Rubbing body parts together.

Deti noted in the comments of the last post that there is a deep aversion in modern Christians to the idea that both spouses (not just husbands) owe sex to each other, as outlined in 1 Cor 7.

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

This is true, and it is tangled up with the modern elevation of romance/emotion out of all proportion. The belief is that marital sex needs to be purified by romance, or it is unseemly. You can see this in the wording of both Mohler’s and Moore’s pieces.

Mohler writes:

Many individuals–especially young men–hold a false expectation of what sex represents within the marriage relationship. Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same. While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.

By definition, sex within marriage is not merely the accomplishment of sexual fulfillment on the part of two individuals who happen to share the same bed. Rather, it is the mutual self-giving that reaches pleasures both physical and spiritual. The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.

Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

Romance/emotion is needed to make married sex “spiritual”. Otherwise it is dirty. 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). Telling her to stop the nonsense and have sex with her husband when she isn’t channeling this emotional holiness is horrifying. That would just be rubbing body parts together!

And rubbing body parts together is what Mohler explains is the real problem with porn. Not (fundamentally) that it is channeling sexual desire outside of marriage, but that it is channeling sexual desire outside of emotion. The problem is (as Mohler explains it) that when men can view porn their wives’ ability to control them via denial of sex is weakened, and this means the priestess/wife can’t enforce the need to bless sex with romantic love.

Likewise, Moore explains that porn is satanic not because it is focusing sexual desire outside of marriage, but because it lacks romance and emotional intimacy:

Pornography is uniquely satanic because it drives you further, and further, and further from intimacy. Why? Because there is an occult pull upon you that is driving you toward the kind of mystery and the kind of intimacy that you are designed to find in the one-flesh union. It severs that away from real life—covenant, flesh and blood love—in such a way that you become numbed over to the joy of sexual intimacy itself.

Pornography lures you in with sexiness; and then, totally eviscerates your capacity for sexual intimacy. Pornography will move in and destroy you because it will start to create you into the kind of person for whom intimacy is simply body parts rubbing together—not one flesh.

This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, Book of Oprah, Dr. Russell Moore, Frigidity, Marriage, New Morality, Romantic Love, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Rubbing body parts together.

  1. Pingback: Rubbing body parts together. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Cane Caldo says:

    Can’t be thinking Mommie wanted to get boned by a man! That’s not what Mommie does. Mommie rewards good behavior with sacrificial treats and privileges.

  3. Frank K says:

    “Mohler writes:

    Many individuals–especially young men–hold a false expectation of what sex represents within the marriage relationship. Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same”

    Mohler has obviously never heard of Alpha Lays, Beta Pays. Women most definitely get the tingles, but they typically only get them from “non husband material” men.

  4. So if the performers in porn have a candlelight dinner before doing the wild thing, everything’s copacetic!

  5. thedeti says:

    Yes. And bound up with the idea that sex must be “holy” and “spiritual” is that the wife has to “feel it” or “be into it” before she should be expected to have sex. If she doesn’t feel it, or “feel attracted” or is not “turned on”, then the resulting sex isn’t legitimate.

    this is why a wife who isn’t attracted to her husband equates sex with him to rape. To an unattracted woman, sex with the man she’s not attracted to is basically rape. If she doesn’t feel it or feel like having sex with him, then whatever sex she has with him is “dirty” or “illegitimate” or “bad”. It’s sex she should not have. If it were otherwise, she wouldn’t feel that way.

  6. thedeti says:

    Following up on that …. it is not the marriage covenant, or the fact of marriage, that solemnizes or sanctions the sexual conduct between husband and wife. Rather, the only thing that allows for sex or says the sex in a marriage is OK, is the wife’s feelings.

  7. Gunner Q says:

    “Not (fundamentally) that it is channeling sexual desire outside of marriage, but that it is channeling sexual desire outside of emotion.”

    Or even better, channeling sexual desire outside of taxation. A lot of Churchian behavior towards men can be summed up “You haven’t worked enough to be happy yet!”

  8. feeriker says:

    …. it is not the marriage covenant, or the fact of marriage, that solemnizes or sanctions the sexual conduct between husband and wife. Rather, the only thing that allows for sex or says the sex in a marriage is OK, is the wife’s feelings.

    Now if only we can get the churchian marriagewreckers to put their philosophy into terms this honest, I might afford them a bit of grudging respect for it.

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

  10. cnystrom62 says:

    “it is tangled up with the modern elevation of romance/emotion” – This is a subset of the idea that marriage is about personal fulfilment instead of a Christian ministry for the glorification of God.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @cnystrom62

    “it is tangled up with the modern elevation of romance/emotion” – This is a subset of the idea that marriage is about personal fulfilment instead of a Christian ministry for the glorification of God.

    While I think there is a parallel there, the idea that romantic love is needed to purify married sex goes back to (at least some) puritans. I’ll do a post on this when I have some time, but in a nutshell many early church fathers (Augustine, St. Jerome, etc.) believed that sex in marriage had to have minimum (or better yet no) passion. A man who had passionate sex with his wife was treating her like an adulteress/whore, and therefore defiling the marriage bed. Then came the middle ages and the idolization of “pure” courtly (romantic) love, which as CS Lewis points out is by its nature adulterous (even though theoretically non sexual). Puritans tried to corral romantic love back into marriage, but then we ended up with some like Milton going too far and arguing that if the romance was gone marital sex was no longer holy; a husband having sex where one or both of them didn’t feel strong romantic feelings was treating his wife like a whore, and therefore defiling the marriage bed. Not surprisingly, this was a foundation for Milton’s argument in favor of no fault divorce.

  12. mike says:

    let’s not forget most of these guys have no frame of reference for what true sexual desire actually looks like. They’ve always had to earn sex and can’t see why any other husband wouldn’t have to. The idea that a wife could be turned on by her hot husband does not compute.

  13. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

    The funny part about this is that while Al believes the wife has a fundamental right to refuse her husband within the bounds of marriage, he simultaneously believes that the man has no right to refuse his favors to the woman — even before the marriage has taken place.

    From his Reflecting on “The Mystery of Marriage:”

    . . . . . . Deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of a Christian responsibility. The problem may be simple sloth, personal immaturity, a fear of commitment, or an unbalanced priority given to work and profession. On the part of men, it may also take the shape of a refusal to grow up and take the lead in courtship. There are countless Christian women who are prayerfully waiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What are these guys waiting for?

    Could it be that they suspect marriage will offer no relief from sexual temptation when they find themselves tied to a “Christian wife” who is encouraged by her pastor to constantly refuse him? Or that they know those same “Christian women” who whine about being single are only bemoaning the latest alpha bad boy that never returned after the first night spent in her bedroom? Or that they’re aware that while there are Biblical commands from Saints Peter and Paul for spouses not to reject their partners sexually, there is no similar command for single men to take a wife out of a collective obligation to the needs of women?

    . . . . . Naaww, couldn’t be. If that were the case, it would mean the good Rev. Al is now officially inventing new sins to condemn even as he overlooks the ones already taking place. MAN UP, sons! Al Mohler’s god(dess?) commands it.

    Link for Mohler’s message can be found here: http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2010/reflecting-on-the-mystery-of-marriage

  14. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Likewise, Moore explains that porn is satanic not because it is focusing sexual desire outside of marriage, but because it lacks romance and emotional intimacy:

    He should also mention Feminism and promiscuity. Crickets chirping…

  15. Damn Crackers says:

    This link on Augustine’s views of sex in marriage should help:
    http://www.jknirp.com/aug3.htm

    “In this remarkable passage Augustine suggests that the good of fidelity can be present even if the couple’s primary aim is not to produce children, but simply to enjoy sexual pleasure. Good is produced because the intrinsically unstable or unrestrained character of sexual desire is given a certain limit and order within a relationship characterized by fidelity. Fidelity is, as Augustine says, “a sort of mutual servitude,” in which spouses agree to support each other in their weakness. Not even the call that one partner might feel towards celibacy can cancel this duty of fidelity. Augustine made an important distinction in this context between the spouse who seeks to have intercourse primarily out of sexual desire and the spouse who agrees to have intercourse primarily out of the duty of fidelity. The one who acts out of lust (that is, out of greed or selfishness) is guilty of what he calls a “forgivable fault” (venialis culpa). But the one who engages in sex to support his or her partner is acting out of love and compassion. For such a person, therefore, no guilt is involved.”

    – quotes from St. Augustine’s De bono coniugali

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Damn Crackers

    From what I’ve read of Augustine, he saw two ways that marital sex could not be sinful. The first was if the couple’s minds were focused on procreation at the time. The second is the one you list, where one spouse is sinning but the other is keeping them from sinning in a worse way. Elsewhere he says that the goal should be for the couple to stop having sex as soon/young as possible, to prepare them for old age.

  17. Snowy says:

    Mohler et al are all about feelz. They classify feelz into types, with those that legitimise sex (the ‘spiritual’ feelings of being of ‘one flesh’) and are only experienced by women, and those that illegitimise sex (the Satanic non-intimate, separated-flesh feelings) and are only experienced by men. Typical vagina-worshipping, men-hating manginas. They provide insight into the workings of their own minds.

    Funny thing is, they’ll turn this crap right around when it suits them, and say that fapping to porn gets men so emotionally involved with the porn-stars as to create soul-ties and such BS. Wish they’d make up their minds.

  18. Lost Patrol says:

    Elsewhere he says that the goal should be for the couple to stop having sex as soon/young as possible, to prepare them for old age.

    Good grief. And what was old age then – maybe 40ish if you had a trade – mid 30’s for the serfs?

  19. Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

    Man I catch so much shit for asserting that men’s concept of love is idealistic while women’s concept of love is opportunistic, then I read something like this coming from the same “christian” element that wants to run me up the flagpole for pointing out the same thing.

    Dunno if you had a chance to see this yet Dal:
    https://markdriscoll.org/sermons/3-marriage-myths-3-spirit-strengths/

    If you cue it up to about the 11:00 mark you’ll get Driscoll’s concept of covenantal marriage vs. contractual marriage. When you put what Mohler writes here next to what Driscoll is suggesting you see how his covenantal marriage falls apart for the same reasons Driscoll suggests – it’s all about a constant earning of a wife’s intimacy. It all comes back to transactional opportunism for women, only in the church that opportunism is enthusiastically endorsed and sanctified by Blue Pill male cheerleaders.

    Driscoll’s covenantal marriage IS a contractual marriage because men are expected to perform according to contractual terms set by their wives as their sole arbitrators.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    Damn Crackers, Dalrock:
    I have not read Augustine but I have read biographical summaries. It looks to me that he seriously overreacted to his younger self. Very seriously overreacted. Like an alcoholic who gets sober and then goes around trying to ban alcohol society wide.

  21. Pingback: Rubbing body parts together. | Reaction Times

  22. CSI says:

    Yes. And bound up with the idea that sex must be “holy” and “spiritual” is that the wife has to “feel it” or “be into it” before she should be expected to have sex. If she doesn’t feel it, or “feel attracted” or is not “turned on”, then the resulting sex isn’t legitimate.

    This is the viewpoint of many feminists, minus the emphasis on spiritually of course. Sex must be freely given by the woman out of pure desire and nothing else. If the giving of sex is tainted by any sense of obligation, then it is deeply harmful to the woman’s psyche and quite possibly rape.

    And of course being married, even with its vows, doesn’t change this equation at all. The wife must still given her husband out of pure desire. I wonder how any honest mainstream feminist can believe in marriage at all.

    this is why a wife who isn’t attracted to her husband equates sex with him to rape. To an unattracted woman, sex with the man she’s not attracted to is basically rape. If she doesn’t feel it or feel like having sex with him, then whatever sex she has with him is “dirty” or “illegitimate” or “bad”. It’s sex she should not have. If it were otherwise, she wouldn’t feel that way.

    The term “rape” may be a bit strong here, but I get what you’re saying. From what I’ve been reading, when women lose sexual desire for their husbands not only do they lose their libido, they may come to find sexual touch or even the thought of sex with him unpleasant, repulsive even. Even if they were attracted to him early in the marriage. Michelle Langley covers this in her books. It seems like a strange glitch in the female mind. How would you get around this in a committed Christian marriage?

  23. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Rollo Tomassi
    Driscoll’s covenantal marriage IS a contractual marriage because men are expected to perform according to contractual terms set by their wives as their sole arbitrators.

    It’s a handy bait-and-switch that allows the church to keep up the claim that they’re preaching the whole of the Word. When the husband doesn’t work hard enough, doesn’t provide properly, doesn’t help out around the house, and fails to “lead spiritually” then it’s time to wag a finger and remind the men that they are in a pattern of sin, and that as God’s followers they’re called to a higher set of expectations. But when the wife cuts off her husband from sex, disrespects him in public, then has sex with a fellow church member and sires his bastard offspring* it’s officially time to remind her that the nature of God is to be merciful, and so the man must now welcome her back with open arms and offer the same love and forgiveness that Christ gives his church.

    Then the church turns and says, “See? We preach both law AND grace!” And they’re right: The men will be preached the law, and the women will be preached grace. Speaking for myself, I like the gospel they offer the women better — and that probably has something to do with why I don’t attend anymore.

    *That last description is no exaggeration. Click the following link if you really want to find out how far the church is willing to go in making you embrace cuckoldry: http://www.fortifiedmarriages.com/Images/Gods%20restoration.pdf

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    St. Augustine was a momma’s-boy.

    How would you get around this in a committed Christian marriage?

    You don’t get around it. You live through it with grace and perseverance.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    I have not read Augustine but I have read biographical summaries. It looks to me that he seriously overreacted to his younger self. Very seriously overreacted. Like an alcoholic who gets sober and then goes around trying to ban alcohol society wide.

    My understanding is that Augustine was a moderate on this issue in his day.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    Dunno if you had a chance to see this yet Dal:
    https://markdriscoll.org/sermons/3-marriage-myths-3-spirit-strengths/

    If you cue it up to about the 11:00 mark you’ll get Driscoll’s concept of covenantal marriage vs. contractual marriage.

    I haven’t. I saw where you pointed it out before, but lacked the will to watch a Driscoll sermon. Since you gave me a starting point that should make it easier.

  27. Frank K says:

    Given the existence of “no fault divorce” I would posit that there is no such thing these days as a contractual marriage. What we have instead is “at will” marriage. Given the fact that cash and prizes are awarded to the woman should she decide to nuke the marriage it’s amazing that any man is still getting married these days.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Can’t be thinking Mommie wanted to get boned by a man! That’s not what Mommie does. Mommie rewards good behavior with sacrificial treats and privileges.

    Hilarious! Yes, I think this is at least part of it.

    Edit: He was like a little boy that night.

  29. “While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.

    The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.”

    To me such pastors seemed utterly detached from the reality of the modern day sexual marketplace, not to mention woefully disconnected with their audience.

    The reason why the expression “cock carousel” has such broad application and use in the 21st century (no pun intended), is because it serves as a descriptive and observational term for the sober reality of what has become the sexual market place, particularly from the standpoint of Western men who were once marry-minded.

    Also, when a priest or a pastor suggests that women today have a deeper, more profound, emotional and more romantic connection in acts sexual congress than men do (as men are obviously only driven solely by their carnal sexual appetite), such statements should be laughed off the stage.

    If, in the age of the “cock carousel”, deeper, more emotional, sexual connections by women do in fact take place (I have serious doubts), then they are having many of them indeed, and this probably explains well enough why, by the time ladies are willing to finally dismount and “settle down” at 28-35, they really have nothing left in the tank for their husbands. On top of that, now church pastors can alleviate any sexual obligations for her, and give her as a wife an kind of apostolic license to ignore scripture, including 1 Corinthians 7:3.

    Well, such remarks are fine print for any prospective grooms out there to consider.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    constrainedlocus
    To me such pastors seemed utterly detached from the reality of the modern day sexual marketplace, not to mention woefully disconnected with their audience.

    The older ones are, the Keller / Moore / Piper Boomers apparently have no clue.
    Younger preachers? I can’t say for sure, but some that I have met seem to be so deeply blue-pill betaized, so incredibly nearsighted because they don’t have The Glasses, that they simply can’t see what is right in front of them. Romantic notions of womanly purity combined with a betaized ideal of what a “servant heart” should be like?

    There likely is some degree of “ought” in all the writing and talking as well; they are talking what “ought” to be true, what they’ve been told by a lot of authority figures ought to be true. Lyn87 left a church because the governing body wouldn’t discipline a woman. I know other men who have walked right up to the edge of leaving a church over things like that. The “ought” can be really strong.

    Reminds me of medical doctors in the 19th century who concluded that a woman could not conceive unless she had an orgasm. That some sort of orgasm was required for conception. Think about this, they came to a conclusion that flew in the face of millennia of human history, because it fit what they deduced from anatomy textbooks and dissections. It’s absurd, but true.

  31. RPC says:

    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

  32. CSI says:

    “While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.

    The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act.

    I think there is some truth to this. On average women do seem to have a need for some kind of emotion fulfillment with sex, whereas men can more readily just have sex for the sake of sex.

    What the pastor here doesn’t understand is what kind of emotional is necessary. He seems to think only divine spiritual love can do the job. Actually it seems that emotions like excitement from an attractive new partner, the thrill of being newly married, or emotional drama are the ones women are more likely to need. When a marriage has settled into the mundane, that’s when a women is likely to lose the desire for sex.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    CSI
    I think there is some truth to this. On average women do seem to have a need for some kind of emotion fulfillment with sex, whereas men can more readily just have sex for the sake of sex.

    Nope. Sorry, this is a myth, a story that we’ve been told, that women tell themselves when they are busy rationalizing. If what you say was true, no women would be riding the Cock Carousel, rubbing body parts together on a Saturday night. Women are just as sexual as men. Women’s sexuality is different from that of men. Just for a start, find a copy of Nancy Friday’s “My Secret Garden” in a used bookstore and read it. Put that “sugar and spice and everything nice” guff away, it is fake.

    Women and men have sexual natures that can be directed in a controlled manner. Covert vs. overt is just an implementation detail.

  34. OKRickety says:

    Darwinian Arminian said on December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm
    ‘Then the church turns and says, “See? We preach both law AND grace!” And they’re right: The men will be preached the law, and the women will be preached grace.’

    Great insight! Who knew the church would provide a new double standard regarding sexual behavior?

  35. AR is correct.

    Women are just as sexual for men, but in different ways.

    You would get crucified in Church for suggesting that things that “attract” or “sexual turn on” a woman are Donal’s Power/personality, status, athleticism, looks, and money (PSALM/LAMPS). Whereas men who are primarily turned on by looks are demonized.

    That’s not even going into something even more “evil” such as the fact that many women have rape/dominance fantasies, and actually get very turned on being “man handled” so-to-speak.

    God forbid that you enjoy man handling your wife… and that she enjoys it too.

  36. God created man and woman’s genitals to be rubbed together. In the marital bed. Romance has nothing to do with this, nothing.

  37. da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozo says:

    lzozlzlozoz

    merry xmas dalrorkcaas!!!

    i have been busy choosing my cabinetsa after not only running for da presidency but winntings tooz. hence my abenceszfrom da blogopshere.

    make americasz da great bookz formenz again lzozzlzlozozo

    zlozozoz

    merry xmasz!!!

    zlzozozozoozoz

  38. Note that by claiming that only a very specific kind of sex with your spouse is moral, they are policing sex between husband and wife in a way that don’t when it comes to sex between boyfriend and girlfriend. If you want to be restricted to lovey-dovey, slow-motion “romantic” sex, get married. If you would like to have more passionate, exciting sex, then you’d better stay away from marriage. It just propagates the evil message that marriage is about boring sex while the fun times are for when you’re “young and single” (aka fornicating).

  39. donalgraeme says:

    Dalrock is correct, Augustine really was a “moderate” of his time. There was a huge strain of Gnostic thought running through the Church at the time (plus ca change, and all that). Marriage was being attacked, and so was sexuality in marriage. The Western Church in particular had some serious troubles in this area. Augustine was trying to defend marriage, and that inspired his works. He did so to the best of his abilities, but as has been pointed out, his own past got in the way a bit. Fortunately John Chrysostom offered a better defense of marriage (he flat out called it a pure state, no gnostic nonsense there). Unfortunately, his influence was significant in the East, and not so much in the West. Hence the Western Church Fathers had more influence in the West, and so their views predominated Western teaching for a very, very long time.

  40. donalgraeme says:

    This drivel that Mohler et al advocate is just neo-Gnostic heresy. They have it wrapped in a different package, but it is the same old errors recycled again. Some heresies just never go away.

  41. Bruce says:

    “Women are just as sexual for men, but in different ways.”

    I would say the degree of a woman’s sexual desire varies with the time of the month, peaking when they are ovulating. At least that’s how it seems. Men’s desire is steadily high throughout the month.

  42. Novaseeker says:

    CSI
    I think there is some truth to this. On average women do seem to have a need for some kind of emotion fulfillment with sex, whereas men can more readily just have sex for the sake of sex.

    Nope. Sorry, this is a myth, a story that we’ve been told, that women tell themselves when they are busy rationalizing. If what you say was true, no women would be riding the Cock Carousel, rubbing body parts together on a Saturday night.

    Right, which also has to do with:

    I would say the degree of a woman’s sexual desire varies with the time of the month, peaking when they are ovulating. At least that’s how it seems. Men’s desire is steadily high throughout the month.

    Women’s desire is less constant and less consistent, depending on cycle. It’s also, as Rollo has pointed out based on numerous academic studies, directed at different kinds of men at different times of the cycle. So for much of the cycle, women are attracted to more of the beta/dad/softer man type (this is reflected in romantic sex, etc.), while during the ovulatory phase, women are attracted to more stereotypically masculine men (this is reflected in the passionate/urgent sex, etc.). Both are aspects of women’s desire and sexuality, but they cycle back and forth — something which is not present in male sexuality at all. It can make it extremely confusing for men (and even confusing for many women themselves) because they are attracted and act on that attraction in what can appear to be inconsistent ways at different times in the cycle.

  43. Hose_B says:

    CSI
    I think there is some truth to this. On average women do seem to have a need for some kind of emotion fulfillment with sex, whereas men can more readily just have sex for the sake of sex.

    Nope. Sorry, this is a myth,

    ALL of us crave the emotional connection as well as the physical release that sex provides. The physical release itself provides emotional chemicals to flood our brains, both male and female. The emotional and the physical CAN and DO operate independently. (Cads and Carousel riders) but It is only part of the beautiful picture of human sexuality as God intended. And a big part of the reason that extramarital sex cheapens what sex is and means. It is chasing the physical release, but with someone they have no emotional connection to. Robotic.

    Pastors who make women feel that sex is Dirty are ROBBING these women of the NATURAL emotional connection good sex with their husband would have provided. They stir up the fears so much that these women cannot or will not make the connection that when you feel close to someone, you want to have sex with them and when you have sex with someone, you feel close to them (assuming there was some emotional bonding already).

    Porn is similar in that it is chasing the physical release without the emotional connection, but there is more danger than we realize because of the damage to the VIEWERS PSYCHE. Instead of actually HAVING sex like the alpha, he is watching an Alpha have sex. Regardless that its staged and fake, the subconscous brain only recognizes that SOMEONE ELSE is banging while you are stroking. Married men will turn to porn before cheating because they think its “Less harmful” without ever seeing the slow damage it may do to their alpha POTENTIAL.

    In Marriage, there is always the charge to help each other. The wife helps the head and the the head benefits the wife. Just as it is loving to waive the right to her body if it helps her (by mutual agreement and for a short time), IE if she is sick, or honestly exhausted, etc the husband could show love by putting her need in front of his. (this works gender reversed too) And it is loving to provide sex simply because the other one wants it. This loving give and take is the ideal. We usually let our selfishness ruin it. Men and women.

  44. Hose_B says:

    @Bruce
    I would say the degree of a woman’s sexual desire varies with the time of the month, peaking when they are ovulating. At least that’s how it seems. Men’s desire is steadily high throughout the month.

    Stereotypes only give average generalities and are often based on “accepted” surface observations.
    Libido varies wildly by person and is affected by individuality, gender, age etc. It isn’t constant nor do stereotypes apply to everyone. Which is why the Bible doesn’t prescribe how much sex to have. It is “Whenever either of you wants it” The person denied sex will ALWAYS lose. whether male or female. Females just tend to justify it more.

  45. Lab Guy says:

    This is why I do not bother with Christianity as a religion. This obsession over sex and how bad it is even if you are in marriage is the typical message. And I’m certainly not wasting my time dating a woman for months and months to fulfill some religious nonsense. I’m doubtful the skygod looks down upon me because I slept with a woman without jumping through the legal hoops. Sex is a biological need and Christians who disparage that will never attract me to a church. I do agree that parenting should be done by two committed heterosexual people, but beyond that, nothing wrong with sex in of itself.

  46. Jeff says:

    They also use that same verse to say not to deprive the wife of…. other things.

    Due to the pastor’s high education and being forced to come up with other reasons the verse can be used in seminary, the say it also means not to deprive of a reprieve from cleaning, vacations, free timd to do what she wants and allow her to delegate to her husband.

    During counseling I got into an argument with the pastor that that verse is very clear in what it means and that he was massaging it out of context. He conceded. I wasn’t having issues with sex at the time, he was just using it to manipulate me into chore play.

  47. DrTorch says:

    I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

    By itself this is actually a reasonable thing to say. It’s fair to say that a man owes his wife emotional affection just like we believe she owe him physical access. However, Mohler manages to miss several points in his own statement.

    1. The wife also owes the man emotional support, typically in the form of respect. Respect has many aspects, but Eggeritch rightfully points out that it includes sex.

    And not coincidentally, if a woman disciplines herself to respect her husband, it’s reported that she feels more sexually attracted to him.

    2. That Mohler tied in the word “earn” in his original statement shows that he doesn’t understand the covenant. Even if the man is not doing his part, that doesn’t negate the wife’s obligation. (and vice versa).

    3. Moreover, even Mohler uses the word “would” as in that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.. So he concedes the point that some wives still don’t respond even when their husbands are acting as they’ve been taught, but he still doesn’t go forward and push the point that women need to obey the Scriptures.

    What’s worse is that I’d wager that the majority of men in churches that align w/ Mohler’s teaching ARE providing the emotional support that they’ve been taught women want. They are being obedient. But Mohler continues to put the wife’s feelings (and choices) as a failure and sin of the husband, as Dalrock has pointed out frequently.

    4. The ultimate irony is that what Mohler truly misses is the emotional affection that a wife wants isn’t the beta supplication that he’s endorsing… She wants an alpha! If Mohler et al would teach men to be men, their concepts would match reality better.

  48. theasdgamer says:

    @Bruce

    “Women are just as sexual for men, but in different ways.”

    I would say the degree of a woman’s sexual desire varies with the time of the month, peaking when they are ovulating. At least that’s how it seems. Men’s desire is steadily high throughout the month.

    Women’s sexual desire spikes around sexually desirable men, even though their base sex drive is far below men’s sex drive. When a woman’s sexual desire spikes, she can get VERY aggressive. It takes either a man with very high status or with excellent game to cause this. Women’s sexual desire is opportunistic, which is why we only see their desire spike in special situations.

  49. Opus says:

    On the basis of the field research that I have undertaken I can say that women do as CSI says require emotional fulfillment. The fact that they are on the carousel does not negate this need – indeed Carousel-riders need even more emotional reassurance than those who are chaste for it persuades them that they are not sluts – the word slut or the thought of it being their kryptonite.

    Women will be prepared to treat sex as if they are at a gay bathhouse when Hell freezes over – and not a moment before.

  50. thedeti says:

    Add my $ .02.

    One of the biggest lies women tell men; and that society tells men, is that women need to have, even necessarily want to have, some emotional connection with a man before she will have sex with him. It’s not true that women always want or need “emotion fulfillment” concomitantly with sex.

    A woman can easily have sex with a man because she finds him very sexually attractive, and doesn’t require any emotional investment other than a few hours of flirting and banter and a few dollars spent on drinks. All that’s necessary is that she finds him sexually attractive, and that the risk of adverse consequences and judgment are less than the risks of having sex.

    This is the kind of thing that hits a lot of married men like a freight train. He learns that he was required to build all kinds of trust, invest all sorts of emotion into the relationship, and invest time and money to get her to have sex; then he learns she gave it up to all sorts of guys after a few hours. You learn she wasn’t having sex with you because she wanted it to “mean something”; it was because she just didn’t want to have sex with you. You learn that sex doesn’t really “mean something” to her at all; and that all she needed to have sex with other men was that he be very sexually attractive. The fact of it is; she was withholding sex from you because she just wasn’t sexually attracted to you.

  51. thedeti says:

    “Carousel-riders need even more emotional reassurance”

    Disagree. Many women just need illusory emotional reassurance in the form of quickly built comfort and lack of judgment. All a very attractive man has to tell a woman is “do what you feel is right” and “I think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to do without any judgment” and “no one’s going to judge you”. If she’s not giving it up to a particular man, it’s not because she lacks emotional reassurance; it’s because she lacks sexual attraction to him.

  52. Frank K says:

    >> If she’s not giving it up to a particular man, it’s not because she lacks emotional reassurance; it’s because she lacks sexual attraction to him.

    AKA, Alpha Lays, Beta Pays (or the cruder AFBB)

    This is the red pill that terrifies everyone in a position of authority, for once men truly understand this they know that marriage and parenthood is harmful to them and will avoid it like the plague.

    And this is nothing new. My late mother told me that when she was in high school in the 1950s that most girls put out for the hot guys, and later married a reliable beta schlub, who no doubt received rationed sex from he after the wedding. The only difference was that they had to be more discrete than today and they didn’t ride the carousel for very long, since they married young. They also had the good sense to not invite their old boyfriends/lovers to the wedding, which apparently isn’t all that unusual today,

  53. theasdgamer says:

    @thedeti @opus

    I think you guys are being waaay too hard on the married girls, heh. They are having lots of sex…just not with their husbands.

  54. Jason says:

    Was reading “For Men Only” by Shaunti Feldham…her husband was allowed to make remarks here and there in the book….anyway…one section focused about ‘sex’ and we “Christian” men were told that “sex for women is about her feelings outside the bedroom”

    Not the physical act, not intimacy. Not anything biblical here…..even though she claims to hold a “biblical worldview” on things…..but frequently talks about evolution (for men…that we evolved to be hunters and providers only)

  55. justdoit says:

    I’m having trouble posting, trying now from another machine.

  56. The romance aspect of sexual purification has always been a bow to hypergamy. There is something deep in the male brain that suggests that something as low as a marriage contract should hold swat over female hypergamy. The hypergamy is a deeper magic and heretical Christians don’t have a Christ who is the foundation for marriage. It’s just a piece of paper and paper won’t bind the hypergamy.

  57. They Call Me Tom says:

    In what world to those last two paragraphs make any sense?

    That pastor is stating a contradiction to start, then performs a couple word substitutions, as if it removes the contradiction, but fails to do so…and then changes the words one more time in a feeble attempt to delineate sexual intercourse and sexual intimacy…and fails again. Did the pastor get a lobotomy to make room for a Hamster wheel?

    Sexual intercourse and sexual intimacy are synonyms, no number of word substitutions will change that. It is in embracing each others sexuality that a husband and wife become one. It’s the seal on the deal. Without sex, you might get 75% there or 80% there, but they’re never truly of one flesh and one spirit until they are naked, sweaty and breathing hard. Let the pastor try to word substitute his way out of that reality.

  58. Opus says:

    @Deti

    I have been abused by women who forced me to have sexual intercourse with them with expressions such as ‘tell me you love me’. Had they asked me to tell them that the moon was made of cream cheese I would enthusiastically have agreed and added if needed to seal the deal that not only was it so constructed but that it was especially runny. Why they forced themselves on me like that (rather than seeking out a bona-fide alpha) I do not know for recently I have come to the sad but inevitable conclusion that women were not really sexually turned on by me but assumed that as they were now prepared to settle that I must be of the marrying type. No one sent me the memo and I carried on in blissful ignorance of their true intentions (which I then frustrated).

    MAG(B)A – Make America Great (Britain) Again

  59. justdoit says:

    QUOTE: Mohler writes: Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same.

    The above is some claptrap that Albert Mohler has learned from watching Oprah in 1995. It isn’t true at all. In fact, women’s sex is MORE oriented toward pure physical pleasure than men’s sex. Men have much more of an emotional pleasure of sex than women do. It’s true, and it needs to be said.

    And then the point must be made that for woman, marriage is about monetary and material pleasure, not sexual pleasure. That’s why women have always been trying to get out of the “obligation” of marital sex, to concentrate on non-marital pleasurable sex.

    You could read 100s of sex-help books from 1960 until today, a not one of them would tell this truth.

  60. justdoit says:

    AR (Anonymous Reader) mentioned Nancy Friday and My Secret Garden. I read that fantasy-collection book when it came out many years ago. Only years after did I realize that all the fantasies were fake. I don’t mean that they were not written and submitted by real women, women other than Nacy Friday herself. They probably were.

    However, most of the women that contributed “fantasies” to her books were lying about what (or rather whom) they were fantasizing about. For example, lots of the women would involve their husbands in their written fantasies, but in reality we all know that their husbands were not part of the fantasy at all. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, it is all very clear.

    The same principle applies to any 1960-1970-1980-1990-2000-2010 book or meme about the nature of female sexuality. In 1960, they wrote books about how sex was not good because their husbands did not engage in enough foreplay. Total lie. The problem always was that the husbands were not deemed alpha enough. Each decade has its own new set of lies, invented because the old lies were at risk of being exposed ,and also were becoming ineffective. In 1970, it was that husbands had to perform oral sex. That did not help, either. In 1980s, the lie was that more participation in housework would improve sex. And so on and so forth. Right now the lie seems to be that the wooly concept of “intimacy” is the secret sauce to good sex. Again, a total fabrication that is designed specifically to be hard to disprove.

    Perhaps we should call it “the problem that has no name” (yes, sarcasm), except the name LYING.

  61. Dave says:

    Throughout the scripture, God never tried to shame anyone for their sexual appetite. Indeed, He is most liberal about it, and he encouraged sexual expression at every turn. From the few instances when He restricted couples from having sex, we can assume that He took it for granted that they would be sexing away as a matter of course:

    1. Feeling horny towards the secretary at the office? Go do it with your spouse, like rabbits! Your body won’t often notice the difference.
    2. Don’t have a spouse? Go get one, then do it like rabbits! The major reason to marry is for companionship, and sex is the closest form of companionship you can have with any other person; having kids is a natural result of this.
    3. A young man raped a young virgin woman because he finds her very attractive? Let him make peace with her dad, and go do it with her afterwards, like rabbits!
    4. To the woman: you don’t feel like having sex with your spouse? Play along; your man is so full of passion he won’t notice the difference!
    5. Your decision not to have sex with your spouse must never be made unilaterally, because, without a “specially endowed ability”, no human being can repress the sexual drive–not for long anyway.
    6. If you must refrain from having sex with your spouse, then call a major conference about that decision first, and make sure you’re both on the same page, and that it is for a specific, mutually beneficial, reason.
    7. Even then, get back to having sex as quickly as possible, the way rabbits do it, because not having sex is not normal for a couple!
    8. The only “cure” for sexual drive is to have sex. Prayers, fastings, bible quotes, “church rules”, societal “laws”, etc, are powerless against it. That is why the Roman Catholic priests and their nuns will continue to do it, while pretending to speak Latin.

  62. Dave II says:

    I have it on good faith that women are actuallly more sexual than men. And so far reality seems to confirm this. I have never heard of a man screaming and crying just from how good it felt. Women’s physical reactions certainly imply that they feel much more intense pleasure during the act than a man does (and more displeasure if the man is not to their liking). And also let us not forget that it was women who made porn mainstream (50 Shades of Grey).

  63. Dave II says:

    Also, welcome back gbfm. How cool would it be if you really were Donald Trump?

  64. Cynthia says:

    @CSI

    I think there is some truth to this. On average women do seem to have a need for some kind of emotion fulfillment with sex, whereas men can more readily just have sex for the sake of sex.

    There’s a distinction that needs to be drawn between emotion and emotional context. While it is absolutely true that women don’t need to be in love with a guy to have an orgasm, and some women are shockingly unemotional about sex, there’s more going on than just physical bits moving around for us. We have to have that psychological component; it’s about the story we’re telling ourselves about what we’re doing.

    If you’re one of those women who likes having lots of no-strings sex, you’re either incredibly damaged emotionally and CAN’T feel anything real, or you’re in love with your grrrrlpower bravery and strength, or whatever. There’s something else going on in your head.

    In fact, that’s one of the reasons why written porn is so popular. You’re there for the narrative, not the physical input.

  65. CSI says:

    There’s a distinction that needs to be drawn between emotion and emotional context.

    Of course both men and women need to have some sort of emotion and emotional context around sex and their sexual partner, women on average need far more than men. Like I said, many women seem to need excitement, passion and drama to feel sexual, and are at great risk of losing their libido completely after a couple years of marriage.

    But the ability of most men to enjoy sex with little emotional context would seem inexplicable, alien, just plain wrong to many women. I think this is part of what feminists call “objectification”, which they regard as a great sin and something ideally to be trained out of boys. Thus a married couple having low-passion “maintenance” sex is the husband “objectifying” and “using” his wife. This is the attitude these preachers are supporting too. It is a profoundly feminist view.

    I have never heard of a man screaming and crying just from how good it felt.

    I would bet whenever a women is screaming and crying and loudly moaning and groaning she is faking it. I don’t think the way men and women experience sexual pleasure is that much different.

  66. Opus says:

    I was being entirely serious when I suggested earlier that – sadly – women were not sexually attracted to me in the way that they were to some men, and yet I am six feet tall, well proportioned and when I was recently looking at some photos (I had not seen for a while) of myself in my early twenties I was almost shocked by just how good looking I then was. Women, I conclude, all think that they are entitled to George Clooney or Brad Pitt. Mr Clooney and Mr Pitt could oblige but obviously to do so would have to stop short of matrimony. How then does one account for the fact that a soon as a member of the sister-hood decides to marry that all the other women who otherwise would not have given the unfortunate sap the time of day treat him as if their sister has in fact been asked to marry Mr Brad or Mir Pitt. I conclude that it is done by a mental sleight of hand whereby the women conclude that as their sister is utterly desirable her chosen man must (and all along) be that too.

    Do men need a mental element when indulging in sexual intercourse? Certainly a lot of women seem to feel the need to comment on the man’s physical proportions, which is always very flattering but I would think probably delusional – as every man reports the same flattery. This is only matched by their obvious faking of enthusiasm as the act proceeds, and despite the famous scene in that film, men can tell instantly when women fake it. Don’t, please, we are not interested, you only embarrass yourselves..

  67. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    This is why God included the Song of Solomon in scripture so as to show all future believers that passion in marriage is sanctified by God because of the very nature of marriage and the Imago Dei of each spouse. And sexual attractiveness and attraction to such is good the desire of which is fulfilled in the contest of marriage.

    Some Christians make the gnostic error that sexual attraction to a physical attractive female is evil. But that is dispelled by the Song of Solomon. Where the only issue is improper fulfilment.

  68. infowarrior1 says:

    @Frank K
    There is good reason why shotgun marriages exists. And why in the OT it requires the seducer to marry the virgin he seduced unless her father absolutely refuses to give her to him.

  69. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lab Guy

    You really seem to be clueless to how important this is to family integrity which are building blocks of civlization. Sex is not some kind of pleasurable experience but that which brings forth life or significantly impacts that. It is no simply just between 2 people but have repucussions that echoes down the generation. Like how it is destroying the black community in America.

  70. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lab Guy
    Sexual sublimation is what enabled civilization to take off in the 1st place through Patriarchy.

  71. Novaseeker says:

    I would bet whenever a women is screaming and crying and loudly moaning and groaning she is faking it. I don’t think the way men and women experience sexual pleasure is that much different.

    Eh, it’s different. Not sure about whether the loud noises are fake (and they often could be), but the sexual response is quite different. Many more erogenous zones. Orgasms last longer (or can) and can repeat in quick succession, and are not as focused as ours are. And so on. In the right context a woman can experience much more intense and prolonged sexual gratification than we can, even though I’d guess only a minority of women have actually ever experienced that — they can, and that’s different than what it is for us. What we have going for our side is accessibility — more easily aroused and more easily gratified. Beyond that, while I don’t doubt that there are lots of similarities in how the gratification feels to men and women in a basic way, the details are so different that it seems to me, and this matches my experience as well, that it is experienced rather differently by men and women.

  72. Ofelas says:

    Regarding the differences in sexual response of either sex etc: the pleasure part is just one of effects sex has on one’s being, and I would say that can be argued that women are (generally) affected by sex much more and in much more intense and thorough way, which is linked with the gratification or pleasure dimension in a manner of mutual enhancement. The deeper or stronger effect of sex on all her being makes sense from the point of view of basic physiology and the very different nature of the way each party acts in and experiences the sexual encounter – in other words: to penetrate and to be penetrated are very different things, just like to be on the receiving end of some intense banging versus delivering it. Woman’s sexual experience involves breaking her physical integrity and being acted upon, invaded, and affected by other person to the very essence of her being, and the impact of this ‘takeover’ generally is or can be so strong that she is literally melting, dissolving, losing boundaries, feeling like breaking into pieces under the pounding, and the thrusting penetration sort of feels like some axis that only holds her together as she’s losing control, she feels like the man fills her completely, like everywhere, not just the genital part, she is being had and owned and stuffed and ruled, submitting and giving full control to him. Which all of course means much more intense response from a woman (eg the screaming, crying, shivering, losing it completely, falling into some semiconscious trance-like state of total submission and giving in to whatever the man does).
    Nothing like that happens to a man during sex. He may have some intense feelings, but none of a kind of having other person filling (in both the literal physical and some emotional/psychological sense of deep impact on the person as a whole) him and having such overwhelming impact and control over him, triggering at some deeper level of psyche some intense submissive bonding and feeling of belonging to the other.
    Considering this reality of the very different nature of man’s and woman’s sexual experience, and the depth and intensity of its impact on each, (leaving aside the instinctive wiring to avoid cuckoldry), the (typically frowned upon from some perspective of some questionable ‘enlightened’ modernity or equalism or whatever) good old ‘double standard’ regarding man’s and woman’s sexual history and virginity would actually reflect something very real on the emotional or psychological level.

  73. Bee says:

    The number one way for a wife to serve, or be a helpmeet to her husband, is to sex him up frequently. A wife can serve her husband even when she does not feel passionate or emotional.

    The foundation of feminism is rebellion against God’s authority and God’s order. Part of that rebellion is rebelling against serving anyone, including their husband. They also rebel against serving their children; that is why they want abortion and daycare.

  74. Deti as usual cuts to the core truth

    “He learns that he was required to build all kinds of trust, invest all sorts of emotion into the relationship, and invest time and money to get her to have sex; then he learns she gave it up to all sorts of guys after a few hours. You learn she wasn’t having sex with you because she wanted it to “mean something”; it was because she just didn’t want to have sex with you. You learn that sex doesn’t really “mean something” to her at all;”

    Horseman’s observation
    After 10 minutes of interaction you know all you will ever need to know about how any particular woman acts.

  75. What Deti describes is the source of red pill rage.
    Which after working thru the five stages to acceptance it becomes indifference.
    After which no woman will ever own you or mean anything significant to you ever again.

  76. They become amusing little creatures. Like cocker spaniels.
    Cute, amusing, good for petting but no good working or in the woods or out hunting.
    Nice to see out and about but no man would be bothered to keep one in the hoiuse.

  77. FNG says:

    Women are like elephants to me. I like to look at ’em, but I wouldn’t want to own one.

    W.C. Fields

  78. Spike says:

    So, what do Messrs Moore and Mohler think of women who had one-night stands? And they aren’t pagan either. Many, many Christian women do the same. Just read their profiles on any dating site.They just don’t put out on the FIRST date.
    Women arrive at marriage with a significant number of sexual partners. Surveys differ, but agree on anywhere between 8 and 11 prior to the husband.

    Did all of these women have “spiritual sex” with their now-departed Alphas, or were they just ”rubbing body parts together” ?

    Why is it that only the husband is singled out for this unique form of malevolence?

  79. @thedeti
    “A woman can easily have sex with a man because she finds him very sexually attractive, and doesn’t require any emotional investment other than a few hours of flirting and banter and a few dollars spent on drinks. All that’s necessary is that she finds him sexually attractive, and that the risk of adverse consequences and judgment are less than the risks of having sex.”

    It may be summed up thusly:

    The right man with the right line at the right place and the right time.

    An attractive man with game and logistics sets it up and the fourth (the right time- anonymity, she’s ovulating) is just a matter of playing the odds.

    “This is the kind of thing that hits a lot of married men like a freight train. … You learn that sex doesn’t really “mean something” to her at all; and that all she needed to have sex with other men was that he be very sexually attractive.”

    The point is proven by the fact that after only a few moments of conversation and eye contact a nuclear line like “let’s fuck” will garner agreement. The freight train effect comes when one understands just how often it works. Especially on the elevator at a convention center hotel. And in Vegas, one is just as likely to hear the woman say that to the attractive man as their elevator goes up to the rooms.

  80. CSI says:

    Getting off topic here, I just had an argument about marriage with some feminists. Very interesting. I’m not Christian and I’ve never been married. But it seems to me that those marriage vows should mean something. When you swear to stick together until death regardless, that should mean something. No it means nothing apparently.

    And suggesting and married couple should try and stick together, even if they are an unhappy, provided there’s no physical abuse or adultery, well that makes me an abusive asshole. But then what’s the point of getting married at all? Ah, but by saying that I’m judging people who did get married.

    Okay lesson learned, so this is how modern marriage works apparently. Marriage is still valid, because it makes you feel happy on the marriage day and for a while afterward. But as soon as you stop feeling the happiness, then time to call if off. And marriage vows solemnly sworn? Just theatrics to enhance the happiness of the wedding day. Meaningless beyond that.

    Okay I’m not going there again, because this is something people feel strongly about, but the whole thing just seems absurd to me.

  81. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Most Churchianity pastors and churchgoers are seriously messed up. Why do you think books like Jesus Calling by Sarah Young are selling to these people. This book might as well been written by Eckardt Tolle or any of these new age types. Lots of eastern mysticism and Hinduism.

  82. Firesox says:

    Through propaganda from “Christian leaders” and other mainstream echo chambers, females are encouraged to breed with faggy male feminists exclusively (after riding the carousel of course). It makes things easier for the corrupt elites to control people in the future with no strong men around. Females bit the apple and broke up families because they had shiny stuff (goodies from divorce, etc.) dangled in front of them

    99% of women do not want to admit their inherent weaknesses and will bring down civilization literally because their egos can’t handle the truth that they crave/need to be controlled by someone. They actually had the choice of that someone being a loving, devoted husband or big daddy government who just wants slaves. Guess who they choice?

    Feminism is a cancer . Women have always had equal rights. They just didn’t want to put in the same amount of work as a man did. So they do the typical Marxist move- change the definition of a common word. Someone stumbling upon my post blue-pilled would never believe how I could say something like that. The mainstream meaning of feminism is “equal rights for women.” Only a monster wouldn’t support that, right? Wrong. What “feminism” claims to want was something THEY ALREADY HAD. Feminism means “gimme free stuff and power without any consequences.” THAT’S why feminism is evil.

    In my opinion, anyone who creates division amongst people who were already in harmony is a terrorist. This is what women now are. They screwed up the relationship between men and women because the government wanted more slaves. Taking care of kids at home with a loving providing spouse is literally the best situation ever. Women threw that all away to sleep with Chads and become corporate whores. Every woman you choose to associate with owes you an apology for how their actions have ruined gender relations, but there is a greater chance of hell freezing over than that happening. After all, since all men are meanies who created the patriarchy (to keep them alive), all women are responsible for their destructive hypergamy.

    Healthy adults are willing to associate with anyone who has a sense of decency and realizes how our actions affect others, and that means the current batch of argumentative whores (churchman or otherwise) do not deserve to even be looked at twice, let alone married.

    Basically, women must not be negotiated with, because everyone knows you never negotiate with terrorists. Historically, society crumbles as soon as men forget the fact that women have the emotional ability of a child. The difference this time is that men are so weak that they will give destructive technology to a creature who makes decisions based on her vagina.

    Won’t end well. Let this be noted for any potential future civilizations.

    “And in that day
    seven women shall take hold of one man,
    saying,
    We will eat our own bread,
    and wear our own apparel:
    only let us be called by thy name,
    to take away our reproach. ”
    Isaiah 4:1.

  83. MarcusD says:

    Any suggestions?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1034294

    Becoming a Catholic counselor/therapist- educational program advice?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1034196

  84. MarcusD says:

    Cornell, J’accuse…!
    http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/12/01/cornell-jaccuse/

    People say that universities are “safe spaces” – big daycare centers for spoiled babies. That is not my experience at all. My university experience is Soviet gulag – contempt, submission, humiliation, forced denouncement of God and culture, physical invasion – and then, a lessened person, flung out into the world to face years of coming to terms with the trauma. If you’re lucky and strong. Most of the women I knew who underwent abortions in college- that was their permanent induction into the Army of the Left.

    Think about it. What do evil armies do with their child soldiers? They make them kill. Then, after their first kill, the generals say to the new recruit: Your hands are bloody, there is no going back, you are one of us now.

  85. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    CSI: suggesting and married couple should try and stick together, even if they are an unhappy, provided there’s no physical abuse or adultery, well that makes me an abusive asshole.

    No, it’s only if you insist that a wife must stay in an unhappy marriage that makes you an abusive asshole. A husband must always stay in an unhappy marriage until the wife decides otherwise.

    I watched Lost this past year for the first time. I bought the entire series, on used DVDs, on Amazon. Season 2 only cost a penny plus postage.

    In one episode, Sarah has an accident and is paralyzed “for life.” When Jack, the spinal surgeon, tells Sarah’s fiancé that he must help her use the toilet “for life,” we see the disgust on his face. He dumps Sarah — because he is no longer happy with her. We’re to believe that he’s a selfish abusive asshole for abandoning Sarah.

    Jack miraculously heals Sarah. She walks again. They marry.

    But soon Sarah feels alone and abandoned in her huge mansion, because Jack is always working. Sarah has an affair, falls in love, and divorces Jack. Jack apologizes for making Sarah feel lonely, but it’s too late. Sarah dumps Jack, the doctor who healed her — because she is no longer happy with him. We’re to believe that it’s Jack’s fault for not spending more time with Sarah, that he “pushed her away” long before she divorced him.

    Sarah’s fiancé is scum for abandoning her. But Sarah is not to blame for divorcing Jack — really, she’s the victim.

    That’s the message in our society. The man must always be faithful — even if he’s not yet married to the woman he’s dating — or he’s a selfish, immature asshole. But the man must also step aside when the woman wants out, otherwise he’s a selfish, abusive asshole.

    Only a scummy man breaks his vows. Only an abusive man holds a woman to her vows.

  86. feeriker says:

    [Women] become amusing little creatures. Like cocker spaniels.
    Cute, amusing, good for petting but no good working or in the woods or out hunting.
    Nice to see out and about but no man would be bothered to keep one in the hoiuse.

    As I’ve pointed out before, both women and Cocker Spaniels were originally bred to be productive, but, after being spoiled, indulged, catered to, and no longer compelled to work using their innate skills and training, became not only useless, but an annoying burden.

    Animal Planet channel a few years back had a program that featured breeders of Cockers who were training them to be hunting dogs again, restoring their bird sense. The same thing could be done with women (i.e., breeding them again to be wives, mothers, and helpmeets), but more culling will be required among women than among Cocker Spaniels for a success rate to even approach 25 percent.

  87. Scott says:

    Some thoughts on voting, and a Merry Christmas to Dalrock readers.

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/why-i-didnt-vote-a-recap/

  88. Novaseeker says:

    And suggesting and married couple should try and stick together, even if they are an unhappy, provided there’s no physical abuse or adultery, well that makes me an abusive asshole. But then what’s the point of getting married at all? Ah, but by saying that I’m judging people who did get married.

    Okay lesson learned, so this is how modern marriage works apparently. Marriage is still valid, because it makes you feel happy on the marriage day and for a while afterward. But as soon as you stop feeling the happiness, then time to call if off. And marriage vows solemnly sworn? Just theatrics to enhance the happiness of the wedding day. Meaningless beyond that.

    This is because, in the broader secular culture (as Dalrock has pointed out numerous times), marriage is essentially made valid and good by the existence of persistent romantic feelings. It is, in essence, a state-certified romantic relationship. If the romantic element falls away (i.e., feelings change), the whole raison d’etre of the marriage itself falls away, and so in that case divorce is not only “justified”, but can be said to be “required” in order to allow one or both parties to pursue other relationships where they may find more lasting romantic feelings. That’s because romantic feelings/relationship is what justifies the marriage to begin with, and which is viewed as its essence — not lasting commitment regardless of how you feel, not children, etc. It’s feelings. This is why people like Stephanie Koontz refer to it as “hedonic marriage” — the whole point of marriage is to make you feel good, and if it isn’t working for that, you should be able to (and should) get out of that marriage because it isn’t providing what it’s supposed to, and free both people up to find something that works better.

    Once marriage becomes about romantic feelings, then no-fault divorce is obviously mandatory, because everyone knows that feelings come and go over the course of a lifetime. If the basis of marriage itself is romantic feelings, then people need to have the ability to get out easily enough when the feelings go away for whatever reason.

    This is alien not only to the traditional Christian view of marriage, but also to the earlier secular view of marriage which was centered on lasting commitment, children and family. Today’s marriage is centered on the personal romantic feelings of the spouses, and that’s it. Everything else — commitment, children, family, social order — falls in favor of the freedom of the individuals to pursue where their feelings take them.

    Obviously this is an extremely feminized view of marriage, but we live in an extremely feminized culture, so you have to expect that, really.

  89. James K says:

    It is so much easier for a pastor to say that a wife needs a romantic/emotional/spiritual connection than to admit that what she lacks is sexual desire.

    We live in a funny old world where, if a husband loses desire for his fat, boring, indifferent wife, it is the husband’s fault; whereas if a wife loses desire for her fat, boring, indifferent husband, it is the husband’s fault.

  90. feeriker says:

    “It is so much easier for a pastor to say that a wife needs a romantic/emotional/spiritual connection than to admit that what she lacks is the spititual maturity required to sustain any kind of lasting relationship.”

    FIFY.

  91. Pingback: The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy. | Dalrock

  92. rugby11 says:

    Paradox humor and change

    Creatures of the earth and sapiens of the culture.

  93. DrTorch says:

    “It is so much easier for a pastor to say that a wife needs a romantic/emotional/spiritual connection than to admit that what she lacks is the spititual maturity required to sustain any kind of lasting relationship.”

    +1!

  94. justdoit says:

    QUOTE: it’s about the story we’re telling ourselves about what we’re doing.

    In other words, women always feel the need to justify sex with getting something in return, either in the form of an alpha layment or in the form of a beta payment. Why can’t you just admit it?
    The above fact is why virginity used to be enforced a condition for marriage, but men were then fooled into thinking that by giving up the requirement of a virgin bride they would (overall) get to sample plenty of forbidden fruit before they got married. Of course, it did not turn out that way. In fact, all men got was old and damaged goods after women had spent their valuable years on the cock carousel.

    (I am now having trouble posting from TWO different browsers, and this is a third one. I wonder if It will work? How do I email Dalrock if I can not post?)

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    justdoit, which browsers and what settings?

  96. CSI says:

    This is because, in the broader secular culture (as Dalrock has pointed out numerous times), marriage is essentially made valid and good by the existence of persistent romantic feelings. It is, in essence, a state-certified romantic relationship.

    If it were just a state-certified, essentially temporary, boyfriend/girlfriend relationship that at least would honest (although I know Christians wouldn’t be happy). But legally and culturally marriage is supposed to be permanent. This is what just seems so wrong to me. De jure, marriage is permanent, for life, and the penalties for breaking it are still fairly harsh (particularly to the husband). De facto, marriage is just a temporary union. Make it one or the other. Either make marriage very difficult to get out of, as it used to be, or make it officially temporary.

    On doing some more reading, it seems the rationalization many people employ to justify divorce at will is because wedding promises usually include something about the partners “loving and cherishing” each other. If one of them becomes unhappy later, it must be because the other partner is not loving them, therefore the contract is null and void.

    Clever – and disingenuous. Very few women marry their husbands believing they will ever divorce. That’s part of what make marriage still so appealing to women, even to staunch feminists. The excitement and drama of permanently, legally bonding to their husband. All these rationalizations for divorce is something they come up with after the fact.

  97. justdoit says:

    @AR, they are all different firefox profiles, sometimes on different machines, sometimes using CookieSwap extension to emulate a different profile. What happened is that after one post with one profile, further posts would not work, but changing to another instance (or swapping cookies) would then make it work again. I’m now back in browser1-profile1. Let’s see if that started working again.

  98. justdoit says:

    Okay, that worked, now let me try to make one more post with browser1.profile1. If thsi works, maybe the problem has resolved itself.

  99. Son of Liberty says:

    Lab Guy says:
    December 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    This is why I do not bother with Christianity as a religion. This obsession over sex and how bad it is even if you are in marriage is the typical message. And I’m certainly not wasting my time dating a woman for months and months to fulfill some religious nonsense. I’m doubtful the skygod looks down upon me because I slept with a woman without jumping through the legal hoops. Sex is a biological need and Christians who disparage that will never attract me to a church. I do agree that parenting should be done by two committed heterosexual people, but beyond that, nothing wrong with sex in of itself.

    ———————————————-
    Christianity is not a man-made religion unlike Catholicism to prosecute flesh-witnessed-Jesus Christians by Emperor Constantine, nor a cultural way of living. Christianity is the belief in Jesus, in which he died for our sins, releasing us from Satanic ownership. It’s your salvation for the upper realms, dimensions for eternal life. Earthly, sinful sacrifices for animal blood spill rituals had to do with unexplained quantum physics and black magic mechanisms that fulfilled satan. That’s why there’s an obsession for genetics and blood drinking in deeper elites of the world, because as the bible explains, the life is in the blood, and God knows what type of advanced blood structures Jesus had to release for humanity from spiritual enslavement (not including governmental taxation by the Rothschild) for those who witnessed him all the way till today including our offspring, ONLY when one accepts him. On regards of sex and what not, that’s just instructions on how to live on earth as best as possible as how Jesus saw it in his short 33 years of life. Not following biblical principles could face a hard time one earth but may or may not question your salvation, assuming one received the Holy Spirit.

    In short, the problems we’re seeing right now, when it comes to economy, male female relations, sexual industry and Babylonic culture is thanks to the Roman Catholic Vatican Church infiltrating all nations that are free and Christian-principled, read up on Vatican Assassins.

  100. Pingback: Courtly Love: The origins of cuckchivalry. | Dalrock

  101. Pingback: Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical. | 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