Dispatch from the friend zone.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has been getting mocked for a series of tweets criticizing millennials:

Scarborough’s ideal activity for young men –fighting in wars– really is a strange view of the good old days.  A more obvious answer would be starting a family, or working towards being able to start a family.  But our societal turn away from marriage can’t be blamed on smart-phones and video games, even though smart-phones and games provide some of the diversions that fill up the time men used to focus on leading and providing for a family.  The truth is that we have formally adopted a new family structure to replace marriage, the child support model.  While we keep marriage around in a ceremonial form, wives forever retain the option to convert these nominal marriages into the child support model at will.

Moreover, as much as Scarborough was pummeled for telling millennial men to man up and do what he didn’t do (join the military), he would have left himself even more open if he had told them to do what he did do;  Scarborough will soon enter his third marriage, which puts him in a tough spot to sell marriage as a moral imperative.  Either Scarborough didn’t honor his own vows, or his wives elected to convert what he thought were marriages to the child support model.

Why can’t other men be humble and noble, like me?

All of this started when Scarborough decided to throw his weight behind Rod Dreher’s recent American Conservative article: Deforming Teens’ Moral Imagination.  Dreher’s article in turn was primarily the publication of a letter from an unnamed reader, a young (Millennial) man.  Dreher’s reader explains that unlike himself, his peers are antisocial and think they are better than everyone they meet:

The presence of other people is treated as a nuisance, an exhausting and tedious task of putting up with overly-energetic plebeians who couldn’t possibly understand your tastes in photography and gritty, authentic literature. I’ve even heard more than one particularly nasty people in this group say, on multiple occasions, that they hate people. Full stop, without qualification, “I hate people.” This is usually occasioned by some petty rudeness or ignorance on part of the unwashed masses with whom these elevated introverts have the misfortune of using the same grocery store or university.

In an ironic twist, the young man explains that he also finds that he is too superior to participate in groups with men his age (emphasis mine):

RUF is about as far from the stereotypical entertainment fluff stereotype of youth / college ministries as you can get. And yet in my senior year when I tried out a couple of community groups, which were split by sex, I found that I simply couldn’t join them. To the best of my recollection, every single male besides myself in both RUF community groups I visited (and there was no overlap of people) was an active porn user, or had been relatively recently. As the discussions went on in both groups, I found myself uncomfortably silent — I’ve never watched or even wanted to watch porn, but I didn’t want to say so and sound impossibly holier-than-thou.

Clearly the young man doesn’t understand the hair-shirt and chest thumping model of modern Christian manhood, and has forgotten the hair-shirt.

Finally he gets to the heart of the issue.  These antisocial men were not only lesser men than him, but they were the men the women his age were attracted to.  Even worse, these are the same women who have friend-zoned our intrepid letter writer:

So there I sat, listening as guys whom girls I know and deeply respect had crushes on and wished would ask them out, go on about how porn was just too hard of a habit to break because of dopamine addiction. The young women who were taken with these young men would no doubt be shocked and horrified to know what these gentlemen spent their evenings doing, and were at risk of walking into a relationship with a porn-addicted man who would almost certainly conceal his private habit from this girl until she was emotionally involved enough that breaking off the relationship would be hard. Because of the confidentiality involved, I couldn’t warn these girls off from dating these guys, and I couldn’t bear to think about the indignity these women would be subjected to in dating these men, so I left and never went back. Most of my good platonic friends in college were women; and I consider the lack of male community where perversion was not the accepted norm to be one of the principal causes of that fact.

Related: 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in American Conservative, Child Support, Game, Marriage, Rod Dreher, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

320 Responses to Dispatch from the friend zone.

  1. Werkof Rodann says:

    As the gamma male saying goes: if you can’t get pussy, be a pussy.

  2. I will never understand why these sanctimonious, chicken-hawk buttholes even pretend to care.
    Open misandry.

    Scarborough needs to visit the burn unit at the local Veterans Hospital. Then he STFU about such things that millennial males are doing and not doing.

    Either way nobody watches Scarborough and his feminist wife except Baby Boomers – the most selfish, narcissistic and degenerate generation ever.

  3. Anon says:

    Cuckservatives can only ever double down.

    Rod Dreher is an infamous mangina who has been destroyed by Heartiste for years…

  4. RPC says:

    So many things to comment on in that millenial’s letter. The thing that stands out the most is the widespread churchian habit of pathologizing normal male sexual impulses and elevating an effeminate male sexuality as not only the ideal for men, but the ideal for women. Inevitably, confusion and envy sets in when women have “crushes” on the “perverts.” Then, instead of healthy self-reflection, they double down and blame the men for performing some kind of mind meld on the helpless women. It’s a grown-up method of coping with the cognitive dissonance so many lower betas and gammas experience in high school.

    Men with strong alpha traits will never be fully accepted in the modern church because so much of the false teaching about marriage and sexuality is there to prop up the fragile egos of lifelong gammas and overweight women who actually run the operation.

    Also, a man who has never even had the DESIRE to look at porn probably has a medical problem. Having no desire to view a woman’s naked body is the true pathology.

  5. Pingback: Dispatch from the friend zone. | @the_arv

  6. earl says:

    Fight in wars and put down other men struggling in sin…that’ll attract women.

  7. earl says:

    Also, a man who has never even had the DESIRE to look at porn probably has a medical problem.

    It’s better to not look at it because it is sinful, objectifies people, and cheapens the act. But it is a very easy habit for men to fall into because it stimulates the same parts of the brain like certain drugs do.

  8. dragnet says:

    Maybe he should re-evaluate his respect for the women who are making bad choices?

    Nah, much easier just to blame other men for womens’ bad decisionmaking.

  9. feeriker says:

    Also, a man who has never even had the DESIRE to look at porn probably has a medical problem. Having no desire to view a woman’s naked body is the true pathology.

    As soon as I saw that statement, my very first thought was “yer fulla shit, pal.”

    I’m sure this little dweeb probably looks at just as much porn as any other random male with a quasi-normal T level. He’s just hamsturbating it away in order to pretend to “Christian AMOG” those men whom he believes are his inferiors. It’s pathetic and hilarious all at once. Picture Steve Urkle trying to AMOG a bunch of WWE cagefighters.

  10. PokeSalad says:

    Lotta Elliot Rodger-vibe in that letter….

  11. earl says:

    As soon as I saw that statement, my very first thought was “yer fulla shit, pal.”

    The doth protest too much idea. Gamma’s are a lot like women in that regard.

  12. RPC says:

    @earl

    I used to think the same way you do. My mind was changed several years ago when I became convinced that Matthew 5:28, the primary scripture used to justify your statement, has been horribly misinterpreted. Larry Solomon at biblicalgenderroles.com was instrumental in changing my mind, but there are others who have discovered the error as well.

  13. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    Interesting how Scarborough’s lament is for the poor poor girlz, why don’t those boys man up and say something to those snowflakes? (Answer: because a high school or college boy saying something to a young woman these days can = harassment, jail him! Expel him!).

    There’s a new Atlantic article called “Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?” which has an interesting sociological take on the phenomenon. When you filter accordingly, an academic type wrote it, but OK. It is most noteworthy for confirming the continuation of trends among “iGen” teens born circa 1995 to now that we have been chronicling:
    1) the death of dating. No one dates as couples anymore, it’s done as groups, even prom dates are now group gatherings. (I have expounded on this topic at Rollo’s way too much).
    2) the death of hanging out. No one goes anywhere. Sometimes there’s nowhere to go. (Many malls and other hangout places are going gone). Sometimes the helicopter parents won’t let them leave the yard.
    3) the death of interacting personally. IF a boy approaches a girl now it’s via text, which can turn into “talking”, which is really Snapchat/Kik/Instagram exchanges. If that goes well then there might be a meetup IRL.
    4) the falloff in fornication. About this you can cheer a bit if you like. Less disease, less teen pregnancy. But it’s because people are either too scared or inhibited to do anything, especially given our “yes means yes” protocols whereby all physical contact is presumed to be assault. Fapping to porn is where it’s at.

    There is some hope – as one teen ages she becomes aware that when she talks to people finally they keep their noses on their screens, which (hooray!) she now sees as irritating.

  14. earl says:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation.

    ‘Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.’ CCC 2354

  15. feministhater says:

    Haha. Porn might be bad but since the church has zero solutions it should stay well away. Getting the Civil authorities involved…. yeah, that worked so well with marriage.. Just so well, let’s do it again!

  16. RPC says:

    @earl

    If I believed in the inerrancy of Catholic teaching your response would be convincing. I do not. Scripture alone is inerrant and I do not believe scripture supports that section of the Catholic catechism.

  17. squid_hunt says:

    Who would have thought Scarborough would jump so quickly from definitive hipster to grumpy old man?

    What are the odds this man up rheteric is in direct result of Mika emasculating him?

  18. feministhater says:

    But it is a very easy habit for men to fall into because it stimulates the same parts of the brain like certain drugs do.

    Porn use releases no more stimuli into the system than having sex does. The difference lies in the input required to get sex vs porn. Porn requires an internet connection, a place to sit and some tissues; sex requires far more work and effort. Porn merely convinces your brain that you are sexually successful and therein lies the problem that all these tradcons have with it. It removes the need for the male to go out and conquer or produce in order to get sex. It removes the drive within men to be dominant.

    It’s an easy habit for men to fall into because they get sex no where else and certainly not in marriage.

  19. earl says:

    Porn use releases no more stimuli into the system than having sex does.

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/similarity-between-porn-drug-addictions-not-surprising/

  20. MKT says:

    “To the best of my recollection, every single male besides myself in both RUF community groups I visited (and there was no overlap of people) was an active porn user, or had been relatively recently”

    And from the same world as RUF (Reformed Presbyterianism), you get this horrid article, which says porn use is a surefire get-out of-your-marriage card:
    http://theaquilareport.com/high-view-marriage-includes-divorce/

    The female author says “Someone who seeks out sexually explicit material and has a physical response to it is in the same mental, physical, and spiritual condition as someone in bed with a coworker. The difference is that the relationship with the coworker is at least private and limited, while porn use accepts and subsidizes an entire industry of sexual sin that is maintained by abuse and slavery…Deliberate and repeated porn use is at least adultery, regardless of whether there is repentance at some point.”

    So if almost every future man has (or had) a porn problem, and if that’s instant disqualification from marriage, does it mean this group of Christians will cease to exist within a generation or two?

  21. feministhater says:

    Yes, we’ve all seen that before earl. You just need to explain how a visual stimuli equals drug use. They couldn’t and you can’t. You could say the same for food or any stimuli.

  22. feministhater says:

    When a pornography addict is presented with explicit materials, chemical signals from the senses “go directly to the brain’s pleasure center and call up dopamine … without being processed by the mind any more.

    Exactly like, wait for it, wait for it….. sex. In other words, porn is a work around for the reward/pleasure center of the brain as I said already. You will get sex addicts with the exact same brain centers lighting up when they have sex.

    The problem is the ease at which it is available. So, once again, like with anything in the world. You have to learn to control your urges.

  23. MKT says:

    For the record, I’m not defending porn at all, or putting down everyone in the Reformed Presby world (I’ve spent a lot of time there). However, I’m hearing more and more that Christian women should “never” marry any man who’s had a porn problem. When they further filter into their denomination of choice (Reformed, Catholic, Baptist, etc.), do they realize how small their pool of potential husbands will be? And what about all of the Evangelical emphasis on grace, forgiveness and repentance? Somehow porn is just too icky for that?

  24. feministhater says:

    For the record, I’m not defending porn at all, or putting down everyone in the Reformed Presby world (I’ve spent a lot of time there). However, I’m hearing more and more that Christian women should “never” marry any man who’s had a porn problem. When they further filter into their denomination of choice (Reformed, Catholic, Baptist, etc.), do they realize how small their pool of potential husbands will be? And what about all of the Evangelical emphasis on grace, forgiveness and repentance? Somehow porn is just too icky for that?

    I agree with them. It saves those men from a horrid divorce in future.

  25. earl says:

    Exactly like, wait for it, wait for it….. sex. In other words, porn is a work around for the reward/pleasure center of the brain as I said already.

    Then it’s not exactly like it…one actually requires some effort for the reward, the other is just putting everything on easy mode to get the dopamine. It’s like the difference between dopamine from an exercise high and a drug high.

  26. Lost Patrol says:

    @RPC

    I would have guessed you were Roman Catholic from your G. K. Chesterton photo. If you are not, may I ask why you chose that image? Merely curious and none of my business if you don’t care to answer.

  27. Chris Nystrom says:

    I loved the comment from the Anon wife about not sharing the info with the ladies because, “It appears to come from a place of resentment and subconscious expectation that these women would leave their boyfriends and date you.”

    Very true. Indeed it does. He fails to understand what women want.

  28. feministhater says:

    Yes earl, I stated that above. The problem is the article you linked to was trying to confer that porn and drugs are the same. No, they’re not. The similarity is merely the reward areas of the brain lighting up, the same happens when we eat food, or partake in a fun activity.

    As I stated originally, the problem is the input required to get the reward. That is the reason tradcons hate porn, the same reason they will hate VR reality sex when it becomes largely available or sex bots or anything that removes the need for the male to slave away at their behest in order to achieve sexual release and be sexually satisfied. That’s all it’s about.

    If the church or tradcons or conservatives really wanted to solve the problem, they would be berating women for not having sex with their husbands enough or the problem of women delaying marriage for so long that men live in sexually deprived deserts for most of their twenties.

    Just saying but blaming porn is just another method of tackling the symptom and not the cause.

  29. earl says:

    Tradcons berating women, that’ll be the day…they are just closet feminists.

  30. Snowy says:

    RPC said in response to Earl, “If I believed in the inerrancy of Catholic teaching your response would be convincing. I do not. Scripture alone is inerrant and I do not believe scripture supports that section of the Catholic catechism.”

    As much as I do appreciate Earl’s comments, I too am tiring of seeing the Catholic catechism quotes from Earl. The KJV Holy Bible is the only inerrant word of God.

  31. RPC says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Because I absolutely love G.K. Chesterton. I converted to Christianity out of a liberal-humanitarian abyss when I was in my late teens and both Lewis and Chesterton were instrumental in laying the rational framework of my faith. I find Chesterton to have somewhat more depth and far more wit to his writing than Lewis.

    I have no personal beef with Roman Catholicism. In fact, in my growing disgust with modern Evangelicalism I looked into several of the more conservative RC churches in my area. However, after talking with an old friend who is devout Catholic, I realized I could not be Catholic in good conscience for the same underlying reason I disagree with Earl. I view many of the church’s core beliefs as extra-biblical, and I have too much self-respect (or maybe rebelliousness) to just pretend I agree and not ask questions (like so many nominal Catholics). The Enlightenment mindset is hard to shake!

  32. earl says:

    The KJV Holy Bible is the only inerrant word of God.

    Based on what?

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    MKT
    I’m hearing more and more that Christian women should “never” marry any man who’s had a porn problem.

    I’ve run across this here and there, and my question always winds up “Do women also disqualify themselves via repeated porn use?”. Lots of answers to that, most of them confused and/or ignorant.

    Anyone who asserts “porn use disqualifies for marriage” needs to take the average 20 year old churchgoing college girl’s smartphone for a cruise. Start with the books / text from Goodreads, Amazon and Barnes & Noble in epub or kindle format. See what has taken the place of “50 Shades of Grey” in the college market.

    Beta orbiting pedestalizers should not be in charge of churches.

  34. Snowy says:

    MKT quoted an article that said, “…while porn use accepts and subsidizes an entire industry of sexual sin that is maintained by abuse and slavery.”

    I’m pretty sure most of the porn available on sites like PornHub, which includes “professional” and amateur (“community”) material is being produced with actors who are doing it of their own free will: no abuse and no slavery. In fact the female actors are paid generously, at higher rates than the men. Many women are attracted to acting in porn by the money involved. Of course their will to do such things has been influenced by the world around them. But to call it abuse and slavery is just plain wrong. Slaves to the money, perhaps. But not true slaves.

  35. earl says:

    I view many of the church’s core beliefs as extra-biblical

    Apostolic tradition and the Magisterium. And they are not independent of Scripture.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PM.HTM

  36. earl says:

    I’m hearing more and more that Christian women should “never” marry any man who’s had a porn problem.

    Fine…then Christian men should never marry a woman who’s had a promiscuity problem…only virgins. You can’t berate men’s sexual sins while overlooking women’s.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dreher is such a weepy, depressed, beaten down beta that I quit reading anything by him a few years ago. It was just too tedious. He should get help for that depression. Seriously. Start by having his T checked.

    Don’t know much about Scarborough but emoting in this manner is not manly. Who does he think has been going downrange to the sandbox and the ‘stans for the last 10 years if not Millennials?

    It isn’t that hard for someone over 30 to get a clue what the social scene for 20-somethings looks like, provided one can put ye olde ego aside long enough to shut up and listen. Perhaps that is why so few pundits have such a clue?

  38. Lost Patrol says:

    Thanks RPC. I also owe much to Lewis and Chesterton. Chesterton operated at the borders of my reading skills. I can read pretty fast, but with his work I have to slow right down if I want to keep up…

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    MKT: I’m hearing more and more that Christian women should “never” marry any man who’s had a porn problem.

    Pastors should teach that Christian men should never marry a woman who has a romance novel problem. Romance novels are porn.

    Nor should a Christian man marry a woman who’s addicted to Lifetime or Hallmark movies, as those are pure misandry.

  40. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Today “bad boys” (i.e., men) are blamed for women’s fornication. Godly women being led astray by cads.

    Yet in the past, “bad girls” were blamed for men’s fornication. Jezebel and Whore of Babylon were common terms for “loose women.”

    It’s interesting that there’s been a complete turnaround over who alone is to blame for what is a mutual sin.

  41. Lost Patrol says:

    @AR

    “Do women also disqualify themselves via repeated porn use?”

    take the average 20 year old churchgoing college girl’s smartphone for a cruise.

    Borrowing both of these lines – thank you very much.

  42. earl says:

    , I too am tiring of seeing the Catholic catechism quotes from Earl.

    Fair enough…but would you care to point out to me what is wrong with the stance on porn they’ve presented. I happen to think it’s a pretty good explanation.

  43. Anonymous REader says:

    Not to get into the weeds, but there are articles from time to time in the financial press about the porn industry. It’s not making nearly as much money as it used to back in the 90’s, partly because online hosting sites with amateur porn are providing the same “content” for free that used to be only available on a DVD. The US hub of porn movies used to be in the San Fernando valley area of Los Angeles, and many of the white, native-English speaking women involved used to go to various trade shows quite openly. Not the behavior of sex slaves. And again, I am not wanting to go down the rabbit trail of “porn”, but am pointing out facts that are generally ignored by the Chrisian pundits

    Anyone who wants to brush up against the edge of what may well be genuine sex-slave operations can do so easily, just search for “massage parlor” and “arrest” in any major metro area. For example, arrests made last week. Philly undercover vice cops caught some small time women. Ar there bigger fish in that pond? Oh, I bet there are.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Cops-Massage-therapists-charged-with-prostitution-after-Chinatown-sting.htm

    http://www.metro.us/local/police-bust-alleged-chinatown-massage-parlors-but-erotic-ads-remain-online/tmWmam—17NEKzmvIfHrAl

    There’s more to say on this, but I don’t want to threadjack.

  44. Snowy says:

    @ Earl

    I believe that any Christian who has not had their conscience pricked regarding the KJV-only issue, and done their due diligence to satisfy their conscience, is not doing themselves any favours.

    Perhaps you’ve done that, and have rejected KJV-only. Perhaps the thought never crossed your mind. Perhaps you believe the Catholic Bible to be the one (I grant its very close, but has still been tampered with). I don’t know. But to believe that Satan cannot and has not corrupted God’s inerrant word, with the hundreds of perversion versions, is not wise. Note that I am not saying that that’s what you’re doing. I actually think you’re trying to bait me with your question, “Based on what?” Based on my research, and my conscience.

    May I recommend that you have a look at the book, “FOREVER SETTLED”, by Jack Moorman?” It provides an excellent history of the bible and its documents. It answers well the question “Where was the bible before the KJV 1611?”

    If you’re serious about your question, it’s a start for you, anyway.

  45. earl says:

    I’m just asking based on what evidence or authority is the KJV the only inerrant Word of God. Why was every other translation before or after corrupt? There had to be some authority to determine that.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fred Flange the one and only:
    There’s a new Atlantic article called “Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?” which has an interesting sociological take on the phenomenon

    I think that diving into smartphones is both a cause and a symptom of bigger things. Even teens that only are allowed a basic flip-phone – voice, text, limited camera – still go about in herds / groups, are more prone to “netflix & chill” than going out, etc. The hammering that boys receive in the K-12 system is bad and getting worse, the whole “yes means yes until it doesn’t” is making young men with any degree of a future-time orientation even more tentative around girls, the girls are confused because they are brainwashed with YouGoGrrl but their hindbrains want something else…the list goes on.

    The smart phone and tablet now serve the same purpose that cable TV plus video rental plus movie plus bookstore did 25 years ago. But there’s larger social forces out there that are pressing in on young people. Some of those forces are approved of by Atlantic writers. But we aren’t supposed to notice that.

  47. earl says:

    Pastors should teach that Christian men should never marry a woman who has a romance novel problem. Romance novels are porn.

    LOL…the feminist pastors would somehow rationalize how women reading 50 Shades of Grey is Christian.

  48. Son of Liberty says:

    Catholic Joe knows exactly who behind Nazism, the rise and spread of feminism, perversion, Hollywood propaganda, division, and the destruction of the last Christian nation on earth. But since he is payed to agitate, and spread propaganda, then I am not surprised.

    The Catholic-Jesuit Plot for World Domination – http://jesuits.webs.com/
    The Black Pope: A History of the Jesuits – http://a.co/c9F2mKA

  49. Pingback: Dispatch from the friend zone. | Reaction Times

  50. redlight says:

    “LOL…the feminist pastors would somehow rationalize how women reading 50 Shades of Grey is Christian”

    of course it is Christian by the male lead

  51. imnobody00 says:

    I view many of the church’s core beliefs as extra-biblical

    “Apostolic tradition and the Magisterium. And they are not independent of Scripture.”

    Not to mention that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and there was no Bible before 400 or so. The first apostles, such as Paul, had no Bible.

    And nowhere in the Bible says that the Bible is the only source (in fact, it says the opposite)

    Luther did a remarkable thing. Judging a church using the Bible as the litmus test is like judging the Windows operating system using the Windows manual written afterwards.

  52. imnobody00 says:

    Having said that, I agree that it is better to avoid sectarian differences here and not to quote the Cathecism of the Catholic Church

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It will be ever harder for women to “marry up,” because women are outnumbering men in college by an ever increasing ratio: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-men-are-the-new-college-minority/536103/?

    This fall, women will comprise more than 56 percent of students on campuses nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Some 2.2 million fewer men than women will be enrolled in college this year. And the trend shows no sign of abating. By 2026, the department estimates, 57 percent of college students will be women.

    Of course, most “college educated” women are not studying anything of substance. Indeed, much of what they study is destructive garbage, resulting in GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) brains and personalities. GIGO women carrying high student debts.

  54. earl says:

    I’ll quote the Catechism if it provides useful information to the discussion…like explaining the reasons why pornography is a grave sin. I can’t help it if it causes some to be uncomfortable.

  55. Kevin says:

    Always with the video games. Young men are just playing video games while the girls perform perform – oh no women hardest hit. The video game data is weak as an explanatory factor except in the most extreme cases. But it fits the narrative of weak men screwing up feminism so it goes on and on. Men play video games because women shut them out of marriage so they could be professionals. What do women do with all their money and spare time? Go shopping for name brand $500 purses and go on vacations. But video games is the real problem.

    “’I’ve never watched or even wanted to watch porn…”
    Who cares what a gay guy thinks about porn? That’s not very kind since he is probably just very religious, but never even wanting to watch porn? I guess it depends on how you define “want”. I am happily married, but do I “want” to have sex with super models? Sure, not enough to violate Gods laws or think much about it, but the temptation exists. The porn thresh hold is so much lower.

    Working with so many people who struggle with porn it may actually be the thing that is destroying the brains of the next generation (www.yourbrainonporn.com). Its low thresh hold, hard to break. It is a great tool of the devil. But the idea of the young writer that people who have struggled with porn will not make good husbands is wrong. They can all repent and Christ can heal them. And after he does, they will not be the whiny beta orbiter of the letter writer.

    “Scarborough’s ideal activity for young men –fighting in wars– really is a strange view of the good old days.” Funny rhetoric but otherwise garbage. Lots of people compare the greatness of that generation to the pathetic millennials and our host is putting words into the authors mouth- that it is his ideal. He is saying something everyone says about millennial men and women – they are about 50% total losers.

  56. Son of Liberty says:

    imnobody00 says:
    August 8, 2017 at 5:57 pm
    Not to mention that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and there was no Bible before 400 or so. The first apostles, such as Paul, had no Bible.

    Not quite true actually. The Hebrew manuscripts and the Textus Receptus in Koine Greek was completed by John no later than the 2nd century. “Compiling” or “canonization” is not Biblical nor present in neither of the Old or New Testaments. At that time as well, Gnostic, Alexandrian, Egyptian/Babylon derived ideologies where growing and rising in Alexandria Egypt, where its fundamental teachings states that “one becomes gods”, serpent teaching. These principles where found in literature and stored in the destroyed Alexandrian libraries where inspired for the creation of he Latin Vulgate 20 years later, following the creation of the pagan Church of Rome and merged with “christian” doctrine. Ancient fallen angel gods, such as Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, which are none other than renamed Nephilim of Babylon was fully embed in calendars of Rome, gods in the temples masqueraded as virgin Mary, baby Jesus, Peter, etc. After 10 million Christians have been slaughtered for refusal to worship the Roman Church, then the greatest trick ever pulled to lure them in was to masquerade the church with “christian doctrine”, created canonizations using extra biblical sources and since then, it is what we see today as the New World Order bibles, corrupted, edited and vastly different from What the Hebrew and Greek scripts indicate.

    Which Bible Translation is Best and Most Accurate? KJV 1611 – Walter Veith – https://youtu.be/0du5iGeKyDw
    King James vs Other Bible Versions – Dr. Kent Hovind – https://youtu.be/I98SDiZC72E

    Revelation, written 2000 years ago, way before the Vatican, prophesied the creation of the Geneva, King James, Reina Valera, Almeida, Luther bibles to revamp what was suppressed, destroyed and hidden during the dark ages reign of the Catholic Church that was named the 1260 years of the Great Tribulation of Revelation, the Little Book that will taste like honey.

    The Little Book Of Revelation 10
    http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/the-little-book-of-revelation-10/

    But I would agree that today, neither “sect” or “denomination” is of trust, as they all have fallen to the harlotry and spiritual fornication of the mother harlot as prophesied in Revelation.

  57. KJV-only is honestly the most ridiculous idea ever. You are implying that people didn’t have the true word of God for 1600 years. No, you need to do some more research.

  58. Walter Veith is a rabid Seventh Day Adventist, so I would take anything he says with liberal amounts of salt.

  59. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The problem with the KJV bible, from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, is that it’s incomplete. The KJV bible has 66 books, whereas the Catholic bible has 73. The Catholic books of Esther and Daniel also contain additional chapters missing from the KJV Bible: http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm

    I’m not sure how many books the Orthodox bibles have. According to Wikipedia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has the most books of any Christian bible — 81.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Red Pill Latecomer
    Of course, most “college educated” women are not studying anything of substance.

    Worse yet they tend to be carrying anywhere north of $20,000 in debt for college. The fancier the school, the bigger the debt. So rather than buy a house, a newly married man gets to help his bride pay down her negagive dowry starting at the age of 29.999.

    Now, where are the oh so concerned writers in the Christian sphere who even mention this?
    Where, outside of the androsphere is it even mentioned. And it is kid stuff, it’s on a par with balancing a checkbook – this much debt service means that much less saving.

    The adult topic of hypergamy is lurking just underneath the “college grad” girl skin, which makes the issue more complicated. Again, outside of the androsphere, who even knows the word? So men who don’t have a clue about the debt structure of the average new college graduate woman, who assumes she’s just like their mom back in 1968, tells men of the modern world what to do.

    Is it any wonder that younger men are not interested in churches such as those run by Tim Keller, John Piper, Doug Wilson, or Pope Francis? It’s not so much the blind leading the blind, as the blind and deaf yelling at the one-eyed man who can hear just fine, thanks very much.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Keith
    He is saying something everyone says about millennial men and women – they are about 50% total losers.

    “The beatings will continue until attitudes improve” – sure, that’s got to work if you just double down on it enough times.

  62. earl says:

    I honestly don’t know why a sheepskin on the wall and a large amount of debt gives them the idea that they are now a class above the blue collar trade school working man who makes a good salary. Then again I don’t think emotionally.

  63. Kevin says:

    I missed the discussion about marriage and porn.

    I had a discussion with a married women with a husband who is the most alpha man in the world and very very blue pill. She is very pretty and has a very pretty cousin that left her husband because of porn (that was the excuse). We were talking about this and I asked why it would be ok to leave a marriage for porn.

    “Because it damages the sexual relationship in the marriage?”
    “That’s fair, but I disagree that is a reason to divorce. So, if a woman were to withhold sex in marriage and have it much less than her husband wanted, she would be damaging the sexual relationship in the marriage? Is that cause for divorce?”

    Head exploding, sputtering in disbelief that we would hold women and not just men in marriage accountable for their sexual decisions.

    Porn is a problem spiritually and hard to quit for those that want to. But its not the sin to end all sins and Christians are over emphasizing it and sucking the souls out of the young men (and increasingly young women) who struggle with it. Satan is winning double – getting the young men damaging their own souls and then getting Churches to castigate the men and teach the women that the men are broken perverts.

  64. MKT says:

    “Anyone who asserts “porn use disqualifies for marriage” needs to take the average 20 year old churchgoing college girl’s smartphone for a cruise. Start with the books / text from Goodreads, Amazon and Barnes & Noble in epub or kindle format. See what has taken the place of “50 Shades of Grey” in the college market.”

    I can just hear some church ladies now…”That sounds like my daughter. The one with pink and purple streaks in her hair and a few tattoos. And I certainly won’t allow her to marry a dirty porn addict…whether he’s repented or not!”

  65. MKT says:

    “Porn is a problem spiritually and hard to quit for those that want to. But its not the sin to end all sins and Christians are over emphasizing it and sucking the souls out of the young men (and increasingly young women) who struggle with it. Satan is winning double – getting the young men damaging their own souls and then getting Churches to castigate the men and teach the women that the men are broken perverts.”

    Very well put.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Borrowing both of these lines – thank you very much.

    Everything I write is “open source”. As Bruce Lee said, “Take what works, leave what does not”.

  67. necroking48 says:

    Lol, That’s what changed my mind as well…..Churchians and brainwashed religious mangina’s have always attempted to demonize male sexuality by falsely quoting Matthew 5:28
    My own personal study on this verse and related verses, proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt that not only do churchians (comprised mostly of beta cucks anyway), have not a clue in what this verse really is saying, but they are ignorant of the fact that Jesus himself also lusted….The exact same Greek word for lust ἐπιθυμεω is used to describe Jesus lusting after the Passover in Luke 22:15…..Since Jesus cannot sin, we have direct proof that 1: lust is not always sinful, and 2: lust is not sexual in nature

    Anyway I’m getting off the topic here….any time I hear someone bash porn and condemn those who watch it, i just laugh to myself, knowing how ignorant they really are

  68. earl says:

    Head exploding, sputtering in disbelief that we would hold women and not just men in marriage accountable for their sexual decisions.

    Holding a rebellious woman accountable for any of their faults is grounds for wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    While porn is not a justifiable excuse to alleviate it…there’s probably a lot of truth that the wives withhold sex in the marriage (because of feels and/or rebellion) and the husbands find other outlets. Even Paul addresses that they should not deprive each other unless there’s mutual consent for a time otherwise Satan will come in and tempt them.

    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-5.htm

  69. earl says:

    My own personal study on this verse and related verses

    Well that’s the first problem.

    Comparing Jesus desire to eat the Passover meal before his Passion (which brought about the Eucharist) with a man’s desire to lust after a woman is about as apples and oranges as you can get.

  70. MKT says:

    The article I posted (“A High View of Marriage Includes Divorce”) is awful on multiple levels. In addition to the porn = easy divorce = worse than real adultery = blanket support of sex abuse/slavery, it’s filled with stuff like this “Wives in particular are told that God requires that they forgive a repentant spouse, which is true, and that this means that they need to stay in the marriage, which is not true” and “This fact is especially true for women, who suffer at the hands of men whose actions mock servant leadership and so blaspheme the name of the Christ.” The authoer never points out sins of wives (denying sex for long periods or altogether, disrespecting their husbands and mocking their headship, etc.). If someone wrote a rebuttal, though, I seriously doubt the same site would publish it.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin
    Head exploding, sputtering in disbelief that we would hold women and not just men in marriage accountable for their sexual decisions.

    You pitch a softball. A good softball, but still a softball. Try this one:
    “When does sexual refusal – with no health issues involved – by a wife constitute violation of her wedding vows, ending the marriage?” I guarantee that will bring most churchgoing people, especially the traditional conservatives, to a moment of confusion if not cognitive dissonance.

    You can play with fuzzy boundaries this way: “Ok, so one night of sexual refusal because she’s “mad” or “tired” or “not in the mood” is acceptable, how about a week? Month? Three months? At what point is this abusive? At what point does this breach the marriage contract / covenant?”

    You’ll never get a direct answer. There’s a fuzzy distribution: one night of refusal is generally just fine, somewhere over a month most people get kind of unsure about, but there will always be some feminist / tradcon who is totally fine with a “married” woman refusing her husband for as long as it takes for him to submit to her rule. Which is the point of sexual refusal: weaponizing sex as a tool for control. That’s why tradcons won’t confront it…

    Earl already pointed to a BIble quote on this topic that looks very sensible. Yet it doesn’t seem to get mentioned much by church leaders. Strange, eh?

  72. Isa says:

    @earl The sheepskin doesn’t, but it is down to their parents to raise them to understand that. Growing up immersed in home repair, carpentry, etc. will give you a great appreciation of the craftsmanship of even a 3 year journeyman. Add to that strict control of what may and may not be studied in university (vocations with jobs attached only) and the debt and snobbiness ought to be taken care of.

  73. Son of Liberty says:

    necroking48 says:
    August 8, 2017 at 6:45 pm
    Lol, That’s what changed my mind as well…..Churchians and brainwashed religious mangina’s have always attempted to demonize male sexuality by falsely quoting Matthew 5:28
    My own personal study on this verse and related verses, proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt that not only do churchians (comprised mostly of beta cucks anyway), have not a clue in what this verse really is saying, but they are ignorant of the fact that Jesus himself also lusted….The exact same Greek word for lust ἐπιθυμεω is used to describe Jesus lusting after the Passover in Luke 22:15…..Since Jesus cannot sin, we have direct proof that 1: lust is not always sinful, and 2: lust is not sexual in nature

    Anyway I’m getting off the topic here….any time I hear someone bash porn and condemn those who watch it, i just laugh to myself, knowing how ignorant they really are

    Excellent analysis. It is very important for us individually to read and dissect the Bible as it mandates us to do, and not listen to others with an agenda. No wonder Catholic priests forbade anyone from reading the Bible, especially the King James, but now that we have it, we have little patience to research it.

  74. RPC says:

    @imnobody00

    Judging a church using the Bible as the litmus test is like judging the Windows operating system using the Windows manual written afterwards.

    If your Windows program is dysfunctional and spitting out error messages then it certainly would be helpful to consult the manual.

  75. earl says:

    Yet it doesn’t seem to get mentioned much by church leaders. Strange, eh?

    Probably because it says the period of time off must be of mutual consent…not just the wife’s.

  76. earl says:

    No wonder Catholic priests forbade anyone from reading the Bible…

    D’ok…I must have missed that forbidden proclamation last week in Mass when we were all reading scripture along with the priest.

  77. Son of Liberty says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    August 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    The problem with the KJV bible, from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, is that it’s incomplete. The KJV bible has 66 books, whereas the Catholic bible has 73. The Catholic books of Esther and Daniel also contain additional chapters missing from the KJV Bible: http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm

    I’m not sure how many books the Orthodox bibles have. According to Wikipedia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has the most books of any Christian bible — 81.

    First, who decides what is complete and incomplete? Who decides the number of books? Canonization (catholic term and invention), and or denominations? But what we DO know, is that Revelation 10, an individual and singular book prophesied the Little Book that will taste like honey, therefore we have an idea what book has authority over any man made attempt of perversion over the years at a minimum, directly from God’s revilement to John, and that nobody shall edit anything beyond John final authorship. And any other books not in the 66 come from Alexandrian Gnosticism principles, where no mention of Jesus is made but of vague doctrines that stand out from the 66, BUT do offer great historic reference as aid in timelines and events. That’s Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17 for you. But anyways, off-topic.. thanks Joe Scarborough.

  78. Son of Liberty says:

    earl says:
    August 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm
    No wonder Catholic priests forbade anyone from reading the Bible…
    D’ok…I must have missed that forbidden proclamation last week in Mass when we were all reading scripture along with the priest.

    Anyone can claim their creations as scripture…
    The Queen James Bible

  79. I know all about traditional marriages–I’ve had three of ’em! Thank you, I’ll be here all week! Tip your waiter!

  80. earl says:

    If your Windows program is dysfunctional and spitting out error messages then it certainly would be helpful to consult the manual.

    Although it wouldn’t be helpful to take out a few chapters in the manual because they don’t line up with how you think the operating system should work.

  81. American says:

    “While we keep marriage around in a ceremonial form, wives forever retain the option to convert these nominal marriages into the child support model at will.”

    ^ The number one reason why I never married or had children. I never gave any woman the opportunity to use the state as a tool to forcibly extrace divorce goodies from me. 🙂

  82. Gunner Q says:

    There are lots of young men today who would love to violently liberate Europe from the Muzzies. Especially the hot Swedish women of Europe. Would Joe Scarborough be opposed to that, I wonder? If an ethnically violent, anti-Christian religion intent on spreading via conquest wasn’t acceptable in 1935 then why is it acceptable now?

    “Our smartphone culture impacts young men in the most profound way. It is often younger women who suffer the most.”

    He knew he’d be mocked for this one. He had to have known. Please tell me he knew.

    earl @ 5:34 pm:
    “I’m just asking based on what evidence or authority is the KJV the only inerrant Word of God.”

    None. Just smile and don’t make sudden posts, and the fanatics usually wander off.

  83. jonathanjones02 says:

    RPC – the Apostolic faith (Catholic/Orthodox, what a tragic split) is the source of the Bible, meaning that the Church came first, and the Bible is literally a product of it. This is one of the reasons why the Catechism, like the Theology of the Body, has so much of value to say on this topic….if the claims to Apostolic spiritual authority are true, then how we relate to the Logos is not only by the books of the Bible (although Protestants should be applauded for, probably, on the average having a higher knowledge base of it).

  84. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Son of Liberty: And any other books not in the 66 come from Alexandrian Gnosticism principles, where no mention of Jesus is made

    This from Wisdom 2:12-20:

    “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

    The above excerpt from the Book of Wisdom seems to mention Jesus. The Catholics (and I think the Orthodox) have the Book of Wisdom, whereas most (all?) Protestants do not.

  85. Boxer says:

    The author of Dalrock blog is far too polite and civil.

    Scarborough will soon enter his third marriage, which puts him in a tough spot to sell marriage as a moral imperative.

    Scarborough is a moral reprobate. In a world which seems full of innocent men who are plundered by psychopathic women, he is the degenerate exception that proves the rule. He’ll be married to Zbigniew’s kid for a couple of years, tops, before she catches him banging someone younger, hotter, tighter, and gets those papers filed.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-affair/

    People like this don’t have the self-discipline for marriage, and they also don’t have the self-awareness to simply live as bachelors. They must spread their misery around to others.

  86. earl says:

    OT. Some good stuff here, but…

    Until this nugget comes out (I wondered when it would happen)

    ‘Let’s be honest, there are men out there that need to spend a lot more time and effort loving their spouses like Jesus loves the church—giving himself up for her. Husbands are called to love their wives in this way. There are men (most of us I presume) who need to die more to themselves in loving service to their wives. We need to be pursuing our wives better, planning date nights, and going out of our way to love and serve her.’

    You know…happy wife, happy life. And I kept reading to see if I could see if he would bring up the wives submitting in everything to their husbands as the church does to Christ…nothing.

  87. Anon says:

    Speaking of ever-escalating cuckservatism :

    Don’t forget that the National Review Cuckservative Cruise is starting soon :

    http://www.nrcruise.com/

    Where else will you get a star-studded lineup of Rich Lowry, Brad Wilcucks, Jim Gay-ratty, and others all in one place? This is 24/7 cuckservatism around the clock. The cruise is 80% male to boot, and all the women are over 50.

    If that was not enough, there is more! There will be a pre-planned ship sinking designed to simulate the Titanic. Under Rich Lowry’s direction, you will be expected to die so some of the women can feel special while Rich Lowry describes your sacrifice. The 80/20 ratio of men to women provides plenty of men for the experience. While it is true that this ship is never more than a few miles from the CT/NY/NJ shore so it is very easy to save everyone if that were the goal, it will still be your honor to die in order to deliver the true Titanic/Cuckservative experience.

    This is purest and most intense cuckservative experience available; truly the superconductor of cuckservatism.

    All this is available for the low, low price of just $12,000. Your own ticket costs $6000. In the spirit of true cuckservatism, you will also be expected to pay for a woman’s ticket; a woman you don’t even know. If you are fortunate you will get to pay for the ticket of the larger than life Kathryn Jean Lopez.

    Kathryn is a senior figure at National Review. There is a typo in her title. Instead of ‘Editor at Large’ they meant to say ‘Editor is Large’.

    Man up, get your affairs in order, forget how to swim, and pay $12,000 for the all-immersive NR cuckservative cruise today!

  88. Anon says:

    Kevin,

    I had a discussion with a married women with a husband who is the most alpha man in the world and very very blue pill.

    This sentence is very contradictory. It is impossible to be alpha while also very blue pill, unless you are very famous but blue pill in thought (like Brad Pitt), or an ultra-natural who does not know it and assumes his skill level is common among men.

  89. Gary Eden says:

    4) the falloff in fornication. About this you can cheer a bit if you like.

    No actually this is a really bad sign. Since there has not been a rise enforcing prohibitions against fornication, nor a mass awakening, this is a result of a breakdown in our societies ability to breed. Our social fabric is cracking up.

    If that kid in the OP wasn’t so busy worshiping women he’d realize that they watch just as much porn as the men he decries.

    Which verse in the Old Testament calls porn sinful?

  90. feeriker says:

    …there’s probably a lot of truth that the wives withhold sex in the marriage (because of feels and/or rebellion) and the husbands find other outlets. Even Paul addresses that they should not deprive each other unless there’s mutual consent for a time otherwise Satan will come in and tempt them.

    I swear, the next time I hear or read of some married harridan whining about her husband’s porn habit*, the gloves are going to come off and the first thing out of my mouth or off of my fingertips is going be some version/variation of this:

    “Dust off and bathe that cobweb-filled stink chamber down below, take off the bitch costume and mask, ditch the screaming and start using your ‘inside voice,’ with a couple of drops of affection mixed in from time to time and try being his personal pornstarlet in the bedroom. Odds are that his ‘porn habit’ will be gone faster than dessert at an Overeater’s Anonymous buffet table.

    “But if that’s too much effort for you, then you need to just STFU about his porn habit, or any ‘nookie on the side’ that he might be getting. By neglecting him sexually, you are declaring emphatically ‘F*** YOU, I DON’T CARE.” So start acting like you don’t care and leave him alone. Otherwise, start acting like a wife! You don’t get to have it both ways, toots!”

    The screams of offended outrage would make such a diatribe well worthwhile.

    (* Odds are overwhelming that she has no proof of any such “porn habit.” She’s just concocting excuses to continue being criminally negligient and derelict in her wifely obligations.)

  91. feeriker says:

    Kathryn is a senior figure at National Review. There is a typo in her title. Instead of ‘Editor at Large’ they meant to say ‘Editor is Large’.

    Hopefully the cruise line has been given sufficient advance notice that they’re going to have to double the quantity of food supplies on board, double the size of the buffet tables, and add an extra life boat. They might also have to locate a pair of cabins separated by removable bulkheads so that they can combine two into one.

  92. Shiningtime says:

    I cringe reading that. It used to be ME before my awakening in the military. This idea of superiority ironically comes from never interacting or testing ones own theories against reality. Lots of young people are overly confident and self assured. That’s just how it is. A beta like this guy deeply believes his own bs because he’s an introvert and probably has never really stepped out of his comfort zone.

    Narcissism and a superiority complex taken to the extreme have gotten many many people hurt throughout history.

  93. NRO makes money from the cruise. That is a revenue stream for them (just a tiny factrion of the $12,000 goes to the cruise line.)

    They are broke guys. Broke. They have to sell their ass (for lack of a better word) in order to keep the lights on and the website free. But yes, they are broke.

  94. Anon says:

    They are broke guys. Broke. They have to sell their ass (for lack of a better word) in order to keep the lights on and the website free. But yes, they are broke.

    If so, that is the best news I have heard in a while.

  95. dvdivx says:

    Is it just me or is it weird that the Millennial had no male friends? I never had any female friends. Didn’t see the point. Most of my close friends were foreigners or the group I played D&D with. I went out with girls but not as a friend just for dates.

  96. They Call Me Tom says:

    “I have no personal beef with Roman Catholicism. In fact, in my growing disgust with modern Evangelicalism I looked into several of the more conservative RC churches in my area. However, after talking with an old friend who is devout Catholic, I realized I could not be Catholic in good conscience for the same underlying reason I disagree with Earl. I view many of the church’s core beliefs as extra-biblical, and I have too much self-respect (or maybe rebelliousness) to just pretend I agree and not ask questions (like so many nominal Catholics). The Enlightenment mindset is hard to shake!”

    You should read some of the history of Constantinople, you might get a sense of where the eccentricities came from. At least that’s one of my two big takeaways from Constantinople’s history. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches fell into a bad habit of disagreeing simply to disagree during the years of the early Church. The result are traditions/dogmas that are in some cases contradictory. The faiths themselves are not flawed, just the church’s application of the faith at times. There’s a short story at the start of The Decameron’s tales that I think captures the picture pretty well.

    The short version is this: A Christian man has a Jewish friend, who he thinks so highly of that he that he hopes to convert him, and tries to do so repeatedly, hoping to save his eternal soul. One day the Jewish friend tells the Christian man that he has finally decided to give conversion consideration, and that he is on the way to Rome. This gives the Christian man hesitation, for he knows that Rome (in the early renaissance) has enough in the way of avarice and corruption and he fears it will turn his friend from Christianity for good. He tries to dissuade the Jewish man from going, but fails. The day comes that the Christian man’s friend is to return from Rome, and he resigns to accepting that his Jewish friend will now never convert. The opposite proves true, and when asked why the Jewish friend says, ‘If the Church can endure in spite of Rome, there must be something to Christianity.’

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    dvdivx
    Is it just me or is it weird that the Millennial had no male friends?

    He’s a Beta Orbiter, the text is full of tells. He’s orbiting and being Mr. Nice Guy in the expectation that his Nice Guyness will eventually be recognized by one of the girls whose hearts have been broken by some porn-obsessed bad boy, and she’ll fall in twu wuv with him. Note the passive-aggressiveness of some of the text.

    College girls despise them.

  98. Snowy says:

    Sorry, Earl, that’s really for you to research for yourself. I’ve done my research, and I’m satisfied with KJV-only. If you personally don’t have an issue with the “version” of Bible you pick up, then that is your business. I also don’t want to threadjack, so I’ll leave it at that. As for the Catholic catechisms, they simply come across to me as all so much extra-biblical legalism. I’ll just skip the catechisms included in your comments. As I’ve said before, I do appreciate reading your comments. But again, I don’t want to threadjack, so I’ll let sleeping dogs lie, and I hope you will too. Cheers mate!

  99. SkylerWurden says:

    Scarborough is a snake and the AnonMillenial is a dweeb punk, but porn is straight-up evil and anyone who defends it should ask Satan to give them some nice stuff because they might as well get something for their work.

    Also anyone blaming women or lack of sex for their porn habit is pathetic. Women have their own issues (even with porn) but no woman is responsible for a mans sin. No man is responsible for a womans sin. If we allow ourselves to give in to temptation that’s our own damned fault.

  100. Gary Eden says:

    @SkylerWurden

    How evil can porn be for something never condemned in scripture?

    Enough with the man blaming. Men have sexual needs and were given wives to fulfill them. it should be no great surprise that they turn to other outlets when their wife sins by denying him sex.

  101. Anon says:

    How evil can porn be for something never condemned in scripture?

    Porn is not evil at all. It is ethically superior to cuckservative misandry.

    Remember that these idiots complain about ‘toxic masculinity’ while also complaining that men are ‘watching porn and not being useful coal for the furnace’.

    The great thing about porn is that the man using it will simply never hear cuckservative shaming language. They are in a position to ignore it completely.

  102. SkylerWurden says:

    How can fornication which is a mortal sin condemned in nearly every book of the Bible be evil? Or do you mean viewing it? Well since fornication is itself a capital evil and abhorrent to God’s eyes, do you think intentionally deriving sexual pleasure from the spiritual suicide of two of your brethren is A-okay? Porn is evil. For a maried man it also constitutes adultery of the mind.

    Enough with the woman blaming. Men have souls and free-will and they are perfectly capable of controlling their sexual urges. Does a woman sin by denying sex to her husband unjustly? Of course. Does one person’s sin give another person an excuse to engage in their own sin? Of course not. Any woman who uses a porn habit to justify denying sex is engaging in a terrible sin against God and her husband. Any man who uses lack of sex to justify porn consumption is engaging in a terrible sin against God and his wife.

    There is a very sad attitude among women that the sins of men excuse them from their own moral responsibilities, and there is an equally sad attitude among men that the sins of women excuse them from theirs. I am sick and tired of men and women, who were made in the image of the Lord, being reduced to biological meat-bags with no will outside of their base urges and incapable of sacrifice and chastity. This hell-born lie from the mouth of Satan himself needs to be condemned utterly.

    I struggle with sexual temptation just like any human and sometimes I fall. But I will never blame someone else for my falling, nor will I try to excuse what I know to be wrong with some too-clever selective reading of the scriptures and appealing to the “natural” state of fallen men. We are called to rise above those natures.

  103. Moses says:

    That young man has a whole lifetime of incel ahead of him.

    PS – “incel” = “involuntary celibacy”

  104. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice post Mister “D”……Morning Joe is an idiot! I have seen him a few times but I cannot stomach MSNBC….especially that Carpet Muncher Maddow.

    “”So there I sat, listening as guys whom girls I know and deeply respect had crushes on and wished would ask them out, go on about how porn was just too hard of a habit to break because of dopamine addiction. “”

    You can quit anything.But,if these guys would rather watch porn than date real women?….what does that say about “real modern day women”?…..no one seems to want to ask or answer that question. Of course, we posters here at Dalrocks could write volumes to answer that question.The MSM will not answer that question.It would go against the feminine imperative.

  105. Anon says:

    About Mika B, from her Wikipedia :

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

    “Her primary political interest is wage equality for women.”

    Talk about advertising to the world how economics is the subject where women have the least aptitude relative to men, which is saying something.

    Now, this is where it gets funny :

    Blue pill : Makes Polack joke.
    Red pill : Makes joke about ‘feminists’. Such as :

    “A woman can be immersed in an ocean of knowledge since birth, and still emerge completely dry.”

  106. Snowy says:

    GunnerQ: Ensuring one is using the seven times purified, infallible, inerrant word of God is hardly fanatical. Especially if you hold to Sola Scriptura. I’m not going to shove KJV-only down anyone’s neck. If you or anyone else chooses to use a perversion version, that is your choice and your business. But it is your choice. It’s certainly interesting though how KJV-only presses so many buttons. There must be something to it. And there is something to it. You’d do yourself great service to look into it thoroughly. I always enjoy reading your comments. Thanks mate!

  107. feministhater says:

    Also anyone blaming women or lack of sex for their porn habit is pathetic. Women have their own issues (even with porn) but no woman is responsible for a mans sin. No man is responsible for a womans sin. If we allow ourselves to give in to temptation that’s our own damned fault.

    Since we delay marriage so long and wives are not expected to give sex in marriage anymore. There will be an increase in porn use by men. Men want sex, the Bible says to get it within marriage, men no longer can do that. You provide zero solutions for this dilemma but shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame. That’s all you do. Whatever your beef with da evil porn, not holding women to account for their failings just increases the amount of sin.

    Shame away but you will only lose the war.

  108. dpmonahan says:

    “How evil can porn be for something never condemned in scripture?”
    Mt 5:28. If you are going to be a biblical fundamentalist at least get to know the Bible.

  109. feministhater says:

    Enough with the woman blaming. Men have souls and free-will and they are perfectly capable of controlling their sexual urges. Does a woman sin by denying sex to her husband unjustly? Of course. Does one person’s sin give another person an excuse to engage in their own sin? Of course not. Any woman who uses a porn habit to justify denying sex is engaging in a terrible sin against God and her husband. Any man who uses lack of sex to justify porn consumption is engaging in a terrible sin against God and his wife.

    You’re such a tradcon. You will not hold women to account for their own sins. Nobody holds women to account. Holding men to account for their sins, oh that’s easy, everyone does, including you. You come here and demand from us? That others bend themselves to your will. Puffing yourself up, you’re the real man, ain’t ya buddy? Stick a cork in it.

    What solutions do you provide for lack of sex for men? None. Absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. So full of yourself. Yet you cannot provide a solution to a problem that affects practically every man from age 12 till he dies. Let’s see how well you do telling a 15 year old boy that he must wait till he is 35 for sex, never spank his monkey or he goes to hell and tell him that if he cannot control his sexual urges for 20 years, he’s a useless, reprobate, perv who deserves to burn for eternity. Oh, yeah, also don’t forget to tell him that even when he gets married at 35, he will get almost no sex but be on the hook for life to a wife that despises him, will divorce him after 10 years, get half his shit, take the kids, the house, half his retirement whilst still demand alimony and child support, putting him the dog house for the next 20 years. You want to talk about porn being evil? Lol, marriage solves nothing these days.. absolutely nothing. Men don’t even get married until their most sexually frustrated years (15-30) are over.

    I will tell men that porn is bad but I will also tell women that they cause the use of it by delaying marriage and using sex as a weapon in marriage. It’s pure economics, men want a product called sex. Porn is a substitute for sex that men can get and when the price of sex goes up and up and up, porn use will increase as a direct consequence of that. In essence, you’re demanding from men that they cut their balls off as a means to control their sexual urges.

    I will hold women to account for their sins. That is what one is meant to do. I don’t blame them for my sins but for theirs. And yes, their sins can lead others to sin. If you are unwilling to get women to marry younger, give themselves to their husbands freely and not use sex as a weapon, then you will lead more men into the open arms of porn.

    Provide a feasible and workable solution that can be used by men or your shaming is just the last vestiges of a tradcon cuck.

    In the end, men will sin, they will use porn in droves and they will end up not getting married. Which is a good thing, for marriage itself doesn’t solve the problem anymore. The problem is solved by them learning to control their urges after many, many years of suffering through it. And once that’s over, they can devote their life to God and repent, but at least they won’t be suckers for modern day marriage or scapegoats for your shaming.

  110. dadofhomeschoolers says:

    Every last KJV onlyist I’ve ever come across, comes across as proud, self righteous,and holier than thou. It has become a religious trapping, like coverings and skirts and driving a buggy.
    The thee’s and thou’s don’t make it better. It makes people wonder “why doesn’t God speak my language?”
    I have found that it’s a way for Satan to drive people away from joining with other believers. Too often it becomes a religious test of purity, like speaking in tongues.
    Yea, I’m not a fan of the “gender neutral” versions, but be careful in that by calling them “perverted” that you have put yourself in God’s place, and denying that the gospel has the power to save no matter the version.

  111. earlthomas786 says:

    There is a very sad attitude among women that the sins of men excuse them from their own moral responsibilities, and there is an equally sad attitude among men that the sins of women excuse them from theirs.

    Excuse…try not even bringing them up. And I’d like to see one article where woman’s sin is even highlighted in bringing the downfall of the relationship. It’s mostly what men do wrong and how that justifies women to divorce. In case you haven’t noticed…we have a society where women can do no wrong and men are default thought as evil. That’s what modern feminism has done.

  112. earlthomas786 says:

    So there I sat, listening as guys whom girls I know and deeply respect had crushes on and wished would ask them out, go on about how porn was just too hard of a habit to break because of dopamine addiction.

    Makes me wonder why he didn’t ask out those damsels in distress. After all if he was the mighty one without the porn habit…he should have no trouble doing it.

    Although I’m for certain either he didn’t and it is safer to bash guy rather than admit he’s scared or he knew deep down these are girls who he doesn’t really respect.

  113. necroking48 says:

    @earl

    Actually it is not apples and oranges….It is extremely relevant because churchians for decades have lumped false guilt onto men, by taking Matthew 5:28 out of context and saying that every time a man looks at a woman with sexual desire, or fantasizes sexually about someone he sees, he’s somehow guilty of “sin”…….If it can be shown that no less an authority than Jesus himself lusted, it blows apart your fallacious reasonings that sexual desire=lust when there’s verses that show that is not the case

    Also last time I checked, Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about adultery, and NOT fornication, which is what churchians try to sneakily insert into the text in order to uphold their baseless charge of men lusting when they look at porn, or a bikini clad model at the beach…..Jesus was specifically addressing a situation where a man is intending to have sex with a woman he knows is already married to another man, which is adultery…..single men can’t commit adultery UNLESS that woman belongs to someone else
    It’s all about property rights, and taking what doesn’t belong to you…….having sexual thoughts, desires, and sexual attraction is God given and normal

  114. PokeSalad says:

    They are broke guys. Broke

    “Faster, please.”

  115. Dalrock says:

    @necroking48

    Also last time I checked, Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about adultery, and NOT fornication, which is what churchians try to sneakily insert into the text in order to uphold their baseless charge of men lusting when they look at porn, or a bikini clad model at the beach…..Jesus was specifically addressing a situation where a man is intending to have sex with a woman he knows is already married to another man, which is adultery…..single men can’t commit adultery UNLESS that woman belongs to someone else

    Matthew 5:21-30 is about the nature of sin. Sin starts in our hearts, not when we act. Jesus wasn’t just talking about murder and adultery. He was talking about all sin. So fornication is covered.

  116. Hose_B says:

    @necroking48
    “Also last time I checked, Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about adultery, and NOT fornication,”

    Matt 5:28 is talking about realizing that upon self reflection, we are ALL guilty of sin. It is about realizing that you ARE NOT better or more righteous than the “adulterer.” It is another way Jesus states that sin is sin. To break one part of the law is to break the whole law. Weaponizing 5:28 is to invert its meaning.

    In regard to porn, it’s the psychological damage that should be talked about. We are built with chemically induced processes that drive our desires and behaviors. IE…..when we go without food, chemicals and signals get sent to the brain and result in us feeling “hungry”. Gods way of telling us to fuel the body he created. Ignore this and you die (eventually), submit to it and your brain gets sent “fueling successful” signal and rewards the body with feel good chemicals. But what happens if you substitute food with nutritionally void fiber…….the “hungry” is gone. Brain sends feel good chemicals, but the body still starves. Brain will detect this and if possible, refocus the body on finding alternative fuel. But if there is no alternative food, or if the void fiber can trick the brain into giving better “reward” signals, the body will
    Just consume it, unaware that the action is useless.
    Drugs are like this. They trick the brain into thinking that things are ok, because the correct chemicals are present, just for the wrong reasons.
    Porn might be worse though….because the brain realizes that although it’s getting the dopamine, it’s getting a fuzzy xerox. As the guy gets his “dopamine fix”, the brain isn’t busy making sure he knows that ITS NOT HIM banging the gorgeous willing blonde. Meanwhile the chemicals released after orgasm are telling him “Good job Alpha Male. You have bred and will continues your DNA.” This conflict in the brain will cause issues.

  117. Hose_B says:

    Correction:
    “The brain IS busy making sure he know IT ISNT HIM”
    I had mistakenly typed isn’t.

    I also don’t have much theory regarding this in women as their brains work differently. I’d be willing to guess that the process and effect is the same as males, just using different chemical feedbacks.

  118. Gary Eden says:

    Necro and Dalrock are right about Matt 5, its not going to help you here.

    You can’t just conflate porn with adultery or fornication and with a waive of the hand declare it sin.

    Fornication is a sometime translation of porneia in the NT, the latter which means sexual immorality; i.e. immoral sex. But what sex is immoral? The NT doesn’t give us that laundry list. But the OT, which is for our learning what is sin, does.

    No where does the OT condemn porn. If it does, please share the citation.

    And to keep us on track; if your dwelling on certain types of porn (acts of adultery or homosexuality), that is clearly transgressing other specific commandments and per Matt 5:28 it is sin even though you don’t commit the very act. But that is not all kinds of porn.

    So is there an OT injunction against watching others have sex, in the flesh or in media (i.e. paintings/statutes and our modern equivalents of photos and video)?

  119. AnonS says:

    the Apostolic faith is the source of the Bible, meaning that the Church came first, and the Bible is literally a product of it. This is one of the reasons why the Catechism, like the Theology of the Body, has so much of value to say on this topic….if the claims to Apostolic spiritual authority are true,

    The Bible is literally a product of its authors. And they wrote addressing the “Church at X” not to depart from what they had personally taught them to do even if prophets among them said otherwise. This seems to have included in the first century men being able to debate and ask questions during teaching and eating the Lord’s Supper as a full meal. Then people decided to change things and invent things in the Church claiming authority from being the “Church”; not even that they were personally prophets hearing from God. All of this hanging on one verse to addressed to Peter who’s interpretation and actual historical practice is debatable.

    If the Bible was a product of the Church and the Church has Apostolic succession then there is no reason for scripture to ever stop.

    Catholic’s extra books of the Bible, why consider them inspired? Because the Church used the Greek Septuagint? The three oldest complete copies we have of the Greek OT include different additional books. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) omits 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is canonical according to the Roman Catholic Church, and includes 1 Esdras, which they reject. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) leaves out Baruch. which is supposed to be canonical, but includes 4 Maccabees, which they reject. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) includes three non-canonical Apocryphal books, 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees. None of these would prove that the Septuagint at the time of Jesus would include these books either.

    Does it matter then the Jews rejected the extra books? Paul argues in Romans that the Jews have been entrusted with the “very words of God.” And these extra books, it just so happens that we don’t have any original Hebrew manuscripts for them unlike the rest of the OT.

    But “Muh Church Fathers”.

    Melito of Sardis, the Bishop of Sardis in 170 A.D., listed the OT books in a letter to a friend. His list was identical to the Hebrew canon except for Esther.
    Amphilochius (AD 190) in a poem listed the books of the Bible. He followed the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible, but expresses uncertainty regarding the book of Esther. None of the Apocrypha books are listed.
    Origen, limited the accepted OT scriptures to the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon. Although he defends the use of such books as the History of Susanna, he rejects their canonicity.
    Both Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus limited the OT canon to the books of the Hebrew tradition.
    Athanasius, the defender of the Trinitarian view at the Council of Nicea, wrote in his thirty-ninth festal letter (which announced the date of Easter in 367) of his concern about the introduction of “apocryphal” works into the list of holy scripture. Although he agreed that there are other books “to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of true religion,” his list of OT agrees with the Hebrew canon.
    Gregory of Nazianzus is known for arranging the books of the Bible in verse form for memorization. He did not include the “Septuagint plus” books in his list.
    Hilary of Poitier (AD 350)
    Epiphanius (AD 360)
    Gregory Nazianzen (AD 390)
    Jerome (AD 400)
    Ruffinus (AD 400)

    Generally, prior to the Council of Trent, the Apocrypha were read and used, but they were always classified as Apocrypha, as Jerome called them, “doubtful writings.” The Council of Trent essentially ordered the removal of the idea of “doubtful.” That is why 1546 is marked as a major change in Roman Catholic belief. Two prior councils: the Council of Laodicea in AD 367 and the Fourth General Council Chalcedon in AD 451 both gave lists of the recognized books of the Bible and neither one included the Apocrypha.

  120. Gary Eden says:

    I agree with Hose_B, the real issue is the potential psychological damage. We have a different verse for that:

    “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” 1 Cor 6:12

    It should also be noted that porn can bring harm to the sexual relationship of a husband and wife, as can the female version of romance novels and romcoms. But that is not a given thing. Some couples find porn a help to their relationship and watch it together. And other men watch it without adverse affect to the relationship. Its a case by case thing to be resolved by the husband and wife.

    To conflate porn with sin is just another attempt to buttress women controlling the marriage through sex. Can’t have men undercutting their most powerful tool by using porn as a substitute. It also is part and parcel to feminism seeking to (as Rollo has noted) maximally restrict male sexuality while eliminating all restraints on women. You’ll notice that rarely do the tradcons see fit to condemn romance novels or rom-com movies.

  121. Patrick says:

    I always encourage Christians to steer clear of the KJV Bible because so many users are so passionate about it. It has almost become an idol. People worship the KJV instead of Jesus. Plus, the Bible in circulation at the time Jesus walked the Earth, the Septuagint (LXX), was written in Greek and contained all of the books of the Vulgate. It would have been natural for a Greek Bible to be the standard during the tlife of Jesus, because by that time, due to extensive Hellenization in the MIddle East, many Jews no longer spoke Hebrew. In fact, the most educated and upper class Jews tended to use Greek as their primary language. That’s why the Septuagint, the Bible relied upon by the New Testament authors, was written in Greek. The early Hebrew versions of the OT date from later; probably sometime in the 2nd century. These Hebrew versions do omit several books of the Bible but were not in use during the time of Jesus, and were a reaction against Hellenism that occurred after the Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD. In a bid to survive in these times, Jews purged many things associated with Hellenism or Rome and retreated to their old Hebrew roots. The fact that their Hebrew OT Bibles compiled in this era omitted some of the books originally written in Greek does not justify the actions of the Protestant Reformers in removing these books from the Bible.

  122. Dalrock says:

    @Hose_B

    Matt 5:28 is talking about realizing that upon self reflection, we are ALL guilty of sin. It is about realizing that you ARE NOT better or more righteous than the “adulterer.” It is another way Jesus states that sin is sin. To break one part of the law is to break the whole law. Weaponizing 5:28 is to invert its meaning.

    Excellent point.

    @Gary Eden

    Necro and Dalrock are right about Matt 5, its not going to help you here.

    You can’t just conflate porn with adultery or fornication and with a waive of the hand declare it sin.

    This wasn’t my point at all.

    Fornication is a sometime translation of porneia in the NT, the latter which means sexual immorality; i.e. immoral sex. But what sex is immoral? The NT doesn’t give us that laundry list. But the OT, which is for our learning what is sin, does.

    No where does the OT condemn porn. If it does, please share the citation.

    The NT doesn’t give a laundry list because it tells us what is licit (1 Cor 7), and all others pursuits of sex are illicit.

  123. Gunner Q says:

    Snowy @ 2:18 am:
    “It’s certainly interesting though how KJV-only presses so many buttons.”

    Yes, we laugh at Catholics for claiming God only speaks Latin and then the Prot standing next to us claims God only speaks Olde Englishe. Very interesting, indeed.

    dvdivx @ August 8, 2017 at 11:01 pm:
    “Is it just me or is it weird that the Millennial had no male friends?”

    It’s a known side effect of open sodomy. It makes normal men uncomfortable in close male friendships. Platonic M/F friendships are society-approved. Also, a bad idea.

    Gary Eden @ August 8, 2017 at 10:04 pm:
    “Which verse in the Old Testament calls porn sinful?”

    None, which is how the Pharisees could claim porn/voyeurism didn’t violate the Mosaic Law. Christ shut that nonsense down by pointing out the Mosaic Law was a means to an end. Like the modern cuckservative, Pharisees thought the rules were more important than the purpose they were put to.

  124. thedeti says:

    “For a maried man it also constitutes adultery of the mind.”

    there’s no such thing.

  125. Mandy says:

    It sounds like Joe is talking about Holden Cauffield. Everyone his age was a phoney and everyone older an idiot. This is nothing special to Millenials. The west has been indulging this under the guise of ” normal teenage rebellion” for generations.

  126. Anon says:

    Tough crowd…….. My comment about the NR Cuckservative cruise ties together many themes here, including the Titanic experience, cuckservative whiteknighting, the ‘is Large’ descriptor, the ‘superconductor of cuckservatism’, and more in a cascade of zingers..

    But on serious threads about scripture, many are not in the mood for comedy….

  127. feministhater says:

    It’s great and all discussing that you’re not allowed to beat your monkey or look at naughty pictures and that you’re only allowed to stick your dick in crazy, once a month, whilst putting yourself in a contract that places you at the behest and whim of a woman and at the mercy of the state; but what happens when the consequences for marriage don’t happen 10 years down the line but right away, at what point does it become complete folly to continue to believe that we can solve men’s sexual needs by telling them to get married instead?

    Women have the power, the state, the church and the rest of society all in their corner; a man, well… he’s not even allowed to spank his monkey for fear of hell. At what point do we advise him that he needs to learn to control his sexual urge to the point of A-sexuality because no one is going to come and save him from the torment?

  128. feministhater says:

    I would like you guys to think long and hard about that question. For if you don’t come up with reasonable advice of Christian men to use, it’s all folly; they will drift towards porn because you, the church, the state, women and everyone else has given them no alternative.

    Telling a man that if he eats that grape, he goes to hell but then providing no alternative food to sate his hunger, is leading a man to death or hell. What alternatives do you provide for Christian men who most likely will not get married anytime soon, nor will they be able to marry a woman who will provide him with sex much past once a month, if that?

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    Tough crowd……..

    It was sort of funny the first time.

  130. MKT says:

    “You can’t just conflate porn with adultery or fornication and with a waive of the hand declare it sin.”

    No, it’s a sin. It’s not just Matthew 5. Job also said ““I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman” (Job 31:1). Just because some couples “use” porn to supposedly enhance their sex life, it doesn’t make it right. I’m sure some people say cocaine, meth or an additional person/animal also spices things up.

    The issue here, though, is conflating porn with true physical adultery to get to the magic (fallacious) formula: porn = adultery = get out of marriage free card. Now I would say a man could be so enslaved in extreme cases that divorce is a possibility. But this is only after being approached by the church (Matt 18), working with the pastor/priest/elders/etc for a sufficient time and ensuring the wife is doing her part (sex) as well. If after this a man is unrepentant and unwilling to change, maybe you can connect it with adultery and divorce is an option (not requirement). But this goes for other “adultery lite” sins as well. such as female porn (romance novels), one partner having a very close (and supposedly non-sexual) “soulmate” of the opposite sex that they won’t give up, etc.

    What we’re now hearing is that a wife can say “You’ve looked at porn more than one time…you’re addicted, I’ve got Biblical grounds for a divorce, better get a good lawyer cause I’m taking you to the cleaners…” And the moronic idea that all porn supports the sex slave industry so porn is now worse than physical adultery is asinine. Some guys look at nothing more than Playboy and well-paid “art” models.

  131. thedeti says:

    A couple of years ago, a long-gone commenter named Escoffier had one of the best descriptions of the intersections of pornography, Christianity, and men’s sexual satisfaction. It was something like this (paraphrasing):

    Using porn will certainly reduce the “need” for sex. It takes care of the man’s need for sexual release. It takes the edge off the cravings and makes long term sexual deprivation a little more bearable, at least at first. But that’s the best that can be said about it.

    Using porn will never make a man “happy”. It will never truly satisfy the need for real human connection. Porn is at best a very, very poor substitute for real connection with a woman. Eventually, over time, porn wholly fails to satisfy the cravings, and in time creates cravings of its own. The fact that porn (ostensibly) keeps men from fornicating or cheating on their wives doesn’t make it “moral”.

  132. Boxer says:

    Tough crowd…….. My comment about the NR Cuckservative cruise ties together many themes here, including the Titanic experience, cuckservative whiteknighting, the ‘is Large’ descriptor, the ‘superconductor of cuckservatism’, and more in a cascade of zingers..

    I got most of that, and thought it was great. I was gonna sound off about power-bottom Kevin Williamson’s deck chair always being in the “recline” position, but thought it was too off-color for this blog.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  133. Boxer says:

    Using porn will never make a man “happy”. It will never truly satisfy the need for real human connection. Porn is at best a very, very poor substitute for real connection with a woman. Eventually, over time, porn wholly fails to satisfy the cravings, and in time creates cravings of its own. The fact that porn (ostensibly) keeps men from fornicating or cheating on their wives doesn’t make it “moral”.

    This is an interesting area where Marxist philosophy and Catholic thought intersect.

    Pr0n could be argued to be a dangerous simulacrum of intimacy. If you criticize pr0n this way, though, you have to be evenhanded and criticize lots of different things. An analogy could be made to facebook, where one gets the illusion of community, without any opportunity to ever interact with other people.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  134. Gary Eden says:

    I realize that wasn’t your point Dalrock. I was agreeing with what you did state in service to my next point. The sentence to follow was my own, not a restatement of yours.

    The NT doesn’t give a laundry list because it tells us what is licit (1 Cor 7), and all others pursuits of sex are illicit.

    The NT doesn’t give a laundry list because its built on the foundation of the OT and doesn’t need to. The OT gives the lists and those lists don’t include porn as prohibited. As Romans 7 makes clear, and is obvious from reading the OT, the legal approach of scripture is to point out what is sin, with all other things being allowed.

    Even if I were to grant your legal point it wouldn’t condemn porn per se. Porn isn’t sex, its a form of voyeurism, and as used is little different than a sex toy or an active imagination.

  135. 9767 says:

    “No where does the OT condemn porn. If it does, please share the citation.”

    Absolute nonsense!

    Read Job 31:1
    King James Bible
    I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

    When Jesus condemned looking at a woman to lust after her, do you pornography advocates seriously believe jerking off to prostitutes having sex does not apply? 2 TIMOTHY 4:3

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    In the 1980’s book “Love Languages” the notion of physical touch as a specific “language of love” is explained pretty well. Many, probably most men, are in that category. They want, need, even crave touch from their partner. Deliberately and willfully depriving a man of even the merest touch is not just wrong in the context of a marriage, it’s mean. In fact, it can be downright cruel.

    Women who would never keep a dog in a crate all day, letting it out only for food, water and a brief trip to the back yard think nothing of chasing a man until the catch him, then treating him more like a piece of furniture than a human being. It is hypocritical. Doubly so for the women who go to church every Sunday and wave their hands in the air to show how much more holy they are than the other women.

    This isnt exactly on topic, but I believe it is close enough. Way too often in all sorts of social contexts I see women who are always ready to hug friends, touch co workers, etc. and of course snuggle with their children, but who keep their “till death do us part” husband at arms length. That specifically includes the church ladies.

  137. AnonS says:

    I would like you guys to think long and hard about that question. For if you don’t come up with reasonable advice of Christian men to use, it’s all folly; they will drift towards porn because you, the church, the state, women and everyone else has given them no alternative.

    And here I wonder why the Church is either so lazy, ignorant, or corrupt to offer solutions.

    1. Advise men to put their assets in a Nevada state trust and get pre-nups before Marriage.
    2. Advise minimalist living for many reasons including having the wife “accustomed to a lifestyle”.
    3. Ask that wife’s family or the Church contribute to the Trust fund to avoid unjust Child support.
    4. Work with Churches overseas if they have excess women to bring them over.
    5. Train men to be masculine and women to be feminine; not the opposite.

  138. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “Lotta Elliot Rodger-vibe in that letter….”

    As manly man Joe has previously killed a woman and got away with it, I would say that’s not far off.

    AnonS – Prenups are worthless pieces of paper. Any good lawyer (and any feminist judge) will get them invalidated because “coercion” (“He said he wouldn’t marry me unless I signed the prenup. Oh, woe is me!”)

  139. Dalrock says:

    @Feminist Hater

    It’s great and all discussing that you’re not allowed to beat your monkey or look at naughty pictures and that you’re only allowed to stick your dick in crazy, once a month, whilst putting yourself in a contract that places you at the behest and whim of a woman and at the mercy of the state; but what happens when the consequences for marriage don’t happen 10 years down the line but right away, at what point does it become complete folly to continue to believe that we can solve men’s sexual needs by telling them to get married instead?

    I would like you guys to think long and hard about that question. For if you don’t come up with reasonable advice of Christian men to use, it’s all folly; they will drift towards porn because you, the church, the state, women and everyone else has given them no alternative.

    You are conflating two different things. Scripture is clear. The solution to the temptation of sexual morality is to get married and have lots of sex. But as you point out, we have done great violence to marriage, very effectively (if not completely) blocking off the moral path. The magnitude of our sin in destroying marriage is profound, and as a result we have created massive human misery. Since you’ve been reading for many years you know this is a passion of mine. This is the primary reason why I blog. But we didn’t make the sin of sexual immorality go away when we blocked off the prescribed escape path.

    Also note, as Hose_B pointed out above, that weaponizing Christs’ teaching on sin starting in the heart is to miss, and actually invert, the point. We are all sinners.

  140. SkylerWurden says:

    @feministhater

    Do you need a wambulance? All that mad butt-hurt because I said women were not responsible for your sins. Literally don’t care one bit about defending women here either. I just don’t like young men being led into hell by fools who tell them fornication is okay.

    [I]You provide zero solutions for this dilemma but shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame, shame. That’s all you do.[/I]

    Am I your God? Am I your President? Why am I, mid-twenties male, now responsible for getting you p***y? You know what your solution is? Go get married. If that doesn’t work then suck it up. Oh no, I didn’t coddle you and tell you that the God who told Abraham to be willing to kill his own son and the God who told you to pick up your cross and follow Him into death doesn’t expect little old you to sacrifice anything! I bet your gonna call me a feminist now and screech like a girl that “no one ever defends MEEEEE!”

    [I]You will not hold women to account for their own sins. Nobody holds women to account.[I]

    Buddy, it ain’t my job to hold anyone to account for their sins. God’s gonna take care of that all on His own. I can just tell people when they are sinning, and they can choose to listen to me or not. If a woman comes to me whining that her emotionally distant porn-addicted husband gives her a “free ride on the pool boy” ticket then I’m going to tell her the same thing I’m telling you: sin however you damn well please. Stop worrying about people being “held to account” anyway. It shows a lack of faith in God to worry about stuff like that, and ideally you should be praying for their conversion not their punishment.

    [I]Oh, yeah, also don’t forget to tell him that even when he gets married at 35, he will get almost no sex but be on the hook for life to a wife that despises him, will divorce him after 10 years, get half his shit, take the kids, the house, half his retirement whilst still demand alimony and child support, putting him the dog house for the next 20 years.[I]

    I get it. You married a frigid witch. Not everyone made that mistake.

    [I]Muh muh muh tradcuck![I]

    One, I don’t have a wife or a girlfriend so I by definition cannot be a cuck. Two, this is your version of “misogynist!”. Three, I actually believe in God and I’m not willing to mock His rules because they are haaaaaaaard. Four, you make a good point about some of the problems with a porn obsessed, hypersexual, marriage destroying society. Sinful societies will create weak, morally compromised people and good people will suffer. I don’t think I can find any Scriptural basis for your rather silly idea that “I’m allowed to sin as long as it’s to avoid suffering” but then again, I don’t belong to one of the billion different Church of Me Protestant “denominations” that decides which part of God’s word is acceptable to them and which isn’t.

    At the end of the day, do whatever you want man. Just be ready to answer for it, and try to have a better one than “women didn’t want to f*** me”.

  141. Hose_B says:

    @AR
    “always ready to hug friends, touch co workers, etc. and of course snuggle with their children, but who keep their “till death do us part” husband at arms length.”

    This is common and falls into a couple of categories.
    1. She likes touch but DOESNT like her husband. lack of respect, attraction, etc.
    2. She likes touch from others AND her husband ON HER TERMS. The “others” are socially required to “be polite” if she doesn’t want to touch so its Safe. She knows her hubby should be allowed but she justifies that if she shows affection, he will just want more and that she is “supposed” to allow it. so she backs away from showing affection to him to protect herself from the escalation she “knows” is coming.

    I’ve seen the last one personally. “I really need you to flirt with me more. Not flirting with me makes feel unattractive to you.” Reply………”Well I can’t JUST flirt without you wanting more.”

    (flirt could be exchanged with almost anything……Kiss, hug, date, etc…..) Its a power/fear tactic that uses the anticipated end to justify denying the request and blaming the requester.

  142. SkylerWurden says:

    @thedeti

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
    -Mattn 5:28

    Now, I’m sure someone will have some reason why God is totally wrong here and THEY actually know what He was really trying to say and it DEFINITELY is NOT what it obviously says because that’s like totally too hard, but hopefully any young men reading this can see the inherent dishonesty in that position and leave their Church of Me forever.

    Of course try convincing young men (or women for that matter) to give up anything these days is like pulling teeth but a man wasn’t asked to succeed, he was just asked to try.

  143. Gary Eden says:

    Using porn will never make a man “happy”. It will never truly satisfy the need for real human connection. Porn is at best a very, very poor substitute for real connection with a woman.

    This is true. Yet for many men, its the best they can hope for. There is a verse in Proverbs 31:6-7 that is applicable here…

    “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”

    This from a book that has more than a little to say about strong drinks and getting drunk. What you see here in Proverbs is empathy for those who are suffering; something lacking in the moralizers who would shame men for porn while making excuses for wives to not have sex with men.

  144. Minesweeper says:

    “Matthew 5:28 is specifically talking about adultery ”

    No, in the Greek it talks about coveting – earnestly desiring – ie about to do something that will cause huge amounts of trauma to everyone involved. Its not sex, its taking complete ownership of.

    in our age of materialism and consumerism its hard or us to understand, nowadays its the equ of your neighbour has a Ferrari and you want to take it from him and you hate him that he has it.

    Jealously destroys everything.

    Jesus spoke it as the Jews weren’t coveting their neighbours wife or their ox etc, were coveting someone’s wife who wasn’t their immediate neighbour. So therefore they fulfilled the law and as far as they were concerned allowed under the law.

    Coveting a wife who wasn’t a neighbour satisfied the 10 commandments (do not covet your neighbours wife) and single women were hard to find after they hit puberty as they were generally married asap, she wanted this too as she needed children to provide her pension, and some females only have as little as 5 years fertility.

  145. feministhater says:

    Am I your God? Am I your President? Why am I, mid-twenties male, now responsible for getting you p***y? You know what your solution is? Go get married. If that doesn’t work then suck it up. Oh no, I didn’t coddle you and tell you that the God who told Abraham to be willing to kill his own son and the God who told you to pick up your cross and follow Him into death doesn’t expect little old you to sacrifice anything! I bet your gonna call me a feminist now and screech like a girl that “no one ever defends MEEEEE!”

    So no solution other than getting into a lopsided and screwed up contract? Yep, all you got is shame.

    You provide nothing. Lol! You’re funny though. You’re a mid twenties male telling other, older men to get married, I never thought I would see the day. Haha! Oh man, you called other men to task for fapping to porn so I asked you to provide a viable alternative, you can’t and so you shame. Marriage is no longer a viable alternative, not in the least. So you cannot tell men to go and use it. No amount of your ‘wambalance’ jokes is going to change that.

    Marriage is screwed and thus your alternative to sinning is screwed. You don’t see how that is far more important than telling me how manly you are? You’re too far up your own arse to see that you’re already lost.

    I’ve never asked anyone to defend me. I can do it myself. You’re a piece of work, get married, I hope it works out but don’t you dare complain to anyone if it does not. Fuck off.

  146. Minesweeper says:

    More info on the word lust :
    Outline of Biblical Usage :
    to turn upon a thing
    to have a desire for, long for, to desire
    to lust after, covet
    of those who seek things forbidden
    Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
    ἐπιθυμέω epithyméō, ep-ee-thoo-meh’-o; from G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise):—covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).
    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon [?] G1937
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g1937

  147. Minesweeper says:

    @Gary Eden says:
    This is true. Yet for many men, its the best they can hope for. There is a verse in Proverbs 31:6-7 that is applicable here…

    “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”

    This from a book that has more than a little to say about strong drinks and getting drunk. What you see here in Proverbs is empathy for those who are suffering; something lacking in the moralizers who would shame men for porn while making excuses for wives to not have sex with men.”

    alcohol is actually very healthy for you, in fact Jesus insisted we drink it and we will drink it in heaven, Paul told Timothy to drink it, this of course refers to the original God created alcohol without pesticides in it(all alcohol till 1930), when you have pesticides in alcohol it becomes very toxic.

    but science knows best eh ? 😀

  148. feministhater says:

    At the end of the day, do whatever you want man. Just be ready to answer for it, and try to have a better one than “women didn’t want to f*** me”.

    Oh, this isn’t about women wanting to fuck me. Gosh, I could get any number of 30 plus year old women to fuck me if I wanted. It’s not about the act of sex. It’s about getting the act of sex within the moral institution of marriage at a young age so as to avoid the temptation of trying to get sexual release elsewhere. Try to square that circle for the many Christian men in this world. I dare you, try and solve it. Women don’t get married until much later in life, Christian men are not allowed to get sex outside of marriage and thus must wait upwards of 15 years for sexual release. Never mind that they must also establish themselves, watch their sisters get reamed by other guys, build up wealth and be ready to adjust to family life after years of single celibacy.

    You’re so far off point but you simply don’t care about your fellow man’s suffering.

  149. Minesweeper says:

    It is better to be filled with the spirit than get drunk with wine, but in the absence of that (filled and overflowing with the spirit), its better to be drunk 😀

  150. SkylerWurden says:

    @MKT

    “The issue here, though, is conflating porn with true physical adultery to get to the magic (fallacious) formula: porn = adultery = get out of marriage free card.”

    I agree with that. Adultery without physical consummation is not grounds for a permanent separation. Gotta work it out, ladies. For better and for worse means what it says. That does hold true for lack of sex, frigid b**** syndrome, and dishonest sexual past though.

    “But this goes for other “adultery lite” sins as well.”

    There is no such thing as adultery lite. Adultery is adultery and it is always a grave matter. Certain circumstances may limit culpability so it possibly might not rise to mortal sin, but those will not include the traditional complaint of lack of sex. Wrongfully denying sex to your husband is also a grave matter, but one sin does not justify or mitigate another sin. If a man is addicted, that might be a mitigating factor because he may not be giving “full consent”.

    “And the moronic idea that all porn supports the sex slave industry so porn is now worse than physical adultery is asinine. Some guys look at nothing more than Playboy and well-paid “art” models.”

    It is not an entirely baseless argument, but it does fail for the reason you say here. The real reason porn is evil is because it is an offense against God. Porn could give you a ten-foot dick and cure orphans with leukemia and it would still be evil. The strange desire among Christians to come up with secular, physical reasons why evil things are evil is self-defeating.

  151. Minesweeper says:

    @SkylerWurden says: “@thedeti

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
    -Mattn 5:28

    Now, I’m sure someone will have some reason why God is totally wrong here and THEY actually know what He was really trying to say and it DEFINITELY is NOT what it obviously says because that’s like totally too hard, but hopefully any young men reading this can see the inherent dishonesty in that position and leave their Church of Me forever.”

    well skyler if your going to lay down the law then you had better understand what it says and it dosnt say what you believe it does, in fact its pretty much the opposite. what you “think” and “believe” this 400 year old English translation made using language applicable to 1600AD, says, is not what it says.

    but hey, knock yourself out being an ass if you like, I’ll get the popcorn.

  152. Minesweeper says:

    @skyler “The real reason porn is evil is because it is an offense against God.”

    really, how so ? we watch movies\news and people die is that offensive too against God ?

    the NT warns about creating rules that appear as wisdom but are just foolishness. Sure this isnt talking about what you are doing ?

  153. ys says:

    Lots of porn rationalization going on here. For any who call themselves Christians, that is disappointing.

  154. Minesweeper says:

    @ys, can you eat food sacrificed to idols ?

  155. SkylerWurden says:

    @feministhater

    “Oh man, you called other men to task for fapping to porn so I asked you to provide a viable alternative, you can’t and so you shame. Marriage is no longer a viable alternative, not in the least. So you cannot tell men to go and use it. No amount of your ‘wambalance’ jokes is going to change that.”

    Overstating your case, but I’ll take the bait and say it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a good marriage partner. So what? There were a bunch of kids in ISIS territory who just had a choice of being fed into a bread-maker or denying Christ. They chose the bread-maker. Sometimes we don’t get good choices. It’s a fallen world and it’s getting worse. You can respond by engaging in your own sin if you want, but then you lose any moral high-ground you might have had otherwise and more importantly, you will lose your soul. God did not ever say “follow my commandments when it is easy and costs nothing” and I don’t think He said “be pure… unless you really want some p***y then go for it dude!”

    Is that hard? Sure. And I’m right there with you. Actually, I’m in a worse (better?) spot then you because I can’t get any woman to want me, above thirty or below. And sometimes I wonder why God decided to give me the sex-drive of a 16 year old boy at 27 while simultaneously denying me any ability to “release the tension”. But then I think about the food on my table, the water in my cup, the roof over my head, the distinct lack of leprosy on my skin, and the fact that a Roman emperor isn’t giving me the choice of crucifixion or apostasy and I decide God is doing alright by me and maybe my little struggle with lust isn’t so bad after all.

    “It’s about getting the act of sex within the moral institution of marriage at a young age so as to avoid the temptation of trying to get sexual release elsewhere. Try to square that circle for the many Christian men in this world. I dare you, try and solve it.”

    Dude… I’m a 27 year old loser who works entry level minimum wage jobs. I can’t solve the world’s problems even if I wanted to. My solution? Biblical societies and Christian peoples. Is that going to happen? Probably not. Does that remit my obligations to follow God’s law anyway? Nope. What kind of solution do you want? Do you want me to tell you that it’s perfectly okay to use porn and f*** random sluts? Sorry, that I won’t do. I’ll commiserate all day… But when you decide that sin is the right solution then I will stop commiserating and start urging you, in the only way I know how, to not sin. Do whatever it takes, just don’t sin.

    “You’re so far off point but you simply don’t care about your fellow man’s suffering.”

    Well that’s a hell of a thing to say, but it isn’t entirely untrue. I care about my fellow man’s (and woman’s) soul. I don’t want them to suffer here, but I would rather they suffer here than suffer in Hell for eternity. I can’t alleviate their suffering here. I can only try to warn them about the hereafter. Maybe I should be sweetness and gentle when I warn them, but that doesnt motivate me so I use what does motivate me. I like being smacked with the truth, and anyway if you want soft reproof then its available in overabundance at pretty much aby church in America.

  156. feministhater says:

    ys, any alternatives? Any at all. I know, I know, get married into a really, really corrupt institution; and just find the right woman or go overseas, go to the most traditional part of the world to find your wife, move mountains and hopefully, hopefully, you might get some sex and not be divorced reamed at the end, hopefully. And if you do, meh, no one will care, suck it up buttercup, eh? Is that right?

    By the way, it’s not porn rationalisation, it’s understanding why the porn use is so high. It’s not agreeing with porn use when one understands why its use is so high.

  157. MKT says:

    “Lots of porn rationalization going on here. For any who call themselves Christians, that is disappointing.”

    I agree. It’s a reactionary justification of something that’s a sin. I realize it’s easy to be reactionary these days, since we only hear about the sins of men. But the whole of Scripture is that sex is between a husband and wife…that is a husband and ONE wife. These armchair attempts at being Greek/Hebrew scholars and finding loopholes are both shoddy and disappointing, as you said.

    I think that’s one reason more people from Doug Wilson’s blog (and other conservative Christian sites) don’t come here…there’s a crowd that’s the ugly flip side of the misandrists/feminists…they let themselves get pushed to unbiblical extremes.

  158. feministhater says:

    Maybe I should be sweetness and gentle when I warn them, but that doesnt motivate me so I use what does motivate me. I like being smacked with the truth, and anyway if you want soft reproof then its available in overabundance at pretty much aby church in America.

    Well no, one should tell them that porn is sin, which I never faulted you for. What I faulted you for was the ‘don’t blame women part’ when they are quite frankly to blame for delayed marriage and for lack of sex within marriage. That is their sin and they should be called on it. If you cannot get women to get married earlier and be sexual with their husbands, porn use will increase. That is all. Quibble all you want, but if you want to save souls, call out the rampant abuse by women of the marriage covenant. Do it not and you will have done nothing and will have been cruel and callous towards those you pretend to care about.

  159. feministhater says:

    I think that’s one reason more people from Doug Wilson’s blog (and other conservative Christian sites) don’t come here…there’s a crowd that’s the ugly flip side of the misandrists/feminists…they let themselves get pushed to unbiblical extremes.

    Don’t care. They’ve done nothing but bash men all their lives. Why should we care, have they done anything to call out women on their abuse of marriage, anything at all? Nope, well then, they can stay away. No one needs to hear their lamentations.

  160. Minesweeper says:

    you have to laugh how deceived the church is, while the world burns all it cares about is porn, masturbation and drinking alcohol.

    none of these things are mentioned as a problem, and there was plenty porn around – paintings, statues, females walking around practically naked (clothing is expensive), in fact prostitutes in every temple in half the world.

    this is why the church has list its way, it focuses on whats not important, and ignores what is. never underestimate the ability of Christians to totally ignore what they are blatantly told to do by God, and adopt something completely different that God dosnt say not to do that becomes all encompassingly important.

    its absolutely mind boggling. its not surprising the world hates the church and Christians are leaving it never to return, as its doing exactly the opposite of what God has told it to do, It follows itself.

    Love God, love your neighbour, love your fellowship, love your partner, love your children, love each other. Forget it.

    The most basic commandment is no longer of any importance to them. And strangely enough, the world can see the disparity more clearly than the Christians in the church.

  161. SkylerWurden says:

    @minesweeper

    “really, how so ? we watch movies\news and people die is that offensive too against God ?”

    Well, first let’s define our terms. Watching a snuff-film where actual people are being murdered so you can get pleasure from their deaths would be pretty evil. That seems obvious. Now what about simulated sex/murder? Well, it depends. Do you like violent movies because you love to imagine these people are really dying and it satisfies you to think about human suffering? If so then you’re in pretty bad territory and you should examine your soul. If you watch them because the cool action and keep at least some distance between yourself and the reality of death then you are probably fine, though you should generally be careful anyway.

    If a person is watching porn because they are a cop trying to find out if the actress is a 15 year old or not, then there is no sin. If they are watching porn because they want to get sexual pleasure from watching the sins of others and take satisfaction in lusting after the people in the video/picture then they are sinning.

    “in fact its pretty much the opposite.”

    So Jesus was actually telling us it is okay to lust after women who aren’t our wives and he decided the best way to do that was to say the exact opposite and wait for minesweeper to let us in on the big secret? Seems pretty stupid of him… And very convenient for you.

    “the NT warns about creating rules that appear as wisdom but are just foolishness. Sure this isnt talking about what you are doing ?”

    I’m pretty sure I’m not but I am absolutely sure you are about to.

  162. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT says:”August 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm
    “Lots of porn rationalization going on here. For any who call themselves Christians, that is disappointing.”

    I agree. It’s a reactionary justification of something that’s a sin. I realize it’s easy to be reactionary these days, since we only hear about the sins of men. But the whole of Scripture is that sex is between a husband and wife…that is a husband and ONE wife. These armchair attempts at being Greek/Hebrew scholars and finding loopholes are both shoddy and disappointing, as you said.”

    So who do you follow ? a translation ? or the actual word ? or is something translated centuries ago that you don’t fully understand better fit your belief system ?

    if so you are following your own religion.

  163. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT says: August 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm
    “Lots of porn rationalization going on here. For any who call themselves Christians, that is disappointing.”

    I agree. It’s a reactionary justification of something that’s a sin. I realize it’s easy to be reactionary these days, since we only hear about the sins of men. But the whole of Scripture is that sex is between a husband and wife…that is a husband and ONE wife. These armchair attempts at being Greek/Hebrew scholars and finding loopholes are both shoddy and disappointing, as you said.”

    You obviously must struggle with this, let me help, scripture dosnt say anywhere sex is between husband and 1 wife only, in fact the only restraint is upon elders – that they should be the husband of BUT 1 wife, as lets face it, you cant look after another family (the church) if you have more than 1 yourself.

    Obviously facts are hard.

  164. Anonymous Reader says:

    MKT
    I think that’s one reason more people from Doug Wilson’s blog (and other conservative Christian sites) don’t come here…

    Possibly so, but I’m skeptical given some of the regulars at Wilson’s comment section.
    However, another explanation is simpler: they can’t handle the truth about women that is commonly known here. Especially when there’s a Bible quote behind it. Courtesy of Anonymous Age 70+ when he was Anonymous Age 64 at Spearhead, a couple of examples:

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

    Proverbs 25:24 It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.

    Wilsonians and others should take a piece of paper and draw a line down the center. Then open up Proverbs and read it. Every time a quote refers to women in a critical, or warning, or negative fashion is found, write that quote down on the left side of the paper. Every time a quote referring to women in a positive fashion is found, right that down on the right side of the paper. At the end of the exercise, compare the left side to the right side. Now ask yourselves, “Why is it the only quote from Proverbs about women that I have ever heard in my church is Proverbs 31?”

    Answering that question is not trivial or easy, but this simple exercise should display the magnitude of the problem. Of course, the usual reaction from churchgoing feminists is to just sweep the inconvenient parts away in a petulant moment of “God didn’t really say that” peevishness.

  165. thedeti says:

    Skyler:

    The purpose of Matt. 5:28 is a warning to people to check their hearts. Because sin begins in the heart. Jesus is warning people to keep watch over what is in their hearts. It isn’t actual adultery. It’s not a ground for divorce. And it’s not in the mind, it’s in the heart. It’s not what he thinks about that is the problem; it’s what is in his heart and spirit that causes the later action.

  166. Minesweeper says:

    @skyler

    did you have a question in there somewhere ?

    im having difficulty identifying your foolishness, did you say real life “snuff movies” are like watching action movies ?

    I certainly wouldn’t want to unpick your head anytime soon, I do like to sleep at night.

  167. Minesweeper says:

    @skyler – well if nothing else you are the 1st ever commentator at Dalrock’s who has brought up “snuff movies”

    you shall be known as the “snuff movie” commentator from now on.

    sure my glad my kids dont live in your neighbourhood.

  168. ys says:

    Fh,
    I do have alternatives. Alternative scripture!
    All that talk about fleeing sexual immorality, lust, etc.? That was only for certain times. God put in a loophole for late 20th, early 21st-century Western Men. Their institution of marriage is pretty corrupt (true). Therefore, it would be bad to enter it (in many respects, yes). So now, God totes doesn’t care about all of that sexual morality stuff. Too hard. No alternatives, as you said. Have fun, and rationlize away, because God loves it.

  169. Minesweeper says:

    @skyler, you should hang your head in shame, how are you going to top this ? barring a live streamed abortion, (which is murder btw – skyler) (like snuff movies)

  170. ys says:

    Obvious sarcasm aside, now to the reals. Those who say there is no alternative are, literally, saying God’s command is too hard. Different subject, but when scripture calls us to possibly die for our faith (as martyrs), the porn rationalization here would be akin to someone saying they didnt have to die for their faith in Roman times, because the method of death was too harsh. What alternative is there, right?
    There are scriptural alternatives. 1) Vet away, and marry a good Christian woman. 2) Remain single, and learn to be celibate, which is also fine.
    At no juncture will you find: Fap away to your heart’s content, because God knows modern marriage sucks.

  171. Minesweeper says:

    @ys says:August 9, 2017 at 1:37 pm
    “Fh,
    I do have alternatives. Alternative scripture!
    All that talk about fleeing sexual immorality, lust, etc.? That was only for certain times.”

    if i may interject, the big sexual mortality in the NT was prostitution (fleeing sexual immorality), temples everywhere, sex like taking communion – that was the Roman empire. But without that knowledge, we have pushed it into ridiculous extremes as we dont understand the condition it was originally correcting.

  172. MKT says:

    “sure my glad my kids dont live in your neighbourhood.”

    And sure glad my kids don’t live in your kids’ neighborhood. I really don’t need a porn-loving polygamist on my street!

  173. feministhater says:

    So now, God totes doesn’t care about all of that sexual morality stuff. Too hard. No alternatives, as you said. Have fun, and rationlize away, because God loves it.

    I didn’t say God didn’t care or that it wasn’t sin. I’ve been perfectly clear. I asked for you guys to come up with an alternative to an obviously bias contract that is unfair and disastrous for men. An alternative would be celibacy and rejection of marriage. Albeit a difficult choice, one where men will falter from time to time but ultimately the best choice.

    I stated that one of the reasons porn is chosen is because sex in marriage has become more and more expensive and thus more men will turn to porn as a reliable outlet for sexual release. That’s not condoning porn, it’s just pure economics. Men want sexual release, since they can’t get it in marriage, they will get it elsewhere. I didn’t say that men should use porn as a substitute, I only said it would increase because none of you can provide solutions beyond shaming. You keep doing it. You accuse me of things I never said.

    At the end of this, you will feel righteous trying to make fun of me and calling me evil and whatnot else but you know in the end, nothing will have changed.

  174. Minesweeper says:

    @MKT 😀

    no snuff movies here ! (skyler not allowed here)

    “I really don’t need a porn-loving polygamist on my street!” – I am neither, you obviously understand the God’s written word as well as you understand mine.

  175. feministhater says:

    Vet away, and marry a good Christian woman.

    Doesn’t work for the majority of men. A few will find them, the rest will have the living crap beaten out of them. For 80% of men, this just isn’t a viable alternative. It’s just a crapshoot. A gamble.

  176. Caspar Reyes says:

    SkylerWurden and the other high-horse moralists here remind me of a cucumber-wielding Benny Hill in that New England 1635 Social Intercourse skit. “You wicked, evil man!”

    “The beratings will continue until morality improves!” Grandstanding against pr0nz is an easy A. It doesn’t touch cads or sluts, and it gives women and preachers a way to feel self-righteous enough to “weaponize Matt 5:28” [thanks Hose_B], yet self-righteousness is the very thing Matt 5:28 is against. Moralizing about pr0nz affects only those men who are susceptible to introspection and guilt anyway, who are likely as not sexually frustrated, yet who stoically submit to the exhortations with even more self-evaluation and self-flagellation and self-condemnation and resolve to do better.

  177. feministhater says:

    Thanks Caspar. They feel high and mighty.

    It’s so easy not to feel sexual urges, right guys? It doesn’t gnaw at you when you go to sleep, it doesn’t get to you when you see a beautiful women? No, nothing, just control it guys, so easy. Don’t touch your wiener, not even once, off to hell with you wiener toucher! Off with their weiners! The beatings will continue until men accept marriage 2.0 and submit to their wives and accept their divorce with grace and give their resources and lives away with a smile on their faces. Happy that they didn’t end up sinning by touching their wieners and sacrificing themselves for their better half. Ain’t life grand, eh?

    Don’t touch your wieners gents. Oh well, your wife will fuck around a bit, spend her youth getting that degree and starting that career. But just think, you can have her at the ripe age of 33, that’s 2 years from 35 guys, what a bargain! And with experience to boot, just think, you have no experience, right? So she has to get it on your behalf, ain’t that nice of her, doing things for you like that, she’s such a good, Christian girl, doing the hard stuff so you don’t have to. Awww, you guys should be falling all over yourselves to get that ring on her finger.

    This is the grandest deal of them all, step right up and grab your prizes gents. And wait, there’s more! Yes, moar! If you get married now, in ten years, that’s right, just ten years! You get a…… divorce! Yippee, amiright! It’s not like you loved your kids, right? You don’t need to see them to give them money, right? It’s perfect, you work, she gets your money and doesn’t have to do that icky sex stuff with you, you didn’t need it for the first 20 years of your life, what does it matter now? Yay! It doesn’t, just be a celibate, work horse! The life worth livin’! That’s what my dad, oh wait….

  178. ys says:

    FH-
    Doesn’t work for 80 percent of men? I am skeptical on your rates. Either way, my word is only for Christians. Sure, if one is unsaved, I don’t know why they would get married, either. Be a hedonist. Spin the plates, as it were.
    Even if your 80 percent rate does apply, what I said still stands. For instance, I heard recently that only 1 out of 100 people who have a weight loss goal reach it, and only 1 out of those 100 keep it off (the weight). Odds stacked against. Better to not try, right? Well, no. You are in control. Maybe 80 percent of marriages fail. Yours would not have to, at all. Many men, still, despite it being 2017 and the internet being full of manospheres, pick a wife blind, essentially. You clearly would not be doing that.

  179. ys says:

    Minesweeper-
    A lot of your stuff seems off-course. But for starters, are you saying that we misunderstand the Bible because we don’t have the original context down? Lolz. You do know that feminists say this to talk down Eph. 5, 1 Peter 3, etc., right?
    I get it. Culture is important. The text also says what the text says. My biggest criticism of modern Bible scholars and pastors would not be their feminism (that would rank top 5). It’s this very idea, that if you don’t spend 2 years learning first century history, and 2 years learning Greek and Hebrew, you can’t really understand the Bible. That is a very dangerous message, but one that gets sent, anyway.

  180. ys says:

    Then come to find out that SkylerWurden said similar, but slightly different, stuff above me.

  181. feministhater says:

    You’re skeptical? With a 50% divorce rate, unhappy marriages and sexless marriages that are purely kept going for the kids. You really think that 80% doesn’t apply… ?

    Marriage just isn’t a good deal and it comes with far too much risk. Your reward is a little sex which can be withdrawn the moment you get married. Yes, she can withdraw it the moment you get married and you cannot do a single thing. You think women don’t know how to pretend, how to pass your vetting tests? Really? You think they haven’t played this game long enough to know how to play to win?

    I’m way too thirty and grumpy to get married. I accept that. I still have sexual urges though, ain’t going to lie about that.

    Still, could be worse. I could be stuck in a marriage.

  182. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl said: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a good explanation.

    ‘Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.’ CCC 2354”

    Love that last sentence. Did you know that the RCC has always also taught that such sins as fornication, sodomy, and adultery are not only grave (mortal) personal sins, but also give scandal and undermine society as a whole? And as such, are public acts that are dangerous to society? Therefore, civil society not only has the right, but even the duty, to ‘prevent’, i.e. criminalize, such acts.

    But you try selling that to the American people – that if caught having sex with your girlfriend, you should both be arrested and processed by the criminal justice system. Go ahead, try. See how far you get.

    In case you didn’t notice, Earl, the doctrine of “Christus Rex” is dead as a doornail. And FrancisChuch sure ain’t about to try to resurrect it!

  183. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    I think your digs against Protestants bother me more than any reference to RCC doctrine. RCC has plenty of its own skeletons that the digs usually don’t stand up, at least in my view. (I was raised RCC, including confirmation, but left because of the discrepancies I saw between it and Biblical Christianity. I believe people can be reborn in the RCC, but the doctrinal errors were finally too heavy for me.)

    KJV-only is idiotic. It has some great values and some attack it on very flimsy ground, but it is still a translation and subject to its own flaws. The fact we know them can make it reasonable. I tend toward the NKJV myself, but I am not all that worried about the specific translation, except that I find the trends, such as in the NIV-positive land, to be very disconcerting.

    Anyone who could argue that porn is perfectly fine and has no problem has a few screws loose in their brain. It is far more understandable given the modern marriage situation, but it is not a good, much less something that should be embraced and widely enjoyed. God created marriage to fulfill that need, and we need to focus on that, not praise or overly denigrate alternative outlets.

  184. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    I do agree that some sins are worse in impact for the society and individual, but sin is sin. Any sin will cut you off from God. The venial and moral distinction is false. Your spirit is either reborn (Rom 10:9-10) or you are not.

  185. feministhater says:

    Anyone who could argue that porn is perfectly fine and has no problem has a few screws loose in their brain. It is far more understandable given the modern marriage situation, but it is not a good, much less something that should be embraced and widely enjoyed. God created marriage to fulfill that need, and we need to focus on that, not praise or overly denigrate alternative outlets.

    Can you please just point out where someone said it was good and needed to be embraced? Thanks.

  186. ys says:

    FH-
    I see some of your points. But the problem is, there are still good Christian women out there, who seek to follow the Bible. Of course they will have their moments and times of sin, AWALT after all, but there is a difference. People can somewhat lie to pass vetting, but not too much. We are who we are, and the mask is bound to slip. Besides, these days women think, as this blog has lol’d about, that they are perfect, special, don’t need to change. Vetting makes a difference.
    I see a lot of bad, likely sexless, Christian marriages around me. Most of these people though, are older, like 50s and 60s, and you can tell they did little if any vetting. They did not try to find a good Christian spouse, someone who believes in a biblical marriage, and so forth. Some of that is that they’re from a different era. But many of the bad marriages are, indeed, that way, and for that reason. Many American Christians are as lazy in picking a spouse as they are many other aspects of the faith.

  187. ys says:

    FH-
    You commented when I did. When was porn said to be good and embraced? Perhaps not in those words, but telling people they misunderstand Matthew 5:28 (which you didn’t do) or asking what other choice do men have? Or rhetorically saying that Christians act like someone will be condemned to hell for touching their unit once…those are all backward ways of condoning it. No different than a feminist saying, “Yeah, I got divorced! But God still loves me and has been guiding me through this process.” You’ll notice, that fictional, feminist statement, which many of us have heard variations of, does not say divorce is good and should be embraced. Yet we all still understand the message buried within.

  188. feministhater says:

    I never said God guided anyone through the process of sinning through masturbation. Would you please stop with the blatant attempts to reframe my arguments. I stated I understand why boys and men turn to porn. I stated that it was due to not being able to get married and that even when married, there is almost no sex. A massive problem for 18 to 30 year old Christian men is lack of willing Christian women looking to get married early. They just don’t exist. So, you know what I did? I asked all of you, every last man here to provide alternatives to these men when the alternative of marriage simply does not exist. You get the question now. I will ask it in another way. let’s say, women disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, those men who burn with passion, what alternatives do they have to achieve sexual release?

    The sexual desert for Christian men aged 16 and above is real, it’s not a joke and you cannot state that the answer is marriage because they simply cannot get married.

    Something else I stated was that since they cannot solve this problem, they will probably end up sinning and eventually end up at a place, much like myself, where they can control their urge for sex. At that point, they can seek redemption and repent. Before that, belittling them, telling them how naughty and evil they are, how destructive they are, how humanity suffers because they spank the crank serves only to puff up your own chest. It does sweet, F all else.

  189. Minesweeper says:

    “ys says: Minesweeper-
    A lot of your stuff seems off-course. But for starters, are you saying that we misunderstand the Bible because we don’t have the original context down? ”

    I think you answered your own question. Plus translations vary, from wycliff to the new feminist NIV. The translations are more like tabloid\novel rather than indepth meaning. If everyone is going to go nuts over a single verse, you owe it to yourself to look at what the original says. Its not for everyone though.

  190. Gary Eden says:

    Just because someone claims porn is sinful doesn’t make it so. Show me where its condemned in the OT, until then you’re just blowing smoke.

    Sexual immorality doesn’t mean ‘sexual things I don’t like’, but ‘sexual acts condemned by scripture’. Feminists and churchians take the former definition. If you care about truth and fidelity to scripture you must take the latter.

    Do you want to lower the rates of porn use? Then you can’t just condemn and shame but need to get to the root causes and come up with actual solutions.

    Do you want to keep loosing the culture war? By all means, keep on with your high and mighty smoke blowing.

  191. SirHamster says:

    Just because someone claims porn is sinful doesn’t make it so. Show me where its condemned in the OT, until then you’re just blowing smoke.

    How odd to specify OT only.

    ““Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”

    No, you show me some holy porn.

  192. ys says:

    Minesweeper,
    Thank you. I know what the original says, and believe we have faithful English translations today to render it understandable.

  193. feeriker says:

    feministhater says:
    August 9, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I wouldn’t waste any more time and effort engaging with Skyler. He’s not interested in debating anyone in good faith (this isn’t his first trolling expedition on this blog). The sheer arrogance of his pseudo-pious claptrap is a good indication that he probably consumes more porn than any ten others here. The worst offenders tend to project the hardest (now which sex is most expert at THAT …?).

  194. feeriker says:

    Skyler says:

    Dude… I’m a 27 year old loser who works entry level minimum wage jobs./i>.

    Taking this statement at face value, this is as good an indication (and admission) as any that you need to shut your mouth and stop acting as if you have anything meaningful to say to people who have two or three-plus decades of “time in life” on you. You’re accomplishing nothing other than providing justification for the negative views people hold of Millennials. Is that your goal here?

  195. Dale says:

    >Romance novels are porn.

    Based on articles in the newspaper, it is apparently illegal to have words that describe sex acts with minors in Canada. The complete absence of any real person that is a victim is irrelevant.
    The Canadian government is of course not a legitimate authority on what is moral, although it is a valid civil authority (Rom 13:1-7).

    But at least according to the government, words are thus pornography, or at least its equal.

    From a moral perspective, I think romance novels are far more likely to be the moral hazard that people assume pornographic images to be. In a romance novel, the readers mind dwells on the various sex acts, as the author describes them for several pages at a time. By contrast, a man/woman viewing pornographic images to aid in sexual release may do so for only as long as necessary to accomplish the required task.
    The result of the first (novel) seems much more likely to lead to the covetous, dwelling of thoughts on desire for another man’s wife, which is described in Matt 5:27-28.
    If a man fantasizes about sex with the other man’s wife that he sees in the picture, that too matches what I see described in Matt 5, and such covetous thoughts should similarly be removed from our lives.

    For rebuking romance novels however, we have a problem. As others have noted, rebuking people for a (presumed) sin, when that group could conceivably include women, is not acceptable in our churches, or in society at large.

    >The problem with the KJV bible, from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, is that it’s incomplete. The KJV bible has 66 books, whereas the Catholic bible has 73.

    Or, perhaps we should consider the idea that the RCC bible has added extra-biblical texts. Given their other teachings, this is not a stretch. (I am not personally on the KJV-only bandwagon.)

    >So is there an OT injunction against watching others have sex

    It is necessary to recognize that Jesus is extending the breaking of specific OT laws; specifically:
    – murder (Ex 20:13, Matt 5:21-26)
    – adultery – as in, actual, physical sex with another man’s wife (Ex 20:14, Matt 5:27-28)
    – breaking oaths (don’t have an OT verse for this one off the top of my head, Matt 5:31-32)

    Desiring an unmarried and unbetrothed woman, or even having sex with her, is not adultery. Granted, it may be another problem (Ex 22:16); but it is not adultery.

    As for an injunction against watching others, in a sexual manner, Habakkuk 2 says:
    15
    “Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
    you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
    in order to gaze at their nakedness!
    16
    You will have your fill of shame instead of glory.
    Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision!

    So intending to get another person drunk, so that you can see them naked, is unacceptable. Presumably the drink was to get the second person to pass out, so the drink-given could get the second person’s clothes off without the second person’s agreement.

    Do any porn producers get the men or women drunk first? Or just pay them money?
    Or in the case of some people, just offer them a chance at fame?

    >Now I would say a man could be so enslaved in extreme cases that divorce is a possibility.

    A commenter here (can’t remember who) regularly reminds us that women are nowhere in Scripture given the right to divorce. Obviously, we are not being reminded enough. A Christian woman has no right to demand/initiate a divorce, ever. See 1 Cor 7. She is commanded to not even leave her husband. But for the rebellious women that do anyway, those are further commanded to stay alone or go back to their husband.
    So no, a man’s use of pornography, cocaine, cigarettes, and booze does not grant a woman the right to divorce.
    Granted, if the husband commits (real) adultery, he is supposed to be killed. Thus the former wife is now a widow, and free to remarry within the limits of 1 Cor 7.

    You are very correct about the unfortunate affects of telling women they can use pornographic use as an excuse to sin by committing divorce (see 1 Corth 7 again).

    @ys
    >… still [] Christian women out there, who [claim to] seek to follow the Bible [while living in open rebellion]
    fify

    Go to any “Christian” church, and count the men who are in visible rebellion against Scripture, in the middle of “church” service, for commands like:
    – being drunk
    – having long hair (1 Cor 11:1-16)
    – having heads covered in service (1 Cor 11:1-16)
    – having women’s clothing (deut 22:5)
    – being un-self-controlled; maybe having to light up another cigarette during service, or being obese (Titus 2:1-5)

    Now do the same count for women, but with the opposite commands to women from those same passages.

  196. feministhater,

    I didn’t say God didn’t care or that it wasn’t sin. I’ve been perfectly clear. I asked for you guys to come up with an alternative to an obviously bias contract that is unfair and disastrous for men. An alternative would be celibacy and rejection of marriage. Albeit a difficult choice, one where men will falter from time to time but ultimately the best choice.

    I have an alternative for men. Masturbation. There I said it.

    You don’t have to look at porn. You don’t have to look at anything. You don’t even have to think about anything. When you go to bed, jerk off, go to sleep. Every night if you’d like. You get the dopamine/serotonin release, you getting better sleep (deeper sleep), AND you have committed no sin.

    No where in ANY BIBLE (KJB, GN, NIV) does Christ condemn masturbation as sin. That is because it isn’t. Just rub ’em out (every day if necessary.) Empty that prostate, keep it nice and empty. Because if you don’t, God will just empty it anyway with a nocturnal emission (again, not sin.) I mean geez, not routinely emptying your prostate, we may find out in a decade or two that (over time) this may exacerbate prostate cancer. No thanks. I’ll empty (by myself if I have to) and I feel perfectly confident in standing with God and answering for it.

  197. Anon says:

    Skyler admitted :

    Dude… I’m a 27 year old loser who works entry level minimum wage jobs

    Then you should have said that in the first place, so as to not waste anyone’s time.

  198. He could have just said…. “word of warning, I still eat blue pills” and left it at that.

  199. Anonymous Reader says:

    anon
    Then you should have said that in the first place, so as to not waste anyone’s time.

    Good thing you were never 27 years old, working a job you didn’t like, eh?
    If you want to understand why the younger Millennials and GenZ men tend to dislike Boomers and Xrs, this thread contains a few examples.

    What did Skyler post to deserve this condescenion and contempt? Point to it.

  200. feeriker says:

    What did Skyler post to deserve this condescenion and contempt? Point to it.

    Go back and re-read his posts, noting carefully his OWN condescending, contemptuous, arrogant prescriptions for sexually frustrated men that are just echoes of the contemptuous garbage that both church and society spit in men’s faces every day. Then look at his statement admitting to both his age and station in life, two things that remove any right to lecture his fellow men — most of whom are older and far wiser in the ways of the world than he is— on how to live their lives.

    THAT is the answer to your question of how he EARNED the condescension and contempt he’s getting.

  201. MKT says:

    “Good thing you were never 27 years old, working a job you didn’t like, eh?
    If you want to understand why the younger Millennials and GenZ men tend to dislike Boomers and Xrs, this thread contains a few examples.

    What did Skyler post to deserve this condescenion and contempt? Point to it.”

    I agree. Of course we’re supposed to believe that people who defend/rationalize porn are ultra-wise 50 year old men with a super model wife (or three); a bunch of wonderful, super-obedient kids; and several six-figure businesses they run. That’s why they spend so much time here finding loopholes for their porn habits. Really makes sense.

    Skyler was honest. Who knows what the real age or status of others on here are.

  202. feministhater says:

    Of course we’re supposed to believe that people who defend/rationalize porn are ultra-wise 50 year old men with a super model wife (or three); a bunch of wonderful, super-obedient kids; and several six-figure businesses they run. That’s why they spend so much time here finding loopholes for their porn habits. Really makes sense.

    Just point out where this is stated. Point out where anyone has said they were super wise 50 year old men with super model wives. Come on, do it.

  203. Hose_B says:

    “his age and station in life, two things that remove any right to lecture his fellow men — most of whom are older and far wiser in the ways of the world than he is— on how to live their lives.”

    Jesus was 30 AND had no station in life. I’m not saying Skyler is Jesus…….I am saying that your logic is flawed.
    Yes Skyler was arrogant and angry. I’m sure that being 27 with no love and little success will tend to do that. However, his words are NOT untrue. He laid out a fairly red pill argument. Some Commenters here didn’t like that. His analogies were pretty crude….but again. true.

    @FH
    ALTERNATIVE:
    You guys want a REAL alternative? Stop viewing the government as God. Don’t sign “Marriage Contract” Just “be” married in Gods eyes. And I don’t mean “Just cohabitate” Biblical Marriage. The US Government doesn’t control or authorize marriage. You are either married in Gods eyes or Not. He doesn’t care what the US Government thinks.
    This doesn’t solve the problem of FINDING a girl. Nor does it solve all of the risk. She can still leave. She can still sue you after (and maybe win). She can still wield the US Government, but so can anyone.

    @JeffStrand
    “Therefore, civil society not only has the right, but even the duty, to ‘prevent’, i.e. criminalize, such acts.
    But you try selling that to the American people – that if caught having sex with your girlfriend, you should both be arrested and processed by the criminal justice system.”

    Again….stop putting your faith in the Government. If we make an analogy to Rome and the Hebrews, America is Rome and Christians are the Hebrews. (you can insert your home country if outside US.) Christians are called to live under a self imposed THEOCRACY while under control of the Civil Governmental form, whether it be Democracy, Monarchy, Communism…..doesn’t matter.
    The US Government is NOT going to enforce religious doctrine without a majority vote……..Since we are called to walk through the NARROW gate, its hard to imagine that we will ever have a true Christian majority in a democracy. The followers of Ba’al will always outnumber us.

  204. MKT says:

    “Just point out where this is stated. Point out where anyone has said they were super wise 50 year old men with super model wives. Come on, do it.”

    Way to miss the point. I simply said Skyler admitted his age and station in life. Others said we shouldn’t listen to him because they’re supposedly much older, wiser and more successful. I challenged that notion.

    I’m willing to bet that innocentbystanerboston (AKA Captain Fapper) isn’t successful, though. I’m pretty sure this article was written just for him: https://tinyurl.com/y9ek9vxc

  205. FFY says:

    Is it alright if I have an OT question for you guys? Some advice/guidance on a woman pastor situation?

    I was recently at a funeral for my girlfriend’s grandmother and it turned out to be at the sole ELCA church among the hundreds of LCMS in that part of Iowa. I had never been to an ELCA church before but the interior decoration and touchy feely quotes got my antennae twitching… and I seemed to remember ELCA being discussed here in the comments… and sure enough we got the full ELCA treatment via a woman pastor.

    Aside from the natural revulsion I experienced at being (fake)”pastored” to by a 5’2″ 50 year old probable lesbian (I swear this is not hyperbole). I felt this covert attack on my/our souls, like we were being low key spiritually affronted non stop. She (and her church) is/are subverting scripture, disobeying God in plain daylight in front of everyone, and then standing up there claiming authority and the people have to take it, Soviet style.

    Since it was my gf’s grandmother’s funeral I chose to bite my tongue, stay seated, and tune out as much of the “pastor” as I could. But every bone in my body wanted to march right out of there due to the wrongness of it all. As did most of my gf’s dad’s side who are Catholic. We all bit our tongues Iowa-nice style and made an allowance since it was a funeral. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    I would like to ask you guys what would be the proper, biblical response to a situation like that? Would walking out be justifiable biblically speaking?

    Yes we were nice but were we correct? Or am I overreacting to the affront I felt to my soul and to God and that sitting there and taking it is ok?

    Obviously there isn’t much out there on this that I could find and I trust a lot of you more than any of the experts

    I may have more of situations like these on my gf’s side and any advice you guys could provide would be awesome. Thanks in advance!

    (and if this comment is way OT, delete it at will, Dal!)

  206. Jeff Strand says:

    “Again….stop putting your faith in the Government. If we make an analogy to Rome and the Hebrews, America is Rome and Christians are the Hebrews. (you can insert your home country if outside US.) Christians are called to live under a self imposed THEOCRACY while under control of the Civil Governmental form, whether it be Democracy, Monarchy, Communism…..doesn’t matter.
    The US Government is NOT going to enforce religious doctrine without a majority vote……..Since we are called to walk through the NARROW gate, its hard to imagine that we will ever have a true Christian majority in a democracy. The followers of Ba’al will always outnumber us.”

    Your example of Rome and Hebrews is odd. The appropriate example is the High Middle Ages in Europe, where you had a “union of throne and altar”. This doesn’t mean you had theocracy, as in Iran today. No, the Church (clergy) were separate from the State (king and nobles).

    But the State considered that its job was just as much to facilitate its citizens going to Heaven, as their material well-being in this life. So while the State would not force you to embrace religious beliefs, it would stop you (by force, up to and including execution in exceptional cases) from publicly spreading heresy…as this is putting the souls of others at risk. So just as the State would stop you from poisoning the water supply, same logic applies here – in the one case you’re attacking the physical well-being of your fellow citizens, in the other case you’re attacking their spiritual well-being. In either case, the State has not just the right, but the duty to stop you. By force if necessary.

    Same thing goes for the commission of sins that give scandal and/or undermine public order and society. This would include sins like adultery, fornication, and sodomy. To the extent you are damning yourself with such sins, the solution is repentance and sacramental confession with the appropriate penance, in order to re-establish your friendship with God. That’s on a personal level. But since these sins also undermine society, and are therefore a crime against the State and your fellow citizens, there would be a civil penalty as well. It modern terms, you’d be arrested and hauled in front of a judge. Again this is not a theocracy – how the Church handled your repentance in Confession is totally separate and has no bearing on your civil process of punishment, and the judge in your civil proceeding would NOT be a clergyman and the court itself is a secular court.

    This idea of Church and State working together to help as many citizens go to Heaven as possible is long-standing Catholic doctrine. It is often referred to as the doctrine of “Christ the King” (“Christus Rex”), because the idea is that God is sovereign and therefore Christ should rule over human society, not just individual men’s hearts. Therefore, no civil society can morally or with justice pass any law contrary to the teachings of Christ or Holy Mother Church,

    As I said, this status was achieved during the High Middle Ages, esp the 1200’s. This was informally referred to as “the union of throne and altar”. This is why Pope St. Pius X, in the early 20th century said, “The doctrine of the separation of Church and State is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.”

    The implementation of this ended when Martin Luther came along and upset the apple cart, followed by the rise of State power. Kings came to believe they had ultimate power from God Himself, and answered only to Him. And that as a result, they were not bound to ensure that they ruled in accordance with the teachings and laws of the Church. And this led in a straight line to the legalization of abortion, and 50 million slaughtered in the womb (in the USA alone!)

  207. thedeti says:

    “Some advice/guidance on a woman pastor situation?”

    This’ll be fun.

    “I would like to ask you guys what would be the proper, biblical response to a situation like that? Would walking out be justifiable biblically speaking?”

    Yes. But most people won’t do that, because it’s impolite. I’m not faulting you for recognizing that doing so would be impolite, and choosing to be polite. A hundred years ago, the Catholics wouldn’t have even set foot in that ELCA church, much less listened to a female “pastor”.

    “Yes we were nice but were we correct?”

    You were nice AND correct, in the current atmosphere. Remember Bob Greene’s Law of Power 38: “Think as you like, but behave like others.” Walking out would have been rocking the boat in a major way, particularly at a funeral. The better response would have been simply not to attend, if you really couldn’t take a female pastor. As for me, I simply check out who is present, or find out what I can about the church and pastorate and officiants beforehand, and respectfully decline to attend, if that can be done. I have walked out of a female “Minister’s” teaching a couple of times, on a pretense, simply because I didn’t want to make waves right then and there.

    “Or am I overreacting to the affront I felt to my soul and to God and that sitting there and taking it is ok?”

    No you’re not overreacting. No, sitting there and taking it is not OK. But consider who else was present, and what walking out would have presented. You would have made a scene unnecessarily, and injured your GF and her family in the process. Her Catholic family was probably seething as much as you were. And what would a walkout have done? In the near term, just created hard feelings and animosity.

    Better to do what research you can ahead of time….

  208. Novaseeker says:

    FFY —

    It’s a funeral, which is a special context in which you are there to support your GF and her family and not really to participate in the life of that church. Walking out in that context would not be wise or considerate — noting what is happening and not assenting to it interiorly while continuing support publicly was probably the best course. I’ve attended Jewish funerals and so on where I was certainly not affirming the faith commitment or practices of the current version of that faith, but I attended and followed the customs out of respect for the deceased and his family. Funerals are a special context.

  209. FFY says:

    Thanks both of you for the feedback/advice.

    I appreciate the shared outrage, deti, but I think Nova’s reframe to a Jewish funeral allows for a great point to be made- not many of us would refuse or walk out of a funeral because of religious difference. And while I did not do a good job of mentioning that she actually did try to sermonize up there in authority over us, Nova’s point still stands- I can close my ears.

    Nova’s reframe also shows that in hindsight I think I was overreacting and that it was the fact that as a Lutheran (LCMS) I was getting pissed at a church claiming to also be Lutherans while being in open rebellion.

    Likewise, I’ve been to plenty of Catholic weddings and funerals and have had no issues except that as a Lutheran I can’t partake in Catholic Eucharist. If I even were able to discern that a priest was deviating from what he should be doing, I wouldn’t be anywhere near as mad as the Catholics in attendance would be

  210. Anonymous Reader says:

    FFY, funerals are not for the dead person, they are for the liiving survivors. Nova’s on the mark. I’ve been to a funeral presided over by a female Presbyterian minister and while it was grating, like someone dragging their fingernails down a chalkboard, that was the church the family went to. So out of respect for the family of the dead I went along with the service. Because the only alternative is to not attend at all. Making a scene over theological issues in the middle of someone else’s mourning is just childish.

  211. FFY says:

    And just for the lulz, I forgot to mention the sermon she delivered went for an hour and fifteen minutes. For a funeral. And it was awful. In stereotypical fashion she meandered around picking up and dropping various threads without making any real point or logical structure past the first five minutes- when she discussed gma’s loving personality in order to springboard onto what she wanted to talk about. The AARP eligible crowd was snoring halfway through and by the end a lot of the aunts and uncles were too.

    There was a collective head scratching afterwards wondering what exactly she was trying to say or do that whole time. The Catholics were especially baffled haha

  212. thedeti says:

    Fair enough, FFY. Nova’s response is the better one, I admit.

  213. FFY says:

    PS and then I’ll be done-

    It’s pretty neat here at Dalrock’s that I, a spherian since 2010, can ask a question that gets answered almost immediately and helpfully by three out of only a handful of spherians that I am aware of that have been around even longer! That is some continuity and dedication, you guys are awesome

    /brolovesesh

  214. Sticky Burr says:

    Secret King strikes again!

  215. Pingback: Dispatch from the friend zone – Suman Ds Blog

  216. ys says:

    Dale-
    Quit being obtuse. There are, still, Christian women who follow the Bible. If you know zero, that speaks more for you than anything.

  217. ys says:

    Incidentally, I find it humorous that some have said Skyler shouldn’t be listened to, due to his age, yet others have condemned foolish old people (those stupid tradcuck boomers). Going to have to pick.
    Plus, Feeriker, so, masterbation isn’t wrong, yet Skyler does it 10x what everyone else does? You even used the word offender to say it. Your conscience cries out, regardless of rationalizing.

  218. Gunner Q says:

    FFY @ 9:15 am:
    “I had never been to an ELCA church before but the interior decoration and touchy feely quotes got my antennae twitching… and I seemed to remember ELCA being discussed here in the comments… and sure enough we got the full ELCA treatment via a woman pastor.”

    For future reference, the ELCA endorses, sanctions and frocks openly unrepentant, publicly active homosexuals. Your instincts led you right; hate them with all the righteous hatred you can muster.

    “I would like to ask you guys what would be the proper, biblical response to a situation like that? Would walking out be justifiable biblically speaking?”

    There’s no one right answer. Yours was Naaman’s choice in 2 Kings 5:18-19 so you’re forgiven. Don’t feel guilty. Walking out and returning later to privately give respect would also have been acceptable. I would have directly confronted her at the risk of alienating my extended family but only because of what I’ve been through in Commiefornia. Normal guys with normal Christian experiences would have done as you did.

  219. SirHamster says:

    I would like to ask you guys what would be the proper, biblical response to a situation like that? Would walking out be justifiable biblically speaking?

    There is no one proper response. Biblical acts are not scripted, but motivated by correctly prioritized values, with the highest one being love – it being God’s love that saves us instead of leaving us to judgement. (If we have not love … resounding gong, doing nothing of value, gaining nothing)

    Walking out to protest unbiblical practice is justified. Staying to show grace to a mourning family and covering over sin is justified. Biting one’s tongue during and confronting the guilty afterwards is justified.

    But if you’re going to flip tables, you need the conviction and commitment to follow through to the bitter end. (Ex: lose gf, alienation) Half-assing it doesn’t do anyone any good.

  220. Hmm says:

    FFY:

    I went through much the same thing this weekend as I sat through a wedding at a Unitarian church. The (male) minister really wanted this to seem like a Christian wedding (most of the groom’s family were Christian), but with readings by Rumi, Jane Austen and Walt Whitman, there wasn’t much substance – nor in his homily, which was basically secular advice.

    I went. and I stayed, for the sake of our friends in the groom’s family, and during the prayer to the “powers” I prayed consistently that Jesus would break through and draw the young man (and his wife) into God’s kingdom. That was my subversive way of handling the situation.

  221. feministhater says:

    Incidentally, I find it humorous that some have said Skyler shouldn’t be listened to, due to his age, yet others have condemned foolish old people (those stupid tradcuck boomers). Going to have to pick.

    I know right. It’s not like we get foolish young and foolish old people. No one has to pick. In this case, Skyler came on here acting exactly like an old tradcon, using the exact same shaming language, with the exact same inability to produce solutions, nor provide any meaningful advice. And then when called on it, says he’s a 27 yeah old loser.

    A 27 year old loser, acting like he’s a tradition man, telling older and more experienced men to go get married. He’s saying exactly what he’s been told to say by the tradcons in his life.

    You really find that humourous? They both suffer from the same delusions that keep sending men into the grinder. And both him and tradcons shame men who know marriage is a shit deal and seek other means to carry on living their lives.

  222. FFY says:

    Wow Dalrock it’s like Tomi Lahren read your post and decided to one up Scarborough!

    Honestly though her tweet is a work of art, the perfect catnip for conservatives/college repub types to show who the real man is in the room and white knight for a shot at the hand of m’lady. A twitter scale thunderdome of “let’s you and him[ the other thousands of thirsty followers] fight” while I soak up the attention.

    Tomi Lahren-

    “As I watch millennial men struggle to lift their bags into the overhead bin I am reminded how f’d we are if there’s a draft.”

    It’s got a little bit of everything Dalrock has discovered that conservatives love in their feminists. Or as I put it on twitter “Reminder that conservatives j*** themselves over chicks that dump on men in a more agro way than navel gazing lib feminists”.

    >Trashes men in general or at least a large enough swath that pushback won’t occur. Millenials as a group is big and diverse and therefore impossible to defend (and trashing them earns you doubleplus truconservative points), whereas gamers, not so much.
    >implicitly elevates herself above these “men” as it is assumed she could lift her bag
    >leaves opening for men to rush in and qualify themselves, beating their chests in cartoonish chivalry. The older men get to continue trashing the younger, the younger guys get to qualify their butts off to show they’re not one of those kinds of millenials!
    >Mentions the draft at all in any way shape or form- trucons love rah-rah militaristic, gun toting women who can’t look at men without constantly/randomly wondering how useful they be in the meat grinder

    Part of me suspects her story may also be a classic case of shitthatdidnthappen.txt because it is just too spot on

  223. Son Liberty says:

    Patrick says:
    August 9, 2017 at 10:05 am

    I always encourage Christians to steer clear of the KJV Bible because so many users are so passionate about it. It has almost become an idol. People worship the KJV instead of Jesus. Plus, the Bible in circulation at the time Jesus walked the Earth, the Septuagint (LXX), was written in Greek and contained all of the books of the Vulgate. It would have been natural for a Greek Bible to be the standard during the tlife of Jesus, because by that time, due to extensive Hellenization in the MIddle East, many Jews no longer spoke Hebrew. In fact, the most educated and upper class Jews tended to use Greek as their primary language. That’s why the Septuagint, the Bible relied upon by the New Testament authors, was written in Greek. The early Hebrew versions of the OT date from later; probably sometime in the 2nd century. These Hebrew versions do omit several books of the Bible but were not in use during the time of Jesus, and were a reaction against Hellenism that occurred after the Temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD. In a bid to survive in these times, Jews purged many things associated with Hellenism or Rome and retreated to their old Hebrew roots. The fact that their Hebrew OT Bibles compiled in this era omitted some of the books originally written in Greek does not justify the actions of the Protestant Reformers in removing these books from the Bible.

    So what you are saying is that we should ignore the “Little Book” that God prophesied in the book of Revelation? The Little Book that was going to taste like honey that revived the Christian movement thanks to the Roman Catholic Church’s attempts to destroy it (inquisitions of European nations throughout hundreds of years). Where atheists and agnostics falsely label it as “Christian inquisition”, when it was a catholic inquisition against Christianity. Many followers of Jesus died for having the vintage variants of the Bible, and who rejected the institution of Babylon throughout the dark ages, leading to the Reformation era of Europe. What we have today as the King James in English, Reina Valera in Spanish, Almedia in Portuguese, Luther in German, Geneva in old English, and a few others that rose during the reformation era where nothing but God’s prophecy being fulfilled, where the book of Revelation was written 1500 years before it happened, and certainly nearly 200 years before the Great Whore of Babylon came to be from Rome. Does that mean we throw away the Book of Enoch? Surely not, as I am uncertain if anywhere in the Bible states the mandatory compiling of any works whatsoever. After all, “canonization” is nothing else but catholic, and not Biblical. I do agree though the Septuagint (LXX) is not to be put aside. But I am darn sure that the NIV, ESV, RSV, NLT, Rheims, and ANY OTHER “New” garbage is of corruption and of the gnositc upgrades of the “Latin Vulgate” that dates back to the Codex perversions of Alexandria Egypt. There are plenty of sites that compare verse by verse, word per word about the intentional modifications made, which go beyond the intent of “translation”.

    Historical, Biblical and detailed information about the Little Book…
    The Little Book Of Revelation 10

  224. feministhater says:

    Oh yeah, Tomi Lahren. Classic case of bitch face. These are the good, Christian girls ys has talked about before. They have no problem demeaning and belittling men. The idea that marriage can be saved…. laughable.

  225. Son Liberty says:

    @SkylerWurden

    Don’t go away bro, it’s not our faults the gen-x’s and boomers couldn’t stay vigilant across the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s entertainment boom that led us to Sodom and Gomorrah and the infiltration of Maritime/Admiralty/Roman Law/UCC/BAR Association laws of MEN of the Roman Catholic Church and not of the Constitution that was derived and inspired by the Bible. They let the Vatican Jesuit Order in and ruined everything for what was supposed to represent the last Christian nation on earth. Christian churches have gone apostate, infiltrated by Jesuits, daughter harlot spiritual denominations of the Mother Harlot church of Revelation 17. At no moment did Skyler mentioned or even insinuated marriage, or betaness, whatsoever. But he went exactly what God wants us to do. Will the pr0n, one night stands moments be crossed and violated? Sure, we all agree on that, regardless of your “experience” or age, but should the can be kicked a bit down the road? Or the red line should be moved just a bit to justify the toxic and Jezebel Spirit Environment? No, Nowhere in the Bible does it state that it is ok to slip once in awhile. But will it be violated? SURE, but we should strive for righteousness as BEST as we can, and not look the other way and tippy toe JUST before the cliff and call it “good”, because “the state of things is horrid!!” WE GET IT, but gen’x and boomers should quit the justification.

    Skyler = “We should run towards the path of God as best as we can, YES we will slip but we get up and run towards it.

    Others = We should SLOWLY walk and tippy toe the OTHER way and set a red line so we could justify our FEELINGS as how we interpret the Bible because feminism!!! We are sinful so its not my fault if I fail for pr0n or one night stands!!! I am not betaaaa!

  226. BillyS says:

    Hating the KJV because some people misuse it? So I take it you never use anything, if you consistently apply that standard. Men will misuse anything. It doesn’t make the base wrong.

    I trust the KJV more than most of the others, though it does clearly have its flaws. We know them. We don’t know the latest SJW crud in the latest NIV revision, for example. I trust the base documents for the KJV more as well. It wasn’t spoken by Jesus, but it is close enough to the original for me.

    Using RCC documents instead has a MAJOR flawed foundation.

  227. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ 7:03 am:
    “Go back and re-read his posts, noting carefully his OWN condescending, contemptuous, arrogant prescriptions for sexually frustrated men that are just echoes of the contemptuous garbage that both church and society spit in men’s faces every day. Then look at [Skyler’s] statement admitting to both his age and station in life, two things that remove any right to lecture his fellow men — most of whom are older and far wiser in the ways of the world than he is—”

    I’m older and wiser and would say the exact same things Skyler does here. Especially:

    “…I can’t get any woman to want me, above thirty or below. And sometimes I wonder why God decided to give me the sex-drive of a 16 year old boy at 27 while simultaneously denying me any ability to “release the tension”.”

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been through. It’s pure misery, knowing you’re going to fail God because God hardwired you to fail. But what’s a guy to do? There is only one God. So it’s our lot to try and fail and repeat until we weep, then try again until we wonder why we bother, then try again until our last sexual fantasy is not having sexual fantasies. Being dogmatic against porn protects ourselves from being tempted by false hope.

    Also this:

    “I’m a 27 year old loser who works entry level minimum wage jobs”

    At 27, I was one month away from becoming homeless on the streets and wondering if suicide might be the better choice, a man overqualified for McDonalds and underqualified for everything else. You are no loser, Skyler. The measure of a man today is not his income.

  228. Gary Eden says:

    The body is not meant for sexual immorality

    Yet you havn’t established that porn IS sexual immorality.

    No, you show me some holy porn.

    Song of Solomon

    From a moral perspective, I think romance novels are far more likely to be the moral hazard that people assume pornographic images to be.

    Given the difference between the sexes, this may be actual true in general. Porn helps men deal with fridged controlling wives. Romance novels make women dissatisfied with marriage and glorify divorce.

  229. BillyS says:

    Claiming you can lust after an image or movie of someone and not fall under what Jesus covered is ignoring reality. He didn’t have movies at the time, but they would have been covered, since all this is “in the mind” even if some of the help comes from the visual presentation. A picture still represents the woman, so trying to handwave its problems away is just as bad as those who claim porn use is full on adultery.

    Both stances are outside reality.

  230. BillyS says:

    Song of Solomon is holy porn? I doubt even the hardest up Amish teen reads it for that….

  231. Gary Eden says:

    Billy,

    You’re twisting scripture to apply to things they were not even remotely talking about.

    The Matthew 5 passage was well explained in the newer thread. Its talking about adultery, i.e. coveting someone else’s wife and how its still a sin of adultery to God even if you never do the act. The heart is the issue, not the act.

    That is entirely separate from porn; which could as easily be a video of you and your own wife having sex as it could an ancient statue or painting of a fictitious women.

    Who are you sinning against when you stare at a painting of a naked women? Are you committing adultery against her fictitious husband (not painted)? Its ludicrous Puritanicalism.

    The same churchians who rail all day against porn (never condemned in scripture) look the other way while their flock deflowers virgins (an act which in OT times could well lead to her stoning). You’ve totally missed the point.

  232. SirHamster says:

    No, you show me some holy porn.
    ———
    Song of Solomon

    If you’re fapping to Song of Solomon, I have no judgement on that.

    But men aren’t reading the Bible as porn to deal with frigid wives. Offering a book of the Bible as porn when men are using very different things for their sexual urges is a dishonest bait and switch that is beneath you.

  233. BillyS says:

    Gary,

    You’re twisting scripture to apply to things they were not even remotely talking about.

    The Matthew 5 passage was well explained in the newer thread. Its talking about adultery, i.e. coveting someone else’s wife and how its still a sin of adultery to God even if you never do the act. The heart is the issue, not the act.

    So I am fine if I take a picture of my neighbor’s wife and fap to that? Yeah, right.

    Matt 5 is about the mind being the basis of sin, not the action itself. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel in this case.

    The other thread still did not make this case better, but feel free to focus only there.

  234. ys says:

    FH-
    Just saw this here. Please, do not slander my good name by saying I think Tomi Lahren is a good Christian. She’s a pro-choice, modern-day feminist.
    She makes her living, as many before and since have, by giving some surface-level conservative talking points that either of us could give more intelligently, but it’s with the “tee hee hee, aren’t I a cute girl” act. As they have said at other places, if Tomi was really conservative, she’d be working on baby 2 or baby 3. As it is, she’s a poser.

  235. BillyS says:

    Gary,

    You’re twisting scripture to apply to things they were not even remotely talking about.

    The Matthew 5 passage was well explained in the newer thread. Its talking about adultery, i.e. coveting someone else’s wife and how its still a sin of adultery to God even if you never do the act. The heart is the issue, not the act.

    So I am fine if I take a picture of my neighbor’s wife and fap to that? Yeah, right.

    Matt 5 is about the mind being the basis of sin, not the action itself. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel in this case.

    The other thread still did not make this case better, but feel free to focus only there.

    (Fixed the quote.)

  236. feministhater says:

    You just described the base of the modern day Christian women. She describes herself as the good, Christian and a non-feminist woman, everyone supports her empowerment and she’s lives the dream. Changing her position and loyalties on the fly, just like Tomi. You know what, a few years ago, she was pro-life, then boom, she changed. Just like that. One second she waxes lyrical about her Marine boyfriend, next second she dumps him with not a thought or care in the world. You bet your arse she slept with him.

    Now, let her date around for her twenties, like Tomi is doing right now, then give her power in the marriage beyond her wildest dreams, handicap her future husband to the point of servant leadership with no authority but all responsibility, let her get a divorce for any or no reason at all, allow her to belittle and demean men with no consequences. No getting called out via the church except when she states she’s pro-abortion. Christian women are only called out if they come out as pro-choice. They can even be against the traditional family of one man and one woman and be praised. Everything else is empowerment and they enjoy it too, as much as their secular sisters.

    There are consequences to actions and empowering women has led to the dreadful cost of harmful marriages. These are all things Christian women can do, it’s not anecdotes, they are legally allowed to all of the above.

    I’m glad you and your friends found your unicorns, I truly hope that none of you become the statistics. However, for your marriage to work, somebody’s marriage must also end in divorce. I’m just not getting into that deal with those odds. I have not ever seen one of these good, Christian girls you speak of. And even if I did, as you have no doubt read, the suffering of my late teens and twenties has left me unable to be the man she would need me to be anyway.

    As you have to speak up for marriage, I have to speak out against it, just the way things turn out. I’m sure you understand.

  237. Gary Eden says:

    And you are using a verse about adultery and covetousness to condemn things it literally not talking about. Things the OT never comes close to condemning.

    Its this same approach that led early church fathers to literally call sex between man and wife sin if you did it with emotional feelings.

    And on Song of Solomon its a certain type of porn: romance / erotica. It has some very explicit statements.

  238. SirHamster says:

    @Gary

    And you are using a verse about adultery and covetousness to condemn things it literally not talking about. Things the OT never comes close to condemning.

    No, it’s a verse about sexual immorality. But if you want to call it covetousness, that fully applies to porn use.

    It being displayed virtually on a screen does not make it holier than if you see it in person at a personal sex show.

    Its this same approach that led early church fathers to literally call sex between man and wife sin if you did it with emotional feelings.

    The men worshiping their wives as goddesses are sinning. Including the men who think their wife can do no wrong and treat their vagina as a holiness detector.

    And on Song of Solomon its a certain type of porn: romance / erotica. It has some very explicit statements.

    No one faps to Song of Solomon. Erotic passages does not make it porn.

  239. Minesweeper says:

    @BillyS says: “August 11, 2017 at 5:07 pm
    Gary,

    You’re twisting scripture to apply to things they were not even remotely talking about.

    The Matthew 5 passage was well explained in the newer thread. Its talking about adultery, i.e. coveting someone else’s wife and how its still a sin of adultery to God even if you never do the act. The heart is the issue, not the act.

    So I am fine if I take a picture of my neighbor’s wife and fap to that? Yeah, right.”

    what does the text as read it say ? in english it says “anyone who looks at a WOMAN lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    No exceptions for your own wife or x-wife – its ANYONE looking lustfully at ANY WOMAN, if she finds herself sexually attractive (as woman often do) maybe she has even committed adultery with herself.

  240. Minesweeper says:

    @billyS, if you think thats a sin with your neighbours wife, its also a sin for your own. If your holding to what you think it says. No caveat is attached for your own woman that you are married too. You probably think there is by default, but nothing else is there.

  241. Minesweeper says:

    @Gary, it really is bonkers isnt it? I was speaking to a old friend who travels to the states regularly, his Christian friends (fiends?) would rather shoot someone than the sin of alcohol crosses their lips (for real). The fact that Jesus actually made wine from water, Jesus told us to drink wine in communion, Paul told timothy to drink wine, Jesus says we will drink wine in heaven with him. Means nothing as their views for that culture are set in stone, even when totally wrong.

    this whole thing is so similar to that, its like something that is not as issue and is healthy\normal and not an issue has been raised up to the most important issue of the day, while we have been discussing this – 20,000 babies in the west have been killed in the womb. Christians murdered\jailed in muslim countries, the culture is going even more anti-God than we could have ever expected even 20 odd years ago.

    This is why its so dangerous when the church focuses on BS as it ignores whats important. I could not give a shit if you think porn\fap is bad or not. Whats bad is the neglect that these false issues make everyone ignore the real problems. Which is why the enemy of the church loves it.

    If you dont want to drink\etc thats fine, I have no compulsion to want you too, but generally those who do follow a set of rules based on bad understanding, get an awful lot wrong as well, and they generally treat others much worse than they should.

  242. Anonymous Reader says:

    Meanwhile the sexbot designers are at work.

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/636722/sex-robot-on-sale-britain-covent-garden-london-synthea-amatus

    Let the shaming begin. It’ll be in stereo – from the pedestalizing tradcons on one side, and the YouGoGrrl feminists on the other, the usual pincers squeezing men down.

  243. Minesweeper says:

    @AR, if you look with lust at a sexbot are you committing adultery in your heart ?

    just want to check this out beforehand….

  244. ys says:

    FH-
    I really don’t speak for marriage. Just that it is the only right outlet for sexual satisfaction for a Christian. That isn’t a commandment to marry, just a statement.
    And, you don’t have to speak out against marriage. From your position, you would have more credibility if you told young men to marry one of the good ones, if he can find one.
    I really don’t advocate for the type like Tomi Lahren…though I am sure there are some women who like Tomi and are still okay in and of themselves.

  245. Anonymous Reader says:

    Minesweeper

    @AR, if you look with lust at a sexbot are you committing adultery in your heart ?

    Erm, I’ll have to get back to you on that. Real soon now.

  246. Minesweeper says:

    @AR,lol 😀

  247. earl says:

    You just described the base of the modern day Christian women. She describes herself as the good, Christian and a non-feminist woman, everyone supports her empowerment and she’s lives the dream. Changing her position and loyalties on the fly, just like Tomi. You know what, a few years ago, she was pro-life, then boom, she changed. Just like that. One second she waxes lyrical about her Marine boyfriend, next second she dumps him with not a thought or care in the world. You bet your arse she slept with him.

    Yup…but once they change their loyalties…you can definitely see the feminist ethos spewing out against hierarchy and the patriarchy. They are either a Christian or a feminist, but they can’t be both.

    ‘Those remarks made Friday’s admission, and previous ones, confusing for some. In a New York Times profile in December, she said she favored abortion rights and does not object to same-sex marriage. She declined to call herself spiritual, joking that “spiritual sounds like you worship the grass,” but said she believed in God and prays every night. She also criticized organized religion as being “about hierarchy, power, control and greed” yet moments later said, “The institution of religion is important.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/20/tomi-lahren-on-why-shes-pro-choice-stay-out-of-my-guns-and-you-can-stay-out-of-my-body-as-well/?utm_term=.f9a9c0fc1c78

  248. earl says:

    The only appeal Tomi has is her looks. If you actually listen to what she says, that’s feminism 101.

  249. earl says:

    Let the shaming begin. It’ll be in stereo – from the pedestalizing tradcons on one side, and the YouGoGrrl feminists on the other, the usual pincers squeezing men down.

    Sure they’ll shame men, and they will still overlook the fact that most women have brought themselves down so much that men are resorting to lifeless robots. Why they want to keep hanging on to the feminist ethos is beyond me.

  250. feministhater says:

    Well earl, they don’t change their loyalties before marriage, only after. You see, for Tomi, it was quite simple. When she needed a job at Glenn Beck’s Conservative outlet, she sprouted the same platitudes he does, then when she went on The View, she sprouted the same platitudes they do. If you haven’t got it by now, that’s how women play the game.

    Their loyalties and opinions change as their surroundings change. Women can only control themselves if you place restrictions on them, restrictions that have dire consequences if they are crosses. Without this, the only thing keeping a women bound to her word is if it is wholly beneficial to her to keep them. They will be your loyal wife right up until they divorce you; and then they will turn, on a dime, into an enemy with all the power and might of the state and all the knowledge of your secrets and weaknesses at their disposal.

  251. earl says:

    Women can only control themselves if you place restrictions on them, restrictions that have dire consequences if they are crosses.

    “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

    That was the most dire consequence told to a woman…and look what happened. Tomi didn’t change loyalties, she just revealed she’s a rebellious feminist….and it sounds like she probably always was like most tradcons are. Calling herself an ‘independent thinker’ and speaking ‘her truth’…those are some dangerous things said.

  252. feministhater says:

    Semantics earl. She said she was pro-life, got the job, then went off and stated that she isn’t. A woman can say she is pro-Biblical marriage, get married and then go off and get her divorce. Do you not see the issue? There’s simply nothing to keep them to their vows. Women do not keep loyalties like men do, they only keep them for as long as it’s expedient to do so or if it costs them more to break those loyalties than to keep them.

    In truth, most women probably get married and truly believe they are exactly the unicorns the men here describe. Something happens along the line and they decide it no longer suits them and eject. There is no means by which you can vet for that.

  253. feministhater says:

    That was the most dire consequence told to a woman…

    It has to be immediate consequences to work, women do not do well with cause and effect, especially over the longer term. They live in the now.

  254. earl says:

    She said she was pro-life, got the job, then went off and stated that she isn’t.

    And then she got fired. I was actually shocked she did to be honest with you…but at least Beck stood with some principle.

    It has to be immediate consequences to work, women do not do well with cause and effect, especially over the longer term.

    Seems like God provided immediate consequences to both after the fact.

  255. earl says:

    A woman can say she is pro-Biblical marriage, get married and then go off and get her divorce. Do you not see the issue?

    Well sure…it’s often been said around these parts don’t listen to what women say, watch how they act.

    Although I have yet to meet a woman who says she is pro-Biblical marriage…perhaps they exist, I don’t know. In this day and age that would be the unicorn you are referring to. You’d be more apt to hear something like ‘equal partnership’ or just flat out refusing what the Bible says about marriage.

  256. ys says:

    If women were only capable of living in the now, then none would accept God’s gracious offer of salvation for their sins by grace, because they wouldn’t think they needed it.

  257. feministhater says:

    Can you read their minds ys? No, that’s a logical fallacy. An appeal to their honesty.

  258. feministhater says:

    The bitter irony of ys’ statement is that the modern church believes exactly that, women really can’t sin, there’s always a man to blame for it. In truth, with that kind of thought pattern, do they really believe they need God’s salvation. Take a look around ys, actions speak far louder than words.

  259. ys says:

    Again, I know women who have been saved. There are plenty all over the internet. True, genuine, Christian women. The talk you are pushing will eventually go toward the women have no agency side of the coin, which is, ironically, quite feminist in its ways.

  260. feministhater says:

    Can you read their minds, ys? No, you cannot use that as an argument. You have zero way to prove they are saved.

  261. feministhater says:

    Don’t use appeals to centrism and don’t use appeals to the mere honesty of people. Neither provide proof of anything.

  262. SirNemesis says:

    Best part is where Dreher says:

    > I was never interested in it, beyond age 13 or 14. It’s not a matter of being holier than thou. I was that way about it even before I became religious. It struck me as defiling just to look at. I did not want to think of women in that way, even though I was sexually active at the time. I was pretty romantic, and wanted to be in love. Weird, I guess, but not holier than thou.

    It’s easy to not be interested in porn when you’re having sex at 14…

  263. ys says:

    FH-
    I guess I can’t take anyone’s word on anything, can I, you liar!
    In all seriousness, get a clue. I am well aware that there are some false converts, both male and female. If you would have said that, then you would be fine. But to try to argue that there are no genuine women converts. None?
    Unsure how centrism applies to this.

  264. feministhater says:

    Lol, Liar! I didn’t say there were none. Another fallacy. All I said is that you can’t prove it and thus can’t use it in an argument.

  265. feministhater says:

    You shouldn’t take anyone’s word on the matter.

  266. feministhater says:

    Yeah, my apologies on the centrism. I read your wording incorrectly and thought you meant that I was arguing towards the opposite spectrum to feminism. Although, I’ve never known feminism to say that women have no agency, just that men or the Patriarchy forces women to do things against their will and thus men are really responsible for all the bad things women do.

  267. ys says:

    I’m not a liar, you were asserting there were zero. You said we can’t take their word. Other times you have defended your own faith. Guess what the evidence you have is…your word. A person’s word is acceptable in instances except this one?

    Again, your words:
    ” In truth, with that kind of thought pattern, do they really believe they need God’s salvation.”
    A rhetorical statement, designed to make one think no women would become saved. Own that’s what you intended. Quit slipping around and say what you believe.

  268. earl says:

    Although, I’ve never known feminism to say that women have no agency, just that men or the Patriarchy forces women to do things against their will and thus men are really responsible for all the bad things women do.

    Well agency in this case is ‘a means of exerting power or influence’. Feminism skews it to whenever a woman does it, it is good…whenever a man does it, it is evil, regardless if it sinful or not. Their ‘moral’ justification on pretty much anything is basically which gender you are born.

  269. Jason says:

    Tomi is “hot” enough and in a position to get a high performing (high income earning, small letter “c” conservative) guy…or she’ll marry an older guy with a ton of money but the looks and attitude of a sunburnt prune…giving all the Rush Limbaugh check-pants-old-golfer conservatives mental porn fodder

  270. feministhater says:

    ys, I didn’t say that none believe they need the Lord’s Salvation. Read again.

    The bitter irony of ys’ statement is that the modern church believes exactly that, women really can’t sin, there’s always a man to blame for it. In truth, with that kind of thought pattern, do they really believe they need God’s salvation. Take a look around ys, actions speak far louder than words.

    It’s a statement of generalization within the modern church, not every single Christian women in existence. You’re clutching at a straw here. For your statement to be true, every single Christian women would have to go to one of those modern churches that teaches this. Can you state that with absolute certainty?

  271. feministhater says:

    I would also add that there should have been a question mark after salvation. Minor detail though.

  272. ys says:

    FH-
    You implied it. If you want to sperg out and find logical points, and deny everything you implied, then it’s a free country.
    If you are dishonest enough with yourself that you can’t acknowledge that your statement of “modern church” implied a general, typical reading of all churches, then, you can’t be reasoned with.

  273. feministhater says:

    No, sorry, I did not imply it or mean it in any fashion. You are looking for any excuse to tar me with.

    Anyway, I think you and I are done. We should go our separate ways. Don’t respond to me and I won’t respond to you.

  274. melmoth says:

    Dopamine actually spikes before the activity (porn, chocolate, booze etc.). It is the brain’s motivating chemical, not the brain’s pleasure chemical necessarily. Check out Sapolsky on YT. It’s very interesting.

  275. Emperor Constantine says:

    feministhater says:
    August 12, 2017 at 6:38 am

    “Women do not keep loyalties like men do, they only keep them for as long as it’s expedient to do so or if it costs them more to break those loyalties than to keep them.”

    And it’s very predictable when they break them: hypergamy drives everything modern feral women do today, as Rollo T. has taught us. It’s not complicated, and it’s very predictable.

  276. melmoth says:

    @GunnerQ,

    “There are lots of young men today who would love to violently liberate Europe from the Muzzies. Especially the hot Swedish women of Europe.”

    I think you’re misreading it. The Muslim invasion wasn’t a massive &%$# test so the women could be won back by their local betas, giving them the chance to fight and earn the coveted vaj. A lot of people see it that way but I think it’s just pure hostility towards their native males who are always sooo disappointing. If Muslims got pushed out and Swedish women had their ridiculous immigration mess cleaned up by local betas, they would take their coldness and hostility to depths we can’t even imagine. Move on to, “Just because you defended us, doesn’t mean we’re your protected objects to pleasure yourselves on!” It would be a whole new zone of hell. If feminism can lead women to being disappointed in Swedish men then you are dealing with a movement so insanely hostile that you just can’t reverse it.

    Funny that all the feminist/leftists open borders types don’t seem to be finding ways to bring in endless boatloads of 18-25 year old female beauties from Asia, Lat. Am, and EE to start marching around their streets in daisy dukes. But young thugs…fine. It overburdens, angers, humiliates, threatens, deprives, cuckolds and disrespects their own loathed betas who have to pay for it all and deal with it all.

  277. feeriker says:

    Can you read their minds, ys? No, you cannot use that as an argument. You have zero way to prove they are saved.

    Typical of the delusional tradcuck mindset, ys believes that women can be taken at their word like men, even as he echoes the “watch-what-they–do-not-what-they-say” line. If he really believed that line, he would have no choice but to admit that it proves FeministHater’s point that not only is there ZE-RO commonality between what women say and what they do, but also that they are indeed dwellers in the here and now only. If a woman does not suffer immediatenegative consequences for an act of wrongdoing, then to her it isn’t an act of wrongdoing at all. This is why most of them don’t really believe in God being anything other than a “cosmic ‘nice guy'”, to the extent that they even believe in Him at all. Between God’s future time orientation and human men’s unwillingness to discipline them in a timely and effective manner, plus the fact that they lack any understanding whatsoever of cause and effect, it is small wonder that they are out of control. Still, the idea that any man would EVER take their word at face value or trust them to EVER act in good faith is just breathtaking in its idiocy, a denial of obvious reality so profound that it requires a unique form of delusion to sustain it.

  278. Dale says:

    Earl said Sure they’ll shame men, and they will still overlook the fact that most women have brought themselves down so much that men are resorting to lifeless robots.

    This is one thing that I find so puzzling. Pastors will think they are protecting women by rebuking men for either not wanting one of the “princesses”, or for finding an alternate, such as masturbation without porn (or with). But these same pastors never ask why a man would rather be without the benefit of having one of the real, live women from that church. Did God really give men such weak desires that a man can easily choose to skip marriage? Paul’s description of the people that “burn with passion” (1 Cor 7) suggests not.
    So what is so detestable (word used in Deut 22:5), disgraceful and without glory (words from 1 Cor 11:1-16) and unself-controlled (Titus 2:1-5) that a man can easily say, “pass”?
    Too bad paid pastors are not willing to do the leading they are paid to do (1 Peter 5:1-4, Prov 24:11-12). I understand women are not prone to thoughtful self-reflection, but the pastor who is male and paid to lead should be doing far better.

    A woman can say she is pro-Biblical marriage, get married and then go off and get her divorce. Do you not see the issue?
    I think Earl does get it. He referred to Eve, who still was rebellious, even when God had threatened death for disobedience.

    We should stop treating women like adults, and treat them as children that need to be loved and protected from their own immaturity.

  279. earl says:

    I think Earl does get it. He referred to Eve, who still was rebellious, even when God had threatened death for disobedience.

    Yup, all this ‘keeping them under control’ and ‘swift action for consequences’ sounds good in theory…but the reality is they always have a rebellious nature regardless of what constraints you try to put on them. The only way to have any chance of controlling it is if they submit to God.

  280. ys says:

    Feeriker,
    You called me a tradcuck. Why not go for the whole pie and call me a feminist, too? Women are adults, and can, at times be taken at their word. There are good Christian women out there. Rare, but they are there.
    I could point out the instances of women who do, with their actions, demonstrate that they follow Jesus. Some are comment here. But I think we both know that would be pointless, wouldn’t it? The evidence is there for you to see. You would either deny the evidence, and call me a white knight, or, you would say, “sure, they’re fine for now, but once they’re unhapppy they will blow up their marriage.” You’ll make an excuse, so you can stay in your happy world, which consists of 2 things: 1) AWALT 2) and the tradcucks who love them

  281. Minesweeper says:

    @Dale, “We should stop treating women like adults, and treat them as children that need to be loved and protected from their own immaturity.”

    well you certainly cant treat them as adults who are responsible and will be held accountable for their actions and the ensuing chaos they will cause. Ive seen many a Christian woman look upon the destruction she has caused with bafflement and total inability to understand what she has done and particularly the lifelong ramifications of her actions.

    Women used to go from Father to husband, you can see why.

  282. Novaseeker says:

    Best part is where Dreher says:

    > I was never interested in it, beyond age 13 or 14. It’s not a matter of being holier than thou. I was that way about it even before I became religious. It struck me as defiling just to look at. I did not want to think of women in that way, even though I was sexually active at the time. I was pretty romantic, and wanted to be in love. Weird, I guess, but not holier than thou.

    It’s easy to not be interested in porn when you’re having sex at 14…

    Eh, I’m almost certain he was talking about later on, as in “I was that way about it before I became religious”, which in his case was his mid-20s. He has always said he was quite sexually active in college and his early 20s before his conversion, and I’m fairly certain that is the period he was referring to here, and not when he was 13-14 based on stuff he’s written that I have read.

  283. Anonymous Reader says:

    He has always said he was quite sexually active in college and his early 20s before his conversion,

    I find it hard to believe, because Dreher has been such a weepy weed / dripping faucet for years, but maybe he ran Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG) game on crunchy chicks. I’ve seen that type at the local food co-op. Granting this, he’s a reformed player of some sort who can’t quite put all of that behind him, so….

    Was it Augustine of Hippo who flipped from total player to “no sex outside or inside of marriage”? Dalrock wrote about several 4th or 5th century Christians a while back, including the ones out in the desert, who took their asceticism quite far. It wasn’t enough for them to cut themselves off from bad behavior, they had to stomp around demanding everyone else be like them.

    That reminds me of an ex-smoker I used to work with. It wasn’t enough that he didn’t smoke, no, he did not smoke! and never tired of informing anyone within earshot how he had quit smoking because it was bad for health, filthy habit, useless expense, tobacco harms the soil, overseas tobacco is worse, third hand smoke kills, etc. and so forth and so on. I’ve never smoked but sometimes I was tempted to take it up just to annoy him. Because he was so obnoxiously self-righteous about not smoking in as public a manner as possible. Here ends my lesson.

  284. ys says:

    FH-
    That’s fine. May the Lord bless you and God be with you until we meet again.

  285. BillyS says:

    @billyS, if you think thats a sin with your neighbours wife, its also a sin for your own. If your holding to what you think it says. No caveat is attached for your own woman that you are married too. You probably think there is by default, but nothing else is there.

    You are not making sense here Minesweeper. Are you really arguing it is fine to snap pictures of a woman and fap to them? Even a woman who would be immoral if you pondered directly having sex with (because she and you were both married to different people)?

    I was speaking to a old friend who travels to the states regularly, his Christian friends (fiends?) would rather shoot someone than the sin of alcohol crosses their lips (for real).

    Nice goal post moving there. You even changed the playing field. Alcohol has many positive things listed in the Scriptures. Fapping and lustful thoughts do not. They may be something we face as humans, but they are never good things that I can find. The only exception to the latter would be to be enraptured by your own wife, but no one here is arguing against that.

    Straw men make easy targets, but show weak arguments.

    ys,

    If women were only capable of living in the now, then none would accept God’s gracious offer of salvation for their sins by grace, because they wouldn’t think they needed it.

    My ex-wife thinks she is fully living in God’s pleasure now. I believe she goes to an evangelical church 3 times a week with her mother. She told my daughter-in-law that God hated divorce with no sense or irony. (My ex-wife initiated our divorce and refuses reconciliation.)

    I personally tend to think she is still saved, but she is skating awfully close to “depart from Me I never knew you” even in my views and may not.

    Just because women can seem to be reborn does not change the impact of the curse without them walking out the tough faith walk men must walk out. They must actively confront their evil tendencies, yet neither society nor churches encourage that kind of thinking on their part. Salvation is “an adventure” as my ex-wife told me. It is not a call to follow His Lordship.

  286. Boxer says:

    Is it possible that all you guys might be talking past one another?

    Consider the fact that ‘masturbation is immoral’ and ‘fucking the neighbor’s wife is immoral’ can both be true statements. You have proposition A and proposition B, which are both true, but that doesn’t mean that A = B. Am I right?

    The penalties reflect this even in the text, no? If you commit sin A, then the penalty is to go wash up, think about what you’ve done, and try and improve your self discipline. (I mean, really, we’ve all done it… the guy who wrote the text did it… it’s reasonable to call it out as not ideal behavior, but it’s common).

    If you commit sin B, then the husband of the woman you fucked gets together with his friends and they all stone you to death. That’s a very different treatment than the first.

    This suggests that the guys who are saying that jerking off is sinful are correct, and the guys who are saying it’s not (relatively speaking) a big deal are correct, also. You guys are all saying true things, stopping only to insult each other and call each other innovators and unbelievers and such.

    Best,

    Boxer

  287. ys says:

    BillyS-
    You and I would be in basic agreement, and, again, sorry for what your ex-wife did. Hopefully for you it gets better, and I think it will.
    My issue was simply with the over-characterizing of women as: children, having no agency, not being accountable, etc. I get that women often behave as if all of these facts were true. But to go further, and to truly say women do not have agency, can’t repent, etc. is, in my view, playing into feminists hands for at least two reasons. 1) It makes a man look ridiculously sexist. I know any who said that wouldn’t care, but anyone outside of these kind of blog circles will not listen to you after that; 2) It makes the men look dumb for being angry at women. Look, if women have no agency, then, open season, and you can’t be too mad at them for anything they do. Let’s face it, as annoyed as I would be, I am much more forgiving if my dog were to slip up and take a dump on the couch than I would be if you did.

  288. Minesweeper says:

    @billys, I’m reading back to you what the translation says, “anyone who looks at a woman with lust”, no exceptions. Now the fact you believe something different that isn’t actually written.

    It dosn’t say “a man who is looking at a woman he isnt married too with lust” – but thats what you think it says.

    I agree with what Jesus says “looking at and coveting someone’s wife is committing adultery in your heart” – I have done that and it feels (terrible) just like I would imagine committing adultery would feel like.

  289. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    In the Spirit of throwing red meat into the lions’ cage, I would like to suggest a couple of refinements to the miscellaneous conflations of particulars which populate this thread:

    In your opionions, and by that I mean, each of you:

    Is it wrong, then, to masturbate, in the complete absence of any pornography? Are you — if you are amongst those on one side of this donnybrook — saying that the fapping is wrong, or that the porn is wrong, or that the fapping-to-porn is wrong? I ask because, I don’t think there are two sides on display in this thread — there’s something more like thirteen sides. I very much doubt, that all of you who think you are allies in this debate, in fact actually are. I think that needs badly to be sorted out. This isn’t a “be it resolved that …”; it’s a whirlwind carrying aloft a hay-bale of disparate points of view, scattering them around randomly.

    And so, conversely:

    Is it wrong, then, to look at porn, in the complete absence of masturbation? What, for example, are you to do if you go for a walk in the woods (walking the dog along paths in a local wooded area near your home, say), and you see a torn-up, rained-on magazine that you wonder what it is so you pick it up, and — surprise! — it’s some porn mag that probably some horny, curious, frustrated adolescent male bought at the local Quik-E-Mart (or whatever the leading convience store brand is in your state) with his paper-route money, but couldn’t take home because mom and dad would kill him, and can’t hide anywhere, etc., etc. — and so just left there … and dog-walking you, not yet knowing what it is exactly (and motivated by ordinary human curiosity about unknown things, — that is, not by any prurient interest), pick it up and — Gasp!! You’ve just looked at Porn! It’s Artisanal Toad’s photo-shoot of two of his “wives” lezzing it up! (Or whatever …) — naughty, naughty, You Looked At Porn! Goin’ Ta Hell Fer Sure, Now!! Sez there right in Matthew 5:28-and-a-half!

    Srsly?!? And if not, then, uh, as Pascal said: if you would discourse with me, first define your f**ckin’ terms … — except I’m sure Blaise-bro’ wouldn’t have said “f**ckin'”, — maybe something more like “émerdissant” or whatever. There is no evidence in this thread, that you all mean the same thing, when you write the three words, “looking at porn”. It would be the logical fallacy of equivocation, if you were, say, genuinely in two camps. Instead, it’s just a cacophony of disagreements.

    Finally, as my third annoying question, may I ask you all this: Can it really be “sinful” to fail to avoid that which is, to be blunt, ubiquitous? I have tried to attentively read this now very long thread, to find a good definition of “porn” by anyone, and if it’s up there, and I didn’t see it, I apologize — but, I don’t see one. So, in a society where if you click through to, say, a hyperlink in this blog to some latest feminist outrage in the Daily Mail, and there off to the margin you see their blog-roll with plenty of pictures of naked tits: have you “looked” at porn? I don’t know how it is in your particular state of country, but plenty of the rest of us have been driving down the highway and passed by a billboard which, say, uses BDSM imagery to sell stoves (or whatever the hell), or some topless — but tastefully angled by the photographer so we don’t *quite* see her nipples — chick selling I dunno, lemonade. Or, pick any episode of *Family Guy* — don’t watch it? OK, you clicked through while watching Monday Night Football, when the ads were on, and there were a lot of them, and you got bored, and … Hunh? What’s this? A cartoon where the cartoon wife is trying to seduce the boyfriend of her daughter and … — Or whatever show, little matter. Or you’re looking on Google for something about Maxwell Smart (nice, “family valued” TV program that) — and Google being Google, there’s a link comes up about Stephanie Maxwell, whoever the hell that is — so, you click through, and there are 200 pictures of her, and women who Google’s algorithms decided look like her, or whatever, and … three of them are topless (or whatever): did you just look at “porn”? It’s topless wimminz, innit? I put it to you all, that the fact you basically can’t exit a grocery store via its checkout to buy a loaf of bread, these days, without being obliged by merchandise fronting and the human orienting response to at least glance at the cover of *Cosmopolitan*, where some half-dressed woman is self-evidently in the throes of (self-induced) orgasm, because “It’s the Masturbation Issue” (or whatever) — and countless othe examples — means that we live in a society that is so drenched with hypersexualized media, that unless you are Amish, or Ted Kazynski, basically all of us are “looking” at porn, dosens of times a day. You basically can’t catch a cab these days without it having an “Ashley Madison” advert on the side (or something like it).

    I cannot take any of your [otherwise commendable] arguments seriously, unless you factor this inarguable fact of contemporary life (in this decaying civilization of ours) into account, in those arguments.

    For all the insight each of you is offering here, each in his own way, none of you seem to be taking these realities into account.

    Therefore, I put it to you, gentlemen, that you are wasting your valuable time with this thread. You might as well step away from the computer, nip outside, and howl at the moon.

    That, I would suggest, is, at least in part, why all — or nearly all — of you, are finding this thread so frustrating.

    And, no, I don’t think this means I am better than you all, or any of you. I have, in fact, been saying nothing for some time now, because usually I have nothing to say, and in those cases where I thought I did, one of you will have said it better than I ever could, by the time I have read *that* thread through to the bottom.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

    [No, really: I wish you all Peace, rather than this rancor.]

  290. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Pardon my typos, gentlemen: I am very tired. :^)

  291. Gary Eden says:

    @minesweeper

    It is bonkers, and very saddening.

    Be careful on the wine issue. The Greek has 1 word for all grape products, fermented or not. The Hebrews had something like 8. I don’t believe the tetotalers are right, but they’re not too far off.

    However their attitude is all wrong and your analogy is spot on. This whole issue is a gnat camel kind of thing. The so-called church is destroying mens and childrens lives while on the fainting couch about what some lonely guy does in his room.

  292. Gary Eden says:

    Yup, all this ‘keeping them under control’ and ‘swift action for consequences’ sounds good in theory…but the reality is they always have a rebellious nature regardless of what constraints you try to put on them. The only way to have any chance of controlling it is if they submit to God.

    This is the fundamental misunderstanding which leads men to believe the solution is to just find a ‘good Christian woman’.

    There is a hierarchy to creation (1 Cor 11). Man is above woman and between her and God. If she can’t submit to hubby, she won’t submit to God either. Rebellion against father/husband IS rebellion against God.

  293. earlthomas786 says:

    Consider the fact that ‘masturbation is immoral’ and ‘fucking the neighbor’s wife is immoral’ can both be true statements. You have proposition A and proposition B, which are both true, but that doesn’t mean that A = B. Am I right?

    They are the same in that they are sexual sins, but they are different in what they are offending. Saying masturbation = the definition of adultery where a married person does it with someone else is only correct in that they are sexual sins. However one offends chastity, the other offends the diginity of marriage. It is a much bigger deal to do the later because of who is involved, where the former displays a lack of self-control and goes against a virtue Christians are suppose to grow in.

  294. earlthomas786 says:

    Salvation is “an adventure” as my ex-wife told me. It is not a call to follow His Lordship.

    That sounds like walking the wide path talk.

  295. Minesweeper says:

    @Gary Eden says: @minesweeper
    “Be careful on the wine issue. The Greek has 1 word for all grape products, fermented or not. The Hebrews had something like 8. I don’t believe the tetotalers are right, but they’re not too far off.”

    the fact Jesus talked about not putting new wine into old wine skins as the fermentation would burst the bag, it could only mean an fermenting product. But this was organic alcohol which is a super food basically and what people used to recover for most maladies. Pesticide laden alcohol that we have nowadays is a travesty of dysfunction and illness – physical and mental – its toxic basically.

    If you try the organic stuff, it has a very different reaction. People who drink alot of alcohol won’t touch the organic stuff as it tastes too light even with the same amount of alcohol in it. The component missing is pesticide levels.

  296. Gary Eden says:

    It depends on the context. Sometimes it could mean fermented product, others not. You are right about the health benefits of fermented foods. This is why Paul advised it to Timothy.

    However it was also the standard practice to heavily water the wine down; meaning practically speaking it wasn’t near as alcoholic as what people consume today.

    But even the hard stuff, clearly prohibited, was allowed to folks under Proverbs 31. This is the problem with legalistic approaches. Its too fixed and doesn’t allow taking into account the situation or love.

    Hard stuff is much more clearly condemned than porn/masturbation, yet God made an exception for people who were suffering. If we were loving and not self righteous, we would allow the same exception to those men unable to find a marriageable woman.

  297. BillyS says:

    ys,

    The talk you are pushing will eventually go toward the women have no agency side of the coin, which is, ironically, quite feminist in its ways.

    Many in the church unfortunately either directly believe that or are at least partial to it. Do you listen to many preachers? I do and I have heard very few say anything about women doing bad things in the area of sex and relationships. A few may touch on their affinity for “bad boys,” but even that is very light in what I have heard. And those who even say that are few. Most do not talk about it at all.

    Can you think of many preachers who speak out against the fault of women in the areas we discuss here? Perhaps I have overlooked a few, but I have listened to most even somewhat well known preachers and I have not heard them.

    That means they already act as if women do not wrong, in practice if not in reality. Even the few who have taken women to account often worship their own wives a bit too much.

    Dale,

    But these same pastors never ask why a man would rather be without the benefit of having one of the real, live women from that church. Did God really give men such weak desires that a man can easily choose to skip marriage? Paul’s description of the people that “burn with passion” (1 Cor 7) suggests not.

    This is a true tragedy and nothing will change until pastors and other preachers start realizing this point.

    Some have bought the BS that only women can hold women accountable, so all they have left are men, however ineffectual that is.

  298. BillyS says:

    ys,

    You probably need to chill out a bit. FH and I agree on some things and not on others. FH is very strong in his beliefs, as are most of the “regulars” here. I have been called a cuck (or worse) in the past too. I am going through the hell of stuff, though I have still not completely adjusted my positions, so perhaps some things have some element of truth. But participating here sometimes means making your point and finally letting it go. Ignore the direct attacks when possible. Arguing those is not helpful. (Other famous pairs here do little productive interaction, unfortunately.)

    The only one I find completely useless is AT. (That one is for you Boxer!)

  299. ys says:

    BillyS-
    Doesn’t matter if people in the church believe it or not (women having agency). It’s still highly destructive.
    I don’t care if people personally attack me, the truth is what I am interested in. Many people here don’t have strong beliefs, they have weak ones. They name-call anyone who doesn’t automatically agree. I only pushed back for as long as I did because I have seen how dissent is handled here. It is handled something like this:

    “I guess that cuck learned.”
    “He (probably a chick) won’t come back after the stomping we gave them.”
    “Yeah, AWALT.”
    Keep in mind, I have been reading for 3 years without commenting. I have seen it. Now, some have deserved that treatement. Standing up for scripture, does not. I am not going to let these intellectually-feeble, hypocrites think they won. Prideful? Perhaps. But that is a flaw many of us have.

    In closing, for real, the amount of moaning people have done on here about women reading Fifty Shades of Gray (justifiable moaning, IMO). Yet, they condone the male equivalent of the same thing (masturbation). Any Christian, who isn’t part of this insular group, and many heathens, would see that hypocrisy and think: No credibility. I am trying, however feebly, to help restore some.

  300. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    The only one I find completely useless is AT. (That one is for you Boxer!)

    Why you calling me out? It doesn’t hurt my feelz.

    In any community, I’ve found some people more useful than others. I assume that’s common to everyone. People who aren’t interesting, to you, ought to be tuned out, in favor of those who can teach you something.

    Best,

    Boxer

  301. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    Keep in mind, I have been reading for 3 years without commenting.

    Or were you commenting under a different handle?

  302. BillyS says:

    Just kidding with you because I know you enjoy a good number of his posts Boxer. Nothing deeper meant. It seemed funny at the time.

  303. BillyS says:

    I would certainly agree many things in the modern church are very destructive. Letting women effectively off the hook is a really bad one.

  304. Art Deco says:

    Just to add a thought:

    “A friend writes” or some such is a Dreher trope. The ‘friend’ is commonly someone Dreher presents as an authority – say, a stockbroker blabbing via e-mail about the market. The ‘friend’ parrots or confirms some line Dreher in a state of high-anxiety has been pushing for months. The 1,000th time he opens a post with this trope, it occurs to you that the ‘friend’ is fictional, just Dreher’s sock-puppet.

  305. Art Deco says:

    Most of my good platonic friends in college were women; and I consider the lack of male community where perversion was not the accepted norm to be one of the principal causes of that fact.

    He’s not being deplorably snobbish. Snobbery is an unavoidable by-product of attempting to maintain standards. I do think it odd he cannot seem to locate any peers not porn-addicted. Something fishy there.

  306. Art Deco says:

    Pastors should teach that Christian men should never marry a woman who has a romance novel problem. Romance novels are porn. Nor should a Christian man marry a woman who’s addicted to Lifetime or Hallmark movies, as those are pure misandry.

    Romance novels are not porn, but they stoke some of the same problems (dispositions which leave the subject less suitable for domestic life), the former in a masculine mode, the latter in a feminine mode. One of those two networks my sister calls ‘the crying woman’s channel’. I’ve seen at least one drama on them. Wouldn’t have called in ‘msandric’. Rather, it presented as social fantasy (a bachelor entrepreneur – super-rich – electing at age 46 to settle for…a 40 year-old widow with two teenagers and an attitude problem).

  307. Art Deco says:

    Who cares what a gay guy thinks about porn?

    If he were a ‘gay guy’ in the full sense of that term, he’d be watching videos of boys f***** boys. If he’s not interested in porn, its a reasonable wager that he’s part of the population that do not find the visual-full-stop all that stimulating.

  308. Art Deco says:

    Again, the anomalies in the young man’s account of himself can be explained by him being sprung from Dreher’s imagination.

  309. Art Deco says:

    He has always said he was quite sexually active in college and his early 20s before his conversion, and I’m fairly certain that is the period he was referring to here, and not when he was 13-14 based on stuff he’s written that I have read.

    I do not recall him ever offering that self-description. He entered the Catholic Church at age 29 (and left it at age 39). I haven’t been an obsessive reader over the years, but it’s hard to avoid his biographical points because he’s prolific and trafficks in TMI as a matter of course.

    One thing that appears to be an architectural feature of his persona is having been knocked around quite a bit as an adolescent and being sent (at his mother’s initiative) to an experimental state magnet school in 1983 to get him out of the local schools. After that, it was off to LSU.

    A journalist-blogger who signed himself “Cap’n Ken” was acquainted with Dreher at LSU and offered a commentary in 2006 on him. (I should note that Cap’n Ken struck me as a consummate jack-wagon at the time). His description of Dreher ca. 1987 was exceedingly familiar to someone who’d read his writing ca. 2006. Socially anxious, given to absurd performances and poses in response to his own anxieties, loudly opinionated, &c. It’s exceedingly difficult to believe this fellow was ever a socially-adept lothario.

  310. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco
    Romance novels are not porn,

    Good to see you here, Art, where have you been hiding out? Moving on to your silly comment:

    LOL, you haven’t read any in the last 20 years then. Go to your nearest chain bookstore’s romance section, pick one up and skim the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the book, if you don’t find an explicit porn scene you’re reading something old like Georgette Heyer or even Jane Austen. Or you found a store with a “Christian Romance” section, those do exist. I haven’t spent much time looking through those yet, the sex scenes are probably more blurred and less explicit at a guess. Only a guess, though.

    Step two of the exercise: search Goodreads, Amazon Kindle and/or B&N Epubs for romantical stories. See what the younger women are reading on their tablet / e-reader / phone. Because women are more verbal they prefer their porn in text form with a fig leaf of relationship to make it seem legit. But it’s really easy to pull up epub only titles that are probably self-published, fan-fic like porn on the “expanded version of Letters to Penthouse” level labeled “Romance”.

    Romance novels are porn. Porn all the way down. Don’t take my word for it, go see for yourself.

  311. BillyS says:

    ys,

    The walk remains tough, but I will press through until I get to the other side in my personal life.

    I would agree that claiming women don’t have moral agency is wrong, but those who argue the other side are almost certainly having zero impact on foolish preachers. That was the core of the intent of my post.

    Minesweeper,

    I am not sure of what your point is then. I must have been confusing because I do think the problem is lust of any man against any woman, not just a married woman as some have argued in these threads. A few also made the case that a film or picture was not covered, an assertion I see to be laughable. A picture of my neighbor’s wife is just as bad to lust after as a view of her directly.

    That is why I asked an open question to those claiming it was only a wife how a picture or film varied from the real thing.

    Yac-Yac,

    Is it wrong, then, to masturbate, in the complete absence of any pornography?

    What are you thinking of when doing that? The mind is clearly the issue based on what Jesus said, however the images get into that mind.

    Answering your other question: The pondering the images is the issue, not their accidental view. You can’t control everything that goes across your eyes. You can control if you dwell on it.

    Can it really be “sinful” to fail to avoid that which is, to be blunt, ubiquitous?

    Lying is present in all of us, but we definitely should avoid it, even if some may justify it in very unusual edge cases. All things may be lawful, but not all are profitable. That is a saying worth pondering.

  312. Gary Eden says:

    Romance novels are not porn, but they stoke some of the same problems

    Romance novels are certainly porn; sort of a watered down erotica. Rom-Coms are the video form.

    They are basically the female equivalent of the more visual oriented porn we think of males using. But due to the different nature of men and women romance novels have a good chance of being more destructive than porn.

  313. ys says:

    Anonymous Reader-
    No, I have not used a different handle.
    Billy-
    You are right, in that there are those who would claim women have agency, but then functionally behave as if women don’t. Many modern preaching does fall into that category, and it is the most destructive. Better to act like they have no agency, and thus are restricted (as Muslims do, sorry to say) or, that they do, and are accountable.

  314. Art Deco says:

    Romance novels are certainly porn; sort of a watered down erotica. Rom-Coms are the video form.

    No, they are not. They can be problematic, but they are a different genre and stoke a supplementary set of vices, not an identical set of vices. The actor in the Hallmark mft film I made reference to above wasn’t notable for having an 11′ cock and glistening pecs. The fantasy in that case was that a wealthy 46 year-old bachelor was suitable for domestic life and that he’d find just what he wanted in a 40 year old widow given to being graceless and peevish (and with a pair of adolescents attached).

  315. Gary Eden says:

    Have you even read a romance novel? Did you read my statement about it being different from male visual oriented porn due to the difference between the sexes?

    I can’t show you what you refuse to see.

  316. Son of Liberty says:

    Art Deco says:
    August 15, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Romance novels are certainly porn; sort of a watered down erotica. Rom-Coms are the video form.

    No, they are not. They can be problematic, but they are a different genre and stoke a supplementary set of vices, not an identical set of vices. The actor in the Hallmark mft film I made reference to above wasn’t notable for having an 11′ cock and glistening pecs. The fantasy in that case was that a wealthy 46 year-old bachelor was suitable for domestic life and that he’d find just what he wanted in a 40 year old widow given to being graceless and peevish (and with a pair of adolescents attached).

    How can romance novels NOT be porneia? What do you think existed before video and pictures? Literature!

  317. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco
    No, they are not. They can be problematic, but they are a different genre and stoke a supplementary set of vices, not an identical set of vices. The actor in the Hallmark mft film I made reference to above wasn’t notable for having an 11′ cock and glistening pecs.

    Maybe you should look at a wider spectrum of “romance” novels than one Hallmark / Oxygen / Oprah channel movie. Your error has alread been addressed not very far up the comment thread. I won’t rewrite that just because you didn’t bother to read it. My points stand.

  318. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    Anonymous Reader-
    No, I have not used a different handle.

    If you had, would you admit it? I’m asking because your writing style is familiar in a way, as if I’d seen it before. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

  319. ys says:

    AR-
    I have been reading for 3 years and almost asked you last time if I resembled someone. Who? I am curious.
    Yes, I would admit it. There is no reason to lie on the internet, especially places like this where we are discussing ideas and not our personal lives. I am aware that people lie on the internet, often, but I am not interested. If I pretended to be more alpha than I really am, or more intelligent than I really am, how far would that get me? Wouldn’t I trip over my own lies? Best to just be myself.

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