Former CBMW president Owen Strachan has an article up at The Gospel Coalition that has been trending for the last few days: Gospel Hope in Hookup Culture. Strachan offers four solutions to the problem of hookup culture, while managing to omit the obvious biblical solution to the problem of rampant sexual immorality; if you burn with passion, marry.
Instead of directly exhorting young people to marry, Strachan offers mostly feminist talking points coated with a thin veneer of what he calls the “Biblical sexual ethic.” The first talking point is:
1. Promote an ethic that focuses on the whole person, not ‘hotness.’
Talking point number two is less overtly feminist, but appeals to the anti biblical idea that romance purifies sex:
2. Promote God-honoring romance, not sexual utilitarianism.
Point number three is back to standard feminist boiler plate, and even uses the feminist term rape culture:
3. Train men to care for women, not prey on them.
…Wade reports, students today are suffering from “rape culture,” sexual assault, the loss of intimacy, the lack of committed relationships
What is so striking here is that women are deliberately rejecting the protections that a biblical model provides for women in the form of fathers and husbands. They are doing so because submitting to a father or husband is unbearable to the feminist mind. Instead of the protective roles of husbands and fathers, feminists have called for all men to make sure all women have unlimited freedom to (among other things) have sex with random strangers. Anything short of this is defined by feminists as “rape culture”, and Strachan is unwittingly adopting and promoting this frame of mind.
Point number four is yet another feminist plea:
4. Help students see they are not defined by their sexuality.
Hookup culture is equally corrosive for women. According to Wade, “Sexy costume themes” at campus parties “reward women for revealing and provocative clothes, stratify them and put them into competition, all while reminding them that it’s their job to make parties sexy” (195).
Not long ago, you would only see this kind of mindframe in women’s studies courses. Today it saturates complementarian Christian thinking.
In a separate related piece Strachan wrote at Midwestern Seminary’s* Center for Public Theology, he asserts that women are being forced into fornication:
The new sexualized marketplace is much like the old one—structured around strict male and female differentiation, with men leading women. But the old culture, one shaped by a Judeo-Christian ethic, called men to self-denying monogamy and self-sacrificial leadership. The old culture disciplined men and protected women. The new culture does neither. It frees men to prey on women and leaves women in a horrifyingly vulnerable place.
The denial here is breathtaking, as women have been very open for decades about seeing marriage as a trap that keeps them from freely exercising their sexuality. There is no secret here; this is an open rebellion. Strachan has to understand this, at least at some level, which is why he and so many others take such great pains to avoid telling young people that the biblical solution is to marry and stay married.
Interestingly, while complementarian leadership has fully internalized large portions of feminist thought, the comments to the article show that the contradiction between slightly re-branded feminist boilerplate and reality is starting to bleed through. Commenter Jason2010 opened his response to the article with:
“Train men to care for women, not to prey on them”.
This statement indicates that the author may not fully understand the realities of the phenomenon he responding to…
Elizabeth M agreed, opening her comment with:
I don’t know whether the author unintentionally meant to say that women are less capable of keeping the moral law or even perhaps that they are better at keeping sexual purity depending on how you read the article…but I do think he is just grossly unaware of the conversations and mindset that young women have today…
As did flgirl850, who replied to Jason2010’s comment with:
I agree 100%.
Note that these are the only three comments left on this trending article since it was published several days ago, and two of them are from women.
*Midwestern Seminary is the same group that brought us The Problem With Our Complementarianism, which compared male leadership of the church with “a room of chimps all chimping…”
See Also:
OMG!
My sister in law helped with the costumes for a church Christmas play.
Her biggest headache: the women kept altering the costumes to show off their clevage.
Pingback: Weak men screwing the sexual revolution up. | @the_arv
Interestingly, while complementarian leadership has fully internalized large portions of feminist thought, the comments to the article show that the contradiction between slightly re-branded feminist boilerplate and reality is starting to bleed through.
When the churchian women you pedestalize start to tell you that your pedestalizing viewpoints are in error, it’s probably time to pull your head out of the arse garage and reevaluate. I’m not sanguine that Strachan has the ability to do this, no that very many other complementarians have it either. Expect more doubling down.
One thing about female advice (and white knight preaching bc they pay more attention to what women say than what they do), is that it is motivated less by a desire to help and more by a pre-emptive or ex post facto justification for what the advice giver has or may want to do.
The examples are as numerous as they are depressing.
Pre-Marital Sex: Women are seldom cautioned against pre-marital sex. Common frames are things like “it’s best to know you’re compatible” or “would you buy a car before a test drive.” Most often, women paint themselves as victims if pre-marital sex is not condoned. The reason is they themselves do not want to be held accountable for pre-marital sex.
Marital Sex: Women are often cautioned against marital sex. “You don’t owe him sex,” “he won’t respect you,” “you aren’t a doormat,” “there is more to a relationship than that” and “you’re not his maid” …. all the things they should tell women about pre-marital sex are wasted here because women themselves do not want to be sexually responsible to their husbands.
Affair Sex and Divorce: “Are you abused,” “neglected,” “unnhaaaapppyyy” “God wants you to be happy,” Women won’t outright condone affair sex, but they will shift blame and excuses.
This post was about the sexual revolution, but a recent example from my marriage follows the theme. I get on my wife about overspending constantly, and her bible study convinced her the devil is behind the conflict: not by encouraging her to constantly overspend and deplete our finances, but by trying to convince me I can’t handle it and that she as my wife should have faith in my that I can. So, my getting on her about money is me listening to the devil, and her spending against my will is her having faith in me. The real motive behind her friends’ advice is they themselves do not want to listen to their husbands about money, so they come up with nonsensical doctrine that their gluttony is actually faith in their husbands.
This is what many call solipsism, their advice isn’t so much geared towards what their listeners should be told, but what they would want to be told should they ever be in the situation.
Hey Dal,
Don’t know if you’re still on the lookout for more examples of “complementarians” hammering male sexual misdeeds while simultaneously denying that they even exist among women, but after last Friday’s “Women’s March” someone put this together:
Meanwhile, from the director of a Christian “marriage ministry” . . . .
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
…a recent example from my marriage follows the theme. I get on my wife about overspending constantly, and her bible study convinced her the devil is behind the conflict: not by encouraging her to constantly overspend and deplete our finances, but by trying to convince me I can’t handle it and that she as my wife should have faith in my that I can. So, my getting on her about money is me listening to the devil, and her spending against my will is her having faith in me. The real motive behind her friends’ advice is they themselves do not want to listen to their husbands about money, so they come up with nonsensical doctrine that their gluttony is actually faith in their husbands.
Lemme guess: it’s a women’s Bible study group, right?
I’m beginning to form the opinion that these are a very, VERY bad idea.
Judeo-Christ is angry. S/H/X/e needs more Cowbell.
Breathtaking. Everybody knows that women are the “choosers” when it comes to sex.
E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y
Yet somehow the existence of hook-up culture is the fault of men. /sigh.
The reason hook-up culture exists is because nubile young women want it to exist. It’s really as simple as that. By removing all accountability from women (which is exactly what articles like this do), they encourage more of the same: if it is the fault of men when women fornicate, and men have no authority to put guardrails around women’s freedom to ride the carousel , then there’s no reason why a young woman should forego following her
hearttingles until such time as she outgrows her infantile fascination with bad boys and suddenly needs a “Good Man” to take over her expenses (while not exercising any authority or having any recognized rights, of course). At that point we all get to move into the follow-on phase: “Why won’t men grow up and marry these earnest, seeking, accomplished, godly, Christian women who just want good husbands?”I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again now: Is there nothing these people won’t do to avoid holding women accountable for their own choices?
feeriker writes about women’s Bible stud groups, “I’m beginning to form the opinion that these are a very, VERY bad idea.”
I told my wife she can’t go to them years ago. Problem solved. Then again, my wife recognizes my authority to make that decision, which is not often the case, since both culture and most churches actively deny my right to do so.
Oops:
“Bible stud groups” should be “Bible study groups.”
Typographical error or Freudian slip? Inquiring minds want to know!
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again now: Is there nothing these people won’t do to avoid holding women accountable for their own choices?
Obviously the answer is no. Like I said upthread, though, when some of the women begin to realize that this whitewashing, deflection, and coddling is misplaced, it might be time for the white knights to invert the current rectal-cranial placement order.
These people are scar tissue that need to be broken down and flushed out of the Body. Until that happens, all they will do is cause us pain and grief.
“Pre-Marital Sex: Women are seldom cautioned against pre-marital sex.
.
.
Marital Sex: Women are often cautioned against marital sex.”
Further proof that we live in bizarro world.
Men do not prey on women. Men, even those who swear that game is the solution to life’s sexual problems tend to be so traumatised by rejection nuclear or otherwise that approaching merely to speak to a female is something they would rather bottle (do you say that in America? – bottle, I mean). Even those who seem to be fearless usually need a drink or two to obtain some Amsterdam courage. I cannot think that I have ever observed that women have the slightest difficulty in rejecting a man in whom they are not interested and even if they did they know that they can at any moment call upon the services of a white beta knight or in Vox’s system a white gamma knight to protect their chastity or even a policeman. I swear there must be more knights in England now than there were before setting sail for the Crusades: it is that bad.
I cannot understand how Owen Strachan (married with three children) can look so young yet claim to have written fourteen books: he must have passed straight from childhood to marriage and that is how I conclude he has become so misadvised about courtship. He ought to understand that it is often men who need to be protected from the amorous advances of crotch grabbing or crotch rubbing women. It is always, I have noticed, women one is not interested in who seem to do that. If a woman is interested in a man then especially were he to be a genuine Alpha they tend to offer their Pussy for grabbing, in fact they position themselves so that one cannot avoid, without appearing rude or ungrateful doing so. That at least has been my experience but perhaps with all those godly women in America that is not the case.
Women control the supply of sexual favour; men merely respond. Should men not respond, women tend to go into capslock profanity meltdown. Again that has been my experience though perhaps it is not so amongst the esteemed and god-fearing females of America.
Yes. You could have easily wrote “among everything”. Today there is an article linked on Drudge Report about a car service for women only. It’s a modern, consumerist, anti-father, anti-family attempt at solution to a problem which has always existed.
Historically, women were chaperoned from place to place. That will never do for modern Christians. Chaperone is from The French: It means head covering.
To them, it is not anti-biblical, but extra-biblical. If you tell modern Christians that the Bible has instructions for intrinsic human problems such as dealing with the desire to have sex, they are likely to come back at you with something like, “The Bible doesn’t say anything about romance, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important. The Bible doesn’t say anything about how to care for dogs, or how to build your house, either.”
The Bible is so much truer to human nature. Potiphar’s wife on the wrong side, Ruth on the right side, women exert pretty direct and ruthless agency in sexual selection.
We all know this to be true, why is it weird to think women make moral choices and have their own incentives at work? And to hang it all on church men is insane.
You see evangelical young men? Is their problem over confidence? Too commanding and demanding of women? You shitting me?
@Cane
I agree that they are likely to respond in this way, but it is a straw man. The Bible is not anti romance (nor am I), but the idea that romance purifies sex, that it conveys sexual morality, is anti biblical. Romance is wonderful, as is sexual passion. The Bible doesn’t call these two wonderful things out as separate, which is really our first mistake. But it is marriage that makes sex and romance moral, not romance that makes sex and marriage moral. The elevation of romance as a moral force is an inversion of biblical sexual morality.
Dalrock, this is fairly old, but the argument is incredible. Essentially, because there is no Scriptural support for it we must let women be pastors.
A sample of the argument: “In fact, if you stack up all the texts supporting circumcision on one side of the scale, and the texts affirming inclusion of Gentiles without circumcision on the other side, the Judaizers clearly had the scales tipped in their favor.
However, since the Scriptures cannot be broken (set against each other), it became the task of the Jerusalem church–and it is ours today as well on other matters–to harmoniously resolve texts that appear to be contrarily engaging each other.”
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/008_exploring.cfm
If anyone wants to see what utter domination by the conservative wing of the Female Imperative looks like, apparently anything written by the Midwestern Seminary will meet the requirement. Gotta wonder how many women from there wound up with a pink cat-ear hat on, in DC, last weekend. Nonzero for sure.
@Dalrock
Agreed, and if I hadn’t been a reader here I wouldn’t have been able to put that into words.
I would say there are two mistakes here. One is separating romance and sexual passion. The other one is assuming that fundamental aspects of human life have been left out of the Bible. I do not believe that. I don’t mean that you can find in the Bible whether to build a house out of stone or wood (for example), but I do believe that you can find in the Bible what actions to take which will lead you to the right decision.
1. Promote an ethic that focuses on the whole person, not ‘hotness.’
2. Promote God-honoring romance, not sexual utilitarianism.
Kantian and Courtly Love hogwash.
You see evangelical young men? Is their problem over confidence? Too commanding and demanding of women? You shitting me?
Earlier this week at a coffee place I saw two men in their 20’s sitting off in a corner, looking rather like a homosexual couple. Body language, leaning into each other, vocal tonality. There weren’t many seats open so I wound up sitting next to them. One had a distinct lisp. From listening closer it came out that they were college men in a Christian organization, and one was earnestly telling the other one a list of churches he should consider going to.
This isn’t the first time it’s happened, either. Maybe there’s more gay millennial men going to church, or maybe too many young men are feminized by the K-12 system plus all the church training, but for whatever reason it is not unusual to see what looks like gay men who turn out to be young churchgoing men – usually single, sometimes with wedding rings.
Churches are beta factories, and too many young church-going men are essentially geldings who treat every women they meet as either a sister or their mother. None of them are commanding anyone or demanding anything. Yet they are still not submissive enough, still not Servant Leader enough?
Only three comments there, because they are moderating comments. Bet we don’t see mine there.
I would remind them that feminists complain when anyone refers to the need to ‘train’ women, this is no different. You have to out crazy them, men are not dogs, they do not need to be trained to do anything. Furthermore, women are independent, they can handle anything a man can throw at them, I believe them and thus believe they should handle themselves in all things, no need for men to care for women, women must care for themselves.
What always strikes me about these pieces is how subtle the feminist slant is, and how difficult it can be to see that slant unless you have taken the red pill or donned the glasses.
And it sounds really good to blame men for hookup culture, because that’s what our Christian culture does for all the reasons we’ve discussed. Men are always the actors. Women are always the acted upon. If there is a hookup culture, it is men’s fault. Women are angelic wonderful creatures who are waiting in white dresses on shelves for men to select them as wives. Women are doing nothing other than training to be wives and mothers. It’s evil men who are tricking and duping them into sex.
Only feminists could surround themselves with castrati and convince themselves that they are living in a “rape culture.” The fact that they’ve convinced a fair number of the castrati themselves of their own rapity-rape-rapey tendencies shows how deep the FI is hard-wired into human nature.
The fact that major churchian organizations shout it from the rooftops shows just how far they’ve strayed from the truth staring them in the face.
Another thing here is that, as I’ve said elsewhere, women are not explicitly admonished in these pieces to avoid premarital sex. That is so, because it is presumed that young Christian women will never have premarital sex unless men are pressuring them into it. Young Christian men are presumed to want premarital sex and are also presumed to be having sex, and attempting to pressure Christian women into it.
Where they go wrong of course is that a sizable number of Christian women are not having sex with Christian men because they aren’t attracted to those geldings. They are having sex with men outside the church, or with Will Worship Leader (come on, they’re in church, but we all know what’s going on – they’re having sex). And where they go wrong is in presuming that young Christian men are all having sex when nothing could be further from the truth. These Christian men are so emasculated and so unattractive that they couldn’t get any of these women they attend church with to so much as give them the time, much less sex. These gelded men are all but sexually invisible. It’s the Christian women who are having the sex and driving the hookup culture; not the men. And if women didn’t want hookup sex, if they wanted sex and relationships in some other configuration, the culture would adapt to it, and devise something they wanted that serves their collective interests.
That’s out of date since women hold all the legal and moral power in a marriage and a relationship. A divorce attorney, 9-1-1, a SWAT team, CPS, women’s groups, the police, the government and a host of other women’s only power groups are at her disposal to do as they please with you and are available to her at any time the humor strikes her. No self respecting man should sign a contract that makes him a slave.
“Only feminists could surround themselves with castrati and convince themselves that they are living in a “rape culture.” ”
Brilliant. And brutal.
Churches are beta factories, and too many young church-going men are essentially geldings who treat every women they meet as either a sister or their mother.
Apparently also feminizing factories as well. It’s not only beta, but feminine. Beta and feminine, to be precise. One can be masculine and beta (although that’s a bad idea in 2017 with a free SMP/MMP), but these simps are kind of like fem gays, only they’re straight. Ugh.
Opus said: “Women control the supply of sexual favour; men merely respond. Should men not respond, women tend to go into capslock profanity meltdown. ”
This reminds me of an experience I had a Disneyland of all places. Back in the mid nineties I took the family to the happiest place on Earth. For reasons I forget now, I was momentarily separated from my family, and was hurrying back to join them in one of those ubiquitous lines for some ride. As I was walking back, at a very brisk pace, I was intercepted by a young woman (possibly a monor), who tried to befriend me. As soon as I rejected her advances she threw a temper tantrum. I picked up the pace, speeding up to a quick trot, and left her behind. I’m certain that she wanted me to buy her something (maybe lunch) as I really doubt I was her type, and when I refused to play sugar daddy she let me know she was displeased.
@Deti
I don’t think that is the real reason. They know that telling women they can’t do what they want will generate a cacophony of accusations that they hate women. They fear the temper tantrum in response to saying “no”, so pretend that there is no reason to say no in the first place. Even worse, they present this cowardice as courage, by pretending that it is courageous to call men out. It is a win-win. The men and women reading love the message, and the writer frames himself as courageous while avoiding the disapproval he is terrified of.
Men are always the actors. Women are always the acted upon. If there is a hookup culture, it is men’s fault. Women are angelic wonderful creatures who are waiting in white dresses on shelves for men to select them as wives. Women are doing nothing other than training to be wives and mothers. It’s evil men who are tricking and duping them into sex.
Yes, and as we’ve discussed here many times it comes down to a great reluctance to assign women significant moral agency, at least when it comes to their dealings with men. It stems from a completely erroneous interpretation of Genesis 3, and runs on from there into a more general tendency to play “blame the man in the proximity” for anything a woman does. There are cultural reinforcements for this (as Dalrock has well noted, it feels good to call a man on the carpet, but doesn’t feel good to do that to a woman, as a man), but the root of it, in Christian terms, is that simply wrong understanding of Genesis 3 that flows through the entire exegetical and pedagogical framework of how issues of men and women are dealt with by most in the contemporary American church.
And so we have arrived at the point where this famous logo makes its mandatory appearance.
Thedeti’s comment is spot-on. I’ve told this story before, so I’ll be brief. The step-daughter of the pastor of a church I no longer attend was a cute 17-year-old, and two teenage boys in the church both had a crush on her. Both were the kind of serious Christian young men that churchians claim that church girls are just chomping at the bit to find for Most Holy Matrimony.
Needless to say, she quickly friend-zoned both of them and got knocked up by a low-achiever she worked with at Burger King.
Dalrock:
“I don’t think that is the real reason. They know that telling women they can’t do what they want will generate a cacophony of accusations that they hate women. They fear the temper tantrum in response to saying “no”, so pretend that there is no reason to say no in the first place.”
Do you think that a presumption that Christian women will avoid premarital sex unless men pressure them into it, is a pretext and a cover for the real reason you mention, which is, essentially, fear of being accused of sexism/misogyny, and fear of being called mean and nasty to women? I suppose that could be the case.
“2. Promote God-honoring romance, not sexual utilitarianism.”
Sounds like Wedding Night Stockholm Syndrome. There’s no other way a man could be so dismissive of the male sex drive.
Apparently also feminizing factories as well. It’s not only beta, but feminine. Beta and feminine, to be precise. One can be masculine and beta (although that’s a bad idea in 2017 with a free SMP/MMP), but these simps are kind of like fem gays, only they’re straight. Ugh.
“Simps are kind of like fem gays”, yes. One attempted to strike up a conversation with me last year, frankly I thought the 20-something man was trying to pick me up, turned out he was trying to practice some evangelization checklist. At least I think he was.
As I observed in a different context at Rollo’s, the “youth pastor” I encountered about a year ago was pudgy, put his hands on his hips backwards like a woman, was prone to giggle and generally seemed rather feminine. He also had a fat wife and a child. Some older men would say “Eh, closeted gay”, but I see too many other 20-something churchgoing men who look and act effeminate even as they hint about their frustration due to failure with girls.
So: beta factories and effeminization machines it is. And still not enough for the conservative feminists in their pink kitty-hats, either.
@Deti
Yes. The two go hand in hand, but seriously, we have sluts literally marching down the street in every major city in the nation. Their pretending that they don’t know that women have been demanding sexual liberation for decades is as absurd as the claim that women don’t know and can’t know that abortion involves killing a child unless the woman is an abortionist herself. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. They know women are rebelling against sexual morality because they are terrified of the rebellion.
thedeti,
I think they know that the reaction to any criticism of female sexual sin will be, “But what about the menz?” which will quickly turn the entire conversation about why the writer is beating up on the poor little mistreated angels and giving the eeeeeevil men a pass.
I asked Dalrock this, because the clear, but unstated, reason for not mentioning women in these essays and articles is an attitude that “women just don’t do this. Women aren’t having sex because they WANT to. They’re doing it because bad men are tricking them into it.”
Or “they’re doing it because they just want to be wives and mommies, and these bad men won’t be husbands and daddies. And well, nature being what it is, babies have to get made somehow, so, you know….”
@ Dalrock:
“Yes. The two go hand in hand, but seriously, we have sluts literally marching down the street in every major city in the nation. Their pretending that they don’t know that women have been demanding sexual liberation for decades is as absurd as the claim that women don’t know and can’t know that abortion involves killing a child unless the woman is an abortionist herself. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. They know women are rebelling against sexual morality because they are terrified of the rebellion.”
The response to this is always that “well, but Christian women are DIFFERENT. Christian women aren’t like those other women. (Remember Sheila Gregoire taking a male commenter to task for asking a female Christian commenter about her abortion beliefs. Why, Sheila was aghast. OF COURSE a Christian woman is against abortion!! Who does this man think he is, asking her if she’s against abortion! She’s a Christian, isn’t she? ALL Christian women are against abortion!! How could you even presume that she could be FOR abortion!? Why, the very thought of it just runs against EVERYTHING we know about Christian women! Shame, shame on you, male commenter, for even THINKING that a Christian woman could be for abortion!!!)
“Christian women are more moral, more spiritual, and just better people than their nonChristian counterparts. Christian women are ready-made wives and mothers. They are off the shelf ready to go for marriage and motherhood. Just add ring and vows. Christian women don’t have premarital sex, because they’re trained and brought up not to have premarital sex. Christian women don’t even WANT premarital sex, because they’re more moral.”
That’s the kind of thought process we’re up against. And it’s very hard to get hardened Christian authors and thinkers to address. It’s really solidified itself in the church. Everyone believes this – pastors, parents, lay leaders, even most all the men.
@thedeti, this comment is dead on:
I’ve gone through the material of some of these people and it’s exactly as you say. Which is exactly what belies any claim that it’s accidental or incidental. These folks – Mark Driscoll, for example – get into their positions in part precisely because they are master rhetoricians. They are extremely sophisticated in their use of language. The can deploy an almost Clintonian level of parsing and spin on these marriage teachings. Some of these things are so carefully constructed, and so rarely ever even accidentally convey something contrary to the Narrative, that Occam’s Razor suggests it’s intentional. At some level they know what they are doing. The know and agree internally with the feminist position.
thedeti
Women aren’t having sex because they WANT to. They’re doing it because bad men are tricking them into it.”
Y’know, that looks a whole lot like the Madonna/whore thing. Something like this:
“Good Girls don’t, church girls are Good Girls, so they don’t ever want to, so when they do it must be some outside force made them be Bad Girls, because otherwise they’d be their true, Good Girl selves”. Circular reasoning because questioning the Good Girl premise is forbidden.
NeoVictorianism combined with major blinders to create massive self delusion.
I’ve wondered before how many modern preachers, from older ones like Piper on down to younger ones, have dead bedrooms – or starfish. They are afraid of their own wives, so naturallly afraid of other women as well?
but for whatever reason it is not unusual to see what looks like gay men who turn out to be young churchgoing men – usually single, sometimes with wedding rings.
A couple weeks ago one of the associate pastors at my church, a 45 year old man dressed like a teenager in skin-tight designer jeans, bragged in front of the entire congregation about how he hates doing maintenance work around his house and his wife does all of it for him. It was one of those where the hell am I and how did I get here moments. They guy also talks with a lisp and has a limp wrist. I’ve always thought he was in the closet…and he’s on stage!
Churches both create lower betas, and attract lower betas. I’m not sure which comes first. Masculine men want no part of organizations hell-bent on pacification and feminization, so they stay away and don’t hear the gospel. Betas flock because all their pubescent fantasies are affirmed. Church leaders explain that all along women have been actually attracted to beta qualities, but those horrible alphas corrupted this natural female desire and took what was rightfully theirs. Now they can swoop in and rescue the women by doubling-down on their betaness. Also: Jesus was a passive, feminine man, just like them. So they are more Godly.
When alpha-trait guys walk into church the majority of the men get flashbacks to their high school humiliations, and they sense subconsciously (and consciously) a very real threat to the precarious hold they have on the female congregants. In other words, the mass-delusion is in jeopardy.
It’s a self-reinforcing loop and I have a hard time visualizing how it will change. In the meantime, going to church is an ordeal for my wife and I. We only go to reinforce the habit for our children, in the hope that things can improve in the future.
Also, about bible studies. All-female ones are the worst. But, coed are also bad. Every “couples” bible study I’ve been to has been completely ruined by the women. I refuse to go. There’s a reason the bible says that if women have questions they can ask their husbands at home.
Pingback: Weak men screwing the sexual revolution up. | Reaction Times
When you encounter someone who has displayed the willingness and the ability to burn your house down, wisdom suggests that you should be very wary around them, even afraid with genuine fear, so long as they have access to your house.
Only feminists could surround themselves with castrati and convince themselves that they are living in a “rape culture.”
Most feminists don’t actually believe in a “rape culture.” They know it’s just a bullshit device to control male sexuality and maximize their own sexual freedom, which is also why they embrace it.
That pastors sounds like another completely out of touch idiot.
Hookup culture is really only possible within an abundant, comfortable, peace-time society and among a largely idle, unemployed or under-employed leisure class.
Proverbs 16:27-29 “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop”
Meanwhile, back in southern California…
“Like….OMG, you guyzzz!”
“Syphilis up 412%, gonorrhea 204%: Why are Orange County STD rates through the roof?”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-742053-county-syphilis.html
What’s most interesting is that California is one of the few states with mandatory, comprehensive (including gay, bisexual, heterosexual) sexual education courses in public schools starting in the seventh (7th grade, ages 12-13).
In the thick of the 2014-2015 and going STI explosion, hook up apps like Tinder got blamed:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/26/technology/rhode-island-tinder-stds/
The response came last January, when Tinder released a new feature (California only) to help app users find the nearest STD testing locations, presumably to afford the newly matched with the ability to quickly test and share STI status, (i.e. prove to each other they are “clean” before “sexual congress” ensues).
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tinder-701427-chlamydia-gonorrhea.html
1. Promote an ethic that focuses on the whole person, not ‘hotness.’ – What about an ethic that focuses on covenant and not individual independence, that treats marriage as permanent rather than just another step in hypergamy.
2. Promote God-honoring romance, not sexual utilitarianism.
Continued….
Where is romance in the Bible and what is wrong with utility? Are only mutual exclusive ?
3. 3. Train men to care for women, not prey on them. Why not train women to stop preying on men?
4. Help students see they are not defined by their sexuality. – Are they still defined by their gender? Or are we going total egalitarian gender blender new age plastic banana delusions?
There is no serious efforts to follow a Biblical sexual ethic save a few small enclaves like Dalrock, the rest are seeking a detente with postmodern feminism.
Also: Jesus was a passive, feminine man, just like them. So they are more Godly.
Possibly my maximum grievance (among several) is with this particular evangelical dogma, which demonstrates complete lack of understanding of the character, strength, courage, toughness, and command presence of The Son of Man. To accept this is to either not have read the gospel accounts, or to disbelieve them, in which case why are they playing “church” or playing at Christianity at all? This metrosexual Jesus they invoke did not exist.
@constrainedlocus
Interesting that each of the articles you linked to didn’t feature a breakdown of the percentage of men infected versus the percentage of women infected. I remember that a while back on his blog Roissy featured a news story about herpes infections that listed the percentages of both men and women infected, and drew attention to the fact that the number for women was twice as high as the number for men. Rossy cited this as conclusive proof for female hypergamy, since you now had evidence showing that far more of the population’s women were having sex with a much smaller sliver of its men. Suppose there’s any chance that someone in the pastorate might see it and accept it as evidence that the reason women end up in sexual sin is because they’re out there doing their best to find it . . . . ?
Yeah, I would like to know how men prey upon women. Mostly the other way around.
“3. Train men to care for women, not prey on them.”
Boys are usually hard wired to care for women. Everyone with a son, a nephew, friends with young sons has seen these boys pick up a toy, or pretend sword or gun and patrol the perimeter of the playroom or the back yard. Some will often say something to the effect of, “Mommy, I will protect you from the monsters/bad guys/bears etc.”
Even gay guys want to protect women from those mean disrespectful straight guys. After the womyn’s march, my fecesbook feed had a lot of comments from my gay friends, about how supportive they were of womyn and how badly men (straight) treated them.
After all, back in cave man days, the cave men who were willing to crush the skull of a sabre tooth tiger, or die trying, were the ones who reproduced.
This protective instinct is beaten out of a lot of men during adolescence and early adulthood, and the pastoral care of a lot of Christian ‘leaders’ is part of the process for sincere Christian men.
A case study follows in the next comment.
Despite my shall we say scepticism, I have never seen Jesus as feminine. I think the best bit in the NT is when he throws the money changers out of the Temple, or perhaps when he sends the gadarine swine off the cliff – Alpha or what? but it is his it has to be said brilliant and calm responses to those who were against him where he is perhaps at his best.
”What is so striking here is that women are deliberately rejecting the protections that a biblical model provides for women in the form of fathers and husbands. They are doing so because submitting to a father or husband is unbearable to the feminist mind. Instead of the protective roles of husbands and fathers, feminists have called for all men to make sure all women have unlimited freedom to (among other things) have sex with random strangers. ”
…And to avoid any of the consequences thereof: If contraception fails, there is abortion (that, in my opinion, only a monster would do to a child). If the random stranger is violent, all men must stop him . Even if ”they are all a-holes and bastards”. How, when the biblical roles given exactly to protect are rejected?
And, of course the best assumption is that a tall, rich, handsome, hardworking, idealistic man is waiting for them after their “journey of self-discovery”.
Darwinian Arminian January 27, 2017 at 6:12 pm says:
”Roissy featured a news story about herpes infections that listed the percentages of both men and women infected, and drew attention to the fact that the number for women was twice as high as the number for men. Roissy cited this as conclusive proof for female hypergamy, since you now had evidence showing that far more of the population’s women were having sex with a much smaller sliver of its men.”
-This holds true not just for Herpes epidemiology, but also for gonorrhoea studies dating back to the 1980s, for HIV infection and for the Chlamydia STIs recently performed.
@Darwinian Arminian
Herpes is more prevalent in women because of the nature of the virus, and female physiology, namely a much larger surface area of open, wet, mucosal cells. If a non-infected woman and a non-infected man each have sex with partners infected with the herpes virus, the probability is far higher that the non-infected woman will become infected with virus than the man.
So a high herpes infection rate among women might not necessarily imply that women are more promiscuous than men.
I’ve not seen any studies that definitively state whether men or women are more promiscuous.
However, I think there is a theory that women today are far more promiscuous than ever before because of the death of religion, excess abundance, security, opportunity, technology (birth control, hook up apps) and far less restrictive social norms and shaming that release the slut from all consequences, even in the age of no privacy – CCTV cameras, Facebook, cell phones, etc.
I liken it very much to letting a young child run free in a candy store.
And yeah, when it’s all over, the child gets sick. Literally.
“3. Train men to care for women, not prey on them.” A case study.
One of my sons, has always been quite open and communicative with me. He was always willing to go to daily Mass with his mother before school without complaining. Back in grade 5 he admitted he had fantasies about rescuing the cute girl he liked from a burning building.
He entered seminary to pursue the priesthood. After 3 years he, and the religious order decided that he was not meant to be a priest. He returned home, to pursue a job and continue with the normal path of career, wife, and family. He met and dated a devout Catholic girl, who had at one time considered a vocation to the religious life. They dated chastely, because neither believed in sex before marriage.
She did not believe in sex before marriage…. with my son.
That was a temporary setback to my patriarchal fantasies. In an attempt to find a ‘good’ girl he started dating a Muslima. I was not happy with that. Neither was he, after it almost got him murdered. He wasn’t beaten, because he made it quite plain, that if he died that night, at least one muzzie was coming with him.
He discovered girls who were not so good. He called me and told me that sex felt realllllllly good!
He continued this way, until his late 20’s when the girls he was seeing suddenly all wanted to take it to the next level. (Rollo’s epiphany phase/baby rabies).
To avoid commitment pressure, he starting dating only girls who were engaged or were living with someone. He is not lonely. He has had girls call him the day after their honeymoons to restart old times. He does maintain that one standard of not seeing married women. He has told me stories about girls coming to see him the day before the wedding.
Now, how does Strachan propose I teach my son to protect women? I did have patriarchal fantasies of a horde of grandchildren. In a healthy society, a man with 6 living children should hope for at least a high single digit number of grandchildren.
In order to demand protection from men, women must be submissive to them. They can’t ask for one thin without offering the other.
Premarital sex is spiritually corrosive to women. So yes hookup culture takes a heavy toll. But they have to accept the responsibility for their choices and make those hard decisions to say no in the heat of the moment or avoid being alone with a young man themselves.
Unrelated young men & women don’t need to be alone together. No good can gone from that. But women have a responsibility to avoid that scenario.
@Dalrock
. . . . . we have sluts literally marching down the street in every major city in the nation. Their pretending that they don’t know that women have been demanding sexual liberation for decades is as absurd as the claim that women don’t know and can’t know that abortion involves killing a child unless the woman is an abortionist herself. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. They know women are rebelling against sexual morality because they are terrified of the rebellion.
I’d actually forgotten about this until now, but back around the time the Ashley Madison hacking story came out, Owen Strachan himself actually wrote a piece on his blog about it. If what he wrote then is any indication, it looks like he very well may be incapable of ever comprehending that women have the capacity for sexual misbehavior:
Keep in mind that there was dispute about how they’d actually tabulated how many men versus how many women were on that site. He could have even consulted plain old survey info — including from U.S. Government studies — that report female marital infidelity is not only now almost even with that of males, but that it’s consistently been on the rise since the ’70s. Hell, he even mentions that he’s aware of new evidence that shows women might crave illicit sex (50 Shades of Grey). But none of that matters. For Owen Strachan and his ilk, females simply do not fornicate. Nothing will ever make them see this. It’s not just that they think the women of the church are better than that, it’s that they believe female nature itself has a built-in immunity to human lust.
The church cannot burn down quickly enough.
Almost forgot, the link for Strachan’s Ashley Madison blog post can be viewed here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/08/the-depressing-and-weirdly-encouraging-data-on-ashley-madison-users/
“He has had girls call him the day after their honeymoons to restart old times.”
I have heard similar anecdotes. Makes you wonder why any man would consider marrying the typical woman these days.
So… ummm… when do the women start chipping in Mr. Strachan?
These pastorbators are pathetic.
Their over-the-top groveling to every shibboleth of ‘feminism’ is not just evidence of manginatude borne of desperation, but indicates a complete lack of genuine faith.
As I expected, Strachan doesn’t like to near that there is a biblical alternative to the hookup culture. My comment was removed. There are only three comments, because any Godly views are blocked.
@theDeti, Dalrock & Neguy
I think this is right. The inability to address women as morally capable subordinates is a direct consequence of their worldview. Men can be superiors or inferiors, but women are free agents and should belong to whomever offers them the best deal.
Another way of thinking about their worldview is: Men are producers, women are consumers, and the customer is always right. There are all sorts of laws which require producers to list the smallest ingredients and warn against the worst sorts of abuses, but it would be illegal to seriously label a package, “Warning: Do not buy if you are evil, dumb, or careless.” We recognize that some people misuse and even abuse products, but no court in America would let a producer sue a customer for misusing his product, but consumers can sue producers for anything; even improper consumption! The most likely outcome of consumer abuse is for more onus to be put on the producer. Now he must label his drain cleaner that it is not to be swallowed; he must apply a sticker that microwaves aren’t baby warmers. It is the same with men and women.
On first reading this may sound like a silly analogy, but I believe it is very representative of how most people of both sexes–in and out of church–think about the relationship between men and women. Pastoral care and discipleship has become a sales routine. It makes even more sense for the “Men are producers, women are consumers, and the customer is always right.” worldview to take hold in those churches where they hold the Biblical tradition of male-only pastors because that reinforces the male-producer/female-consumer (MP/FC) paradigm.
You can see in this intersexual relations-as-business paradigm each of your three mechanisms:
1) Disbelief in female temptation (Deti) This is directly analogous to the (false) belief that in a free market customers always make an informed and rational choice rather than once fraught with habit, vice, and ignorance.
2) Fear of female revolt (Dalrock) This is directly analogous to two bits of sale “wisdom”; that’s it’s easier to keep a customer than to gain one, and that unhappy customers are five times more likely to tell others of their bad experience than happy customers are to tell of their good experience.
3) Agreement with the feminist position (Neguy). This is directly analogous to, “The customer is always right”.
Individual men will put greater or lesser emphasis on each of these depending on their experiences, but they’re all present. It stands to reason that each man’s emphasis will be in direct proportion to the amount of
consumerfemale feedback he’s received on those three topics. Regardless, it’s his responsibility to make the perfect product, market it in the exact right way, and to keep his customers happy. If the product doesn’t work, it’s never because it was used incorrectly. If it doesn’t sell, it’s because the marketing was off-demographic. If for whatever reason the customer’s not happy with the product, it’s because you didn’t listen to the customer’s needs and she deserves a full refund.Trust: “God wants you to be happy,”
One of the most common lies women tell themselves, and the root of so many other lies. Once she believes that God wants her to be happy, she can justify anything that makes her happy.
My response would be: God does not want you to be happy by sinning. If you are so fallen that the only way you can be happy is through sin, if following God’s Word makes you miserable, then God prefers that you be miserable on Earth, rather than miserable later in Hell.
Catholic Courtship
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1039750
theDeti: The response to this is always that “well, but Christian women are DIFFERENT. … OF COURSE a Christian woman is against abortion!! Who does this man think he is, asking her if she’s against abortion! She’s a Christian, isn’t she? ALL Christian women are against abortion!!
I knew a self-professed Christian “actress” here in Los Angeles who was vocally pro-abortion.
I’d talked about her before. Very into angels. Rooms covered with angel imagery — sofa pillows, posters, kitchen magnets, light switch covers, bumper stickers on her car, angel checkbooks. Loved TV’s Touched by an Angel. Believed in a “loving, non-judgemental God.” She was always switching churches, complaining about the unGodly people at this or that church.
She also had a bulletin board covered with political buttons of various Democratic candidates, going back decades. Also other leftist political buttons, including many feminist, pro-gay, and pro-abortion buttons.
She saw no contradiction between her leftist feminism and Christianity. Indeed, she thought they went together, because she thought Republicans were all racist, greedy, selfish, war-mongering, misogynists. Unlike the loving, tolerant, pro-women, non-judgemental people on the left.
She also had a gay nephew, FWIW.
She was often miserable. Early 40s and never married, though, I suspect, many past lovers. She complained bitterly about practically everyone around — neighbors, churchgoers, employers, artistic colleagues at a small play she was performing in. She was always shocked by all the mean people around her who didn’t share her Christian values. Mean defined as anyone who didn’t do as she wished.
She once exploded at me, screaming in the middle of the street, because I’d called her “silly.” I was being generous. I believed far worse about her at that point, but didn’t want an argument.
She could be charming (the actress part), and seemed so when I first met her, until I got to know her better.
Darwinian Arminian brought up Owen Strachan’s article about the sausage-fest known as Ashley Madison. Strachan naively wrote:
“… Ashley Madison struggled mightily despite advertising and marketing to lure them to its clutches. There are likely numerous reasons for this failure, but one of them has to be this: women don’t want affairs. At least, many of them don’t. Many of them want normal lives, stable lives, and happy homes.”
Surely a guy like Darwinian Arminian knows that American women have had nearly 60,000,000 abortions since Roe V Wade in 1973. He cannot be completely ignorant of the fact that the average American bride has had sex with four men before her wedding day. Nor can he be unaware of survey data that half of all wives will commit adultery at some point.
But Strachan needs a fig-leaf to cover his shameful pandering and his anti-Biblical and absurd assertion that women are naturally pure, so he looks at the Ashley Madison data and comes to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of women are essentially immune to the sin of lust. He choose that lie rather than facing the fact that women simply don’t need to go onto a skeevy website in order to get sex, because they can get it any time they want with little or no effort. You don’t go in search of what is right in front of you. The superabundance of men on Ashley Madison wasn’t caused by men being any more inherently lust-driven than women – it was caused by the fact that men have to work harder than women do to get sex.
Owen Strachan and guys like him JUST. WILL. NOT. open their eyes when it comes to the faults of women.
Correction. The sentence that reads,
“Surely a guy like Darwinian Arminian knows that American women…” should say,
“Surely a guy like Owen Strachan knows that American women…”
Cut-and-paste error on my part.
My response would be: God does not want you to be happy by sinning. If you are so fallen that the only way you can be happy is through sin, if following God’s Word makes you miserable, then God prefers that you be miserable on Earth, rather than miserable later in Hell.
Any woman (or anyone of either sex, for that matter) who cannot be happy in obeying God’s commandments is pretty clearly and thoroughly demonstrating that their faith is non-existent and that their Christianity is a hollow facade.
There is a serious problem with the title as it is weak men who enable feminist values – Strong men know that Godly values are paramount and will pursue Godliness. Many do not see that feminism wanted to emulate the weakest and most corrupt men (CADS) in their pursuit of sexual equality. God will not be mocked and he is not as near as forgiving as the feminist class may wish. Wave goodbye to them as they do not find the narrow path.
“Wave goodbye to them as they do not find the narrow path.”
Perhaps we should pray for them.
Perhaps we should get rid of weak pastors and others who support feminism in the church. Change Churchianism back to Christian – All the praying will do nothing if the pigs keep going back to the trough. Lot did not pray for Sodom and Gomorrah. He was just taken out of them.
@CaneCaldo, I like that consumer analogy.
If I am not mistaken, the Lord himself has instructed us to pray for our enemies. You seem to discount the power of prayer.
How do you propose to get rid of churchian “pastors”? I am genuinely curious.
@Frank K:
Eventually, with a lot of fun and fire. 🙂
The Lord himself also allowed the man who refused to put God first in his life to leave. Presumably on his way to hell. Matt 19:16-26
Yes, we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt 5:43-48). We are also told to pray for the death of those religious people that live in immorality (1 Cor 5:1-5). When was the last time you heard that preached from a feel-good church?
Who is willing to take advantage of the next open-mic night at church to read that 1 Cor 5 passage, then point out the false teaching of the pastor, and then humbly pray that God will turn the pastor over to Satan “so that the body may be destroyed but the spirit saved on the day of the Lord”?
You could also throw in Titus 1:5-9, which requires that an elder, “hold firmly to the trustworthy message, as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it”, and point out that the failing to hold firmly to clear Scripture requires that this man be ineligible for a spiritual leadership position.
Yes, I need to admit that the 1 Cor 5 passage is talking specifically about sexual immorality, not immorality in general. The passage may not apply to your particular situation. Although we should be open to considering that it does, since this was the CORRECT and INSTRUCTED solution to one situation where the church tolerated evil. (“And you are proud. Shouldn’t you have rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the one who did this.”) Perhaps this same command is the one that should be obeyed in your situation.
I should also admit that I say this with little chance I will have to obey my own advice. I no longer attend English churches, where churchianity thrives. While the Slavic churches I attend also have, in my opinion, problems, they at least could be problems where the pastor and I simply disagree as we both genuinely try to obey God’s Word.
@Dale:
The Lord said to pray for your Enemy. He’s also made it pretty clear you’re probably going to need to kill them.
A subtlety lost in the “feels good, man” church.
Dale – ” I no longer attend English churches, where churchianity thrives. While the Slavic churches I attend also have, in my opinion, problems, they at least could be problems where the pastor and I simply disagree as we both genuinely try to obey God’s Word.”
I wholeheartedly agree that attending a Slavic Orthodox Church over an American Evangelical Churchian “church” is a wise choice.
One of the big tragedies of modern evangelism is that it is marketed based on life enhancement. Not the need for repentance, not the consequences of sin, not God’s word, not the danger of punishment, but “it will make life better.”
That’s why every modern Christian movies is about a man changing and a woman getting what she wants. I haven’t seen the Resurrection of Gavin Stone, but I’m sure the theme is that the Gospel is packaged as “He is the way the truth and the life, no woman gets her reformed bad boy alpha GQ model except through Him.” Or conversely, “She is the way the truth and the life, no man can be redeemed except by groveling and submitting to her.”
The sexual revolution follows this theme. Whatever makes her happy is the current gospel. To tell her the truth — that the proper christian life will land her a nice, dependable, beta provider — is to now sacrilegious.
I watched Tyler Perry’s Temptation. A bit silly, it followed the divorce fantasy theme, but instead of it working out in EPL style, the woman who cheated on and divorced her dependable beta husband ended up used, abused, and alone while seeing her ex husband’s wife and kids — the life she could have had. Of course, I read reviews and women were up at arms that a woman who cheated could be punished in the movie.
We’re doomed.
Frank K @ 9:39 am:
““Wave goodbye to them as they do not find the narrow path.”
Perhaps we should pray for them.”
Not after they reject Christ. It’s their decision to make, not ours to force. God still wants us to treat them as fellow human beings not rabid infidel dogs but salvation doesn’t come by either our works or theirs.
“Not after they reject Christ.” – All the more reason to pray for them, I would think. But yes, in the end the choice is theirs. But why not pray that they make the right choice?
The best Christian movie ever made, IMHO, is The Gospel of John. The Gospel itself is the screenplay. No words added or removed. Some might quibble about the chosen translation — The Good News Bible — but still the best Christian film ever made.
Available for free on YouTube, or on DVD if you want a better copy.
@RPC,
I encourage you to think that through a bit more. Is the typical church-service experience really what God had in mind when he told believers to get together, encourage and pray for one another?Is participation in a typical church really a habit that you want to reinforce in your kids?
Most of us Christians grew up believing (because we learned in church) that attending church (in the modern sense of the word) was a virtue. I contend it is not, for these reasons:
1) It tends to lead people to outsource theology to their pastor/priest. “He’s been to school for this stuff; he does it full-time; he’s more spiritual than me; he knows better than me.” Back in Jesus’ day, the only way for the common man to learn about God was to listen to the Rabbi. That is no longer true, and has not been true for hundreds of years.
2) It tends to lead people to outsource “good works” to the church organization. “I tithe, I do my part. What more do you want from me?” (Similar to people in cradle-to-grave socialist countries believing they are more generous than the US because they pay more taxes than us.)
3) It makes Christian fellowship (sharing, encouraging, praying) nearly impossible, due to the size of the group, and enables people to believe they are virtuous (attending church) while conveniently being invisible in the crowd (no expectations, accountability, growth, etc.).
4) It is a tremendously inefficient use of the money we earn. In the last church I attended (about 15 years ago), church staff consumed about 65% of the budget. Building maintenance, equipment, etc. took another 20%. Roughly 10% went to foreign missions and 5% for local ministry.
Spot-on. No man should be part of any Bible study group that includes women. And no husband should allow his wife to participate in any sort of Bible study.
Splashman says:
January 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Those four points you make deserve an in-depth article of their own.
Frank K @ 1:46 pm:
“But why not pray that they make the right choice?”
There’s no point. Their salvation does not depend on our effort. God wants us to be participants so we present the Gospel, but nowhere in the Bible did anybody get “prayed” into salvation. (Or vice versa, nobody went to Hell because they were neglected.)
I have family that I wish very much would accept Christ but God won’t force that acceptance on my behalf. If they don’t want Christ then Christ doesn’t want them, and objectively that’s the way it should be.
from that video a few years back with all the little girls dropping the f-bomb…and so many thinking it was ‘cute’ to the video clips above with grow women cussing, wearing labia pink hats that resembled their precious genitalia……….
The world of Islam watches, grins and waits.
This will be the crowd that demands “the burka be worn” and will demand “harems” and in such a sick way to distance themselves from being ‘subjected to the patriarchy’ will be the ones who will demand it!
GunnerQ and others,
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3: 8-9
They may not want Him, but He definitely wants them.
Lazarus cannot call himself out of the grave. Can one who is dead to spiritual things likewise call himself out of his spiritual grave – because free will and all?
No man cometh unto the Father but by me (Jesus speaking. John 14:6; KJV) Yet – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: (John 6:44; KJV) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37; KJV)
Jesus said: John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. … My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”
Note that God is the actor in this transaction. Not man. Not even Jesus. Jesus is the way to God. But you can’t come to God through Jesus unless God draws you. God draws you, not Jesus. God draws you to himself, by way of Jesus. According to the scriptures quoted here, Jesus does not call you to God. All Jesus can say is “you have to get to God through me; but you can’t/won’t come to me unless God draws you. But if God gives you to me, I will not cast you away”.
I expect that some will reject the scriptures I have quoted above. Yet they accept the scriptures about wifely submission. What is the standard you use to accept one and not the other?
@RichardP,
Lots of people on churchian feminists accept scriptures about wifely submission, just with a slightly different interpretation (i.e., completely opposite). Also, plenty of churchian feminists happily quote certain scriptures while conveniently ignoring others.
And no, my point here is not about churchian feminists.
Whoops, that should read, “Lots of churchian feminists . . .”
@RichardP,
Just curious — you seem to be contending that man has no choice in the matter — if God in his sovereign wisdom chooses you, you’re in. Is that right? If not, what part does God play in the transaction, and what part does man play?
(Not being snarky here — would just like to understand you better before responding.)
seventiesjason: women cussing, wearing labia pink hats that resembled their precious genitalia.
I recently learned that the Trans Community was offended by those vagina costumes, because they exclude women with penises. Vagina costumes imply that one must have a vagina to be a woman, thus such clothing is transphobic.
I even learned a new word. TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism
TERFs are feminists who are transphobic: http://transadvocate.com/you-might-be-a-terf-if_n_10226.htm
Thus does the Insane Left eat its own in internal “turf” wars.
@Lost Patrol
There is already something deeply wrong with a church that emasculates its men. Definitely not of God but of the Devil.
The end result of bridal mysticism:
http://www.podles.org/files/Church-Impotent/ChurchImpotent_Chapter6.pdf
A woman who’d ridden the cock carousel changes strategy once she wants to marry. (Naturally, she blames her failure to marry up till now on her previous boyfriends.): https://www.pasadenaweekly.com/2017/01/26/when-two-are-one/
…for a long time I knew what I wanted: a romantic marriage proposal, a memorably beautiful wedding and a handsome, loving husband with whom I’d have a family. I couldn’t seem to make my dream achievable. Prior boyfriends always told me they needed more time or that, although they loved me, I wasn’t someone they’d marry….
It was also recommended I not have sex with someone I wanted to marry until engaged. This was very different behavior for me but I carefully followed the strategy. Previously, I’d speak up and say whatever I pleased. I had no problem with asking men out or having sex if I wanted to, figuring I had just as much right to my freedom of choice as any man….
In the end, the New Her manages to trick a man into an offer of marriage.
>Prior boyfriends always told me they […] or that, although they loved me, I wasn’t someone they’d marry….
Too bad women refuse to be submitted to a man, in this case, her father. It is known that many/most woman lack the maturity to engage in serious reflection. If this woman had achieved this maturity, she would have considered why several men assessed her as only good enough to fuck, and not good enough to marry.
If she had been under the authority of a strong father, he would not have allowed her to free her inner promiscuous self. This restraint would have prevented her from becoming unsuitable for marriage.
A woman who’d ridden the cock carousel changes strategy once she wants to marry. (Naturally, she blames her failure to marry up till now on her previous boyfriends.):
Don’t worry. Cuckservatives are working hard to repackage such women as highly desirable. Cuckservatives were quick to buy into the notion that a high N is not a negative, and even a single mother is a catch.
“Thus does the Insane Left eat its own in internal “turf” wars.”
As Napoleon once said, never interrupt an enemy while he’s making a mistake.
That “Pasadena Weekly” piece was cringe-worthy. The woman basically ran a form of “Girl Game” until she got a marriage proposal from a beta chump who was willing to overlook her slutty past. He is now having to wait – and pay full price – for what lots of other men got right away with no investment at all. He’s a sucker and she knows it (even if he doesn’t), and she’s worried that she won’t be able to keep up the facade permanently.
She’s right to be worried: she won’t be able to. And the reason she won’t be able to is that she’s not the mature “Good Girl”TM shes pretending to be, and she won’t naturally “grow” into it because she knows he’s a chump. Once the wedding excitement is over, none of his great attributes will matter.
Basically, she prepared herself to be a bride instead of a wife. I doubt this will end well. I predict a strong possibility of “I love you but I’m not in love with you…” in the guy’s future, followed by child support and bi-monthy visitation with kids that may not even be his own.
He’s a sucker and she knows it (even if he doesn’t), and she’s worried that she won’t be able to keep up the facade permanently.
He might be a cuckservative who gets duped by Prager U videos. If you have not seen the rebuttal above (‘Response to Prager U’), you should….
There are multiple smack-downs of the Prager U videos, but you’re right: TFM is one of the best critics out there. From her description of the situation, I doubt her victim is a trad-cuck, though (she wouldn’t be attracted to a guy like that… he’s probably a metro).
In any case, it’s highly unlikely that she’ll be able to respect him in the long term, and for a woman, loss of respect leads to loss of everything else (except contempt, which will “justify” her unleashing the power of the state some day).
@infowarrior1
Amazing. Like some kind of Medieval Eat Pray Love Feminist Transsexual Religious Porn. No wonder women loved all that.
Basically, she prepared herself to be a bride instead of a wife. I doubt this will end well. I predict a strong possibility of “I love you but I’m not in love with you…” in the guy’s future, followed by child support and bi-monthy visitation with kids that may not even be his own.
This seems to summarize the current model for quite a few years now, or decades. Ever since the easy divorce laws were enacted I guess. So many “dead men walking”…right into a slow motion ambush.
I’m going to say what we’re all thinking but few want to admit:
This situation cannot and will not change as long as women have the political authority to vote themselves resources stolen from men via the state or manipulate institutions to benefit them through the political system. Either that system collapses (which it will eventually) or that authority is removed.
The next ten years are going to be very interesting.
This situation cannot and will not change as long as women have the political authority to vote themselves resources stolen from men via the state or manipulate institutions to benefit them through the political system.
Women have such authority only because it has been given to them by men in the highest echelons of power. Women have been given this power only because their exercise of it serves the interests of this upper echelon (women, in their insatiable hypergamy, being arguably the most powerful army of “useful idiots” ever exploited). Women will continue to retain their destructive political power for as long as the One Percent retains theirs.
Either that system collapses (which it will eventually) or that authority is removed.
Only complete collapse will remove it. Even then, they’ll fight to the bitter end to keep it. The restoration of a moral order that can only prevail without their empowerment is too terrible for them to contemplate.
The next ten years are going to be very interesting.
Indeed. May we survive them without descending into complete barbarism.
@Feeriker,
Bingo! Our culture’s acceleration toward the abyss began with the 19th amendment. I do not allow my wife to cast her own vote, but even if I did, she wouldn’t. She’s not the brightest bulb in the box, but even she can see that giving women a separate vote is insane.
You’re seriously depressing me. But you’re also correct.
Non-snarky question: What makes you think the next ten years will be different than the last ten? I.e., why can’t the current situation continue for the next ten or fifteen? Of course I agree that “whatever can’t continue indefinitely, won’t”, and while I wouldn’t make any predictions for, say, fifty years from now, I’m struggling to see signs that the status quo isn’t sustainable for the next ten years.
Don’t pin a big blow up on a currency collapse. It’s a long explanation, but all of the Currency vs Money arguments in the world don’t really understand the situation. The power of the Fiat Currency, matched with the World’s Largest Military means the USD will remain a means of exchange, even if wholly interior. Japan has clearly shown how “impossible” situations can be delayed insanely far.
Granted, it’s utterly, utterly terrible for the economy, but the Elites are generally very short-sighted. (Too much influence from groups that are very short-sighted.) You can see Japan, again, for why.
Though the thing to keep in mind is most of the Elites aren’t social issues fighters. They “support” whatever is necessary to maintain their power bases, but they clearly view those groups as useful idiots. (There’s a few activist types, Soros & a few others, but most have a single issue, at most.) But I think the core part to understand is that the current Elites are from the “Humanist” side of the Humanist vs Eugenics debate from the late 1880s.
I’ve realized a lot of understand where the country got to is you have to split it the Elites and everyone else that’s just going about their lives. The Elites had multiple ideological camps since the dawn of the Progressive Age, but after a fight is “decided” among them, the fight is blamed on Everyone Else. You can see this with Homosexuals. The only people that regularly harassed and beat up gays was Coastal Elites. Partially for self-selection reasons, they didn’t really cause much issue in the rest of the country. In the Order vs Emotion split among the Elites, the Emotion-side won out, thus “gays are good” and anyone that disagrees with Hitler.
This is the process where suddenly the center of the country is this teeming mass of repression of homosexuals when the topic pretty much hadn’t come up in most States when the tag was laid. Find a few “Christians” looking for their 15 minutes of fame and, boom, scapegoat for the past sins of the Elites. They get their absolution and they get to shame the people they look down on. It’s taken me a while to really sort out how they settled on this process, but I think they figured it out in the 1930s with their control of the Media. Which is why the Media control is so important to them.
Which brings up the hilarious reality that the Comments Sections on news articles broke the Elites strongest tool. I find that deeply funny.
As for Women ruining a lot of things, they do. But their current power is far more fragile than people realize, though no one has really tried to attack it where it is vulnerable. Though it has to be admitted that most that even realize there is a problem as pretty beat up by the time they do, which makes organization a real issue.
Re: The 19th Amendment and the prospect of women’s continued stranglehold on politics.
There was a case a few years ago from the “stupid criminals” file of a guy who was robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. The clerk cooperated (so as to avoid being shot), but the robber was trying to carry so much stuff out that he was overloaded. I don’t recall whose idea it was, but the robber decided to have the clerk carry something for him, and since his gun was the heaviest thing in his hands, he handed him that.
Like I said… the “stupid criminals” file. Obviously that immediately reversed the power arrangement and the clerk simply turned the gun on the would-be robber, who finally grasped the concept that the “authority” came from the gun, not from him.
It’s like that with women’s suffrage. The franchise represents political power for whichever group constitutes the majority of eligible voters, and since adult women without felony convictions (i.e. eligible voters) outnumber their male counterparts, the adoption of universal adult suffrage based on age alone is like the robber who handed his gun to the clerk. Simply put, women have the lion’s share of political power now, which is why our laws are so gynocentric. (See note) Like the dumb robber, there’s no way to force the arrangement back to what it was before, even though in this case both sides would ultimately benefit, because the power to do so rests with women. In any case, we’re far past the point where any significant group in any society where votes matter wants to end women’s suffrage.
(Note: The fact that women generally elect men to hold the offices (where they merely act as proxies to enact the wishes of those who put them there: women) does not mean that men hold the power… it just means that women would rather follow a man than another woman, and elected officials are considered leaders.)
I never knew the modern woman needed encouragement to dress provocatively via “costume parties.” In fact your average modern woman is dismissive of discouragement to dress provocatively. “It’s my body and I’ll do with it what I like.” And they start so young; often following in the footsteps of their rebellious mother, with the peer group pressure added on top. Strachan lives under a rock.
“Train men to care for women, not to prey on them”.
These guys are so out of touch as to have become completely separated from reality. Any male who has been to college within the past 10 years (as I have) knows that women prey on men just as much, just usually in different but no less diabolical ways. The “friend-zone” is a good example. While remaining a servile lickspittle in the Friend Zone is a choice that many guys stupidly make for themselves, most girls are fully aware of the “arrangement” they are in with the friend-zoned dude and take full advantage of it.
Bottom line: the Christian leaders saying stuff like this need to get feedback from dudes on the ground.
“train men to care for women, not to prey on them”
The funny and ironic thing is……..the men they are speaking to and are addressing this to are IN the church right now. These men are married (mostly). These men HAVE been married for a long time…………..
this is just a shakedown for the collection plate and more of the typical Christian pandering of “See, see secular world! We Christians care about women soooooooo much! Look how cool we are! So…ummmmm, be ‘nice’ to us okay??????????”
There was a time when the church (all of them) had a feel for the pulse of the culture and could respond to it. They actually could define the solution. Today???? The church (all of them, even the hip n bold evangelical mega-churches) are ALL playing ‘catch up and copy’ with the secular world, putting a (cough) christian stamp on it, and suddenly…voila…….it’s a “Christian” thing.
We look freaking stupid is what we look like.
We look like that annoying kid from our schoolyard / playground days…the kid that ALWAYS tagged along, but no one really liked…….that is what the church is in general to the secular world today……….and its supposed to be the other way around.
Fellow Christians get so mad at me when I tell them “Islam is growing because they actually stand for something. We in Christ, and His church stand for nothing today.”
I don’t know whether or not “God-honoring romance” implies chastity or serial monogamy, but there is a profound connection between “sexual utilitarianism,” drug and alcohol use, and rape culture.
Have you done any pieces on that alliance?
@Jason says:
The funny and ironic thing is……..the men they are speaking to and are addressing this to are IN the church right
____________
I thought that too. The men who need to hear the message aren’t in the church, in fact many of them are having affairs with the wives in the church. Yet, the reprimand is used to bully husbands into catering to wives even more.
Sort of like how in Courageous, statistics about fatherless children were used to tear down good and excellent fathers to get them to serve their nagging, lousy) wives even better.
Now, women in the church are in need of correction. BUT, to do so would invite a firestorm into the church, which would likely lose most its attending families. Funny how a church cannot criticize even one woman, yet is seen as a patriarchal leviathan.
If that were really true, I probably would have converted to Islam a couple of years ago. I had tons of Muslim friends and a few Muslim girlfriends.
Don’t be fooled by Islam — at least the version that’s evolving in America. It is not a haven for traditionalism or masculinity. The rot is deep, and American Islam is in the late stages of being hollowed out.
All the trappings that make an outsider think that Muslims respect men are actually strategies that Muslim women use to consolidate control. Think about what women talk about when they’re all alone — most of their time in mosque is completely without any male supervision.
There are some chaste Muslim girls who love God and aspire to marriage and family, but all the ones I met were recent immigrants from third world shitholes in Eastern Europe and West Africa. The ones who had been born here were sluts, and their fathers and brothers were completely oblivious to the reality of their character.
Even in the case of the nice immigrant girls, I suspected that these women would change after a few years, and I still think I wasn’t wrong.
Muslim men need to wake up. They’re going to be in a world of hurt in a very short time if they remain complacent.
Boxer
How about we fight the hook up culture by being chaste, following Gods laws, and demanding that of men and women.
Hi Dalrock-thanks for your blog. Not finding an email address for you, I decided to post a link here to a book that’s just been published. https://www.amazon.com/Way-Dragon-Lamb-Searching-Abandoned/dp/0718022351/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485618131&sr=1-1&keywords=way+of+the+dragon+way+of+the+lamb&linkCode=sl1&tag=nestplac07-20&linkId=227e88a4426fb2fd95124d045b1942d3
Good day!
Off topic today someone decided that the women of all ages should lecture the young man on what they should do to be ready to get married and attract a good wife. Some good advice on how to grow up Godly, and the complete crap advice you expect from all women on how to get a woman which if you follow will ensure you never ever get a women. Read the Bible – great! Read the Bible with the expectation it will attract a woman? Rubbish. It might help a righteous woman decide to marry you, but attraction? Women give advice about how they wish they were attracted.
@ Boxer
Exactly, I co-sign that.
In my (somehow limited, but I’d say that both extensive and intensive enough) experience muslim men are generally completely delusional when it comes to the nature of women, and muslim women/girls are masters of deception, cunning and manipulation. And quite often sluts too.
I even remember once hearing a (nominally) muslim girl joking about “remains of her virginity”… Which made me think: at least a little bit of decency wouldn’t hurt, you little ho’.
(Note: The fact that women generally elect men to hold the offices (where they merely act as proxies to enact the wishes of those who put them there: women) does not mean that men hold the power… it just means that women would rather follow a man than another woman, and elected officials are considered leaders.)
@Lyn —
Yep, that, and also frankly women can’t be bothered to run for office in anything like the numbers men do. Of course that’s blamed on men (not changing enough diapers apparently, so women can’t run for office), but really it’s about women’s choices, just as it is in the C-suites.
@Novaseeker,
You make an interesting point about the TYPE of power men and women pursue.
Men pursue direct power–the power of sitting on the throne.
Women pursue indirect power–the power behind the throne pulling the strings.
Frank Herbert wrote a short story (the name of which escapes me at the moment) about this very thing.
Kevin: How about we fight the hook up culture by being chaste, following Gods laws, and demanding that of men and women.
Most young men are already chaste. Beta Orbiters who’ve been Friend-Zoned, and will remain chaste until their female peers hit their late 20s/early30s.
How many young men are already chaste? If you believe the 80/20 Rule, about 80%. Yes, they might occasionally “get lucky,” but most of the time, most young men are sitting meekly on the sidelines, chaste and pure, waiting for the young “ladies” to finish banging the Bad Boys.
Sorry, but your advice is unhelpful, because young women don’t care that most young men are chaste. Those chaste men are not wanted. And when they are wanted, most of those men will be Thirsty Betas who won’t care that their future wives are well-ridden mares with much mileage under their hooves.
It is a rank misuse of language to label not getting laid very often, as either chastity or purity.
Chastity is not screwing anyone before you are married, regardless of opportunity.
Purity is an attitude that you WILL NOT screw anyone that you are not married to, REGARDLESS OF OPPORTUNITY.
Doing the “right” thing merely because you lack the capability or opportunity to do bad is not righteousness, but merely frustration. As a man thinks in his heart, so he is.
@Isaiah 33:6,
That book is endorsed by Sarah Bessey, the author of “Jesus Feminist”. Any book endorsed by her can’t bee good.
Jesus Feminist?
Part of the problem is that most people believe that the opposite of feminism is misogyny. This is why everyone in public life insists that they too are a feminist.
Cuckservatives insist that they’re “the real feminists,” and that Democrats and liberal feminists are “the real sexists.” Cuckservatives claim that they embrace “equity feminism” (the true feminism), as opposed to liberals’ “gender feminism” (the false feminism).
Cuckservatives have ceded the moral ground to feminists. Feminism is good. The only real question up for debate is who are the real feminists.
@Splashman
Thanks for the input. Your points are excellent.
However, I have thought it through…a lot. You’ve done a good job outlining the problems, now what in your mind are some solutions?
It is truly sad that the 30 something betas do not read the bible – The women they end up with are described in proverbs 5 – there is not very many proverbs 31 women around when they are influenced by an immoral society and hordes of proverbs 5 women . The bible told the older women to look out for the younger ones for a very good reason.
Here is an interesting article titled, “Women share reasons they are addicted to cheating”. Won’t be nothing new to most readers here. The usual excuses, like it’s exciting, I still love my ex, etc. More than likely she is now in her later 20’s+ and is with a Beta.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4168536/Women-share-reasons-addicted-cheating.html
@Cane
That analogy is smart. The more you think about it, the more it fits with churchian culture.
I like it for several reasons: It improves empathy for Christian men and the Sisyphean task they face. It illustrates how the culture facilitates hypergamy by giving women an excuse to “fire” their husbands if they no longer like the product (or see a better one). It helps to explain the overwhelming emphasis in pastoral counseling on the husband producing a marriage “product” that pleases the consumer (wife), as opposed to the husband exercising authority and wife submitting.
Also, consumers are never satisfied. They always want more. Therefore, it enhances female discontent while misattributing the source of that discontent.
It’s also striking just how diametrically opposed the role of “consumer” is with the biblically-prescribed role of “helper.”
Churchian culture in a nutshell.
@RPC, if you agree that the things I listed are indeed serious problems, devote yourself to finding a solution that works better. If you don’t, then don’t. But don’t do what I did for more than ten years, which is to sit back and say, “Yes, those are problems, but I don’t have a good solution, and nobody’s giving me one, so I’m going to maintain status quo.”
If there’s one lesson our kids should learn from us (both verbally and by example), it’s this: “God lovingly gives us problems so we can learn to overcome them with his help. If he hated us, he’d make everything easy for us.”
The comments at the referenced article are blocked. I posted that marriage was the solution to the problem. they deleted it. The Gospel Coalition is just a cats paw for feminism.
BTW everyone knows that the speaker at last Saturdays Womens March is a convicted murderer?
http://www.inquisitr.com/3925979/torturer-and-murderer-donna-hylton-womens-march-speech-infuriates-conservatives-over-so-called-liberal-hypocrisy/
@Splashman
I do agree with the problems you outline. I’ve seen them for years. I also agree that we need to teach our children how to overcome problems, and my children have seen me grapple with this for the past year. But, there’s also a lesson to teach our kids about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You did a good job outlining the problems, now share some possible solutions. I ask not because I haven’t already thought of solutions myself, but because I honestly want to know, from what (I presume) is someone with more experience and wisdom in the matter.
“Chastity is not screwing anyone before you are married, regardless of opportunity.”
It’s that and more. Chastity means avoiding all illicit forms of sex. This means you don’t engage in Sodomy with your wife, which I suspect that most Churchian couples do (or to be more accurate, most Churchian wives do, but not with their husbands)
It’s kind of sobering to realize that most women you will meet at work or any any social venue are likely to have had one or more men’s penises in their mouths, not to mention having engaged in “anal sex” or worse.
It’s kind of sobering to realize that most women you will meet at work or any any social venue are likely to have had one or more men’s penises in their mouths, not to mention having engaged in “anal sex” or worse.
The moral case for the elimination of mixed-sex workplaces could fill volumes. From a Christian perspective, no married woman should be under the authority of ANY man other than her husband. Ever.
“Also, consumers are never satisfied. They always want more, in exchange for progressively less, or for free. Therefore, it enhances female discontent while misattributing the source of that discontent.”
FIFY.
It’s also striking just how diametrically opposed the role of “consumer” is with the biblically-prescribed role of “helper.”
Since churchians don’t believe in the concept of “helper,” especially as applied to wives, the difference is completely lost on them.
Citation needed for what could possibly constitute an “illicit form of sex” between a husband and wife, since scripture is utterly silent on that subject (except for acts that are expressly forbidden in their own right, of course).
The women they end up with are described in proverbs 5 – there is not very many proverbs 31 women around when they are influenced by an immoral society and hordes of proverbs 5 women . The bible told the older women to look out for the younger ones for a very good reason.
Correct. There are almost no Proverbs 31 women today (notwithstanding the fact that many churchian women like to brag about themselves being such even though, as evidenced by their behavior, they are not even remotely anything of the kind), which is why there are almost no Titus 2 women either.
As I have stated on too many occasions to remember, but which bears endless repeating: the “older” women in the church today came of age during the decades when 2WF was in its ascendance and nearly ALL of them were infected by it, as their was no pushback against it from any quarter of the culture. If today’s “older women” teach today’s younger women anything at all, it is NOT the examples prescribed by Scripture. Rather, it is how to rebel against God’s commandments even more creatively and forcefully than did their own generation and that their discontent and anger should manifest itself in profoundly more unpleasant ways than in the past. .
“Citation needed for what could possibly constitute an “illicit form of sex” between a husband and wife, since scripture is utterly silent on that subject (except for acts that are expressly forbidden in their own right, of course).”
I think you answered your own question.
Frank K,
I was questioning your use of the phrase “sodomy with your wife, which I suspect that most Churchian couples do.” The only acts I can think of that are expressly forbidden to married couples (because they’re expressly forbidden to everyone), are bestiality, homosexuality, and adultery. I’m at a loss to think of anything that could occur between a husband and wife that doesn’t involve third parties that is inherently sinful. It seems to me that those acts are not particularly common among married Christian couples (or even secular couples: swinging is a fringe activity and bestiality is WAY OUT THERE), which makes “marital sodomy” among Christian couples vanishingly rare rather than exceedingly common. But you seemed to imply that there are other acts that are both sinful and common to more than half of Christian marriages. Assuming I inferred your meaning correctly, I was asking for the scriptural citations for your implication that other acts are sinful within marriage.
I also wondered how a man could Sodomize a woman. Even the dictionary doesn’t allow that. But there are things I don’t want to know.
My son introduced me to a new word – cuckmercials, modern television advertisments that depict the man as a helpless buffoon in comparison to the you go girl.
“…she prepared herself to be a bride instead of a wife.”
I’ve heard a lot of stories from women who would go through great pains to keep their weight (and waistlines) in check before their weddings; they absolutely fear not being able to fit in their wedding dresses (which were selected months or weeks ahead of the big day.
All bets are off regarding their weight after their weddings.
My son introduced me to a new word – cuckmercials, modern television advertisments that depict the man as a helpless buffoon in comparison to the you go girl.
Hopefully SWTMTOTH will create a database of these commercials so that the companies that make them can be identified and sanctioned accordingly.
@chokingonredpills:
Plus, they can virtue signal their suffering to their female friends for how much they’re putting themselves through. There’s a big reason Women favor crash-diets and it isn’t because solid information has been available for a long time.
When you assume demons are under every bed you find a whole lot of them under beds, whether they are there at night. Frank K claiming he knows what goes on in “most marriages” is laughable. I also cannot find any specific Biblical prohibition about which body part to use in sex (within marriage). I do find a statement that the marriage bed is undefiled, so I take that to be the ruling guidance.
Dear Ofelas:
Right. And after banging all your friends, that same girl will go on to marry a Muslim chump, telling him that she’s a virgin, and will live out her days with him as her pack mule.
For you guys who don’t know, Islam is even heavier on the woman worship than most forms of Christianity. Right in Qur’an it says that no woman should ever be compelled to work outside the home. Of course women have the right to do this (if they want to flirt with co-workers, for example) but no husband can force them to. It’s a legalism that affords any wife a life of complete leisure at the expense of her husband
I used to teach mathematics at a community college. I once had in my class a teenage hijabi who wore low cut blouses under the ends of her headscarf. She was in the habit of flashing her tits so often that it really defeated the purpose. On a completely separate occasion, I saw a younger girl at the Islamic Center wearing tight yoga pants that showed off the outline of her vulva. When I say younger I don’t mean little. She was a very well developed 15-16 year old. Her own father didn’t see a problem with this. They’re often in some pretty heavy denial.
Boxer
The points mentioned 1 to 4 are techincally correct. We aren’t forinstance to view one another for our utilitarians sexual gratification.
But then they get the fix wrong. This is like having a cold or sore throat and getting bleed. It is nice they can read in the bible what is incorrect behavior (dressing like a slut for the costume party) but then the solution is to make the men not be men, rather then the women be chaste.
And this line
” The new culture does neither. It frees men to prey on women and leaves women in a horrifyingly vulnerable place.” Um except for all the women preying on the men, viewing them as a giant wallet.
Pingback: Romance is sexual. | Dalrock
Pingback: Denying the feminist rebellion. | Dalrock
Pingback: A god we must obey. | Dalrock
your son must listen to Gavin McInnes
Pingback: Cucked by Courtly Love. | Dalrock
Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Dalrock