Boxer astutely notes (emphasis mine):
Some of you guys are assuming something salacious in these inappropriate father-daughter relationships, but it’s not necessary for the father and daughter to have physical sex. The problem is actually fairly well understood (Freud and Jung both wrote article after article about this stuff).
A man who is closed off from psychological feelings of intimacy by his wife will often transfer some of his libidinal energies to his daughter. In doing so he gets to transcend a feeling of shame or failure in his loveless marriage. The daughter, too, gets something out of it. She gets to regress into a more infantile state, letting daddy take care of her emotional needs, rather than learning to take care of herself and pass into adulthood.
If you’re wondering why you meet grown women who haven’t progressed beyond the emotional age of 13, well, this might be a reason in some of those instances…
Again, it’s not necessary for the father and daughter to have physical sex or anything approaching that. In a strange way, that’s why this unhealthy process is so insidious. It masks itself as a normal relationship, with nothing outwardly untoward; but, at the deep structure, it’s unhealthy for all parties.
The reason this isn’t more widely recognized as twisted is the widespread belief that sexual passion can be neatly divided into two forms:
- Sexual emotion (romance): This is considered pure, non sexual, and if not outright holy then nearly so.
- Physical sexuality: This is considered dirty unless sanctified (purified) by romance.
But romance isn’t non sexual. It is always sexual. This was understood when the concept of romantic love was originally distilled out of sexual passion, but that was nearly a thousand years ago. The idea has morphed over time, and more importantly we aren’t even aware that we have adopted a view of sexuality that stems from a glorification of adultery in popular fiction in the 11th century. As CS Lewis explains:
They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. There can be no mistake about the novelty of romantic love: our only difficulty is to imagine in all its bareness the mental world that existed before its coming…
Even worse, nearly all Christians believe that the idea of romance as something non sexual and sanctifying is a biblical concept. This is why the former head of the CBMW refers to romance as “God honoring”, offering romance as a solution to the problem of sexual immorality:
Promote God-honoring romance…
But nowhere in the Bible are we told that romance is pure or “God-honoring”. This is a modern invention, part of the religion of feminism. Romance isn’t even a biblical concept, as the Bible refers to sexual passion as a single thing and does not artificially divide it out into sexual emotion and physical sexuality. Proverbs 5 uses animal imagery to describe a husband’s proper frame of mind toward his wife. Song of Solomon also describes a raw sexual passion. And 1 Corinthians 7 instructs us that the solution to the temptation of sexual immorality is to marry and have frequent sex.
But this brings us to the root of the problem. There is at least a decade between the age we expect girls to seek romantic relationships and the minimum age our feminist culture considers it proper for a woman to marry. Since the biblical solution is (for most) out of the question, the next step for modern Christians was to invent a new code of sexual morality. This new invention however needs to feel traditional, which is why the result is a form of cartoonish chivalry.
Interestingly we would understand how twisted it is to have a parent act as their child’s romantic surrogate if we reversed the sexes. When fathers dress as grooms, give their daughters wedding rings, and pose with their daughters dressed as brides or prom dates, modern Christians can’t see how twisted this is. But if Christian mothers started dressing up as brides or prom dates with their sons and had their sons place wedding rings on their fingers, everyone would immediately understand how sick this really is. The reason is when it comes to men we intuitively understand that romance is sexual in nature. It is only for women that we hold out the fiction that romance isn’t sexual.
Edit: Donal has a post making much the same point, and Cane Caldo has a new post up in response to my previous post.
Dennis Prager, a Jew who says evangelical Christianity is America’s best hope, said on his radio show recently that it is a tragedy that leftism has influenced the church more than the church has influenced America.
Feminism is largely the arm of influence. Far from being patriarchal, the church is largely matriarchal, and it is in female nature to act as a victim to wield power without culpability.
Relegating the God given role of sex in marriage to a currency chip to bribe and shame husbands into submission in the name of romance is standard operating procedure in most denominations.
Relational sexuality is feminine, physical sexuality is masculine. Or as I once heard it put, “men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love”. Modern society criminalizes the male path to sex while celebrating the female path to sex.
Pingback: Romance is sexual. | @the_arv
@Gunner Q
This isn’t true though. Sex is both emotional and physical, for both men and women. As I noted in the OP, this separation doesn’t exist in the Bible.
“temptation of sexual morality”? Never experienced that one.
[D: Ha! Good catch. Fixed.]
While I tend to agree that romance BETWEEN THE SEXES is always sexual, the dictionary definition and the etymology of “romance” offer alternative definitions.
From Websters
Definition of romance
1
a (1) : a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural (2) : a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious (3) : a love story especially in the form of a novel
b : a class of such literature
2
: something (such as an extravagant story or account) that lacks basis in fact
3
: an emotional attraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or activity
4
: love affair
5
capitalized : the Romance languages
“Since the biblical solution is (for most) out of the question, the next step for modern Christians was to invent a new code of sexual morality.”
I think this is also the reason for the dramatic increase in porn consumption amongst Christian men/boys. The biblical solution of getting married when you are “burning with passion” is pushed further and further away from the time when a boy starts to get interested in girls and with little outlet for his frustrations, he turns to adult material, which he continues to use until whatever girl decides she wants to finally get married at 30+ years old. By that time its really all the poor guy knows, and it offends his new wife when she finds out about his “addiction”.
This huge push in waiting for marriage so women can find themselves/get their merit badges, etc. has had a massive negative effect on EVERYONE. Men, women, children – we all suffer, and the church continues to push the narrative while scratching it’s head over a self-made problem.
I think you entirely correct is arguing that romance is a veneer that we put over sexuality to make it seem justified when it is not.
While I tend to agree that romance BETWEEN THE SEXES is always sexual, the dictionary definition and the etymology of “romance” offer alternative definitions.
Fish would define water differently than we do. Seriously, Dalrock is pointing to a trend that is centuries long, so that the very words we use are affected by this trend. The Romantic poets of the 19th century were deeply enmeshed in their part of the Cult of courtly love, you know.
Also bear in mind semantic drift of words over the last century: “There will be gay dancing tonight at the club” in 1945 meant something different than it would today, just to pick one example. So I don’t think resorting to Websters is much of a defense of current Christian errors, if that was what you meant to do.
Dalrock: Donal has a comment up, it is interesting.
https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/splitting-eros-leads-to-disaster/
I noticed the unspoken belief that romance = morality when I once was told to be “more romantic” when dealing with girls (as told by a woman, by the way). The tone used indicated I was sinning by not adhering to a code of behavior designated as “romantic.” I asked where it said stuff about romance in the Bible (I wasn’t being sarcastic) and they gave me a deer in the headlights look, followed by rolling eyes.
I was at a house once that had the film “Courageous” played, and there’s that creepy scene where the one cop takes his daughter out for dinner and basically proposes to her with a ring. I remembered how weird I thought for him to do that.
“But this brings us to the root of the problem. There is at least a decade between the age we expect girls to seek romantic relationships and the minimum age our feminist culture considers it proper for a woman to marry.”
Another problem I’ve brought up once with people. What’s the point for a Christian men to date if the girls he’s seeing all but saying they’re not interested in marriage until 28-30? Better yet, what kind of man is a Christian woman going to date in her early twenties? Logically, she’ll want to avoid any man interested in marriage and seek out men who aren’t interested. At the same time, tradcons go after young men for not manning up and marrying? Just who are they supposed to marry? Women seven years old?
Small typo: Woman seven years older (27-30)
@The Question:
Good, I thought you went all Islam on us!
@Anon Reader:
Thanks. I had approved the pingback but hadn’t yet followed the link. We are very much on the same page. The whole post is excellent, especially:
AR…..
I’m not discounting semantic drift. That quote is from a current dictionary.
If romance were always sexual, it would not be applied to landscapes, events, actions and types of people.
Dalrock…
There is a principle here that seems to apply to a far wider spectrum of morality than just sex.
It is my belief that humans have an inherent need for morality, to see themselves as “good”. It is also true that people will lie to themselves in order to justify what they do. (A former prison chaplain wrote that the vilest criminal will find excuses for himself to justify his behaviour.)
So those who abandon Godly morals have an innate need to establish a new set of morals and , equally, reasons why the old morals are “bad”. This is why we not only see “following your heart” being defined as morally pure , but self control and faithfulness become misrepresented as “repression” and ” denying your true self”.
It’s not just about finding excuses for what you do, but also finding excuses to cast the alternative as “bad”.
It also fits neatly with the stereotypical view that conservatives progressives have of each other. Progressives can’t debate because their position is dictated by their feelings, so they must define those who oppose them as evil. Conservatives observe this failure to discuss and debate , and conclude that progressives are stupid.
AR…..
I’m not discounting semantic drift. That quote is from a current dictionary.
If romance were always sexual, it would not be applied to landscapes, events, actions and types of people.
Looks like you’re working really, really hard to miss Dalrock’s point.
Dalrock, thanks for the kind words. Your posts on this over-arching subject have been excellent. There is a wide-scale problem here that has affected pretty much every part of the Western Church, one which has been building up for a long time now. What we are witnessing is the culmination of all that error.
Sadly, when husband and wife “grow apart”, the husband/daughter and mother/son relationships substitute for the emotional connection between husband and wife This damages the children’s ability to form healthy relationships themselves. Unto the seventh generation.
The book “The Truth” by Neil Strauss (author of “The Game”) describes his experiences in therapy, his own dysfunctional family, and his weird mother/son relationship. He was able to afford therapy because he had a book advance to spend. Most people don’t.
It would be interesting to know whether people called BS on these unhealthy parent/child relationships before romance was “invented”.
Romance absolutely is sexual. Well done once again.
Pingback: Romance is sexual. | Reaction Times
I believe that ultimately this error was caused by the insistence of some past Christians to reconcile the pagan Greek idea of Eros with Christianity. There is no analogue to Eros in the Bible, and it should have been discarded. The Greeks said that Eros would “come out of nowhere”. This was symbolized by Eros’ (Cupid’s) arrows and people were stricken by it through no fault of their own. The important point being that the Greeks believed that the cause of sexual desire was external.
Christianity teaches that desires come out of the heart. The source of one’s feelings is internal. And this is a very strange (to the world) teaching which is overlooked: Not only should feelings be controlled in the sense of tamped down or ignored, but that if your soul is right then the appropriate feeling can be chosen. Feelings are an action in Christianity. For one example: After Jonah finally preaches to the people of Nineveh they repent and Jonah is angry. When Jonah expresses his anger to God, God replies “Do you do right to be angry?” Once I understood that, then I understood that when in the Bible God says He was angry, He was not communicating that He was subject to some emotion, but that in His justice He chose to be angry. This is unlike me, who is sinful and so gets angry and then tries to justify it.
So, how I think this worked out is that ancient/medieval Christians (right on through today) denied the act of feelings and erroneously retained Eros (sexual emotion) as an external event which overcame a person (Say, a knight or monk gazing wistfully upon a lady.) Sex is obviously an act and there’s no way to get around that so it got relegated to the sphere of self control, and that means an emphasis on duty.
Once this splitting of sexual feeling from sexual action is made, then they both have to be explained as natural phenomenon. Natural phenomenon are innocent and God-made by definition. If one keeps walking down this path you get to the idea that it’s acceptable–even admirable–to be in love with the noble, highborn, princess, but merely have duty sex with one’s wife to fulfill St. Paul’s commandment in his letter to the Corinthians.
A couple years ago I carried on against Eros for awhile, and I got a lot of flak; especially from some of the more respected commenters/writers in the Christian part of the Men’s Sphere. I am interested to see where the conversation goes from here.
Had a look at the Atlantic article and its photos, stomach churning stuff. Im not quite sure if I have just witnessed what would pass for Churchianity incest porn or not. Certainly feels alot more disturbing than you would expect. They seem to have deliberately removed any normal father\daughter relations – giggles\looks etc. And replaced these with well – im really not quite sure what it is that makes it so disturbing. Like old men praying on young females bought for the occasion.
yeekkk
Field Report about how haphazard modern young women are.
I was at fireside chat about a subject on which I was an authority, but was a guest and did not know anyone else there. I quickly made the most insightful and knowledgeable comments and impressed everyone in the room, as the subject is one I am an authority on and am a leader in the field. I mentioned what my job is, which is a high-status job.
Two of the pretty young women (age 24-25, both 8s) later came up to me and talked to me at length. One of them talked for longer, the other for less time. I am 17-18 years older than them, but they both were giving me IOIs. But on the surface, the topic of discussion was still about the (quasi-professional) topic at hand, and we exchanged business cards (keeping it professional), as I was not even intending to seek anything non-professional from there.
About 4 days later, the one girl who talked to me for *less* time emailed me and overtly asked me out for driks. Pretty forward of her. I did the proper Game tactic of only replying to her email about 8 hours later (maybe even that was too soon), and suggested just one time to meet, with a vibe of ‘Lets meet at X time at Y location’, rather than a question of if a certain time or place works. Then, she doesn’t reply back for a full day, saying that she can only meet on Wednesday or Friday. Then I counter with a ‘Let’s meet on Friday at X’. She doesn’t write back, and appears to be a total flake.
There was no real opportunity to steer the Game. She wrote to me first, and I kept my answer as though getting asked out by her was no big deal, and I was only available at one time. But by not confirming the time, she pretty much makes it very hard for *any* communication from me to not get trapped into a Beta frame. So I have to just leave it as is. She flakes, even if she brought it up.
Advanced Game techniques involve tactical negs like “What’s up, miss flakey”, or “You didn’t strike me as someone who would let an opportunity slip away”, and can sometimes cause a reversal, but I don’t feel like bothering.
The thing is, the girl herself probably cannot predict her own actions the next day in any such social-romantic interaction. Overtly contacting someone to ask them out, then feeling it was too forward so flaking out, or just using the whole thing for attention (of which I gave very little, as my only communications were to twice suggest one time and one place I was available to meet), where all among the things that must have gone through her mind. No consistency, and apparently no self-awareness or ability to predict what direction her mind will dart towards next… It seems every pretty urban girl’s 20s are just used up in this haphazard darting around..
@ Cane Caldo says:
February 2, 2017 at 11:20 pm
“This was symbolized by Eros’ (Cupid’s) arrows and people were stricken by it through no fault of their own. The important point being that the Greeks believed that the cause of sexual desire was external.”
Ah, yes, the you-can’t-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with syndrome. A lot of our erroneous cultural thought descends from the Greeks, including the concept of “soul mates”.
Anon:
“Then, she doesn’t reply back for a full day, saying that she can only meet on Wednesday or Friday.”
I would have left it at that without any counter. I think you have given her enough attention and validation.
@Oscar
Right. And the Christianized Eros was worse too because it had been rationalized. At least the Greeks viewed Eros as a kind of madness. The rationalized, distilled, “Christian” version shouldn’t be overcome so much as directed. Except it couldn’t be directed into marriage because sex had been epitomized as a marital duty not to be sullied by mere pleasure.
@Anon
It was good to avoid asking her if a certain time or place worked so she couldn’t jiu-jitsu you around, but I would have replied something like. “Sure, but I’ve got some things going on this week already. What did you have in mind?” You might have put a kink in the groove by trying to act as if you had asked her out.
Of course, I’m assuming that you wanted to meet up with her more than you wanted to be the one to establish the time and place. Maybe you didn’t, and maybe that’s not a bad play, either. It’s good for her to want to go where you want to go.
Inappropriate feelings can be changed through prayer. When I felt anger or hate toward someone, I found that prays for those feelings to stop were answered.
Cane,
Of course, I’m assuming that you wanted to meet up with her more than you wanted to be the one to establish the time and place.
Yes. Especially since she contacted me out of the blue.
I had initially thought about the approach you suggested, and maybe it would have been better. But it might have also put the burden of an additional decision on her, and women often just like a man who says ‘Meet me here at this time’ without giving her more choices.
Ultimately, when we are guessing which approach would have worked better, that means even moderate Game is very hit or miss at this point, indicating the level of stimuli a pretty young woman receives is now just overwhelming. She can alternate between being the one proactively asking someone out only to make it impossible for she and him to agree on a time and place, so that she can flake.
Oh, I should add that she is a 2nd gen Iranian, so that could have played into her immediately regretting having been so forward. She wanted to ask me out, and the next day thought “OMG, was I that forward?”. Two value systems in conflicted confusion of what courtship is, is not, and everything in between..
I empathise with Anon’s romantic difficulties; sometimes things just don’t happen. What he might have done on receipt of Miss Flakies E-mail was to ignore it, or even decline the invitation perhaps with the implied suggestion that being a girl she would be too silly and feather-brained to further understand Anon’s expertise in the subject of their mutual interest. This would have had her banging his door bell screaming down the intercom at Anon ‘You bastard, how dare you treat me like that’. Of course, best of all would have been for Miss Flakey to agree a date and time and then for Anon to flake. This – take it from an experienced flaker – really drives them crazy but then until you bump into her again you can never tell whether she did not flake as well.
Romance is never easy and my rule of thumb is: one woman; one day. In other words one must obey the seven hour rule and seduce Miss Flakey that very day. If one doesn’t then the next day one must forget her. This is not of course foolproof and is easier to theorise than to practice. A more direct approach along the lines of you are so attractive I must sleep with you now has been known to work but perhaps not in Mexifornia.
I tried it on with an Iranian chick in D.C. and was told that the British hate Iranians, an absurd remark to which I could not immediately think of a repost: I still can’t, I never much care for a moustache on a female and have not pursued the Iranian flag since that time.
It is called emotional incest.
Interestingly we would understand how twisted it is to have a parent act as their child’s romantic surrogate if we reversed the sexes. … The reason is when it comes to men we intuitively understand that romance is sexual in nature. It is only for women that we hold out the fiction that romance isn’t sexual.
While I don’t disagree with your point, I’m not sure I’m following your reasoning to get there. Could be too early in the morning for me. Why does reversing the sexes reveal romance as sexual when both a man and woman are involved in both scenarios?
Again, not saying both scenarios aren’t unhealthy, just not sure I’m getting your reasoning here.
Ah, yes, the you-can’t-help-who-you-fall-in-love-with syndrome.
I can’t imagine women ever giving up this platform, given that it covers such a multitude of sins.
Anon says:
February 3, 2017 at 12:23 am
An excellent example of why NONE of these women merit wasting time and energy over. In their defense, however, it does us well to remember that these women’s upbringing has probably completely screwed up their heads.
Harry had it right when he told Sally, back in 1989.
I would have left it at that without any counter. I think you have given her enough attention and validation.
Yes. She probably just wanted to see if you would respond, so she could get the resultant tingle and tell her friends.
Those invented codes of sexual morality are a humor gold mine. Ask a young guy in a non-marriage with his gf to define the terms of the relationship. If he doesn’t shrug the question off, he sounds like a mean girl in ten seconds. “We’re exclusive. I mean, since August we’ve been exclusive while staying spiritually open to broader romance. We’re a thing. I mean, it seemed like we were a thing a few months ago, but we weren’t a thing. Now we’re a thing…”
You really do these incest rituals in America? It´s hard for me to actually believe it from over the Atlantic. Haven´t heard anything more disgusting in quite some time.
However the “shotgun (scary) father” part used to be very logical: you don´t want to have to feed the souvenir that some fop left in your featherbrained daughter. So you signal willingness to shoot any would-be Don Juans trying to creep up her window in your house (because that´s where your daughter is at night).
She might be fooled by what the fop says, you will not (in part because you remember the pleasure you got when you were young and were fooling gilrs the same way) and will only permit official approaches. This way you can filter the Casanovas out. And if you fail and she does get pregnant, you beat the father´ name (or a name anyway) out of the girl, take your shotgun and talk him into marrying your daughter so that he has to work and earn her bread and the child´s. I suspect many a happy marriage was made like this way back then.
Today, of course, the utility of the shotgun in this context is largely obsolete. Your daughter has so many possibilities of contraception that she must be really stupid to end up pregnant if she doesn´t want to and even then she can get an abortion before you as father suspect anything and even if she keeps the child, it´s more or less taken care of by the state, so there´s really no material need to enforce seriousness.
Above all it wouldn´t work – you can´t really lock her up anymore which rather spoils the whole concept. It doesn´t make much sense trying to protect her purity if she can wander in the night. Because the protection is really against herself rather than anything else. I wonder how the superfathers who signed the contracts deal with this problem.
Proberbs 5 should be Proverbs 5
[D: Thank you. Fixed.]
Another way of saying this is that romance was an invention which occurred in a misapplication of science. It was an improper dissection of sex, and romance isn’t a thing.
A sort of reverse happened to the phrase make love. The first uses of the term meant “to woo”, or “to express love for”. It kept that connotation basically until the 20th century. (So when the female character in an episode of Poirot says, “Make love to me”, she isn’t asking for sex.) Now it means “to have sex”; at least in America it does.
@Cautiously Pessimistic
Fair question. Both scenarios do involve both sexes, but the point of the surrogacy is ostensibly for the parent to satisfy the romantic need of the child until marriage and model for the child what they should expect romantically. Daddy fulfilling his daughter’s romantic needs and modeling what she should expect in a husband is seen as ok because daughter’s romantic needs are thought to be non sexual. On the other hand, mommy meeting her son’s romantic needs and modeling the ideal wife is more difficult to rationalize, because we don’t hold the same fiction for the son.
But the rationalization for the father-daughter romantic relationship is quickly destroyed if you think about it very long at all. Then once it is destroyed, you can’t really “see” the rationalization any more.
Thanks for the elaboration, Dalrock. I think I follow now.
From Socrates (via Plato) on the Ladder of Love:
1.A beautiful body – The lover begins here at the most obvious form of love.
2.All beautiful bodies – If the lover examines his love and does some investigating, he/she will find that the beauty contained in this beautiful body is not original, that it is shared by every beautiful body.
3.Beautiful souls – After most likely attempting to have every beautiful body, the lover should realize that if a single love does not satisfy, there is no reason to think that many ones will satisfy. Thus, the “lover of every body” must, in the words of Plato, “bring his passion for the one into due proportion by deeming it of little or of no importance.” Instead, the passion is transferred to a more appropriate object: the soul.
4.The beauty of laws and institutions – The next logical step is for the lover to love all beautiful souls and then to transfer that love to that which is responsible for their existence: a moderate, harmonious and just social order.
5.The beauty of knowledge – Once proceeding down this path, the lover will naturally long for that which produces and makes intelligible good social institutions: knowledge.
6.Beauty itself – This is the platonic “form” of beauty itself. It is not a particular thing that is beautiful, but is instead the essence of beauty. Plato describes this level of love as a “wondrous vision,” an “everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor ages, which neither flowers nor fades.” It is eternal and isn’t “anything that is of the flesh” nor “words” nor “knowledge” but consists “of itself and by itself in an eternal oneness, while every lovely thing partakes of it.”
Even Socrates gets to the point that courtly pedestalization of an individual is a low rank form of love. Lotharios and Game players would have a better understanding of love vs. the romantics.
Dalrock @ February 2, 2017 at 4:59 pm:
“Relational sexuality is feminine, physical sexuality is masculine. Or as I once heard it put, “men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love”.
“This isn’t true though. Sex is both emotional and physical, for both men and women.”
There’s a definite trend in how sexual desire gets expressed. Men need the physical act much more than candlelit dinners, that’s why porn is a thing, while women crave status and drama, that’s why harems are a thing. I have a working hypothesis that the current sexual situation is the result of pressuring men to act like women, and women men. This explains the rise of homosexuality in parallel with feminism as well as feminism itself. It’s the androgynous transition state between gender anti-roles rather than a straightforward repudiation of gender roles. It also explains the “Shotgun Daddy” parody: he is being his daughter’s loyal wife.
I see the endgame here in California: Househusbands looking after the kids while Power Suit Barbie brings home the bacon. It is sickening, a total defiance of God’s plan for humanity. My theory of gender inversion predicts this will be the next step in family law.
Even Socrates gets to the point that courtly pedestalization of an individual is a low rank form of love.
Perhaps that is why Eros/Cupid was often depicted as a small child. Not a very mature god.
@Anon
This is a game that girls play. She wanted the validation of knowing that you fancied her. She probably showed the messages to her friends; the friends might even have helped write them.
A skilled PUA might have been able to convert the girl’s interest to a date, or even sex. Conversion to a marriage is not likely, given a 17-year age difference, especially if the girl was only seeking validation. Perhaps when you met her she felt that she was in the shadow of her more talkative friend, and she wanted to be sure that she was nevertheless desirable.
@RPL
That wasn’t until the Renaissance.
The Greeks pictured Eros as a young man. By the time we get to the Renaissance, Eros is considered to be natural and innocent; hence its depiction as a baby. Angels also were depicted as babies, and Eros and angels were also co-mingled. It’s all jacked up. The mixture of religion and culture that came out of Rome was thoroughly polluted.
James K,
A skilled PUA might have been able to convert the girl’s interest to a date, or even sex.
I know. I have been at this a long time. I wouid not have thought to contact her at all if she had not reached out out of the blue to request a date. Remember, all communication before then was of a quasi-professional nature, with no ‘Game’ applied (she in fact missed the chance to experience actual seductive Game which she would have got by meeting). But yes, it is just attention-seeking.
Remember that the ‘skilled PUA’ techniques are the ones I mentioned above, which are high-risk/high return, and generally require a large funnel to win on the numbers game.
The point is, most women now spend their entire 20s (and later), in such Games, only to find that they are late, and their belated push to marry is reactive.
I could still contact her more talkative friend at a later time :). We’ll see.
And for this reason I’d invite every married man who has not had earnest red pill conversations with his wife before, to explain to the wife why the statement “men marry for sex” is not up for debate. I remember when i had that conversation. The very obvious proof that I used was to ask if she thought that a man would marry a woman who announced to him that they should merry, but there would be no sex involved. My wife knew intellectually that this is true. However, she has been subject to what Dalrock says in the pasted quote for a churchian lifetime. Romance, as the narrative goes, is where the beauty-on-the-inside gets revealed. It is where he looks past her hips and bosom, past her pout and past her smell, and he sees her for who she is and he is willing to lay siege to a great walled city (or a great walled southern border?) to bask in her……personality.
merry marry spelling schpieling
“And for this reason I’d invite every married man who has not had earnest red pill conversations with his wife before, to explain to the wife why the statement “men marry for sex” is not up for debate. ”
I think most women get it. It’s just that for too many. hubby doesn’t give them the tingles, even though Pastor Bob tells young men that women really crave “nice guys”.
If get it = accept it, I must disagree
If get it = accept it, I must disagree
Yes, I agree, but I think in many cases that’s because of the reality that she didn’t (couldn’t?) marry a guy who really got her revving sexually, because those guys were not available to *her* for marriage. Women have lower libidos on average than men do, that’s true, and many are satisfied for longer periods with emotional intimacy and lower sexual intimacy, but this is also exacerbated by who they actually marry. A woman who marries a man she is very sexually hot for from the beginning of the relationship (in a genuine way, not a fake “get the guy to marry me” way) will not tend to approach the marriage as being principally about emotional intimacy with some sex thrown in now and then. The problem is that very few women can marry men like that, so the marriages end up being about emotional intimacy with some sex thrown in now and then, de facto — because the guys who really get them going sexually were not available. In other words, the beauty on the inside discourse, which I agree is common, is precisely so common because women can’t access, at least for marriage, the guys that drive them wild with sexual desire. if they could, they wouldn’t be talking about beauty on the inside and so on, they’d be too busy having lots of sex.
GunnerQ
There’s a definite trend in how sexual desire gets expressed. Men need the physical act much more than candlelit dinners, that’s why visual porn is a thing, while women crave status and drama, that’s why written porn and harems are a thing.
One curiousity of the modern world: porn in the form preferred by men is “porn”, while porn in the form preferred by women is, uh, “fiction” or, uh, “romance novel” or, uh, “romantic movie”. Except that a whole lot of the romantic fiction women read or view is just…porn. But the double standard, when men’s bad behavior is BAD and women’s bad behavior is something that “just happened” when it can’t be swept under the rug, that’s embedded in the culture. Therefore it’s embedded in the churches; because the culture drives the churches far more than the churches affect the culture.
I have a working hypothesis that the current sexual situation is the result of pressuring men to act like women, and women men.
There’s some of that. Women convince themselves they want to be “one of the guys” until breaking a nail, or having to lift something heavy, or walk to a car alone, or other things. Then they turn into girls. So they want a power job because Girl Power and a househusband also, but in time they will lose attraction for him due to hypergamy, unless he’s able to Game her, hard. The 1970’s feminists were real big on androgyny which boiled down exactly to “make men behave more like women while women behave more like men”. But this hasn’t worked out as the feminists wanted, really.
There’s a larger issue looming in the background that Nova alluded to. In Dataclasm the big data from OK Cupid is analyzed, and we find that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of the men in terms of online profiles. Meanwhile men’s attraction is more uniformly distributed. The mismatch is profound and has a lot of implications, starting with the Carousel.
If one views a lot of the modern world as a series of fitness tests intended to crush beta men, which allows alpha men to be even more visible to women, some of this makes sense. In an unpleasant way.
Women deserve no sympathy in today’s environment. Red pilled men who are the backbone of a civilization are not going to return to society until women no longer have voting rights and stop being whores. Anything else is just noise.
“Daddy fulfilling his daughter’s romantic needs and modeling what she should expect in a husband is seen as ok because daughter’s romantic needs are thought to be non sexual. On the other hand, mommy meeting her son’s romantic needs and modeling the ideal wife is more difficult to rationalize, because we don’t hold the same fiction for the son. ”
This all goes back to the traditional Churchian notion that girls don’t really like sex. This notion holds that girls have sex only because they want a relationship or because bad men manipulate and trick them into it. Girls and young women will “want” sex only when married, only with “good” men, and only for noble, proper purposes. And it’s been explicated here and everywhere how that’s worked out, the kinds of men and women it’s produced, and the myriad problems it’s created in our country.
A new BBC drama series, Apple Tree Yard, features a married woman in her 50s who cheats on her husband, thereby discovering that she is still sexy, desired, and passionate at her age: https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/lust-sex-and-the-middle-aged-woman-441903.html
Apple Tree Yard, a dramatised version of a novel by Amanda Coe, challenges pre-conceived ideas about middle-age sex.
It not only affirms that it’s OK for older women to be sexually expressive, it annihilates the myth that we become “invisible” and asexual just because we are ageing.
The four-part psychological thriller has prompted a lively debate on this issue and 50-year — old actress Emily Watson, who plays Yvonne, has commented: “Your sexuality doesn’t die with your age. You don’t have to apologise for it….”
…The on-screen electricity between research scientist and grandmother-to-be Yvonne, and her handsome lover, Mark Costley (played by Ben Chaplin)…
That’s right. The 50-something female adulterer is a “research scientist.”
There is a growing posse of sexy women in their 50s and older decades, gracing the fashion and beauty world, in recent times, apart from the fact that some of the original supermodels of the ’90s, such as Cindy Crawford, Elle Macpherson and Linda Evangelista are already past the half century mark….
And women believe this is the norm. Sexy women in their 50s and older.
“Women do a lot of self-policing when it comes to behaviour, dress and dating over a certain age. I think we are so conditioned to believe our lives are over once we’re 50 — though this is changing slowly — we get very troubled at the thought of our peers wearing short skirts, or dating younger people. But the rules don’t serve us. They never did.
“Only now some of us have the financial freedom, confidence and ability to create new norms. So come on! Let’s break some rules!”
As if women need to be told this.
James K: Perhaps when you met her she felt that she was in the shadow of her more talkative friend, and she wanted to be sure that she was nevertheless desirable.
Would have been hilarious if Anon replied to her email by asking if she thought her (more talkative) friend liked him.
Is isn’t “Kissed Dating Goodbye” a ham fisted way to not separate romance and sex? It says don’t date until you are ready to marry. It seems its downfall was not also explaining that women have an expiration date and you want to sell when your stock is high.
There is also the idea of dating non-exclusively while young to build social skills. Never date the same person twice in a row limits feelings but can provide skills and exposure to interacting with a wider range of the opposite sex.
There is also the case that emotions can be easily hacked through actions (feelings and actions flow both directions). The body has lots of auto pilot responses, which is why sexual experiences of college girls many report it feels like it was something happening to them that they weren’t in control of.
“More than 20 years ago, the psychologist Arthur Aron succeeded in making two strangers fall in love in his laboratory. (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167297234003)
A heterosexual man and woman enter the lab through separate doors. They sit face to face and answer a series of increasingly personal questions. Then they stare silently into each other’s eyes for four minutes. The most tantalizing detail: Six months later, two participants were married. They invited the entire lab to the ceremony.”
GunnerQ
I see the endgame here in California: Househusbands looking after the kids while Power Suit Barbie brings home the bacon.
Both of them are going to be miserable, each in a different way. Because women tend to not be very good at disassociation, she’s going to bring her You Go Girl attitude home with her; treating him like an employee who needs a performance review won’t have a good effect. His T will almost surely decline due to being a househusband all day, lowering his attractiveness and leading her to develop contempt for him. Remember that “contempt of husband” was one of John Gottman’s original 4 signs of trouble.
Economically this can be made to work, thanks to all the preferences given to women it’s likely to become even more common. It will be interesting to see how the anti-Family court system works out divorce when the helpless l’il woman out earns her man, especially if he doesn’t work for money at all. On the one hand, the child-support family model demands that money flow from he who earns it, to she who spends it “for the children”, on the other hand surely we can’t reward layabout men who just watch TV all day while pretending to raise the kids by giving them child support and alimony! Cash and prizes simply won’t do if a man is the recipient. Just not sure how the average misandric anti-Family court judge will deal with that situation.
Maybe Nova has some thoughts.
thedeti: This all goes back to the traditional Churchian notion that girls don’t really like sex. This notion holds that girls have sex only because they want a relationship or because bad men manipulate and trick them into it. Girls and young women will “want” sex only when married, only with “good” men, and only for noble, proper purposes.
Dennis Prager has said this explicitly. That women don’t care about physical attraction as much as do men. Women want only love, an emotional connection. He offered two bits of “evidence.”
1. If a wife wears a negligee, exposing her legs, her husband finds that sexy. But if the husband wears the same negligee, showing of his legs, the wife will only laugh. She will not find his legs sexy.
2. Gay men go to strip clubs, same as straight men. Gay men desire other gay men for their physical appearance. But lesbians are often overweight and slovenly dressed, because lesbians, being women, aren’t much into physical attraction, preferring an emotional connection.
I haven’t listened to Prager in over a decade. I don’t know if he still spouts this nonsense.
Red Pill Latecomer:
“Dennis Prager has said this explicitly. That women don’t care about physical attraction as much as do men. Women want only love, an emotional connection. He offered two bits of “evidence.””
Right. And you all know how the ‘sphere views Prager.
Here’s how you test his hypothesis. All one must do is loosen or remove social, cultural and reproductive restraints on women and then see who they “date” and what they do on said “dates”, and when they “settle down” and marry.
What you find is that when women are unrestrained, they all gravitate to the most attractive men and have sex with those men as soon as they can. They do this for as long as they possibly can, as many times as they possibly can, with as many men as it takes to get some form of “commitment”, until it comes time to have a kid. They wait until the last possible moment to start thinking about maybe getting married.
What you also find is that women who are already married will cheat or consider it, or get divorced, so they can go back out and do it again – find attractive men to have sex with. At the very least, married women will become increasingly unhappy in, and dissatisfied with, their marriages.
If a woman has an attractive man and discerns no restraints, or none are imposed on her, and she feels sufficiently comfortable with him, she will not hesitate to have sex with him. (Doesn’t take a lot of comfort for this – all she really needs is “I feel that he will probably respect me in the morning. Or I trust him not to tell anyone else about this so no one will think I’m a slut.”)
She doesn’t really need an “emotional connection” either. This is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on American men, this idea that women have to “feel something” or “feel intimate with” or “have an emotional connection” with, the man she’s having sex with. Women have sex all the time with men they don’t like. Women have sex all the time with men they DON’T EVEN KNOW.
Women do not need to feel anything, or have an emotional connection, before they’ll have sex. They just need to be sexually attracted, and feel minimally comfortable. (The amount of comfort needed is inversely related to her level of sexual attraction to that man. The more attracted, the less comfort is needed. The less attracted, the more comfort is needed; and at that point “comfort” needs to take on the form of investment, commitment, time and money expended by the man.)
And this is true of all women, not just women with daddy issues, or “crazy” women, or whatever. ALL women will do this if they’re attracted enough.
The Artisanal Toad will disagree with me on this, but:
regarding married women possibly cheating or divorcing, or getting unhappy in their marriages: We have never before in all of human history had such a glut of unmarried women between ages 35-55, who answer to no one, who are out on the open sexual/relationship market, seeking sex, having “hookup” sex, and seeking new couplings (and competing with much more attractive women in their 20s and early 30s). Certainly, there has never before in the West been such a glut of women of that vintage doing this.
And look at the effect it’s having on the market. It’s driving the price of sex way down while at the same time pricing the lowest 30 to 40% of men completely out of the market. The top 20 to 30% of men are having an absolute field day. Older women with some attractiveness left (and there are plenty of them as they invest more time and effort into their appearances and have the money to do it) can do pretty well too, if their objective is to have some more fun on the carousel. The only place this cohort does very poorly is in remarriage, at least from what I can tell in the Midwest. It’s really slim pickings for this group in terms of getting another man to put it all on the line, again, a second or third time around.
I would agree with that point. I held to the idea of not participating in modern (at the time, it is worse now) dating, but I did not even see all the hoopla that went on under the guise of that. Much of that seems like just calling poor behavior something else.
Fooling around with temporary relationships, with or without sex, is not a good path to long-term stable marriages.
You don’t have to 1-on-1 date to build social skills. I am not sure why more, even here, don’t get that. You will also see more how a potential partner really is when they are with others, not just exclusively with you. It is far easier to put on a show if only 1 other person is the focus for most of the time.
It is also much harder to maintain Biblically-mandated chastity if spending a lot of alone time with another. Social skills are very important, but are not normally built in dating relationships, however much we have been brainwashed to think so.
I would not send my daughter alone into the government school system and I would not do so with Harley McRockBandDrummer. I no longer have a daughter, so it is an academic issue for me at this point, but I will still argue the point.
“The problem is that very few women can marry men like that, so the marriages end up being about emotional intimacy with some sex thrown in now and then, de facto — because the guys who really get them going sexually were not available.”
And women are royally pissed off about that.
“When fathers dress as grooms, give their daughters wedding rings, and pose with their daughters dressed as brides or prom dates, modern Christians can’t see how twisted this is.”
This purity ball stuff is twisted, deranged behavior. I guess they want to overtly demonstrate a father showing his daughter how she should be treated by other men???
I cannot believe it meets the approval within Christian communities, families and homes. Especially with so much unbridled feminism pervading in the modern church. But it does explain a lot of what we observe in the behavior of both young and adult women today, that much is certain.
But it’s even more unsettling when one considers just ow the modern day girl grows up, and where she learns to devote most of her attention, affection and behaviors….. right about the time Daddy is suiting up his tuxedo for the daughter bride date events.
Age 0 -11: Love of her parents
12-15: Platonic friendships with boys, conformity, no sex.
16-24: Serial hypergamy commences, casual sex – and lots of it.
25-30: Hypergamy continues, with intermittent monogamy. Things are not working out. Got to get serious. Find beta male to “settle” on or with for long term provisioning. Her libido is burnt to a crisp from white hot 10 year streak. High misery, sexless marriage ensues. Resentfulness. Maybe one more ride on the carousel in Vegas for ole’ time sake?
31-45: Ovaries rattling around her innards like stones in a tin can. Hypergamous instincts hit overdrive, but her SMV and body won’t cooperate like it used to. If married, then divorces the beta(s) for cash and prizes. Rinse. Then repeat. It’s so easy.
BTW these pathetic dads in the photos look remarkably identical to the future beta male husbands these girls will ultimately launch with malice aforethought into the streets in about 15 to 20 years.
And women are constantly told they should not be sexually attracted to those who are available, while available men are told to not do things that would help as well. The whole systems pushes toward making everyone miserable.
@anon
no setting up dates over email the hamster gets in the way. Escalate fast your only option. “i ve a busy week ahead send me your number now”
Job Done
AnonS @ 1:01 pm:
“Is isn’t “Kissed Dating Goodbye” a ham fisted way to not separate romance and sex? It says don’t date until you are ready to marry. It seems its downfall was not also explaining that women have an expiration date and you want to sell when your stock is high.”
IKDG’s main mistake was assuming young men are capable of kissing sex goodbye in addition to dating. Churchians & women don’t want to offer men dutiful wives, the only God-approved option, so how can they make male needs go away? By forcing male sexuality into female channels.
Then they turn around and complain about the rise of homosexuality. That isn’t because sodomy digusts them, it’s because they’re eager for the finished product of feminine husband and masculine wife.
This partly explains why unplugging Betas is so difficult, because they can get breadcrumbs of sexual satisfaction by acting romantic. Taking away a man’s sex machine, however weak it is, without an easy path to a better machine is a very hard sale.
Just not sure how the average misandric anti-Family court judge will deal with that situation.
Maybe Nova has some thoughts.
There have been a fair few of these where the woman ends up paying the man due to income differentials. I think they get through the system, now, because they are not very common, still. If it ever becomes a lot more common, I think you will see a lot of pressure to reform the cs calculation to be less tax-like and more cost-based, like in Scandinavian systems.
2. Gay men go to strip clubs, same as straight men. Gay men desire other gay men for their physical appearance. But lesbians are often overweight and slovenly dressed, because lesbians, being women, aren’t much into physical attraction, preferring an emotional connection.
Haha. Prager is focused on the obvious, fattie lesbians. Yes, fattie lesbians end up with other fatties. No surprise there, it’s the same with gay guys (yes, there are fat gay guys, too). Prager is overlooking the quite hot lesbian couplings that take place — no fatties there. Almost all of the women in these pairings are situationally bi and not lesbian, of course, but that’s because there really are very few strict lesbians as compared with gay men. Women have more fluidity than men do, in sexual attraction — a LOT more fluidity. So Prager isn’t wrong about gay guys (visually attracted), but he’s wrong about lesbians all being fat and not into physical attraction — he obviously has never been to a lesbian bar where there are female strippers (trust me, they’re not fat).
You know, reordering the entire society from top to bottom in order to cater to women’s sexual wants – not needs, wants – has not turned out quite the way it was supposed to.
Haha. Prager is focused on the obvious, fattie lesbians.
Meh. Prager is a fossil. I can’t believe anyone under 50 takes anything he says seriously.
Ward Cleaver, seriously? Clueless. Utterly without clue.
Anonymous Reader says:
… Prager is a fossil. I can’t believe anyone under 50 takes anything he says seriously.
I’m over 50 and I don’t take him seriously, either.
Lyn87, no surprise there. I really can’t understand how he stays on the air, what’s his market?
@Anonymous Reader says:
“It will be interesting to see how the anti-Family court system works out divorce when the helpless l’il woman out earns her man, especially if he doesn’t work for money at all. On the one hand, the child-support family model demands that money flow from he who earns it, to she who spends it “for the children”, on the other hand surely we can’t reward layabout men who just watch TV all day while pretending to raise the kids by giving them child support and alimony! Cash and prizes simply won’t do if a man is the recipient. Just not sure how the average misandric anti-Family court judge will deal with that situation.”
Oh its easy, ive seen it already, the high earning female throws her job down(secretly due to the “stress”) just before initiating the divorce. Pleads in front of a judge she wants to be there for the children full time or at least 80% (particularly to make up for being away high earning and all) and gets a low earning part time wage to compensate.
Low and behold, the man who now barely see’s his kids is supporting his previously high earner with alimony and CS. She makes out like a bandit, he is broke, punished and despondent, exactly her intended plan.
There is no end to the deviousness that women will go too in times like this. No end. I dont really know what it is in the female psych that gets jollies from destroying her ex. But then women when they fall out do tend to want to destroy one another, so I guess its just “normal” for them. Men rarely enjoy seeing their ex wives in penury. For women its one of the benefits of the system.
These are great points, in a well-written article. I wanted to wait to respond to it for a while, lest I derail it.
In context, the sublimated attraction between father and daughter (or mother and son) is not a bad thing. Freud was big on the idea that kids learned to select mates in adolescence by watching their parents in childhood. Little girl sees dad as a manly and attractive character, and ideally this leads to her looking for a dude who is a manly and attractive husband in the same model.
The point Dalrock addresses is the failure to transcend and learn from this initial attraction. Rather than sublimating it and moving on to independence, our culture encourages fathers and daughters to remain in this sort of childhood limbo, never learning the fullness of its lesson, and never progressing toward responsible adulthood.
As I thought more about this, I had more sympathy for the parents in these unhealthy relationships. Most of them are frightened, and legitimately so, about letting their kids go into adulthood in this degenerate, decadent society. The prevalence of so many Electra females (my term, but I think it fits) may be born out of anxiety, rather than lust. When he’s living in Sodom, the average father probably wonders if a stunted but protected child wouldn’t be better than a skank-ho single mom, drug addicted party animal or barren corporate cubicle-shrew.
Boxer
The thrust of this post is great, however the fact that the Bible does not separate romance from sexual passion has nothing to do with whether or not they exist independently. The Bible is not an encyclopedia of human knowledge, it is a record of Gods dealing with a certain people and the revelations of their prophets, and the testimony of the Christ. What is unsaid in the Bible is not evidence for it’s not existing.
So a better question is to wonder if there really is romance separate from sex. I suppose you could say that all romantic appearing acts are sublimated sexual advances but that sounds too conveniently “subconscious” . Maybe the appearence of romance is not an invention but the correct identification of something in human nature that had not been described. There are acts and passions which lead not to sex but to emotional feelings of belonging from the opposite gender. That seems like a real thing and not a modern fiction. The elevation of romance to holiness and the way to purify sex is certainly all false and deception but that does not mean that romantic feelings cannot exist and be legitimate independent of sex (or not synonymous with sex).
Kevin, most of the present societal confusion is due to our understanding of sexuality having been distorted by sodomy and contraception (yes, the two are linked). Sexuality is intrinsically ordered toward the opposite sex and the distinct reproductive roles each sex plays. Social interactions between the sexes either act out the distinct roles for real, or else they model the roles to others ‘for practice’. I’m not trying to be Freud here, just to acknowledge that there is a component of eros in supposedly non-sexual interactions which nonetheless take the sex of the other into account (e.g. offering seats to elderly ladies, engaging in flirtatious banter with prepubescent girls, even showing respect to sisters and mothers). That component ‘salutes the uniform’, so to speak: it acknowledges the other’s sexual role within the overall social hierarchy, but it does not imply any further (expressly sexual) sentiments nor transgress any social moral norms.
Any social interactions where eros is not present, i.e. acts done out of philia or agape alone, should appear the same whether they are done for someone of the same or the opposite sex. In other words, if a man acts some way on behalf of a woman he wouldn’t for a man, eros is in it somewhere.
TL;DR: No, there’s no romance separate from sex.
There is no shortage of women, particularly single moms who were “abused” by “bad men” getting romantic with their sons. http://fox8.com/2016/01/04/once-a-month-my-son-takes-me-on-a-date-moms-facebook-post-goes-viral/
@ Oscar, who there is replying [February 3, 2017 at 12:28 am] to Cane Caldo:
&nbrsp;&nbrsp;&nbrsp;&nbrsp;&nbrsp;&nbrsp;&nbrsp;”A lot of our erroneous cultural thought descends from the Greeks, including the concept of ‘soul mates’”.
Not so. Not that you’re mistaken, exactly. Rather, there are other sources for this idea. Google “Bashert”, and check out what you get.
Or see here: http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm.
Make of it what you will.
Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)
February 3, 2017 at 12:57 pm, Red Pill Latecomer shared:
Well, isn’t that special: “a dramatized version of a novel” can “annihilate” hard facts of reality.
Yeah, Right. Uh-huh. You Go Grrrrrrrrl!!! 😜
February 3, 2017 at 1:14 pm, Red Pill Latecomer shared Dennis Prager’s (cough) “proofs” that That women don’t care about physical attraction as much as do men. Women want only love, an emotional connection.
This included (says RPL, paraphrasing Prager):
So, this leaves me curious: is Dennis Prager unaware of the Lesbian Strip Clubs in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere (N.Y.C., L.A., etc.)?
I’m not even from the Excited States of America®, and haven’t been to the US since 1988, and yet I know all about these clubs, just from reading second-string Canadian newspapers every now and then.
Why doesn’t Dennis Prager know about them? Wilful Blindness? Gross Ignorance? A lack of Intellectual Curiosity? Pathetic Self-absorption? Or does he know about them, but then “forgets” their relevance here (a.k.a. intellectual dishonesty)?
I know very little about the man (other than what I read here @ Dalrock’s blog, honestly, or follow through to, from links here), but this situation alone and of itself means Prager badly needs to pour himself a great big mug of STFU, and actually go learn something about urban reality in contemporary North America, and its SMP/MMP/[sexual cultural landscape], before expressing a single further thought about any of those.
It’s one thing to have a disagreement over the meaning or interpretation of facts; it’s quite another to build an argument or interpretation in complete ignorance of, or denial of, basic and trivially knowable salient facts. For self-appointed “cultural experts” such as Prager to pontificate (heh) on the morality of human sexuality and the nature of marital relations despite such self-evident ignorance, speaks very poorly of the man.
Completely aside from which, as seems all too frequently the case with the (cough) “conservative” critics of current sexual mores, there is a complete, almost laughable failure to grasp cause and effect. “But lesbians are often overweight and slovenly dressed, because lesbians, […]”. No! Try: “Overweight and slovenly women are often lesbians, because […]”, — maybe a worthwhile cultural analysis can begin, from there. Maybe. But only from there.
There is (life has taught me, right up close and in detail, somewhat cruelly) no such thing whatever as “sexual orientation”. There are sexual objectives; sexual opportunities; and sexual strategies. That’s it. I have been hit on by too many “public Lesbians” (and, once would be enough, frankly) to believe for a minute that lesbians exist. Lesbianism, sure. Lesbians? No, sorry. Reality says otherwise.
An ugly, fat, smart woman will have about as much trouble seducing any woman whatsoever, as any guy (of whatever sort) with comparable game. It is no coincidence feminists are all too often not just physically/personably unattractive, but in fact smart and physically/personably unattractive. They can calculate their odds in the heterosexual SMP easily, and make the decision to cut their losses and switch out of it.
That’s it. That’s all. “Sexual Orientation”, my eye. Or, as the bumper sticker says: “If lesbians aren’t attracted to men, why are they attracted to women who look like men?”
And as for Dennis Prager, it’s STFU time, really. Go away, Dennis. You are pitiable. Staying and spouting off illogically and counterfactually as you do, merely upgrades that status to contemptible. Pitiable is preferable, so, please, just go away. The marketplace of ideas would be enriched by your absence.
I see that in my post above I am repeating points made earlier by Novaseeker.
My bad; I hadn’t read the full comment thread all the way to the bottom before replying. 😕
Pingback: Romance is sexual. — Dalrock – Cherry Thoughts
Reblogged this on Sapid Sapiens.
I saw this old post and had to comment, as it contains one of my main objections of the Red Pill.
I have not read all the comments, but I take exception to this idea that a man’s proper love for his wife is sexual intimacy and nothing else. If a man doesn’t have true affection for his wife, which isn’t necessarily sexual then I question his love for her either as a man or a Christian. Heaven forbid that a Christian man should exhibit such affection as mercy, grace, kindness, esteem, or even valuing her as a person. Women want to be valued. God created woman to be a companion and a helper to the man. If he can’t value the helping part, then where is her purpose?
I also take exception to the ideal that SoS is purely about sex and does not contain affection. Solomon uses all manner of endearments for his wife, some of them that would seem strange if you considered them sexual. Calling a woman “my sister”? And “my dove” seems affectionate enough in that it implies gentleness in her nature. The other thing that leads me to doubt the purely “erotic” nature of this book is that in the Septuagint, the word “eros” is only used one time—in Proverbs for the strange woman’s love. Throughout the Old Testament, the word “agape” and it’s variants are used. Agape is rarely used to denote sexuality–there are only a couple of instances where it is used to denote it (Amnon’s love for Tamar).
Agape is the highest form of love there is and in Greek usage the meaning is “commited to love, affection and high esteem”. This is the word used to in the commandment “Husbands, love your wives.” In the section after that, it describes how—as Jesus loves the Church. Nothing sexual there. It is the love of God for His people, and the love that Jesus commands us to. It is the love we are supposed to exhibit for God. It is often used for familial love, and the love of virtue and righeousness. It is mentioned many times in the Septuagint Old Testament, and it is the basis for each of the Patriarch’s love for their wives. It is the type of love Leah longs for. Since Leah obviously has sexual intimacy with Jacob, perhaps it is something more she is looking for. It is mentioned 166 times in the New Testament and 23 times in the book of 1 John alone. Based on this, I think it’s on sound foundation to say the love of Solomon for his bride is a sexuality based upon affection rather than pure raw sex that any animal or any male beast can have.
A see a lot of talk about sexuality here and hardly anything about love or affection for one’s wife. It causes me to wonder whether you read the New Testament. Do you know that a wife IS NOT just an intimate partner? She is also your co-heir in salvation, your sister in Christ. Is that how you see her?????
Women want affection outside the bedroom as well as in it. Romance may not be godly; affection and high esteem is. Liking your wife. Being kind to her. Caring about her. Oh my!
All forms of love are meant to lead us back to the only love that can satisfy our hearts…God.
Eros divorced from Divine Love turns both husband and wife into objects to be used for pleasure.
Probably one of the most hilarious traits of modern women is that they believe they get to lecture men on what it means to be a man. “I don’t like what you believe.” And? Who asked you? Who are you? Why should I care what you think? The fact of the matter is, women have gotten their say on marriage and it’s been a disaster. We’ve listened to years of women telling us what makes them happy and now everyone is miserable. Good job on that.
It’s somewhat interesting to me that to twist the Bible to say what you want it to say, you have to play hopscotch with languages, back and forth. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. If you want to have any serious validity to your argument about languages, try using that. Otherwise, the Bible is written in English and we have no need for referring back to older languages.
So, Agape love is the highest form of love there is and is used to describe Amnon’s illicit lust for his sister? Maybe you should stay out of language studies.
This is a strawman argument and demonstrates the way women love to simplify a man’s sexuality for the purposes of dismissing it. Christian women, specifically, love to make men into raw sexual animals so they can make sex dirty, so they can justify their refusal to submit to their husbands. You can use whatever excuse you want, but you can’t get around the fact that the Bible says your body is not your own. You have no right to withold it from your husband. You are defrauding him when you do so.
Stop thinking you’re above such things and submit to your husband and you might find he’s more willing to give you the respect you think you deserve for being such a smart, respectable, self righteous woman above your lowly husband.
The sexual relationship above all else signifies the relationship of Christ and the church. He places his seed in her, sanctifies her to himself. Science has demonstrated that she is becoming him as she takes more of his seed inside of her, that it literally provides healing to her body. She is his temple. She should joy when he is inside of her, when they are joining together.
That you can make that into something dirty and demeaning shows how perverted you are, woman.
It’s the opposite example of what happens when you take Divine love out of Eros. On the one side it’s ‘men objectifying women’ for their own sexual pleasure thereby reducing their (woman’s) humanity…in the opposite case it’s ‘women objectifying men’ to the point they think they are animals thereby reducing their humanity (men’s) so they don’t have to submit. Until these two sides are reconciled it’s going to be a merry-go-round of blame and who is in the right.
@earl
We’re all equally wrong is a pointless argument. It doesn’t address the current discussion and it is the way women absolve themselves of any and all responsibility in the marriage. Women are always ok with you lambasting them if you clean up with roasting the men. They have a way of compartmentalizing that makes the rebuttal of women as if it had never happened. If you want to get women’s attention, you have to focus on them and not let the discussion change until they admit they’ve done wrong.
Almost any ladies’ meeting will devolve into “He’s always pushing me for sex.” at some point. Women seem incapable of admitting they like sex in those situations and the younger women come away with the idea that they shouldn’t have to put up with such demeaning acts.
I find it hard to imagine that most men’s discussions at church on this topic devolve into “Give it to her any time. That’s all she wants from you.”
That wasn’t my argument…my argument is what happens when you take Divine love out of Eros.
Because they seem incapable of admitting that their God given command and nature is to submit to their husband. They have to constantly be on guard from rebellion and discontent.
The difference being that one side is being actively and widely taught in churches and the other is not. Dalrock posted a pretty balanced post on not pretending sexuality has nothing to do romance and Pamela got upset about it. She even admitted she hadn’t read a lot of comments and was upset specifically about the post.
Agreed. Which is what Pamela is expressing.
I’d agree with that…secular feminism has wormed it’s way into many churches that is what is being taught with these lady groups. Shoot you could probably get any group of Christian ladies together and 90% of them will spout off feminist thoughts and try to corrupt the other 10%. It was never about being equal with men…it was about reducing man’s humanity and making females feel superior. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
@squid_hunt
What makes this even weirder is the OP was about fathers channeling/modeling romantic love for their daughters, and how the inappropriateness of this is missed. Pamela read this post, and as is her custom, responded with “what about the wives?” In her defense, at least for this comment she didn’t remind us yet again that husbands are wife abusers.
I try to beat my wife every Saturday night whether she needs it or not. Keeps her good and submissive when she gets her day out in public on Sunday.
I need to start assuming at this point that no matter what a woman tries to explain when it comes to Scripture it’s coming from a feminist point of view until proven otherwise. Most of them especially in the west if they haven’t accepted the ethos 100% have accepted some part of it.
Meanwhile, most single church girls, especially charismatics/Pentecostals, throw their sexuality away on at least a few studs they find sexy. Later they date men like me.. I’ve dated these women for years, many of them, hoping to find one worthy of marriage. It’s nearly always the same story, these women spend years giving sex to bad boys who are usually unbelievers. Love has nothing to do with those relationships, it’s raw sex these females want then. The “romance” is just a little salve for their guilty consciences. Pamela knows this is true of most of the church women in her circle. She’s an exception though I’m sure, of course.
Everybody knows husbands are commanded to love their wives. For these women, love, emotional affection is what marriage is for. Along with a one way transfer of financial resources. Hot sex, for free, was for those other guys before hubby ever came along, he’s her male BFF. I can’t imagine suffering the indignity of being the last man in a long line of a wife’s sexual partners, the only one who’s paid the premium. Then I’m denied what she so generously gave away for free to other men? I won’t be that chump.
The idea of taking and taking care of what other men had for free is more and more revolting of a concept for me the older I get. Granted, I’m married, so it’s a non-event, but I can’t imagine raising someone else’s kids and taking care of someone else’s wife or ex-girlfriend.
She was rebellious with the men she wasn’t married to by giving them sex…she’ll continue that with the man she is married to by not giving him sex. Separating those men into alpha/beta never made sense to me because a lot of it is also dependent on the actions of the woman.
“Revolting” sums up nicely the way I’ve often felt. In a few cases though the woman was genuinely repentant but I just couldn’t get past, the past. Couldn’t accept it. In that case it was just sad.
Agreed that rebellion is the root of The problem.
What passes as a sexy man to silly, single young females often doesn’t make much sense in the context of alpha/beta. People watch at a shopping mall and you’ll see some very attractive young women with scrawny metrosexual hipsters in skinny jeans. Defining hipsters social status is irrelevant, it’s about the sex she’s handing out to dudes like candy on Halloween.
I am convinced that in biblical times, especially among Jews, sexually compromised young women would be deemed unfit for marriage. Excepting what is revolting has been programmed into our head by the chivalrous, feminist culture. Also known as the “church”.
I’d agree with that..since back in that time (and even still today despite what society says)…marriage and sex went together. Trying to separate the two does no favors for women.
Before the advent of DNA testing, such concepts were especially practical and valuable. Getting an untouched woman for your son to marry, then sealing them off in a room until the chick was pregnant (the original honeymoon perhaps) guaranteed that all your hard work was going to be left to your own biological descendants. There was no other way to have this sort of peace of mind.
I need to start assuming at this point that no matter what a woman tries to explain when it comes to Scripture it’s coming from a feminist point of view until proven otherwise.
It goes without saying (and rarely ever will she prove otherwise).
Then again, women have no business expounding on Scripture anyway, especially to men.
It’s another example of rebellion against men and her husband when she goes that route.
‘A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.…’ 1 Tim 2:11-12
‘women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.’ 1 Cor 14:35-36