Christian sex experts Pastor Dave and Ann Wilson inadvertently explain how to kill your wife’s attraction in The Art of Marriage:
Dave: On May 24, 1990, it was our ten-year anniversary—I sort of surprised Ann with a ten-year anniversary date. We dressed up and went to a really nice restaurant. I sort of set it up with the waiter, while we were having dinner / when I would queue him—sort of give him a look—he was supposed to bring a rose over. So, I queued him early in the dinner—he brought over a rose and laid it on the table. We talked about year one.
Ann: He was like a little boy that night—like waiting for the next thing to happen.
Dave: Then I looked over later, and he brought another rose. So, anyway, every rose was a year; and we would talk about that year.
Ann: He was so sweet—he even planned what he was going to say when each rose arrived.
Little boys are indeed sweet, but they aren’t sexy. Later that night Dave tried to kiss his wife, and she explained that she no longer had feelings for him.
Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.
Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”
Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”
Pastor Wilson was an All-American quarterback at Ball State and a leader of men, but by supplicating to his wife he took on the form of a little boy and killed his wife’s attraction for him.
Hat Tip Sunshinethiry (followup post pending)
Related:
Excellent point. Why are so many men ignorant of what women like? Are they really so engulfed in our decadent culture to even bother doing some research on the internet?
Pingback: He was like a little boy that night. – Manosphere.com
Butbutbut, that was SO romantic!
Really though, I do know a couple of broads that something akin to this would have swept them right off their feet.
Please note, I said a couple, as in 2!
Pingback: He was like a little boy that night. | Neoreactive
Funny. I saw a banner/poster (it was also advertised on their big screens in the foyer) for the Art of Marriage yesterday at a church I sometimes frequent.
Again, this proves Rollo Tomassi’s observation that romance can’t be planned. Dave was more romantic to her when he was soaked in a muddy, sweaty uniform after throwing a game-winning touchdown pass.
Also, according to his bio Dave’s most popular topic is his “Real Man” series. You might want to check those out for possible post ideas if you haven’t already.
I just published an essay on pornography addiction that advises husbands to practice the Disciplines and learn seduction. From personal testimony, the moment one starts picking up on PUA techniques and stops pedestalizing his wife, the marriage bed becomes a lot more fruitful.
Personally, I’m proud to have convinced my wife that she’s seeing romance when in fact I’m using Heartiste’s Skittles strategy. KFC Chicken wings, a couple of cheap drinks, crappy old horror movies, and loudly playing my bass the entire time leads straight to a good lay (and regular sex for weeks afterward).
Dave’s issue is that he is presenting flavoring (sweetness) without food (headship and manliness).
Unfortunately, the typical churchian advice is to double down on the flavoring and not the food.
Occasional roses aren’t bad.
But this story is pretty funny considering the common myth is that women are such romantics.
In any male-female relationship (including LGBT) the basic driving force is speciation. Assuring that the specie survives and continues is deeply implanted in our DNA patterns. The female is anatomically, physiologically, culturally, and psychologically driven to find and hold on to a mate who can:
1. Pass on type A genetic material
2. Provide protection for her especially during the vulnerable times around gestation.
3. Play as a type A role model in rearing offspring.
4. Provide type A protection to the offspring and den area.
A man must maintain these traits and obligations to remain relevant to the relationship. A man can be touchy feely on certain private intimate occasions. He cannot, however, display this behavior in the face of predators or rivals. He must generate both in his close relations and to the others in wider association a sense of danger. If he becomes a sycophantic partner, he forfeits his type A status both to the world and to his mate. She must fear that he will find another mate so that she remains competitive for his attentions. She must be more concerned with fending off potential rivals that she is looking for another mate who will provide the elements demanded of the male. If you fail to provide a robustly masculine role, you are cheating your wife and children.
Think of it this way. He kind of came off like a son and not a husband. How many women would make out with their sons?
Don’t answer that..
However, something tells me she lost attraction to him long before this little dinner. Like a couple years after marriage.
But in the next followup video, posted in the link to Sunshine Thiry’s blog at the end of the OP, Ann explains that she “lost” her “feelings for” her husband because of the usual complaints:
“I feel like you’re never home. I feel like you’re not engaged with me. I feel like you’re not engaged with the boys.” Then she says “At first I was really angry, and then I was really bitter. And then my bitterness turned to resentment. And after a while I didn’t even care that he was gone.”
And then Dave says I heard God tell me “Repent.”
Note here: Ann is on emotional ground. She’s talking feelings. Dave had tried to engage her on the feelings/emotions ground by romance, taking her out to a nice dinner, doing all the lovey dovey things, complete with one rose per year. He tried to engage her on feelings/emotions when she was completely shut down.
The moment he tried to engage her on emotional ground he had already lost. She’s talking feelings. There’s no arguing with “feelings”. What’s worse is that she blames him for making her feel this way.
So I’m not sure that it was the romantic dinner/roses that killed her attraction. That was just the last thing. She was “feeling unloved” because she “felt like” he wasn’t home and was disengaged. She was just nothing but a ball of raw emotion. The problem here was that she wasn’t getting her emotions in check; and she was letting her emotions rule her life and run her. She wasn’t living in factual reality; she was living in the stewpot/cauldron of her own emotions.
Or his ass needed to be home more with his wife and kids.
@thedeti
I have a post in process to go over that part of it. It is in fact deeper than that, as Pastor Wilson and his wife’s core message is that wives will be attracted to their husband if the husband is godly. In this case he needed to do what she told him to do, because (I wish I was making this up) God was speaking to him through Ann when she said she didn’t love him anymore. It is a tangled mess of wives are closer to God, the wake-up call, listen to your wife, and women are attracted to virtue/godliness. They throw in a few references to women being crock pots and men as microwaves for flavor.
It was both. It was the latest in a long line of supplicating moves, but it also was throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire. He was trying to get her tingle back, and he made the existing problem much worse.
Followup:
And then when a woman lives, stews and marinates constantly in her own emotions, she then believes those emotions/feelings to be her reality. If she feels it or experiences it emotionally, it is truth and fact, and cannot be contradicted.
She will then make decisions based on those emotions – she makes decisions premised on how she feels (rather than what she thinks or what facts are present), which gives rise to the statements women always make: It “feels” right. It “feels like I should do this”. I “don’t feel like I should do that.” “I felt like it. I didn’t feel like it.” It also causes her to project all that onto others. “I feel like you’re not there.” “I feel like you’re not engaged at home. I feel like you’re not engaged with me or the kids.” “I feel like you don’t do X (and you should do X).”
@thedeti I did get the sense that that was all an intro for the revelation of hidden, long simmering complaints of hers about him.
Still, rapport and sexual attraction can definitely be inversely related for women. It’s possible that the whole display turned her off enough that she didn’t care anymore about holding back her “true feelings” from him.
LeeLee: Dalrock has another post coming on this so he’ll cover much of it. My narrow point was just that for Ann, her emotions were everything. She was worshiping at the altar of her feelings, and forcing Dave to do the same thing. In fact it would appear Dave agrees that they both should idolize her feelings, since he’s bought into the utterly false notion that women are attracted to godliness and virtue in men.
Pingback: Romance kills sexual attraction | Neoreactive
OT: Naghmeh’s abuse claims have now hit the Washington Post.
I love how she claims “spiritual abuse”, as if “emotional abuse” wasn’t subjective enough.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/02/01/the-strange-case-of-the-pastor-released-from-iran-and-his-wifes-abuse-allegations/
Wow he married a winner there.
The great news is if she never gets her ‘feelings’ for him back then cash and prizes await!
What makes all of this so dangerous isn’t that there is malice, but precisely because there isn’t. I like to think they have the best intentions and genuinely want to help others, but someone who gives you bad advice with good intentions can be harder to deal with than someone who gives you bad advice with intent to harm you. You don’t question their motives and therefore never consider that they would give you bad advice. I don’t know how often anyone has heard the saying “they’re just trying to help,” but I got that a lot when I started rejecting Blue Pill wisdom, and in hindsight it occurred to me that the biggest struggle for a person tempted to take the Red Pill is that it requires them to accept that so many people who love them and care about them counseled them with counterproductive guidance based on myths that, if they had continued to follow, would have made them frustrated and miserable.
This is part of what makes the Red Pill so bitter; trying to not be angry at people who tried to help but brought grief instead and probably will never realize it.
Exactly. Like I mentioned under the last post isn’t proposing, marrying her, and having children in the current cultural and legal environment supplicating in and of itself? No wonder the sex stops after marriage. What woman could ever be attracted to a man weak and/or ignorant enough to be a modern husband/father? To her you’ll always be a big pussy.
I wanted to raise a good son. And my church had so many programs to help a man teach his son. Some of them were good, some were great, others. They would have him treat his girl like a princess. His natural nature is overly self confident, maybe even cocky. He is a young man who has a hard to hold on to edge about him. A bad ass with a good heart, if he loves you.
He attracted many girls, but one fought hard for his attention, very hard. She loved the bad ass. He grew to love her after a while and few other woman in his life. He started to treat her the way he was taught to. Like a princess, just like I taught him too. Even though I suspected that doing that could bore a young girl who fell for a hard young man.
Five years latter my son heard those words. I don’t have those “feeling for you anymore”. He is heartbroken and I need to tell him I’m sorry. Almost everything I taught you about relationships was wrong. Yes you needed to stay a bad ass to her. A woman needs to know she is not a princess and their are a lot of girls on the girl tree. If she loved a bad boy, you cant change, you need to stay the way you are. Stay a hard man to keep, but always worth it.
Churchianity lies, christian men are not soft men and woman do not love soft men.
http://therationalmale.com/2015/11/03/christian-dread/
Pastor Dave is painfully Blue Pill. When your wife says you’re like a child in your efforts at romance it’s time to reassess your approach. Most husbands in this predicament are fighting an uphill battle they don’t even know their in. There’s precious little Dave is going to do to recreate his wife’s Beta perception of him and he only makes it worse for himself the more he gives her what he thinks she needs from him.
timwburke:
In situations like this, husbands are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If he is out there working his ass off which takes him away from home, he’s a bad guy because he’s never home.
If he takes a job with less demanding hours (which always means less pay), then he’s a bad guy for not earning enough money and for lacking ambition to improve himself and the financial fortunes of his family.
If he works hard, he’s selfish and self-centered, and doesn’t do enough around the house.
If he doesn’t work hard because he wants to do more around the house, he’s a lazy, shiftless, unambitious slug who should be out there busting his hump more.
I was scrolling through previous posts/comments where I referred to the Tingle Gospel and how most modern denominations teach it. I was challenged by another commenter to give specific examples of the Tingle Gospel, since he never heard it ever preached.
I wish I would have seen his challenge at the time. In any case, he makes the common rebuttal. Specific examples, and if you point them out then they want video evidence, then they say it doesn’t apply because they never said Tingle Gospel.
Basically, this story is the Tingle Gospel, as believed and practiced by a Pastor. We hear it all the time. “Husbands, if you’re wife isn’t interested, you aren’t godly enough.” In practice, that means her Tingled measure your righteousness. They’ll never say it that way, and will deny it in those terms. But it is the Tingle Gospel nonetheless.
It’s like the hamster. Women deny having a rationalization hamster and never use the term, even while its existence is evident in their denials.
So hear it is. Whatever one calls it, the sermons telling husbands that their wives are attracted to righteousness are measuring righteousness by her.tingles. Great post.
OT: Naghmeh’s abuse claims have now hit the Washington Post.
Did anyone notice that even WaPo called the abuse allegations “strange”?
He was following the microwave vs slow cooker script.
Adding one flower every few minutes and adjusting the burner with words specific to a certain year, and doing so over time….well, according to church teaching the restaurant needed to remove the wife’s chair and await an upholstery cleaning company before returning it to service.
The slow cooker analogy is ridiculous. It is a lift chasing vehicle for Christian men because they hand women something that can be used to distract their annoying sunk chest husbands from wanting sex immediately by convincing them that delayed gratification and this slow warming her up are the ways to go.
Meanwhile, this demure creature can be on her back screaming within 10 minutes if she receives a call from a paramour saying he has a few minutes free.
thedeti says:
timwburke:
“In situations like this, husbands are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If he is out there working his ass off which takes him away from home, he’s a bad guy because he’s never home.
If he takes a job with less demanding hours (which always means less pay), then he’s a bad guy for not earning enough money and for lacking ambition to improve himself and the financial fortunes of his family.
If he works hard, he’s selfish and self-centered, and doesn’t do enough around the house.
If he doesn’t work hard because he wants to do more around the house, he’s a lazy, shiftless, unambitious slug who should be out there busting his hump more.”
Excellent response!!! It’s a NO-WIN situation for this man, period. Being subjected to a woman’s constantly shifting “feelings” and “emotions” which to her, are the sole basis of truth, and unchallenged at that, is a recipe for complete destruction.
Has there ever been one of these Christian “marriage problems” video conessionals that featured something other than the husband and wife both agreeing that he’d destroyed their marriage by being a selfish prick and then concluded with the man fixing everything by submitting to God and obeying his wife’s commands?
For a change I’d like to see a “marriage problems” video that ended with the disobedient wife going down on her knees to God. And to her husband. IYKWIMAITYD
Ironic, because the Bible says anything but. Our sin natures drive us away from God, hence, “He first loved us.” If you want further proof, just take note of who has a sexy new TV show on the air – is it God or Satan?
May be why there grew a tradition of celibate priests, to attract a woman requires too much of the devil so it is best the most righteous forgo the temptation. (Holy men are almost always single anyway.)
haha @empathologism the slow cooker versus microwave metaphor DOES hold merit for the physical act of sex itself (women need more time to “get there” than men)– but yeah, I agree that it’s helpfulness does not extend to the mental/emotional components of arousal or desire.
Gentlemen, there is nothing wrong with engaging a women at the level of her feelings. That’s their language, just like ours is the language of logic. Dave’s error was what he communicated, that he clingy little blue pilller who indeed was behaving like a silly schoolboy and not a man. Which of course she found gross on a visceral level. If he had instead of buying roses told her to go the ladies room, remove her panties, and bring them back in her purse and show him to demonstrate her obedience he would still have been communicating with her emotionally. Except that he would be telling her that she was a naughty little tramp that he owned, And you take one look at that her mug in the video and you know that’s just the message that would have made her climb all over him in that parking lot.
Jack Kennedy was gone a lot more from his wife than the good Pastor and I bet Jackie O never once said Ewww when the old cad leaned in for a little sugar. Or whatever else he wanted to take.
@Empath
Indeed. In a FamilyLife program that includes the audio from the video in the OP, they remind their audience that women are slow cookers. The key to getting your wife hot is lots of touching during the day, so long as you are careful not to be sexual in your touch-her-to-get-her-sexual touching.
Their explanation for why his anniversary Slow Cooker Game didn’t work is that Pastor Wilson wasn’t godly enough to get her engine running. God used her lack of tingle to speak to Dave. That night Ann was a sort of modern day (non) burning bush, and this lead to their epiphany regarding God’s design for our sexuality.
Way off topic:
The ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] has criticised ROKs. The ABC is the government funded nation-wide network and run by feminists.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/rape-mens-group-return-of-kings-meetings-daryush-valizadeh/7131306
Ah yes, the feminist hell hole of Australia, I wish him better luck than Chris Gayle had.
The hell is up with Australia, anyway? Just a couple of decades ago it was full of guns, whips and crocodile wrestlers… probably manlier than Texas. What gives?
@Dash Riprock:
I’ll be honest, that is a GREAT handle.
@Rollo:
“Silly, little sexpot”. I’ve been trying to harmonize most of the work of the Manosphere into small chunks, for the express purpose of being easier to explain. (There’s something of a steep learning curve to all of this.) I’ve found the phrase “silly, little sexpot” works rather well to describe the attitude a Husband should always take to his wife.
I find the phrase comes pretty close to the detailed understanding that a Man needs to have about a Woman. She can be serious when needed, but she won’t live there. She’ll live in her silly little distractions when she can. Though I think the best benefit is keeping your mind proper that she has neither hypoagency nor hyperagency. While Women simply cannot dwell on the harsh realities of life for long, they are not incapable of it.
@The Question:
Learning that everyone that should “know better” really doesn’t hurts. This, weirdly, was very easy for me to get beyond, as I’m a “half-orphan”. I had to construct my understanding of Women & Relationships due to my father’s untimely death. Thus going “okay, that doesn’t work, what does?” was significantly easier for me. For a lot of Men? They won’t accept it. The Red Pill will be death to a lot of their psyches. Never forget that.
@Boxer:
It actually is, if you get out of Sydney/Melbourne, to my knowledge.
A whole lot of man blaming – woman excusing going on here in the comments section. 1) He is not responsible for her feelings, she is an adult with volition and is responsible to foster a response to her husband. 2) Her cold shoulder is a sin that she attempts to justify based on feelings. She is commanded in scripture to not withhold and she is also commanded to respect her husband. In the Greek it reads she is to fear her husband. Her unenthusiastic response is not because he used the wrong technique or the wrong script, it is because she choose to defraud him.
Great find Mr. D.!
I have to wonder why women feel entitled to refuse to “play along.” I’m guessing that even brother Dave Wilson can pick out an example or two when he didn’t want to cut the grass, and wasn’t “in the mood” to spend all Saturday running silly errands. He did this anyway, because men tend to understand that life is not always a non-stop conveyor belt of good times and fuzzy feelings.
Women can be pleasant and kiss their husbands back when the time is right. Some women just don’t. This says much more about them than about anyone else.
Boxer
Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
February 1, 2016 at 2:47 pm
Exactly! Well said.
In addition I would like to add the following. Where is it written that the man is responsible for what his wife is attracted to? He is responsible for washing her with the word and presenting her without blemish. She is responsible for submitting to him in everything.
Attraction and feelings should have little or nothing to do with obedience, and obedience is how the bride demonstrates her love (John 14:15). Jonadab is spot on.
@Jonadab-the-Rechabite
The theology they are teaching here is toxic, but not the focus of this post (I have another in the works). For this post, the topic is what arouses women. It is true that a wife shouldn’t defraud her husband, and Ann was incredibly unkind to Dave here. Sunshine Thiry addresses Ann’s cruelty to her husband in her post based on the Art of Marriage video. As bad as that video is, Ann described being even harsher to her husband in the same incident at FamilyLife. I quote this in the pending post:
My disqus comment at CharismaNews was just deleted, since I tried to get to the issue of what arouses women but is never spoken of (except here), divorce porn.
See @
Virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect have never been and never will be arousal triggers for women.
Skipping all comments…
Gosh, wait, what went wrong here?
Dave took a traditional romantic approach, a conservative romantic approach, one might even say he took a traditional, conservative romantic approach.
Now, how could that possibly go wrong?
Their explanation for why his anniversary Slow Cooker Game didn’t work is
he should have been putting asparagus stalks one by one on the table.
probably manlier than Texas.
Na na na na…..not than Texas
Aaaand, just to be Captain Obvious to Dash Ripcock, the actual answer to the problem in the video can be found on da Intertubes. Just not in any of the usual church-oriented places. It’s not the supplicating, pedestalizing, can’t-see-cause-they-got-no-glasses, Blue Pill, “marriage specialists”, who totally misread their Bible from Genesis to Proverbs to Ephesians 5 that can help any man save his marriage, that’s for sure. The only thing keeping some women in their marriages is the social hit they’d take by leaving, and that social hit doesn’t seem to sting the under-40’s nearly as much as the older ones.
Is there any “marriage advisor” out there in the Churchgoing world aside from Voddie Bucham who has anything resembling a clue? Any? Or is that whole area just Sheila Gregoire replicated endlessly?
It’s all but certain that Rollo and Heartiste’s blogs, respectively, have done more to save marriages than all the “encounter specialists”, with their Luv Language choreplay prescriptions. An ounce of Game beats the snot out of a pound of choreplay.
And the beating goes on…
Just the other day I was listening to a couple of pretty serious churchgoing men talking about what to do for Valentine’s day. One’s going to cook breakfast for every female in his house. Another has some sort of dinner plan. It’s like they’re reading romance novels for ideas, but not getting the subcommunication within the novel – Lord Rod ThunderCodpiece doesn’t cook for anyone, guys.
I can’t talk to them. We have no common reference. They are apparently married to some sort of expensive, fragile, doll that must be kept safe on a pedestal.
Gah. No wonder so many churchgoing men have porn habits…
m11nine says:
February 1, 2016 at 3:15 pm
“My disqus comment at CharismaNews was just deleted, since I tried to get to the issue of what arouses women but is never spoken of (except here), divorce porn.”
Good for you in pointing that out and shame on them for censorship. Of course, not surprising at all. I’m just (sarcasm) on the edge of my seat waiting on the sequel to Fireproof from the Kendrick brothers called, “The Great Whore of Babylon” featuring the adulterous wife from the movie Fireproof. My guess is the storyline will go something like she goes full prostitute and bangs half of the men in their town, including her pastor, elders and deacons, and blames it on her husband who was not being a “servant leader”. Kirk Cameron will repent of his sin of not being a “servant leader” and forgive the men who had sex with his wife. Then he’ll come groveling back to her and beg her to take him back after she puts him off for 8 months, so he can go through “marital counseling” and get fixed by a husband and wife counseling team.
One of the most depressing things to take away from this for the unmarried men is that this is the sort of attitude they will be surrounded by in the church if they decide to marry. This is the advice they’ll be given by friends, family, and church leaders. This is the pre-martial counseling they’ll receive. This is the kind of conference they will be told to attend and listen to.
It will be near impossible to go against this prevailing thought and not be noticed. It’s not like this is considered a possible option or route to take. This is regarded as the sole, biblical approach to marriage. To act contrary or outside of it is itself an act of rebellion.
Someone tell me I’m missing something here.
Virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect have never been and never will be arousal triggers for women.
So why then should men prioritize arousing women?
When I watched that film I lolled hard at Cameron’s character. A normal man would have sent the bitch divorce papers, delivered express by the sheriff. Good Christian fathers and a strict read of the text all agree that once the wife started banging the doctor in that film, divorce was allowed, and there is no better cure for what ails a man than to cut loose of a cheating ho’.
@The Question:
You’re not. That’s why you channel your inner Joshua. 🙂 Christians have this amazing tendency to forget that, when God commands, slaughtering entire people groups off the face of the Earth is an act of Worship & Obedience. Those same Christians should pray they aren’t next.
But, at the same time, if you see the problem, you should also start to understand the solution. Since you can predict their reactions, you can out think them. Pick your battles wisely and let the Lord handle their hearts. Either they are corrected and turn to the Lord, or you simply dust your feet off. Even when the Prophets were slaughtered and Elijah had to run for this life, his first goal was to seek the Lord & His Presence. For that, Elijah was blessed by the Lord and informed that 7,000 had not bowed a knee to Baal. Elijah lived and the Lord took him up on the Chariot of Fire; Ahab and Jezebel died horrible deaths, their names forever mocked.
All is not lost. Things change rapidly. Put your trust in the Lord and do what he asks of you. Because that is all you can do.
@ Looking Glass.
Thanks for the advice!
I think the sequel will be called “Higher Proof”. Cameron, knowing the men in town are circling his lady, gets a bottle of distilled spirits…..high proof….drinks it, bites on a block of wood, and offers himself to the men of the city as surrogate for his wife. Now that gentlemen is a servant leader.
@The Question Be very very cautious about getting legally married in the United States. it’s a rigged game.
@Boxer – Yes, I agree. I was talking to her on the phone when the process server arrived. ‘You can’t do this.’ ‘I just did’ Wish I could say I planned it like that, but it was divine timing. When someone breaks the covenant you can’t patronize them, but it was an expensive and costly ‘boundary’ to enforce.
Pingback: He was like a little boy that night. | Reaction Times
This is the advice they’ll be given by friends, family, and church leaders. This is the pre-martial counseling they’ll receive. This is the kind of conference they will be told to attend and listen to.
That’s true. The reluctant among us will see some merit to the ideas here, but will have a hard time going ahead with them knowing that hardly anyone around us will support them. If things go well, great. If not, we’ll be told we need marital counseling (and then blamed for everything).
Incidentally, the few divorces I know of in the church involved men I would not call “nice.” Supposedly they involved abuse and poor treatment of the wife. I’ve learned here to not trust those claims, but it strikes me that the “bad” boys don’t seem to keep their wives interested. Then there are some real beta types that have been married for many years and their wives seem to love them. I don’t get it. But then, sometimes the women I know seem nobler than you guys seem to think is possible. Maybe the feminist culture hasn’t infiltrated completely yet.
Just watched the other video – what a mindjob!
It’s like Dave is in some self-imposed psychological trap that he perpetuates voluntarily.
@ Coloradomtnman
Duly noted. I’ve already decided under no circumstances will I get a marriage license and any woman who says she’ll insist on one gets nexted. There will also be no premarital counseling unless it involves reading the Rational Male together.
@Reluctant Neo
“Then there are some real beta types that have been married for many years and their wives seem to love them. I don’t get it.”
Hard to speculate from my end, but for what it’s worth, I’ve known couples who appeared perfectly cordial and amiable at social gatherings but privately they’re one counseling session away from divorce. This “saving face” is huge in WASP culture. I don’t like to be cynical, but that is what I’ve seen with my own eyes.
Virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect have never been and never will be arousal triggers for women.
So why then should men prioritize arousing women?
I am not sure that’s what he is saying here.
I do know that reading around these parts for about 4 years now has helped me return to the things that initially attracted my own wife to me.
Thankfully, in my case she is not shy about telling me.
She and I laugh now (but try to offer real, practical advice) at men who believe in chore play, etc. And they are everywhere. Even women dilute themselves into “believing” it.
She says, “yeah, it’s nice if I get behind on my chores and you pick up the slack. But that stuff has nothing to do with sex.”
What he should have done is ask her if she plans on getting any “work’ done on her appearance. And then said I’m going out to celebrate 10 years of kissing ass and headed out on his own. befor leaving he should have asked her if he looked good. Asked her if he was going to pull ass could he pull ass looking like this. he then should have got that kiss good bye and stepped out and had some fun.
Dalrock, another one of your favorite people is back. 🙂 http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/The-Rev-Mark-Driscoll-unveils-new-Phoenix-church-6798946.php?cmpid=twittersocialflow
This quote had me howling inside:
“Driscoll preached a male-centric Gospel at Mars Hill, emphasizing the husband’s leadership role in marriage and the home, condemning homosexuality, and once claiming that feminism was producing a “pussified nation.””
“It’s all but certain that Rollo and Heartiste’s blogs, respectively, have done more to save marriages than all the “encounter specialists”, with their Luv Language choreplay prescriptions. An ounce of Game beats the snot out of a pound of choreplay.”
“As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, saying,
‘Blessed is the king
who comes in the name of the Lord!
Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven!’
Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, ‘Teacher, order your disciples to stop.’ He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.”
Luke 19:37-40
Our Pharisees have ordered Churchianity to stop teaching headship, and they have obeyed. In their silence, the very stones (Rollo and Heartiste) shout it out.
This is all about headship, and its abandonment by putative Christians. Women will have the headship of a strong man one way or the other. If Christian men won’t provide it (or are constrained from doing so), they’ll find it elsewhere.
The guy was a football player her tingle for him comes from his desirability to other women. he she give her the tingles by always making sure other women want him. He doesn’t have to do a damn thing for her. She will be in insecure slut bitch heaven.
Rollo: Virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect have never been and never will be arousal triggers for women.
Me: So why then should men prioritize arousing women?
Scott: I am not sure that’s what he is saying here.
I don’t think that is what he’s saying either (though I could be mistaken). I’m just asking a question based on Rollo’s observation to make a point of my own.
IMO we have more important things to concern ourselves with than whether or not we’re jumping through the right hoops for our wives. I think the time is better spent teaching and encouraging our wives and ourselves to walk in virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect.
If a woman is asking her self whether or not she is still attracted to her husband she is already a long way down the wrong road. At some point she made her emotions a higher authority than her husband and appointed (empowered) herself as the high priestess to said emotions in his home.
That is where the problem lies, not whether or not she is attracted to him.
The slow cooker analogy is ridiculous. It is a lift chasing vehicle for Christian men because they hand women something that can be used to distract their annoying sunk chest husbands from wanting sex immediately by convincing them that delayed gratification and this slow warming her up are the ways to go.
Meanwhile, this demure creature can be on her back screaming within 10 minutes if she receives a call from a paramour saying he has a few minutes free.
Lol, exactly. Every woman is a microwave for some guys, and a slow cooker for others. Trouble is, many women marry men for whom they are slow cookers, and if you are that man, it’s hard to change into microwave guy.
===
My guess is the storyline will go something like she goes full prostitute and bangs half of the men in their town, including her pastor, elders and deacons, and blames it on her husband who was not being a “servant leader”. Kirk Cameron will repent of his sin of not being a “servant leader” and forgive the men who had sex with his wife.
Oh it will go further than that.
I can see the plotline shifting to embrace outright cuckoldry, on the grounds that a strong, loving, self-sacrificing servant leader would never get butthurt about his wife being fulfilled sexually with other men, and certainly doesn’t entertain outmoded, abusive, controlling notions of body ownership coming from patriarchal monogamy. Get with the program, boy!
Boxer says:
“and there is no better cure for what ails a man than to cut loose of a cheating ho’.”
And all God’s people said AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugh, Dalrock. The cringe factor in me was so bad while reading this, I could have ended up with a permanently clenched sphincter.
What is wrong with these people? Personally, I don’t blame the good pastor’s wife this time. I blame him.
It was Rollo who said the two most pertinent things in this case:
-Your default should always be Game
-You can’t let your guard down in your own home
What is sad about this is that pastors are teaching generations of young men this crap, and interfering with fathers trying to teach otherwise.
I mean to say “And all of God’s people said AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Terrible typo…
Rollo
It’s like Dave is in some self-imposed psychological trap that he perpetuates voluntarily.
It is trite to draw Matrix analogies, but…
Wait, I got another one, the elephant training trick. That’s another way to see this IMO.
Thank you Dalrock for once again reminding me I’m better off single.
HayeksGhost
Actually Dalrock is a huge MGTOW most of his post fully support MGTOW with real world examples of the doom to follow for those who don’t choose MGTOW. Stay single my friend
What is sad about this is that pastors are teaching generations of young men this crap, and interfering with fathers trying to teach otherwise.
A lot of young men don’t have fathers in the home to teach them. Frivorce strikes 4 out of every 10 families. Thanks, feminists…
thedeti says:
February 1, 2016 at 1:23
Perfectly stated. The very definition of “fried ice.”
What is sad about this is that pastors are teaching generations of young men this crap, and interfering with fathers trying to teach otherwise.
I’ve just about reached the conclusion that pastors, as a profession, really need to just STFU when it comes to the subject of marriage. That this is essentially the same thing as saying that dentists should stop doing root canals or that lawyers should stop filing appeals motions tells us just how destructively perverted this aspect of pastoral leadership has become.
I think the hamster comes into play here. In this case, the man did something exceedingly romantic and thoughtful, and it turned her off. But she would never say “romance turns me off.” So instead, she pointed to other things as the cause… things that probably were more of a turn on to her than the romance.
She may not even realize it. But this is also why so much advice is so toxic. It seems very cold and un-Christian to tell men that romance is a waste of time.
This is also why men with good, godly wives give horrible advice. I don’t know whether to chuckle or roll my eyes when I hear or read about Dave Ramsey telling men to “take her by the hands, look her deep in the eyes, tell her you love her and she’s your world….” or Rabbi Shmuley Boteach telling men to unleash their inner gamma, and all but worship their wives. Such men mistake their wives goodness to a response to their own, and have no clue how the majority of women react. Their egos tell them “if men were real men like me,” but their real blessing is their wives are ladies who demonstrate wisdom.
I don’t see much of a antidote.
If he wanted to increase his wife’s attraction he should have hired a very attractive stripper (don’t tell the wife who or what she is) and arrange for her to be seen flirting with him. Have him get her number and log it. When the wife complains just brush it off – “Hey beautiful women like talking to me” and leave it at that. Certainly don’t apologize and do not destroy her number. “Why are you keeping her number?!?!?” – “I may talk to her later”.
JDG,
I agree. You better watch it though, AR and Pokesalad will prove you gotta Alpha up to the bar.
The wife needs to be put in her place and forced to obey the word. Not pandered to so that she gets her Tingles back.
I don’t see much of an antidote.
You’ve just provided one. Some hapless kid will some day read what you wrote and a lightbulb will go off in his brain…”
It will be near impossible to go against this prevailing thought and not be noticed. It’s not like this is considered a possible option or route to take. This is regarded as the sole, biblical approach to marriage. To act contrary or outside of it is itself an act of rebellion
Absolutely. I think this has to do w/ the Church trying to find anything and everything to avoid doing the hard things God has called it to do. Take dominion, seek justice, etc. Those things are hard, and they aren’t nice. I continue to be convinced that those in the US church are trying to find hard things to do to assuage the guilt for not doing the hard things God has commanded.
@JDG:
Rollo is correct. The godly virtues aren’t sexually attractive. A woman praying for an hour doesn’t bring to mind, “yeah, I’d love to bang her”, but having a nice ass does wonders to elicit that thought. But seeking godliness will make a lot of attraction vectors easier within a Marriage, seeing as a Husband is to act as head and the Wife is to be submissive. (Frankly, most Wives starting at “kind” would be a vast improvement for most Christian Men.)
When it comes to sexual attraction, I propose the best concept is that of the ability to drive a car. It’s not technically needed to survive in most of the world. Great useful? Sure! Needed by everyone? If you live in a major city, a car isn’t needed, and it’s not like most of humans don’t have a car at current, meaning the it’s necessity for living isn’t there. But if you want the utility, you need to know how to drive, how to operate a car and how to follow the road laws. There’s a lot that goes into it, but the benefit can be great to you. Though it’s best if one doesn’t buy a lemon and it’s best to keep your insurance paid for.
I am not sure I understand the post.
If she was attracted what he did would have been fine and she would have gladly reciprocated the physical advance. It’s not his romantic behavior that night that failed him – attraction had already been lost. Women absolutely love this kind of sentimental stuff – from guys they are attracted to. If the attraction was gone this behavior may be a turn off but if the attraction is there this is neutral or advantageous.
Maybe I am reading wrong you wrong but it seems you are saying his behavior with the roses was wrong. Something went wrong before that.
Something went wrong before that.
Yep! In her mind she elevated herself above her husband.
Such men mistake their wives goodness to a response to their own, and have no clue how the majority of women react. Their egos tell them “if men were real men like me,” but their real blessing is their wives are ladies who demonstrate wisdom.
Interesting idea.
Kevin
You have it right. What the guy was doing was following a bluepill script. he was pussy worshipping. That kind of thing closes up a pussy real fast and in a hurry. he needed to be rd pill and understand her nature and played that “game” Revert back to Genesis and the sweat thing. man will always have to work at it with everything. he married a chick that tingled for a ball player.
PS when a chick is in gina tingle anything is good to go. One thing to remember if she puts no effort for your love and attention and you romance her you will come off as a weak loser with no options. This kind of woman in the post is turned off by a man she thinks can’t get another. Don’t put to much logic of him being her committed husband into that. Just how WOMEN think at the feral level our society now praises women for. .
LG – @JDG:
Rollo is correct.
Yeah I thought so to. Hence my point. Whether or not a woman is going to respect / obey her husband should not depend on her being attracted to him, and a man should not (really doesn’t) have to jump through those hoops.
Jim – The wife needs to be put in her place and forced to obey the word.
I don’t think it is possible for a Christian man to force his wife to obey.
Prov 27:15 A continual dripping on a rainy day
and a quarrelsome wife are alike;
16 to restrain her is to restrain the wind
or to grasp oil in one’s right hand.
We can teach, correct, admonish, and even mildly discipline, but ultimately it is up to her to obey.
Prov 14:1 The wisest of women builds her house,
but folly with her own hands tears it down.
Even in sane cultures women have destroyed their own homes.
Having now read all the posts I agree that the teaching by the pastor is generally bad advice (all the woman emotions/wake up call/men bad stuff is crap).
However – they give seminars on sex. Somehow they saved their marriage. Isn’t the real question something we cannot know – are they having more frequent and better intimacy and a more passionate marriage? The fact that they give seminars strongly suggests that they are. They may misinterpret how they got their and what changed but understanding how they got there is worth knowing and a pathway not addressed by the manosphere.
And finally Rollo is right and wrong. Virtue and honor and holiness are attractive traits for a husband and father to have. We just live in such a retrograde shallow culture that attraction is the metric of marriage because women want boyfriends/sex partners not truly husbands and fathers. I don’t deny we are there but in healthy societies or times women stayed with husbands they honored for their virtue. They both married as virgins and sex was not the highest expression of marriage – parenthood was. So I would not mistake the practicalities of our wicked society for what appears in healthy society – women staying with men they admire spiritually.
timwburke,
You just run over by the 200 pound hamster she released. His (purported) excessive absence was just the way she found to protect her self-image while acting like a brat and betraying her family. A six month routine malaise and she’s done.
Part 2 video;
him;
“Don’t grab that planner.” It wasn’t God’s voice there, it was the FI’s voice.
her;
“I never equipped him to fulfill all of my needs,” Oh, wow.
JDG,
Correction. Not forced to obey, but disciplined in a way only a husband can… By following Rollo’s amused mastery and agree and amplify. It worked for me. She tried the, “Maybe we should separate.” I helped her pack, took her keys and told her the locks will be changed in the morning. The sobbing didn’t stop for days.
They break easily. You just have to not give a shit any more. They can smell it on you if you are faking.
Too bad women have to be such c*nts. Men could be nice guys, we wouldn’t have these silly games, life could be easy. But Noooooo!
Kaminsky,
“her;
“I never equipped him to fulfill all of my needs,” Oh, wow.”
That was her quoting what she felt God say to her that night. As in, she realised that God had not equipped her husband to fulfill all her needs. She said she had been seeking for her husband to fulfill her when she should have been seeking God.
The problem with guys like Dave is that they build their lives and spirituality around Blue Pill romanticism in the belief that the relational equity they have in their virtue, being a good Dad, a pastor of a church, a good employee or any number of other higher-order traits that should make him a good catch translate to his wife’s arousal.
We can say “well Ann is just a defective bitch” and write her off as a subjective anomaly for not finding what any other wife should’ve been ecstatic about – her husband going the extra mile to be romantic, sappy and poetic on their 10 year anniversary. However the sad truth is that none of that romanticism, virtuousness, or invested emotion translates into genuine desire. The fact is that Hypergamy doesn’t care about Dave’s flowers or how he thinks he deserves his wife’s reciprocation.
Unfortunately Hypergamy also doesn’t care about Dave’s prayerful self-admonishments when he doubles down on the hope that his virtue signaling will cause Ann’s perception of him to shift. The issue isn’t about Ann’s obedience or respect of Dave, it’s about his misguided ideas that his prayer Game should necessarily work in just getting her to kiss him without an “ugghhhh,…eh” reaction. Bear in mind this is a couple that wants you to buy into their authority about knowing something about the Art of Marriage.
“Ann: He was so sweet—he even planned what he was going to say when each rose arrived.”
I’ve been that guy a girl describes as “so sweet.” It is never, ever, ever, a good sign to hear that from a girl, unless it’s a female relative. Lesson learned the hard way.
But Roissy said it best:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/be-a-skittles-man/
“I know the sound of a woman in love….bitching and moaning about a world class a**hole.”
Dave needs to stop being a flowers man; be a Skittles man.
Dalrock – “For this post, the topic is what arouses women.”
I argue that arousal is not just a response to some external stimuli, it is also an existential act of the will. In marriage arousal involves a predisposition to be aroused and the training of oneself to exercise arousal. Just as agape love is not just an emotion, or response to stimuli, but an act of the will so is sexual response a volitional action. There will of course be exceptions such as times of debilitating illness, but the normative posture is to be sexually available and cooperative to arousal from one’s spouse. As each are engaged they will also communicate what stimuli is the most helpful in the act of arousal. For some it may be gifts like roses, for others it may be a surge of adrenaline from something perceived as risky, but in any case the attempt to arouse should be received and amplified so that arousal may proceed. Anything less is the sin of defrauding.
The issue isn’t about Ann’s obedience or respect of Dave, it’s about his misguided ideas that his prayer Game should necessarily work in just getting her to kiss him without an “ugghhhh,…eh” reaction.
I disagree with this. I think Kevin is correct about her already having lost attraction for the guy, and I don’t think it should matter. That it does matter is where the lack of respect / obedience factors in. I think she has set herself up as an authority figure in the home and worse, she doesn’t really see him as one.
Being called “sweet” doesn’t necessarily mean that tingles are gone. I’ve been called “sweet” for singing to a girl while gazing into her eyes the whole time with a grin of amused mastery. The girl was giggling continuously. Tingles galore.
@theasdgamer
Point conceded. Voice tone, facial expression, and body language definitely can change the context of the word’s usage.
@Jonadab, JGD & Rollo:
This is one of those tension points between “what you need as a Husband with a modern society” vs “what actually works if a Wife is faithful to the Lord”. If a Christian Wife sees that she is submissive to her Husband, the Husband’s “alpha quotient” doesn’t need to be very high. But this is radically helped if he is supported in this position by his society. (There’s also the issue that a submissive Wife normally produces more dynamic & attractive Men.) Then you have to add in the reality of hormones and they way they affect Women.
So I find it useful to remember that this is a situation where Rollo’s understanding of the situation is quite correct, but much of the situation does not exist without the current society. Though general attraction principles are always useful.
Assisting singles who are called to marriage is actually a practical way of addressing some of the moral issues that the Church is dealing with.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=997762
Hope and dating (someday) (“35 is not that old”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=997775
Views On Sex Means No Dating (“Nice guys”, etc)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=997675
“I don’t deny we are there but in healthy societies or times women stayed with husbands they honored for their virtue. They both married as virgins and sex was not the highest expression of marriage – parenthood was.”
That’s true but beside the point. Those societies were healthy because the men were taught masculinity and encouraged to be masculine growing up, so a large part of the attraction took care of itself (i.e. the husband didn’t need to worry about arousing his wife since the manliness he’d been practicing all his life took care of that).
Now we have a sick society that doesn’t teach manliness, in fact inhibits it at every turn. The outsize thirst of today’s women for manliness is an allergic reaction to that sickness. It’s a desperate, instinctive attempt to increase the manliness of the next generation by screening out all men, whatever their other virtues, who don’t exhibit it.
The saving grace is that biblical teaching in this area is conducive to producing the manliness they seek. There are a lot of men out there bearing a cross that is not Christ’s.
texashillcountrytom: If you fail to provide a robustly masculine role, you are cheating your wife and children.
I don’t like that phrasing. It puts all the moral obligation on the man.
So if a husband fails to excite his wife, and the wife sleeps with another man, it’s the husband who “cheated” by not being “robustly masculine.”
No, I don’t like that at all. The husband would have been wise to behave more alpha, but he did nothing immoral by being a loving Beta. On the contrary, both husband and wife are obligated to love the other — including obligated to “have feelings” for the other.
Isn’t that part of a wife’s traditional marriage vows? A promise before God to love, honor and obey her husband. Hence, even if she doesn’t have feelings for him, she is still obligated to try to have feelings for him, and to continue trying to have feelings for him, till death do they part.
That woman is about as much a Christian as she is a sex expert. Gives Gila Monsters a bad name, and it’s hard enough already on the gila monsters. Where’s PETA now?
PS I’m happy to hear that the Washington Post follows this blog. Not an hour too soon either. Welcome to the future.
“He is heartbroken and I need to tell him I’m sorry. Almost everything I taught you about relationships was wrong.”
That’s ok Wes I was wrong about all this stuff WAY before you. And held on longer! :O)
Just tell your boy that you got that part wrong, and on you both go, a few bumps but wiser. Cheers.
@ DrTorch:
Women think they’re romantic, because they think it’s a synonym for pragmatic. (They’ve misnamed entire genres of fiction as a result, such as the feminine imperative novel and the pragmatic comedy.) The immature of both sexes get it confused with sentimentalism. Men understand that true romance is a tragedy, fraught with pain, danger and loss.
@desiderian
I will agree that encouraging masculinity in men is a factor (as opposed to teaching your son to be a male Disney protagonist), with the proviso that we are discussing actual masculinity, where devotion to a mission, a task, etc, is held up as manly. And not just out of sacrifice for one’s wife, or one’s children.
A single man perusing greater knowledge of mathematics, or seeking to improve his skill at Kung Fu, to better pass it on to the next generation should be held up as just as manly (if not more so) than a man that slogs to a 7am – 6pm paper pusher job, just so his wife can ‘catch up with the Joneses’.
A man who is around to teach his sons to be men should be held up as more manly than the father that provides them with the latest video games.
However, there is another aspect that what people keep missing, keep avoiding, keep denying. Those that protest about weak men screwing up (x), always forgetting the teaching and agency of the women.
Girls should be taught to submit to their husbands, rather than taught to emulate a Disney female protagonist in any of her forms — be it the tom boy princess taking the place of the prince in the mythos and rejecting any guy out there as disgusting, or the girl who has it really well off continually wanting ‘more’ rather than being grateful for what she has, and bettering herself.
Women today are taught to hate boys and men, and masculinity. They’re taught that marriage is a trap, and so to pursue career instead. If they want sex, they are taught by the culture to ride the cock carousel. Later in life, if they want babies, they are supposed to settle down for a provider husband, get divorced, take his stuff and his children, etc. And if they can’t catch a husband this late in life, they are taught to blame the ‘immaturity’ of men who ‘haven’t been raised to be men’.
The thing is, this was taught -before- the model of man as supplicating spouse was taught. That model is taught only as a companion to the model of Woman Who Has it All. So focusing on how society trains men and boys while ignoring how society trains girls and women is short sighted at best. At it’s worse, when people just want men to get back to sacrificing, working hard, etc (with no context implied save to serve women), it is harmful.
From Sunshine’s post:
“The Bible says the husband is to be the head of the wife. He should listen to her and then make a decision about what course of action is best to pursue. ”
Where does the Bible say this?
I see Gen. 3:17 – And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life;
Rollo: “Virtue, grace, faith, honor and respect have never been and never will be arousal triggers for women”.
True. This explains why most Christian men are clueless about the nature of women until they get married, but why Charlie Sheen has slept with 5000 women, Ron Jeremy has slept with 5000 and Arnold Schwarzenegger 1500.
I don’t believe all is lost though. It is these virtues that many married women often find very hard to burn down when considering divorce, particularly if social factors are in place that raise them. This is why the “I wish he would have an affair”, porn addiction, emotional abuse etc reasons provide the moral cover for divorce treachery.
They are not arousal triggers for women. They are part of a man’s make up that defines him in the absence of woman’s influence. They are part of his bedrock, his foundation, his essence. Collectively they form the foundation of he society and by extension the culture and the civilization in which he lives which he passes on.
Pete –
Two different meanings of “listening” going on here. See Dalrock’s recent https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/not-listening/ post for more details, but basically one meaning of “listening” is “doing what I say”. That’s what God rebuked Adam for: doing what his wife told him, instead of doing the right thing regardless of what his wife wanted him to do.
The other meaning of listening is, “I’m going to hear your opinions about this decision, because you may have some insight that I wouldn’t have.” Then once he hears her input, he thinks about it and makes the decision that he believes is right for the family. Sometimes it’s what his wife suggested because she did have a good idea, and sometimes it isn’t. But he’s in charge, not her.
Given what you quoted, Sunshine was clearly referring to the latter meaning. That one’s fine; it’s not abdicating leadership to listen to the opinions of your second-in-command. It’s the first meaning that’s problematic, and has been so ever since the Garden of Eden.
I don’t think comparing Charlie Sheen, Ron Jeremy, or Arnold is something christians should be compared with.
Rollo is correct about how women SHOULD find honor and virtue in a man respectable enough for her to get the tingles. The problem is that christian culture falls prey to the hollywood definition of what should make her tingle.
TRUE christian women should be seeking God and what glorifies God. They feel the responsibility of cultivating desire for their husband is the husband’s responsibility. Rollo says you cannot negotiate desire. This is correct, however biblically speaking if a christian woman is seeking to glorify God, she should know that honoring, respecting, loving, and having sex with her husband glorifies God. In her obedience to God she is cultivating those things in her mind and heart. What churchians and even some men on these blogs contend incorrectly is that if you alpha up, she will do these things. Instead what needs to be done is washing them with the word by teaching them that in fact they are responsible for cultivating those thoughts and feelings. It is not a mans respnsibility to cultivating those feelings, just as it is not his responsibility when she is unfaithful to him.
To claim that a good honorable christian man is a schlub because he lost his alpha mojo and his wife doesnt want sex with him, is like saying it is his fault that she left him for someone more alpha. It is not his responsibility that she keep her legs shut from other men. It is her respnsibility to spread them for her husband.
Christian men, I will agree, are lacking strong male traits. No doubt it would be great to have a wife always tingle for the husband, but the loss of tingle shouldn’t be soley blamed on a virtuous, honorable decent man. Her loss of tingle is due partially to the fact that she is not seeking to glorify God by cultivating a desire for her husband. She doesn’t get a “pass” because of hypergamy and her solipsism. Those are excuses we allow them in the manosphere. If we are to put down the rebellion we need to turn the tables, not cater to hypergamy.
When a professed Christian woman does not have the tingles for godliness in a man, it is not the man that is at fault. Rather, it is the woman who needs to have her heart renewed, because she has trained her tastes to love what God detests, and to detest what God loves. It’s much like a criminal who finds the company of upright men boring. The problem is his, not the men’s.
If one wrong misguided attempt at romance kills her feelings then she’s beyond superficial.
On their 10 year anniversary he tried to do something nice for her, something thoughtful & about them.
She stabbed him with an emotional dagger. That’s not a very Christian attitude! She could have said that bit about not having feelings before dinner like a grown up. What an ungrateful selfish witch.
Oh God that’s his wife in the YouTube video.
Pastor Wilson on the 10 year tries to be romantic, a little sappy but so what. She levels a relationship bomb as her contribution.
Happy 10th. At least he doesn’t have to be the bad guy. Let her go be a basket case if there are no kids.
“Run Pastor Wilson Run!!” This is the chance of a lifetime.
josh,
“with the proviso that we are discussing actual masculinity, where devotion to a mission, a task, etc, is held up as manly. And not just out of sacrifice for one’s wife, or one’s children.”
We are discussing masculinity, but principally in the context of how a man properly relates to women, especially one’s wife. That’s only tangentially related to a man’s mission/tasks.
“What churchians and even some men on these blogs contend incorrectly is that if you alpha up, she will do these things. Instead what needs to be done is washing them with the word by teaching them that in fact they are responsible for cultivating those thoughts and feelings.”
Its not either/or, it’s both/and. And alpha-ing up is far beyond what is necessary, which is merely to stop acting effeminate and to devote oneself to learning about and cultivating manliness.
She could have said that bit about not having feelings before dinner like a grown up.
It’s generally never wise to conflate “woman” with “grown up.” It’s certainly something for a husband to aspire to in terms of leading her towards that behavioral objective, but it’s a trait that any man who has swallowed the Red Pill knows better than to expect as the default behavior in a woman.
Incidentally, what Pastor Dave should’ve done to quickly wrap up that 10th anniversary disaster, by way of correcting the behavior of the petulant child he married:
Her: “Well, yes, there is something wrong. To be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”
Him: “Yeah, um, y’know, now that you mention it, I’ve not only lost my appetite, but my feelings for paying for this dinner. Hope you brought your wallet with you.”
(Gets up, walks out of the restaurant, and goes for a midnight drive by himself to the other side of the state.)
Happy 10th. At least he doesn’t have to be the bad guy. Let her go be a basket case if there are no kids.
“Run Pastor Wilson Run!!” This is the chance of a lifetime.
He’s not going to run anywhere. In watching that vidro, it is impossible to believe that he wasn’t aware of her bat-shit-crazy side before he married her. He either chose to put up with it or, just as likely, subconsciously has a masochistic attraction to it, finding vicarious sexual thrill in having his balls occasionally crushed by a mercurial harridan whom he pedestalizes. That seems to describe a fair number of ueber-churchian Deltas.
Proverbs 11:22 Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.
We are discussing masculinity, but principally in the context of how a man properly relates to women, especially one’s wife. That’s only tangentially related to a man’s mission/tasks.
A man who marries a woman who is only tangentially related to his life mission has made a fundamental mistake in his choice of a wife. The right wife for any man is the woman who has bought into the man’s mission, warts and all, and is ready to help him fulfill it. President Eisenhower said it better, if a little differently:
We succeed only as we identify in life, or in war, or in anything else, a single overriding objective [i.e life mission], and make all other considerations* bend to that one objective.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, April 2, 1957
*methinks this must include considerations for the type of wife to have, and when or if to marry at all.
@Pete Today there are so, so, so many pigs with nose rings walking around.
Our culture puts lipstick on pigs
Today, America is a Spencer’s or Marie Claire’s for pigs.
And business is thriving. Ugh…
Interesting. Maybe this is part of why it is working out for me so far.
When Mychael and I met, I was in graduate school and headed into the army. I essentially said (on one of our first dates): “This is what I am doing. This is what I believe. This is where I see myself in 5 years, 10, 20. You can come along if you like, but I am not changing my plans or goals.”
She said, “OK” and that was pretty much it.
Hypergamy will always trump personal/religious conviction until such a time that a woman’s SMV can no longer realistically afford it. That’s the point at which her necessity becomes a virtue and she has a convenient “epiphany” about herself, or she simply disconnects from her mate.
10 years was more than enough time for all of Ann’s youthful naiveté to be replaced by a learned, visceral disgust (ughhh,…meh) for Dave’s. From the wedding pics, ti’s fairly obvious these 2 married straight out of high school, so logically Ann’s anniversary incident occurred right about the time of her Epiphany Phase (28-32).
http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/
My guess is Dave believed he’d struck gold with Ann 10 years prior and bought into the schema that if he maintained the love, romance, support and all the other Disney prerequisites that any girl would appreciate it and be glad to be so lucky to be married to him. Instead he’s got self-initiated guilt for not having lived up to being all that and looks to prayer, repentance and atonement for still not having sacrificed enough to meet Ann’s requirements.
@JGD, It’s not that all of those higher-order esoteric qualities I listed are valueless, it’s that men expect them to be attraction/arousal cues for women. They also mistakenly believe that women’s evolved mental firmware can be overwritten if they’re just taught to appreciate those qualities and men can enforce some sort of personal responsibility upon women for appreciating them.
I understand your semi-MGTOW refusal to allow women’s arousal / attraction to define your spirituality or direct the course of your life, but it simply doesn’t alter the hard facts about the women men, as a christian or otherwise, must consider if you are going to have one in your life.
A dedication to virtue, etc. is very ennobling, and if it’s something that important to you it might be best to go celibate, but for guys like Dave who lack the understanding that Hypergamy doesn’t care about virtuousness, it’s his worst thumbscrew to be exploited.
Dave @ 7:57 am:
“‘We are discussing masculinity, but principally in the context of how a man properly relates to women, especially one’s wife. That’s only tangentially related to a man’s mission/tasks.’
A man who marries a woman who is only tangentially related to his life mission has made a fundamental mistake in his choice of a wife.”
I think you’re missing Desiderian’s point. All the effort men put into Game and marriage maintenance is effort we aren’t putting into anything more useful. Skill in the Venusian arts is good; a low-maintenance wife is better.
Most men don’t need or have a clearly defined “life mission” anyway. We just keep the lights on. Instead of being relevant to car parts sales or evening shifts at the power plant, wives are better off being appreciative and enjoyable.
Eisenhower was lucky to have both a clearly defined enemy and the wherewithal to fight him. God is rarely so accommodating.
@Rollo_Tomassi I kind of agree with you. See, the whole issue of hypergamy strikes me as a function of the flesh of a woman; if a man truly has spiritual devotion, he will learn how to deal realistically with this aspect in leading his wife.. It is why, knowing that a woman is a complement but not the focus to my life, Game is so important. Celibacy isn’t the answer in marriage (spouses are outright commanded to have sex in 1 Corinthians 7), but neither is romantic supplication. If wives are frigid, Game is the ice breaker.
In fact, your articles on relationship Game are extremely valuable to this. All Christian husbands ought to read your blog, even if we don’t ascribe to evopsych.
@ Rollo
“Hypergamy will always trump personal/religious conviction until such a time that a woman’s SMV can no longer realistically afford it”
No, no, no. Don’t confuse accurately describing patterns and underlying structure of society with prescriptions about individuals. The exceptions are far too many for the rule to be more than something you keep in the back of your mind as a possibility. Its like knowing that men on average are better at math, and then being confused by all the female math majors. It matters on the margin, and the average but with so much variation within groups that it threatens to overcome the variation between groups.
In general, reading these posts about gaming your wife and being masculine are the strongest argument ever for MGTOW. My situation is unique and not helpful for other men (high T wife with all the good and bad that entails, still could leave me anytime like anyone), but if I had to invest so much energy in “gaming” my wife to maintain our marriage and her interest I would grow tired and quit. I only have so much energy to devote to success at work, helping my children grow and develop, etc. Maybe my lack of willingness to invest this required effort will culminate in my wife leaving me – a sure tragedy. But I have one life to live, if that’s what it takes – why waste my life and energies with so much effort just to get sex or a relationship. Sex is not worth it, a meaningful relationship might be. Relationship are hard, this need for gaming the wife is putting relationships on hardcore mode. I got other stuff to do!
Off Topic: Can any of you good Christian men shelter this poor, abused damsel?
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/snatch-her-up-fellas/
Thanks in advance for all your help!
Why let the old twit ruin a fine meal? Though feelings of not paying for all of the tab are reasonable.
This should extend to other facets of life as well. Change your own tire in the rain lady, Pastor Dave doesn’t feel like it anymore, he just lost the feeling.
Next time her car needs repair with a $5 part or a like a door seal fixed, or if it’s running funny (fluids are possibly out) let her tow it to the over priced repair shop. Dave just lost his feelings for doing that stuff.
@ Boxer
I think it goes without saying that there is an entire battalion of Captain Save-a-Hos out there waiting to undertake this mission, probably willing to fight one another to the death for the honor of it.
Wouldn’t it make for a great Manosphere documentary to follow the “winner” from Day One, when Mizz Skank and her kid move in, till Day (Omega) when he comes home to an empty house after she’s robbed him blind or he gets beaten to a pulp in his own living room by the biker gang she’s invited over to party with (and who trash the house to boot)?
@boxer
If only someone had the time & skills to fake a response that was realistic so she’d bite. For humors sake there would need to be something odd about it or the person/character responding though.
Dave,
“The right wife for any man is the woman who has bought into the man’s mission, warts and all, and is ready to help him fulfill it.”
If the man isn’t manly, no wife will buy, any more than a man will marry a 400-pound woman no matter how devoted and kind she is. That is not a moral failing on the part of the man who does not marry the obese woman, nor is it a moral failing on the part of women who don’t “buy into the mission” of an effeminate man.
Again, the saving grace is that if one’s mission is leading a Godly life, and in pursuing that mission one follows biblical teaching on headship, the manliness takes care of itself. Alternatively, one can cultivate manliness the hard way through game, which mimics many of the features of Christian headship.
The underlying problem, as Dalrock notes, is infidelity to biblical teaching.
And yes, women have the same problem, with the mirror image effect of insufficient femininity impeding male attraction.
Kevin,
“In general, reading these posts about gaming your wife and being masculine are the strongest argument ever for MGTOW.”
Your sons will be missed in the battles to come, as will the sons of your daughters.
Gunner,
“Eisenhower was lucky to have both a clearly defined enemy and the wherewithal to fight him. God is rarely so accommodating.”
“Luck is ever waiting for something to turn up. Labor, with keen eyes and strong will, will turn up something. Luck lies in bed, and wishes the postman would bring him news of a legacy. Labor turns out at six o’clock, and with busy pen or ringing hammer lays the foundation of a competence. Luck whines, labor whistles. Luck relies on chance, labor on character.”
– Cobden
“I think you’re missing Desiderian’s point. All the effort men put into Game and marriage maintenance is effort we aren’t putting into anything more useful. Skill in the Venusian arts is good; a low-maintenance wife is better.”
A wife focused on maintaining the health of the family is best. We are called to be the head, not the maintenance man. Game mimics this principle by talking about frame control and qualifying.
Rollo,
“My guess is Dave believed he’d struck gold with Ann 10 years prior and bought into the schema that if he maintained the love, romance, support and all the other Disney prerequisites that any girl would appreciate it and be glad to be so lucky to be married to him.”
I doubt he ever got around to recognizing that last part. Men who recognize their own MMV/SMV are generally much more attractive to women. Not recognizing it (insecurity, especially if expressed) is a major impediment to attraction.
Freeriker
You’re on to something with suspecting that this guy has developed a type of arousal response to getting his butt-kicked by Kurt Russell (Sorry, I mean ‘his wife’) When she smacked him down in the car, he knelt before her, begging. That seems a bit master/slave-y. There has to be something that turns him on about her. I’m not seeing anything in the vid.
@Dresderian,
And you seem to be side-stepping the issue again. Far to much “Real-man-sprakt” going on in the culture, and the church, etc, teaches that manliness is to devote oneself entirely to the whims of one’s wife.
“We have to teach our sons to be manly” is a fine phrase indeed… but it can mean just as many things as people mean when they say someone is “manly”.
As such, I will not agree with calls for men to “become more like real men” unless and until I hear what the speaker means when he says “real men”. Thus far, you haven’t said anything I couldn’t see Driscol saying. That is worrying. It leaves me with a firm suspicion that you are attempting to manipulate men in a harmful way, and thus, I have no trust for your exhortations.
@Dresderian,
In particular, the way you ignore parts of posts dealing with women needing to woman up, or how we need to teach our girls to become women leaves me with the impression of yet another man yelling about how weak men are screwing up feminism.
Pingback: Women’s responsibility | chokingonredpills
josh the aspie,
“And yes, women have the same problem, with the mirror image effect of insufficient femininity impeding male attraction.”
Did you miss this perhaps?
The title of the post is “he was like a little boy that night.”
I’m speaking to male attractiveness because that is on topic. Your petulant misreading is itself unmanly.
josh the aspie,
“And you seem to be side-stepping the issue again. Far to much “Real-man-sprakt” going on in the culture, and the church, etc, teaches that manliness is to devote oneself entirely to the whims of one’s wife.”
I advocate fidelity to orthodox biblical teaching. Is it your understanding that such teaching instructs the husband to devote himself entirely to the whims of his wife?
You’re like Jonah pouting about the repentance of Ninevah.
@desiderian:
“And yes, women have the same problem, with the mirror image effect of insufficient femininity impeding male attraction.”
Did you miss this perhaps?
Yes. I did. That’s likely due to the fact that it was a single line out of everything you’ve said, and was in response to a different poster. Of course, I still don’t know what you view as ‘femininity’.
I advocate fidelity to orthodox biblical teaching.
And you can find any number of groups claiming to be preaching “the real meaning of the gospel” while teaching anything but. Again, Driscol is a prime example. That is why I asked further, clarifying questions, many of which you have refused to answer. To refuse to answer is your prerogative, to question your motives is mine.
Basically, a large number of people, including many of those you advocate man up and become real men (without defining what you mean by that), are tired of hearing so many people cry “wolf” that they refuse to believe -anyone- crying wolf.
And, thus far, you’ve given good evidence that you are just another person crying wolf. You’re defining standing up and asking questions as “petulant”. That’s a great example of “Most Alpha Guy in the Room” self conceit.
Well, go ahead and call me names if that makes you feel better. All it’s going to do is deafen my ears to your demands to “do this” or “do that”.
I am going to read the bible for myself, and I am going to seek out the Lord’s will. I will not, however, listen to someone make demands, who has no authority to do so — not without challenging it.
Josh,
“Yes. I did. That’s likely due to the fact that it was a single line out of everything you’ve said, and was in response to a different poster. Of course, I still don’t know what you view as ‘femininity’.”
I’ve said it many times before. The problem is deviance from biblical teaching on sex roles, male and female. Lack of manliness and lack of femininity are two sides of the same coin.
“And you can find any number of groups claiming to be preaching ‘the real meaning of the gospel’ while teaching anything but.”
This is not the first time you’ve put quotes around something I haven’t said. I choose my words carefully. Quote them likewise.
There is only one orthodoxy; that’s what the word means. I’m entirely in line with Dalrock’s approach. If you’re reading anything different into what I’m saying, that’s your own dysfunctional scripts in your head. Let them go. They’re doing you a disservice.
“I am going to read the bible for myself, and I am going to seek out the Lord’s will. I will not, however, listen to someone make demands, who has no authority to do so — not without challenging it.”
My “demand” is nothing more than what you say you’re going to do. We are not is disagreement, except to the extent that you’re determined to be disagreeable.
@desideria,
I’ve said it many times before.
Well, that’s the only hit I got in this thread for this quotation, when I did the due diligence of going back to see if you did indeed say your quoted words. You did, once. And I gave you credit for that.
Also, I’m still not seeing where you described femininity.
This is not the first time you’ve put quotes around something I haven’t said.
It is entirely appropriate to use quotes to quote others, or to quote coined phrases, and liken what you are saying to them. You did not say “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, and yet I can still make reference to that fable. In some cases, the reference is clearer with quotes, in others, without.
There is only one orthodoxy;
Catholocism is a form of orthodoxy.
Then there’s the Russian Orthodox church, the Greek Orthodox church, and I’m fairly sure I could find a few more churches with Orthodox right there in the name, if I went looking… each of whom would claim to have the one true orthodox reading of the bible. That’s part of why when you claim to be referring to some form of Orthodoxy, without specificity, it really has no meaning.
We are not is disagreement, except to the extent that you’re determined to be disagreeable.
I am determined to disagree with feminists who declare that because I believe in equality (in human dignity, as fellow brethren in the church, in basic human rights), I am a feminist, and then proceed to tell me how to be a ‘good feminist’. The issue is pulling a switch based on differing understandings of a term.
I am equally determined to disagree with people who claim to be for Christianity, the Gospel, or masculinity, but when asked simple questions, are determined to prevaricate, and insist that I stop questioning them, or be labeled “petulant”.
I have asked for clarification, and explained why I would like that clarification — that without it, what you say can have far too many meanings for me to simply presume and trust which meaning you have — and you take it as an affront. Understandably so, as many of the meanings I am used to hearing are nothing but deception.
Robin Munn says: “Two different meanings of “listening” going on here.”
For many years I would have agreed with you about this. However, it has become evident to me that the second listening – “I’m going to hear your opinions about this decision, because you may have some insight that I wouldn’t have.” – is actually a subset of the first.
Eve first had to offer her advice to Adam, argue for it, tell him why it was good, etc. So I don’t think Eve used the listening – “doing what I say” – rather she gave him her viewpoints; and they were totally wrong.
You will recall that scripture says that Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived. Thus Gen. 3:17 is referring to this “let me give my opinions” rather than “do as I say”.
In our modern age, women insist on giving their opinions no matter how off base, nutty or irrelevant. Yes, some of their ideas can be of value. But the majority of them will have a negative effect.
Women vote for security, lack of risk, being “nice”, and all the other things that have screwed up society. So what kind of advice do you think they are going to give you when you have a decision to make?
“Oh, that’ll never work”, “that’s risky, etc. The same as they vote. Therefore in the vast majority of cases their advice is a negative as to what a man should be doing and will hold him back and keep him from reaching his potential, be it at manhood, business, or family.
Gen. 3:17 is about taking wifely advice.
“Just a couple of decades ago it was full of guns, whips and crocodile wrestlers… probably manlier than Texas”
Nothing is manlier than Texas!
Josh,
“I have asked for clarification”
Any clarification you seek can be found in scripture or in Dalrock’s writings. I’m unaware of anywhere that he’s been mistaken on the matter (i.e. headship in marriage/manliness/femininity). The man is the head of the woman.
Mere petitioners do not put their own meanings on another’s words, then insist that they know better what that person meant to say than the speaker himself. If you can’t read what I have to say in good faith, how can you expect to read scripture with the eyes of faith?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Faith
If you’re unable or unwilling to engage in good faith, our exchange is done.
@desiderian,
Given that you once again conflate your positions with scripture, as though the two are one and the same, I will happily agree to end the conversation.
Have a good day.
This is not the first time you’ve put quotes around something I haven’t said.
It is entirely appropriate to use quotes to quote others, or to quote coined phrases, and liken what you are saying to them.
Josh, I thought your use of quotes was quite acceptable and clear. It seems your comment was misread.
@OKRickety
Thank you, I appreciate that.
OK,
Thanks for the correction then. If that’s how you read it as well, I need to be more clear.
There is one orthodoxy. It cannot be perfectly known by fallen human beings, so on some questions there is disagreement among men of good faith. I am not claiming that the meaning I discern is identical to the real, orthodox meaning. Josh’s use of quotes imply that I am. He is mistaken.
But that question is beside the point in this case, and to raise it calls Josh’s good faith into question. In this case, orthodox teaching is clear – the man is the head of the woman in marriage. Pastor Dave’s problems arise from departing from that teaching. That is the only claim I am making.
Bluepillprofessor’s 5th Titanium Law of the Manosphere:
She can be your lover or your mommy. Pick one.
@Deti: “The problem here was that she wasn’t getting her emotions in check; and she was letting her emotions rule her life and run her. She wasn’t living in factual reality; she was living in the stewpot/cauldron of her own emotions.”
The problem is that HE let her stew in those emotions and these complementarians, rather than encourage men to TAKE CHARGE of the emotions of your wife and direct her to a better place, they are encouraged to WORSHIP the emotions, literally as if they were the Holy Spirit. Holy Hamster indeed. Yes, I am suggesting it is up to the man to redirect the roiling emotions of his wife. Sorry guys, if you don’t want the job, don’t hire one of these “Helpmeets.”
@Rollo: “It’s like Dave is in some self-imposed psychological trap that he perpetuates voluntarily.”
It seems like he is in the Matrix or something.
@Novaseeker: “I can see the plotline shifting to embrace outright cuckoldry, on the grounds that a strong, loving, self-sacrificing servant leader would never get butthurt about his wife being fulfilled sexually with other men”
I can actually imagine Kirk Cameron sitting there on the bed, head down, crying while his wife makes fun of his small dick- as she is getting railed by a large knee-grow. Come to think of it a Rough Sex Bukake scene with Catherine would be just the revenge flick the porn doctor ordered.
@Kevin: “Rollo is right and wrong. Virtue and honor and holiness are attractive traits for a husband and father to have. We just live in such a retrograde shallow culture that attraction is the metric of marriage because women want boyfriends/sex partners not truly husbands and fathers.”
Women want MEN. You can be her lover or her little boy. Pick one. Virtue and honor and holiness are what women imagine their little boys to be, not the rough dude who picks her up and throws her down passionately. They neither want there lovers to be paragons of virtue, honor and holiness nor do they tingle for those things. You can frame it in how our current culture frames it but that misses the point. This is female nature. THIS is the Red Pill.
Don’t confuse “The Tingles” for “The Warm Fuzzies.” Virtue and honor and holiness give women the “Warm Fuzzies” and makes them all warm and happy inside- not wet and gooey inside. In case you missed it “The Tingles” are when they DO get wet and gooey inside (and are usually full of angst, worry, sweat, and Adrenalin as Rollo describes). The way to get her in that state- aka “turned on” is NOT by being virtuous, honorable, or holy.
Rollo is 100% right.
@AsdGAmer: “Being called “sweet” doesn’t necessarily mean that tingles are gone. I’ve been called “sweet” for singing to a girl while gazing into her eyes the whole time with a grin of amused mastery. The girl was giggling continuously. Tingles galore.”
We call it an “Oak” move on Married Red Pill. A single action or series of actions that both activate the tingles and the warm fuzzies of comfort. This can often be done by simultaneously showing the girl that you desire her and that you don’t need her because you are your own man.
This is Chapter 11 “On Emotion” of my soon to be best selling book that will be available on Kindle within 24 hours (it is already submitted and there is a 72 waiting period before it goes up on Amazon):
>>Saving a Low Sex Marriage: A Man’s Guide to Dread, Seduction, and the Long Game
https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/
For an in thread example of “Oak” consider Scott telling his future wife his plans and inviting her to come with him or take a hike. Pure Oak move that generated tingles powerful enough to last a long, long time.
Jeff says:
February 2, 2016 at 6:00 am
I don’t think comparing Charlie Sheen, Ron Jeremy, or Arnold is something christians should be compared with….
I take on board what you said, but it isn’t my intention to compare. It is to portray, graphically, that women in statistically significant numbers will give their sexual approval to men who do not have the traits (honour, virtue, moral centre) that Rollo originally raised – the traits Christian men are ordered by Scripture to cultivate. This is probably why the New Testament churches were structured around married men, why St Paul “did not permit a woman to have authority over a man”, and all of the other allegedly sexist constrictions the NT places on women believers. Rollo’s other observation,
“Hypergamy will always trump personal/religious conviction until such a time that a woman’s SMV can no longer realistically afford it”
should be a warning note for pastors not to place women in “ministries”, and not even to rely on wives for support. For Christian pastor, “Your default position should always be Game” – applies to him just as much as it applies to the secular husband.
The insight and points made in this post are, in a word, brilliant.
Pingback: Romance kills sexual attraction - Basit Oyunlar
Pingback: Links to posts for Christian husbands. | Dalrock