Pastor Douglas Wilson explains in Reforming Marriage why women’s sexual sin is different than men’s sexual sin. When dirty men sin it is because they want sex. But when misguided and unfortunate women sin it is because they are looking for love in all the wrong places:
If we interviewed a thousand men who were immoral and sexually promiscuous, we would find we had a thousand men with a lack of self-control with regard to sexual temptation. If we were to do the same with a thousand promiscuous women, we would not find a thousand women with a sexual problem, but rather with a security problem. They are generally not looking for great sexual satisfaction, but rather for emotional security.
Luckily normal women aren’t tempted to become promiscuous. Only women damaged by failing fathers are tempted in this way (emphasis mine):
The girl has a big vacuum in her life—a need for masculine attention—that is not being filled by her father. When she enters adolescence, she will suddenly discover that she now has a commodity with which she can bargain, and she will be tempted to begin to use it. This is because she still has a need for the security, and a void that still needs to be filled with masculine attention. Now all of a sudden men are voluntarily paying attention to her. Before, as a little girl, she was a nuisance chasing after men, but now they are coming to her. Of course they are after one thing, and she is after another. They consequently make an exchange that makes neither one of them truly happy.
This idea that women’s sexuality is naturally pure, and only goes haywire when men damage it in some way is not unique to Pastor Wilson. But it is not a message you will find in the Bible. This idea comes from the new religion that replaced Christianity without anyone noticing.
See Also:
Wilson’s line of thinking makes a lot of sense if you have literally never interacted with a college-aged woman or even overheard a group of them talking, so he’s got that going for him.
Pingback: Riding the security carousel. | @the_arv
There is a sort of Reformed bubble that some churches in his tradition get into – my own doesn’t really feel much of the fallout from the modern age even among our college-age women (and we have about a half-dozen female grad students, with a similar number of male ones). But I wouldn’t expect that bubble would hold up in a church like Wilson’s that also runs a college.
More likely it is confirmation bias – we ignore the women who are clearly out of line, and believe the stories of the ones who are outwardly “nice” – of course they couldn’t be like that!
Beta thinking. “Women don’t want to have sex with me so this means women don’t actually love sex. They just want emotional security (what I provide).”
No women are filled with lust and love sex. Young women are so horny that if we don’t get them married quickly so they can engage in sex inside marriage they’ll just go find some guy to start fucking outside of any bonds. But for pastor Wilson here he would have to accept that he is not sexually attractive to women, which is the greatest sin of all under our new religion, in order to accept reality and start preaching the truth.
It is worth noting that Reforming Marriage was published in 1995, not 2018, and a lot has changed in those years in how women talk openly about sex, and how they are encouraged toward it. It is also worth noting that while his point is overstated, it is not entirely wrong. There is a meaningful number of women for whom daddy-issues are a primary driver of promiscuity. He does underestimate raw female sexual aggression/lusts, but the distinction between men and women on a group level has some merit.
There are plenty of women from intact homes who ride the carousel. But EVERY woman from a broken home does, at least in my entire extended circles.
I say this not to start a denominational war, but I think Protestants really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to dump some books from the Bible. In particular the book of Sirach. Because of it, you are missing gems like this:
9
The haughty stare betrays an unchaste wife;
her eyelids give her away.
10
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or else, when she finds liberty, she will make use of it.
11
Be on guard against her impudent eye,
and do not be surprised if she sins against you.
12
As a thirsty traveler opens his mouth
and drinks from any water near him,
so she will sit in front of every tent peg
and open her quiver to the arrow.
(Sirach 26:9-12)
and…
9
A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
10
while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
11
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly of[a] the people,
and put you to shame in public gatherings.[b]
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.[c]
12
Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;[d]
13
for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.
(Sirach 42:9-13)
Sad.
If they were seeking emotional security…they’d be doing everything to present themselves as marriagable material. Being promiscous is her showing she’s seeking emotional insecurity.
Women have successfully sold and persuaded men (and all of society) on the concept that women become promiscuous only because of daddy issues or some mental/emotional void. Women don’t really like sex all that much; the only reason women have sex is because they want “emotional intimacy” and “love”.
Well, um, no. If that were the case, women would be having sex with very nice men who offer emotional intimacy and “spiritual healing”.
But they don’t. They have sex with very attractive men, one after another, in succession. They are not looking for love. They are looking to have fun. They are looking for good sex. In a lot of cases they are having sex with men they don’t know very well. It’s pretty difficult to have “emotional intimacy” with someone you don’t know very well. Though they’re not looking to get pregnant, their instinct is to secure alpha sperm so as to reproduce with the best available genes.
Men and women both desperately want men to believe this, for many reasons – the Women are Wonderful effect; to preserve the illusion of female goodness and purity so she can marry “well” when she decides to marry; and to avoid “losing” any women. Because men have a strong instinct to protect women at all cost, even women they don’t know very well, even at the cost of their own lives. You can see the effect of learning the truth on many men: they have a very hard time accepting women’s base nature when faced with it.
This post is helpful for pointing out that this is how I have thought. Similar thinking is applied to women’s obesity. It’s still very difficult for me to think differently, even though I know better.
This makes me puke. I can’t understand the denial of sin and the denial of responsibility of a free will agent. It is plain and simple idolatry, where Woman is the new goddess.
… somehow Eve succeeded in becoming like god.
That was gold, dude.
Women gonna women…even in Church.
Some years ago, someone posted a link to a post by some Wesleyan college professor who hosts a small mixed-sex group where he asks them “Do women sin?”, and he then relates how for all of them, the degree to which they can admit that women sin, it’s things like low self-esteem, as opposed to lying, sexual immorality, murder, stealing, and all sins that are common among men.
Men and women both lack self control, and have insecurities. They are both looking for sexual pleasure AND love. Sometimes one more than the other, but men want love too, and women want sexual pleasure too.
Young girls with a bad father may be desperate for a man’s love, but usually choose a guy based on sexual attraction, not a father figure.
Young men suffer from family dysfunction too and also want a woman who loves them. Men are not just after sex, and women are not just after love.
There is never a good excuse for sexual immorality. To misquote Wilson: “The married man has a big vacuum in his life—a need for feminine attention—that is not being filled by his wife.”
Anonymous_ng-
Correct. Its only stupid stuff like “I am too trusting” and “I love too deeply.”
Which are not really sins. Its a form of humble bragging.
Ain’ no place safer than on a thug yo.
Drury Writing, “Do Women Sin” Google “do women sin” its 1st result. Its something I carry a printed copy of if I have occasion to sit with any church leader.
@Jeremy Gage
This is a good point. If Wilson has repudiated this false teaching about women’s temptation that would be worth noting. If you can point me to where he has repudiated this false teaching, I would be in your debt. However, the version of the book I’m looking at was printed in 2012, so if he repudiated it he either didn’t change the book or did so more recently.
His argument is that when women sin sexually it isn’t because of sexual temptation. This is flat out untrue and unbiblical. That women from fatherless homes might be tempted more and/or worse at resisting temptation doesn’t change that fact. Moreover, the overall theme of the book is that if a wife isn’t happy it is a sign that her husband doesn’t love her like Christ loved the Church. He’s offering women rationalizations for their sins right and left. This is cruel to the women themselves, let alone the daughters who grow up without fathers because Wilson couldn’t be honest with mommy about her own temptation to sin.
snowdensjacket0x0x0 @ 9:11 am:
“But for pastor Wilson here he would have to accept that he is not sexually attractive to women, which is the greatest sin of all under our new religion, in order to accept reality and start preaching the truth.”
I didn’t think about the ego angle. Good insight.
@ Jeremy Gage:
It is worth noting that Reforming Marriage was published in 1995, not 2018, and a lot has changed in those years in how women talk openly about sex, and how they are encouraged toward it.
Some women were sleeping around in the 70s and 80s, and well before that. And most women who weren’t sleeping around with hot men, wanted to sleep around with hot men. And they wanted to not for the purpose of locking one down for marriage, but for the purpose of having fun hot sex with fun hot men. The reason women didn’t was because doing so used to be strongly discouraged and heavily sanctioned. The reason it’s increased and is now in the open is because sleeping around with hot men is strongly ENcouraged now and has no immediate downsides.
Most women sleep around because that’s how they choose to respond to some void in their lives. They CHOOSE to respond to the “issue” in that particular way. They choose it because using their bodies to get attention gives them enormous power.
It is also worth noting that while his point is overstated, it is not entirely wrong. There is a meaningful number of women for whom daddy-issues are a primary driver of promiscuity.
The daddy issues are the underlying REASON. The primary DRIVERS of female promiscuity are (1) ability and availability; and (2) her personal choice. Sex is easy for women to get. No one is making these women sleep with hot men. They choose to do so, entirely of their own free will.
He does underestimate raw female sexual aggression/lusts, but the distinction between men and women on a group level has some merit.
The only reason for the distinction is ability and availability. Most women can sleep around if they choose to. Most men cannot.
There are plenty of women from intact homes who ride the carousel. But EVERY woman from a broken home does, at least in my entire extended circles.
Yes, more women from broken homes ride the carousel, I would bet. Mostly because they’re watching their mothers ride. Mostly because what mommy is modeling is “use your body to get what you want. Use sex to manipulate men, because you can. Have fun sex with fun hot men because you can and it’s “empowering”. And no one will stop you.”
The mere whiff of assertion that women’s lust should be deemphasized is a whiff of a foundational lie. This ass backwards thinking is present amongst Christians as well as, lacking better word, good non Christians.
This fits in the myth busting book in the same chapter as the bullshit about her being a slow cooker and him a microwave. Until paramour calls and has a free minute and she can hit the -Add 30 sec” button and roger away.
All related. The Lift Chasing urge to paint women as egg shells that don’t want to be broken, but if you roll them around in a warm hand they crumble willingly is a lot of nonsense.
@Jeremy Gage
Sorry man. This is just passive aggressive voice saying exactly what Wilson is saying. He is already passive aggressive about it. But you cant live in both realities. There likely is some correlation between sexual promiscuity and dysfunctional homes or even whole socio economic cultures of dysfunction. But the correlation doesn’t not meet the standard needed to see cause and effect with fatherlessness. The sexual urge is what it is. The moral norms surrounding the women can be very low. But she screws cuz she likes to screw AND maybe this whole safety thing comes along for the ride.
My joke above about the thug is more than a joke. Someone, Rollo I think, has a story where a guy was being denied sex and his wife claimed low desire. Then the man found online videos where she was banging a room full of black guys. A need for safety born of daddy issues will not explain the reckless abandon into ultra hedonism that that suburban young wife had availed herself to. Sure, its one anecdote. But its a very strong one.
This post makes me sad. This whole website is making me sad.
If it were really true that women were having promiscuous sex because they were looking for love and just wanted men to love them and just wanted to be wives and mommies, the only kinds of men they would have sex with would be nice, kind, unassuming, friendly men who bought them candy and flowers and dinner dates and cuddled and held hands, and who talked about wanting to get married and have kids.
Those are the guys who get laid the LEAST.
Christianity should function as a force to stop any sinful desire, whatever the twisted origin of such desire. Of the only FOUR (!) commands that gentiles are required to follow from the Old Covenant, the ONE having the most impact is to avoid sexual immorality. The others are about eating meat with blood and/or sacrificed to idols. The command to avoid sexual immorality is repeated often, to the point that we are warned to even flee sexual immorality.
We can think of as much “reasons” why men and/or women want to have sex outside marriage, but the point is, it is sexual immoral, should not be tolerated and should be clearly controlled by the church.
Unfortunately I cannot even count the number of churches who shifted their position on this issue through only a couple of decades to now be totally OK with sex outside marriage (which we suddenly are required to define as being between one man and one woman), at least for young people and homosexuals.
Dal-
Email sent.
@empathologism – thanks. I put too many search terms into my search engine, but that’s the one.
Yeah sounds like their idea of a woman’s ‘sin’ is that she isn’t prideful enough or she doesn’t think of herself as a god.
“Daddy issues.”
I’m sure I can find in my past where Daddy and Mommy didn’t treat me well, or screwed up in the parenting department. But I am an adult with agency. Nobody is responsible for my decisions but me. If I sin, I sin. Period.
It is worth noting that Reforming Marriage was published in 1995, not 2018, and a lot has changed in those years in how women talk openly about sex, and how they are encouraged toward it.
Two quick points:
1. Women are not “men with boobs”, they don’t think the same way as men and they don’t get “off the ranch” in the same way. Yes, college aged women are more open about their carnal natures today. Yet even now, women tend to engage in bad behavior in a more private manner. It’s trivial to find women who partition up their life such that what happens on Friday night isn’t discussed on Sunday morning.
2. It would be interesting to see Wilson’s explanation of Proverbs 7, featuring lines like “My hubby’s out of town and I put new sheets on the bed….” in the context of “women only want security”. But maybe that part of the book had not yet been written when Wilson was in preacher-school, so he missed it.
Neo-Victorian pedestalization continues to damage individuals and the larger society.
I trust Solomon’s “interviewing of a thousand” more than Wilson’s:
I have looked for other answers but have found none. I found one man in a thousand that I could respect, but not one woman. Eccl. 7:28
@Anon Reader
He covers it. Technically she is still sinning, but she is sinning because hubby didn’t act as a husband should. I’ll share more on that in a future post.
@donalgraeme:
As a thirsty traveler opens his mouth
and drinks from any water near him,
so she will sit in front of every tent peg
and open her quiver to the arrow.
Wow! We can’t be reading from that book in (Protestant) church! No way! At least it’s admitted that the Song of Solomon has sexual connotations (in marriage, of course), but the symbolism in the above is rather obvious. You can’t be talking to single women, or fathers of daughters like that, for sure. And without it being in the canon, you can’t say “it’s in the Bible.” Well, the submission verses in the Bible, such as in Ephesians, there’s work-arounds for those. So maybe the above would be about “unsaved” young women.
So it’s a repeat of the ‘Adam didn’t protect Eve from herself’ excuse.
Earl:
The prime sins unique to women are
(1) being untrue to herself.
A woman is untrue to herself if she is not doing what she wants when she wants with whom she wants. Thinking of herself as having responsibilities to God and her country, family and loved ones is also the sinful state of not being true to oneself. No, she’s not to think of such things. The loftiest ideal is self fulfillment and doing what is right in her own eyes, no matter the effect on others.
(2) having low self esteem.
Not loving yourself is a grave, grave sin. This is just about the worst sin a woman can commit. If you don’t love yourself it’s because of a personal character defect that needs to be corrected or excised. If you don’t love yourself you’re not doing your duty to God. You are obligated to love yourself because God loves you, and God doesn’t make unloveable people. God also wants you to have what you want and be happy. Therefore, if you are restraining yourself from doing something you want to do, it is because you do not sufficiently love yourself.
(3) staying married to a man you don’t love/aren’t sexually attracted to.
If you are married to a man you’re not in love with/aren’t sexually attracted to, you’re essentially cheating on the man you’re SUPPOSED to be married to. You made a mistake, and God is showing it to you by your lack of love and attraction. This is not the man you’re supposed to be with. God commands you to divorce that man so you are freed up to marry the man you are sexually attracted to. If you stay married, you are disobeying God and disobedience to God is sin.
(4) Using marriage to sanctify love and sex.
This is backwards. Everyone knows that sexual attraction, and the sex acts that naturally follow, sanctify love and marriage. You must have sex and sexual attraction first, and only then can you have legitimate marriage. Only then can love have any meaning or significance. Everyone knows that marriage can never be legitimate or useful unless sexual attraction exists at all times within it. Everyone knows that love is a nonentity without sexual attraction. Everyone knows that sexual attraction is the highest ideal to be achieved in human relations.
Oh yeah the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus has quite a few gems in there which shold be common sense. Even Sirach 9 has the ‘Pence Rule’ in it.
Do not be jealous of the wife of your bosom,
and do not teach her an evil lesson to your own hurt.
Do not give yourself to a woman
so that she gains mastery over your strength.
Do not go to meet a loose woman,
lest you fall into her snares.
Do not associate with a woman singer,
lest you be caught in her intrigues.
Do not look intently at a virgin,
lest you stumble and incur penalties for her.
Do not give yourself to harlots
lest you lose your inheritance.
Do not look around in the streets of a city,
nor wander about in its deserted sections.
Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman,
and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another;
many have been misled by a woman’s beauty,
and by it passion is kindled like a fire.
Never dine with another man’s wife,
nor revel with her at wine;
lest your heart turn aside to her,
and in blood you be plunged into destruction.
Related: https://twitter.com/Hoeneedabortion/status/974264880093106179
Simply disgusting.
I will say though, that even hoes can be looking for security. People are misguided in what they think sin is going to bring them all the time.
Dalrock has written about how a major plank of feminism is to make it safer for women to make dangerous sexual choices. To have security in promiscuity, in other words. To be able to shack up with the bad boy, but with more of the safeguards of a traditional marriage. They crave it.
Dalrock
Technically she is still sinning, but she is sinning because hubby didn’t act as a husband should.
Yeah, he left her alone for a day, the coward.
Same old – same old modern double standard, then. Women are strong and powerfully independent except when they are weak little pawns in the hands of men. Plenty of authority, no responsibility.
And there is some certain ‘justice’ Sirach hints at….
An ungodly woman will be bestowed on a lawless man as his portion, but a godly woman is granted to the man who fears the Lord. A shameless woman will always be in disgrace, but a dignified daughter will show modesty even with her husband. (Sirach 26:23-24)
@Anonymous Reader
“Plenty of authority, no responsibility.”
This is what’s referred to as the ideal.
Any wound, but not a wound of the heart!
Any wickedness, but not the wickedness of a woman!
Any suffering, but not suffering from those who hate!
And any vengeance, but not the vengeance of enemies!
There is no venom worse than a snake’s venom,[
and no anger worse than a woman’s wrath.
I would rather live with a lion and a dragon
than live with an evil woman.
A woman’s wickedness changes her appearance,
and darkens her face like that of a bear.
Her husband sits among the neighbors,
and he cannot help sighing bitterly.
Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity;
may a sinner’s lot befall her!
A sandy ascent for the feet of the aged—
such is a garrulous wife to a quiet husband.
Do not be ensnared by a woman’s beauty,
and do not desire a woman for her possessions.
There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace
when a wife supports her husband.
Dejected mind, gloomy face,
and wounded heart come from an evil wife.
Drooping hands and weak knees
come from the wife who does not make her husband happy.
From a woman sin had its beginning,
and because of her we all die.
Allow no outlet to water,
and no boldness of speech to an evil wife.
If she does not go as you direct,
separate her from yourself.
Sirach 25: 13-26
The more I’ve read about feminism in the religious scope of things…the more it’s all about making women ‘goddesses’.
Whoever said feminism is just the serpent whispering in Eve’s ear again…got it right.
The link has probably been referenced multiple times here, but one instance was Dalrock in the post The Cult of Women’s Self-Esteem (search the post for “Drurywriting”).
Man notices that men want sex that ends with his orgasm. Man notices that women want to have sex even if the sex is not orgasmic for her. Man concludes women are looking for security when they off their clothes, spread their legs, and let men put in their dicks.
Respectively, of course; not all at once like a real whore. Women are romantic.
@Anon Reader
Heh. It is even worse. The way you can tell if a man is godly is look to see if his wife is happy. If she is happy, he is godly. He even says that many men try to fake being good, but you can’t fool God’s virtue detector.
the new religion that replaced Christianity without anyone noticing.
That would be churchianity. Related:
Christianity should function as a force to stop any sinful desire, whatever the twisted origin of such desire
Christianity functions exactly thus. The churchianity that has all but completely replaced it, however, is focused on not only excusing sinful desire, but glorifying it – at least where women are concerned.
Pingback: Riding the security carousel. | Reaction Times
@donalgraeme
I say this not to start a denominational war, but I think Protestants really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to dump some books from the Bible. In particular the book of Sirach.
Your point is worthwhile. I’m Protestant myself, and I’ve always been somewhat amused at how Reformed church leaders who love to lecture about “the inerrancy of scripture” still see no problem with lavishing praise on their church’s founding father despite the fact that he had no problem with discarding multiple books from what had always been considered biblical canon.
The only problem I have with your idea is that it seems to assume that if only modern pastors had better scriptural examples to learn from, we wouldn’t see them giving women a pass on their bad behavior. But even if our church leaders restricted themselves to the modern Protestant Bible they’d still have multiple references left to instruct them that just like men, women have a sin nature that many of them have no problem with indulging. Just consider these passages from Proverbs 30 alone:
Or this, from the same section:
Have you ever heard a modern church leader use these verses to teach their flock about the corrupted nature of women, or to warn females in the congregation of the evils that they too are capable of doing? I know that I haven’t. In fact, on the rare occasions when I’ve heard them mentioned the teachers usually take care to point out that they are specifically referring to the adulterous woman, as if that qualifies as some sort of hidden Biblical code to remind us that (of course!) Not All Women Are Like That.
The problem isn’t that preachers have no place left to get the message from. The problem is that they quite literally go out of their way to remain ignorant, and that they teach their followers to do the same.
I think that it depends a great deal on the young woman. I know of a devout couple with two daughters. One is very attractive. Men chase after her and she rides the carousel. The other daughter is below average in looks and she gets no attention from men. She has remained chaste.
@donalgraeme, excellent selection of quotes.
There are a number of sweetness–traditionalist–submission women bloggers who write about this from time to time. But they won’t come right out and say it. You have to kind of read between the lines.
The married ones that are really into their husbands do not appear to be so because of the “security” they provide.
@malcontented
I think this is a misnomer to a point. A happily married woman can react to a sense of security with sexual warmth and interpret their husband’s sexual prowess into security.
That’s actually a pretty sophisticated argument, and I’ll buy it. In other words, its a false dichotomy. (Security verses something of a more raw sexual nature).
But it seems most of those bloggers don’t really talk much about the first part. (Responding with genuine sexual urges to the security their husbands provide).
That is to say, maybe they do indeed have that kind of thing, later as the relationship deepens and grows. But every one of them describes a much more visceral attraction at the beginning that has held constant throughout the marriage.
I’ve never heard one of them say that they saw him across a crowded room and fell in love with his provisioning potential.
@ Anonymous Reader
“Yeah, he left her alone for a day, the coward.”
Adam was merely giving Eve her space, so should could attend the ancient equivalent of a women’s ministry conference.
I don’t think most women think so clearly about things. I do think a lot of it is visceral attraction and in a healthy, honest society, I think it probably works out well enough to improve the species and the bloodlines. The problem is we’ve started perverting the natural societal cues for what makes a good mate for political purposes. Sociology isn’t just a reactive science and I bleieve it’s being used to dictate outcomes in society.
@squid_hunt
Right. They tend to rationalize their sexual urges as being more pure, perhaps deciding they are really just seeking security. This is the problem. Women are more easily deceived in this way, and our pastors are teaching them the lies they are most vulnerable to. It is flat out cruel to women.
It may be true women are looking for security not sex (although not true for many women) it doesn’t matter. Wilson is trying to excuse them but the women have the same lack of self control because they break the same commandments. If you like food and get fat because you just really enjoy food or from a need to comfort your inner child the sin is the same. The reasons only matter when we want to rationalize which is what Wilson want to do.
A desire for security isn’t a purifying desire. For security people rob and steal and do lots of immoral things. Once you see the ridiculous pedelstalization in society you cannot unsee it. Leads to so much absurdity.
Joe,
Why is that? Some guidance can be given if we know why. Our ideas may differ, but coming to the truth can be a sad thing. Knowing you are a sinner in need of salvation can also make you sad, but you need to know it to then reach the truth about being delivered from that state. I think many skip the “sad” part (like my exwife) and thus think salvation should just be one party after another, but that is another issue.
@Frank K
I think that it depends a great deal on the young woman. I know of a devout couple with two daughters. One is very attractive. Men chase after her and she rides the carousel. The other daughter is below average in looks and she gets no attention from men. She has remained chaste.
Really? The latter daughter gets plenty of attention too. Just not from the very top men she lusts for. She could have a man well above her in an instant. Either this or she really is genuinely chaste. Such women exist, in small numbers, but still.
Anyway, back to the topic, during medieval times women were considered more prone to sin (and closer to devil) than men. Teachers even stressed this at school to us (as an example of backwardness). There seems to be some really big disconnect in modern society. This kind of disconnects is present in a broad spectrum of issues, it is nauseating observing them all over and over again.
It is a general pattern innate to western society. There must have been something adaptive in this behaviour in recent past – as this kind of behaviour has ruled over more sober thinking of the past (despite all their ridiculous ideas on events – unexplainable by general knowledge of their time, like origin of diseases, on universe,…). And disconnects seem to be ever progressing.
Empath,
I am now completely amazed that I ever believed that. It doesn’t fit reality in the slightest. No initial spark will ever make the crock pot warm up, no matter how long we wait. Some things may add if the spark is there already, but all women are really not like that!
Earl,
Wise sayings don’t make something Scripture. Dalrock writes many wise things, but it still isn’t Scripture.
Dalrock,
No one said it out loud, but I am sure that is why my past church were certain I was bad. (They even denied knowing for sure, but their actions spoke louder than their words.)
The pastor’s wife noted at one point that she had never seen a woman as unhappy as my wife. A woman who could stay home, do VERY limited housework, buy whatever she wanted (except for that lake house I suppose), go to any church events she wanted, etc. But it was my fault she wasn’t happy.
I did have a friend note he always thought she was lazy and a neighbor note her unfriendliness (both unprompted), so I think the church people just followed the modern script of blaming me for the problem.
Dalrock and squid_hunt-
So I guess my biggest issue is this. I am 35 and I have been reading around here and at Rollos place (and others) for several years and I still don’t understand what’s going on with stuff like this:
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/a-little-something-different/
Either its totally fake, or they just hit the chemistry jackpot and there is nothing else you can do. Or something else? They are clearly still at it because if you follow their stuff they just had ANOTHER baby.
Both of them had admittedly very secular lives before they met and seemed to somehow cheat all the usual landmines that people regularly get blown up by and report in the manosphere.
Except in this case…it is. Sirach is one of the 73 books of the Bible
This whole website is making me sad.
And wise.
donalgraeme,
What is covered there that is not already covered in the Scriptures? The only things I have heard of is some RCC doctrine that most Protestants disagree with. The stuff about women is covered in many other places, so we are not missing much there, just choosing to ignore it (women’s true natures).
DA,
I was listening to Chuck Smith (now passed on) teach through Proverbs recently and he very foolishly claimed that only 1 women in 1000 was like the one described in Proverbs. (The negative description)
He was clearly quite ignorant in that area, in spite of having so much wisdom in other areas. Too many were infected by the spirit of the modern age and don’t even see the problem.
I am sure all would not agree with all he teaches, but he is generally considered pretty solid.
Frank,
You are right that different children can turn out differently, but I would suspect it is more than the “plain” aspect that is her problem. How overweight is she? My exwife was reasonably thin, but would not have been on any magazine covers, yet she still had some attraction due to being thin. A woman being overweight is far too common today.
Did she really get “no attention” or just “no attention from the hawt guys”?
@Malcontented but not unhappy
Or something else?
You could ask Scott. He’s already been here today.
@donalgraeme
Apropos and effective, but would it matter? Everything already available from St. Paul, St. Peter, and Genesis has proven to have malleable meanings when feminism needs to be placated. Though one is curious as to how the “big names” that Dalrock discusses would modify the Sirach verses you posted.
Earl,
Many would disagree with that statement.
Completely OT question: Does the Orthodox Church support the RCC books in the Bible?
BillyS
Yes. From the Orthodox and Catholic perspective those books were removed from the Old Testament during the reformation.
I’ll get to the comments from malcontented a bit later. Just walking into the house for evening attack of the littles
She does seem genuine, but obviously I cannot see what is in her heart.
From wikipedia:
@Empath
Fatherlesness is causal for early promiscuity. The data is very good. Girls without fathers in the home menstruate early. They are promiscuous early. One of the biological roles of fathers is warding off other men as long as possible. The data is persistent across lots of situations and times. It makes intrisic sense as well.
Does it excuse women and girls who are promiscuous? Of course not. There are no excuses just repentance.
Girls are not boys. Many women are hot and heavy for sex. But the majority of women are trying serial monogamy not rapaciously trying to increase their N count and this is still true today. That’s the exception even on college campuses.
Yeah it’s a bunch of BS!!! My wife married me for my future 401K, I see that now. The only reason she’s still here is that she’s 48 and 70lbs overweight (was a HARD 8.5 before the Wall). She’s also got some serious health issues (I suspect from her former carousel days) and is making it hard to branch swing. I married her post Wall, 32, like a good little beta.
Men listen to this truth that my wife spoke last week:
“It’s easy to find someone to sleep with, it’s hard to find someone to build a life with.”
—-Translation: I can get laid easily, finding someone to support me is hard. Funny that’s the exact opposite for me.
As I’ve been unplugging and building my frame (and muscles) she keeps telling me (in some combo) I need to include her more/needs more security/I’m not attracted to her/she’s not a part of my life. But then when it’s time for sex, I’m not feeling ‘close’ to you, she’s a diesel and needs to be warmed up, I just can’t be close to you if I don’t have the combo to the gun safe…(I shit you not!)
And I start to buy it for a minute, then think back to the guy she was banging during the first couple of dates with me (trickle truth after marriage), but that’s ok, she broke up with him, after our second date, which is most likely a lie as well, my guess is she didn’t finish with him until we were engaged (which was 6 weeks after we met, I know, I know, I know).
Well, maybe it’s my looks, I’ve got a bit soft around the middle, but worked pretty damn hard these last 2 years, I’m within 7% (19-26%) of my marriage bodyfat, plus I’ve added 25lbs of muscle.
So the only thing I can conclude is that my wife finds me attractive, but there is no desire for me, thus the anger after she has sex with me.
She’s is the poster girl for leaping off the carousel into the blue pilled beta’s waiting arms.
Deti, I told her at MC today, if she brings up divorce/some euphemism of divorce, we are done. If she hits me again, were done, and I will find an attorney. She burned up all my goodwill in this relationship Monday night.
Funny, the MC (a woman) didn’t interrupt or tell me I was being unreasonable or anything, hummm.
I give it 50/50 odds that she will do one or both of these things in the next 60 days.
I can’t believe how heartbroken I am for my kids. I made a bad choice picking their mother.
@Malcontented but not unhappy
Mychael’s own words: ‘But this look says “you are leading. I am just waiting to see what crazy thing you have planned for us next.”’
Scott has Frame with a capital F.
Scott, I need a consult, you got some time next week?
Thanks for the clarification Scott.
White Guy,
I would probably find a lawyer ahead of time. I hate divorce (like God), but I suspect I should have divorced my exwife years ago when she told me (at a marriage conference of all places) that she had “decided to stay.” I didn’t know divorce was even an option since we both were supposedly Christians committed to never divorcing. I should have known that her even thinking that way would lead to really messing me over recently. Not as bad as many men, but it is still rough to adapt to.
Be ready for action, and a good lawyer is key for that. Don’t try to find one when you decide to act. She is likely to have already looked herself.
Welcome to marriage 101…where the wife is always desiring in some fashion to control the husband.
Earl, she still mad I haven’t given her the combo (but my friend from church has it!)
WhiteGuy:
It’s a story as old as time, written millions of times before.
She fears losing your commitment; but doesn’t have those feelings of sexual attraction for you. Or if she does, she isn’t willing to show them to you for fear of losing control. In fact she is losing control of the marriage, and she knows it, but still hasn’t come around sexually. And she might not.
And the whole “I really need for you to give me the combo to the gun safe” thing is… disturbing.
I think you have a good plan going forward. You’re dealing with a wife who isn’t coming around. If she were saying things like “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have treated you like this, I’m going to get better” and then walking that out with real concrete action, this marriage might have a chance. But you’re not describing that. You’re describing a woman losing control/hand in her marriage and spiraling out of control herself.
But something else is going on here, I think. I suspect she doesn’t think you’re serious about ending the marriage. I think that if you really do pull the trigger (figuratively) and get a lawyer and file, you are in for a sh*tstorm of epic proportion. Be prepared for total all out war. I think that’s where you’re headed, sadly.
White Guy-
If I don’t already have you email, make a comment at the Ljubomir site and I will have it. The American Dad site is not available right now and will open up after this summer.
Deti, I’m a recovering co-dependant and I’m now really taking control of my life and all that entails. She is terrified of this. She wouldn’t even admit that bringing up divorce/physical violence is something that she does, she just ‘reacting to me’.
When she once asked me what my goal was with all of this, I told her “to be the man God wants me to be”. Her response, why didn’t you ask me first, I could tell you? -telling isn’t it.
I hope she’s coming around, she admitted that she’s asked her therapist to help her with these ‘knee jerk’ reactions of hers. Gents the 2D:4D ratio is REAL take heed!
Yes…she sounds like a massive control freak.
White Guy:
Your wife is using the last thing available to her to exert control over you and the marriage, and that is sex. She can’t stop you from improving. she can’t stop you from improving your attractiveness. She can’t stop you from recovering from codependency. She can’t keep you from lifting weights or killing it at work. She can’t even keep you from hiring a lawyer and leaving her. The only things she can do are control how often she has sex with you and her emotional responses before, during and after sex. And she’s using them as a last ditch effort to try to retain some measure of control over the marriage.
And if and when even that fails to achieve desired results, if her control over sex won’t work anymore to extract from you what she wants, it will all go to hell in a real hurry. And you need to be ready for that.
WhiteGuy:
Now that you’ve made the promise that if X or Y happen, you will retain a lawyer and file for divorce, you now have to do that. So if she does X or Y, you must do what you said you’d do. If you don’t, you’ve lost all credibility and she will never respect you, ever. You will have handed all control back to her.
@White guy, understand that this is just my B.S. opinion, and I’m just some other random internet dude.
The best advice I ever ran across about potentially saving a marriage was to stop focusing on the marriage, and to get your own life squared away. Basically, do what you’re already doing. Good job on that by the way.
Secondly, in most jurisdictions marital assets are owned jointly, and that means she can clean out the savings account and spend it on plastic surgery, a sex-vacation to Vegas, or as a retainer for a top notch divorce attorney. What she can’t do is hide it and then claim it doesn’t exist, well, not legally.
Similarly, the contents of the gun safe are more than likely marital property, and if you end up divorced, you will have to give an accounting of the contents, and their value to the courts. However, until then, you can keep them locked up. You can possibly depending on your state laws, loan them to a buddy to keep in his gun safe etc.
I’m sure that there is more that could be said, but it gets pretty dismal in a hurry.
Malcontented-
Thanks for following my (and Mychaels) blogging. I appreciate it and I hope it is useful. I want to get a little down here, and I’ll keep checking back this evening. I am on dad duty as Mychael went back to her very part time nursing position tonight. (Literally the first shift back since the baby). So i’ve got one eye on this and the other eye on dinner, 4 kids, prayers, bed time, and so on.
There is a sense in which everyones online persona is “fake.” Us to. This is because we only allow people to see a snapshot–and only the part we want to be seen. There is no way, nor would it be appropriate for us to have a live stream camera of our life together going 24-7 “The Truman Show” style.
But what matters is–is it True, with a capital “T”
And yes, I can say within in relative degree of mathematical certainty that Mychael and I really do act like you see in our blogging about 60-80% of the time. I always walk her to the door of our car when go places together. And she lingers at the door just before she gets in, we always kiss before I shut the door. We hold hands and act like stupid teenagers in front of our kids. Nothing weird, but real. All the time. And so on…
The only time we don’t act like this is when we are fighting about something which is rare. And we never stay mad for more than a few hours. One of us always “gives in” and we are back to our usual selves. That “giving in” is truly about 50/50. We hate fighting.
Yes, we met late after both having [insert euphemism for not very Christian lives] before we met. I was 35 and she was 32. I think this is confounding to many manoshpere readers and writers because we should miserable, based on relationship histor(ies).
I cannot account for this other than by divine intervention. I really believe that.
But we DO work at it. I try to stay engaged with my male, “red pill” friends and run things by them. I try to never let down my “frame.” Sometimes I have to assert myself in way that is confrontational and risk a fight. Mychael stays clear of things that are basically factories for “the whispers,” which is pretty much everything these days. She spends her days knitting and sewing and homeschooling. Even on FB she stays completely out of voyeurism, political debates, or complaining about pretty much anything. Its all hobby farming and crafting and harmless pinterest. She is aware that the world thinks she is acting like a “doormat” and, I guess, gains her strength from the few online friends we have met through trad/Orthodox circles and occasional emails with women like Hearthie and Elspeth. Those women NEVER trash their husbands. And I have seen the emails.
Not because I demand to see them, but Mychael offers.
Today Dalrock and I were just emailing about some of what needs to be said offline about this topic as well. Stuff thats just not appropriate for these forums. I hope to get a chance to do more of that one on one in the future. Its actually the most important part.
By the way, when I say “divine intervention” I just mean “blessed.”
I’m starting to notice that many wives secretly rejoice their husbands’ misfortune while secretly lamenting their good fortune. The correct term for such a person is “enemy.” A lot of women out there need to grow a heart.
Hello gentlmen. And let me echo my thanks for following us, Malcontented. It really appreciated.
As Scott pointed out, I’m kind of busy right now, but I wanted to come right along behind him and point out that he is writing in his usual understated style. Scott does not “sometimes” have to confront me and hold me accountable to what I need to hear. He does it often, and when he does I am heart broken that I have upset him. Its not an everyday thing, or even every week. But its enough to be embarrassed about.
I’ve written about this before, but its not his hard work and providing and helping out around the house that makes me snap to it when he asserts himself. To be honest, a lot of it is pure awe at how much self control he has when he is clearly angry. A man like that makes you a little nervous, even when there isn’t anything to be nervous about it. Its hard to explain. Right under the surface of the controlled, metered justice is pretty scary stuff. Only men contain the ingredients to be like that, as far as I have seen.
It doesn’t mean I walk around trembling in fear around him. I feel safe, cared for and protected.
I wrote about this on one of our older sites and I think I transferred the way I felt about my Grandpa (the main father figure for me growing up) who was just like Scott. When I disappointed him, I felt like garbage inside, even if he said nothing. Scott can let you know he is disappointed without a word. And when you love your husband as much as I do, that’s all it takes.
I think all of that is a part of it. Its natural for him to lead me like that and I like it.
Well, back to work. I hope you are all well!
Then there’s stuff like this:
Basically, women have a “Lack of Moral Agency” card that they are now authorized to play. (I do wonder if Wilson would ever adopt it.)
A number of posters here have said that Pastor Wilson doesn’t operate in the real world. They are exactly right.
The ”need for security” gets repeated again and again by woman after woman in Western civilization. It goes like this:
Ubiquitous 18-30-something woman: ”I met my first boyfriend in high school…blah blah blah blah …..then he cheated on me because he was an asshole, so I cheated on him to get even blah blah …and we broke up… Then I lived with my boyfriend of the time…blah blah blah …and he was abusive*…..so we broke up… and I went to France and I lived there with my boyfriend of the time…blah blah blah ….he wanted me to have a threesome with him and his best friend…blah blah blah …but I had to come back home, so we broke up and I’m living with blah blah blah…..”.
Spike: “If he was abusive, surely that’s a police matter?”
Ubiquitous 18-30-something woman:”Oh no. Of course not! I’m not like that…”
Spike: “Do you regret any of your past?”
Ubiquitous 18-30-something woman: “Oh no. I would do it all exactly the same again.”
Ad infinitum.
All of them think they’re special. All of them think that they got dealt a bad hand. All of them think they sincerely wanted their relationships to work, but all of them blew up their relationships.
Apart from these women making appallingly stupid choices – ironically validating the need for a patriarchal father to make decisions for her regarding relationships – all of them actually have relationships of convenience: they trade sex for rent/ food/ lodging, and they will keep having sex with addicts, stoners, gang members, abusers – for as long as they need them to provide rent/food lodging. They have told me so. Their stories are identical but only the name of the heroine/ protagonist changes.
THIS is what Wilson refers to as ”security”.
Young men who I train in my gym tell me a different story about such ”security”. Already jaded and cynical, they say, ”You ask a guy how many partners he’s had, halve it and that’s the truth. Whatever number SHE tells you, just TRIPLE it and you then get it about right…..”.
Scott :Yes. From the Orthodox and Catholic perspective those books were removed from the Old Testament during the reformation.
What I’ve read in Catholic sources:
* Those books (Sirach, Wisdom, etc.) were initially removed from the OT (or canon scriptures) by the Jews during the A.D. 90s Jamnia Council. The Jews did this because those books tended to support the teachings of Jesus, and thus his divinity.
This was also when the Jews changed the wording in Isaiah 7:14, from the messiah being born to a “virgin” to being born to a “young woman” (to undermine evidence that Jesus was the messiah).
* Martin Luther reverted to that Jamnia OT, rather than the older Septuagint OT, because those books tended to support the need for good works, thus challenging his “justification by faith alone” doctrine.
Oh, and I’ll add one extra thing about Wilson’s teaching that sucks:
Fathers can’t seem to do anything right. Working hard to provide the daughter for all her material needs isn’t enough. You have to give her material and ”emotional” support…..
Catholic and Orthodox Christians use the older Septuagint OT (the one Jesus used), which has those books, rather use than the newer, Jamnia OT.
This is also partially why Protestants tend to be more Judaized than are Catholics and Orthodox. Protestants use the Jamnia OT that was adopted by Talmudic Jews who had rejected Jesus, and were intent on scrubbing evidence of Jesus from the Septuagint OT.
RPL,
The books omitted by the Protestants were not written in Hebrew, and so do not appear in the Hebrew (Massoretic) text of the Old Testament. The Hebrew was translated into Greek in the late 3rd / early 2nd century BC, and over time those other books (we call them the Apocrypha) were added as they were written. None of them dates back before Malachi, the last book written in Hebrew.
Some of the early church fathers didn’t believe the Apocrypha belonged in Scripture, although they classified them as useful and wise. Others did. Their place in the Roman Catholic church was sealed when Jerome translated the Greek Old Testament (and the New Testament books) into the Latin Vulgate. And since the Orthodox church always used the Greek Scriptures anyway, they used versions with the Apocrypha in them.
In the time of the Reformation, new translations of the Old Testament were made from the Hebrew, and the Reformers believed with those other Fathers that they were useful, but not Scripture.
BTW, one of the reasons the Reformers demoted the Apocrypha was that they tended to support certain Roman Catholic doctrines they thought wrong, like Purgatory.
I just can’t be close to you if I don’t have the combo to the gun safe…(I shit you not!)
This is disturbing. She seems to have bought into the feminist line that a man who is at all assertive is one small step away from going completely loco. She probably wants the combination so when she sees you getting upset over something she can quickly go and hide the gun – or perhaps use it to defend herself against you. If I’m right, she may feel justified over making a false accusation of abuse as a pre-emptive defense.
Proverbs 30:20
Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, I have done no wickedness.
Darwinian Arminian already posted that verse. Got to read all before I post. Either way, the spirit of Jezebel is with the feminst movement and what passes for Christianity in the mainstream..
Well, now we know why abortion is the liberal sacrament:
Wrong link! Always check your copied links before you post.
Here’s the right one:
https://binged.it/2G2u08f
Sorry, wrong link. I tried to link the correct video, but it went into moderation.
White Guy: She may want the combination for the safe as she may go “Mary Winkler” on you and end up in Oprah’s magazine as a victim.
I can’t believe how heartbroken I am for my kids. I made a bad choice picking their mother.
Hopefully your kids will have the wisdom to see this for themselves based on their mother’s behavior.
Funny how Wilson ignores that scripture warns men about promiscuous women and not the other way around.
Before David sinned, a promiscuous woman was bathing in plain sight.
A woman ALWAYS sins before a man sins …somewhere in the line.
About the Septuagint (LXX) vs the Masoretic (MT) OT, there’s a lot more to be said. To read a bit more about the differences and why some books are debated if they’re part of the canon of the OT, check e.g.
http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm
I found it interesting and telling to read that Flavius Josphus does not include the OT Apocrypha as part of the recognized OT canon.
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Figures…
Paul, I find the website you link to be unconvincing. Some of its arguments against the seven additional books:
Jesus also referred to the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This reference confirms the current division of Hebrew canon, which excludes the books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals.
Jesus also makes no reference to Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. Does that mean He excluded them from canon? Of course not.
Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs are wisdom books — same as Wisdom and Sirach. So if the former are included in canon (despite Jesus not mentioning them), there’s no reason to assume the others aren’t included in canon.
=========================
Jewish tradition also taught in the Babylonian Talmud, the books in the Hebrew “Canon” are the identical 39 books, which are in both the Protestant and Catholic Bibles, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha. (See Talmud Babylon Baba Batra 14b)
I’d be careful about using the Talmud as a source for Truth. The Talmud also says the Virgin Mary was a whore, and that Jesus is spending eternity in boiling excrement.
====================
Jerome (325-420 A.D.) The Biblical scholar of his day, and the translator of the Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate, clearly agreed with the Hebrew canon, being limited 39 books of the present Old Testament to the exclusion of the additional books of the Apocrypha.
That’s funny. Hmm (who is on your side) disagrees with Truthnet.org
Their place in the Roman Catholic church was sealed when Jerome translated the Greek Old Testament (and the New Testament books) into the Latin Vulgate.
So did Jerome include, or exclude, those seven books from Catholic canon?
@RPL: I just linked to it for extra background information, which it has. This is not an end to the discussion. There is no such thing as “the” LXX, we have several manuscripts, from different periods, some of which are accused of falsification (by e.g. Justin Martyr), and we have lots of fragments, some from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Critical editions are still being constructed (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html)
And by the way; the original point was that Sirach contained warnings against (certain) women. No Christian has a problem reading Sirach. Or any other book to discover truth. It was not about discussing if Sirach belongs to the Canon yes or no.
Scott: What’s your current blog? I used to read American Dad but I don’t think i know of your other one.
I had a look at Mychael and Scott’s blog and it (the photos) warmed my heart.
So, let me make sure I have this right:
If a man has sex outside of marriage (and perhaps inside of marriage) this is simply a base, animal instinct that demonstrates he lacks self-control. You are a bad man, Jerry. A very, very bad man: https://youtu.be/VN29X2HCKpU
If a woman has sex outside of marriage, she is merely exchanging it for something she values more (security), and in this transaction she is neither a prostitute nor exercising a base, animal instinct. She is a victim of a poor or absent father. Again, a very, very bad man.
”I say this not to start a denominational war, but I think Protestants really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to dump some books from the Bible. In particular the book of Sirach.”
Given the evidence of how they twist and screw with the Hebrew Canon. Their sophistry will be applied to those books too.
It will make little difference.
On the Canon:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.php
I don’t know if this off-topic, but I read that the betrothed Jewish couple were allowed to have sex before their official marriage ceremony.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal
Likewise, late Roman and Christian marriages many times were declared by cohabitation, especially before marriage was made a sacrament (sorry, I could only find a Wiki link for the history of common law marriage).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
Point is, marriage used to be formally declared after sexual activity. I don’t know how this defines/redefines our understanding of fornication, but it is something to consider.
Is the real issue here, that Doug Wilson published a book, and is somewhat well known? Meanwhile, on this blog, the sour grapes are the same old rot. Have a great day, lackeys 😉
Have a great day, lackeys
Thanks sue! That’s the plan.
I sure hope you were “leaning in” when you posted that comment Sue.
sue:
are you the same sue who posts on occasion at Bloom’s/Notes From A Red Pill Girl?
No one cares sunshine. Shaming is soooo 1960s.
@sipcode
Funny how Wilson ignores that scripture warns men about promiscuous women and not the other way around.
Before David sinned, a promiscuous woman was bathing in plain sight.
A woman ALWAYS sins before a man sins …somewhere in the line.
If you’re looking to offer Biblical proof that women are sinners you can’t even use that one anymore. The new trend for this story in the modern church is to imply that not only was Bathsheba not guilty of seduction, she wasn’t even guilty of adultery . . . . because she was raped.
You can see an example here:
Three reasons King David should be called “rapist” and not “adulterer”
Link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2016/03/21/three-reasons-king-david-called-rapist-not-adulterer/
You can feel free to snicker at the idea (hell, the woman who wrote linked article is David French’s wife), but I’ve been a little surprised to find out how much this idea is catching on, and not just in liberal church circles. There was even a review about a week ago in Christianity Today for a new book called “Vindicating the Vixens,” advising Christians to regard Bathsheba (along with multiple other examples of loose women) as an example of scriptural righteousness. The church is moving fast towards the point where their new definition of sin is “Whatever ends up being bad for the woman,” and when that happens, even outright crimes are going to end up being praised from the pulpit — so long as a woman committed them. How long do you think it’ll be before we see some new theological treatise arguing that it was Jezebel and not the prophet Elijah who really honored God and did His good work here on earth?
Edward
It’s just our hobby farm blog.
Pretty lightweight topics.
Ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com
@Damn Crackers: I read that the betrothed Jewish couple were allowed to have sex before their official marriage ceremony.
It does not say it, and it’s not true. Consummation of marriage is part of marriage, not betrothal.
@Damn Crackers: Point is, marriage used to be formally declared after sexual activity.
No, Common Law marriage FIRST understands the long-time nature of the relationship in which BOTH parties enter, THEN consummation happens.
Note that this is unrelated to any biblical discussion if sex creates marriage, as some have argued here. This is about customs.
It bears repeating…
Sex consumates a marriage, sex doesn’t create a marriage. Sex without marriage is consumating nothing…you are sacrificing your body to a stranger.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbrennan/2018/03/17/the-double-burden-student-loans-women/#5b3cff722488
Regarding the Apocrypha, for what it’s worth, the Wisdom of Solomon contains a prophecy of the crucifixion from the standpoint of the religious Jews:
Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2:
[12] “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
[13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
What have you got against me, Dalrock? That you would block me from commenting?
I tried to post this before, but it did not let me…
Regarding the Apocrypha, for what it’s worth, the Wisdom of Solomon contains a prophecy of the crucifixion from the standpoint of the religious Jews:
Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2:
[12] “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
[13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Well, Luther also wanted to remove the Letter of James of the New Testament. “Epistle of straw”, he called it. Their friends had more sense and convinced him not to.
In times of Jesus, there were two canons: the Greek Canon (with so-called apocrypha) and the Hebrew Canon (wirhout them). Both canons were celebrated and considered inspired. The apostles used both but mostly the first one. Most of the quotes in the NT come from the Septuagint (Greek text related with the Greek canon) and not so much from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew text related with the Hebrew Canon).
The Jews adopted the Hebrew Canon to reject the arguments in favor of the messianuc character of Jesus included in the apocrypha. They also distorted the Masoretic Text for the same reason. Christians adopted the Greek Canon. The Canons took centuries to be defined both for the Jews and for the Christians and some books were object of debate, including the Gospel of John. In 400 or so, the Christian canon was decided and it will take more than 1000 years for Luther to change it. Luther rejected the “apocrypha” but accepted the rest of the Catholic canon (did not include the Gospel of Thomas, for example)
Luther reverted to the Hebrew Canon and to Masoretic text, a big mistake, because it was modified to be anti-Christian. The Catholic Church (which I belong to) was right in chosing the Greek Canon but wrong in following the Masoretic Text. Only our Orthodox brethren got it right: Greek Canon with Septuagint.
This is a simplification but I am writing this in extremely difficult conditions
”They also distorted the Masoretic Text for the same reason.”
What’s the evidence for this?
infowarrior1: What’s the evidence for this?
A Catholic book informs me that the Jews of the A.D. 90s changed the wording in Isaiah 7:14, from the messiah being born to a “virgin” to being born to a “young woman” to undermine evidence that Jesus was the messiah)
@infowarrior1
What’s the evidence for this?
Not my best day, but I’ll see what I can do
Besides the topic explained by Red Pill Latecomer, who will need a longer explanation, see these two links. I don’t endorse Barker’s Temple Theology but this article of one of her books is enlightening:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070206043501/http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/barker.htm
I don’t endorse everything in this video, but it shows that geanology of the Masoretic text has been distorted to deny the fact that Jesus is High Priest
(It’s good to see the previous video first to see more distorsion of the Masoretic text https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF0F8YjT1og)
For information of the Septuagint and how it relates to the New Testament (and other things), this channel is excellent
https://www.youtube.com/user/PostApostolicChurch
Excuse me for my mispellings and for using “who” instead of “which”. Bad day
It is true that the early Christians used the Septuagint, but that led to the unbelieving Jews rejecting it, even though it had been in long term use, especially since the Greek made some things even more clear, such as the Messiah being born of a virgin.
That does not mean they changed the Hebrew text, just that they sought to use that to create a new religion which shared the “Jewish” name, but lacked its requirements. (Since the Temple was destroyed.)
None of this says whether the apocrypha is part of the Scriptures. It was not then, and it remains outside, in spite of some believing otherwise.
They are free to believe whatever of course, especially since writing this comment out is the most time this has had any practical impact in my life recently.
“This idea that women’s sexuality is naturally pure, and only goes haywire when men damage it in some way is not unique to Pastor Wilson. But it is not a message you will find in the Bible. This idea comes from the new religion that replaced Christianity without anyone noticing.”
^ Dalrock’s never better than when he reduces some aspect of our civilization’s fallacious heretical feminist hypocrisy into a simple paragraph! It’s a gift.
To be clear; the NT quotes from the OT are sometimes in line with “the” LXX, sometimes with the MT, and sometimes with the DSS. Often quotations are NOT literal quotes. We cannot simply claim that the NT always uses “the” LXX.
If you want to read an early church father discuss about changes to the LXX text, read Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho”. Of course, this is not inspired scripture, so JM might have been wrong.
As I understand, the best collected material on discussion on the Canon is currently
Note that the whole “Council of Jamnia” thing is probably not true.
Can we get back on topic?
@thedeti You mentioned how women want alpha sperm to get the best genes. In the early 90s I was friends with a (physically) beautiful young lady. She was quite promiscuous but selective about who she slept around with…he had to be hot.
One day in 1994 she decided she wanted to have a baby. She said she was going to go to the club and have sex (she said it more crudely) with the best looking guy she can find and have his baby. What about love and marriage I naively asked. She said no she can’t wait for all that she wants a baby now. I volunteered to marry her and father her baby. At least we were close friends, I had a steady income to raise the child and I would be very stable…a good family man. She said no she didn’t want to ever have sex with me…she was going to the club and finding a hunk to impregnate her.
To my shock that’s exactly what she did! This traumatized me. She had no income to raise the boy so she mostly relied on her mother to support this boy…mixed with welfare state handouts.
Through the years I often thought of this woman and how she became pregnant. It really made me sad, especially because I never had children of my own. Just the other day I wondered how that kid is doing today…at the age of 23.
Last week I looked him up on Facebook and found him right away…including pictures of him and his mother (who still is pretty in her 40s). I expected to find a chad who was a total stud with the ladies. Afterall his mother insisted on the best genes possible…it was her 100% criteria…nothing else mattered (ahead of her time for 1994).
To my shock (maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised) he isn’t a chad at all…he is a flaming homosexual! He is very active in the gay rights movement too. It’s ironic, his mother insisted on the best genes…yet her son will be a genetic dead end.
ut for pastor Wilson here he would have to accept that he is not sexually attractive to women, which is the greatest sin of all under our new religion, in order to accept reality and start preaching the truth.
For crying out loud. He’s been married for decades and has an ant heap of grandchildren.
The problem is a common one. Tout comprendre, tout pardonner. The promiscuous woman I’ve known best had daddy issues and mommy issues, and, I wouldn’t doubt, both were vectors influencing her behavior. I’d be fascinated to know if Pastor Wilson would construct a comprehensive theory of feminine sexual misbehavior around the sort of negligence this woman’s mother practiced. The sort of reflex his demonstrates is one reason the authority of clergymen has been on the wane for 60 years.
Anonymous_ng:
I found the link at Bonald’s and he gives credit to the ones who quoted it before him at the beginning (elusive wapati and Elspeth).
https://bonald.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/the-most-dangerous-vice-for-women/
That’s quite a story Jay. Unfortunately I’ve seen worse, much worse. For example, remind me to tell you about the “family” down the street headed by a violent bull dyke that works at the county swap meet. She divorced her husband with four children for a New York City lipstick lesbian that she hypnotizes and keeps in some bizarre bdsm “lifestyle.” Her progeny are certifiable and all but one should be committed (that is when they aren’t incarcerated). The youngest managed to even shoot an upstanding neighbor a few times with a .22 while he was gardening for no reason whatsoever, said it was an accident.
Just a couple of today’s examples to drive the point home what so many of these females are like today:
This one screeched at her cell phone and then twerked right before she had an abortion: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh3N98B8u12NRhm5cl
This one drove her car into a pole to try and prove to her bastards that God will protect them from her reckless actions (yes she was arrested and booked by law enforcement afterwards): http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhlbVFC7f98jp188d4
There are millions and millions of these ratchets out there. Millions!
American, one of those women has day-glo lime green hair. The other one has purple hair.
Unnatural hair colors are a major red flag.
Pingback: Security Conference Seduction | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: They Want To Believe | Spawny's Space
@Spike:
Women’s need for security is much more real outside police state countries, like Ukraine, for example.
The cops there do not even investigate a rape claim unless she was forcibly with violence or a weapon, then forcibly raped. The whole ‘I am a whore and I get drunk and WANTED to bang some guy and regretted the next day’ type of fake “rape” claims are NOT even investigated in most of the world outside Feminist hellholes of Western Europe, Brazil, USA, UK, Australia, Canada, etc.
In places like Ukraine, Brazil, Russia, India etc, women DO need a man for security, because there is a valid danger of street crime and women can be assaulted by a drunk and violent mentally ill thug. There are also robberies and muggings, so a man makes a difference there. THAT is a real need for security.
In America where a no-evidence false accusation from 30 years ago can ruin a man’s life (or send him to prison), the “need for security” is a fraud. These false Christian writers are writing garbage for a world that has not existed in 50 years! 🙄
The core issue: Women have to be responsible for their own actions and decisions. Female PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is what is missing in Feminist societies.
The lack of the welfare state in many countries also forces women to be responsible. When daddy government will not pay her to raise the crack dealer’s kid at taxpayer’s expense, the woman avoids the crack dealer completely, for fear of getting impregnated by such a loser. This is not that hard to figure out. 😉
The women in the Feminist hellhole countries have ZERO personal accountability for any of their actions. Get knocked up by a crack dealer who is in and outta jail? Go on welfare! Unprotected sex pregnancy? Abort baby the day before it is born at taxpayer’s expense (thanks Mitch McConnell!). 🙄 Lazy and does not want a job? Mooch off some dumb Beta guy or get preggo by rich dunce and sue him for child support and “live la vida loca” in luxury for the next 18-24 years!
They can falsely accuse a man of a crime, get caught doing it, and never be prosecuted for filing false police report. Female teachers bang 10 year old boys and MAYBE they get fired form their jobs, no criminal charges, nothing serious happens. They are never held accountable for serious crimes they commit, they can kill their own kids with impunity (Andrea Yates, abortions, etc), they get less then 1/5 of the typical criminal sentence that a man receives for exact same crimes.
Perfect example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4864432/Mother-bashed-baby-brags-not-jailed.html
Evil abusive mother got NOTHING as punishment for abusing her kids! Why? Because she is an attractive woman, and she “did not know what she was doing” or “the stress during my period was too strong, I am sorry” type excuses… that is why! 😡 And she got to taunt the ex online… and she is right, she will get custody of kids again, no doubt about it. Next time she abuses the children, she will falsely accuse the man, so she gets away with it completely. The courts are rigged so women can be irresponsible and criminal with no ramifications.
I can give you these examples for hours, if you like. I worked in criminal and Immigration law for 6 years, women get off, men go to prison. There IS a double-standard and it will likely never really go away, because Manginas and White Knight clowns (i.e. Paul Ryan types) refuse to step up and make the legal changes we need to fix this.
—
@WhiteGuy says:
Men listen to this truth that my wife spoke last week: “It’s easy to find someone to sleep with, it’s hard to find someone to build a life with.”
— Translation: I can get laid easily, finding someone to support me is hard. Funny that’s the exact opposite for me.
Women control access to sex. They can spread open their legs and even repulsive ugly 2s and 3s can find SOME guy (eventually) to bang her at some point. Men will almost never refuse a free lay. That is reality of our testosterone-fueled nature. We NEED the relief, women do not get this; they think male sexual drive is a WANT. 🙄
Men control access to commitment/marriage. This is where we CAN make a difference, by evading marriage altogether (or only marrying a high quality woman, which is extremely hard to find, and still, puts men at a big financial risk). There is a price we men pay for this choice, but this is our main card to play. Control access to commitment and marriage and the SMV marketplace will eventually adjust itself over time. If men stopped marrying or LTR dating sluts, the women would have to improve to meet the marriage/LTR requirements of men.
That is supply and demand, the market forces invisibly CAN work, if men allow it to work the proper way.
Red Pill Latecomer:
Yes, any unnatural hair color, facial piercings, and tattoos are HUGE burning, red warning flags.
Here is crash course on slut-detection (also research “1,000 cock stare”, it will clarify a lot of confusion for many guys):
http://www.returnofkings.com/16837/24-signs-shes-a-slut
http://www.returnofkings.com/23539/26-more-signs-shes-a-slut
http://www.returnofkings.com/149710/30-signs-that-a-woman-has-slept-with-over-100-men
This info is golden! Men need to start being smarter about the women he allows around him.
(Sorry folks, I forgot to put a “profanity warning” on the RerurnOfKIngs links above).
But it does not change the fact that the INFO the links provide is not totally useful and accurate on detection and avoidance. These RoK guys deal with a lot of trash women and sloots and they KNOW how to spot one from a mile away. 😉
ChristianCool 8)
@Paul – You are right. After betrothal, the bride was considered to be married without sexual relations. If she did, she would be an adulteress. This point was what I was thinking about during the betrothal process.
I don’t understand your second point. Do you mean common law marriage was for folks who lived together for a long time, granted marriage by the Church, then could have sex? That argument doesn’t make sense, namely since marriage wasn’t considered a sacrament until the Medieval Period. “Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest’s presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime.”
McSheffrey, Shannon (2006). Marriage, sex, and civic culture in late medieval London. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 21.
A covenant theologian pretty much has to take this viewpoint. If your theology is that a household is baptized by will of the father, then it stands that the problems stem from men- either fathers or husbands (or in this case, non husbands).
To say there is individual responsibility in sin and repentance is to throw a wrench into their logical system.
I encourage Wilson to actually read his bible, especially proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Lex:
Wilson will NOT read his Bible. The whole point of these books is to take focus away from the Bible into whatever crazy ideas these Betas have. The fact that some consider a man’s “Godliness” based on the happiness of his spouse is so beyond anything Biblical, it is almost insane and delusional. How they came to that conclusion, it is beyond me.
I hear and read insane things like that online all the time these days. Women demanding the husband become her serf, as part of being a leader of the home, for example. They use some obscure Bible translation or verse to justify it. But besides the Bible, the very thought of what Dalrock calls a “Servant leader” is an oxymoron. They use Jesus washing Disciples’ feet (another misunderstood reading of actual text, plain and simple, in the most basic context of the Washing event). That is like entering an exit or screwing for virginity. 🙄
Some of the arguments from Wilson’s book remind me of the whole “marry the sluts” because “it is good for the US economy” push by National Review/Prager. They try to sell a bad idea, by using arguments that defeat their original point.
Some of these arguments and ideas can be defeated easily with basic logic and common sense. You do not even need The Bible to defeat insanity and lack of logic and coherence. 🙂
@Dam Crackers:
FYI, Common Law marriage in USA, contrary to popular belief, does NOT require the couple even live together for a certain amount of time. Yes, in some States, common law marriage requires the couple live together or Consulate marriage or whatever. BUT, in some States, like Colorado, an 1880’s State Supreme Court decision “created law” (precedent) that if a man and woman merely STATE (make a public declaration) that they are husband and wife, and one of the two can provide two or more witnesses, that is a legally enforceable marriage!! They do NOT even need to consummate it and they do not need to even live together! 😮
In other countries, like Brazil, a couple has to live together in same residences for at least 181 days for a Common law marriage to be created. It is seldom lay enforced, but it has been sued tin Brazil to divorce-rape men (they have Feminist legal system in Brazil, a real nightmare).
In many cultures, including traditional Judaism, an engagement was a very serious thing. Whether the couple consummated it before marriage or not, it depends on the region of the Jewish couple and the type of Judaism they followed.
I attended a very traditional Conservative Jewish wedding before and it was hilarious. The couple get married, then the guests go next door to the party (yes, they break the glass inside handkerchief, ceremony mostly spoken in Hebrew, etc). Then we are at party waiting for couple to come by. Suddenly, the just-married Jewish couple enters the banquet hall and everyone cheered. The groom looks flustered, yet relaxed (clearly, he just got laid). LOL 😀
A friend, who is Jewish, explained to me, right after the wedding, the couple goes into a room behind Synagogue and they Consulate the marriage right there and then. When man enters the banquet hall, he is now “a man”.
So I think a lot of the Old Testament traditions of Judaism vary based on what type of Judaism and Judaic law they follow, just as Catholic, Orthodox, and Baptist traditions vary greatly as well (all 3 being Christianity). 😉
*Consummate their marriage (dang spell checker changed it to “Consulate”. 😳
lol 🙂
Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders. | Dalrock