Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization.

There is a blog companion to FamilyLife/Dennis Rainey’s Stepping Up® book and video program, and it has a three part series by Scott Williams on Fifty Shades of Grey (50SOG).  With the titles alone, you can’t make this stuff up:

  1. What’s a real man do with Fifty Shades?
  2. Man up to Christian Grey, Fifty Shades
  3. Real manhood: Black & white, not Fifty Shades of Grey

The denial is comical, starting with the refusal to accept that women’s reaction 50SOG is driven by sexual desire, the desire to be objectified by a powerful dominant man:

In case you’re not familiar, Fifty Shades of Grey is based on one of the best selling books of all time. The movie bills itself as a romance between powerfully-attractive young billionaire Christian Grey and a naïve, not-so-self-assured college senior, Anastasia Steele. Without meaning to, she catches his attention when she’s interviewing him for the school newspaper, and he begins to do everything in his power (and he has a lot of it) to make her the object of his desires…

…Ana repeatedly tells Mr. Grey (after each time he does his thing with her) that she doesn’t appreciate it. She’s constantly in tears about it. She tries to leave him, only to have him stalk her and emotionally manipulate her into staying. He demands control of her life to the point of prescribing her exercise and diet, choosing her wardrobe, and having a doctor examine her and put her on the pill.

Here we have a fantasy written by a woman, and consumed by women, and all Williams can see is a fictional man making women sin.  This is truly fantastic, because 50SOG came into existence by women going around the standard publishing process.  50SOG started as Twilight fan fiction, and women loved it so much eventually the book and movie industries showed up to give women what they were demanding. As Williams notes, Christian women are just as enthralled with 50SOG as non Christian women are:

What is surprising is who is viewing the film and reading the book—and why in the world they even would. Many refer to the book as “mommy porn” because of its wild popularity among adult women. And ticket sales are briskest in the typically-conservative deep south…

…it’s also reaching our young daughters. According to IMDB (Internet Movie Database), the movie drew the highest reviews by far from girls under 18.

And just in case you’re wondering, a Barna survey found that women who identify themselves as Christians are reading the books at the same rate as the general public. It’s captivating women everywhere.

That should concern any self-respecting man.

Williams can’t blame the Christian women shamelessly consuming the porn;  they are being tricked into trying to “rescue a broken man”.  There has to be a man to blame, so Williams blames the fictional character E. L. James invented (and E.L. James for inventing him).  He’s the one to blame, for not being a real man:

Christian Grey is no real man in any sense of the word.  A real man respects and honors a woman’s body and emotions; he doesn’t abuse and manipulate her. But author E.L. James has somehow made Grey the desire of 100 million women. She cleverly plays to women’s innate longings to be sought after, to live a more fulfilling existence and to rescue a broken man. In doing so, she gets women to excuse abusive behavior and to ignore countless warning signs on a fool’s road to romance.

Reading through two very lengthy, very detailed synopses of the first book (I refuse to read the book itself), I was continually struck by how much Mr. Grey’s behavior was the very picture of everything we tell women to run away from to avoid abuse. How many times have we listened incredulously to real-world horror stories of women who endure years of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse from boyfriends and husbands, yet can’t bring themselves to leave. Yet here we are with a book series and movie that draws women into that same warped, powerless thinking—“I’m not worth it. He can’t help it. What will happen to him if I leave?”

While a fictional man is to blame, real men need to step up and solve the problem.  Real men do this not by confronting women’s sin and refusing to allow women to deny the nature of their temptations.  Real men do this by treating women better and improving their self esteem.  This is especially important for daughters.  If daughters have enough self esteem, they won’t be tempted to go after sexy badboys:

A young girl needs to know that she’s loved—by her Heavenly father and her earthly father. We daddies need to remind our daughters of their intrinsic worth to us, and especially their value to the God who created them, who knows them intimately, and who loves them unconditionally. The more they accept this, the more likely they will be to look for a man who recognizes and respects their value.

According to Williams, Wives need self more esteem too.  But they also need more beta comfort to prevent them from pining for alpha attraction:

Your wife should be the object of your desire. She longs to see in your words and actions that you are always seeking the best for her. Rather than expecting her to sign a contract listing your demands, remind her that you have made a covenant to cherish and care for her, and to love her as much as you love your own body (Ephesians 5:29).

He advises men to get their wives sexual juices flowing with some modern Christian seduction, straight from the Book of Oprah.  According to Williams, the key to getting your wife hot is lots and lots of talking about your feelings:

There is a much healthier way to jump-start romance and intimacy in your marriage. It’s called communication. Open, honest conversations about intimacy and sexual fulfillment keep romance and passion alive through years of marriage.

Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together.

  • On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?

  • What things that I do make you feel most wanted and fulfilled?

  • What would you change about our love life?

Lastly, Williams closes the three part series with a warning to husbands not to respond to their wife craving to submit to a man by reminding her that she should be submitting to her own husband (emphasis mine):

The Bible teaches women to submit to the God-given leadership of their husbands in the same way that Christ submitted to the will of God the Father. But here’s a reminder, guys: God doesn’t command a husband to remind his wife to submit. Instead He calls the husband to unconditionally love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave his entire life for her.

This is of course not true.  Husbands are to lead their wives spiritually, and wash them in the water of the word;  there is no exception for biblical instruction on marriage.  If a wife isn’t submitting, her husband has an obligation to remind his wife what Scripture says on the topic.

Related: 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 50 Shades of Grey, Book of Oprah, Complementarian, Denial, Dennis Rainey, FamilyLife, Feral Females, Game, Headship, Manliness, Romantic Love, Servant Leader, Stepping Up®, Submission, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization.

  1. Matamoros says:

    “her husband has an obligation to remind his wife”

    And this is why feminists have gotten husbandal discipline and the right to sex made crimes.

  2. RecoveringBeta says:

    Nothing like a “rate our intimacy” questionnaire to get the blood pumping…

  3. Novaseeker says:

    The level of denial is insane. I mean, really, in the eyes of these guys women really are pretty much incapable of being culpable of personal sin — if they do commit objective sins, they are not at fault for them, but some man is. It’s a nearly complete denial to allow women to have moral agency. This is not Christian, and it isn’t scriptural — it’s cultural and comes from 19th Century cultural Christianity. It isn’t actually a Christian perspective, because it’s clear from the scriptures that God does in fact assign moral agency to women, and holds them to moral account. These cowards are afraid of women, and twist the meaning of the scriptures beyond recognition in order to avoid confronting women directly with their sins. Cowards, full stop, scared of mommy.

  4. Pingback: Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization. | @the_arv

  5. theasdgamer says:

    Who is Scott Williams and why is he relevant to anything other than the author of some book? Are his views truly mainstream in cuckstianity?

  6. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Since the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and the wife is to submit to her husband as the church does to Christ we must ask the question: Does Christ remind the church to submit to Him? Rev 2-3 seems to suggest that is exactly what Christ does. How can a man sanctify his wife if he cannot show her her errors, how can he love her if he allows her to wallow in her sin?

    The problem is not overbearing men but women who will not bear under her man.

  7. Dalrock says:

    @theasdgamer

    Who is Scott Williams and why is he relevant to anything other than the author of some book? Are his views truly mainstream in cuckstianity?

    Your constant ankle biting is tedious. You have mistaken my graciousness for weakness; No more. Go pose on your own blog.

    As I explained in the very beginning of the post, the three part blog post is officially associated with FamilyLife and Dennis Rainey.

  8. thedeti says:

    Women’s (including Christian women, since there really is no difference) obsession with 50SOG is about women’s longing for sex with a sexually attractive man, to have that sexually attractive man take charge of the sex and direct the sex in the manner he wants, and then to get that sexually attractive man to commit to her.

    That is all it’s about. It isn’t sinful for a woman to want these things either; but somehow folks like Rainey, Dobson, Williams, et al have Christian women convinced that they are sinful.

    One of the prime reasons Christian women read this book is because the Christian men around them are nothing like Grey, and women aren’t attracted to and don’t want those men. Yet Rainey et al tell us it’s THESE Christian men who are leading their wives and girlfriends into sin.

    “Ana repeatedly tells Mr. Grey (after each time he does his thing with her) that she doesn’t appreciate it. She’s constantly in tears about it. She tries to leave him, only to have him stalk her and emotionally manipulate her into staying. He demands control of her life to the point of prescribing her exercise and diet, choosing her wardrobe, and having a doctor examine her and put her on the pill.”

    Bullshit. If Ana didn’t want any of this, all she has to do is say “nope, I don’t want this in my life.” “No, I’m done with this” and walk away and leave him. In real life, that’s all a woman has to do.

    What Mr. Williams should be asking is why women want to read 50SOG and why the overwhelming response to it. The answer is that women want to have hot sexy sex with hot sexy men. Women will put up with indignity and degradation to get that sex and will thoroughly enjoy being degraded while having that sex. Women will engage in all sorts of depravity to have that sex and not even recognize nor care that their behavior is depraved. Women will engage in flat out sin, KNOW that it’s flat out sin, and not care one iota that it is sin, to get that sex.

  9. DrTorch says:

    “There has to be a man to blame, so Williams blames the fictional character E. L. James invented (and E.L. James for inventing him). ”

    This suggests that EL James is a man. She’s a woman. Did Williams tap-dance around that?

  10. SnapperTrx says:

    “communication”

    Ha, ha, ha!

    “Wife: Are you turned on? Check YES or NO”
    Works every time….

  11. Boxer says:

    This is peripheral to the excellent OP, but anyway…

    “There has to be a man to blame, so Williams blames the fictional character E. L. James invented (and E.L. James for inventing him). ”

    This suggests that EL James is a man. She’s a woman. Did Williams tap-dance around that?

    It also suggests that EL James (whoever she is) invented the character. She didn’t.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_O

    50 Shades of Grey was heavily “inspired” (I would say plagiarized, but I want to be charitable) from a better story, by a better (also female) writer.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  12. Lost Patrol says:

    Without meaning to, she catches his attention
    +
    women’s innate longings to be sought after

    It really is to LOL. Women long to be sought after but she catches his attention by accident. You can see he knows the truth, but he is not going to call out any women on their created natures in order to avoid confronting women directly with their sins.

    Mr. Williams himself communicates with phrases that indicate he is in thrall to women.
    – our love life
    – wanted and fulfilled
    – our intimacy
    What sort of man has adopted this female terminology as his own?

  13. PokeSalad says:

    Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together.

    On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?

    What things that I do make you feel most wanted and fulfilled?

    What would you change about our love life?

    Sounds like Willard Harley and the “Love Languages” cult.

  14. author E.L. James has somehow made Grey the desire of 100 million women.

    You can almost feel the gamma frustration from Williams.

  15. Smultronstallet says:

    BDSM offers a kind of faux masculinity or a faux kind of dominance, that reduces men to the status of dogs that look dark and dangerous and threatening when they bark, and are yet on the leash of the female. The female who snaps with her fingers once to turn him into a “consensual” plastic “master” in the bedroom, then she snaps with her fingers twice to turn him back into this feminist beta cuckboi.

    Another problem is that even these “red-pilled” proponents of BDSM are only concerned about what women want. That one bodybuilding forum and Return of Kings are full of posts and articles about how women ACTUALLY want to be dominated etc. Right-wing feminists and left-wing feminists can’t quite agree on what it is that they want (and if what they say they want really is what they want), but they share the same gynocentric view on men and women; they both go out from the question, “What do women want?” and then try to answer this question.

    But instead of giving a different answer to the same gynocentric question (“What do women [secretly] want?”), we should learn to ask other questions! Such as, “What do MEN actually want!?” Because I definitely don’t want a sick, degenerate feminist who needs to be tortured and humiliated in the bedroom as a compensation.

    (PS: Anyone knows why my gravatar name isn’t blue and underline and doesn’t link to my blog the same way it works with your names here?)

  16. thedeti says:

    “There is a much healthier way to jump-start romance and intimacy in your marriage. It’s called communication. Open, honest conversations about intimacy and sexual fulfillment keep romance and passion alive through years of marriage.

    “Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together.”

    On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?

    What things that I do make you feel most wanted and fulfilled?

    What would you change about our love life?”

    If “communication” actually worked to fix these marriages, the Christian manosphere would not exist and Christian men wouldn’t have nearly the relationship problems they have. Most Christian men have talked to their wives about their marital and sexual problems. And talked. And talked and talked and talked. And gone to therapy. And to their pastors. And marriage counseling, where they talk to each other and a wife advocate- er, counselor – about their problems. And cried. And prayed. And prayed and prayed and prayed. Separately, together, and with other men. They’ve talked so much they don’t DO anything.

    The problem in these marriages is not that these people don’t know how to “communicate” with each other. In fact, the wives are literally screaming at their husbands about how unattracted they are. The wives are communicating very clearly – the medium is the message, after all.

    No, what these men need is to stop talking and start doing. Stop being unattractive, start being attractive, and start doing things on their own and build lives for themselves. They need to stop talking about their feelings, and they most definitely do not need to ask their wives’ input on how they feel about anything, because these men know how their wives feel – their wives aren’t sexually attracted to them.

    The problem is not lack of communication. It’s lack of sexual attraction. They just don’t do it for their wives, if they ever did it for them at all.

  17. Cane Caldo says:

    There is a much healthier way to jump-start romance and intimacy in your marriage. It’s called communication. Open, honest conversations about intimacy and sexual fulfillment keep romance and passion alive through years of marriage.

    Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together.

    On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?

    What things that I do make you feel most wanted and fulfilled?

    What would you change about our love life?

    Whew! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I need a cold shower, stat!

  18. thedeti says:

    “Open, honest conversations about intimacy and sexual fulfillment keep romance and passion alive through years of marriage.”

    Two things to say about that.

    First, TALKING about (read: complaining and bitching about) intimacy and sex doesn’t keep romance and passion alive in a marriage. HAVING intimacy and sex keep romance and passion alive.

    Second, having a ” real emotional connection” isnt’ necessary for women to have sex. If that were the case, no woman would ever have sex with a man within a couple of hours after first meeting, and no one night stands would ever happen. Those happen because she believes there’s an “emotional connection” and “feels like” there’s an “emotional connection”.

    What gets women to have sex and really enjoy it is actual, real, sexual desire. The problem is that most women don’t feel that for most men, and don’t feel it for their husbands. And as we careen down the path we’re on, it’s increasingly an insoluble problem.

  19. Gunner Q says:

    This guy has never left the ivory tower. Let’s check his background… hmm… per several Internet self-bios, his marriage is the most important thing in his life and he never talks about having done anything except churchy stuff. His wife features very prominently in his career. Eh, typical Baby Boomer. I’d guess he’s very proud of how his generation is the very first to treat women properly, unlike the previous five thousand years of recorded history that obviously has nothing to teach us.

    Man, I cannot stand those nervous little smiles anymore!

    Hey, 50SOG might be a useful metric. If you wonder where a guy is on the SMV scale, ask his opinion about it.

    “Whew! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I need a cold shower, stat!”

    I tasered myself to stop the pain.

  20. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ TheDeti

    What gets women to have sex and really enjoy it is actual, real, sexual desire. The problem is that most women don’t feel that for most men, and don’t feel it for their husbands.

    Women are not taught to cultivate desire for their husbands, feminism teaches them to be discontent. Every man-up talk from the preacher is another deposit in her reasons to be ungrateful and cold to her defective husband who doesn’t make her feel like desiring him. Again bashing men will not fix the sins of women, it only gives them more justification to persist in their sin, not that they would admit that their sins are sinful.

  21. Wood Chipper says:

    “There is a much healthier way to jump-start romance and intimacy in your marriage. It’s called communication. Open, honest conversations about intimacy and sexual fulfillment keep romance and passion alive through years of marriage.”

    I prefer the odds of Sex Panther cologn working over this advice.

  22. thedeti says:

    Jonadab:

    I don’t think that’s the main problem. I think the main problems are:

    1) Women having lots of hot sexy sex with hot sexy men in their teens and 20s, mostly for fun, sometimes for a longshot hope at commitment, thus messing up their bonding ability.

    2) Most men are objectively unattractive. Most men don’t inspire raw sexual desire in most women.

    3) Because of 1), most women having to settle for the men described in 2). And hating every minute of it, and seething with resentment because she couldn’t lock down a hot sexy man; and having to settle for a man she just doesn’t feel raw sexual desire for. And what really frosts her is that her settling for a 2) man is the TRUE measure of her value, and deep down she knows it. All this knocks her down several pegs, and is deeply humiliating to her.

    Alpha f*cks; beta cucks is the main problem here.

  23. Whew! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I need a cold shower, stat!

    I printed it. Forget having the prescribed dialog with the wife. In a pinch, just have a dialog with the prescribed dialog,. Efficient and efficacious. Don’t want the Mrs. to find that crap laying around.

  24. Novaseeker says:

    Alpha f*cks; beta cucks is the main problem here.

    Yes that is the core problem in terms of what women are doing.

    The problem with what the pastors are doing is coming from fear, however. They are afraid of women, and in particular afraid of confronting them about their sins. As Dalrock has said many times, it feels great to call out other men on their sins (real or imagined, doesn’t matter), but feels bad and even a bit scary to call out women on their sins. So you attack the men, no matter what — no matter who is sinning, you attack the men, because it feels good and right to do so, and attacking women for their sins makes you feel like an asshole. That’s the problem. Afraid to feel like an asshole for calling women out on their sins. It’s fear at the core.

  25. Jim says:

    The level of denial is insane. I mean, really, in the eyes of these guys women really are pretty much incapable of being culpable of personal sin

    What else would you expect from a goddess cult masquerading as Christianity?

  26. LOL. “What The Bible says is true, but for goodness’ sake don’t quote it to your wife!”

  27. thedeti says:

    “but feels bad and even a bit scary to call out women on their sins.”

    It also feels bad and scary to identify to women the true nature of their temptations and desires, as Dalrock said about. Which isn’t the same as calling them out on their sins, and in fact I think is more difficult.

    Most women will not accept that the reason they have hot sexy sex with hot sexy men is because they really, really want to and they really desire those men and DON’T desire their husbands or men who will actually have them as wives. Most women will not accept that they’ll do almost anything (including knowingly sin, including cheat on husbands, including engage in depravity, including shed all their self-respect) to get that hot sex.

    When you show/tell women this, they go apoplectic, run to fainting couches, and reach for smelling salts. When you show them examples, they scream and shriek about how hateful/misogynistic you are. We saw this at the old Hooking Up Smart site. Women just can’t handle being told or shown this about themselves, and dissolve into puddles of writhing emotion. It’s really something to see, in real life as well as online.

  28. Jason says:

    Oh puke! Really????? This is exactly…..EXACTLY what is wrong today with ministry to men in today’s American church! I am not responsible for some fictional man nor the choices women make. I have to lead, aspire, learn, and build integrity…….and if that means being ALONE in this world without female companionship or the blessings of a wife and children………well, so be it. That is being a man. That is the lesson to be teaching. That is the walk with Jesus Christ, if they hated Him, they will hate us! He was a “man of sorrows” and no man can understand men like Jesus does.

    I couldn’t blame my past drug addiction on women “for not dating / liking me” nor could I even dare put the other behaviors “I” did on someone else. In the end, it was me. Not God, not “society” and not some fictional thing from TV, music or movies. Not my parents. I couldn’t in the end (and I did for awhile I will admit with shame) blame my looks, my somewhat shy personality (which I now understand is an endearing quality about me), my lack of confidence, my women-only-liking-jerks stance and attitude, my wrecking a good career and self-destructing in San Francisco in that dark year of 2005 on anything except myself. Bringing shame and dishonor to my family. My college education and my Savior who loved me even when I did not “know” Him.

    Thankfully Jesus offers a way out (and “in”). Pulling and stripping off the layers of sin in my life took WORK. That’s what men do when we “fix things” in our lives. Sure, It was forgiven. I lifted a burden off me of “okay, now I can at least go on”

    But the consequences of MY sin took a long time to fix and I am still paying the piper on a few of them…and I may well be doing so for the rest of my life. Who knows!

    This sensitivity training for men about being “a real man” is about as sensitive as a toilet seat.
    What is more frightening is that it will be accepted as truth, as biblical, and forced down the gullets of men in their respected churches.

  29. The Question says:

    There are simply too many statements worthy of ridicule to even begin to address them.

    I’m with Rollo Tomassi on this one. The modern Western church institutions are irredeemably broken. New ones will have to be created to replace these.

    If I’ve learned anything from my time spent in the manosphere over the last several years, it’s the danger in denying the reality of women’s nature. It will literally cause the downfall of civilization.

  30. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    “On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?” Really, there is no need for satire sometimes. On a scale of 1-10, how quickly would a spouse of any sex run out of the house screaming when hearing a question like this?

  31. The Question says:

    What men were like before feminism neutered them.

  32. Trust says:

    @theasdgamer says:
    Who is Scott Williams and why is he relevant to anything other than the author of some book? Are his views truly mainstream in cuckstianity?
    _________

    The better question is who is theasdgammer why is he constantly trying to moderate Dalrock’s blog and and shame the commenters?

  33. Trust says:

    @Dalrock says:
    May 19, 2017 at 9:21 am
    ____________

    Apologies, Dalrock. I didn’t get to your post before I called out theasdgamer. I should have left that to you.

    But on your comment for him to pose on his own blog, I made my first (and last) visit to his blog. His 5th most recent comment was in October, which means he averages less than one comment per month. No wonder he chases attention here.

  34. Tarl says:

    Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together.

    On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our intimacy?

    What things that I do make you feel most wanted and fulfilled?

    What would you change about our love life?

    You might as well apply a blow-dryer to her vagina while you’re at it.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    “On a scale of 1 – 10..”

    Someone up thread suggested this was part of the “Love Languages” approach, I’m not sure about that, it looks more like the sort of thing that gets taught at marriage seminars. As many have stated, it won’t work, doesn’t work.

    It’s a form of negotiating desire. Desireable men do not negotiate. They ‘just get it”, and then they just get it. This rather nerdy advice, “just tell me what you want!” always fails short term or longer term.

    It clearly arises from failure to see women as they are, an insistance on how women ought to be. The old “is” vs. “ought” problem. Unable to see women as they are, buying the feminist lie that women are just like men (except for teh baybees), putting them on “more spiritual” / “better half” pedestals, the conclusion is all but predetermined.

    The sad thing is, it leads to misery. Women cannot articulate what they want, because if they do then it won’t be what they want. Men can’t figure out what women want so they try to negotiate desire with a moral superior who is otherwise their equal.

    Equalism. Blank slate interchangeability. Negotation. Focusing on women’s words, ignoring their actions. It’s feminism all the way down, and Don’t Make Mommy Mad.

  36. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Dalrock
    The Bible teaches women to submit to the God-given leadership of their husbands in the same way that Christ submitted to the will of God the Father. But here’s a reminder, guys: God doesn’t command a husband to remind his wife to submit. Instead He calls the husband to unconditionally love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave his entire life for her.

    Amazing. It’s almost as if they’re coming right out to inform husbands that they never have any justification for saying the word “No” to their wives. The irony here is that they would never consider saying something similar to the women (as per Russell Moore’s declaration that, “A man who hits you has surrendered his headship). But there’s also another thing that makes an idea like this completely nonsensical: The way they compare their recommended practice of bowing and scraping to wives to the way “that Christ loved the church and gave his entire life for her.” Come again? In Christian theology, it’s true that Christ died for his church. It’s also true that the same Christ wasn’t shy about correcting the members of his church when they stepped out of line, and that he often didn’t mind being harsh about it.

    To his chief disciple, whom he promised he would build his church upon, he said, “Get thee behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Mark 8:33)

    To a man in a crowd with a diseased son who had chased Him down just to beg for a miracle: “You unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.” (Luke 9:41)

    To his own mother, who was pestering him to use his supernatural powers to fix a problem at a party they’d both attended: “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4)

    Modern church leaders seem to be of the position that every problem we face in life can be solved with love, but if that’s the case then at some point you have to ask: What is love? It would seem that most people want to believe that the actions that define truly loving someone are . . . making them feel good and giving them whatever they want. And now the church is giving this definition their wholehearted approval?

  37. Hazelshade says:

    “But author EL James has somehow made Grey the object of desire for 100 million women.”

    Key word: somehow. This guy doesn’t get it. Maybe EL James should take his job.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    Modern church leaders seem to be of the position that every problem we face in life can be solved with love, but if that’s the case then at some point you have to ask: What is love?

    “Ok, everyone. Let’s all hold hands while we all sing Kumbayah together.”

    Cue the out of tune acoustic guitar…

  39. Fiddlesticks says:

    the relationship between fathering and who they date is fascinating. As someone who naturally gives off considerate/provider-beta vibes I’ve seen time and again how I’m more appreciated by gfs with disengaged or completely absent fathers. Ones who have captain-of-the-ship type dads tend to steer clear of me.

  40. Leiff says:

    @ Deti “Women just can’t handle being told or shown this about themselves, and dissolve into puddles of writhing emotion.”

    Reality is emotionally abusive to women.

    On truth in communication:

    her : “Why don’t you ever take me anywhere?

    Him: “Because you’re 40 lbs overweight and dress like your grandmother. I mean really, you’re like 90lbs of potatoes in a 50lb sack.

    her: “Why do you rush everything in bed?”

    Him: “I can’t maintain the intensity of focus required to visualize a person I actually want to have sex with while I’m with you for that long…”

    her: “Can’t you ever think about how that makes me feel?”

    Him: “Can’t you ever think about anything besides how stuff makes you feel?”

  41. Damn Crackers says:

    I guess Sampson or Solomon weren’t “real men” either.

  42. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Novaseeker
    The problem with what the pastors are doing is coming from fear, however. They are afraid of women, and in particular afraid of confronting them about their sins.

    Damn Skippy on this. It makes you understand why John the Revelator promised that the cowards would be the first to be thrown into the lake of fire.

  43. You know this is real because there’s no way anyone could write parody this well.

    Alpha f**ks; Beta cucks. You nailed that one, Deti.

    @AR

    Pretty much.

  44. JohnProvidence says:

    I am beginning to suspect that women are not capable of objective self assessment…even less so if that assessment might yield something negative. My wife is a saint, but she is never wrong…ever. It makes me wonder if she is even a Christian, because to become and be a follower of Christ entails repentance. To repent one must acknowledge and accept that one is wrong, that one is a sinner, and I just do not see this type of knowledge or the humility it should produce in any women I know. None.

    That makes me wonder if churchianity focuses on men’s sins and ignores women simply because women are not sinners, at least not in their subjective experience. Even when my wife, or my mother, two seriously righteous women of faith, do something wrong and get called out, what remorse or acknowledgment they may demonstrate never actually involves taking personal responsibility for what they did. It is always some kind of accident or misunderstanding. I thought that I understood something of the superhuman cunning of my own pride once it was revealed to me….and then I got married and saw how it completely blinds my wife to its presence and has trained her to protect it at all costs. I wonder if this not part of the reason why, from the apostle Paul to Kierkegaard, the great men of faith almost unanimously recommend celibacy to other men who wish to go further in the Spirit.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    Modern church leaders seem to be of the position that every problem we face in life can be solved with love, but if that’s the case then at some point you have to ask: What is love? It would seem that most people want to believe that the actions that define truly loving someone are . . . making them feel good and giving them whatever they want. And now the church is giving this definition their wholehearted approval?

    Except for cases where it would be inappropriate*, the Christian ideal of love is now substituted with romantic love. It is, when you think about it, pure evil brilliance. Christianity is all about love. Corrupt Christian’s understanding of love, and you have corrupted everything.

    *And even in some cases where it truly is inappropriate, like father-daughter love, as fathers are now seen as modeling romantic love to their daughters so the daughter can understand the real thing in her sacred quest.

  46. Splashman says:

    Glad to see someone hit on the “love definition” problem. To churchians, love=like. So “God loves you unconditionally” means “God likes you just as you are”. Virtually every Christian pop song promotes this notion.

  47. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    First it was my own mistakes, then it was the mistakes of all men, and now, it what can hopefully be described as the final stages, I bear complete responsibility for the actions of a fictional man. A fictional man invented by a woman.

    “What is surprising” about who’s reading Fifty Shades of Dreck? For someone espousing “loving and respecting” women, he never seems to have talked to a woman about anything on more than the most superficial and anodyne level. It may be they don’t talk to him except in the most superficial and anodyne way. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

  48. Pingback: An unsustainable tyranny [Rom 15] | Dark Brightness

  49. errya says:

    Hi Dalrock,
    How would you actually go about confronting a woman about her sin and the nature of her temptation? It’s such an important skill, but like so many other essential skills we men have not been taught it by those who came before us. I am especially interested in how you would go about doing so in a relationship context.

  50. Dave says:

    Talk honestly about how each of you assess your love life, frequency, likes, dislikes and wishes. Maybe you can start with some simple questions that you answer together….

    This guy obviously doesn’t have a clue. May God help the innocent betas who listen to this drivel, and take it as word of wisdom.

  51. Splashman says:

    I’ve hit on the “churches are part of the problem” theme before, but it’s worth reiterating here:

    1. Any large (>20) organized group will, sooner or later, develop customs and rules primarily dedicated to the preservation of that organization, at the expense of its original purpose. Churches are a prime example. For instance, tithes began as support for the Levites (religious workers), who were forbidden to support themselves. Now tithes pay salaries for people who preserve the church organization. And the “preacher with large audience” model was necessary when 95% of the population was illiterate or the written Gospel was unavailable. Today, that model is as obsolete as it is ineffective, yet it is not merely preserved, but considered sacrosanct.

    2. God’s intentions for gatherings of believers (breaking bread, teaching of truth, prayer, fellowship) are accomplished very poorly or not at all in modern churches. Among other things, the size of virtually all churches prevent it.

    3. Modern churches do more damage than good, because they promote a version (i.e., perversion) of Christianity which Christ himself would not recognize. An obvious example is the perversion of the definition of “love” which I mentioned previously. And of course modern churches promote a perversion of the husband/wife relationship, which in turn perverts the Christ/Christian relationship.

    I could go on and on. “Church” is as broken a concept as “love”.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    The churches say that they want men to step up to ManUP, to be leaders in church and community.

    The churches then cut the legs off of any man who tries to lead his family.

    Then the churches offer leadership seminars.

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  53. Lost Patrol says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    It seems there may be an acceptable model for a man leading his family, church and community. If he is leading where women, or his woman want to go, and in a way that conforms to her prerogatives I think he is cleared for that. I think he is allowed to lead in a very specific and narrowly prescribed manner that has the church lady seal of approval. Never mind that this makes him weak and contemptuous in her sight.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    LP, IOW the Chauffeur model. “Driving Miss Daisy” as a form of Figurheadship. More dishes to wash, please.

    Then the women go read 50 SOG if they are over 30, or hit Goodreads on their phone if they are younger, and church leaders blame it on the men instead of on those who taught them.

  55. Tom Terrific says:

    ‘The key to getting your wife hot is lots and lots of talking about your feelings.”

    Tow which my wife would respond: “Hey! There’s only room for one woman in this relationship and that’s ME!”

  56. Chad says:

    The obtuseness is staggering. The worthwhile question is what causes women to be drawn to a fictional character such as Christian Grey? That such a character bears no resemblance to a churchian ‘real man’ archetype must be driving the dissonance off the charts.

    Of course the problem of the appeal of a Christian Grey must fall on the weak men around the women that cause said women to flock to abusive men. Instead of analyzing what aspects of the character archetypes appeal to women, Christian Grey is literally-Hitler, so we must strive to be nothing like him.

    This reads like the kind of ugly feminist writing where they try to dictate what men ought to find attractive in a woman, because a contentious woman with an education shouldn’t have to settle for cats. Of course the major difference is that they would never dream of actually telling women what they ought to value. They figure these women must be miserable with the ‘inferior men’ who don’t give them periodic sexual satisfaction surveys. So it’s up to ‘real men’ to remind these unfortunate women that they can ‘treat you better than him’.

  57. Dale says:

    Jason said at 11:29:
    >I am not responsible for some fictional man nor the choices women make. I have to lead, aspire, learn, and build integrity…….and if that means being ALONE in this world without female companionship or the blessings of a wife and children………well, so be it.

    Very important and valid conclusion. 1 Cor 7 says about 5 times that it is better to be unmarried, but somehow this message, even after repetition, is incomprehensible to paid religious leaders.
    This passage, from a speech/challenge given by Joshua, a leader chosen by God himself, is found in Josh 24:14-15:
    14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.
    15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    “but as for me and my house, we will server the Lord.” So if a woman consistently, although imperfectly, submissive to the Bible and it’s expectations cannot be found for me, then I must either choose to take a rebellious woman into my house, or choose to take none. Taking none shows better obedience and allegiance to God. And, unsurprisingly, is the better life choice for the man.
    Women, you chose this situation. I did not make it, I only am responding to the options you permit.

  58. elmertjones says:

    Many men are intrigued with the sex tips that might be found in “50 Shades” but are unable to get past the first couple pages.

  59. Splashman says:

    @Dale,

    So if a woman consistently, although imperfectly, submissive to the Bible and it’s expectations cannot be found for me, then I must either choose to take a rebellious woman into my house, or choose to take none. Taking none shows better obedience and allegiance to God. And, unsurprisingly, is the better life choice for the man.

    +1 to all that.

    Women, you chose this situation. I did not make it, I only am responding to the options you permit.

    Slight change re: initiating/responding, which I think you will agree with:

    God has initiated relationship with us, through the sacrifice of his son, and gives us the opportunity to respond on his terms (obedience), or not. Similarly, a man should initiate relationship with a woman, and give her the opportunity to respond on his terms (obedience), or not.

    God designed the marriage relationship as a scale model of the Christian’s relationship with Christ. To knowingly marry a rebellious woman (i.e., a woman unwilling to be like Sarah and call her husband ‘master’), is to pervert God’s intention for marriage, which is asking for trouble. Kinda like taking a wolverine for a pet instead of a dog.

  60. Pariah says:

    A few commentators have mentioned that christianity has become all about “love,” and Dalrock has written about the perversion of true love into courtly love. I wonder if any of these changes are reflected in the modern Bible translations? Because the King James uses the word “charity” in passages such as 1 Cor. 13. Even the previous Geneva Bible did not use the word charity here.
    The use of the word charity shows a different aspect to true love being not about subjective feelings, but about actions. A good demonstration of this would be Matthew 25:34-40, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025%3A34-40&version=KJV

  61. Gunner Q says:

    elmertjones @ 7:26 pm:
    “Many men are intrigued with the sex tips that might be found in “50 Shades” but are unable to get past the first couple pages.”

    I tried reading Gor to understand female thinking. Walked away wondering why the protagonist kept sticking his dick in homicidal crazy even after he’d conquered the entire planet in single combat. Also, branding irons are sexy because they hurt…?

  62. cynthia says:

    Men are constantly missing the point of this book. This book is not about a man beating a woman and her getting turned on by his dominance; it’s about an average plain-Jane woman conquering a sadistic f-ed man through the superior power of her magic healing vagina. It’s wish fulfillment but not in the way it appears.

    The man in these books is a rape victim, who was sexually abused by an older woman as a teenager. The woman in these books saves him only after he drops into subspace and submits to her control in a terribly written faux BDSM encounter. This is about female superiority over men. He is a pathetic horrible terrible abuser without her control.

    The only place you will EVER see actual female sexual inclinations and impulses honestly acknowledged is in homoerotic stories, where the “bottom” male character can fill in for the woman because you don’t have feminist politics involved. Like 99% of heterosexual female porn written by women is about trying to make feminist sexual propaganda sound sexy, which it never is.

    The danger here is not that FSOG is revealing something about female desire. It’s that it’s subverting it.

  63. RICanuck says:

    “Your wife should be the object of your desire. ”

    The advice William’s gives to have her reciprocate that desire sucks, but, even a cucked Protestant pastor acknowledges that husbands have the desire for intimacy.

    Now, current Catholic pastoral practice in New England and English speaking Canada doesn’t even give that much consideration to husbands.

  64. Kevin says:

    And here I thought the good Christian man would forbid his wife and daughters from reading this trash. There is nothing else for men to do here.

    You want to entice your wife, act like a man and tell her some things aren’t tolerated in your home.

  65. Fifty Seven says:

    “Reading through two very lengthy, very detailed synopses of the first book (I refuse to read the book itself)…”

    Why not? Afraid you might like it? I don’t like Nietzsche or Rousseau but I’ve read some of both, because what kind of a pansy is afraid to read words? Plus, if you’re going to trash someone’s book, at least have the courtesy to read it.

    If you really think it’s wrong, if you’re really not into BDSM or anything, God will know that. Reading a book isn’t a sin, as far as I know, as long as you don’t allow it to twist you and you don’t do anything bad as a result.

  66. Dale says:

    @Splashman
    Your correction is vastly better. I felt something was wrong with my last sentence, but it was not part of my key point and I was too lazy to think about it. Thanks 🙂
    Gamers would, I think, use a term like “maintaining the correct frame” to describe your correction.

    As you wrote, “To knowingly marry a rebellious woman … is to pervert God’s intention for marriage”; since 99% of church-going women are currently in open, visible rebellion, I have to either break one down and then train her up as her father should have done, or choose to skip the whole thing. (Obligatory mention that many 2nd world country women are already properly trained, thus needing only proper maintenance.)

  67. Pingback: Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization. - Top

  68. Tarl says:

    Dalrock, now men are being arrested on suspicion of not saving a woman from herself.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3599277/man-arrested-failing-save-irish-woman-drowned-holiday-lanzarote/

    Read the article and then you see this:

    “The arrested man, believed to be Moroccan, could face prosecution for “being the presumed author of an alleged crime of omission of the duty”.”

    So, the post-wall (41 year old) childless Irish woman was mudsharking it up when she drunkenly drowned. At least that spared her the usual fate of such clueless women…

  69. Snowy says:

    “…I was continually struck by how much Mr. Grey’s behavior was the very picture of everything we tell women to run away from to avoid abuse.”

    There’s that word again…abuse.

    It’s all the bad man’s fault. Women have no agency, apparently. These guys are comical.

  70. rocko says:

    I never read the book other than snippets here and there (although I did see the Gilbert Gottfried reading of it, and it was hilarious!) But I did attempt to see the Fifty Shades and I only made it halfway through. Here’s what I thought of it:
    -it’s porn. No ifs and buts about it. It’s more your softcore Cinemax fare, but you see where I’m going at.
    -It’s absolutely boring. And not just in the “porn bores me after half an hour” sense. This thing is just do bland. The characters, the plot, the settings. Makes me wonder how bored out of their lives the women who consume this are.
    – What this Williams guy is saying about women being naive and subject to abuse in the story is utter bullcrap. Clearly, miss Anastasia Steele knows what she is getting into. They do try to make her naive and innocent, but she ends up just looking bland. But once she starts playing kinky hanky panky with the Christian Grey character, she milks it (no pun intended!) for what it’s worth. She gets a new wardrobe, fancy dinners, her own bedroom, and even helicopter rides! Not something an abused woman will put up with. Of course, you will hear stories, such as that of former Playboy bunny and Hefner girlfriend Holly Madison claiming that Hefner was abusive to her, even when she got free food, housing, clothes, attention, in exchange for “dating” an old fart. Maybe in her case it has to do with the fact that she is hitting the proverbial wall and has been replaced by a more youthful model and now she’s as valuable as a collection of Beanie Babies, but is he won’t admit to it. And here’s the thing. In other times, women might have been innocent enough to fall for the sweet talking bad boy, but not today. Not with mobile tech at their disposal. They know what they’re getting into. And heck, we can argue that it’s these women that are doing the abuse and manipulation nowadays, especially when it comes to things like divorce.
    -And speaking of bad boys, this novel is loved by women mostly because it features the bad boy. Not only in the fact that this bad boy gives them the tingles with his wealth and opulence, his looks, and his BDSM “abusive” swagger, but because these women foolishly think that they can change him into a good man, or as this Williams guy says, fix him because he is broken. And when they fail, they can always run to be rescued by some beta entity, because they are always the victim.

    In conclusion, this is a horrible story. The same women who would shame men for porn are consuming it themselves and considering it empowering, while still expecting men to man up.

  71. rocko says:

    And while we’re are on the subject of Fifty Shades of Grey, the other day I ran into this gem. This is a video of none other than Miss Steele herself, Dakota Johnson. Here, she, along with her How To Be Single costar Leslie Mann, shamelessly hitting on the male reporter. Notice how her demeanor is way different from that of her Fifty Shades character. Also notice Mann’s proverbial “thousand cock” stare. And lastly, the guy is definitely uncomfortable with all of this after a while. But no, it’s just the men who are perverse and abusive and need to be fixed.

  72. Snowy says:

    These pastorbators simply don’t believe God. They don’t fear God. They’ve replaced God with woman, and they fear her instead. Fits with the woman as goddess paradigm.

  73. Spike says:

    I haven’t read FSOG, nor will I. Nor have I read it’s predecessor, the story about the immortal pedophile who hangs around school to seduce charisma-challenged girls instead of putting his immortality to good use curing cancer or something.
    In women’s minds, maintaining a sexual relationship – that is, holding out in spite of all of the abuse a Christian Grey causes – is a validation that “true love” actually exists.
    Meanwhile, good men are abused. Good men are told they must wait for sex in a relationship, by the church and by the same women who gave themselves to Christian Greys at the drop of a hat (or more precisely, pants). They are taught “mutual submission”. Every time the passages concerning wives in Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7 or 1 Peter 3 are preached on, they are accompanied by all sorts of caveats, warnings, justifications and rationalisations aimed at pacifying hostile women – most of whom have read FSOG or Twilight, because the Precious flowers may get offended….
    Incidentally, any young man wishing to marry should vet his interest about whether she has been in a “abusive” relationship. That is, if she has given her sexual approval to a man who has inflicted pain on her. If the answer is “yes” it is a red flag, simply because good-guy him will never be able to ratchet up the Tingle factor high enough. Sad but true.

  74. Snowy says:

    @thedeti

    You say that women only have sex with those men for whom they experience strong, real, actual sexual desire, and they don’t feel that with most men, including their husbands. True.

    It’s interesting how, with my red pillification, I find it is a rare woman indeed who stirs that desire in me too. That wasn’t always the case.

  75. Trust says:

    “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” — 2 Corinthians 11:14

    Here we’ve talked about how the word “love” has been twisted. On another post, that the term “complementarian” has been corrupted.

    It makes me think of 2 Corinthians 11:14. Those seeking to destroy us at all levels, including our relationships, do not come at us with horns and pitchforks, they come at us with promises, cloaking their goals with noble sounding covers.

    They say “equality” (or “complementarian” in church settings), but what they really mean is matriarchy.

    They say “love”, but what they really mean is lust, tingle, or that you only have to behave a certain way when you feel a certain way.

    The devil doesn’t come out and tell woman to destroy her life by accepting a hundred thug cocks, he tells her she is free or liberated. He doesn’t tell her to destroy her marriage by making her husband the only man she rejects, he tells her she isn’t a slave, isn’t a prostitute, or that she’d feel it if only her husband were a better man.

    The devil doesn’t tell her to detonate her family, cause her kids to have to move from home to home several times a month, and wreck a good man’s life. He tells her she’s abused, neglected, and sends white knighting judges and politicians to blame her husband and tell her she deserves better.

    The devil doesn’t tell her to be a single mother because he wants the next generation to be terrorized by children who grew up without a father, he tells her there is a deadbeat dad epidemic, and that she has the right to food and shelter regardless of her choices.

    The devil doesn’t tell her to murder her unborn children, he tells her it’s her body her choice, and calls it “reproductive freedom” — yet another sacrosanct right to be funded by law.

    She is told she is free to do anything and everything (and anyone and everyone but a husband), yet free from responsibility.

    And to add another level of insidiousness to this, he’ll lie with the truth. He’ll remind men of their biblical responsibility to love their wives while telling the wives to sow disrespect, he’ll remind men of their obligations to take care of their children while telling wives to treat good fathers as deadbeat dads, he’ll tell men to take responsibility while telling women to undermine everything their husbands do.

    Why does he tell half truths instead of full lies? Because full lies, like horns and a pitchfork, would be obvious. Half truths are lies (the devil) clothed in truth (angel of light) and are much more effective at deceiving.

    ***Long winded sermon over***

    I wonder what would happen to a pastor that actually said this in church?

  76. feeriker says:

    It isn’t sinful for a woman to want [to be dominated and controlled by a powerful, sexy man] either; but somehow folks like Rainey, Dobson, Williams, et al have Christian women convinced that they are sinful.

    That’s because the aforementioned schlubs and others of their ilk couldn’t be more lightyears removed from the “sexy and dominant” model represented by Christian Grey. The inadequacy these guys feel, just knowing that they couldn’t turn women on the way the fictional Mr. Grey can, leads them to defend against their own feelings of inadequacy by perverting Scripture to deliver a message to women regarding sex that is nowhere to be found in any book of the Bible.

  77. Opus says:

    I love a wedding – yes really I do; everyone properly dressed, Norman country Church, Sun shining, Vicar properly kitted-out, male, and of elderly mien and portly figure, expensive motor-cars, organ swelling, and lashings of page-boys and girls, but is it a good idea when the Bride is thirty-three years old and the groom aged forty-one that the groom has (according to the Daily Mail) been chasing the Bride for ten years. Surely a groom whose day job is (as this ones is) Financier has greater choice than that, but the photos are wonderful and I am obviously jealous that I did not get an invite to the wedding of the sister of The Duchess of Gloucester. No, my morning consisted of or at least included telling the prospective Parliamentary Candidate for The Women’s Equality Party* that she was crazy as she tried to explain that Feminism which included closing the Gender Pay-gap (sic erat) benefited men. She was fairly cute too but not as cute or as old (I would say) as Pippa Middleton.

    * Really, I’m not making this up.

  78. Smultronstallet says:

    “The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. As the church is in subjection to Christ, so let the wife be to her husband in all things. If she rebel against his commandment, she rebels against God. The wife then must persuade herself that her husband’s charge is God’s charge, and when he speaks, God speaks by him, and that which was a thing indifferent before the husband required it, is now become a bounden duty unto her, after the husband hath once enjoined it. And therefore she must resolve to obey him in all things. (…) Therefore the wife must obey her husband in all things cheerfully and willingly, without gainsaying.”
    – John Dod, The Duties of Husband and Wife
    http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/the-christian-family/the-duties-of-husband-and-wife-by-dr-john-dod/

    This pretty much describes the real, Christian dominance and the real, Christian subjection that is necessary. Alexander of Hales writes somewhere that what comes from God comes from the Father to the Son to man and than to the female – and vice versa, what comes from Satan comes first into the woman and then climbs up to the man to tempt him, etc. 50 shades of BDSM have as little to do with actual dominance and actual control, as a children’s cowboy costume has to do with the historical Old West.

    It is no secret that the more feminist a woman is, the more she wants to be tortured, humiliated and hurt in the bedroom. Personally, I don’t care if someone likes it more kinky or rather “””vanillla””” but it greatly annoys me how much BDSM is promoted these days, in my experience MOSTLY from feminist women and their cucks; in RL it’s all part of the rainbow crowd. I see it rather as a sick, degenerate substitute substitute for the real thing.

  79. Disillusioned says:

    When I was married, I never talked to my wife about sex. I never watched porn either nor did I care to watch any movie with nudity in it. Sex and intimacy was between her and I …period.

    To me sex is like eating. It comes naturally and one just does it. No talk about it…just do it. I don’t go talking to anyone on and on about what I like in food. I just go, find it, eat it, and enjoy it. Period. The same applies with my wife. I would come home, and if I felt in the mood, we would do it. Period. And do it with reckless abandonment. After all, she was my own flesh.

    Now that I am divorced I want something like that. I don’t need some floozie chick who has done it with many guys and who needs something kinky like BDSM to get her going. Sad to say, I think that this is what modern women are going towards. A lot of it is because they are damaged goods in every way especially emotionally. That affects their sexual drive and thus they need something new and perverted to turn them on.

  80. Hypergamy doesn’t care about William’s delusions of women’s spiritual convictions. Hypergamy wants what it wants.

    https://therationalmale.com/2012/04/12/50-shade-of-twilight/

  81. Christian men: How to get your wife to want to fuck you

    https://therationalmale.com/2015/11/03/christian-dread/

  82. Whenever I read about this “wife must submit” idea I cannot help but be reminded that for the submission to be natural and true, her man has to be better, stronger, more confident and more attractive and more competent than her – at least she must perceive these things of him, whether he truly is or not often doesn’t matter. Women, in general, are just as easily fooled.

    Twilight and 50SOG stories are utter dog crap stories of no substance that somehow tug at the hearts – no actually I mean, tug at the loins, of women and girls like electric guitar harmonics during a rock concert solo. Females going nuts and throwing their panties at this porn is more informative than horrifying.

    I’m not convinced it helps matters for husbands to remind (or scold) their wives “hey, you know what, you’re supposed to submit to me because God said so!”.

    How is that going to ever work?

    It’s going to work just exactly as did for Eve, Delilah, Jezebel and Lot’s wife.

    I think husbands should STFU and just demonstrate it, without saying one word. But maybe I’m wrong.

    I imagine husbands would want her submission to come naturally, passionately and even quickly. And when it doesn’t, my first question is whether he’s demonstrating to, or arguing with, her.

    .

  83. Splashman says:

    @locus,

    Whenever I read about this “wife must submit” idea I cannot help but be reminded that for the submission to be natural and true, her man has to be better, stronger, more confident and more attractive and more competent than her – at least she must perceive these things of him, whether he truly is or not often doesn’t matter.

    We are born with sinful natures. “Natural” desires are frequently sinful — including men’s and women’s hypergamous tendencies. A person who desires to obey God will choose to fight their sinful nature, knowing that the easy path leads to destruction.

    For an awesome marriage relationship (i.e., as God intended), It is not necessary for a wife to believe her husband is “better, stronger, more confident and more attractive and more competent than her”, though that would certainly make it easier. All that is necessary is for a wife to choose to obey God (who commands her to obey and respect her husband) rather than her sinful desires.

    We can see this dynamic at work in the Bible’s account of Abraham and his extremely hot wife Sarah. On two occasions separated by many years, Abraham put Sarah at risk to save his own skin. Sarah could have easily avoided the risk by disobeying Abraham, but didn’t. There was no way that Sarah considered Abraham to be “better, stronger, more confident and more attractive and more competent than her”. Yet we are told that Sarah “obeyed Abraham and called him her lord” [or ‘master’]. And Sarah is venerated as an example for all women.

    Of course, finding a woman (hot or not) who will choose to call her husband ‘master’ regardless of his failings, is about as easy as finding a diamond in the Sahara desert. But they do exist. I’m raising a few myself.

  84. Splashman says:

    @locus, I agree with you that it doesn’t make sense to argue with wife about her submitting. She has no more standing to argue with husband about anything than we do arguing with God about anything.

    God commands all people to obey him, and gives us the choice as to how to respond. In his mercy he sometimes gives us reminders — perhaps painful reminders — but would never stoop to argue with us. That’s our model for how to deal with wives.

    Scott Williams can go to hell.

  85. feeriker says:

    Scott Williams can go to hell.

    I think that’s all but assured at this point.

  86. Splashman says:

    @Rollo,

    Christian men: How to get your wife to want to fuck you

    Your comment to Larry Solomon regarding the use of “Christian Dread” makes sense for Christian men on a tactical level, but not on a strategic level. If wife has chosen to obey God’s command to obey and show respect to husband, yet struggles to generate sexual desire for him, your prescription of Dread is appropriate. But if she is a typical rebellious wife, meaning she does not consider husband to be her master, Dread (or any other tingle tactic) will result in, at best, lipstick on a pig of a relationship.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    errya

    How would you actually go about confronting a woman about her sin and the nature of her temptation? It’s such an important skill, but like so many other essential skills we men have not been taught it by those who came before us. I am especially interested in how you would go about doing so in a relationship context.

    This is a very important question, and there won’t be any one “go-to” detailed answer, each situation is different. In general women do not admit their own bad behavior easily. Some will do so with a bit of prodding, if they have been trained. Some won’t ever get there. In the context of this blog the first step for any man should be to read his Bible with care in order to have a clear picture of what the actual situation is, what quotes from the Bible apply to is, and what her rationalizations / deflections / blame shifting /etc. are likely to look like.

    On behalf of Anonymous aged 64 who once posted several quotes from Proverbs to the late Spearhead web site, know this all you men: it’s not just you. It’s not just modernity. It’s the nature of women. It’s not just you.

    It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
    Proverbs 21:19

    It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

    Proverbs 25:24

    A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike; He who would restrain her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand.…
    Proverbs 27: 15 – 16

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    cynthia
    Men are constantly missing the point of this book. This book is not about a man beating a woman and her getting turned on by his dominance; it’s about an average plain-Jane woman conquering a sadistic f-ed man through the superior power of her magic healing vagina. It’s wish fulfillment but not in the way it appears.

    I have not read these books. But I am reliably informed that in book 3 Christian Grey winds up changing diapers; she tamed the Alpha in other words. The series is just a more sexedup version of the standard romance fiction – and by the way, lurkers, your local B & N romance section is getting closer to 50 SOG every day. Older romance fiction often started with something pretty close to a rape as a way of introducing the male protagonist to the female, then he gets away and she spends the rest of the book trying to get him back.

    Somewhere up the thread a man wondered how churchgoing women could be reading 50 SOG, why their husbands didn’t forbid them. There’s a number of answers, but the first one is “Maybe the husband did forbid it, and she just defied him”. Plenty of “conservative”, “traditional” church going women went to see Twilight, some as a Girl’s Night Out, others probably lied about what they were going to see.

    The degree of utter clueless ignorance that relgious leaders in the West have regarding women is kind of amazing. They have to be shutting their eyes and ears sometimes in order to not learn anything.

  89. Otto Lamp says:

    If she tames him in book 3, then book 4 will be where she dumps him.

    To misquote the great philosopher Marx: any man I can tame is not worthy of me taming.

  90. WinT says:

    You should never take fantasy literally. This Christian church is very irresponsible.

  91. Splashman says:

    @AR,

    Somewhere up the thread a man wondered how churchgoing women could be reading 50 SOG, why their husbands didn’t forbid them. There’s a number of answers, but the first one is “Maybe the husband did forbid it, and she just defied him”.

    In my experience, the first and most prevalent answer would be, “The church-going husband wouldn’t even dream of using the word ‘forbid’ within fifty feet of his wife”. Honest to God, the level of subservience some of my churchian friends display to their wives in public makes my stomach turn. The worst part is they seem to have zero embarrassment while doing so. On the contrary, I’m sure it makes them feel virtuous, since their pastor has repeatedly declared it to be so.

    This is another area where the church environment is actually worse than the world at large. Non-churchian men would at least be too self-conscious to genuflect so completely to their wives in public.

  92. Snowy says:

    AR says:

    “The degree of utter clueless ignorance that relgious leaders in the West have regarding women is kind of amazing. They have to be shutting their eyes and ears sometimes in order to not learn anything.”

    And that’s just the way women want it to stay. Keep the wool over men’s eyes. Maintain control over men. It’s an extreme form of gaslighting, really. It’s very covert and subtle in some ways and areas, yet blatant and overt in others. Women are masters of manipulation, really.

  93. rugby11 says:

    dalrock

  94. Splashman says:

    @AR, a modern proverb would be: “Like fingernails on a chalkboard is the yammering of a rebellious wife. Better to curl up with a warm Xbox than shackle yourself to a feminist bitch. Choose wisely, or government-enforced slavery will be yours, while cash and prizes will be hers.”

  95. Novaseeker says:

    The degree of utter clueless ignorance that relgious leaders in the West have regarding women is kind of amazing. They have to be shutting their eyes and ears sometimes in order to not learn anything.

    It’s based on being afraid to assign any blame, in terms of moral agency, on women. Sometimes they will admit that what women did was not proper, but if there is some man — ANY man — anywhere in the chain of causation, he will be blamed, and not the women. So, in 50SOG, even though the entire thing is invented by women and for women, they can find a man somewhere in the chain — someone who promoted the film, someone who funded it, someone who promoted the book deal and so on. Some man will be held responsible for it, and not the women who were actually reading and watching it — because a world where women are actually having moral agency and can commit seriously immoral sexual sins of their own accord and without a man being assigned principal, overriding, blame for the sins is absolutely terrifying for them — it is paralyzingly terrifying. They will not go there, no matter what. Much better to pretend that all men have control over how much, and in what way, women sin, so that they can feel safe that they can control this in their own women.

    Folks, this is fundamentally based in fear. Absolute, terrifying fear. These “men” are cowards. They have no right to teach anyone, or to lead anyone, full stop.

  96. Anon says:

    Jesus HDMI Christ….

    This is far beyond mere blue-pill whiteknighting. This is a cringeworthy goddess cult.

    Does anyone dispute that churches have replaced Christianity with a goddess cult?

  97. Snowy says:

    Anon asks:

    “Does anyone dispute that churches have replaced Christianity with a goddess cult?”

    I don’t dispute it. It’s a fact.

  98. Splashman says:

    My dispute is really just a nit-pick. People are doing now what they have always done. Eve rejected God’s authority because she wanted it for herself (rebellion). Adam rejected God’s authority to avoid losing Eve (fear). So it’s not now a goddess cult. It’s a “me” cult, the same as it has ever been.

  99. feeriker says:

    Folks, this is fundamentally based in fear. Absolute, terrifying fear. These “men” are cowards. They have no right to teach anyone, or to lead anyone, full stop.

    Yup. As I cannot repeat often enough, churchians have no faith whatsoever in the God they profess to worship. If they did, if they truly had Jesus in their lives as Lord and Savior as they love to claim, if they truly absorbed the message of the Scriptures (that some of them occasionally read, sometimes. Sort of.), they wouldn’t hesitate for a second to do the right thing, knowing that with God being for them, no one could be against them.

    But they don’t, because with their every word and every cowardly deed and dodge, they reveal that it’s all theater. Man –specifically woman, as well as Caesar her servant– is whom they really fear and whom they really want to please.

    I begin to believe that if Jesus’s ministry had taken place in 21st Century Amerika, the hordes that now constitute the “church” would be screaming for his blood, demanding his arrest, and calling for his head (unlike with Jesus’s own actual arrest and crucifixion, there would be a loooooooong line of prominent authority figures eager to fill Pontious Pilate’s role).

    Jesus’s very first words to the American “church” upon His return: “Depart from me. I never knew you!”

  100. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Sometimes they will admit that what women did was not proper, but if there is some man — ANY man — anywhere in the chain of causation, he will be blamed, and not the women.

    This is reflected in the law as well, and will be the source of even more sinister changes in the law.

    Any day now, CS will be expanded to draw from male friends, male relatives, and just about anyone a woman can name, since the pool of father imputation is no longer adequate. Cuckservatives will be the enthusiastic forefront of this expansion of slavery, communisim, and unequal treatment under the law. They are even more enthusiastic about this than leftists.

  101. feeriker says:

    Cuckservatives will be the enthusiastic forefront of this expansion of slavery, communisim, and unequal treatment under the law. They are even more enthusiastic about this than leftists.

    It goes without saying that churchian cuckservatives will enthusiastically embrace it as well as secular ones and will concoct a pseudo-scriptural justification for said enthusiasm.

  102. Alpha Jed says:

    Dalrock, great work as always. Living in Utah, what strikes me most about the Mormans is how much they get right on this subject, Theology aside. I offer this as a potential rich subject matter for you to explore. I was in a Morman church the other night (I’m Christian), and up on the wall was this picture that jumped out at me in its beautiful characterization of the Feminine. https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/jesus-with-mary-martha-39572?lang=eng . This would NEVER be seen in a mainline protestant Christian Church. All of my neighbors are LDS, and something in the water prevents/inoculates against the feminist rebellion, which we should strive to emulate.

  103. Tarl says:

    for the submission to be natural and true, her man has to be better, stronger, more confident and more attractive and more competent than her – at least she must perceive these things of him, whether he truly is or not often doesn’t matter.

    The chances are excellent that the AFC is indeed better, stronger, and more competent than his girlfriend or wife. However, his beta conditioning holds him back from believing it and acting on it, and thus he is not confident, and thus he is not attractive to her.

  104. “God doesn’t command a husband to remind his wife to submit.”

    Scripture doesn’t command parents to force their kids to obey them either. It doesn’t command men to remind other men not to lust or steal, or cheat or anything else for that matter. In fact, scripture contains explicit commands _against_ being a busybody. Looks like all those pastors, telling me all the things I shouldn’t do, are violating scripture themselves. Hypocrites

    /sarc

  105. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Novaseeker

    In other words, “don’t make Mom mad”, or “mommy issues”. Considering many of these men are Boomers who grew up in the 1950’s, that’s pretty interesting. Anyway, my go to terms for these preachers from now on is “mommy issues”, along with “cuckservative”.

  106. info says:

    @Trust
    ”Complementarian” sounds too weasely to me as if taking the proper and righteous position of Patriarchy implies abuse whilst “complementarian” seems more ”moderate” or ”reasonable”. Patriarchy is a much more accurate description of what is commanded in scripture.

    Its not surprise that men who are too terrified of addressing female rebellion would choose such a word and capitulate so easily. They fear for a strange reason women more than god rather than the other way around.

    God is the one they must fear not women.

  107. rocko says:

    @ Otto Lamp:
    “If she tames him in book 3, then book 4 will be where she dumps him.”

    Basing it on all the saucy rom coms I had to endure when I was engaged, yes. Either he will rebel and she will dump him, or the second, more harsh option. That is, she will plan a giant wedding (with his money, of course, and perhaps her parents’ money), but then she will realize that this is not what her heart desires, goes on a long trip to Europe (again, with his money), perhaps bringing a girl friend along, and finds some poor man or an alpha male. Which then she will tell herself “Love was here all along!”, keep the guy, and tell her beau back home it’s over. Which will no doubt break his heart (and make him lose thousands of dollars he invested in the relationship, including the wedding, in the process), but because he’s the man and anyways it’s his fault for not keeping her happy, he has to suck it up.
    A good example of why these movies are so popular among women is the 1994 movie “Only You”, starring Marisa Tomei and Robert Downey Jr. Yup, that’s right. Who would have thought Ironman himself would be panting after an engaged woman? Now compared to Fifty Shades, this one isn’t raunchy and Marisa Tomei is way more pleasant looking than Dakota Johnson, but it’s still insanely dumb. I can’t believe I managed to watch the whole thing without passing out.

  108. Otto Lamp says:

    @Anonymous Reader,

    “If mom isn’t happy, then nobody’s happy” vs “If Islam isn’t happy, then nobody’s happy”.

    Mom is like the home version of an Islamic terrorist. If they don’t get their way, they make everyone around them miserable till they do.

  109. feeriker says:

    Mom is like the home version of an Islamic terrorist. If they don’t get their way, they make everyone around them miserable till they do.

    That’s a very good analogy on a number of fronts.

    1. Rebellious wife/mom, like a Muslim terrorist, is blinded by a satanic ideology.

    2. Rebellious wife/mom, like a Muslim terrorist, brags about how invincible she is, and yet hides behind innoent children when she commits her destructive acts of violence.

    3. Rebellious wife/mom, like a Muslim terrorist, doesn’t care about anyone but herself. “Collateral damage” in the form of the destroyed lives of husband and children, is just a price that has to be paid to keep her happy.

    4. Rebellious wife/mom, like a Muslim terrorist, once she suffers blowback from her terrorism, usually discovers that the god she so fervently believed in (in this case feminism/girrrrrrrrlpower/feeeeeeeeelings) has failed her utterly – yet continues to double down on what has failed her.

    5. Rebellious wife/mom, like a Muslim terrorist, is often coddled and empowered by the very people she seeks to destroy, even after she makes her destructive intentions known.

    I could go on, but he point is made. Whom can I contact at the DHS and FBI to demand that rebellious wives/mothers be put on the Terrorist Watch list?

  110. Kevin says:

    Lots of people are criticizing the “on a scale of 1-10” which is worthy of some ridicule. But let me offer a reasonable defense of this. People seem to be attacking this as if it were a route to intimacy – partly because this weirdo pastor thinks so – but open communication about intimacy is not a crazy idea. Just like open communications about finances or home chores is not unreasonable. It’s not going to get the guy or girl aroused but it might help break staleness. What about after a medical procedure – you might need to communicate about intimacy.

    Again, in general I agree the thrust of the comments mocking this, but there is a more charitable way of understanding the pastor that makes his statements less insane.

  111. I agree with Kevin. The Pastor’s reasoning was insane from an arousal standpoint, but it is still a very good idea to have communication.

  112. Horned Attorney says:

    A little devil advocacy here from a non Christian(correct me where I am wrong):
    Christian men are supposed to be in charge of their women, right?
    So why shouldn´t the pastor chide the men for their women´s sins? If they´re in charge, they have to be responsible.
    If they are not in charge while they should be, who else would responsible?
    So the main sin seems to be the men not being in charge and all the rest follows, including their wives´ sin of longing for a man who is in charge.
    From an outsider perspective this is all very true but the core problem IS men. If you believe in your book, then you should act like it and get rid of the preachers who don´t act like they believe in it. If you believe that women should submit, then you should have women who do submit, make yourself men to whom the woman submits, make her submit (preferably in a legal manner) or stay without a woman, if you aren´t able to be a man to whom his wife submits.

    The confusing bit seems to be the circlesquaring preacher´s insistence that the Gray bloke is not a real man in any sense of the word. The millions of women who read the crap can´t be wrong about it. If they love something so ridiculously stupid, there must be something incredibly powerful about the core dynamics: so powerful that even a ludicrous kitch story and bad prose can´t disgust them.

  113. kfg says:

    “He demands control of her life to the point of prescribing her exercise and diet . . .”

    The bastard!

  114. Opus says:

    I can now reveal that Novaseeker is not American for no American would use the expression Full Stop when they could use the word Period. Two other non-Americans who I am sure never use the word Period are E.L.James and her heroine Anastasia Steele.

    What strikes me about Anastasia Steele (as much as Bella from Twilight) is that the author presents her as if she is all-over-the-place, not-together, and thus not appealing to men yet the only women I have known who fit that description aren’t appealing to men which makes Christian Grey’s interest in her all the more puzzling as (I read the opening chapter) he seems more interested in playing Golf with his black buddy – my Gaydar was pinging. Owning and working in a massive tower I can only presume that he is modeled on Donald Trump but there the similarity ends. Having recently re-read Miss Austen’s Persuasion, is there, I ask rhetorically, much difference between her heroine Anne Eliot – who starts out Cinderella-style as unattractive but ends up marrying the handsome and dashing Naval Captain who by good fortune has netted himself thanks to his career a vast amount of money and who likewise seems to enjoy hanging around with men even though they do not indulge in ruining a long walk – and Miss Steele.

    Always blame men even if they are fictional: taste cannot be legislated for.

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus, perhaps Miss Steele is a projection of an authoress? I think that’s been done in fiction a few times.

  116. Oscar says:

    Science proves that feminism is irrational.

    You don’t want to be a science denier, do you?

  117. Gunner Q says:

    Alpha Jed @ 11:38 pm:
    “This would NEVER be seen in a mainline protestant Christian Church.”

    In point of fact, that’s a fairly typical Prot depiction of Christ. I saw a great deal of similar artwork in churches going full-hog into feminism. Don’t mistake the appearance of success for actual success.

    “People seem to be attacking this as if it were a route to intimacy…”

    It is being sold to us as a route to intimacy. Nobody is claiming that two-way communication with one’s spouse is a bad thing, but if asking her “what gets you excited in bed?” did the tiniest bit of good then nerds would be out-notching PUAs.

  118. Opus says:

    A point which somehow got erased in my editing, is that although women clearly identify with Miss Steele, most women come across as confident nay bossy and full of themselves. Roissy/Heartiste is thus correct that neging with amused mastery is what most young women need but do not need pedestalising. Even so I can hardly forget (we were both seventeen) a cute young female with whom I had been romantically linked who when we were about twenty and we had long lost contact I came across in a full length photo on page seven of The Daily Mirror, she heading for intended stardom in a projected singing career plus guitar yet still protesting her vast insecurity – can’t remember her name so I have been unable to watch her career or more likely lack of it. Her constant apologising for nothing had been so bad that I had cut my losses. Did she want the Christian Grey treatment? Were I or any real man capable of so acting? Was it a form of cock-blocking? What would Heartiste have recommended to achieve romantic success?

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    A point which somehow got erased in my editing, is that although women clearly identify with Miss Steele, most women come across as confident nay bossy and full of themselves.

    So you noticed that women tend to be insecure inside and many compensate externally with fake confidence. In other words what they say doesn’t necessarily match what they do, Have you discussed this with anyone else, or just kept it a secret for your own purposes?

  120. Jason says:

    Lol…..most PUA’s and guys that follow that nonsense use “negging” on their fellow men. Seen it over and over again. They will put down and “neg” the guys they are hanging with in front of a woman, or within earshot of one so they can get the attention they so desperately want, and supposedly “don’t need” from women. It’s such a joke. I have never seen a PUA do this to a woman (neg). Never. I bar tended in a swank rooftop nightclub in San Francisco when the whole PUA thing was growing leaps and bounds. Never once saw a PUA do this to a woman. Never. Some of the most pedestalizing men out there are PUA’s. Most will say anything to get a “woman to like you / date you / sleep with you” cloaked with the backtalk / backslap of “I’m the real man in the room / scene / boss”

    Their behavior is a hyped-up masculinity that is actually very catty and female, and it fits the mold and the state of dating and relationships today. PUA’s behave A LOT like women. The whole peacocking…….negging…all the other trappings. Fake manhood proved by the size of the penis and a numbers scale and how many, and when………I saw one PUA in action, he claimed to his friends the girl was a “9” and me, behind the bar…..easily a 5 (average looking, like MOST of this planet is).

    When is someone besides me gonna tell these PUA guys how utterly insignificant they are?

  121. Don Quixote says:

    Alpha Jed says:

    May 20, 2017 at 11:38 pm
    …. All of my neighbors are LDS, and something in the water prevents/inoculates against the feminist rebellion, which we should strive to emulate.

    What!
    I have to call BS on this. What could possibly be in the water that stops feminist rebellion?
    Rebellion is in human nature, only the Word of God can correct human nature. Nothing else.

  122. feeriker says:

    I can now reveal that Novaseeker is not American for no American would use the expression Full Stop when they could use the word Period.

    I think you’d be amazed (and no doubt proud as well) at the number of “Britishisms” that have crept into American speech over the last two decades.

  123. benfromtexas says:

    I love your posts lately. I don’t know what it is, but you’ve been on fire for a while.
    I love reposting them to Facebook and watching the responses from those who deny the rebellion.

  124. Opus says:

    @Feeriker

    I suppose I would. When I was Stateside, I came across all sorts of expressions new to me including learning that a . was a period rather than a full-stop. In the 70s I had despaired of being able to follow anything spoken by David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser.

  125. >>”…. All of my neighbors are LDS, and something in the water prevents/inoculates against the feminist rebellion, which we should strive to emulate.”

    >”I have to call BS on this. ”

    I think he meant “Mormons have some subtle social pressure and ideology that inoculates against feminism.”

    I don’t think he was claiming that Mormons never sin.

  126. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    It’s based on being afraid to assign any blame, in terms of moral agency, on women. Sometimes they will admit that what women did was not proper, but if there is some man — ANY man — anywhere in the chain of causation, he will be blamed, and not the women.

    Yessir.

    They will not go there, no matter what. Much better to pretend that all men have control over how much, and in what way, women sin, so that they can feel safe that they can control this in their own women.

    I’m not sure. Maybe. I think they don’t want the headache of dealing with women’s absolute denial, lies, and retribution which will be the response from women. These leaders can’t “win” anymore than any of us can “win” in a society which believes women are demi-angels.

    Moore, Mohler, Keller, etc. are products as much as they are producers; American Protestantism has selected for them to be the leaders, if you will. They had the right combination of traits. And it has selected for the male followers to be the type of man who would rather be scolded by a pastor a couple Sundays a year than support an ornery pastor who upset the womenfolk.

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    I’m all for calling out these pastors, but I trust every man reading–especially those who have suffered under these pansies–does his own introspection and thinks about where he fed into this, and so how to stop it and never do it again. That’s how he’ll find peace in his own life.

  128. ” I was in a Morman church the other night (I’m Christian),…”

    I don’t know if Dalrock has a defining line about what makes a Christian. I would say that anyone who centers his religious life on belief in the divinity of Jesus is a Christian. For example, a Mormon believes Jesus is divine, and Jesus is the most important person in creation, and thus a Mormon is a Christian. A Hindu believes Jesus is divine (and Moses, and John Smith, and Mick Jagger are all likewise divine) but the Hindu does not center his life on Jesus, thus the Hindu is not a Christian.

    I hope other folks will put forward other definitions of what makes a Christian, or else refine the above.

  129. Lost Patrol says:

    @Opus

    That . has been a dot since the 1990s I think. I have a friend that concludes his most emphatic discourses with “period, dot, full stop”. Mind the Gap Dude.

  130. Lost Patrol says:

    @Cane Caldo

    “does his own introspection and thinks about where he fed into this, and so how to stop it and never do it again.”

    Affirmative.

    @gaikokumaniakku

    The broadest consensus might perhaps be found within The Nicene Creed.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed

  131. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cane Caldo
    If those leaders preqch the truth perhaps the women will take the family out of the church with them including their figurehead of a husband. But I guess that’s the price for faithfulness to Christ.

  132. Snowy says:

    “Only You” – a Norman Jew – ison film. Says it all.

  133. Fuz says:

    cynthia: “an average plain-Jane woman conquering a sadistic f-ed man through the superior power of her magic healing vagina. It’s wish fulfillment but not in the way it appears.”

    I’ll Change Him!

  134. American says:

    What must now seem obvious to Dalrock is really profound insight and rare to find in this present culture. I believe Dalrock is ready for syndication. He should be paid handsomely for this body of work and the world forced to confront it. That’s my personal opinion.

  135. American says:

    @ gaikokumaniakku. The devil also believes in the divinity of Jesus but that does not make the devil a genuine follower of the “Way” of Yeshua.

    Mormonism does not adhere to correct orthodox Christian exegesis and epistemology but is instead doctrinal heresy.

    One of my two master’s degrees is an M.Div. and I agree with Van Gordon who concludes in the 2003 edition of ‘The Kingdom of the Cults’:

    “Mormonism strives with great effort to masquerade as the Christian church complete with an exclusive message, infallible prophets, and higher revelations for a new dispensation that the Mormons would have us believe began with Joseph Smith Jr. But it is the verdict of both history and biblical theology that Joseph Smith’s religion is a polytheistic nightmare of garbled doctrines draped with the garment of Christian terminology.”

  136. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I hope other folks will put forward other definitions of what makes a Christian, or else refine the above.

    A traditional test for who is a Christian is by how they answer the question: Who do you say that Jesus is? A Christian is someone who answers that question as Peter did.

    From Matthew 16:13-16

    When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
    They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
    “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
    Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

    Or Mark 8:27-29

    Then Jesus and His disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say I am?”
    They answered, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others say You are one of the prophets.”
    “But who do you say I am?” He asked.Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

  137. Anon says:

    Cuckservatives are becoming more pathetic by the day.

    Go to any mainstream Republican blog, and talk about how they don’t hold woman accountable (even tattooed SJW women). The cuckservatives will immediately accuse you of being a pro-jihadi Muslim. They think anything less than complete groveling to women is radical Islam..

    This is how pathetic they have become. The good news is, they have revealed how easily they can be triggered.

  138. Don Quixote says:

    Horned Attorney says:
    May 21, 2017 at 11:32 am

    A little devil advocacy here from a non Christian(correct me where I am wrong):
    Christian men are supposed to be in charge of their women, right?
    So why shouldn´t the pastor chide the men for their women´s sins? If they´re in charge, they have to be responsible.
    If they are not in charge while they should be, who else would responsible?

    I can see your point as you have stated “from a non Christian”.
    The problem is that many of these clerics have taught a subtle [if not outright] doctrine of female headship. Instead of teaching what the scripture clearly shows, they have whispered clever lies in the ears of the women and appealed to emotion to insight rebellion. Then when the marriage hits the rocks they blame the men for all the problems and refuse to see the obvious.

    So the main sin seems to be the men not being in charge and all the rest follows, including their wives´ sin of longing for a man who is in charge.
    From an outsider perspective this is all very true but the core problem IS men. If you believe in your book, then you should act like it and get rid of the preachers who don´t act like they believe in it.

    I actually agree with you, however when the stakes are extremely high [children and houses involved] its easy to talk big, but hard to act big. Have you ever lost everything that matters? F&^%ing hurts.

    When you stand to lose everything most men will try to avoid massive losses. Under such circumstances it would be nice to have your Pastor in your corner, instead of him siding with a rebellious bitch.

    If you believe that women should submit, then you should have women who do submit, make yourself men to whom the woman submits, make her submit (preferably in a legal manner) or stay without a woman, if you aren´t able to be a man to whom his wife submits.

    Most of the Christian men here understand that the New Testament doesn’t allow divorce. [not looking for an argument] So again it’s easy to say ‘get a woman that will submit’, but:
    a) You’re not allowed to divorce the one you’ve got.
    b) The emotional and fiscal cost of such actions makes it prohibitive.

    The confusing bit seems to be the circlesquaring preacher´s insistence that the Gray bloke is not a real man in any sense of the word. The millions of women who read the crap can´t be wrong about it. If they love something so ridiculously stupid, there must be something incredibly powerful about the core dynamics: so powerful that even a ludicrous kitch story and bad prose can´t disgust them.

    Agreed, women like that.

  139. RichardP says:

    Some folks: It is better for me if I am alone.
    God: It is not good for man to be alone.

    Who ya gonna believe?

    God could have made women different. He didn’t. He must have had a reason.

  140. feministhater says:

    Oh Richard, same old story. That was before the fall. Before sin entered the world. Read the rest of the Bible to find out. Read especially the part where Jesus states that some are indeed better off serving the Kingdom as a single.

    God did make women different, then Eve ate the fruit and God cursed her… to be like she is now and suffer through child birth.

  141. Isa says:

    My sisters and I hate read the twilight books (I use the term book very loosely) and watched the movies as comedy. The thing is, the dude is a stalker. Who spends all his time thinking about killing fair Bella… The romance part is very, very, hard to find for me as I’d rather not have a homicidal stalker breaking into my bedroom every night to watch me sleep. 50 Shades is twilight (with sex rather than Mormon sparkle fantasies), but it does gave the exact same plot. Cleolinda does a pretty good summary of all books involved here. http://cleolinda.livejournal.com/638712.html

  142. Anon says:

    In the OP :

    The denial is comical, starting with the refusal to accept that women’s reaction 50SOG is driven by sexual desire,

    This is because the cuckservatives and pastorbators think that women simply have NO capacity for sexual desire, since THEY have never in their lives been able to evoke that in women. In fact, the cucks bombard women with groveling and worship, which women find repulsive (just like a man would be repulsed if an obese woman danced naked in front of them all day long). These cuckservatives are in fact terrorizing women nonstop.

    This is why cuckservatives hate husbands and fathers so much. The husband had sex with his wife, which these cuckservatives think is a huge imposition on the women (much like femtwats think all sex is rape). Every family man with children is seen as a rapist – as evidenced by how much cuckservatives hate these men.

  143. Bruce says:

    “her husband has an obligation to remind his wife what Scripture says on the topic.”

    but…but.. those verses are in there for her not for you.

  144. Pingback: Cucked by Courtly Love. | Dalrock

  145. Novaseeker says:

    All of my neighbors are LDS, and something in the water prevents/inoculates against the feminist rebellion, which we should strive to emulate.

    That’s interesting to hear, because my experience with Mormons has been different. I am not in Utah, so I have known far fewer of them, but I have known several families over the years. On the surface they look like they’re anti-feminist, but when you actually look at the marriage dynamic it isn’t very different, in brass tacks terms, from the average Christian American marriage where the woman “leads from behind” and the husband is technically the leader, while he is de facto led by his wife. The Mormons do maintain community much better than most Christians do, from what I can tell, but their marriages aren’t all that different “underneath the hood”, despite outward appearances — again, based on the ones I have observed.

  146. Bruce says:

    Same thing, as far as I can tell, with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. When they stop by, the woman tries to teach us while her husband stands silent in the background. At least with the couple that keeps stopping by our house.

  147. Kevin says:

    @AlphaJed @Novaseeker

    I am LDS.

    LDS is in general far too feminist for me, but does have some intrinsic masculine features that help buffer it from the world.

    Despite calls from many, the LDS have since the foundation consistently only given the governing power of the church – the “priesthood” – to worthy men and the doctrine is that the authority only goes to men. All men in the church are trained and taught they will be leaders in the church and in the home. They receive the priesthood as young men at age 12 and are always instructed that they will be the eventual leaders.

    No women can ever preside in a meeting when a man is there because of the priesthood. As children boys and girls are taught by women and men, but starting at 12 the majority of the instruction young get is only from men. We also do scouts which emphasizes this but that may be going away as scouts gets crazier.

    This separation of priesthood holders from non (essentially men and women) permeates everything in the church. Just as an example, in our religion young men aged 18-25 are expected as a commandment of God to accept the call to serve for 2 years as missionaries. This expectation is everywhere understood as a commandment to the young men. Young women may go on missions if they wish, but everyone acknowledges the difference – young men as priesthood holders are expected to go, women can go or not go because underlying that message is the understanding that the priesthood is more important in leadership and missionary work. Its more important to the young men and church that they learn to become leaders.

    In 1994 the LDS church released a document to reaffirm our view of the family known as the Proclamation on the Family.
    https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

    The relevant quote is here:
    “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

    There is no question that fathers are the leaders and should preside. They are the unquestioned leaders in every talk and every discussion. We could all quibble with that statement (why are fathers to provide in love but women are not given some adjectives to describe how they should nurture or submit).

    OK that is our doctrine – so what about in practice?

    So in practice I think lots of LDS men are pathetic and the women awful. They all dream, just like the rest of the world, of their daughters being doctors and lawyers, not mothers. In my generation about 20% of the women work outside the home. In the next it will probably be 75-80%. And this is despite the LDS being incredibly successful at getting people into the UMC through education – the women still want to fulfill their dreams of career not children even when their husbands make good money. The husbands and fathers face most the common feminist ills of deferring and fearing their wives. LDS men seem to struggle with telling women no. I have never heard a single one of the rising generation of women express a desire to be a mother when they grow up – all careers. And that comes from their fathers and mothers.

    LDS men are often so beta they forget to be alpha to their wives. But – most faithful LDS men still get married young and to pretty women. They work hard and are productive. They tend to have children young (married 22-26, first kid 22-28). Pre-marital infidelity is so serious that people know a man might not marry a woman who was not chaste.

    Are the women submissive? Hmmmm…not sure. Probably not. But in a mixed meeting the women will always defer to the male for leadership. Thats deeply ingrained in our culture. A woman who openly said in our church that she just wanted career and no children would be shamed and people would feel that represented a failed life outside of Christ’s plan.

    So despite our doctrine we struggle with avoiding the feminist poison in the water, but so far we have institutional bulwarks that fight against it.

    This is a link to a Manosphere writer who is a mormon:
    http://www.redgulls.com

    Doctrinal questions about who is and is not Christian and are largely irrelevant to our hosts blog and I am not sure a debate on religion has in the history of the internet changed one mind, but a brief overview of the issues can be found here from the LDS viewpoint:
    https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

  148. Gunner Q says:

    gaikokumaniakku @ May 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm:
    “I would say that anyone who centers his religious life on belief in the divinity of Jesus is a Christian. … I hope other folks will put forward other definitions of what makes a Christian, or else refine the above.”

    The Apostle’s Creed would be a much better litmus test. Mormonism is false because they add the teachings of their founder to, and on top of, Scripture. (Example, IIRC, they don’t accept Christ as God’s *only* Son.)

    Salvation by faith is another litmus test. It’s unique among all religions. If they acknowledge God at all, they see Him as a mere trading partner. Do this for me and I’ll do that for you. Christians have spent much effort over the ages to explode that notion but it keeps coming back. Like a hot chick insisting on getting her PhD so a quality husband will value her, fallen humanity just can’t accept that God wants us as we are: fun, pretty and useless.

    Hindus fail this. All those animal sacrifices to idols, for example, or their concept of karma. If you’re successful in Hindu society, it’s because you deserve success for you past deeds; if you’re a gutter urchin then you must have been a murderer and therefore should be treated as one today, to purge your guilt. It’s basically as a crime among them to show kindness to the poor because by definition, the poor don’t deserve kindness. Such are the consequences of ‘salvation by works’ beliefs.

  149. BillyS says:

    Only having men in official leadership roles is not enough either. My past Christian church had that, but the pastor’s wife had far too much influence even though she did not have an official role.

  150. Splashman says:

    @BillyS, yup, there is appearance (doctrine), and there is reality (practice). The two seldom coincide in individuals; even less in organizations.

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