How to tell if you are a godly man.

Sunshine Thiry decided to test to see if it is true that when complementarians say “listen to your wife” what they mean is “do what she says”.

Is it true that what complementarians mean by “listening to your wife” is agreeing with your wife and doing what she says?  This is actually a very serious accusation, and therefore all of us who take biblical marriage seriously should be concerned about this charge because if it is true, what complementarians are teaching is directly counter to what the Bible says about the marital hierarchy of headship and submission

This caused Sunshine to think back to the video series The Art of Marriage, and specifically the message from Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife Ann (clip 1, clip 2).  In the video segments we learn about the time Ann gave Dave a wake-up call in order to get him to spend more time with the family.  In modern Christian theology wives are closer to God than husbands are, and therefore need to periodically do or say things to threaten and/or hurt their husbands in order to bring them to heel.  In this case the wake-up call was Ann telling Dave she didn’t love him anymore:

Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.

Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”

Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”

In the second clip Dave explains that God spoke to him then and there, telling him to “shut up and listen” to his wife.  Dave followed this command and started working less and spending more time with his wife and family.  As Sunshine Thiry points out, this is yet another example of complementarians meaning do as your wife says when they say “listen to your wife”:

Looking at their story now, two years later, it clearly seems to support Dalrock’s charge.  The Wilsons’ story is eerily similar to the Kellers’ except that Mrs. Wilson doesn’t violently smash anything.  But there is still a veiled threat implicit in telling your husband that you no longer love him on your tenth anniversary date night.  Pastor Wilson even talks about getting the sense that he was supposed to “just shut up and listen” to his wife, as Pastor Keller had with Mrs. Keller, while she told him what she had told him repeatedly before.

From wake-up call to divine tingle.

The Wilsons take this a step further in a two part series* they did for FamilyLife.  They use this same story to teach that a wife’s attraction to her husband is determined by how godly he is.  Here is how FamilyLife explains the message when selling the series (all further emphasis mine):

Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife, Ann, explore the complex and wonderful dance of martial intimacy as they share their own unique dance experience. According to Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife, Ann, a man’s relationship with God is key to unlocking the mystery of marital intimacy.

In the FamilyLife series the Wilsons explain that Ann’s wake-up call to Dave that night was even harsher than presented in the Art of Marriage clips.

Ann:  I basically said, “I have been so angry, and you haven’t heard me.” And even when I thought I was going to bring this up, I thought he would get angry again because he would say, “I am home!”

Dave:  Yes, I usually fought loud.

Ann:  Yes. So, I told him that: “I was angry, and then my anger turned to bitterness, and then my bitterness turned to numbness, and now I don’t even care. I’m not even mad at you anymore because I’m not going to divorce you, but I feel like I don’t have anything for you.”

They explain that when she said this, God was speaking to Dave through Ann:

Dave:  Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;

This is when he realized that a wife’s attraction toward her husband (or lack thereof) is a barometer of the man’s godliness:

and the word I heard from God was only one word: “Repent.” I knew, when I heard that word, what it meant—it wasn’t “Repent of being a bad husband,” or “…being gone too much.” It was:  “Repent of your relationship with Me,”—God / vertical. See, I had been so busy that my walk with God was sort of on the fly—I wasn’t sitting with Him / I wasn’t studying His Word. I got into His Word—why? So I would have something to preach. I hadn’t been intimate with God in months.

At that moment, Dave started praying and dedicated himself to God.  This is what turned around Ann’s long time revulsion at the thought of having sex with Dave:

Ann:  I think God was saying: “When we are okay, I can get you through anything. I will catch you.” And I knew it, too, because our sex was terrible. I was so resentful when he touched me—it didn’t take a crockpot / it took for eternity. I could never, ever get used to Dave’s touch. It was a red signal going off, like: “We need help! We need counseling.  Something needs to happen.”

So, for me, I got down on my knees too. Dave and I grabbed hands together, and we both repented and re-surrendered our lives to Jesus and our marriage to Jesus.

Dave:  I’m telling you—it changed. I’m not saying we’re perfect and the last 25 years haven’t been without difficulty…

If you want a better sex life—and that’s just one part of your marriage—you’re not going to get it by taking three points from us. The only thing that’s going to change your marriage or your sex life is bringing God into your bedroom /bringing God into your marriage.

Part of their message is good;  surrendering to God, repenting, and praying are extremely important.  But this is only part of their message, and it conceals a very harmful theology.  They aren’t just advising to pray for improved sex/marriage, and this isn’t even just a sort of sexual prosperity Gospel.  They are teaching that women are designed to respond sexually to godly husbands.  This is unfortunately a fairly common modern teaching, but even here they are taking the error to the next level:

  1. Ann knew Dave wasn’t right with God because she was repulsed by the idea of having sex with him.
  2. God spoke to Dave about his lack of Christian obedience through Ann’s lack of desire to have sex with him.

Moreover, a generic focus on prayer is being used to avoid complying with the clear instructions in the Bible to husbands and wives.  The most relevant instruction is in 1 Cor 7, which tells husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sex.  They cover this in part one of the series, but the stress is on rationalizing Ann’s failure to follow this command.  They turn it into a yuk yuk moment where Ann chastises Dave for having “used this against her” in the past:

Ann: Here’s what it says in 1 Corinthians 7: “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.” You used to use that against me a little bit too: “It’s not just your body; it’s mine.” Do you remember that?

Dave: I never did that.

Ann: Yes, you did.

Dave: Hey, you’re supposed to just read the Word of God. [Laughter]

Then together they gloss over the command by focusing solely on the unifying properties of sex in marriage:

Ann: “In the same way the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

You know, I read that and here’s what I think: “Before we’re married, Satan will do everything in his power to try to get us to have sex; and after we’re married, Satan—who wants to destroy our marriages—tries to do everything in his power for us not to have sex. Isn’t that true? Yes! Here’s what the promise is—that I think that God is saying for us to come together—it unites us, spiritually/emotionally. It’s what makes it so special and, yet, it’s so hard; but I love that the Scripture talks about this.

Dave: Yes; and the Scripture isn’t giving you a number of how many times a week that you’ve got to make love—it doesn’t do that—but it does give us a pattern that says it should be somewhat regular.

Scripture isn’t giving a number because it is saying to have sex whenever either of you wants.  This is very clear, but it is extremely unpalatable in our feminist age.  In tossing aside this very clear instruction and instead focusing on the wife’s arousal, Dave and Ann are effectively arguing that couples should only have sex when the wife is in the mood.  This then is connected to their claim that wives will want to have sex if their husbands are godly.  Where Scripture tells us Ann was sinning by defrauding her husband, Dave and Ann turn this around so that Dave was sinning (even in a yuk yuk way) by washing his wife in the water of the word.  Then they explain that the reason Ann wasn’t aroused was because Dave wasn’t godly enough.  Pointing out sin becomes the real sin, and what the Bible tells us is the sin of the wife (in the case of a defrauding wife) is turned around to indicate a sin of the husband.  This is especially toxic because the target audience of the series is married couples where the wife is either denying sex or strongly tempted to do so.

The other relevant instructions in Scripture are the repeated command to wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5-22:24,  1 Pet 3:1&5, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11 & Tit 2:5).  Dave and Ann have turned this relationship around, and their cross-dressing theology is at least part of the reason Ann was repulsed by the thought of having sex with Dave.  They present it as being the opposite, that Ann is turned on by Dave doing as she says (which ends up being God’s will since He speaks to Dave through her).  Yet this is both of them following her rationalizations.

*I have quoted from the transcripts, but if you listen to the audio you will find that at times the transcript left small parts out.  Here are the detailed links:  Part 1 mp3, part 1 transcriptPart 2 mp3, part 2 transcript.

Related:

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Crossdressing Theology, Dave and Ann Wilson, FamilyLife, Frigidity, Game, Marriage, Miserliness, New Morality, Not Listening, Romantic Love, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to How to tell if you are a godly man.

  1. rugby11 says:

    Complimentary relationships.
    Must become this.

  2. This is an amazing blog. I have seen all the above in a different context. It is very enlightening how you show the problems that come from twisting the Bible.

  3. Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Neoreactive

  4. Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. – Manosphere.com

  5. ladonai says:

    Modern “Christianity” feat. Opinions of Women > word of God

  6. Trust says:

    I wish women were repulsed by men who weren’t right with God, and sexually desired only Godly husbands.

    If this were true, we’d live in the most righteous and Godly society to have ever existed.

  7. DrTorch says:

    Now maybe this is just the OT, but we have some clear guidance here:

    Micah 6:8 And what does the Lord require of you
    But to do justly,
    To love mercy,
    And to walk humbly with your God?

    What I’m seeing is that Dave suddenly discovers he’s not in a right relationship with God, thanks to Ann’s disobedience. Of course this has nothing to do w/ acting justly. Don’t see much about mercy. But interesting enough, the problem is that Dave is being humble.

    Here’s another instance of boyfriend Jesus calling out to special snowflake Dave, that he shouldn’t do his work humbly, and Ann be content with that. No, Dave suddenly realizes he’s way too important for that and this is the message that God delivered through Ann.

    I know there are examples of God calling out to certain individuals to live extraordinary lives, often prophets (Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist), and some apostles (Paul, John, Peter). But most followers have much humbler stories, which seems to be perfectly in accord w/ Micah. But, that doesn’t work for Ann and Dave, and that’s the message they’re telling everyone else.

  8. Is it me or does modern evangelical marriage seem like enduring a life-long series of ‘grudgefucks’ in the name of honoring a religious commitment?

  9. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann.

    This is when he realized that a wife’s attraction toward her husband (or lack thereof) is a barometer of the man’s godliness…

    http://www.biblestudyexpo.com/

    Have a look at the authors/speakers in this very extensive catalog. Is there still any doubt that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit?

  10. Sean says:

    Rollo,

    BSE is an event by and for women. Now, whether the stuff spoken of is heretical or not is the likely discussion topic.

  11. Sean says:

    …. And judging by the presence of TerKeurst, Kassian, and others there, it’s likely to be loaded with mysticism, usurpation, and paganism.

    At least Sarah Young isn’t there.

  12. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Rollo writes:

    “Is it me or does modern evangelical marriage seem like enduring a life-long series of ‘grudgefucks’ in the name of honoring a religious commitment?”

    I wonder the same thing.

    I look at all of my married couple friends and while I’ve made a decision to limit my contact with their wives…even when I was around, I wondered if the women even liked their husbands any more, much less want to sex them up.

    You ever see young couples where they can’t keep their hands off one another, and you know that when they get back home there is gonna be some furniture moving around and the bed having that sweet pungent smell of sweat, piss, and cum? Not so with these people, it seems.

    I can hardly even envision my homies having sex with their wives without having to juggle a few chainsaws or water balloons filled with baby piranhas to get their groove on.

    Sheesh.

    Ladies, just get your freak on and then sit back and marvel at how some of these daily problems can seem so insignificant in retrospect.

  13. fatmanjudo says:

    The fundamental problem is that both sexes are conflating what “is”, with what “should be”. What “is” is the basic stuff that turns men and women on. This must be constant throughout all time periods and circumstances that the world throws at people. Obviously, this cannot be subject to what people believe “should be” at any one time, because if “should be” is not in accord with what “is”, the human race would die off.
    Women should love men who love God. Women should put their families above their base sexual desires. Men should love women whether they are a Victoria Secret’s model or a plus size model. Men should not look at porn and sacrifice for their families.
    The problem with all these marriage encounter type things is that they prescribe “should be” solutions. They are floundering around for answers when men say “my cat hates it when I rub its fur back and forth. My dog loves that, why is my cat not more like my dog.” The solution is then to put a leash on the cat and try to get it to fetch bones, instead of saying “hey, a cats not a dog, don’t use dog solutions on a cat.” But that would require a recognition that men and women aren’t the same and that women’s natures are not what Disney taught us. The best and only advice I can give men is “have a backbone”. That will get you through most tough situations. Good luck.

  14. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “Is it me or does modern evangelical marriage seem like enduring a life-long series of ‘grudgefucks’ in the name of honoring a religious commitment?”

    If it’s you, it’s me as well. This is one of the biggest reasons I’m not racing to the altar, and it’s ironically one of the best points to bring up when and if I get harassed (when there’s no women in the room, of course). Churchies won’t even pretend anymore that marriage at any point is a cornucopia of sexual bliss.

  15. Kevin says:

    Nice post.

    I think its interesting that Godly in this couples mind does not really even mean Godly like we might traditionally think – close to God. What Godly means to them is obeying the wives emotions. Whether Dave got closer to God or not is not clear, he did get closer to obeying his wives emotions which is what really counted to her.

  16. Sean says:

    @ Rollo

    I also agree on the first one and, like Question, am not actively looking for marriage anymore for this reason. Few marrieds seem to have a lustful, passionate aura about them.

    Plus when you even see elders spoken to like they’re six years old by their wives it would seem everyone is a target.

  17. bookooball says:

    I’m Cookoo for Cuckstianity!

  18. The Question says:

    Just came across this video and thought it was hilariously relevant to the context of the discussion.

  19. Dash Riprock says:

    “Listen to Me!”. Oh Hell to the Yeah. I grew up with that. Like so much of modern evangelical culture this phrase comes right out of hardscrabble hillbilly culture. I got the Listen to Me! as a boy when an authority figure had issued me an edict, and instead of getting my quick and obvious acquiesce as they expected, I would instead meet their words with a silent challenge. Eyeball to eyeball usually. That’s when I would get the Listen to Me! with a fiery hard adult stare back, with just a hint of violence right behind it. Sometimes more than a hint.
    The point then, and with these evangelical daughters of darkness of today, is the same. Listen to Me! is used to elicit a public display of submission in the hearer. Its not about being heard. Its about breaking the spirit. For your own good of course. Or in Jesus name in this case.
    Just take a look at Old Pastor Dave. He’s not just neutered he’s broken. And that’s a heckuva lot worse fellers.

  20. feeriker says:

    I find myself wondering (it’s a purely rhetorical question, so don’t answer it): do “Christian” wives realize (or care) that maintaining a bitchy, nasty attitude and letting their hygiene and weight get out of control is tantamount in practice to denying their husbands sex?

  21. enrique says:

    “complex and wonderful dance of martial intimacy as they share their own unique dance experience. ” is just more liberalSpeak for explaining away how a guy gave up his balls to dance and jump at her command. It’s a way of him putting some verbal dressing on his loss of manhood and the fact that he HAS to “dance”.

  22. enrique says:

    feeriker, the only balance to women getting all fatty and frumping out, and then their expectation that men be cool with it, would be more and more men getting fired, or not getting promotions, or generally not making cash, securing assets, or caring about it, then getting all defensive with women over it “holy shit, I didn’t realize what I “make” is so important to you…wow, I did NOT realize you were that shallow”.

    followed of course, by my usual script, “look, making money, fancy cars, trips, busting my ass for promotions…THAT WAS THE ‘OLD’ ME, Jill….this is (or I want) a real marriage…wow. just. wow.”

  23. Ollie says:

    With this, “Hey buddy, don’t you know that God speaks to you through your wife?” BS, I am getting the idea here that these evangelical feminists are trying to implicitly deify the wife here. I haven’t been in the church for years, but it looks like the latest flavor of Christianity has Jesus swapped out for Oprah.

  24. Anon says:

    Less than 20% are pretty enough that their psychological negatives are sufficiently offset. Thus, less than 20% are ‘worth it’.

  25. Wait till you get to my wife and my age 80.It’s all about which one has the strength to get the other one out of the chair,we do have a boss however,a labrador called Reeky.
    I live in France and the more I see of the media the more terrifying it has become.Police are almost forced to go along with historic abuse cases featuring dead celebs and clergy because of pressure from the media.It ain’t all women folks,it’s those people who have lost journalistic columns due to the internet and they will do anything to break it’s power.
    God be with you.

  26. feeriker says:

    @Ben

    I think Saeed is trying to take the high road here, which is understandable. To succumb to the natural urge to respond to her accusations by publicly calling her a lying, conniving, backstabbing tramp (however gently couched) would do nothing in the minds of the gullible public but give credence to her charges against him.

    A thought occurs: Is Nagmeh maximizing her “threat point” by piling the pressure onto Saeed at this particular time, when he is physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually exhausted from his three-plus-year ordeal? Is she counting on his capitulation to her frame because he is too tired to fight her? Are her extortionate moves to force him into “counseling” and other churchio-new age mechanisms of extra-scriptural manipulation a way to force him into a “servant leader” role?

    Or am I giving Nagmeh too much credit in thinking that she could really be this calculating and evil?

  27. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Rollo Tomassi
    Is it me or does modern evangelical marriage seem like enduring a life-long series of ‘grudgefucks’ in the name of honoring a religious commitment?

    It’s not even that. If it were, there’d have to be some actual fucking being done between the husband and wife in the first place.

    Modern evangelical marriage is where sex goes to die.

  28. feeriker says:

    Less than 20% are pretty enough that their psychological negatives are sufficiently offset. Thus, less than 20% are ‘worth it’.

    Ambient ancedotal evidence provided by my own eyes and ears over a period of years suggests that your figure of 20% is too generous by at least 15%.

  29. feeriker says:

    Modern evangelical marriage is where sex goes to die.

    “Modern Evangelical Marriage: Where Sex Goes to Die”

    That is just SCREAMING to have a book written around it by a Manospherian Christian like Dalrock. A guaranteed best seller!

  30. Anon says:

    Ambient ancedotal evidence provided by my own eyes and ears over a period of years suggests that your figure of 20% is too generous by at least 15%.

    Perhaps. If one considers ALL adult women (age 18-85), recognizing that the attractiveness window is just age 18-32, and only 20-25% of *those* are pretty, then only ~5% of all adult women are pretty (accounting for those that used to be pretty 30 years ago but no longer are)…

  31. feeriker says:

    (accounting for those that used to be pretty 30 years ago but no longer are)…

    Even among the older demographic cohort you can sometimes recognize a woman you know was once a beauty but no longer is, but who still manages to maintain a pleasant personality that at least somewhat makes up for the age-induced degradation of physical beauty. This might have the effect of adding a couple of percentage points to the total. Alas, those types are exceedingly rare, to the point where their presence doesn’t really make a difference.

  32. dragnet says:

    Amazing that evangelicals are now starting, pretty much unequivocally, that a woman’s clitoris is a divining rod for her husband’s godliness.

  33. Fiddlesticks says:

    We tend to think of male SMV as peaking in the 30s but Dave Wilson is a good reminder that there are certain types of men whose SMV/age curve more closely resembles that of their wife. They are likely better off marrying young, but must then change their approach AFTER marriage to compensate for their earlier decline in SMV.
    Exhibit A: an athlete who topped out at college (e.g. Wilson).
    Exhibit B: the cute slacker “I’m-the-dreamer-she’s-the-practical-one” guy who needs to marry his competent gf right out of college/grad school before she gets dazzled by alpha-exec Yuppieworld.

  34. Boxer says:

    Apparently Pastor Abidini is an obvious idiot!!!

    No he isn’t. He’s going through a very difficult time. He just got out of prison to find himself betrayed by his wife, and his kids have been stolen from him.

    I also question a lot of these media outlets and their idiotic, one-sided coverage of their marital breakup. When he is feeling better, he should see about suing some of these people, who have been selling pageviews by libeling him.

    The blaze is owned by Mormon convert Glenn Beck, by the way: a total scumbag and mentally unstable headcase who bursts into tears on a regular basis. Be that as it may, he’s got some money and isn’t judgment proof. I bet a case could be made… hint.

  35. @ Rollo
    ” Is there still any doubt that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit?”

    It is hard to argue against the FI replacing the Holy Spirit. The Bible has become secondary to the the FI as an ethical standard. The FI informs and illuminates men as to what the Bible means. For instance” the husband is the head of the wife”, means the husband is responsible for doing what the wife wishes and she bears no accountability for any decision he makes even if it was the result of her complaining and divorce threats. The metric of the husbands piety is his wife’s feelings and his obedience to them.

    I think there may even be an operative trinitarian theology that resembles a wedding; where the Father is giving Jesus the son to the modern evangelical woman. The three persons of the trinity are the Father the Son and the christian woman where all three are to be obeyed.

  36. The Question says:

    This is an honest question to all the married men here who might be able to provide some insight to bachelors like myself concerned about marrying women who turn out to be like this. I’m wondering how much the woman’s interest in the wedding ceremony, or her expectations, is inversely proportional to her interest in the groom. In other words, is it a good standard to use when determining how interested she is in marrying you or just getting married?

    For example, if she didn’t care if her man didn’t get her an engagement ring (or a plain one) and was willing to elope rather than have an enormous wedding precipitated by a year-long planning process, would that be indicative of her interest? (Purely hypothetical, by the way).

  37. thedeti says:

    Part of the problem is the teaching that Godly men are sexually attractive; that male virtue, honor, piety and devotion to God are sexually attractive traits in men. The other part of the problem is the failure to teach anything else.

    Men have to learn somewhere the typical masculine traits: self reliance, independence, pursuing a mission/vocation, pursuit of women they’re attracted to. Somehow, men aren’t getting the message. We know how that worked out for Joseph of Jackson when he tried teaching it at his former church in a men’s ministry.

  38. SnapperTrx says:

    Ha ha! Totally running into this today! My son found a stray dog he wants to keep, and I told him ‘no’ because he wont keep his grades up. The wife has been harassing me about it all morning long, even after me telling her that I am done discussing it (we already have two dogs). Despite more than two dozen text messages flying back and fourth she tells me “I’m just trying to talk to you about it but your not talking.”. Translation: “Your not caving, you have to cave for this to work!”. I never would have known this tactic in my younger days, and probably would have caved. Teach your sons about the nature of women, guys, it will save them a world of grief later. Not from their wives (you can’t avoid that), but from themselves.

  39. thedeti says:

    Men aren’t learning the masculine traits because many from the church/Catholic side of the equation object to any instruction outside of theology and administration of sacraments. They have nowhere else to learn this except from the manosphere; but the church/Catholic side objects to that too, saying they’re learning “bad stuff” (i.e. things that do not serve women, and instead serve the interests of men).

  40. Dalrock says:

    This bit from Pastor Wilson’s bio at FamilyLife caught my attention:

    Dave & Ann are both teaching pastors at Kensington, and often share the mega-church’s stage to teach on love, life and relationships. The couple has produced several DVD series, including “Rock Your Marriage,” “Survival Guide to Parenting,” and “Survival Guide to Relationships.”

    With football still in his blood, it’s not surprising that Dave’s most popular topic is his “Real Man” series.

    He made his wife a teaching pastor at the church he co-founded*, and teaches Christian men how to be real men.

    *Co-founding this church is what kept him so busy his wife stopped loving him. But after the church was a success she of course wanted to be made a pastor.

  41. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    “He made his wife a teaching pastor at the church he co-founded*, and teaches Christian men how to be real men.”

    I know you’re not trying to be humorous, but that’s funny right there – I don’t care who you are. LOL.

  42. Crank says:

    Interesting. My wife seems to still have the tingle (or is a great actress who missed her calling), so I guess I’m Godly even though I’m a non-believer.

  43. Crude says:

    May I ask, do these Christian-marriage-advice lectures ever include admonishments to the wife for bad behavior, or for what she needs to do? I ask this sincerely; this stuff is largely foreign territory for me. I assume the answer is ‘no’, but it’s worth asking.

  44. Kevin says:

    As far as Evangelicals being a place for sex to die, most empirical data suggests the opposite. Sexually frequency is highest in the US for Christian married couples (higher than average singles and higher than married non Christians).

  45. PokeSalad says:

    But after the church was a success she of course wanted to be made a pastor.

    I’m sure she’d argue that the church would have had no chance of succeeding without her input, direction, and ‘female perspective’ on matters…..

  46. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Apparently now it’s “if you can’t beat ’em, have them join you.”

  47. Scott says:

    Well, they are “light years closer to God” and everything.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Pedat Ebediyah

    I know you’re not trying to be humorous, but that’s funny right there – I don’t care who you are. LOL.

    It is funny, in a train wreck sort of way. There is in my observation a perfect negative correlation between a man’s enthusiasm for telling other men how to be a real man, and his ability to tell a woman no.

  49. John says:

    This is pretty much what happened in my marriage. Trying too hard to be romantic and giving in too often.

  50. feeriker says:

    Despite more than two dozen text messages flying back and fourth she tells me “I’m just trying to talk to you about it but your not talking.”. Translation: “Your not caving, you have to cave for this to work!”.

    The immediate response to which is What part of “NO!” do you not understand? END OF DISCUSSION.

  51. feeriker says:

    This bit from Pastor Wilson’s bio at FamilyLife caught my attention:

    I wouldn’t have needed to have read any farther after seeing the term “mega-church.”

  52. Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Reaction Times

  53. Sean says:

    @Deti

    Yeah, didn’t work out for me, either, when trying to explain an elder’s error.

  54. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Kevin
    As far as Evangelicals being a place for sex to die, most empirical data suggests the opposite.

    Go listen to the mp3 links Dalrock provided, and then tell me you still believe that he’s boned her anytime within the past year. I don’t.

  55. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 2:46 pm:
    “He made his wife a teaching pastor at the church he co-founded*, and teaches Christian men how to be real men.”

    By appointing a woman to do a man’s job. That actually explains a lot, if they think women are “men who get pregnant”. The consequence of that thinking is that masculine/feminine is then defined by behavior not biology, and so “being a real man” is a demand that men swap husband/wife roles with their women. This liberates women from all that patriarchal oppression and lets manginas pedestalize as “commanded” to by the Bible.

    The solution, then, is to teach these people that our sexual identities are assigned by God at creation and therefore neither alterable nor optional. One would think DNA would make this obvious but it explains the negative correlation you observed.

  56. anonymous_ng says:

    Well, that’s awkward

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html

    “The study found that a young woman’s IPV was just as predictive of her male partner’s future IPV as the man’s own past IPV. In other words, whereas we often think of men as the only abusers and also as serial abusers, the OYS found that a woman’s violence against her man was as predictive of his violence to her as his own history of violence.

    Moreover, the study found that men’s physical aggression changes significantly when they find a new partner. Instead of a man being either a batterer or not, often it was his female partner’s violence or nonviolence which heavily influenced whether he would be violent to her.”

  57. feeriker says:

    The solution, then, is to teach these people that our sexual identities are assigned by God at creation and therefore neither alterable nor optional

    That by itself still wouldn’t solve the problem. Even Evangelicals are smart enough to be at least intellectually aware of the sexual differences God created in human males and females. The problem manifests itself in the fact that they disagree with God over the types of behavior he assigned and ingrained into the sexes and the associated roles each sex is designed to play in the human existence. Although they will never be forced to openly and plainly admit it, the churchiofeminists, through their actions and attitudes, obviously believe that God “f***ed up” by not designing men to cater to the FI. By extension they also believe that God’s commandments on the roles and behavior of the sexes are misguided and need to be changed by humans who obviously know better than God just by dint of being human.

    What really needs to happen is that these people be publicly branded as the heretics they clearly are and continue to have their collective noses rubbed in their own heresy. It certainly won’t dissuade (most of) them from ceasing to profane God’s message by falsely calling themselves Christians (modernist hubris knows no bounds, not even blasphemy), but at least the truth will be laid bare.

  58. cynthia says:

    It all makes sense when you consider the second-most idiotic precept of feminism; that women and men have identical sex drives and want sex in exactly the same amounts, or would, if men weren’t so hell-bent on repressing female sexuality. This is just a “religious” take on that same idea of sexual equality.

    Truth is, we don’t have the same kind of sex drive that men do, we don’t want sex as often, getting aroused and achieving climax is a much more complicated process with more required inputs than what men have, and we’re more easily turned off to boot. Just on a biological level alone, we experience sex in a fundamentally different way than men do. It’s not like we can’t enjoy it if we’re not sublimely aroused; sex can still be enjoyable even without an orgasm, because for the female, orgasming isn’t necessary for reproduction (and therefore, not intrinsically linked to the act itself as it is for men). But no, feminists are bitter about this too, hence the constant whining about the woman having to “be in the mood.”

    Trying to base a healthy relationship off a woman’s needs will inevitably lead to massive frustration for the man. The Biblical directive for women to make themselves available to their husbands is as practical as it gets. It’s essential for preserving a marriage. I can only conclude feminists go after it as hard as they do because, aside from the jealousy and impotent rage, they understand it’s a way of destroying normal heterosexual relationships.

  59. Looking Glass says:

    @dragnet:

    I nearly broke some ribs laughing at that. It’s true, but that was hilarious.

  60. jeff says:

    Poke,

    I have XX clinics running. My last one is 8 months old and is not profiting yet, but all the rest profit. I am setting up my XXth and should be open in a few months. My wife likes to say we and ours. She does a very small part of book work, but you would think she has been hands on. She would make you believe that without her we wouldn’t have succeeded, so you are correct. The only thing she has done for my career is to stall my ambitions until I found the RP. It’s amazing what a man can do when he DOESN’T LISTEN to women, and CARES LESS if his marriage lasts.

    To think our pastor/counselor suggested The Art of Marriage. I told him and my wife no and why. He just nodded. He knows what is going on. I can’t prove it, but he knows which makes me believe many pastors are knowingly going on with the FI out of fear of losing revenue. PERIOD!

    I refuse to go to counseling ever again or stupid men’s groups called Leadership/Disciple training. Even the men’s prayer groups, I am sure, are full of soft, pudgy beta boys.

  61. OKRickety says:

    thedeti said on February 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm
    Part of the problem is the teaching that Godly men are sexually attractive; that male virtue, honor, piety and devotion to God are sexually attractive traits in men.

    I think there is a corresponding teaching that godly women are sexually attractive. That is, piety and devotion to God make them irresistible to real, Christian men, and your spiritual “appearance” is much more important than your physical appearance.

    I doubt any man ever got horny because a woman was “spiritually hot”.

    Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife, Ann, explore the complex and wonderful dance of martial intimacy as they share their own unique dance experience.

    I noticed that “marital” is replaced by “martial”. It seems appropriate somehow.

  62. joshtheaspie says:

    @Kevin

    Group assembly error. We’ve seen stats in the past that say that married men live years longer than singles. Yet, that’s because divorced men were counted as ‘singles’ unless they remaried. When you separate the statistics out, it turns out that men that marry, and stay married for life, have a 1 year advantage over those who stay single for life. Those singles, meanwhile, turned out to live many years longer than divorcees. So in total, the wisest decision for longevity, is to avoid marriage, rather than to engage in it.

    Similarly, we’ve seen stats saying that married folks (in general) have more sex than singles. However, that includes people that avoid marriage on purpose to be celibate, and those in no relationship at all.

    When you compare people in similar life circumstances – those who are unmarried and cohabitation to those who are married and cohabitation, the unmarried couples blow the married couples out of the water.

    In summary, your offered statistics, which we don’t have a link to, are suspect in their construction.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Gunner Q

    By appointing a woman to do a man’s job. That actually explains a lot, if they think women are “men who get pregnant”. The consequence of that thinking is that masculine/feminine is then defined by behavior not biology, and so “being a real man” is a demand that men swap husband/wife roles with their women. This liberates women from all that patriarchal oppression and lets manginas pedestalize as “commanded” to by the Bible.

    The solution, then, is to teach these people that our sexual identities are assigned by God at creation and therefore neither alterable nor optional. One would think DNA would make this obvious but it explains the negative correlation you observed.

    I don’t think it is a lack of belief that men and women are different. I think both are a function of the amount of approval the man craves from women.

  64. BC says:

    It is funny, in a train wreck sort of way.

    I don’t have the link, but remember reading about a couple who went in for marriage counseling (on the insistence of the wife) and were told by the counselor to have sex – any sex, quickie, whatever – every day for one month. The wife was outraged at first, but decided to do it anyway, and kept a journal. They missed a day or two during the month, but the journal showed a clear change in how the wife perceived the relationship, going from “why do I have to do this?” to “lie back and think of England” to “this isn’t so bad, and he’s nicer and more attentive to me than usual” to “alright, it’s on again tonight!” with her actively setting aside time and making preparations.

    The husband simply said something to the effect of, “yeah, after the first few days/week or so, I just felt like spending more time with her and doing things around the house that I had been neglecting, etc.”

    The couple that cleaves together…

  65. Looking Glass says:

    @BC:

    The body has this fascinating way of working “better” when you follow what God actually tells you to do. Almost like there are things that are meant to “be”, yet not doing them leaves us wanting badly to have the effect of having done them.

    On a related but off-topic point, I highly recommend a regular practice of fasting. It’s very good for your health, in general, and more so for the soul.

  66. *Co-founding this church is what kept him so busy his wife stopped loving him. But after the church was a success she of course wanted to be made a pastor.

    Hypergamy may not care about what it takes for your success as a pastor, but women’s inherent solipsism sure as hell does.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m wondering how much the woman’s interest in the wedding ceremony, or her expectations, is inversely proportional to her interest in the groom. In other words, is it a good standard to use when determining how interested she is in marrying you or just getting married?

    In other words, does she want to get married, or does she want to be married, right? Is it all about her day or about sharing life with one man?

    For example, if she didn’t care if her man didn’t get her an engagement ring (or a plain one) and was willing to elope rather than have an enormous wedding precipitated by a year-long planning process, would that be indicative of her interest? (Purely hypothetical, by the way).

    That’s an interesting point to consider. Might be worth adding to Dalrock’s list of questions in Interviewing a wife. “Suppose we had $20,000 to spend, would it be better to have a fancy wedding, or to make a down payment on a small house?” would be one way to form it as a question.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    cynthia
    Trying to base a healthy relationship off a woman’s needs will inevitably lead to massive frustration for the man.

    Yes, yes it will, and “needs” is a far bigger category than just sexual needs.

  69. SJB says:

    Here’s what the promise is—that I think that God is saying for us to come together—it unites us, spiritually/emotionally. It’s what makes it so special . . .
    .
    Complete and utter bunk: two become one physically; two chromosomes become one gene. If they want to ponder something they can ponder why God created such powerful self-induced rewards via coitus. Post-coital hormone release is deemed “spiritual”. Ha!

  70. mike says:

    The blind leading the blind. The ego of a pastor is too large to admit that his godly sex life is largely the result of some semblance of preselection and situational alphaness on sundays. Your prayer life isn’t going to turn any woman on.

    Christian beta men cannot fathom that their Godess wives have the exact same arousal triggers as an unbeliever.

    I believe the guy in Song of Solomon was a pretty sexy guy to his woman. How about Christians actually read the text. Body descriptions, status descriptions,etc.

  71. John Doe says:

    I’m very late to this discussion. The Bible does not seem to care about attraction in any way. So, if Mrs. Wilson says she is not attracted to her husband, and that it feels gross to contemplate sex with him–that is no sin. And she probably wasn’t lying. Okay, so she must submit to sex. But I would suggest that there is nothing so soul-destroying over the long haul than simply receiving duty sex. It comes with a deep sense of rejection: no adoration, no passion–just blah. Just you getting your way, while deep down you know that this act carries no real love and affection from the woman. Wonderful. I cannot imagine anything worse under the rubric “married life.”

  72. joshtheaspie says:

    @John Doe:

    How about burning with passion, such that you need a wife and her willing cooperation to avoid sexual immorality, as described in the Bible. You seek one out, and work on the marriage, but your wife turns frigid. If you attempt to get her to have sex, she, your pastor, your church community and your family tell you you are acting sinfully. If you try to follow their suggestions to ‘warm her up’ it turns her off more. If you masturbate to porn, you are told you are sinful for doing so. If you have sex outside of marriage, you are told you are sinful for doing so. If you use dread game, you are told you are sinful for doing so.

    Then eventually your kids and house are taken in the divorce, and you have to work extra hard just to ‘maintain the lifestyle to which she is accustomed’ and pay to have a car to get to work, a one room apartment, and baloney sandwiches.

    And you still don’t get the sex you were told to get married to have.

    That seems like it’d be more ‘soul destroying’ than having sex your wife wasn’t into.

    Besides which, many people have reported that if the wife actually has sex she wasn’t into at the start, she’ll often warm up to it mid-way through.

  73. John Doe says:

    Sorry, Josh, all the things you outline are not inevitable. You have choices about all of them– except whether the woman leaves.

    It would be tragic if the marriage all goes to pot in this post-feminist apocalypse kind of way. That would be sinful on her part (your soul could actually nourished by the suffering), but that still does not make duty sex a wonderful experience.

    You wrote,”And you still don’t get the sex you were told to get married to have.” Well,no force on earth could reasonably tell you that attraction would last past the first years of the marriage without a great deal of mutual labor–which is not the same as duty sex, at all.

    Perhaps someone lied to you about the character of marriage.

    Paul said not to deprive one another–he says nothing about both parties being happy about it–attraction is not assured. Mrs. Wilson does not have to be happy about it; but, Mr. Wilson will be powerless to prevent the revenge of his own feelings when all that duty sex comes up empty and pointless.

    I do not subscribe to this line of thinking, but there are some who say that sex just putzes out in marriage, according to nature, with the advance of age and the obvious futility of trying to harmonize two radically divergent genders. In which case they sublimate their feelings and orient themselves toward future generations and higher goals than appetite. For a long time, this was considered God’s way of sex and marriage. And yes, this could absolutely work in the favor of patriarchy.

  74. Dragonfly says:

    Dalrock, my brother just sent me this article, thought it was interesting😦 “Death by Despair” : http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/01/death-by-despair-rising-white-mortality-rates-for-young-and-old/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

    “We have long been assured that marriage isn’t that important, out-of-wedlock births are nothing to fret about, single life is “liberating” and “empowering,” government wellfare-bureaucrats can serve as your partner in life, welfare is as good as employment, mass immigration is simply covering the “jobs Americans won’t do,” and people who talk about spiritual values are just Religious Right cranks.

    The period from the late Nineties to the present day has been dominated by Bill Clinton’s “Third Way,” George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” and Barack Obama’s mega-state. “Family values” became sarcastic terms of derision during the Clinton years. People who talk about duty, honor, individual responsibility, and values are just busybodies who get off on telling people what to do.

    Instead, the world our “betters” made for us is haunted by a terrible emptiness, and the void is hungry.”

  75. Coloradomtnman says:

    @benfromtexas This is a couple day old rehash of Saeed’s press release from Monday. Give him this week, things are developing…. Right now he simply needs time, she laid down quite a salvo of covering fire. The worm will turn.

  76. Dave says:

    Maybe bad boys are the most godly among men, since they tend to generate the most sexual attractions from their women.

  77. Dave says:

    How about burning with passion, such that you need a wife and her willing cooperation to avoid sexual immorality, as described in the Bible. You seek one out, and work on the marriage, but your wife turns frigid. If you attempt to get her to have sex, she, your pastor, your church community and your family tell you you are acting sinfully…..

    I am still waiting to see the passage in the Bible which says “Thou must marry an unappreciative American woman who will not want to be a wife to thee”.
    Fact is, there are countless non-American women out there—most are sufficiently attractive, intelligent, though not as well read, feminine, and eager to be wives and mothers, and they will appreciate a man, particularly an American man, who has been rated as probably the most considerate husbands in the world. Those who wish to marry should look elsewhere. Even Abraham, with all his big faith, did not entertain the idea of turning a feminist into a wife for his son; he looked far and wide for a wife for him.

    One thing that I have come to realize is that our natural response to people’s behaviors towards us is stereotypical. In other words, it does not matter whether the person who respects you is well read or an illeterate; you will feel happy when someone respects you, and feel unhappy when they do not.

  78. Striver says:

    John Doe:

    The best way to be married is if you don’t question it. Perhaps the best way to “not question it” is to be a virgin when you marry. Then sex (and attraction that develops; yes, attraction can develop from sex, intercourse isn’t going to be all that great with anyone first time around) is something special to the marriage. Otherwise you are just comparing your (current) partner with past partners. Many say it’s more important for the woman, but it can help for the man as well. At least if the man is committed to having marriage mean something, attraction can build.

    Today, attraction comes first. Everyone feels entitled to be married to someone that’s really attractive, and feels as if they’re missing out when it doesn’t happen. This method is going to wind up with a lot of unhappy single and divorced people.

  79. Dave says:

    But I would suggest that there is nothing so soul-destroying over the long haul than simply receiving duty sex.

    When a woman has sex with a man, and the man feels like she’s having “duty sex” with him, it is because she deliberately wanted the man to feel that way.So-called “duty sex” could be so pleasurable that the “recipient” will keep coming back for more. Just ask those who go have sex with prostitutes. If the men felt rejected by their partners, common sense dictates that they would never come back so often.

    If you really look at it, most of what we get rewarded for in life, and what God Himself considers virtuous, are “duty activities”, not what our feewings dictate for us, and sex is not different. Barring certain perioeds in a month many women don’t feel like having sex until after they are probably half way into it.

  80. mrteebs says:

    So let me get this straight: if she isn’t feeling it, it’s all HIS fault.

    “I don’t want to worship because I don’t get tingly feelings anymore – I’m mouthing words I don’t feel”
    “My prayer time is dry – You’ve abandoned me”
    “I’m not being fed so I’m going to stop going to church”
    “I don’t want to share my faith; I just don’t feel authentic about You anymore and I won’t live a lie”
    “You let me down in my moment of need – You didn’t rescue me on my timetable and in the way I told You it needed to happen – so, naturally, I am withdrawing from You.”
    “You hurt my feelings by insisting on Your way and not understanding mine”

    If we counselled this woman in her relationship with God the same way we counsel her relationship with her husband, it would essentially boil down to this:

    Go find a quiet hillside or perhaps an empty sanctuary to set the correct mood – and lower the boom. Tell Him its over – you’re done – unless He starts LISTENING TO YOU (read: doing what you say). It’s all HIS fault – if He would only cater to your feelings, you’d be PASSIONATE and do things for Him so much more eagerly. You would just naturally RESPOND to Him. He can’t expect you to just do things by rote, without FEELING IT. That would be the spiritual equivalent of ‘starfish sex’. If He would just do things in a way that inspires your feelings more fully and regularly, it would be for HIS own good – it would free you to serve Him with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength rather than grudgingly and out of duty. He doesn’t want sacrifice – He wants obedience, but He can’t possibly expect you to obey cheefully and fully without Him also doing everything necessary to put the desire in your heart to obey.

  81. joshtheaspie says:

    @John Doe

    You were talking about “nothing being as soul destroying as x.” I named something more soul destroying which could, in large part, be avoided by the wife giving duty sex.

    Further, no, what society as a whole tells you is sinful is not up to you, it is up to society.

    If you’re going to “rebut” things, perhaps having an actual working rebuttal would be helpful.

    I keep hearing this “duty sex is horrible” thing, as a reason for the wife to rebel. And that is a bunch of hogwash, particularly when the only change made is to remove the duty sex.

  82. Spike says:

    “….and after we’re married, Satan—who wants to destroy our marriages—tries to do everything in his power for us not to have sex. Isn’t that true? Yes!…..”

    Isn’t this self-condemnatory on the part of Mrs Wilson? Someone who writes this knows that according tot he Word of God, she is sinning. If so, why isn’t she “woman-ing up”?

    So Pastor Dave is working hard, building a church to serve God. His wife decides to bust his balls and calls this spiritual.
    One can only consider whether a similar occurance happened between Moses and his wife. Zipporah (Sephora)..

    Zipporah: Honey, we have to talk…
    Moses: Not now, woman. I have a book to write and I’m meeting God on Mt Sinai
    Zipporah: You’re not listening to me…
    Moses: You see that cloud and fire up on that mountain? That’s where i have to go…
    Zipporah: (scoffs) Huh! You think you’re just SOOO spiritual, don’t you? Why don’t you ask me!
    Moses: I don’t know how long I’ll be in there…
    Zipporah: You’re always spending so much time away. Your family (I) come first…blah blah blah blah…

  83. desiderian says:

    Dalrock,

    “There is in my observation a perfect negative correlation between a man’s enthusiasm for telling other men how to be a real man, and his ability to tell a woman no.”

    Not quite perfect. I’ve seen the type. I’ve also seen effective preachers whose instruction on manliness was grounded in scripture, who also practiced what they preached. That generation is no longer with us.

    In my case, in the period of my life where I struggled to tell a woman no I also had little enthusiasm for manliness, let alone instructing other men in it. Since I’ve learned how to tell women no and followed your advice on looking to scripture for instruction in manliness, I feel compelled to share the good results of that work. Not enthusiasm, but duty.

  84. scientivore says:

    I have learned so much here. Just understanding what was going on in my youth with chicks IKDG was invaluable.

    Thank you.

  85. feeriker says:

    mrteebs says:
    February 2, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    I will assert that what you wrote as satire here is, in fact, the way many, many women actually do feel toward God and his instructions for their lives as women. They deeply resent Him and are filled with real anger and bitterness. However, whether through some innate fear or social pressure, they cannot direct this anger and resentment toward God Himself, so they misdirect it at the men in their lives instead.

    If women were honest they would admit that what you wrote describes their feeeeeeeeelings to a T.

  86. infowarrior1 says:

    @Fatmanjudo
    ”Men should love women whether they are a Victoria Secret’s model or a plus size model”

    There is a good reason why God made men and women be attracted to certain types of the other sex in the 1st place and in its original iteration good.

    Like for example the Victoria Secret Model is attractive since they display outer indicators of genetic health,fertility and youth.

    A plus sized woman is typically unhealthy which manifests as unattractiveness and so on.

  87. infowarrior1 says:

    @Trust
    ”I wish women were repulsed by men who weren’t right with God, and sexually desired only Godly husbands.”

    Godliness overlaps with attractiveness but does not in any way result in it in itself. That’s simply the way God made things.

    This may also prevent the potential consequence of men becoming Godly or being obedient to God simply for carnal reasons.

  88. Pete says:

    Because of the overlap with “He was like a little boy” I’m going to repost this here as regards “listening to your wife”.

    Robin Munn says: “Two different meanings of “listening” going on here.”

    For many years I would have agreed with you about this. However, it has become evident to me that the second listening – “I’m going to hear your opinions about this decision, because you may have some insight that I wouldn’t have.” – is actually a subset of the first.

    Eve first had to offer her advice to Adam, argue for it, tell him why it was good, etc. So I don’t think Eve used the listening – “doing what I say” – rather she gave him her viewpoints; and they were totally wrong.

    You will recall that scripture says that Adam was not deceived, Eve was deceived. Thus Gen. 3:17 is referring to this “let me give my opinions” rather than “do as I say”.

    In our modern age, women insist on giving their opinions no matter how offbase, nutty or irrelevant. Yes, some of their ideas can be of value. But the majority of them will have a negative effect.

    Women vote for security, lack of risk, being “nice”, and all the other things that have screwed up society. So what kind of advice do you think they are going to give you when you have a decision to make?

    “Oh, that’ll never work”, “that’s risky, etc. The same as they vote. Therefore in the vast majority of cases their advice is a negative as to what a man should be doing and will hold him back and keep him from reaching his potential, be it at manhood, business, or family.

    Gen. 3:17 is about taking wifely advice.

  89. enrique says:

    Go to the First Video (Clip 1) that Dalrock linked to. Freeze at 3:32. Then come back and post what first thoughts came to your mind when you saw her face at that moment.

    It’s a bit of a Redpill Rorschach test.

  90. enrique says:

    Spike: Perfect. “Why don’t you ask me?” lol.

  91. enrique says:

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/couple-gets-wed-just-seconds-meeting-person-1st-182756402–abc-news-topstories.html

    She’s 36 with three kids, he is 40, was a New York chef, but resigned to take his one-way ticket to LA to marry her in the Ontario Airport, sight-on-scene.

    It’s like a Hollywood Chick flick…or real life Hollywood [see 40-year old Eva Mendes ‘surprise’ baby with Ryan Gossling]

    GAME.DEFEATED.

  92. Neguy says:

    He made his wife a teaching pastor at the church he co-founded*, and teaches Christian men how to be real men.

    Interesting point about the outcome being that she gets made a pastor. In the Bill and Vonette Bright story, I was struck that she threatened to walk out because of decisions he made in the ministry, not at home. I wonder if the root of these pastors’ wives complaint might be related to envy of their husbands’ ministry role and authority? If so, it would help explain why this pattern recurs among couples involved in ministry.

  93. DrTorch says:

    Men aren’t learning the masculine traits because many from the church/Catholic side of the equation object to any instruction outside of theology and administration of sacraments.

    There’s plenty of theology that can be used to support this, but it’s been squashed in the 20th C.

    I give credit to John Eldridge for getting this notion out into public view. While not fully RP, I think Eldridge’s work was proto-red pill, and still has value. (i.e., he tells men that women are NOT the adventure they are to pursue, and that women don’t really want that roll, aka to be pedestalized).

    But it doesn’t come from pulpits b/c idolatry endorsed by weak, effeminate men is what’s taught in protestant seminaries these days. And homosexuality has a big presence in RC.

  94. dragnet says:

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/christian-jail-visitor-falls-in-love-with-murderer-who-glued-victims-lips-together-34411560.html

    Just a little something to keep in mind the next time some blinkered, blue-pill evangelical tells you a Christian woman’s pussy only gets wet for a righteous man.

  95. enrique says:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/virtual-reality-male-sex-toy-7299079

    How far behind can the “lateral tax for women” tax be, with this? Remember “every time a bell rings, and Angel gets his wings”? It will be something like that.

    Since women are GOING to get paid for men having sex somewhere, with somebody, if they aren’t the chosen ones, I assume this will track as it has, with the initial feminist objections, then eventual demand to tax and give the money to women.

    One pictures two women out looking at the app on their smartphone: “Look Jenny, my ‘mule’ in Bangok just bought another virtualvagina, and I got $500 just while we were sitting here chatting!”

    Anything that makes women obsolete, like this, and takes away their threatpoint, will be compensated by some government program, rule, regulation, law.

  96. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @OKRickety
    I think there is a corresponding teaching that godly women are sexually attractive. That is, piety and devotion to God make them irresistible to real, Christian men, and your spiritual “appearance” is much more important than your physical appearance.

    You’re right about that, and it’s been going for a while. Good old Matt Chandler weighs in here on the subject (In response to a question asking if a man should date a “godly woman”he’s not attracted to:

    “The culture tells us physical/sexual attraction is first, then character, godliness, and compatibility follow. I think we get it backwards. I think once character, compatibility, and godliness are there, those fuel attraction in the way that pleases God, and is much safer for our souls.But at the same time I want to protect the hearts, particularly of young women, from godly men teasing them with pursuit. So pursue them as friends and hope that it grows into more. Want it to grow into more. And I am confident that, over time, character and godliness will win the day.”

    He’s already got a decent amount of heft in the evangelical world, so I’d predict that there’s probably a lot of pastors already echoing this particular line of reasoning, with even more to follow in the future. Eventually, they’ll probably even try coining a new platitude to promote the idea: “Sexiness is next to Godliness.”

  97. Boxer says:

    So, to boil down what passes for theology in the complementarian interpretation:

    P1. A man is righteous if-and-only-if his wife wants to fuck him.
    P2. His wife wants to fuck him if-and-only-if other women not his wife want to fuck him (preselection)
    P3. Other women want to fuck him if he displays psychopathic tendencies (dark triad theory) or if he is known to fuck lots of other women, not them.
    C. A man is righteous if-and-only-if he is a psychopath, or appears to be one to other women, or if he fucks lots of different women, or appears to fuck lots of different women.

    Granted, that’s a bit exaggerated, but it seems pretty close to what they’re saying. Problem is, a casual read of the text doesn’t really back any of this up.

  98. DrTorch says:

    @Darwinian Arminian – I think Chandler has it right that piety can be attractive, and men should look for that in a woman. It’s defensible w/ scripture. It is not however, a justification for a young women to be complacent and fat.

    Chandler’s comment here- “But at the same time I want to protect the hearts, particularly of young women, from godly men teasing them with pursuit.” is a hoot. Another White Knight coming to the aid of the innocent and helpless women. First, who does the most teasing, M or W? Second, if a male expresses initial interest and finds you lacking, that’s not teasing, that’s discernment. There’s a lesson there for women (as well as Gina Dalfanzo) that isn’t getting told.

  99. Original Laura says:

    @The Question:

    Do some research for your local area, and find out how much guys in your income bracket typically spend on the rings. Also find out how much a run-of-the-mill church wedding costs in your area. (Most of the money spent actually goes toward the reception, not the wedding ceremony.) Once you are a somewhat educated consumer, bring the subject up with the bride-to-be. For instance, if the two of you attend a friend’s wedding, ask your girlfriend what she thought about the wedding and reception that you just attended. If the wedding was very grand, and your girlfriend says that the wedding was beautiful, but that her own family would NOT be able to spend that kind of money and that she knew that her own wedding would need to be smaller and simpler, that’s a good sign. If the wedding was small and simple, and she thinks that the bride and groom were smart to stay within a budget so that they don’t start off married life with a ton of debt, then your girlfriend sounds like a keeper. If your girlfriend has her heart set on an overblown extravaganza for a wedding, and has not saved a nickel to pay for any of it, or if all she can do is point out nitpicking flaws in how the friend’s wedding and reception were handled, that tells you a lot about her basic personality and values.

    Bear in mind that in some families/ethnic groups, large weddings are a way of paying off social obligations. If the bride elopes, it is an embarrassment for the family. If her parents are financially stable and have been saving for years to have a big wedding for their daughter, there is nothing wrong with this. Also, in some churches, the wedding is considered a church service, and everyone in the church is automatically invited to the wedding and to the reception as well if it is held in the fellowship hall. (The upside to this is that the women of the church do most or all of the preparation and clean up, which puts a lid on the costs.) The situation that you want to avoid is when the bride or her family demands a big wedding and expensive reception, and expects YOU to go into debt to pay for it.

    Ask your girlfriend what she wants in a wedding. If she has the whole thing planned in her head down to the last detail, and does not need or want ANY input from you at all as to the cost, the colors, the music, the guest list, the wedding and reception venues, etc., then run for your life. She is too focused on Her Special Day, and shows little interest in the marriage that will follow.

    Before you go jewelry shopping with your girlfriend/fiancee, figure out how much you are willing to spend on an engagement ring, and then tell the fiancée what the ring budget is and take her shopping with you. If she starts trying to maneuver you into spending more than you budgeted it is indeed a bad sign. The biggest single cause of divorce is conflict over money.

    People who elope have a higher divorce rate than people who have church weddings, so plan on a church wedding — it doesn’t have to cost a fortune.

  100. thedeti says:

    Piety isn’t attractive in a man. A man does not attract women sexually by being virtuous, honorable, noble, pious, or with devotion to God.

  101. Ras al Ghul says:

    The question:

    Regarding type of wedding and how in the bride is with the groom it doesnt correlate. First the rock is more a sign of the guys insecurity. Most guys could get away without it when theyre young and poor they just wont.

    It doesnt correlate because there are too many factors involved including family expectations, desperation on the part of a woman. A desperate slut, single mom or woman approaching the wall will do the vegas wedding or court 1 wedding in a heart beat.

    When you think about it in terms of influence public statements in front of a large audience are more likely to be followed through on.

    The real problem is the entire culture is so corrosive and undermines men the average marriage lasts 8 years and if you make it ten years the probability of frivilorce is no different if you married a virgin or a slut from that point on.

    Hypergamy pushes women to want a better deal.

    Equalist complimentary partner marriage makes the man at the point he says “i do” as no better than an equal. A defacto not better deal for women.

    Churchian women are the spiritual head marriage makes the man not an equal but beneath her. It by definition kills attraction in women.

  102. deti is correct.

    The only time “piety” or godly things are attractive is if it’s coupled with leadership or otherwise status type exposure.

    For example, leading the worship team, sharing a provoking testimony in Church, being an elder/pastor, or other things such as these.

    No woman is tripping over herself to get with a man when she finds out he prays in his closet for an hour a day. It’s certainly a ‘nice’ thing and maybe will pique her interest to get to know him because he’s godly… but that doesn’t make her attracted. And by attracted we are talking about wanting to have sex with him.

  103. Scott says:

    This:

    The culture tells us physical/sexual attraction is first, then character, godliness, and compatibility follow. I think we get it backwards. I think once character, compatibility, and godliness are there, those fuel attraction in the way that pleases God, and is much safer for our souls.But at the same time I want to protect the hearts, particularly of young women, from godly men teasing them with pursuit. So pursue them as friends and hope that it grows into more. Want it to grow into more. And I am confident that, over time, character and godliness will win the day

    Plus this:

    Piety isn’t attractive in a man. A man does not attract women sexually by being virtuous, honorable, noble, pious, or with devotion to God.

    Plus the predictable “men should not make being attractive a priority!”

    Is why Rollo states that he is in constant wonder about how Christian men ever get laid and procreate. He is justified in his bewilderment.

    (And the conversation has come full circle in this thread, again.)

  104. thedeti says:

    “The culture tells us physical/sexual attraction is first, then character, godliness, and compatibility follow. I think we get it backwards. I think once character, compatibility, and godliness are there, those fuel attraction in the way that pleases God, and is much safer for our souls.But at the same time I want to protect the hearts, particularly of young women, from godly men teasing them with pursuit. So pursue them as friends and hope that it grows into more. Want it to grow into more. And I am confident that, over time, character and godliness will win the day”

    This, and particularly this

    “I want to protect the hearts, particularly of young women, from godly men teasing them with pursuit.”

    are exactly the problem men are having today.

    Men like Chandler are telling godly men they don’t need to be sexually attractive; and in fact telling them sexual attraction is evil and wrong. Then they tell them that pursuing women is evil and wrong because it endangers the hearts of young women.

    This isn’t the right thing to tell these men, obviously, because women want masculine, attractive men to pursue them. Women want that pursuit so bad they can taste it.

    And character, compatibility and godliness do not fuel attraction at all.

  105. Damn Crackers says:

    Aren’t we just getting back to the time of the early Church Fathers who praised married couples who abstained from having sex with each other, or at least until the Second Coming? Continence in marriage was a good thing for Clement of Alexander, St. Jerome, and others.

  106. Striver says:

    thedeti:

    You don’t get it. Stop caring about what women find attractive.

  107. jonakc1 says:

    meh
    would not take Chandler seriously
    doubt he is even Christian
    he has to get his monthly travel schedule signed and approved by the wife and then presented to the elders…
    clearly the wife is the final authority in his home…

  108. Kevin says:

    @Joshtheaspie

    I was not able to find the data I had read, so I cannot really defend my comment. However, your criticism can be restated as this: Once there was some data that sucked, I don’t like the conclusions of your data, so it must have the same error. Sure, that’s possible. But you assume it is with nothing more than your assumptions. Better if I had the data so we could make cogent criticism of it, but in the absence the best we can do is “show me the data” or make general skepticism the standard.

    Also, the married vs unmarried data arises from multiple studies and so I am not sure there is a conclusive answer. If you view marriage as a process you would not include the divorced men or women because the process stops and in epidemiological analysis generally you dry to draw the biggest contrast between groups – always married vs never or mostly not married. The studies are not consistent although I think the trend is towards marriage being beneficial for men’s health. They deserve the same caveats as most of this type of studies and have a variety of confounders to consider which may explain the results.

  109. Solomon says:

    I think we have another terminology problem when it comes to a “godly man”

    The blue-pill godly men of today do not inspire the tingles, rightly said

    But the godly men of old?

    I bet hellfire n brimstone preachers did not have insubordinate wives.

    Perhaps we need more hard-core dudes willing to reject and eject all wrongdoing, at all costs, consequences be damned,. Preach the word and damn your entitlements.

  110. desiderian says:

    “I think we have another terminology problem when it comes to a ‘godly man.'”

    Bingo.

    The root of the rot is bad theology. If by Godly one means chivalrous, one has the wrong God. The book of Hosea, for instance, is not chivalrous.

  111. desiderian says:

    “Stop caring about what women find attractive.”

    Feminists are already doing that with men. How’s that working out for them?

  112. desiderian says:

    “godly things are attractive is if it’s coupled with leadership or otherwise status type exposure”

    God isn’t a leader?

    The picture of Godliness painted in this thread blasphemes God.

  113. Sigh. People still don’t understand attraction. What is attraction? Donal’s PSALM mnemonic provides a fairly accurate proxy:

    P — Personality/power or masculinity
    S — Status
    A — Athleticism and/or talent
    L — Looks
    M — Money

    These 5 things are what are attractive to women. Attraction = want to have a relationship and/or sex with a man.

    A godly man in his prayer closet is not attractive to women. A Christian who volunteers to help set up for church is not attractive to women. A Christian reading his Bible does not have women wanting to fall over themselves to get to know him.

    A pastor, because of his status in the Church, is attractive to women. The lead singer or guitarist in the worship team is attractive to women.

    Godliness, in isolation, is NOT attractive to women. It’s empirically proven. If godliness was attractive then non-christian and Christian women would be falling over themselves to be with godly Christian men. This is obviously false.

  114. We’re not saying godliness is not good. Godliness is good,

    But it’s not attractive to women which is clearly what many churchian pastors are trying to say is true.

  115. thedeti says:

    and by attractiveness we’re talking about SEXUAL attractiveness. What makes a woman want to have sex with a particular man.

    A man’s piety, honor, nobility, virtue and devotion to God don’t make a woman want to have sex with him. What will make her want sex is his physical appearance, his power (confidence/dominance), his status relative to other men, his athleticism, and his access to material resources. That’s pretty much it. His sexual attractiveness doesn’t have much to do with his relationship to God. Don’t listen to what women say about this. Observe them, and observe who they actually go on dates with, swoon over, talk about, and have sex with.

  116. craig says:

    “Men aren’t learning the masculine traits because many from the church/Catholic side of the equation object to any instruction outside of theology and administration of sacraments.”

    DrTorch says: “There’s plenty of theology that can be used to support this, but it’s been squashed in the 20th C.”

    +This. One upside of Catholic/Orthodox large-T Tradition is the axiom that dogma, once taught definitively, can’t be repudiated later. It would be the proverbial thirteenth stroke of the clock, calling into question all the others before it. So all the genuinely-traditional and patriarchal teachings are still on the books, waiting to be rediscovered. The enemies of tradition will call it ‘pastoral’ when they wink at following the Feminine Imperative, but they can’t outright bless frivorce even when they obviously want to.

    One of the chief complaints of orthodox-minded Catholics is how the post-1960s church spends all its time preaching ‘luv’: sentimentalism without substance. Every survey shows young people are now grossly ignorant of the basics of the gospel and the sacraments. The people in charge are of a certain age and are still reacting against the bugaboos of their youth, the perceived rigidity and legalism of the pre-Vatican II church. (Francis’ election as pope is probably the last hurrah of this generation, since the hippies are producing neither conversions nor vocations; the growth is coming from the few traditionalists left, or else from Africa and Asia.)

  117. Boxer says:

    But it’s not attractive to women which is clearly what many churchian pastors are trying to say is true.

    It’s only not attractive due to the shift in popular perception, created by the culture.

    Being a working man isn’t attractive to women today, because being a sleazy attorney (sorry dad) or millionaire real-estate salesman is seen as more socially dominant. Three generations ago, men in those professions were seen (rightly) as pussies who were too weak or inept to get a union job. Watch some old hollywood films and get the idea. Members of street gangs in this era were seen as losers, whereas the badasses were into sports, boy scouts, and military service.

    In a healthier culture, “godliness” would be seen as attractive to women because decent men would set the standard. Our standard bearers today have other priorities.

    Boxer

  118. Dave says:

    We’re not saying godliness is not good. Godliness is good, but it’s not attractive to ungodly women which is clearly what many churchian pastors are trying to say is true.

    There, FIFY.
    Personally, I am not interested in any woman who does not find godliness attractive. About time men took a stand and stopped supplicating to ungodly women.

  119. thedeti says:

    Dave, Boxer:

    Christian women are still women. Christian women have the same mental, physical and emotional composition as nonChristian women. Christian women do not somehow shed their desire for attractive, arousing men merely because they believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Shulamite woman in the Song of Songs was a hot chick who was telling a story about getting it on with her man. She wasn’t talking about his godliness or piety in that Book. And she wasn’t talking about hanging out or spending time together. She was talking about her getting wet at the thought of him f*cking her.

    Non-Christian women like dating and having sex with confident, dominant, physically attractive men.

    Christian women like dating and having sex with confident, dominant, physically attractive men.

  120. thedeti says:

    I’d also point out that unless physical/sexual attraction is present, any relationship with or marriage to a Christian woman isn’t likely to last. Christian women have no compunction about divorcing their Christian husbands, and will do so with the full backing of their churches, friends, and pastors. There are no consequences now for any woman divorcing at any time for any reason, even if the divorcing woman is Christian.

  121. Scott says:

    This conversation is fascinating to me because it bears an eerie similarity to the discussion in nouthetic counseling academics about psychology. It is said that the psychology is not a part of general revelation and cannot illuminate or give any insight about the internal life of humans (however you define that).

    I am not sure why it is impossible to believe that humans, Christian or not, have basic operating systems that are still running in the background, even once you put on Christ.

    What women are attracted to (on a visceral base level) in their natural state is not related to their value system.

  122. thedeti says:

    >bears an eerie similarity to the discussion in nouthetic counseling academics about psychology. It is said that the psychology is not a part of general revelation and cannot illuminate or give any insight about the internal life of humans (however you define that).

    Is it the position in nouthetic counseling that psychology tells us nothing about humans? Is it the position in nouthetic counseling that psychology has no predictive power, that one cannot draw conclusions about human nature or behavior from critical analysis of a human or humans from generally known psychological tenets?

    If so, that’s quite interesting. People have spiritual components, but they have flesh too, and Christian doctrine is quite clear that even after conversion, people still have their flesh, they still experience fleshly desires, and still sin. Even after conversion, Christians still have sex, still sin with regard to sex, and still have to be instructed regarding sex (I Cor. 7, just for example).

  123. @ Boxer

    Status is malleable to a certain degree. Men were in the past afforded status by just being men. However, the sexual revolution destroyed that.

    However, godliness is not like status, and it has never been [sexually] attractive to women either. Women were not falling over to marry the prophets in the Scriptures who were certainly godly. Women only went for the Patriarchs and Kings… who were godly *and* had status, riches, etc.

    @ Dave

    That’s just flat out wrong. Godliness is not sexually attractive to women whether they are godly or ungodly. Christian women are not falling over themselves to marry Christian men nowadays because godliness is not sexually attractive. In fact, many of them missionary date instead.

    ———-

    Honestly, we’ve gone through this dozens of times already in the ‘sphere. I’m surprised that people are still attempting to say that godliness is attractive.

    Godliness, like being a Christian and having good character, should be a factor in who you marry. However, it’s NOT a sexual attraction factor. It’s a retention factor: something that keeps women interested after they are already sexually attracted.

    Men look first if a woman is sexually attractive — beauty and youthfulness — if they want to ask them out. THEN then find out if they are a Christian, have good character, want a family, etc. If the retention factors are not there then you shouldn’t marry such a woman. However, they are not what make her sexually attractive to a man. That’s beauty and youth.

    Women first look if a man is high in PSALMs — manly/confidence/goals, high status, athleticism/talent, looks, and/or money — to determine if they want to be in a relationship with a man. THEN they find out if they’re Christian, have good character, and the things that deti is listing namely godliness/piousness/virtue/etc.

  124. Scott says:

    Is it the position in nouthetic counseling that psychology tells us nothing about humans? Is it the position in nouthetic counseling that psychology has no predictive power, that one cannot draw conclusions about human nature or behavior from critical analysis of a human or humans from generally known psychological tenets?

    Sort of. Its a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the idea. They would say that there is nothing in psychology that can help with “godly living.” And there is some sense to that position. The argument is based on the idea that psychology was not around 200 years ago (as a discipline) and all the Christians who lived before that had only the clergy and their Bibles to help them get into Heaven.

    The argument is that observations such as those you find in the works of Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, etc are interesting, (and “true” because the can be replicated) but ultimately just parlor tricks. They don’t increase your faith, your glorification of God, etc. If God wanted us to know that stuff, he would have put in the Bible.

    The rest is voodoo to them.

    I loved my colleagues in seminary where I learned the model. Their faith was unmatched. I just think they were wrong about that.

    This attraction vector stuff is right out of the same sort of philosophy.

  125. Scott says:

    That is, those who aren’t comfortable separating the flesh and the soul/psyche in that way.

  126. @ Scott

    I think that a lot of people are loath to admit that we have a created nature — Christians and even non-Christians — that affects us. It seems wrong to them that since we can think logically that our base nature — or shall we say instinctive nature — has any effect on what we do.

    Attraction, like feelings, are based in instinctual nature and felt on a visceral level. If you see a really beautiful woman you feel desire for her in your gut. This cannot be negotiated with logic. It simply is. Obviously, you can choose what you want to do with it, but you can’t change it.

    Christians want godliness to be [sexually] attractive because that means that we are making a “good and righteous” choice when we marry a Christian spouse. It’s very easy to be deluded into such a false thinking because it is an attractive lie. That’s the way we think it SHOULD be because we think that God would definitely not want us to be attracted to unbelievers. However, it goes against what we empirically observe in God’s creation which means it’s a lie.

    Ignoring the base created nature is not just a fallacy that Christians fall into but secular thinking falls into as well. Feminism, after all, is based on the false notion that we are born equal in that women can do any of the same things as men.

  127. Striver says:

    Historically marriage and sexual attractiveness have only a loose connection. Male or female, how many people are at their sexiest after 40? No wife goggles. How many men marry the most attractive woman they’ve ever known? Again no wife goggles. Men can get it up for a large number of women. Women have a harder time. Allowing women to choose again and again is not going to lead to happiness.

  128. @ Scott

    Ah, I misread your post and discussed a different topic altogether. Oh well.

    Here’s how I see any of the sciences that have predictive or prescriptive input that can be effectively used by Christians to honor God:

    Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

  129. Scott says:

    DS-

    No, not at all. The two are related, which is why I brought it up. I think your description in the post at 540PM explains a lot about why, for example the “no integrating psychology and biblical living” position is acceptable to many.

  130. Scott says:

    I’ll self-disclose a bit here, for the purpose of making another part of the point.

    Most of my blog readers know I am in the military, and an officer. When I go on-post with my wife the vast majority of other service members I walk past are required to salute me and address me as sir. In some cases, they have to stand when I enter the room.

    She finds this absolutely, shall we say “delightful” and tells me so, every time we are in that situation.

    By the reckoning of some here, that is her being “not-godly” which is ridiculous. She is just being a woman.

  131. thedeti says:

    Striver:

    The end result of this, and I think it probably cannot be avoided, is that a lot fewer men are going to get sex of any kind; and a lot fewer women are going to marry. Of those who do marry, more and more men are going to have to put their feet down and say “no sex, no marriage. If you withhold sex, get a lawyer because we’re getting divorced.” But I have no illusions that most men will actually do this. I also have no illusions that most women will have a problem with not getting married.

    Maybe what’s needed is a society-wide Mexican standoff. But it’s not going to happen, I think.

  132. Dave says:

    In the final analysis, the real cause of the problems we see today is the failure of the Church to do what it is supposed to do. The Church is the only entity equipped with the ability to stave off the moral and social decadence which threatens to envelope the world today. And unless the Church wakes up and reasserts itself in glorious revivals, our world and the next generation is doomed.
    A minister saw this almost two Centuries ago; his predictions are still as accurate as if he was alive and reading Dalrock’s posts.
    Finney argued that, unless the Church experienced regular religious revivals, it would soon go extinct, and the government leadership will get into the hands of the ungodly, who will make ungodly laws. Just everything that is happening today. The last revival in America took place almost 200 years ago.

    Charles G Finney speaks:
    “[Without revivals]…the churches have either become extinct, or have become merely nominal churches, having only a name to live while really dead, They have resorted to a half-way covenant, and various other means of filling up the church from the world, without their being truly converted to God.”

    “But it is the consummation of folly for the church to expect to keep pace at all with the rapid increase of the earth’s population, and especially with the increase of population in this country, without very extensive, continuous and pure revivals.”

    “Revivals alone can secure the stability and perpetuity of our religions and civil institutions. I do not believe that this government could exist in its present form, fifty years without revivals; nor is it at all likely to me that it would exist half that time.”

    “[Revivals] influence the legislation of all Christendom. But let them be done away–let the generation that has witnessed their power go to their graves without the recurrence of those scenes, and what will be the result? A government of mere opinion like ours, in the hands of a people who fear not God, with a temporizing ministry, a licentious press, and all the agencies that are at work to carry headlong all the religious institutions of the land–where are we in twenty or in fifty years without revivals of religion?”

    “Witness the efforts of the papacy–the tendency of Puseyism–the efforts of Universalists and errorists of every description–the running to and fro of lecturers on every subject–the spread of infidel books and tracts, and all the enginery of hell to overthrow all order and law and every thing that is lovely and of good report; and then say, my brethren, can the church exist and prosper without revivals of religion?”

    “But to come nearer home;–can we or the present church become any thing less than an abomination and a curse to the world without revivals? Whither is she tending already? Witness the gossip, the worldliness, the pride, the ambition, the every thing that is hateful, growing up and prevailing in churches, just in proportion as they are destitute of the reviving influences of the Holy Spirit. Contemplate the cowardice, the trimming policy, the ecclesiastical ambition of the ministry without revivals of religion–mark how great and overcoming are their temptations to please men and even ungodly church members, when there are no copious outpourings of the Spirit to arouse the multitude and strengthen the hands of the servants of God.”

    “O, it is impossible that desolation should not reign–that the ministry should not cower down before an ungodly public sentiment–that Popery should not prevail, the Sabbath be desecrated–the church ruined and the world undone, without great revivals of religion.”

    “And what can this policy mean, that would hush every thing down and frown on all special efforts to promote revivals? It is certainly infatuation, and if not arrested, it must end in ruin.”

    Personally, I believe it is not too late for America. But it’s only hope is through the Church.

  133. desiderian says:

    craig,

    You’ve absolutely nailed it.

    We are called to be more than conquerors in Christ. Not to put on a conqueror act to attract women all the while we’re being less than conquerors out of the mistaken impression is that is what it means to be godly, or pious, or Christian.

    The ways of the world must be mastered before they can be transcended.

  134. Kevin says:

    As I said in the other post all these conclusions about women and their attraction or not to certain traits are hard to generalize from a degenerate sex obsessed culture. Are women only attracted to the shallow traits so many keep going on about? Sure, modern women are but that is hard to generalize because our culture is sick and disturbed. Over and over people are emphasizing that attraction is just sexual – never Godliness. But that is because our culture thinks and emphasizes sex over everything so the value of a person in marriage is just sex. But healthy cultures are attracted to gentleness, intelligence, even Godliness because there is more at stake than the bedroom and both the husbands and wives feel that. Our emphasis on individualism and hedonism pollutes even our understanding of our own natures.

  135. mike says:

    It’s largely because most evangelicals adamantly reject ideas regarding evolution. Therefore, any talk about nature, instict, – God forbid – “acting like animals..”, is shut out of most talk. Attraction is animalistic, and no ideology or belief system can transform a woman’s nature – only constrain it.

    It’s interesting that Christians seem to continually remind themselves of their sin nature after being saved, but for some reason, attraction should be above all that sin stuff.

  136. Looking Glass says:

    @Scott:

    On the counseling/psychology stuff, your description of the issue strikes me as people with good insight but lacking the Wisdom to put all of the details together. Which is why a good tinge of Gnosticism creeps in. As a practical matter, the interactions are a whole lot easier.

    The best way to approach Scientific Study & the Lord is found in Leviticus. Germ Theory actually explains a significant chunk of the food laws. 1400 BC Jews didn’t need the Lord to explain the details of bacteria growth, they just needed to know what not to eat & how to handle what they should eat. We now understand why the Lord told His people to do certain things. (I will also note this exact same principle applies to intersexual relationships now, much to no one’s surprise.)

    When it comes to Psychology, it gets a little messier, though.

    Harsh Mental Disorders are the body being severely injured. If you pump someone full of LSD for a few years, the damage is functionally permanent. (Divine Intervention being your best hope for healing.) This person is out of control because their body is broken. You don’t expect someone that’s lost a leg to walk properly with it gone. That the damage can’t be seen doesn’t mean it’s not there. This is also the place that Medical Psychology better understands. When things are so wildly wrong, it’s much easier to see the differences.

    For “disordered personality” stuff, that’s far more about a person’s walk with God. (Functionally a “disorder of the spirit”.) In most cases, it’s actually a personal idolatry issue. You’ve put yourself before God, your assumptions about how life should work are skewed, and you proceed through your life rationalizing your actions without taking responsibility for them. How you take in & process information about your life is further put through the “lens” of your error in understanding and you slowly build up significant issues. (Though, much like with the Harsh problems, there’s a tinge of the health of the body involved as well.)

    The problem is really this question: “So, the person wants to get better, how do we do that?”. That’s why we have modern Psychology, pharmacology and medical practice in the area. And why so much of it is outright Quackery. And, before even that, there has to be the understanding that you can’t actually forcibly “heal” someone. The body responds to the mind in such a way that if you don’t want to get better, it’s extremely difficult to get better. (We can get into the neurochemical reasons why some other time.)

  137. Looking Glass says:

    @mike:

    It’s neither a discussion about Evolution or Science that drives the issue. It’s wholly Gnostic thinking, which is a natural fallacy humans fall to. Because it allows one to signal Virtue & Wisdom while having none.

  138. desiderian says:

    Kevin,

    “Are women only attracted to the shallow traits so many keep going on about? Sure, modern women are but that is hard to generalize because our culture is sick and disturbed.”

    But this is not sure – it is the question being debated. If women are attracted to manliness, but young men are being taught that manliness is ungodly, then it will appear that women are attracted to ungodliness (or at the very least godliness doesn’t matter), where in fact the problem is with the teaching.

  139. desiderian says:

    Kevin,

    “But that is because our culture thinks and emphasizes sex over everything so the value of a person in marriage is just sex.”

    This is true, but it is a separate problem that has largely arisen in the context of the church abandoning men (the first problem), and thus abdicating its leading role in the culture. What the culture “thinks” is merely the default state of nature without God.

    “But healthy cultures are attracted to gentleness, intelligence, even Godliness because there is more at stake than the bedroom and both the husbands and wives feel that.”

    Cultures aren’t attracted, men and women are, and each are attracted to different things. Sex is not a sufficient condition of a healthy marriage (your point), but it is necessary, so sexual attraction is important to understand.

    Gentleness is not sexually attractive to a woman. There are elements of both intelligence (playful wit, social savvy) and godliness rightly understood (charisma, command, mastery, authority, even mercy from a position of strength) which are.

  140. desiderian says:

    Deep,

    “We’re not saying godliness is not good. Godliness is good,

    But it’s not attractive to women which is clearly what many churchian pastors are trying to say is true.”

    Many churchian pastors wouldn’t know godliness if He kicked them out of the temple on their asses with the other moneychangers.

  141. Dave says:

    She wasn’t talking about his godliness or piety in that Book. And she wasn’t talking about hanging out or spending time together. She was talking about her getting wet at the thought of him f*cking her.

    Boxer nailed it (see above). The issue has little to do with the intrinsic value of godliness per se, but more about the woman’s perception of its value. When a woman has learned not to aprpeciate godly traits in a man, maybe she is not the type of woman to be with in the first place. If weendlessly cater to what a woman finds naturaly attractive, where does it end? What happens when she is no longer “naturally” attracted to her husband? Wouldn’t that justify the EPL mindset?

    The tendency not to be naturally attracted to what is right or godly affects everyone, including men, and that partially explains why even a married man sometimes naturally prefers a younger, more attractive woman with perky boobs and tighter bodies than his wife. But acting on that preference is not good or godly, so he must learn to aprpeciate what he has. Why can;’t women be required to do the same? If they will have to do same in marriage, why not demand they do so even before they marry? Each person can train their minds to find good and godly traits attractive and even far more desirable.
    As Boxer argued, it all boils down to what is presentedby the culture as being “hot” or sexy.

  142. Striver says:

    Scott,

    I am going to flip around your example. Please don’t take it personally.

    Is your wife, today, really the best you can do? Wouldn’t an upgrade be better? Any unsightly pounds? A wrinkle here or there? Her clothes aren’t all they could be? Anything sagging? Bad hairstyle? Or you’re just bored, and want something different? Don’t you deserve the best? Don’t you deserve younger, hotter, firmer? More bubbly? The male gaze wants what it wants. How can you help yourself?

    NO WIFE GOGGLES. NO WHITE KNIGHTING. Look her over as an object, like a side of beef.

    This is what I am asked to excuse in women.

    Man’s first sin, apparently, was the inability to see or confront sin in women. Somehow, the Bible itself does not have this problem. Over and over, women are shown having agency, sinning, and being called to account or punished for it. I cannot think of an instance where it is excused. Yet I read the manosphere sites, and I get all of this “hindbrain” stuff and “women have no agency” where they just have no control over themselves. THEY DO. They like men to think that they don’t, and men are willing to go right along. But it’s not true.

    Any man who marries a woman has the right to expect that at times she’ll have to suck it up. If women can’t or won’t, the marriage rate should go into a steep decline.

  143. @ Dave

    Boxer nailed it (see above). The issue has little to do with the intrinsic value of godliness per se, but more about the woman’s perception of its value. When a woman has learned not to aprpeciate godly traits in a man, maybe she is not the type of woman to be with in the first place. If weendlessly cater to what a woman finds naturaly attractive, where does it end? What happens when she is no longer “naturally” attracted to her husband? Wouldn’t that justify the EPL mindset?

    No… you’re missing the point. You can’t change what women are attracted to and it’s not godliness. However, you can preach Biblical roles and responsibilities to women/wives which will restore their attraction for their husbands.

    Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
    […[
    33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [r]respects her husband.

    It’s natural for women to respectful and submissive — and thus be sexually attracted to — an authority. A husband walking in headship is the authority of the marriage and thus commands masculine power and status. For example, the common places in culture where women are naturally attracted to authority figures are clear with these being the first examples that come to mind.

    1. Teacher-student
    2. Boss-secretary
    3. Doctor-nurse
    4. Executive-employee

    This should be manifested in two ways:

    I. Wives who submit to their Biblical roles and responsibilities of submission and respect will naturally see their husband as increasingly attractive. The problem is that wives are NOT taught by older women to be respectful and submissive nor are they told from the pulpit to be respectful and submissive.

    II. Men need to be taught that they don’t need their wife’s permission to act as the head of the marriage. They act as the head because they are commanded to by God in the Scriptures. This shift in mindset will make a man go from reactive to proactive and leading by example.

    The problem is that our culture is feminized and this has led to the Church being infested with feminism. Preaching headship and love is cliche. Every church does that. If a Church is not directly opposed to feminism and preaching the hard word of submission and respect to wives then then issue will remain as it is and continue to get worse. Churches that cut their husbands off at the knees by continually beating them down will have the worst attraction problems in marriages.

    A lack of sexual attraction in marriage is symptom of dysfunction not the cause. It’s an issue of usually both the husband and the wife not fulfilling proper Biblical roles and responsibilities. In some cases, it’s solely the wife being rebellious like in the examples in Dalrock’s post. Finally, no matter how “bad” a husband is leading the marriage, a wife can always submit and respect.

  144. donalgraeme says:

    I suppose I will need to get around to writing another post on attraction. I’ve been meaning to for a while. I the interim, I think the following post might help a few folks out:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/background-on-the-natures-of-man/

    The “problem” is that most people don’t understand that sexual attraction is something of the body, not of the soul (will/reason). So in that way, we are akin to the animals.

    Furthermore, if you look throughout history and cultures, you will find my PSALM/LAMPS model still holds up. The big thing that changes is what determines Status in that time/culture.

  145. donalgraeme says:

    A lack of sexual attraction in marriage is symptom of dysfunction not the cause.

    I’m not sure that it can’t be both. It can be a sign, but it also can cause problems to begin with.

  146. Boxer says:

    Dear Striver:

    Man’s first sin, apparently, was the inability to see or confront sin in women. Somehow, the Bible itself does not have this problem. Over and over, women are shown having agency, sinning, and being called to account or punished for it. I cannot think of an instance where it is excused. Yet I read the manosphere sites, and I get all of this “hindbrain” stuff and “women have no agency” where they just have no control over themselves. THEY DO. They like men to think that they don’t, and men are willing to go right along. But it’s not true.

    Yes! Finally someone who has actually read the text.

    So many men on Dalrock are enamored of this “women have no moral agency” line. These crypto-feminists make me sick.

    Boxer

  147. Boxer says:

    However, godliness is not like status, and it has never been [sexually] attractive to women either. Women were not falling over to marry the prophets in the Scriptures who were certainly godly. Women only went for the Patriarchs and Kings… who were godly *and* had status, riches, etc.

    I guess I don’t see a consistent definition of “godliness” in either your response or in this thread as a whole. King David, King Solomon, Samson, etc. seemed to have no problem getting women to do what they wanted. Even Jesus Christ had to resist the temptation of a prostitute at one point, who was kissing his feet.

    When I read the text, I see a lot of overlap between godliness and manliness. I guess some men were godly for going out in the desert and praying all day, but most of the heroes of the text were normal men who did masculine things, had families, and they were godly also.

    Boxer

  148. @ Donal

    “I’m not sure that it can’t be both. It can be a sign, but it also can cause problems to begin with.”

    For husbands and wives… the vast majority of marriages will only exist because there was at least some attraction to begin with. Most women are not that ruthless that they would marry someone they aren’t attracted to although there are some.

    The place(s) where it causes problems to begin with are Christian men who can’t get a date and/or are incel.

    I’m going to write some posts revisiting attraction as well as this exchange has given me some ideas.

  149. Boxer,

    Godliness for all intents and purposes is the fruits of the Spirit. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control. Other traits that are developed like these. They don’t elicit sexual attraction from women by themselves.

    The godly men in the Scriptures couple the fruits of the Spirit with manliness or rather how a man acts. Thus, how a man acts — his attitude — is what elicits the sexual attraction. Confidence, dominance, leadership, and the like are what is attracting the women while the fruits of the Spirit are what makes her want to be with him in a relationship.

    Women know that “bad boys” are not good for relationships… but they are masculine in attitude enough that they are sexually attractive and want to sleep with them. This is the difference.

    Christian men want both. Confidence, dominant, leaders… and also cultivate the fruits of the Spirit.

  150. Striver says:

    thedeti,

    I agree. The problem is that men and women are not equally attractive and really don’t look at each other the same way.

    Through most of history, a man would go out and “establish himself”, earn enough money and obtain a position so that he could start a family. If he could never get anything off the ground, it was much less likely to happen. (Exceptions were those men born into wealth, who could afford a “playboy” period before marrying.)

    Women are capable of finding men physically attractive, but it’s not a dominant trait as it is with men. Men have to earn women’s sex, one way or another. Women’s sex has value, man’s doesn’t normally, with exceptions. Women will gladly give sex away to very high value men, a wealthy older woman may essentially pay a younger man to be her gigilo. In today’s world, a man of modest value may be able to have a somewhat no strings attached sex life of some sort, though the woman is still going to have more say as to the ultimate outcome.

    Basically, throughout most of history men more or less bought their wives. The man would “buy” the most attractive wife he could afford. The woman may have been given veto power over a man she hated, but she wasn’t out husband shopping in that world.

    That’s why I’d like to get away from the idea of what women are attracted to. That society works, but women also need to be trained to be deferential and willing to submit, and the society needs to build in respect for men that play by the rules. Man by man it will not work. I don’t believe in “marriage game” as a solution.

    What we will see is likely a slide to matriarchy. Matriarchy is less than ideal, because women can’t stand for a man to have any actual power. Men don’t really understand this because they defer to other men all the time. Men can defer to other men, a woman can defer to a man, but a man cannot defer to a woman. They don’t respect it. So under the right social conditions, men will be shunted to the fringes for use as studs and occasional odd jobs. I don’t expect it to go well.

  151. Spike says:

    enrique says:
    February 3, 2016 at 7:03 am
    Spike: Perfect. “Why don’t you ask me?” lol.

    Not quite enrique!

    Thinking about it, I should have made it a touch more dramatic, with Zipporah taking a hammer to Moses’ favoured clay pots, or her giving him a wake-up call by threatening to go back to Cush….I just aren’t quite that quick and witty.

  152. desiderian says:

    Deep Strength,

    “Godliness for all intents and purposes is the fruits of the Spirit.”

    You’ve had some good doctrine in your last two posts, but here you’ve fallen victim to the very bad (or at least incomplete, in an effeminate way) doctrine you decry. God is not just Spirit, but also Father and Son.

    The Creed begins “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.”

    Authority and power are godly as well, indeed the principle qualities which are, especially as pertains to a man seeking to lead a godly life, and thus to follow God’s example.

  153. Scott says:

    Striver-

    It’s an interesting question but I’m not sure how to answer it.

    Wife goggles exist, and so does hypergamy.

    I don’t look at my wife with the “is she the best I can do” question burning in the back of my mind.

    Trying to artificially remove my wife goggles after watching her be loyal to me, have my children, raise them the way I want her to, be sweet to me even when I am being mean, x 10 years would take some kind of surgery. It would be the analog to asking her not to find subordinates saluting me attractive avynore.

    It’s hard to describe, but what I find attractive in her now has changed a bit since ten years ago.

    It also might be weird but she basically asks me that same question from time to time. She says the older I get the more attractive, and she worries about her aging quite a bit.

    It comes from a place in her that frankly is even more endearing.

    The chemistry is still there. People say they can still see it in our photos. We’re both still pretty infatuated and I figure that’s a good thing.

  154. “Trying to artificially remove my wife goggles after watching her be loyal to me, have my children, raise them the way I want her to, be sweet to me even when I am being mean, x 10 years would take some kind of surgery. “

    Aw, that might be the sweetest thing I have ever read on the manosphere.🙂

  155. nastynate says:

    Deti said:

    “Christian women have no compunction about divorcing their Christian husbands, and will do so with the full backing of their churches, friends, and pastors.”

    ↑ This, a thousand times over.

    Burn this into your brains, tattoo it onto the inside of your eyelids:

    HYPERGAMY DOESN’T CARE IF YOU ARE A GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN.

    Stop thinking that your little Christian wife at home is any less capable of the horrors you see secular women committing against their men. In fact, Christian women are even more brutal and ruthless in my experience because they know they absolutely have to vilify their husbands to uphold their standing in the community. I have personally seen “good” Christian women completely destroy some of the best men I have ever known. Right now, my brother is one of them. He is losing his family not because he was immoral or ungodly; but because his back was injured in a special forces training mission to go after terrorists after 9/11. My brother is one of the most God fearing, decent, brave, generous, kind, loving and ALPHA men I have ever known. And, his “good” little Christian wife has had no trouble rationalizing the consequences of his injuries as some sort of neglect towards her; even considering the fact my brother is on 100% disability through the VA, and her meal ticket is paid for life regardless of his physical condition.

    The part that makes me want to piss on the ashes of this world after it burns down is the fact that neighbors, priests, and family members have HELPED this stupid women do these things. This society is gynocentric to the core. Christian men, DO NOT LET YOUR GUARDS DOWN.

  156. Scott says:

    SS-

    Well, crap I over shot then. “Sweetest ever” would be a dubious distinction indeed around here. Now I have to neg you or risk losing any and all credibility I may have earned as a blogger over the last few years.

    So, back to the kitchen with you, sandwich maker.

  157. desiderian says:

    Nate,

    “And, his ‘good’ little Christian wife has had no trouble rationalizing the consequences of his injuries as some sort of neglect”

    She is acting in an ungodly manner, as the most important aspect of God’s character for a woman to seek to embody in the context of marriage is God’s hesed:

    http://discovertheword.org/2010/10/18/the-hebrew-term-hesed-and-what-it-means-for-our-lives-today/

    “The part that makes me want to piss on the ashes of this world after it burns down is the fact that neighbors, priests, and family members have HELPED this stupid women do these things.”

    Then they have been unmanly, and ungodly as well, as God does not countenance unrepentant sin.

  158. feeriker says:

    “Aw, that might be the sweetest thing I have ever read on the manosphere. :)”

    Uh-oh, Scott … you’ve just been hit with the “sweet” label!

  159. Dave says:

    I am beginning to think that many men here have never seen, or interacted with, a Christian woman.

    This statement:

    “Christian women have no compunction about divorcing their Christian husbands, and will do so with the full backing of their churches, friends, and pastors.”

    ↑ This, a thousand times over.

    Burn this into your brains, tattoo it onto the inside of your eyelids:

    HYPERGAMY DOESN’T CARE IF YOU ARE A GOOD CHRISTIAN MAN.

    is absolutely FALSE. Or, to better refute the assertion, maybe the author should define what a Christian woman is. If a woman who professes to be a “Christian” acts and talks exactly like the nonchristians, how is she a Christian? As it has been said before: just because you were born into a religious home, and you attend church, does not make you a Christian at all. It makes you a “Churchian”. Christians–male or female–follow Christ’s teachings. Those who don’t are not Christians.

    “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Luke 6:46; Matthew 7:21)

  160. @ desiderian

    “Godliness for all intents and purposes is the fruits of the Spirit.”

    You’ve had some good doctrine in your last two posts, but here you’ve fallen victim to the very bad (or at least incomplete, in an effeminate way) doctrine you decry. God is not just Spirit, but also Father and Son.

    The Creed begins “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.”

    Authority and power are godly as well, indeed the principle qualities which are, especially as pertains to a man seeking to lead a godly life, and thus to follow God’s example.

    Oh, I agree. The reality is that even Timothy wasn’t like that because he was raised by a single mother and grandmother.

    2 Timothy 1:5 [e]For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. 6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of [f]timidity, but of power and love and [g]discipline.

    The fruits of the Spirit are not mutually exclusive with leadership, confidence, power, strength, and masculine traits…. the only problem is both culture and churchianity beat the masculinity, leadership, confidence, and the like out of men and all you’re left with are shells of men who simply exist by acting godly but without the power. You’re right… it’s not the **fullness** of godliness.

    The key to discipleship is to raise men to be strong, confident, and masculine that walk in godliness. For that the Church needs to be directly opposed to feminism and have mentors who can teach men how to be men. The current crop of pastors is doing a terrible job by piling up the responsibility on men without telling them have the corresponding authority.

    The church has caved to culture in order to be “relevant” which basically makes poor disciples. If the Church actually wants to be relevant and move in power it needs godly, strong, confident men and godly, feminine, kind women.

  161. Besteger says:

    Is there a better place for “Hey, check this out” posts? I feel like I’m derailing.

    I stumbled across this trailer for Sarah Jessica Parker’s new star vehicle, “All Roads Lead to Rome” in my youtube feed.

    It’s the perfect example of self-involved, horrible parenting masquerading as an innocuous rom-com.
    Every single mom should be forced to hand their children notepads & pens, watch the flick together, then let their kids ask them 10 questions.

  162. desiderian says:

    “The key to discipleship is to raise men to be strong, confident, and masculine that walk in godliness. For that the Church needs to be directly opposed to feminism and have mentors who can teach men how to be men. The current crop of pastors is doing a terrible job by piling up the responsibility on men without telling them have the corresponding authority.”

    We are in full agreement.

    Sounds to me like Timothy’s mother and grandmother were clued in, too. So were my grandmothers, not so much my feminist mother who was spoiled by her father.

  163. craig says:

    Dave says: “If a woman who professes to be a “Christian” acts and talks exactly like the nonchristians, how is she a Christian? As it has been said before: just because you were born into a religious home, and you attend church, does not make you a Christian at all. It makes you a “Churchian”. Christians–male or female–follow Christ’s teachings. Those who don’t are not Christians.”

    Please don’t go all No True Scotsman on us. Not all are saved, we know that. That doesn’t mean these people are not publicly identified as Christians. This is called the sin of scandal: behavior that leads others astray. But unless and until they have been publicly excommunicated by the whole Church, they’re Christians to the rest of the world.

    But who has the authority to excommunicate, and who has the authority to declare the Feminine Imperative anathema to the gospel? Private interpretation doesn’t just imply, it demands that one person’s exegesis has no higher intrinsic claim to truth value than any other’s. Anyone can hang out his shingle and cite Scripture to declare female headship God’s true intention for marriage, or even to declare rape to be the act of consummating a non-consensual marriage (as we have seen right here). We are in a world where every man is his own pope: every interpretation is equally right or wrong in theory, and it is only the subjective judgment of the hearer that is “infallible” in the end.

  164. Scott says:

    Craig @ February 4, 2016 at 9:16 am

    That’s kind of what I was thinking too.

    The statement “I am beginning to think that many men here have never seen, or interacted with, a Christian woman”

    Seems a little too black and white for me. I am beginning to think that many men around here have never see or interacted with a real-life woman.

    For those who are either married or coming into marrying age, all these women were raised in the same decadent culture as us. That means there is much work to be done. In my case, my wife started reading (because I demanded it) over at SSMs old blog, and others. It was gamble because she might have just said “screw this” and slapped me with a frivorce. In fact, that’s kind of what I expected.

    Instead, she read Martha Peace. She contacted Sunshine directly. She started trying to be that kind of wife.

    She is not perfect, but she is Christian. I can choose to respond with graciousness or demand perfection.

  165. Gunner Q says:

    Striver @11:13 pm:
    “Through most of history, a man would go out and “establish himself”, earn enough money and obtain a position so that he could start a family.”

    Throughout most of history, child labor was a major source of income. Men married young and had lots of kids specifically so he could make lots of money. Hiring workers to tend the fields and livestock was no way to get rich. Becoming successful before marrying back then was like not getting that engineering degree until you make EIT today. (Engineer-In-Training)

    Only recently have children become financial liabilities instead of assets.

    “Basically, throughout most of history men more or less bought their wives.”

    Dowries?

  166. Boxer says:

    The godly men in the Scriptures couple the fruits of the Spirit with manliness or rather how a man acts. Thus, how a man acts — his attitude — is what elicits the sexual attraction. Confidence, dominance, leadership, and the like are what is attracting the women while the fruits of the Spirit are what makes her want to be with him in a relationship.

    I see the two terms describing traits that are more interrelated. In a society with decent values, a strong family man has a much higher status than a bodybuilder playa, or a strong trashy man who sells weed and rides motorcycles.

    The member of a drug gang or street gang may be “manly” but he was not seen as attractive until recently; and such a man would have never scored a normal woman in marriage, even fifty years ago. He was seen (correctly) as macho, and could probably have sex with women of his own caste (i.e. losers), but he was not seen as attractive by any normal woman.

    Freud, Jung and Adler all went into detail about the psychological imprinting that goes on in women’s mind. (Jung called it Electra complex). Women first fall in love with their fathers, and they carry a psychic model of him when they are judging men for sex. He is the standard. Women who grow up without fathers get this scrambled, and are informed instead by mass culture and peers. It is only in a society where fathers are officially deprecated that women seek out loser men for sexual partners.

  167. Pingback: Attraction and the roots of dysfunction in relationships | Christianity and the manosphere

  168. Seems a little too black and white for me. I am beginning to think that many men around here have never see or interacted with a real-life woman.

    Is there some sort of clever meaning that belies the obvious fallacy of your statement?

  169. “I see the two terms describing traits that are more interrelated. In a society with decent values, a strong family man has a much higher status than a bodybuilder playa, or a strong trashy man who sells weed and rides motorcycles.”

    Yeah, as I said they are not mutually exclusive. However, they are in some cases. For example, the man who helps with parking or setting up for a service is no less in God’s kingdom… but women are going to be more attracted to the pastor or lead guitarist. That’s simply a fact.

    Generally, my point is that they appear that way in today’s Churchian world because men get the manliness, confidence, and leadership beat out of them by society and culture… then they go to the Church and get the same things beat out of them even more. Then churches encourage women to get up and lead ministry positions under the guise using their spiritual gifts. Then they wonder where all of the masculine leaders are for when these women all are single into their 30s and 40s.

    Surprise… they caused it themselves.

  170. Scott says:

    FH-

    Not in the context of the kind of comment I was responding to.

    How do we determine who the “real” Christian women are?

    The Internet?

  171. I don’t know Scott, but I do know that every man here has seen at least one real-life women.

  172. Dragonfly says:

    Deepstrength, first you say that submission and respect are natural for women,

    “It’s natural for women to respectful and submissive — and thus be sexually attracted to — an authority. A husband walking in headship is the authority of the marriage and thus commands masculine power and status.”

    but then you say that they need to be taught,

    “The problem is that wives are NOT taught by older women to be respectful and submissive nor are they told from the pulpit to be respectful and submissive.”

    IB (Insanity Bytes) also said that submission should come naturally for women. But what’s implied here is it will be natural if he’s “an authority” and what’s unspoken is if he’s a good enough authority, then submission will be natural. I think what Dave and Striver are having a problem with concerning this issue is that it puts all the burden and responsibility onto men as to whether their wives are helpful and good to them or not. Again, the lack of moral agency by insisting that submission is so “natural” or that being respectful is “natural” if he’s sexually attractive enough, and an authority, is the same thing as pastors telling their men that if they led better (were better men) then their wives would follow them. There may be some truth in it, but it’s going down the wrong path.

    I’m sure you’re not really trying to say that, but it’s critical point that if women need to be “taught” to be respectful and submissive, then it’s OBVIOUS that it does not just come natural, even if the man is gorgeous, respected, highly valued, etc. overtime that attraction will not be enough to overcome a wife’s natural desire to control and rebel or want her own way. That is natural for women, not submission or respect (in the longterm). Submission and respect have to be learned and acquired traits of behavior… some women may actually be better at it, especially due to their upbringing being better than some others, but part of Eve’s curse was to want to control her husband, yet he would rule over her. Just some food for thought!

  173. Scott says:

    Of course they have but that gets to heart of the rhetorical device I used.

    They have learned nothing from their experiences.

    Instead of acknowledging the reality of the current state of men, the current state of women and moving forward in light of those circumstances they create a list of non-negotiable unrealistic demands.

  174. Ah, so there was some sort of clever meaning… could have just said yes and given it.

    What unrealistic demands? The same that everyone has for men, such as…. honour your commitments?

    Hypergamy exists for men as well. They want to trade their spinster of a wife for a younger, hotter and tighter model. Why should men stick to their commitment if they can get a chick that is younger, hotter and tighter. And if they should, so should women be expected to keep their hypergamy in check and honour their commitments.

    No excuses, right?

  175. Scott says:

    FH-

    I honesty didn’t know that’s what you mean by “clever.” I thought I was being a bit more obtuse. Forgive me.

    I think this is an important conversation to have, because the questions you raise are not unreasonable. The list of demands on men in blogs, dating articles, everywhere are ridiculous.

    But I’m super busy today and I think I want to carry this over at my site. Will you comment there if I gather my thoughts and write a bit?

  176. @ Dragonfly

    I’m talking pre-marriage and post-marriage as it’s different.

    Pre-marriage the authority dynamic often leads to a woman being attracted and thus respectful and submissive in those situations. This is one of the things that is useful to actually lead toward a marriage. This is similar to saying that a strong authority figure “makes it easier” to submit which is definitely true.

    Of course, in marriage respect and submission needs to be taught because rubber meets the road when a wife’s feelings say that she shouldn’t submit and respect. This is similar to saying that a wife needs to choose to submit which is also true.

  177. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    I am beginning to think that many men around here have never seen or interacted with a real-life woman.

    Seriously? Is this one of those “it depends on what the meaning of is is” games? You don’t get to have your own, private, definition of the word “seen”, Scott. You can play No True Interaction if you want, but the word “seen” has a pretty plain meaning, involving photons being received in the human eye…

    Again, are you serious?

  178. Well, the statement reads as false, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in asking whether there was a different meaning behind it. I could have said ‘obtuse’ but I took the comment as more snarky than just having a different but well intentioned meaning.

    I’ll take a gander at your forum, just leave a link to your new post once it’s up.

  179. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    Instead of acknowledging the reality of the current state of men, the current state of women and moving forward in light of those circumstances they create a list of non-negotiable unrealistic demands.

    This sentence doesn’t make much sense. In the context of previous comments made in the last hour or so, you are apparently claiming that men here (who haven’t ever “seen” a woman, reallllly?) can’t acknowledge the reality of their own current state and therefore the men here (who haven’t “seen” a woman, sure…) create a list of non-negotiable and unrealistic demands.

    In veiw of this, I have one question: what planet are you commenting from?

  180. Scott says:

    You can play No True Interaction if you want, but the word “seen” has a pretty plain meaning, involving photons being received in the human eye…

    That’s what I meant earlier. “No true interaction” is my rhetorical response to “no true Christian.”

    I was demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. It apparently didn’t work well.

  181. I would just like to know the list of unrealistic demands..

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    That’s what I meant earlier. “No true interaction” is my rhetorical response to “no true Christian”
    ”I was demonstrating the absurd by being absurd. It apparently didn’t work well.

    This makes no sense, either. Maybe if you dropped the cleverness and just spelled it out, the rest of us could try to understand?

  183. Scott says:

    Well, OK.

    How is this:

    “Never interacted with a real woman”

    Any more ridiculous than:

    “Never interacted with a true Christian woman?”

    That’s all I meant.

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    Are all women who claim to be Christian actually True Christian Women?
    Is it possible, even if only as a hypothetical, that there are women who talk the talk but do not walk the walk?

  185. Scott says:

    Yes. My issue is with ” never.”

  186. Anonymous Reader says:

    Why is your issue with “never”? Aren’t you assuming to know things about other men that you cannot really know? To put it another way, True Christian Women could be rarer than you think, depending on geography. Not every place is culturally the same as where you live, Scott. Have you ever been to any church in San Francisco, for example?

  187. Are all women who claim to be Christian actually True Christian Women?

    This is the default and most convenient retort I get from Christians (usually churchy women like IB) who want to defend the faith and their investments in their convictions against the unignorable, observable behaviors and attitudes women adopt naturally with regard to Hypergamy, divorce, desire, etc.

    No True Christian Woman is just the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. No True Christian woman would ever be anything but submissive to her husband and self-regulate a Hypergamy within herself that she’s self-aware of to know to control it of her own accord. Any woman who doesn’t is excluded from the category of True Christian.

    Combine this fallacy with women’s innate solipsism and the Feminine Imperative’s conditioning women to prioritize the interests of the sisterhood above the Holy Spirit and any scripturally confining interpretations of the Bible that would limit women, and then, you have blogs like IB’s.

    Science is always surprised to come home early from work and find Mother Nature banging the mailman; so is religion except the denial of reality and cognitive dissonance need a metaphysical buffer to accept it.

  188. thedeti says:

    @ Scott:

    “They have learned nothing from their experiences.

    “Instead of acknowledging the reality of the current state of men, the current state of women and moving forward in light of those circumstances they create a list of non-negotiable unrealistic demands.”

    I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down.

    I’d like it very much if you’d expand on this at your place.

  189. desiderian says:

    Dragonfly,

    “IB (Insanity Bytes) also said that submission should come naturally for women. But what’s implied here is it will be natural if he’s “an authority” and what’s unspoken is if he’s a good enough authority, then submission will be natural. I think what Dave and Striver are having a problem with concerning this issue is that it puts all the burden and responsibility onto men as to whether their wives are helpful and good to them or not.”

    The feeling of submissiveness (and arousal) does come naturally for women in response to dominance in men, just as the feeling of mastery (and arousal) comes naturally to men in response to a healthy, well-maintained female body.

    What one does with those feelings is where the teaching comes in, and yes, also some responsibility on the part of the wife to keep herself in shape and on the husband to be reasonably manly.

  190. There was a great scene in the movie Gandhi where his wife vehemently refuses to clean the toilets on the compound they live on. She gets upset and gets in his face saying it’s beneath her to do the work of an “untouchable”.

    Gandhi gets pissed. Like, uncharacteristically pissed off at his wife’s lack of submission or humility to do as he’s asked. Then he says “fine, don’t do it”. She gets the message of his rebuke and then begs him to go clean the toilets, but again he refuses her and says, “No. If you can’t do it with the right heart and true desire it’s better you don’t do it at all.” (paraphrasing)

    That scene always stuck with me, even before I was Red Pill aware – you cannot negotiate genuine desire, and when you do something without an honest investment of natural desire that act is, by definition, disingenuous and forced by obligation.

    This is the disconnect “Christian” women (true or otherwise) always have, duty sex, duty desire, duty submission is always negotiated for them with whatever interpretation of scripture and God they subscribe to as the negotiations intermediary.

    God: “Your desire shall be for your husband.”

    Eve: “Well, if it’s a choice between ‘desiring’ him or eternal damnation for disobeying the God of all creation, I guess I’ll desire him then.” *eyeroll*

  191. Dave says:

    But unless and until they have been publicly excommunicated by the whole Church, they’re Christians to the rest of the world.

    Yeah, just as Bruce Jenner is a woman to the whole world because he said so. He even won the Best Woman of the Year award!

    The fact is, it is not up to the world to define who is or who is not a Christian; the Bible made the definition clear. And someone does not need to be excommunicated by the backslidden church to be considered a non-Christian. True Scotsman or not, many of those who claim to be Christians have not even begun to understand what the term means. Isn’t president Obama a Christian? Isn’t he the champion of gays worldwide? How in the world is that remotely possible–to be a Christian and a homosexual advocate at the same time?

    So, there is a great possibility that a whole lot of the women considered to be Christians are nothing more than CINOs (Christians in name only). This applies to men, too, by the way.

  192. Anchorman says:

    Rollo,
    “Desire” in that passage doesn’t really translate like the English word, “desire.” It’s more like a mix of covet and usurp.

    John MacArthur had a write up on that verse. I don’t have the link anymore, but have it stored on my home computer.

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo
    No True Christian Woman is just the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. No True Christian woman would ever be anything but submissive to her husband and self-regulate a Hypergamy within herself that she’s self-aware of to know to control it of her own accord. Any woman who doesn’t is excluded from the category of True Christian.

    Eh, not necessarily. There’s also No True Christian Patriarch, y’know. The True Christian Patriarch is the man who Just Gets It, and his wife can’t help but become a True Christian Woman as a result. So any woman who strays away from being a True Christian Woman is probably just the victim of a man who wasn’t enough of a True Christian Patriarch, y’see. Because one way or another, any bad behavior by a woman or all women has to actually be the fault of a man or all men. See how simple everything really turns out?

    It’s All Men’s Fault No Matter What.

  194. Scott, there is an obvious fallacy with comparing ‘no true christian woman’ with ‘no real woman’. Why? All woman are real woman, just by having a vagina and boobs. They are all real-life woman.

  195. nastynate says:

    @Rollo

    “Science is always surprised to come home early from work and find Mother Nature banging the mailman; so is religion except the denial of reality and cognitive dissonance need a metaphysical buffer to accept it.”

    Rollo, you have an incredible talent for succinctness.
    The above is quite possibly, one of your best quotes EVER.

  196. Gunner Q says:

    craig @ 9:16 am:
    “Private interpretation doesn’t just imply, it demands that one person’s exegesis has no higher intrinsic claim to truth value than any other’s.”

    Then why does the Pope’s private interpretation have more value than mine? Especially when what he teaches is the opposite of what Christ taught. Claiming the Pope is magically infallible because the first Pope claimed to be magically infallible is only circular logic.

    Truth is absolute. Just because two people disagree does not mean the truth doesn’t exist.

  197. Micha Elyi says:

    In the final analysis, the real cause of the problems we see today is the failure of the Church to do what it is supposed to do.
    Dave

    If the church you attend isn’t as close to God as before, who moved?

  198. Micha Elyi says:

    The reality is that even Timothy wasn’t like that because he was raised by a single mother and grandmother.
    Deep Strength

    I disagree. The Bible verse you quoted, 2 Timothy 1:5, doesn’t prove your claim that “Timothy… was raised by a single mother and grandmother.” Consider Acts 16:1, “He reached (also) Derbe and Lystra where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.” Paul speaks of Timothy receiving “the faith” from his mother, not because his mother is unwed but because his father isn’t a Jew.

  199. @ Micha

    Cool. Thanks for the awareness on that.

    Doesn’t negate my point though that Timothy was being timid like most Christian men now. I suppose having a non-believing father or absent father or weak father figure is similar in all of those cases

  200. craig says:

    Gunner Q says: “Then why does the Pope’s private interpretation have more value than mine?”

    The Church claims that no Pope can offer his private interpretation as the Church’s own, but that he is bound by the Holy Spirit to keep continuity with what has been handed down by his predecessors. The Church claims that its authority, apostolic succession, and reliability on interpreting matters of faith and morals were all specifically ordained by Jesus Himself, and that all these attributes are related right there in Scripture. It also claims that the New Testament consists of the inspired writings which the Church sifted from the chaff early on, and that had the Church not ratified them (and not others) as inspired, a mishmash of Gnostic nonsense would be trying to claim equal stature with Saints Peter, Paul, John, Jude, et al. It claims that nothing in Scripture is contradictory to the Catholic faith when read within its proper context.

    You can believe or disbelieve all those. But do recognize that the logic is indeed non-circular and rooted in claimed historical events, not merely in the argument that it interprets a particular text “properly” while everyone else fails.

    The only reason I brought up private interpretation in this discussion is to point out the dead end nature of exegetical tennis as has been displayed recently — “I’m right and you’re wrong — no I’m right and you’re wrong — no…” ad infinitum. Private interpretation is, IMHO, the root cause for the infiltration of the zeitgeist (e.g., the Feminine Imperative) into churches. Look, I’m not a confirmed Catholic myself. To the extent that that omission violates my conscience, I will have to correct the situation or else answer for it someday. I have spent time in Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian circles over my 50+ years on earth. But I can’t believe anymore that Jesus intended for us to have utterly no fixed basis for interpreting Scripture.

  201. Scott,

    Didn’t mean for your cred to take a hit, haha!
    I just wanted to say that you and Mychael have a beautiful marriage, and it’s very heartening to see.

  202. desiderian says:

    craig,

    “But I can’t believe anymore that Jesus intended for us to have utterly no fixed basis for interpreting Scripture.”

    Of course he didn’t. But neither is that a fair characterization of the Reformed Tradition.

    That puttered along reasonably well as long as there was a shared commitment to the Truth, which is after all another name for Christ. It was the abdication of that commitment that opened the door to the flood of bad faith.

  203. Looking Glass says:

    @craig:

    Much of the problems we’re dealing with was the infiltration that started well before the Reformation. In practice, the major problem with Biblical Interpretation is that Christians refuse to listen to God. Little of it is very difficult.

  204. enrique says:

    Rollo, I think in real life, Gandhi probably slapped the shit out of her. But it was a good movie.

  205. Moses says:

    This then is connected to their claim that wives will want to have sex if their husbands are godly.

    This all boils down to “Women are a proxies for God. Men, submit to women’s will or else you are unGodly.”

  206. Dave says:

    @Micha

    If the church you attend isn’t as close to God as before, who moved?

    I was referring to The Church (i.e. the universal body of those professing faith in Christ); not the church (i.e. local denomination). There is a difference.

  207. Kaminsky says:

    @NastyNate;

    Interesting post with great points. I knew a special forces guy too. I knew him only very casually but enough to know his story. This was the 90’s, long before ‘game’ etc. The guy was about 6’3″ and looked like a young Laird Hamilton. He was a character lifted from a novel’s pages. Cool, smart and very nice to everyone (uh-oh). He was out on some mission doing who knows what uber-apex alpha type actions and his childhood sweetheart cheated and later left him. I was reminded because he was injured as well, likely having a NK missile land on his back while they were defusing it to save the world or something extraordinary.

    There’s not too much to the story other than the fact that even Spec. Forces masculine gods are not safe from this. Your brother’s story is really kind of phenomenal even though you can get desensitized to that kind of betrayal. And yeah, the whole community lines up under the FI, like you said. It’s disgusting. Worse than the disgust is the “They Live” effect and you realize how many years, decades you spent investing in a culture that doesn’t deserve it at all. Rough.

    Back to the betrayal of Spc Forces. It’s so easy to imagine a scenario where the woman gets up around 28-35 or so and her female friends’ accountant hubbies are starting to cash in. All of a sudden her stud Spec. Forces hubby is subtly smirked at by the girlfriend circle as having an outdated appeal…just a rough and tumble boy who was hot when they were young but now has no more cachet than the old highschool quarterback. Her previously jealous girlfriends are more than happy to finally have a chance to do a little victory dance in some way with their weekend jaunts to infinity pool land, etc. They’re on to time-shares, swanky homes etc. Just like that, the wife will ditch a 10-15 year relationship, simply based on her stature among her girlfriends. She’ll roll the dice with finding the beta-bucks. It’s sad, but I think they are that shallow. They’re just little girls comparing toys, arguably more shallow than men with trophy wives. Your brother’s girl brings her GI Joe (SF hubby) to the sandbox to show off but the other girls have a new toy this summer. And the same emotional wiring of a five year old gets tripped into play for your sister at age 30. I often wonder if RT and DR and some of the other minds behind this stuff are even scratching the surface of the solipsism.

  208. JDG says:

    So, back to the kitchen with you, sandwich maker.

    We need more sammich makers. If more women were making sammiches, then fewer women would be causing trouble.

  209. JDG says:

    Deep Strength says:
    February 3, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    Spot on!

  210. JDG says:

    Except here:

    It’s natural for women to respectful and submissive — and thus be sexually attracted to — an authority.

    I think it’s natural for women to be attracted to authority, but not to be respectful and submissive.

  211. nastynate says:

    @Kaminsky

    Bro, the worst part of all this bullshit is the women aren’t the biggest problem. It’s all the enabling, manginas, feminists, scumbag simps, who have daddy abandonment issues; who want to work all their childhood angst out through other peoples relationships. They just ooze out of the cracks when they catch a whiff off what the woman is up to. I actually had a priest of a church I was going to, who damn well knows what my brother’s been through, tell me my brother needed to “man up”. So many people among our friends, family and church congregation betrayed him, it shook my faith.

    If it was just their wives most men had to deal with, they might have a fighting chance and enough time to wake up from their beta simp, bluepill delusion and fix the problem. In the past, society tried to keep families together, because people understood the damage broken homes did to society as a whole. But when society is steeped in gynocetrism, and feminine sexual imperative is more important than consequence, men don’t have a chance in hell. Everyone, and I mean everyone; family, church members, government, neighbors, enable women.

    My own personal experience, and having witnessed my brother and so many friends destroyed by these situations has cemented into my mind how truly alone as men we are in this world. You have yourself, your balls, your dog, and a few good buddies who have experienced enough of this shit to understand.. and that’s about it.

  212. They Call Me Tom says:

    Pick-up artists are the ascetics of the modern era if we’re to believe the false prophets…

  213. Kaminsky says:

    @Nasty Nate,

    Don’t forget ‘passport’ in that short list of things a man has. It’s very key.

    Of my top 15 friends, 12 have had a nasty, pointless divorce by a woman far less attractive than they are. And the ‘she’s good, he’s bad’ immediate aftermath stance by people has been shocking. Not always but I’ve seen best friends, brothers, sisters, taking the side of the damsel. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you. Of one of the three who is still married, I’m seeing signs too. He’ll take the time to pedestalize her in a non-sequitir amidst our casual emails now and then. She’s currently off on her yearly trip without him (because it’s such a strong marriage!) and I think the clock is ticking.

    Lately, my ire (hopefully the tail end of my ire, I’m getting sick of my manosphere reward circuitry) has been almost 100% towards trad-cons, blue pill types. Tucker Carlson types. I hate them the most. They’re propping this shit up, paying for it, getting bitch-slapped for nothing and then demanding that others do so as well. They are beaten cowards. At least a beaten animal naturally flees but they stick around for more and want to call you on board with them through pressure. That’s so evil. At least a homeless derelict is like “I lose. Just let me drink and leave me alone.” A trad-con says, “I lose. And I’ll pay for the victory party over me for 50 years.” In a way, the feminists are innocent in comparison. Their thing is “Let’s take stuff. We don’t get to be here for long. Fairness and logic would be nice but there’s not enough time for that.” They’re more inspiring in a way. Just get what you want, you’re not here long. I don’t think that’s much of a sentiment for this particular blog but it’s just something to say.

  214. desiderian says:

    JDG,

    “I think it’s natural for women to be attracted to authority, but not to be respectful and submissive.”

    Depends whether that authority can handle rebellion/pass shit tests. No, it doesn’t help when society is stoking the flames.

  215. desiderian says:

    Kaminsky,

    “Cool, smart and very nice to everyone (uh-oh).”

    Yeah, you said it. Nice isn’t masculine anymore than bossy is feminine. He’s horning in on her territory.

    She made a commitment, she should have kept it. His people-pleasing is akin to a wife putting on 50 pounds. A man shouldn’t leave that wife either, but she still needs to take off and keep off the weight.

  216. embracingreality says:

    @nastynate, Kaminsky,

    I have to concur here with the thought that the blue pill trad-cons are worse even than the most radical feminists. And the only ones worse than them are the buffoons in the pulpits of the average evangelical sham ministry. They are the ones that perpetuate all the destruction to men and their families because they’re to busy worshipping women to hold them accountable for their destructive, selfish behavior.

    If theres a bright spot on the horizon though its the youngest generations of young men who seem increasingly distrustful of women, and the buffoons in leadership as well. I work in a male dominated industry and younger men seem much smarter about these things than I was 20 years ago. I do my part to warn them of the dangers of marriage but most of them seem to already know. I’m not exactly optimistic about the future but I can’t wait to see how all of this is going to play out in the next 10, 20 years. For many it’s going to be an extremely rude awakening.

  217. mrteebs says:

    I have had some small victories conveying these truths to my wife, but the cultural exposure and programming runs deep, as does the particular inclination that God told us sin would bring to women in Gen 3:16b – the desire to usurp and challenge their husband, almost pathologically.

    I did make some progress this week, however, with a discussion that went something like this…

    —————————————

    Me: Honey, would you accept a leadership position where you were 100% responsible for the outcome of an organization yet had absolutely no authority over those under you?

    Mrs. Teebs: Of course not – you can’t succeed. Who would sign up for that?

    Me: Well, apparently most of western christiandom and all but a small percentage of non-christians in the west. It pretty much sums up what the modern husband is expected to do. He is told that headship means only responsibility – not authority – and that he can’t be trusted with authority because he’ll abuse it without virtually every human institution and influence countering his every move.

    Mrs. Teebs: Well, don’t you think men abuse authority sometimes and need to be instructed on how to lead lovingly and in kindness?

    Me: Of course I do, but what do you think happens when you focus only on the husband’s responsibilities and never talk about the wife’s?

    Mrs. Teebs: Well, my pastor when I was a young Christian talked about the wife’s responsibilities.

    Me: Honey, that was over 30 years ago. When was the last time you heard this taught from the pulpit?

    Mrs. Teebs: (silence)

    Me: See? You can’t remember because it hasn’t been taught from the pulpit in 30 years. It’s too unpopular and we see attendance instantly plummet by 60%. But you can remember the last time men were charged with their responsibilities, right?

    Mrs. Teebs: Yes, it does get plenty of coverage.

    Me: So what happens when we each have a pair of jeans bunched up on opposite sides of the washing machine and it goes into spin cycle?

    Mrs. Teebs: it wobbles?

    Me: No, it stays balanced as long as there is an equal distribution on each side. To get it out of balance, all you have to do is remove one pair of jeans. That’s all it takes. Which pair of jeans do you think have been removed from our pulpits?

    Mrs. Teebs: Yeah, I see what you are saying.

    Me: Ask yourself this: are young men generally still being told by society that they have to prepare for marriage by having the ability to provide? Whether conveyed from christians or not, does society as a whole convey expectations on men?

    Mrs. Teebs: Yes – most young men know that they can’t just “fall in love” and get married – they have to give some thought to provision for their family.

    Me: Exactly. If nothing else, to save some money for a ring. His ability to provide is expected by the woman, by her parents, by his parents, by the church, by her f]girlfriends, and by pretty much everyone with a pulse. If he does nothing to prepare, the societal message is clear: he’s a slacker and she can do better. There are exceptions, but generally when a woman decides to get married, she is assessing the ability to provide as part of her selection criteria – or at least she believes she’s entitled to such provision, even if she gets tingles from bad boys. And she probably believes that bad boy’s love for her will eventually win out over his wild tendencies and he’ll settle into being as good at providing as he is at generating tingles. She’ll bring that hidden side out of him.

    Mrs. Teebs: Well, is there anything wrong with expecting a husband to provide?

    Me: Of course not. But ask yourself this: what is the woman expected to bring to the party these days? What preparation has been drilled into her? Any at all? Does she believe that she needs to do anything to actually prepare for marriage, or is all the preparation focused on maximizing her potential as an individual – not as a helpmate? I’m suggesting that woman aren’t told they need to do anything to prepare for marriage – other than make sure they don’t get tied down and rob themselves of life and career fulfilment too early. Readiness for marriage consists only of having Mr. Right “discover you.” You don’t need to prepare – you simply need to be disovered. After all, you’re special.

    Mrs. Teebs: Yes honey, I can see that.

    —————————————————

    I have had much more success conveying these truths to my son, now 20, who soaks this up like a sponge and doesn’t interject every 4 sentences with “yes, but.” One of the most satisfying times I have had in recent memory is was over Christmas when we spent a day together and had a chance to talk deeply about these subjects. He gets it.

    My wife is starting to get it, but it takes an order of magnitude more work.

  218. Gunner Q says:

    Kaminsky@ 8:47 pm:
    “Cool, smart and very nice to everyone (uh-oh). He was out on some mission doing who knows what uber-apex alpha type actions and his childhood sweetheart cheated and later left him.”

    Isn’t it sad? We civilized men control and direct our strength but women hate us for it because they never emotionally experience our strength. But how can we respond? Trained killers and serious martial artists are nice and patient because if they aren’t, people die. Does Mr. SAS let his wife frivorce him or do what he’s trained to do then hide the body? Or should he beat her regularly like an alcoholic thug so she’ll have the proper respect for his masculine qualities? None of those options are acceptable to a quality husband.

    God must feel the same frustration.

  219. desiderian says:

    “My wife is starting to get it, but it takes an order of magnitude more work.”

    Keep on it. It will ultimately be women like her preparing your son’s wife.

  220. Jim says:

    “I have to concur here with the thought that the blue pill trad-cons are worse even than the most radical feminists. And the only ones worse than them are the buffoons in the pulpits of the average evangelical sham ministry. They are the ones that perpetuate all the destruction to men and their families because they’re to busy worshipping women to hold them accountable for their destructive, selfish behavior.”

    In one way today’s “Christian” Church is definitely worse than these nutcase radfems and Leftist. Why? Because at least they aren’t pretending to be Christian and in fact openly hate Christianity. The so-called Church meanwhile is worshiping the Holy Vagina while shouting “Praise the Lord!” The hypocrisy and double talk is disgusting.

  221. If the barometer of a Godly man is the snatch of a slut, we’re well and truly screwed. Right in the kisser!

  222. Dragonfly says:

    MrTeebs “Me: Of course not. But ask yourself this: what is the woman expected to bring to the party these days? What preparation has been drilled into her? Any at all? Does she believe that she needs to do anything to actually prepare for marriage, or is all the preparation focused on maximizing her potential as an individual – not as a helpmate? I’m suggesting that woman aren’t told they need to do anything to prepare for marriage – other than make sure they don’t get tied down and rob themselves of life and career fulfilment too early. Readiness for marriage consists only of having Mr. Right “discover you.” You don’t need to prepare – you simply need to be disovered. After all, you’re special.”

    This is great! There are resources out there for mothers to train their daughters, but they have to know about them and go searching for Truth to find it. I can say though, my mom preparing me to know how to be a good wife to my husband was invaluable information!! And knowing it led me to search out more information on how to have a good marriage, so if you have a daughter, believe me there is a ton of information out there (you do have to know where to look), but if you have questions as to what is helpful, I’ll help you there.

  223. Looking Glass says:

    @mrteebs:

    2-3 years. It takes time, but you can shift a Woman’s “Overton Window” quite successfully. Pick and choose the places to discuss and effect things with some care, but use a Woman’s natural inclinations to your purposes. That’s part of “washing in the Word”.

    You’re also running into a core part of the Blue Pill Myth. Women are actually very bad at setting plans and seeing them to the end. When it comes to shifting another person’s perspective, Men are much, much better at it. We’re just taught that a “good Man” would *NEVER* use their influence on another. (Ignoring that Women are expected to do it at all times to get their own way.) But accepting you have power & authority in certain positions and roles is to accept that you have influence to use.

    It’s part and parcel with the whole “authority is bad, so you should avoid it” impulse within modern Christianity. Once you understand (and start to live out) the self-control needed from God to operate within all of it, it comes a lot easier. And it becomes fairly comfortable. But, like most things we learn here, it takes time and practice. Plus it’s utterly counter-cultural.

  224. DrTorch says:

    MrTeebs- well done. Nicely phrased.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s part and parcel with the whole “authority is bad, so you should avoid it” impulse within modern Christianity.

    Hmm? Perhaps you could expand on this thought. Seems to me there’s plenty of people clamoring for authority in the churches, many of them women. Not so much when it comes to responsibility, though.

  226. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mr. Teebs, nicely done. I think it is important when serving up some truth to women to include “how would this make you feel?” somewhere in it, in order to get them to relate to it.

  227. Spacetraveller says:

    AR,

    “Mr. Teebs, nicely done. I think it is important when serving up some truth to women to include “how would this make you feel?” somewhere in it, in order to get them to relate to it.”

    Wonderful. You ‘get’ us women.

    Herein lies a very important difference between men and women. A man can easily empathise with someone else without having to imagine how it would be if HE were to be subjected to the same thing/treatment. A woman NEEDS this thought process.
    Hence, some women can seem exceedingly cruel…it’s just because they have NEVER aksed themselves how what they do to others could affect THEM.
    Be aware of this ‘flaw’ in women, and you are sorted.🙂

    It therefore follows that if a woman is trying to empathise with you and starts by telling you how what you are suffering will affect HER were it to happen to her, please don’t think of her as ‘solipsising’. She NEEDS to make this mental step in her mind. She is NOT being egoistic. It is through this step she takes (consciously, when she likes/loves you, unconsciously when she is just a good person generally) that she is able to feel your pain.
    And…it is actually a painful step to take. Women feel literal pain when they empathise (I suppose precisely because in order to empathise, we MUST imagine ourselves as the actual victim of said pain…It is a useful trait to have, for example, to empathise with children’s little injuries. No-one needs a cruel, cold mother!

    It is those women who fail to take this step (for one reason or another) who will be ruthlessly cruel with you.
    They literally cannot feel your pain and therefore are unable to empathise with you.

    As a man, I guess it is difficult to grasp because you don’t require this step. But for a woman, it is vital if she is to be ‘compassionate’. Mr. Teebs did indeed the right thing by framing the question to his wife as ‘how would this situation make YOU feel?’
    Clever guy he is.🙂

  228. The perfect parody video of this would be the Apostle Peter detailing his ministry learning under Jesus, with cut shots back to Peter’s wife talking about how great things were before Christ showed up. Cut shots back for between Peter and his wife fill in the gaps of the story of the wife languishing due to a lack of attention and Peter thinking everything is ok with his marriage and wanting to follow Christ. At the end of the video, Peter gets “The Wake-Up Call” from his wife and decides being The Rock Christ builds his church upon makes him less Godly than a stay-at-home-S.I.M.P. so he makes the decision to “alter” his ministry for the sake of his marriage. Cut shot back to his wife exclaiming how much better their marriage became when Peter realigned his priorities with God’s(hers) and she became a deaconess in one of the local Churches he planted.

    A faceless voice off-camera says to Peter, “But aren’t you supposed to martyr yourself for Christ and be the foundation of his Church?”. A camera shot of both their faces show a complete deflation of their self-absorbed pride for a couple of seconds only to interrupted by Peter’s wife with a deer-caught-in-headlights stare saying, “You don’t mean God would really do that to us(me) would you?”.

    The screen goes black with the statement, “This is your Church on Feminism. Any questions?”

  229. @Striver: “I don’t believe in “marriage game” as a solution.”

    I do! I am very pleased to announce that my soon to be best selling book:

    “Saving a Low Sex Marriage: A Man’s Guide to Dread, Seduction and the Long Game”

    is now available on Kindle.

    Chapter 12 is: “What If I am Believing Christian” which I have quoted in many previous posts on Dalrock and elsewhere.

    Check it out:

    https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/

  230. Bdawg16 says:

    mrteebs, you hit a home run my friend. Awesome piece of work and thanks for sharing.

  231. Striver says:

    bluepillprofessor:

    “Marriage game” is not going to help you if your wife leaves you for someone she knew before the two of you even met. You have to know the game you are playing. There were things about past partners I needed to assess differently going in. On her part she was deceptive to me in her heart from the first day we met.

    Anything that went on between the two of us was never going to matter. So I judge more on past history. If the history is clean, I suppose “marriage game” can help, but if it isn’t, forget it.

  232. tacomaster2 says:

    What a time appropriate article Dalrock. I got an email reminder about our monthly Mens Breakfast and someone from Family Life will be there (marketer?) . I’m looking forward to asking him challenging questions. I’ve read through all these comments so I’ve got plenty of material and insight now.

    A few guys mentioned back in December a weekend immersion program/conference FL offers where the guy takes the wife on a date and writes a long love letter. When I asked what the wife does in return no one could give a real definite answer. It seems it’s geared towards getting the husband to change.

  233. Anonymous Reader says:

    tacomaster2, how about if you keep notes or record audio if possible, let us know what goes on.

  234. seventiesjason says:

    Wow…..the Holy Ghost is now the “feminine mystique” and you had better do what SHE says.

    Church and Holiness is a joke in just about all churches today. I get more out of studying / reading apologetics, prayer and a few deep Bible studies with a few like-minded fellow men.

  235. feeriker says:

    Just A Regular Guy says:
    February 5, 2016 at 11:26 am

    If I were to strike it rich I would gladly fund exactly such a video and get it aired as a TV commercial.

  236. OKRickety says:

    tacomaster2 said on February 6, 2016 at 5:49 am
    A few guys back in December a weekend immersion program/conference FL offers where the guy takes the wife on a date and writes a long love letter. When I asked what the wife does in return no one could give a real definite answer. It seems it’s geared towards getting the husband to change.

    Assuming you are referring to the FL “Weekend to Remember”, it seems there may be some misconceptions about it. I attended one almost 20 years ago. From what I see on their website about the current weekend schedule, I don’t think it has has changed very much.

    Specifically, there are several assignments during the weekend. I believe that both spouses are expected to do the same homework. One assignment was for both spouses to write a love letter and then read it to the other during that time, not during the date night.

    As to the date, Saturday night is set aside for a date night. How it is spent is up to the couple. They may highly encourage the man to make the date – I don’t remember.

    To the best of my knowledge, the women are not given a pass on the idea of changing, but I was quite blue pill then, so maybe they are. However, I am fairly certain that the men are given the usual blue pill version of being a man and a husband. For most men attending, that probably isn’t change, but simply being told to continue their current behavior.

    I am not endorsing the weekend or Family Life, but I don’t think your understanding is accurate.

    Full disclosure: I only went one time, and I believe my marriage nearly ended during it (and I think it is greatly overrated by its supporters). Instead, my marriage lasted another 15 years before she frivorced me.

  237. Adam says:

    I would commend Genesis 3:17 to you for reading. The word “listened” in “listened to your wife” actually means “to listen with the intent to obey”. It’s used again to describe Abraham’s response to Sarah when she suggested he sleep with her concubine. It sounds like this is the idea trying to be captured.

    I think that the grammatical sleight of hand which keeps the syntax the same but alters the word’s meaning by reversing the underlying intent is what tricks Christians into supporting the very things God opposes (ie Genesis 3:17).

    A similar idea is that of “judging”. Feminists and their philosophically liberal allies tell us not to judge and thereby shame others. Even arguing that God commands us not to judge. To a certain extent they are correct. However other passages tell Christians that they are to judge others.

    The difference is that Christians are commanded to judge with the intent to correct others, but not with the intent to condemn others. But society has shortened ” don’t judge with the intent to condemn others” to “don’t judge”, and the rest of the world, including mainline Christianity, listens and acts in concert with them, but against Gods command that we must judge albeit with the intent to correct.

  238. tacomaster2 says:

    Youre right it is affiliated with Weekend To Remember. The guy who showed up from FL said he’s been working with them for about 20 years. He had a scripted sheet with him but I wasn’t able to get a copy of it. He went into a quasi man up conversation about how men need to spend as much time working on their families and time with their wives as they do at work. We need to ask permission to go hunting, stop coming home from work tired and watching television and zoning out. He explained how we need to trust our wives, give up porn, support our wives dreams and aspirations, and show unconditional love. He then handed out two cards. One is a daily prayer for our wives and one is what husbands need to do for wives to make their life better and it has corresponding scripture but highly edited (instead of the entire scriptue it has three dots to connotate words were removed).
    I was livid. I couldn’t believe this guy spouted so much churchian feminist nonsense.

    At question time I asked, “despite your cartoon characterizations of men, do you believe women have any responsibility whatsoever in their marriages and does family life insruct wifes on submission and what it means to be a Godly wife based on scriptures particularly from Proverbs, Songs of Solomon, or anything from what Paul wrote?”.

    The man said he is talking about men’s responsibilities because we were a men’s group (avoided the question). A guy from our group, on marriage 3, said “no matter what she decides to do or not do you are the husband”. Me-“so if she lives in open rebellion I’m supposed to drag her around like a dead horse and support her dreams?”

    I replied ,”needless as that may be, the same percentage of women Christian or non-Christian destroy their marriages at the same rate and 70% are initiated by women”. No reply.

    I then asked him if David Wilson was affiliated with FL and he shared how he was a nfl player and a head pastor and speaker. He shared a modified version of the video but cut out the part of the story where she turned him down for sex.

  239. Pingback: Blogging breaks are good for calibrating and grounding. | Morally Contextualized Romance

  240. To be fair being a Godly man can in fact be measured somewhat by tingle.

    Confidence in a purpose and having priorities that are way above her are both tingle inducing things. Those are both by-products of actual Godliness (and many other things).

    The shut up and listen to your wife attitude will not, in any lasting way, actually produce tingle. And it is not, in fact, an attitude of Godliness.

    The premise that women like actual Godliness still stands though. It’s just the follow thorough, where they replace Godliness with feminism that it falls though.

  241. Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock

  242. What_is_real_anymore says:

    Perhaps the article isn’t as wrong as we might think. A man’s Godliness is directly correlated to how much he gives his wife the tingles. Once swallowed, the red pill dissolves so that we understand what it means to be a sexually attractive male – but more than that – to become the men we desperately want to be. It’s THAT man that a wife is attracted to – one who DGAF, the oak, the leader. Dread game (thank you BBF), is a great way to get started, but why *should* my wife fuck me if I’m a beta ass pussy? Sure, we understand St. Paul to mean man and woman, submit to each other’s sexual desires so you won’t be tempted – but Jesus – I don’t want starfish fucks from my wife. I want a sexual union where she desires me and I desire her – and it’s my responsibility as a man to get there.

    So how’s that biblical? Because it means that I need to get honest with myself. It’s starts in the Garden of Eden. God says, “Where are you Adam?” Instead of answering, “I fucked up, please forgive me”, he says, “I”m naked so I hid”. Yeah, you hid Adam. You hid your sin, you hid actions. You hid your heart. When we take the red pill – we wake up, and we begin to become brutally honest with ourselves. We loathe our blue pill selves because we created these covert contracts with women and the world – and in the end denied ourselves because we’re afraid of what Daddy might say. We become angry, blue-pill, unfuckable men.

    The essence of masculinity and the red pill is Owning My Shit. It’s what God made us to be. He wants us to own our shit, and own up to when we don’t own our shit. To the point that a masculine immoral man will still illicit the tingles. Because he *owns* his shit. That’s how God made us. That doesn’t mean the man is Godly, but rather he’s embracing the masculine nature that God gave him – and so is obeying the biological command from his creator.

    So where does morality fit into all of it? With the Solopsistic woman. That pious woman who denies her urges, loves her faith and God, and projects the femininity of virginhood draws the commitment of men like a masculine man draws the sexual gateway of women.

    Piety and morality are the tools with which a woman garners the commitment of the man – and therefore she is not just the gatekeeper of sex, but of morality as well.

    The masculine man owns his shit and draws women to him. The Christian marriage then, is one where the masculine man, who cherishes morality, and has a vision for – and leads his family towards a Christian outcome draws the pious women to him. The woman, who also is moral, and protects her virginity and sexuality, yet embraces her femininity draws that Christian man to him.

    Both have the wherewithal to sift through the non-christian and fake christians to find each other – if they’ve done mate selection well. But if they’re like 99% of us, they screwed up in the beginning, it will ultimately be the man’s responsibility to lead his wife to the Christian home. He will work harder, longer, and may not get the payoff – but that is the consequence for poor mate selection in the beginning.

    There’s one church that hasn’t changed much in 2000 years. Try the eastern orthodox church. ROCOR (Russion Orthodox Church Outside of America). Pious. Challenging. Traditional. And Beards. There’s also Greek, Antiochian, Serbian, OCA, etc. etc.

  243. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock

  244. Pingback: The fear of confonting sexual sin by women. | Dalrock

  245. seventiesjason says:

    Jeff and Shaunti Feldman teach in their one book, and churches are gobbling up is that “sex isn’t really about the *actual* act of sex…but it’s really about the woman’s *feelings* outside the bedroom.

    And STILL church-culture is so puzzled as to why men don’t want to step and be married.

  246. Pingback: Giving us what we love. | Dalrock

  247. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Dalrock

  248. sipcode says:

    Adam did not transgress God; that is, he did not knowingly eat the fruit. God was upset (my word) with Adam for “hearkening to the voice” of Eve; that is, doing what she suggested. This begs the question: should a husband EVER do what his wife wants or suggests? Or for that matter any man that uttered by any woman? God gave man the dominion and he should not give up his mandate from God. Women taking the authority or man giving it up is blasphemy to God’s instruction; His word.

  249. Pingback: What happens when society “puts the pussy on a pedestal”. – Adam Piggott

  250. BillyS says:

    Adam did not transgress God; that is, he did not knowingly eat the fruit.

    You may want to read it a bit closer. Adam clearly sinned and was held accountable for that.

    [1Ti 2:14 KJV] 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Adam was not deceived, he took his actions knowing they were wrong. He did follow the voice of his wife in that area and it led to horrid results, but using that to claim a man should never listen to his wife is idiotic.

  251. BillyS says:

    Messed up the end quote there. Feel free to fix it Dalrock (or not). The paragraph at the end is mine.

  252. Feminist Hater says:

    Billy,

    What does transgression mean? It is the violation of a command or law. A transgression doesn’t just require the act but also the means that led to that act. I believe that is the difference between Eve’s punishment and Adam’s.

    Eve’s transgression was being deceived into eating the forbidden fruit. Adam’s transgression was in listening to his wife’s word rather than God’s. Furthermore, the fruit itself was the knowledge of right and wrong and with it came sin, for man at least. God says that ‘they’ already know right and wrong, I believe he was speaking about himself and the angels.

    The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    The tree is one of the knowledge of good and evil, before the eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve have no shame, they have no knowledge of doing right or wrong.

    And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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 wages of sin are death. Before knowing sin, they are free to eat from the tree of life and thus cannot die, once they eat the fruit, man now has the knowledge of right and wrong and thus knows when he is in sin and is banished from Eden and can no longer eat from the tree of life and thus will die.

    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Eve being deceived, her inner nature is to long to be like God and know all knowledge of good and evil, to know how to manipulate, which is what she did to her husband, Adam, by handing him the fruit.

    Adam’s main transgression wasn’t eating the fruit, for Eve had already done that and thus released sin upon the world, but instead by listening to Eve and not God and breaking that command. The focus is the command, not the fruit. They acquired the knowledge of good and evil by eating the fruits but were punished for transgressing God’s word. Before either ate the fruit, they had no knowledge of right and wrong. For Eve to acquire this, she had to be deceived and for Adam to eat it, he had to listen to his wife. Adam could not have known he was doing wrong, that is quite clear from reading these texts.

    It is inherent upon reading Genesis, that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were fruits with a clear purpose, in other words, not a symbol of life or a symbol of knowledge but actual fruits that gave wisdom or gave life.

    “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

    There is another clear intent for God’s plan here, one where man had a choice. Either to eat from the tree of life and live forever or to eventually eat from the tree of knowledge, which man did, to acquire wisdom but also acquire death. All in all, the choice was made through deception of the wife, which is why the husband was thereafter required to rule over his wife for she is easily deceived by pandering to her inner nature.

  253. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1). | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s