In the discussion of Sandwich strike preachinginthewilderness commented on one of Sheila Gregoire’s most recent blog posts:
Yesterday she was encouraging her thousands of christian women to make sure they withhold sex or make their husbands sleep on the couch or take the kids and leave if the husbands watches TV with nudity or violence. I don’t know even where to begin…
The post he is referring to is Wifey Wednesday: My Husband Watches Nudity on TV, and it is actually even worse than he describes. While the sin of watching the wrong TV shows is the headline topic, what Gregoire is really teaching her readers is:
- A wife’s job is to make sure her husband never sins, and punish him whenever he does sin. This is so important that she created a large graphic to burn this message home. Teaching from the Book of Oprah, Gregoire explains that wives should constantly be on the lookout for things their husband might be doing which Jesus would not approve of and find ways to make their husbands’ lives miserable until they stop. Anything less and the wife is failing in her God given role. She summarizes this with the question “What are you tolerating that Jesus wouldn’t?”
- This isn’t really about sin, but the wife’s feelings*. If a wife feels unloved, she is commanded by God to punish her husband.
Rule number one is:
1. Focus on your feelings, rather than the infraction.
Elsewhere in the article she explains what this means:
Focus the conversation on your reaction to the show, not on whether he should be watching it
If you focus the conversation around “it’s pornography and you shouldn’t be watching it”, then you’ll get into an argument about whether or not it really qualifies, and you can’t win that.
Instead, talk about the real issue, which is this: “I feel disrespected and humiliated when you watch that, and I don’t know why you want to do something which makes me feel disrespected and humiliated. When you watch that, I feel sad. I feel ugly. I feel like you don’t care about me and don’t really love me.
Gregoire lists a variety of punishments wives should use against their husbands whenever their feelings are hurt. These range from the wife breaking things she associates with her hurt feelings (like the TV), to making him sleep on the couch, denying sex, or leaving with the children. She also does a dance around threatening divorce. She doesn’t say to threaten divorce, but she strongly suggests that not imposing these other punishments will ultimately lead to divorce. This leaves divorce as the reserve threat while claiming not to be supporting divorce:
I wonder how many divorces could have been avoided if people used good conflict resolution early and stopped tolerating things that are wrong?
We start tolerating little things, these little things escalate, and soon we have a huge problem.
You don’t have to make things into World War III, but some things just need to be done for the good of the marriage, and for the good of your husband’s soul. Not everything is that big a deal, of course, but some things are. And the principle here isn’t just the nudity; it’s the fact that he’s choosing to hurt her terribly. That can’t be tolerated, either.
This is all textbook wake-up call theology. However, with the exception of Joel and Kathy Davisson I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it spelled out so shamelessly as Gregoire does. This model not only inverts Scripture** but also leaves both the husband and wife at the mercy of the wife’s emotions, which makes them both miserable.
*Don’t worry about the fact that these two messages are contradictory. Gregoire doesn’t, and neither do the women who read her blog.
**Not only does Gregoire teach wives to do the opposite of what the Apostles Peter and Paul teach wives in the Bible, but her inverted view of headship is quite strong (even if we leave out Gregoire’s doctrine of emotions as divine compass). Gregoire clearly believes in a very robust interpretation of headship; she just wants to reorder the roles.
Pingback: Meet your new master: Her feelings | Manosphere.com
Pingback: Meet your new master: Her feelings | Neoreactive
A tip of the hat, Dalrock. You’ve been on a veritable roll these past couple of weeks.
[D: Thank you.]
Theology of the control freak…Chapter 1. Her feelings.
I’ve gone round and round with Christians on this. If the wife is the arbiter of any sin her husband commits, she is then the arbiter of all of his sins and is the head of the marriage and in rebellion to God.
‘A wife’s job is to make sure her husband never sins, and punish him whenever he does sin.’
So by that rationale wouldn’t that mean it’s the husband’s job to make sure the wife never sins and punish her whenever she does sin?
Or is this another one of those…I can judge you but you can’t judge me games.
Excellent post, as always Darlock.
What Gregoire suggests in her post is tantamount to ‘Domestic Violence’ if a man were to behave in the ways she suggests women should behave. (Breaking things)
It saddens me that people such as Gregoire have a podium from which to speak their ridiculous and vitriolic viewpoints. You just can not save people from their own stupidity.
Doesn’t seem particularly new, given the fact that women for thousands of years have complained and badgered and society (women) has encouraged it. MGTOW seems the way to go – all evidence points to it.
I use this with the missus… if I want to do or not do something, I don’t go with a logical explanation, it’s because “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it.” It’s incredibly disarming and she can’t come up with any counter-arguement that my feelings are wrong.
What Gregoire suggests in her post is tantamount to ‘Domestic Violence’ if a man were to behave in the ways she suggests women should behave. (Breaking things)
Here you go, Casey. You are absolutely correct. I have sent men (back) to jail for less.
http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/
Woman as Judge. Follows from pedestalizing women. Idolatry, as Renee Harris pointed out on another thread.
Woman’s feelings are the evidence that the woman judge considers–nothing logical or reasoned is allowed. Certainly, the man’s arguments will not be considered seriously.
I get this crap from Mrs. Gamer all the time. I just don’t take it seriously. I smile, let her rant, then go about my business. Once she settles down, I offer comfort and flirt with her. Felicity ensues.
Let me suggest the proper way a wife can confront a husband’s sin. (I don’t necessarily agree that a husband watching a TV show containing nudity is sin. It might be. But we’ll use that example because Gregoire relied on it.)
I don’t have scripture references handy so if someone can supply them that would be appreciated. This is from my memory.
First, the wife lovingly and respectfully confronts the sin, and says “What you’re doing/looking at/saying is sin, and I’m concerned that it is hurting you and your relationship with God.” She doesn’t talk about how she feels about it. She doesn’t talk about how it affects her relationship with her husband. Sin can affect all those things but first and foremost sin is a direct attack on the sinner’s relationship with God.
Second, she doesn’t say anything else about it.
Third, she lives her own life by example in avoiding the sin and refusing to engage in it with him. She does not insist that he remove it from the home or engage in it elsewhere. She does not punish him for it by threatening to break the TV, remove the TV, kick him out of the marital bed, or leave with the kids. Whenever he chooses to watch the TV show, she removes herself and doesn’t watch it. That’s all she has to do, in the hopes that he’ll be convicted of his sin.
She then prays and waits, while simultaneously and steadfastly refusing to engage in the sin. She neither condemns nor condones it; she simply lives with him and bears with him in the hopes that God will do His convicting work. This can take a long time.
She really can’t withhold sex as a “consequence” for watching a TV show with nudity. That contravenes the scriptural command that husbands and wives aren’t to keep themselves from each other except by mutual agreement and then only for a time of prayer and fasting, lest they be tempted into sexual sin (i.e. committing adultery).
Gregoire’s suggestion that the wife tell the husband to sleep somewhere else after watching his TV show is tantamount to sexual rejection. It directly contradicts scripture which lays out the one fact situation where married couples are permitted to refrain from sex. That scripture does NOT say a spouse can (or should) refuse sex to the other spouse if each thinks the other sinned, or even when they IN FACT sinned. If that were the case, Christian married couples would be completely sexless.
‘I don’t have scripture references handy so if someone can supply them that would be appreciated.’
Along these lines? Matthew 18: 15-17
“If your brother sins go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
[D: 1 Pet 3-1:6 is a much better fit.]
or, to my last comment, TLDR:
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
Why do you make me hit you?
earl:
Not exactly, since I don’t think a wife should be getting friends involved in their marriage about a sin like hubs watching TV that he “shouldn’t”. Nor do I think a wife should be tattling to his friends or hers for his watching TV that maybe he shouldn’t. Nor do I think a wife ought tattle to the whole church about his TV habits. Mt. 18 is really more about Christians confronting one another about their sins; not about a wife’s living with a husband’s sin.
Didn’t this rebellious woman ever conceive that maybe, just maybe, her disgust of the nudity on television is born not out of a concern for her husband’s soul but from her own envy?
Talk about the plank in the eye versus the speck in the other.
There really isn’t an instruction manual as far as addressing sin between husband and wife that I’m aware of in the Bible. I’d say how deti presented it would be the best option. Bring it up as what it is…a breakdown in their relationship with God (don’t make it so much about each other), then don’t engage in it, and pray for them.
As I said in the previous post Mt 5v28 is being and is going to be used to beat men over the head relentlessly. this will never end.
The way to deal with nasty people like Gregoire is to just report her blog/website as hate speech and or harassment. If enough people do that she could get shut down.
[D: No. That would make us like the whiny SJWs. Aside from that, it is far better for her to be doing this in the light. She sells the same message in her books and speaking engagements, marriage conferences, etc. This way at least we can point it out. Also, keep in mind that she represents the modern Christian view. She wouldn’t be so successful if she wasn’t telling wives what they wanted to hear. The far edge here is vocal ambivalence towards biblical headship and submission. Gregoire is right in line with Fireproof, etc. She just isn’t as good at misdirection.]
Really when it comes to removing sin…that’s something only God can do anyway and not the wife/husband. Certainly I’d like a spouse to remind me of the particular sin if I commit it…but punishing me isn’t going to motivate me to receive forgiveness. Love however will.
What exactly is she talking about here? Hardcore pornography? Softcore? Just seeing tits on HBO? There can be tasteful nudity in movies. Question: does seeing a pair of breasts even constitute as a “sin”?
@Earl
There is. 1 Pet 3:1-6 specifically deals with how a wife should react to a sinful husband. Husbands are to wash their wives with the water of the word (active). Wives are to model submission to win their husbands without a word. Both are acts of love designed to lead the spouse to Christ, but since the roles are different the methods are different.
‘Question: does seeing a pair of breasts even constitute as a “sin”?’
I would say it could lead to an occasion of sin…that being lust. But I wouldn’t call it porn or a sin in and of itself.
Porn as I understand it from the catechism explains it at this.
‘Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.’
Philly,
Game of Thrones. Fairly raw nudity.
What I find somewhat amusing is that she takes issue with the nudity, not the host of other sins portrayed in GoT. Good grief, in the first season a guy has sex with his sister and pushes a kid out a window.
@Dalrock…
Thanks. As you can see Peter had a much different and better idea for women than Gregoire does.
Trust me. Most of the fans of GoT are not watching it to be consumed by lust. They are mostly sword & sorcery fans.
‘Didn’t this rebellious woman ever conceive that maybe, just maybe, her disgust of the nudity on television is born not out of a concern for her husband’s soul but from her own envy?’
Interesting thought. I have no clue what a woman thinks when she sees another woman naked…but I would guess envy would be a much more likely thing to happen than lust.
Here’s another thing too that Sarah’s Daughter alluded to, above.
It’s one thing for hubs to be openly committing adultery. It’s one thing for hubs to be addicted to pornography and depriving his wife of sex. Those sins might require some drastic action like divorce or imploring hubs to get some help beyond prayer and his own willpower.
But watching a TV show like GoT? Really? This is what’s got Gregoire’s reader all twisted up? This justifies wife threatening to break the TV, refuse sex, tell him to sleep somewhere else, or leave with the kids?
This is a power play, plain and simple. This is wife asserting headship over the husband.
This also tells the husband “My feelings reign supreme in this marriage. Therefore, I am head of this marriage. Give me what I want, or else.”
Even more importantly, it tells the husband that if he wants to occupy the space of biblical head of household, he must EARN that space. But, biblical headship doesn’t specify that – it simply installs the husband as head of the Christian household, with no prerequisites or qualifications other than “husband”. He doesn’t have to earn it – he’s simply placed there by divine fiat.
(NOTE to haters and advocates of “equalitarian” marriage who might be reading this – I know you don’t agree with any of this. I know you advocate “equalitarian” marriage, which is a nonentity. It cannot and does not exist. You can advocate for whatever you wish. I am simply pointing out here the biblically ordained hierarchy for Christian marriages, and how they are set up. The fact that you don’t like husband headship in Christian marriages is immaterial and irrelevant. That’s what the bible says is the hierarchy for Christian marriages, which is what Gregoire’s post purports to address and what this post addresses.)
And people wonder why men are going their own way and leaving churches? If I went to a church where they preached this nonsense i would be out the door before the service was over.
The matrix is about control.
One thing I left out of the OP for brevity, but notice the banner image for the post. Not only is the woman covering her husband’s eyes while she stares at the screen with her own eyes uncovered, but the text on the lower left clarifies what this is about:
This is about wives grasping for control due to their own insecurity. It is not about saving a husband from sin*, as Gregoire is surprisingly upfront about.
*And even if it was, how to handle that situation is spelled out by Peter as I referenced above.
@thedeti said:
I don’t have scripture references handy so if someone can supply them that would be appreciated. This is from my memory.
1st Peter 3:1 is the best place to start. “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,”
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
1st Corinthians 7:3-5 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I think those three passages, taken together, are the three key passages that destroy virtually any feminist argument. They effectively tell the wife to shut up and soldier, be in obedience and if he wants sex, give it to him.
I gain the impression that it is Mrs Gregoire rather than God himself who is enormously upset about nudity, because frankly the idea that nudity is inherently sexual is bunkum – as anyone who has ever visited a nudist beach will testify; still if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail, and anti-pornographers see porn everywhere, as did my old headmaster, himself a man with a hot-line to God. This is what happened: We young lads were watching television one Saturday evening in black and white and the show we were enjoying was none other than that of your own Danny Kaye. The music changed to, I can only suppose, Billy Rose’s The Stripper and the camera began to follow the back of the head of a blonde woman. I can’t tell you what happened next because in a moment or moral righteousness our headmaster got up and switching off the set told us all to go to bed. What wonderful foresight he had to predict that at 8pm on a Saturday evening on BBC 1 a mainstream American light-comedy programme would feature FULL FRONTAL NUDITY and probably worse. I have always remained grateful that I and the rest of my class-mates were prevented from being exposed to the filth that CBS or it may have been NBC or ABC produced for you unfortunate Americans in those days.
The idea that the woman may well have been Mr Kaye in a wig and thus some sort of joke was to ensue is surely entirely implausible.
dalrock, 9:34 am
Yes, 1 Pet. 3 is the one I was thinking of and paraphrased (quite poorly). Thanks.
So if I should happen to hear my wife gossiping it should be my husbandly duty to go up to her and cover her mouth. Fair’s fair after all.
This is about wives grasping for control due to their own insecurity.
Precisely.
“Why do you make me hit you? Why do you make me do this?”
Does Sheila Gregoire’s Bible contain the same verses as everyone else’s. Wives are not permitted to sit in constant judgement of their husbands. That is not submission – that’s not even the fake “mutual submission” they claim to believe in… that is flat-out female headship in the marriage – a direct inversion of scripture.
As far as withholding sex, that is an unambiguous sin – and the husband would have every moral right to insist that she get undressed and into bed Right Freaking Now… and if she continues to deny him what is his, bring her rebellion before the church for disciplinary action (per Matthew 18).
Sadly, few churches have the guts to exercise church discipline for anything – much less a “Christian” wife denying her husband his conjugal rights.
What should her husband do? This evil, narcissistic, bitch is clearly deeply in sin and headed to hell. Writing such words, especially for public consumption is worse. Her husband isn’t producing and may not even be watching porn – lust, but his wife is producing bloodporn – anger. Both lust and Anger are thought-sins according to the Sermon on the mount. And she then says to commit visible sins to express the anger. If correction and discipline is warranted to save a soul, Gregorie ought to be in for some very severe mercy.
What happened to forgiveness? 70 times 7 instead of sinning in return? Or even actual justice? I suspect many Duluthers in Scott’s story were “Christians” trying to “help” Jim and his wife. It is not only often futile but dangerous to ask the church for help when their first action will be to call Caesar to intervene. Far greater evil is done in the name of doing good: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
One other note on the “inciting anger” front. Islam is a threat, but especially on the conservative side I see little talk or justice or defense. There are calls for mass slaughter, sanctions (like which killed 500,000 Iraqi children), torture, because it is framed as a cause for anger and these things are incited in a manner similar to Gregorie’s presentations. The same framing as “feelings” to seek vengeance, not facts to seek justice, “They” do bad things, so we can get angry and do worse things. Winning the war this way loses our soul. Few want to actually reason thing out. And for some strange reason, Abortion, ripping a baby limb from limb, a rate of a 9-11 every 18 hours, doesn’t cause much anger, and it is condemned when it appears. Perhaps ISIS will draw and quarter someone so it would be even more ironic. Making the case for a just war is hard, inciting anger is easy. And attempts to merely return to reason are seen as being soft or even enabling terrorists. If you enjoy the bloodporn of “24”, the misandric bloodporn is mild.
Are you being reasoned with, or are your feelings being manipulated? It is much harder to tell when you agree. Lust and Anger come from the flesh – the body wants to have the pleasure of sin – we enjoy even the temptation and manipulation – which will pull you down to where reason becomes the slave of your passions instead of their master.
But this is the technique we see. Once captured, rational argument is impossible. The passions command reason to come up with a talking point, an excuse, a loophole, a rationalization. The serpent enthrones the hamster.
I feel disrespected and humiliated when you watch that
Right here we can tell that she does not have the discernment needed to speak with her husband about sin. She sees his sin as something he’s done against her. Her concern is not about her husband’s relationship with God.
if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
Fear – it is out of fear that a woman feels disrespected or humiliated when her husband views nudity. And as Swiftfoxmark2 said above, it is her own sin that she is projecting; she covets her husband’s desire.
Doing good without fear is developing a love so deep in her marriage that a wife’s heart aches for her husband’s relationship with God when she witnesses his rebellion and is empathetic to his struggle – hers is just as real though often with different issues.*
She no more wants to hear from her husband that her gluttony makes him feel disrespected (though it is his rightful place to admonish her in this) and humiliated than he wants to hear that from her about his desire to see boobs.
Wives would do well to stay in their lane. Pray for her husband’s obedience to God, focus on God’s calling for her and “do good without fear”.
*I am not at all suggesting a woman go to her husband and say: “my heart aches for your relationship with God.” – How wise for 1 Peter 3 to say “without a word”! These verses assure us that no words need to be spoken, for good reason – there is no room for manipulation or haughtiness.
I usually ignore people like Shelia, but this was too gross to ignore, especially considering she does have some sway in the modern Church. So I posted the following on her comment section. Since she moderates her comments, I don’t think we’ll see it on the site itself:
I was reading a book that talked about judgement and it made the case we would all do better if we focused more on our own faults instead of the faults of others. Because when we take so much time to look at other people’s sins we seem to forget our own. A wife living holy can have much more influence over her husband than a browbeating wife.
So basically the plank in your own eye explained further.
Perhaps the solution for the wife that’s upset that he’s watching nudity on TV is to take her top off, climb on his lap and stick a nipple in his mouth. Proverbs 5:19. No words necessary, just let nature take its course.
@ SD
it is out of fear that a woman feels disrespected or humiliated
“disrespected” and “humiliated” aren’t feelings (nouns vs verbs). Fear, joy, grief, chagrin, etc. are feelings. The woman’s speech is a cheat to accuse her husband of failing to respect her and humiliate her.
As an aside observation, Christian wives repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by demanding that husbands jump through hoops to “earn” headship and “earn” sex.
That stance permits husbands to retort that a wife must then earn his commitment, his fidelity, his time, and access to his money and resources. That stance pits husbands and wives against each other. It recasts them as adversaries, constantly jockeying for position against each other and warring against each other for supremacy.
So the wife is to appeal to feelings …“I feel disrespected and humiliated when you watch that, and I don’t know why you want to do something which makes me feel disrespected and humiliated….” The solution is to be the cause of those same negative feelings in her husband so he can feel disrespected and humiliated by premeditated acts of sexual defrauding and insubordination. Those aren’t sins, apparently, if the women is doing it for the greater good of her feelings, It seems that disrespect and humiliation are not sins when husbands are their objects and wives seizing control of the home. Oh I forgot men don’t have feelings, at least not real feelings like women or so I have been told. So its OK to defraud… if she feels its OK. If he looks at another woman the solution is for a wife to punish her husband by withholding what she vowed not to withhold, because she felt like hurting him. If he doesn’t earn enough, that is the sin of failing to make her feel secure and loved; the solution is to defraud him until he makes enough for her to feel good Didn’t help with the housework? Why he is sinning by not making her feel loved, and by causing her to feel humiliated and disrespected; the solution is to sanctify him by defrauding him until she feels respected and content on her pedestal perch. The feminism in the church has given ascendency to ethics according to Jezebel.
@ deti
adversaries, constantly jockeying for position against each other and warring against each other for supremacy.
Welcome to marriage 2.0.
Sarah’s Daughter,
Right. It is just fear.
100% right.
Try this on: “When you don’t make sammiches it hurts me on a deep emotional level. It’s not just that we are going hungry, it’s that you are choosing to let us go hungry. It’s clear you don’t value our marriage or our Church.” And of course understand that tolerating such an unChristlike attitude in your home on her part will likely result in a sammich divorce.
Okay. I asked Sheila the same question, just with genders switched (because in my case, it’s true). Mrs. St. James loves her HBO nudity, and I could hardly tear her away from True Blood for at least the first season. True Blood makes me laugh, although it does contain buckets of naked folks. It would be terribly weird if Mrs. St. James felt “humiliated” by a TV show.
I don’t want to spoil anyone’s day, but believe me, under the panties of every woman you see today is a completely naked vagina. Sorry.
Thanks, Dalrock, for clearly enunciating the utterly creepy factor that Sheila espoused. I couldn’t describe it myself at first—I laughed out loud (at work) at her post, and then felt ill because I know women who’d immediately believe and parrot what Sheila wrote.
Deti mentioned “earning” sex: I have always said (accidentally at first, now on purpose) that I’m GOING to have sex, and dear wife, I’d sincerely like it if it were with you.
I dont know how to send you an email, Dalrock, but you really need to see this, if you havent already:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121138/mark-driscoll-and-macho-christianity
This woman is nuts.
Elizabeth Bruenig, your hatred of men is ugly and boring, as seen in your yellow journalism hit piece on Mark Driscoll.
Elizabeth Bruenig, your hatred of men is ugly and boring, as seen in your yellow journalism hit piece on Mark Driscoll.
I like that someone is hitting Driscoll, It almost looks like the moral of the story is don’t attack the feminized culture with “Duck Tape Dynasty” bravado and think you are going to win.
“Not by might and not by power, but by my Spirit sayeth the Lord”.
Re “feelings”
As a married man, sometimes I don’t “feel” married. All you broads, think about that when you twist language to accuse your man.
It’s a peculiar, pseudo-Christian take on feminist contempt for “the male gaze.”
Tim Keller writes a lot about making a false idol of one’s “perfect family” or marriage, but what she’s doing is raising the stakes and making some ephemeral dissatisfaction she has evidence of sin. Perhaps in this way items 1 and 2 are not contradictory (to her) at all. “I feel bad there for you are bad.”
There is an extreme anti-sex framework to that blog. The February 23 entry is a cringe-inducing group hug as to why a woman shouldn’t manually or orally please her husband. Sometimes, as C.S. Lewis described, we’re in hell and don’t know it, and that clearly is where that woman’s husband resides.
Rather, “I feel bad therefore you are bad.”
I have had Gregoire tell me personally over the years:
1) the Old Testament is irrelevant and we should ignore it for basing any of our life or beliefs on
2) it’s a woman’s choice whether she wants- as in her feelings, not what the Bible says-whether she lives in an egalitarian marriage or in a headship/submission
3) that she understands why christian women marry non-christian men, because non-christian men don’t expect sex in marriage. She preferred the characteristics of non-christian men over christian men.
The lady hates being a woman and desires to be a man. There is no doubt she wears the pants in her family and picks and chooses the scriptures she chooses to believe. If that was all of it I could I live with it, however she teaches thousands upon thousands of women (and men sadly) these same principals daily. She’s a dangerous woman. In the name of helping marriages she is destroying them. In the name of helping the church she is harming it. A wolf in wolf’s clothing- christians are just so blind they can not spot a wolf anymore because we rarely actually pick up the Book anymore.
Every time I read a new post about Gregoire I get the impression that being married to her or one of the wives who subscribe to her message is like playing chicken to see who’ll flinch first, the husband or the wife, and file for divorce.
She never outright advocates a wife to divorce her husband, but she certainly agitates for a litigious, police-state ambience in marriage, which I can only assume is to collect enough evidence for justifying divorce when either party files.
Gregoire’s holy-surveillance message makes genuine desire and trust in marriage an impossiblity, thus the only direction it can go is to divorce. She’s literally advocating that the only way a woman can remain holy is to live alone and away from men’s deliberate and indeliberate sinning.
So it becomes a game of chicken, the first party to suggest divorce makes the other an adulterer in the eyes of the Lord. Redefine sexual infidelity to conform to anything counter to the Feminine Imperative (now conflated with the Holy Spirit) and no matter which party files, she’s blameless in the opinion of Jesus.
I fully expect that in a future post Gregoire will make a case for the holiness of hiding nest dropcams around the house to catch
her childa husband in the act of his numerous sins:I’m usually not a fan of the “What about 50 Shades of Graaaaaaay!!!??” response to porn, but this is just begging for it.
But we’re not talking about actual objective sin, we’re talking about feelings, right?
Imagine how Mrs. Gregore and her FB any might respond to this letter from a distraught dear sister in Christ…
“I came home yesterday to find all my home improvement books and magazines burned by my husband. He had long been asking me to stop reading then and watching HGTV, even leaving the house with the kids whenever it’s on because it makes him feel inadequate, and thinks it leads me to have unrealistic expectations for our home. Besides, what’s the matter with dreaming a little bit? Maybe he could learn something, if hours latest project is any help…
Anyway, he’s said he’s going golfing with his buddies this weekend instead of visiting my parents and helping them move like we had planned. What should I do? ”
I’m guessing the answer would include storming heaven with prayers for this woman trapped in a marriage with such a control freak and numbers for domestic abuse hotlines…
pokesalad:
re the article on Driscoll: There are a lot of criticisms of Driscoll and similar pastors in that Breunig article. Some criticisms are valid, some not.
The issue with regard to the article isn’t so much the hatred of men (I take it as a given).
Driscoll’s downfall was not so much his appeals to masculinity and trying to get men to avoid being such pussies. His downfall came because of his pride, his lack of humility, and his inability or unwillingness to submit to lawfully constituted authority. But most importantly, it was Driscoll’s inability or unwillingness to faithfully teach Scripture that brought him down. The job of a pastor is first and foremost to preach the Gospel, preach Christ crucified, and hew to scripture.
‘3) that she understands why christian women marry non-christian men, because non-christian men don’t expect sex in marriage. She preferred the characteristics of non-christian men over christian men.’
They don’t? No wonder they don’t get married if that is the case.
I think those three passages, taken together, are the three key passages that destroy virtually any feminist argument. They effectively tell the wife to shut up and soldier, be in obedience and if he wants sex, give it to him.
I refuse to dignify Gregoire’s tripe by reading any of it, so I’ll ask those who have a stronger stomach than I do: does she ever refer to Scripture to back up her nonsensical assertions?
I have to believe that the answer is no, since not only is Scripture anathema to christofeminists, but even a misquotation of it, so far out of context as to make it unrecognizable, would be so obvious as to rob her of any semblance of credibility. Then again, her christofeminist customers have as little use for Scripture as she does, so it might be a moot point.
@Rollo
Gregoire’s holy-surveillance message makes genuine desire and trust in marriage an impossiblity, thus the only direction it can go is to divorce.
Seriously, it’s so evil. You’d probably have better luck with a random secular girl than one of the women reading this woman’s blog, it seems. Threatening divorce over the most minor of infractions? It’s almost enough to make one physically ill. Having grown up in a home where parental divorce was always hanging over my head, if nothing else it’s shear torture for the children. They know when their parents are at odds like this and it destroys security for everyone, all in the name of feminist liberationism dressed up with faux Christian Concern. Jezebel was probably less to be feared than the present rot of feminist liberationists who have infiltrated our churches, with aid and comfort from our sissified pastors trying to be respectable.
@johnmcg
Feminism is about the amplification of female discontent.
Porn is the ground-zero sin for the christo-feminists, because, something else has taken some of the leverage and control of their husbands from wives, and because sex is a lethal weapon in a woman’s quest to “all she can be”. The discontent of envy results in a fixation on her husband, especially his sexuality, and not so he can rejoice with the wife of his youth and be intoxicated by her love, but so she quell her feelings of discontent and ingratitude. When some other woman is more seductive, has a nicer house, a more inspiring lover or takes better vacations then the feminist training kicks in to defend her honor by occluding her own sins in a man-blaming projection of her envy and discontent. If her husband struggles with unmet sexual desire, instead of stepping up her game, she defrauds him. This incoherency and Biblical rewriting only make sense in the wake of the feminist frame.
By being miserly with love, she defends herself against the fear of not being loved and attributes her cold-heart to her husband’s failure to make her feel like being more loving.
She reacts to her discontent with control and when she discontent that she didn’t get all the control she feeds her discontent with yet more control. But she was not made by God to be in control; she is destined to never find peace for she is rebelling against God’s design for her life. The more control she commandeers the further from true contentment she will be. Only when she fully submits to a man who is her caring master will she ever be fulfilled. Yes master is a strong word, it is what the Church calls her Lord. I can connect the dots in the scripture if you like, but it shows just how from specs we are now operating.
The next post from Gregoire will of course be about how men need to Man Up, assert themselves and stop walking on eggshells around their wives and how those wives should consider divorcing those men for shirking their God ordained manly servitude to the Feminine Imperative.
Does anyone understand why women are being cast as the boss of the family and of men?
http://henrymakow.com/feminism_is_key_to_making_of_a.html
“He advised slave owners to foster division, “fear, envy and distrust for control.” Pit young versus old, light skinned versus dark skinned and most importantly, male versus female.
In a section called “The Breaking Process of the African Woman,” he advocated shifting her dependency from the African male to the slave owner. This is achieved by beating and humiliating the male in front of the female.” – See more at: http://henrymakow.com/feminism_is_key_to_making_of_a.html#sthash.dozNH3iJ.dpuf
Has anyone watched TV lately?
“He advocated shifting her dependency from the American male to the slave owner (the Corporate State). This is achieved by beating and humiliating the male in front of the female.”
this has been a public lzozzlozolozlzozoz announcement
Missed ya, GBFM.
I just posted on her blog following every step in her comment disclaimer. I give it about a 0% chance of being approved.
thanks theasdgamer ! i missed you too and dalrockaz and all.
the reeducationsz camps wasn’t sooo bad and there’s a pppart of me deep down they never touched nor reached nor ever willz, even though i lost amy ability to lzozozozoozozozlzozo for a few daysz.
the worst part of da reducuationz camps was not all the dailzy buthehetxtxhxtzz but when they strapped us in chairsz with our eyes wired open and made us watch mark dricscoll and joel olsteen sermronz lzozozzozoz as a christianz womenz blogger commanded to accept the teahcings of jesus brought to us via the only menz in the room mark drisocllsz and joel olsteenz lzzozolzlo
lzozozozoozo
lzozozolzolzo
‘The modern female has been “frozen psychologically” and now depends on the slave owner (government, corporation) for her security. The modern male is emasculated, strong in body but not in mind, grateful to be allowed to serve a master, often a woman.’
Strong in body but not in mind. Important words here, gentlemen.
Daughter : You hurt my feelings !
Me : Do you feelings bleed, die or go to hospital ?
Daughter : No
Me : Then I can damn well hurt them.
The more control she commandeers the further from true contentment she will be.
Yes. She is not designed for it. Her body will react negatively to this stress: weight gain/loss, anxiety, irregular sleep, depression.
Only when she fully submits to a man who is her caring master will she ever be fulfilled.
Likewise her body responds to this lack of stress as well. She will experience a calming joy.
I have debated plenty of women who are racked with fear at the thought of giving up control. I leave them with one question “How many SSRI prescriptions do you currently have?”
She is not going to approve this but here goes…
I guess I don’t really have a serious problem with a woman who says that she wants to have “headship” in her marriage because she is a feminist (doesn’t even believe in God) and wants to marry a mule to produce resources for her under her full legal goverment sanctioned “threatpoint.” Just don’t say that you are Christian is all. Don’t try and play both sides because its insulting.
Either be Christian or don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Fear of giving up control isn’t easy for anyone. That’s why it’s worth it.
@Dalrock
One of Sheila’s reader has taken the next logical step and submitted herself to full headship in her home.
One of the problems for a modern marriage is that the Bible was (regrettably) written by men. Sarah has corrected that oversight. Her husband has the blessing of seeking God’s guidance in how to pray to his wife after reading her word.
That should say giving up control isn’t easy…that’s why it’s worth it.
“If you focus the conversation around “it’s pornography and you shouldn’t be watching it”, then you’ll get into an argument about whether or not it really qualifies, and you can’t win that.”
One wonders if this is because the husband might inquire why her copy of 50 Shades of Grey or her favorite chick flicks like “The Notebook” that feature nudity/infidelity don’t meet the definition of porn and why it’s okay for her to watch/read it.
If that is the case, then yes, you “can’t win that.”
Her concept o marriage is very much the egalitarian one, which basically has two variants, each of which has the woman de facto in command: (1) a constant struggle, with constant keeping of tabs on each other, comparison of work, chores and spending, constant negotiation of wants/desires/actions and constant vigilance or (2) a situation where the guy doesn’t want situation (1) and so gives the woman what she wants.
We may say that the guy who opts for (2) is an obvious pussy, but the fact remains that variant (1) also ends up in the same place, mostly, because (as almost all relationship counselors and experts will tell you) women tend to “win” marital negotiations to a large degree, and so even though the “process” looks different in (1) and (2), the end result of the woman basically determining the marriage and getting her way is typically the same. The difference is the process and atmosphere and, if anything, variant (2) is at least more peaceful than variant (1).
My own guess is that Madame Gregore finds herself in a variant (2) marriage.
WOW!!!!! Shocked, Shelia approved my comment. I can’t believe it. Now she is now arguing with me. We’ll see how far my red pills go on her site before she pulls the plug on my account.
I already guessed wrong when she approved the first one. What are the odds this one gets approved?
Who want’s the over-under on how long it takes Sheila to play the “so Christian wives should just stay in abusive marriages?” card to IBB’s comments?
I got $10 here.
Well, IBB, you outdid yourself. Good comments.
Scripture specifically lays out in detail, multiple times that the role of the woman is to influence her husband by her submission and good deeds and words.
“1In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”
How clear scripture gets turned into this abomination that causes desolation is a mystery to me.
“Game of Thrones, Spartacus, and shows similar aren’t just sinful for their blantant sex and nudity, but for rape, incest, prostitution, possible pedophilia, disregard and disrespect towards women, completely ungodly themes, extreme unnecessary violence, etc.”
Note it is not just “nudity” or “pornography.”
“DISREGARD AND DISRESPECT TOWARDS WOMEN, UNGODLY THEMES, VIOLENCE.”
Any man who permits his wife to manipulate him with her emotions like that will dry her up like the planet Mars. She has no idea the special kind of Hell she is advocating will inevitably create. See /r/deadbedrooms for more.
Rollo,
It wont even get to that point. One post of red pills is all Shelia could stomach. My second dose of red pills made her vomit churchianity all over the place, she wont approve it on feminist principles.
@ dalrock:
[D: No. That would make us like the whiny SJWs. Aside from that, it is far better for her to be doing this in the light.” You are right- you are very level headed Sir.
Got a question for you. Being a single Christian guy who feels lead to be single. What is your opinion about single men and singleness in general? Most church people seem to be anti-single. Most churches treat single groups like a dating service or a waiting time between being single and then being married. The Apostle Paul was single- why do churches exclusively push marriage as the only way to live when you well know that some people just will never get married. Some guys just can’t get along with women and can’t attract women. I read online that on dating sites women say that only 20% of men are not even date or marriage material. That will leave a lot of men.
I’ve never had a problem attracting ladies, I just never met one I really felt compatible with and as I get older I prefer to stay single. I enjoy being single. I am an introvert. Love to do my own thing. When I want to be around people I hang out and even date occasionally- but not often. I find more joy in my creative aspirations than I do in a social life. I have friends- male and female that I hang out with on occasion but then I love to go home and do what I want to do whether it be play my keyboard- write short stories- and write and compose music. (I live according to biblical standards- as a single person I am celibate by choice because that is what God expects of a dedicated Christian). So what is your view on men being single? Especially staying single.
Rollo, I will NOT take that bet… unless Sheila cuts off that thread of comments that IBB started, if she doesn’t play the “abuse” card, one of her fellow hamster-jockeys will.
What I keep seeing there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the marriage relationship. One thing that pops up quite a few times in the Bible is military analogies and references. The Centurion with the sick servant in Luke Chapter 1, for example. His understanding of the divine authority of Jesus sprang from his living within a hierarchy of military authority.
That’s what Sheila and her fellow hamster-jockeys don’t get. Sheila writes of a wife “making her decisions” about sleeping arrangements (and thus frequency of sex in direct contradiction of 1 Cor 7). She speaks approvingly of the “give-and-take” within her daughter’s marriage.
Wives DO have a role to play in edifying their husbands, but that role does not imply an egalitarian “give-and-take-between-equals” scenario – or especially the outright female supremacy Sheila regularly spouts. Marriage is not a merger of “equals” – in military parlance it is a “superior/subordinate” relationship, and the husband is the superior. A lot of people get bent out of shape about that terminology, because they think superior denotes better – but it does not: it means the one in charge.
My fellow military guys here will understand this instinctively – if there is give-and-take, it is superiors giving orders and subordinates taking them. When I used to have minions, I always solicited their input, and I gave them permission to tell me any time they thought I was doing something wrong, or if they thought they had a better idea. No penalty – in fact, I would praise them in front of the other troops for finding a mistake I was making, because I wanted the best outcome for the unit and I wanted everyone to know that their ideas mattered and would be considered. But the bottom line is that the decision was ultimately mine to make, and whether I took their suggestions or not, they were expected to carry on according to whatever my orders were, provided they did not violate an order from a higher source, or it was an emergency and they had information I did not have at the time I issued my order.
As has been pointed out several times, the Bible lays out ways for wives to help and edify their husbands, even unbelieving ones: unilaterally “making decisions” that affect the marriage is not among them. Destroying or disposing of property is not among them, either. Neither is keeping the police and a divorce lawyer on speed-dial. All of those are examples of fighting for headship rather than accepting the position of subordination she agreed to when she got married.
Welcome Sarot.
I would say the Apostle Paul covered this in 1 Cor 7-25:40. There is no obligation to marry, but you must as you note remain celibate. I wrote a guest post over at the Orthosphere a while back on the topic.
Sarot,
You didn’t ask me but I’d like to answer: being single is fine. In the past there might have been some (unwarranted) level of shame associated with Christian men remaining single, but not anymore. One great benefit of divorce laws that destroy men is that 99% of married men pretty much refuse to hold single men to account for not “manning up” marrying a slut. It is only women who are truly annoyed with MGTOW. That said, although I am not annoyed, I am “afraid” of MGTOW because I have daughters, but what can I do? Really, the only question here that matters is how do YOU feel about it? It you are okay with it (and it appears that you are) then you are good with God.
Christian women who are singles have it quite a bit tougher because so much of their identity (as women) is tied up on the concept of who she is “helpmeeting.” Men keep score with one another based on their accomplishments (career, assets/property, vacation/travel, education, physical fitness, etc.) Women keep score with one another based on their relationships (boyfriends, husbands, ex-husbands, children, parents, step-parents, step-siblings, step-children, etc.) For a woman NOT (or never) to have a husband among her female peers would be like you never accomplishing anything among fellow men.
For a while there was this nonsense philosophy (which could not be found anywhere in the Bible) used to make single women happier about not being a “helpmeet” to any man called “The Gift of Singleness.” It’s feel good rubbish. But it is what it is. And it was created specifically because women who are single generally do NOT feel good about it. And with good reason. Christian women know they want to be married because NOT being married, they are telling themselves that they are NOT good with God. (Men may love women, but women need husbands waaaaayyyyy more than men need wives, at least until they get rid of marriage 2.0).
Wow, innocentbystanderboston, you managed to get your comment published. Congrats.
I had no such luck myself. I guess I was too forward with her. I suppose I shouldn’t have told her to repent for being prideful and envious.
@Lyn87, you hit the nail on the head, and I suspect that most men even if they don’t have military service still understand from team sports and work.
Your boss is the one in charge. You can usually give input into things, but the boss is going to make the decision.
It’s just not that hard a concept to grasp.
“For a while there was this nonsense philosophy (which could not be found anywhere in the Bible) used to make single women happier about not being a “helpmeet” to any man called “The Gift of Singleness.” ”
It’s still around. I had a friend the other day who posted some words on Facebook addressed to “single mothers and single wives.” I know what a single mother is, but what exactly is a single wife? One statement said something along the lines of “Jesus is your first husband.” Um…first husband? I remember one preacher saying “Jesus came to Earth to save you from your sins, not help you commit them.” I know the metaphor of Jesus as bride groom, but the idea of Jesus as a woman’s husband I find disturbing.
FWIW,
I too joined the fray. We’ll see if it gets posted. In response to this exchange:
I posted this in response to Sheila:
Timber St. James says:
February 27, 2015 at 10:35 am
Years ago I was working on a critical project with a colleague. We had been working 72 – 80 hour weeks for several weeks. We were working one night, quite late, when he got a phone call. He then told me he was sorry, but even though we had a deadline he had to go home. His wife had called and told him that she was having sex that night and if he wanted to be part of it he had better come home now.
jbro,
Its Catholic. Every nun is supposed to wear a wedding band as she is actually “married” to Christ. At least that is the way I learned it.
IBB, thanks for clearing that up.
I haven’t been able to read all y’all’s comments yet, but I posted this at her site and I wanted somebody to read it. It’s in moderation limbo, perhaps because she’s got too many comments to handle (I can’t imagine her finding it too offensive to post).
It’s in response to her response to innocentbystanderboston (the only name over there I recognized from here):
“Part of the objection is that the attitude expressed in this article seems contrary to I Peter 1-2:
“’Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.’
“I don’t see much of an emphasis on ‘won over without words’ but instead plenty of insistence on using a whole lot of them.
“Biblical insight into human nature plays a huge role here, for using too many ‘words’ on a man (like you seem to advocate) typically comes across to the man like nagging and has the opposite effect, whereas feminine sweetness can be amazingly persuasive (Peter understands this, do you?). Moreover, it’s hard to reconcile the idea of male ‘headship’ with an ostensibly submissive wife who believes it’s her role to not ‘tolerate’ behavior she finds sinful by setting rules about what can be done and where.
“”For all have sinned’, and it’s indeed the duty of any believe to do what he or she can to overcome sin to the best of their ability. However, although I hope to overcome my sin, I’d rather not welcome a wife into my life who will nag me about it and set rules for me in such a way that seems to entirely subvert the Christian prescription for marriage, whereas a woman who would act like Peter says she should act would inspire me to be the best man I could possibly be for her. It seems as though the ‘everything’ in Ephesians 5:24 is supposed to mean ‘whatever makes her feel okay.’ ‘Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.’ here seems to mean instead ‘if your husband has issues with self-control, deprive him of the sex Paul says you should give him unconditionally by making him sleep on the couch.’
But bringing any of this up just sets you up for being blamed for making excuses for sin.”
swift,
Thanks. After posting mine and Vic’s, I think Shelia might be regretting it. I don’t expect any more red pills getting past her comments filter
innocentbystanderboston: You said: “….In the past there might have been some (unwarranted) level of shame associated with Christian men remaining single, but not anymore…….”
I’ve never understood this and don’t believe we should encourage any Christian man to marry unless he really wants to and will sin otherwise. Paul is pretty clear that the single life devoted to Christ is the model for Christians, and that marriage is meant as a fallback for those burning with passion who would sin and go to hell otherwise. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.
Really, singleness and celibacy were the model and much celebrated after the Roman Empire became officially Christian in the 4th century. This reached such an extreme that by the 9-10th centuries, so many men had joined monasteries that it created demographic issues for the Empire. Also, at several points, military recruiters would descend on the monasteries in and around Constantinople basically impressing young monks into the regiments because no one else was available and the army needed troops. Really, Christian men going MGTOW, intentionally or not, is just Christianity returning to its roots and practices of the early centuries.
To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, I think the discussion of feelings was in Mrs. Gergore trying to say how to effectively communicate versus establishing guilt of sin. In her and her readers’ minds, guilt is already established; the question now is what to do about it.
And, in general. this advice is probably correct, a loving husband is probably more likely to respond to, “It hurts me when you do this.” than, “What you’re doing is a terrible, grave sin!” A loving husband, might, for example, stop wearing a shirt her wife hates, even if there’s nothing objectively sinful about wearing a shirt.
The problem is that in our minds, guilt is far from established, and the way the article is written leads to the conclusion that the wife’s hurt feelings are sufficient to establish guilt. She would likely reject my above anology to HGTV because HGTV is not objectively sinful, while, in their minds, GoT is.
So, while it might be nice for a man to stop wearing a shirt his wife hates, the other remedies suggested would be out of proportion if the man wore the shirt anyway. They might be appropriate if the behavior was gravely sinful.
It’s a big exercise in question-begging.
Lyn87–
Exactly. In the army, everybody has a commander. Even my commander has a commander. Mine tells me what to do, and I do it. That does not make the commander “better” or even more valuable than me. It means that person has acheived the rank and position of commander and they call the shots. There are subordinates under me, they have to follow my orders, which have the implied impramatur of the commander. It’s really no reflection on any of our individual values.
What I am learning as I get older is that this really is not hard to understand. Explaining this to “Christian” feminists is silly, because it’s not that they don’t get it. They get it just fine. They understand that heirarchies exist in every facet of life. They do what their bosses say, just like I do. They know they will get fired if they don’t.
It is Adam and Eves curse from the beginning. It is really is just that simple.
Boy i hope these guys dont watch Game of Thrones
I just posed at Sheila’s blog under my given name:
George Bernard Frost McEnroe says:
February 27, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Sheila,
Do you agree with the teachings in Book III of Genesis?
Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Do you agree with this? Jesus stated that he came to fulfill this Law.
Best,
GBFM
@ Scott: (I concede these points may have already been addressed, I haven’t read prior comments yet).
Sheila tells women not to tolerate sin from their husbands. Yet do students “not tolerate” behavior from their teachers, players “not tolerate” behavior from their coaches, or employees “not tolerate” policies of their employers?
If you’re “not tolerating” behavior from somebody, the YOU’RE THE ONE IN CHARGE. I wonder is she’ll see that. (I’m not holding my breath.)
john,
Ahhh…Yup. Of course the communication could go down this way….
(her) “It hurts me when you do this.”
(him) “Do what?”
(her) “You know.”
(him) “No I don’t.”
(her pointing at screen) “She is not wearing any clothes. You can see her Biblically. This hurts me.”
(him) “Why?”
(her) “Because…. I am afraid you will desire her. I want your desire to ONLY be for me.”
(him) “Okay.” (turns off tv) “Lets to bed and make love.”
(her, red faced) “Now?”
(him) “Yes. I want to be inside my wife… now.”
(her, bright red) “Okay I shall submit.”
That is what SHOULD happen. That would be Biblical. That is what Paul said should happen so both can avoid sin. But in no way will this type of conversation happen because she doesn’t want him to “fix” the problem (that being her hurt feelings because she is afraid of hsi desire) she just wants to vent and threaten. Feminism destroys everything.
Martel-
Yep. That’s what I was getting at. It a “desire to rule over your husbands,” not some misunderstanding of how the concept of derived and delegated authority works. They understand it just fine. They are just fulfilling what were told way back in Genesis.
(As DGBFM points out).
George Bernard Frost McEnroe says:
February 27, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Terri,
You write, “As a Christian woman who has been happily married for 20 years, raised 2 Godly sons, and mentors other Christians in marriage. . .”
Over 75% of “Christian” divorces are initiated by women. Regarding divorce, Jesus stated “What god has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Was Jesus wrong?
I also commented that Sapphire apparently “conspired” with her husband and was therefore complicit in his sin, thus this isn’t an example of a wife’s erroneous submission. That’s also in moderation limbo.
Shelia is not going to let ANY OF THIS get through. We have probably given her a head ache.
@Lyn87
While a commander may chose to take the input of his subordinates, he is under no compulsion to do so. It is his call. The Bible does not suggest that a husband must listen to his wife, in fact Adam was condemned for listening to his wife. However if a history of trustworthiness is established and if the commander has confidence in his second in command he is at liberty to not only to solicit input but to delegate a great deal of responsibility. Wisdom must rule his decision,
A geeky example from Star Trek The Next Generation: If Commander Riker had tried to usurp Captain Picard’s authority for his own grandizment, the Captain would be with in his duty to severely limit Riker’s authority and input, even discipline him. If a wife shows a tendency to usurp her husband’s authority, the husband should be wary of her input, and begin steps to ensure the success of the family mission.
I suspect the answer would be that although women are the ones who *formally* initiate divorce, it is really the men who do so by doing things like watching Game of Thrones over their wives’ objections. The women are merely making official the reality that was established by the men’s behavior.
,i>She would likely reject my above anology to HGTV because HGTV is not objectively sinful, while, in their minds, GoT is.
HGTV can be just as sinful as GoT though, and for the same reason. If they cause sin in the heart from lust then the motivations and thought revolving around those programs have the same end result, discontentment and a lack of peace. What we have in this day in age is an attack on the sins that men are inclined towards and a free pass for sins that women are inclined towards.
— —Sheila responds to Teri
Vic is being sarcastic. He’s saying that by telling women it’s okay to confront their husband’s sins I’m really telling them not to submit, and therefore I’m justifying divorce for women. He’s misreading everything I’ve written about marriage and advocating a view of marriage which is not biblical but which basically means that women can never speak up or advocate for what is right because otherwise they are sinning.
What Sheila fail to grasp is that what she is advocating is decidedly not “what is right”. She is attempting to counter a presumed sin with the multiplication of even more egregious sins. She has instructed women to be insubordinate, to defraud, to become the ethical standard and judge in the home and to call this evil “right”. The wolf is among the flock stirring up discontent, envy and strife; leading a rebellion against the shepherds.
One example I’ve heard cited that husbands should listen to their wives was Abraham listening to his wife about kicking out Hagar and Ishmael.
HOWEVER, in the first place, God specifically told Abraham to do this. Secondly, by telling Abraham to listen to her (as opposed to telling Sara to shout down Abraham or telling Abraham that he should submit to her in all things or see her as an equal) God implicitly recognized Abraham’s earthly authority over his family.
Another example is Rebekah being smarter than Isaac about which son should get the Inheritance. Although she was right about Jacob being more advanced than Essau, the Bible in no way explicitly condones what she did. If anything, this seems like a case of God using the wrong thing to make the right thing happen (such as Joseph’s being sold into slavery).
@Martel
Sarah called her husband “Lord”. For this she commended for in 1 Peter,
@ jona: She called him “lord,” and he obviously loved her enormously in return (those two times he almost cuckolded himself notwithstanding–their relationship grew over time).
Oh, I’d be sleeping somewhere else if I got this shit from my wife. But it wouldn’t be on a horizontal surface in my own house.
@ Martel
….and he obviously loved her enormously in return…
I think he loved her, not in return but first. It is a better picture of Christ and the Church, He first loved us.
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/faculty/siegel_theruleoflove.pdf
Looking back throughout the history households were kind of looked at like little governments with the husband being the head, lord, mister, or master. its interesting how many rights the law gave a husband/father to use his discretion to maintain order of his household for its betterment.
Its almost like today Husband is defined as servant and wife is defined as master. The exact opposite of what husband and wife ment were throughout history and biblically. a father/husband has been stripped of all rights and almost has to go along with every whim his wife wants to maintain peace and order or even keep household together at all.
I believe the laws of the land can artificially change what the best Godly decision a person can make for each situation. I wonder today which is more against God accepting wife lordship to keep the family together or divorce/breaking up the family or is any choice against God at all. to elaborate on how laws can artifically change a christians Godly best choice Prob a really bad comparison but say a single woman has a child out of wedlock well before abortion was legal it was looked down upon as having the child out of sin but today since abortion is legal the woman made a more holy decision because instead of killing and aborting the child she decided to bring the child into the world and raise the child as a single mother.
I also hope someone can fit these bible passages into Sheila Gregoire’s viewpoint of marriage:
1 Peter states
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us,[f] leaving us[g] an example, that you should follow His steps:
….Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
Titus
2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in SILENCE with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to USURP authority over the man, but TO BE IN SILENCE.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Corinthians
11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
….
1 Corinthians
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the communities: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in the community.
Colossians –
3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Ephesians-
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the community: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the community is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in EVERY thing.
5: 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
Numbers 30 .
8 But if her husband refuses to allow her [to keep her vow or pledge] on the day that he hears of it, then he shall make void and annul her vow which is upon her and the rash utterance of her lips by which she bound herself, and the Lord will forgive her.
12 But if her husband positively made them void on the day he heard them, then whatever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her.
13 Every vow and every binding oath to humble or afflict herself, her husband may establish it or her husband may annul it.
14 But if her husband altogether holds his peace [concerning the matter] with her from day to day, then he establishes and confirms all her vows or all her pledges which are upon her. He establishes them because he said nothing to [restrain] her on the day he heard of them.
15 But if he shall nullify them after he hears of them, then he shall be responsible for and bear her iniquity.
16 These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter while in her youth in her father’s house
Genesis Note that the Woman was made by God FOR man. Adam named woman and all the animals before the fall and named her eve after the fall. God allowing the man to name her twice shows his lordship over her
Dear Dalrock & Friends,
Sit down and fasten your seat belts.
You are NOT going to believe this!
The words of Genesis and Jesus did not make it through to Sheila’s “Christian” blog. They were DELETED. Is it any wonder that they are putting women in charge?
George Bernard Frost McEnroe says:
February 27, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Terri,
You write, “As a Christian woman who has been happily married for 20 years, raised 2 Godly sons, and mentors other Christians in marriage. . .”
Over 75% of “Christian” divorces are initiated by women. Regarding divorce, Jesus stated “What god has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Was Jesus wrong?
George Bernard Frost McEnroe says:
February 27, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Sheila,
Do you agree with the teachings in Book III of Genesis?
Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Do you agree with this? Jesus stated that he came to fulfill this Law.
Best,
GBFM
lzozoozozlozozoz
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3,4
@johnmcg
I disagree. See the quote on the main graphic, as I mentioned above:
The problem is that the wife feels insecure, and all of the talk of protecting him from sin is rationalization and cover for rebellion. Sheila goes to great lengths to tell us this, but many will refuse to believe her.
Guys go read what Craig posted.
[D: Link.]
My comment left at 3:01 (here) was also deleted. I wasn’t insulting and made every effort to be respectful, I made my points logically and in a reasonable tone with appropriate scriptural references, yet GONE.
It will be interesting to see if she brings up all the vile and hate-filled comments she had to delete sometime.
She can’t. To do so would mean to validate their existance which would mean she would have to give a logical reason as to why she deleted. We’ll hear nothing about them.
I also made a comment complimenting “Cynthia” 12:53 PM that was also deleted.
‘You are NOT going to believe this!
The words of Genesis and Jesus did not make it through to Sheila’s “Christian” blog. They were DELETED. Is it any wonder that they are putting women in charge?’
Who knew the only stumbling block for Christian women is the Bible.
In Sheila’s defense, aggressive moderation is her only option. The Scripture is far too clear here.
@ innocentbystander: It makes sense. Considering the woman’s feelings are the determinant factor as to what behavior is sinful within a marriage, her feelings would undoubtedly be the determinant factor as to what constitutes “offensive” on her blog.
“SHUT UP!!!!!!!” does not a coherent case make.
robert yates writes, “Looking back throughout the history households were kind of looked at like little governments with the husband being the head, lord, mister, or master. its interesting how many rights the law gave a husband/father to use his discretion to maintain order of his household for its betterment.”
“The family is the test of freedom; because the family is the only thing that the free man makes for himself and by himself.” G. K. CHESTERTON
The feminist/communist movement is about destroying and taking the wealth a free man may build for himself. Thus they advocate the abolition of the family and empower the Sheilas to carry it out.
I once said it on this site and no one probably believed me. Most of the people who claim to be Chistians in our churches are not Christians. They are religious alright; born and bred in religious households and maybe even attended religious schools. But they have never had a personal encounter with Christ.
Short of this personal encounter, it’s all religion and no true Christianity.
I know, because I was in the same category. Before I had a personal encounter with Christ and became a true Christian (“born again” in church parlance), I was a member of the church choir, and was very active in church. But I did not really know what it meant to follow Christ, and live according to His word.
One thing I realized after my conversion was that rather than trying to justify the wrong things I did, or trying to make the Scriptures bow down to my weaknesses, I was more readily able to see my sins as sins, and turned from them.
This hard hearted refusal by these “Christian feminists” to accept the clear word of God as the ultimate authority in their lives is proof that they are not Christians at all. A Christian is a follower of Christ, even when it is inconvenient.
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Luke 6:46 (KJV)
another post at sheila’s blog:
George Bernard Frost McEnroe says:
February 27, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Sheila,
Do you agree with Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians?
1 Corinthians
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the communities: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in the community.
Colossians –
3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Ephesians-
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the community: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the community is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in EVERY thing.
5: 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
Do you agree with Corinthians, Colossians, Genesis, Matthew, and Ephesians? If not, where should we Christian men look to for the Law?
Yup.
I’m sure Sheila really appreciated you driving all this web traffic to her blog to aggressively moderate. I’m sure her check is in the mail.
‘This hard hearted refusal by these “Christian feminists” to accept the clear word of God as the ultimate authority in their lives is proof that they are not Christians at all. A Christian is a follower of Christ, even when it is inconvenient.’
They may be Christian in the sense they like the parts of the Bible that look favorably on them (or unfavorable on others)…but when you bring up sections of the Bible they disagree with is when you begin to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Bring up God’s commands to women in Genesis or what Peter and Paul said and see what reaction you get.
When somebody criticizes me for citing inconvenient scripture I reply, “Don’t get mad at me. Take it up with The Man who wrote it.”
So the husband is watching what? Game of Thrones or something? It’s not like anyone watches those shows for the nudity. That stuff is all R-rated T and A. Which is nothing. If that’s the worst offense that this harpy can find and throw a fit about, then she has no idea how lucky she is. And how unlucky he is.
A woman may be able to kick me out of my own bed; but she would have to be a very large woman.
@earl @Dave
Just because people call themselves “Christian” or attend something they call “church” doesn’t mean much. Especially in a time when most seminary students are not believers themselves. Most “church” is just part of the spiritual/ emotional self-discovery/ self-help industry. A product for women to consume as opposed to the Body of Christ where believers practice fellowship. No wonder they ignore passages they don’t like.
Martel,
Here is what I said to a “pastor at a church” that posts at a blog that I frequent regarding The Man who wrote it….
It is only what they “believe” not “believing they must follow what is writen” that makes a person Chrsitian…
http://goatpen.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=393&start=600
Matthew 19:9 and Mark 5:32 are both exceptions given only to men who marry adulterous whores. These are not for women. There is NOTHING in the Bible (Pastor) that condones a wife divorcing her husband. But that is beside the point. Even if she had a good reason to divorce #1, that doesn’t mean that #2 wasn’t committing adultry when he married her.
But I guess none of this matters given you very next comment.
In any event, this is heresy. You are no longer a pastor. Now, you fancy yourself a prophet who gets direct revelation from God as to which rules are changed and which rules are no longer enforced. As a Christian (and not a mormon) I believe the one absolute truth that there were no prophets past John the Baptist. There are no living prophets on this planet sir, none. And any that claim (from a theological standpoint) that they choose not to believe the rules our merciful God put in place to guide our moral behavior are no longer enforced (or you can simply disregard them) disqualifies that person from having any further spiritual communication from me.
I am done with you, false prophet.
OT:
I found trad-cons on another forum gushing over this video:
Groom’s touching vows to bride’s daughter (from another man) go viral.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/groom-s-touching-vows-to-bride-s-daughter-go-viral-175032815.html
The new marriage vow for the modern beta, it “takes a real man to be a father.”
@ innocentbystander, quoting another: “Johnette’s Daddy wrote:In any event – and from a theological standpoint – I no longer believe that a merciful God requires people to serve a life sentence for a poor choice they made at an age when they were not capable of making better ones.”
This type of thing stems (in part) from a far too pollyannish view of human nature. Were the only two choices a “life sentence” or “fun & freedom forever for everybody” you could conceivably twist it enough to think he might have a point.
Unfortunately, the choices are closer to “life sentence” and “societal chaos in which kids have multiple parents in different states, gang leaders taking the place of fathers, some men with countless sex partners and others with none, women losing their ability to bond to a single man due to excessive promiscuity, and every marriage hanging by a thread in hopes of resisting societal forces and each of its members deciding each and every day whether they feel like continuing on with their ‘life sentence’ or not”.
What really hit me after doing some in-depth study of Genesis is that not only does the Bible understand what we should do and how we should live, those prescriptions are based on a most profound understanding of how we really ARE. We tend to think we can avoid Biblical prescriptions because our nature is more advanced than it was thousands of years ago, but it’s not. We’re all Adam, we’re all Eve, Cain, Abel, Jonah, Solomon, and Pilate.
Lust threw off men godly enough to write books of the Bible itself, yet somehow we’re going to be exempt from those tendencies ourselves? The Christians in Suburban Megachurch get to trust their natural tendencies more than Peter or Paul?
No, we’re all fallen. The Bible knows how and why and tells us how best to handle it. Good points you made.
Just when I thought women couldn’t let me down because I have reduced my expectations to zero, Ms Gregoire has managed to scrape the bottom and start digging into negative territory.
Inherent in the article is the theme of treating the husband like a child; herself using retaliation like a child. this in and of itself is inherently evil: If men were to reply in kind, CDs of ‘Eat Pray Love’, ‘How Stella…’, ‘Twilight’ ,’Fifty Shades’ and every other romantic comedy and novel depicting unrealistic expectations on men would be banned from households or would be an excuse for men to turn off the money supply. The reason that doesn’t happen is that men aren’t that petty and don’t want to appear that way.
Ms Gregoire also seems blind to the real sin that Dalrock has touched on: the sex deficit married women generate by taking their husbands for granted. Modern women think me are like them: they use sex to get into a relationship, have children / extract resources and then coast.
Men’s sex drives aren’t like that. They continue basically while blood and testosterone run in his veins. This isn’t bad: God ordained humans to live in families so that this sex drive can be harnessed, and in turn that sex drive built whole civilisations.
If that sex drive is not fulfilled in marriage, it expresses itself as a desire to watch shows containing nudity, as pornography, as visits to the local brothel , as affairs at work, and as a host of other sins. As one disgruntled husband said to his wife who complained about him openly watching porn: “Open your legs or don’t complain”.
If women don’t want their husbands watching shows containing nudity / pornography, they need to make up the sexual deficit in their husband’s lives. Period.
The best defense for a guy married to one of those women is to respond with a “fuck you'” another is “if you don’t want to sleep with me go get on the damn couch or some other place.” “File then bitch, there’s all kind a dick out there waiting to make some 38 year single mom happy”
Then the guy needs to start hitting the gym and just ignore the bitch. And then periodically hit her up for some ass.
@ Spike: Marrying a woman of Sheila’s ilk is like signing up to get a second mother.
MGTOW and MGTOW/family through surrogacy is the long term fix. Reason and logic have no place in correcting female behavior. That only works with rational and intelligent men that wish to belong to a community. Female don’t bother with that crap.
Martel
The reality is more like having a catheter inserted and a hole drilled into your head to let the voices out.
‘Marrying a woman of Sheila’s ilk is like signing up to get a second mother.’
Basically. There is only one part of the Bible where a woman has authority over a man…and that’s mother over sons.
‘For the Lord sets a father in honor over his children and confirms a mother’s authority over her sons.’ Sirach 3:2
So unless you birthed me…you don’t have any Godly authority.
Questions I’d ask Sheila were there any chance they’d not be ignored:
Do these prescriptions for expelling sin from your home apply to all sin or just the sin of lust? Would a wife be justified in doing the same sorts of things to her husband for swearing? Eating too many Cheetos? If not, why not? Or perhaps these prescriptions only apply to those sins that make the wife FEEL uncomfortable. If this is the case and a wife disciplines her husband for only those sins that make her feel uncomfortable, isn’t she setting herself up (or more accurately her feelings) as the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes sin in her home (after all, some sins merit punishment that others don’t)?
If having sex despite the sins of one’s spouse constitutes undue “tolerance” of sin, then aren’t all Christian parents everywhere guilty of allowing their spouses to perpetuate lives of darkness? After all, both parents have undoubtedly sinned, yet their spouses “rewarded” them with sex anyway.
“If you focus the conversation around “it’s pornography and you shouldn’t be watching it”, then you’ll get into an argument about whether or not it really qualifies, and you can’t win that.”
I think the reason for this is that if you approach it logically, you’ll have to make a legitimate case. Saying it makes you feel bad is quicker and easier because husbands want to take care of wives, so they can be blackmailed into feeling like she’s being “hurt” by his behavior, and his desire to protect her kicks in and he’ll feel like he has to stop whether it’s reasonable or not.
This will work equally well whether it’s true or not because his concern is for her, not his own potential guilt. He’ll do it because he feels like he has to, but this won’t make him agree that it was wrong, so it doesn’t actually accomplish anything as far as getting him to recognize it as sinful. Thus it achieves the real goal (making him do what I want) but fails at the ostensible goal (helping him avoid sin) since he won’t feel convicted (and the woman hasn’t actually demonstrated that it was in the first place).
Seems to me the problem can be summed up in the first few lines of her response. The question she was asked was “Should he respect my feelings and stop watching the shows, or should I stop being angry every time he watches them?” Her first answer was: “So let’s look at how to handle disagreements about what is okay to watch […] 1. Pray that God will convict him that watching other naked women is wrong”.
Her answer to handling “disagreements” is … “pray that God will convict him” for being wrong? Not ‘ask God for guidance’. Not asking for Him to convict whichever of us is wrong. But, “show my husband how wrong he is.”
That specific lack of humility is a major problem. It leaves no room for God to convict you over your insistence that He convict your husband. And, it leaves no room whatsoever in your prayer for the possibility that you’re wrong (I recall Biblical condemnation of lust … but not of mere nudity). And, even if your husband is wrong, that doesn’t make you right. There’s plenty of potential for conviction in your possible reactions to him. Don’t pray for God to help you win an argument. Pray for understanding. Pray for conviction for you in your reaction. Acknowledge the possibility that you’ve got room to improve in this situation. And, pray for the ability to treat your husband as he should be treated, whether he’s wrong or not.
That lack of humility is what draws a woman toward trying to seize headship from her husband.
Jack
@ Eidolon: Great insight. Moreover, even if “it hurts me” and it being objectively sinful coincide, if her feelings determine what he does or doesn’t do, it sets the precedent for her feelings to stop him from doing things that aren’t necessarily sinful. “It hurts me” might stop him from watching nudie shows, but soon enough it will be used to get him to stop watching football with his buddies or spending too much time at the gym.
We know from the Epistle of Oprah that it is abuse for a husband to discipline a sinning wife, but why then is it virtuous for a wife to discipline her husband? That would be unequal, wouldn’t it? How can St. Sheila claim equality of spouses while commending unequal treatment?
MikeDiver5: LOL, it rarely comes to that, but in my mind (years ago) it was completely fair and made a lot of sense. I don’t blame a heterosexual woman for using sex to control social interaction—it’s been hardwired for millennia.
As Rollo has so often stated, I (now consciously) behave now as though I am the prize. And it works, and everyone is happy. Several times a year, Mrs. St. James says something like: “Fuck you, I hate that I love you this much.”
For a time I was really worried and did not know that this actually meant: “I love you completely, this relationship is great.” (I believe P!nk has a song about this called “True Love.”)
The cognitive dissonance on this blog is fascinating.
Women’s feelings are deemed irrelevant, yet every discussion of marital sex is filled with men complaining that a wife who does not give her husband access to her genitalia on demand makes him feel bad. That it feels so bad, it is tantamount to abuse. That it even justifies blowing up his family, lest he suffer too many bad feelings.
@johncmg
Interestingly 50 SoG is the topic of Gregoire’s most recent column at Faith Today. Not surprisingly there is no talk of husbands breaking their wife’s stuff, denying sex, making her sleep on the couch, etc. While she briefly touches on sin, wives who read/watch 50 SoG are then quickly reframed as victims:
Next, she proposes the solution. If you had your money on men manning up, step forward and collect your winnings:
This wouldn’t be so bad if man up actually meant manning up and taking on the role of head of the household. But she doesn’t mean that.
But women don’t need to address the “root needs” of why their husbands enjoy entertainment that includes nudity. Straight to the stick!
Erasmus,
Women’s feelings are just that: feeeeeeeelings: they may be justified or not, they many be rational or not. They do not transform a woman into a goddess who must be appeased. The main problem with denial of sex is not a man’s feelings; it is the fact that such denial is a sin and undermines marriage.
Erasmus-
It’s a bummer you don’t know what cognitive dissonance means.
It looks like you are arguing that men are hypocrites, which is a different concept entirely. Specifically it means having one standard for me and another for you. This might be true if there wasn’t clear biblical teaching on the matter of conjugal rights within marriage.
Cognitive dissonance is when you are unable to confront an uncomfortable truth so you proceed as if it doesn’t exist. Our national obsession with political correctness is the most striking example of this.
It was cognitive dissonance, for example that killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tx in November of 2009. MAJ Hasaan was pushed through the promotion system in spite of his obvious Islamic extremist positions, because to confront it would be uncomfortable.
Erasmus:
Nobody here is saying (that I’ve seen) that women’s feelings are irrelevant. We just put them in perspective. They have their role, but the central focus of a marriage isn’t one of them.
Our emphasis on men’s feelings is countered by our belief in Biblical prescriptions, and we don’t think it’s okay for a man to blow up his marriage because he’s butthurt any more than we think it’s okay for a woman. The difference is that if we came down on a whiny male for dumping his wife for stupid reasons both Christian and secular society would be with us; when we come down on a woman for doing the same we’re largely alone.
Likewise, within a marriage were we to tell men to “man up” to rectify their marital difficulties we’d just be another voice among millions, but “woman up” is so rarely used it sounds stupid.
@Erasmus
You’ve done this twice now, so I’ll address this one and then the prior. First, keep in mind that there are multiple commenters here, and we are not all in agreement. Because of this it helps a great deal to note who you are arguing with, and even better to also include a quote of the statement you disagree with. This way you don’t come across like you are arguing with the voices in your own head.
With this in mind, I don’t know who the above is aimed at, or if you are accurately presenting their argument. What I can say is that I have never made the argument that a man is justified in divorcing because his wife won’t have sex with him. I have however made it clear that this is not ok.
For your previous similar comment:
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I am pro marriage. Marriage involves a recriprocal vows and has defined roles. However, even within marriage it is not a strict quid pro quo. A husband is bound to his vows even if the wife isn’t reciprocating. I can’t respond farther than that without a specific reference to whatever it is I wrote that you are actually challenging. This comment is in response to me pointing out that feminism is ugly, and that feminists have so far been able to refute this fact. It is worth noting that while that post upset you you weren’t able to actually refute the argument. Instead you changed the subject. I find that telling, but not surprising.
@Erasmus
“…men complaining that a wife who does not give her husband access to her genitalia on demand makes him feel bad.”
Defrauding is not bad because it feels bad, but is objectively bad – like murder is not wrong because it makes people feel bad but because it is bad. NO feelings necessary. I hope this clarification helps you to understand the difference and doesn’t make you feel bad. 😦
At this point I wonder if “vacuum” is code for something.She clearly used it to replace the word “obey” in her title.
Erasmus @ 6:14 pm:
“Women’s feelings are deemed irrelevant, yet every discussion of marital sex is filled with men complaining that a wife who does not give her husband access to her genitalia on demand makes him feel bad.”
A wife who does not give her husband access on demand has rebelled against her mandatory, God-ordered, voluntarily-accepted-at-the-altar duty to provide her husband with so much sex that he isn’t even tempted to use porn. This rebellion is against God, not just her husband.
And in light of the fires of God’s Wrath, we are the ones who have these womens’ best interests at heart because we want their evil to stop. You would rather protect their feelings.
I assume I’m not the only one who noticed Sheila’s give-away. A woman named Cheryl wrote in to say that she likes the shows that are being discussed. Sheila’s response gives the game away:
“Everyone can choose to do what they want to do. We all have those choices. But I’d just encourage you to look closely at those shows and ask if that’s really helping your life–or if it’s distorting your image of what sexuality is.”
In other words, if a wife objects to her husband watching something, then it is a sin for him to do so. While if a woman watches the same thing, Sheila merely encourages her to reconsider.
Huh? One doesn’t encourage one to reconsider sin, does one? One stops doing it – or at least that’s what Sheila wants the men whose wives object to do. So… it’s really not about sin – in Sheila’s mind – at all, is it? Because if it was, then her response to Cheryl would have been entirely different. It would have been, “Stop doing that.”
But no: Sheila Gregoire has literally made the feelings of a wife the measure of whether something her husband doing is objectively sinful. And she tells those wives that they have the authority… nay, the duty… to decide on the appropriate punishment to bring her husband back into line, including sinful means such as refusing to submit to his headship, withholding sex, or even kidnapping his children.
Talk about building one’s house on shifting sands…
pssssst, Erasmus was homosexual.
Sheila’s site is nothing more than sex-negative 3rd wave feminism dressed up with christianese handwaving.
That’s pretty much my analysis, too.
Bear in mind that a couple of years ago, Sheila would ride the coattails of Dalrock, accusing the author and other commentors of threatening her family (among other nonsensical accusations — none of which was ever substantiated, in my recollection). She kooked out with these depressing antics in an attempt to boost her pageviews. Sadly, this was probably successful in getting her site launched.
“Sheila’s site (and the vast majority of modern church teaching on marriage) is nothing more than sex-negative 3rd wave feminism dressed up with christianese handwaving.”
My deepest and most sincere sympathies to any men trapped in such horrible marriages.
The cognitive dissonance on this blog is fascinating.
There maybe is cognitive dissonance when one misrepresents things.
But the dissonance is between the reality and the misrepresentation.
What actually is somewhat fascinating is how people can twist facts to fit their notions. Humans unfortunately do have this less than useful capability.
Men are far more likely to endure unhappiness for the sake of the children, than women are.
Why is that?
Artisanal Toad,
LOL!
While I don’t watch nudity on TV — OK I literally don’t watch any TV at all — that would certainly work on me for whatever was distracting me from my wife!
Why is that?
Cause men are usually grown ups, that and sammiches.
I don’t normally comment because y’all are way smarter than me. I read these posts on her blog prior to seeing this and I was fuming. Well, I read what I could of them because I couldn’t focus I was so mad.
Of course she’s not going to let any Scripture through. Her post was completely incorrect Biblically, but she also cannot make a reasonable defense of her elevated role of women’s feelings. Since she already wrote off Scripture as the premise for the discussion, I’ll look at her other major problem. She confuses emotion with fact. “It’s a fact that you don’t care about my feelings.” Any fourth grader should be able to identify this as an emotional opinion statement, not a factual statement. And yet, that is the premise she builds upon. Unfortunately, you cannot reason with someone who is so distorted both in the truth of the Bible and reality. After being “banned” from comments, I’ve quit trying. I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict her prideful heart and that she’ll be silenced of the horrid, detrimental “advice” she doles out so frequently.
BarryBarryStupid says:
February 27, 2015 at 8:55 am
I use this with the missus… if I want to do or not do something, I don’t go with a logical explanation, it’s because “I feel like it” or “I don’t feel like it.” It’s incredibly disarming and she can’t come up with any counter-arguement that my feelings are wrong.
It’s a blind spot for them.
Try this on: “When you don’t make sammiches it hurts me on a deep emotional level
lol
And watch the smoke rise from her ears.
Husband and Porn
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=948521
Parent Survival Guide to 50 Shades of Grey – Miriam Grossman, MD
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=948605
Farm Boy says:
February 27, 2015 at 10:29 pm
“Men are far more likely to endure unhappiness for the sake of the children, than women are.”
Why is that?
Because as a group we’re considerably less selfish than women, especially women who aren’t currently getting serious tingles from a man they’re contemplating doing something for. Just compare the death rates of men vs. women on the Titanic, the habit of men (only) throwing their bodies over their wives/GFs during mass shootings even recently — or the ratio of dead men vs. dead women on the Vietnam War memorial (~55,000 vs. 22, I remember).
thedeti: The fact that you don’t like husband headship in Christian marriages is immaterial and irrelevant.
innocentbystanderboston: Either be Christian or don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Earl: Who knew the only stumbling block for Christian women is the Bible.
These are critically important… and likely to be rejected by women, “Christian” or not. We all need to accept what God has giving through his word, the Bible, as not only the highest, but also the ONLY source of morality.
Just tonight I was watching a movie with two Christian women. In the movie, Safe Haven, a wife is abused and thus leaves her husband, for safety. So far, I have no objection. Then the movie proceeds to show her start a romantic relationship with another man. At this point I object, and point out this she is married. She should not be pursuing what would be an adulterous relationship. The “Christian” woman argued that the abusive raped his wife. This is not actually possible, with a Biblical definition of rape. But regardless, she wanted to give the woman character an “out” from the marriage by the excuse of his abuse.
Problem is, the Bible does not give his abuse as Biblical grounds for divorce. I finally asked her to give the book and chapter showing this, as the Christian woman claimed the Bible says not to stay with an abusive man. No, I do not approve of abuse to another. But my sin does not justify your further sin.
I left when the movie was about to depict the woman character have sex with the man she had been pursuing, as that would be adultery. The two “Christian” women apparently had no problem with continuing.
Maybe I should be grateful that I did not marry. Women truly seem unable to submit to God, where God contradicts her feelings.
@Artisanal Toad
>Perhaps the solution for the wife
That is a great way to Biblically deal with her feelings and the situation 🙂
IBB, I appreciate your comment at Gregoire’s site (and your jabs at her comment policy). I just attempted to post the following comment; we’ll see if it gets past moderation:
My constructive criticism is that the approach you advocate here is completely unbiblical, nonsensical, and counterproductive. Where in 1 Cor. 7:5 does it say that the injunction not to deprive your husband sexually only applies if you have no disagreements with him about what constitutes sinful TV, movie, or book viewing? Where in any biblical passage is the wife given the right (let alone the duty) to punish her husband when or if he sins? How in the world do you reconcile this incitement to usurpation with 1 Peter 3’s clear teaching that a Christian wife has no business “confronting” even her UNBELIEVING husband (by definition, a man who sins in multiple ways and is NEVER repentant to God about it). My ex-wife, who would have taken your “advice” and run with it all the way to the divorce lawyer (as, no doubt, an unknown number of your readers will do — I wouldn’t want to be her, them, or you on Judgment Day), used to complain about certain mystery/thriller novels I would read. Despite the fact that due to my own convictions I specifically avoided individual books and all books by certain authors who reveled in sexual scenes, she objected to the much tamer books I did read, to the point that on one occasion she went behind my back to our marriage counselor and handed him a stack of books in which she had marked with post-its all the passages she objected to. (OCD much?) At our next session he told her both that the passages she had marked weren’t of concern and, more importantly, it was not her job to be the Holy Spirit to me. But she was convinced that she was more spiritual than I (as you’re helping your readers to be convinced about themselves in relation to their husbands), and her Pharisaism ultimately led her to divorce me without any biblical grounds (per both our pastor and our Christian marriage counselor). You are leading your readers down a very dangerous path; you really need to reconsider. Last comment: note that the woman who submitted this question to you, by her own description, has a husband who doesn’t spend too much time watching TV and fulfills his responsibilities to the family (rather amazing admissions on her part, given her readiness to find something to complain about), and who has told her that he doesn’t look at the nudity and is not lusting after the women in the shows — which she believes. I dare say most of your perpetually dissatisfied readers wish they could say that many positive things about their slugs — I mean their husbands. And yet she is willing to fuss and nag and get angry at him and — let’s face it — to judge him every time he watches his shows. And now she has you cheerleading as she does so. Lousy, lousy advice, Sheila.
@Dalrock
Another great post Mr.”D”…….I am always late to the party.Great comments from you guys also! I have read the last few of your posts about this broad…..and looked at her blog.If this woman is a “Christian”,I must say that she exemplifies a LOT of Jewish traits.If I was married to this woman(thank God I am not),she would learn to “Tow the line”.I would be the one volunteering to sleep on the couch.In fact,the only time I would enter the master bedroom would be in the morning after a shower to obtain a fresh suit…and in the evening to shed the suit and put on some track pants etc(at 10 to 11pm) when I come home…..and then go down to the rec room and read myself to sleep.All phone calls to the office by her would be disregarded.All breakfast, lunch and dinner would be by herself.This would not be a couple of day or weeks….this would go on for months…I assure you! No c*** is going to going to dictate to me about anything.Sex?….no big deal.I would be getting BJ’s from women I know at the office.Sex for her?….not from me! I would tell her point blank..”you are not cutting me off….just losing your place in line”.If she threatened to file for divorce?….”Knock yourself out cupcake”.You cannot get half my house as I have it in my brother’s name,and pay him rent of $1.00/month.You cannot lien on my income as I do not have one(I do not draw a paycheck from the family businesses).And I have the family accountants and attorneys to prove it.”So go ahead and file….be my guest…here I will give you the filing fee…you f****** c***”. She would be out of my house in six months or sooner and paying her her bills with no help from me.If kids were involved I would have them.She would be told “take my kids from me?…and you go for a swim in the Toronto Harbor”.That is the way I would deal with a c*** like this.This might seem a bit harsh but,I guarantee you that she would “see the light”.
@IBB
“”It is only women who are truly annoyed with MGTOW.””
Are they ever!!!……Especially when you have a guy like me printing up T-Shirts to promote it! It is spreading like wildfire!…and they are scared.It looks good on them.MGTOW is not a movement per se as it is a “logical response”….and wimminz are very “lacking” in the logic department.I will be offering T-Shirts to the “regular posters” here in the near future.My treat.
Erasmus says:
This is standard feminism, denigrating sex as “access to her genitalia” and this concept – unfortunately propounded by a great many “manosphere” types – that sex is a trade, a transaction – men give resources, and women give sex. The concept (Biblical I believe) that sex is mutually enjoyable seems quite lost by both “sides” here.
For feminists, this is quite a projection on their part; as we see, women, especially feminists, are always using sex as an “exchange of value” – her sex for something from the man. If he does something she doesn’t like, she cuts him off, withholding sex as a punishment. When men do this to women, it’s considered “abuse” but feminists openly promote women doing this.
We usually call women that trade “resources” for “access to her genitalia” a prostitute, or at the least, a gold-digger.
What do we call men that trade “resources” (like money) for sex? We call them “johns.”
This is what feminists actually believe.
And watch the smoke rise from her ears.
Smoke should be rolling out men’s ears.
Mark;- “You cannot get half my house as I have it in my brother’s name,and pay him rent of $1.00/month”
That’ll be your confirmed bachelor brother, I hope? Else you’re playing roulette with three chambers full.
@Lyn87
”because they think superior denotes better”
The world superior has many meanings one of which is better. But in proper context like” Superior Rank” to clarify the Husbands position then one solves the misunderstanding.
Some people are superior in rank but that does not mean they are better per se it means that they are given their position by God. Or via leadership ability. For men masculinity necessarily ensues leadership over the feminine in a marriage relationship. Men do not possess abilities that women have and vice versa but men do possess a God-given capacity for leadership over men and also their wives.
I am surprised that Mark (definitely my present favourite member of the tribe) failed to mention that Mrs Gregoire hails from or at least lives in Ontario, Canada, so you can see the sort of attitudes she is likely to have. Still, she has a book or three to sell and with such salacious titles as Thirty One Days to Great Sex, The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex, and Honey I don’t have a Headache Tonight, you can see that this woman is selling a form of snake-oil and not without success as the second of these is at number 3,559 on [insert name of long south American river] .com. Getting God to give a plug for your book (blurb on dust-cover – ‘I could not put it down’ – God) is surely the ultimate in endorsements.
Women do tend to become very upset when they discover that their significant other can be turned on by pixelated images of other women; but do they ever reflect that the only reason that their man is with them is because of their sexual attraction to people of the sort they now (and doubtless always did) look at. How one can become jealous of an image beats me, but they do. You naughty naughty Christians.
‘How one can become jealous of an image beats me, but they do.’
Well we don’t think like them. What is lust for men is probably envy for women.
Wouldn’t Jesus forgive and ask for repentance, rather than condemn (and screech)?
I don’t think the idea of a wife using “I” messages to communicate with her husband is inherently a bad one. Using the “I feel when you” structure is often less accusatory and less vindictive than the “you’re fucking up” type of argument. However, it should be used as a way to start a discussion, not a guilt trip. Why are women constantly demanding this level of control from the men in their lives, when most women know damn well there’s no respect, and therefore love, possible when you have the upper hand? Shit-testing, I get it, but if this is a woman offering advice to other women on how to maintain a good relationship, why doesn’t she tell them to stop doing that? What’s gained by any of this?
if this is a woman offering advice to other women on how to maintain a good relationship, why doesn’t she tell them to stop doing that? What’s gained by any of this?
The Dark Side gathering strength it is.
‘How one can become jealous of an image beats me, but they do.’
A useful clubto beat him with it would be.
Passing Along: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121138/mark-driscoll-and-macho-christianity
Haven’t read the comments so sorry if redundant.
Ive seen this statement written before. its shameless. Ive heard women say it in mixed groups, with inflection that suggested they were saying something wildly beneficial to men. Offering some nice advice as it were.
Gee guys, imagine how many women would not file divorce if you’d supplicate more.
Barbara Rainey gets into this regularly telling wives not only is she not a doormat, she is to confront her husband so as to improve his walk with Christ
Dear Opus…
Oh LOLOLOL! Her years of general insanity make a bit more sense now.
I still suspect that Mr. Gregoire (whoever he is) is delighted at the creation of the internet, where his wife has spent her days and nights for the past few years. Can you imagine being married to a histrionic harpy like this?
Boxer
Mr Gregoire is probably relieved that his wife has the perfect excuse to leave him alone.
I still suspect that Mr. Gregoire (whoever he is) is delighted at the creation of the internet, where his wife has spent her days and nights for the past few years
Cold in Ontario it is, eh?
Cooped up in winter with her he would be.
One of the most vicious things about this is that this argument (you have to stop doing X because it makes me feel hurt) is that it uses his love and selflessness as a weapon against him. A man typically can’t use this method because women usually don’t care that much about his feelings, at least not enough to change behavior they enjoy that they don’t agree is wrong. She’s taking herself as a hostage and threatening herself — a tactic that only works if he really cares for her and wants to protect her from everything, even herself. It’s truly despicable to leverage a man’s love and devotion against him.
And then, if it doesn’t work right away — go ahead and attack him! I’ve noticed this (to a much, much lesser degree of course) from my own wife, that something I did unintentionally that hurt her is responded to with an act that’s intended to hurt me. Of course this is using intentional sin to counter what may not have been a sin at all, but Sheila is willing to countenance and even encourage it as long as it meets the important goal of giving the woman control.
@Cynthia: “Why are women constantly demanding this level of control from the men in their lives,”
We are talking about original sin on this blog:
“in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
Take note that desire is a feeling….God plainly states the truth about who the head is in marriage.
@Opus
“”I am surprised that Mark (definitely my present favourite member of the tribe) failed to mention that Mrs Gregoire hails from or at least lives in Ontario, Canada, so you can see the sort of attitudes she is likely to have.””
Thank you for pointing that out.I forgot.I assume that she lives here in Toronto.She could be a model for Canadian women.I am going to ask my Pastor friend about her.He will know where she attends Church and more about her.As I have stated before in prior threads..”I will NEVER EVER get involved with a Canadian woman,under Canadian law”……..she is hard evidence to my sworn conviction! Also,those books that she wrote.What kind of a “Christian” writes books like that? I think that she has her own brand of “Christianity”. She would complain that hubby views nudity & violence on TV?…but,writes “sex manuals”????…….what a hypocrite!
I don’t think the idea of a wife using “I” messages to communicate with her husband is inherently a bad one. Using the “I feel when you” structure is often less accusatory and less vindictive than the “you’re fucking up” type of argument.
This still implies that her emotions are facts, places her emotions above his authority, and is a method of manipulation and usurpation.
If a wife is concerned about the sins of her husband, it should never have anything to do with her feelings. In fact, in her role as help meet, if it occurs to her that her husband is watching television shows that contain nudity out of a thirst for sexual excitement, her first inclination should be as Artisanal Toad suggested. If she must talk about it, she could ask him, “Are you satisfied with the amount of sex we are having?”
Our husbands are not given to us for a source of good feels. We are given to them as help meets. God is the source of good feels – joy.
Instead of monitoring the television shows our husbands watch, we should be monitoring how available and willing we are to give him the one thing he needs from us that he can’t get elsewhere and not be in sin.
It is obvious Shelia doesn’t mind rebelling against God with regards to his call for wives to respect their husbands, she put this private email on full display to rattle up the women on this issue. She is a gossip and betrayer of Titus 2. Her private response to this woman should have been “This is a matter for your husband, I am not in a position to put asunder what God has joined together, my opinion on the matter may be in contradiction to your husband’s opinion and his authority in your marriage and I will not contribute to strife in a marriage.” No, instead she packages some good advice about prayer in with inflammatory, unbiblical advice for a wife to assert authority and control over her husband and has held firm with “ATOB is against the rules!!!! And mustn’t be tolerated!”
I’ve heard stories and seen from videos that Toronto is basically a feminist ‘paradise’. Henry Makow I believe is out of Winnipeg but mentions a lot about what Canada does as far as touting the feminist bandwagon. He makes it sound like Canada is much farther along than the US.
@Sarah’s Daughter
Allow me to clarify. I don’t think it’s the place of a wife to keep her husband from sinning; the premise of this woman’s argument in this post is absurd. However, if a wife is hurt by her husband watching porn, I think it’s appropriate to tell him that it hurts her, without making it accusatory.
Saying “I feel when you” does make it about your emotions, but if I am upset (for example) then it is a fact I am upset. There’s nothing wrong with stating this. To take the next step and place the blame for that emotion on the other person is, however, a problem. Maybe the wife is wrong to feel this way, or maybe her husband intends no hurt, or doesn’t understand that it hurts her, or perhaps there isn’t a problem at all and she’s overreacting. An “I message” should be used to frame it as YOUR problem, not your husband’s. Saying “I feel upset when you watch porn” is completely different than saying “you watching porn pisses me off” or “you watching porn is evil.” One is an avenue for a civil conversation, the other is grounds for a fight.
A healthy relationship is predicated on male headship, yes, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of going to the opposite end of the spectrum and saying that this means that no action the man takes is open for discussion by the wife. If he has a legitimate problem with porn, this could be very destructive to a Christian marriage (just as it would be if she had an extreme fixation on romance novels).
I’m not a huge Makow fan. He tends to veer into kook territory with his pet jewish conspiracies and such. (I mean, they ain’t all of one mind on anything).
He is right on a few things, though.
Most of the punitive alimony and divorce rules were/are field tested in Canadian provinces. With that in mind, we can look to places like British Columbia for what the ruling class wants to do in the USA.
http://www.familylaw.lss.bc.ca/resources/fact_sheets/spousal_support.php
UGH!
Boxer
Smoke should be rolling out men’s ears.
Sad but true. Men could end this lunacy tomorrow if they but would. Whether to power, money, vices, or God, everyone’s a slave. It’s a shame that so many men listen to women instead of God.
That’ll be your confirmed bachelor brother, I hope? Else you’re playing roulette with three chambers full.
Better a mother* than a married brother, no?
*Hard core sammich haters not included.
Of Sheila and her ilk:
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
(Mat 13:24-26)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
(2Co 6:14-17)
She’s no sister.
I got another response through on Sheila’s blog. Since my first one was measured, my second one didn’t even go to moderation. I will not abuse the privilege, of course, but I wonder how long I’m going to last before the ban-hammer falls. The logic I used was unassailable – I used her own words to make my point, and I expressed agreement where I could. Hopefully she’ll see where she’s contradicting herself and scripture.
I think it’s appropriate to tell him that it hurts her, without making it accusatory.
Of course she should tell him if it hurts. I certainly want to know if something is hurting my wife, then I can decide what needs to be done about it. The problem comes when she assumes that she has the authority to police her husband. He should be the authority in the home, not her. If he is not the authority then she is, and if she is the authority the marriage is effectively headless (or worse).
Dear Lyn:
A few years ago, Sheila became angry when a few people from our side disagreed with her. She had piggybacked on Dalrock and similar blogs (Rollo, Roissy, etc.) for quite some time, at that point. She subsequently fabricated a story about the author of the Dalrock blog, and several of his followers, threatening to harm her family members at Christmastime.
Being a newbie, I wasn’t sure who to believe (there are kooks on the internet, and impotent threats are common). I asked her for some evidence. Surely if someone is threatening to murder your kids, you would keep a screenshot, no? Had she produced, I’d have come back over here and taunted the culprits. Of course, she had nothing.
When I pointed out the obvious (she was, at best, making a big deal out of kooky online threats, which are always spewed by nobodies without the courage for real-world confrontation) she blocked me, and then suddenly revealed that I was one of the very people who had threatened her. This led me to the only reasonable conclusion: she had made the whole thing up.
I think it’s a mistake to assume Sheila is interested in honest discourse, or even loyalty to feminism. She’s all about affirmation, and getting blog hits furthers that ultimate goal. She’ll say anything to increase her traffic, which boosts her ego, if not her sales and speaking fees. I have nothing to say to such a specimen, but wish you good luck in your interaction with her.
I also wish Sheila the best, and hope she can someday get over the unspeakable trauma of having people disagree with her on the internet.
Best,
Boxer
Saying “I feel upset when you watch porn” is completely different than saying “you watching porn pisses me off” or “you watching porn is evil.” One is an avenue for a civil conversation, the other is grounds for a fight.
I know what you are saying but I still believe it is most often used as manipulation. I have found the most intimate thing a wife can offer her husband is empathy and a “we’re in this together” attitude. The last thing he needs when struggling with temptation and sin is the piling on of his wife’s feelings (at the time). He needs a partner that always prays for him and does her part to take care of his needs.
@Empath
It’s a nice family you got there. It would be a shame if something were to… happen to it.
I understand that Mrs Gregoire lives in Belleville.
I tend to agree with Boxer about Henry Makow, but his explanation as to why women think they are being raped and assaulted gains the approval of F.Roger Devlin and deserves wide notice for Makow merely explains that the reason for this strange hysteria is that women are not getting love. They can hardly of course get love when they act like sluts and so it is not exactly the fault of men – or as I usually put it, women cannot cope with casual sex despite their protestations to the contrary. There is no such thing as free sex and casual sex is at best the equivalent of a one-off promotional offer.
@Earl
“”I’ve heard stories and seen from videos that Toronto is basically a feminist ‘paradise’. Henry Makow I believe is out of Winnipeg but mentions a lot about what Canada does as far as touting the feminist bandwagon. He makes it sound like Canada is much farther along than the US.””
I am familiar with Henry Makow.You are correct as he lives in Winnipeg.He also attended the U of T.I would have to agree with him on the point that Canada is much further along on the FemiNazi bandwagon than the US……Especially Toronto, which is a FemiNazi paradise.
@Boxer
“”Most of the punitive alimony and divorce rules were/are field tested in Canadian provinces. With that in mind, we can look to places like British Columbia for what the ruling class wants to do in the USA.””
Very believable! I am no fan of BC.Everyone here in Ontario brags about how nice BC is.A lot of their laws are worse than Ontario laws.The cost of living out there is absurd.Check out home prices.They are worse than Toronto.East Side Vancouver is the “heroin junkie capital” of North America.More junkies than you could ever imagine.Worse than New York and LA.The only thing that is great about BC is the “weed”….and that is controlled by the Hell’s Angels.BC’s number one export is weed.The weed business is larger than fishing and timber combined! BC Securities is a Gestapo.I should know as I am barred from trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.Three times they tried to nail me with insider trading,stock manipulation and securities fraud.All three times they had nothing!…and all 3 times I walked away with cash in excess of 3 million dollars.Oh yes!…the population are all die hard Liberals and socialists! Much worse than Ontario.I prefer Alberta for a Western Province.Nice and Conservative!
@Opus
Belleville is 2 hours East of me.Nice area,I must say.
Opus writes: “Getting God to give a plug for your book (blurb on dust-cover – ‘I could not put it down’ – God) is surely the ultimate in endorsements.”
Well, I haven’t gone on the long South American riverdotcom to check if this is literal, but if she’s citing “God” for her jacket copy, then to Hell with her.
Apocryphal citations from God in retort to Nietzsche might be one thing, since I have it on “deep background” they’re pretty accurate. But for– what was that again?– “The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex”? In what sort of demented frenzy could she imagine God would pick that up?
Progress…
Sheila acknowledged the logic in my rebuttal (that’s twice now). Going for a trifecta in Comment thread #19…
I’ll give her her due: she understands how to frame an argument to achieve her desired effect, and she acknowledged when I demonstrated that her position was internally contradictory. She has a megaphone, and I’d rather have an ally (best case), or at least work toward neutrality, than an enemy.
“Hope springs eternal.” – Alexander Pope
@Boxer
I think you are confusing Sheila for Susan Walsh. Sheila is the one whom I tried to shelter when I wrote my original Fireproof review. Sheila later came and commented on my blog explaining that the wife in Fireproof wasn’t being whorish when she started her affair with the doctor because the husband had “cheated” when he looked at pornography:
By this logic, I don’t see where she could draw a line between “addicted to pornography” and watching Game of Thrones. If looking at a naked woman is cheating and grounds for divorce, then watching Game of Thrones is surely grounds for divorce.
Sheila Gregoire is a feminist who censors the critics who would dare her to justify her statements in light of what scripture ACTUALLY commands wives to do in light of having an actively sinning husband. I left the following comment on her blog today, and while many comments have been posted and Sheila has responded to many of them, mine is still stuck in moderation (assuming it hasn’t been deleted altogether).
—
“Instead, talk about the real issue,”
“You can say something like, “I understand that you want to watch these shows, and should you choose to watch them, I will be extremely hurt, but I will understand. I will ask, however, that you do not do so inside our home. If you are going to be disrespectful towards me, I would ask that you do it somewhere else.””
In other words, wives ought to nag/talk to their husbands in some nebulous non-nagging form of speech that still pressures their husbands into obeying God’s Word. Isn’t that the polar opposite of what the Bible actually says?
I Peter 3:1-2 “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (ESV)
You’re telling your readers to disobey I Peter 3:1-2. That passage forbids wives from so much as using their own words to win over their husbands, but you’re telling them to not just use words, but also to punish their husbands by witholding sex?? Really?? You’re contradicting the Bible’s own instructions, Sheila. It’s not just a matter of telling wives to punish their husbands. That’s got the entire authority structure backwards in the first place, but the Bible says that depriving your spouse of sex is to deliver your spouse into temptation from satan.
I Corinthians 7:5 “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
So you basically just recommended that wives should subject their husbands to Satan’s temptation if these same husbands don’t do what their wives say. Smooth move.
—
This is the second time Sheila has censored me on her blog, so for the second time, I’m posting it here so other people can read it. If she could debate her views under scrutiny, the following comment would make an excellent opportunity for Sheila to rebut it and show how biblical her position is. But her position isn’t biblical, which is why she didn’t allow this comment to be posted, and why it’s here for the record’s sake.
Dear Dalrock, et.al.:
Urh, you’re right!
Apologies and retractions to Sheila Gregoire. The histrionic kook who makes up false-flag online death threats for attention is indeed Susan Walsh, of the Hooking Up Smart blog.
Thanks for the correction!
Boxer
Three rebuttals, three “Thanks Lyn, point taken‘s.”
She’s not popping red pills, but 1) I’m not banned, 2) she didn’t argue with any of my critiques (even when I said she was sanctioning emotional blackmail, denial of sex, and kidnapping of children), and 3) she acknowledged that she put too much emphasis on the wife’s feelings. I’d call that progress – I didn’t expect to get nearly that far. I’ll let things sit for now. Baby steps…
Ok, Mrs. Gamer is accusing me of cheating. I say, “Not so!”
Background
I go out dancing solo. I danced a lot with one woman and a dance bond formed. I first considered it a problem when I woke up in the middle of the night and thought about the woman and couldn’t go back to sleep. I immediately started trying to figure out what was going on.
I didn’t ask this woman to dance more than other women. However, she asked me to dance a lot and I typically accepted.
I began reducing the number of dances I would dance with this woman. Eventually, she quit going to the venue and so did I. One or two small-talk text messages afterwards and no contact for the last two weeks.
She and I chatted very little. No big emotional chats. Mostly small talk. No sex. No kissing. No making passes at each other. The emotional bond formed was relatively weak compared to limerence and I took steps to test and break it as soon as I realized that it had formed.
——————–
Mrs. Gamer is enjoying playing the martyr in her “I’m a Martyr–He Faux-Cheated On Me” fantasy.
theasdgamer:
I am glad you’re here, among men who live the vocation of husband and father. I’ve learned a lot here, and when you’re ready, you might also.
Regards,
Boxer
Boxer:
If I want any lip from you….
@Dalrock
Something that you might look into for some good reading….as a “happily married man in a post feminist world”.Ontario’s new “sexual education curriculum”.It has been making headlines in all our National Papers.It is put forward by our illustrious Premier(Lesbian) Kathleen Wynn.You will be shaking your head.I believe that this topic will provide you with MANY exceptional posts.Get MarcusD to help you out.He reads all our major papers and I know will be quite famaliar with what I am talking about.Thanks.
@Boxer says:
February 28, 2015 at 2:41 pm
“I am glad you’re here, among men who live the vocation of husband and father. I’ve learned a lot here, and when you’re ready, you might also.”
Swish! Nothin’ but net!
Lyn87 says:
February 28, 2015 at 2:15 pm
“Three rebuttals, three ‘Thanks Lyn, point taken‘s’.”
You have a gift, brother.
And, let’s not forget that most wives are fine with denying sex like this simply because many are not really into or turned on by their husbands in the first place. Things would be so much simpler if women honestly married men who turned them on. In my view, men must be extra cautious in discovering the true motivations for marriage today….and one of them needs to be that you physically turn her on. Get that part right and a lot of these issues go away. Oh, and maintain that physical attraction throughout your marriage. good luck with that
Quiet, you there in the Purple Pill Peanut Gallery!
Sheila Gregorie said…
You see what you just did Dalrock? Its ALL your fault. 🙂
Davis says,
“…and one of them needs to be that you physically turn her on. Get that part right and a lot of these issues go away. Oh, and maintain that physical attraction throughout your marriage. good luck with that”
One of my goals has been to be able to wear the pants I wore the day Mrs Lyn87 and I met… in 1987. They’re 1980’s-style parachute pants and I kept them out of a sense of nostalgia despite the fact that I “grew” out of them and nobody wears that stuff any more. I’ve been hammering away at the gym and with my food intake for quite a while now. About half an hour ago I grabbed them from the hanging rod… and put them on… and they fit. I’m not gonna’ lie, they’re pretty snug around the waist, but not painfully so. I immediately came downstairs to show her. Her eyes got a little wide and she said, “I’m impressed.”
What prompted tonight’s tomfoolery was that we were just watching a show about how to keep yourself “young,” and one of the things the speaker said was that if you live like you did when you were young, and get into that mindset, your body will respond favorably. I told my wife that that means I should call up my old girlfriends, then I thought better of it and declared that the important factor was not that I was dating those women in particular, but that I was dating them when they were 20.
Anyway, then I took one of those online tests where you answer questions and it tells you your “health age.” It turns out that I’m 24 (less than half my chronological age). Then she took the same test and informed me that I can date her, since she’s 19!
Things are definitely looking up: a few weeks ago the VA thought I was dead.
“This is about wives grasping for control due to their own insecurity. It is not about saving a husband from sin*, as Gregoire is surprisingly upfront about.” (Dalrock quote)
This is exactly what her actions are. It is not about her being attracted enough to her husband, it’s about her insecurity as she sees the beautiful naked bodies on Game of Thrones – she feels super insecure that her husband is seeing them, and envious possibly that her body may not be like that (be honest… how many wives keep their bodies looking great throughout the majority of their marriage). I’m amazed how unbiblical her suggestions are… but I understand that women would feel this way if they aren’t 1) secure in their body and love being naked with their husbands, and 2) are confident that they can trust him in all circumstances.
I think most Christian men are not looking to lust after GoT women… but I can see how MANY Christian wives wouldn’t want their husbands seeing those women’s bodies because of the extreme jealousy it creates in that woman’s emotions if she’s overweight or insecure at all with her body.
The men probably shouldn’t be watching it if it’s going to cause them to lust… everything may be permissible, but not everything is beneficial kind of thing, however, the wife obviously should follow what all you have said above (deti’s instructions particularly). I don’t see anything wrong though, with the wife being honest enough to tell him (if it’s her issue) that it hurts her in some way. It’s not wrong for her to tell him her feelings really, it’s only wrong if she does it in a horrible, ultimatum, and threatening kind of way that provides for there to be no dialogue (only for him to be cast in the wrong, and therefore put on the defensive before anything can truly be understood).
I guess we’re more carnal Christians… we’ve watched GoT together and had passionate sex afterwards. But I’ve read many women (Christian women especially), say that they can’t bear to watch movies hardly because of how insecure they feel when they see the woman celebrities playing in the movie. Most women don’t look like that, so it creates in them this immense feeling of insecurity and jealousy. When a woman is more secure in herself, and who she is in Christ (knowing her value), she just doesn’t feel that way as much when she sees other more beautiful women. The feelings may still be there in rare instances, but she can realize them for what they are and keep them in check. Being honest with a husband about this kind of inner workings of the female mind isn’t bad, it’s only bad if it’s done in a destructive manner. 🙂
“Anger is cruel, and fury overwhelming, but who can withstand jealousy?” Proverbs 27:4
@theasgamer… I know you love to dance – always see your posts about it, the thing is though that going out and dancing with other women, only makes it easier & much more likely for an emotional attachment to form with one of those women (sadly, this can happen whether you want it to or not – which in this case, you obviously didn’t want it). It’s why couples have dates together – so that they can focus on building their bond between ***each other*** – and each other alone – its a time of focusing on strengthening the bond through the fun experiences of things like dancing, a husband should be having those experiences with his wife.
Did you cheat on her? No, I don’t think so. Emotional Cheating? It’s hazier, but I still don’t think you cheated emotionally since you didn’t want the connection. Does she feel betrayed (and have a right to in some form)? Yes, she does… and in a way (don’t hate me), she’s right to feel a little betrayed. She wants that connection with you to be only with her – not some other woman (and you want the same I know, I’m not trying to paint you as bad here).
So the dancing with other women, taking the gambling chance that you could unwantingly form an emotional bond with one (that you now have to break, I’ve read your recent post), is a problem for you. I know you’re thinking about seeking other dance venues (and that’s the right thing to do), however, once you get to those other venues, what will stop another woman from eventually hooking you again. We’re biological people – no matter how “spiritual” any of us are. I firmly believe that if we constantly put ourselves in situations where we could be “tempted” or like you were: “hooked” into obsessing about someone else other than our partner, we will eventually find ourselves in that dilemma. You’re doing the right thing, you already see it was a problem, but I’m surprised a little, that you didn’t see it coming, and I do think it could happen again.
The only solution? Do more activities that your wife would like to do with you so that the bond can be built up with her. It’s sad she doesn’t like dancing.
Lyn87 says:
February 27, 2015 at 3:28 pm
I think both of you are missing Vic’s point. He neither said nor implied that wives cannot “speak up or advocate for what is right.” What is objectionable is the idea that a submissive Christian wife (which SHOULD be a redundancy) gets to be the judge – always monitoring the level of her husband’s Christian walk – and then be both jury and executioner if she doesn’t feel that he measures up.
Should wives have input? Of course they should. Should they edify their husbands and help them walk more closely with God? Of course, and 1st Peter 3:1 explains how they can do that. Does she have the right to violate 1 Corinthians 7 and cut off sex (which is what you are advocating when you suggest separate sleeping arrangements) as a means of bringing pressure to bear? No.
Thanks to Lyn for getting to the heart of my comment, even though I was unwisely snarky.
I wrote this (WAAAY too long) response which she refused to post.
“I appreciate you allowing my comments to stand.
If I encouraged my daughter to move to a country that held her accountable while giving her husband the option to destroy her life using the state, I’d be a very poor father indeed. The same goes for my sons.
It doesn’t mean a woman isn’t a Christian if she follows her feelings and destroys her husband’s life, it just means she’s sinning. If there is overwhelming temptation, even Christians sin. Banks aren’t disrespecting you by using vaults and counters to keep you away from the money, it’s a prudent thing to do because the human condition is weakness; male and female.
It’s why I encourage men to guard their liberty.
If women’s lack of submission to men is routinely ignored by the church for several decades, the temptation for women to sin is overwhelming. Christians aren’t sin proof, male or female.
Unconscionability means that a term in a contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power.
For a father to ignore the 21st century reality of marriage and send his sons into that minefield is unconscionable. I couldn’t be handed better proof of the inverted sense of female entitlement and justification of sin than what this blog post represents.
I honestly appreciate someone like Sheila for being blatantly honest about the peril young men are facing. I’m sincere in saying I will save this to show to younger men and let them see with their own eyes.
Men should have the courage to guard the liberty God gave them and not be shamed into throwing it away because of churchian fashionability.
As a father, I would frown on my daughter encouraging someone they loved to enter into an unconscionable contract. I can only pray that mothers would do the same for their sons.”
– Vic
Dear Vic:
I appreciate feminists on the internet for similar reasons. It’s a lot easier to explain my perpetual bachelorhood to my relatives with so many shining examples of what marriage actually gets you. I admire the men who marry, but would never enter into such a contract myself.
That’s really it.
Okay, I promise to shut up after this.
Here is one of the most fascinating posts I’ve ever read and I’ll tell you why. The written word is powerful, it is a tool God chose to use because it can be studied, referenced and reanimated with the maturity that comes with living. It carries an implicit authority because it can’t be argued or debated with and assumes the will of truth.
Sarah says:
February 25, 2015 at 2:29 pm
I love the way you said this! I would also just add that having the conversation while he’s sitting down watching it might not be the best time. I think timing is an important part of the conversation. He may also need time to “think on it” and let her words sink in. One thing that has worked amazing in my marriage is a conversation journal that I can write in and leave for my husband to read while he’s alone. Certain topics are much easier for him when he doesn’t feel the pressure of having to have a response right this second. He can process it, pray about it and bring it up when he’s mulled it over.
Sarah was soon commended for giving her husband “the word according to her feelings” and Sheila thought that was a great idea.
Let’s let that sink in for a minute. Wow.
@ gwadft
I’m glad to see your comment. You make a strong argument based on common sense. However, I think that it has some holes.
First, I go dancing solo for three primary reasons:
1. To get material for my book
2. To lose weight
3. To gain social skills
Writing is my mission to bring in income. Hence, asking me to not go dancing solo is akin to asking me to change careers after I have an investment in that career. Would it be a good idea for a wife to ask her husband who is a dance instructor to change careers? And how much exposure to women is too much? Maybe men ought to not go out the door of their houses since there is so much cheating going on in the workplace. Women came on to me a few times at my workplace back when I was in an office. Should men stay home to avoid women and temptation?
The incident with this particular woman is a one-off thing, I think. I was naïve about married women–especially expecting this one to honor my boundaries which I discussed with her in a chat–and danced with this one woman too many times per night (about ten times each night on four nights). Add in the fact that we had chemistry (her quite a bit more than me) and dance chemistry and the result isn’t surprising. She danced with a few other men quite a lot (maybe five times per night), so my suspicions were allayed until I experienced the bonding. She didn’t chat much with me either, so there was no warning of a bond forming based on deep rapport from chatting. After the first night where we danced so much, I experienced a very weak bond, but it dissipated very quickly, so I thought that I could easily deal with the issue when it occurred later. I’m certain that the woman was gaming me.
I have chemistry with other women I dance with and I dance multiple times per night with other women, too–maybe up to five times per night. Not a hint of a problem on my end with any other woman. Of course, none of them ask me to dance more than a couple of times per night.
@ gwadft
There are a couple of other problems with your argument. First, it implicitly assumes that men and women have equal strategies for dealing with sexual temptation. I think that we are agreed that married women ought not go out solo. However, men have to go out to earn income, so expecting them to stay home is unreasonable. Essentially, you are advocating that men use the same strategy as women. This is equalist in essence and is part of the Blue Pill.
You wrote, “Does she feel betrayed…?” Betrayal is not a feeling. Fear is a feeling. She feels fear. Mrs. Gamer is afraid of losing me. This is about Dread and frame control. Whose frame will dominate? Who will be head of the household?
Betrayal is not a feeling. Fear is a feeling. She feels fear
Very well said.
Betrayal is when trust is broken… feeling betrayed because of an unspoken vow of trust (that vow being that a connection to these women would NOT happen) was broken, to me, would be valid.
Either way, you know dread game can definitely go too far, and in this case, found out that it did – hence why it bothered you to feel that slight addiction. It’s the same feelings of addiction that come a full fledged emotional or physical affair – except less intense obviously. But still, you’re playing with matches.
@ Sarah’s Daughter
Have you read my post about Dread in the Song of Solomon?
https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/implied-soft-dread-in-the-song-of-solomon/
@theasgamer – “I’m certain that the woman was gaming me.”
You’re leaving yourself open & vulnerable for women to try to game you. And dancing with women… touching their bodies, smelling them, feeling their hair brushing your skin… it is all way more sensual than working with female coworkers. You’re a male… biologically those things should turn you on… and if the stars line up… boom … a bond is formed through 40+ dances where you feel “chemistry” that is much more physical than an office scenario would be. Plus… women more than likely dress way more seductively when out dancing than they do at the office.
Surrounding yourself with sexy women, dressed seductively (or at least alluringly), touching their bodies, smelling their perfume, feeling their hair brush you, sharing the intimacy of a dance that you coordinate your bodies together to, looking into a woman’s eyes for that long… LOL Not trying to judge you, just point out those things. I think you may find it happening again even if you “guard your heart,” and switch venues.
Being autistic, sexual attraction is uncompelling to me. Visual, olfactory, whatever. I dance with lots of women attired like you describe who are attempting to attract men. Maybe hundreds. They even do overt physical flirting. Ignored.
I’m much more vulnerable to emotional games. Don’t much look into women’s eyes when I dance with them. More over their shoulders watching floor traffic. They try the laser eye thing and I just ignore it. I’m busy watching floor traffic, keeping both of us in step with the beat of the music, determining which patterns to lead, and giving my lead to my partner. No time for emotional thinking. What happened to me was physiological–got hit with a lot of oxytocin. I just need to limit the number of dances to five or less per woman per night. The “bond woman” didn’t wear perfume and wore her hair above her shoulders, so it didn’t brush me. Didn’t dress seductively. Post-menopausal. She has a good figure and an attractive face. There were other women I danced with who were more attractive with whom I had chemistry and there was no bonding problem. It was just too many dances. She had a lot of experience dancing and doubtless had experienced dance bonding before.
Dance is certainly quasi-sexual, which is one reason women find it so enjoyable. The lead/follow dynamic affects their amygdalas.
I appreciate your thoughts.
@girlwithadragonflytattoo says:
March 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm
“You’re leaving yourself open & vulnerable for women to try to game you.”
Duh! That’s the point!
One thing that slipped by a lot of people that read this was the sleight of hand that the harpy mommy blogger used when she said that her husband watches tv with nudity. She never outright used the word “porn”, so it must not have been Skinemax or anything like that. But she also didn’t outright say HBO, because then the reader would think “what’s the big deal about watching HBO?” I think she is being intentionally vague about what it is that her husband is watching because deep down she knows that it’s not that bad and that everyone would know she’s a huge bitch for throwing fits over it. Very weaselly of her.
I guess she did mention some of the shows that he watched, so I have to take my previous comment back. But I also noticed that she mentioned that it’s not just the sex and nudity that bothers her, it”s the incest, pedophilia, etc. I’ve seen those shows. Those things may be a part of the plot, but they are never glorified or portrayed as normal or sexy, or anything like that. Thinking otherwise is like saying, “I won’t watch Schindler’s List because it has genocide in it and I think genocide is wrong.”
hey hey… if my handsome husband were doing this… lol I’d be mate-guarding like an insane woman. If he’d formed some kind of attachment – oooooo I’d be so jealous. God Himself (oh I sound so preachy lol) is a “jealous” God when it comes to our affections for Him vs. other gods. I’m a lesser creature obviously, so I think I’d get the jealousy pass haha!
Dread game is good… but it can go too far when bonds are formed (in my opinion).
@theasdgamer – ok… I understand now. I hope you resolve it with your wife so that there’s no more drama; you sound like you’re honest with her, and that is the most important thing.
Leading with feelings may be an effective communication technique.
The key is, it needs to inform that attitude, not just the words being said.
if it’s just an alternate pronunciation of “you better do / stop doing this or else!” then it may actually make things worse, since, as noted, it elevates (the wife’s) feelings to an imperative.
If it is offered in a spirit of I-may-be-wrong-about-this humility, then it’s less problematic.
@ gwadft
I understand your jealous feelings about your husband. Nevertheless, should your feelings be allowed to interfere with his mission to earn income? Or do you all need to figure out a way to help you deal with your feelings?
Mrs. Gamer said that she didn’t want to know what was going on. Then she did. Wondered why I had changed venues. I told her. She had a fit. Grew hysterical. Said that all her suspicions were confirmed. That’s what honesty will buy you.
Women need to be managed, not reasoned with, when it comes to jealousy and other feelings.
I posted this today. We’ll see if it gets past moderation.
_____________________
@ Sheila:
“rather than putting all of your energy yelling at women who are telling wives that it is okay to confront sin, perhaps you’d be better off putting some of that energy into helping men overcome a porn problem?
“Which do you think is more biblical–to confront sin and try to stop it, or to keep your mouth shut and enable it? What, after all, did Jesus do?”
Well, with regard to the specific issue you’ve mentioned here, I think it’s more biblical to actually follow the Word, and do what it says. It just so happens that Jesus (through His Apostle, St. Peter) told wives what they should do in this situation:
“Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” I Pet. 3:1-6
So, it’s more biblical here to keep one’s mouth shut and win over a husband “without a word”. That’s what the Word says.
It’s not for women to address a porn problem. It’s for women to address their own hearts and whether they will follow the Word, or not.
Note that Mrs. Gamer didn’t care that the whole thing happened innocently on my part, was quickly dealt with, and there was no cover up. I was at fault because I am a man and her feelings were hurt. What I was going through was irrelevant. [Cue the Feminine Imperative videoprompter.]
I also left this comment, which as of today reflects one of the ads on her site.
_____________
@ Sheila:
I would also respectfully point out that it’s a bit hypocritical for you to decry “porn” in “Game of Thrones”.
Your own blog in the right banner panel has, on the main page, under “Sheila’s Relationship Picks”, an ad that entreaties the reader, “Wanna Date Hot Phillippine Women?” with enticing photographs of attractive, pretty Asian women. In what I presume is a rotating ad, there is also one that invites the reader to date pretty Russian women, with the obligatory photo of a pretty brunette with a “come hither” look.
Planks, motes, and all that.
I am not sure if anyone is still paying attention this thread, but I think the exchange in the very first comment over on sheila’s site is very interesting.
under “Sheila’s Relationship Picks”, an ad that entreaties the reader, “Wanna Date Hot Phillippine Women?” with enticing photographs of attractive, pretty Asian women.
My Yahoo mail account keeps rotating older American girls in the upper right corner. I’m guessing some of my personal info was sent to the advertisers, but not enough I suppose. I’m married and even if I wasn’t, you’d think with all the marketing info they have they would know that men are overwhelmingly attracted to women younger than themselves.
@JDG
Maybe they think you’re really old.
Oh no, I don’t let my feelings interfere with his goals and workplace things – he even had to go to a training a few months ago (when I was pregnant) and one of the women trainers started kinda flirting – using him in almost every scenario, and pairing him up as her husband or “boyfriend.” He told me and of course I felt a little jealous, but I didn’t let it overwhelm me and it definitely wasn’t a fight – it was more a thing I could tease him with later on… he’s really handsome (women are always going to be after him), I know he loves me and is loyal. Our trust has been built up over the years like a fortress. I had to learn how to “deal” with my feelings during our dating period and in our first year of marriage. But it would feel different maybe if I felt like he had been trying to hide it. Is it possible that your wife thought you were trying to conceal it from her? If she over-reacts then that makes sense, you would want to conceal it because she doesn’t handle honesty well. Maybe telling her that from now on, you’ll let her know if that starts to happen, tell her that your being honest is the right thing – that you’re not trying to hide anything from her.
I think (of course I could be very wrong here) but maybe both of you haven’t built up a workable pattern for explaining things like what happened (if she had “suspicions” she should have been able to talk openly with you about them without getting upset, and when the connection started happening, you should have been able to confide in her to get it off your chest)… temptations or those hard to disclose secrets are things that a mature couple should be able to confront in a gentle way with each other – it’s extremely hard to learn how to do that, but it makes a world of difference later down the road. We figured that out in the first year… it’s only possible if you both agree to value the honesty over the emotional “hurt” and agree to not get hysterical (like your wife did to you). That kind of pattern of communicating is hard to establish, but basically if you can get her to realize that it didn’t mean anything to you – you didn’t want it to happen at all – and that you’re not entertaining the idea of an affair, you’re doing the honorable (very commendable and noble!) thing by switching venues, she should be HAPPY and PROUD of you. Thankful for your honesty – it should bring you two closer in intimacy, and you should have the benefit of knowing that she’s on your side in dealing with it together (you shouldn’t have to face that frustration alone).
Honesty really is the best policy, but it takes a lot of trust & maturity.
I wrote an article about this awhile ago, you may be interested in it:
http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2014/04/30/the-emotional-spiritual-connection-having-openness-in-your-marriage/
I don’t get hit on all that often, but when I do I tell my wife every single time… in detail. She knows I wouldn’t cheat on her, but pre-selection is a thing, so it doesn’t hurt to let her know that she has a man that other women want.
When I was active on some dating sites, I put in my preferences and in the text of my profile that I was looking for women in the 20-35 age range. They insisted on matching me mostly with women in their 40s or older. My guess is they have a glut of those women and they get very little interest from men, but they’re more likely (desperate) than the younger girls to pay for a premium account, so the site is trying to boost their hopes by promoting them to lots of guys to generate responses.
Am I the only Christian woman who enjoys watching porn with her husband? I even said once I was disappointed when he attempted to watch without me. We talk about what would happen if we did that and have fun. Because we both know this is imaginary and don’t condition ourselves according to porn. Why do some wives – that includes non-Christian women too- fail to understand that and make a big issue out of that?
Jillian—same here. While I’d say we are publicly irreligious, porn is like many things: it’s not a problem until it becomes a problem.
@Jillian says: March 4, 2015 at 10:49 am
You just might be, or the only one who is brave enough to admit it ! Good for you.
You said yourself already, they fail to understand, along with that failure we have a church culture that seems to compound that misunderstanding under the guise that not having any sexual desire (until you are inside a legal monogamous marriage) is a holy thing. Strange when you consider God will ‘marry’ the church when our creations time is over, if that isn’t sexual – what is? And also how do you get into a marriage without sexual desire in the 1st place ?
A man reading “Song of Solomon” would almost count as grounds for divorce according to Gregorie, as its quite sexual indeed and will invoke at least some imagination.
Timber – I saw your post over there – congrats, mine didn’t past the muster when I tried to point out to her that there is no James 5:21 which she used to justify her “only for those with penises” speech. And a few other things, like Mat18:15-17 which applies to those who are continually sinning against a brother with out an end, its not for a single offence.
What a coward she is, she didn’t even post my comment when I pointed it out to her. She has changed her comment though now, it was previously :
“James 5:20-21 only applies if you have a penis, as does Matthew 18:15-17.
Now its:
“James 5:19-20 only applies if you have a penis, as does Matthew 18:15-17.”
Shelia, your welcome.
Pingback: Husbands, meet your new Master: Her Feelings. | Honor Dads
> Gregoire’s doctrine of emotions as divine compass
“My emotions come from God. They are divine.”
Pingback: Do You Believe Your Lying Eyes? | Spawny's Space
First I want to day thank you to the author of this post! The topic of nudity in TV shows is a huge controversy in my marriage and I found this post in search for help immediately after reading Gregoire’s post. I was in search of what my response should be as a Christian wife. Although Gregoire’s post gave me some comfort to know I wasn’t alone in how I felt it did leave me with thinking she has obviously never met my husband because all of her suggestions would have led our disagreements to escalate for sure. The only one I completely agreed with was prayer. As a wife it is not my responsibility to convict or to punish my husband in any way. God is the only one other than the man himself who knows what a man is thinking when he looks upon a naked woman. Therefore, God is the only one qualified to judge him. It is just as much sin for me to get angry at him because my anger stems from selfishness…poor me syndrome if you will. I don’t want him to stop watching it just to suffice me, I know his only accountability is to God. My responsibility as a wife is to respect my husband, and to pray that God will convict his sins…honestly I believe the true root of our conflict doesn’t have much to do with my husbands sin as it does with me constantly pointing them out.
Pingback: God and sinners reconciled – joyful all ye nations rise | vulture of critique