In my last post I offered an example of alpha widowhood. Marrying such a woman represents a real danger for men, and the risk of this is greatly increased by the mind frame of courtly love.
Infogalactic lists the stages of courtly love:
Stages of courtly love
(Adapted from Barbara W. Tuchman)[41]
- Attraction to the lady, usually via eyes/glance
- Worship of the lady from afar
- Declaration of passionate devotion
- Virtuous rejection by the lady
- Renewed wooing with oaths of virtue and eternal fealty
- Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire (and other physical manifestations of lovesickness)
- Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady’s heart
- Consummation of the secret love
- Endless adventures and subterfuges avoiding detection
This is the original version of courtly love. The modified version that we mistake for Christianity alters the script as follows:
- Attraction to the lady, usually via eyes/glance
- Worship of the lady from afar
- Declaration of passionate devotion
- Virtuous rejection by the lady
- Renewed wooing with oaths of virtue and eternal fealty
- Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire (and other physical manifestations of lovesickness)
- Heroic deeds of housework which win the lady’s heart
- Get married.
- Repeat steps 1-7 in a continuous loop.
For those who practice courtly love in lieu of Christian marriage, the practical problem is that steps 1-7 won’t win a woman’s heart, and are in fact repulsive. She might however decide to settle, and marry you anyway. If she does, rest assured she will always resent you for it, and will always see herself as a victim.
See Also: Are the vast majority of women truly incapable of experiencing reciprocal love and attraction?
Music videos offer an open and uncensored window into the mind of modern women. Nobody gives us a clearer picture than Taylor Swift. She tells stories which warn young men to be careful. Or take the Red Pill.
Taylor Swift shows us love in the 21st century
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/05/02/taylor-swift-how-women-relate-to-men-83800/
Pingback: The wages of wooing. | @the_arv
I guess I didn’t even play the courtly ‘game’ right. After the rejection phase I just moved on because why bother trying to win back someone who rejected you. Probably saved me from a resentful wife.
Brad Pitt can’t keep a modern american womminz happy .. neither will you .. so don’t bother ..
with the modern american womminz .. good luck finding a non-modern american wommimz tho. (1)
Otherwise .. Stay Single my Friends and Brothers.
(1) For those brothers looking to marry.
Dalrock – you seriously need to put all this into a book.
“Courtly Love: A Knaves’s Foolish Quest”
“Heroic deeds of housework which win the lady’s heart”
That’s number 9 after the marriage.
Before the marriage, it heroic wining and dining, romantic getaways, and gifts.
‘Before the marriage, it heroic wining and dining, romantic getaways, and gifts.’
That sounds like my cousin when he was trying to ‘win over’ his current wife.
Funny one of her bridesmaids stated how ‘it’s hard for a woman to stay mad when you are cleaning’ as marital advice. (the lulz moment was some guys I was standing by muttered ‘that’s a lie’)
This is the Trad Con way of wooing, and where it leads is to settling, because the TradCon assumption is that “provider game” leads to attraction. In PragerU terms, Ward Cleaver is teh stud!
That Katy Perry vid is perfect as an illustration.
The better way? A man has his mission in life. A woman might be an asset to his mission, if she qualifies.
He demonstrates his mission by his Way. She then can try to attract his attention. He can decide if she’s worthy.
Total inversion of the “Yes, M’Lady! ” blue pill tradcon script.
honeycomb
Brad Pitt can’t keep a modern american womminz happy ..
Pittls errors are pretty obvious when you know what to look for.
neither will you .. so don’t bother ..
Getting stuck in the anger phase is not healthy in any way.
‘Pittls errors are pretty obvious when you know what to look for. ‘
Yeah don’t marry a she demon for one.
Unless you’re doing it wrong. Which, when she’s mad, is every single time.
Hank-T
Before the marriage, it heroic wining and dining, romantic getaways, and gifts.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Fixed that.
AR sez
Getting stuck in the anger phase is not healthy in any way.
LOL .. your projection is showing.
You’re wrong about everything .. and yet you keep typing .. you may go back to your mom’s basement & your dungeons & dragons now .. try and keep it down though .. the adults are talking.
From a purely pragmatic, practical viewpoint a man has a bigger margin for error when he marries a woman who is enthusiastic about being with him because she wants to be with him. When he gets betaized due to events such as deaths in the family, birth of children, changes in job, etc. there’s a “reserve tank” of affection. If there’s “good days” that he can point to / refer to in the past, reviving a relationship is going to be easier.
If she married him mainly for his resources, then there’s an entire industry devoted to removing his presence from her world while retaining her access to those resources.
How many times has Dalrock written something like “I urge men and women to marry only if they are crazy about each other”? Provider-game is the opposite of “crazy about each other”.
The kindest thing one can say about TradCons is they are deeply confused and ignorant. That’s the best case I can make for them…
honeycomb
You’re wrong about everything .. and yet you keep typing .. you may go back to your mom’s basement & your dungeons & dragons now .. try and keep it down though .. the adults are talking.
Getting stuck in the anger phase is not healthy in any way.
@AR re: honeycomb
Your advice to me a couple weeks ago is so apropo.
AR sez ..
Getting stuck in the anger phase is not healthy in any way.
If it gets you to stop repeating yourself .. you’re right .. you should move out of the anger phase.
I hope you get better .. and the help you need.
Damn… poor Mustang.
Pingback: The wages of wooing. | Reaction Times
The one that got away? I saw the one she drove away by being contentious and vexing.
I wonder about how the tradcons’ uplifting of cortly love plays out in their minds in the father-child relationship? If they switch hadship for a lifetime of wooing, then what is switched for the kids? Would tradcons, (if they cared to think instead of feel) say that it is good for a son to see his Dad go to bed exhausted by being the helpmeet? Would they expect a son to take initiative seeking a wife (when he comes of age) when all they saw was a Dad asking for permission his entire married life?
Courtly, not cortly. Headship, not hadship.
OT. Yesterday, seventiesjason said: “I kind of feel sick right now all of a sudden..will pop in a few days”
Maybe he’s just taking a needed break, but he deleted his blog, and seemed quite upset yesterday. So, if anyone has a direct connection to him, it might be good to contact him to show that someone cares.
Headship, not hadship.
I dunno, it’s kind of got a ring to it.
This.
God designed men to need a mate/helper. But to marry a woman who isn’t qualified for that job is self-defeating and thus idiotic. Better to have no helper at all.
OKRickety ..
So, if anyone has a direct connection to him, it might be good to contact him to show that someone cares.
Yes .. that would be good .. we (i.e. more than me have discussed this) also noticed and hope he’s doing well.
Spalshman sez ..
God designed men to need a mate/helper. But to marry a woman who isn’t qualified for that job is self-defeating and thus idiotic. Better to have no helper at all.
Yes sir .. and as a Confirmed Bachelor of 50 plus years .. I would disagree with “NEED” .. (I would agree most men WANT a helpmate) .. but ..
I do realize I am the exception to your advice for the majority of men ..
And to those men looking to marry .. Follow Spalshmans advice.
Jason is a survivor. My assumption is that he deleted his blog because he’s a man of action, and not words — though he’s a better writer than pretty much everyone here (myself included.)
This is a guy who goes out, alone, in the dead of night, and prays with fatherless kids, rather than see them get on the stripper pole or enter the crack house.
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/05/10/if-she-only-had-a-dad/
Dalrock’s blog comments are a little like Khrushchev complaining to the supreme soviet, wondering why Che Guevara won’t stop giving our enemies hell long enough to come back and sit around and drink booze with them. Jason simply sees real-world shit that needs doing, and does it. It’s a shame that more of us aren’t cut from the same cloth (again, me included).
I could use some prayer right now too.
Last night after reading some more “Red Pill” stuff, I came to the realization that how I am interacting with my wife has not been working, at all. I believe I need to cut her lose give her a harsh ultimatum, and leave any attempts at reconciliation entirely in her court. I’m not the one who left, I’m not the one who has spent years gutting the marriage, I’m not the one making false accusations and playing games with the kids and the court system. She has brought me nothing but trouble, shame, anger, heartbreak, spoildness, selfishness, entitlement, intentional torment, manipulation, and a constant never ending battle for control. She was entirely respectful when we were dating, and within a week after marriage, completely turned into a raging demon of contempt, intentional disrespect, and general shittiness. I have tried just about every possible angle, method, and approach that should work with a sane person, and even some that are supposed to help with the insane, and she is still fighting to make things worse. Her efforts have really damaged me as a person. I went from one of the most ambitious and accomplished achievers, to a Man who is just biding his time in a shitty(to me) entry level job, the lowest level job I’ve held, since I graduated from college over 27 years ago. My whole life has literally been put on hold while I fight and respond to this bitches attempts to destroy our family and make virtual bastards of my sons. She has refused to ever function as a helper to me, but quite literally goes out of her way to slander me and make trouble for me with anybody and everybody she has exposure to. Anyhow, while I have felt that I vowed to be hers “in sickness and in health”, her mental illness is such that she has chosen to ditch the one person in her life that has always endeavored to bring her closer to God, and strived selflessly, to bring her joy and the things she has wanted. She has confessed with her mouth that Jesus is Lord, but her every action is that of an unrepentant whore, who is bitter and out to punish me for marrying her. I just can’t give a shit for being with the bitch anymore, even though I love her. And my main concern is for my sons, and being the best example I can be for them. She will raise them to be evil unrepentant whores like the entirety of her family if I let her. Anyhow, pray for me as I put together the letter to her. I feel like I can’t get on with my life with the drama and the shit that constantly surrounds her, and I owe it to God to do something more with my life than to just get shit on. I never in a million years wanted to be divorced, but, at least today it looks like a way of escape. And the divorce is of her filing, and her continued prosecution. Please pray for me and for my sons, and for my marriage. It would take a miracle of God for her to behave decently towards the man who has laid down his life, his career, his peace, and his happiness, all while trying to reform her wicked ways. But I’m done. I’m going to leave it in God, and her hands.
”For those who practice courtly love in lieu of Christian marriage, the practical problem is that steps 1-7 won’t win a woman’s heart. She might however decide to settle, and marry you anyway. If she does, rest assured she will always resent you for it, and will always see herself as a victim”.
It is said that a whole generation of 18-35 year olds no longer attend church. The accepted reason is : No one that age wants anyone, physical or supernatural, telling them what they can and can’t do sexually.
It wasn’t always so. The current generation is lost, not because of sexual regulation, but because of partially applied sexual regulation. That is, a man’s sexuality is regulated and a woman’s isn’t. Now because a woman’s sexuality isn’t regulated, she will want and expect steps 1-7 above, applied with approval of society and church. That same church, that SHOULD tell her to remain chaste, doesn’t.
A man then has no reason to come to church, as it was once a repository of a virtuous woman, or least the semblance of a virtuous woman.
Not any more.
Everyone should check out that video and note, it has 640 MILLION views and 2 MILLION upvotes. Also read the comments. This should give any man thinking about marriage pause. Most guys are the “settle” not first choice. While you’re banging her and her eyes are closed, she’s imagining it’s the old Chad hammering away.
Since housework is part of the courtly love equation…..
From Better Homes & Gardens: “It’ll take 30 years until men do as much housework as women!”
https://www.bhg.com.au/housework-gender-inequality
It’s interesting to me how women intentionally obfuscate and deny the obvious efficiency that comes with common sense division of labor.
If he is bringing home 100% of the household income, then he should be doing 0% of the housework.
if she is bringing home 50% of the household income, then he should be doing 50% of the housework.
Now, she can certainly ASK him to do more housework on her behalf. No problem. But she owes him a favor for such a request. Now I’m sure he will come up with some idea of commensurate method of compensation.
If she has providing 100% of the childcare, and he is providing 100% of the household income, then they can divide the housework 50-50 and hope it gets done well or freaking outsource it, while enjoying a sexless, passionless swamp of a marriage.
Sometimes a blogs well-meaning and doubtless contradictory advices only increase feelings of futility. Single-dom may be lonesome but marriage sometimes makes the miserable even more so.
I am surprised that Jason entitled his blog Life on Airstrip One. He doesn’t live on Airstrip One – I do. Perhaps when he returns he will explain the title.
I don’t doubt he has a suffering heart…and perhaps that’s his motivation to do these things, which produces good fruit. The trap men like him (and me) need to get away from is the ‘woe is me’ which doesn’t. Unite that suffering to Christ’s and it’s not ‘woe is me’ anymore.
@ Sharkly ..
Brother .. it’s not easy without kids .. much less with kids in the equation .. I have a (blue-pill) friend going thru a very similiar problem right now .. Chin-Up and Solider on brother.
WE should and will be prayin’ for ya’ .. Hang in there bro.
Single-dom may be lonesome but marriage sometimes makes the miserable even more so.
Maybe this doesn’t happen so much these days off-blog, I’m no longer in a position to verify; but I’ve probably heard well over a hundred married men envy the singlys, and a like number of singlys envy the marrieds – then argue the other man’s case along the lines of ‘nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen’.
Pretty sure one of those men was me (possibly arguing one side then later the other), but there were so many competitors it all kind of runs together.
“The only thing worse than being alone, is wishing you were.”
– woman attracts man with her sexual assets
– man attempts to attract woman with his success assets
– courtship ensues
– marriage and children
– woman decides to divorce man, takes children and assets
– woman finds new man and creates new relationship..receives resources from multiple men
– man is stripped of success assets and thus cannot create new relationship, and is wary of women anyway
– children and man suffer poorer life outcomes
– woman oblivious to why no one likes or trusts her
– gender relations break down over successive generations as social contract has become meaningless
@Sharkly – Praying for you brother. That’s about as difficult a situation any man can ever be in.
@Sharkly
I will pray for you.
In my limited understanding, the less you take a strong lead, the more crazy wives will react.
You can of course never rule out real psychological problems, although pyschology often acts as a disguise to not take responsibility for sin.
The best you can do is to fully trust in the Lord, whatever the outcome might be. As far as yourself is concerned, in the end we all need to answer to the Lord what we did with our lives, and your marriage ranks higher than your profession. Try not to sin, and unfortunately you will not be able to avoid suffering if your wife is set on sinning against you.
Maybe it is helpful for you to read about Borderline Personality Disorder
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder/index.shtml
many women are diagnosable as BPD.
@Sharkly – I join the others here in praying for you and your situation. My brother is/went through the same thing. His wife abandoned him (good Church/Catholic girl diagnosed with bipolar disorder among other things), took his son, and won’t let him know where she is. He does have joint custody (only on every other weekends), but his life is ruined.
Maybe a priest or pastor should write not books on how to take care of your wife, but how a Christian man should live after his wife abandons him.
Hmm…..modern woman are a problem. I agree it helps to marry one whom is crazy about you, at least in the sense she is attracted to you the person and not just you “the provider of stuff person”. How can you do that?
I did it in two ways – first, by marrying under your own SMV at least a couple notches, and also marry a woman whom makes more money than you and higher up in status in the modern, conventional status measurement of employment. This way it is more than likely she is marrying you not to just get married ’cause she is about to or already hit the wall, but rather because she actually might be attracted to you.
Lost Patrol
The one that got away? I saw the one she drove away by being contentious and vexing.
Her rationalization hamster sees no difference…
How does a good Catholic girl get BPD? Me thinks there was something in her past he didn’t investigate hard enough.
@Sharkly,
Praying for you brother.
“I believe I need to cut her lose give her a harsh ultimatum, and leave any attempts at reconciliation entirely in her court.
Do not give her any ultimatum. Ultimatums come from a position of weakness and desperation, and she will know this about you. It will fail. No more words of explication or justification are required from you, my friend. Instead, take action. Protect yourself and your children as best you can. Provide for them. Be available to them. Do not conflate the small stuff. Focus on the bigger picture, and the long game. Most importantly, take care of yourself, place yourself first in priority – live to fight another day.
“It would take a miracle of God for her to behave decently towards the man who has laid down his life, his career, his peace, and his happiness, all while trying to reform her wicked ways. But I’m done. I’m going to leave it in God, and her hands.”
It already sounds like she will never be decent toward you, or reform her wicked ways to your satisfaction. Best to leave it up to the higher power, as her actions, attitude and feelings are now beyond your control and influence.
Be strong. Do not give up.
How very feminist of you.
‘Maybe a priest or pastor should write not books on how to take care of your wife, but how a Christian man should live after his wife abandons him.’
It would actually be better if a priest wrote a book on which women you shouldn’t choose to be your wife and how to find those things out.
Granted the marriage vocation would go down to almost 0 especially in the west, but it would certainly save many a men from the situation your brother and his family is in.
And yes, it is feminist. As feminists want men to marry women who spent their youth getting that career going and they want men to marry women who are uglier than them.
For a women to have a career with status she needs to sacrifice her youth. This means you will probably be marrying a women who is about to hit the wall.
When a woman out earns the man, she doesn’t respect him, she denigrates him instead. Divorce rate increases too. So… in essence, you will be marrying an older women, who is uglier than you, has more money than you, disrespects you constantly and will divorce you eventually. At least you might be able to get alimony and child support… oh no wait, you’re a man, scratch that…
At the same time they can also write books on stock market investing, farming, space exploration, fashion design.. etc.
I would suppose it may not be detectable until it is more fully developed. My son is in the Autism Spectrum Disorder. Looking back, there were signs, but no one mentioned the idea until he was about fourteen, and got a diagnosis of Aspergers when he was sixteen.
“He didn’t investigate hard enough”? If you haven’t lived through it, your understanding may be limited.
‘ If you haven’t lived through it, your understanding may be limited.’
I had a previous co-worker with it. I just don’t see how that type of messed up personality could fly under the radar…unless they were well medicated.
Jason,
If you see this, just know that I have respect for you. Getting clean isn’t easy. Staying clean on a long-term basis isn’t easy either, and its rare. Actually doing with your life to help others after you get clean, is rarer still. It makes me sad to see the loneliness that comes through your words sometimes. Other people have given you advice, and I don’t think I have much I could offer you on that account. But you have people that live far away from you, that you have never met and probably never will meet, praying for you. And that’s worth something. Be well.
‘At the same time they can also write books on stock market investing, farming, space exploration, fashion design.. etc.’
Sure, hater. Might I remind you when they actually do their vocation correctly they represent the model of marriage the way Paul stated it.
The priest is in persona Christi…and his bride is the church.
@Earl@FeministHater – I don’t mean to turn this into a Cath/Prot thing again. It’s why I said priest OR pastor should write a book for divorced/abandoned men.
@Earl – You are right. My brother should have done some investigations before marriage. However, her diagnosis was never revealed to him until after the abandonment. I am sure he wouldn’t have extended the hand of marriage if he knew about her past mental problems, on top of having MS. If any marriage would be eligible for an annulment, I am sure this marriage would be.
I just hope she isn’t ruining the upbringing of my nephew who has to live with her most of the time.
You don’t need to remind me of anything. Their failure to do so speaks volumes.
Damn Crackers. I agree with you, they shouldn’t be writing books on the issue of marriage at all. They have completely failed in their objective and cannot remotely distill into a useful book the methods of determining if a woman is of sound mind. I doubt very many men can. Hormonal change can cause a woman to go from normal to insane over a few years. You cannot vet for this.
It’s probably as good a reason as any as to why marriage isn’t working out really well.
Homos don’t know how to do marriage…they know how to do sexual perversion.
Sharkly, if you’re considering divorce, don’t let her know. Start hiding money. Study up on foreign bank accounts, crypto currency, asset protection, and how to hide assets from “skip tracing.”
Protect yourself. The better protected you (and your money) are, the better protected your sons will be,
I went from one of the most ambitious and accomplished achievers, to a Man who is just biding his time in a shitty(to me) entry level job, the lowest level job I’ve held, since I graduated from college over 27 years ago.
That’s not entirely bad. Alimony is determined by your earning history.
I might sound cold and mercenary, but a man needs to be hard-hearted when preparing for divorce. Sounds like your wife will show no mercy in court.
And if there’s a chance that your wife is so crazy and bitter that she’ll make false abuse allegations against you (claiming you abused her or your sons), it might be wise to start gathering evidence to the contrary.
@DR Smith-
When woman earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce goes up, not down:
https://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands
Basic hypergamy. Don’t marry women who earn more than you.
She need not worry, I’m not having anything to do with her outside of a purely business relationship that I intended to have the upper hand in. For me, women are but competitors for limited resources and position that would pose an enormous threat and liability if I was ever stupid enough to give them power over my life and/or finances. Forget about so-called “marriage” or impregnating her. Forget about allowing her to out compete me in a business context. Never going to happen. Moving along.
When woman earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce goes up, not down:
And yet, there is that strange class of working, even professional women, who happily support (sometimes even marry) lowlifes. Bums, bikers, felons, struggling (often drunk) artists or musicians. Successful career women who fiercely defend these alpha losers to their girlfriends and parents.
Sharkly says:
August 23, 2018 at 12:05 am
Brother, you most certainly have my prayers too. I can definitely relate to your situation. It’s very similar to mine with my first wife. I too never wanted to be divorced and also went to the ends of the earth to save the marriage, but I ultimately realized that it takes two to make a marriage and if one half of the marriage doesn’t want it to succeed, it won’t succeed. However, contrary to what today’s churchians want men to believe, that is NOT on the party who is making every reasonable and sincere effort to salvage things. My wife was determined not to be married to me anymore. God knew where my heart was and most certainly knew where hers was. She exercised HER OWN FREE WILL to destroy her marriage. Once I recognized that fact and that her exercise of her own free will was beyond MY control, I felt an indescribable peace. Hopefully you’ll feel the same.
TL;DR version: You’re not at fault here, nor can you control your wife’s behavior. God knows where your heart is and will guide and carry you to peaceful pastures.
Hang in there, brother!
And that’s why anytime I run into the ‘women have no (moral) agency’ camp…I always push back. They can make choices morally or immorally just as much as any man can.
Sharkly
Last night after reading some more “Red Pill” stuff, I came to the realization that how I am interacting with my wife has not been working, at all. I believe I need to cut her lose give her a harsh ultimatum, and leave any attempts at reconciliation entirely in her court.
Sharkley! This is a very bad plan! Do Not Do This!
I Am Not A Lawyer. This Is Not Legal Advice. But I’ve see too many friends / coworkers / social circle men get frivorced to let this idea slide by.
Sharkley, from what you have said in comments, you are already at least partly into the divorce machine. Any ultimatum you give now is not just pointless (she’s already checked out) it is dangerous to you. She can take any ultimatum you issue and run to the anti-Family court with it as further proof of how mean and bad and dangerous you are to the children.
An ultimatum would hand a big club to her attorney (that you are surely paying) to beat you with.
This is the time to be stoic. To be “just the facts, ma’am”. Anything you say or especially write can and will be twisted against you in the “court of equity” by expert word-twisters. It is not fair or just that she gets to say whatever she wants and be believed, but it is real and it is surely happening.
At the practical level, an ultimatum is really a hassle to walk back. You will have to compromise at some point, it will be less hurtful to you if you don’t have to eat an ultimatum in the process. Just for a start, if I remember correctly there are children involved: you may have to eat some serious crow and grovel before an anti-Family judge to even see them, it will be less painful and humiliating for you if you don’t also have to choke down an ultimatum as well.
One man I know started off his frivorce with about 4 days per year when he could see his kids. He went back to anti-Family court time after time after time after time to chip away at that horribly unjust settlement. He had to go in as the ultimate stoic: “These are just the facts, Your Honor. See how she had not followed your court order? I move for an adjustment”. A lot of anger in his heart that he never let anyone in the system even get a whiff of, because he had his poker face on when and where needed to get what he wanted from the system.
Depending on how far into the divorce grinder you are it could be time to communicate with her only via 3rd parties – you tell your lawyer to tell her lawyer to tell her. Because one more time
Anything you say or write can and will be used against you in the “court of equity”.
I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.
@Sharkly
Well I’m not an attorney nor play one on TV…but I do think a lot of what women do is try to bait you
into some emotional turmoil in order to use that against you in court. Nothing would get a man into a rage dump against her than to accuse him of such vile things like being a rapist or a pedophile to his own kids.
New here, just want to say this blog is AMAZING. I have been reading it several weeks and what a rabbit hole this marriage 2.0 has become. Big Thanks to Dal and all that comment here, it has been an experience unlike any other.
Sharkly says:
August 23, 2018 at 12:05 am
Sir,
I’ve been there and will continue to pray.
Please at least consider RPL and AR’s advice. Also, a bad lawyer will cost much more than a competent one in the long run
My divorce was 15 years ago. Once I figured out the mother of my sons was now my worst enemy, it made everything easier. I kept anything the least bit emotional to myself. Any interaction with her, to this day, is businesslike. Be sure to keep a handwritten diary for divorce court purposes.
I mitigated the damage to the kids. She weaponized them both against me. This eventually backfired, and both moved with me by their choice. I am almost done paying her, merely for having a uterus in the West. Think long game my man, not short game.
Forgot to add feeriker’s advice is also excellent. Cue Solid Gold dancers.
OT: Northeastern Prof Warns: Male Military Veterans ‘Reinforce Hegemonic Masculinity,’ Sexism
Bless you my sons.
This is legit because she interviewed “14 current and former male servicemembers by phone or Skype.” FOURTEEN! Almost in person! She’s a professor you know. What do you think she makes per year?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/northeastern-prof-warns-male-military-veterans-reinforce-hegemonic-masculinity-sexism/
@Lost Patrol
That’s OK. Her sisters now can choose to get blown up, shot, shelled, watch their comrades killed, and experience TBIs and missing limbs and such.
That is, the ones that actually go. Most are excluded by Slightest Whiff of Deployment in the Air Pregnancy Attrition.
F@$k her.
The two options Dalrock gives are
1. Actively pursue a woman
2. Engage in the kind of performance that attracts a woman, then let her come to you.
I can say from experience that 2 works better. But that doesn’t make it traditional. It works because it admits that we live under a matriarchy, and that female choice is ascendant.
The traditional option is
3. See a hot woman, then cut a deal with her father, brother, or whoever else controls her.
That’s the patriarchal option. It doesn’t work because we don’t live in a patriarchy.
So no, there are no ‘Trad’ options available. It’s better to take the practical option than the cross-dressing one, but I prefer avoiding the game altogether.
Collegereactionary said: “I prefer avoiding the game altogether.”
Understood. I agree with you.
That is why I advocate a man never marry, cohabitate with, let take your name, or impregnate (outside a non-TS legal surrogacy) an American woman anywhere, or do any of those things with any woman while in America, including doing them overseas with a foreign woman and ever bringing her back to the U.S.
If an American man has physical needs, there’s really good porn now, with acceptable sexbots imminent, and (for all but legalist/blueist of blue-pill men) the concept that the disappearance of marriage as an option eliminates the Biblical requirement for marriage before sex, leaving whores, ONS, STRs, and unentangled LTRs arguably open for Christian men.
If an American man is (laudably) called to fatherhood, then egg donor & gestational surrogate is the way to go, adding to the above NEVER letting any woman legally adopt your children, nor adopting any children she has left over from sluttery days or frivorce.
Q.E.D.
Thanks to all of you for your prayers. And thanks in advance to those who keep praying for me.
I appreciate the prayers, and I also appreciate the good advice. I realize a lot of you went through some awful shit to come by that advice too.
I guess an “ultimatum” was probably the wrong word to use. I just basically kind of matter-of-factly stated that I had prayed and sought counsel and that after 16 years of trying to get her to behave as a Christian, I was done, and was going to instead focus on moving on as a Christian on my own not unequally yoked to somebody who refused to be a helper and instead used and usurped me for their own worldly desires.
Unfortunately she has already pushed me into blowing up at her by email many times, and she used one time to get my time with my kids restricted to supervised time only, due to a single sarcastic comment, which makes it almost impossible for me to get any time set up with them, since I can’t afford to pay for a supervisor, and am limited to a few people who she has agreed to, to ask to supervise me out in my home in the boonies, On their one day off, when they want to be with their own family and children. Due to this I have not seen my kids in about 3 weeks right now, and only occasionally get to talk to them on a supervised speakerphone connection where I can’t hardly hear a fraction of what is ever being said. I also let my wife know that the Licensed Sex Addiction Therapist had just reported that my sexual development was normal, I am not a “sex addict” or “porn addict”, he does not perceive any danger to the children, and he does not see any further need for assessment, or any need for any treatment. Basically he said the whole accusation against me was likely pejorative and likely the result of her being offended by my normative sexual interest in my partner, and/or normative sexual behavior.
I believe the Sex Addiction Therapist must spend his career talking to many men who did not have a proper relationship with their fathers, and his female partner likely spends her days taking to women with “daddy issues”. He of all people seems to have to professionally deal daily with the aftermath of fathers being needlessly ripped out of their children’s lives.
He is now the second Psychiatrist to test, fully asses, and clear me of having any abnormality, and state that there is no reason why I should pose any danger to my children, or have any lack of ability or judgment to effectively and safely parent children. And since I have already been assessed and cleared once, his services were entirely “out of pocket” cost to me. With my having to pay for a second dwelling, psyche testing and evaluation for me, psyche treatment for her, and lawyers for both of us, a Feminazi’s worthless and completely one-sided parenting evaluation, and Etc., I’m already out over $20K, and I haven’t even seen the judge yet.
Thanks again for all the prayer, and for your concern, and for the advice.
On an earlier topic: Doug Wilson on debt-free virgins without tattoos (among other things):
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/under-lock-and-key.html
Not a bad article at all by Doug Wilson (although the ‘men are liars’ part is off)
This caught my attention on the same page as the stages of courtly love by infogalactic
“The Church emphasized love as more of a spiritual rather than sexual connection”
Here is entire problem in a nutshell. The mind and soul are combined into a single entity distinctly separated from the body. A thinking soul trapped in a machine. What is spiritual is a personal spidey sense while the body is common..
This is a satanic inversion of Christian spirituality. Christian spirituality is immanent, where the body is elevated above the mind but the current transcendent/feminist spirituality elevates the mind above the body.
Of course, virgins primarily share a romantic connection until they decide to get married.So, courtly love is fine before marriage but after marriage everything has to change from being primarily an emotional connection to primarily revolving around the body. So, courtly love in marriage would turn marriage into a form of adultery or premarital sex
CS Lewis made a fundamental faulty assumption of accepting the widening of the soul-body dualism that would come into its fullness during the 60’s. For example, he claimed the christian view of marriage was only valid for Christians, not non Christians. https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-c-s-lewis-is-wrong-on-marriage/
Only a spirituality divided from reality could only be valid for a certain group of people
CS Lewis writings on courtly love assumes medieval sexuality was utilitarian and thus lacked love and passion. However, feminists also claim the exact same thing about CS Lewis epic of time. We know this is not how sex works in any epic of time…sexual passion and love is a given from the muslim to the bar slut.
The utilitarian language is a reference to the primacy of the body but a mind body dualism automatically assumes if romantic love is not first and foremost then it must be utilitarian and cold
.
@Naama
You may be interested in Idealism which is proven by modern science and quantum physics:
Alteration of the body like the brain also alters the soul which is immaterial.
“The Church emphasized love as more of a spiritual rather than sexual connection”
Which “church”? There’s also the Satanic “Church”, for example.
Anyways, here are the relevant scriptural quotes:
‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:7)
Note: “one flesh”, not “soulmates”.
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. (1Cor 7:3)
(No mention of “souls” or spirituality either.)
Of course, the mind-body duality is one of the core tenets of Gnosticism, which is an upscale gentrified version of Satanism. Christianity teaches a mind-body unity.
@Naama
In my opinion this was triggered by the view of sexuality that developed in Gnostic circles (to which already 1 Co 7 testifies) where body=evil and spirit=good. Augustine was part of a gnostic cult that shared a similar vision. This vision heavily influenced his later Christian writing on sexualty, which in turn defined the rules for sexuality in the RCC until modern times. As I posted earlier, it gave rise to medieval penitential rules for sexual behaviour like this:
(Brundage, “Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe”)
@Paul
You may be interested in this:
https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-teleology-of-coitus.html
Coitus is possible during all stages of the menstrual cycle, what the design of the cycle reveals is that coitus can only achieve its telos of conception during a small portion of it. The rest of the time coitus is intrinsically infertile by design.
This demonstrates the importance of the one flesh bond apart from procreation as well as including it. Inherent in the design of the bodies given to us by God.
@Paul
”In my opinion this was triggered by the view of sexuality that developed in Gnostic circles”
Whilst repudiating the gnostic notion of fruitful union of marriage in opposition to the fully gnostic sects.
He still couldn’t let go of the heresy of the sinfulness of the one flesh union and the god designed pleasure thereof.
Guilty of at least 1 part of Isaiah 5:20 of regarding that which is good as evil.
@Paul:
“All men are liars” is what the Scripture says (Psalm 116:11), and I believe it is quite true. But I treat it as the generic “man”, meaning all people – all men and women lie. Wilson is quite correct here (and in an earlier article) that women (and society in general) expect and insist that people (especially men) lie to them:
“That tattoo looks cool!” [I know sailors with less offensive ones.]
“No, those pants don’t make you look fat.” [if you’re a walrus]
“You’re better off without him.” [Him without you certainly, but your kids will pay and pay. And the chance is 90% that you won’t be better off at all.]
“You got passed over because of discrimination.” [They discriminated in favor of hard work, which you don’t do.]
Women get so used to lies that they can’t bear even a whiff of the truth, and men hardly notice anymore that they are lying.
@info
A point I also made in this forum. Apart from the menstrual cycle, other physiological processes point to the fact the primary purpose of sex is NOT procreation:
– the ‘design’ argument presumes procreation as goal to assign purpose to the use of the body for sex; it therefore arrives at an inconsistent interpretation that only penis-in-vagina sex is allowed for procreational purposes
– permanent or temporary infertility (either by defect, menses, or old age) would technically make sex immoral if the primary purpose of sex should be for procreation.
– the amount of sperm cells and the amount of eggs are way beyond the maximum number of children any couple could theoretically conceive during their lifetimes. It is hard to argue for a procreation purpose if so much ‘seed’ is spilled anyways even for couples who will conceive the maximum number of children possible.
Furthermore:
– to allow Natural Family Planning as a permissible form of contraception contradicts both the general prohibition against contraception as well as the procreational purpose of sex
So even when reasoning from a Thomistic principle (using a Natural Law argument), sex for procreative purposes only misses its goal.
It’s inexcusable people with celibate lifestyles are still heaping guilt of their conscience as well as fear for their salvation upon married couples, even in light of all these facts.
Wrong.
It’s not that the body = evil. It’s that sexual immorality = evil.
@info
Furthermore a case from “Natural Law” can be made that shows the non-procreational purpose of sex between husband and wife (of course modern science has given us much more knowledge than former popes or the church fathers of old would have had)
1. The role of testosterone on male sexuality: it creates a strong sexual desire towards sexual climax, without a strong desire per-se towards procreation.
2. The role of the orgasm: the primary role of orgasm in male and female sexuality is for achieving pleasure, not for begetting children
3. Female orgasm is usually NOT achieved by penis-in-vagina sex
4. Penis-in-vagina sex is only possible with an erect penis
5. An erection can usually not be achieved without any physical stimulation, especially not in older males (Augustine regretted it deeply that erection could not be achieved by will power only, thereby acknowledging this point)
6. The release of chemicals after orgasm (Oxytocin, Vasopressin) play a crucially important role in long-term pair-bonding, to the point where the upholding of long-term relationships becomes more difficult for people with multiple sexual partners (showing that it is not coupled to orgasm only, but to the RELATIONSHIP.)
Point 6 shows that monogamous relationship are created/strengthened by orgasm and orgasm requires more than penis-in-vagina sex only. Therefore physiology supports that sex plays a primary role both in pleasure as well as in monogamous long-term relationships.
To me this fits beautifully in the biblical picture of one-flesh, and the joy of the intimate relationship between Christ and His Church.
@earl
The gnostics saw body=evil. Agree or disagree?
This influenced Augustine’s writings. Agree or disagrree?
These formed the basis of RCC teaching on sexuality. Agree or disagree?
‘The gnostics saw body=evil. Agree or disagree?’
Agree.
‘This influenced Augustine’s writings. Agree or disagrree?’
Disagree considering he was going back to Scripture for truth after hanging out with Gnostics and learning their truth was a lie.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar22.htm
‘These formed the basis of RCC teaching on sexuality. Agree or disagree?’
Disagree. The teach has always been the sexuality we have was inherently good because God created it…the sexual immorality is evil.
Due to solipsism, these women also after assume that because they have 5 men trying to woo them, that they have a choice of 5 men. Fact is, there are probably 5 or more other women being wooed by these same men.
My dad is a car salesman. My wife keeps expressing interest in various cars on his lot, but never actually chooses one… yet she gets mad when someone else buys one of them. My dad has bills to pay, and the notion that he’ll hold five cars in reserve while she makes up her mind is ridiculous.
Same concept.
And to keep the metaphor going…if a woman keeps waiting to choose one, she’ll eventually have to ‘settle’ for the car she doesn’t care for.
I even recently read in a book by Bishop Fulton Sheen (Three to Get Married)…where he talks about the fact it wasn’t the sexual act between Adam and Eve that led to sin (amazingly some people do think that), it was disobedience to God.
Now granted while I regard Fulton Sheen with great esteem, he isn’t a canonized saint like Augustine. I’d like to see some text where he mentions something about the body or the marital act itself being evil or something to that effect verses talking about disobedience to God such as sexual immorality being the evil.
‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:7)
Some people think a husband never left his parents geographically. The husband stayed at his parents estate while the wife left her parents and moved to her husband.
The husband left his parents provision and became the provider for his wife. This is part of a marriage relationship organized around the body. The husbands provision of food, shelter and sex is a unity. Its a unity in how a husband shows his love and affection for his wife and it allows couples to direct their relationship towards childbearing and child rearing. A couple can accept any children born or even dropped off at the door without it changing their relationship. It cannot change their relationship because its what they organized around.
To deny this is to accept the apple Eve reaches out for you to eat. The apple is the desire to transcend the body and this brings destruction to civilizations, kingdoms and empires.
We are in the midst of this now and there is no turning back.
Oops, I wrote:
“Some people think a husband never left his parents geographically”
I meant to say
“some people think a husband LEFT his parents house geographically”
The church fathers are often misrepresented because they were writing an occasional document addressing a specific situation.
Their language primarily revolves around sex as utilitarian, only for procreation. They were fighting against the same thing as whats going on now…
They were real men who didn’t placate and apologize with endless caveats explaining how marriage should be passionate and stuff like that…this is a given.
We’ve gone over this before, but to be fair to Augustine, his idea of sexual sin even in marriage was to find a compromise between the truly anti-sex Church fathers, like Jerome, and others who found no problem with the marriage bed.
Augustine basically claimed that sexual desire, even within marriage, is sinful. But the sacrifice of the wife/husband to quench the other partner’s desire with their body is good. Think of it this way, desire is sinful (like Buddha said), even in marriage. But, it’s ok since you have a loving partner to help you out.
And yes, the large majority of Gnostics were anti-sexual. But several gnostic groups were complete libertines (e.g., the Carpocratians) according to their detractors. They considered matter and flesh so fallen that it didn’t matter what you did with your body (like the Corinthians St. Paul addressed).
Also, the Stoic influence in Christianity led to the idea that procreation is the only acceptable reason for sex. Musonius Rufus (a Stoic contemporary of Paul) stated that sex in marriage shouldn’t be for pleasure but procreation. Both the Gnostic and Stoic influences led to the extreme ascetic ideas (especially seen in the Desert Church fathers) concerning sexuality.
Paul
You are a big time gnostic transcender.
What you say is a skin of truth covering a lie
Everything you say is about sex revolves around stimulating the mind. This is not to say it shouldn’t stimulate the mind-this is a given.Its just not the primary purpose of what couples need to organize around. If you were to eat a peach, the sensation of the smell and taste is only one aspect of eating along with digestion and absorption. To make eating disordered would be to eat something and then stick your finger down your throat and vomit it up or to bypass the taste altogether and feed yourself by an IV bag.
Jesus Christ never forbid divorce on the grounds of protecting your emotional stimulation. He forbids divorce on the grounds of protecting a bodily connection. The man and woman form a family in themselves and then with any children conceived. Jesus Christ’s divorce prohibition distributes women evenly between men so that every man can contribute to society and women can be confident to be their husband’s dependent. This builds the finest civilizatizations.The fabric of any society is sexual.
“permanent or temporary infertility (either by defect, menses, or old age) would technically make sex immoral if the primary purpose of sex should be for procreation”
OK. Lets agree with these unintentional reasons for infertility. Can we agree that intentional acts of infertility can be immoral? Or are you trying to make a case from situations out of our control in order to justify every other situation?
Your entire premise is the separation of the soul from the body. Now you only see the body. In another example you will only see the mind/soul.
You are vomiting out your food for taste or hooking yourself up to an IV bag to feed yourself
@Naama
“Paul You are a big time gnostic transcender. Everything you say is about sex revolves around stimulating the mind.”
Gnostic transcender? You didn’t mean transgender to make the insult more complete did you?
I find your reading comprehension less than impressive, and I don’t like your groundless accusations.
@Naama “You are vomiting out your food for taste or hooking yourself up to an IV bag to feed yourself”
Nice, more insults. You know the rule that the moment people start insulting they’ve lost the debate?
“Think of it this way, desire is sinful (like Buddha said), even in marriage. But, it’s ok since you have a loving partner to help you out”
Desire is not sinful because God created it. A disordered desire is sinful.
The buddha was a gnostic transcender who claimed women cannot reach enlightenment unless we are reborn as men. The gnostic gospel of thomas verse 114 says the same and feminsts say the same thing.
The problem is a woman’s body is a vessel of immanence that hinders transcendence. God designed me as a vessel of immanence in order to connect my husband to creation.
Most people think Adam wasn’t alone in the garden because he was in a perfect relationship with God. This isn’t even close to being true. Adam being alone created an imperfect relationship with God in the garden. The fully mature sexual man couldn’t connect with creation without a helper. This conflict was resolved with the creation of a woman. The woman is a perfect counterpart as a vessel of immanence to the mans natural transcendence.
This is overlooked because spirituality is an immaterilal spidey sense separated from the body.
Just like Eve’s desire to transcend her body and adams acceptance lead to the exile of Eden, we are at the edge of a cliff and are about to loose our society
Whether you agree or disagree is not going to change reality
“Nice, more insults. You know the rule that the moment people start insulting they’ve lost the debate?”
No. I know the rule that once a person no longer debates they lost the debate.
You are tying to sidetrack the debate. Put on your big boy pants and deal with the subject
@earl
The gnostics saw body=evil. Agree or disagree?’ Agree.
‘This influenced Augustine’s writings. Agree or disagrree?’
Disagree considering he was going back to Scripture for truth after hanging out with Gnostics and learning their truth was a lie.
So you claim his gnostic teaching had NO impact on his writings at all? I’ll give you some examples it did
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm
“Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, and rages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection.”
“Lust of the marriage union” is sex/sexual desire with/for your spouse. Augustine calls it evil.
The only redeeming quality is when children are begat.
“There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant.” What is implied by Augustine is that having sex during pregnancy is awful, because it cannot lead to children.
“For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault”
According to Augustine it is a venial sin to have sex without the purpose of begetting children.
To summarize: according to Augustine sexual pleasure is evil, and is only ever so slightly admissible if it is intended towards procreation.
Sexual pleasure is evil is a gnostic thought. Hence these thoughts influenced his writings.
Compare that with the biblical language on sexuality:
Proverbs 5:18-20
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love. Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?
Also compare that with penitential chart: “no fondling!” “do not try to enjoy it!”
@Naama
I don’t debate people who purposely and grossly insult me. If you apologize I will be more than happy to continue a debate with you on content.
Boxer — “Jason simply sees real-world shit that needs doing, and does it. It’s a shame that more of us aren’t cut from the same cloth (again, me included).”
LOL! The dood that yammers endlessly about his personal life, pisses and moans his way thru existence, instead of just getting on with Father’s business? Accomplishing all that real-world shit. Just like you!
Y’all are cut from the same cloth alrightee. Mebbe start a co-blog, call it Attention Whores Anonymous. :O)
@earl
These formed the basis of RCC teaching on sexuality. Agree or disagree?’
Disagree. The teach has always been the sexuality we have was inherently good because God created it
If that is so, and Augustine though sexuality was inherently sinful, why did the RCC accept the teachings of Augustine?
I do humbly apologize for insulting you. I am more experienced debating feminists and abortionists where I have to expose them quickly in order to dismantle their worldview.
i would rather encourage you guys instead of exposing you.
@Naama
Apology accepted.
‘If that is so, and Augustine though sexuality was inherently sinful, why did the RCC accept the teachings of Augustine?’
Well what’s the text Augustine said that states sexuality is inherently sinful?
Looks like mudsharks like Katy have something to look forward to:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-23/outbreak-alert-rare-flesh-eating-std-reported-england
“Lust of the marriage union” is sex/sexual desire with/for your spouse. Augustine calls it evil.’
He calls lust evil.
“For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault”
Satisfying of lust is the evil.
‘To summarize: according to Augustine sexual pleasure is evil, and is only ever so slightly admissible if it is intended towards procreation.’
To summarize…Augustine is calling lust evil.
IS is just me? Or is it almost always the case that when you break up with a girlfriend she is always angry at you for “wasting her time”, as if she was always doing you some sort of favor for being with you and it wasn’t a two way street.
Paul — “In my opinion this was triggered by the view of sexuality that developed in Gnostic circles (to which already 1 Co 7 testifies) where body=evil and spirit=good.”
Romantic love was unknown in the ancient world. It was conceived by satan and nurtured by various gnostic cults, particularly in the centuries immediately after Christ. Most of those cults drew from longstanding pagan/goddess entities and ‘religions’ that flourished everywhere in the ancient world, including amongst the tribes of the Israel Lights, as Scripture recounts with repetitious disgust.
The Gnostic cults with their feminine Sophia/Wisdom doctrines and narratives were transitional between the mother/daughter cults of the ancient world, and the Marian/romanticist narratives developed later by various pagans, especially gnostics. The Eleusinian Mysteries, for example, lasted over a MILLENNIUM . . . so it’s no surprise we read constantly in Scripture about the Tribes being infested — over and over — with these various anti-religions, nearly all of which focused on worship of a feminine deity. (That is, females worshipping themselves, and males joining in that worship, typically via the ‘sacred prostitute’ methods of their ubiquitous temples, e.g., Dianic.)
Perhaps some herein get a bit impatient at the amount of ink devoted to modern Romanticism in the ‘churches’, but the explications here are absolutely requisite, because Romanticism assuredly is the default form of worship in most modern ‘Christian churches’. From Jeshua’s p.o.v., their behavior is no different from the rites of say, Eleusis, in B.C.-ville, nor from the complex and clever distortions seeded into humanity by the early Gnostics. As we see, those seeds bore rotten, persistent, and popular fruit.
The diligence of this page in hammering on this topic is thus both justified and commendable.
From the Catechism about lust since it seems the thought is Augustine shaped this thought process.
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
Paul —
Love the flow chart. Let the Holy Frustration flow!
Hugo Awards celebrate diversity: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/20/hugo-award-winners-showcase-science-fictions-diversity/
If your perception of science fiction is an all-boys clubhouse with a “No Girls Allowed” sign out front, it’s time to update your operating system.
When the Hugo Awards — the Oscars of science fiction and fantasy — were presented Sunday night, the diversity of the fans and creators called up to receive the rocket-shaped awards was on full display. Most were women, including several women of color and members of LGBT communities.
“I may be the first black and indigenous woman to win the John Campbell Award but I won’t be the last,” said Rebecca Roanhorse, who received the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer and took home the Hugo Award for Best Short Story for “Welcome to Your Authentic Indian Experience.”
The awards were given out during WorldCon 76, the huge sci-fi gathering at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center.
As far back as the 1990s, it seemed to me that half of all book editors, and a majority of literary agents (in NYC, as opposed to Hollywood), were women. Women and gays dominate book and magazine publishing, though the women still complain that men dominate the top executive slots.
@RPL
The current state of the Hugo awards is the sign of the victory of the Rabid Puppies; Make the SJW’s turn an honored institution into a smoking hole in the ground by their own hand, and showcase their depravity to the world.
It’s the rapidity of such destructive change that’s the most effective weapon against the SJW’s, because it allows memory and thought to compare and contrast events without the cloud of time.
From the Enchiridion by Epictetus, a quote that may help some of the commenters here. Remember, this Stoic Handbook was considered an exceptional work by early Christians:
When it comes to matters of sexuality [aphrodisia], keep yourself pure as much as you can before marriage. If you do indulge, then do so only in those pleasures that are lawful. But don’t be offensive or critical with those who do use [those sexual pleasures]. Nor make frequent mention of the fact that you yourself don’t use them. (33)
RPL
Hugo Awards celebrate diversity:
The skinsuit stage has begun.
Women and gays dominate book and magazine publishing, though the women still complain that men dominate the top executive slots.
Feelz outranking realz again.
The Los Angeles Times Hugos report actually referenced the Puppies: http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-hugo-winners-20160822-snap-story.html#
The winners of the Hugo Awards were announced at a gala ceremony in Kansas City, Mo., on Saturday, marking a good night for women and authors of color, and a very bad one for the “Puppies.”
Writers N.K. Jemisin and Nnedi Okorafor, both of whom are African American women, won the novel and novella awards, respectively. It was a defeat for the groups the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies, who for two years have semi-successfully gamed the nominations for the Hugos — which along with the Nebula Awards are generally considered the preeminent awards in science fiction and fantasy — in an attempt to advance their anti-diversity agendas.
Jemisin, who won for her novel “The Fifth Season,” referenced the Puppies in her acceptance speech, io9 reports. “Only a small number of ideologues have attempted to game the Hugo Awards,” Jemisin said. “That small number can easily be overwhelmed, their regressive clamor stilled, if the rest of SFF [science fiction and fantasy] fandom simply stands up to be counted. Stands up to say that yes, they do want literary innovation, and realistic representation.”
Jemisin’s victory was a repudiation of Rabid Puppies leader Vox Day, who has described Jemisin as an “ignorant half-savage.”
Other winners who are not white men include Hao Jingfang (novelette), Ellen Datlow (editor, short form) and Abigail Larson (professional artist).
Pingback: Symptoms of the Clout-ture | Things that We have Heard and Known
@earl
I think you’re only confirming my point about Augustine, but you can help here:
“Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’”
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
If yes, you’re just confirming what Augustine says, and agree with me.
Hmm
Doug Wilson on debt-free virgins without tattoos (among other things):
Mush.
Ok, it’s not as bad as some of his previous mush: this is tepid and reheated rather than stale, cold and on a pedestal. He even threw in a few Bible quotes; novelty!
But it is still disorganized, poorly thought out mush.
Paul,
Ha Ha Ha, I’m sorry but I just got to AMOG out my thanks to God.
3. Female orgasm is usually NOT achieved by penis-in-vagina sex
Well, I’ll just praise God for my wife and I having been highly unusual.
5. An erection can usually not be achieved without any physical stimulation, especially not in older males
Again, I guess I have to thank God, I’m able to become fully sexually enabled by choice, or by visual, or mental stimulation alone.
In another thread, I gave some supplement information for some evidenced based ways to clean out your arteries, resulting in youthful erectile performance, but of course some people won’t appreciate free advice, even when it is backed with scientific research by Nobel prize winning doctors.
Anyhow, I also thank God I was not then restricted in my sexuality by Popery, and was instead thankful to God for my blessings and my liberty in Christ to enjoy sex sanctified, by God, through marriage.(and not as falsely taught, through romance, or Eros)(or through attempted marital procreation only)
@Paul
“Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’”
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
If yes, you’re just confirming what Augustine says, and agree with me.
I will answer a solid yes.
@Sharkly
“Anyhow, I also thank God I was not then restricted in my sexuality by Popery, and was instead thankful to God for my blessings and my liberty in Christ to enjoy sex sanctified, by God, through marriage.(and not as falsely taught, through romance, or Eros)(or through attempted marital procreation only)”
The protestant church believed the same thing until the last hundred years.
Dos this “liberty in Christ” make consequences go away for Christians and only apply to non believers?
@Paul
I’ve just woken up and I’m hungry. My hunger, ‘my desire for food’, is not sinful, it’s natural. If I have breakfast I don’t sin, even having smoked salmon on a special day, like my birthday. It’s proportionate and grateful and yes, I can enjoy every mouthful and give thanks in humility for this gift.
If, however, I wake up hungry but deliberately and ‘perversely’ do all in my power to inflame that hunger into an all-consuming ‘lust’ for food, where reason and sobriety and humility towards God and His creation, goes out the window and I embark on an ‘orgy’ of feasting, lasting as long as I like, smearing food over myself and puking and stuffing my face like a man possessed by a demon, using extremely creative and plain out-of-control greedy ways to satisfy my hunger then I’ve either got psychological problems or am knowingly in denial about the truth of the situation. Fingers in my ears levels of denial.
Greed and hunger are NOT the same thing.
Sexual desire and lust are NOT the same thing.
We have a duty and responsibility to know the difference. It’s not just definitions of words – come on,we KNOW all this – there is so much pressure to conform to what the Devil wants us to do. The still small voice of calm and reason is still there despite the ongoing Culture Wars and the temptation to just give in to the ‘commands of our oppressors’.
Naama says: Dos this “liberty in Christ” make consequences go away for Christians and only apply to non believers?
I have no Idea what you’re asking. But I presume you might be objecting to my liberty. God did not ask us to forgo sex with our spouse for any long length of time. Please read and pray about the below passage of God’s word:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I’ve probably posted that exact scripture here a lot of times already, if anybody is keeping count. LOL But I’ll attempt to give you some of my opinion on it, for free again.
It, and other passages seems to say that staying a virgin, undefiled by women, is a good thing. Sex appears to be the only reason, ever given in the New Testament, for why to marry. Both parties have rights to sex with the other, that supersedes the other’s right to deny. Denying the other mate sex when they want to exercise their right to it, is defrauding or depriving them of their due. mutual abstention from sex by a married couple is never mentioned as ever being required here, However if it is done for fasting purposes, it should only be done by the mutual agreement of both mates, for a limited time, because you open yourself up to more temptation by forgoing sex, that God has lawfully and lovingly provided, and sanctified through marriage.
Naama says: The protestant church believed the same thing until the last hundred years.
Apparently you weren’t alive to know that, because Matthew Henry’s Commentary published in 1706 (that’s over 300 years ago, for those who don’t do math) seems to agree fully with my interpretation of the passage above. Feel free to read it for free at:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7&version=ESV
And it has this helpful warning to you abstainers:
Note, Persons expose themselves to great danger by attempting to perform what is above their strength, and at the same time not bound upon them by any law of God. If they abstain from lawful enjoyments, they may be ensnared into unlawful ones. The remedies God hath provided against sinful inclinations are certainly best.
Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
LOL Gotta love the Bible!
be thou ravished always!!! I’m sticking with the Bible. I Wasn’t going to be letting the pope(or antipope) cockblock me, when it was hard enough to get my wife to obey God on this matter. And yes, her disobedience did lead to temptation and sin, including now an ongoing divorce. So the word of God should be followed on this matter, or sins including divorce may ensue.
At the risk of too much information, at 37, I still get the morning and even the rare, ” hey, remember me!”, random erections. No sexual touching required. This is after 12 years of being celibate after becoming a Christian ( no sex/masturbation ).
For me, the only reason I would get married would be to have sex and if she was willing to conform her life to my calling. Also, I’ve never meet a woman I’ve “burned with passion” for. Marriage without kids I could accept. Marriage without sex? What’s the point?
For what it is worth, in 1546, John Calvin published a commentary on 1 Corinthians, and also was in favor of sex as a bonding exercise for the purpose of preventing sin.
This, however, is perfectly well known, that immediately after the first rise of the Church, there crept into it, through Satan’s artifice, a superstition of such a kind, that a large proportion of them, through a foolish admiration of celibacy, despised the sacred connection of marriage; nay more, many regarded it with abhorrence, as a profane thing. This contagion had perhaps spread itself among the Corinthians also; or at least there were idly-disposed spirits, who, by immoderately extolling celibacy, endeavored to alienate the minds of the pious from marriage. …
Husband and wife, therefore, are bound to mutual benevolence … of the mutual obligation as to the marriage bed. … — as to the maintaining of conjugal fidelity. …
“Defraud ye not one the other” Profane persons might think that Paul does not act with sufficient modesty in discoursing in this manner as to the intercourse of a husband with his wife; or at least that it was unbecoming the dignity of an Apostle. If, however, we consider the reasons that influenced him, we shall find that he was under the necessity of speaking of these things. In the first place, he knew how much influence a false appearance of sanctity has in beguiling devout minds, as we ourselves know by experience. For Satan dazzles us with an appearance of what is right, that we may be led to imagine that we are polluted by intercourse with our wives, and leaving off our calling, may think of pursuing another kind of life. …
“If at any time it comes into the minds of married persons to desire an unmarried life, as though it were holier, or if they are tempted by irregular desires, let them bear in mind that they are bound by a mutual connection.” The husband is but the one half of his body, and so is it, also, as to the wife. Hence they have not liberty of choice, but must on the contrary restrain themselves with such thoughts as these: “Because the one needed help from the other, the Lord has connected us together, that we may assist each other.” Let each then be helpful to each other’s necessity, and neither of them act as if at his or her own disposal. …
“Unless by mutual consent” He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the question is not as to the continency of one merely, but of two; and besides, he immediately adds two other exceptions. The first is, that it be done only for a time, as perpetual continency is not in their power, lest if they should venture to make an attempt beyond their power, they might fall before Satan’s stratagems. The second is, that they do not abstain from conjugal intercourse, on the ground of that abstinence being in itself a good and holy work, or as if it were the worship of God, but that they may be at leisure for better employments.[those given only as “fasting & prayer”] …
Now if any one objects, that the use of the marriage bed is an evil thing, inasmuch as it hinders prayer, the answer is easy — that it is not on that account worse than meat and drink, by which fasting is hindered. But it is the part of believers to consider wisely when it is time to eat and drink, and when to fast. It is also the part of the same wisdom to have intercourse with their wives when it is seasonable, and to refrain from that intercourse when they are called to be engaged otherwise. …
“And come together again, that Satan tempt you not” Here he brings forward the reason, from ignorance of which the ancients have fallen into error, in rashly and inconsiderately approving of a vow of perpetual continency. For they reasoned in this manner: “If it is good for married persons sometimes to impose upon themselves for a time a voluntary continency with mutual consent, then, if they impose this upon themselves for ever, it will be so much the better.” But then, they did not consider how much danger was involved in this, for we give Satan an occasion for oppressing us, when we attempt anything beyond the measure of our weakness. “But we must resist Satan.” What if arms and shield be wanting? “They must be sought from the Lord,” say they. But in vain shall we beseech the Lord to assist us in a rash attempt. We must, therefore, carefully observe the clause — “for your incontinency”: for we are exposed to Satan’s temptations in consequence of the infirmity of our flesh. If we wish to shut them out, and keep them back, it becomes us to oppose them by the remedy, with which the Lord has furnished us. Those, therefore, act a rash part, who give up the use of the marriage bed.
Anyhow, not wanting to fall into temptation and sin, I personally had found it “seasonable” to maintain conjugal fidelity pretty much anytime I was not fasting and praying in great earnest. And I also, like John Calvin, see, giving up the use of the marriage bed, as a rash act, with “a false appearance of sanctity”. I feel I should let my “fountain be blessed” and “let her breasts satisfy [me] at all times.” Sorry if the Pope is cockblocking Y’all! I’d ditch the dude and follow the Bible. Doesn’t that idiot pray with a hat on like a woman? See 1 Corinthians 11
Sorry if the Pope is cockblocking Y’all! I’d ditch the dude and follow the Bible. Doesn’t that idiot pray with a hat on like a woman? See 1 Corinthians 11
The Bible, by his own admission, isn’t a priority to anti-pope Frankie Marx. That would seem to indicate that prayer isn’t very high up there on his list either.
‘If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?’
Lust is what is called evil. Do you equate sexual pleasure to lust?
‘Marriage without sex? What’s the point?’
That’s the unitive part people seem to overlook. Which is why I agree with others here that if a spouse is ‘dead bedrooming’ the marriage they are in the wrong.
Certainly procreation is the natural result of sex…however the othe purpose of it is to unite the spouses. That’s why it’s called the ‘marital act’. The pleasure is a part of it…however it should not be the only motivation for it. In fact some people experience pain (either physically or emotionally) from it…so for some spouses it’s actually a sacrifice they make for their spouse.
What gets people triggered is thinking they can seperate the procreative part (artifically through contraception) from the marital act for their own personal satisfication of lust and somehow think they aren’t sinning.
Hi Sharkly!
I am Protestant. However, marriage is not drawn by the lines of Protestant, Catholic or government because the family predates these institutions.
You posted a lot of information about not abstaining from sex and the pleasure of sex.
We agree on both of these points.
I am truly sorry for your impending divorce.
Where we are probably going to part ways is that marriage cannot be properly defined by pleasure or an emotional connection.
Marriage predates the church and government, so that means premarital sex existed before the church and state got involved.
How could premarital sex be identified if a couple cannot produce witnesses, a marriage license or a wedding album? How can you identify living in sin from marriage?
Living in sin is defined by organizing around pleasure and an emotional connection. This is also the sin of adultery and homosexuality.
What does premarital sex and adultery have in common? They are relationships that have to be sterilized because they organize around pleasure and an emotional connection. Homosexuality is the ultimate sign of rebellion of a sexuality ripped from its context of the whole body which includes child-bearing and child rearing.
@Rick
“For me, the only reason I would get married would be to have sex and if she was willing to conform her life to my calling. Also, I’ve never meet a woman I’ve “burned with passion” for. Marriage without kids I could accept. Marriage without sex? What’s the point?”
Your calling is only as valid as it conforms to God’s calling. This calling has to organize around the personal sexual body created by God. Not some subjective spidey sense.
The staunchly conservative pastor who witnessed our marriage was overjoyed that I was a virgin who didn’t have any objection at all to making a public vow of obedience towards my hubby. I really didn’t need to make this vow because its naturally inherent within a lawful marriage that organizes around the body. On the flip side it doesn’t fit or belong in an unlawful marriage that revolves around the primacy of just having sex. As our marriage counseling progressed it became very clear that the pastor was forcing my obedience into a spirituality and practice of marriage where it just don’t fit or belong. He said it was very moral if we didn’t want children but emphasized the importance to abstain from children in order to get to know each other. Of course, this discussion naturally flowed into my career, daycare and birth control. He expected me to function sexually, socially and financially like my husband. The pastor was describing an egalitarian marriage which is the definition of premarital sex.
The first act of authority my husband exercised was to put this pastor in his place.
‘Anyhow, I also thank God I was not then restricted in my sexuality by Popery, and was instead thankful to God for my blessings and my liberty in Christ to enjoy sex sanctified, by God, through marriage.’
How does the pope restrict sexuality in that regard? I didn’t know the pope would have been your boogie man in the marital bed.
‘LOL Gotta love the Bible!
be thou ravished always!!! I’m sticking with the Bible. I Wasn’t going to be letting the pope(or antipope) cockblock me, when it was hard enough to get my wife to obey God on this matter.’
Please point out where the pope would sneak into your house to convince your wife to not have relations with you. And why use Song of Songs when St. Paul…EXPLICTLY STATED…that the spouses should not deprive each other.
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-5.htm
Me thinks you are blaming the wrong character in this story.
If Sharkly’s wife was pope, then I’d be a little more concerned about sexuality restrictions.
Paul
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
If yes, you’re just confirming what Augustine says, and agree with me.
Naama
I will answer a solid yes.
Then if you are married, it is certain you only allow your husband to have intercourse with you about 4 days out of each month.
RPL — “As far back as the 1990s, it seemed to me that half of all book editors, and a majority of literary agents (in NYC, as opposed to Hollywood), were women. Women and gays dominate book and magazine publishing, though the women still complain that men dominate the top executive slots.”
The takeover was pretty much complete by 1990. I published a fair amount of fiction in the Eighties, and even then, most of publishing/editing was a henhouse. The university writing and masters programs were already fully converged, and they forced out any white males that didn’t toe the feminist/marxist line. Whilst preaching Diversity and Equality, to be sure!
Once I started getting rejection letters that cited my incorrect politics, I knew the game was over and left fiction behind to the Pussy Politburo. The conquering of the various awards (Hugo, Nebula, etc) was just a matter of time, and the quality of short fiction went quickly down the toilet.
But hey, women were LARGE AND IN CHARGE and raw power is all that matters, now. Live by the sword, die by it.
Earl says Homos don’t know how to do marriage…they know how to do sexual perversion.
I agree. Would it be uncharitable to point out that the same is true for your religious leaders? (At least in Canada there are/were many of your religious leaders that were engaged in sexual immorality. And in the states a couple big-name (supposedly protestant) televangelists also.) Not surprising, as they are not allowed God’s path for sexual release.
The Orthodox allow men to marry and also to be religious professionals, providing they marry the woman first, and start the religious professional career second. Thus he has the sexual release intended by God for his needs (1 Cor 7:1-9).
Ray say Mebbe start a co-blog, call it Attention Whores Anonymous. :O)
Oh… That was funny, but a low blow.
Earl says Me thinks you are blaming the wrong character in this story.
I think Earl is correct here. Maybe it is because I am not involved with the Catholic religion, apart from trying to be aware of their false teaching, but I can not name any RCC religious professionals that try to destroy the families of their own flock. Protestant religious professionals, on the other hand, seem to be in one of the following two camps:
1) Deliberately tear down the husband, and/or the husband’s role of absolute (subject to God) authority in his home, for the purpose of puffing up himself as the religious leader, or
2) Do the same as #1, but from ignorance of what the Bible actually says about marriage, or from fear of preaching it to the rebellious females in his earnings group.
I do not remember any protestant preachers, other than ones I saw on YouTube videos on the internet, who reinforced Biblical marriage roles.
Thus, in this area, I have more respect for Orthodox religious professionals than Protestant. And, from ignorance, I am willing to admit that RCC religious professionals may very well deserve the same respect. I’ll let Earl comment on that, since he actually has experience there.
@Sharkly,
You mentioned you gave “supplement information” in another thread. I am trying to find your comment/post. I used the search function on Dalrock and Goodle to look for that, but did not find it. Can you give the name of a supplement that you would have typed, that I can use in my search? Thanks.
@ Sharkly
“Sorry if the Pope is cockblocking Y’all! I’d ditch the dude and follow the Bible. Doesn’t that idiot pray with a hat on like a woman? See 1 Corinthians 11”
I am Protestant.
Following the bible means nothing without context. The context is written revelation, natural revelation and what was handed down to the church. You don’t have context so you messed up the meaning of Corinthians 11.
The meaning of Corinthians 11 is directed towards husbands and wives and authority. A husband’s authority is a process that begins once the couple agrees to marriage. At this point, the man needs to prepare a home and provision for his wife. On the wedding night, the man becomes a husband when he fully communicates his love and provision for his wife sexually. The man offers and the woman accepts the man as a whole. At this point the wife becomes a covered woman. A covered woman is signified by a husband parting his robe and covers his naked wife with his body and robe as he joins into her sexually.
Ruth was asking Boaz to marry her when she placed a section of his robe on herself. The sexual morality of marriage is always in the context of a husbands care and provision for his wife. Ezekiel describes the care and provision of God towards Israel is ultimately communicated by placing his robe over Israel once she is sexually mature. God prepares mansions for his bride the church . Jesus consummates his marriage to the church. Another way the bible communicates this reality is by a husband overshadowing his wife.
The husband’s authority and provision for his wife makes the couple into a single identity, not two individuals.The husbnad’s authority is granted by his provision so the couples love and affection can naturally unfold into child-bearing and child-rearing. The arrival of a child cannot alter the nature of their relationship because this is what their relationship is organized around.
A wife can fully worship in church but to assume a position of authority uncovers the wife from her husband’s provision, protection and authority. She becomes her own person, she uncovers her head. A wife is not prohibited from being a church leader because she might utter wrong information. Both men and women are prone to giving out wrong information. A wife can be more educated than any man on the planet and the prohibition would still apply. A wife up at the podium is giving wrong information by just being up there. It says a wife can transcend her body and attain the functionality of her husband. She uncovers her head. A wife dishonors her husband by uncovering herself from his provision and authority. She covers his head.
A husband who covers his head dishonors his head Jesus Christ.
This comes from Adam’s acceptance of Eve’s desire o transcend her body.
The message of a husband covering his wife in marriage would not apply to a single celibate pope.
@ anonomous reader says
Then if you are married, it is certain you only allow your husband to have intercourse with you about 4 days out of each month.
How about this. Would you pay to watch professional sports if nobody was allowed to win. Probably not. This would drastically alter the game. Professional sports is based on winning games, a pendant or a cup.
Just because a team loses doesn’t invalidate playing the game.
An infertile couple is still in the game of marriage even when the primary purpose cannot be attained. They need to organize around it.
But hey, women were LARGE AND IN CHARGE and raw power is all that matters, now. Live by the sword, die by it.
The me too movement is not really about sexual harassment. Its about making men into monsters in positions of authority and influence. When the media or a political office has to decide between hiring a man or a woman they will pick a woman every time because the liability of hiring a man will be too high.
No…why do you think I said it?
The priesthood is the ultimate marriage model…Christ (priest is in persona Christi) and the church.
Apparently the Vatican back in the 60s tried to outlaw homos into the priesthood…however it seems some bishops decided to rebel from that.
@Naama
I’m sorry, I didn’t fully understand your response to me, if it was directly at me. Could you clarify?
What I meant was I’m where God wants me. I don’t want to deviate from that. So if a woman was interested in me, she would have to accept that. I won’t deviate for any person. I’m not saying I’m super special or something, I just want to hear ” Well done good and faithful servant!”.
If I did find the “unicorn”, I would love to have kids. But, if for whatever reason having children didn’t happen, I could accept that. However, if I/she didn’t want to have sex, then what was the point of getting married? Paul’s whole point is it’s better to stay single than be married unless you burn with passion. Well, if you burn with passion for each other it would seem there would be lots of sex. If there’s no sex, there’s no passion. It stand to reason then if there is no passion then there is no reason to get married.
@ anonomous reader says
Then if you are married, it is certain you only allow your husband to have intercourse with you about 4 days out of each month.
Naana
How about this. Would you pay to watch professional sports if nobody was allowed to win.
Totally irrelevant to the subject.
An infertile couple is still in the game of marriage even when the primary purpose cannot be attained. They need to organize around it.
Contradicting your previously stated position, i.e. Sexual intercourse for any purpose other than pregnancy is evil. Therefore you would only submit to sexual intercourse during the 3 to 4 days of ovulation per cycle. Infertile couples should refrain from sexual intercourse forever. That includes older couples; once she goes through menopause, no more sexual intercourse for the rest of their lives. You’re rewriting a part of the BIble in the process, of course, but that’s normal for women.
Then again, perhaps words such as “ovulation” and “evil” and “refrain” are not clear to you.
Is English your first language?
Taking things a bit further here…
If marriage without sex is no marriage (I am mostly inclined towards agreeing with this), and marriage without fertility is no marriage (disagreeing), then, arguably, an annulment (not divorce) is in order when any of the following occur:
1) She goes through menopause;
2) She gets her tubes tied or otherwise becomes infertile (e.g., hysterectomy);
3) He gets a vasectomy, loses his nads from an IED while on patrol in camo in the sandbox, etc.
Luke
If marriage without sex is no marriage
Elsewhere in the androsphere one can sometimes find earnest debates on this. How many months or years of sexual refusal by a physically and mentally healthy woman does it take to constitute abrogation of her wedding vows? It’s one of those issues that no celebrity preacher (Keller, Piper, Driscoll, Wilson, etc.) has ever touched. Nor will they. Because Ephesians is all about “mutual submission”. Just ask any conservative feminist (see previous list).
Hi, Anonymous Reader. Re “How many months or years of sexual refusal by a physically and mentally healthy woman does it take to constitute abrogation of her wedding vows?” , I think the traditional legal standard was a year.
Naama,
I was a virgin who didn’t have any objection at all to making a public vow of obedience towards my hubby.
That there changes everything. I suspected, but was not entirely sure previously, that you were a woman. I try not to assume it publicly about anybody, since being feminized is a great insult, especially on the man-o-sphere. Men are created in the image and glory of God, while womankind was created as the glory of man. I was taught form an early age that when the sex of a baby is still unknown, the baby is always to be referred to as “he” and never ever “it”. Because “it” dehumanizes the baby, and it is insulting to not give the baby the benefit of the doubt as to “his” sex. In some cultures the parents would also be quite offended, if you assumed their child might not be a son.
It seemed to me that I was likely arguing with a woman, and I try not to do too much of that. I find a lot of what you’re doing here to be suspect now. There is a proper Bible procedure for you to ask your husband at home about these questions.(1 Corinthians 14:35) Also, you personally, as a married Christian woman, should not be here arguing and contending with other Christian men about the Bible.(1 Timothy 2:11-12)
Now I will attempt to address a few things you have said, even though I think it is largely for the sake of others, that I now do it.
Marriage predates the church and government, so that means… Nothing!
The word of the Lord was laid down before the foundation of the world! In the Beginning was the Word.(John1:1) Everything that God subjects us to in the Bible, whether governing authorities,(1 Peter 2) or Christ, or rules concerning Christ’s body the church, all apply. Even to you! Your marriage is not what you make it sweetie, It is, and only ever will be, what God the author and originator of everything including marriage has made it to be. He has told us much of that in His Bible. Your arguments about marriage, are entirely meaningless once you leave the text of the Bible, and doubly so coming from a foolish woman who rebelliously seeks to correct Christian men by her own “logic”. LOL
Rick says: For me, the only reason I would get married would be to have sex and if she was willing to conform her life to my calling.
Naama usurps and takes on the role of God, and tells Rick: Your calling is only as valid as it conforms to God’s calling. This calling has to organize around the personal sexual body created by God. Not some subjective spidey sense.
To which Rick rightly responds: I’m where God wants me. I don’t want to deviate from that. So if a woman was interested in me, she would have to accept that. I won’t deviate for any person. I’m not saying I’m super special or something, I just want to hear ” Well done good and faithful servant!”.
To which I say: Naama, your calling is to submit to your husband in everything, to learn in silence and subjection, and to refrain from trying to tell men what God’s calling in their life is. You Aren’t God. You aren’t even said to be in the image of God, and yet you feel entitled and presumptuous enough to try to be the voice of God in some man’s life, who didn’t even ask for a woman to become his crazy goddess who mocks his holy communion with his God, as his “spidey sense”, while she spews out foolish feminine “logic”. LOL You’re full of yourself Naama! No wonder your husband is taking an, indubitably well deserved, break from contending with you, as you harangue strangers on the internet instead.
Naama says: Following the bible means nothing without context. And then proceeds to say that 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t really mean what Paul, God’s inspired author wrote, because … Context. Whatever! Silly woman! Those who fear God, keep his word. Those who don’t, argue about cultural context, and ask, “did God really say?”.
Naama says:The husband’s authority and provision for his wife makes the couple into a single identity, not two individuals. The husband’s authority is granted by his provision so the couples love and affection can naturally unfold into child-bearing and child-rearing.
Wrong! Wrong! God joins the two into one flesh, not the husband. What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder. And the man’s authority is not “granted” by anything the man does or provides. If he is broke, disabled, impotent, and foolish, his authority is every bit as intact as it ever was, because the husband was created to be a head, by God, God delegated the husband the authority to stand in God’s place in the wife’s life, and bearing God’s image, to be submitted unto , as unto the Lord Himself. Your Husband does nothing to earn the headship God created him with, and that your father, gave you away, to be under, out from under his own headship as your parent and father.
Naama says: Both men and women are prone to giving out wrong information.
But you are apparently failing to see, the degree to which the respective sexes do it. Do you not see, that you have spewed so much more crazy wrongheaded foolishness, that I can only point out but a few of those many points, for lack of time?
Please stop arguing with the men on here, Naama. Please just listen and learn. If you have further questions, ask your husband at home. And If he has questions, perhaps he can ask them here if he feels that is appropriate.
A part of me now thinks some of your sex weaseling, was less of a doctrinal stance based on your own “logic”, as it would now seem as just a rationalization for your stinginess with your husband sexually. Apparently even though you’re a Protestant, you’ll glom onto bits of Catholicism if it gives you cover to refuse your husband sex due to your own “logic” about what constitutes a marriage, and roles, and sex rights and such. I have to give a respectful shout out to your “hubby” for, day in and day out, enduring your argumentative, know it all, rationalizations. He must be quite a longsuffering man to put up with you, if he does still listen to you. But, Perhaps that is why you’re here though, looking for somebody else to listen to your rationalizations. I for one, will be paying far less attention to your comments from here on out, as I have far less respect for you now knowing that you are a woman invading a male space with your silliness. Let your husband speak for you here if he wants his family to have a presence here.
Please cite the Catholic doctrine that gives the wife the right to refuse her husband sex.
If anything I’ve learned the Protestants figure out ways to have the woman divorce or refuse sex.
If anything the Catholic church has problems with deviant sexual behavior we need to clean up…it’s not telling married couples to not have sex.
@Anonymous reader.
Contradicting your previously stated position, i.e. Sexual intercourse for any purpose other than pregnancy is evil. Therefore you would only submit to sexual intercourse during the 3 to 4 days of ovulation per cycle. Infertile couples should refrain from sexual intercourse forever. That includes older couples; once she goes through menopause, no more sexual intercourse for the rest of their lives. You’re rewriting a part of the BIble in the process, of course, but that’s normal for women.
Why limit your wooden literalism to just 3-4 days a month. Is it 3 or 4 days? Why not make it one day a month lol
Is the statement “speed kills” false if you don’t and crash die when you go over the speed limit?
The entire problem here is men’s rights is essentially feminist doctrine on the other side of the coin.
The feminist fight is against the female body. God created the female body as a vessel of immanence designed to connect and ground men to creation. Like, Adam, men have accepted the apple offered by Eve to transcend her body. A good chunk of you guys accept the pillars of the feminism when it suits you but fight against its logical conclusion when it doesn’t suit you.
Men’s rights generally accepts the feminist liberation to transcend the body with all the rights of patriarchy based on the body.
This Apostle Paul illustrates the repeated nature of the fall of Adam and Eve in Romans 1. The common denominator is denial of the woman’s body. Once men and woman desire to transcend the inherent function of a woman then the logical conclusion is the acceptance of homosexuality.
Sharkly says Your arguments about marriage, are entirely meaningless once you leave the text of the Bible, and doubly so coming from a foolish woman who rebelliously seeks to correct Christian men by her own “logic”. LOL
The bibles instruction about marriage is meaningless if it only exists in a book and limited to your foolish imagination.The spiritual knowledge of the bible is open for anyone to know and understand because its connected to God’s creation of the body and the heavens and earth. You know, what God created. This agnostic YouTubber is more righteous than yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN1GwOLgjVs&t=819s
@ Rick
What I meant was I’m where God wants me. I don’t want to deviate from that. So if a woman was interested in me, she would have to accept that. I won’t deviate for any person. I’m not saying I’m super special or something, I just want to hear ” Well done good and faithful servant!”.
You seem like a super special person. As a single person you can be fruitful and multiply much better than myself. You can devote your life to spreading the gospel very effectively. A never married missionary woman in our church died and her obituary in the newspaper listed the children she raised and helped bring to Christ in an orphanage. Her lineage will never be severed from the faith.
@Rick
If I did find the “unicorn”, I would love to have kids. But, if for whatever reason having children didn’t happen, I could accept that. However, if I/she didn’t want to have sex, then what was the point of getting married? Paul’s whole point is it’s better to stay single than be married unless you burn with passion. Well, if you burn with passion for each other it would seem there would be lots of sex. If there’s no sex, there’s no passion. It stand to reason then if there is no passion then there is no reason to get married.
I agree. However, the passion of sex has to be directed towards a form of marriage that includes the personal body. A marriage that includes the body will demand a couple fundamentally changes the nature of their relationship as its marital requirement.
Please carefully read Pastor John Piper post https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/will-you-marry-a-couple-already-living-together
Did you catch the problem?
Let me jump to the end of the blog post. Pastor Piper says he would lead a homosexual couple to repentance and change but marriage cannot justify them to resume their sexual immorality because they would be “moving back into the very same sin that you just moved out of”
I wholly agree with him. However, he contradicts himself when it comes to the premarital sex of couples living in sin.
He says the couples in this circumstance must repent of their sin and be abstinent until they get married. Notice he doesn’t explain what the couple needs to repent of? From here he can only address the situation by separating the mind from the body. This is why he cloaks everything in mysterious spiritual heart language that may sound nice but really says nothing at all. He has no choice in the matter because he doesn’t know why premarital sex is a sin because he unwittingly embraces it.
Without a fundamental change in the relationship, couples living in sin just move back into the same sin they they moved out of. They have nothing to change into because they move from egalitarian to egalitarian relationship.
Pastor John is referencing a former practice of Christian-conjugal marriage while embracing the current form of egalitarian marriage. This is the spiritual inconsistency Dalrock exposes in complimetarians
The bibles for of holy matrimony demands virgins and the sexually active fundamentally alter the nature of their relationship from being primarily an emotional connection to a bodily connection.
The relationship between virgin couples is primarily a romantic connection. That’s all they got up until the point they decide to share a sexual relationship. The relationship has to change or the couple is going to be living in sin with or without a ceremony or a piece of paper. This change means the husband needs to support his dependent wife and the wife’s obedience towards her husband s the result of his responsibility towards his family. The couple can warmly accept children born to them without it altering their relationship because this is what they are organized around. This also follows the marital norms of fidelity, permanence and monogamy.
None of these aspects are compatible to an transcendent spirituality and its egalitarian practice of marriage.
“Men’s rights generally accepts the feminist liberation to transcend the body with all the rights of patriarchy based on the body.”
The what?
Go away.
If marriage without sex is no marriage (I am mostly inclined towards agreeing with this), and marriage without fertility is no marriage (disagreeing), then, arguably, an annulment (not divorce) is in order when any of the following occur:
1) She goes through menopause;
2) She gets her tubes tied or otherwise becomes infertile (e.g., hysterectomy);
3) He gets a vasectomy, loses his nads from an IED while on patrol in camo in the sandbox, etc.
Ask yourself this question. In a few weeks bow hunting season opens for elk. My husband will be up in a tree stand waiting near elk trails to kill an elk. Is my husband only engaging in hunting when he kills an animal. What if he never kills an animal? If he gets caught hunting out of season will a conservation officer accept that he is not actually a hunter because he never killed anything? No! The intent and potential to kill an animal accompanies certain responsibilities and obligations whether the hunter is successful or not successful.
Genesis 1-2 is about God assigning forms their function within a cosmological order. There are consequences when humanity decides to be like a god and transcend how we are created to function. I am not presenting an argument here either because it would be like arguing over whether or not we can transcend the law of gravity. You will come crashing to the ground.
‘God created the female body as a vessel of immanence designed to connect and ground men to creation.’
Do you read the Bible Ringo? God created woman as a suitable helper for the man.
@ Ray says
“Men’s rights generally accepts the feminist liberation to transcend the body with all the rights of patriarchy based on the body.”
The what?
Go away.
Feminists desire the right to function like men but want the accountability and responsibility of a child.
Men’s rights accepts women’s desire to function like men but desire the rights of patriarchy without the responsibility that accompanies it
Sure, i’ll go away when dialogue is no longer an option. Its only fair to try and have meaningful dialogue before setting out to expose something. I also tried to have dialogue with Jory Micah, Retha Faurie and Rachel Held Evans before exposing them in public
@Anonymous reader.
Contradicting your previously stated position, i.e. Sexual intercourse for any purpose other than pregnancy is evil. Therefore you would only submit to sexual intercourse during the 3 to 4 days of ovulation per cycle. Infertile couples should refrain from sexual intercourse forever. That includes older couples; once she goes through menopause, no more sexual intercourse for the rest of their lives. You’re rewriting a part of the BIble in the process, of course, but that’s normal for women.
Why limit your wooden literalism to just 3-4 days a month. Is it 3 or 4 days?
The fertility window for a woman typically is 3 to 4 days in length out of a 28 day cycle. Since you have decreed that sexual intercourse for any reason other than reproduction is evil the logic is obvious.
Why not make it one day a month lol
There are churchgoing women who decree that, but it reduces the chances of conception.
Is the statement “speed kills” false if you don’t and crash die when you go over the speed limit?
Non sequitur.
The entire problem here is men’s rights is essentially feminist doctrine on the other side of the coin.
The entire problem here is words mean things, and as a woman you are obviously not used to any man calling your bluff. Changing the subject won’t work. Pretending you didn’t write the words you wrote won’t work. Trying to rewrite the Bible into the “New Naama Girl Power Translation” won’t work either.
Words mean things. You don’t get to decide that on your own.
Now show us all where in the Bible it says that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for conception of children, or admit that you were wrong and walk that junk back.
Naama
Ask yourself this question. In a few weeks bow hunting season opens for elk.
No one cares. Your squid ink is boring.
Show us all where in the Bible (not the New Naama Girl Power Translation, either) that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for the procreation of children. If you cannot, then admit your error and walk back your arrogance.
@ Earl says
‘God created the female body as a vessel of immanence designed to connect and ground men to creation.’
Do you read the Bible Ringo? God created woman as a suitable helper for the man.
Yes, have you Ringo?
Do you believe Adam was in perfect relationship with God in the garden? If so, then could you explain why God says it was not good Adam was alone. All of creation is considered good up until this point!
Adam’s relationship with God in Eden was incomplete because he was created to connect with God by celebrating and fully participating in creation. The aloneness of Adam is solved with the creation of Eve as his helper. Women are vessels of immanence created to be a counterpart to the inherent transcendence of man. Now Adam can fully connect with creation with Eve. Adam’s creation to work in the garden reaches its fullness first with Eve and then with any children they produce.
But wait…Eve wanted bodily independence and autonomy in her desire to transcend her creation as a vessel of immanence and handed the apple to Adam who fully agreed with her. The fall happened once Adam agreed. The curses represent what husband’s and wives were created for. The ground would fight against Adam providing for his wife and child-bearing would fight against the woman.
God can only be independent and autonomous from what he created-not the creature.
The fall of Adam and Eve is a repeated pattern that translates into the fall of every nation and kingdom…including the kingdom of God-the church.
The vatican will be a mosque and the process is irreversable
Show us all where in the Bible (not the New Naama Girl Power Translation, either) that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for the procreation of children. If you cannot, then admit your error and walk back your arrogance.
How about the first command in the bible to be fruitful and multiply. This is a syndoche for male female vaginal intercourse by what it accomplishes.
The second chapter describes the relationship organizing around this as a primary purpose
The third chapter explains what happens when this is discarded.
The end of Genesis concludes with the fledgling family organized as a church going into Egypt and threatens an empire without a fight by cooperating with God’s first command
Show us all where in the Bible (not the New Naama Girl Power Translation, either) that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for the procreation of children. If you cannot, then admit your error and walk back your arrogance.
Naama
How about the first command in the bible to be fruitful and multiply. This is a syndoche for male female vaginal intercourse by what it accomplishes.
Is English your first language? Seriously, you have some reading comprehension problems.
Nothing in Genesis states that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for propagation of children. Care to try again? Want to trawl through Leviticus?
HINT: Maybe you could search through Ephesians 5?
Alternatively, you could admit your error and walk back your arrogance. Your choice.
Now show us all where in the Bible it says that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for conception of children, or admit that you were wrong and walk that junk back.
My stance has always been the primary purpose, the intended purpose, the purpose to organize around. You are the one who takes words to a wooden literalism that walks on all fours.
The reason you are saying my comments are non sequitor is the same reason most people trample on the message of the church fathers and most church teaching post sexual revolution. I am highlighting the primacy of procreation from an emotional connection.
An act of procreation doesn’t need to end in procreation.
Want to trawl through Leviticus?
Sure, you obviously need to go back to the breast feeding of the law before you can eat solid food.
Now show us all where in the Bible it says that sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for conception of children, or admit that you were wrong and walk that junk back.
Naama
My stance has always been the primary purpose, the intended purpose, the purpose to organize around.
No, now you are now making things up, you are attempting to rewrite your own words. Those words are here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/the-wages-of-wooing/#comment-283493
You are the person who flatly stated that sexual intercourse between husband and wife for any purpose other than procreation is evil. It is right in the comment linked above. I have asked you multiple times to defend that claim from the Bible and you have chosen to deflect, to insult, to try and change the subject – anything but either (a) produce the Bible quote or (b) admit error.
Now you have decided to take a step towards outright lying. Is this what your religion teaches that you should do, especially on a Sunday?
You are the one who takes words to a wooden literalism that walks on all fours.
Your words mean what they say. If you did not mean what you wrote, you should have written something else. Now either show us where in the BIble you get that “sexual intercourse between husband and wife is only for procreation” nonsense from, or admit you are wrong and walk back your arrogance and pride. Your choice.
@ Anonymous reader says
“Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’”
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
If yes, you’re just confirming what Augustine says, and agree with me.
I answered………
I will answer a solid yes.
The pleasure and procreative purpose goes hand in hand even if it doesn;t lead to a family. If they are separated from each other then premarital sex cannot be distinguished from marriage. I counseled a group of late teens women who were technical virgins.
You have obviously made up your mind and cannot accept the logical result of your error is feminism and egalitarianism.
You just cannot accept the logical conclusion of your choices
Question by Paul:
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
Naana
I answered………
I will answer a solid yes.
Exactly.
The pleasure and procreative purpose goes hand in hand even if it doesn;t lead to a family.
This contradicts your “Yes”.
Your “Yes” agrees with the statement that any sexual intercourse between husband and wife except for purposes of procreation is evil.
Show the Bible quotes to support this extreme position, or admit you are wrong and walk back your prideful arrogance. It is interesting that you have not once in any reply actually quoted from the Bible, why is that?
(Of course there’s a third option: you can try to blur the issue with more squid ink about elk hunting or sports teams or some other irrelevancy. That will fail every time. Then you can get even more emotional and have a little meltdown followed by flouncing out the virtual door in a huff. This is popular with girls when they encounter men who will not be moved away from logic.)
Naama
You have obviously made up your mind and cannot accept the logical result of your error is feminism and egalitarianism.
Dearie, I’m just asking a question. The same question, over and over and over again. Oddly, that question clearly throws you into an emotional tizzy. It’s curious.
Why not just pull up the Bible quote that states sexual intercourse is only for procreation, that sexual connection between man and wife for any purpose other than conception is evil?
In the time you’ve run your rationalization hamster around the track, you could have just pulled up the quote, posted it and written “So THERE!”, but you have not done that.
Why? Why not just post the Bible quote? Why all this emotional flailing, subject changing, squid ink?
You just cannot accept the logical conclusion of your choices
Oh, the irony!
If nothing else, Naama, you have provided a nice string of comments that demonstrate why women should never be allowed to teach anything about the Bible to men.
Anonymous reader correctly quotes me as saying
If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?
Naana
I answered………
I will answer a solid yes.
Exactly.
The pleasure and procreative purpose goes hand in hand even if it doesn;t lead to a family.
This contradicts your “Yes”.
Nothing here contradicts anything I have said on the subject. In order to adhere to your wooden literalism couples would have to be screened for infertility in order to get married This would decouple the whole act of sexual intercourse from dictating the marital norms of fidelity, monogamy and permanence by coupling them to a single aspect of sexual intercourse we have no control over.
Sexual intercourse is a whole unity of pleasure, bonding and procreation. So once again yes, to decouple procreation from pleasure is immoral.
Naama
Nothing here contradicts anything I have said on the subject.
Ah, stout denial! Always entertaining when a woman denies her own words. It fails, of course, because the words are plain to see and easy to understand in basic English (is English your first language? If not, I’m reasonably willing to make some allowance for a lack of knowledge on your part…)
In order to adhere to your wooden literalism couples would have to be screened for infertility in order to get married
No, dearie, that’s necessary for your decree. You are the one who says that sexual intercourse between husband and wife must be only for procreative purposes, anything else is evil. You can huff and puff and change the subject and have a temper tantrum but none of that will change the facts of what you wrote.
You can’t back that up with a Bible quote, you are much too arrogant to admit error, and so you are stuck in a trap of your own making. Time to declare victory and run back to whatever conservative feminist site you usually hang out on?
Challenge: Naana, show us all where in the Bible it is stated that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is only for procreative purposes and anything else is evil.
Well?
@anonymous reader says:
Dearie, I’m just asking a question. The same question, over and over and over again. Oddly, that question clearly throws you into an emotional tizzy. It’s curious.
This is an ad hominem attack with no basis. My emotions are quit stable other than boredom
@anonymous Why not just pull up the Bible quote that states sexual intercourse is only for procreation, that sexual connection between man and wife for any purpose other than conception is evil?
The question is skewed.
@anonymous reader says
If nothing else, Naama, you have provided a nice string of comments that demonstrate why women should never be allowed to teach anything about the Bible to men.
I agree. However, if you want to invoke Ephesians 5 and adhere to a patriarchy then you have to totally and utterly reject feminism when it suits you in order to enjoy its benefits. The influence of women outside of the home doesn’t allow men to grow up.
You want authority without responsibility…which takes us back to the fall
When a woman says or writes “I have always said” that often means “I am now trying to change what”. Women often lie to themselves first, then later to other women and still later to men.
Naana just reminded me to point this basic fact out…
‘Yes, have you Ringo?’
Yes I have and as such what I said is in the Bible…your view of ‘women are vessels of immanence created to be a counterpart to the inherent transcendence of man.’ are not. God flat out told us why He created woman.
@anonymous reader says:
<iDearie, I’m just asking a question. The same question, over and over and over again. Oddly, that question clearly throws you into an emotional tizzy. It’s curious.
Naama
This is an ad hominem attack with no basis. My emotions are quit stable other than boredom
I’m asking the same question over and over. You evade, insult, attack, etc.
Why?
@anonymous Why not just pull up the Bible quote that states sexual intercourse is only for procreation, that sexual connection between man and wife for any purpose other than conception is evil?
Naama
The question is skewed.
The question is simple, and it comes from your own words above. Why don’t you just answer it?
Is it too difficult?
Naama
You want authority without responsibility…
Conservative feminist irony is some of the best irony.
No, dearie, that’s necessary for your decree. You are the one who says that sexual intercourse between husband and wife must be only for procreative purposes, anything else is evil. You can huff and puff and change the subject and have a temper tantrum but none of that will change the facts of what you wrote.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. Children grew up witnessing their mothers function socially, sexually and finacially like some shitty version of a husband. Conservative men actually had the audacity to tell their wives to obey them while they abandoned their children off at the day orphanage and drove off to work to support the household. These children witnessed no fault divorce, abortion, working wifes, working mothers, unwed mothers, contraceptive abuse, women pastors, gay pastors, serial monogamy and lots more
Now they deny gender as only a social construct.
It all started when sex was separated from pleasure and procreation.
Nothing will change that western society will on the eve of collapse from this decision.
Naama
You want authority without responsibility…
Conservative feminist irony is some of the best irony.
That ironic because I see conservative feminists for what they are…feminists. In fact, I am fighting against conservative feminists on this site right now
I don’t know where Paul went but I wanted him to answer this question I presented earlier.
‘Lust is what is called evil. Do you equate sexual pleasure to lust?’
Because I can’t answer this question as a direct yes or no.
‘If we leave out procreative purposes, is sexual pleasure evil, yes or no?’
If you are leaving out the procreative purposes to fulfill lust it is evil…if you are doing it to fulfill your marital debt to each other and it happened to be at a time where the wife isn’t in a natural part of her fertily cycle…it’s not evil.
So to conclude I’ll say again lust = equal, sexual pleasure doesn’t necessarily mean evil.
I’m asking the same question over and over. You evade, insult, attack, etc.
Why?
The question is skewed. Its misrepresentative
lust = evil
Challenge: Naana, show us all where in the Bible it is stated that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is only for procreative purposes and anything else is evil.
I went to the fist command to be fruitful and multiply.
You deny what is says
Naama
Well, the proof is in the pudding. Children grew up witnessing their mothers function socially, sexually and finacially like some shitty version of a husband.
No one cares about your conservative feminist talking points, dearie.
Just point to the BIble quote that supports your claim. Where does it say that sexual intercourse between husband and wife must be only for procreation, and any other time is evil
You can squirm and try to change the subject all you want, but the question won’t go away.
You want authority over men but you won’t get it here.
Naama
The question is skewed. Its misrepresentative
The question is direct and to you, concerning your own words. It is logic. Deal with it.
Yes I have and as such what I said is in the Bible…your view of ‘women are vessels of immanence created to be a counterpart to the inherent transcendence of man.’ are not. God flat out told us why He created woman.
Then whatever you want it to be its real to you.
You want authority over men but you won’t get it here.
I don’t want it because I don’t support you.
Naana, you really need to learn how to properly quote. You can use italics if you want.
But you do need to grow up a little bit and start acting like at least a college freshman with basic net etiquette.
I went to the fist command to be fruitful and multiply.
Nowhere does that limit sexual intercourse between married people to the fertile phase of the woman; it does not say “Only have sexual intercourse when she can get pregnant”.
You deny what is says
You can’t produce a single Bible quote to support anything, especially your extreme position regarding sexual relations between married people.
Are you just trolling?
‘Do you believe Adam was in perfect relationship with God in the garden? If so, then could you explain why God says it was not good Adam was alone. All of creation is considered good up until this point!’
Because God is Spirit (John 4:24), and Adam was created on earth…so while Adam was in a perfect relationship with God…he was also physically alone on earth with his mission from God (working and taking care of the garden). Hence God created a physical suitable helper (a woman with a perfect relationship with God) to help him fulfill his mission.
I wrote:
You want authority over men but you won’t get it here.
Naama replied
I don’t want it because I don’t support you.
Yeah, you do. You want authority to tell men what to believe. It’s a common form of usurpation by women, especially conservative feminists like you.
The question is direct and to you, concerning your own words. It is logic. Deal with it.
I cannot deal with feminist logic.
Its like dealing with feminists who appeal to nonsensical claims that every abortion s justified on the grounds that a mothers life is in danger.
I know when the battle is lost when they keep resorting to legal absurdities that if i agree with one case of abortion then I must agree with every instance.
@ Earl says
Because God is Spirit (John 4:24), and Adam was created on earth…so while Adam was in a perfect relationship with God…he was also physically alone on earth with his mission from God (working and taking care of the garden). Hence God created a physical suitable helper (a woman with a perfect relationship with God) to help him fulfill his mission.
In all honesty, you have said nothing at all
I answered your question….you didn’t like the answer.
And you want to know why I said that…because you didn’t explain why it’s a nothing statement.
Naama
I cannot deal with feminist logic.
Most feminists like you can’t deal with logic.
Now, tell us all where in the Bible it says that sexual intercourse between a man and wife must be purely for procreative purposes and anything else is evil.
Book, chapter, verse. Now.
Earl to Naama:
I answered your question….you didn’t like the answer.
Possibly she’s just not very bright, but more likely she’s just another conservative feminist troll with time on her hands. Her imaginary husband isn’t around…
IMO, FYI.
@Anon Reader
I’ll assume she has a husband.
She should be a good helpmate wife and help her husband with his mission and ask him about Scripture. It’s a good display of not being a conservative feminist (which I assume is the Tomi Lahren we love our guns and the right to screw who we want and kill our babies) type.
You are looking into the mirror too much Naama. You are the idiot here.
Earl
conservative feminist (which I assume is the Tomi Lahren we love our guns and the right to screw who we want and kill our babies) type.
Actually I was thinking more of the Sheila Greogoire type, because they are known to use sex as a reward / punishment on the poor Betas who foolishly marry them. WIthholding as “doggie treat” or punishment for not completing a “honeydo” list. Quote the Bible while refusing to submit.
Naama might well be one of those…notice that she’s decided she has authority to teach you?
Earl
God is spirit. The first page of Genesis is revolutionary because God speaks creation into existence. The act of speaking is external from God which signifies the separation of creation from God.
God transcends creation
The bible describes God’s transcendence and his immanence through the imagery of a man. Not just some generic man, but a man who functions as a husband, a father.
A male is naturally granted independence and autonomy from procreation because its externalized from you guys.The male body is inherently transcendent. However, a husband, a father is also immanent because he sustains the family by his support and provision.
Now apply this to the creation of Eve as a helper to the aloneness of Adam.Everything i have sad is also repeated by my catholic friends and eve protestants
Actually I was thinking more of the Sheila Greogoire type, because they are known to use sex as a reward / punishment on the poor Betas who foolishly marry them.
I think its a sin to use sex as leverage
Keep on trying….
I believe its wrong for a wife to vote. My husband supports me and he has the right to decide who will better help him support the family. He has skin in the game.I lean more on the leftist side of the fence but if my husband tells me to vote right wing then tats how I will vote
No politician has the right to drive a wedge between me and my husband with their feminist politics.
I am just exposing you for the feminist you are
@Naama…you are looking it from the view of a woman. The view of a man is he has a mission from God. The woman is created to help him with his mission.
‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Genesis 2:15-18
Full context
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A4-25&version=NABRE
I think some of your guys hatred towards women is a stumbling block. I dont blame you guys entirely, its been a raw deal.
Being a women really helps against female feminists….
Earl
You have given no detail of that mission other than to say its a mission
‘You have given no detail of that mission other than to say its a mission’
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Earl says:
August 26, 2018 at 10:23 am
.
“Please cite the Catholic doctrine that gives the wife the right to refuse her husband sex.”
The one that recognizes either a U.S. passport OR residency in U.S. territory as letting 40x as many ostensibly-Catholic women civilly frivorce and not be excommunicated and shunned by all Catholics. It’s clearly there (and has been for decades; see Kennedys) in all the stuff not in the Bible (which I consider complete, so is unnecessary) that the Catholic denomination regularly puts out.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDD there it is.
When you can’t retort the presented question…just say we are he men women haters.
I didn’t directly answer Anon Reader’s question…but I answered it when I tried to discern what Paul was asking.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/the-wages-of-wooing/#comment-283629
‘The one that recognizes either a U.S. passport OR residency in U.S. territory as letting 40x as many ostensibly-Catholic women civilly frivorce and not be excommunicated and shunned by all Catholics. It’s clearly there (and has been for decades; see Kennedys) in all the stuff not in the Bible (which I consider complete, so is unnecessary) that the Catholic denomination regularly puts out.’
Ok please cite whatever you are talking about where it says the wife can refuse sex to the husband.
Naama
I think some of your guys hatred towards women is a stumbling block.
Strawman fallacy.
Now show us the Book, Chapter and Verse of the Bible that supports your claim: where does it say that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is for procreation only, anything else is evil.
Still waiting for you to perform this simple task, Naama. Are you trolling?
Naama
I think some of your guys hatred towards women
By the way, criticism of women is not hate. Disagreeing with a woman, especially a foolish feminist, is not hate.
But feminists are always accusing men of “hatred towards women”….just like you, Naana, just like you.
Earl
I didn’t directly answer Anon Reader’s question…but I answered it when I tried to discern what Paul was asking.
Must have skimmed by and missed it in all the noise. Thanks for the link pointing it out.
earl
Ok please cite whatever you are talking about where it says the wife can refuse sex to the husband.
I believe Luke is being rather sarcastic…
The encyclical the Catholic church had which addressed the ‘infertility’ and ‘menopause’ questions is Casti connubii. The primary reason for it was to stress the sanctity of marriage, prohibit Catholics from using any form of artificial birth control, and reaffirm the prohibition on abortion. There was no position from the church at the time when it came to non-procreative purposes…but it made it more clear about the unitive aspects of marriage from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_connubii
earl says:
August 26, 2018 at 6:27 pm
“Ok please cite whatever you are talking about where it says the wife can refuse sex to the husband”
By it being routine in ostensibly-Catholic churches in the U.S. to allow supposedly-Catholic wives to unBiblically separate from and to unBiblically frivorce their husbands, and not be excommunicated with orders for all remaining Catholics to forever shun them, there clearly is SOME kind of overall order given out by the Catholic high command. As I can read and make sense of the raw data/original documents for European Christianity, e.g., the Bible, I don’t need anyone to (badly) read them for me, so I know not to recognize any such orders as valid in Christianity.
‘ there clearly is SOME kind of overall order given out by the Catholic high command.’
If it’s clear then you should be able to present it.
Besides you are talking about frivorce…which was not what my original question was about.
Earl, in a centralized organization where a certain behavior by its agents is common and universally known as occurring, that is all the evidence required that it is condoned by management. Consider all the pedo stuff that Catholic priests used to do, and when their bosses found out about it, those priests often were transferred rather than fired. Again, evidence it was allowed.
Oh, and Earl, if you don’t think that a church allowing unwarranted separation and frivorce (e.g., Biblically-invalid divorce, so the marriage still continues according to Christianity) contributes to a wife depriving the man she married of sex, then you can’t possibly be very familiar with what changes are usual after separation and legal divorce.
@Luke…
Then you are talking about what certain management types allows. That’s often what Protestants do. Cite the specific encyclial doctrine or dogma the church has which management can use that allows a woman to refuse sex to her husband.
‘ Consider all the pedo stuff that Catholic priests used to do, and when their bosses found out about it, those priests often were transferred rather than fired. Again, evidence it was allowed.’
Evidence it was allowed. Not evidence that’s what Catholic dogma is…the dogma is under no circumstance is the act to be approved.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Earl, please have someone read and explain to you my last two posts.
They completely answer the question you keep asking.
@ Earl
Honest question: How do you separate a husbands sexual impulse towards his wife from lust, seeing as lust is defined as a very strong sexual desire?
Interesting article review on the current Catholic CEO and Board of Directors, and what he, and/or they, apparently espouse(s):
———————————————————————————————————————–
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/08/archbishop-to-fake-pope-resign.html#comment-form
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Archbishop to Fake Pope: resign!
“I think an Inquisition is in order, but a resignation by the so-called “Pope Francis” would certainly be a good start:”
“Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who served at the papal nuncio (that is, Vatican ambassador) to the United States from 2011-2016, has dropped an atomic bomb on Francis’s papacy, charging that “corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy.”
At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words: “Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do … If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.”
If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!
Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confirm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s flock.
In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”
“Read the whole thing there. It’s conclusive evidence that the Fake Pope is in league with the lavender mafia. Can anyone here say they are even a little bit surprised? I tend to doubt Bergoglio will resign no matter what further evidence of his corruption becomes known to the public, because the stink of sulfur all but emanates from the man.
Rod Dreher notes: “Vigano’s testimony gives weight to the theory that Benedict XVI resigned because he knew the lavender mafia in the Curia held all the cards, and that he couldn’t do anything.””
‘They completely answer the question you keep asking.’
No they don’t. You haven’t presented anything from Canon Law, an encyclical, or any offical document of church teaching that states this is what the church teaches. You base it off what management allows. If we go off that I could say the same thing about any Protestant church managers.
Lust is not very strong sexual desire…it’s disordered desire or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is when it is sought for itself rather than for the procreative aspect and uniting of spouses. That’s the definition of it from the Catholic cathecism.
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
Ok Vox…if Pope Francis is ‘fake’ then what’s the point of resigning? He would have no post to resign from.
If anything the papal nuncio is using Pope Francis’s own words against him in his zero tolerance policy…seeings how Pope Francis is now included in the cover up.
@ Luke
Honest question from a ignorant Protestant: How does a “Fake Pope” get into that position? I imagine many things have to be compromised for that to happen, but I have zero knowledge on Catholic ecclesiastical polity.
Earl said:
“If we go off that I could say the same thing about any Protestant church managers.”
I actually agree with you here. Especially the liberal/churchianity/post-Christian “churches” who allow women to fake being clergy, to the open sexually active queers doing the same, but even the ones that don’t raise Hades when parishioners birth bastards, deadbed spouses, frivorce, etc., it’s clear what the marching orders are there in those orgs.
@ Earl
How does your answer corroborate with Proverbs 5:18-20?
Some quotes from the comment thread I linked to above:
” A lot of people, including Ann Barnhardt, who most think of as a “hardcore catholic” think Ratzinger is a legitimate Pope. He is not. Ratzinger was one of the chief architects of Vatican 2.
And the simple fact is ALL of Vatican 2 documents are completely heretical.
Anyone promoting and teaching heresy automatically vacates their office as per canon law 188.4 (1917) without any further official declaration required.
The sum of this is there have been only impostor popes since 28th October 1958.
The real Catholic Church numbers in the thousands, not millions. And legitimate catholic clerics are very few indeed.”
————————————————————————————————————-
“Bishop Joseph Strickland, of Tyler, Texas has put out a statement saying in part:
“A letter (see below) by Archbishop Vigano, former Nuncio to the United States, raises grave allegations and calls for the resignation of numerous high ranking prelates including Pope Francis.
“Let us be clear that they are still allegations but as your shepherd I find them to be credible…”
http://www.dioceseoftyler.org/news/2018/08/bishop-stricklands-public-statement-to-the-diocese/amp/”
————————————————————————————————————–
“Matthew 7:21-23 tells us that: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ There are a lot of Churchians, Catholic and Protestant that will fall in that category…
And as for the pedo priests, the church needs to turn them over to law enforcement for prosecution. But the church isn’t. Matthew 18:5-6“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
There were 300 pedo priests in Pennsylvania alone! Multiply times 50 and you are at 15,000! But how many have been outed and arrested in the USA since the pope announced he will fight this? Is it a number more than 0?”
‘How do you separate a husbands sexual impulse towards his wife from lust’
If his sexual impulse is strictly for pleasure alone and not as a means to unite with his wife and/or taking the procreative part out (by contraception)…that’s lust.
Personally I think a big motivation as to why wives don’t want to have sex with their husbands is that they don’t really want to be united with them. Sure they’ll take the other stuff like his money or choreplay…but they don’t want the other part that comes in marriage or they’ll do it begrudgingly. It’s why I agree with deti to a point about the wife having sexual desire towards the husband.
‘How does your answer corroborate with Proverbs 5:18-20?’
It’s the unitive part. I don’t know about you…but if I get married I’d desire to unite with my wife.
What I wouldn’t want is to use her as a masturbatory tool.
But isn’t the husband and wife already united as one in marriage, ideally, before sex? In other words, are they untied at the marriage covenant before God ( the wedding )? Or is the unity not complete until the first act of sex (consummation)?
Your answer, and forgive me if I’m misrepresenting you here, implies that man and wife lose unity when not in the act of sex, otherwise you wouldn’t be seeking unity in the act of sex.
‘But isn’t the husband and wife already united as one in marriage, ideally, before sex? In other words, are they untied at the marriage covenant before God ( the wedding )? Or is the unity not complete until the first act of sex (consummation)? ‘
It’s not complete until consummation. The marriage covenant in the wedding is called the ratification.
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/12/19/canon-law-and-consummating-a-marriage/
If Mary was a perpetual virgin ( something I’ve been looking into), by definition her marriage to Joseph wasn’t consummated and therefore, by your definition, not complete/legal and Jesus couldn’t be Joseph’s legal step-son. That begs the question, what was the point of the genealogy in Matt.1?
Sorry Earl. I’m not intentionally pestering you. Thanks for the conversation and patience. God bless.
I said: “A part of me now thinks some of your sex weaseling, was less of a doctrinal stance based on your own “logic”, as it would now seem as just a rationalization for your stinginess with your husband sexually. … LOL You’re full of yourself Naama! No wonder your husband is taking an, indubitably well deserved, break from contending with you, as you harangue strangers on the internet instead.”
Naama says: In a few weeks bow hunting season opens for elk. My husband will be up in a tree stand waiting near elk trails to kill an elk.
LOL I called it! Not only does Naama’s husband need another break, and is going to be hiding himself up a tree, but his unsatisfied sex drive has got him enraged to the point of wanting to kill and gut some large creature. Meanwhile She’s here, Yakity yak yak yak, and he is probably off somewhere Fap fap fap. LOL
Isn’t there anything at your home that you could helping your “Transcendent” husband with, or doing for your “vessels of Immanence” procreated kids?
Naama says: The pleasure and procreative purpose goes hand in hand even if it doesn’t lead to a family. If they are separated from each other then premarital sex cannot be distinguished from marriage. I counseled a group of late teens women who were technical virgins.
That’s just nonsense! You can separate “safe sex” within marriage, from premarital fornication, by the lack of a marriage, otherwise it wouldn’t be “premarital”.
I know what a virgin is, what the heck is a “technical virgin”? Am I going to LOL when I hear it?
Naama says: These children witnessed no fault divorce, abortion, working wifes, working mothers, unwed mothers, contraceptive abuse, women pastors, gay pastors, serial monogamy and lots more
Now they deny gender as only a social construct.
It all started when sex was separated from pleasure and procreation.
LOL So are you saying that all that kind of crazy might be loosed in your house, if you ever gave your husband a little bit of pleasure sex or even, non-procreative, unitive sex?
Naama says: I went to the fist command to be fruitful and multiply.
That isn’t the first command. It also is not repeated in the New Testament. Likely with billions of people on this earth that has been sufficiently accomplished.
Naama says: Hence God created a physical suitable helper (a woman with a perfect relationship with God) to help him fulfill his mission.
LOL If the woman had such a perfect relationship with God Why was she the first to transgress against Him, and how did that help Adam fulfill his mission? I don’t think she had a perfect relationship. Like Satan, she wanted to be like God, a great presumption that led to our fall, just like presumption led to Satan’s fall.
Naama says: I think its a sin to use sex as leverage
You seem to think having sex with your husband is sin too, if you aren’t trying to make a baby. That crap gets old! Whether it is your “doctrine”, or whether a wife is just cutting you off to be selfish. In the end it all seems the same to me. Especially when you can’t show Anonymous Reader even a single verse justifying your defrauding of your husband. See 1 Corinthians 7:2-5
Naama says: My emotions are quite stable other than boredom
No doubt! … About the boredom part. I sense that you are bored with your “transcendent” husband. You have no desire to study 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 and learn to give your body to your husband just because he may want it. (not sure if he wants that, since I’ve never seen you) If you really wanted to have sex with him, you’d have scoured the Bible like I did and found that you are told to. Proverbs 5:19 At All Times You are defrauding your husband based upon a “doctrine” you can’t even show a verse for.
Snipe season is coming up next, your husband may be gone a long time hunting them too.
‘If Mary was a perpetual virgin ( something I’ve been looking into), by definition her marriage to Joseph wasn’t consummated and therefore, by your definition, not complete/legal and Jesus couldn’t be Joseph’s legal step-son. That begs the question, what was the point of the genealogy in Matt.1?’
Ratification means it’s a legal Jewish marriage…that’s why Jesus was Joseph’s legal son (although not biological). That was how Jesus was in the line of David. Consummation completes the one-flesh union of marriage…which Mary and Joseph didn’t do.
I think I have a clue what a ‘techincal virgin’ is too. I will LOL as well…because we’ll find out she’s not really as virginal as Naama thinks.
@earl
I don’t think Judaism at the time ever had a thing as a ”sexless marriage”.
They had the same consummation of marriage.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/the-jewish-wedding-analogy.html
However it seems Scripture points out when Joseph and Mary were united…when Jesus was born.
‘When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and embraced Mary as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.’
Matthew 1:24-25
# earl says
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
How does that correspond into marriage?
Now show us the Book, Chapter and Verse of the Bible that supports your claim: where does it say that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is for procreation only, anything else is evil.
Still repeating the first command to be fruitful and multiply.
A earl says
I answered your question….you didn’t like the answer.
How can i like or dislike a vague and utterly meaningless answer.
@Anonymous reader
But feminists are always accusing men of “hatred towards women”….just like you, Naana, just like you.
That might apply if i was a feminist. I am just stating the obvious actions of a few guys.
By the way, the name is Naama.
I can’t believe how many supposed ‘red pill’ men are still willing to put in a lot of work to oblige a woman who shows up here specifically and exclusively to troll for gina tingles (successfully, it appears).
Now show us the Book, Chapter and Verse of the Bible that supports your claim: where does it say that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is for procreation only, anything else is evil.
Naama
Still repeating the first command to be fruitful and multiply.
Fail. You have no support for your extreme position.
@Naama said: “Still repeating the first command to be fruitful and multiply.”
This command says nothing about sexual intercourse other than to have children. You are reading into the text. Can you site a verse in which God condemns a married couple for enjoying sex outside the bounds of procreation? For example, there’s not one verse where God tells married couples to not have sex when the wife is pregnant. Since she is already pregnant, sex with her should be seen as sin if you are correct.
earl says:
August 26, 2018 at 10:14 pm
“I don’t think Judaism at the time ever had a thing as a ”sexless marriage”.
They had the same consummation of marriage.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/the-jewish-wedding-analogy.html
However it seems Scripture points out when Joseph and Mary were united…when Jesus was born.
‘When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and embraced Mary as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.’
That sounds to me a whole lot more like Joseph waited until after Mary had given birth (hopefully not the same day) to slip her the sausage, and did it then. Occam’s Razor on what “union” between a man and woman, or husband and wife, is likely to mean in those days.
earl says:
August 26, 2018 at 9:32 pm
“I know what a virgin is, what the heck is a “technical virgin”? Am I going to LOL when I hear it?”
I think I have a clue what a ‘techincal virgin’ is too.
Means she used other hole(s) only.
Dalrock
Your website is a great resource that exposes the appalling contradictions of Christian feminists. I always pull up your post “lovestruck” as an icebreaker to begin sorting out the core problem of feminism with young college age woman.
We also uncover Christian feminists by pointing out the inconsistencies of living out a diabolical inversion of Christian spirituality.
My time on your comments section no longer serves any purpose outside of a providing a gong show. However, Its been a great benefit on my side of the screen. In between all the white noise, I successfully showed a small group that the manosphere essentially assumes the same core pillars of feminism just on the flip side of the coin
You are probably going to disagree. How about this. You are excellent at criticizing feminists and exposing their contradictions. Would you be willing to offer solutions along with the criticisms? Would you be willing to hold yourself to the same criticisms.
You are doing a stellar job and are probably the best out there.
However, the same way you expose and criticize complimentarian’s can also be used against you.
Like you said in lovestruck
“This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere”
What if you have just begun to notice and need to go one more step?
I have no desire to criticize your website in public without giving you the benefit of a doubt and contacting you first.
In the future i would like to do an article on lovestruck and go that one more step
“I know what a virgin is, what the heck is a “technical virgin”? Am I going to LOL when I hear it?”
Hey guys
I’m outta here.
I forgot to erase that item because i realized its pointless to go any further.
nice meeting you
“Would you be willing to offer solutions along with the criticisms?”
That’s been done many times on this forum.
The answers start with ending men’s-fault divorce, and ideally going back to default father custody in divorce, no alimony, and no child support for bastards. Oh, and ending affirmative action for women and the rest of the manifestations of the pussy pass. Mandatory paternity testing at birth would also be good. So would getting women out of the clergy, political office, law, the military, and journalism. I’d also bring back family-wage jobs, open only to married men.
“Would you be willing to hold yourself to the same criticisms.”
Men aren’t women. War, science above technician level, providing for families, theology, and politics are all on us. Women? Normal ones can concentrate on Kinder, Küche, Kirche. The rest? Traditionally, they’re prostitutes or nuns.
I googled “technical virgin”. Luke is right.
Apparently it is another name for a slut or whore. They’ll just contract their herpes through the other holes.
I wonder why they have Naama speaking to the “technical virgins”? Perhaps she has some technical experience to share?
I thought a bit about how Naama has gone on and on about how marriage comes from the bodily unitive sex act, and is not at all associated with the church or government. It sounds like the kind of thing a woman might say if she had sex with a guy before they got married in a church or a courthouse, and wanted to justify her premarital fornication, as some sort of divine wedding ceremony tradition as her “transcendent” “provisioned” her in the back of a Buick.
Naama says: A covered woman is signified by a husband parting his robe and covers his naked wife with his body and robe as he joins into her sexually.
LOL so her husband was wearing a robe in the back of the Buick too. Maybe that’s where my marriage went wrong, I didn’t know about the robe thing.
All joking aside, I don’t think that is what the Apostle Paul was talking about when in 1 Corinthians 11 he said women shouldn’t pray without their head uncovered, but, I think I’d like to visit her church sometime just to see how that works out during the service. ;^)
Goodbye Naama, And thanks for leaving.
earl says: If Sharkly’s wife was pope, then I’d be a little more concerned about sexuality restrictions.
I didn’t see that comment until just now. LOL Yeah, I’d be burned at the stake if Wifey was pope.
But considering who is pope right now, if you go to a Catholic Leadership retreat, you’d better sleep with your butt against the wall, and take “Soap on a Rope”. I’m predicting a female pope in about 25 years. Once a month everybody gets excommunicated.
@earl : “Certainly procreation is the natural result of sex”
No it is not. I have shown you several reasons why. That’s also exactly my point that reasoning for procreation purposes fails to stand its ground.
Wow! It took some time to read up on all the comments. Especially the subthread where Naama answered my question and called sex with the procreative purpose removed is evil.
Naama ended that subthread where she refused to give any further clear answers with an appeal to Dalrock: “My time on your comments section no longer serves any purpose outside of a providing a gong show.”. For these reasons I cannot take you that serious anymore Naama and will not waste time on “discussing” with you.
My original question was asking Earl, so I will come back to that question.
Just a short comment on reactions of others on this question; the point is not if sex is evil if it is not for procreative purposes only; the point is, is sex evil if it is for unitive purposes only (i.e. leave out the procreative purpose)?
And a quick reply to the defense of procreation by quoting the Genesis command “to be fruitful and multiply”: I will just repeat what I argued elsewhere:
A. It is NOT an individual command, else
a. all infertile couples would be sinning
b. all singles would be sinning, including our Lord Jesus Christ, St.Paul, RCC priests, and the pope (well, at least SOME popes were fruitful and did multiply, even by multiple wives and mistresses)
B. As a collective command, the human race with a current population of 7 billion has been VERY successful in adhering to the command.
C. The “command” is superceded by the instructions of St.Paul
a. it is better not to marry (and hence have no offspring)
b. his quote from Isa in Gal: For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”, showing that spiritual children are even better than physical children
‘No it is not. I have shown you several reasons why. That’s also exactly my point that reasoning for procreation purposes fails to stand its ground.’
You have?
‘ the point is, is sex evil if it is for unitive purposes only (i.e. leave out the procreative purpose)?’
It is if you are purposely taking out the procreative purpose by using artifical contraception.
Yup…she’s experienced in sodomy.
She sounds exactly like the Toad who kept saying marriage was intercourse only. And you are right Sharkly…it’s to justify fornication.
Paul,
Only certain groups are multiplying. Those in the advanced west are fading as 2 children becomes a maximum or even “one and done” becoming a norm. It is stupid since it is not even replacement level.
I don’t take the RCC position, but many are not even maintaining, let alone occupying.
You do seem to be in bondage to the failed idea that we are running out of room. The planet has plenty of room, we just use it very inefficiently.
Earl,
What management enforces is the literal policy, whatever is written on paper. That is true for any organization, including the RCC.
‘What management enforces is the literal policy, whatever is written on paper. That is true for any organization, including the RCC.’
All I’m asking is the literal policy on paper. I’m sure we’ll find it’s about disobedient clergy….much like the Prot clergy.
All I’m asking is the literal policy on paper.
Personnel is policy.
‘Personnel is policy.’
No one has found it.
Fair enough…Prot leaders have the same policy. Frivorce, wife can refuse sex, fornication …premissiveness of sin etc.
Only certain groups are multiplying. Those in the advanced west are fading as 2 children becomes a maximum or even “one and done” becoming a norm.
Apparently our snowflakes are not self-centered enough. We must raise up a generation of only-children, to give them maximum attention and empowerment. /S
To those commenters who believe that our snowflakes are not self-centered enough:
I give you this – https://imgur.com/a/JDccVmd (strong language warning)
@stickdude90: Is this real? It would be hilarious, if a man and a child weren’t involved. Then again, the man got lucky in avoiding a wedding with this disaster of a person. Here’s hoping he’ll get and keep full custody of their child while Selfish Susan goes backpacking or whatever.
@Heidi – according to Bridezilla’s cousin it is. There was a big thread about it on Reddit where someone posted additional updates from the cousin –
Thanks for the update. Well, if it’s fictional, it’s very convincingly done. Wowee. The dad needs to show these screenshots to a good lawyer and ensure he has full custody of the child; I mean, he’s probably not flawless, but it’s difficult to imagine he’d be as bad as Crazypants.
Anon says:
August 26, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Yeah, one would think that the regulars here would’ve learned that lesson by now.
I guess I’ll never learn.
@earl: “‘ the point is, is sex evil if it is for unitive purposes only (i.e. leave out the procreative purpose)?’ It is if you are purposely taking out the procreative purpose by using artifical contraception.
”
OK, we’re getting closer to the heart of the matter. Sex is evil if artificial contraception is used.
First of all, I find the whole distinction in RCC dogma between natural and artificial contraception quite artificial; but that’s something for a different topic.
Well of course the logical next question is; is sex evil if natural contraception is used?
‘Sex is evil if artificial contraception is used.’
No using something artifically to prevent procreation is the evil. Not the marital act.
‘is sex evil if natural contraception is used?’
No because God designed the woman to have infertile parts to her cycle.
You keep trying to paint ‘sex’ or ‘sexual pleasure’ as evil. When are you going to ask if lust is evil?
earl says: No using something artificially to prevent procreation is the evil. Not the marital act.
Can you provide some scripture that, say for instance, would rule out the use of a condom between a husband and wife?
I just reread the story of Onan, and I don’t see how he wasn’t justly killed by God for committing adultery and incest both capital sins. He was also disobeying his father. He was only to “defile” his brother’s wife for the purpose of giving his brother a descendent who would take part of their father’s inheritance, leaving less for Onan’s kids then. Onan deceitfully defiled his brothers wife, while refusing to give her his seed, the sole purpose behind the strange liaison, out of greed. He was thus guilty of incestuous adultery for sleeping with his brother’s wife, while refusing to give an heir to his brother, that was the sole reason allowing for the Levirate liaison to be acceptable to God, and to not be incestuous adultery. But for greed, he needlessly defiled his brothers wife, and stole from her the seed he was due to give, thus making himself guilty of incestuous adultery defiling his brother’s wife for no purpose, and angering God greatly.(God had already killed the brother)
Anyhow, I don’t see how that crazy situation makes something like a condom wrong, or pulling out and spilling your seed on the ground.
Disclaimer: Sharkly breaks the largest condoms available by law in the USA, and has to buy the world’s largest online from Germany, and even they are a tiny bit uncomfortable, but much much better. If you have found all the condoms in the US to be too tight and been breaking the Trojan Magnum XL, look into “My Size 69”, it can make your artificial contraception experience far more enjoyable. If you have the liberty to use such methods. Sorry, just had to AMOG. 😉 LOL YMMV I’m just trying to help other Christian brothers who may be in my same painful situation. Flame away.
Can you provide the historical context when artifical contraception like the pill was introduced?
Next you’ll ask me to provide scripture that would rule out a man having sex with a robot or watching pornography.
Just exactly what are you trying to prevent when you purchase your foreign condoms or pulling out?
Disclaimer: Sharkly breaks the largest condoms available by law in the USA
Save that stuff for the next Naana driveby. No one else cares.
Just exactly what are you trying to prevent when you purchase your foreign condoms or pulling out?
Well, conception of course. And we do have kids already, so it isn’t like we prevented it always.
No, why would I need to provide you history on “the pill”, for a determination of what the Bible says?
I decided the pill was not necessary, considering how infrequently my wife would allow sex. Who knew a box of 12 condoms was designed to last a year? LOL
I suppose the sex robot, would be like masturbation. Are Catholics the ones who go blind from that? I never thought the “self abuse” referred to masturbation, but something actually abusive.
I’ve got a good bit of Christian liberty, but I do think porn is exercising lust, or at least putting yourself into temptation to possibly lust, and therefore is not right, but there are worse sins, like defrauding your partner sexually. Lust is not adultery, but the root of it, and found in every person’s heart. Just like hate is not murder, but the root of it, and found in everyone’s hearts. The law is here to convict us all of our sin. We have all, already fallen short of it. So anybody who wants to claim that lust is adultery, should realize that nobody is perpetually free from that, even if they have never seen porn. I assume Jesus was talking about literally looking at a clothed woman and lusting, and there being adultery already in the heart, that makes you look longingly. I don’t think He literally intended us to rip out our eyes to go to heaven, since none of the apostles did that. That would be “self abuse”. I think He was just saying that you’d have to rip out your eyes and cut off your hands, if you were going to try to keep the law, and you’d still fail to be as holy as God, so you’re going to need to just be humble and look for a sacrifice for your inevitable sin. And He was in fact that sacrifice on our behalf, He was the only one to always fulfill all the law, and he did it without ripping out His eyes. Hopefully that answers some of your questions.
Save that stuff for the next Naana driveby. No one else cares.
You know a good Mennonite could not discuss such things in mixed company.
Spiritually, yes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
Because the pill didn’t exist during the times when the Bible was written. That’s the reason you ask for ‘Scriptural reference’….you know specific things like condoms or the pill aren’t in there. It’s their use and purpose that matters. Deliberately preventing conception, like Onan, is something you don’t want to mess with.
‘Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. What he did was evil in the LORD’s sight, so He put Onan to death as well. ‘
Deliberately preventing conception, like Onan, is something you don’t want to mess with.
Last I checked I wasn’t in Onan’s situation. I’m fine messing with preventing conception. I’m not defiling my brother’s wife to produce an heir, at my father’s Levirate command. And I’m not concerned about the concerns of Catholicism, if they aren’t made clear in scripture.
As to things not specifically mentioned in scripture, we can generally figure out what God would have us to do. Is the internet OK? it depends what you’re doing on it. Reading the Bible on the internet is Good. Wire fraud on the internet is wrong. If you’ve already decided that masturbation is wrong, then the robot sex will likely fall into that same category. Whereas If I don’t see masturbation as wrong, I might be keeping my eye out for a cute robogirl who likes to go for long walks and cuddle, and is a virgin of course. Get the 20 pack of virtual hymens for just $9.99 Don’t you just love technology?
Sorry, gotta run. Robogirl needs me to go stomp a spider, and then bring her a recharged battery. Aw shit! robogirl says she’s got a headache, and I need to rub her feet for an hour, and she’s too tired for her chores, or anything else. Shit! I need to get an upgrade.
Sharkly, you find any company selling a Cherry2000, or even a Joi, let me know.
I’d buy either one tomorrow, if available and I had the budget (and I’m married).
I’m hoping I make it to the eventual Sexbot future only to see the response from Churchianity. It will be glorious.
If a couple chooses not to have sex while the wife is ovulating, would that fall under “deliberately preventing conception”? It’s a deliberate choice, and it’s preventing conception.
Stickdude, etc., what a lot of people don’t seem to see about conception* when appropriately used is this: it allows for MORE of a marriage than just “sex only when you can have kids” would. Pregnancy would kill the mom, she’s old enough having any kids would be handicapped-kid-seeking, or the couple is currently so broke they’re on the verge of going homeless? Traditional, pre-conception thought would have had them be celibate with each other, not even engaging in decent alternatives (mutual mast, oral or sodomy). With contraception, inappropriate impregnation does not occur, while the couple is still engaging in bonding activity. This is VERY important, as it keeps both from being as likely to stray, and her to submit as a wife outside the bed at least some, as she does in the sex act IN bed. So, contraception can be an advance.
*By and between a married couple, when they have already had replacement # of kids
Sharkly, you find any company selling a Cherry2000, or even a Joi, let me know.
I called about a Cherry 2000 Gynoid, but robogirl checked my phone and had a shit-fit! She claims they got technical differences and frequency cross-talk, so I’ve got to chose, She says, if the Gynoid stays, she’s leaving.
I found an article from earlier this year. Written by a frightened woman.
How the virtual love industry is reviving the specter of the submissive wife
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/01/how-virtual-love-industry-reviving-spectre-submissive-wife
Here are some quotes from it:
It’s notable how, whether the product is designed for men or women, female submission is the order of the day.
Again we see the same problem: real life women with voices and demands might interrupt. They might say “no”. But your robot wife will always say “yes”.
…the virtual love industry is building a future where we fetishise female submission to the extent that we marry robots…
Go figure. The real woman has no idea how to compete with a submissive gadget. Since the thought of real women submitting is unthinkable.
Sharkly,
I think your understanding of this passage is tortuous. You place great emphasis on adultery and incest. Since his brother Er was dead, how was this incest? How was it adultery (remember, adultery in those days was defined as sex with a married woman)? And, were they “capital sins” at that time? The Mosaic Law had not yet been given.
Why did God kill Onan? It seems it was because of his greed, not any sexual sin (if any actually existed).
It seems that the concept of levirate marriage was important to God as it was present in the Mosaic Law when it was given later. Onan’s action and the consequence was a precursor to the later requirements for the Israelites.
Dale,
You mentioned you gave “supplement information” in another thread. I am trying to find your comment/post.
I found where I gave out the supplement info:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/a-tour-through-the-twisted-psyche-of-an-ugly-feminist/#comment-278802
Hopefully that helps.
OKRickety,
In answer to your questions:
Since his brother Er was dead, how was this incest?
In Levirate marriage situations the man became a stand-in for his brother to raise up seed unto him, and God allowed only that exception. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 However sleeping with your sister in law is incest elsewise.
Leviticus 18:16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity.
Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. 18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.
It is classified as incest because God says it is wrong to marry your sister in law, except in a Levirate marriage, since you are close kinfolk.
How was it adultery (remember, adultery in those days was defined as sex with a married woman)?
Sex with somebody you are not married to while you are married is adultery. Jesus said:
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Two become one. Not three become 1 or 1.5 or some other thing. Jesus did not change the law, he expounded the law where it had been misinterpreted. The law was laid down before the foundation of the earth. It was the Law before Moses received it. Noah’s generation was wiped out for being disobedient to God long before Moses.
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
If the law is abolished or gets changed, then how will the guilty be eternally punished to a temporal standard of righteousness? God is not insane. God does not tell people it is sinful to eat meat on Fridays, and then later change His mind. He is the same forever, and so is His law, though his covenants with us may have been switched, praise Jesus, and we are not all physical Jews, to do the Jewish rituals.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Why did God kill Onan? It seems it was because of his greed, not any sexual sin (if any actually existed).
Wrong! I explained why God killed him already, in a previous post. Which you chose to argue with, basing your disagreement solely upon speculation. Greed is not a capital crime. The punishment for theft is to have to pay back over and above what was stolen. God doesn’t kill people contrary to the law, as though He were short tempered and having a fit, like a Greek god. Onan was killed for his sins including unlawful capital sexual offense.
I have not studied the passage about Onan much, and I may be wrong about my interpretation, I also don’t feel beholden to the Jewish Law, and don’t have it all memorized or follow much of it. I am however not wrong about what you claim I’m wrong about. Please don’t “correct” me with mere speculation. I see zero Bible in your retort.
About Levirate marriage: it was mandated in Mosaic Law, but not following it was not considered sin, but “only” shameful.
Deut 25:5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.
Hence, in the general case no death penalty for refusing to fulfill levirate marriage duty.
Sharkly,
Looking further at the question of a man marrying his dead brother’s wife, I did not realize this was classified in the Mosaic Law as incest except in the levirate instance.
That is today’s definition of adultery, but not the definition used in the Old Testament. For example, in the page Adultery, you will find that three different sources provide the definition of adultery as sex between a married woman and a man who is not her husband.
Pingback: 2017 Never Married Data | Dalrock
Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Dalrock
Pingback: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure | Σ Frame