Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2)

 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

–1 Cor 7:2-5,  ESV

In the Daily Mail piece I linked to yesterday many of the ten signs it is time to dump your man are actually bad behavior on a wife’s part.  Sign number two is the wife becomes contentious:

You find yourself constantly rolling your eyes and tutting at the most insignificant things your partner does.

Sign number four is the wife finds herself refusing sex with her husband, and sign five is she stops wanting to make him happy.  Sign ten is the wife belittles her husband in front of others.

This idea that any time a wife sins it is really a condemnation of her husband is well loved by modern Christians.  Of the ten signs in the Mail article, sign number four is arguably the modern Christian favorite.  If a wife denies sex to her husband, it is not a sin to address with the wife, but an indication that her husband is sinning.  Pastor Dave Wilson teaches at FamilyLife that a wife not feeling attracted to her husband is a message from God that something is wrong with the man. When Dave’s wife Ann rejected him telling him she didn’t have feelings for him anymore, Dave recognized that this was a message from God:

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;

Likewise, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. explains:

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

Dr. Russell Moore offers his own take on this theme at FamilyLife in Pornography: Poisoning Marital Intimacy.  Whenever a husband complains that his wife is withholding sex, Moore changes the subject:

Now, when a couple comes in to see me and they say to me: “We just don’t know what’s wrong in our marriage. We just don’t have any intimacy. We don’t have sex with each other anymore. We just feel cold.” I immediately say, “How long has the porn been going on?”

Husband, typically, looks at me, like I’m an Old Testament prophet or a New Age psychic. “How did you know? Are you working for the cable/internet company or something?” It’s because it happens so often and with such regularity, and it always has the same satanic results.

Just to clarify, Moore isn’t saying he deals with both sins together, he is saying if the issue of a wife* withholding sex is brought up, he changes the subject entirely to pornography.

Also, following the standard complementarian script that wives should set and enforce boundaries for their husbands, Moore tells wives:

Ladies, if your husband is entrapped in pornography, confront him in his sin. If he refuses to repent and to show you how he is repenting, take it to the pastors of the church. You are not being un-submissive. You are saying to the powers—the authorities that God has put in your life—”Our marriage is in crisis. I love him. I want you to help me to help him.” You, as a joint heir with your husband—following after, going according to his authority—when Satan has gotten him, fight for your man.

Ironically Moore references 1 Cor 7, but not to call out the sin of denial of sex, but to explain why the wife should set and enforce boundaries for her husband:

The answer to all of that is—number one, for the wives in this room—or in the case when it’s the other, the husbands in this room—to recognize the truth of what Paul is saying here when he says, “A husband’s body does not belong to himself. A wife’s body does not belong to herself.” Some of you wives, in this room, are suffering silently alone while your husbands are enslaved to porn. You believe you are doing so because you are being a submissive wife. No, no, no, no. The Bible says, “Wives, submit yourselves….” The Bible never tells women to submit to men, generally. It says for a wife to submit herself to her own husband. But the Scripture also says that what a husband is doing sexually with his body is a violation of his wife; and she, the Scripture says, has ownership over his body.

On the other hand, if the wife is using pornography, Moore explains that the husband should first ask himself why she feels tempted to do so.  Then he should bring in someone to deal with the crisis in the marriage that is causing her to feel tempted:

Husbands, if your wife is entrapped with some form of sexual fantasy—whether it’s Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever the Christian version of that is these days—if she is pursuing a romantic fantasy or a sexual fantasy—first of all, ask, “What in our marriage is causing her to seek this out elsewhere?” and, then, bring in those who can come into your marriage and deal with the crisis. Why?—because this is not just a relationship issue. This is a spiritual warfare issue, and there are beings who want to work with your passions to destroy you.

In Summary:

  1. If a husband is using pornography, the wife needs to take charge of her husband and seek church discipline.
  2. If the wife is using pornography, the husband needs to bring in a marriage counselor to bring back the romance.

And all of this occurs after changing the subject from a wife defrauding her husband of his conjugal rights*.

See Also:  Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1)

*It could in theory be a husband defrauding his wife, but there is an undeniable pattern here of finding ways to ignore/deny/redirect the sins of wives, and denial of sex is a primary complaint by Christian husbands.  If a husband is defrauding his wife I don’t think Moore or the vast majority of Christian leaders would hesitate to tell the husband he is sinning by doing so.  In that case pornography could still be a related sin, but the impulse to change the subject entirely would not be there.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, Complementarian, Daily Mail, Dave and Ann Wilson, Dr. Russell Moore, FamilyLife, Frigidity, Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2)

  1. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2) | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Matt says:

    “…We don’t have sex with each other anymore. We just feel cold.” I immediately say, “How long has the porn been going on?”

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he might have the cause-and-effect arrow pointing in the wrong direction.

  3. Hose_B says:

    Cause and effect are typically turned on its head. But addressing the “sin” of the one who is 1) more visible, and 2) more likely to willingly accept responsibility is much easier. Who cares that they labeled the effect as the cause? They have their one sided scapegoat (think WarRoom)
    My pastor has said in sermon that if a marriage fails, it is the husbands fault as the “leader”. While prior military might get this idea, most (and almost all ladies) will hear “if there are PROBLEMS in the marriage, it’s the husbands fault.”
    Combine this with actively takin all authority AWAY from the “leader” and there is a very bad cycle.
    Even good meaning Christian’s are so, so busy in the BUSINESS of Christ, that they take the easy way. “Oh! Porn? You need to be more like Jesus. NEXT!!”
    Satan will make even a well meaning Christian ineffective. He doesn’t have to turn them evil, just make them too busy to be effective.

  4. Lyn87 says:

    I think the best answer to the “counselor’s” question, “When did you start looking at porn?” Might be, “About six months after she started regularly denying sex. Now can we get back to the reason we’re here?”

  5. Fred Flange ducks and covers says:

    There is a real opportunity to thread a needle here and avoid confusion for married men in distress.
    Let’s take the last three posts as given: the church and the marriage industry blame the man for marriage problems, and if it is the woman who is creating the problems, that too is the fault of the man for not exercising proper headship and submitting to Churchian shaming, which hardly seems like headship to me but what do I know. “How dare you”, etc.

    On the other hand, red pill praxeology (i.e., Rollo) tells us all men carry the burden of performance in their lives. Their performance is how they are perceived, and how they perceive themselves. A good performance (satisfying/achieving one’s goals) is an attractive performance, a masculine performance. It is done for oneself, to be one’s best self, not a feint to attract a mate. You cannot refuse the burden. Your so-called refusal to perform IS your performance, and you will be evaluated accordingly. If you are truly an outsider-iconoclast, which most men are not, you don’t care how you are “evaluated”, though you still bear your burden and still perform, just without undue regard for other peoples’ feelz for you. It must be maintained, adjusted if need be, but it never ends.

    So the trick for men is to self-critically evaluate their own performance by their own standards (or those God has set for them to be sure). While on the other they should not succumb to the drumbeat that everything that goes goofy in the household is his fault alone, because the pastor and a bunch of Cosmo articles say so – and to make that distinction without doubling the weight of the fear of failure being dropped.

    I do not pretend to be capable to do this; gentlemen, have at it.

  6. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Russell Moore was of course one of the evangelical leaders who said Christians ought not to vote for Trump…

  7. Damn Crackers says:

    Is withholding sex in a marriage a form of fornication? What does the OT and NT say about it? From the 1 Corinthians 7 passage, I don’t think St. Paul even considered it a possibility.

  8. Gunner Q says:

    “red pill praxeology (i.e., Rollo) tells us all men carry the burden of performance in their lives.”

    Rollo has the advantage of not being required to insist upon lifetime monogamy. That is a burden of performance men cannot carry alone because it takes two to make a marriage work. The reason for a man to be his own point of origin is so he’s free to “next” her.

    The logic works but isn’t available to Christians. We’re stuck on the other side of anarcho-tyranny.

    Lyn87 @ 9:34 am:
    “I think the best answer to the “counselor’s” question, “When did you start looking at porn?” Might be, “About six months after she started regularly denying sex. Now can we get back to the reason we’re here?””

    I like your style.

  9. feeriker says:

    Whenever a husband complains that his wife is withholding sex, Moore changes the subject:

    Now, when a couple comes in to see me and they say to me: “We just don’t know what’s wrong in our marriage. We just don’t have any intimacy. We don’t have sex with each other anymore. We just feel cold.” I immediately say, “How long has the porn been going on?”

    Husband, typically, looks at me, like I’m an Old Testament prophet or a New Age psychic. “How did you know? Are you working for the cable/internet company or something?” It’s because it happens so often and with such regularity, and it always has the same satanic results.

    To put it bluntly and crudely, Moore is full of shit. He’s spinning a yarn that only his cucked churchian followers would believe. In the non-churchian world of marriage counseling (one that would chew up and spit out Moore in a matter of milliseconds), Moore’s buffoonish tea leaf reading would immediately mark him as a charlatan, prompting any husband on the receiving end of it to get up and walk out the door never to return. In fact, I’m seriously doubtful that even your typical churchian cuckstrato would fall for Moore’s act in the way he describes it here.

    And yes, he absolutely does have cause and effect (something that, like the women he pedestalizes, he probably doesn’t even vaguely understand) exactly backwards.

  10. thedeti says:

    Pastors and theologians are among the most uncomfortable with the idea that husbands are entitled to sex in marriage.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    Interesting that Moore sorta kinda recognizes that women can and do use porn, and that he mentions Fifty Shades by name. That’s a little, tiny, baby step towards reality, but nothing more. The reality is simple but nobody in the church-sphere really wants to address it: modern romance novels always contain graphic sex scenes. I need to complete a survey to have author / publisher level data, but a cursory examination supports this claim. Vampire porn has gone far beyond Twilight, for example, as anyone can see by looking at Goodreads, but do not take this as any sort of a reco by me of the fiction there. Most of my fiction reading nowadays is of old books, often pre 1960, fortunately there’s a lot of them.

    One problem the aging preachers such as Moore and Piper have is they really are stuck in the past, stuck back in the 80’s i multiple ways. There’s no need for women to go to a chain bookstore for their “romance” novels when they can cram an e-reader like Kindle or Nook or a phone full of stories from online sources. Moore probably doesn’t know that 50 SOG started as amateur fiction by a fan of Twilight, and for sure he’s blissfully ignorant of where fanfic has gone in the last 10 years. There are surely married women in his congregation who are reading “romance” stories with an explicit, graphic, anatomically detailed sex scene spliced into the story at regular intervals. The 30-something women are probably reading it on their phone or e-reader, which makes it even less obvious to the casual observer.

    Yes, women use porn, both single and increasingly married women. The 20-somethings both men and women live on their phone, and routinely view all sorts of vids there, including streaming porn. That means both men and women in the modern world may have a porn habit before they get married, but the Moore’s of this world can ony see men’s porn use, women in their world probably don’t even masturbate.

    The story goes that Queen Victoria was agreeable to the British law outlawing homosexual acts between men, but could not imagine what two women would do with each other, so the law wound up only applying to male humans. This paucity of imagination seems to have been carreid on to the modern day to some degree, in neo Victorians such as Moore.

    The ultimate question is simple: do women have agency or not? Moore et al keep answering that with “Yes, but…” because they cannot bring themselves to hold women as a group or individual responsible with no escape. It is nothing less than putting women on a pedestal. Like an idol.

  12. Daniel Horton says:

    I just want to know, after all this, if Dalrock or others here still recommend that a man ought to legally marry?

    My thoughts are that marriage no longer exists in the west: it has been usurped by feminism and paganism and transformed into something wholly other (wife in charge). And, therefore, to legally marry is to submit to women and thus is in direct conflict with biblical teaching.

    And, if so, I would love to know what should be recommended to christian men.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    Pastors and theologians are among the most uncomfortable with the idea that husbands are entitled to sex in marriage.

    Yeah, it’s funny in a way, the same men who have no problem telling men they have a duty to be affectionate and loving to their wives can’t also say women have the same duty as well. Seems that a deeper issue is this: those same men have a problem saying that a married man has a right to be respected, while they have no problem saying a married woman has a right to be loved. Respect must be earned, love must be unconditional. It’s probably just another facet of the same issue – do women have agency or not?

  14. Bruce says:

    @ Damn crackers. “Is withholding sex in a marriage a form of fornication? ”

    I don’t think so. I think porneia is sex acts.

  15. Bruce says:

    “When did you start looking at porn?”

    For the husbands of many of the Christian women in my wife’s women’s church group the answer could be “a few months after she watched Magic Mike with her Christian friends” (or the sequel “XXL” – get it , XXL !! -so cute!) or maybe after he got sick of his wife making explicit references to the size of other men’s tools right in front of him. One of the wives in the women’s group said (right in front of me no less!!) that she likes to watch gay-male porn and likes it when she meets a man and can see the bulge in this tight jeans. Nice, huh?

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    A priestess is needed to bless the marriage bed to make it holy and pure, and this priestess is the person in the marriage who is the expert in marriage/emotion (the wife).

    Priestess! Gold!

    [D: Thank you. I decided to pull the comment and turn it into a post.]

  17. Bruce says:

    Yes, women use porn, both single and increasingly married women.

    Yes, a bunch of the women in my wife’s church group went to see Magic Mike XXL. They weren’t even ashamed to go together as a group women united by the fact that they attend the same church/women’s group. This is at a conservative United Methodist Church.

  18. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Moore has such a chronic habit of redirecting questions of the wife’s sin towards the faults of the husband that I almost missed this bit here:

    “Husbands, if your wife is entrapped with some form of sexual fantasy—whether it’s Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever the Christian version of that is these days . . . . ”

    Is this some sort of a Freudian slip from Dr. Moore? He admittedly devotes the majority of his time to hammering husbands for “poisoning marital intimacy” by using porn, but then goes on to make a one-off comment that not only is there also a lot of porn use by females, the church is helping to produce it for them. I haven’t really seen him expand any further on that admission even in this sermon or any subsequent talks that he’s given. Why not? Dalrock has spent a long time documenting how the modern church establishment will work to poison a wife’s attitude against her husband, and now we’ve got a prominent “Christian leader” pretty much saying, “Yeah, we’re totally doing that!” And then . . . . nothing more?

    Russell Moore should have been a journalist — he’s already an expert at burying the lede.

  19. Fred Flange ducks and covers says:

    @GunnerQ

    Understand your point that the Christian husband, even with his own Mental Point of Origin, would not have the “next” button available to him.* But my question stands in the context of trying to keep the marriage vital, or possibly jump-start it. It seems to me he must still meet his burden of performance, again, not to make the mate happy but as a foundation for being the leader. Calling the play. Changing the heading, setting the sail. Perhaps I am thinking of the first version of Athol Kay’s Marriage Action Plan: improve yourself for yourself, as you do the confidence and leadership may follow (if the plan works). But doing this without also falling into the trap of the endless apology for the D minus sensitivity grade and the Willy Wonka shaming: “you lose! you get NOTHING! Good DAY sir!”

    *No prizes for guessing who ALWAYS has the “next” button at the ready.

  20. Bruce says:

    great catch by Darwinian Arminian – “Christian” porn

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    The question that Moore and others seem determined to not answer is this:
    Does witholding of sex by the wife constitute a violation of her wedding vows?

    Then again, considering how many people write their own vows now, maybe that’s moot.

  22. craig says:

    “Is withholding sex in a marriage a form of fornication?”

    No, St. Paul calls it fraud — which underscores that sex is a contractual obligation.

  23. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ 10:56 am:
    ” Most of my fiction reading nowadays is of old books, often pre 1960, fortunately there’s a lot of them.”

    Even then, it can be tough. I grabbed “At the Earth’s Core” by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1914) off Project Gutenberg and damn, it was a blue horse pill. Twenty pages into the book, the protagonist had fallen deeply in love with the first woman he saw, a gorgeous Daughter of the King, accidentally married her by defending her virtue from a rapist and begun plotting how to impress her by exterminating an entire sentient species. It didn’t pick up after that.

    I used to enjoy reading. Not so much anymore. Keep hitting SMV landmines.

    Damn Crackers @ 10:14 am:
    “Is withholding sex in a marriage a form of fornication?”

    It’s a form of rebellion against God who commanded it not be done.

    “What does the OT and NT say about it?”

    NT allows divorce on condition of lifetime celibacy afterwards (this allows for reconciliation). So, if a wife isn’t putting out then her husband could divorce her in return for not getting the sex he isn’t getting anyway. It isn’t really divorce… more like Parable of the Prodigal Barbie. The spouses are still sexually committed to each other until adultery or death. But yeah, we do have a nuclear option for wives who don’t want to act like wives.

    “Not this month either, Ken. I still have a headache.”

    “Well, Barbie, how about you go on a journey of discovery–without my checkbook or car–on how to cure that headache? I’ll let you back into my house when you show up naked bringing beer.”

  24. feeriker says:

    One of the wives in the women’s group said (right in front of me no less!!) that she likes to watch gay-male porn and likes it when she meets a man and can see the bulge in this tight jeans. Nice, huh?

    Give the apostate bitch at least a little credit for being honest. Then again, she probably doesn’t need to lie, deflect, or feel any shame because

    [t]his is at a conservative United Methodist Church..

    That explains everything. However, you need to remove the word “conservative” from your description, as there is no such thing as a “conservative” Methodist church. That denomination, all shades of it, went full-on SJW libtard apostate decades ago.

    Have you tried to pry your wife away from that “church,” or would that result in her going into full-on rebellion mode? Honestly, being affiliated with no church at all is less dangerous to the soul than being affiliated with the one she’s with now.

  25. Bruce says:

    She doesn’t attend that Church just a women’s group at that church. It is conservative as UMC’s go holding to the basi, orthodox statements of faith.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Darwinian Arminian
    Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever the Christian version of that is these days

    Very good catch. I have not yet looked at any of the romance novels in the Christian section of the bookstore. So perhaps Moore knows more than he’s admitting.

    The larger question: if “ever used porn” is a disqualifier for marriage, then the vast majority of men in their 20’s and a very large percentage of women in the same age group are disqualified. Now what? If “uses porn” == “adultery” then not only are many married Christan men committing adultery, so are many married Christian women, and their porn is right out in the open at every chain bookstore. So now what?

    The effects of the “do women sin” blind spot are really quite large, and even growing.

  27. Original Laura says:

    @Anonymous Reader: I am convinced that TV on its own is very capable of making women unhappy with their husband, even if they aren’t watching porn of any sort. From HGTV shows that make it appear that everyone else is living in a nicer house than she has, to Downton Abbey programs where the main characters are good looking, expensively dressed & living in a palace, with unlimited leisure time, TV programming causes a tremendous amount of marital dissatisfaction. As the TV dosage goes up, the dissatisfaction increases, with the most impressionable women affected most deeply.

    Hannibal Lector asked Clarice what it is that people covet. Clarice didn’t know, so Hannibal supplied the answer: “People covet what they see.”

    Nearly all men look like complete losers compared to the men in TV & film, even if the programming is supposedly “Christian.” Men and women have different fantasy worlds, but both sexes deal with the sin of being covetous.

  28. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2) | Reaction Times

  29. Gunner Q says:

    Now that’s an interesting article, Laura. Not because of what the Methodists are doing but their motive.

    “This sanctuary church program is ostensibly in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s intention to defund sanctuary cities.”

    I just don’t know what to think about Trump. The guy himself acts like the status-quo deep stater I always assumed but man, the liberals are completely freaking out. Something is going on that I’m not allowed to see. That always makes me want to buy another gun.

  30. Morgan says:

    “his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”

    This is true from a red pill perspective, but we don’t frame it as a positive feature. We call it what it is, hypergamy. If a woman presents herself sexually only to who she finds worthy of her desire, that’s a woman who will eventually cheat on her husband with the next highest alpha in the room. Sex is granted in marriage not through worth, but by marital contract. But no one understands marriage these days anyway. They think it’s just rooming with someone you currently love.

    And one mistake Moore makes, is only asking the troubled marriages when the porn has been going on. Because I guarantee he would be getting the exact same answer from happy marriages as well. I would even say porn itself isn’t a problem in the same way that a handgun isn’t the problem of murder.

  31. Pingback: Complementarians believe that a wife can do no wrong | Christianity and masculinity

  32. Gunner Q says:

    Okay, figured out the Trump thing. Liberals just spent eight years weaponizing the Presidency then lost control of it to a conservative guy who talks like he wants to do stuff. They’re battening the hatches against their own nukes.

  33. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1) | Dalrock

  34. Anon says:

    In the Daily Mail piece I linked to yesterday many of the ten signs it is time to dump your man are actually bad behavior on a wife’s part.

    It is amazing that something so pernicious has become the status quo.

    Remember, ‘intact’ marriages are not immune. Many UMC marriages don’t end, but instead devolve into henpecking, threatpoints, and the man’s hard-earned money going into taxes (which go to women anyway), diamonds, mortgage interest, and college tuition that, far from educating his daughters, instead reduces their employment and marriage prospects through indoctrination. Look at the magnitude of the resource misallocation.

    Even ‘happy’ marriages went from a potential 9/10 to a 7/10 due to the two-point docking that the ambient culture generates. That is still a huge loss, even if 7/10 is good. Even people in happy marraiges should not ignore the loss of their buffer..,

  35. RPC says:

    Pastors and theologians are among the most uncomfortable with the idea that husbands are entitled to sex in marriage.

    That’s because male sexuality is dirty and gross. When men get aroused by images they are perverts. They have no self-control. To be a good Christian man you must have sexual thoughts about your spouse only. But, it is important not to let those thoughts “objectify” your spouse. Don’t you dare think of her like a sexual object. Only have sex with her for the purpose of emotional closeness.

    If you are engaged or in a serious relationship, than the woman is free to be engage as much emotional intimacy as she wants with you, but don’t you dare touch her in any sort of sexual way or do anything else that might cause physical intimacy. Intense emotional intimacy is totally appropriate leading up to marriage. Physical intimacy is a grievous sin and it’s always, somehow, the man’s fault.

    This is why single men in church should be viewed very suspiciously. This is also why women should always keep tabs on their husbands sexuality to make sure he doesn’t give in to “temptations.” If he does, then Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 it is the same as adultery and divorce is a valid option.

    Because, don’t you see, women’s sexuality is pure and innocent. They are in complete control, and the men are boorish, undisciplined, hypersexualized animals. It is such a good and wholesome thing that God’s spirit is shaming them.

    If a man transgresses, it might be good for his wife to withhold sex for a while so he can get better control of himself. If he looks at any sexual images for gratification, again, Matthew 5:28. You have options.

    /Sarc off

  36. Dale says:

    (And now to post this in the correct thread…)
    Matt said: I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he might have the cause-and-effect arrow pointing in the wrong direction.

    That was going to be my comment. How stupid does a man, who thinks about and plans marital advice, have to be in order to not see that denying a man the marital outlet for sexual desires will present a need to meet them elsewhere? Do these idiots not remember the nocturnal emissions God provided, from before they married? The release is a physical requirement. N.E., sex and masturbation are the only methods I am aware of for meeting that need. If you don’t like one of them, then you had better provide another.

    >Lyn87 @ 9:34 am:
    >About six months after she started regularly denying sex. Now can we get back to the reason we’re here?

    Great response. Unfortunately, I failed to think of it myself. I suspect many men are not able to immediately think of responses that “maintain frame”. And thus can get sucked in to discussing false problems that allow the speaker to ignore the real problem. Yet another reason for the importance of knowing/memorizing Scripture — so we can insist that the Scriptural problem is dealt with first, before a possible one that is not directly mentioned in Scripture. (Coveting another man’s wife is certainly mentioned however-Ex 20:17.)

    @Daniel
    >And, therefore, to legally marry is to submit to women and thus is in direct conflict with biblical teaching.

    This has been argued before. Some, in particular those who are naive or who have a wife that does not use the Satanic rights provided to her by our government, will argue that a Biblical marriage is possible. It seems to me that they ignore the legal reality, and go with their daily-life reality. That can be a valid position, as the man and his wife can choose to life out obedience to Scripture, regardless of what our politicians and judges say. They mostly live in obedience to God, confess when they mess up and restore the correct path, and work through the problems that inevitably come their way.
    The above only works however as long as
    A) Both of them continue to life out this obedience, and
    B) The authorities do not find out about it.
    As soon as the wife complains to a cop or lawyer, you have problems.
    Or if a SJW finds out and decides you are abusing your wife, then she could speak to the cops “on behalf” of your wife. Even if your wife is not complaining. I assume the laws on this differ by jurisdiction, but at least in some cases, the victim does not have to complain for criminal charges to be brought. For example, with children who are being deprived of food.

    A second group will point out that the rules required by Scripture are unlawful, thus a Biblical marriage is not possible. Your comment puts you here.

    A third group will admit that we have Satanic marriages, but then do what they can to restrict the extent to which this is true. For example, have property owned by a family trust, instead of by the husband directly. Opus has offered an opinion on this in the past. If I recall, the protection of the trust will depend on the jurisdiction and the way you treat the trust or set it up.
    Or ensure you marry a woman who makes more than you. (This seems stupid to me however as it requires the wife to work outside the home however, contrary to Titus 2:1-5. Plus, other than selfish women, who wants their children dumped into daycare for the majority of their waking hours 5 days a week, like they are trash or an inconvenience???)
    Along the same lines, some men will assert you only have to choose the right woman, and then you will have the first situation above.
    I think many of the men in group 3 are simply men who desire a wife, and are doing their best to acquire what God designed them to need, without being forced to sin “too much”.
    Rather sick situation we have. The comment above reminded me of this passage from Matt 18:
    5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

    6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
    (NIV uses “sin” instead of “offences” but I am reluctant to use the current, feminist version of the NIV.)

  37. RICanuck says:

    Michelle Langley’s book on women’s infidelity has been mentioned on another thread.
    Women lose the urgency for sex once the newly wed dopamine wears off, they get into a routine, look after children etc. Langley says that it is hardwired female biology once the youngest child reaches 4 years or so.

    Men do not lose that drive, sex remains bonding. Most average men want to have sex with their wives, want to look at their wives, want to be desired and respected by their wives. But, woman’s desire is driven by different mood hormones. It becomes a chore to some.

    Devout Catholic women have a tendency to compete for ‘holiness’ by showing how spiritual they are. The gaze of a husband becomes lust, bodily fluids are not ‘spiritual’! I am not sure what Protestant women are like, but I have heard from Protestant husbands that they just can’t compete with ‘boyfriend Jesus’.

    Christian women can truly poison each others hearts and minds against their husbands. In this they are often supported by pastors. St. Paul said that if a woman does not understand something she should ask her husband. Has Russell Moore and some of the other Christian leaders told woman to ask their husbands?

  38. theasdgamer says:

    @Gunner

    That is a burden of performance men cannot carry alone because it takes two to make a marriage work.

    This is an equalist view of marriage. Red Pill praxeology is that wives have to be gamed. That is also the implicit perspective of the Song of Solomon.

    The reason for a man to be his own point of origin is so he’s free to “next” her.

    Nexting can take several forms:

    Soft Next: You reduce the amount of attention that you pay your wife. You continue to be affectionate, of course. If you aren’t being affectionate, it’s because you’re butthurt and that’s an indulgence that no man can afford.

    Hard Next: Divorce. Separation. Annulment.

    A man can also stay in a marriage and create Dread, of which there are two kinds–soft and hard. Soft Dread relies on the wife’s imagination (e.g., you’re going out without her or you travel a lot) and Hard Dread relies on the wife’s senses (e.g., your wife smells perfume on you).

    Another possibility is to take a concubine (i.e., a girlfriend).

    The promise of exclusivity (a secondary clause in the marital covenant) is pursuant to sexual availability (a primary clause). Hence, if a wife denies sex to her husband, then his promise of exclusivity has been nullified and he is no longer bound by it.

    Nexting is very much within a biblical framework, though not within a traditional churchian framework.

    The logic works but isn’t available to Christians.

    That statement is controversial.

  39. theasdgamer says:

    Let’s try this with more readable context clues.

    @Gunner

    That is a burden of performance men cannot carry alone because it takes two to make a marriage work.

    This is an equalist view of marriage. Red Pill praxeology is that wives have to be gamed. That is also the implicit perspective of the Song of Solomon.

    The reason for a man to be his own point of origin is so he’s free to “next” her.

    Nexting can take several forms:

    Soft Next: You reduce the amount of attention that you pay your wife. You continue to be affectionate, of course. If you aren’t being affectionate, it’s because you’re butthurt…and that’s an indulgence that no man can afford.

    Hard Next: Divorce. Separation. Annulment.

    A man can also stay in a marriage and create Dread, of which there are two kinds–soft and hard. Soft Dread relies on the wife’s imagination (e.g., you’re going out without her or you travel a lot) and Hard Dread relies on the wife’s senses (e.g., your wife smells perfume on you or sees you flirting).

    Another possibility is to take a concubine (i.e., a girlfriend or mistress).

    The promise of exclusivity (a secondary clause in the marital covenant) is pursuant to sexual availability (a primary clause). Hence, if a wife denies sex to her husband, then his promise of exclusivity has been nullified and he is no longer bound by it.

    Nexting is very much within a biblical framework, though not within a traditional churchian framework.

    The logic works but isn’t available to Christians.

    That statement is controversial.

  40. Jim says:

    “How long has the porn been going on?”

    When she became a frigid cunt you idiot.

  41. feeriker says:

    The promise of exclusivity (a secondary clause in the marital covenant) is pursuant to sexual availability (a primary clause). Hence, if a wife denies sex to her husband, then his promise of exclusivity has been nullified and he is no longer bound by it.

    It would be worth the money and effort to hire a graphic artist to design and print a mock gift card that entitles the bearer to “Fresh, New Pussy.” A husband can produce this in front of his wife after a protracted period of sexual denial and ask “Did you really intend to give me this? I’m letting you know that I’m about ready to redeem it. I’m giving you one last chance to reconsider.”

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Daniel Horton

    I just want to know, after all this, if Dalrock or others here still recommend that a man ought to legally marry?

    I gave my thoughts on this question in a guest post at the Orthosphere.

  43. Gunner Q says:

    @ASD, My Claim:
    “The logic works but isn’t available to Christians.”

    First you say,
    “That statement is controversial.”

    Then you say,
    “Another possibility is to take a concubine (i.e., a girlfriend or mistress).”

    Q.E.D.

  44. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    When she became a frigid cunt you idiot.

    As I’ve been talking to married and divorced dudes on Dalrock over the course of the last few years, I’ve come to the conclusion that the denial of sex is only a part of the contemporary problem. This ought to be obvious, after all, if it were just sex, then pr0n or side-ho would solve the problem.

    In reality, most married bros want to feel loved, respected and appreciated. Sex in itself is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for this.

    I have never once met any dude who divorced his wife if she had a medical issue that precluded straight sex, but was willing to love and be intimate in pseudosexual ways (i.e. with other parts of the body). In contrast, I have met men who divorced their wives despite getting sex on the regular, because they were just as often demeaned and disrespected, and the frequency of this scenario is depressing.

    The toxic nature of feminism suggests that women know this instinctively, which is why feminism first tries to belittle and psychologically castrate men, while not really focusing on the sex act itself.

    Boxer

  45. Spike says:

    If denial of sex creates virtue, then the Western world must be full of virtuous men, with 25% of all marriages celibate, another 40% where men constantly have to ask for belated, begrudging and unenthusiastic sex and where only a small minority of “religious nuts” or “abusers” are happy with their sex lives.

    When you tell women this, they laugh and think it’s funny. Then when you state that anonymous surveys say that women arrive at marriage having had more partners and higher frequency of unmarried sex than ever before, they rush to tell you “That’s different!! Hamster …Hamster..”. When you tell them that the only conclusion you can draw from such surveys – done by proper polling companies – tell you that the Western World is producing “a bunch of sluts who fuck their husbands like prudes”*, You get angry denial of Apocalyptic proportions.

    I’ve said this before, a paraphrase of Paul Elam at A Voice For Men.Whenever I’ve said it in female company, whether at work, church lunches or social gatherings – all when it’s appropriate – the married women in the audience quickly rush to assure me of their “hot vixen” credentials, that they are part of that small percentage of marriages where their husbands are happy with their sex lives.

    Porn? It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The writer who said,
    “It’s been said women can’t compete with porn is wrong. Porn is just a bunch of pixels on a screen or dots on paper. It can’t feel, laugh, interact or touch. But porn comes into it’s own when women are difficult, high-stakes, entitles, manipulative and uncaring”.

    -had it 100% right.

    *H/T Rollo.

  46. Daniel Horton says:

    Thank you for the responses, Dale and Dalrock. I am reading through the post you linked now. I greatly appreciate the wisdom understanding brought to the issue.

  47. The Interpreter says:

    Are wives “not sinning” if they refuse to spend their husband’s money to feed their husband’s parents at Christmas?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4063188/Would-make-family-PAY-Christmas-dinner-women-aren-t-ashamed-admit-one-makes-profit.html

  48. Pingback: A god we must obey. | Dalrock

  49. Pingback: Fighting for his Lady’s honor. | 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