. One does airburshing in their images to make her nude pose look beautiful and enticing. The other shows actual physical penatration or (that aside) the actual clitoris being stimulated. For people who saw no difference between the two (morally or otherwise) were those who never viewed porn (for whatever reason, usually a spiritual reason) and thus had no point of reference, or feminists.
“Had this discussion in college once. The tasteful porn vs the untasteful porn, we were comparing Playboy to Hustler. One does airburshing in their images to make her nude pose look beautiful and enticing. The other shows actual physical penatration or (that aside) the actual clitoris being stimulated. For people who saw no difference between the two (morally or otherwise) were those who never viewed porn (for whatever reason, usually a spiritual reason) and thus had no point of reference, or feminists.”
For Christians, however, the issue is lust. Personally, I’d lust more over a “tasteful” nude, especially one that’s not a plastic surgery experiment. I’ve had issues with porn, and never had any interest in the hardcore/penetration/rape/bestiality/whatever stuff. Other guys, do, however, and it can be extremely destructive. Some with no homosexuality tendencies started getting into gay porn because they viewed so much filth. The point remains, though, that lust is the key issue. For many of us, even a swimsuit/lingerie/even super tight clothes can cause lust. Just because those were socially acceptable 40-50 years ago doesn’t make them right.
@greyghost on 11/27/13 @ 9:36AM:
You nailed it here, brother.
Empath,
They are just really bad actors and bad actresses that do stuff no other actor or actress would ever do.
I don’t know if she still has a daytime show, but former supermodel Tyra Banks had a morning talk show where various people would come on and discuss their lives. One of these people (in a show filmed in 2006) was an 18 year old (almost 19, but not yet 19) “Sasha Grey.”
Sasha was a porn star. The majority of her porn was anal sex. That was her forte. Her producer and her “agent” also appeared on the show with her. They also brought in former porn stars who were crying through most of the episode and they kept referring to Sasha’s agent as her “pimp.” Sasha was amazingly calm and unemotional throughout the interview, almost clinically unemotional. Tyra Banks would ask the girl “Why do you do this to yourself?” and Sasha would unemotionally state “Well I have been working in porn since the day after I turned 18. Inside of 9 months I have earned $250,000. I have no formal education. And although I am very attractive I don’t have the perfect model good looks that you have so I can’t do modelling. What other legal form of living is there for an 18 year old girl with my education to earn $250,000 in 9 months?”
The whole audience of women gasped at that, because in the manner with which Sasha framed that question, there was no answer. Tyra Banks admitted right there that she had to cut to commercial because she was about to “lose it” that she was about to break down and cry. It was a very visceral, primal moment, where sh-t reality of porn hit the preverbial fan. Its about money for women, big money. Those feminists (or spiritual women) who are horrified by it and want it stopped at all costs, they are forced to refer to female porn stars as “drugged up victims” or “immigrant children who are sex-slaves” because if they are nothing more than women who are rational agents making choices to do this for money, then there are no real victims here.
In the battle of the sexes, the Christan man is unarmed with no fire support.
John
You must be new at this asinusspinasmasticans is a safe comment that has no direction yet on the surface is not something that cannot be spoken ill of. Kind of like for the take of the children line.
Empathologism
You are right there is no fix. Women start from a bucket of white paint like adds drops of various colors in as she goes it will never be the same white she started out as. Maybe a bad analogy but the bottom line is that there is no fix. The best men of this world can do is have an environment that directs hypergamy to the best possible civil behavior.
TFH has said it many feminism greatest gift to this period of time was to show the true nature of women. And that sure isn’t sugar and spice and all things nice. There are infants and maybe unborn children today that will in the future write laws that will deny women from voting and it will be seen and know as responsible leadership. A man will arise and his church will be from the red pill.
Game is a fix not for women(there is no fix) Game is a fix for men. The beta male is the foundation of all of mankind. he is the center of gravity. Game should be common sense in a sane society. But it is seen as some kind of trick or perversion is a society founded on lies (bluepill) The fix we are all hopefully looking for is the wisdom, strength, courage and faith to set and lead a society that founded on the beta male based on the bible. Understand we will never get there and ” closer than” is as good as it will gets but that is our burden for sin “man will toil sweat of our brow” thing.
Take a look at this from the spearhead it is really good way to exercise our thought processes on a solution http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/11/18/if-iq-is-rising-why-do-people-seem-dumber-in-some-regards/
Porn is a highly controlled industry, notice the law now forcing them to wear condoms in California. Anyone who really thinks these are innocent girls forced into sex slavery is incredibly naive.
These women do it for no other reason than to make money. Their lives are worthless and money brings them some comfort and fills the void.
I really don’t have much more to say about some more worthless skanks, aka porn stars, than that I’m afraid.
Ton
Maybe Greyghost should help out with a Christian man wife cut me off dating service. We have preachers to clean your soul and holy water to wash your dick before you return to your rebellious wife.
FH
The dirty little open secret is some of the women get off on the attention. A whole category of porn is the amateur self stuff. type in twerking on you tube to get the mild stuff. Kim K started her life as a celebrity as an amateur porn star AKA sex tape that got “released”
These women do it for no other reason than to make money. Their lives are worthless and money brings them some comfort and fills the void.
Yes, quite the Christian attitude there. I recall many time Jesus advising prostitutes to continue their work because their lives were useless and this gave them something to fill the void.
And people dare to tell me that nobody’s here defending porn…
I agree with you that commentary’s like Walshes are wrong to turn a husband’s porn habit into a “get out of marriage responsibilities free” card.
I disagree that pointing out women’s sin, or offering up lame excuses like the one quoted are an adequate and mature response.
I’m also unimpressed by the argument that a wife’s refusal or weight gain makes husbands unhaaappy and turn to porn.
johnmcg,
You are a fool.
FH was not ADVISING porn stars to continue being porn stars. He just IDENTIFIED the only motive that porn stars had to BE porn stars. He doesn’t approve of it. He just recognizes why they do it.
Stop errecting strawmen in an effort to put a logical discussion out of bounds you silly mangina.
Of course you aren’t impressed. Because you are a WhiteKnight wallowing in Chivalrous-Neoteny that believes that women have value and men have NO value. Taht is your root motive. You need a red pill right now.
Truth is truth mate, these women are worthless and I’m not Jesus. Anyway, you’re talking to the wrong chap here. These women don’t need me, they’ve stated that many a time before. What they need is to actually repent and commit themselves to a nunnery. There is no substitute for such women, they need to be in a nunnery. They should not marry or be in polite society. In fact, most of Walsh’s sistahs in arms need to plan a trip too.
So…go take a light to Walsh’s commentariat and profess your intelligence there instead.
ALL RISE! The venerable reverend Rollo J. Tomassi will now address the congregation.
*steps up to very tall pulpit*
Ahem.
Ladies. Precious jewels and scions of Israel,
princessesdaughters of the King, who’s purity, sanctity and holiness make you ‘lightyears closer’ to God, there has been much consternation in the body of Christ.On the surface it appears the males of our church (lets not call them men yet) have become mired in the sexual immorality offered by the ubiquitous worldly influence of pornography. As is your right, and by virtue of your far better communion with the Holy Spirit than any male might ever attempt to attain, you are well within your right to divorce and fleece your sinful husbands on the grounds of infidelity, for as our Savior has decreed – “If you thought of sex with another woman, you’re guilty of adultery, for as a man thinks so he does in his heart. Thou shalt not divorce thy spouse for any reasons save marital infidelity.” Yes, good women, so proceedeth the holy marriage escape clause.
And who knows the hearts of men better than God? None you say? True, quite true, but who is closer to God amongst all his creations? You, dear sisters, you are lightyears closer, and who knows a man’s heart as well as a woman in this world?
But, dear sisters, pornography is merely the tip of the iceberg. I feel you have not done all your due diligence in helping your male understand the true extent of his sinful nature. You see if merely pondering sex with another woman puts his soul in danger of hellfire, it is your holy commission to you to correct and rebuke his desires to the logical extreme. Are you not your
brother’smale’s keeper?Does your male experience ‘morning wood’ on those mornings when you haven’t had conjugal relations with him in months? The jig is up! He’s evidently been enjoying his adulterous thought-sin unconsciously during the night and therefore guilty of lustful dreaming about adultery. Do you find evidence of his nocturnal emissions on the sheets? Divorce him.
Do you give him a checking reach around before you turn in for the night only to find the hardness of his arousal? Again, what woman could he be imagining when you haven’t given of yourself in months? Idle hands and lustful thoughts! Divorce him.
Does your male exit his daily shower looking more flushed than he ought to? Even the world knows males have a sexual thought every 7 seconds! And what bawdy harlot do you suppose he’s imagining when you know it hasn’t been his wife stimulating him for weeks on end? Thoughtful-Adultery!! Divorce him!
Yes dear sisters, pornography is everywhere (does your male avert his eyes when coming across the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue?), but I fear discovering his lust of pornography is almost too easy – you must remain ever vigilant for the more subtle indications of his sin-thinking.
And to you would-be men in the congregation, males whose souls are in a perpetual state of potential damnation, I have but one word that can save you from the poisonous testosterone that tempts your souls every 7 seconds. One word that will make you holy in the interim when your demi-Godly wives bless and grace you with the carnal relief that debases their souls and only temporarily sates your hunger for sin. That word –
Saltpeter
Amen.
johnmcg
Go ahead and take the high road big guy. Take a red pill observation of truth and make it into a claim that “Jesus said gone girl suck that dick and get that money. Jesus wants you to get paid” and fill that void of emptiness in your heart honey”
To all
This is what a man that has fully invested in the lie of the bluepill looks like. Solid moral man that believes in what he says and is founded on thought out logic based on a lie. Imagine thousands of men like that standing on the truth. Same conviction and drive with redpill christian with “game’ instead of truth instead of bluepill churchianship.
PS you look like one of those “Dear Woman” cats anyway
His morals are fine. Johnmcg needs to re-read Genesis and buy ALL that is being sold there fundamentally. He needs to understand Eve. Once he understands that women and men are NOT equal (and why they aren’t and what their motives are), that is half of the red pill right there.
God has very specific laws for us. Those laws are with the understanding that men and women are NOT equal but those laws are there to PROTECT women. He likes the last part about protecting women, but refuses to acknowledge the first part.
@JohnMcg
Interesting. Jesus spent a remarkable amount of time doing exactly what you are proscribing here. In fact, nearly every time a pharisee (in a manner like Matt Walsh and the “I love you, Matt!” women on his blog) attempts to levy judgment on a sinner, Jesus responds by saying, “Look in the mirror, pal.”
No one is surprised by that, John; as you practice the inexhaustible habit of refusing to attempt to understand what others are saying. A refusing wife–whether by word or by fat that is obtained when ignoring her husband’s words–absolutely does cause unhappiness. When God really wants to demonstrate His displeasure with us, he compares us to rebellious wives. (See: Hosea, Isaiah, and Ezekiel)
And while refusal and fat does not “make” a husband turn to porn, she is certainly throwing him in the path of temptation. Again: You don’t have to take my word for it; It’s right there in the Bible (Corinthians).
The question, John, is why do you refuse to hear your brothers’ complaints; refuse to give them any merit? The only answer is because you hate them, John. My suspicion is that your hate stems from their resemblance to you, but that conjecture. The hate, however, is not. Porn is produced mostly by and for women. Men are it’s victims. Enough wives are victimizing husbands with rebellion that the term has lost most of its meaning; we don’t see it when it is right before our faces. If we call it out, a diabolical cacophony of epithets and slurs arises instantly; reflexively.
Those people who howl…John, that’s the side you stand on.
IBB
That is twice in one week. Plus on that. Get that man the truth and build a civilization on his back.
I’m also unimpressed by the argument that a wife’s refusal or weight gain makes husbands unhaaappy and turn to porn.
It does, though. What do you think does?
Note, this isn’t saying that it is the wife’s fault that he chooses porn to vent his frustration — that’s his decision (and a wrong one). But it’s a decision made in response to a very common situation in Christian marriages.
Many years ago, I was working for one summer in an outlying building of a large international corporation. There was an extremely hot secretary there, who took it upon herself to help the various and sundry men working in that building to enjoy the sin of lust.
It was obvious to anyone who saw me that I engaged in deep-breating-exercises when she wiggled by me.
A self-righteous Christian, much like Matt Walsh, one day puffed all up and told me, “It is as sinful to think about it as it is to do it.”
I said, “You mean if I have my way with her the first 15 minutes of every day, it will be 1/32 the sin of lusting after her all day?”
He threw a mighty tantrum, but I notice he never did explain what was wrong with my logic.
@ JohnMcG…..who said:
“I’m also unimpressed by the argument that a wife’s refusal or weight gain makes husbands unhaaappy and turn to porn.”
Seriously?
You feel that a wife’s refusal to have sex with her husband does NOT make that husband unhappy? (BTW, “unhaaapppy” is a registered trademark to describe TRULY trivial issues….not the recinding of sex within a marriage).
Men want to feel attraction to any potential mate, and they want sex within that relationship. Overweight, sexless women do not get our motor running. What kind of sadsack are you?
If the refusal of sex within a marraige is OKEE-DOKEE with you..then presumably you have no objection to the removal of the ‘chastity’ promise within standard wedding vows.
I mean, after all…..it’s just sex right? No need for anyone to get in a twist over when/where/how you get that need filled.
It’s trivial, according to you.
CLOWN!
Knowing what I know now about obesity (having shifted to low-carb, high-fat quasi-primal diet and lost 35 pounds), I have to say I find obesity to be more forgivable (because for the last several decades, public education and the MSM have sold the public a certain dietary model) but also more indefensible (because it really is fairly simple to correct once you know how). Yes, the wife letting herself go is a bad excuse for a man to turn to porn. That doesn’t mean the obesity is all right or even that it’s not part of the problem.
@ Cane Caldo…….re: His teardown of JohnMcG
Clap….clap…clap…clap…….(thunderous applause).
@johnmcg
So, Saint John, do you think that women refusing sex makes men happy or unhappy? Does the length of the sex strike matter? After all, isn’t marriage supposed to be about luuuv, not about nasty sex? Why should any husband expect there to ever be sex in marriage?
Women who refuse their husbands sex are committing sexual immorality. It is moral for a woman to have sex with her husband. It is moral for her to keep her vow “to have and to hold.” It is immoral for a woman to break her vow to have and to hold, which is to have sex with her husband; hence if a woman breaks her vow to have and to hold, she is committing sexual immorality.
Sluts also commit sexual immorality. However, sluts are not breaking their word when they do so. To break one’s word while committing sexual immorality is worse than committing sexual immorality. Hence, wives who go on a sex strike have worse morals than sluts. Frequently, wives’ sex strike are accompanied by sleeping with old boyfriends. Oh, yes, those wives who go on sex strikes are so virtuous!
</block@John
So, a refusing wife is subjecting her husband to Satan. What does Jesus have to say about those who do such things?
Wow! Strong words, eh, John? Too strong for you, I gather. Well, let’s continue reading and see how Jesus really cracks down on those losers; those little ones.
Wait…I don’t understand…Matt Walsh is a Christian, and he says men who look at porn are real men; that if they get lost they stop being sheep and become something abominable. You say that it is their own fault even if the other sheep kick them out of the herd. Yet, this Jesus fellow goes to get the lost sheep.
You’ve got the wrong spirit, John. I leave it to others to ascertain to whom it belongs.
@Rollo Tomassi says: Thoughtful-Adultery!! Divorce him!
Thought crimes.
That sums up what’s been bothering me about what it going on at Walsh’s, but I couldn’t put it into words till now. He’s defining a thought crime that can be used as justification for divorce. No longer does a man have to physically commit adultery to be guilty; he merely has to think in a disapproved manner to be guilty.
@Dalrock
My penultimate paragraph has a typo. It should read: “Wait…I don’t understand…Matt Walsh is a Christian, and he says men who look at porn are not real men.” Thanks.
For Chistians, this person does a good job of putting the lust = adultery passage in context:
http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18
Bee,
You have to be in the right place to receive this and it generally does not go down well, don’t really want to go off topic but I’ll give you an example :
Leviticus 18:22
Hebrew word for word : and with male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she
The translation : Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Our interpretation : Male homosexual behaviour is an abomination.
The original hebrew is saying “do not lie with another man in a womans bed” it’s basically saying : don’t bring this home to your wife’s bed, which if you know anything about homosexual behaviour in most cultures guys do what they have too while still being married, i.e. gay behaviour in UK culture up to the 70’s and current Arabia\Saudi behaviour now. This seems to happen esp. in cultures that enforce strict separation between the sexes.
But for our translators putting “don’t bring it home” in the bible would just be too unpalatable for almost everyone in this time and place. If you look at the surrounding passages in Leviticus you will see clearly that they constantly mention sexual intercourse, even between women and animals, so its not squeamish, but on this verse that is left out. Note as well no female homosexual behaviour is mentioned.
And what about all those slutty soap operas? Don’t they corrupt morals as much as porn?
They are pornography, but more suited to women than men. Let’s not forget that pornography is a feminist issue, which makes the whole thing hypocritical. If you recognize what appeals to men sexually, you have to recognize what appeals to women sexually, and deal with it in the same measure. Matt Walsh would never advocate that a husband divorce a wife if she is reading 50 Shades of Grey, watching Magic Mike, or consuming any other kind of fem-porn (rom-coms, bodice rippers, romance novels etc). The high holy female womanness can handle porn because they’re innately good, but men are wicked and evil and vile, so they can not handle anything.
Anti-porn advocates are both man-haters (or self-loathing haters of self and other men like the mangina JohnMcG) and hypocrites for that very reason.
And while we’re focused on Bible verses, it is worth your time to read all of Matthew 5, in context:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=5&t=NASB
@5:20 Jesus says “…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
He then makes a series of statements starting off with “You have heard…” (including the lust/adultery statement being argued here). The point is to denigrate the “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees and establish the fact that nobody can meet the standard laid out by the series of “you have heard” statements.
Plucking one verse out of context misses the point (as it usually does). Jesus wasn’t saying he never expected men to lust after women–he was saying just the opposite. He chose a standard he knew it was impossible for any man to meet–never having lustful feelings for a woman–and used it (along with the other “you have heard” statements) to make the point that we’ll never be righteous enough to get into heaven on our own.
Which is why holding a husband to this standard is unrealistic and unbiblical. If Jesus didn’t think any man (other than himself) could meet this standard, why does modern Christianity think any man can meet it?
It does, but you don’t even have to get that specific/detailed/wordy about it. All you really need to do is say “Okay, show me another Scripture that says as you indicate.” As I’ve found numerous times, God follows His own Law – every matter is established with two or three witnesses. There is almost never anything that is said in complete isolation, including both the Old and New Testaments. God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, so His expectations are the same in Genesis 1 as they are now. Jesus never contradicted any of the other prophets of old – his function was to “sharpen the lens” as it were. As he rightly points out, Exodus 20:17 is a parallel equivalent from another witness. The interpretation that “coveting” = “adultery” is easily dispelled as Exodus 20:14 specifically states and prohibits adultery.
If the two are separated, then that says the meanings are different. And they are. I, or any other man, can easily covet another man’s wife sexually, but he can covet her for any number of non-sexual reasons, too. She actually pulls her own weight around the house as she should (cooks, cleans, etc), as one example. All it takes to covet is to find one quality that is missing to desire. Coveting is desiring what is not rightfully yours. As the whole of Exodus 20:17 is taken, the meaning of what is said is abundantly clear, and has nothing to do with adultery. Coveting does not justify divorce in any faithful Scriptural interpretation.
Fulton Sheen had it right, and this is a familiar, modern tale. Sadly, this young lady is so in love with herself and her experiences and her psuedofame, she forgot about duty, love, and rules:
What some people Love is not a Person, but the Experience of being in Love. The First is Irreplaceable; the Second is not. As soon as the Glands cease to react with their Pristine Force, couples who identified Emotionalism and Love claim they no longer Love one another. If such is the case, they never Loved the other Person in the First Place; they only Loved being Loved, which is the Highest Form of Egotism. Marriage founded-on Sex Passion alone, lasts only as-long-as the Animal Passion lasts. Within Two (2) Years the Animal Attraction for the other may Die, and when it does, Law comes to its rescue to Justify the Divorce with the meaningless words “Incompatibility,” or “Mental Torture”. Animals never have recourse to Law Courts, because they have no Will to Love; but Man, having Reason, feels the need of Justifying his Irrational Behavior when he does Wrong.
I may have tagged the above post wrong
So women’s concerns our trivial and don’t justify anything; ours are real and justify sin.
Got it. You guys and the feminists are 2 sides of the same coin.
I’ll know when I’ve found an culturally and honest translation when is states in
Isaiah 64:6 :
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as used and bloodied tamponsand we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Minesweeper, in regards to your proper translation of that verse, what Bible do you suggest that is more faithful along those lines?
From the Douay Rhiems (Catholic Translation pre King James, yeah we did that!):
And we are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Johnmcg
Still playing dumb huh big guy? It takes a while, you have years of bluepill you need to work out. You are right about one thing women’s concern truly are trivial. Remember Adam’s sin was not eating the fruit. Adams sin was listening to his wife over god. Her concerns are trivial. Never base morality on what a woman thinks or feels ever. When in doubt look at the bible or go by gut instinct. Male leadership 101
So women’s concerns our trivial and don’t justify anything; ours are real and justify sin.
Eh, no.
People have said repeatedly that they do not endorse porn use by men. The point is that singling THAT out when not talking about the same/very similar behavior in women is in itself a one-sided attack that screams out for correction in order to present a balanced perspective. Walsh didn’t do that at all — he just attacked men, as if this issue doesn’t exist, in a very slightly different form, in married women as well.
That’s the point. Why is that hard to understand? It seems simple enough to me. And yet when we point out that it is imbalanced, suddenly we are the ones who are disregarding women’s concerns. Huh?
Marriage founded-on Sex Passion alone, lasts only as-long-as the Animal Passion lasts. Within Two (2) Years the Animal Attraction for the other may Die,
The problem is that modern marriages are largely based on on animal passion — or, rather, they are based on multiple factors, but if the animal lust part actually dies, as per Sheen’s suggestion, the marriage will die, sooner or later, because modern marriages cannot really survive without animal passion in most cases. That doesn’t mean people will necessarily get divorced — they may stay together, but the marriage is pretty dead because people expect passionate sex in marriage in the 21st Century USA.
I do think Sheen is right, and that the modern conception of marriage is wrong, but it’s the conception we’ve got in the culture, and it’s the one we have to deal with — Christians or not.
Getting back to the arranged marriage thing aren’t we Novaseeker ? I always thought love was a stupid reason to stay married. Deep love is a byproduct of two people living by a purpose greater than their own pleasure. The stuff of male bonding.
I’m done, time to go to work. I hope I was able to add some thoughts and points of view to the discussion.
Hmmm ….well : Isaiah 64:6
CEB We have all become like the unclean;all our righteous deeds are like a menstrual rag.
DRA And we are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman
ERV We are all dirty with sin.Even our good works are not pure.They are like bloodstained rags.
EXB,LEB,NET,OJB,WYC – all these translations pretty much state the above
the Hebrew says for the “bloodstained rags”
Well, I suggest dropping down to the original Hebrew failing that, the Common English Bible – 1st one on the list, if you are wanting a translation that mentions this. Can’t imagine it will go down well in this culture.
Has anyone considered that the porn industry benefits from feminism’s justification of women withholding sex? Might there be a spiritual tie between the porn industry and feminism?
Mr. Roach I did mention : Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) , but you went back further than I could !
@JohnMcG
Such a pathetic attempt to shift the frame, John…and banal. You keep doing this over and over again.
What’s interesting is that, over at Zippy’s, John made the case that calling for a whore to repent is too harsh on women. He twisted Scripture to present the case that Jesus expected nothing of the adulteress that was brought to him to be stoned. John has two constants that drive his philosophy:
1) Repentance and forgiveness are not real. They are code-words for uplifting people we like, and putting down those we don’t like.
2) All women are good, always, and never in need of repentance.
Once, in response to me posting this hilarious video
JohnMcG threatened me if I ever did that to a woman in his family. Hahaha! That is uproarious in many ways, but the most important is that John thinks a slap is too harsh–always and ever no matter what–when the truth is that the righteous wrath of the Lord God Almighty has already been poured out upon them, and He is going to utterly RUIN their bodies; leaving nothing but dust where before there existed John’s perfect little angels.
The Changing American Family
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/health/families.html?_r=1&
johnmcg said I’m also unimpressed by the argument that a wife’s refusal or weight gain makes husbands unhaaappy and turn to porn.
That statement tells us that either you’ve never been married or that you know nothing about sex. Either way, your statement proves that IBB is right: you are indeed clearly a fool.
Their concerns are disingenuous. They want their cake (men can’t have porn) and eat it too (and I don’t have to have sex with my husband and can divorce at any moment.)
You can’t see that because you are the feminist sir. In your mind, women have value and men do not. Anything else you have to say on this is pure hooey and misdirection.
@8to12
“What’s being argued (particularly by the posters) at Walsh’s blog is that “lusting in your heart” is no different than physical sex.”
My point was that in reference to divorce it does not matter. Even if a Christian man has physical sex with another woman not his wife, it is not justification for divorce. The only biblical examples for divorce allow men to divorce an adulterous woman, not the other way around. The Bible does not allow women to get divorced. She is not even supposed to leave him, but if she does she can not get remarried. She has to live alone or be reconciled (1 Cor 7:10).
@ JohnMcG
Why are you even here? You obviously have it all figured out.
If you, as a man (or some ‘poser’ version of one) cannot use the 5 senses God gave you to assess the environment around you & declare something amiss; then you sir, are a fool.
The horrible truth is the last 50 years have given birth to the servitude of men for a woman’s benefit.
If equality is what women want, then equality is what they should receive. Equality is NOT preferential treatment in matters of domestic law, marriage, child rearing, divorce, hiring practices, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
If you can’t see that, you simply haven’t been put through the rollers ….yet.
He’s annoyed by us.
In his mind, men do NOT have value. Only women have value. Because the only way you can see the world for what it is and STILL believe the way he does, operates from the position that only ONE GENDER has value (not his own.)
He can’t say that but he MUST feel it.
@ JohnMcG
Nice pink shirt by the way…….only a man’s man can wear pink.
@ IBB
Just great……so his feelings are overriding logic, thought, & reason.
I’m so bemused we’ve managed to contruct a world with enough surplus (for now) that people can mucky muck around in their feelings, without the inconvenience of having to think critically.
Thank you, Minesweeper, I hadn’t finished reading the entire thread before I posted my question. I then saw you also recommended a scripture analysis tool.
Porn lowers testosterone, and it isn’t necessary unless you’re into “Mommy Porn” (phrase coined by women) which, to Christian women, explains their enjoyment of books in the “Fifty Shades” BDSM genre.
This Matt Walsh has made a deal with the devil, the industry will force his fame. He will be the Macklemore of ‘Christian teaching’ and ALL real marriages will end… Unless his hidden deal is exposed. Stop arguing with him based on scripture, this is from the culture creation industry.
Thought “Fireproof” was evil… This will have better production quality, it won’t embarrass itself with films starring Kirk Cameron and it will span every popular entertainment arena.
I really don’t want to have to negotiate with the industry about this Matt Walsh sickness. You can stop the nonsense before it gets bigger.
If you’re looking for Hebrew and Greek translations I recommend e-sword
It has KJV+ with Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance words that you can look up by clicking on the numbers.
For example, Ephesians 5:22
If I click on the G (Greek) numbers it brings up:
G1135: γυνή
gunē
goo-nay’
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: – wife, woman.
G5293: ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as’-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: – be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.
G2398: ἴδιος
idios
id’-ee-os
Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one’s own; by implication private or separate: – X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).
G435: ἀνήρ
anēr
an’-ayr
A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): – fellow, husband, man, sir.
And If I right click on the G words then it brings up a nice option for “Quick Search G5293” for….
1. The entire Bible
2. The OT
3. The NT
4. Ephesians
If I click on 3. The NT it will bring up:
2 verses found, 40 matches
Luke 3 verses found 3 matches
Romans 5 verses found 6 matches
1 Corinthians 5 verses found 9 matches
Ephesians 4 verses found 4 matches
Philippians 1 verse found 1 match
Colossians 1 verse found 1 match
Titus 3 verses found 3 matches
Hebrews 3 verses found 5 matches
James 1 verse found 1 match
1 Peter 6 verses found 7 matches
And it will show for each of these results for example,
Which shows that the “submit yourselves” hupotasso is the same word used in 1 Peter telling Christians that they should “submit [themselves]” to all earthly authorities for the Lord’s sake.
It has always impressed me enormously that simple Aramaic speaking fishermen like Peter were literate in Greek.
John suffers being feminist, being beta, and being a self proclaimed peace maker, a moderator, one who says “it depends on your perspective” a lot to hard questions. He also is lucky. He like so many men, the vast majority really, has not been force fed a red pill. It is precious few who get clarity without the white hot fire that brought it to most here
@Opus
Fishermen had to sell their catch in the market, which, in Galilee, meant that most trading was done using Koine Greek. Galilee was called “Galilee of the Gentiles” because there were so many gentiles living there. Gentiles would have spoken Koine Greek in the marketplace. Peter could likely speak and read Greek, but may have used an amanuensis to write his epistles.
The idea that men here are blind to the follies and failures of men is absurd. This is the kind of false equivalence that happens a lot with post-moderns. The political left is a big echo chamber, therefore the political right must also be totally uncritical of right-wing ideas and politicians. In both cases it is not so.
There’s a difference, John, between these folks and the feminists. If you say “men sometimes cheat” these men will say “they sure do.” If you say “men who divorce their wives without extremely strong justification are in the wrong, and even if they have justification they should try to reconcile” nearly all will agree heartily. If you say “a man should rejoice in the wife of his youth and not replace her” they will be with you. If you say that a man ought to put up with his wife’s faults as much as possible, and that it’s his fault if he doesn’t meet his responsibilities to her, even when she’s making it difficult, most of them will agree.
Try the opposite with any feminist, John. Try getting a feminist to condemn any individual woman who frivolously divorces her husband. Try getting them to find and condemn a woman, any woman, who is failing in her responsibilities to her husband. Try finding one single example where you can agree with them that this woman is a bad woman or a bad wife. Try finding one excuse that’s too flimsy for them to agree that the woman shouldn’t have divorced her husband.
Just because this forum is dedicated to discussing problems that relate to women (because these problems are not being discussed elsewhere) does not mean that the people here are unaware or in denial about the faults of men. People here don’t need to talk about the faults of men. You can go literally anywhere else, including commercials and kid’s programming, for criticism of men.
Conversely you will find that feminists will accept no criticism of any woman, unless that woman opposes their agenda. Aside from your Sarah Palins and your Michelle Bachmanns (those who feminists perceive as reducing the power and influence of feminism) feminism is on the side of all women, all the time. The manosphere isn’t like that.
Probably related: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/men-women-have-different-regrets-after-sex-study-suggests-2D11650354
Your more than welcome, as suggested e-sword seems great too.
Amazing tools, our thanks and donations to the authors.
I think it’s really awesome she was asked to leave the church. As her writings and stances prove, It was a really, really good thing. However she is not a “baby mama”. She is an intentional single mother frivorcee. Baby mama or intentional single mother frivorcee – I really don’t know which is worse at this point in society. Perhaps we should take a poll.
@Eidolon says:
The unfortunate problem you run into is that statements along the lines of the first one feeds right into the feminists hands with the same thinking as the second. Feminists have to rebuild the mound every time one of the tenets of feminism (or the Feminine Imperative as Dalrock calls it) gets shaken.
Feminist Principle #1 is that women have absolute moral authority or women are innately good. This means that women can never be identified as doing bad things (it threatens the Narrative), so certain rationalizations have to be made (I’d link to the Rationalization Hamster stuff here) in order to preserve it. In the case of your second sentence, a woman never divorces her husband. Ever. She’s always pushed into it by the man. It’s not her doing it, so she remains good and blameless – her absolute moral authority is preserved.
The natural counterpoint to this statement is that men are innately evil. The reasoning behind Principle #1 necessitates this, as what is woman would have to be superior to what is not woman in order for it to be true. Hamster logic has to be applied here as well. Women (and their male feminist enablers by proxy of acceptance of Principle #1) apply differing apex fallacies to the condition of men, which fulfill the feminist narrative. Like for sex, it is assumed because 1% of the alphas pick up women and have sex near at will, that all men do this. Or politics, because 0.001% of men have power positions, that all men are “privileged”. Or in this case, if it’s brought on the table that a man cheated on his wife, it becomes in the minds of these feminists that all men cheat on their wives. Anything to serve the narrative.
While it would be good to recognize that both men and women are depraved disgusting sinners, it becomes incumbent in dealing with women to not bring up the failings of men because it immediately shuts down any consideration of the failings of women. (the old “well….WELL MEN DO IT TOO!” whine) Addressing the failure of any one man in the minds of most all women/male enablers (who are well-steeped in feminism) results in a total and complete pardon of all women who do a thing. If a single solitary man cheats on his wife, then that gives complete license to every woman on the face of the earth to cheat on her husband.
None of this is good and right, it just is, and has to be dealt with as-is until men stop enabling and tolerating women in their wickedness, and start humbling them (or God does it to everybody because the men haven’t).
On a recent thread IBB wrote that he agreed with 90% of what I write here. Now, even I, do not agree with that much of what I have written, indeed probably only about 10%, the 10% IBB disagrees with. IBB was trying to explain to me (the bit he did not agree with) that Plato had got it wrong in the Euthyphro dialogue, where the Athenian puts the following rhetorical question into the mouth of Socrates: ‘Is the good good because it is good or is the good good because God says so’.
I am reminded of that in this thread because here it has taken considerable theological and semantic ability to demonstrate that Ms Erikson has simply misunderstood that relevant verse about committing adultery in ones heart. The result shows that what God wrote when properly understood is the one we like – how convenient.
Sadly as Ms Erikson does not seem to read this blog she will continue in her ignorance. The Roman Catholics were thus perhaps wise to leave the determination of the Biblical meaning to their Priests and resisted translation into the vulgate. Even today all their services are performed in Latin thus reducing the possibility of misunderstanding. Happily, Heretics, Apostates and other scoffers (such as myself) do not have to worry about the finer nuances of ancient Greek, and just think that Christians tend to raise the bar just that bit too high. Ms Erikson is indulging in sophistry.
For myself, I am merely happy and in a building constructed centuries before the Mayflower set out on its famous voyage and provided the Vicar does not drone on too much to be able to ponder on the odd carefully selected verse and to listen to the fine music – preferably with boys voices for the treble parts – composed by English composers who do not usually trouble the concert halls with their efforts – where we leave the writing of the music largely to Germans whose surname usually commences with a B (or perhaps an M).
I wonder if this is the sort of Christianity you have in Mega-church America?
Opus —
The Catholics haven’t been doing services regularly in Latin since shortly after Vatican II. There are some places where Latin is done occasionally, or where there is a set Latin mass at a certain time each week, but 99% of all Catholic services are done in the vernacular today.
The typical American “mega-church” (note: I am not a Protestant, but I know of these churches because I have visited them a bit) is not at all like anything in the Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican churches.
Typical power grab by feminists.
1) Withhold access to sex, even when rightfully owed.
2) Control access to substitutes to sex, through shame.
If your husband has to turn to porn, you have failed as a wife.
@TomH,
Might there be a spiritual tie between the porn industry and feminism?
Yes. One example, Playboy donates heavily to NOW.
Opus, though the details are vastly different, you are correct in what you say about the mega-churches. The motive, the draw, whatever, is similar to what you describe, if I am taking your point correctly.
Matt Walsh is seeking asylum in the Moscow airport? Rebellious folks are Christian conservatives are they not? Not muslims…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Just a random thought: would the tendency for women to initiate divorce (frivolously, in this case) be rooted in the fact that women, as a whole, think about the wedding more than the marriage?
but 99% of all Catholic services are done in the vernacular today.
I used to work with a man in CA who lead a Catholic congregation in music playing the guitar. They sang the songs in Spanish. We would teach each other songs and transpose them into our respective languages. I’m not sure how that fit into mass at the church he attended. I know of another Catholic church near where I reside now that has an entire music team (electric guitars, bass, drums).
The wedding is but the precursor for the divorce.
Cane Caldo says: November 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“You’ve got the wrong spirit, John. I leave it to others to ascertain to whom it belongs.”
My guess he is Satan’s whelp, unless Satan goes on the internet.
Strangely, there are countries where common law marriage is in effect. Thus, marriage isn’t even required for divorce.
On the topic of marriage, a women posted this Mother Theresa quote on Facebook several years ago: “We are too often afraid of the sacrifices we might have to make. But where there is love, there is always sacrifice. And when we love until it hurts, there is joy and peace.”
Then, a year later… yep, you guessed it, she filed for divorced. Four years later, still not re-married. Husband has re-married and has two kids. Second time’s the charm, I guess.
Actions != words.
Marcus, yes. Here is what a local minister (Dr. of Psychology and Dr. of Theology) told me in conversation.
First, he discontinued all couples efforts in counseling because he was, as it turned out, red pill. The women were uniformly angered. He must have been onto something.
Regarding thinking about the marriage, he said men see the wedding as an event in time, and women see it as the beginning of a process. Men see it as they day they commit, for life. Women see it as the first day they are empowered fully in their effort to make the relationship right, because then he is agreed to be there and do the work. The work is usually changing him into her image. She looks forward to this day much more because of this. Its not what we’d think, that she is steeped in the grandeur of that one occasion….though that certainly is a factor, its that she cannot wait to get started fixing the relationship. It means even as they have agreed to marry and be together for life, she has conditions already set.
I wonder, where does she get the parameters with which she measures the relationship? If she is Christian, she gets them from the church. What has she learned at church if she grew up there? She has learned men need to step up, and she is excited because in the man she chose she sees so much potential.
@Johnycomelately
“”If you measured the time spent by husbands on porn compared to their wives on social media it would pale into insignificance””
EXCELLENT POINT!…………I see this at work everyday! The wimminz on break or lunch time are always on Facebook……constantly!…It is an obsession! I have never walked into a colleague’s office and seen him watching porn.
@SSM
“”The women I described told me that pron damaged their marriages because their husbands developed impotence from heavy usage of it””
Fair enough!……What about the anti-thesis of this scenario.The wife has a 12 inch black dildo where she uses it so much that she cannot imagine her husband’s 6 inch white member getting her off?…….it works both ways!
@Crank
Thank you very much for this link.Let me pull a paragraph from this article:
I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”
When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.
She must feel, I thought, so hot.
Being Orthodox Jewish myself,and traveled to Israel several times I can attest to this.I have no problem with these “living conditions” whatsoever! If I found a woman like this I would Marry her tomorrow!!!…..I know several Orthodox Jewish men who live in Israel and under the exact same conditions.They never look at other women…..or look at internet porn…..nor do the “have affairs”….they are committed to their wives.Myself on the other hand….I have to keep “booty calls” in order to satisfy my natural desires.These are REAL WOMEN!….unlike Wolf who is a Western raised and bred Femi-Nazi Jew whore!…..Shalom!
@IBB
“”Single women (who wanted to BE married) have told me that their main outrage with porn is not that it objectifies women but that it exists which means part of their “power” has been taken from them””
BINGO!!!!………and thank you! …….and the second part to your comment is….”Why would any rational man want to “put up half of his assets to be with a “modern woman” when he can watch porn…or rent a Call Girl?………makes sense to me!
This article is very sad. Mz Erickson is very entitled and spoiled. Her choices have been deplorable; worse she drags her soon-to-be ex husband and children with her.
Another point Mz Erickson is a stay-at-home mom. How is she going to support herself?
Alimony? Child support? Welfare?
That seems short sighted.
@ Ashley Lakes…..
Oh contraire, I am sure Ms Erickson has researched ALL that she is going to be awarded on the way out the door.
She lives in California….the permanent alimony state.
Make no mistake, her Ex will be paying through the ass or decades to come.
Sure you dont mean RE-warded ?
@empathologism – great post, one to keep, anymore wisdom like that you should let us know.
One another issue rememberer when the new leader of the UK girl guides dropped God from the pledges ?
As on queue : Sexism is daily reality for girls, says Girlguiding UK
Prime quote from an entitled princess on hearing the reports findings :
I think they need to draw up some new laws as it seems our strong and empowered you-go-girls just don’t have the moxie to survive without feeling “depressed”. Another batch of future divorcee’s being prepared here I think.
There is a thing called a profile. FBI uses it when searching for unknown killers, etc.
Erickson’s profile is that of a woman who has another man waiting in the wings. No SAHM would blow up her marriage without another source of much income waiting for her divorce. Even with generous alimony and child support, she will not continue to have access to all of her husband’s income as she has had. There must be some way to make up the gap.
Her profile also would be of the woman who waits until the divorce is final to have sex with the other man. And, she will convince herself it was nto adultery, because they waited until the divorce was final.
I have been wrong before and will be wrong again, but at this time that is my opinion. She knows who her next piece of *** is going to be.
@empathologism
Thanks for that info.
@Minesweeper
It really is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’ve seen situations where women were told they “had it really good” and they became happy (even if someone could have easily convinced her that it wasn’t good). In other situations, women were told they were being mistreated, and they believed and acted out on it. “Divorced” from reality, if you’ll pardon the pun.
I cannot understand why they’d be so susceptible to suggestion. There seems to be gender asymmetry in the matter.
Speaking of profiling, Jen Erikson is an ESFJ (98.1%). Her feminism score is high.
Leif comes up as INTJ. Those two MB types are a bad combination. Perhaps semantic analysis would be a good tool for ascertaining spousal suitability.
@MarcusD
It is simply the nature of women to be easily manipulated, whether by males with game or by their female friends. We can see a good example of this in fall of man, when Eve was manipulated by the serpent into behaving against her own best interests.
@Anonymous age 71
When I profile Mrs Erickson, I do not necessarily find another man waiting in the wings. Typically, a woman who has a man on standby has far stronger feelings of enmity towards her husband. Mrs Erickson strikes me more as the profile of an EPL scenario, where she assumes a flock of desirable males are waiting in the wings just as soon as the ink is dry on her divorce papers.
@Eidolon
I’d actually disagree with your depiction of feminists versus churchian social conservatives. Feminists I know are a lot more forgiving of men and seem to acknowledge men have actual needs. Social conservatives expect men to be mules; they have truly embraced the most pernicious and evil parts of feminism and in my opinion are the driving force behind the evil in our society today.
@MarcusD
How did you work out their MB types ? I agree ESFJ + INTJ = bad mix, although he dosnt seem like a INTJ to me, as they rarely smile in photos. He seems more ISTP, i which case they would have matched.
She on the other hand also displays BPD like symptoms, with regressions from reality, control and manipulation issues.
I guess he just didn’t manage to fill the vacuous void in her soul any more. You can only do that for so long before your emptied yourself. As I discovered with my x-BPD. Blearch…shudder…
It’s because they instinctively know if they make a decision on their own they fcuk everything up, so the herd is collectively polled to gage just what is my reality and before any big decisions are made
Oh she will have, it will be some slub online, I’ve seen this before, and that’s where she will be getting all her validation and tingles from. That’s why she hasn’t collapsed in a heap. Even if they are not ****ing it’s enough for her for now, at some point she will ‘need’ more and then they will ‘separate’. Now this is common BPD behaviour. It would have to be someone remote as she is just too odious in the flesh.
I wonder if this is how the Erikson thing started: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=840978
@Minesweeper
I use semantic analysis tools. They are usually quite accurate (the ~98% is practically a guarantee). As for Leif, I couldn’t find a large enough writing sample, so that throws results off. Jen has a huge sample to draw from, therefore the results are quite trustworthy (in my mind, at least).
Marcus, just another rebellious wife, seems that thread is full of them. Notice the one advising her to make arrangements to be granted custody of their children or child? These aren’t wives, they are shrill harpies masquerading as wives until it is expedient to divorce. It just so happens that most women fit the bill of harpies and not wives.
Don’t get married.
You know… if a woman citing biblical grounds for divorce actually had a real biblical marriage (husband = leader, cleave unto each other, etc. etc.) I would be much more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
@MarcusD
By the end of that thread, the original poster wants to know if “emotional abuse” is grounds to divorce her husband after an argument with him about dealing with a clogged toilet.
Meanwhile, I have some tingles waiting for me later this weekend… tingles from me a woman I’m never going to get married or settle down or commit to her.
What gives?
That explains it.does the software identify political leanings ?I know she’s a teaparty fan, but is she really or does she just say it???
Well that’s it isn’t it really, the preamble is the courtship,engagement,wedding,marriage,kids, but the real meat and potatoes is the divorce settlement, that’s where the investment pays off.
I really do wonder just what God thinks of this scenario, I believe he would think current marriage practise is an abomination, but how do we live a righteous life now ?
Edit to above: tingles from confronting a woman by telling her that I’m never going to get married or settle down or cohabitate with her or commit to her in some way, shape or form.
@BC
There aren’t any biblical grounds for a woman to divorce her husband. Not if he’s lit her on fire, is the local Mafia don, and eats babies for dinner.
@Minesweeper
Mr Lief Erickson might just be the happiest guy on earth right now. Maybe the reason he’s not all heartbroken about his divorce on Twitter is because he’s finally enjoying some peace and quiet away from this woman.
The most loving thing my ex-wife ever did to me was divorce me.
@Minesweeper
God hates divorce, and views our righteousness as well-soaked tampons.
The modern churchian man attempts to seek righteousness by getting married. But no righteousness is there to be found, for I do not see how a God who hates divorce can have any love for a modern marriage which is more likely than not doomed to failure.
My prayer and meditation on the topic is that Marriage 2.0 is meaningless in God’s eyes.
Men, find a nice girl, bed her, don’t live with, don’t support her, don’t knock her up, and don’t marry her. If she leaves you… let the unbeliever leave. You’ll be far closer to God’s heart.
(Just don’t sign up to be an elder if you’re spinning more than one plate.)
@arronthejust
“By the end of that thread, the original poster wants to know if “emotional abuse” is grounds to divorce her husband after an argument with him about dealing with a clogged toilet.”
That is hilarious (but not for the bloke or righteousness ). She will no doubt be beating a path to her lawyers door, I expect she is about to feel like she has won the lottery.
God’s opinion of M2.0 hmm yeah.
“(Just don’t sign up to be an elder if you’re spinning more than one plate.)” 🙂
Thats true, if a dog was an elder it could only be married to one bitch.
@marcusd
Took a Myers-Briggs test online. http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html
On introverted/extraverted:
•Think/reflect first, then Act — yes, definitely this
•Regularly require an amount of “private time” to recharge batteries — no, not really, but I can do this if I have to
Feel deprived when cutoff from interaction with the outside world — definitely!
•Motivated internally, mind is sometimes so active it is “closed” to outside world — yeah, sometimes
Usually open to and motivated by outside world of people and things — yeah, definitely, if they are on my level; if not on my level, not really
Enjoy wide variety and change in people relationships — yeah, no question
On some things, heavily extraverted, while on others, somewhat introverted. I’m autistic, which helps us understand why there’s some tendency towards introversion. However, I have developed very good social coping skills and am continuing to work heavily on them.
I agree about the intuitive and thinking aspects.
I’m terrible at planning and managing projects in an orderly way. I’m much better at seat-of-the-pants stuff. Your software is a definite fail on the last one. I am perceptive, not a judge. No one that I know would call me a good planner or that I like to plan.
E(I)NTP Somewhat more extraverted than introverted, which is what a real MB test that I took said.
@Tom H
The site states: “This modest self-scoring inventory is Not a substitute for taking an MBTI”
You guys ever see this?
Late 20s feminist obsessed with the blogs of Mormon housewives:
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/feminist_obsessed_with_mormon_blogs/
Sounds like envy.
does the software identify political leanings ?
Sort of. It does so in a universal way, so no reference to specific parties (closer to political spectrum). You have to triangulate a bit.
The best I can make of her political bearings is that she differs noticeably from other conservatives. Relativism seems to be the number one result for world view (that’s on the liberal side of things). Of course, she isn’t as liberal as an actual liberal (e.g. from Huffington Post, or something). It seems like she’s masquerading, since her statements are similar to other conservatives who score much differently, but effectively say the same things (but differently). As it is, liberals and conservatives say things in different ways, and it is detectable when one uses words from a different “domain” of sorts (e.g. try pretending to be a liberal in conversation).
A sample of the kind of research the software is based on: http://lingcog.iit.edu/doc/icwsm08-jiang.pdf
@marcus
Yeah, I did take that and it was E(I)NTP. Your software has issues or you didn’t take a big enough sample of my writing.
@Tom H
The site you linked clearly states that it isn’t an MBTI. Is there an actual test that is linked from that page?
@Gurney Halleck
Haven’t seen it before. It was a good article. I got the envy vibe, as well. A lot of those feminist women seem to really be held down by peer pressure. I always find it amusing when they discuss “oppression.”
@MarcusD
Didn’t take it online. Took it a few years ago at someone’s house. It had quite a few questions.
@everyone
I found an interesting take from a psychologist about bodice rippers causing problems in relationships. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/11/how-romance-novels-are-like-pornography-part-ii/
@Tom H
You stated clearly in your post that you “took a Myers-Briggs test online.” Then you provided the/a link. How much clearer (or misleading) can that be? Now you want to retract it?
Why didn’t you mention the fact that you took the MBTI “a few years ago at someone’s house” when MB types came up a few weeks ago on another thread?
Are you just joking around?
@MarcusD
I took one test online. I took the first few years ago. Surely you could have guessed that perhaps I took more than one test. It’s illogical thinking like assuming that I only took one test that causes people to claim that the Bible is full of errors. There can be many logical explanations for a given set of “contradictory” facts that resolve the apparent contradictions.
Casey I am sure you are right and she knows that she will be getting an “exit goody bag” but this is still so sad to me.
Also I agree with anonomous 71 and others there is another man.
Gurney, that is just sublime.
“Well, to use a word that makes me cringe, these blogs are weirdly “uplifting.” To read Mormon lifestyle blogs is to peer into a strange and fascinating world where the most fraught issues of modern living — marriage and child rearing — appearcompletely unproblematic.”
Aged postmodern hag, I feel your pain.
But it couldn’t’a’bin cuz ya fucked up or nothin’ hey?
You all soooo much smarter than those dumb mommies. And they dumb babbies. Lotsa babbies. And dumb hubbies. An’ dumb dawgs an’ rabbits and them other critters. And cake. An’ dresses, Oh and this weird g-d guy that keeps callin’ round, too. Like he cares about them.
Creeepy, huh?
I’m slightly charmed. These people, whoever they are, living in some desert in the arse-end of the world, are in greater or lesser part actual kin of mine, I have recently discovered. Especially the mad polygamous ones that live in trailers . Even though my parents are from the same couple of parishes in the Island over here as my ancestors and theirs, and we haven’t moved more than a couple of doors down the road in, pfft, what?, eight hundred, nine hundred years?
Which is a crying shame, as they sound like lovely girls. Lovely people all round in fact.
But regrettably, married or no, they and all their progeny almost certainly fall within The Prohibited Degrees (and then some).
Oh aye, Ashley . Like Arshad the grocer said to me once (oversetting on the fly from Urdu, I guess).
“woman .., woman .. is like the monkey. Never let go the branch, until the next is in her grasp. Do you see? Two pound, eighty-seven, thankyouverymuch”
Another baffling mystical oriental saying of his that I didn’t understand for ages was “Hah! Under the lamp, there it is darkest! … ‘ere, have a mango, they’re going off anyway. Yeh, for nowt, pal. Taste best just then, I’ll ‘ave to bin ’em regardless.” (carves off a chunk with hideous panga-style cleaver and proffers it, dripping, on rusty point thereof).
Clear as day, when you think about it. And I was brought up in a house lit by kerosene! Yes, I’m a bit thick. Didn’t get the electric till after Sputnik was launched, IIRC (courtesy of “The Hydro”). Never saw a single monkey yet though, in all that time.
Yep that’s right I do not RC. Not flaming Sputnik. Well not the first one anyway. Meant Telstar. Surprised meself that I forgot that sort of thing, given how it’s a boss tune, and the local boozer was called after it, for decades ..
Took a Myers-Briggs test online.
http://www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html
The site you link to clearly states that it isn’t an MBTI.
But then you say:
Didn’t take it online. Took it a few years ago at someone’s house.
But then you say:
I took one test online. I took the first few years ago.
Surely you could have guessed that perhaps I took more than one test.
Your inconsistencies (and imprecise language) here are really quite odd. Please make up your mind or at least try to be more specific. You don’t seem to realize that the words you use have “semantic value” – they convey meaning, and people parse that meaning. You need to be more careful in how you convey certain things. It’s quite difficult to “guess” the truth when its expression is so seemingly inconsistent. You cannot fault others for inaccurate or misleading statements of your own.
@Tom H says:
November 29, 2013 at 4:33 pm
@MarcusD
Didn’t take it online. Took it a few years ago at someone’s house. It had quite a few questions.
@everyone
I found an interesting take from a psychologist about bodice rippers causing problems in relationships. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/11/how-romance-novels-are-like-pornography-part-ii/
@Tom H,
The comments on your firstthings.com thread (EXCELLENT find, btw!) are so blue-pill, they might as well have come from Dobson’s Focus on the Hamster(TM).
@MarcusD
“Your inconsistencies (and imprecise language) here are really quite odd.”
I’m pretty much in my own world sometimes and don’t realize the context dependencies that my statements rely on. I try to remember to put those in but sometimes fail to realize the change of context needed to communicate with my readers.
@grey_whiskers
Sure, they’re blue pill, but there’s still useful ammo there. And ty for the kudo!
The problem is that she’s exactly right. Porn is adultery and it’s wrong, particularly for a married man. Most of you are hypocrites for not addressing that at all. I don’t particularly care what this woman says. The opinion of a single mom means about as much to me as my dogs political opinions. Actually less than. But that’s still no reason to justify porn through the back door (pun intended), just because some harlot is also against it.
@William
You have this wrong. The objection (by me and Cane at least) isn’t to the characterization of porn as sinful, and we are not justifying porn. What we object to is the justification of divorce.
Hm, perhaps you should be direct Dalrock? Porn is not adultery, porn is not adultery. Adultery is the sexual intercourse between two or more people outside of their marriages.
Porn is fornication, it is not adultery. Porn is to adultery as shooting a target is to killing someone. William is just another mangina covering for frivorce. Porn is not adultery, no matter how much women want it to be so.
William, no one addresses it because it is a non-existent issue. Porn is not adultery. One cannot address an issue that is made up; especially one made up to encourage frivorce by the pathetic types of women you are covering for.
@William and Dalrock
Exactly so.
From there I continue on that if we were going to point a finger at one gender’s adultery, it would be women because they use more porn. What I didn’t cover is that this is compounded because women initiate more divorce than men–divorce being another form of adultery, per the Bible.
Because I would not justify a man’s divorce from his wife for porn use, I am not a hypocrite in this instance. You, Matt Walsh, and Jenny Erikson are. You three know that adultery is code for “guilt-free divorce” in our culture, and you three know that divorces are popular. You crave to see punishment for others, but not for yourself. You, here, are the evil servant who was forgiven much, but holds others in debt. That’s Lucifer’s modus operandi. You’re on the side of wickedness, here.
William, I’ll be the half in 2 and a half men against you…..and counting.
@William
No, porn isn’t adultery in any sense. I’m reevaluating whether it’s even immoral. A wife going on a sex strike is definitely sexual immorality for which divorce is an option. (Matthew 5:32) It takes a little bit of checking on the word translated as “unchastitiy” to see that it is the general term for sexual immorality. A wife denying her husband sex in a sex strike despite having taken marriage vows to make her body available for sex (“to have and to hold”) is unquestionably practicing sexual immorality.
I have always found the porn == adultery question a bit misguided.
It clearly isn’t a ground for divorce which is the way it is being employed here and that is simply wrong.
Still at the same time, porn == adultery can be a useful paradigm when looking at the question from a “how serious is this” perspective.
Jesus did equate getting angry with murdering someone in your heart and did equate looking on a woman with lust as the same as having sexual relations with her. Being angry doesn’t justify prison or execution as actual murder does, just as lusting in your heart doesn’t justify divorce.
At the same time though, if regarding it as adultery is a useful paradigm to make a man stop doing such things then perhaps it is useful.
The porn == grounds for divorce is every bit as much a perversion of the truth as “turn the other cheek” is a perversion when applied to a judicial setting.
But seeing porn usage as a variety of lust and seeing it as a serious problem is not necessarily a bad thing.
@Cane Caldo Exactly, you are not a hypocrite. Nice way to say it. We can use those words.
IGNORE EVERY WORD I WRITE, it helps those that have sold their soul for fame.
Make no mistake, the Matt Walsh has a deal with some lower level entities, but he thinks he’s sold his soul for ongoing fame a la brand Macklemore or 100% choreographed super talent Miley Cyrus. He’s wrong. I DO NOT feel sorry for him in his irreversible choice. The beasts that claim ‘Christian’ that then use demonic power to script deception, the demons have no respect for that.
I DO feel sorry for super talent Miley Cyrus as she has no choice but to follow the script, wardrobe, brands etc…, same with team Macklemore. They didn’t claim to be the ‘Christian’ example, then turn on you. If parents were paying attention, they would have seen through the Miley Cyrus script a decade ago.
For sure he’s been sold on the mansion tours, the parties, the women that would never pay attention to his wimpy-ness, the advanced no-side-effect stuff they gave him and now his little joke he sees as fame. They didn’t even try hard, and he sold his soul so quickly. I already know their plans, and on the topic of the Matt Walsh, I’m just a spectator. Matt is just a speck on the beach with all the players that are working to end everything of Christianity.
He thinks he’s going to have THE advanced strategy that goes ‘mainstream’ but he’s playing in a realm that’s over his head, and he will not be able to keep up with what they expect of him.
“Fireproof” “The Love Dare” popularity? Kirk Cameron, of course, though embarrassing, has a lifetime deal. Regardless of how ridiculous his performances are, they’ll keep him famous. But the Matt Walsh doesn’t understand how the demi-gods see him, and he is unaware that there are other powers that can affect the exponential numbers growth he’s seeing online.
We have to weave narratives about the whole Rihanna and Chris Brown thing. Both are amazing talents that affect you and each person around the world even if you deny it’s so. Since the supposed incident, his videos on youtube have earned more than 3,000,000,000 views AFTER the big news script. Yes, more than THREE BILLION views! Do you think those views are by men that watch music videos. Hint: NO. There was no boycott of his music on any radio station that mattered. The Chris Brown – Rihanna scripted entertainment news incident was embedded into the culture to bring gina tingles to the current or future spouse(s) of people like the Mike Walsh and @William… Tingles that, of course, made the “Fifty Shades” trilogy feel perfectly normal to its biggest audience: Women that say they believe in God.
You crave to see punishment for others, but not for yourself
A particular craving women are prone to have. When women enter topics regarding porn, abuse, even generally the topic of honesty and integrity, their motive is a craving to see a man punished, or maybe avoiding a man getting away with something. Closing ranks on the what they see as the male version of the rationalization hamster is paramount.
@Jason
“Jesus did equate getting angry with murdering someone in your heart and did equate looking on a woman with lust as the same as having sexual relations with her.”
Actually, Jesus didn’t. The word translated “lust” doesn’t have the same force in English as it does in Greek. In Greek, the actual word has a meaning more like “covet.” (This was covered on a site linked in one of the comments.) The point is that the man Jesus was addressing coveted a woman as a wife and had made a decision to possess her, which was a problem in Judea at the time of Christ, since the woman was already married to someone else.
“Lust” in the English sense is simply foreign to the New Testament from what I have seen. Maybe some others will weigh in with some passages that will further enlighten me.
@TomH,
Hmm … ok that is interesting. Stranglely if that is the case then wouldn’t that be even more relevant to the current case of Mz Erickson rather than less?
Though obviously not in the way she intends.
I’m sure the usual suspects will find this more reason to start flaming, but I’m going to take the unpopular position here, and cite two e-books which were up on the old In Mala Fide, way back in the day. The first was called *The Age of Onanism*. The second was (rather abruptly) entitled something like *Why You Should Quit Masturbating*. These may sound like parodies, but they were written in a serious tone and made some great points.
The latest whiteknightery about porn being immoral is explosive, but I think it’s important to realize that porn (like most things) *can* be an agent of a poor moral outlook. If a man is jerking it to hardcore so often that he doesn’t have any drive to get things in the real world (a promotion, a girlfriend/wife, etc.) then he is letting the porn-producer sap his inherent manly strength.
I think it’s also important not to lose sight of the fact that a husband or boyfriend ought to be sexing his wife or girlfriend up. The expectation cuts both ways. I think pr0n can sometimes get in the way of having real-life fun with an actual girl, and in that regard, it ought to be treated as a problematic diversion.
I’d be lying if I said I never look at pr0n. I’m pretty partial to women alone, partially clothed, as in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit… That aside, my life has improved markedly since I’ve limited my consumption.
As opposed to jerking it to softcore?
Not really Boxer. Not really. You are falling into the extremes as the norm. Its wrong thinking
Dear Empath:
My attitude is the same about food, driving, gambling, and lots of other things. Most people can indulge in such things without taking it to extremes, and good for them. It does bear discussing though that these things can be abused. They may not be inherently immoral, like, say, murdering someone is; but they can lead to poor choices and the consequences that follow.
The Christian guys are surely acquainted with that verse that goes something like: “While all things are lawful, not all things are expedient”. In many cases, pr0n can be demonstrably unhelpful to its users. As the aforementioned books noted, regular schedules of pr0n conditions its users (i.e. it literally rewires the viewer’s brain) to produce less testosterone, and make him much more docile and easily controlled.
It’s not something I’d condemn anyone for, but I’d encourage people to go on a pr0n moratorium for a while, and judge for themselves whether their lives improve.
Best, Boxer
@Minesweeper,
DRA deserves more general respect than it gets.
@Casey,
The horrible truth is the last 50 years have given birth to the servitude of men for a woman’s benefit.
This is wrong. And the Alpha’s are perfectly content with the status quo as they have made clear. We shouldn’t confuse feminism with women. They don’t run the world. “We” do.
@Dalrock,
You have this wrong. The objection (by me and Cane at least) isn’t to the characterization of porn as sinful, and we are not justifying porn. What we object to is the justification of divorce.
I’m amazed that more people don’t get this.
@Jason
In response to Tom H’s aside on how the Greek-speaking peoples of Palestine 2000 years ago would have heard the term lust/covet/possess
No, it’s not really very interesting. For at least many hundreds, if not thousands, of years Christians have understood that verse meant “lust” as in “desire in your heart to have sex with a person to whom you have no right”. Although, “heart” might be a term worth investigating. Regardless: That is all beside the point. If I knew a friend of mine was really, truly lusting for a woman (which means it’s not his wife because you simply cannot lust after that to which you have a right) then I would tell him that he is in danger of committing adultery, and he has already committed it in his heart. That sin is his, and against himself. At our judgment, it would not be counted against his wife, nor counted as having been against her.
King David had many men slaughtered to cover the murder of one man whose wife David had stolen and with whom he committed adultery. And David said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And God put David’s sin away from him, and David lived. Not only did David live, but his house bore Jesus Christ.
As fellow Christians–even husbands and wives who have been wronged–if we want to be of that house, then we must do likewise. That doesn’t mean ignore it, it means to put away the sin of those who fully confess and fully repent of their sin against God.
Dating-related threads from CAF:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=841320
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=841491
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=841464
*Sigh*
@Willian,Jason
It is an inconvenient truth that the church has misinterpreted what Jesus was saying.
Looking at porn is neither fornication nor adultery ‘even in your heart’. I’m not saying everything is kosher or wholesome either nor can it be always harmless.
So should we now rewrite the marriage vows to incorporate what feminist churchianity believes ?
That would be great,
Female vow:
Till death does us part or until that beastly man looks at one fleeting image of a scantily clad female? Or until I get bored, or find someone better to wrap myself around, or lose the tingles, or discover he is too beta, or until I get get alpha’d up, or get fed up\depressed, or EPL, or YOLO, or anything really … I mean what the heck do you think NO FAULT MEANS are you stupid ???
Oh yeah and I want EVERYTHING on the way out.
I’m all for an honest reflection of our current state of play in our marriage vows. Cause the ones at the moment are surely just lies to God (from mostly the females side) and generally in my experience they fufill them (love,honour,obey hah!) from day one.
*as broken vows/lies from day one
to clarify the above
@MarcusD I think you spend more time over there that here 🙂
How do you stand it ?
@Minesweeper
I used to spend a lot more time on CAF (and the abominable PhatMass), but I’ve fairly quickly shifted the majority of my time to “manosphere blogs.”
As for being able to stand what was/is written [on CAF], I couldn’t really. That’s how I ended up here.
@Cane Caldo
Does that mean its correct because of de-facto usage ?
@Cane Caldo
And that is EXACTLY the issue Jesus was making, he looked with his eyes at another man’s wife when he saw her bathing naked, he coveted her with extreme desire to acquire or possess, culpably desirous of the possessions of another.
At that point he had commited adultery in his heart, which led onto multiple acts of sin.
Now that is what he meant, not some 14yo beating one off to a page 3 model.
I hope this point hasn’t already been made, if so I apologize (haven’t had time to read all of the comments). Also, the below could use some tightening up and slimming down, but I don’t have the time at the moment.
Anyways, I am bouncing off Cane’s comment w/video at 11-27/1:57 pm regarding JohnMcG’s threat to him. For sometime now I have regarded the maxim that “a real man would never raise his hand to a woman” as fallacious. Why? Simple logic:
Argument 1: The claim that a ‘real man’ would never raise his hand to a woman is false.
Premise 1) God COMMANDS parents to use corporeal punishment for the EFFECTIVE discipline of children, going so far as to declare that those who disdain it actively HATE their child[ren].
Premise 2) The logic of the “a real man would never raise his hand to a woman” crowd is usually along the lines of ‘men are so much stronger than women, blah-ba-de-blah-ba-de-blah…’ .
Premise 3) Children are much more vulnerable – both physically & psychologically – than an adult woman (if not, at least regarding the latter, she is SERIOUSLY immature and needs to ‘lady up’).
Conclusion 1) If Premise 2 is valid relative to adult women, it necessarily apples with MORE FORCE to children, PARTICULARLY FEMALE CHILDREN (i.e. If a man mustn’t raise his hand to his adult wife, he certainly must refrain from doing so to his much more vulnerable daughter).
Conclusion 1 in a nutshell) “A real man would never raise his hand to his child, particularly his daughter.”
Obviously, we have a problem here. The logic of the “a real man would never raise his hand to a woman” crowd, if applied consistently, requires a man to violate God’s COMMAND and HATE his child[ren]. There’s something wrong with the logic here; ‘Let God be true, but every man a liar.’
••••••••••••••••••
Argument 2: A man unwilling to discipline his wife HATES her (much as parents unwilling to discipline their children HATE them)
Premise 1) Men are called to ‘love [their wives], just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word’.
Premise 2) One of the ways Christ (as well as the Father) goes about achieving Premise 4 is through DISCIPLINE, which, while unpleasant, yields Godly fruit (see Hebrews). If husbands are to follow that example, they must likewise discipline their wives when appropriate. (The White Knights of the Churchian Roundtable will chafe like mad against this premise; though they like to draw the analogy between marriage and Christ and His Bride draw very tight as regards a husband’s RESPONSIBILITIES, they demand it go slack when it comes to husbands holding their wives accountable).
Conclusion 2) To love his wife as Christ loved the Church, a man must be willing to discipline her appropriately.
The manner in which a husband is to discipline an unrepentant, rebellious wife seems somewhat of an open question, if for no other reason that it is a forbidden topic of discussion within the Church (when’s the last time anyone heard THIS topic addressed by outfits like FoF, much less from the pulpit?) ***That said, given all of the above, a stern, measured slap to the face would not seem at all uncalled for or out of order.***
Those that disagree must demonstrate (as opposed to merely assert) a flaw in one or more of the above premises.
You guys are ridiculous with the “Fifty Shades” analogy. No one who thinks porn is bad thinks it’s ok to read 50 Shades of Grey. You may think women all do to justify your bad behavior, but many people responded to that stupid comment on the other blog, that it’s just as bad, but you’re still here saying women are hypocritical.
And I have never opposed porn because I wanted to punish anyone, but when a man can’t respond physically to a spouse who is flesh and blood because they aren’t a surgically enhanced, waxed, well-lit 20 yr. old, it becomes a problem for a marriage. I have a right to enjoy sex too. Men lose that response in real life when they are constantly looking at porn. And when you push the envelope looking at younger and younger models and more and more violent content, and fantasies that are illegal I start worrying about my family.
Stop making excuses and be decent men. True intimacy with a good woman in the long run will be more enjoyable than illusive fantasies that drive your spouse away from you.
anniebwanny: leaving aside the fact that your 50 Shades point has been already been rebutted here ad naseum, I’m curious about something else; you complain about guys who watch porn that ‘can’t respond physically to a spouse who is flesh and blood because they aren’t a surgically enhanced, waxed, well-lit 20 yr. old.’ In light of your [very common] complaint, how do you process the the fact that one of the most popular and growing categories of porn these days is AMATEUR, HOMEMADE porn, wherein ‘normal, everyday, girl-next-door’ type women are seen to be enthusiastically engaging in sex-romps; often married women with their husbands? [see, for instance, the book A Biilion Wicked Thoughts] To be sure, most of these women are attractive, but they fall far outside your definition of what you think men ‘insist on’. Personally, I suspect the popularity is due to men being enamored by the thought of a real, flesh and blood wife who actually enjoys sex with her man, instead of parceling it out grudgingly just to ‘shut him up’.
Obligatory disclaimer: I AM NOT in any way endorsing the consumption of ANY variety of porn and concede that your complaint has merit.
My point is that the situation isn’t NEARLY as simplistic and one-dimensional as you portray it. Part of the problem, whether you want to admit it or not, is wives withholding intimacy from their husbands, driving them to find release elsewhere. To paraphrase you,
‘Stop making excuses and be decent women. True intimacy with a good man, EVEN IF YOU DON’T FEEL LIKE IT AT THE TIME, in the long run, will be more enjoyable than shutting him out in favor of taking a quiet bubble bath and reading whatever* by the candlelight.
*chances being quite good that it will some variety of chic-porn.
anniebwanny: A more general point that needs to be made is that what men find sexually alluring/turns them on is far more variable than you and many others make it out to be. There are magazines and videos catering to every possible niche; the popularity MILF/Mature porn alone puts your handwringing about ‘surgically enhanced, waxed, well-lit 20 yr. olds’ into perspective. In this respect, women have it better than guys; women’s desires are, for the most part, remarkably consistent and static: they want dominant, powerful, confident men, little else will do (you simply will not find ‘romance’ novels wherein the Hero is anything but some mix of dominant, powerful & confident – 50 Shades, anyone?). Guys who aren’t pressed from this mold (or who aren’t successful at ‘remodeling’ themselves as such) will have a much harder time finding what they are looking for than will a mildly overweight or slightly past-her-prime women.
anniebwanny, conservative feminists like you are a dime a dozen nowadays. Your logical fallacies, such as strawman argumentation and No True Scotsman, are not original, and neither is your shaming language. Nor, for that matter, is your clear desire to punish men for being men, and not women, with male sexual needs rather than female.
Come on, admit it: you just want women to have a “Get Out Of Marriage With Cash And Prizes Free” card, if it wasn’t Teh Pr0n it would be something else. Vows? What vows? Who cares about vows?
Have a good time at your next Church of Oprah hoedown…
anniebwanny, I don’t mean to pick on you, but your comment is a gift that keeps on giving. You write:
‘And when you push the envelope looking at…more and more violent content, and fantasies that are illegal I start worrying about my family.’
I couldn’t help but chuckle at this; you are aware of the nature of the sex scenes in 50 Shades, aren’t you? Women are lapping this stuff like that but there’s no tomorrow; they simply can’t get enough. 50 Shades has spawned a whole new ‘literary’ sub genre, focusing on bondage, S&M, and an otherwise very ‘rough and tumble’ variety of sexual activity. I see women all over the place reading these books, including at work, where they just sit them on their desk for everyone to see. Even funnier, I remember reading a review by a woman of 50 Shade; she really, really liked the book, but expressed concern that ‘men read the book and come away thinking that this is what women really wanted.’ Yeah, you read that right.
anniebwanny, if you’re concern about ‘violent’ porn, you need to be talking to your fellow women and taking them to task before you start worrying about what men are looking at. Assuming for the moment you don’t entertain such fantasies yourself; in which case you need to spend a bit of time looking in the mirror
Ask not for whom the Hamster spins, the Hamster spins for thee.
A lot of you are missing the point of the Sermon on the Mount here. What Christ is doing is to extend the notion of the law not only to one’s deeds, but also to the attitudes of one’s heart, to drive the Pharisees to Himself. So what He’s doing here is to state that our attitudes and mental sins are not worthy of temporal punishment-they are worthy of Hell.
Now Mr. Walsh is correct to note that porn is a form of mental adultery. So are soap operas and books like 50 shades. And, ahem, by the same logic, so is Mrs. Leif Erikson’s divorce of her husband. So it’s not that we need to reject Christ’s teaching here; we need to apply it fully to ourselves, and to the Mrs. Leif Eriksons we’ll find in our churches.
No need to argue against Christ here. He’s God, He is right, and all too many will learn before that Great White Throne that Christ indeed is not a “white knight” excusing sins. He will be the Righteous Judge.
The sermon on the mount statements concerning adultery were for the Pharisees or for anyone else who thought he was righteous: “You think you’re righteous because you don’t commit adultery? Well, let me give you a standard to judge yourself by.”
It is a standard for internal self-examination, not something to bash someone else over the head with. But a woman and her serpents uh counselors will use Matt 5:28 to hold your feet to the fire at an atomic level while she gets the message that it’s OK to cut off sex, to force you to submit to her, and to gossip about you all over town.
Interesting. Any female who believes this has made a sacramental marriage impossible for herself because she doesn’t understand that marriage is for a lifetime. She may wear a big white gown and hear organ music playing but she’s made grounds for her supposed marriage being found out as a nullity even as she mouths the wedding vows.
Foolish are these females. They’re toxic and the wise young man stays away from them.
The females are not foolish. They are WISE. They are marrying for cash and prizes. That is their “edge” so to speak, their “edge” over those who aren’t lucky enough to get married.
They don’t look at marriage as a lifetime commitment to share a life with a man to build a family together. They look at the ceremony as “hitting the lotery” so to speak. They get a lifetime supply of income from a man stupid enough to sign a legally binding contract that makes him financially responsible for her for the rest of his life.
Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Divorce is Good for Women and Families | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Off to the races… | Dalrock
Pingback: It didn’t originate with the marketers, but that doesn’t make them blameless. | Dalrock