The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy.

There is very often an honesty in secular media that is striking when compared with modern Christian teaching.  Rare News reports on the ladies at the view discussing wives withholding sex to punish their husbands for disagreeing with them:

“Well, you shouldn’t have voted for Trump, okay?” she said. Behar cited one therapist who said her clients have “lost their sex drive since Trump won.” The therapist called it “Trump bedroom backlash.”

“You voted for that? I’m not sleeping with you,” Behar said.

“That’s what’s happening,” Sunny Hostin agreed.

This kind of story is sadly commonplace, as modern wives are given constant encouragement to use sex as a way to punish their husbands.  Yet while secular culture is very open about this, Christian leaders, especially conservative Christian leaders, are anxious to deny what the ladies in The View are speaking openly about.

It isn’t just that conservative Christian leaders are denying what is happening, but that at the same time they reinforce the feminist message of The View.  The Christian wife who watches The View and wonders if she should resist the temptation to use sex to punish her husband will most likely receive abominable counsel should she turn to conservative Christian leaders.  Pastor Dave Wilson will teach her that when she denies her husband sex, she is expressing God’s will.  Dr. Mohler will teach her the same basic message.  Dr. Moore will teach her that if she is tempted to do this it must be because her husband is secretly viewing pornography.

Where could such a wife turn to for wise Christian counsel?  If she reads Pastor Doug Wilson’s post The Suitor and His Porn she will receive a message that could easily come from Behar at The View;  if they argue and she withholds sex, it is her husband’s fault:

Entitlement: if the young man in question has a sense of entitlement about things generally — grades, employment, standard of living, and so on — it should not be surprising that he is the kind of person who will just “expect” what is his due. If for some reason that drifts away from him, he will still feel entitled. The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life, and he feels just as entitled as he ever did. And the computer is right there. If she is going to take away x, then I will compensate with y — and she can’t complain, because its really her fault. Like laziness, the root problem is abdication of responsibility. Identifying this as a possible problem beforehand should take the form of looking for a young man who seeks out and accepts responsibility, and who doesn’t make excuses.

Contrast Pastor Wilson’s statement above with Dr. Helen’s secular reaction to the women at The View:

If this is a girlfriend or fiance, get rid of her now. A person who would treat you this way and use sex as a weapon against you is not your friend. And you can bet that any future relationship you have with this woman will be a mistake with you taking the brunt of her anger when things don’t go her way.

While traditional, biblical, ideas like the “wifely duty” are unimaginable to conservative Christians, they periodically pop up in the strangest places.  Now that Christians are religiously avoiding sharing the wisdom of the Bible, if a Christian wife wants this wisdom she will be forced to seek it out where you would least expect it. One such unexpected place is a 2003 article by Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic, aptly titled The Wifely Duty.  Flanagan opens by arguing that sexless marriages are an epidemic:

Dr. Phil—who, like his mentor Oprah Winfrey, has an uncannily precise sense of what American women in the aggregate are thinking about—noted on his Web site that “sexless marriages are an undeniable epidemic.” Mass-circulation magazines aimed at married women rarely go to press these days without an earnest review of some new sexual technique or gadget, the information always presented in the context of how to relight a long-doused fire.

As I’ve shown, conservative Christian orthodoxy is that the root of the issue is husbands not being worthy.  Some go so far as to argue that God is speaking to husbands in a sexual desert through their wives’ frigid vaginas, which act as a sort of modern day [non]burning bush.  But Flanagan destroys this tenet of modern Christian orthodoxy, explaining that the culprit is not weak men screwing feminism up, but feminism itself!

The fix she proposes is as old as Scripture, and something that even secular scientists are discovering.  Wives don’t need to overthink it, they simply should render unto their husband due benevolence:

Most important, though, is a recommendation based on exciting new “research” revealing that for many people, waiting for the urge to strike is pointless; better to bash ahead and hope for the best. Davis asks, “Have you ever noticed that although you might not have been thinking sexual thoughts or feeling particularly sexy, if you push yourself to ‘get started’ when your spouse approaches you, it feels good, and you find yourself getting into it?” Many of her clients have received this counsel with enthusiasm. “I really wasn’t in the mood for sex at all,” reports one of her advisees after just such a night, “but once we got started, it was fun. I really enjoyed it.”

This has Flanagan rethinking the bad old days before second wave feminism:

All of this makes me reflect that those repressed and much pitied 1950s wives—their sexless college years! their boorish husbands, who couldn’t locate the clitoris with a flashlight and a copy of Gray’s Anatomy!—were apparently getting a lot more action than many of today’s most liberated and sexually experienced married women. In the old days, of course, there was the wifely duty. A housewife understood that in addition to ironing her husband’s shirts and cooking the Sunday roast, she was—with some regularity—going to have relations with the man of the house. Perhaps, as some feminists would have us believe, these were grimly efficient interludes during which the poor humped-upon wife stared at the ceiling and silently composed the grocery list. Or perhaps not. Maybe, as Davis and her “new” findings suggest, once you get the canoe out in the water, everybody starts happily paddling.

But the real problem is not just a feminist unwillingness to relinquish control and do their wifely duty.  The core problem is that feminism teaches women to have contempt for their husbands:

Women are left with two options: endlessly haranguing their husbands to be more womanly, or silently fuming and (however wittingly) launching a sex strike of an intensity and a duration that would have impressed Aristophanes.

Even worse, this ugly feminist mindset creates a scenario where the desired response from the husband will actually dissatisfy the wife:

The men who cave to the pressure to become more feminine—putting little notes in the lunch boxes, sweeping up after snack time, the whole bit—may delight their wives but they probably don’t improve their sex lives much, owing to the thorny old problem of la difference. I might be quietly thrilled if my husband decided to forgo his weekly tennis game so that he could alphabetize the spices and scrub the lazy Susan, but I would hardly consider it an erotic gesture.

This is all of course pure heresy for both feminists and the modern conservative Christian, since both desperately hope to leverage the wife’s frigidity to grant her power in the marriage.  Flanagan makes this heresy even worse, by arguing that feminists are suffering from a profound misunderstanding of what is good:

What they don’t understand, and what women of an earlier era might have been able to tell them, is that when the little faucet turns off, it is time not to rat out your husband (is there anything more wounding to a man, and therefore more cruel and vicious, than a wife’s public admission that he is not satisfying her in bed?) but rather to turn it back on. It is not complicated; it requires putting the children to bed at a decent hour and adopting a good attitude. The rare and enviable woman is not the one liberated enough to tell hurtful secrets about her marriage to her girlfriends or the reading public. Nor is she the one capable of attracting the sexual attentions of a variety of worthy suitors. The rare woman—the good wife, and the happy one—is the woman who maintains her husband’s sexual interest and who returns it in full measure.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, Attacking headship, Complementarian, Dave and Ann Wilson, Disrespecting Respectability, Donald Trump, Dr. Helen, Dr. Russell Moore, Frigidity, Instapundit, Marriage, Miserliness, Pastor Doug Wilson, The Atlantic, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up, Whispers, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy.

  1. Pingback: The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. “Where could such a wife turn to for wise Christian counsel?”

    Some men look for wise counsel and seek it out. Asking where women *could* look for wise Christian counsel presumes it would occur to them to do so. The presumption that wives *would* look for wise counsel of any sort before doing things is an example of projection on the part of men who bought into the feminist lie that men and women are equal.

    Women look for consensus of agreement from other women that what they have already decided to do is a good thing. Perhaps one could call that counsel, but not wise counsel and certainly not wise Christian counsel.

  3. Novaseeker says:

    Some go so far as to argue that God is speaking to husbands in a sexual desert through their wives’ frigid vaginas, which act as a sort of modern day [non]burning bush.

    Hah, that’s a great line!

    I think that the core problem seems to be the desire to use sex as a tool to encourage male repentance from sin (real or imagined), rather than seeing marital sex as a spiritual good in and of itself. When you turn marital sex into a repentance-encouragement tool, you distort its meaning more or less completely from what it is intended to be. It’s a grave mistake, in my opinion.

  4. Frank K says:

    “As I’ve shown, conservative Christian orthodoxy is that the root of the issue is husbands not being worthy”

    In my eyes those pastors who teach such lies are neither conservative, Christian nor Orthodox. I don’t care how big their megachurches are or how widespread their TV ministries have been. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing and should be shunned as the heretics that they are. Their churches feel as Christian as an old Sears catalog,

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Some go so far as to argue that God is speaking to husbands in a sexual desert through their wives’ frigid vaginas, which act as a sort of modern day [non]burning bush.

    Perfect. Just perfect.
    Absolutely perfect description of the weaponization of sex, in combination with the pedestalization of women by these preachers. What kind of a man basically desires to reorder another man’s life via a version of “Mom SAID! Mom SAID!” anyway?

  6. Hank on the Front Range says:

    As usual, another solid post, Dalrock. I’m in the process of finding a new church home, and it remains enduringly true that I can get a near perfect read on a church by examining how a church treats this topic and 1 Cor in general. I have yet to find a church that boldly teaches against the feminist influences of society. I would posit, however, that it’s not all that unexpected. Depressing, yes, but not surprising.

  7. Kidd Cudi says:

    The worst part about the Christian false teachers nowadays is that there is a sense that what they teach is right. A marriage is a relationship, and as such, any problem in it must be (on some level) a shared problem. Who is at fault? Both, probably. As such, they are right to criticize men who look at porn. It is a sin, after all. However, the best lies are mixed with truth, and these snakes know their craft well. In systemically failing to criticize women, they lay the entirety of blame at the feet of men, and therein is the lie. Women sin too, after all.

  8. Once again, I am amazed that Christians manage to reproduce at all.

    What guy signs up for this arrangement? It is only the thoroughly Blue Pill conditioned Beta Christian male who in any way believes it is his moral duty to placate to his wife’s whims to ensure his ever putting his penis in his wife begrudging vagina.

    You will never dislodge the feminist saturation in mainstream Christianity today. Any attempt by men to use scripture to build their case that wives need to submit sexually to their husbands will always be met with accusations of twisting scripture to manipulate a wife’s spirituality into what essentially amounts to marital rape. The fact that a man would seek to convince his wife that his interpretation of scripture makes wives accountable to the sexual appetites of husbands is itself suspect of sexual manipulation – which is ironically what wives do when they withhold sex for strategic reasons.

    The popular concept, both in the secular and religious sense, is that wives hate sex.

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/03/31/wives-lovers/

    What woman would want to be a wife? I should also point out here that the Trump Effect on wives libidos is yet another glaring illustration of women’s Hypergamous, opportunistic concept of love. Feminine-primary ideology and dedication to the Sisterhood supersedes any religious conviction and trumps all notions of marriage dedication. The Feminine Imperative is a woman’s highest priority, to the point that she will, with a clear conscience, repress her sexual nature in order to appeal to it – even for nominally Christian women.

    So again, with that foreknowledge, what rationally minded man signs up for this?

  9. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “If this is a girlfriend or fiance, get rid of her now. A person who would treat you this way and use sex as a weapon against you is not your friend. And you can bet that any future relationship you have with this woman will be a mistake with you taking the brunt of her anger when things don’t go her way.”

    I agree with Dr. Helen on this, but it also brings up another hard question for the Christian man: How do you screen for this? Modern “conservative” Christians push the message that a woman’s sexual response to her man is directly tied to his moral worthiness as a mate, but they also preach that sex outside of marriage is forbidden by scripture. That kind of leaves you trapped everywhere you turn; Can’t have sex before the wedding to see if she’s that kind of woman because it’s a sin — not to mention that the church will deem her the victim on the grounds that you “led her into fornication” as Dr. Moore put it, and tie all future marital strife to the “culture of mistrust” you created by doing so. But if you do the right thing and give her a ring and a vow before you’ve slept with her, the church is going to trot out someone like Mohler to remind the wife that even then, unless you “present himself as worthy of her attention and desire” she most certainly should be refusing you sex.

    The modern church wants sex to be something men have to earn and work for, but they also want to pair that with a feminist message that reminds the men that no one under any circumstances owes them sex. That’s a little like my boss telling me that if I show up to my job early each day and work hard for him, at the end of the week he might choose to pay me. Or then again, he might not; but either way, it’s important that I realize that I’m not entitled to any of his wages.

  10. RPC says:

    The churchian idea is that “godly” (read: feminized) men will be more attractive to their wives. Where in the hell did this idea come from? Did it seep into the churchian leaders through their wives?

    I’ve been in several church men’s groups where the men have talked at-length about their efforts to help with housework, watching the kids, bending over backwards to buy gifts on any and all occasion, and being more “sensitive.” The same men would also complain about the lack of sex in their marriages. Gee, I wonder if the two issues are related.

  11. Frank K says:

    >>I’ve been in several church men’s groups …

    Beta factories, every single one of them. And we know how that ends …

  12. RPC says:

    So again, with that foreknowledge, what rationally minded man signs up for this?

    For serious Christian men there is a major dilemma. We believe that sexual relations outside of marriage is against God’s design. So we try to “sign up” as early as possible in order to have a legit sexual outlet.

    But, the Churchians screw us. They know what men want and need, but surrender to the FI and instruct the women to delay marriage and pursue education and career. If she “messes up” sexually along the way a couple times, well, there’s “grace” for that. Then the men, after waiting a decade or longer for sex, are told to accept the damaged goods and get to work providing.

    However, this arrangement, while horrible for Christian men, does not excuse us from conforming to God’s design for sex. So, marriage is still the goal, and many of us take what we can get.

    How many problems could be solved if the “church” would simply follow scripture? No college, no career, chastity, early marriage, homemaking, child-rearing, submission, and heavy stigma for women who reject this model. You’re right we’ll probably never return to this model in the current Churchian atmosphere. Maybe individual men and their families can raise up a new generation.

  13. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “So again, with that foreknowledge, what rationally minded man signs up for this?”

    They don’t, which is why a lot of my generation are not marrying and probably won’t ever marry. I was chatting with a friend about all this stuff yesterday. It’s simply impossible to ignore the overt advertising both women and modern culture do for the AF/BF gospel. Even within the church it is damn near a thought-crime for a man to expect, or even so much as desire, that his prospective wife not have baggage, and the dead bedroom phenomenon described in the OP is pretty much an open secret.

    Combine all that with a wife’s capacity to take half their husband’s things through no-fault divorce. It is not that hard for a Christian men with any significant savings or assets in his early 30s (ideal age for women seeking marriage) to realize there is not even the pretense of benefit for him in marrying. From the modern churchianity perspective, the only reason a man should marry is out of subservience and a sense of duty, which is why their whole message is centered around “manning up” rather than describing the advantages or benefits for marrying.

    This is not going to end well.

  14. The Question says:

    @ RPC

    “You’re right we’ll probably never return to this model in the current Churchian atmosphere. Maybe individual men and their families can raise up a new generation.”

    No-fault divorce must be destroyed. That is the primary objective. Once it falls, everything else follows. Without no-fault divorce, wives lose a critical threatpoint and access to state violence to control their husbands.

    Another outcome I could see is the upcoming generation of young girls witness their older sisters and aunts dying alone and miserable because they waited too long; this fear becomes very prevalent as they enter adulthood, and rather than focusing on a “have it all” career they marry young and have kids. Given the right circumstances I could see this becoming a trend.

  15. Hose_B says:

    Spoken from the pulpit this Sunday. “Jesus was really the first feminist”
    This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first. I am clueless on how to approach this.

  16. Qof the Great says:

    What rationally minded man signs up for this?

    Both Christ and St. Paul said that marriage was impractical. Both Christ and St. Paul said that not many people could handle this truth. The Christological commission (go and make disciples) is inscribed in our laws. The Adamic commission (make babies and take over the world) is inscribed in our very genetic code.

    The church has outlasted other heresies. It will outlast this one as well. Which does not mean we ought not fight. Athanasius contra mundum and all that.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hose_B
    Spoken from the pulpit this Sunday. “Jesus was really the first feminist”
    This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first. I am clueless on how to approach this.

    First thing that comes to mind: there’s a door leading out of the building, use it and don’t go back.
    Second thing that comes to mind: that preacher is probably operating in pure emotion mode, so trying to reason with him (if it’s a “her” then first thing – door, use it) won’t get very far. You could try to out-emotion him by dragging in all the ugly baggage of feminism like abortion on demand, divorce on demand, support of lesbianism, etc. and explain that there are other people in the church who have a negative gut reaction to the word “feminist”.

    Other men who know the Bible can give you many quotes, but again I bet this man is in pure emotion, zero logic mode, so trying to argue him out of this absurd position won’t work.
    Good luck. You’ll need it.

  18. feeriker says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    December 12, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Yup. You are correct. It’s all too easy to fall into the projection trap in terms of thinking that women are sufficiently endowed with logic and self-awareness that they would seek wise counsel. This is why, for most of human history, they were force-fed and compelled to abide by such counsel, whether they wanted it or not. This is how human civilzation has lasted for as long as it has.

  19. Trust says:

    New Prager U video with a lot of truths about men, husband’s, fathers, and society, the misses the mark in that it is encouraging behaviors in men without encouraging society to reward the right behaviors in men.
    https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/sexiest-man-alive

  20. Damn Crackers says:

    You may not agree with Dr. Instone-Brewer on divorce, but this passage helps understand how OT Jews took care of things when one partner withheld sex in marriage:

    If either partner neglected to provide food, clothing or love, the other could take them to court and get a divorce. Cases of adultery or physical neglect (failure to provide food or clothing) were straightforward, and divorce was granted if the wronged partner wanted it. But in cases of emotional neglect (ie. refusal of physical love) the rabbis created time for reconciliation by imposing a long series of fines on the reluctant partner. A husband was fined by having to add to his wife’s dowry (which she took with her if they were divorced), and a wife was fined by reducing this dowry. This continued till the money ran out or they made up.

    http://www.bethinking.org/bible/bible-scandals/5-marital-abuse

  21. Frank K says:

    >>Spoken from the pulpit this Sunday. “Jesus was really the first feminist”
    This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first. I am clueless on how to approach this.

    Leave that den of vipers and false teachers would be a good first step, and take as many like minded men with you as you can, You won’t get the false teachers to change their tune, all you will get is to be ostracized or disfellowed and told not to come back.

  22. feeriker says:

    You will never dislodge the feminist saturation in mainstream Christianity today. Any attempt by men to use scripture to build their case that wives need to submit sexually to their husbands will always be met with accusations of twisting scripture to manipulate a wife’s spirituality into what essentially amounts to marital rape. The fact that a man would seek to convince his wife that his interpretation of scripture makes wives accountable to the sexual appetites of husbands is itself suspect of sexual manipulation – which is ironically what wives do when they withhold sex for strategic reasons.

    The more of it I read, the less able I am to grasp how Scripture can be twisted, as most of it –certainly those parts of it that we discuss here in the ‘sphere– are written in PFE (Plain F***ing English, and most certainly originally in PFA/G/H [Plain F***ing Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew]). Simply stated, it means what it says and it says what it means.

    Here’s the problem, the whole problem: churchians despise the message of the Scriptures when it comes to sex and marriage, because it doesn’t comport with the culture that they value infinitely more than eternal life with Christ. Quite frankly, most of them, deep down, either DO NOT believe that the Scriptures are the infallible words of God Himself, or are subconsciously flipping God the proverbial bird over his counsel because they know on a visceral level that there are no immediate temporal consequences for doing so. Indeed, I’m sure many don’t even really believe that there are eternal consequences either. It’s time to rub this heresy in their churchian faces and force them to ADMIT what is so obvious. Which will probably, in most cases, ultimately lead to this:

    Spoken from the pulpit this Sunday. “Jesus was really the first feminist.”
    This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first. I am clueless on how to approach this.

    First thing that comes to mind: there’s a door leading out of the building, use it and don’t go back.

  23. Cane Caldo says:

    @Darwinian

    I agree with Dr. Helen on this, but it also brings up another hard question for the Christian man: How do you screen for this?

    He finds a woman who loves and obeys her father. A cheerfully obedient wife will be sexually available, so what he has to control for is cheerful obedience rather than sexual availability. In fact he literally cannot screen for a wife’s sexual behavior until he is married to her. Her desires and temptations will change after marriage…as husbands discover.

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Jesus was really the first feminist.” This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first.

    Similar to the teaching that the Virgin Mary was a homeless, teenage, single mother.

  25. First, Yes, of course male and female sexual physiology is different. Men resemble microwaves. Women resemble ovens, needing some preheat. Same within the rest of the animal kingdom or on a farm, like mares and heifers. It helps to know whether the female is “in heat”. Jesus would say to human males “Download the Clue App, and give unto Caesar…..”

    Second, any strategy by wives to withhold sex from the husband is only successful to the extent that other suppliers in the market will cooperate. Well, it’s official. They’re not cooperating.
    Withholding sex from husbands out of anger, resentment and for purposes of punishment is going to fail, because for every sexually uncharitable wife, there are at least 2 to 4, if not far more, sexually generous females that a man can turn to. At work. At the gym. At the conference. His friends’ girlfriends. On the business trip. At the bar. At the hotel. At the coffee shop. And damn straight, right there in church.

    Third, wives cannot withhold sex from husbands. Wives can withhold sexual intimacy.
    The pervasiveness and economical availability of pornograph as a substitute good has shifted the demand curve and destroyed the efficacy of the “artic vagina or comply” ultimatum from wives.

    Fourth, the notion of “wifely duties” in the context of marital or relationship sex is hard to accept, no matter how “Biblical” it’s origin. Women in the Bronze Age lived in an undeniably violent patriarchy with high levels of illiteracy, uncertainty and cruelty. Their lives consisted of being either wives/mothers, slaves, concubines or being butchered alive.. The written prescription for a woman in that world to “yield to her man” was one of necessity and survival, not a loving call for compliance among the rambunctious, liberated females that we know today.
    The last thing husbands want is “starfish”, obligation-based, “duty sex” from the Mrs. just because the Bible says so. Now I’m sure too many western husbands tolerate this horseshit every two months or so, but they really shouldn’t Genuine sexual desire is non-negotiable. A healthy woman will want to have sex regularly with a man she finds attractive. Asking a woman to have sex for reasons other than resources/protection or genuine desire, namely for reasons of morality and “you’re supposed to”, is going to fail. Women will not put up with it. More often than not, she’s lost her sexual attraction because the husband has already provided his commitment of resources and protection to her, so that’s off the list. And so what’s left is a “such a nice guy” husband with maleable demeanor, compliant behavior, uncertain attitude and weak physique. A better prescription would be for the husband to hit the free weights 4 to 5 times a week and watch what happens. It will be good things.

  26. DrTorch says:

    “Jesus was really the first feminist”
    This in a sermon on the last chapter of Matthew because Jesus shows himself to the women first. I am clueless on how to approach this

    As someone else pointed out, you probably need rhetoric, not dialectic.

    How about enthusiastically pointing that Eve was the first feminist, and that she needs to get her due.

  27. feeriker says:

    Withholding sex from husbands out of anger, resentment and for purposes of punishment is going to fail, because for every sexually uncharitable wife, there are at least 2 to 4, if not far more, sexually generous females that a man can turn to. At work. At the gym. At the conference. His friends’ girlfriends. On the business trip. At the bar. At the hotel. At the coffee shop. And damn straight, right there in church.

    Yup. As I recently said in another thread, someone needs to come up with the novelty item of a “Fresh, New Pussy” gift card that a man can flash to his wife, saying “I really appreciate this gift, but are you sure you really want me to use it? I’m about to redeem it if things don’t change quickly.”

  28. Leiff says:

    So the Godfather movies were on cable this weekend. I keep thinking about how much happier Michael would have been if Apollonia had lived and gone to America with him to give him several children than he was was married to All-American girl Kay. Kay was a terrible match for Michael. I never understood what Michael saw in her, but it must have been something, because he doesn’t kill her after she tells him about aborting his son. I would have if I was in his situation. Apollonia knew and understood how to be a wife to a man from that culture. I’m sure Michael’s mother would have loved her and helped her be a good wife to him.

  29. The last Christian “Men’s Group” I joined and attended involved 90% of the one hour sessions lamenting and warning about the sins of pornography and masterbation, as if that’s the worst thing that could ever befall a man.

    Nevermind those men who never had a decent father figure in their life except the high school football coach.
    Nevermind those trapped in sexless marriages with ungrateful wives.
    Nevermind the guys who’s girlfriend is now pregnant, possibly by another man.
    Nevermind the dudes in the room relegated to lifelong destitution by family courts, or recently unemployed.
    Nevermind those separated from their children.
    Nevermind those who are contemplating suicide.

    But no, let’s do something about all of these horrible male erections and fountains of ejaculate.

    Witnessing adult men, married and divorce, willingly flog themselves and others in a room for their masculine sexuality is truly something to behold. It might as well have been 1537 as 2010.

    As with most challenges associated with sexual relationships with women, we men are the original manufacturers of our own problems.

  30. Frank K says:

    >> I recently said in another thread, someone needs to come up with the novelty item of a “Fresh, New Pussy” gift card that a man can flash to his wife, saying “I really appreciate this gift, but are you sure you really want me to use it?

    Why bother? Unless it is meant solely as blackmail. Because if you exercise that card (ignoring any possible moral implications), you’re just going to eventually end up in the same place. There’s a reason most Alphas don’t marry, as they know that not even they are exempt from dead bedrooms, because once he says “I do” (or I Will) his status as an Alpha is immediately revoked. Just ask George Clooney. How long did his latest marriage last? 2 years?

  31. craig says:

    >>Spoken from the pulpit this Sunday. “Jesus was really the first feminist”

    I agree with the others: leave and don’t come back. The premise of the statement is that feminism is a good thing. It will be near-impossible to convince them of the falsity of this premise, and if possible doing so would be a full-time job. Meanwhile, everything else this church teaches is suspect. Modernism doesn’t just infect the faith in one particular spot but continues to spread throughout the body. Untrustworthy teachers are like the proverbial clocks striking thirteen — everything they proclaim requires you to independently verify it somewhere else.

  32. feeriker says:

    So the Godfather movies were on cable this weekend. I keep thinking about how much happier Michael would have been if Apollonia had lived and gone to America with him to give him several children than he was was married to All-American girl Kay.

    No, the smart Michael Corleone would’ve kept himself, Apollonia, and any children they produced in Sicily, knowing, as savvy a man as Michael was, that even in the late 1940s America was on the rapid road to feminist hell (American women got their first taste of “liberation” during WWII when they took over jobs previously held by men drafted into the military). Apollonia would’ve eventually turned into a screechy, ball-busting New York Eye-talian beeyotch (not far below black American women for sheer repulsiveness of personality) had she been brought to America.

    I haven’t read any of the original Godfather novels, but if he never did so, it would’ve been great if Mario Puzo had included Michael reflecting on “what might have been” had Apollonia not been blown to bits by a bomb intended for him.

  33. Damn Crackers says:

    @constainedlocus – “Witnessing adult men, married and divorce, willingly flog themselves and others in a room for their masculine sexuality is truly something to behold.”

    I thought they were there because they were guilty of willingly flogging themselves. Heh.

    @Leiff – I think the old world vs. new world contrast was one of the main points of the movie. Remember, the intro with Bonasera talking to the Godfather at his daughter’s wedding. The Don chides Bonasera to going to the authorities to seek justice for the rape/assault of his daughter.

  34. RPC says:

    Witnessing adult men, married and divorce, willingly flog themselves and others in a room for their masculine sexuality is truly something to behold. It might as well have been 1537 as 2010.

    It is really difficult and awkward to witness. I used to be one of those men. One of the worst things I ever did for my marriage was read “Every Man’s Battle” when I was newly married in my early 20s, and then followed the advice and told my wife all about my “sexual sin.” I really did both her and me a great disservice. On my part, 10 years of irrational shame and guilt. On her part, 10 years of paranoia.

    Then, I red-pilled a few years back, read up on some of the churchian doctrine regarding male sexuality, and realized it’s all bullshit. I essentially told my wife to butt out, stopped defending myself every time she saw me glance at an attractive woman, and held my head high about my sexuality. The result is a better marriage and far more respect from her, and no more neuroticisim. I know it might not work that way for everyone, but I would encourage all men to stop with the self-flagellation. It does wonders for your confidence.

    An ironic byproduct is that the group of men I used to meet with for “accountability” have started treating me like an apostate. The martyr complex is strong.

  35. Novaseeker says:

    No-fault divorce must be destroyed. That is the primary objective. Once it falls, everything else follows. Without no-fault divorce, wives lose a critical threatpoint and access to state violence to control their husbands.

    Well, but no-fault divorce is going to stay as long as the popular conception of marriage is “hedonic marriage”, like I explained in the earlier thread. The entire popular cultural conception of marriage would need to change, in other words, for that to take place. That’s not impossible, but it’s not something that is likely any time soon due to the reason why we got to hedonic marriage to begin with (overall culture that idolizes individualism and unfettered pursuit of individual wants). That isn’t going to be rolled back easily, quickly or soon. If it is ever rolled back, getting rid of no-fault won’t be an issue, so really it can’t be the main focus — once the reason it’s there is removed, it will easily be changed. That reason, however, won’t be dislodged easily at all.

  36. RPC says:

    He finds a woman who loves and obeys her father.

    This is really key. The loves part is not uncommon, but the obedience part is rare. Most of the fathers of the women I know are the buddy-buddy, white-knighting type. No authority. If you can find a woman who not only loves, but respects, obeys, and fears her father, your prospects are good.

  37. Leiff says:

    @ feeriker

    I agree that Michael would have been better off in Sicily if he could have stayed, but with his father failing and Santino dead he had to return to take care of the family. I would be worried about Apollonia devolving into a monster such as you describe, but he had a much better shot with her than just about any American girl.

    @DC Yes, he was trying to be a good American, but the system failed him.

  38. Fred Flange writes fake news intel from Macedonia says:

    To amplify what @theQuestion says: my wife didn’t like it when I told my daughter marriage as we know it is dying out. My daughter surprised me by saying “I know Dad”. And she did. She’d figured out all on her own that the best she could maybe do is maintain a household for a period of years sufficient to raise a kid or two or three, after that who knows.

    Men won’t marry because there’s nothing in it for them, short or long-term, and they’re constantly being told they’re wanting anyway, so why bust your hump where you’re not wanted because you’re deemed by them and every media outlet to be wanting.

    Women might think they’d like to marry but don’t because they have to have their own career and money put by for when everything goes to hell. Then they can never snag that perfect Sebastian Grey clone for their very own they were promised, and by the time the Epiphany hits it’s too late.

    Adding to Rollo’s sermon: Marriage will be a show-off indulgence for UMC Social Register couples, celebrity types and gay folk. Poor and working class folk will hook up and drop sprogs and move around from job to job and place to place, trying to nail down the kinds of personal service work that can’t be outsourced to robots or Asian contractor-wallas.

    To the main topic: not doubting the anecdotal reports as such. But I’m skeptical that “you voted for Trump” is the real reason the sex is stopping; maybe it’s the reason du jour, being used this week. As the OP points out, the sex strike has been a coming thing (!) for years and years, ascribed to various Reasons.

    Plus didn’t most women – who were supposed to play the woman card – vote R in the key swing states? Making it even funnier if those are the same wives now denying their husbands because “you voted for Trump”. (And so did they but no one is asking them that follow-up? Maybe they didn’t think he would actually win, like the Brexit voters who thought voting “leave” was a good larf?)

  39. Frank K says:

    >>An ironic byproduct is that the group of men I used to meet with for “accountability” have started treating me like an apostate. The martyr complex is strong.

    Well, you are a Churchian Apostate, which is a good thing.

  40. Pingback: The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy. | Reaction Times

  41. Stg58/AnimalMother says:

    I’ve attended some of those church groups also. I shudder to think why I was ever there in the first place. It was to meet women. Thank God I dodged that bullet.

  42. feeriker says:

    Well, you are a Churchian Apostate, which is a good thing.

    There’s t-shirt/ball cap material there somewhere.

  43. desiderian says:

    “seeing marital sex as a spiritual good in and of itself”

    Not sure how biblical that one is either. Best not to make sex more of an idol than it already is. If one follows other biblical teaching, the sex will often take care of itself as good form follows function or practice makes perfect.

  44. Her desires and temptations will change after marriage…as husbands discover.

    Response 1:
    The old joke goes (pre-cellular) the young woman’s car breaks down and she walks to the nearest farm house for help. The old farmer says he cant take her to town until morning. And he has only one bed.

    They turn in, and she starts inching her legs apart saying “You know what I want?” He says, “huh uh”

    “You KNOW what I want? she says as she opens them more….
    Nope, he says….

    YOU KNOW WHAT I WANT!!!!!!!!!!, she screams

    He jumps up and takes his pillow saying , “yea I do….. you want the whole damn bed!!!!!!”

    Or the other punch line could be something about that at once effeminate and 70’s porn star looking dude holding “My Pillow”

    Not sure Cane why your comment made me think of that

  45. Bruce says:

    “I agree with Dr. Helen on this, but it also brings up another hard question for the Christian man: How do you screen for this? ”

    I think Cane Caldo answered correctly. Your chance of finding such a girl increases if you attend a very traditional Church. I think your best bet is either a very conservative, independent or reformed (Calvinist) Baptist Church or a Latin Mass Catholic Church -SSPX or Sedevacantist (depending on your theological leanings). Nothing is guaranteed but you’ll increase your chances of finding such a girl. At least from what I see having visited a lot of denominations.

  46. Frank K says:

    >> Nothing is guaranteed but you’ll increase your chances of finding such a girl.

    And given the current cultural climate the chances that she will change on you later is non trivial. A relative attends one of those sorts of churches and is very strict with his daughters. From what one of them (who is away at college) posts on Facebook there is little doubt she’s riding the carousel.

  47. No One says:

    I have been thinking about joining a church again, but I can’t really take the feminazi church. Orthodox churches seem to talk a good game, and as an Episcopalian in exile, I miss having some ceremony. Anybody know if Orthodox churches have in general stayed closer to scripture?

  48. Bruce says:

    If she goes away to college that in and of itself is a bad sign.

  49. RichardP says:

    Dead bedrooms are nothing new. In the 1970s I read the advice about putting a penny into the bucket every time you have sex in the first year of marriage (assumed no sex before marriage I presume). Then, if you take a penny out of the bucket every time you have sex after the first year, you will never empty the bucket.

    I don’t imagine that meme was created in the 1970s. I always figured it reflected an ancient truth. Why else would the ancients have wanted multiple wives and concubines?

    Then there is the other meme bandied about the manosphere: women get the hots for men that other women want to f*ck. Perhaps a bevy of mutiple wive and concubines would work that particular magic for the man of the house – keeping all of the wives and concubines in a more or less perpetual state of desire.

  50. Boxer says:

    Then there is the other meme bandied about the manosphere: women get the hots for men that other women want to f*ck. Perhaps a bevy of mutiple wive and concubines would work that particular magic for the man of the house – keeping all of the wives and concubines in a more or less perpetual state of desire.

    Except that’s not actually what happens — ever. This misconception is the biggest piece of evidence that most of the “game advice” in these parts is bunko nonsense.

    In polygamist households, the wives unionize against the man, and they keep each other company emotionally while neglecting him totally.

  51. You can mine for the most obscure denomination reference award. But referring someone to said denomination at best will be a loose correlation that could easily be coincidence born of reasons other than doctrine.

  52. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    No-fault divorce must be destroyed. That is the primary objective. Once it falls, everything else follows. Without no-fault divorce, wives lose a critical threatpoint and access to state violence to control their husbands.

    That’s only one threatpoint. Another is the ease of accusing a man of spousal abuse. A wife can phone 911 and accuse her husband of rape, abuse, or child molestation, and the police must act on her word. No evidence needed. No denials from the husband accepted.

    Society must also abolish the notion of marital rape. Until the 1970s, it was a given that a husband cannot be guilty of raping his wife.

    Of course, tell that to a modern American woman, and she’ll regard you as worse than Hitler.

  53. sipcode says:

    “The core problem is that feminism teaches women to have contempt for their husbands”

    I would fine-tune that so say that the core problem is pastors teaching women to have contempt for GOD by having contempt for their husbands.

  54. @Rollo
    “You will never dislodge the feminist saturation in mainstream Christianity today. “

    The moral foundation of feminism is the false doctrine of gender equality, specifically with respect to sexual morality. Men can argue it and point to Bible verses until they are blue in the face, but until that moral foundation is addressed feminism will stay. The truth is that according to the Bible, men and women have separate standards of sexual morality and the standards are not equal. These are three examples of the difference in standards:

    A woman is bound to her husband for all the days of his life.
    A man is not limited to a single wife and may have multiple wives.

    A married woman may only have sex with her husband or she commits adultery.
    Adultery requires a married woman so husbands only commit adultery with another mans wife.

    Male homosexuality is forbidden and condemned as a death penalty offense.
    Female homosexuality is not forbidden or a sin and is presumed in polygynous marriages

    Each of the previous three points are found in the Bible and can be proved quite easily. Regardless of what some churchian cuck believes, those statements represent the different standards of sexual morality that God designed. God did this, therefore it is right. Who are you to judge God?

    Feminism says those three points are wrong. They hate them because they destroy the moral foundation of feminism. Churchian cucks prove they are feminists who hate God’s Word when they claim the three points are wrong. They choose to believe that men and women are equal and held to the same standard of sexual morality. Because tradition. And envy.

    Logic for churchian cucks.

    1. God sent His son to die on a cross. Just because that was part of God’s plan does not mean you are to be crucified… although for some of you… I wish it did.
    2. That which is not forbidden is permitted, but we are to use wisdom because those areas are matters of conscience. Your inability to understand or comprehend that does not give you the right to judge your neighbor. Doing so raises the question of whether you are even a Christian.
    3. Your lack of faith does not mean your neighbor sinned by marrying three wives or that your neighbors wives are in sin because their very close relationship makes you uncomfortable. You are in sin for judging your neighbors decisions of conscience, for being covetous, envious, divisive and reviling that which God did not choose to forbid.

    Logic for Christian Men

    God said that a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her (Gen. 3:16). This is the unexpected truth that lies behind the modern churchian teaching that the measure of the husband’s effectiveness lies in his ability to give her the tingles.

    Your wife’s lack of desire for you and inability to be attracted to you because you are not fit to rule over her is an indication you are a feminist churchian and don’t actually love your wife. A wise Christian husband would understand that loving his wife required him to be fit to rule her. Hit the gym, lift heavy, build muscle and raise your testosterone level. Learn how to fight, spar once a week and raise your confidence level. Learn game and be able to recognize fitness tests and pass them. Develop the character qualities a good ruler has. Firmness with compassion. Strength with gentleness. Decisiveness with adaptability. Truthfulness with discretion. Fidelity with honor.

    Most men are disgusting because in trying to please everyone they stand for nothing. Which is more or less what Jesus was saying when He said “because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”

  55. Lost Patrol says:

    So again, with that foreknowledge, what rationally minded man signs up for this?

    If we’re talking about younger church men, they generally didn’t have that foreknowledge, and that’s why they are still signing up. But this is changing. Word is getting around, even in woman worshiping churches.

    In my experience, a man armed with the facts one gets from reading Dalrock, or similar sites of enlightenment, can help some younger men gain useful foreknowledge; but he has to want to, and he will certainly weather hard feelings from many quarters. Not everyone is in a position to risk this. I understand the vulnerabilities, but have come to a stage of life where I am largely beyond their reach. So to me it’s a contest, not unlike other forms of spiritual warfare. Humans are of course immediately in over their heads in this realm, so reliance on Grace of God remains paramount as in all things.

  56. Jeff says:

    Boxer,

    1000+ agree.

    I have never tooted my horn, but I am a husband other wives want to f###.

    I will leave it at that. My bil has been with 100s of women. He is an Alpha, but married 3 times and as soon as he become the husband….. Beta. He got in a bar fight 1 month after marriage to the last one 23 years his jr with 3 off duty cops because one was hitting on her while he went to the men’s room. He was a bouncer in HS, played running back in Div I, runs a huge Corp, etc.

    I get sex from the misses whenever I want, but many times it is joyfully given in the form of a quickie. Only once per week of sometimes only twice per month she is into it. I do not think it is wrong for her to not be totally into it as long as she is joyfully giving it as this glorifies God for her to comply with his command in 1 Cor. Just like when I don’t feel like listening to ramble on about something stupid. I just turn up my filter and nod and grunt. She knows I am not all in for her conversation, but is thankful and it is encouraging and understanding to her. Once a week a heartfelt conversation peaks my interest and is satisfying to both of us.

    Rollo and others think it has to be mind blowing for both every time. No thanks. Quickies are great. Especially when you are exhausted from working or working out, or both.

    I have been hit on by many of her now ex friends, as I tell her. The reason I tell her is because most are christian professing and if they are like that it could rub off on her. I Have been hit on by an ex pastor’s wife too.

    We may not like what the Word says but at the end of the day we need to obey it. That is what my wife is doing and me as well. She is not withholding and I am understanding. Perfectly? No, but we are human.

  57. dragnet says:

    “Some go so far as to argue that God is speaking to husbands in a sexual desert through their wives’ frigid vaginas, which act as a sort of modern day [non]burning bush.”

    Completely brilliant!

  58. Jeff says:

    Boxer and Empathy,

    1000+% agree.

    Women will turn on an Alpha as soon as he puts a ring on his finger, regardless of how other women view him. You workout and get style etc for yourself.

    Empathy,

    A traditional church has nothing to do with what all the OP write on all TRP blogs, as they will say it is instinctual for women to turn to hypergamy at any time.

    Can’t have it both ways. Either in still in the young women to behave as they ought to and avoid the temptation or watch them wander away from Godliness. To say a church or denomination will fix it is ridiculous.

  59. infowarrior1 says:

    Frank K says:
    December 12, 2016 at 11:32 am

    ”>>I’ve been in several church men’s groups …

    Beta factories, every single one of them. And we know how that ends …”

    A religion that emasculates the men within it is not of God. Considering that God created masculinity along with maleness in the 1st place.

  60. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    ”Yet while secular culture is very open about this, Christian leaders, especially conservative Christian leaders, are anxious to deny what the ladies in The View are speaking openly about.”
    Don’t you think its high-time to call them cuckservatives. Since all they do is grovel and submit to the enemies of God and endorse the destruction of God’s own flock.

  61. infowarrior1 says:

    @feeriker
    ”The more of it I read, the less able I am to grasp how Scripture can be twisted, as most of it –certainly those parts of it that we discuss here in the ‘sphere– are written in PFE (Plain F***ing English, and most certainly originally in PFA/G/H [Plain F***ing Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew]). Simply stated, it means what it says and it says what it means. ”

    Behold the pastorbation:
    http://christianthinktank.com/fem08.html
    http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

    E.g defining ”Kephale” head as in the headwater or source removing the Authority of the Husband.

    The feminist translation shenanigans:
    http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/An-Evaluation-of-Gender-Language-in-the-2011-NIV.pdf

  62. RPC says:

    I’m not quite as pessimistic about the future of marriage as some on this thread. As Oscar has said, God will refine the church with fire. As Sipcode has said, the future of the church is individual men leading their families, not the Churchian bullshit.

    With enough men taking the red pill, norms can change. If expectations are set early on that our daughters will not go to college, not pursue careers, be chaste, marrying young, bear children, and keep the home, then no-fault divorce can be mitigated to some extent.

    Women who lose their virginity to their husbands, are dependent on their husbands financially, have less education and no career to fall back on, and more children they are responsible for, are far less likely to frivolously divorce. The incentives of alimony and child support are still there, but not powerful enough.

    Men want to marry this type of woman, despite what idiots like that cuck Paul Maxwell might say. Men want their women to be completely dependent on them. They want them as possessions.

    Teaching this program to your daughters is easy. Shielding them from the culture is easy too. Homeschool. Unplug. Lead bible study at home. Pick and choose family friends carefully.

    Finding a wife to go along with the program is admittedly difficult. But, there are some good women out there.

    Also, we need to adamantly protest “ministries” for “single mothers” in the church. These “single mothers” are overwhelmingly women who had children out of wedlock or frivolously divorced their husbands. All these “ministries” accomplish is provide an external source of support for women other than their husbands, reducing their dependency, and making divorce more palatable.

  63. justdoit says:

    Flip the script: Men should refuse to go to work every morning if their wives voted for Hillary. After all, his body, his choice.

    That would change the tune and undoubtedly, the churchians and feminists undoubtedly would argue that bodily integrity is not the right of any man.

  64. Boxer says:

    Men should refuse to go to work every morning if their wives voted for Hillary. After all, his body, his choice.

    That’s exactly right. Quit your jobs and also don’t become the homemaker. Just hang out with friends all day, drinking and having fun. Let her make the money and wash dishes too. Good for the goose…

  65. feeriker says:

    E.g defining ”Kephale” head as in the headwater or source removing the Authority of the Husband.

    Any pastorbator who makes such a statement is an idiot who either 1) doesn’t know jack shit about Greek (very likely), and/or 2) knows that the unlettered, biblically ignorant sheeple in his congregation have no frame of reference from which to call him out on such nonsense and will lap it up like mother’s milk (almost certain).

  66. RPC says:

    E.g defining ”Kephale” head as in the headwater or source removing the Authority of the Husband.

    I recall a post debunking this. I swear it was from Dalrock, but I can’t find it when I search. It linked to a scholarly article showing that kephale rarely meant “headwater” in scripture, and indicated actual authority, not “source.”

  67. infowarrior1 says:

    @RPC
    I think it was on christian men defense network that has since shut down.

  68. infowarrior1 says:

    @RPC
    we need a database for all this. So that we can use it as reference should it come up again and bring newcomers up to speed.

  69. CSI says:

    Men should refuse to go to work every morning if their wives voted for Hillary. After all, his body, his choice.

    Nah, all he has to do is just stop asking for sex, stop touching his wife, stop indicating altogether that he finds her desirable. If the husband could do this convincingly, and provided the wife hasn’t checked out of the marriage entirely, it would be effective. In fact it would probably be excessively cruel and end the marriage altogether. From what I’ve read, if a wife finds that her husband no longer finds her desirable and no longer wants sex, its often pretty devastating to her.

  70. infowarrior1 says:

    @RPC
    Better to vaccinate them from the culture. Because they will encounter it anyway as it invades your home via various media and electronics.

    If all that’s done is shielding they will upon encounter with the leftist memevirus be infected and conclude that they are raised in a cult they are glad to cut loose from.

    Immunization is a better bet.

  71. Oscar says:

    @ infowarrior1 says:
    December 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    “E.g defining ‘Kephale’ head as in the headwater or source removing the Authority of the Husband.”

    Even if it does mean “head water”, that in no way removes authority.

    Ephesians 1:18 … That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

    Clearly, this passage refers to Christ’s authority.

  72. RPC says:

    @infowarrior1

    Ok, I’ll bite. What do you mean by vaccinate? Tell me because I’m eager to administrate it to my daughters.

  73. Anon says:

    The Question,

    From a quick glance, it appears that the PragerU video is just

    ‘man up and marry those sluts’
    ‘Men who avoid marriage are Peter Pans’
    ‘A man has to be a captain Save a Ho’..

    Not to mention that the cuckservative believes that women can accurately described what they want, and that men should take women’s advice about how to do well with men.

    I did not know what Jim Geraghty looked like until now, but the mangina/cuckservative face is a tell yet again.

  74. Anon says:

    From the PragerU video, we see yet another cuck who is not within a million miles of a) claiming women have any obligations at all, and b) admitting that divorce laws are rigged against men, and men who avoid marriage are taking a rational risk/reward decision.

    This is the umpteenth video from the PragerU cucks that sells men a bill of goods about imaginary respect.

  75. RPC says:

    I think I found the article. It’s by Wayne Grudem. Here’s the link:

    https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf

    It’s an objective and convincing counterargument to kephale=source.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @RPC

    I recall a post debunking this. I swear it was from Dalrock, but I can’t find it when I search. It linked to a scholarly article showing that kephale rarely meant “headwater” in scripture, and indicated actual authority, not “source.”

    I think you are looking for this post: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/cbmws-striking-ambivalence-for-complementarianism/

  77. infowarrior1 says:

    @RPC
    Vaccination is exposure to weakened or dead germs that cause diseases. This builds up immunity of the body to that disease and preps it to fight it.

    I am not really clear on the way it works out in the realm of ideas but I think that it works similarly.

    My attempt is that being taught to think properly and solidly grounding their thinking in scripture may be part of it. Also controlled exposure with ample mediation and help from yourself to help them understand those ideas and especially their fallacious and evil nature.

    I encourage other readers to weigh in on this.

  78. infowarrior1 says:

    @Oscar
    Understood. The common counter argument to that is that if such a thing referred to authority it would be exousia or archon.

    But Ephesians 1:18 explodes that preemptively. Where Kephale means much more than mere symbolic value.

    Then there is the dispute over “Authentein” which is hotly contested which is objected to as not necessarily referring to Authority else it would called “exousia”

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon, what video are you referring to in convo with The Question? I don’t see any URL’s pointing to PragerU in this comment set and frankly don’t much want to go searching Prager’s site right now.

  80. Anon says:

    er… there is the word ‘PragerU’ in the still screencap that we see before clicking it..

  81. RichardP says:

    There is a simple solution to the argument over what Kaphale is meant to imply in the New Testament. Let us accept that it means head or source. If that were proven to be true, does that change what God says was the reason he made Eve for Adam? God himself says that he made for Adam an help, meet (Old English for proper and fitting) for Adam.

    How do we distinguish between who is the help and who is the helped if not by looking at who instructs whom as to what actions to perform. That necessary instruction (how else can she know what to do to help) is the exercise of authority by any other measure.

    So let them keep their head or source as their meanings. They still cannot escape why God made Eve (because not good for man to be alone), and what he made her to be – the help, not the helped.

    So let them keep their ‘head’ or ‘source’ as their meanings. They still cannot escape why God made Eve (because not good for man to be alone), and what he made her to be – the help, not the helped. Let Paul be talking about the husband as the source of the wife. So what. That really is not the issue. The issue springs from what God says he created Eve to be: a help, proper and fitting for Adam. That represents a wife’s relationship to her husband. And it requires that he act in authority (tell her what he needs from her), or else she will not be able to be what God created her to be – a help, proper and fitting (meet) for her husband.

    So much of the debate over the meanings in the New Testament would disappear if we would keep our focus instead on the simple reason why God created Eve, and what he created her to be. That cannot be argued, and it should inform our interpretation of what is being said in the New Testament – regardless of what Kephale actually means.

  82. RichardP says:

    I duplicated 3 lines in the post above: “So let them keep their head … “. Not intentional.

    Brings to mind “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs … ” http://genius.com/Rudyard-kipling-if-annotated

  83. Scott says:

    RPC-

    With enough men taking the red pill, norms can change. If expectations are set early on that our daughters will not go to college, not pursue careers, be chaste, marrying young, bear children, and keep the home, then no-fault divorce can be mitigated to some extent.

    This is what my wife and I are trying to do. It is a flawed model, because neither of us saw a really good working version of it growing up. Places like this site only partially quench the thirst for it.

    Every day we re-commit to providing this outward expression of father/husband headship. We actually make a point to articulate it to them in not-so-subtle ways.

    There is no real support from the church and the society, all though Orthodoxy at least allows to organize our family this way without any resistance. Its the best we can do.

  84. Scott says:

    “although” as one word, of course. And “allows us.”

  85. Lost Patrol says:

    This is the umpteenth video from the PragerU cucks that sells men a bill of goods about imaginary respect.

    Symbolically, the characters are all – literally – as blue as a pill.

  86. Scott says:

    As someone who has listened to Prager for over 20 years, I would attest to the following. He would make a great ally in the fight against misandry and feminism if he could be convinced of the underlying problems with it. He is a fantastic, on the fly orator.

    What he has going for him is that he does not appear to fear truth, even when it is painful. If you listen to his “male female hour” (I believe this is the 2nd hour on Wednesdays now) there is a lot of truth discussed there. Some women with very traditionally organized marriages call, and he fawns all over them (pedestalizes) and SOMETIMES walks right up to the edge of the underlying truth of what makes those marriages work, and then turns back.

    The fact that he draws some of the wrong conclusions from that truth is a function of layer upon layer of conventional wisdom that is very difficult to dislodge. He is of the baby boomer generation, after all. Ask yourself “what was I like before I took the red pill?”

    He observes that there are deep differences between the way men and women perceive the world, their drives, their fears, etc. But then does not follow up with some of the rational questions required to explain the behavior that emanates from those differences. He is operating under the belief that somewhere, marriage 1.0 is still available. (The type of marriage his parents no doubt had, as they were Orthodox Jews).

    The latest video posted above is a case in point. As Oscar points out, the real question should be “what kind of woman did Ward Cleaver pick, and why?” I believe an “aha!” moment like that is all it would take with him.

  87. Kevin says:

    Woman often seek guidance from other women. My wife is a borderline nyphomaniac and women often ask her about sex and her advice is generally – do it more often and it should have no more connection to whim than meals. You have sex to make the marriage better – you don’t wait until the marriage is good to have sex. Sex as a weapon is just sad modern neurosis that makes people unhappy. It’s the modern desire to make everyone unsatisfied. Misery all around.

  88. Kevin says:

    @Hose_B

    Calling Jesus the first feminist is pretty blasphemous given the ideology of feminism. However I do think Jesus was trying to teach us a lesson about the importance of those women in his life and the importance of women to the kingdom of God. But trying to confine Jesus to a ridiculous concept like feminism is short sighted. He was the first to give all men access to a way to be free from the early bounds we face by knowledge.

  89. Chris says:

    Jesus was an egalitarian, which is why He wasn’t a Feminist.

  90. Scott says:

    “Jesus was an egalitarian.”

    That’s not right. While it appears the heavenly realm may have a sense of this, here on earth Christ tells us to respect The Fathers natural heirarchies.

  91. I would fine-tune that so say that the core problem is pastors teaching women to have contempt for GOD by having contempt for their husbands.

    @Sip

    No. That is effect, contempt for husband is cause. Pastors are sometimes indirectly, sometimes directly teaching women to have contempt for husbands. In effect this requires not so much contempt for God but rather a complete lack of faith in God or anything other than her go-grrl self.

  92. Jeff Strand says:

    Maybe when the wife violates her marriage vows by refusing to perform her wifely duties, the husband should respond by throwing a “godly tantrum”.

    But no, because right off the bat you can see how immature and ridiculous that is…for a man to do that. But it’s ok for the wife to do it, right? Apparently because women are naturally more immature. But then again, they are totally equal and capable of being generals, admirals, prime ministers, CEO’s, etc. And if you’re skeptical of this, you’re a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who needs to get right with God!

    We are watching the implosion of Protestant Christianity right in front of our very eyes, even as “Pope” Francis is doing all he can to simultaneously destroy Catholic Christianity…and apparently succeeding.

    Disgusted is not even the word.

  93. He would make a great ally in the fight against misandry and feminism if he could be convinced of the underlying problems with it.

    @Scott

    Good luck with this Scott. Prager is just another cuckservative to at least a quorum here, which means irredeemable. He is an old white headed guy who is sort of traditional sounding and he makes many Lift Chasing overtures, therefore you will find few who can imagine that, but for so far not awakening to some painful realities, he has potential to be a fellow traveler.

    I wore myself out on making that general case here for months/years. So much so I had to take a long break from commenting.or blogging.

  94. Jeff Strand says:

    The cucksanity continues!

    Now churches are vowing to fight Trump’s effort to actually enforce our immigration laws by offering sanctuary to illegal aliens! You can’t make this stuff up!

    https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/12/13/churches-vow-to-offer-sanctuary-to-illegal-aliens/

  95. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Good luck with this Scott. Prager is just another cuckservative to at least a quorum here, which means irredeemable. He is an old white headed guy who is sort of traditional sounding and he makes many Lift Chasing overtures, therefore you will find few who can imagine that, but for so far not awakening to some painful realities, he has potential to be a fellow traveler.

    I wore myself out on making that general case here for months/years. So much so I had to take a long break from commenting.or blogging.

    I don’t get your point here. Prager is a strong advocate for no fault divorce. He really likes that system and argues that it makes marriage better. He also tells young men that marriage will make men respected and (per this latest video) sexy. I get that in theory, if Prager were good on these issues, he would be an ally. More simply, if he were an ally, he would be an ally. But he isn’t, and the fact that you think he should be an ally doesn’t really help. Nor would it help if we pretended that he was an ally, when in fact he is not.

  96. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Dalrock,

    “therefore you will find few who can imagine that, but for so far not awakening to some painful realities, he has potential to be a fellow traveler.”

    I don’t get your point here.

    If I may make so bold as to paraphrase, I think Empath means, “therefore you will find few who can imagine the following: he has potential to be a fellow traveler if he would only awaken to some painful realities.”

  97. Kirk Forlatt says:

    Good post, as usual. But you know, reading things like this make me increasingly cold-blooded and utilitarian in my thoughts. Churchy pious talk and well-meaning advice aside, I wonder if the most sensible and realistic thing to tell young white men is something revolutionary and, at first glance, unbiblical? For example, something like this:

    “Do not marry, in a legal sense, or commit to any woman. They are dangerously brainwashed. They will screw your life up. They will bleed you dry for monetary support while denying you the right to determine how your offspring are raised and trained. Therefore…seduce and bed as many healthy white girls as you can. Sow your seed far and wide. You will be reproducing your race, and who knows? You may sire a king or a warrior of the caliber of the biblical David or the Viking Ragnar Lodbrok. But if you do the traditional thing and stand in front of a pastor and take vows, you will be systematically castrated and gutted, and will end your days broke and broken. So make babies with every healthy, attractive girl you can, but don’t commit to them. And don’t listen to their lies that you’re “abandoning” them, or that you’re “abandoning your child and your fatherhood responsibilities.” These are lies in the 21st century. Trying to live and act like an “honorable gentleman” in 21st century America is akin to trying to live and act like a 17th century Puritan in 21st century Pakistan. Be fruitful and multiply and replenish your race, but don’t do it according to the rules of the SJWs or the churchians. Sire children and intercede faithfully and fiercely for them every day before the throne of the Ever-Living God. But to hell with what this corrupt and verminous society approves or disapproves of.”

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Caspar Reyes

    If I may make so bold as to paraphrase, I think Empath means, “therefore you will find few who can imagine the following: he has potential to be a fellow traveler if he would only awaken to some painful realities.”

    As I wrote above, if he were an ally, he would be an ally. I get that point. I just don’t get why this needs to be repeated. What should we be doing with this information? Silently wait another decade to see if he will stop confusing young men about what is really going on? Back in 2003 Prager concluded an article with:

    Let’s vigorously promote marriage but have no more knee-jerk condemnations of divorce. It is these condemnations, more than divorces, that are made too easily.

    This is what he said he wanted to do, and as his recent videos demonstrate he has stayed true to plan. But when some commenters point this out, others are for reasons I truly can’t fathom, uncomfortable. My question is, why? Why does it matter that if he weren’t so terribly wrong, he would be right? It isn’t that the point is untrue, but that it is meaningless.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon

    er… there is the word ‘PragerU’ in the still screencap that we see before clicking it..

    That doesn’t answer my question which was “where is the URL for this video?”.
    The answer to my question is:
    “In the comment by Trust on December 12, 2016 at 12:19 pm”

    Thanks anyway.

    As to the video…that’s 4 minutes of my life wasted on TradCon cargo-cult emoting. There is enough glib, superficial truth in that vid to keep a lot of men nodding along, even as it skates right over the last 20, 25, 30 years of law and culture.

    A lot of Ward Cleavers today, now have a lot of problems that PragerU plainly has no clue about, starting with The Threatpoint. BTW, Geraghty certainly looks like the stereotypical, Blue PIll, concern-trolling TradCon. I wonder how many children he has? I’m guessing “none”, although I believe he is marred.

  100. Dalrock

    My point was the same as Scott’s. That he COULD be an ally.

    I sense some misplaced irritation on this topic. When you , lay out Prager’s flawed ideas (I am well aware of them), then say

    the fact that you think he should be an ally doesn’t really help. Nor would it help if we pretended that he was an ally, when in fact he is not.

    Uncalled for. An unfair and misleading paraphrase. And this:

    I get that in theory, if Prager were good on these issues, he would be an ally. More simply, if he were an ally, he would be an ally

    Doesn’t work at all, even as sarcasm. The second statement is not a rephrase of the first, and I made neither of them.

    .Maybe I have written something in the past that caused you to impugn my words with notions that couldn’t have come from my comment.

    I was glad to see Scott’s comment. I expected someone to jump on his Prager remark as well.

    My point was that, no matter how innocuous the remark, if any comment is made, even if it is hypothetical as in “if person X would get this right then person X would potentially be a potent ally”, comments follow that are like the body snatchers moaning while pointing to the one person not yet podded.

    Whats troubling is that there are lots of men here and around that were like Prager to some degree, and were scorched by divorce and are now allies in the debate if not the battle. Some were supplicants that would be to the blue side of Prager.

    Be sure I’m not here to defend Prager. I am curious why this bee stung up under your bonnet so badly.

  101. Messed up the tags so badly the comment is useless. Nevermind.

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    He is an old white headed guy who is sort of traditional sounding and he makes many Lift Chasing overtures, therefore you will find few who can imagine that, but for so far not awakening to some painful realities, he has potential to be a fellow traveler.

    If. If. If. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I don’t see any homeless men charging around
    on horses, though.

    How many years has Prager been ignoring painful realities? 10? 20? 30?
    C’mon, Empath. We’ve been over this before. He doesn’t get it because he doesn’t want to. He wants Marriage 1.0, but he also wants women to have the privilege to blow up any marriage when they aren’t haaaaaapy. You know this is true. So he can’t, can’t, can’t get it because of his own internal contradictions – women’s haaaapiness is obviously more important than anything else.

    Plus it would be bad for PragerU’s franchise. This truth may be ugly, but it’s still true.

  103. Anon says:

    empath,

    My point was the same as Scott’s. That he COULD be an ally.

    If someone can’t figure out the truth after years and years of people explaining it to him, then he is hopeless. The notion that he ‘could be an ally’ is as distant as saying that Republican women ‘could be allies’ if the just understood everything.

    Prager will never be an ally, since he can never grasp the truth about female psychology and how the laws have worked to destroy marriage.

    You could spend your entire life trying to convince someone like Prager, and he will not budge from his cuckservative views..

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    My point was that, no matter how innocuous the remark, if any comment is made, even if it is hypothetical as in “if person X would get this right then person X would potentially be a potent ally”, comments follow that are like the body snatchers moaning while pointing to the one person not yet podded.

    That’s how you read it. But what I see you saying over and over again is more like this:

    “Guys, STOP CRITICISING tradcons! Play nice with them! Suck up to them! Sure, they roll over for feminists every single time like whipped dogs, and sure they stab men in the back on a regular basis in churches and legislatures, but maybe someday if they get part of this right they could maybe sorta be allies. Maybe. Sorta. ”

    Yes, I exaggerate. I exaggerate deliberately. I get your frustration, but I am still not sure if you really understand the depth of anger towards the tradcons, who routinely say one thing and do the exact opposite. Some of us have a visceral dislike for hypocrites, especially hypocrites who swing the Bible around like a mace or a flail.

    It’s always good to see you, even when we are disagreeing, Empath.

  105. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    But when some commenters point this out, others are for reasons I truly can’t fathom, uncomfortable. My question is, why?

    The reason that is if someone is right on other unrelated issues for a long time (as Prager has been), then his fans are unhappy about him being completely wrong (at best) on this all-important issue of misandry. It is a classic ‘stop worshiping your idols’ moment.

    It is just like how when Donald Sensing said some cuckservative ‘man up’ things, his fans came here to defend him by pointing out that he was really good on anti-terror issues. Those were entirely different topics, but that was the only defense his fans could muster.

    That is why anti-feminism is not a Dem-GOP thing, as the people against misandry are a) few in number, and b) found in both parties.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    Whats troubling is that there are lots of men here and around that were like Prager to some degree, and were scorched by divorce and are now allies in the debate if not the battle. Some were supplicants that would be to the blue side of Prager.

    Why is that troubling? Some men here were scorched by reality, and now see clearly. Prager does not see clearly, so he’s not much of an ally. These are all statements of fact that surely are not controversial, they should not be troubling, either.

    So? What’s the point? Other men who were not scorched by divorce nevertheless wear The Glasses, and see clearly, and are allies against the Female Imperative. Should we not focus on “more men like that” rather than waste time on someone who has a financial interest in the status quo?

  107. Anon says:

    In other words, there are FAR easier places to spread the truth and win converts than the Prager/Wilcucks/Geraghty crowd of cuckservatives. They would rank close to the top of a ‘most difficult to convert’ list, behind only blue-haired shoggoths and lefto-manginas.

  108. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Maybe I have written something in the past that caused you to impugn my words with notions that couldn’t have come from my comment.

    While it is true that there is a history here, I really was replying to your comment. If you aren’t saying that people are unfairly piling on to Prager and missing the opportunity to see him as an ally when you write:

    Good luck with this Scott. Prager is just another cuckservative to at least a quorum here, which means irredeemable. He is an old white headed guy who is sort of traditional sounding and he makes many Lift Chasing overtures, therefore you will find few who can imagine that, but for so far not awakening to some painful realities, he has potential to be a fellow traveler.

    I wore myself out on making that general case here for months/years. So much so I had to take a long break from commenting.or blogging.

    Then please clarify what you are saying. Because I have absolutely no idea, and each time we do this dance it doesn’t get any better. What, truly, is your point? I keep telling you how I read it, and you keep telling me I’m wrong but not helping me understand. That is my frustration; it isn’t that we might disagree, but that after so many rounds I still (apparently) have no clue what you are getting at. And this wouldn’t irritate me if I didn’t have a great deal of respect for you. You are very sharp, with insights I value; this leaves me with this nagging sense that I’m missing something important.

    Assuming this is thickness on my part, I’ll also ask that another reader do me the favor of explaining what I’m missing.

  109. Anon says:

    What is even worse about the Geraghty video is that :

    a) He claims to know what women truly find attractive. Because women told him so!
    b) He is outright saying that a carousel rider with a double-digit N count is still a ‘catch’ that a man should man up and enter the contract with. Having a high N count and then showing up at 35 expecting a provider is completely fine, according to the cuckservative. Look how easily he slips that in there………she rode the carousel, but now knows better, so beta providers better be ready on HER timeline.

    The fact that PragerU is churning out more and more of these videos shows their desperation. It is a classic ‘doubling down’ when that is all one knows…

  110. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    Assuming this is thickness on my part, I’ll also ask that another reader do me the favor of explaining what I’m missing.

    It is not thickness on your part at all. All it is is that when someone (empath in this case) likes a commentator like Prager on a range of other issues, they cannot bear to think that he is completely wrong on this issue. Hence, they ‘bargain’ by asserting that the Tradcons ‘could be allies’, when in reality there is scarcely a worse place to seek to gain converts..

    Again, Prager is the very textbook definition of a Tradcon. Every other conservative principle gets tossed out when the prospect of benefiting women at the cost of men arises. Then, they suddenly become hardcore economic leftists and ‘gender is a social construct’ feminists.

  111. Anon says:

    Anon Reader,

    So he can’t, can’t, can’t get it because of his own internal contradictions – women’s haaaapiness is obviously more important than anything else.

    I would amend that to what he *thinks* makes women happy.

    In reality, groveling/pedestalizing of women is extremely repulsive to women. It is true that women are unable to explain to a man what women find attractive, and hence men who take women at face value and follow female instructions end up repulsing women.

    But the truth is, cuckservatives and manginas are in fact terrorizing women in much the same way that a man would be terrorized if obese women danced naked in front of him every day.

    On one hand, I would feel bad for women that they are being terrorized by the repulsive actions of cuckservatives and manginas every single day.
    On the other hand, the fact that women are just not capable of teaching a man how to behave in ways that women find attractive, and can only mislead men, is a fundamental limitation of women, for which they can only blame themselves. If women understood how women think, then Game would be taught in public K-12 schools.

  112. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    It is just like how when Donald Sensing said some cuckservative ‘man up’ things, his fans came here to defend him by pointing out that he was really good on anti-terror issues. Those were entirely different topics, but that was the only defense his fans could muster.

    Sensing is a great example of what I think is part of the subcurrent here. I wrote a post about the feminized church. Instapundit picked it up and Sensing responded that if I thought feminists were infiltrating the church I needed to get out more, because it just ain’t happening where he is. He dismissed the idea that headship is under assault out of hand, because he’s a preacher and he sees no problem. This might not be so bad if Sensing were somehow in a non pozzed group of Christianity, but he is a United Methodist pastor. Hey, at least he isn’t a Unitarian or PC USA. Here he is at ground zero, and he wants to lecture me that I’m a rube if I think I see a smoking hole in the ground.

    Denial, in the face of the most obvious facts, is the biggest problem we are dealing with. Feminists who are honest enough to call themselves as such aren’t our problem. It is men like Prager and Sensing and Stanton and Moore, who are busy (metaphorically) lighting fires while driving a firetruck and wearing firefighting equipment. Don’t get me wrong; I dig firetrucks and firefighting gear, but that doesn’t change the fact that they need to cut back on the arson.

  113. Jeff says:

    Rollo still hasnt explained that if wives will have sex with you or find you sexually attractive if other women want you, that you should already be attracting women just by the fact that you are married. Thus, because you are attracting other women just by being married, your wife will find you sexually attractive.

  114. Scott says:

    Whoops, this conversation went wild after I made that Prager comment. I’ll try to do something with it.

    I want to synthesize the salient points here, because there are some good ones. Dalrock, your point is well taken about “what ifs” You are correct, that Prager is not an ally, and there is a sense that talking about how “he would be, if only he believed/said this.” His not being an ally is not in contention, and writing about that fact in your comments section appears to be annoying to you.

    Understood–Got it, and I’ll try to swing back to that.

    Also, Anon is hitting me right between the eyes with his assessment that I have been listening/reading him for a long time, and therefore have much invested in that. I must concede that I don’t WANT Prager to be wrong about this (or in my hypothesis, parts of it), because I think he is a heavy hitter in other areas and his been a huge influence on my own thinking for decades.

    Empath brings up the sheer numbers involved (his readers/listeners) and this is where I think we are getting our wires crossed.

    No I do not believe Prager will ever become a red-pill blogger or advocate for the things written around here. There are numerous psychological reasons for this. It is very unlikely. But he is part of a group of “conservative” writers who I consider to be “purple pill” (depending on the issue) and there are millions of people reading and listening. Kurt Schlichter on law and war, John Hawkins on politics, and even Thomas Sowell on race are some others. These people occasionally say things that are true and then make wildly inaccruate conclusions about those truths or seem incapable of figuring out how they arrived there.

    And so it is the way in which I chose to interact with the purple pill part of the commentariat that is different, not the issues themselves. I SHARE Dennis Prager videos and articles on my blog and FB page and then proceed to offer my critique. I know that I barely have 100 new readers a day, but I also know based on private conversations and emails that it makes a difference. In this way, I see Prager as a sort of “gateway drug” to the red pill. That’s what he was for me.

  115. Scott says:

    Edit– “a sense that…is not productive.”

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    I would amend that to what he *thinks* makes women happy.

    Nope. It’s a belief, an unquestionable belief. I know Boomers like Prager, they cannot be reasoned with. Point to the fact that 70% of divorces are filed by women, they go off like a cheap firework about “abusive men who cheat” or some other Female Imperative, Feminist talking point.

    It’s belief.

    In reality, groveling/pedestalizing of women is extremely repulsive to women.

    Yes. But the neoVIctorian tradcons, and the clueless blank-slate equalitarians do not understand that, because they cannot question their fundamental premises.

  117. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    Sensing is a great example of what I think is part of the subcurrent here.

    Yes. But recall the people who came to defend him – their defense was effectively to point out that he was valuable in the War on Terror. That is an entirely different topic, but they felt that it exonerated him from his Marriage 2.0 views. What we observed there (and here today) is that when someone has fans, his fans cannot accept that he is wrong on other, unrelated issues.

    Fandom is a funny aspect of human psychology. This also explains why ‘celebrities’ can earn millions from product endorsements, even if they don’t use the products. It is absurd that the market will pay so much for such endorsements, but apparently people want it.

  118. If you aren’t saying that people are unfairly piling on to Prager and missing the opportunity to see him as an ally when you write:

    I hope you will take my explanation at face value.

    Prager is a place holder in my quoted sentences. I wasn’t writing about Prager, despite using his name. I was using him as an example because he was the man Scott mentioned. The things I am saying are so nonthreatening and so NOT supportive of Prager or any other supplicating weeny that it is equally frustrating to me that I see irrational impugning of my opinion in that it is represented that I am advocating for the guy (any of these types) despite his wrongness on marriage etc. I want him in, in the clique, I want to make a bigger tent so to speak.

    I don’t know how to make it more clear. I’m at a loss. I am not saying anything resembling what has been repeated back as paraphrase, and I will ask that that simply be accepted as fact. Maybe we can sort through this some other time some other way. Its not important for one reader-me-to suck the air out of the room trying to explain myself.

    I apologize for doing so.

  119. Anon says:

    Scott,

    Anon is hitting me right between the eyes with his assessment that I have been listening/reading him for a long time, and therefore have much invested in that. I must concede that I don’t WANT Prager to be wrong about this (or in my hypothesis, parts of it), because I think he is a heavy hitter in other areas and his been a huge influence on my own thinking for decades.

    I meant more empath than Scott, since empath seems to be more emotional about it.

    I SHARE Dennis Prager videos and articles on my blog and FB page and then proceed to offer my critique.

    OK, that is good. Pointing out why Tradcons are actually misleading men and sneaking way too much FI into seemingly benign commentary, is effective (note how Geraghty has no problem with saying that a high N should not be held against a woman who later wants to marry). But this is exactly the opposite of what empath is saying. Scott is using Prager to point out how the Tradcon narrative is wrong (similar to what Dalrock does). Empath is defending Prager.

  120. Anon says:

    empath,

    I want him in, in the clique, I want to make a bigger tent so to speak.

    Correct sentiment, wrong target.

    There are many, many, many places where it is easier to gain allies than TradCons. As I wrote above, there are few people less likely to see the light. One can no more convert a TradCon than convert a lefto-mangina.

    After so many years of Dalrock’s blogging, as even ONE pastorbator actually seen the light? Has even ONE high-profile TradCon become red-pill?

  121. sipcode says:

    Dalrock,

    Big Picture Topic.

    “PURPOSE” – God’s purpose. God wastes no moment in our lives. Men, come see [looking back] how God has used every instant of your life to build you up. I’ve found no better way to describe this then in the words of C. Campbell Morgan in his book on Hosea:

    “The result of the tragedy in his life was that he, Hosea, came to understand the heart of God, and what God suffered when His people sinned. He was admitted, through the mystery of his own tragedy, into an apprehension of what the sin of the nation meant against the heart of God ….to him an interpretation of the agony of the heart of God …he discovered what infidelity means to love…

    …Hosea, in this communion with God, came to understand the sin of the nation as he could never have understood it apart from the experience of his own agony …He learned what God suffered in the dark hours when he was alone. The infidelity of Gomer interpreted to Hosea the infidelity of Israel. God had said, ‘I have betrothed thee unto Me forever’… He knew what would happen to this woman, and yet He guided me. By that guidance I have come to understand the suffering of God…

    …God interprets Himself to us through our own experiences …experiences of an hour cannot be understood at the time; but presently we look back and see, that when we talked to Jehovah at the first, He led us, even though the thing we did brought us into tragedy, for in the midst of the tragedy we have discovered God. It was so with Joseph …when his brethren …had treated him so badly, Joseph said to them, ‘God did send me before you, to reserve life.’ He said in effect, ‘You treated me badly. You put me in the den. You sold me into slavery. Oh yes, you did it, but there is a higher realm of interpretation. I have suffered years of imprisonment. But now I see the meaning of it all’…

    …[or the] debate between Job and the great philosophers, who, nevertheless, could not account for him when he did not fit into their philosophy, and so rejected him. All the while God said, ‘My servant Job, a perfect and upright man.’ When we get to the end of the story, we find Job talking, and he has found God, and found God’s meaning …suffering cannot be accounted for at the moment. God may be preparing us for co-operation with Him …the witness of which shall pass down the ages, to give [identify] the lie to a false philosophy of life …God interprets Himself to us through our own experiences.” [end quote]

    Remember, God instructed Hosea to marry Gomer, “a wife of whoredoms.” Why? “For the land hath committed great whoredom.” Now that is REAL purpose! [like Abraham sacrificing Issac. Do we connect with our God THAT intimately?]

    NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY:

    “…[Hosea] obedient to the command of God, he sought out and went to find Gomer, and found her degraded, and brought her back, he found God’s attitude, even to those who by sin broke His heart.” [end quote]

    Key to accepting her back is “her degraded” condition. If a wife remains hard hearted in pride and rebellion God cannot take her back; her husband cannot take her back. I know of no husband that would not take his wife back if she truly and sufficiently acknowledges her condition. Husbands are to stand firm in the law but never to vex or revenge his wife. That is for the Lord.

    Had I married a ‘Gomer’? My sister said I needed to “repent” for marrying my wife. I responded with: “Why would I want to fight God? Why would I want to anger Him? All legitimate marriages are ordained, that is, “put together” by God and my marriage was legitimate so by definition it is put together by God. Why would I apologize for something that God put together? Besides, I am in this crucible for a reason. That is no excuse for anyone, but there is a God reason for it ….and we shall all see.”

    I love my wife incredibly, but she is rotting flesh, and I cannot have her again until she is fully exposed and degraded. It hurts BIG in the meantime [as you all have experienced]. But I am experiencing God in an indescribable way.

    Thank you Dalrock for organizing this venue. Thank you men for seeking the Lord and getting mad as Hell at the crock full of lies that have engulfed the church – for speaking up in your corner of His kingdom. Proceed on …inhale the Breath of our dear Lord as He is establishing His army of men. God is preparing men to run His true church. Join up; see that it is so. Lift your hands in glory and praise to Him as He makes it happen! And, watch in joyful anticipation!

  122. Oscar says:

    @ Scott says:
    December 13, 2016 at 7:15 am

    “The latest video posted above is a case in point. As Oscar points out, the real question should be ‘what kind of woman did Ward Cleaver pick, and why?’ I believe an ‘aha!’ moment like that is all it would take with him.”

    One of these days, if I ever have time on a Wednesday, I’d like to call in to Prager’s show and ask him that question.

    Prager’s support for no fault divorce, and his self-contradictory claim that one can support no fault divorce while championing traditional marriage, are pretty easy to figure out. Prager’s on his third marriage. Instead of repenting of his sin, he’s rationalizing it. Rationalization is a powerful temptation, and we’re all prone to it (see King Saul’s response to a prophet’s admonition of sin vs. King David’s response to the same).

    Back to the specifics of the video, Geraghty claims that “women who’ve outgrown their adolescent fascination with bad boys” want Ward Cleaver types. Great. I agree.

    But, how long did it take her to outgrow her “adolescent fascination with bad boys”? How old is she at that point? 20? 25? 30? 35? And what happened while she indulged her “adolescent fascination with bad boys”? More to the point; what’s left of her after she finally outgrew her “adolescent fascination with bad boys”? Would Ward Cleaver want her after all that?

    Or, does a young man who has the potential to grow into a Ward Cleaver type want a young woman who never indulged her “adolescent fascination with bad boys” and therefore doesn’t bring all that baggage to the marriage?

    What is he likely to do if he can’t find one?

    Why am I the one asking these questions instead of Prager and Geraghty?

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    I want him in, in the clique, I want to make a bigger tent so to speak.

    While I can’t speak for anyone else, I understand that. To me at least that has been clear for years. Here is something else that has been clear to me for years:

    He doesn’t want to join the clique, he does not want into our tent no matter how big it is

    He wants us to join him, not the other way around.

    He has his own clique and his own tent, and he only will let us join him on his terms, otherwise he dismisses us out of hand, with contempt. That’s a problem. Isn’t it?

    I don’t know how to make it more clear.

    Ditto.
    Empath, I share your frustration at explaining once again what seems obvious.

  124. Anon Reader, I DO NOT want to make a bigger tent. I was saying that is what is being foist on me as being my desire. I am not one to squeeze conflicting ideology into my tent. Hell my tent usually has me alone in here I’m so strident about things.

  125. DrTorch says:

    With enough men taking the red pill, norms can change. If expectations are set early on that our daughters will not go to college, not pursue careers, be chaste, marrying young, bear children, and keep the home, then no-fault divorce can be mitigated to some extent

    THIS! This is what the men’s support group should look like. Encouraging men to lead their families this way.
    I used to take my sons to a fall “man camp” weekend at a church camp a couple of hours away. I had a dream of being a speaker and having this be the content of one of the messages. This is what men need to hear. That it’s the right way, and that it’s possible even in this time and place.

    all he has to do is just stop asking for sex, stop touching his wife, stop indicating altogether that he finds her desirable. If the husband could do this convincingly, and provided the wife hasn’t checked out of the marriage entirely, it would be effective. From what I’ve read, if a wife finds that her husband no longer finds her desirable and no longer wants sex, its often pretty devastating to her.

    True. And giver her what she thinks she wants: no arguments, no opinions, do chores yourself. But be aware that cuckservatives at the church will tell her how evil the husband is and that she has the right to leave him, heck she must leave him to teach him a lesson.

  126. Anon says:

    Oscar,

    Why am I the one asking these questions instead of Prager and Geraghty?

    Because you have courage and they have none.

    Another layers of cluelessness in the video is that while Geraghty bashes video games (with the impressive arrogance that his shaming language matters to young men who play them), he assumes that men under 30 even know who Ward Cleaver is.

    The self-absorbed biases are many. Geraghty just revealed that his own wife probably had an N of 10, and married him at 35. That is why he is desperate to rationalize why being Beta Bux is glorious, when it is infact the least desirable status in the existing world..

    The alpha who is pumping and dumping sluts who later settle for Geraghty are getting laid at a cost that is 1000x, 10,000X, or even infinitely lower than what a Beta Bux schlub pays…

  127. Oscar says:

    @ Anon says:
    December 13, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    “Geraghty just revealed that his own wife probably had an N of 10, and married him at 35.”

    Seriously?! You gotta be freaking kidding me!

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    Why am I the one asking these questions instead of Prager and Geraghty?

    Because you won’t damage your world view, or your franchise, or your income stream by doing so.

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath then

    I want him in, in the clique, I want to make a bigger tent so to speak.

    Empath now
    Anon Reader, I DO NOT want to make a bigger tent.

    You are contradicting yourself in a matter of minutes. This makes communication very difficult.

  130. Oscar says:

    @ AR

    Sometimes I wonder about that last one. I’m not anonymous, after all!

  131. Anon says:

    Oscar,

    Seriously?! You gotta be freaking kidding me!

    I don’t know the exact numbers, of course, but if you feel inclined to wade through that Tradcon video, you will see how he stresses that even if a woman rode the carousel during her youth, if she shows up for marriage after that, a man should see that as a plus, and still be ready to marry her on HER timetable…

    He then asserts that HE knows what women really want. It is very common for manginas and tradcons to assert that they are the apex of male attractiveness. They have to assert that every day in order to ignore the endless contrary evidence they see daily…

  132. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    I don’t know how to make it more clear. I’m at a loss. I am not saying anything resembling what has been repeated back as paraphrase, and I will ask that that simply be accepted as fact. Maybe we can sort through this some other time some other way. Its not important for one reader-me-to suck the air out of the room trying to explain myself.

    I apologize for doing so.

    I don’t doubt that this is frustrating on both sides, and I don’t suspect that you are holding out on me. But to the extent that we can clear up the confusion, I would say it very much is worth the time/space. Something bothers you enough that you felt the need to step away.

    I wore myself out on making that general case here for months/years. So much so I had to take a long break from commenting.or blogging.

    I’d like to understand it, but unless another reader can point it out I suspect we have hit an impasse.

    One side note: Instapundit has a link to a new post by Prager pointing out that it is normal for men to “objectify” women sexually.

  133. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Dalrock, your point is well taken about “what ifs” You are correct, that Prager is not an ally, and there is a sense that talking about how “he would be, if only he believed/said this.” His not being an ally is not in contention, and writing about that fact in your comments section appears to be annoying to you.

    Understood–Got it, and I’ll try to swing back to that.

    Not at all. What annoyed me is that I still don’t understand Empath’s concern.

    I’ll also add that like you I have listened to and enjoyed Prager’s show. He has taught me things I wouldn’t otherwise understand.

  134. feeriker says:

    Why am I the one asking these questions instead of Prager and Geraghty?

    That would be something worth asking Prager on his program. Of course if you did that, expect to be booted off the air faster than Superman runs await from Kryptonite.

  135. feeriker says:

    One side note: Instapundit has a link to a new post by Prager pointing out that it is normal for men to “objectify” women sexually.

    One has to wonder how fast he’ll backpedal on this once feminists in his audience take him to task for it (and they surely will).

  136. Oscar says:

    @ Anon,

    Inspired by your comment, I Googled Geraghty and found this interview about his book, “Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Raise a Family, and Other Manly Advice”, which is where he and his coauthor, Cam Edwards, first made the “Ward Cleaver was a stud” argument.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436780/heavy-lifting-grow-get-job-start-family-and-other-manly-advice-jim-geraghty-interview

    Check out these quotes.

    “Cam became a stepfather — really full-fledged fatherhood, no prefix required — before I [Geraghty] did.”

    “…I’ve [Geraghty] handled the kids solo while my wife’s been on work travel for a week…”

    Not very June Cleaver-like, are they? Despite that…

    “… Cam and I both married up …”

    So, marrying a single (divorced? never married?) mom or a woman who’d rather focus on her career than raise her own children = “marrying up” for these two?

  137. feeriker says:

    So, marrying a single (divorced? never married?) mom or a woman who’d rather focus on her career than raise her own children = “marrying up” for these two?

    That just serves to confirm that ANY marrying at all for these two losers is “marrying ‘up.'” That is, any woman who would give either one of them so much as the time of day, to say nothing of agreeing to marry their clueless schlub asses, is a princess worthy of pedestalization in their eyes. We know that any man with even a half an ounce of self-respect or common(?) sense knows better than to swallow this tripe. The tragedy is that many truly Gamma/Deep Blue Pill men don’t and are being put at risk by these two clueless clowns.

    TL;DR version: RUN, FORREST, RUN!!!!!!

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock to Empathalogicalism
    I don’t doubt that this is frustrating on both sides, and I don’t suspect that you are holding out on me. But to the extent that we can clear up the confusion, I would say it very much is worth the time/space. Something bothers you enough that you felt the need to step away.

    Cosign that. I really would like to understand what is bothering Empath about criticism of tradcons, but I just do not get it. Every time I thought I did, I was wrong.

  139. Anon says:

    Oscar,

    So, marrying a single (divorced? never married?) mom or a woman who’d rather focus on her career than raise her own children = “marrying up” for these two?

    Unbelievable! I thought that she was just a 35 year old with a high N, but she also has kids! So Jim Geraghty really puts the CUCK in ‘cuckservative’. He is raising another man’s children.

    This is why he is so strenuously asserting that marrying such women is actually a plus, and that HE knows what women really want and HE is the apex of male attractiveness (all manginas say that, very often).

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    When Geraghty writes:
    “… Cam and I both married up …”

    It is most likely just blue-pill pedestalization. “Mah bettah half” talk. Grovelling, in other words, lest ye vagina become … misplaced.
    When Geraghty was in Turkey I am pretty sure there were no children, just Mrs. Geraghty.
    He and his bud Cam are just more of the “trucks drive better when loaded” school of nonsense.

    Cynically, I am wondering if Prager’s listernship / viewership is down. Because I’m pretty sure National Review’s numbers are down in print format, possibly online as well.

  141. Oscar says:

    @ Anon

    Actually, Cam Edwards (Geraghty’s coauthor) is the one who married the single mom, but Geraghty obviously approves. I may have been unclear about that.

  142. Anon says:

    but I just do not get it. Every time I thought I did, I was wrong.

    I get it. It is troubling to realize that :

    a) The people contributing to the problem are so much more numerous than one may have initially thought, and
    b) Many problematic people are those who we thought of as the ‘good guys’ for the first 30/40/50 years of our lives.

    That is a lot for someone to accept, so occasional hopes that they can be easily converted do sporadically arise.

  143. DrTorch says:

    Many problematic people are those who we thought of as the ‘good guys’ for the first 30/40/50 years of our lives

    Yep. That’s exactly it.

  144. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock says:
    December 13, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    “One side note: Instapundit has a link to a new post by Prager pointing out that it is normal for men to ‘objectify’ women sexually.”

    That Prager article is pretty good. It even ties into the subject of this post.

    “6. Lucky is a couple if the man can sexually objectify his partner. The longer a husband can at least occasionally regard his wife as a sex object, the better their marriage. It is not always easy to see the woman you see every day, the mother of your children, as a sex object.”

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar

    You gotta stop referring to me as Anon, since there is an active commentor who goes by just that. Pick something else.

    Actually, Cam Edwards (Geraghty’s coauthor) is the one who married the single mom, but Geraghty obviously approves. I may have been unclear about that.

    You were unclear. But it does not matter, really, given Geraghty telling men it’s their duty to marry women who are now done with “bad boys”. This is the AF-BB reproductive strategy that Sheryl Sandburg touts, by the way. It’s one of the many hypocritical delusions that TradCons are much too fond of – that one can make a housewife out of a ho’.

  146. feeriker says:

    “The longer a husband can at least occasionally regard his wife as a sex object, the better their marriage. It is not always easy to see the woman you see every day, the mother of your children, as a sex object.”

    It’s very easy if 1) she hasn’t turned into an obese bitch and 2) you, the husband, have normal or above-normal levels of testosterone.

  147. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon re Empath
    I get it. It is troubling to realize that :

    That’s one of the explanations that I came up with, and it was not correct.
    I do not know what Empath is trying to say, but I do want to understand.

    Oscar:
    So I would ask Prager, “Did this objectification stop working with your first wife, and your second? Is it still working with your third?” which would get me bounced off of the air, and the question ignored. Or I would ask “Is there anything that women can do do encourage this objectification?” which would probably also get me bounced.

    There are a lot of hard questions that have been chewed on in the androsphere. None of them really get answered by the likes of Prager.

  148. feeriker says:

    There are a lot of hard questions that have been chewed on in the androsphere. None of them really get answered by the likes of Prager.

    Prager and his ilk could never answer such questions honestly. In doing so they would reveal themselves to be clueless, dishonest, or some combination of both.

  149. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    That Prager article is pretty good. It even ties into the subject of this post.

    “6. Lucky is a couple if the man can sexually objectify his partner. The longer a husband can at least occasionally regard his wife as a sex object, the better their marriage. It is not always easy to see the woman you see every day, the mother of your children, as a sex object.”

    Agreed. However, the elephant in the middle of the room that Prager misses is how much women desire to be objectified. This impulse is at least as powerful for women as the temptation to objectify is for men, and probably stronger. If men objectifying women sexually is a sin, certainly craving, and acting to create this objectification would be at least as great a sin. Indeed both are sins, if done outside of the proper context (marriage).

  150. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    However, the elephant in the middle of the room that Prager misses is how much women desire to be objectified by men they are attracted to

    FIFY.

  151. Lost Patrol says:

    Nice guys like Mr. Geraghty will never lead us out of this abyss. He may be a swell chap, but his Kung Fu is weak. I think I’m understanding that he married a 35 year old woman, and bragged in an interview about handling the kids while she is away on a work trip. I look at him in that linked video, listen to his delivery as he conveys “what women want”, put it together with the foregoing; and paint a picture in my mind that may be unfair and judgemental – but basically, I write him off. Some men find themselves in awkward circumstances like his, but they need to understand to stay in the background with all that. Don’t go boldly forth telling the rest of us how to do it, we won’t – simply can’t – trust you.

    I followed this link from up thread:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/cbmws-striking-ambivalence-for-complementarianism/

    I had no idea that CBMW represented the hard right, storm trooper version of the church’s fight against feminism. It explains a lot about a pastor I know that extols the virtues of CBMW, and truly believes he holding the line against feminism, even while giving the occasional man up and serve your wife sermons.

    My impression was that CBMW was an attempt at middle ground. Secular feminist egalitarianism being one end of the scale, biblical patriarchy being the other, and CBMW style complementarians trying to find some stance that will placate those two implacables.

  152. infowarrior1 says:

    I forgot to add to the previous comment I made. The hot dispute over “authentein” by scholars is linked to whether or not women can teach or have Authority over men. And that the reinterpretation of that word would be used to validate women teaching scripture or authority over men

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    I can’t remember if I asked this or not: are you haveing an “ought /is” issue? As in, “Prager and other traditional conservatives ought to be allies, we should treat them as if they are allies”, maybe?

    If that’s it, you should know by now it won’t fly with a lot of men. An allly has to stop being an enemy before they get treated like an ally, and make no mistake, Prager is an enemy of men so long as he subscribes to a Female Imperative point of view: case in point, he supports frivorce. This is not a Red PIll version of girls 349 bullet point list for a man to be worthy, mind you, this is basic, fundamental premise stuff.

    Dunno if this helps or annoys you, but I’m still trying to understand.

  154. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    I had no idea that CBMW represented the hard right, storm trooper version of the church’s fight against feminism. It explains a lot about a pastor I know that extols the virtues of CBMW, and truly believes he holding the line against feminism, even while giving the occasional man up and serve your wife sermons.

    They like to strike that pose at CBMW, and feminists like to pretend that CBMW is Teh Patriarchy! in some version of The Handmaid’s Tale. Sometimes I cynically wonder if the top leadership of CBMW and some feminists arent’ really engaged in nothing more than WWE Kayfabe action.
    A lot of people think that Feminism begins and ends with abortion and lesbianism.

    My impression was that CBMW was an attempt at middle ground. Secular feminist egalitarianism being one end of the scale, biblical patriarchy being the other, and CBMW style complementarians trying to find some stance that will placate those two implacables.

    Looking at their founding document, that seems to have been the intent of at least some of the founders. Problem is, they included conservative feminists from the start. Dalrock’s taken them to task quite well multiple times. Sincere people I know who subscribe to “complementarianism” send me links from time to time, nothing notable or I’d post them here. Splitting the difference while including the enemy camp just doesn’t work to really solve any social problem.

    But it could make for some really great Kayfabe action, although without the folding chairs flying around.

  155. Just Saying says:

    one therapist who said her clients have “lost their sex drive since Trump won.”

    I find this more than a little amusing since I regularly find that the reason women are catting around is because they want what they don’t get at home – i.e., they want to be treated as a slut by a man that will use them in ways their husbands never would. So to those women who have “lost” their sex drive – that’s bull, they just are tired of effeminate men like they have at home, and are looking for something new – like Trump is something new and it scares them, but turns them on. They can deny it, but their actions prove differently…

  156. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon: Unbelievable! I thought that she was just a 35 year old with a high N, but she also has kids! So Jim Geraghty really puts the CUCK in ‘cuckservative’. He is raising another man’s children.

    Single moms as love objects are now a staple in movies and TV shows. Not only on Lifetime and Hallmark movies, made for women, but also in many SfFy Channel movies made for me.

    Just yesterday I watched Crazy for Christmas, a 2005 made for cable TV movie about a Strong Independent Single Mom who works as a chauffer. She is raising her son by herself. This is because her dentist husband ran off with the hygenist. She begs her husband to visit the son on Christmas, but the dad is too selfish.

    At one point, this Single Mom is offered a free house by her own biological dad, who is trying to make amends for past wrongs. The Single Mom turns down the house, because she has so much integrity. She prefers to struggle financially.

    This Single Mom chauffer also meets a handsome local TV reporter who falls in love with her. The TV reporter turns down a promotion to a network TV job in Washington DC, because he wants to stay local so he can keep seeing this Amazing Single Mom.

    Naturally, the TV reporter has no problem with raising another man’s kid. Only a selfish, immature, undeserving man would have a problem with it.

    Crazy for Christmas is supposed to be “a warm holiday film for the entire family!”

  157. feeriker says:

    Crazy for Christmas is supposed to be “a warm holiday film for the entire family!”

    Pretty obviously this was originally a Lifetime (i.e., The Feminist Channel) MfTV movie. Sadly, the feminist sewage from that channel is starting to seep into other similar channels (e.g., ABCFamily, Hallmark, etc.).

  158. Samuel Culpepper says:

    This may have been covered here already, but maybe the men spoken of by these authors have a larger problem than a sex deprived marriage, maybe the reason things “just don’t work” for these men is that they are stuck in perpetual adultery and not a marriage as instituted by God. Our Lord will not bless what he condemns.

  159. RPC says:

    Anon said a ways upthread:

    There are many, many, many places where it is easier to gain allies than TradCons. As I wrote above, there are few people less likely to see the light. One can no more convert a TradCon than convert a lefto-mangina.

    Not sure I agree with this. Speaking as a former tradcon, men in our lives who hold views similar to Prager are probably the most likely to be won for the cause outside our own children.

    Most people believe what they want to believe. Our level of ego investment in a belief is the best predictor of its susceptibility to change, regardless of how objectively false it is. In Pragers case, the problem is not that he’s a tradcon. The problem is that he is heavily ego invested. He publishes his ideas publicly, makes money off them, and has himself been dicorced several times. Admitting he was wrong would cause excruciating cognitive dissonance. So, he’s not a good target for tent-expansion efforts.

    Your tradcon neighbors are though. Keep working on them. I’ve been working on a couple guys I know and after the initial hostility I’m starting to see a little movement.

  160. desiderian says:

    “In other words, there are FAR easier places to spread the truth and win converts than the Prager/Wilcucks/Geraghty crowd of cuckservatives. They would rank close to the top of a ‘most difficult to convert’ list, behind only blue-haired shoggoths and lefto-manginas.”

    The most fruitful mission field for allies is (young) men not yet in the pews. The cucks will be in let-them-eat-sloppy-seconds-and-like-it mode until they’re forced to change their tune or go unheard.

  161. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 13, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    “You gotta stop referring to me as Anon, since there is an active commentor who goes by just that.”

    Actually, I was addressing that other commenter. I hadn’t read your comment when I replied to his.

  162. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker says:
    December 13, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    “It’s very easy if 1) she hasn’t turned into an obese bitch… ”

    It’s so obvious, and yet so rarely addressed.

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    “Is there anything that women can do do encourage this objectification?”

    Based on the article Dalrock linked, he’d probably say something about lingerie. But, who wants to see some “obese bitch” (as feeriker noted) in Victoria’s Secret? In my 41 years on Earth I’ve known exactly TWO men who prefer fat chicks.

  163. infowarrior1 says:

    @AR@LP
    Cant help thinking that the underlying premise of CBMW is that “Christian Patriarchy” is abusive and that “conservative feminists” are misguided and have gone too far but have the best interests of women at heart and that supposedly a “pro-woman” perspective prevents the abusive domineering “patriarchy” from taking hold.

    What do you guys think? They think that Christian Patriarchy is an extreme just like all extremes are bad whilst ignoring the fact that Christian Patriarchy is the golden mean which treats both sexes with human dignity and assigns then optimal roles. Note its superior liberty in comparison with other Patriarchies of history.

  164. iamadamalan says:

    Patriarchy isn’t just the golden mean, it is God’s intention for creation, as Paul speaks of 1 Cor 11.

    CBMW has alway struck me as folks who wanted to have the world’s approval (i.e. feminism) while still feeling like they were holding fidelity to the scriptures.

  165. American says:

    After experiencing being born again as I converted to Christianity and ending the partying and fornication I had been involved in, I looked hard and long at this marriage arrangement offered by the church and society. After I had evaluated it carefully, I decided that an average male would have to be bat shit crazy to subject themselves to the threats and liabilities the present body of matrimonial law poses to their lives and I chose life-long celibacy. That was more than twenty years ago.

  166. MarcusD says:

    Question for the group… input appreciated
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1034768
    (Posted twice, second thread: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1034776)

    (It ought to be an interesting thread…)

  167. Feminist Hater says:

    Prager is divorced twice and married three times. He believes in no fault divorce, voting for women and the disenfranchisement of men through divorce via alimony and child support. He is NOT an ally in the slightest, it is on his watch that this shit unfolded. He is an enemy, in every conceivable way. Worse than a feminist, a tradcon!

  168. infowarrior1 says:

    @iamadamalan
    What I am thinking of is dysfunctional examples like Wahabi Patriarchies and other patriarchies like it and comparing it to God’s design for Patriarchy. Others are inferior morally in comparison.

  169. Lost Patrol says:

    @infowarrior1
    CBMW is an ongoing puzzle for me. Like Anonymous Reader, I know sincere people that follow that organization’s party line, but also truly believe themselves to be wholehearted followers of The Word. They will read the verse out loud “wives submit to your husbands…”, then craft a message about that directed 95% at men. They will publicly state that feminism is not the right way, but give a platform to Mary Kassian (who, thanks to feeriker, I can only think of as St. Mary of Kassian), “distinguished professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Seminary.” What the heck is that about? There’s a whole ‘nother story in that concept alone. Again, Anonymous Reader points out that they started from the beginning with feminists either directly or indirectly on board, but seem impervious to any notion that was a flawed approach.

    From my perspective, with apologies to Leon Russell, these men are up on a tightwire between ice and fire. But they believe themselves, in all sincerity, to be fighting the good fight; and on many other subjects they really are. This is the all pervasive power of the FI in which they were raised. It teaches them to serve it, while denying it exists.

  170. DrTorch says:

    It hurts BIG in the meantime [as you all have experienced]. But I am experiencing God in an indescribable way.

    All I can think of is Eccl 7:16.

  171. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @American:

    If you understand marriage as I and some others do, refusing to enter “marriage” as western society and churchianity has defined it, was the most most honest and obedient thing you could have done. You are a stronger man than most everyone here, myself included. I think, like Mr. Toad, that you would have found yourself in a church propagated lie and simply living in perpetual adultery. Given the moral corruption of the modern christian woman, it was highly unlikely you would have found a virgin to marry, even twenty (20) years ago. I wish that I had been strong enough to demand what I knew to be true and the natural order of things, instead I succumbed to feminist propaganda and “married” a used woman . . . biggest failing of my life. Now I am stuck trying to raise my kids to not do what I did with their mother and at the same time maintain their respect for both of us . . . there is no easy answer. My hats off to you for not adding to the insanity.

  172. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, do you suppose people ever troll Catholic Answers for sheer entertainment?
    Just wondering.

  173. iamadamalan says:

    @infowarrior1

    I’m not entirely sure what point your trying to make. But it strikes me you or CBMW is making the same mistake as those who think women want nice guys because they complain about bad guys.

    Woman care about ‘dysfunctional patriarchies’ like they care about ‘bad boys’. Which is why women converts to Islam outnumber men and the EU females welcome their new raping overlords with open arms and legs.

    What matters so far as the future survival of our civilization and our religion is ‘do we have a patriarchy’ not ‘what kind is it.’

    As distasteful as it might be, even a dysfunctional patriarchy will have better long term survival than the best equaltarian feminist fantasy.

    Not that I care for Islam, but this feminism killing Christianity today has its roots in a seed planted when the Greeks joined the church.

  174. MarcusD says:

    @AR

    MarcusD, do you suppose people ever troll Catholic Answers for sheer entertainment?

    I do, yes. I suspect a few of the regular posters are in fact trolls, as their “cover stories” are often so entirely stereotypical (and don’t match their capabilities, as seen through posting). It’s hard to tell, though, given Poe’s Law (etc).

  175. Gunner Q says:

    iamadamalan @ 1:02 pm:
    “What matters so far as the future survival of our civilization and our religion is ‘do we have a patriarchy’ not ‘what kind is it.’”

    Patriarchy isn’t just “men are in charge”. That’s always true. Matriarchies have never been based on Amazonian rule of women over men. They’re based on the rule of Alpha warlords over Beta slaves. They’re based on massive economic/social inequality, which helps women identify good lovers, and institutional polygamy, which allows women to share them. In other words, Islam.

    Do not be desperate to preserve civilization. Its purpose is to benefit ordinary, honest, hardworking, unsexy men like you… and if it refuses to do so, it deserves to die.

    “Not that I care for Islam, but this feminism killing Christianity today has its roots in a seed planted when the Greeks joined the church.”

    It was planted in the Garden of Eden. Original sin is a flaw of human nature that comes and goes with society’s ability (or willingness) to correct for it. Like a disease that goes into remission.

    Christianity has not changed since Christ because Christ is Almighty God. Neither Greeks nor Gnostics nor the devils of Hell itself will ever change God’s Word.

  176. American says:

    @Samuel Culpepper

    Thank you for your kind words. My heart goes out to all the men who’ve been subjected to those punishing threats and liabilities. That means you sir. Peace.

  177. Dale says:

    @desiderian
    >“seeing marital sex as a spiritual good in and of itself”
    >
    >Not sure how biblical that one is either.

    Being obedient to God shows love to God (it is good). John 14:21-24
    Refusing to do the good deed is sin. James 4:17
    Spouses are required to provide sexually for their spouse, and to not refuse except by mutual consent. 1 Cor 7:1-5.
    Since any act of obedience to God shows love to God, and since spouses are commanded to provide sexually for their own spouse, not refusing them: Giving sex to their spouse when asked is a good deed.
    One female author… … … ??? I can’t remember her name. Her book was called the good wife, or something similar. She dealt with the above logic, and added that a woman was being a godly woman by giving sex to her husband, just as much as if she were singing in the church choir.
    And yes, it is questionable for women to teach theology, but her book was focused on teaching women to love their husbands, and how to do that effectively, so I am not sure there is any problem. Plus, many “victim” groups will refuse on principle to listen to someone deemed to be from the “oppressor” group, so having a woman say such things can be helpful, providing this action is not a violation of Scripture.

    So yes, I think that being obedient to God’s commands, by giving sex to your spouse = loving God. Read the passages above and see if you find a hole in my logic.

    @No One
    > Anybody know if Orthodox churches have in general stayed closer to scripture?

    Scott would be a good one to ask. I was in a Ukrainian Orthodox church service one time. The priest was waving some smoking pot around and paying some kind of homage to a bunch of paintings that apparently were supposed to depict various dead Christians.
    I really wanted to ask where, in all of Scripture, did they find this set of religious rituals. Reminds me of Amos 5:21-24, or Jesus’ attitudes to the made-up religious practices described in Matt 15:1-9. See also Col 2:8.

    Plus two conversations I had with men who (very likely) would have self-identified as (Ukrainian) Orthodox. Both tried to convince me that I need someone else to tell me what to believe or what rules I have to follow, and so it is a good thing that their religion adds to Scripture. Col 2:8 The reasoning is that it is helpful that the religion gives additional rules, since the Bible does not directly address every possible question. Plus we have new questions/situations today that would not have been possible when Jesus and the apostles he choose were preaching.

    So, in my very limited experience, I am not impressed at all. I follow God, not your Synod (group of religious leaders).

    Be aware however that there are different types of “Orthodox”. Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, …… I have nothing intelligent to say about the group with which Scott worships, as I have 0 experience with them.

    @CSI
    >From what I’ve read, if a wife finds that her husband no longer finds her desirable
    >and no longer wants sex, its often pretty devastating to her.

    This may be true for some.
    But I see women choose to deliberately become obese.
    I see women chop off their hair, thus removing their best feature; aka “their glory” (1 Cor 11:14-16)
    I see women, not merely once in a while, but consistently, choose to dress in the clothing styles of men. Any half-wit knows a woman is more attractive in feminine clothing. The Bible describes cross-dressing as “detestable” (Deut 22:5).

    Thus, my eyes tell me most women want to be not be attractive to their husbands. Or at least, they desire it little enough, that other considerations win out. Like their desire to pig out on chocolate, or their desire to be lazy, or their desire to spit in their husband’s face by showing him open contempt.
    Oh, baby, sign me up for that. /sarc

  178. Pingback: How the Dennis Prager video hurts regular guys | American Dad

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