There is a moral frame embedded in the tingle detecting bra video which most viewers won’t notice because this frame is our new normal. The three types of men thwarted by the bra are presented as bad not because they are trying to pick up the bar sluts, but because they aren’t providing the bar sluts with the feeling they are searching for. These are the bad men the bra in the video is designed to protect women from.
It’s time to save women from these guys!
The bar sluts themselves however are presented as moral for seeking out what they want:
Women always seek true love.
These women are on a noble quest, and need to be saved from the bad men who don’t make them tingle. There is however one good man presented in the video, and we know this because he alone is able to unlock the bra.
This elevation of the tingle/feelings of romantic love by women to the new moral test for men isn’t limited to modern secular culture. Modern Christians have internalized this new sexual morality as well. The ability to make the bra pop is the Arthurian task modern Christian husbands need to pass to prove their righteousness.
President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is surprisingly bold in laying out this new moral vision (emphasis mine):
…when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.
…
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
Dennis Rainey’s FamilyLife is a bit more circumspect in their description of this in their widely distributed* 5 Five Essentials for a Thriving Marriage:
From relational intimacy springs sexual intimacy. The safety of being known and still being accepted—in spite of our flaws—finds its expression in marriage through sex. It is a gift to married couples from God. Relational and sexual intimacy keeps a marriage from deteriorating into little more than a legally arranged partnership. Remember, it takes time and attentiveness to nurture this kind of relationship.
For those who need more explanation as to how a man’s goodness is the source of his wife’s sexual desire towards him, see Dennis Rainey’s The irresistible man Part 1 and Part 2 from the Stepping Up™ website. You can read Empathologism’s thoughts on the articles here and here.
Lastly, we can see the same new morality in the modern Christian’s favorite movie on marriage, Fireproof (spoiler alert). The hero in the movie (Caleb) is on a quest to win his wife Catherine’s heart (and tingle) from the man she wants to divorce him for. The movie spells this out unmistakably when Caleb goes to meet the doctor and notifies him that he intends to fight the doctor for his own wife’s heart:
l have no intention of stepping aside as you try to steal my wife’s heart. l’ve made some mistakes, but l still love her. So just know l am going after her too. And since l’m married to her, l’d say l’ve got a head start.
There are multiple scenes in Fireproof where Catherine’s bra would certainly pop if she were wearing a tingle detecting bra, but unfortunately in the vast majority of the movie it would only pop for the doctor. Then we have the scene where the conflict in the story is resolved, when Catherine is picking out extra items for her mother at the medical supply store. Fortunately Catherine isn’t wearing a tingle detecting bra because it would surely pop early in the scene when she is thinking about the doctor; this would have made for an awkward moment as she paused to reconnect it. Then just a bit later in the scene the bra would have popped again, but this time (the first time in the movie) it would have popped because she was thinking of Caleb. Now that Caleb finally knows the combination to Catherine’s bra, the conflict in the story is resolved. Christians everywhere swooned.
*My wife recently found a laminated copy of this being used as a bookmark in a book at a garage sale.
Oh really, Dr. Mohler?
Dalrock:
Check your email.
“his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Which is in direct opposition to scripture which states a husband’s body is the property of the wife and the wife’s body is property of the husband. There is no strings attached to that based off morality, how much he makes, whether he’s a tingle inducer, or buys her the correct things. What God has joined together…let no man separate.
These “Christian” leaders are doing just as fine of job separating spouses as the government is.
Don’t worry Heywood and Earl, Mohler cites the Scripture which proves the foolishness of his assertion while making the assertion:
“the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife.”
Another wonderful half truth these false prophets spout.
Christ like love…yes. Devotion toward the wife…no. Your devotion is directed towards God like Jesus displayed…and she gets the side effects and rewards from that.
“Even as wives are commanded to submit to the authority of their husbands, the husband is called to a far higher standard of Christ-like love and devotion toward the wife.”
According to this reading of Scripture, her submission is conditional on his agape love and his devotion to her. The man is commanded to love her, yes. But I think what Mohler means as “devotion” is “wife gets what she wants, he must earn her respect and submission”.
So what do you expect women to do? Be faithful and devoted … because Scripture SAYS? Christianity has turned men into pussies and women into liberated sluts and your advice is more of the same? God is dead and wagging your finger won’t bring him back.
I not only dispute Mohler’s Biblical error, like the other commenters here, that a wife can choose to withhold sexual affections whenever she ajudges that her husband isn’t presenting himself worthily enough, I lol in his face that she “will freely give herself to him” in real life even WHEN she adjudges him worthy. In our present culture, she will still make him jump through hoops even after prequalifying him as worthy to jump through the hoops.
“Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a woman to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that her husband will freely give himself to her financially only when she presents herself as worthy of his attention and desire.”
FIXED IT!!!
Imagine the opposite – imagine if a pastor preached the male imperative:
“her husband will freely give his resources and fidelity only when she presents herself as worthy of his attraction and desire.”
Instead of:
“his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Note: I just edited the post to add Caleb’s triumphant speech about fighting for his wife’s heart.
@Dalrock, thanks for this grand takedown of the reverse underpants gnome anti-Game plan. “Just be a man, a good enough man, and you’ll get the girl.” lol
deti says: “According to this reading of Scripture, her submission is conditional on his agape love and his devotion to her. The man is commanded to love her, yes. But I think what Mohler means as “devotion” is “wife gets what she wants, he must earn her respect and submission”.”
This is the way wifely submission is taught in modern Christianity.
The wife outwardly plays the submissive role, when in reality she the dominant/controlling partner.
The best analogy is the BDSM relationship model of “topping from the bottom.
“The wife outwardly plays the submissive role, when in reality she the dominant/controlling partner.”
Another term for that is back leading.
Another term is backseat driver.
Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His church. Jesus doesn’t kiss our ass or give us every possible thing we think we want. He saves us from ourselves.
8to12:
I am only too familiar with what you’re talking about.
Women in most churches of the Prot variety are told that she need only submit to a husband she (or her mom, or her pastor, or her friends) deem worthy of submission. He is only “worthy of submission” as long as he is devout enough, Godly enough, hot enough, dominant enough and/or good looking enough. She and/or her pastor are, of course, the sole arbiters of whether he is “worthy of submission”.
In other words, she will submit if she agrees to submit; or believes that what he is doing is right/Godly/advantageous for her/her kids/the family unit. She will follow him as long as he is leading her where she wants to go or thinks they should go.
“his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Isn’t this what game/Athol Kay essentially teach, though? I understand that the greater context that makes it seem like women have no obligations/responsibilities in the marriage is un-christian is problematic. However, that particular line doesn’t seem to be in conflict with anything most of us know already.
“I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Apparently Dr. Mohler is unfamiliar with the old saying “water and men follow the course of least resistance.”
If, after a year of refusing her husband sex because he hasn’t “presented himself as worthy of her attention and desire,” she walks in on him having sex with another woman, which of them has sinned?
IMHO, they both have. He has sinned by committing adultery. She has sinned by eliminating the ONLY legitimate sexual outlet he has (sexual relations with his wife) and leaving him in a position to be tempted. And I believe the Bible agrees with me. Placing temptation in another’s path is as grievous a sin as the sin committed due to the temptation.
“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.” Luke 17:1-2
Speaking of feminist education:
Higher Education: Rutgers University Offers Class on Beyonce
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/higher-education-rutgers-university-offers-class-on-beyonce/
.
Speaking of other outcomes of Marxism and critical theory:
Adam Lanza PC Contained Info on “Rights of Pedophiles, Movie About Man/Boy Love, Instant Messages Concerning Homosexual Fantasies”
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/disturbing-adam-lanza-pc-contained-info-on-rights-of-pedophiles-movie-about-manboy-love-instant-messages-concerning-homosexual-fantasies/
NYC school cuts popular gifted program over lack of diversity: report
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/nyc-school-cuts-popular-gifted-program-over-lack-d/
Submitting is of free will. You can rebel the line of authority if you don’t deem the person ahead of you unworthy of your submission but there is only trouble for you down that road.
When a woman becomes a wife…that is her free choice in deciding which man she is submitting to for the rest of her (or his) life. Who he is as a person doesn’t mean anything. The rules of marriage are clearly stated and nowhere is there an out clause from submission if the man doesn’t fulfill his end of the bargain. Certainly a man not fulfilling his authority and love role in the marriage is just as bad…but that’s no excuse to willfully give up submission. Human nature means you have take the bad with the good.
Now if women thought in those terms…perhaps she would exercise more discretion in who she decides to get married to.
Mohler’s take would have us act like Egyptians and worship women as if they were cats, cats ironically bringing tasty little treats for us instead of the other way around.
What a perfect inversion of how a man has to behave in order to keep his wife actually happy in the long run. That isn’t a secret. Good provisioning + just enough of a jerk / independent actor / screwball to keep her nervous.
Dr. Mohler:
This right here is the heart of the problem. Virtually every single Christian woman I deal with from outside our little corner of the web firmly believes this – that he is called to a higher standard than she is. They interpret this to mean that they aren’t called to anything if they don’t judge their man to be fulfilling that higher standard. I just went through this with a bunch of church ladies on my own blog. It’s all love and no submission.
The problem is that a woman isn’t likely to feel very sexually attracted to a man over whom she is ruling. Without her submission, their sexual relationship is going to be majorly out of whack. I’m sure he isn’t doing it on purpose, but Dr. Mohler is really doing Christians a disservice with this comment about love and submission.
@ Runsonmagic
LOL, love it.
God is dead and wagging your finger won’t bring him back.
12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
God can not die. God always was, is, and always will be. And no one is getting away with anything.
In other words, she will submit if she agrees to submit.
This is and has always been the case. The issue is the one Dalrock has highlighted here: that the church has ceased to preach that submission is a command from God which is non-negotiable and has made it something a husband must earn through completing whatever arbitrary checklist his wife sets for him
But when he jumps through those hoops, what he gets in return is not submission or affection, but just the opposite.
It sounds like Christian leaders have continued to show they’ve swallowed the feminist dogma and just packaged it in kinder, gentler terms.
Teaching her to rebel is ok…especially if he doesn’t live up to your solipsistic standards. Who cares about what God has to say in the matter.
“his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Isn’t this what game/Athol Kay essentially teach, though?
No. Churchianity teaches that a man must submit to his wife’s frame for the purposes of proving himself worthy. And that frame is like shifting sand. Game teaches that you never submit to her frame. It’s pointless, burns out the man, and frustrates the woman.
The wife outwardly plays the submissive role, when in reality she the dominant/controlling partner.
Yes, this is huge. We are a Bible believing congregation and teach that wives should submit to their own husbands. We are currently dealing with this pretext of submission / reality of controlling pattern. It is extremely destructive and demeaning.
Proverbs 14:1
The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears it down.
You boys might also appreciate the bill board for Spence Diamonds up here in Alberta. It has a picture of a ring with a huge rock on it – and the caption reads ‘Commitment is an aphrodisiac’.
And now ya know…!
Yep. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if their advice for men actually did make men more attractive to women. If showing “love and devotion” to your wife made her hot for you, maybe she would sex you up and submit to you more, and that would give you something to build on. But it actually reduces her attraction — especially if the marriage is already weakening and he’s doing it out of desperation — so it can only make things worse.
Of course, we could have a pedantic argument about whether being “Christ-like” toward your wife can reduce her attraction. After all, Christ is perfect, so presumably any action Christ would recommend in a marriage would have to be the correct one, right? We can say that no “Christ-like” husband would supplicate to his wife in a way that disgusts her, or allow her to dominate the marriage. We can define “Christ-like husbanding” as always maintaining dominance and keeping her tingle level high. It’s possible to be “loving and devoted” while still being dominant and keeping your wife on her toes.
That’s not what any of these preachers mean by “Christ-like,” though. They mean, “Be nice and do what she wants. Give in on all arguments. Be a servant leader. Make her happy at all costs.” And while sometimes being Christ-like means being nice, that’s not always what it means. Christ didn’t beg the money changers to leave the temple or try to reason with them.
Also, you can’t discount the other person’s free will; Judas received not just Christ-like affection, but the real thing right from the source, and he still rebelled. So can a wife, but these guys seem to forget women have free will too.
@indpndnt
Athol is an atheist and from what I’ve seen he isn’t teaching morality but how husbands can be attractive to their wives. There are two intertwined problems with what Mohler et all are teaching. The most critical problem is teaching that women’s attraction is an indication of righteousness. This is profoundly wrong. The other problem is they are teaching that a husband submitting to his wife will cause her to feel attraction to him. That they have this backwards (headship tends to generate attraction, submitting to your wife tends to turn her off) doesn’t change the fundamental problem of using the tingle as a moral compass. Women tingle for men who lead them, whether the man is leading for good or evil.
But the reason modern Christians love the idea of the tingle as a moral compass is this allows them to sell the inversion of biblical marriage, where the husband submits to his wife. If you look at all three examples in the OP you will see how the goal of inverting biblical headship and submission ties in with the heretical claim that a woman experiencing romantic love towards a man is a signal of his righteousness.
Guy across the street from us told me (he didn’t tell my wife, he told me) that he is instructing his son NEVER T MARRY for this very reason. Basically, men are finding out that marriage… there just isn’t anything in it for them (from a Patriarical standpoint) and if that is what the husband needs in his marriage in order to get married… then don’t get married.
His argument would be that since a wife also has authority over her husband’s body, she gets a right to sex but also a right to deprive his body of sex. That’s how I read this sneaky turn of phrase anyway: “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed. As the Apostle Paul states, the husband and wife no longer own their own bodies, but each now belongs to the other.”
Be a servant leader.
What does this mean? I hear people on this website use it a lot but I’ve not heard it in real life. What is the difference between leader and servant leader? How does that relate to how Christ leads the Church? I’m curious to see what y’all think.
Higher Education: Rutgers University Offers Class on Beyonce
Why can’t these folks who are teaching and learning at these universities see the stupidity on their own front porch? There have been courses for Wicca, masturbation, Feminists Critiquing Christianity, ‘lady’ Gaga pushing social boundaries and the like. Now we can add Beyonce to the list of extremely useless courses in ‘high’ education.
It is tragic how so many do NOT see how useless these courses are. Who is actually paying the thousands of dollars for what essentially amounts to nothing?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-at-u-s-universities
If showing “love and devotion” to your wife made her hot for you, maybe she would sex you up and submit to you more, and that would give you something to build on. But it actually reduces her attraction — especially if the marriage is already weakening and he’s doing it out of desperation — so it can only make things worse.
Eh..yes and no Cail. I suspect we’re in broad agreement since you put love and devotion in quotes. The problem is that our definition of love is screwed up. My husband loves me and is devoted to me. Of that I have no doubts whatsoever. It just doesn’t manifest itself in behavior that placates my every emotional whim.
True love looks out for the best interest of its object regardless of whether they understand at first that they are being loved because it hurts. This actually happened yesterday:
My daughter for some strange reason decided that she would lay out her handwriting assignment differently from my detailed instructions that we have gone by the entire school year. It was a mess. I balled it up, gave her a new sheet of paper and told her she needed to do it over, the right way. The way she knew it was supposed to be done.
She had a meltdown. She cried, she wailed, just went berserk. She said I hurt her feelings. And wailed some more. Finally she said, “You’re my mommy. You’re supposed to make me happy! You’re not supposed to make me feel bad.”
I explained to her that this is not why God gave her a mommy. My job is to train her to do things the right way, even if it doesn’t make her happy. She didn’t believe me so we took out the Bible, and went through the commands given to parents.
In the end she said, “Why didn’t you tell me that’s what a mommy is for? I didn’t know that. I thought you were supposed to make me happy.”
It occurred to me that I could easily substitute husband and wife here since husbands are given charge over their wives. Unfortunately, husbands think that their job is to make their wives happy, even if the finished product is nothing more than an unrighteous mess.
Idk about the bra opening, but the Dread Game is dreadfully effective when the wife goes on a sex strike. It really ramps up her desire if you say you’re looking for a girlfriend. Funny thing when the wife sees you flirting/dancing with other women when you’ve told her you’re looking for a girlfriend–she all of a sudden gets very possessive and her desire goes thru the roof. You both can have a lot of fun once that happens. 🙂 Not sure how this relates to Christ loving the church, but it can be great for a marriage.
Funny thing is that when the wife’s desire is hot, so is her willingness to submit and do sweet things for the husband. It’s no chore for her but is lots of fun for her.
On another note, frame is key in social settings. Let me relate a story from a recent experience that I had. There’s a woman regular at a bar I dance at who was rude to me when I first asked her to dance. She packages herself very well and has good starting material (great body, medium height, nice facial bone structure, proportions, and symmetry, great blond highlights in her hair, wears a tube top and tight-fitting jeans; I’d rate her a solid 9). Anyway, I’ve been ignoring her for weeks. I’d walk past her and hold her gaze when she looked at me, but never say anything. Anyway, I finally asked her to dance this week and we danced several dances. She went for deep rapport immediately–I didn’t even ask her questions and she just opened up about her health and where she worked and her family. It just shows how important frame is. I’m married and so I don’t care about unwrapping her package and I have plenty of dance partners, so I wasn’t needy in any sense. Otoh, she obviously has a need to be admired and I just don’t ever fulfill that need. It’s part of my frame–my compliments are always incidental and very sparse. It isn’t anything I planned–it’s just my personality.
Elspeth,
True. This must be carved in stone. Thank goodness there are women like you who are woman enough to admit this about their own gender.
Before I was saved and long before I was married, I discovered on-line dating. I was doing that years before it became popular. What I discovered was that I felt like a kid in the candy store. What I also discovered is that the candy was not all that tasty. Infact, it tasted like crap, all of it. Sure there were lots of ladies of choose from, but none of them were going to be my wife, none that I was willing to “jump through hoops for”…
…so I went in the opposite direction. I went for the ones I had absolutely no interest in long term. I went for the ones for which I had no attraction. I was just after the physical and I didn’t care (not one bit) if she never called me again. And as a result, they all kept calling, all the time. The less effort I put in, the more they were attracted to me, the easier it was for me to fullfil my sexual needs with them. The more they let me “do things” to them.
Obviously, they found submitting to me very appealing. They found my commanding them to do things very attractive. I can’t even begin to tell you what I asked some of these women to do. And they submitted. They jumped through hoops. And although there was not going to be any future for myself and any of them past gf-bf (and I wasn’t about to introduce any of them to my folks) I can safely say that I was very happy. It wasn’t hard. It was easy. And that made me happy and making me happy (apparently) made all of them happy.
I guess you could say it was then that I swallowed a red pill. Prior to on-line dating, I didn’t know anything about women, least of what women found attractive about men. I could pretty much disregard everything my father and mother and grandfather and pastor and everyone told me about women, they were wrong. But I had to see that for myself. I had to experience it. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t experience that great awakening in a Christian sense.
but these guys seem to forget women have free will too.
Yep! I have seen the light go on in the back of the minds of a few after asking them if women are incapable of sinning. Then I point out that maintaining the position that a good husband naturally produces a good wife is tantamount to arguing that women are unable to sin.
On the other hand I have seen eyes glaze over as if what I pointed out was incomprehensible.
No, because the goal and the method are both different. The goal with married game is to make the marriage better for both husband and wife, but especially the husband. He applies game to get something he wants: more sex, less nagging, whatever. He also wants his wife to be happy, but his own dissatisfaction is his main driving force.
The goal of these preachers is to make the wife happy — or at least temporarily content until the next time she needs her love tank filled. They might tell you they want to improve the marriage, but that’s secondary at best. Their clear assumption is that if the wife is happy, things will be fine — the husband’s emotions are irrelevant, or it’s assumed that he’ll be happy as long as she’s not being a harridan (the “Momma ain’t happy, nobody’s happy” paradigm).
To contrast the methods: game is based on things that are true. Using game with a woman will make her more attracted to you and more willing to be a submissive wife, if she’s not already a lost cause. It works inasmuch as anything can short of divine intervention. Also, it doesn’t require you to sacrifice your headship or masculinity — quite the opposite, in fact. You don’t have to give in to her foolish wishes, buy her wasteful gifts, or pretend to agree with her when she’s wrong. Using game in marriage means taking the control that you should have had all along, which you should have been taught in youth and in which you should have been supported by society. If the marriage still ends, at least you can hold your head high and know you did the right things.
In contrast, the methods advised by these preachers are based on lies: that women are essentially good (or have no moral agency at all), that women are attracted to things like devotion and “emotional support,” that a man can win a woman’s heart if he just loves her hard enough. Their methods do require that the man sacrifice his headship and masculinity. When a man goes down the road of trying to “make his wife happy” by doing what she wants, he emasculates himself, and if it fails (as it usually does), he ends up a mess at the end. He can find himself needing to relearn much of what it means to be a man, and the women in his social circle will have seen him getting a beating. If the marriage holds up, it probably won’t be a very fulfilling one for him; if it ends, he can feel like he’s lost everything.
It’s not supplication to take an action that makes a woman happy. Presumably in a good marriage there will be many actions that make both spouses happy, so it would suck if you had to avoid all of those. The supplication comes in when you do something strictly to try to avoid her wrath or buy her affections.
All the world is jails and churches.
How horrible it must be for young Christian men to have to endlessly qualify themselves to women starting when they’re single, hard up for sex and marriage the only acceptable release. Then endlessly qualify themselves in marriage in order for his wife to put out, and the surest indicator of his failing her qualifications is her frigidity or lackluster sexual performance.
I can see why the church is losing men and an overall masculine influence.
I
I was trying to think of why Dr. Mohler’s comments disturbed me so much and realized the following:
1) Dr. Mohler has taken a relationship that should be a metaphor for Christ loving the church and reduced it to a transactional process where a man must earn (in other words, pay for) sexual access. In this context, instead of the marital act reflecting something beautiful and sacred, it is merely a socially acceptable version of the profane. Instead of the husband’s contributions being an act of obedience to the Lord or an act of love towards his wife, they are degraded to mere tokens to be paid for something he already has a right to; his wife, in counting up these tokens, reduces herself to a harlot demanding additional payment for something she had already promised to provide. Small wonder that wives in that type of relationship might find the act itself icky or degrading when they themselves have made it so;
2) Not being married myself, one of the things that simultaneously draws and scares me most when I think about my hopes to be married one day is the extent to which one would be required to die to self in order to be a good spouse. I think the continual exposure to how selfish and petty we can be is one of the ways that God uses marriage to sanctify us. In Dr. Mohler’s model, the wife is absolved of any responsibility to do this. Instead, given that psychology studies have shown that we tend to see what we are looking for and miss what we aren’t, if a wife is continually evaluating whether her husband has demonstrated sufficient confidence, affection and emotional support, she is likely to see all the ways in which he hasn’t, miss all the other things he is doing that she should be thankful for and completely overlook her own sinfulness. Instead of gradually becoming more Christ-like, she is liable to become prideful and judgemental. Dr Mohler is encouraging her to give Satan a foothold on her soul;
3) I apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted this given that I am not a man, but one of the aspects of mens’ thought lives I hadn’t been aware of until several described it for me was the extent to which many men seem to be continuously evaluate whether they are fulfilling their duties admirably. It mattered deeply to them whether if they felt that they were inadequate husbands/fathers, insufficient providers or had failed to protect their families in some way. Any failure in an area that they perceived as being part of their masculine identity was deeply painful. It seems to me that a wife has enormous power in this area to either limit or exacerbate this pain. A husband who knows that his wife is still in his corner when he is facing adversity, who knows that she still believes in him when things haven’t turned out the way he intended, and who has a wife who helps him create a home that is a warm and welcoming respite from a harsh world, will likely be highly motivated to battle to slay whatever metaphorical dragons the couple is facing. Whereas when a wife makes it clear that her husband has lost her trust and that she no longer esteems him, this adds significantly to already crushing burdens and is another blow to the warrior spirit that makes him want to go take on the world. By encouraging women to withhold from their husbands when things aren’t going well, Dr. Mohler is teaching them to behave in the way that is least likely to lead to the outcome they desire and that is enormously cruel to the men they pledged to love; and
4) While there are many other things I could say about this, my comment is probably already long enough already so I’ll close with this admission, the thing that disturbs me most about Dr. Mohler’s statement is that there would have been a time where I wouldn’t have picked up on why the statement is so wrong. Despite identifying as a “Good Christian Girl,” I held many harmful and hurtful feminist-influenced beliefs without even realizing it (and without ever identifying as a feminist). I owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the Christian bloggers who have opened my eyes to my sin in this regard. Thank you!
@ Je Suis Priest:
Yes. You are absolutely right. In fact, we just discussed this on my blog:
http://lovingintheruins.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/the-birds-and-the-bees-redux-part-1/
The worst part is that on a culture-wide scale the whole thing has been turned upside down. When women should be in the transaction stage (prior to marriage), they are giving it away for free.
Then they get married, and want to start negotiating the terms for sexual access with the ma they already consented to have sex with “from this day forward” And they do it with the full support of people like Dr. Mohler, a Bible scholar who should know better.
“It occurred to me that I could easily substitute husband and wife here since husbands are given charge over their wives. Unfortunately, husbands think that their job is to make their wives happy, even if the finished product is nothing more than an unrighteous mess.”
Except that the child cannot divorce you, take the rest of your kids, and most of your stuff if she decides she doesn’t like what you’re saying. I agree that husbands are being taught to try and keep their wives happy, and this leads to great unhappiness. However, pulling out the bible and explaining to the wife that she’s wrong? Particularly with the churches and the rest of the herd whispering to her?
I’m reminded of the husband that sat his wife down and explained to her that she was getting hysterical and should calm down, listing specific examples of where she was acting irrationally. That works well, too.
Elspeth,
95% agree. Allow me to comment on the boldened part where I have a 5% wrinkle.
“And they do it with the full support of legislators, judges, and local, state, and federal government law enforcement agencies who create, interpret, and enforce laws around the concept of threatpoint. These people should know better but cops are not allowed to choose what laws to enfoce, judges are appointed by politicians, and politicians are elected by the will of the people and women have the vote so they want threatpoint law, they damn well will have it.”
I don’t think women care one bit if Dr Mohler is on their side or not. They care that government supports them with laws that threaten husbands if they don’t submit to them. Because the only reason why married women can successfully negotiate when they aren’t happy, is when they have the ultimate power (given to them by state) to make the man pay and incarerate him if he doesn’t pay. Dr Mohler can’t do that.
@jf12 I not only dispute Mohler’s Biblical error… hoops
You’re right about the hoops. Mohler and Rainey are credited with narratives that force impossible situations on too many married men.
Do you believe that their destructive statements are errors?
What proven (and inexpensive) techniques are in use now that will suddenly correct those ‘errors’ through mass global truth saturation?
@JDG
And to think those 20 courses cover very little of the inanity of the college system. Those individual courses are silly, but there are even graduate degrees in popular culture (e.g. http://www.brocku.ca/social-sciences/departments-and-centres/cpcf/ma-in-popular-culture).
Just the titles of the papers should be a warning enough: http://www.brocku.ca/brock-news/?p=22022
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/the-new-sexual-morality-will-the-bra-open-for-you/#comment-106992
“the goal of inverting biblical headship and submission ties in with the heretical claim that a woman experiencing romantic love towards a man is a signal of his righteousness”
The single most important discussion on the internet in 2014.
Good thing Premier Radio still carry John MacArthur and Chuck Swindoll – who clearly talk about the marital debt owed by hubby and wife to each other. In other words – LAY EACH OTHER LIKE TILE!
Elspeth, right. True love (the verb) doesn’t really have anything to do with being nice or trying to satisfy someone’s immediate impulses. That’s why people talk about “tough love,” but while many people understand that tough love is required for teenagers, it never occurs to them that a wife might need it too. You can be entirely devoted to someone and still refuse to satisfy her wants.
Also, a woman does enjoy “love and devotion” — even a certain amount of the sappier variety these guys are pushing — when it’s coming from a man she’s strongly attracted to. But a guy who’s going to a preacher or a book to get help fixing his marriage probably isn’t in that boat. If his wife has already lost much of her attraction for him, any overt “devotion” is likely to creep her out.
@Je Suis Prest: …given that psychology studies have shown that we tend to see what we are looking for and miss what we aren’t, if a wife is continually evaluating whether her husband has demonstrated sufficient confidence, affection and emotional support, she is likely to see all the ways in which he hasn’t, miss all the other things he is doing that she should be thankful for and completely overlook her own sinfulness. Instead of gradually becoming more Christ-like, she is liable to become prideful and judgemental.
Brava! Beautifully said.
And I know I speak for many here when I say that my ex resembles that remark. One consolation, if you can call it that, is I am sure she is just doing the same to the poor new guy.
I also really appreciate your new-found understanding that “the extent to which many men seem to be continuously evaluate whether they are fulfilling their duties admirably. It mattered deeply to them…” This is something that women often just don’t get—and wouldn’t it have to, therefore, also be the greatest driver of most mens’ existence!
As Dr. Laura once put it (“Ten Stupid Things Couples Do to Mess up Their Relationships”):
…Her primary concern at the time of the call was that her husband just didn’t make her happy anymore. “He doesn’t comfort me,” she lamented.
“What do you mean, he doesn’t comfort you?”
“Well, he doesn’t share his feelings or listen to mine. I’m thinking of divorcing him, because I’m just not happy in this marriage anymore. He’s not giving me what I need.”
“Well, what you need is a complete break from stress and terror [backstory of recent family tragedies] but that is not coming soon, is it?”
“No, it isn’t.”
“And you’re thinking that what you really need is to break it off with him, because he doesn’t understand, doesn’t care, and doesn’t make you happy, right?”
“That’s about it.”
“Well, you’re wrong–he shovels snow.”
“What?”
“Your husband shovels snow to show you that he cares, understands, and wants to make you happy. Two things are going on here. First, is that bad stuff is happening, and it’s difficult, if not guilt-provoking, to try to be happy in the midst of all this death and illness. Second, is that you are like a radio turned off; your husband is broadcasting ‘caring’ and you’re not receiving the message.”
“No, that’s not so. He just isn’t helping. And, what do you mean, shoveling snow?”
“When we women want to comfort somebody, we make them hot cocoa and talk for days. When men want to comfort their woman, they shovel the snow…symbolically, that is. Men do something to try to make things better–they don’t ruminate–they do!”
“I’ll bet you can think of at least three things, under the category of shoveling snow, that your husband has done even in the last twenty-four hours to tyry to make things better for you–that’s how he’s trying to comfort you. Tonight, when he comes home, throw your arms around him, list off the three things, and thank him immensely for comforting you.”…
At this point I ended the call, having my screener take down the woman’s phone number so that we could call her the next day after the “eperiment.” The caller was not all that receptive to my suggestion–in fact she was a bit hostile.”
The next day she called back, glowing in gratitude and “happiness.” She did exactly what I ordered: She threw her arms around him and thanked him for what he was doing to make things easier for her; he melted, she melted, and a great lesson was learned.
“Dr. Laura, you absolutely saved my marriage. I just wasn’t willing to see happiness when it was there.”
When life is causing us great misery, there is no one to “get back at.” That’s why spouses often get the brunt of our rage, hurt, and sense of powerlessness. We imagine that they are a safe place upon which to vent frustrations, get even with life, and finally have some power. Sometimes we take it even further, imagining that if we get rid of them, we simultaneously get rid of all our troubles….
Instead of a “First Baptist Church” of Springfield, on every corner in America like we had 60 years ago, its now “First Church of the Holy Hamster,” Where the supposed “sanctity of marriage” has become an eggshell walk of keeping the fickle sensibilities and emotions of today’s femi-hags “haaaappy.”
Average Joe thinks marriage is some form of refuge, and a safe haven against female sexual manipulation. What he doesn’t realize, is that he is just signing (with their own blood sweat and tears) a contract that now puts him in a state of “closing the deal” with the lil’ miss for the rest of his LIFE.
I recall reading somewhere, that civil law once held that “marital rape” was an impossibility, since “a man cannot steal that which is his own.” I won’t hold my breath for a brave pastor to speak out in today’s “Church Hamsterized” one Sunday about the sin of defrauding your husband.
This topic so infuriates me, that I think my BP has gone up 20 points just writing this.
There needs to be a massive RedPills from the sky campaign. I’m doing my part by guerrilla marketing a website (still in development) to take the RedPill reality into the streets.
I will keep you all posted when it launches, and would greatly appreciate everyone’s feedback.
Cheers
I find that the more seriously (and honestly) one studies the Bible, the harder it is to maintain a twisted view. This is why modern ‘scholars’ have to make claims about the meanings of words in the original languages that have no basis in reality with little more than opinion to back it up. This is why Bible ‘teachers’ have to make excuses such as “Paul was dealing with outspoken women at that particular church” for direct instructions in scripture, and they do this with zero scriptural or historical evidence to support it. And this is why those who wish to perpetuate the churchian view of submission must adopt the men/bad women/good assumption to filter out reality from the passages they are discussing or denying.
Upon further reflection I recall how easy it was to fall into the trap. Christian men are indeed responsible for the well being of their families. With authority comes responsibility. Christian men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His church. In times past, men were legally held accountable for the debts and mis-deeds of their wives and children.
Then add to the mix the constant bombardment of messages framing women in general as virtuous, kind, faithful, and nurturing. In addition consider the neglect in the teaching of scripture where women are not only described as committing adultery, instigating murder, and eating their own children, but are commanded to submit themselves to their own husbands.
Furthermore, review the continuous secular theme in all public spheres perpetuating the same man/bad woman/good message. Many new converts brought this message into the church with them.
After all of the above, I can see why so many have succumbed to this notion that women are naturally good and men are naturally bad. The truth is that we are all naturally bad. That is why we need a Savior in the first place.
Learning the truth was a bitter pill to swallow, but an eye opener for me. God has set into place the laws of reality and given us instructions as to how to navigate through life. Thinking of women as guiltless or sinless is the same as elevating woman above man. Our God is a jealous God, and He does not want us to worship women or anything else. Only God is worthy of worship.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/17/science/la-sci-sn-better-to-be-right-than-happy-20131217
I can’t think of a better recipe for divorce than what Mohler is preaching.
Not just the responsibility, but even the opportunity! In their model, a wife must not submit to her husband out of scriptural obedience, because to do so would be to deprive him of the opportunity to be Christ-like — and become holier — by earning that submission from her. She must use her submission as a reward.
So, if she still wants to work on her own sanctification, but can’t do it through submission, how does she do it? I know, because I’ve seen it: she appoints herself her husband’s spiritual leader. She will make sure he becomes holy, and that will reflect well on her. So she drags him to church, pushes him to make friends with priests/pastors, gives him prayers to say, signs them up for religious retreats, etc. Basically, she treats him like her child in the spiritual realm, if not everywhere else (at least not at first). If she’s of a traditional persuasion, she may be very submissive in other ways, while maintaining a fierce hold on the spiritual headship of the family.
From a red-pill perspective, this obviously isn’t likely to end well. But it’s what you get when you mix this twisted, misogynistic theology with women who honestly do want to sanctify their marriages but weren’t taught the right way to do that.
However, pulling out the bible and explaining to the wife that she’s wrong? Particularly with the churches and the rest of the herd whispering to her?
I’m reminded of the husband that sat his wife down and explained to her that she was getting hysterical and should calm down, listing specific examples of where she was acting irrationally. That works well, too.
I know of a case where the Pastor (with the woman’s husband present) sat her down with the Bible and explained why her behavior was wrong. She didn’t care. It was all his (the husbands) fault.
Actually I know of several cases like this. Above I was just thinking of a recent one. But when I look back over the last decade, there have been quite a few although the object of blame varied (but it was never the woman’s fault).
IIRC, Leviticus exempted men married for less then a year from military service for a reason.
I clicked the links, and noticed, once again, where it all falls on the Husband, Never on the Wife, “..so uhm you’ve been busting your butt working 60 hrs a week to provide, she gained 40 pds over that time, don’t you dare say anything, she is under assault all the time!!!”
I would never bother to listen to such foppish advice, it is men trying to put themselves in female frames of mind, and then offering advice on what it’s like..foolish really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers
Cf. Japan
Cf. Feminism
@Cail
“Also, a woman does enjoy “love and devotion” — even a certain amount of the sappier variety these guys are pushing — when it’s coming from a man she’s strongly attracted to.”
I dispute this. Find me any marriage where a guy acting nice makes a woman happy. My wife loves it when I’m detached from her shit-tests and asking her to do stuff and she hates it when I’m nice to her. She likes it when I sing romantic songs to her, but even then I’m instigating, which is hardly “nice.” My tactics shift from friendly-and-detached to engaged, depending on the circumstances. Acting butthurt is a recipe for disaster.
People here talk about women ‘choosing to submit’ , out of their free will
this concept is somewhat baffling
when a child obeys your command, it is obviously submission , but is it voluntary?
I’d say ‘submission’ of Western woman is matter of convenience and feelings.It’s easy to not make any decisions, until it becomes …well, inconvenient.It also makes them feel good and superior to other women … and feelings are all that matters, right?
There’s also no acknowledgement of man’s rightful authority.Is such acknowledgement submission or something else?
Whatever definition of ‘submission’ is, Western women don’t submit.It’s all a pretense, a ruse , if you will. You have been warned.
I wonder what Mohler would make of this:
I just mean once in a while, as a change of pace in a marriage where the man is firmly in charge. That’s the paradox: every woman says she wants a man to bring her flowers and give her footrubs and so on, but she only wants it from the man she’s head-over-heels for, and even then she wouldn’t like it too often because the attraction would die.
In Game theory there’s something called Vulnerability Game: a guy who’s extremely alpha and detached can really tweak a woman by switching gears and going vulnerable for a short time — not crying or “butthurt,” but showing his feeeelings in a way that would disgust her if it came from a beta guy. It’s the change of pace and the feeling that she’s seeing a secret side of him that works on her triggers.
Men: are we stupid, or are we inferior?
Elspeth,
January 31, 2014 at 1:05 pm
“This is and has always been the case. The issue is the one Dalrock has highlighted here: that the church has ceased to preach that submission is a command from God which is non-negotiable and has made it something a husband must earn through completing whatever arbitrary checklist his wife sets for him.
But when he jumps through those hoops, what he gets in return is not submission or affection, but just the opposite.”
:: “she will submit if she agrees to submit” and “this has always been the case”.
well ok – taking that as written and not out of context : there has never been a time when wives submitted to their husbands based solely on the word of god. Twas always so, you write that she will submit if she agrees to submit… therefore I presume it’s still the same now – same as it ever was – and therefore god’s word was and is ineffectual when dictating to a wife to submit to her husband… since a woman will submit when she agrees to submit the word of god takes a back seat. Got it.
And then you follow up with : “But when he jumps through those hoops, what he gets in return is not submission or affection, but just the opposite.”
~ I wonder : if the husband did receive submission / affection as agreed upon by the wife and as ‘reward’ for successfully jumping through ‘the wife’s hoops’… then I presume the wife’s hoops would be the measure of the success of the marriage – and by extrapolation – the hoops would then negate and replace the apparent ineffectual word of god…
@Cail Corishev
“That’s the paradox: every woman says she wants a man to bring her flowers and give her footrubs and so on, but she only wants it from the man she’s head-over-heels for, and even then she wouldn’t like it too often because the attraction would die.”
The paradox cuts deeper than that, though. When she’s head-over-heels then she’s GIVING footrubs. The number one sign of a woman falling out of love is when she stops giving him backrubs, and instead starts criticizing his technique on him giving her backrubs.
“This elevation of the tingle/feelings of romantic love by women to the new moral test for men isn’t limited to modern secular culture. Modern Christians have internalized this new sexual morality as well. The ability to make the bra pop is the Arthurian task modern Christian husbands need to pass to prove their righteousness.”
See ol’ Jenny Erikson… this is her morality of marriage and Leif couldn’t measure up.
@Je Suis Priest, thanks for your thoughtful, er, thoughts. Seriously, it is good to know that another person is taking all this seriously enough to think through. Yes, you are exactly right both to be disturbed about Mohler’s comments and to be disturbed that earlier you would not have been disturbed. Dalrock, I think, has (as usual) the most pertinent observation: “the goal of inverting biblical headship and submission ties in with the heretical claim that a woman experiencing romantic love towards a man is a signal of his righteousness”.
Highwasp:
God has never forced us to obey him. He invites us to partake in the blessing of fellowship with him, but we are also free to rebel and reap the consequences of that.
There are some women, minute in number though they may be, who submit to their husbands first out of reverence for God, and also to give proper honor and respect to their husbands.
But yes, obedience to God, which includes wifely submission, is an act of the will. The fact that most of humanity is rebellious doesn’t negate that.
Just seems pretty obvious that this is from Japan…
This article investigates why feminist anti-abortion activists have been active within the UN and what their influence is in the establishment of UN norms related to abortion. It will outline their argument and the manner in which a feminist counter argument on abortion emerged at the UN. It will examine why feminist anti-abortion nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been successful at bringing the development of progressive international law on this issue to a halt. The article will conclude that their activities have challenged the idea that international norm development is an essential progressive process instigated by state actors.
Guns, Wendy. “The Influence of the Feminist Anti-Abortion NGOs as Norm Setters at the Level of the UN: Contesting UN Norms on Reproductive Autonomy, 1995-2005.” Human Rights Quarterly 35.3 (2013): 673-700.
I just love the obscurantism (the only partially useful thing taught in college) demonstrated in the above excerpt, such as “international norm development.”
The number one sign of a woman falling out of love is when she stops giving him backrubs, and instead starts criticizing his technique on him giving her backrubs.
No, I’d say the number one sign is when she starts taking much better care of herself, and buys new clothes, new makeup style, new hairstyle, and so on, but only really “puts it all on” when she is not with you (i.e., at work, out with friends, etc.). That means = you’re fucked.
“free will” and “I have faith” – yeah – ok – can’t argue with that.
@Nova
A wife should put on makeup before the “date.” The makeup comes off afterwards when it’s time to go to sleep. That’s how it should be.
@Cail Corishev
I think that the Vulnerability Game is fraught with peril. If a change of pace is needed, Jerkboy Charisma is much less risky. My motto is, “Don’t risk the frame.” Jerkboy Charisma fits better with my frame than the Vulnerability Game. I’ll run Dread if necessary (which it has been recently). I run Dance Game a lot as it fits best with my frame. So, I think that it’s best to choose the game that fits your frame. Vulnerability Game might lead to beta thinking.
Except that the child cannot divorce you, take the rest of your kids, and most of your stuff if she decides she doesn’t like what you’re saying.
Children sure the heck can (and increasingly DO) call social services on parents (usually Dad) when they don’t like some act that involves boundary setting or discipline. The aftermath of Junior’s appeal to the State usually results in a situation for the parent(s, most often Dad) that makes a nuclear frivorce seem delightful by comparison.
@Cail Corishev 1:39 pm
“After all, Christ is perfect, so presumably any action Christ would recommend in a marriage would have to be the correct one, right? We can say that no “Christ-like” husband would supplicate to his wife in a way that disgusts her, or allow her to dominate the marriage. We can define “Christ-like husbanding” as always maintaining dominance and keeping her tingle level high. It’s possible to be “loving and devoted” while still being dominant and keeping your wife on her toes.”
Yes, of course: I am the Alpha and the Omega.
I shall miss the southern baptists. Fallen far from encouraging parents to homeschool, they’ve embraced the spirit of the matriarchy.
In the interests of equality and fairness, i wondered how mr mohlers statement would read if the gender and adjective was changed.
I believe that God means for a woman to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that her husband will freely commit to provisioning her only when she presents herself as worthy of his attention and desire.
Try reading that from the pulpit.
–G. K. Chesterton, “What’s Wrong with the World”
Children sure the heck can (and increasingly DO) call social services on parents (usually Dad) when they don’t like some act that involves boundary setting or discipline.
Since it was Elspeth (a woman) making the point, I didn’t want to clutter up my response too much with things that don’t affect her.
You are very correct, though. I know a man (friend of a friend) that pissed off his daughter by refusing to let her wear a slut suit to a school dance. During the ensuing hissy fit, the daughter called the police on him and charged him with sexual assault. He was immediately arrested, of course. He was later released, but a preliminary restraining order kept him from returning to his house (or anywhere else near the daughter).
However, the real fun started when the daughter decided she’d had her pound of flesh out of him and tried to call off the state. The prosecution assigned to the case decided she was doing it under duress, so the father still went to trial, was still found guilty, but because the only evidence was disavowed testimony by the daughter, he was given a lenient sentence of probation and a continuation of the restraining order. He is still (or was last I heard) under the restraining order. The family is financially ruined from legal fees and money spent on the extra living expenses for the father.
As a man without kids, you can be damn sure I’m never in a room with children unless their are witnesses I trust with me. And my friend is very careful about being alone with his own daughters and granddaughters.
I apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted this given that I am not a man, but one of the aspects of mens’ thought lives I hadn’t been aware of until several described it for me was the extent to which many men seem to be continuously evaluate whether they are fulfilling their duties admirably. It mattered deeply to them whether if they felt that they were inadequate husbands/fathers, insufficient providers or had failed to protect their families in some way. Any failure in an area that they perceived as being part of their masculine identity was deeply painful. It seems to me that a wife has enormous power in this area to either limit or exacerbate this pain. A husband who knows that his wife is still in his corner when he is facing adversity, who knows that she still believes in him when things haven’t turned out the way he intended, and who has a wife who helps him create a home that is a warm and welcoming respite from a harsh world, will likely be highly motivated to battle to slay whatever metaphorical dragons the couple is facing. Whereas when a wife makes it clear that her husband has lost her trust and that she no longer esteems him, this adds significantly to already crushing burdens and is another blow to the warrior spirit that makes him want to go take on the world. By encouraging women to withhold from their husbands when things aren’t going well, Dr. Mohler is teaching them to behave in the way that is least likely to lead to the outcome they desire and that is enormously cruel to the men they pledged to love;
Je Suis Prest, can I have your number? Lol, just kidding, but your remarks showed PROFOUND insight into the way men really think and behave. I wish more women knew this as well. The world would be a better place.
@Cautiously Pessimistic:
Thanks for affirming my decision to avoid having kids and to avoid being around them.
Back when I was a foster parent, one thing that became apparent was that nearly every adolescent foster kid levied sexual abuse allegations against foster parents (and often birth parents did too). Such complaints were universally ignored.
I think we finally found a threatpoint worse than frivorce: children rising up against their parents. (I think there’s a passage somewhere in Isaiah about that, not to mention Mark 13:12.)
It Makes Economic Sense for a Woman to Have More Than One Husband
“It’ll boost the marriage rate, combat child poverty, and, very likely, promote no-cost family planning among the poor – all without any new burden on taxpayers. It’s polyandry, Warner goes on to write. “We have to face reality. If low-wage men don’t present women with much of a good deal, why not double, or triple, or quadruple them up? Pool resources, boost household income, and promote family values at the same time?”
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/20/the-lonely-lives-of-the-msm/
Christianity has been around for more than fifteen hundred years. This entire time, men and women knew that chastity and devotion were DEMANDED of them by the WORD of God, yet failed to live their lives accordingly. So, in order to relieve themselves from the guilt of their continuous and never ending failure to live up to what was expected of them by their religion, Christians invented a thousand sects, each with its own partial and idiosyncratic reassertion of traditional orthodoxy as a bulwark against advancing infidelity and defiant rejection of every empirical critique of their foundational beliefs. And despite it all, people gave only grown more secular, more immoral, and more hypocritical and Christianity is on the wane. And all you can do is quote more Bible, as if it were a solution to the dissolution of Tradition. Good luck with that!
I know a man (friend of a friend) that pissed off his daughter by refusing to let her wear a slut suit to a school dance. During the ensuing hissy fit, the daughter called the police on him and charged him with sexual assault. He was immediately arrested, of course. He was later released, but a preliminary restraining order kept him from returning to his house (or anywhere else near the daughter)
Wow. A story like this makes me regret being the father of a daughter more than I already do. I sincerely wonder, if I were the man in this story, if I wouldn’t succumb to the temptation to “go Old Testament” on my daughter (“I brought you into this world, now I’m going to take you out of it!”), temporal consequences be damned.
Feeriker
What the father should have done is used a razor and skinned the girl’s face off the way you skin wild game. (For those less skilled a propane torch can be used to remove the face and destroy hair follicles on the scalp.) A sexual assault on a family member arrest counts the same so make it count so to speak.
The first church of hamster commandments #1 thou shalt be blameless #2 thou is a perfect and unique snowflake#3 thou shalt be happy#4 thou shalt have the man of your dreams#5 thou is entitled to everything without any work#6 the matriarchy shall rule#7 all men were put on the earth to serve you#8 thou shalt be strong and empowered #9 thou shalt have it all #10 men are to blame for everything and you will know that I am the hamster, when I spin the wheel for you.
The Mohl and RainMan train pastors (that have a building and/or are of organized religion) that will train other pastors. What’s the original term before ‘church’?
If it has a building, it is part of a man-made, organized religion.
Where in your new testament are people told to build a building for the ‘christian’ folk’ or to organize religion?
Since Mohler and Rainey teach ‘pastors’ of organized religion as well as their followers, are they leaders in man-made religions?
These ‘men’ are heroes to the multi-trillion dollar perception management industry.
As a man without kids, you can be damn sure I’m never in a room with children unless their are witnesses I trust with me. And my friend is very careful about being alone with his own daughters and granddaughters.
I thank God every day that I have a son and no daughters.
@LiveFearless Where in your new testament are people told to build a building for the ‘christian’ folk’ or to organize religion?
Thank you!
In my early red pill days, before I had yet seen the full toxic futility of corporate churchianity, I always knew that the time to pull up chocks and leave was when a propertyless church began obssessing over having its own building (usually a church of far less than 100 people and so poor that it could barely pay attention, let alone for its own building). None ever seemed to grasp that a spirit-bereft social club would be just as ineffective and irrelevant in a bank-busting ornate cathedral as in a public school cafeteria. Alas, the sin of vanity is universally irresistible to churchians.
What the father should have done is used a razor and skinned the girl’s face off the way you skin wild game. (For those less skilled a propane torch can be used to remove the face and destroy hair follicles on the scalp.) A sexual assault on a family member arrest counts the same so make it count so to speak.
I think taking the high (moral) ground is the better way. Getting revenge is frankly quite beneath a decent person.
And despite it all, people gave only grown more secular, more immoral, and more hypocritical and Christianity is on the wane.
Christianity is declining in western countries. In China and Africa it is flourishing. Of course that is where the real deal is. People are dying for there faith in those places. I’m sorry that the scriptures are of no comfort to you, but those of us who know and trust the Lord are comforted by the promise of His coming.
MarcusD says:
It Makes Economic Sense for a Woman to Have More Than One Husband
“It’ll boost the marriage rate, combat child poverty, and, very likely, promote no-cost family planning among the poor – all without any new burden on taxpayers. It’s polyandry, Warner goes on to write. “We have to face reality. If low-wage men don’t present women with much of a good deal, why not double, or triple, or quadruple them up? Pool resources, boost household income, and promote family values at the same time?”
Ahaha hahahahah.
What’s in it for the men in this? If that’s not Rollo’s feminine imperative writ large I don’t know what is.
Look how hard it is for her to hide her disgust (and she’s a professional actor):
Pingback: How Christians can take credit for Game. | Dalrock
I sincerely wonder, if I were the man in this story, if I wouldn’t succumb to the temptation to “go Old Testament” on my daughter … temporal consequences be damned.
What kept this from happening, I’m told, was he had a younger daughter that he was still allowed to be around, and he didn’t want to risk losing access to her as well. I would guess, from that, the older daughter was a stepchild, and the younger was his. Otherwise, I’m not sure why both wouldn’t have been off limits to him.
Pingback: the Revision Division
Pingback: How to spot a player. | Dalrock
I agree with Paul it is better sometimes for a man not to marry
Pingback: Robolove | Dalrock
Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Dalrock
Pingback: He didn’t know it was her turn. | Dalrock
Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2) | Dalrock
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Hail to the V. | Dalrock