Frigidity is ugly.

Commenter Jen reminds us that miserliness isn’t the only option for a wife:

Honestly, if a woman loves her husband, even if she’s NOT in the mood, she’ll be more than happy to acquiesce simply out of her love for and desire to please him & make him happy (which ought to, by default, make her even happier she said yes). And this is not “duty sex” or “Oh, FINE” sex, but “All right, Sweetheart!” and happily off the couple goes. IMO there is no room for the “duty” or grudging sex in marriage, because the woman is only “giving” grudgingly, and that is not giving at all, and may be just as cruel as denying. I wouldn’t like it if my husband acted that way. (God loves a cheerful giver! Perhaps that ought to be embroidered onto bedsheets…)

Many have grown so accustomed to the miserly perspective of feminism, where even love for family is subject to a penny pinching curmudgeonly attitude, that they forget that it doesn’t have to be this way.  Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love.  This feminist obsession with miserliness has caused large numbers of women to scorn what is beautiful to God;  what could be uglier than that?

There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.  This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish.  It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter;  they are very important.  But they aren’t the only thing.  We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals.  We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.

Posted in Foolishness, Frigidity, Game, Miserliness, Ugly Feminists | 288 Comments

Frigidity and power.

With as much as has been written about the sex denial spreadsheet, one aspect I haven’t seen addressed is the issue of power and how the fear of losing power was a core motivating factor for the women involved.  This is evident with both the wife who published the spreadsheet and women’s responses as the spreadsheet went viral.  The wife who published the spreadsheet was horrified that:

  1. Her husband had blown through her attempted deception.
  2. As a result, he declared (and to a degree demonstrated) that she could no longer use fleeting promises of sex to hold power over him.

The original reddit post has been removed, but the text of her posting is copied all over the internet, including at (emphasis mine):

Yesterday morning, while in a taxi on the way to the airport, Husband sends a message to my work email which is connected to my phone. He’s never done this, we always communicate in person or by text. I open it up, and it’s a sarcastic diatribe basically saying he won’t miss me for the 10 days I’m gone. Attached is a SPREADSHEET of all the times he has tried to initiate sex since June 1st, with a column for my “excuses”, using verbatim quotes of why I didn’t feel like having sex at that very moment. According to his ‘document’, we’ve only had sex 3 times in the last 7 weeks, out of 27 “attempts” on his part.

The wife was horrified that she had over played her hand in using sex to keep her husband firmly in her orbit.  She turned to the internet for soothing reassurance from team woman, but instead of a pure team woman response, solipsism kicked in and the women responding were more interested in distancing themselves from the image of a frigid, powerless wife than they were in punishing the bad man.

Women’s sexuality has always been a primary source of their power, but in our feminist culture this has been taken to the extreme.  We openly celebrate the epic power of the vagina:

It isn’t just secular culture chanting Hail to the V.  Modern Christians are as enthralled by the awesome power of the vagina as everyone else is.  As Dr. Mohler explains:

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

This is the culture we live in, where everyone from feminists to the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is in awe of the world changing power between a woman’s legs.

Now imagine being the spreadsheet wife, who has suddenly realized that her V has lost its power through her own misuse.  In a fit of terror, hurt, and outrage, she turned to her sisters on the internet.  But instead of rallying around her, they were afraid that the disease could be catchy.  What if their V suddenly stopped working as well?

Scary Mommy responded to the viral spreadsheet story with an article titled Why You Should Say Yes Tonight:

…before we realize it, the no’s can add up into a long yoga pant drawstring of days and weeks. Months. Suddenly we are counting back on fingers, and toes…and with a sickening sense of worry, we can’t even remember the last time we had said YES to a roll in the hay.

And we worry even more that our husbands remember EXACTLY how long it’s been.

Or that they are keeping a log of our refusals, like this guy did.

While the spreadsheet method almost certainly failed for the frustrated beta who created it, he did manage to explode the denial around not only his own frigid wife’s refusal of sex, but that of frigid wives around the world.  The danger of this was immediately and viscerally evident to the women who read it, which is why solipsism kicked in where team woman was expected.  Instead of closing ranks to declare in unison that the husband was a bad man and wives don’t owe their husbands sex, the response was a half hearted attempt to shame the man back into submission, with the primary focus being on damage control to prevent the woman’s own V from losing its power.

The Frisky’s Jessica Wakeman opened her piece on the spreadsheet with the obligatory demonstration of team woman solidarity:

Last week, women reading the Internet collectively reached for their wallets to check how much cash they had, because there was a fellow lady out there who needed a drink.

Yet dispite weak efforts to demonstrate solidarity, the subtext of the whole piece is about how horrified now married Wakeman still is about the time when she overplayed her own hand with a boyfriend, causing her V to lose its power:

I have no idea why Ex-Mr. Jessica didn’t bring it up (he just sorted dumped me and washed his hands of our relationship), but looking back, I can see exactly what was happening on, why, and how it all went to shit

With all of the complaining about spreadsheet beta and how he should have communicated better, even more terrifying is the thought of a man who didn’t bother complaining, who simply lost interest in the ever more rationed V.

I did feel genuinely regretful that I didn’t give Ex-Mr. Jessica what he wanted in terms of our sex life because I never got the chance to even try to fix them. But he never brought them up to me until he broke up with me. I wish he had had the courage to talk to me.

The whole episode has been shocking for modern women, because while deep in their minds they always knew there was such a risk, they thought they had banished the risk by banishing the word used to describe it.  Yet even though the word frigid is now all but unspeakable, here was a wife who inadvertently warned the internet about the dangers of being frigid.  Frigid is such a powerful term, and is so hated by feminists, because it names the risk of losing sexual power by overplaying the control hand.

The problem for women is their sexual power can be difficult to effectively wield, especially now that our culture has abandoned lifelong marriage.  Women’s sexual power is fleeting, and only patriarchal marriage allows a woman to leverage her youthful sexual power to the power of a respected wife and mother and ultimately to the power of Yiayia.  But the fleeting nature of women’s sexual power is just one problem, it is also fragile.  Appearing available and eager for sex is essential for a woman to appear sexy.  Yet a woman who appears too eager, or more accurately eager for too many men, risks being labeled as a slut.  Sluts still have the power of being desired, but as everyone knows only a foolish man would fall in love with a slut.  Sluts are in this narrow (romantic) sense, unlovable.  Note how quickly being attractive went to being ugly.  On the other end of the spectrum is frigidity.  A wife who almost never wants to have sex with her husband is a terrible wife.  As with a slut, only a foolish man would (knowingly) fall in love with a frigid woman.  However, unlike the slut she isn’t even desirable.  A frigid wife is powerless, undesirable, and (romantically) unlovable.  This recognition is what so horrified women around the world when the spreadsheet went viral.

Feminists have done an incredible job in temporarily removing words like slut and frigid from our lexicon, but they won’t be able to banish them for good because of the realities behind the terms.  What we are seeing with the viral spreadsheet is the concept of frigidity working its way back into our thought process, even though the word itself is still forbidden.

Posted in Albert Mohler, Denial, Frigidity, Miserliness, Solipsism, Status of marriage, Ugly Feminists | 378 Comments

Don’t judge a book by its cover

The most common complaint in the comboxes of Matt Walsh’s criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey is that Walsh has not actually read the book.  50SOG is according to its defenders a work which must be experienced to be understood.  It is, they claim, a work of fine literature, not smut. Fortunately ballista74 has located a dramatic reading of 50SOG which I am confident will help bridge our gap in understanding this modern literary work.  Audio is not safe for work.

Posted in Manosphere Humor | 95 Comments

Five years of keeping her happy proves David Swindle is a better man than you.

Dr Helen has been exchanging posts with PJ Media Associate Editor David Swindle about the famous sex excuse spreadsheet.  Swindle expresses contempt for the frustrated husband whose wife made their private life public:

I have absolutely ZERO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for this loser. Why?

Because it’s not a wife’s responsibility to be her husband’s happy whore, eagerly providing him with his orgasms on demand.

Note how Swindle takes the modern day moral elevation of desire/romantic love to its natural extreme, declaring that biblical/traditional wives are the new whores.  As I’ve previously explained, we have inverted the roles of marriage and romantic love.  Now instead of seeing marriage as the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, we see romantic love as the moral place for sex and marriage.  While most don’t take this idea to the extreme that Swindle does, the basic premise is so common that virtually no one notices that we have adopted a new code of sexual morality.

Rollo expressed a similar moral sentiment in the discussion of the Radio Silence post:

…one truth becomes glaringly apparent: under our current social mores, premarital sex and its inspired urgency is a more honest, motivated and passionate proposition than married sex will ever be. 

However, there is a fundamental difference between Swindle and Rollo’s positions.  Swindle declares that a sense of duty is immoral while arguing for marriage, while Rollo is not only less strident but logically consistent by arguing that it is better for a man to keep a rotation of women in order to maximize the authenticity of the act.  If you believe that really liking something is the fundamental test of morality, obligation is anti-morality.  Under that point of view, marriage and duty are at best foolish, and are at worst (under Swindle’s view) evil.

Swindle’s profound internal contradiction about marriage becomes more understandable when you read further, as he trots out conventional wisdom which would make Oprah proud:

Dissatisfied husbands, want to know the secret to having sex with your wife whenever you want? It is not your wife’s responsibility to be ready to go on command, it’s YOUR responsibility to know your wife so well that you are capable of seducing her anytime. When you want to have sex with her you don’t ask her, you put her in the mood yourself. It’s really that simple: know you wife well enough so you can push the right buttons, say the right things, and create an environment where sex just naturally happens.

Unfortunately, that’s more work than most men are used to for getting orgasms. Twenty or thirty minutes of close attention, massage, and foreplay first? Taking the effort to really get to know your wife’s unique preferences and turn-ons? Learning how to read her moods? That’s effort — and energy.

I’m a bit disappointed in Swindle.  He forgot to mention foot rubs.  And what about learning her love language?  Giving her a footrub while speaking her love language is guaranteed to get her hot.  If it doesn’t, you probably aren’t doing enough choreplay.

Dr. Helen accurately identifies Swindle as a white knight, but I would argue his windmill tilting comes from him assuming the position of hostage negotiator.  Swindle has convinced himself that his ability to keep his wife happy in the face of laws and a culture which encourage her to divorce him is proof of his superiority to other men.  Swindle actually has a long track record of espousing this view.  Well, it is long when compared to the length of his marriage.

Back in May of 2011 Swindle wrote a post explaining why columnist John Hawkins shouldn’t be concerned about modern marriage.

John, let me tell you something directly: people with hearts as big as yours shouldn’t worry so much about divorce. I don’t foresee you having a hard time making a woman feel loved, cherished, and appreciated — as long as you put your mind to it. The failure rate of divorces says more about our broken human nature than a problem with the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is a job like any other. (I sometimes feel like when I’m clocking out at NRB that I’m just clocking in with the Swindle-Bey household.)

If you are good enough John, she will be happy.  If she is happy, she won’t push the detonator.  Those men who are divorced by their wives deserve it.  Swindle continues:

Marriages don’t have to fail when both people in them take them seriously and don’t allow them to crumble under the pressures of life and our own selfish, broken nature. Read a few books on marriages — The Five Love Languages is very useful — spend enough quality time together, and pay attention to their needs and things will work out.

As I mentioned above, Swindle is an old hand at explaining that husbands just have to be good enough and marriage 2.0 will work just fine.  He gave the advice to Hawkins just before his second wedding anniversary.

This Monday will be my wife April and my second wedding anniversary. It hasn’t always been easy. We’ve had big changes, angry fights, and plenty of surprises. But we’ve both grown and are starting to evolve slowly into better people than we were before we came into each other’s life.

Now that he is three years wiser and his family has grown (they now have a dog), Swindle has of course moved on to newer books explaining the secret to a great relationship.  He now knows that the secret to a good marriage is to follow the Bible, at least the Bible as reinterpreted through Jewish mysticism.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I should note that not elevating sexual desire and romantic love to a position of moral barometer doesn’t mean diminishing or eschewing either one.  Recognizing that liking something doesn’t make it moral doesn’t mean you don’t like it.  The irony is that by elevating romantic love and desire out of their rightful place both become much harder to sustain.  The (real) biblical model of marriage does work.  It isn’t guaranteed to produce passion and romantic love, but there is immense wisdom in the design.  I’m always amused when people mistake my wife and me for newlyweds (only when we are out without our kids).  When my wife explains that we have been married for twenty years the look of surprise is comical.

Moreover, I strongly disagree with Swindle that a good marriage is all about work.  Swindle describes being married as a second full time job, but my wife has frequently expressed puzzlement at the claim that a marriage is about work.  She is right.  Marriage is far more about commitment than work.  While we have the same kinds of disagreements that every couple has, most of the time our marriage is downright fun.  It is far more like a lifelong slumber party than work.  Much of this is due to the closeness which comes when the path to the marriage bed isn’t strewn with obstacles, and much of it comes from being blessed beyond what we deserve.  Our marriage isn’t proof that I’m a better man than others, but our marriage and countless others like it are proof that the biblical model which so offends Swindle is infinitely wiser than those who would try to improve upon God’s design.

Posted in Foolishness, New Morality | 425 Comments

It didn’t originate with the marketers, but that doesn’t make them blameless.

I thought I was done with this, but I see that Matt Walsh is continuing with his insistence that marketers are the reason women behave badly.

Imagine the message that would send. Imagine the Hollywood elites as they look at one another, stunned and shell shocked. “Dear Lord, the plebeians have become self-aware. They have… standards. They won’t sit obediently and devour whatever load of vapid, lifeless excrement we try to shovel into their anonymous faces. The jig is up, boys, we’re doomed.”

Elsewhere in the post he refers to the movie as a “cynical, boring, corporate marketing ploy”.  The great irony is that 50 Shades of Grey is a case where the marketers weren’t providing the type of depravity women demanded, so women went around the marketers.  50 SOG is a work of fan fiction which went viral.  By all accounts the mass enthusiasm for the book isn’t due to it being masterfully written.  Pretty much everyone agrees that it is horribly written, but that women are willing to overlook that because it scratches a powerful itch.  Even when women go around the marketers to get what they want, Walsh still can only blame the marketers.  He assumes women are being forced to consume this against their will.

The reality is that women will reward marketers who give them what they want and punish those who don’t.  Walsh really needs to get his head around this because marketing to women is the very business he is in.  At some level he has to know this, because he receives mountains of praise when he does things like undermine headship, provide excuses for women to divorce their husbands, and tell women they are beautiful.  He has to have also noticed that when he criticizes frivolous divorce, his otherwise delighted readers get hysterical and accuse him of being unChristian.  Matt even touches on the fact that many of the same Christian women who loved his posts against men using pornography are equally enthusiastic about 50 SOG.

I’ve noticed that some of the women who give me a hearty ‘AMEN’ every time I write a post condemning pornography, are the same ones gushing frantically about this film. They don’t want their husbands watching porn, but they’ll not only watch and read porn themselves — they’ll advertise that fact to the entire world.  As if the hypocrisy isn’t bad enough, they had to add in a touch of public emasculation.

Classy move.

This had me curious what Jenny Erikson has written on the 50 SOG movie, since she was so comforted in her sinful divorce by Walsh’s writing.  Not surprisingly, she is awaiting its release with bated breath.

But even Walsh’s creeping recognition overlooks the fact that when he called men out for using pornography he declared it as adultery (full stop).  Yet while he quotes plenty of Scripture in his 50 SOG post, he doesn’t manage to get around to making the same claim for women’s much more shameless consumption of porn.

If Walsh still requires proof that women (in general) are in the driver’s seat, he should look no further than the hysterical feedback he received for writing negatively about 50 SOG. Once he understands this, he will realize that while plenty of marketers are knowingly encouraging women to sin in the ways women most want to sin, most of the time they are just going with what brings the results they want.  Telling the truth and standing up for the parts of biblical morality which offend women isn’t good for business when your business is pleasing women, especially in our time of unprecedented feminist rebellion.  Once Walsh accepts this all too obvious fact, his next question should be what business does he want to be in?

Posted in Jenny Erikson, Matt Walsh | 186 Comments