Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical.

Red Pill Latecomer noted that courtly love is considered pure, in part because it doesn’t involve sex:

But as I learned it, the highest form of Courtly Love was chaste. No adultery involved. The Knight would have a pure love for his Lady, never to be consummated. Serving her without expectation of reward, other than maybe her handkerchief or nod of approval.

This is why a man could not love his wife. Because their relationship was polluted with sex.

The idea that romantic love is pure is certainly something we hold to be true without really even considering the source.  This is why modern Christian leaders believe that sex in marriage requires romantic love to purify it.  And we also just know that pursuing a woman romantically without expecting anything in return (beta orbiters) is the purest and noblest form of love a man can express.  These ideas have profoundly warped our thinking away from the biblical view of sex and sexual passion, and it isn’t something we generally even know to question.

There is also the fully intended confusion around whether courtly love is sexual in nature and/or involves physical sexual contact.  As Roissy would say, it’s complicated.  Just like with the modern term hooking up, the degree of sex involved is deliberately vague.  If the lady who is the object of courtly love wants to have sex with her lover, she is free to do so.  We see this in the story of Lancelot and Guinevere (King Arthur’s wife) as told by Chrétien de Troyes.  Not only is physical adultery present, but Lancelot is compelled to defend Guinevere’s honor after she is rightly accused of adultery:

They spend a passionate night together after Lancelot breaks into her tower. He injures his hand during his break-in, and leaves blood all over Guinevere’s sheets. Lancelot sneaks out of the tower before sunrise, and Meleagant accuses Guinevere of committing adultery with Kay, who is the only wounded knight nearby. Lancelot challenges Meleagant to a fight to defend Guinevere’s honor.

The rule in courtly love isn’t that the lady and her lover can’t have sex, it is that her lover can’t expect sex.  It is fully at the discretion of the lady to decide if she wants this ambiguous relationship to include physical adultery, and it is the duty of her lover to keep her confidence in this regard.

Moreover, even when the physical act is never performed, the nature of the relationship is still sexual.  It is always adultery, either physical or in the heart.  Courtly love (romantic love) is not brotherly love, nor the kind of love you would have for your sister.  It is in fact forbidden in the rules of courtly love for a brother to be his sister’s lover.  CS Lewis explains, citing the rules provided by Andreas Capellanus:

What is the courtly law in the case of two lovers who find out that they are related within the degrees which would have forbidden their union by marriage? They must part at once. The table of kindred and affinity which applies to marriage applies also to loving par amours.77

It is also impossible for a blind man to feel this form of love for a woman, because it is rooted in her physical beauty.  If you’ve never seen her, you can’t love her in this way:

The aim of love, for Andreas, is actual fruition, and its source is visible beauty: so much so, that the blind are declared incapable of love, or, at least, of entering upon love after they have become blind.68

Lastly, we can see another twisted (but cherished) idea that we commonly hold today that has its roots to courtly love:

Even a young unmarried woman should have a lover. It is true that her husband, when she marries, is bound to discover it, but if he is a wise man he will know that a woman who had not followed the ‘commands of love’ would necessarily have less probitas.74

None of these things should surprise us given what we know about the nature of men and women.  Women are strongly tempted to elevate themselves to a god like position, and men are strongly tempted to go along with this and worship women.  This didn’t start with courtly love, but instead goes all the way back to the fall.  And the specific details should also be familiar to anyone with a basic understanding of female sexual nature.  Women see their own sexual motives as pure, even purifying.  At the same time, while seeking the formal status conferred with marriage, they have a very strong tendency to cloak their sexual choices and motives in ambiguity.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in C.S. Lewis, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Feral Females, New Morality, Rationalization Hamster, Romantic Love, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

160 Responses to Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical.

  1. Pingback: Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. RPC says:

    If I had a dime for every time a Christian mentor or brother warned me about “objectifying” women I would be a rich man. As Dalrock pointed out in the comments from the last post, just go to the bible for clarification:

    How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O noble daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand. Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rabbim. Your nose is like a tower of Lebanon, which looks toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like Carmel, and your flowing locks are like purple; a king is held captive in the tresses. How beautiful and pleasant you are, O loved one, with all your delights! Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. – SoS 7:1-7

    If that isn’t sexual objectification of a woman’s body, then I don’t know what is.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    There is also the fully intended confusion around whether courtly love is sexual in nature and/or involves physical sexual contact. As Roissy would say, it’s complicated. Just like with the modern term hooking up, the degree of sex involved is deliberately vague.

    Yes, the ambiguity is there, and it is deliberate. This is the major tell indicating which sex has the advantage. If it’s obvious what is going on, it’s male oriented. The man who takes his wife by the hand to the bedroom and closes the door behind them, the long-term boyfriend who takes his girl for a long drive in the country complete with blanket & condoms, the man who counts his cash and goes to the brothel; the directness tells who is doing what. The beta orbiter who gets to hang out with a girl for a little while after moving her piano; the 20-something woman who slips away from her friends at the night spot just for a few minutes with a man she just met, the 30-something woman who works late whenever a certain man is also working late – all ambiguous sitiuations that work to the advantage of the woman in question.

    The emotional affair (affair of the heart, in other terms) that may or may not turn sexual someday, this is also laden with ambiguity. Guess who’s most likely in charge?

    The cult of Courtly Love underlies a passel of pathologies in the modern world, it is a weed, and props to Dalrock for digging into this.

    Not only is physical adultery present, but Lancelot is compelled to defend Guinevere’s honor after she is rightly accused of adultery:

    Here is a place for Oscar to comment, since he’s all about a code of honor. Oscar, I’d like you to explain exactly what Lancelot was defending in this situation. What honor does an adulterous woman have, and why is it worth a man’s blood to defend? This needs to be part of that code of honor you keep asking for. How about you work on that for a while?

  4. Novaseeker says:

    This is a great series, Dalrock. It really serves to underscore the roots of our current dilemma of having linked up sex and romance and marriage all together. Someone like Stephanie Coontz would argue, of course, that basically importing courtly love into marriage in the sense that it is both what justifies and legitimizes marriage (and also, when it lacks, not only legitimizes but mandates divorce) in saying that “love conquered marriage”. She isn’t wrong, of course, in describing the current setup, but what that glowing, cheerleading approach overlooks is the reality that this kind of love is inherently unstable and therefore inherently unfit as the basis for marriage, at least if marriage is to serve as an institutional pedestal for social organization. It’s too slim a reed for that. Personally I think the Coontz’s of the world are indifferent to that, frankly, because for them marriage isn’t supposed to be an institutional pedestal for society in terms of creating a fundament of social stability, but rather the public validation of romantic feelings — as if such feelings could form the basis of anything lasting or permanent when used as a yardstick across the broad swath of humanity.

  5. Novaseeker says:

    Someone like Stephanie Coontz would argue, of course, that basically importing courtly love into marriage in the sense that it is both what justifies and legitimizes marriage (and also, when it lacks, not only legitimizes but mandates divorce) in saying that “love conquered marriage”.

    Ugh — uncompleted sentence. It should read: “Someone like Stephanie Coontz would argue, of course, that basically importing courtly love into marriage in the sense that it is both what justifies and legitimizes marriage (and also, when it lacks, not only legitimizes but mandates divorce) is a very good thing, in saying that “love conquered marriage” and so on.”

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    The cult[*] of Courtly Love with its intentional ambiguity is mirrored in the current Christian-sphere essays on porn. Porn is implicitly defined solely in terms of pictures of sexual activity; still or video. Just by looking at the picture / video, it’s obvious what is going on. It’s explicit in sexual nature, explicit in intent to arouse. Female romance novels follow a predictable track, and many of them contain vivid text describing sexual behavior at regular intervals, but they are still books so there’s is a fig leav of plausible “Oh, it’s just a story, it’s not porn” deniability.

    Christian writers have a huge blind spot when it comes to women’s porn. They apparently can’t see it, even in front of them at the chain bookstore. The most I’ve ever run across is “Oh, romance novels are sort of like porn because they arouse unreasonable expectations in women that a husband can’t hope to meet”. Well, this is the analogue to one arguent against male porn – that men view porn, then try to get their wives to meet unreasonable expectations. However the “porn = adultery” argument goes a lot further. But we do not see “romance novel = emotional adultery”, because female behavior, sexuality, and <imisbehaviro is simply invisible to most modern churchgoing people.

    The modern version of the cult of Courtly Love ranges from office emotional affairs to tons of rom-porn on the shelves of every bookstore. These real life issues aren’t going away, and papering them over hasn’t worked. Seeing how far back in history the ambiguous double standard reaches has been very iluminating. Thanks again Dalrock.

    [*] I believe the term “cult” applies to Courtly Love quite clearly. Some may find this disquieting or even annoying, but emotional reactions don’ change facts.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Personally I think the Coontz’s of the world are indifferent to that, frankly, because for them marriage isn’t supposed to be an institutional pedestal for society in terms of creating a fundament of social stability, but rather the public validation of romantic feelings

    You mean that women are all about their feelze? Shocking. Report to the nearest NOW office for re-education. Just be careful which time of the month you do so.

  8. Anon says:

    This is why modern Christian leaders believe that sex in marriage requires romantic love to purify it.

    Aren’t they thus admitting that pastorbators, cuckservatives, and manginas should then be banned from all contact with women?

    I mean, since manginas and cuckservatives are repulsive to women and in fact terrorize women on a daily basis, this belief my modern Christian leaders can only result in they withdrawing themselves and their followers from all contact with women.

    Much like how Inspector Javert jumped in the river at the end, the logical endpoint of this cuckservative view has to be a complete disengagement of cucks and manginas from all women.

  9. sipcode says:

    There is some merit in understanding the details of history but the focus is really much more simple, requiring few words to be set free. Is it any wonder the author if Genesis included the following words [he did not have to and I suggest they may be the most under-rated words in scripture]: Pre-fall ‘they were naked and not ashamed”; Post-fall “they were naked and ashamed.” If we want to live holy lives we model not being ashamed to reveal who we really are, in truth. The church has lived a 180 degree attitude to the word of God. Is it any wonder that the world wants to flaunt the hypocrisy of the church with open sex and the redefinition of marriage?

    ANY resistance to being naked and engaged and vulnerable in the marriage bed brings death there and eventually to others around. And then the church is not honest to reveal who it really is to its bridegroom.

    We have been saturated for centuries in the God Damned Church of Christ. Rather men, let’s all turn back to the ‘simplicity that is Jesus’ for ourselves. And, yes, I know this is substantially women and pastors that have rejected nakedness, but we must push the issue, harder and harder, zealously, as Christ.

  10. Lost Patrol says:

    we can see another twisted (but cherished) idea that we commonly hold today

    Twisted But Cherished. TBC ideas. I’ll remember that one.

    Man, we are living in a jungle of diverse TBC ideas. Dalrock keeps leading people out of it in singles and small groups.

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @sidcode

    Is it any wonder the author if Genesis included the following words [he did not have to and I suggest they may be the most under-rated words in scripture]: Pre-fall ‘they were naked and not ashamed”; Post-fall “they were naked and ashamed.” If we want to live holy lives we model not being ashamed to reveal who we really are, in truth.

    This is a perverse gyno-centric fantasy of Biblical instruction. Let me illustrate: I walked into a college bar the other night. Tits were uncovered and she was not ashamed. It was a revelation of who she really was, in truth.

    The appropriateness of clothing is not an issue of whether or not we are ashamed, but of the time and occasion. And the Scriptures do not encourage us to nudity, but to cloth ourselves in righteousness and truth and so forth.

  12. sipcode says:

    @Cane Caldo

    You missed important words: “in the marriage bed”

  13. thedeti says:

    A great post, Dalrock. Chock full of important things for men to understand.

    It’s true that courtly love is always sexual even if it’s not physical. “Sexual” doesn’t necessarily mean that the man and woman have started rubbing their genitals together. It’s sexual in that a man is being a man, bringing his masculine energy to bear in his interactions with the woman, who is being a woman and bringing her feminine energy to bear in her interactions with her. It’s sexual in the broadest sense of the term – a man being a man with a woman who’s being a woman.

    Even in the old days of courtship when it really was “courtship”, there was no secret about what was going on. He was sexually attracted to her. He is auditioning for her (and her parents). She might or might not be sexually attracted to him. She is auditioning for him. He’s there because wants to have sex with her. She might or might not want to have sex with him. If he is attractive, she probably will want to have sex with him. It was about the young man and young woman assessing each other for sexual fitness.

    That’s why there is caution expressed often with men trying to “be friends” with women. most of the time it doesn’t work for us men. Because it is sexual for us. We can’t help but notice the woman is a woman. We always size up women sexually.

    And there is nothing wrong with men’s viewing sex, and women, in this way.

  14. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    “our current dilemma of having linked up sex and romance and marriage all together.”

    Right. And as you have noted, that’s a result of Western’s society’s emphasis on maximum individual freedom and autonomy. It was going to lead to women’s being able to select men for sex and marriage solely and only on the basis of sexual attractiveness, sexiness and hotness. Because anything less would be “unfair” and “sexist”.

    It has also led to a big dilemma, because in the current paradigm, the only marriages which succeed are those in which the wife was and is strongly sexually attracted to the husband. That strong sexual attraction has to have been present from the very beginning of the relationship and must be sustained at a high level for years. That’s problematic for marriage, because only a small number of men are capable of inspiring that level of initial attraction; and even fewer are capable of sustaining it for a decade or more.

    In an era in which the initiation and survival of marriage depends on her tingles, most men won’t be able to make that work.

  15. I do find it worth mentioning, again, that Lancelot is portrayed as, and is, the ultimate in what Vox Day calls gamma males. He pedestalizes women to an absurd degree, and it’s this ridiculous pedestalization that ruins his life and leads to the fall of Camelot.

  16. Scott says:

    In case readers here want to continue this conversation from a few days ago…

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/how-the-dennis-prager-video-hurts-regular-guys/

  17. …But your points are all excellent regardless.

  18. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Dalrock, outstanding work. Sometimes the red pill takes us further down the rabbit hole than we find pleasant. Truth is often harder to live with than the lie, particularly when your whole life has been in the Matrix. Peeling back the layers of presuppositions takes the kind of objectivity that few are willing to indulge. Below is my summary of the Biblical sexual ethic and the antithetical courtly love ethic. The list is not comprehensive but a handle on how far from God’s word we we find our civilization.

    Courtly love is antithetical to the sexual ethics of the Bible in the following ways:
    1) Polygyny was never forbidden in scripture, except as a qualification to be an elder, it is regulated and codified. Courtly love hangs on oneitis of men toward a single woman.
    2) A woman’s sexuality did not belong to her to do with as she pleases, it was her father’s to protect and he was recompensed by her husband for her sexual innocence, After the marriage her sexuality belonged exclusively to her husband. Courtly love she gives it to whom she pleases. The forbidden adds adrenaline enhanced feelz and is a special treasure to be sought after.
    3) A wife who has sex with any other than her husband has committed a capital offense, unless she was raped where no one could possibly here her scream. In the case of consensual adultery, both the wife and the man were to be killed. In Courtly love, the affair is regrettable but ethical-ish if there exists true love, the covenant marriage is largely immaterial.
    4) A wife is not to withhold sex from her husband unless for a short time of fasting in which both parities have agreed. Her breast is to satisfy her husband at all times, He is to be intoxicated with her love, but in courtly love she is to become bored with her husband’ desire and seek the thrill of another suitor. Her husband of course should not object but defend her honor.
    5) There is no possible charge of marital rape because the wife’s body belong to her husband, any such charge must be predicated on a wife’s sexual defrauding. In courtly love the wife can withhold sexual access as a means of purifying her husband of his impure sexual desire. Pure desire would be sexless.
    6) Covenant is more important than feelings or “love”, showing honor and respect is the duty of a wife and is motivated by choosing to obey rather than feeling like obeying. In courtly love a woman’s feelings of love is more important than vows or covenants.
    7) In the Bible the marriage bed (sex) is to be treated as holy and undefiled, but in courtly love the marriage bed is corrupt because of a husband’s sexual desire, especially if romance is lacking.
    8) In the Bible a man lusting after another man’s wife is sin and coveting her in his heart is heart adultery. In courtly love a married man looking at any woman, married or not, is akin to adultery. (Porn shaming is a corollary of courtly love)
    9) The Biblical man is to sanctify his wife with the washing and watering of the Word, in courtly love a man is to defend her honor, perform heroic feats and if she danes to allow him, to romance her.
    10) A marriage is to image the gospel relationship of Christ to His church, in courtly love the relationship is to image Christ dying for His church not the relationship.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Someone like Stephanie Coontz would argue, of course, that basically importing courtly love into marriage in the sense that it is both what justifies and legitimizes marriage (and also, when it lacks, not only legitimizes but mandates divorce) is a very good thing, in saying that “love conquered marriage” and so on.

    Interestingly this same argument goes all the way back to Milton, who argued the same thing in one of his tracts in favor of no fault divorce. I’m still rolling this around before I sum it up in a post, but as I see it we started with the biblical view, that passionate love is not only permitted, but exhorted, so long as it is within marriage. Then a few hundred years (perhaps sooner?) after the NT epistles were written church fathers (perhaps just in the west?) started arguing that sex in marriage was something that was suspect, and never to include passion. After maybe 800 years of this line of thought, out came the courtly love psuedo doctrine that while passion in marriage was sinful, romantic love, so long as it was adulterous and cloaked in misdirection, was a high virtue. Then the puritans tried to redirect passionate love back into marriage, but ended up bringing in the distorted courtly (romantic) love vision instead of the biblical vision. And while we have plenty that has happened since then, we are in important ways still stuck with the dysfunction of Milton’s age, albeit with the mistake probably much more widespread as well as the full embrace of serial monogamy that Milton’s view set the table for.

  20. Samuel Culpepper says:

    Dalrock:

    I’m new to your blog and the blogosphere/Manosphere for that matter, so forgive me if I am addressing something that is addressed elsewhere on your blog. In reading through some of your posts, the overarching theme that I read (and agree with) is that you want to turn back the clock on feminism in American society generally and the church body specifically. While some of your theories are interesting about how we got here and what “here” really is, I see one very simple solution to most all of the ills feminism has wrought . . . raise our boys to only marry virgins of the faith. The analog to that thought (for those of us with daughters) is to raise daughters to marry only in their virginity (thats the only godly marriage anyway). I know it sounds simplistic but I think this movement is trying to be too smart be half! It worked for millenia and it is God’s design, so why not just do that. One generation of christians raised this way could clean out alot of the chafe. The liberals/feminists/marxists/whores, if they live what they preach, will be self-limiting because they will stop “marrying” and thus have no progeny to carry their torch. Christian men collectively can stop this scourge of feral women. That will mean some of us will not have progeny, but that also means not planting more seed in the bellies of whores to propagate this lie for another generation. The biggest risk that I see for America, is the third-world invasion filling some of the population void if our birthrates decline for a few decades . . . that of course could be remedied by an America First immigration policy. Just my two cents.

  21. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Then a few hundred years (perhaps sooner?) after the NT epistles were written church fathers (perhaps just in the west?) started arguing that sex in marriage was something that was suspect, and never to include passion.

    That’s the Greek (and Greek-loving Roman) religious and philosophical influence. There are the Stoics, of course. Also, their god of love was not male like Ours, but female, and so therefore capricious. Her helper was a male, but he too was an interferer and haphazard.

    See my avatar picture for more. 😉

    These conversations are circular and therefore more about getting the minds churning than reaching any solution. I don’t think my posts on chivalry and Eros changed anyone’s minds, and I got a lot of flack for it. The difference here is that Dalrock is writing it, and he is a clearer writer and so better respected.

    If anyone is interested, here is my most succinct post on the topic generally. There’s talk of a Christian Code of Behavior, too. I can’t say whether or not I agree with every specific that I wrote then, but my gist is the same.

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/compounding-cupidity/

  22. RPC says:

    I’m not as well read on Middle Ages and Renaissance history as some here, but the mention of Milton reminded me that in Paradise Lost he describes the first sinful act of humanity after the fall as sexual desire:

    But that false fruit
    Far other operation first displayed,
    Carnal desire inflaming; he on Eve
    Began to cast lascivious eyes; she him
    As wantonly repaid; in lust they burn:
    Till Adam thus ‘gan Eve to dalliance move.

    I’m no expert on Milton and his influence in the church, but that does strike me as interesting, the implication being that pre-fall romance was the pure form of marital love, and post-fall it was corrupted by sexuality.

  23. Scott says:

    Samuel, welcome brother.

  24. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “Courtly love”, as in the bollix often ascribed to our ‘more moral’ past, at best applied only to ladies of equal or higher social status. The knights could have sex with (or rape) as many milk maids, scullery wenches, and shepherdesses as they wished and still claim a chaste love for their chosen “lady” (who may have a number of lovers of lower rank herself).
    It had no basis in either Christianity or reality (does anybody really believe that all those lords and ladies were chaste?). It is mere literary invention.

  25. Pingback: Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical. | Reaction Times

  26. Ben Sake says:

    Many Christians think lust towards your wife is evil. Certainly, it is fleshly and of this world. If they were so against it, they would never have married (as Paul suggested for single virgins). They use this scripture to back it up: Matthew 5:28.

    However, Matthew 5:28 is NOT referring to lust for your wife. It’s referring to lust after another woman. Furthermore, it’s a scripture pointed at married men. So what about the single virgins, or otherwise ‘never-been-marrieds’? Is it bad to lust after a woman? Well, no. It’s fleshly and of this world. It’s best to contain, but if you cannot contain, then marry — and carry out that lust towards your wife.

    What’s missing from Christian marriage these days? Lust. . .in which both the husbands and the wifes crave so dearly, but ignorantly condemn it. What’s missing from courtship? Lust. . .in which both man and woman so religiously suppress it.

    And so, lust is required to ‘get it on’ and save the West.

  27. Otto Lamp says:

    How the Homosexual Agenda is Capturing Silly (“Christian”) Women

    http://www.piratechristian.com/fightingforthefaith/2016/12/how-the-homosexual-agenda-is-capturing-silly-christian-women

    Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio’s Fighting for the Faith is one of the few pastors out there echoing what Dalrock has been pointing out for a while: the feminization of Christianity is leading it astray.

  28. Gunner Q says:

    Samuel Culpepper @ 4:02 pm:
    “I’m new to your blog and the blogosphere/Manosphere”

    Welcome!

    “I see one very simple solution to most all of the ills feminism has wrought . . . raise our boys to only marry virgins of the faith.”

    There aren’t enough virgins for all the Christian men wanting sex and virgin marriages still fail at roughly 20%, better but not acceptable.

    More than that, the Great Commission does not allow us to dig a hole and abandon the “outsiders”. We are the salt and light of the Earth; it is our duty to make life better for others as well as us, as best we can. God’s will is that EVERY man should have the chance for a feminine, frisky bride. Not just believers.

    “The liberals/feminists/marxists/whores, if they live what they preach, will be self-limiting because they will stop “marrying” and thus have no progeny to carry their torch.”

    Those monsters reproduce through recruitment, not breeding. That’s why the highest concentrations of them are found in education, journalism and gov’t… the best positions to indoctrinate you and your kids. Homosexuals can only increase their numbers by sexually violating children and spreading disease. Feminists want to deny your daughters the marital happiness those harpies couldn’t throw away fast enough so she’ll grow up to be a miserable hag, too. And why would a Communist let you keep “his” money? Ignoring these people is not an option because as parasites, they cannot survive without killing you first.

  29. S.A. Taylor says:

    Courtly Love sprang up alongside the gnostic heresy of the Cathars, and mutated into Medieval cultural forms in poetry, lays, and troubadours. The Cathars rejected the pleasures of the flesh for a “higher more spiritual love”.. a form of adulterous longings– and this spiritual error spread through many courts in Europe. Dante later redeemed courtly love into the soul’s quest and longing for God, but later versions are a recurring problem for our fallen human nature– which, like the drunken horserider, falls off one side of the horse, only to get back in the saddle.. prepatory to falling off the *other* side of the horse.

  30. infowarrior1 says:

    Some more resources on the history of Romantic Chivalry:
    https://gynocentrism.com/2016/04/15/romantic-chivalry/

    An exerpt from the birth of chivalric love:

    ”The medieval aristocracy began to ramp up the practice of shaming by choosing the worst behaviours of the most unruly males and extrapolating those behaviours to the entire gender. Sound familiar? Knights were particularly singled out –much like today’s sporting heroes who display some kind of faux pas– to be used as examples of bad male behaviour requiring the remedy of sweeping cultural reform.

    During this time of (supposedly) unruly males, uneducated squires were said to ride mangy horses into mess halls, and rude young men diverted eyes from psalters in the very midst of mass. Among the knights and in the atmosphere of tournaments occasional brawls with grisly incidents occurred – a cracked skull, a gouged eye – as the betting progressed and the dice flew. Male attention to clothing and fashion was said to be appalling, with men happy to go about in sheep and fox skins instead of clothes fashioned of rich and precious stuffs, in colours to better suit them in the company of ladies. And perhaps worst of all were their lack of refinement and manners toward women which was considered offensive.

    How and by whom was this unruly gender going to be reformed? One of the first solutions was posed by a French Countess named Marie. According to historian Amy Kelly, with her male reforming ideas;

    “Marie organized the rabble of soldiers, fighting-cocks, jousters, springers, riding masters, troubadours, Poitevin nobles and debutantes, young chatelaines, adolescent princes, and infant princesses in the great hall of Poitiers. Of this pandemonium the countess fashioned a seemly and elegant society, the fame of which spread to the world. Here was a woman’s assize to draw men from the excitements of the tilt and the hunt, from dice and games, to feminine society, an assize to outlaw boorishness and compel the tribute of adulation to female majesty.”1
    Countess Marie was one among a long line of reformers to help usher in a gynocentrism whose aim was to convince men of their shared flaws –essentially to shame them- and to prescribe romantic love and concomitant worship of females as the remedy. Via this program romantic love was welded onto the military code and introduced as a way to tame men’s rowdiness and brutality, something today’s traditionalists agree with in their call for men to adhere to these same male roles established first in medieval Europe. One of today’s authorities on this period describes the training of knights in her observation, “The rise of courtly love and its intersection with chivalry in the West are both events of the twelfth century. The idea that love is ennobling and necessary for the education of a knight comes out of the lyrics of this period, but also in the romances of knighthood. Here the truest lovers are now the best knights.”2”

  31. infowarrior1 says:

    ”Keeping with the male side of the equation, the main behaviors prescribed by the code of chivalric love are the doing of romantic deeds, gallantry and vassalage.

    Prior to its redeployment in romantic relationships gallantry referred to any courageous behaviour, especially in battle. The word can still mean that. However, under the rules of chivalric love it became, according to the Google dictionary definition, “Polite attention or respect given by men to women.” Can these two definitions of gallantry be any further apart? Like the contraries of military chivalry vs. chivalric love, these two definitions of gallantry stretch the definition to cover two completely different domains of behaviour. It appears then that women of the time successfully harnessed men’s greatest sacrificial behaviours –chivalry and gallantry- to indulge their narcissistic appetites.

    A vassal is defined as a bondman, a slave, a subordinate or dependent, or a person who entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe. The obligations often included military support and mutual protection in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. Vassalage was then utilized as a conceit that Maurice Valency called “the shaping principle of the whole design of courtly love.”3 Whether it was a knight, troubadour, or commoner the vassal-to-woman routine was the order of the day then, exactly as it is today.4 Poets adopted the terminology of feudalism, declaring themselves the vassal of the lady and addressing her as midons (my lord), which was taken as standard flattery of a woman. One particularly striking practice showing an adaption from the feudal model involved the man kneeling on one knee before the woman. By kneeling down in this way he assumes the posture of a vassal. He speaks, pledging his faith, promising, like a liege man, not to offer his services to anyone else. He goes even further: in the manner of a serf, he makes her a gift of his entire person.

    Citing evidence of vassalism Amy Kelly writes, “As symbolized on shields and other illustrations that place the knight in the ritual attitude of commendation, kneeling before his lady with his hands folded between hers, homage signified male service, not domination or subordination of the lady, and it signified fidelity, constancy in that service.”5”

    https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

  32. Spike says:

    It’s been said, Dalrock, that when you take The Red Pill, it changes every outlook on life. I recently had a look at this joust scene from El Cid (1961):

    AS a kid watching this, I thought it awesome. I still do, except if it wasn’t for that pair of manipulative bitches Jimena (Sophia Loren) and Princess Ursula (Genevieve Paige), who rightly should be shish-kebabbed on something other than the knight’s lances, since their only contribution to the battle is a pair of handkerchiefs!

  33. pariahfortruth says:

    [I don’t know how to format this into a quote, other than just copy and paste.]

    Ben Sake said:
    “Many Christians think lust towards your wife is evil. Certainly, it is fleshly and of this world. If they were so against it, they would never have married (as Paul suggested for single virgins). They use this scripture to back it up: Matthew 5:28.”

    The Greek word for lust is here http://biblehub.com/greek/1937.htm
    It simply means to strongly desire after something. That same word is used in many instances throughout the NT and isn’t specifically about sexual desire.
    Lusting after your wife, if you mean “desiring to have sex with her”, is not evil at all.

    I’ve heard it said by someone I used to be friends with that (paraphrased) “lust towards your wife is dirty and wrong, but a pure love and desire is good.” This makes no sense Biblically.
    His wife basically pushed me out of his life as his best friend, because she simply “doesn’t like me”.

  34. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    “Here is a place for Oscar to comment, since he’s all about a code of honor. Oscar, I’d like you to explain exactly what Lancelot was defending in this situation. What honor does an adulterous woman have, and why is it worth a man’s blood to defend? This needs to be part of that code of honor you keep asking for. How about you work on that for a while?”

    Why not? Because Dalrock already dealt with that issue starting here…

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/courtly-love-the-origins-of-cuckchivalry/#comment-223912

    … and I already answered your questions here.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/courtly-love-the-origins-of-cuckchivalry/#comment-224005

    Any other quetions?

  35. cnystrom62 says:

    When I first saw the title to this I thought it was something about Courtney Love.

  36. cnystrom62 says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    “Polygyny was never forbidden in scripture, except as a qualification to be an elder, it is regulated and codified.”

    Actually, even those scriptures are ambiguous. “One wife” could just as well be translated “first wife”, for example.

    “Courtly love hangs on oneitis of men toward a single woman.”

    Actually it was towards married women which is what makes it adulterous. Single women were ok.

  37. Novaseeker says:

    Then a few hundred years (perhaps sooner?) after the NT epistles were written church fathers (perhaps just in the west?) started arguing that sex in marriage was something that was suspect, and never to include passion.

    It’s not just western, really. The eastern fathers are mixed on this, but the general trend in the east, culturally, was more ascetical in religious terms. However, it’s more of a time and place conception. So, for example, Orthodox/Eastern Christians fast every W and F (other than a few fast-free weeks) and then also during lent, advent and so on. Traditional ascesis calls for abstinence from sex on fasting days for the married. Now, not everyone abides by this, of course, but it is traditional teaching on how to fast properly. The perspective is a bit different in that it isn’t that sex is bad (or that olive oil, cheese, meat, etc., are bad), but that it is good to fast from it for a time, as Paul says, to pray and focus on God. That’s all well and good, but in some circles, like the more ascetical ones, it led to a more rigidly ascetical style of life. Thankfully the mainstream style really does find a balance between ascesis and human warmth in an organic way, but it is hard for a Western convert to find this without spending some time in an Orthodox/Eastern country, because here in the West it’s mostly a mix of “kinda lax” ethnics and “kinda rigid/rules-oriented” converts — not everyone, of course, but it’s a common dichotomy here.

    I do agree with you that at some stage things got way off course in terms of portraying wives as so pure and the relationship with them as so sacrosanct that something as base as sex only defiles it. Completely against Paul and much else in the bible, but you can kind of see how it got there.

  38. cnystrom62 says:

    @Ben Sake

    “Many Christians think lust towards your wife is evil.”

    Which is impossible. You can not lust after something that is permitted and that you already have. Strong desire is not lust.

    “Matthew 5:28 is NOT referring to lust for your wife. It’s referring to lust after another woman. Furthermore, it’s a scripture pointed at married men.”

    Actually, it is in reference to lust for a married woman. It is adultery if the woman is married (and thus taken, not permitted, off limits). The marital status of the man is irrelevant. Therefore it is pointed at all men, married or single.

    If a man involves himself with a married woman it is adultery whether he is single or married. For example, David’s relationship with Bathsheba was adultery but his relationship with Abigail was not adultery. In both cases David was already married. Bathsehba already had a husband, but Abigail did not (God struck down Nabal). David’s marital status is irrelevant. It would have been the same had he been single.

  39. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo says:
    December 15, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    “If anyone is interested, here is my most succinct post on the topic generally. There’s talk of a Christian Code of Behavior, too. I can’t say whether or not I agree with every specific that I wrote then, but my gist is the same.”

    I just went back and reread that post and the comments. Romans 12 (which you quoted) pretty much reads like a Christian Code of Conduct (or Honor). I don’t know why I didn’t think of that before. Heck, it’s even short enough to memorize! Thanks, brother!

  40. Scott says:

    Nova, at 810 PM,

    Exactly. Since converting, Mychael and I struggle with this. We come across to our cradle Orthodox brothers and sisters as very rigid. We ask many “stupid” questions of our priest as we try to figure out, “must we do this, or not do that on this or that day?”

    It’s very difficult to hit the sweet spot when neither of us are culturally Orthodox.

  41. rdchemist says:

    Off topic but deffinately on theme with this blog

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-12-14.html

  42. mrteebs says:

    I am about halfway through Leon J. Podle’s book examining how and when the Catholic church became feminized and why it seems to infect primarily western Christianity — or at least not other religions to nearly the same degree. Although I am not Catholic, it is the tree from which we Protestants branched and studying our common history explains much about our present. Podle’s work corroborates much of what Dalrock has penned over the last few posts on this topic of courtly love and the book can be downloaded for free at Podle’s website: http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    Any other questions?

    You’re not Dalrock, so pointing to his comment is not even an answer. What you teach your children is a good thing, but that fails to answer as well. So I can’t tell if you are just evading this, or not.

    “Here is a place for Oscar to comment, since he’s all about a code of honor. Oscar, I’d like you to explain exactly what Lancelot was defending in this situation. What honor does an adulterous woman have, and why is it worth a man’s blood to defend? This needs to be part of that code of honor you keep asking for. How about you work on that for a while?”

    Try again? Or is it too difficult for you?

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    mrteebs
    Even though Podles wrote from a Roman Catholic perspective there is plenty there that applies to all denominations.

  45. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    “You’re not Dalrock, so pointing to his comment is not even an answer.”

    Sure it is. It’s an answer to this question: “How about you work on that for a while?”

    How about I not reinvent the wheel?

    “What you teach your children is a good thing, but that fails to answer as well.”

    False. I already answered your questions. Don’t like my answers? Don’t care.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nah, Oscar, you’re just acting butthurt and childish. Since you won’t, or can’t, do the work, I’ll do it for you. It is a simple exercise. First, the questions in italics then the answer.

    “Eexplain exactly what Lancelot was defending in this situation. What honor does an adulterous woman have, and why is it worth a man’s blood to defend? This needs to be part of that code of honor you keep asking for. How about you work on that for a while?”

    The answer is: Lancelot was covering up for his paramour because the cult of courtly love had led him astray to the point that he made an idol of her, obviously she had no honor to protect, plus he had no business in her bedroom, and he finallly should have stood up himself immediately rather than allow suspicion to fall on another man. The cult of Courtly Love plus his own male nature plus her female hypergamy all added up to a major fail. “Leave married women alone” is already in codes from hunter-gatherers on up the social complexity scale, so it’s obvious it should be incuded in any modern one.

    The end.

    Now, was that difficult? No, not really. Sorry if your pride got scratched, Oscar, but there’s no rank or titles or tenure here. Just the facts. Evading questions does not earn respect.

  47. Cane Caldo says:

    Earlier I wrote: That’s the Greek (and Greek-loving Roman) religious and philosophical influence. There are the Stoics, of course. Also, their god of love was not male like Ours, but female, and so therefore capricious. Her helper was a male, but he too was an interferer and haphazard.

    At the time I considered it best to let readers mosey along the trail, but now it seems better to lay it out clearly. Because Greeks thought Venus and Eros were capricious, Greek thought was that they needed to be not just controlled, but stifled. You could never tell where they might show up! Who is responsible for a man’s lust for a woman if he has been shot by poisoned Eros? In such a case the man’s sin is openness to attack from an outside force. This is very different from Christ, who teaches that sin comes from within, and the defense is different, too. The latter can exert self-control even after the lust arises. He can re-direct it into his current marriage.

    The worshipper, or even mere believer, of Eros is doomed to the lust. He is carried away by outside forces; like a prisoner.

    I have another, separate conjecture as well: I suspect that the realities of Christianity in a class-based society would encourage opposition to healthy sexual appetites in marriage.

    Paul writes that we should not be “unevenly yoked”; meaning that a Christian should not marry a non-Christian. How many attractive women of the upper classes were there during the times of the Early Church? I think it would be few. Christianity spread fastest under the lower classes. The chances are slim for an attractive Christian noble. Most nobles aren’t Christian, and probably most the attractive nobles were pagan.

    What about during Medieval Ages, or the Renaissance? All nobles were Christian, but there weren’t so many of them, and a lot of them probably aren’t very attractive. As the decades and centuries go on, a Christian noble has to find a Christian noble to whom he is not a close blood relation. That’s very hard to do when there are few nobles. You just have to go down the list.
    She’s your cousin, so no.
    She’s your cousin, so no.
    She’s your cousin, so no.
    She’s your cousin twice removed, so yes…but she has a face fit for a veil.

    What do you do then? Perform duty sex as little as required, and only two legitimate children survive. You think about what it would be like to be with Sir Whathisnuts wife. You encourage your younger siblings to join the Church and give up marriage and sex altogether; lest a younger brother or cousin snap up one of the few remaining countesses who don’t make you want to gag. You have non-vaginal intercourse with other noblemen’s wives. You have regular sex with the milkmaid and the wench and so forth, but those children are illegitimate, and so they fail to improve the noble stock.

    From there you can imagine that it wouldn’t be difficult for a nobleman to roll that shit downhill onto the vulgar classes. Why, if a king or cleric shouldn’t enjoy a wife, should a serf enjoy his?

  48. desiderian says:

    “Interestingly this same argument goes all the way back to Milton, who argued the same thing in one of his tracts in favor of no fault divorce. I’m still rolling this around before I sum it up in a post, but as I see it we started with the biblical view, that passionate love is not only permitted, but exhorted, so long as it is within marriage. Then a few hundred years (perhaps sooner?) after the NT epistles were written church fathers (perhaps just in the west?) started arguing that sex in marriage was something that was suspect, and never to include passion. After maybe 800 years of this line of thought, out came the courtly love psuedo doctrine that while passion in marriage was sinful, romantic love, so long as it was adulterous and cloaked in misdirection, was a high virtue. Then the puritans tried to redirect passionate love back into marriage, but ended up bringing in the distorted courtly (romantic) love vision instead of the biblical vision. And while we have plenty that has happened since then, we are in important ways still stuck with the dysfunction of Milton’s age, albeit with the mistake probably much more widespread as well as the full embrace of serial monogamy that Milton’s view set the table for.”

    Seems like you nailed it.

  49. Cane Caldo says:

    “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.”

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: That’s why there is caution expressed often with men trying to “be friends” with women. most of the time it doesn’t work for us men. Because it is sexual for us. We can’t help but notice the woman is a woman. We always size up women sexually.

    And yet the modern world pressures men to pretend they don’t mind when his girlfriend declares another man to be “her friend.” “We’re just friends.”

    Our girlfriend or wife introduces us to her male “friend.” We look at her “friend.” He’s a tall, strong guy. We can read his signals. We know he’s attracted to our woman. That he’s assessing his chances with her. The odds that he can push us aside. We know our woman can read these signals too.

    Yet we’re supposed to pretend these signals don’t exist. To smile and welcome this “friend” into our circle. To do otherwise, to forbid our girlfriend or wife from seeing young, single male “friends,” especially when we’re not there, is to be controlling, abusive, immature, insecure, and Neanderthal. Female psychobabblers will say that such a man has “trust issues.”

    We’re supposed to be civilized and modern. We’re supposed to accept that our girlfriend or wife is a Strong, Independent Woman with a mind of her own, with the Right to see whoever she wants, to be friends with whoever she wants, to have her own life apart from her relationship with the man she’s dating or married to.

    I now realize that when women flaunt their male “friends” in front of a man they’re dating, it’s often a shit test. I failed these tests when I was young. I tried to be a sensitive and civilized modern man who trusted whatever woman I was dating, though it was eating me up inside. Naturally, these women later proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

    A woman who insists on seeing single male “friends” when her boyfriend or husband is not present is a red flag.

  51. Dota says:

    So all said and done, would it be fair to say that western ideas of love have now come full circle?

  52. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 15, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    All of which I already summarized for you at the link I provided, but you insist on pretending I didn’t. Bravo.

  53. infowarrior1 says:

    @Oscar
    What’s your thoughts on the excerpt I have posted on the origins of courtly love?

  54. Oscar says:

    @ infowarrior1

    It looks to me like what you posted above pretty much parallels what Dalrock wrote. I think we can summarize it this way.

    Two forces need to be tamed (maybe not the right word) for a culture to flourish; male aggression and female vanity. The Church (Catholic Church at the time) did a good job of taming the first (the first “knights” were essentially armed thugs), but neglected to tame the second. It’s similar to the mistake the Church is making now, as Dalrock often points out.

    Is that a fair assessment?

  55. Occire le trouvere says:

    I loved how Bernard Cornwell rewrote the the story of Tristan and Iseult in realistic terms. Goes a long way to explain how nobody at the time really took the courtly love stuff seriously (anyway it was troubadour bullshit to keep the ladies amused while the knights hunted and whored). How it accidentally ended up making part of our broader culture defies belief.

  56. infowarrior1 says:

    @Oscar
    I think so. Where it becomes problematic is when the refined civilized women try to tame the men mentioned in my previous comment leading to the modern pathology of courtly love. Even though the true tamer who does it right and shaper of godliness is god via the salvation of that man’s soul and via the communion of fellow believers.

    And I think the taming of the women were hindered by the bridal mysticism at the time that made women look morally superior to the men at the time. As shown in Leon J podles work “feminization of the church”

  57. Bee says:

    @Samuel Culpepper,

    “The analog to that thought (for those of us with daughters) is to raise daughters to marry only in their virginity (thats the only godly marriage anyway).”

    In order for this to actually be practical you will have to be willing to push to have your daughters marry at 16 or 17 years of age. Are you willing to do this?

    Vaughn over at “Let them marry blog” got doxxed and threatened with loss of his nursing license by females who claim to be Christians. His get them married as late teens conference/matchmaking event was harassed and cancelled.

  58. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar writes, “Two forces need to be tamed (maybe not the right word) for a culture to flourish; male aggression and female vanity.”

    Others (particularly Daniel Amneus) have addressed this in more detail than I’m about to, but there’s a layer beyond the one you mentioned: patriarchal monogamous marriage (hereafter abbreviated to PMM) puts sex to work for the collective good. That good is so important that even the “losers” (hypergamous women and alpha males) win… we call that benefit “civilization.” (Using fictional characters to illustrate: Ward Cleaver could only have one woman, but he would have a much more pleasant life than Conan the Cimmerian who could have as many as he wanted.)

    If you haven’t read “The Misandry Bubble”, here’s the link. (I re-read it periodically since it’s full of predictions and I like to see how he’s doing on his time-line.) It goes into a lot of detail on this topic.

    The thing is: there’s more to it than simply keeping those forces on a leash. The genius of PMM is that it not only prevents the worse instincts of men and women from doing damage: it re-directs them toward the common good. With PMM, nearly every man has something to work toward that requires future orientation: his own biological children that he knows are his because his wife’s sexuality is his and his alone. Not only does Ward Cleaver not run wild, but he shows up for work on time, too. Conversely, a wife under the PMM system has advantages that NO woman has under the sexual anarchy of unrestrained hypergamy: protection and provision even after her looks have faded. June Cleaver trades her youthful beauty that would ensure her a wild-but-short ride on the carousel for much higher status and greater stability in the long term.

    If you want to see what June would have been like in a society that has rejected the PMM model, see “Jersey Shore” for her young self and read any of the myriad articles with titles like, “Where have all the good men gone?” for her post-wall existence.

    Cuckservatives are correct in recognizing that uncivilized men not only fail to do good things, but they actively harm everything around them. But that’s only half the story. What they miss is that unrestrained female hypergamy does the same thing in a different manner. Women unrestrained by PMM not only fail to do good things, but much of what they do undermines civilization itself. They just don’t see it because most of the damage is indirect: women don’t generally commit armed robbery, peddle drugs on street corners, and burn down their cities in early 21st-Century America and Great Britain… but the sons of single mothers do. That’s why feminism contains the seeds of its own destruction: it can only exist in advanced civilizations that can afford to indulge in pretty lies and subsidize bastardy, but the stronger it grows the weaker the civilization becomes, until, like an aggressive parasite, it kills its host and thereby kills itself.

    Cuckservatives think that young attractive women left to their own devices will all grow up to be June Cleaver rather than Emma Sulkowitz. But the reason June Cleaver became who she was is because she lived under the sexual restraints of the PMM system. If they want to see what women are really like, they shouldn’t watch black-and-white reruns of “Leave it to Beaver” wherein “pre-Ward” June had to choose between being a housewife or being an outcast from polite society… they should go to Cabo San Lucas during spring break… and then their local family law courtroom.

  59. JamesWatchman says:

    So today the Red Pill hit me fully for the first time and it hit me so hard I am in shock. How the hell did things get this bad? This ‘Christian’ girl I know has been just lying to me for the last six months, our whole friendship has been a fraud. Just… No…. Words….

  60. JamesWatchman says:

    Sorry this a bit OT but I just had to get it out of my system before I break something

  61. Boxer says:

    Dear James:

    Did she lie to you about having sex with strangers in the public toilet at the back of her fave nightclub… or did she lie to you about stealing money, or about harming someone?

    The sad truth is that we all lie all the time. Half truths and lies are a socially necessary part of communication, to some extent. I assume if you’re upset, she’s been lying about something you should dump her for.

    You shouldn’t be upset. You should be grateful that you saw this aspect of her character before you married her and she squeezed out a couple of kids. You’re getting off easy.

    Another important takeaway is your description of her as a “friend”. When I read your original post I assumed you were trolling. It wasn’t until you apologized immediately after that I realized you might be serious. Considering this girl your friend is not the proper frame. If you’re a religious Christian or Jew, you should be considering her a potential mate and wife. In that regard, she’s someone you’re going to start a lifelong business partnership with.

    I have plenty of friends. Most of them aren’t people I would want to sign a binding contract with, you know? Those are two different spheres of life, and it’s best to keep them separate.

    Dalrock has several great articles up on this blog re: how to vet a potential wife. Here’s one.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/interviewing-a-prospective-wife-part-ii/

    Good luck, man. Don’t take it too hard. There are, what, like 4 billion women in the world? One of them has to meet your standards, and she’s probably right down the block.

    Best,

    Boxer

  62. Gunner Q says:

    JamesWatchman @ 10:04 am:
    “So today the Red Pill hit me fully for the first time and it hit me so hard I am in shock. How the hell did things get this bad?”

    Your eyes hurt because you’ve never used them. Welcome to the Matrix, Neo.

  63. AnonS says:

    We’ve been there. Churches are beta factories for boys and permanent teenage factories for girls. At least outside the church they may hear the idea that they should work to change their behavior if they want different outcomes.

  64. Oscar says:

    @ infowarrior1 says:
    December 16, 2016 at 8:49 am

    “And I think the taming of the women were hindered by the bridal mysticism at the time that made women look morally superior to the men at the time. As shown in Leon J podles work ‘feminization of the church’”

    I think everyone with a set of testicles (and many without) notices the feminization of the Church these days, but I was surprised to learn how far back it goes (Medieval mysticism, apparently). The Art of Manliness published a great series on the subject.

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/22/the-feminization-of-christianity/

  65. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn87 says:
    December 16, 2016 at 9:51 am

    “Others (particularly Daniel Amneus) have addressed this in more detail than I’m about to, but there’s a layer beyond the one you mentioned: patriarchal monogamous marriage (hereafter abbreviated to PMM) puts sex to work for the collective good. That good is so important that even the ‘losers’ (hypergamous women and alpha males) win… we call that benefit ‘civilization’.”

    Isn’t it amazing how God’s plan works better than man’s? It’s almost as though He knows what He’s doing!

    Even criminals benefit from the rule of law (for example), because the police and the courts treat criminals far better than they are when left to the tender mercies of the mob.

    http://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2016/06/you-stuck-in-this-country-with-us.html

  66. DrTorch says:

    Some great comments here.
    Cane Caldo wrote at 11:33 pm: , if a king or cleric shouldn’t enjoy a wife, should a serf enjoy his?

    That’s an excellent point, and probably a major driver that has been largely overlooked.

    Lyn87 wrote at 9:51 am: Women unrestrained by PMM not only fail to do good things, but much of what they do undermines civilization itself. They just don’t see it because most of the damage is indirect: women don’t generally commit armed robbery, peddle drugs on street corners, and burn down their cities in early 21st-Century America and Great Britain… but the sons of single mothers do.

    Not only that, but so do cucked men. Cucked men get angry and violent…and vengeful.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-marine-convicted-killing-pregnant-girlfriend-20150923-story.html

    And if it’s not the cuck, then it might be the adulterer
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/08/21/man-accused-of-killed-marines-pregnant-wife-waives-right-to-extradition/

    Regardless, MUCH damage is done to civilization.

  67. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    Yeah… whodathunkit?

    James,

    Chin up, mate: you dodged a bullet, and learned a valuable lesson on-the-cheap. “The arm of flesh will fail you” (Jer 17:5). That doesn’t only apply to women, of course, but nobody in today’s society is ever going to tell you that men don’t have failings. The failings of men (real and imagined) are trumpeted from the steeple-tops and pulpits every bit as much as they are from the podiums of N.O.W. and the Democratic Party. That’s the difference, though – until we encounter the red pill and leave the Matrix, we’re told that women (especially churchian women) are pure and will not fail us… but they’re flesh-and-blood creatures just like we are, with the same fallen nature.

    Sadly, most church girls aren’t really much different than secular girls, and it’s good that you discovered that at the “friend” stage rather than at the “soon-to-be-ex-husband” stage. Because Christians are forbidden to marry outside the faith (“Be ye not unequally yoked…” – 2 Cor 6:14), those of us who find wives must do so within the Church (note the capital “C”), but you now understand that vetting a woman is not a checklist with a single item that says, “Does she go to church?”

    I’ve mentioned this before, but since you’re new I’ll repeat it: I’m a preacher’s kid and grew up in a small full-gospel church. Every single girl in my age range ended up being a trollop. Every one. And some of them were raging sluts… one of them earned the nickname “Choo-choo” in college because she liked to “pull trains” in the dorms.

    Caveat emptor,” brother.

    On the other hand, I recently spent a year in the Middle East, and a buddy of mine was considering whether to stay or go home. The company we worked for announced a series of policy and personnel changes that nobody liked, but that made my friend absolutely furious. Not only did he lose some status (I told him he was nuts: he was going to get the same pay for a lot less responsibility, and status among contractors is like virtue among whores), but one of the changes was going to significantly increase our physical danger (not only from additional travel over dangerous roads, but from the terror cells that we knew were tracking us). Anyway, he kept telling me that he wanted God to give him some clear guidance about whether to stay or go home to his family, and he laid out a fleece: if such-and-such happens I’ll know I should go home.

    Well, it happened. He was unbelievably pissed off about it, and was ranting to me about the stupidity of it all, at which point I said, “Dude, why are you complaining? You said you wanted an unambiguous sign and you just got it. This is EXACTLY what you said you wanted!”

    I could see the light bulb come on.

    On Sunday he texted me with the news that he just found out that he has prostate cancer, and because he came home when he did they caught it early enough to treat it.

    Who knows what nightmare you might have just been spared by seeing that girl reveal her true colors? You ought to be thanking God right about now.

  68. Novaseeker says:

    To do otherwise, to forbid our girlfriend or wife from seeing young, single male “friends,” especially when we’re not there, is to be controlling, abusive, immature, insecure, and Neanderthal. Female psychobabblers will say that such a man has “trust issues.”

    We’re supposed to be civilized and modern. We’re supposed to accept that our girlfriend or wife is a Strong, Independent Woman with a mind of her own, with the Right to see whoever she wants, to be friends with whoever she wants, to have her own life apart from her relationship with the man she’s dating or married to.

    The time is coming when this idea is going to be extended to extra-marital/extra-LTR relationships in general, including sexual ones. Men will be chided for being controlling and abusive if they object to their wives having boyfriends on the side if they want them. Not quite there yet, but it’s coming.

  69. Cane Caldo says:

    @DrTorch

    That’s an excellent point, and probably a major driver that has been largely overlooked.

    Thanks. I want to be clear that it is no more than a conjecture based on the barest study. I also want to clarify that–if it happened that way at all–it probably would not have been a conscious effort by the nobles. Nobles and clerics would simply project their own dim views of marital relations.

  70. Lyn87 says:

    Nova,

    It’s not COMING… it’s already here.

    The camel’s nose under the tent-flap was the absurd idea of “marital rape.” Until that time, everyone understood that marriage was – at its core – a lifetime contract for sex. Since sex outside of marriage is frowned upon in every civilization worthy of the name, and is specifically prohibited in the Bible (and by extension within “Christendom”), entering into marriage was explicit consent to sex in perpetuity. That’s not to say that people ought to take it by physical assault, but that whatever happens between a husband and wife is not – indeed cannot be – rape.

    To declare that rape is possible within marriage is to declare that marriage is not, at its core, a mutually-binding agreement for exclusive sexual access – which is precisely what it is. In fact, I would argue that that is ALL it is. Among other ramifications, that is what allows us to differentiate between legitimacy and bastardy.

    (Another nail in the coffin was when married women were permitted to get abortions without their husband’s consent. The are “one flesh” until she decides that isn’t convenient for her, then she can opt out for a couple of hours and then jump right back in. He’s legally and culturally responsible for the child if she keeps it, but she can have it sucked out for any reason or no reason at all – there’s not even a requirement that he be notified… although many doctors won’t perform a vasectomy on a married man without ascertaining the consent of his wife… go figure.)

    But that ship has sailed, and once the camel got her nose in, the rest of her follows. If marriage is anything other than a mutually-binding agreement for exclusive sexual access, then it follows that both spouses are sexual free agents (although as always with feminism, the rules are unequally enforced). Once we accept that a husband who insists that his wife is obligated to have sex with him is a rapist, it was only a matter of time before we accepted that a husband who demands sexual exclusivity from his wife is controlling her. And as the Duluth Model shows – it’s all about Power and Control TM (whenever a man exercises agency).

    It’s on the fringes now, but I can remember when “marital rape” was on the fringes, too. I’ve read SJW-types asserting that spouses retain their sexual autonomy.

  71. Damn Crackers says:

    Troubadours, the first Emos. Thanks guys.

    Ladder of Diotima, from Plato’s Symposium –

    “Well then, she [the goddess Diotima] began, the candidate for this initiation cannot, if his efforts are to be rewarded, begin too early to devote himself to the beauties of the body. First of all, if his preceptor instructs him as he should, he will fall in love with the beauty of one individual body, so that his passion may give life to noble discourse. Next he must consider how nearly related the beauty of any one body is to the beauty of any other, when he will see that if he is to devote himself to loveliness of form it will be absurd to deny that the beauty of each and every body is the same. Having reached this point, he must set himself to be the lover of every lovely body, and bring his passion for the one into due proportion by deeming it of little or of no importance.”

    Of course, the ladder ascends to the perfect Form of Beauty, God. But, I think it’s funny that the sufferer of oneitis is more base than the player PUA according to Plato.

  72. Spike says:

    Curiously Dalrock, I remember reading that Swiss Reformer John Calvin did not share this form of twisted thinking when it came to sex. He apparently wrote erotic poetry to his wife, was very passionate about her. Likewise, Luther was similarly inclined. It would be unthinkable then, that they did not teach similar sentiments.
    Could it be then, that the Cult of Cuckchivalry is an Anglo Saxon / Anglospheric phenomenon, and not distinctly Christian?

  73. Gunner Q says:

    Spike @ 4:30 pm:
    “Could it be then, that the Cult of Cuckchivalry is an Anglo Saxon / Anglospheric phenomenon, and not distinctly Christian?”

    No, the French were doing it too. Cyrano de Bergerac, for example.

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Spike

    Curiously Dalrock, I remember reading that Swiss Reformer John Calvin did not share this form of twisted thinking when it came to sex. He apparently wrote erotic poetry to his wife, was very passionate about her. Likewise, Luther was similarly inclined. It would be unthinkable then, that they did not teach similar sentiments.
    Could it be then, that the Cult of Cuckchivalry is an Anglo Saxon / Anglospheric phenomenon, and not distinctly Christian?

    It does seem that the Anglosphere at the very least has a more virulent strain. There is quite a lot for us to study here.

  75. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Lyn87: Once we accept that a husband who insists that his wife is obligated to have sex with him is a rapist, it was only a matter of time before we accepted that a husband who demands sexual exclusivity from his wife is controlling her.

    Within an hour of your posting the above, I found this article via Drudge: http://www.thelocal.it/20161215/married-italians-might-no-longer-have-to-promise-to-be-faithful

    Married couples in Italy will no longer have to promise to be faithful to each other, if a new bill is approved.

    The proposed amendment to Italy’s Civil Code would remove the word “fidelity” from Italian marriage contracts.

    The promise not to cheat is a “cultural legacy from an outdated and obsolete vision of marriage, family, and the rights and duties of spouses”, according to the senators who have signed the bill.

    They cited a previous ruling from Italy’s top court, which declared that judges could not legally place the blame for a marriage separation “on the mere failure to observe the duty of fidelity”.

    Instead, the other party has to prove that their spouse’s infidelity led to the irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage.

    The bill, which was presented to the Italian Senate last year and has now been passed to its Judiciary Committee, goes on to argue that there is an element of sexism in the current wording. It was originally included to refer to the woman’s sexual fidelity, in order to determine whether children were “legitimate”, they noted.

  76. Anon says:

    It does seem that the Anglosphere at the very least has a more virulent strain. There is quite a lot for us to study here.

    WF Price at The Spearhead once wrote an extremely good article about why Anglo countries were far more virulent in their feminism than Scandinavian countries. The title was ‘Why is Anglosphere Feminism so Virulent’ or something like that. I don’t know what year it was in.

    Someone who is really skilled with the Wayback machine could dig that up.

  77. Frank K says:

    >> Men will be chided for being controlling and abusive if they object to their wives having boyfriends on the side if they want them. Not quite there yet, but it’s coming.

    Once can hope that when this becomes the mainstream norm that most men will finally realize that there is no point in getting married,

  78. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock, Spike & Gunner Q

    It does seem that the Anglosphere at the very least has a more virulent strain. There is quite a lot for us to study here.

    Courtly love is definitely French in origin. Recall that the aristocracy in England was French from 1066 and then on for centuries. The official language of the court was French, the clothing styles were French…everything about the nobles was French.

    That doesn’t mean that the “virus” didn’t become more potent in Anglo strains. If so, I’d look to ascent of the middle class and their attempts to mimic the nobility. “Ladies and gentlemen”, we say now everywhere and to everyone. Of course that’s not true: Only nobles are ladies and gentlemen, and not, in fact, every attendee of a Ringling Brother’s circus act. I would further suspect that this was even more virulent in America because while we eschewed official classes, we (incoherently) aspired to make everyone a noble. It would have been smarter to tone things down to “citizen” levels, though I’m sure monarchists disagree.

  79. Novaseeker says:

    It’s on the fringes now, but I can remember when “marital rape” was on the fringes, too. I’ve read SJW-types asserting that spouses retain their sexual autonomy.

    Yes, it’s here and on the fringes. Soon, however, it won’t be on the fringes any longer.

    I agree with you that introducing the concepts of sexual consent and bodily autonomy into the heart of marriages, the path was paved to broader sexual autonomy including extra-marital liaisons. I think this has remained fringe, however, because norms to date have remained at least optically in favor of monogamy (yes, much eroded, but it’s still there, people still use the word “cheating” and so on).

    I think two things are going to push this forward.

    The first is gay marriage, because gays (and lesbians, too, although to a lesser degree) are much looser, even when married, about expectations of a strict monogamy. There aren’t tons of gay and lesbian married couples relative to straight ones, but they culturally punch well, well, well above their weight, and their own norms will begin to influence non-gay marriages over time, no question.

    The second is the soon-to-come rise of legally permitted consensual polygamy. There is no legal justification for prohibiting this after Obergefell. It’s just a question of waiting a bit, waiting for the right case, waiting for things to settle down, and it WILL happen. When it happens, and even when the push for it is happening, it will begin to place lots of pressure on prevailing expectations of marital monogamy. After all, if we legalize polygamy, we’re socially sanctioning it — saying it’s the same as monogamous marriage. When that sinks in, together with the pressure from gay marriage norms having an influence, as well as the ambient growth in this direction for the reasons you mention, it seems very clear to me that marital monogamy will be coming under tremendous pressure — not in terms of praxis, there have always been cheaters, but in terms of *norms* and *expectations* — in the not distant future.

    Of course it will be “equal”, but we all know how that works. Straight men are not gay men, and do not have the access to sex that gay men do (a very small percentage does, but most do not). Women, on the other hand, have access to sex that is basically the same as gay men. So, when our norms for marriage become more “gay” and more “poly”, women will be the ones who are “benefiting” from this, to a hugely disproportionate degree — not the husbands. The husbands will mostly be hapless cucks.

    Some say it’s impossible to think that men would go along with this in any significant number. Don’t be so sure. Social pressure is a very powerful thing, and has totally shaped male behaviors in numerous ways that support feminism’s sexual agenda so far. I see no reason why it wouldn’t also be the case here, given enough time for it to play itself out.

  80. desiderian says:

    “Could it be then, that the Cult of Cuckchivalry is an Anglo Saxon / Anglospheric phenomenon, and not distinctly Christian?”

    The early American Puritans could also be pretty passionate with their wives.

    You really start to see it in the Anglospheric context with the Transcendentals (proto-SJWs), Shakers, Quakers, and Unitarians. Their (few) descendents have generally left Christianity altogether, but they own the commanding heights of the culture.

  81. Boxer says:

    Someone who is really skilled with the Wayback machine could dig that up.

    Seconded. I’ve tried resurrecting some of the best stuff from Price for personal use, with no success. He did lots of good work over the years, and it all disappeared.

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I vaguely remember TV movies in the 1970s showcasing the horrors of marital rape. Back in the 1970s, TV movies were in the vanguard of leftist propaganda, along with Norman Lear sitcoms.

    I did a search and came up with this 1980 TV move about marital rape, Rape and Marriage: The Rideout Case: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081402/

    Maybe this was the first one to tackle the subject, although I still vaguely remember TV shows and movies covering the issue by the 1970s.

    I expect there’ll be TV movies on Lifetime and Hallmark that showcase the horrors of abusive husbands who forbid their wives from “following their hearts” and experiencing “love” to be found in extra-marital affairs.

  83. Scott says:

    OT, but I just saw this.

  84. King Alfred says:

    This is a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. I have long been interested in how Western civilization came to be in its current state and how to repair what is broken and restore the good that has been lost. There are some relevant and (hopefully) interesting historical sources on my long-abandoned blog: http://requiemforcivilization.blogspot.com/
    I believe some of them are relevant to this discussion and all are relevant to the larger issues addressed on this blog.

    I would also strongly recommend reading the book “Contra Feminism” by Joseph Keysor.

  85. Lyn87 says:

    Novaseeler,

    Excellent analysis – I hadn’t thought of that. I’ve always considered the churchian obsession with “gay marriage” (as if such a thing could ever really exist no matter what laws are passed) to be a diversion from the real issues. After all, homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population, but the divorce rate in the church is nearly as high as the rate among the un-churched… plus, marriage is a sacrament: why does it matter to us which unions the state chooses to legally recognize?

    But as you noted: it’s another brick in the wall, and opens the door to legalized polygamy. Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with that, because although polygamy is generally a VERY BAD IDEA, at least it has some rationale to it and was common even among the OT patriarchs. As a “small l” libertarian, I don’t see that government has any legitimate claim to the authority to outlaw how free people choose to associate with each other, especially when that type of association has biblical roots.

    But as we’ve all discussed here ad nauseam, the church decided to “Render marriage unto Caesar” long before any of us were born, and now Caesar demands his due and our acquiescence. Hence: marriages are now joined and dissolved by judges operating under a legal code that has stripped marriage of its essence and turned it into a cultural artifact useful primarily for providing women with future-ex-husbands to give them children and pay their bills. With these new changes, they won’t even get the pretense of siring their own children.

    For the people pushing this, I suspect most of them naively want to reform the institution of marriage in accordance with their utopian ideals, but if someone was deliberately trying to destroy it they couldn’t do a better job. Strategy requires a strategist, and Satan himself has always had foolish people dancing on his strings unknowingly. Consequently, marriage went from being a respectable trade-off to being highly risky, and now it’s on the verge of becoming utterly pointless. The question is: how long before even the most thirsty guys just say, “Screw this” and walk away?

  86. Frank K says:

    “So, when our norms for marriage become more “gay” and more “poly”, women will be the ones who are “benefiting” from this, to a hugely disproportionate degree — not the husbands. The husbands will mostly be hapless cucks.

    Some say it’s impossible to think that men would go along with this in any significant number.”

    Fully agree that “decriminalizing” extra marital sexual activity will be a bonanza for carousel riders, if betas happily play along and pay for everything while Chad plows the wifey. So the narrative is supposed to shift from “he should be happy with Chad’s sloppy seconds” to “he should be happy to continue sharing his wife with Chad, while he pays all the bills and raises the children Chad sires in his wife.”

    I know a lot of thirsty betas have no spine and will settle for just about anything with a vagina, but one would hope that at some point they would finally stand up, say “no more” and walk away, much like the “herbivore” men in Japan have done.

    On an unrelated question: is there an FAQ on how to format responses here?

  87. Cane Caldo says:

    For the record, that article from The Spearhead doesn’t speak about romanticism at all. Its approach to the topic is legal.

  88. Frank K says:

    >> but the divorce rate in the church is nearly as high as the rate among the un-churched… plus, marriage is a sacrament

    If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, it is. Sacraments bestow grace, or as I like to tell the unchurched: “something supernatural happens.” Sacraments are also indelible.

    For other churches, marriage is covenant, which according to the dictionary is: “contract, agreement, undertaking, commitment, guarantee, warrant, pledge, promise, bond, indenture; pact, deal, settlement, arrangement, understanding”

    Granted, the contract is with God. But it isn’t the same as a sacrament. And I think most Protestants would reject the concept of marriage as a sacrament. Furthermore, most reject baptism as a sacrament.

  89. iamadamalan says:

    @Spike

    That is like looking at Trump and concluding America isn’t feminist. You can’t tell much from what apex males get away with. From his interactions with his wife its clear Luther very much knew how to handle a woman.

    To be sure, different European cultures will be affected differently; but the rot goes all the way back to Greece. Jewish thought was very different though. One of the ancient daily morning prayers of the Jew was to thank God he was not born a woman.

  90. Frank K says:

    “Hence: marriages are now joined and dissolved by judges operating under a legal code that has stripped marriage of its essence and turned it into a cultural artifact useful primarily for providing women with future-ex-husbands to give them children and pay their bills. With these new changes, they won’t even get the pretense of siring their own children.”

    And they will be shamed if they refuse to play along.

    To the women who want to have Chad’s offspring, let them marry Chad. Of course that won’t happen. Chad isn’t interested in marriage (and why should he be?), and even if he was interested, he usually lacks the financial resources to provide for a family (that’s what betas are for).

    But even if the betas say “screw this” and walk away, Caesar will step in and provide for Chad’s brood (courtesy of the taxpayers)

  91. iamadamalan says:

    @Novaseeker

    You are right that they are pushing to legalize polygamy; if only we would be so lucky that they succeed.

    They are pushing it because they see it as undermining marriage (which they view as monagamous; polygamy opposed by Christians), because the Muslims want it (who they support for their opposition to Christianity), and because the elites are never limited to one woman anyway (regardless the law).

    But it is a poison pill, and one we should hope they take. Not only is polygamy Biblically valid (never condemned nor called sinful, only regulated), it is inherently patriarchal. The structure and social dynamics mean it is much more likely that the household will be male led and male honoring.

    Some feminists realize this, but they can’t condemn it without condemning polyamory, free love and loving mutual consent; which they won’t do.

    Why get married for a sexless marriage when you can gather up an obligation free harem of willing girls? As Christians we have no selling point for traditional marriage besides guilt (which no longer works). We already lost the culture war for monogamous marriage. Call polygamy the ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’ strategy. Use their beliefs against them.

    Is it optimal? Probably not; but its better than what we have now. Polygamy is going on now whether we like it or not with soft harems, insels, and AFBB. But its producing few children, the children it does produce are damaged, and its awash in sin. At least with a sanctified polygamous marriage you not only avoid fornication, you have a family structure to shepherd children into the world.

  92. Kaminsky says:

    Why is Anglo feminism so virulent?

    Because feminism is hypergamy for fat girls.

    And hypergamy in Anglo cultures is currently unchecked due to Anglo males dominating the world and providing endless resources.

    Also, trad-cons, Puritanism and deep-seated racial concerns restrict Anglo men from going out in the world and reaping their reward as universal alphas. This makes Anglo culture a hothouse for female hypergamy to flourish in.

  93. Kaminsky says:

    I remember watching a few movies in the 80s depicting the evils of marital rape long before I even knew a thing about politics, left-right etc.

    I remember the husband got drunk and had sex with his wife saying “Rape, baby, RAPE!”

    I remember thinking, “Aren’t they married? So what?” Then the husband was portrayed as the worst human being every. I had no idea I was watching feminism/Marxism stuff playing out.

    Even then, lefties had no concerns for subtle messaging at all.

  94. Frank K says:

    The thing is they aren’t just pushing for old school. patriarchal polygamy, they are pushing for “plural marriage”, meaning that multiple men and women are “married” to each other. What this means for women is that there are multiple men (and other women too) who are financially responsible for their kids, regardless of who actually sired them. This arrangement is even more toxic for beta providers than monogamous marriage. as they could end up on the hook for dozens of kids that are not theirs, especially if they are high earners.

    I could foresee one of these plural marriages where two betas pay the bills and the 4 deadbeat Chads bang all the wives and impregnate them.

    One would have to be very thirsty (and an utter fool) to accept such an arrangement, but there is no shortage of thirsty fools on this green Earth

  95. Oscar says:

    @ Scott says:
    December 17, 2016 at 6:46 am

    “OT, but I just saw this.”

    Does she order his food online, too? The movie “Her” did a version of that.

    So did “The Sixth Day”, though in a much funnier way.

    Increasingly sexless, marriageless, childless East Asian cultures are way ahead of us on this stuff, but it seems to be where we’re headed as well.

  96. Lyn87 says:

    Frank K,

    You’re right – I was using the word “sacrament” in its generic sense (an outward sign of something bearing religious significance), rather than the more specific meaning it holds in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or “Catholic-lite” Protestant denominations like Missouri-synod Lutherans and Episcopalians. As a dreaded “Fundamentalist” I consider marriage to be a covenant. In either case, the state has no legitimate authority to regulate it.

    But this trend is – if not self-correcting – at least doomed to fail, as the only system that really works in the long term is what I referred to elsewhere as Patriarchal Monogamous Marriage (PMM) model. A hybrid-system like we have now is unsustainable, since “bad-drives-out-good” doesn’t only apply to economics – it also applies to competing systems of incentives in a “tragedy of the commons” fashion. Namely, although it is in everyone’s interest for PMM to be the norm, any one individual who wants to deviate from it can benefit by doing so (alpha males and young women, mostly). Eventually more and more people (beta males, mostly) realize that they’re being sheared like sheep and just stop pulling the cart of civilization and start riding on it… and then the system grinds to a halt. AF/BB works as long as betas are willing to play along, after which the government makes them play along… but even that has limits as more of them default to MGTOW level 1 to MGTOW level 2 to MGTOW level 3 because they get punished if they don’t. Even Uncle Sam can’t get blood from a stone forever.

  97. Kaminsky says:

    @Oscar

    East Asia has been a male worship culture for thousands of years so it’s a whole different world. I get your point but I wouldn’t look East for any kinds of roadmaps for the West, in sexual terms at least. I lived there for years. I saw ten year old Korean boys run around screaming in excitement about the penis size of the new 6’4″ Western teacher who just arrived. I saw South Korean high school boys get to second base with each other during every single class break without having any clue as to how latent they are. Five minutes of ass play every single time, involving ALL of them, every time. They’re disgusting. I could go on and on. It’s a hellscape of gay males who have no idea that that’s who they are. Their all-male, mandatory military service is an orgy of ‘boys being boys’,….(except there are no women there.) Male worship cultures are a joke of latency. They HATE women. The women don’t exactly have ants in their pants either. I honestly don’t know how any Korean couples are ever having sex with each other. The Chinese seemed way healthier to me. The Japanese are off into such weirdness that I don’t know what to tell you.

  98. Oscar says:

    @ Kaminsky says:
    December 17, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    “East Asia has been a male worship culture for thousands of years so it’s a whole different world. I get your point but I wouldn’t look East for any kinds of roadmaps for the West, in sexual terms at least.”

    I mentioned East Asia as a warning, not a road map.

  99. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ December 16, 2016 at 5:51 pm:
    “Could it be then, that the Cult of Cuckchivalry is an Anglo Saxon / Anglospheric phenomenon, and not distinctly Christian?”

    “It does seem that the Anglosphere at the very least has a more virulent strain. There is quite a lot for us to study here.”

    We’re the most trusting people on the planet. Also, I know from my own experience that the more intelligent a guy is, the more capable and tempted he is to live inside his head. High trust plus high intelligence equals easy self-delusion.

    How else could a man prefer an inflated fantasy of sex to the actual thing?

    iamadamalan @ 11:33 am:
    “You are right that they are pushing to legalize polygamy; if only we would be so lucky that they succeed.”

    This should have been your first clue that polygamy won’t improve our situation.

  100. iamadamalan says:

    @Gunner

    Marriage is dying. Biblical polygamy is an embrace and extend strategy. Sometimes enemies make mistakes and take actions beneficial to our side.

    Whether we like it or not, it is certainly better for children, morals and civilization than single mothers taking over most child rearing; which is where the west is heading. We can buck polygynous marriage but at least its marriage.

    @Lyn87

    What is unsustainable about our current system is that it isn’t a system at all but a state of flux emerging out of a culture war as we move from one system to another. Is PMM, as you put it, really sustainable? Its cracking up right now in large part because it leaves the top and bottom of the sexual/marriage market out in the cold.

    The bottom are left empty handed and the top seek out their dalliances in private, rather publically than via socially accepted polygamy. And that creates an undercurrent of hidden fornication amoung the elite which eventually turns into the free love, anything goes phase of civilization which leads not only to a loss of morals in marriage, but in law and all other spheres of society.

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar says:
    December 16, 2016 at 6:31 am
    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 15, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    All of which I already summarized for you at the link I provided, but you insist on pretending I didn’t. Bravo.

    No, your “What I teach my children” comment handwaved a bit but did not at all summarize what I wrote. Not even close. Your disingenuousness is duly noted.

  102. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 17, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Oooooh! Now it’s serious!

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    iamadamalan to Novaseeker
    You are right that they are pushing to legalize polygamy; if only we would be so lucky that they succeed.

    Careful what you wish for. I’m sure plenty of ordinary, Beta men thought “free love” was a great idea back in the 1920’s and again in the late 1960’s, but it didn’t work out the way they expected. I’m not Novaseeker but what he is describiing looks a lot like what Rollo calls “open hypergamy”, where ordinary, Beta men are expected to remain faithful while not complaining about their wives cheating. It’s one step beyond the Sheryl Sandburg “Date all the bad boys you want when you are in your 20’s, then find your Twu Wuv to settle down with in your 30’s”, i.e AF-BB. That one step beyond is arguably cuckolding beyond the “man up and marry that single mother babymomma”, to “man up and forgive your cheating wife who is pregnant by another man and oh, yeah, raise that child as your own”.

    That may not be your idea of poly-marriage. But there’s women who would sign up for it, as history teaches us, and they have plenty of influence as the cult of Courtly Love makes quite clear. I’m too lazy right now to go see if “cuck” and “cucking” are high ranking search terms, but it would not surprise me partly due to the recent US election but more disturbingly because that fetish seems to be a hot topic right now.

    BONUS: Real deal polygyny tends to result in an excessive number of sexually frustrated young men who haven’t much to lose. See any number of histories of the Arab world for where that can lead. Or closer to home, do a search on “Lost boys Arizona” or “lost boys Nevada” to see how the renegades in the Fundamentalist LDS manage to keep their polygyny working. It ain’t pretty.

  104. Question inspired by one of these sort of posts about how getting married would be foolish these days…
    The Bible explicitly condemns plenty of sins and spells out things. Like adultery is explicitly a sin in plenty of places, visiting a prostitute is explicitly a sin, bestiality is explicitly a sin, etc. No room for wondering.
    Is it explicitly a sin for an unmarried man to sleep with an unmarried, non betrothed woman? Exodus spells out the punishment if a man seduces a virgin girl and sleeps with her–pay bride price and if the father approves, marriage. “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”

    The word fornication is explicitly a sin, but that word comes from prostitutes hanging out under arches. Is there a part in the Bible that explicitly says it’s a sin for an unmarried man to have sex with an unmarried, non-promised woman?

  105. Re: polygamy

    For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!”

  106. Oops. Forgot to put in the reference. Isaiah 4.

  107. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Pagan priest wins the right to wear his goat horns in his DMV photo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/17/maine-man-wins-right-to-wear-goat-horns-in-license-photo-saying-they-are-religious-attire/?utm_term=.ebf25d97a8a5

    Check out the photo in the article. The one that shows this pagan priest, Moonsong, in his horns, plus goat’s legs and hooves. His religious attire, I suppose.

  108. Dale says:

    >I expect there’ll be TV movies on Lifetime and Hallmark that showcase the horrors of abusive husbands who forbid their wives from “following their hearts” and experiencing “love” to be found in extra-marital affairs.

    We are basically there already. About a year ago I was watching a movie with two women who both say they have been Christians for over 10 years.
    Part of the movie plot was that a woman decided to leave her (supposedly) abusive husband. She fled to some other city. There, she meets a guy and starts to flirt with him.
    At that point in the movie, I voiced disapproval; I stated that she was married, so it would be adultery for her to pursue and have sex with this other man. The two Christian women disagreed; their position was that his abuse freed the wife from the marriage.
    The movie proceeded, and did in fact later have a scene where I am sure they were going to portray this married woman and the new guy having sex. At that point I left. The two Christian women presumably saw no problem, as they continued.
    True, the movie did not (up to that point) portray a shaming of the husband for not allowing the adulterous sex, but they did portray the “heroine” of the movie starting a relationship, leading to adultery. No need for even a legal divorce; just sleep around with whatever cute guy is handy, should your husband do something with which you disagree.

    Finding a woman who follows Christ is rather difficult. She will follow if her husband does and she is attracted to him. I can think of …. 1… … … … okay, a whole one woman I have known, from decades of English (Canadian) church attendance who I thought was genuine in her faith. There may have been others, but they do not spring to mind. Which brings me to my next point…

    @Lyn and others
    It is unfortunate that Christians keep spouting the incorrect statement that men must marry a woman from church / Christian. This is likely based on well-meaning ignorance, or on repeating a lie told by those who are servants of women rather servants of God.
    2 Cor 6:14-18 does have the words “unequally yoked”. But, that passage has nothing to do with marriage. The entire passage runs from 2 Cor 4:1 through to about 2 Cor 7:4 (the topic focus changes a bit at 7:5, but is related). The passage is about various aspects of Paul’s ministry to the Corinthian church. Letters of reference, Paul et al loving the church, but them not loving back, them tolerating false teachers, etc. Marriage is not mentioned once, in the entire 3 chapter section — it is not in mind at all. Yet, people try to twist this passage away from the original message and into a new restriction for marriage. See Titus 1:5-9: one of the requirements for spiritual leadership is “he must hold firmly to the trustworthy message AS IT HAS BEEN TAUGHT, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it” (emphasis mine). Thus, I/we should be careful to apply the passage as it was intended, and not in some way clearly unrelated to the message as originally taught.
    If you read the entire 3.5 chapter section, you will see Paul speaking against tolerating false teachers. It would be justifiable to suggest Paul has them in mind when he says, “do not be unequally yoked”. But claiming Paul is thinking about work, and thus I cannot be employed by anyone not a Christian seems a reach. Certainly, investing large sums with a man who does not submit to Christ could be a bad idea; but this passage does not, to me, give a clear prohibition thereupon.
    Similarly, since the 3.5 chapter passage never mentions marriage, claiming this “unequally yoked” command forbids a man to marry a non-Christian woman seems a stretch.
    Again, I admit, having a Christian woman who has the maturity and self-control to act in obedience to the Scriptures would be vastly preferable than not. (Sadly, those are severely lacking in supply. In my English churches, I cannot remember even one “pastor’s” wife who consistently lived out obedience, even just during worship service. Clothes, cutting hair, obesity, etc. (Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11, Titus 2:3-5).)
    The passage itself goes on to talk about idols two verses later, so it seems that the best guess is that Paul’s restriction is against dealing with false religions; perhaps the idols, temples, or people therefrom. And I should stick to the most likely original message, not go off with “new and interesting interpretations”.

    Plus, if you think a man must marry a woman of God, or marry none at all, then why does God not list that in the requirements list given in Deut 21:10-13? God is speaking about women who were not a member of the nation of Israel, and even states she is from “your enemies”. Since she was from an enemy nation, she can hardly be assumed to be a follower of God.
    What characteristic is required of the woman to be taken in marriage? Only one requirement is mentioned directly, and I think a second can be inferred. The directly-mentioned characteristic is that the man finds her beautiful. That’s it. No mention of wealth, health or religion.
    The second characteristic that can, I think, be inferred is obedient. God gives a few commands she is to obey, and she can become his wife only after she has obeyed them.

    Yes, 1 Cor 7 requires a Christian spouse, but only for women (widows). Does not apply to men.

    Of course, since the Bible talks about the new wife having been a virgin (Deut 22), we need to consider that. And fat chance finding a non-Christian woman who remains a virgin until marriage. Although the Christian women do not seem terribly concerned with God’s ideals either, so…

  109. infowarrior1 says:

    If one wants to know how polygamy plays out one needs only to read JD Urwins work “Sex and culture” he documents the sexual practices of various cultures. And concludes according to historical data that only the most patriarchal monogamous societies are the ones with the greatest of achievements in the arts, culture and military prowess due to the social energy from sexual continence.

    They as far as history is concerned always managed to overpower polygamous cultures.

  110. Novaseeker says:

    If one wants to know how polygamy plays out one needs only to read JD Urwins work “Sex and culture” he documents the sexual practices of various cultures. And concludes according to historical data that only the most patriarchal monogamous societies are the ones with the greatest of achievements in the arts, culture and military prowess due to the social energy from sexual continence.

    They as far as history is concerned always managed to overpower polygamous cultures.

    Yeah, of course. The issue is that “hard” polygyny (i.e., where one man “locks down” several or more women) leaves a huge number of men without any woman at all. Unless you have a way to bleed off these men (tribal warfare works, high male infant mortality also works, etc.), you have an inherently unstable social situation, and one which is seething with resentment of the many for the few, among the males. By contrast a monogamous society has much greater buy-in from all males and therefore much greater trust levels between males, and therefore can achieve much more than a system where most of the males resent the few who are hogging the women (and the sex) and are obsessed with finding a way to knock those guys off.

    Our own system is “soft” polygyny, which works a lot better than hard polygyny does, in terms of social order, because the “have not” males still do mostly get women — they just get them used, second-hand, and less enthusiastic. Most guys still do get a woman or two eventually, even if they’re pretty hard up. In a hard monogamy situation, you don’t get that — you don’t get squat, because the women are all locked down by a small percentage of the men.

  111. Oscar says:

    @ Deep Strength says:
    December 17, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    “Isaiah 4.”

    Note that Isaiah 3:1 – 4:1 speak of God’s judgement on Jerusalem and Judah.

  112. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    There is no “well-meaning ignorance” about the prohibition of becoming “unequally yoked” with regard to marriage. You’re rationalizing: NO Earthly yoke is more binding than marriage. Like a lot of things that both sexes should avoid, becoming unequally yoked in marriage often creates more practical problems for one sex than the other, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay for members of the “less affected” sex to do it. But even as a practical matter, a devout Christian man who marries an unbelieving wife in today’s legal environment is taking a far greater risk than a devout Christian woman who marries an unbelieving husband.

    As for Deut 21: 10-13, I’m glad you brought it up since it reinforces my point and undermines yours. First of all, being Christian wasn’t a requirement because it was written about 1400 years before Christ. The “Before Christ” counterpart to being a Christian today was being a Jew then, and the women taken as wives in that situation became part of the nation of Israel automatically upon marriage… so the men in Deut 21 would not have been unequally yoked when they took those foreign women as brides – they were, in fact, removing the otherwise-forbidden inequality by the act of taking them as wives rather than keeping them as slaves indefinitely (which is what the pagans did). On the other hand, marrying a non-Christian woman today doesn’t turn her into a Christian, so unlike in Deuteronomy, the matrimonial yoke is unequal.

    Apples and oranges.

  113. Dale says:

    Lyn,

    “You’re rationalizing: … [various human reasoning]”

    I am advocating that we apply the passage as originally intended, and as I wrote, the 3.5 chapter section never once considers marriage. I understand that a person may have a strong view on something, and that view may even be wise and correct. But it is not wise to “read in” messages to the Scriptures that are not there. The passage is not talking about marriage; feel free to find a verse that says “husband”, “wife”, “marriage”, “bride”, or any other similar word in that 3.5 chapter section. (Hint: You will find “love”, but not in the context you may want.) Doing that search may be a good exercise, helping a person to accept that a passage needs to be applied only as intended. And yes, I previously did the exact same thing. I do not ask humility of others that I do not first ask of myself.
    You appear to be conflating two things: first, your firm conviction that your position, based on your human reasoning, is correct, and secondly, God’s word. This may be an easy mistake, but it is still a mistake. I must be careful to not add to the word of God, regardless of how sure I am that I am correct. I offer the suggestion that when I say “God says [whatever]” or “The Bible demands [whatever]”, but cannot offer a clear passage that does in fact say [whatever], I am engaging in blasphemy. Only God can give commands from God. I certainly can and should try to reason, based on God’s word; see Col 3:15-17 (“let the word of Christ dwell in your richly, as you teach and admonish…”) and perhaps also 1 Cor 2:14-16. Since blasphemy is, to me, a very serious sin, I want to be careful to avoid it.

    As for your human reasoning, I would summarize your view as: marriage is a strong/deep relationship, so it can cause large problems if the spouse does not submit to God.
    I actually completely agree with you on this reasoning; in my original comment I mentioned the examples of investing and marriage. In particular, your comment about the exposure a man has to the legal divorce structure if he has a non-devout Christian woman is very true.
    The fact that I agree with your human reasoning does nothing to read in the idea of marriage into 2 Cor 6 however. I need to be careful to distinguish between direct commands from God, and ideas that seem blatantly clear and obvious to me based on my own human reasoning. One is infallible, the other is not. One is from God and is a divine command, the other is not. One is appropriate for teaching to all people (required by the passage), the other MAY be.
    A better passage for the purpose of advocating marriage only to a previously devout woman would be Josh 24:14-15 – “but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”. A woman living in open rebellion does not seem a good fit. (Actually, this verse is part of my human reasoning for rejecting most church women.)
    Even here however, Joshua is stating the direction he currently permits in his house, not the prequalifications of whoever he married, before she entered his house as wife.

    You are correct that Deut was before Christ, but I did not say “Christian”, I said “woman of God”. Regardless of the time period, all people have had the chance to choose to follow God. Focusing on the term “Christian” is a red herring.
    Your comment about her automatically becoming part of Israel is interesting. In my understanding, you are correct on this. However, it does not actually support your point. She WAS an enemy of God, and the Israelite man, who is acting in obedience to God, was still permitted to take her. “Follower of God” was not a prequalification.
    You do touch on a very important point however. After marriage, and actually likely during the month beforehand, she would have been required to become, or at least act as, part of Israel. She was not to continue worshiping false gods (forbidden to all of Israel), murder, disobey her husband, etc. All the laws from God would have applied to her. So she was to become a de facto follower of God, due to her marriage to the Israelite. We could even hypothesis that if the man saw that she was not submitting to God’s commands during the month before marriage, that he may have chosen to send her away without taking her as wife; this is not mentioned however, so remains speculation.
    As you alluded, this is NOT the case with a new wife in today’s legal situation, regardless of whether she was previously a follower of God. She can disobey, divorce, deny sex, etc.
    Thus this passage does not support the idea that only a previously devout follower of God was eligible for marriage. She would/should have been required to obey God’s commands after.
    And absolutely, past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour, so having a woman who is already submissive and self-controlled blatantly and obviously seems the best bet. I do not remember anyone denying this. I did deny that such women are plentiful, but that is not a denial that a woman already trained and practiced in submission to God is best.

    Hope this is helpful.

    In case anyone thinks I am advocating ignoring a follower of God, in favour of a disobedient woman, in my view:
    devoted follower of God (as shown by her acts, not merely words – Matt 21:28-32) > “pre-Christian” who already obeys God’s commands > disobedient pre-Christian > openly disobedient woman who claims to be Christian (1 Cor 5:11-13)

  114. Opus says:

    Milton

    Satan is the anti-hero of Paradise Lost and so I wonder what other veiled heresies that I have missed are locked away within its twelve books especially with regard to marriage. I have still to read his tract on Marriage but if it is anything like some of his other tracts it will be fairly extreme. The only reason he was exercised by Divorce was that his wife had run back to her parents a short time after the wedding – although presumably after it had been consummated – perhaps all that blank verse was making her unhappy. I find it hard not to empathise with his desire to rid himself of such a woman and start again. A certain reading of Samson Agonsites reveals Milton as misogynist and he tends to write about men in what to us is a homo-erotic way as in Lycidas.

  115. Lyn87 says:

    Dale wrote, “But it is not wise to “read in” messages to the Scriptures that are not there. The passage is not talking about marriage…”

    … and then I stopped reading, because although it may not have mentioned marriage specifically, it was all about being yoked together, and marriage is the ultimate yoking together that can occur between any two people.

    So unless you’re of the opinion that being “yoked together” is somehow not being “yoked together” when that “yoking together” takes the form of marriage vows, then 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies as written:

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

  116. Gunner Q says:

    archerwfisher @ December 17, 2016 at 8:01 pm:
    “Is it explicitly a sin for an unmarried man to sleep with an unmarried, non betrothed woman? Exodus spells out the punishment if a man seduces a virgin girl and sleeps with her–pay bride price and if the father approves, marriage.”

    This was the recent “shotgun marriage” debate. It’s not explicitly a sin because you can legalize it after the fact with marriage. But, that approach is definitely non-optimal. “This behavior is okay because the Bible punishes it but doesn’t actually forbid it” is a very silly argument for legalization.

    I, too, wish there was a usable shortcut so we Christian men wouldn’t have to suffer unjust deprivation. But there isn’t. Ephesians 5:3. God warned us up front that we would suffer for Him and promised He’d make it up to us..someday, somehow. Faith is more than just believing that God is real. It’s believing that obeying God is worth the cost and misery.

  117. iamadamalan says:

    @Novaseeker

    Its a stretch to say our current situation of soft-polygamy ‘works’. Look at incel’s. Look at divorse rape. Look at suicide rates. Look at single motherhood. Look at dead bedrooms. Look at fertility rates. Nothing working about it; our society is collapsing.

    You can complain all you want about the supposed downsides of polygamy; but at least they can produce the next generation! We can’t.

    Its simply an exageration to say “women are all locked down by a small percentage of the men” in polygamy. I’m not interested in exagerations or scare tactics but rather how we can get out of this current situation. So far I see a lack of workable solutions.

    Look, we lost the culture war. Pandora’s box has opened. Polygamy is likely on the way whether you like it or not. What I am say is, how do we go forward from here and win? We can take this opportunity to turn lemons into lemonaide or we can virtue signal and feel good about ourselves while we loose.

    Why not use their beliefs against them and offer men and women a non-sinful way to do what they sinfully do now? Its the if you can’t beat them join them, embrace and extend strategy.

  118. iamadamalan says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Good warning about free love and beta’s. Question is, would the affect of polygamy on availability of women for beta’s be any different than now?

    So folks are claiming we are seeing or will see a marriage strike (which will lead to women without husbands) but when polygamy comes up suddenly switch and claim it would lead to a shortage of women. Which is it?

    What I am saying is in a healthy polygamous society only the top echelon of men will get mutliple wives; the same people who right now get multiple women outside of marriage (i.e. a net zero change in available women). These men will have multiple women one way or the other; would you rather they fornicate or be in a marriage supporting a family?

    And thats just with respect to the carresal and spintershood. We see a similar problem with serial monagamy. For example, both of Donald Trump’s prior wives are currently unmarried.

    FLDS isn’t the normative for all polygamous societies; thats just what you get when EVERYONE seeks it out. Thats simply an exageration designed to scare people, not serious deal with the issue. The greater culture of the US doesn’t have a religion strongly encouraging multiple wives. In our current situation, many men are fed up with their current wife and unlikely to manage a second.

  119. Gunner Q says:
    December 18, 2016 at 2:24 pm
    archerwfisher @ December 17, 2016 at 8:01 pm:
    “It’s not explicitly a sin because you can legalize it after the fact with marriage. But, that approach is definitely non-optimal. ”

    To rephrase–the Bible goes into detail on how if you sleep with your wife on her period, that’s forbidden, and lists a ton of other sins. But, there is zero mention or forbidding for an unmarried man to sleep with an unmarried woman. If she’s a virgin, then he has to pay the price she would have gotten and/or marry her if the father is okay. There is no mention of forbidding or penalizing an unmarried man and non virgin woman who sleep with each other as long as they are not promised to anyone. So is there anywhere in the bible calling sex between two unmarried people sin?

    And more on topic, polygamy is social suicide, let’s be real. Not only that, but when you rationalize it as “it’s already happening because top guys have multiple women” weeelll do you think those top guys are looking to have 10 children by 5 women? or 5 kids by 5 women? Look at Tom Cruise for instance. Rich as hell. Married three times to three beautiful women. Adopted an african, a white girl, then finally had his own child with Katie Holmes. That’s not boosting fertility rates, he literally added one child to the population. Meanwhile, another top guy, Arnold himself, had four children with one wife and one bastard child with a fling. Monogamy is better for fertility and for society. You may as well try to rationalize drug lords because cartels and gangs are popular.

  120. Dale says:

    @Lyn:

    First you wrote:
    >… and then I stopped reading

    then you sort of asked a question of me, or hinted I had not answered:
    >So unless you’re of the opinion that being “yoked together” is somehow…

    and then you quoted part of the relevant pericope of 2 Cor 6:14-18, with a view is based on that partial section of the pericope.
    (Pericope = unit of Biblical thought, usually a passage of 5 to 10 verses. Sorry for the funny word, but “paragraph” is not really correct.)

    I wonder if you are able to see the triple irony in this.
    First irony, is that you either ask a question, or at least suggest I have not answered it, when I have, twice. You did not see the answer because you did not read.

    Second irony, is that you admit to not reading an entire comment, and also apparently do not feel the need to read either the entire pericope or, better yet, section, of Scripture so that you can eliminate interpretations that are not consistent with the whole thing. It may be “freeing” for me to read only fragments from Scripture, as I can then use ten different interpretations, as the need arises. Ignoring the fact that nine of them would be disallowed, were I to read the whole thing.

    And last irony, is that you apparently have been in a military setting for years, with subordinates under your authority. I admit here that I am assuming that you want to treat the commands of God with respect. If not, this does not apply to you.
    As you are a man in the military, I am curious how you would approach a subordinate who very carefully read 2 sentences out of your 3 page instruction, found an interpretation that is certainly possible, given his reading of only those two sentences, and then decisively took action on his interpretation. All the while ignoring that the remainder of your unread instructions had no relation to his chosen interpretation and actions. Would this subordinate be praised, for showing you respect?

    Since you seem unwilling to accept a need to read more that a snippet before deciding or interpreting, I do not think I can help you in this. Be well.

  121. iamadamalan says:

    @infowarrior1

    “…They as far as history is concerned always managed to overpower polygamous cultures.”

    Nice sounding theory, but false.

    The Vikings Civilization was a polygynous one. At their peak they were not only had arts and culture and settled the New World but they were wooping up on all of monagomous Europe. Arguably it was the converstion to monogamous Christianity that ended the Viking Age.

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. We’ve already peaked our civilization. Our goal as Christians isn’t to achieve the greatest civilization. What we’re talking about here is how to pull us out of the tailspin. Our current strategies are leading to demographic death and takeover by Islam.

  122. Dale says:

    @IAmAdamAlan
    >These men will have multiple women one way or the other; would you rather they fornicate or be in a marriage supporting a family?

    I admit to complete ignorance re polygamy, other than what we see in Scripture. Boxer however has repeatedly indicated that the “family” formations that he saw in Mormon polygamous situations were far from healthy however. So not sure how much of an improvement you should expect to see here.

    You do state “FLDS isn’t the normative for all polygamous societies; thats just what you get when EVERYONE seeks it out.”
    But, if polygamy were legal, would not many more people from the general culture seek it out than those few from FLDS who do so now?
    Plus, who are these alphas going to pursue? Women from the 60% of the population that is overweight? (Canadian red cross estimated ~60% of women were overweight. I think 40% (so two thirds of the 60%) were further classified as obese. Rates for men were similar.)
    I doubt it. A man who can get many different women will pursue women from the 40% that are healthy. Any man will seek the best family he can make.
    This focus disproportionately will affect the majority non-alphas, who now have far fewer decent women available (from the 40% healthy group). I think this would lead to more of the non-alphas dropping out.
    Further, just because a woman is a healthy weight, this does not guarantee she is desirable. Think, short hair, masculine attitudes, green hair, etc. The pool of even physically “normal” and feminine women is a small portion of the whole.
    As you guys mentioned upthread, at least with serial promiscuity (I refuse to call it serial “monogomy”), there is the appearance that many healthy women are available. Which changes nothing for a man with morals or standards, but nevertheless this affects many.

    >In our current situation, many men are fed up with their current wife and unlikely to manage a second.
    What do you think: What percentage of men would take 2 wives, if they could without significant problems, legal or otherwise?

  123. iamadamalan says:

    @archerwfisher

    “And more on topic, polygamy is social suicide”

    Is it really? Did polygamy prevent the ascendancy of the Vikings? How about the Bible, was polygamy social suicide for Old Testament Israel?

    They were invaded, as judgement by God, but not for their polygamy. To the contrary Isaiah 4, unattached women joining a polygamous marriage was stated to be part of repentance from a society where woman and children rule.

    God did after all found via Moses a polygamous society. Did that prevent them from going from wondering the desert to attaining the peak of glory under Solomon?

    I get it, monogamists don’t like polygamy and think its the end of the world. Shocker. Except it isn’t and the churchian serial monogamy really IS the end of our world demographically.

  124. iamadamalan says:

    @Dale

    Thanks for the questions. I am myself no expert on this. There just seems to be a dearth of solutions for our predicament and I’m trying to explore if it would be a path forward for the church to counter attack in the culture war. Its not like we can stop polygamy anyway; virtue signalling about its inferiority or feelbads accomplishes nothing.

    A quick google showed incidence rates of 30-50%; but I havn’t seen comprehensive data. In our current situation, the average man has trouble handling one wife; two isn’t likely for most. Its likely only amoung the top 10-20% of men that have the skill to pull it off.

    Look at the church, there are 3 women for every 2 men in church. If we say women should only marry a Christian (as Paul argues in 1 Cor), monogamy leaves 33% of women out in the cold. If we match up every woman in church to a man, regardless of his marital status, that gives us 50% polygamous with 100% marriage, no incels.

    Like this later example, the big driver of polygamy societal wise is often (but not always) a dearth of men. In other words it doesn’t cause men to go marriage-less but rather is a symptom of marriage-less women.

    I think the obesity epidemic is a separate issue and affects all marriage systems; though polygamy would give wives incentive to stay thin.

    The thing with FLDS is it is one form of polygamy created as a result of one unique religion; we can’t honestly equate it with all other forms. If polygamy is as bad as they make it out to be, I don’t believe God would have allowed it in the OT.

  125. Dale says:

    @iamadamalan
    Agreed that polygamy is not, in and of itself, evil. If it were, God would never require it, nor offer it. (Levirate law, and rhetorical offering to David after he commits adultery with Uriah’s wife.)

    Regarding your “dearth of solutions”… there are two. But the first is expensive and only likely to be partly successful, and the second is prohibitively expensive and is not guaranteed.
    The first is to have a church pay the lawyer costs to get the correct wording for a family trust that following Scripture. E.g. Double share to the first born son, 0% to the widow/ex-wife (unless no other living relatives). Then the church publicly rebukes the Satanic, state-sponsored form of marriage, points out how it is contrary to Scripture, and advocates that any men planning to marry donate their house to a properly created family trust. And then refuse to marry anyone without it.
    Many women would scream of course, but assuming you are not worried about losing people who are not genuinely willing to submit to God, this is less of a concern.
    Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth???

    For the second, this may not apply to your country. But in Canada, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless a law specifically mentions this Charter, to allow that law to override it, the Charter supersedes all laws. One of the freedoms guaranteed is the freedom of religion.
    So, start a court challenge against the provincial government, for violation of our religious freedom. Demand the ability to create marriages according to the rules of our own religion, and to ignore all (contrary) marital laws from the province.
    This would not deal with “chilimony”, theft through child support, but it would allow the removal of:
    – no fault divorce
    – divorce initiated by the wife (65-75%). She could still leave, but could not remarry. (1 Cor 7.)
    – alimony, excluding the theft through child support

    I doubt a lawsuit could deal successfully with child support, as the as-yet-unconceived children would not have been able to sign any marriage agreement, and we all pretend that $1000 per month per child, paid to the mother, is for the “good of the child”.
    Biggest problem that I see with this solution is the cost. I am no lawyer, but I assume 100k would be just a start.
    Any lawyers around, who feel like working for free for a year?

  126. MarcusD says:

    Why does our society show no respect for women, from either side? (…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1035233

    Question For The Married (See OP’s follow up post (#12))
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1035188

  127. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @All who are commenting on polygamy – some thoughts and clarifications.

    The bible lays out a sexual social system that regulates polygyny. If you take the whole system and not just parts you will find that it has its own checks and balances, God knew what He was doing. For instance Harley Mc Badboy, after a tryst at the local sluts and suds will have to pay Suzi Carousels father a large some of money and her father can demand that he marry her and provide for her with no chance that he could ever divorce her (she just hit easy street). Harley may collect 3 or 4 wives, but the cost to him is so great that he will become a source of mockery. Oh if he does not have access to the money for his exploits, he gets to work it off as the slave for her father. Also a woman who does not keep her virginity in tact is a disgrace to her father and considered bargain bin booty and not worthy of marriage. Unless she is a widow, her n count is to remain at zero until marriage, and deception on this point results in the woman being stoned to death. The Bible really has no patience for slutty fun girls. While polygyny was regulated it was not common, only a few had the resources and the alpha presence to try and pull it off. One other point, the Bible uses polygyny as a means to care for the widow and to maintain family lines, it was not some male alpha fantasy, it was ensuring that the vulnerable had some means of provision and protection.

    Of course none of that figures as a matter of possibilities. The so called ground and pillar of the truth is too heavily invested in the lie and she is completely oblivious to her error and deaf to correction.

  128. @Jonadab:

    And the one time a Man took too many wives, it ended in epic disaster for his entire family. (Judges 8 & 9, for anyone that missed that disaster.)

    Ancient Israel, much like Ancient China, was always functionally monogamaous with exceptions for a few Men at the top. Given the way differentials in child mortality & war-deaths play out, it’s a system that was stable. However, when someone gets Concern Trolling on the topic, that’s never what they have in mind.

    I’m also not one to give into despair or stupidity on this topic. The entire “system” as it currently exists can’t last and only works because of a large combination of different sub-systems. Attack those systems and you change the mental Calculus the sluts do.

  129. infowarrior1 says:

    ^ This

    Advanced civilizations that manage to function in spite of polygyny do so because PMM( Patriarchal monogamous marriage) is practiced by the vast majority (95% and above) and the greater the percentage involed in polygyny the more unstable and uncivilized the society gets. The more absolute the monogamy the better the quality of such a civilization. While I would correct my assertion that monogamous societies always conquer the polygynous if its proven that vikings were polygynous.
    This still doesnt account for the fact that in addition to conquest societies with highest PMM have the most advanced civilizations.

    Only absolutely monogamous civilizations so far can account for both its heights in the arts,science an every other feature of advanced civilization and conquest.

    And given our dictim to love our neighbors wouldn’t it be against godliness to undermine the civilization and the benefits it brings? By advocating practices that are anti-civilizational in nature?

  130. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    I didn’t read your first wall-o-text, and I’m not going to wade through it to see how your second wall-o-text explains the first one. You’re not the first person I’ve encountered who believes as you do, and in any case I skimmed through both your posts enough to get your point, so it’s not that I don’t understand it. I just don’t care enough to argue about it in minute detail. I’m not asking you a question, so I’m not looking for an answer. I know what the Bible says (and not only 2 Cor 6:14, but the overall context in which it fits), and because the most simple / straightforward understanding is consistent with the rest of scripture, I don’t see the value of trying to figure out some method of making it mean something else. I’ve seen a lot of people do that with various scriptures – including this one – and apply that understanding to their lives, and in five decades I’ve never seen it end well. I’ve made the mistake of getting onto “How esoteric can you get?” discussions here before: I rarely find them to be enlightening.

    We agree too often on other topics to get into a pissing match about this one. I’ve said my piece – you may have the last word if you wish.

  131. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dale

    Lyn87 successfully rebutted your argument way back there. The text says “do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers”. That’s the overarching theme. The mistake you’re making is that you believe that whatever is not specifically mentioned in the three or four sentences which surround that theme, then they are excluded from the theme of the teaching. That’s wrong. Marriage is a yoking.

    Besides, it says right there “Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” The rhetorical implication is that they don’t share a portion. The idea that a husband has a portion which he does not share with his wife is anathema to every teaching on marriage in the NT.

    Agreed that polygamy is not, in and of itself, evil. If it were, God would never require it, nor offer it. (Levirate law, and rhetorical offering to David after he commits adultery with Uriah’s wife.)

    God created Adam and Eve; one man and one woman, and put them together. Jesus affirms this model, and only this model, of marriage to the pharisees. But you think we should affirm another arrangement? Never.

    At one time, it was acceptable for a man to marry his sister. Adam and Abram both did. Yet is is not good for us today. At one time, men could not eat meat. Later, they could only eat certain meats prepared in certain ways. Now it is good for us to eat meat, and we don’t have to keep kosher. Sometimes God gives different rules to individual men (Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist). Sometimes he gives different rules for different peoples and different generations. In both cases: God spoke–actually spoke–so that we would know. We’re in the people and generation which have been given the rule of monogamy. Unless you can prove that God has spoken to you special rules, then you are obliged to follow.

    @iamadamalan

    Good news: Neither the vikings nor the imperial Chinese were Christ; nor were either of them His apostles, nor his disciples, or even Christians. You don’t have to let them confuse you anymore.

  132. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Cane

    It would have been smarter to tone things down to “citizen” levels, though I’m sure monarchists disagree.

    Well, Citoyen, the French are the ones who tried that, too, and we know how it turned out in general, although I don’t know the state of marital relations during that era.

  133. “The Vikings Civilization was a polygynous one.”

    There are scholars who argue that to be so. I have yet to find any reputable scholar who is willing to bet his tenure on it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/viking-raiders-were-only-trying-to-win-their-future-wives-hearts/

    Second problem: “Viking” is a very broad term, and modern people tend to associate unrelated tribes and peoples as “Vikings” although those groups would have seen no relationship between them.

    However, assume for the sake of argument that “Vikings” were a recognizable group of communities and that they were polygynous. Did their civilizations prosper? Did they stay faithful to their culture? Or did they switch to Christianity after a bit of preaching?

  134. Dale says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite
    Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the considered Biblical positions you provide, such as the response above, and the list of ten ways courtly love is antithetical to the sexual ethics of the Bible you posted a few days ago. None of the ten were new to me, but that does not mean I can always remember them all off the top of my head, and thus bring them to bear on the current discussion.

    @Looking Glass
    Re Judges 8:

    Immediately after Gideon finishes divvying up the loot from the defeat of the Midianites, with the 300 men and the miracles that God provided, what do we read?
    >Gideon made the gold [from his haul of the loot] into an ephod, which he placed in Ophrah, his town. All Israel prostituted themselves by worshiping it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and his family.

    a) The above is not in the Sunday school version of the story of Gideon
    b) I had forgotten this
    c) What is wrong with these people??? God performs a great miracle, allows you to see and participate in it, and the very next thing you do is to disobey the first and second command from Ex 20:1-6 (No god before God, and no images for worship). Just “wow”. Our capacity for evil and ungratefulness is rather large. Unfortunately.

  135. iamadamalan says:

    @Cane Caldo

    We were not ‘given the rule of monogamy’. No where in the Bible is polygyny condemned as sin, no matter how much you wish it were so.

    Jesus used the example of Adam and Eve against divorce; but neither he nor his disciples used it to argue against polygamy; to claim otherwise goes against the text. With the possible exception of the requirements of an elder, the NT is silent on the matter.

    As Paul states in Romans, the OT law is there to teach us what is sin and it never condemns polygamy, only regulates it (as it does all marriage).

    @gaikokumaniakku

    The Viking civilization lasted 300 years; which in the cycle of civilizations is mature. The US might not even last that long.

    @infowarrior

    Even in Western Civilization, we rarely had absolute monogamy. Concubines and mistresses have had varying degrees of prevelance at different times and places. For example, while Ancient Greece was monogamous, concubines and sex outside of marriage were allowed and widespread. It appears the line was drawn at cohabition.

    You’re conflating modern social mors with sin. What is against godliness is sin. Don’t conflate a modern caricature of Western Civilization with the absolute will of God.

  136. iamadamalan says:

    @Dale

    Your family trust is intriguing; love to hear more on it. But its not going to solve the problem of child support, which is the main threatpoint against husbands.

    It does bring to mind intentional communities. Families living in community with a vow of poverty will have a distinct lack of property to haggle over in divorse. But again, you have the child support problem.

    One thing is for sure, the church needs to repent from feminism and tackle this problem head on. But none are.

  137. Dale says:

    @IAmAdamAlan

    >Families living in community with a vow of poverty will have a distinct lack of property to haggle over in divorse.

    hah hah; rather the understatement.
    I suspect you might be incorrect about such a situation not fixing the child support problem. The Hutterites, in my understanding, have no wages. They all work for the community, and the community provides goods. Or at least, the amount of money flowing from the community to each individual family would be low.
    In such a situation, how is any family court judge supposed to take 38% (or whatever) for child support? There is no wage to garnishee, so even a garnishee order would be worthless.
    But, such a community, without individual rewards/compensation for taking risks and working hard, will likely suffer the same problems as communist Russia. I certainly would not be working long weeks if I was not anticipating some long-term benefit.

    >Jesus used the example of Adam and Eve against divorce
    You are distinguishing between an example of God’s actions, and a command of God. E.g. “Thou shalt not kill” applies as a command to be taught to all relevant people, whereas “God created Adam and Eve” shows an example of God’s behaviour – something which may be useful for learning about God’s character as you see the things he is willing to do, but contains no commands.
    I think you are wise to do this, but unfortunately this requires meta thinking, if that is a reasonable term. I.e. thinking about the type of passage you have, before you try to interpret it, and restricting yourself appropriately. Some can find this difficult to do, or not accept the need, so you may experience frustration in your attempts to teach. Good luck 🙂

    On topic, up-thread someone (paraphrasing) pointed out that while polygamy was present, God did not promote or advocate it. I think that is an important point to include. I wonder how many OT families actually had two wives. Other than during the conquest, when captive women were available, I can’t see it being more than a very few… maybe less than 3%? And no, I have no basis for that wild ass guess, just my impression from the Israelite history recorded in OT.

  138. Dale says:

    @IAmAdamAlan

    >family trust is intriguing; love to hear more on it
    Sorry, meant to respond to this.
    I got (almost) nuthin’ for ya. You’ll have to talk with a lawyer in your own jurisdiction. But basically, you put anything you want into the trust; house, car, etc. Then, in subsequent lawsuits and also divorces, the property is unavailable to the courts, because you do not own it. Just as I cannot have my bank account raided for your divorce, because we are not the same person.
    The only way I have heard for a court to get at the property is:
    – for someone to sue the trust; maybe the house owned by the trust falls apart and damages the neighbour’s house, or
    – challenge the transfer of the property into the trust. I have heard of property transfers being challenged in Canada if the transfer happened a short time (3 months?) before the lawsuit was filed.

    Again, ask a lawyer in your own area. Me be ignorant.

  139. @Dale:

    On Gideon & Ancient Israel, something missed most of the time is that the “history” parts of the Bible are a list of catastrophic failures mixed with the occasional act of great Faith. There is a reason all of the Books of the Prophets can be pretty much summed up as “Ya’ll done screwed up, you’re going to pay and I’m sending my Son to change it all”.

    It’s also funny when people, occasionally, bring up how “horrible” the Law itself was. This point always conveniently ignores that reality that the Hebrews pretty much never were much bothered to follow it.

  140. RichardP says:

    @Boxer: “Seconded. I’ve tried resurrecting some of the best stuff from Price … ”

    I assumed folks would read the link and understand what it was. Perhaps I needed to be more blatant? I provided a link to the article in the post right after the link was requested. Here it is again:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130909041200/http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/11/30/why-is-anglo-feminism-so-virulent/

  141. Darlock,

    I have always said that a man’s energy to pursue a woman is always based in his sexual attraction to her. He may try and fool himself that his motives are “higher” than other men’s but this is not how God designed men.

    Certainly there are good Christian men who practice self control and restrain the physical consummation of their love for a woman for marriage as they believe God intended it to be. But that does not mean they were not thinking about sex with that woman from the moment they met her!

    I have made the statement several times on my blog that a man’s passion for his wife is fueled by his sexual nature and by how she meets his sexual needs. If a man’s wife rocks his world in the bedroom he is motivated to do kind gestures for her in response. But when a woman begins to withhold sex after marriage or starts trying to control their sex life she will see her husband’s passion for her drop quickly.

    So we get all these Christian women who say to their husbands – “You were passionate toward me before we married and ever had sex – so why can’t you be that same way without sex after marriage? In other words if we have sex then fine but if we don’t have sex you should feel the same way?” When I hear stories like this from Christian wives it makes my head explode. It reflects a complete ignorance of how God designed men and marriage on the part of the wife.

    I have responded that his passion for her was ALWAYS fueled by his sexual desire for her. The difference before marriage was that his passion was fueled by the anticipation of their eventual physical consummation at marriage. But after marriage his passion must be fueled by regular, free and enthusiastic sexual relations with his woman.

    But the idea that a man’s love for a woman(other than his mother or daughter) does does not have sexuality as central driving force is a farce. Unless of course he is gay but then that is a whole other problem.

  142. BillyS says:

    cnystorm,

    When I first saw the title to this I thought it was something about Courtney Love.

    That is what jumps to my head every time I see the title. And I was before her “time” in “music”.

  143. BillyS says:

    BGR,

    The overall attitude plays a huge role as well. It would be hard for a wife to disengage in the bedroom but be really nice and pleasant in the rest of life. The reverse would also be hard (nasty in life and nice in the bedroom).

    While sex is the strong drive, it is not only sex.

  144. BillyS says:

    Dale,

    It sounds like you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. The clear principle that God laid and Jesus reinforced is one man and one woman for life. Anything else is sin, but may not be prohibited. Not following His will is sin.

    It would be sin for you to eat oatmeal tomorrow morning if He wanted you to have eggs. That is unlikely to be a venial sin, but it would still be sin.

    Any connection between godly and ungodly is sin. It will also place much more risk in place. The ability of a supposed godly wife to blow things up does not mean it is less likely for an ungodly one to do so.

    I deal with risk all the time in my work. Knowingly jumping into a pile of risk (such as by marrying an unbelieving woman, or a forced convert) is taking stupid risk. Do so if you wish, but quit trying to make it sound like a good idea.

    Perhaps you should run across the interstate highway a few times today, since the exercise would be good and it would help improve your ability to judge the speed of cars, right? You can report back on the gain of that method of physical fitness.

  145. Chris says:

    Richard, it goes back to the old “If I Were The Devil” clip by Paul Harvey. When you want to spread your message, you shout it out from the tops of the highest mountains. And that’s why the most vocal and rabid Feminists percolate from the most prominent societies.

    Satan knew that the best way to dissolve stable societies was to dissolve the traditional families that they were built upon, and Feminism has been one of His biggest successes in that regard.

  146. Damn Crackers says:

    Listen, no matter what the Supreme Court or Biblical interpretations may be, polygamy is mostly going to be a non-starter here in the Western world (at least as it continues to be a Western world).

    Nevertheless, the people arguing from Biblical principles against polygamy saying, “Well, that was then. Things are different now” better be careful. You can apply that to all sorts of sayings of the OT, Jesus, and St. Paul too.

  147. Gunner Q says:

    iamadamalan @ December 19, 2016 at 7:49 pm:
    “We were not ‘given the rule of monogamy’.”

    We were. The only reason I won’t debate this is because this inevitably devolves into dead-language editions of “What ‘Is’ Is”. Why, in this very thread archerwfisher wrote “The word fornication is explicitly a sin, but that word comes from prostitutes hanging out under arches.” Yes, I’m sure that’s how Christ managed his libido sinlessly, by avoiding arches while fornicating. See how foolishly this game ends up? And now, you’re arguing that God is okay with random sex hookups while reserving the Fires of Hell for the man stupid enough to agree to marriage. That looks like… what we have right now.

    It’s more fun to watch you disprove yourself: “Jesus used the example of Adam and Eve against divorce; but neither he nor his disciples used it to argue against polygamy;” Which is it? Is God’s creation of Adam & Eve a binding precedent for marriage or not?

  148. Oscar says:

    @ iamadamalan says:
    December 19, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    “Jesus used the example of Adam and Eve against divorce; but neither he nor his disciples used it to argue against polygamy; to claim otherwise goes against the text. With the possible exception of the requirements of an elder, the NT is silent on the matter.”

    Why did Jesus use “the example of Adam and Eve against divorce”? Did He use the example of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2) in favor of something? If so, what?

    For what purpose does Paul include “husband of one wife” as a requirement for church elders?

  149. Hmm says:

    @iamadamalan:

    I find the modern romance with polygamy a little like communism: disastrous everywhere it is practiced, but we still flatter ourselves that “it’s never been done properly” of “but I can make it work.”

    It is quite true that polygyny is nowhere condemned as such in the Bible. But look at where it is practiced among the Israelites. Was there peace in Abraham’s household, with one wife and a concubine? In Jacob’s, with two and two? With David’s many wives and murderous children? With Solomon’s hundreds, who led him astray? Even Elkanah, father of faithful Samuel, had strife between his two wives.

    Consider 1 Corinthians 10 (ESV) : “11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

    If you are a Christian man, the New Testament teaching is even clearer. The elder – leader – is to be the “husband of one wife” (another translation, “one woman man”). So polygyny would disqualify you from the position of elder or pastor in a church.

    The creation model is one man, one woman. Like divorce, God tolerated and regulated polygamy, but it is due to the hardness of our hearts that we pursue it.

  150. iamadamalan says:
    December 18, 2016 at 10:19 pm
    Is it really? Did polygamy prevent the ascendancy of the Vikings? How about the Bible, was polygamy social suicide for Old Testament Israel?
    They were invaded, as judgement by God, but not for their polygamy.”

    The Vikings? Where was their great empire? They raided plenty, sure, and if you count the normans they did settle several areas.

    Israel? That pathetic tiny state that failed to hold a candle to monogamous nations like Germany, Britain, or the USA?

  151. Dale says:

    @biblicalgenderroles

    That is a fantastic comment. Something that blunt and open should be repeated in adult church groups at least once each year.

  152. BillyS says:

    DC,

    Listen, no matter what the Supreme Court or Biblical interpretations may be, polygamy is mostly going to be a non-starter here in the Western world (at least as it continues to be a Western world).

    Homeosexual marriage was a non-starter a few years ago….

  153. SnapperTrx says:

    Dear god, this is one of the saddest things I think I have seen in some time. Seriously, the guy is glad that the “someone waiting for him” is a digital box. Won’t be long now until he will be able to lay back with his VR headset and “interact” with her for a while before bed.

    What’s even more sad is that young men will start to prefer this over a harpy, feminist wife who does little to nothing to please him because she is ’empowered’. Most men would be happy if their wives sent them cute texts throughout the day, instead they get to watch them post feminist junk and memes to Facebook a dozen times a day while they get not even a ‘love you’ or ‘good morning’.

    Ladies better step up their game. Your being beaten by 1’s and 0’s.

  154. Pingback: Romance is sexual. | Dalrock

  155. Pingback: Splitting Eros Leads To Disaster | Donal Graeme

  156. Pingback: Fighting for his Lady’s honor. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s