Archive for the ‘Faith Religion and Christianity’ Category

This comment to Dalrock’s article discussing the behaviors of the typical Christian woman explains much as to why women behave as they do regardless of their religious beliefs.  The comment introduces why and when our “traditional” value occurred and touches on some interesting theories as to where our society may be going.  In the future I would like to delve deeper into some of the many topics that were touched upon.  However this comment discusses a theory that Evolutionary Biology seems to explain about cuckolding and how it was dealt with in the past.  An interesting note should be made as to how birth control, which is primarily controlled by women, will affect our future generations.

Dear Dalrock,
I have recently discovered your blog and was quite fascinated by it. I fully agree with you on most points. Moreover, I often engage in debates on feminism with my friends, always trying to point out its harmful effects to society. I basically was arguing many of your points without knowing it. I am still quite surprised about widespread obliviousness to this situation even among smart educated people.

I couldn’t find a way to contact you directly other than posting a comment. This short essay is not directed at the topic at hand, rather it is an expression of the opinion on big picture origins of feminism. Some of it was taken from a number of popular science books, and some of it is my own speculation. May be it was already covered in earlier posts, or in other blogs, I didn’t happen to run across it yet. I would like to engage in a debate and/or be proven wrong, so please don’t hesitate to comment. I hope everyone finds it interesting.

To begin with, I and pretty much all scientific community agree with you on human female evolutionary needs:
“1. Sex from the most attractive, powerful, highest status man they can get.
2. Maximum investment and commitment from a man (love, courtship, romance, his lifetime commitment to her).
3. Children.”

In fact, evolutionary biologists logically explain these desires. Firstly, the male attractiveness strongly implies good genes therefore the offspring has much better chance of surviving. A lot of research has been done on that, e.g. it was recently shown that “Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: an assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814000749. Secondly, due to large size of the human brain babies have to be born quite helpless, and a woman could not raise the children on her own for at least few first years. That’s why such unique features as constant availability for sex and concealed ovulation had evolved, so as to keep a man loyal and committed. And finally, I don’t think I need to comment on how evolutionary biologists explain a desire to have children.

This means that a woman that followed up on those desires had higher chance of leaving more descendants in the primitive hunter gatherer environment. This is a very important caveat because in all the blogs and modern literature we use such terms as “traditional”, “old-fashioned”, “for thousands of years”, or “for generations”. All these terms typically imply the environment humans lived after the onset of the agriculture: from few thousand years to about couple of hundred years ago. This period is blink of an eye with very limited impact on humans as a species. The vast majority of time was spent in so called primitive hunter gatherer setting. Our behaviors and instincts have evolved to adapt to that environment, which in fact has very little similarity to what we would call traditional.

How family arrangement and human sexuality worked in primitive societies is hard to figure out for certain. However, such methods as observation of modern primitive societies, records of observations in the past, archeological evidence, details of human anatomy, observations of our close relatives – apes, and other species give some clues for our current understanding (Matt Ridley in “Red Queen” and Jared Diamond in ”The day before yesterday” elaborate on that). The answer turns out to be that throughout most of their history humans lived in predominantly monogamous families (at least serially monogamous) with a widespread cuckoldry. This implied that in a given tribe/village there was one or few dominant men who were in fact biological fathers of about 10-20% of all children. These alphas typically had their own wives and children, while the adulteresses were conning hapless betas into providing for the kids, whose true father was unknown even to the mother herself. Yes, women always wanted to “have their cake and eat it too”. Women went for their #1 desire, despite the fact that in all societies, it was a very risky activity. Adulterers were almost universally severely punished if caught. But there is not much the majority of man could do under such conditions, hence women were moderately successful in pursuing all three of their desires.

That is until the onset of agriculture. More people were now able to crowd together so laws and norms enforcement institutions had to be created. This part is somewhat related to the current topic in this post, it may sound a bit blasphemous for some readers, and I apologize for it in advance. After the onset of agriculture a bunch of men got together and developed a set of rules so that strangers could live next to each other without conflict, it is often overlooked that the important part of these laws was aimed at curbing the adultery (just read Ten Commandments).
Provided much more resources (available manpower) the institutions were quite efficient at enforcing the rules and achieving their goals. These developments created what we call now “traditional” family arrangement. This typically involved patriarchic structure, where women’s chastity was highly valued. A monetary transaction typically took place between patriarchs, whenever a daughter changed household in an arranged marriage. The virginity of the daughter in such situation was of paramount importance. It was often argued, and rightly so, that men ended up on a winning side of this arrangement. I like to think about it as “Revenge of the nerds 1.0” – ordinary men stuck it to women hard for all those hundreds of thousands years of cuckoldry.

A side note: another interesting side effect of agriculture is the appearance of harems. In a primitive society rarely could a man afford to take care of even two wives. But with agriculture and division of labor, some men accumulated insane amount of resources. Obviously, they created themselves a heavily guarded breeding machines comprised of up to thousands of fertile women. This summarizes human male’s evolutionary needs pretty well.

The “traditional” arrangement with some variations lasted for several thousands of years. Women were not completely powerless during this time on both individual level and as a whole. There are multiple examples of societies where many women appear everywhere in societal hierarchy having successful careers. We all know examples of powerful queens in European nations. It’s hard to say, however, whether those women could or ever considered instituting feminism reforms. Some feministic propositions, or rather pieces of work that pointed fingers at the unfairness of women’s situation appeared here and there in western literature long before the onset of feminism. You could check out “Madame Bovary” or “Anna Karenina” for example, and you will find some resemblance to “Eat Pray Love”, safe for eventual outcome.

I speculate that there is one good reason why feminism never took hold or became popular before recent times. One big difference is that throughout all human history except may be last 50-60 years women lacked a remarkable technological invention: reliable and painless method for birth control. Indeed, the one thing women could never do, even now, albeit to a lesser extent, is to raise a child on their own. Children of single mothers are and have always been at a great disadvantage from the start, more so in the past than recently. Yes a woman could engage in her #1 desire and hook up with the alpha, but if she gets knocked up her life was ruined. That’s why they needed men, and needed “traditional” arrangement to help raise the children. And about 50 years ago it all changed, now women had means not to get knocked up. Obviously a set of propositions that appeal to basic subconscious instincts was bound to become widespread and popular. There are certainly other important developments such as democracy and freedom of speech that had an impact. But I’m strongly convinced that the “carousel” and “hookup culture” wouldn’t be possible without a means of birth control.

Now we find ourselves in a truly unprecedented situation: women bunch together and successfully pressure to legitimize their sexual promiscuity. Adultery is no longer a crime in civilized world, for the first time in history. And nobody knows how it will affect subsequent generations. One consequence is already experienced by both men and women, your blog devotes a lot of attention it: Achieving desire #1 by means of utilizing birth control, fundamentally contradicts achieving desires #2 and #3. It’s obvious that’s it hard to get kids with birth control, but the absence romance in hookup culture is trickier, such that most feminists still don’t get it. In this blog you explained it remarkably well, I learned a lot reading it.

This is probably a simplistic view. I would like to learn more and be contradicted. Please ask questions, I omitted many interesting details for the sake of brevity and clarity.

There are many more important issues brought up not only in the original article but in the comment section that I am working on addressing.

ON CELIBACY

Next in the Moralist Series.

Mandated celibacy is a curse for many men who choose to follow this often unrealistic moralist doctrine.  Many moralists will proclaim that celibacy in next to holiness.  However living a celibate life is not natural to a man.  Did not God give Eve to Adam because it was not good for Adam to be alone?  The bible in other passages states it is rare for a man to choose a celibate lifestyle and to do so is akin to having an infirmity.  Could that be why marriage (with its attendant rules and punishments) was heavily promoted in the bible?  However that marriage model no longer exists for any man yet the moralist still promote celibacy for young men of faith as an absolute instead of a preferable standard.  I think it is good for men to reason out their own celibacy to make sure his reason for it are his own and not because of pressure from the moralists or any orginization.  Here is a good article discussing religion induced celibacy.

Should the church just stop discussing human sexuality and sex as it relates to men and women in and out marriage because of the harm and shame it inadvertently causes?  It is observable to see that the church is creating many problems for both men and women in the way it treats human sexuality.

There are two types of celibacy as it pertains to this discussion one is universally mandated (forced) celibacy as promoted by various church doctrines stating sex is only permitted in the state run marriage system, and the other is personal celibacy where a man chooses to remain celibate out of a personal conviction and not based on an outside factor such as certain moralistic teachings.

There are those men who believe that celibacy is preferred because sex is inherently sinful and is only made clean when a man and woman are married.  I believe this attitude is wrong and overall destructive to a man’s healthy sexuality.

Many Christian men feel that this choice has been made for them and are celibate because society and faith expected them to conform to a certain standard of behavior. Rather than choose celibacy as a personal call, they chose to conform to the traditional ethic that has been presented to them as the only orthodox option.

This is not really a personal choice for most of these men.  These men are essentially coerced into believing as such for if he slips up (backslides) while his loin’s burn, he is shamed back into line by his church peers and leadership demanding he repent for his sins.  His attitude causes a man to fell the attending and sometimes crushing guilt for his otherwise natural behaviors.  This guilt will stay with him subconsciously and in turn will negatively affect his sexuality in marriage.

The men who personally chooses to remain or become celibate because that makes him feel closer to God while he is single may choose when to stop being so because he falls in love with a woman and decides to commit to her (in marriage or not) and she commits to him, but eschew modern marriage. This is a personal choice made for his own personal edification and thus does not proselytize to others about his own personal decision.  This does not mean we will not share his views and experiences, but that is different than the judgmental attitude of the typical moralist.

The one way I see Christian men doing quite often is using the rationalization that they want a woman but are saving themselves for marriage when the truth is they could not get laid anyways, and of course there are no marriage prospects nor are they are dating.  This is simply lying to oneself.  For many of these men, had they had the chance and had they been able to meet women, especially secular ones, they would be having sex with them.  I suspect that for the typical professing Christian virgin man his virginity is a curse.  I am afraid that for these men, in his thirst will marry the first woman willing to spread her legs for him.  I don’t see this as moral but idiotic.

So for most men is the Christian form of celibacy a personal choice or a decision made under the weight of crushing and unrealistic expectations, guilt or shame?

Next we will talk about The Double Standard

The Moralists

August 27, 2014

Dalrock has a post that in the last few days has been gaining traction to becoming quite epic.  The original post discussed a young Christian woman who retained her virginity until marriage and then afterwards discovered she has some serious sexual dysfunctions.  It is obvious reading her story that she has some serious emotional issues as well.  From reading her story it is plain that she was taught that sex was shameful and dirty before she even reached puberty and understood what sex even was.  This is a common teaching that young people receive in almost every church to one degree or another.  These attitudes are not easily changed once a woman finally marries and sex becomes ok literally overnight.  The church’s repression of healthy attitudes about human sexuality and our natural sexual desires is just as ominous as the promotion of female promiscuity which the church also accepts and legitimizes.

It is not difficult to see that the origins of this young woman’s harmful attitudes about sex originated from with her church’s indoctrination and its foundational belief system.  Although she is a stout feminist, her attitudes about sex were likely fully ingrained into her belief system before she accepted the feminist ideology wholeheartedly.  It is important to point out that mixing modern church doctrine with feminist beliefs will almost always cause sexual dysfunction and unhealthy repression in not only women but men as well.

THE DISCUSSION

I submitted several questions and gave some hypothetical’s of issues pertaining to the main topic that I hoped would be discussed in a rational manner.  I also made a few statements to help guide things along.  These were legitimate concerns that many men do have when reevaluating their personal beliefs after taking the red pill.

What resulted was some men decided to mischaracterize what I said and then decided to engage in thinly guised character attacks.  I did not enter into these discussions really caring about what these other men and women think about me personally, nor do I currently care.  What is important is that the message gets through.  The level of debate, emotion, and rationalization from the church men this discussion caused tells me I struck some very raw nerves, which I will explain below.  That is good.  That was the point.  However many of the men who held themselves out as morally superior (moralists) avoided and ignored the most important points and questions I asked.  They engaged in a type of anti-intellectualism that for some of us well read individuals greatly annoys us.  However, not everyone did this, and not everyone held themselves out as a moralists.  These individuals greatly added value to the discussion.  This is pretty long but the problem is big and the solutions must be hashed out.

I will admit that some of my points were not as clear as they should have been.  My mind works extremely fast and as it happens at times, many of these ideas came to me in one fell swoop while I was writing my comments.  I believe this caused some confusion and if so I hope to clarify that here.  Also, because of the personal nature of some of the criticisms against what I wrote and the length of this essay I decided to post here on my blog and link back to Dalrock’s post instead of posting a simple comment.  I am going to break this up into a few different posts so bear with me.

One thing you may notice is that I no longer refer to myself as following any sect or religion.  The thing I find most disagreeable is hypocrisy.  For me to not be a hypocrite myself, for the many reasons below, I am no longer willing to identify as a Christian or promote the church in any way.  I feel by doing so could be harmful to good men by possibly encouraging him to join an organization where he is almost guaranteed to be hoodwinked by the feminine imperative.

ALPHA AND BETA

I am not going to get into a big what is Alpha and what is Beta discussion.  There are enough good resources out there if you want to know more.  However, what those two terms, and other like it such as Omega and Gamma, they are merely adjectives that encompass different sets of behavior patterns, attitudes and personality traits.  All three of these things can be changed in a man to a greater or lesser degree if necessary to achieve certain goals and objectives.  Many men often have a mix of these qualities.  The terms therefore are used loosely in my essays when I use these descriptive attributes.

THE QUESTIONS I PRESENTED

Is sex in a loving committed monogamous relationship just as moral as sex in the current Marriage 2.0 scheme where men are likely to lose?

Is sex between an unmarried man and women in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship inherently sinful?

Is it absurd and unrealistic to expect all unmarried Christian men to remain celibate when there is no other viable and rational option for sexual gratification other than entering into Marriage 2.0?

THE POINTS AND STATEMENTS I MADE

Church doctrine about human sexuality cases more problems and dysfunctions due to the inherent shame that surrounds most churches beliefs concerning sex in general.  This shame manifests itself in men and women even after they marry creating sexual issues in the marriage.

There is no consistency in church doctrine from one denomination to another concerning human sexuality, sex in marriage, marriage and divorce.  Most churches do not uniformly enforce its own edicts and local customs, even ones that are vigorously promoted within that church organization.  Many denominations refuse to teach the entire counsel of God.  The inconsistency on such issues such as divorce have ramification that could affect the salvation of the parties involved.  So how does a man know what teaching is truthful and which ones are in error causing him to sin?

Biblical marriage no longer exists because the state has usurped the bibles’ authority over family, marriage and sexual matter by legislative fiat.  Marriage 2.0 is a government promoted institution to ensure that the state has jurisdiction over a man, his assets and his children for later disbursements to his ex-wife should she choose to divorce him.  For biblical marriage to exist there needs to be social controls in order to discipline transgressors of biblical law.  Civil law would need to match biblical law.

Because biblical marriage no longer exists, a man may engage in sexual relations with a woman who he has a loving committed and monogamous relationship with without incurring the wrath of God or everlasting damnation.  God knows a man’s heart and will judge him according to that.  God will not judge a man for not following and unjust law or religious edict.  Godly suffering comes from God.  God would not place an impossible burden on a man and then call it a sinful should the man choose to opt out of trying to meet that impossible burden.

Additional points and questions relevant to the overall theme of this series and the previous points that were discussed will follow in subsequent essay in this series.

Next essay: Celibacy

I am working on an important post for the thinking man, but first I want to know what morality means to you.  What is the definition you use.  I want Christian and secular perspectives on this, as well as male and female input.

 

images

It’s sad that so many men and women both have such a messed up view of what sex is, what it means and the importance of it in a monogamous relationship.  Take the case of Samantha Pugsley who through an unhealthy mix of her apparent hardcore Christian upbringing and her belief in radical feminism maintained her virginity until she married and now has a very unhealthy attitude about sex and especially sex in marriage.

Since pictures can tell a story by themselves this is her a few years ago and her now after her full indoctrination into feminism, colored short boy haircut included.  Her transformation validates that wedding cake is very fattening indeed.

She was able to convince an obviously very beta or omega boyfriend to remain celibate and wait for her throughout 6 years of dating.  What happens in these cases is that she turned her virginity into not only a big part of her identity but an idol.  The end result for these young women who have this attitude is that they often remain unmarried and become old spinsters who are still virgins, which is bad for men and women both.  The 463 point checklists these women create are also a big roadblock for them in their quest for the perfect feminist Christ like husband.  The whole virginity game that religious women and beta men play is harmful and can have lasting negative repercussions throughout their lives.  We see this game played out in celebrating virginity for virginity’s sake with purity balls, rings, and other such unbiblical nonsense.  These women’s virginity ends up being narcissistically all about them and not about the gift of their body to their future husband, as is apparent what happened in Pugsley’s case.

Although this seems far more common in virgin women than men, many of these people end of with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality which creates sexual dysfunctions as seen in Pugsley’s article and throughout the comment section with women who adopted virgin game ended up disappointed because they failed to realize their unrealistic expectations about sex.  I follow a fellow blogger who also saved herself for her husband, but she was taught by her mother the proper attitude about virginity and about the importance of sex in her marriage and now her and her husband experience the wonders of sex as God truly meant for it to be.  A lot of poor teachings come from the parents of these young men and women.  The fathers of these girls essentially go super white knight and pedestalize their daughter which in turn just gives her unrealistic expectations because no man would live up to the fantasy that she created in her mind with her parents encouragement.  The boys on the other hand are also taught harmful attitudes.  One such thing is even remaining a virgin to begin with.  Unless a young man quickly courts and marries and has sex (which is biblical) he should be experiencing other women.  He should not become promiscuous per se, but a man does benefit from having experiences, sexual and otherwise, with other women.  A young man should never remain celibate just for the sake of waiting but only a short time in order to marry particular woman.  It’s also important to note for those men with moral hang-ups regarding sex, that nowhere in the bible does it instruct men to remain virgins prior to marriage.  I am of course challenged to raise up my 2 daughters with the proper attitude about sex so they will make their future husbands happy and have lifelong happy marriages.

The church is extremely schizophrenic when it comes to sex in general, and especially sex in marriage.  Deti’s comment stood out to me and nailed the point quite well:

From Pugsley’s article:

“When he did, I obliged. I wanted nothing more than to make him happy because I loved him so much and because I’d been taught it was my duty to fulfill his needs. But I hated sex.

“My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex. He encouraged me to see a therapist and I did. It was the first step on a long journey to healing.

“When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.

There is always a horribly distorted view of sex and a woman’s sexual role in marriage whenever these discussions are had. A wife is supposed to be sexually available to her husband at all times. She is supposed to give her husband sex when he wants it. Look at it this way: Would a wife put up with a husband who said “well, I’ll work when I feel like it. I’ll give you money to take care of the family when I feel like it, or I think it’s a good idea, or when I decide you need it”. Would a wife put up with that? Didn’t think so. So it is with sex and a husband’s view of it.** But women don’t want this. They don’t want to be totally sexually available to their husbands, for many reasons, chief among them are that most wives just do not desire their husbands sexually. This is a problem because most women are having sex with men who are more sexually desirable than they can get for marriage.

The other prime reason that women don’t want to be sexually available to their husbands is if they are, then they cede a lot of control in the marriage to the husband. A woman before marriage is able to control men by using sex and sexual access. Sex, sex appeal and sexual access are the greatest measures of a woman’s power, and if she gives them completely and totally to one man, she has given up most of her power. She doesn’t want to do this, of course, because that would require her to submit and trust, and what if he screws it up?

** NOTE TO liberals, feminists and other dipshits: I AM NOT SAYING THAT A WIFE IS CONSENTING TO RAPE. I am not saying a wife must have sex when sick or injured or recovering from childbirth. No loving husband would demand sex under those circumstances. I AM, however, saying that a lot of wives unreasonably withhold and limit sexual access. No wife is too busy that she can’t take 20 minutes out of her schedule to take care of her husband’s need. And if she is, then her priorities are screwed up. I am also saying that if a woman doesn’t consent to having sex with a particular man when HE wants to and NOT just when SHE wants to, then she should not marry that man and should not marry at all, because she has a distorted and improper view of marriage.

It is likely she was only a technical virgin and not one in fact.  She states in her bio she is bisexual and so one may deduce that not only do other women join her and her husband in bed, but she likely engaged in certain woman on woman activities prior to marriage.  That said, she was not a virgin and whatever waiting she forced upon her husband was not done in any biblical or moral sense, but as a way to satisfy her own warped view of controlling her own sexuality and sexual morality.  This is evident in her disgusting attitude of “my body my choice”.  All you have to do is read how she hates her husband so much she cannot stand the thought of being impregnated by him and goes ahead and terminates her pregnancy.  I just wonder what the story is behind her husband who waited 6 years in order to have sex with this average looking obviously mentally unstable woman who’s motivations are fueled by radical feminism.  Regardless of one’s religious convictions this man was nuts to remain celibate for 6 years while he waited for this woman.

beyonce-on-grammy4

So Christian songwriter and performer and Grammy nominee Natalie Grant walks out of the show and I can see it now that this story will run through Facebook and other social media like a wildfire in California during a drought.  Christians everywhere will rally the cry against Hollywood and the like because Beyonce showed too much of her body in a black lacy, fishnet outfit.  Yet these same Christians and modern Church continue to be apathetic about Divorce and continues to actively assist in the debasing of marriage.  The church has also completely compromised the entire morality of marriage and vehemently supports marriage 2.0. The problem is even deeper when you have white knights apologetics touting the secular feminist mantra in blatant disregard to biblical teachings.  God forbid the Church actually give out correct advice that would benefit marriage and family.  We also cannot forget that the Church does a great job in not only the creation of white knight beta’s but it manufactures singleness, here and here.

We don’t have to even worry about feminism destroying marriage and the family, the Church is doing a great job all by itself.

So Christians will get all excited when some well known fellow believer does something to really show the secular world that “hey we got morals”.  Grant’s exit was useless at best.  We know nothing of real import ever changes.  I fully expect Matt Walsh to make a grand scene about Grant’s nothing statement that will have absolutely zero effect on how normal business is done.


beyonce-on-grammy4beyonce-on-grammy2beyonce-on-grammybeyonce-jay-z-grammys-2014article-2546569-1B767232000005DC-786_634x854article-2546569-1AFDED2700000578-790_306x506article-2546569-1AFC30D100000578-78_306x5061390842092_beyonce-zoom

pink-performs-at-2014-grammy-awards-in-los-angeles_1Pink-Grammy-Awards-2014Pink-Grammy-Awards-2014 (1)article-2546569-1AFEA83500000578-485_634x720
( EDIT: I originally stated it was Amy Grant, I meant Natalie Grant)

 




I wrote most of this as a companion to The Women in Church essay, but a comment on J4M prompted me to include his comment in this essay and thus my response to it as an example of the typical man you would meet in church.

Church Man writes:

I stopped reading alt-right and christian game (an oxymoron) sites last year. The hypocrisy and lunacy was too much to digest. I call myself a church man on purpose, since that crowd is so anti-churcianity as they call it. Supposedly they are the “real Christians” and the rest of us who go to church and actually enjoy it are fakers and dupes or chumps.

I took a gander at Grey’s blog and its the same ol’ crap. A fornicator deigns to lecture men about “church sluts”. And those men lap it up like the dogs they are.

The only people with a right to critique the church are those who are IN IT and trying to make a difference. Not those who have left it to lead wanton lives and yet deign to lecture those of us who have stayed and are living straight.

I am glad Church Man stopped by.  However it seems he read the title of ONE post, got his panties in a knot and stormed off to randomly criticize me on a article that was talking about something else entirely instead of leaving his remarks at the end of my essay.  I think he should have read more of my essays.  He did this in an effort to discredit me personally instead of addressing the issues in the j4G article or my particular comments. This is the classic behavior of the white knights and mangina’s I speak about below.  Many of these men are probably married to the older church women I wrote about in my previous essay on the Types of Women in Church.  When you point out how these mens’s behavior is perpetuating some of these problems they take it as a personal attack and act out emotionally, just like women really.  He ambiguously uses shaming language against me and the entire sphere because he is somehow more moral than any of us, or he thinks of himself as so.  Maybe this is because he chooses to attend church were some of do not.  I personally think that Dalrock and Rollo are quite moral and probably more moral than most of the men who actually go to church including my criticizer.  I will also speculate their marriages are happier and more fulfilling for both spouses than most church men.  I will admit I am a bit more amoral than what I used to be in regards to having sex out of wedlock.  I am also pragmatic, but I digress.

He goes on to state that no one is allowed to criticize the church if they no longer attend.  This smacks of someone who is so entrenched into the feminine-primary mindset that they cannot see past their own misandry.  He must go to the non-typical church were the virgin women are marrying the good virgin and non virgins men regardless of their beta mindsets and none of the church girls have 463 point lists of qualities their perfect man must possess.  His church also takes divorce and female promiscuity so seriously that women are excommunicated for frivolously divorcing their husbands.  The sluts in his church (yes they are there) have forsworn their promiscuous ways and thus many have relegated themselves to a life of celibacy and singleness because they know that they are far to damaged to be a good wife who is able to bond to the beta men who she would meet in church.  These men like Church Man, when (not if) they find themselves victims of hypergamy and the feminine imperative will either resign themselves to a lifetime of loneliness and bitterness or they will be the first ones lurking on Roosh or Heartiste in order to learn the skills and mindset necessary on order to meet and keep his new love interests.

Continuing the original essay, we see from the example above that these men do exist in large numbers and the comments just lends credibility to what follows.   As for the older or married men in church, I have NEVER met a red pill alpha, or any alpha for that matter.  Even the combat vets, who I consider brothers, are still white knights mangina’s when it comes to women and the feminine imperativeEverything they say about marriage and relationships is usually dead wrong.  Many of these men are led by their wives and their children, although they will be the first to tell you how much of a leader they are in their families.  If you criticize or call out the bad advice they commonly give about intergender relations you are thoroughly chastised and shamed.  They will never debate or talk about these issues in an adult and intellectual manner.  Normally they tell you that their interpretations are the only ones that matter, call you immoral and rush off in a huff.  I really cannot totally respect a man for behaving like that.  These same men continuously tell the unmarried and younger men they must marry.  All you have to do is attend any modern church and you will hear the cry from the pulpit and the other male attendees for younger or unmarried men to Man Up (and marry those sluts) and woe unto the man who has sex with one of the precious single princesses who attend church.

Other men you will meet are the young men who were brought up in church and are hoping to find that “one special snowflake” to marry.  They saved themselves, in most cases from lack of opportunity mind you, and are hoping to find the vestal virgin of their dreams.  The problem though is that these men dry up the vajayjay’s of the pretty little church girls who with their lists, only get hot and tingly for the alpha bad boys they would only meet outside of church.  Some do get lucky and their personalities and potential win out, AFBB.   For these men they might end up with a good woman with a healthy (but previously restrained) sex drive that can now be released in all of its naughty fury.  Woe to the man who ends up marrying the 30 year old virgin spinster who had very few choices to begin with or the fake Christian woman who has already worked up a notch count in the double digits.  I hope most of these men at least have enough sense to ask his love interests some very basic questions. It’s unfortunate that for many of these young men who ascribe to contemporary Christian dating advice (bullshit really) the only women who will actually settle for them are themselves settling.  They wouldn’t have to settle so much if they learned game and upped their alpha quotient some.  But these men can rest assured that although she probably wasn’t your first choice, neither were you her first choice.

It’s important to remember that most Christian women have thoroughly adopted the Fireproof world view of how marriage should work and of course if you are not a weeping slub like the (supposed) hero of Courageous, well your just less of a man.  Of course the men who act like this are the ones who end up being cuckolded and possibly forced to raise another man’s child.  Most Christian women also have no problem blowing up their marriages for whatever frivolous reasons, such as her husband looking at porn or he no longer makes her haaapy.  When Christian leaders exalt praise on single motherhood, then you know for sure the church has big big problems.  The older men in church encourage the women to act like this because they refuse to hold women accountable to that higher standard.  They also refuse to teach the unpopular masculine messages in the Bible.  Lastly they deify their wives which of course contradict every teaching of the bible and ends up leading the man to idolatry.  When there is a problem in a couple’s marriage, the following excerpt gives a perfect example of the men=bad, women=good meme.

“When my wife left me for frivolous reasons I approached the head pastor of her church in order to get some help reigning in her rebellion.  All he told me was that it is a woman’s right to divorce and that I am abusive because I told her (my wife) we were going to go to a different church because I did not like the teachings of the one she was attending, which was the church this guy led.  He actually had the gall to tell me that I should be listening to her and coming to his church.  Suffice it to say that we never did reconcile our marriage and are now divorced”.

Too many Christian men and believe that marrying Christian woman will shield them from the reality of divorce.  Unfortunately that is simply not true.  Christian men would be much better of marrying a secular non believer.  If anything the sex will probably be better.  By marrying a secular woman  you can feel confident that at least she will not be having the trad-con version of feminism pumped into her brain twice a week.  It is a sad state of affairs when a non believing woman is preferred to a professing Christian none.

I blame the men in church for not biblically leading their women.  I feel sorry for the young men who grew up in church and have never been exposed to proper thinking about what works with women.

Christianity has become extremely feminized over the last 20 years or so and I would say that the women a man would meet in church are worse marriage material than the women he would normally meet in the secular world.  Churched women have an unrealistically high sense of entitlement that would be difficult for any man to satisfy, Christian or not.   And of course as a man you will receive a constant barrage of “Man Up” and “men bad- women good” messages, with some twisted scriptures thrown in for an illusion of credibility.  As for me, I have an evangelical protestant background from when I started attending church on my own in my early 20’s but I was not brought up in any church.   The following are mostly from my own personal observations.  I no longer attend Church nor will I ever again.

You have 3 types of women in church:

  1. The actual virgins are looking for the perfect husband and are often so deluded with lists so long that only Christ himself would qualify as good enough to pop her holy cherry. Many of the young women in this group seem to turn their virginity into a type of idolatry.  It seems that God turns out to be the biggest cock block for those men with enough guts to approach these girls.  I say guts because with these young women it will be like traversing a battlefield with the prize of her pure untouched punanni on the other side.  You will just have to hope and pray (and trust her word, lol) that she wasn’t giving up anal sex and blowjobs in an effort to save her pussy for marriage so she could “technically” still be a virgin.  Of course the average churched young man would need to have every qualification on her 463 bullet point list and need to put a ring on her finger before you can get into her panties.  Just remember that these same women have been promised in all of her church groups, in the sermons she heard and from the elders women that their virginity is so valuable and the sex will be so good in marriage that these women on that faithful night will expect nothing less than the planets aligning, the seas parting and little birds singing as they sit on the windowsill.  Unfortunately it is unlikely that she will even reach orgasm that first night and if her new husband is also a virgin they will have quite a bit of a learning curve to deal with.  The worse things these women could do is marry a man who is a virgin himself.  I think it would be best if these young women married men who were considerably older and more experienced than them as was the norm for most of human civilization.  Only an older experienced man has the hand to deal with these entitlement princesses.  Her virginity would only be partial payment for the work he would have to do with her.  However no modern church would ever condone such a thing.  Some of these women will never learn to settle for a real man when compared to the imaginary prince she envisions, and will end up the 30 year old spinster virgin who has lost whatever looks she had and her fertility window.  Many of these women have an unrealistic vision in their heads of what they think they deserve because God said that they are the princess’s to the His Kingdom.  It’s sad to think of all of the good men they ended up disregarding out of hand because of these expectations.  This woman will still need to be gamed hard by her husband because her entitlement monkey will be strong in her.

 

  1. Now we have the born again sluts who rode the carousel hard and are so screwed up biologically, mentally and emotionally that any man who dates (or God forbid, marry) them is in for a world of hurt, torment and self doubt. (Yes, I have seen this many times). I will say this in case you didn’t figure it out from the previous sentence; NO RINGS FOR SLUTS! Period.  The singles ministries are full of them.  They can fake being good girls but an observant man can pick out these women.  You can always go to the Sunday morning nightclub and score with these women where they outnumber the men significantly, but do not marry them.  These women have low impulse control regardless of their new found faith and only the strongest of alpha’s will be able to hold her down (at least temporarily) in what would likely only end up only being a semi monogamous relationship.  For any guy with Game trying to score with these women they are perfect pickings.  Just don’t marry them.  I have even seen men in church have a harem of these types of women in the same church, although this is very rare because most churches will kick such a guy out quickly.  Another thing with these women is that the church will never hold them accountable.

 

  1. Then you have the old housewives who although may stay at home, home school and all of that, you can tell just by meeting them briefly that they are overbearing harpies and all of their husbands are incurable beta chumps who behind the masks of the “yes dears” are utterly miserable. These women will support women’s preferred type of sexual promiscuity, serial monogamy.  They will make sure that men are adequately shamed for such infraction such as dating much younger women and those who do not tow the modern trad-con line.   It is these women that either directly work with church leaders to drive out good alpha Christian men or create the environment where good alpha men will not come to church.  These women will often try to make sure certain rules are followed in order to give other Christian women moral cover for their bad decisions and lack of discretion.  These same women are the ones raising and teaching these younger women in the church how to get what they think they are entitled too.  It is bad that they refuse to follow and heed God’s words in the matter.

 

The modern church will also ruin a good woman.  Yes, those women do exist in very small numbers.  In all good conscience I would never take my daughters or any woman I am in a relationship with to any modern church.  Now good churches do exist, but they are few and far between.  The good ones won’t have rock bands or child ministries or any of that “new” stuff.  The best type of worship services are held in someone’s living room.  But because the pastors of these churches are usually still beta white knights and total mangina’s I am still given pause.  Either way these good women will be negatively influenced by their Christian sisters and that is never a good thing.  In reality Christian women are not looking for a Christian man to marry so they can be a good wife to him and mother to his children, no, they are looking for a man to worship them like she worships herself.

 

See Also:

Reframing Christian marriage

Reframing Christian marriage part 2: rebelling wives aren’t to blame for their own rebellion.

Reframing Christian marriage part 3: husbands as helpmeets.

Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance.

Reframing Christian marriage part 5: sex as a weapon.

The Typical Christian Woman’s List

Sexless Marriage Series #1

I was first going to write this essay about the Spreadsheet couple that has recently gone viral over the internet and the sphere here and here just to mention a couple of good articles, but I wanted to address this one thing first.  Men who look at porn.  Much has been written about this subject and I think most of it is wrong.  I am not going to take a moral stance against it because doing so will not only dilute the topic because I believe the common moral stance against itself immoral.

Men NEED sex.  Be it from their wives, a girlfriend, a mistress, hooker, Fuck Buddy, or good old jerking off it does not matter, we need to have that release often and when it comes to actual sex it needs to be good.  If we are in a loving monogamous relationship, regular quality sex causes us men to love and bond to our women more.  Likewise they bond to us more.  It’s funny how biology works.

However, the attitude of the modern American woman is that we, as men, are not entitled to sex and therefore should never expect it, even in the confines of a monogamous relationship or even marriage. Yet, these same women will state that they are entitled to an earth-shaking orgasm every time they bless the man with access to their golden magic super awesome vaginas.  Of course any man who might want sex from a woman, or dare I say expect it as part of their relationship is a creep.  This even applies to the husbands of frigid wives.  These women will of course get quite angry if a man ever rejects her sexual advances and will even post his rejection of her online with her hamsterlation on why she is so wonderful and how he was an asshole.  The other side of this coin is that men do not owe women commitment, fidelity or our resources.  If we are married and have scrotial fortitude we may very well leave them or fool around on these women.  Sorry babe, but that’s the price you will pay for your rejection of us.  Also it’s worth mentioning that a woman who only offers duty sex or who is otherwise frigid or unenthusiastic is quite unattractive, at least to me.

For the hapless beta or man who is otherwise chained to an unhappy marriage because of his religious beliefs there is porn.  Yea porn!  It’s maybe not the best thing for reasons I won’t get into right now but for many men it’s a valid alternative to getting a mistress, going to hookers or divorcing his wife.  Just remember that for most of you moral shackled men, your wife has done things too.

If a woman wants to keep her man around she needs to give it up enthusiastically and often, she needs to stay fit and be an overall pleasant person to be around.  The only happy relationships I have seen all had an exciting and full sex life in common.  Most western women simply refuse to be exciting in bed with their men.  They use sex as a commodity to be traded for men’s resources, favors and oftentimes commitment.  I don’t think many women even do this conscientiously but as a result of their upbringing in our feminist and female entitlement driven society and the unshackling of women’s behaviors due to feminism.  Then they take this destructive attitude about sex into their marriages essentially putting their own pussy on a pedestal all the while forgetting that sex is one of the main (and most important) components to bonding with your spouse.

I have to mention that when many of these women were young, and considering the modern view regarding female promiscuity, these women, now wives, likely had sex with quite a number of partners prior to marriage which would have lessened their overall value as potential mates and have increased the chances any marriage they entered into would ultimately fail.  Some became alpha widows and in all likely hood irreparably damaged their ability to pair bond to any man they might meet in the future.  When these women finally did catch their beta husband after a solid ride on the carousel, they will all too often deny him the wonders of her past sexual experiences and only give her now husband infrequent and vanilla sex.

One issue that came up several months ago was with Matt Walsh’s article telling married men that when they look at porn they are committing adultery thus lending moral justification to millions of women to justify divorcing their husbands.  I was heavily involved in the comment section which seems to have been erased for some reason.  It was good that I made notes at the time.   There were over 3000 comments on that article back in February.  Now there are only a little over 300.

In the comment section of that article there was a vigorous back and forth between commentators stating essentially the following three positions:

  1. Almost 95% of the female commentators stated, and many times with much vitriol, that a married man looking at porn is in fact equal to and in some cases worse than the act of committing adultery with another woman. Most of these women were self professing Christians. Several women stated that when they caught their husbands looking at porn they were mortified and so disgusted they never wanted to haves sex with their husbands again. In many cases They also stated that previously they were more than willing to have sex with their husbands but were rejected because their husbands would rather look at porn than have sex with them. I would say that a majority of these same women ended up divorcing their husbands for this reason alone, or for the ones who have not done so yet are seriously considering divorce. Most of these women plainly state that no man, including their husbands, are not entitled to, nor shall he expect sex on a regular basis with his wife.  Of course these same women get upset when their husbands would rather look at porn then have duty sex with them. These women then lavishly praised Walsh on his courage in writing the article condemning all men who dare to look at porn as adulterers, perverts and rapist in waiting.  This group of women and their supporting men always blames the man.  They say things like any man who “needs” sex lacks impulse control. They shame anyone who has a different view than theirs, oftentimes telling these individuals that they are sorry for their partners because the commenter in support of porn is such a wicked vile individual.  Most will shame any man or woman who even mentioned that looking at porn may be caused by a spouse not getting sex from their wives.  Most of the vitriol is directed to male commenter’s and the female pro porn commenter’s are responded to with a little les hate.  The people in this group never mention women looking at porn, divorce porn, or women and their romance novels.  The men in this group seem to me like they are soft and catering to their wives opinions.

 

  1. Another camp defended anyone looking at porn. This group postulated that in many cases porn use seems to be the symptom of them not getting enough actual and “quality” sex in their marriages and from their wives. This camp stated that INSTEAD of committing REAL adultery by having sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant they will look at porn and take care of their own needs instead.  These men along with a few women who supported these men’s actions, would rather have good fun and enthusiastic sex with their wives but either their wives are lame in bed (read duty sex) or their wives are just not interested in sex with them.  As stated above, this group was shouted down and shamed by the anti-porn people for their opinions.

 

  1. The third and smallest group consists of both men and women who both look at porn with and without their spouses or partners, but each allowing the other to look at it and even encouraging the other spouse to explore their own desires and fantasies online and later discussing what each other likes and even using porn as foreplay. From what I gleaned from the limited information in the comments, these men and women seem to enjoy the most stable and yet exciting marriages.  They also seem the happiest with their spouses. One thing I did notice is that in these marriages and relationships neither person overtly identified as being a Christian.

 

It should be obvious by now that feminist and trad-cons share many harmful ideologies in regards to male sexuality, male shaming, porn and divorce.

It seems to me that women who stridently identify as being Christian are the ones who seem to not only feel they are entitled to withhold and deny quality and regular sex from their husbands but that they will almost certainly be willing to divorce their husbands for the singular reason of him looking at porn, thereby stealing his money, resources and children from him using the Church™ and its femcentric teachings along with articles like those from Matt Walsh and Jenny Erickson as a justification for their decisions.

As for the article I think its pure rubbish.  All it was is pandering to women, especially Christian wives, giving them moral cover for frivorcing their husbands.  It was pointed out by a small minority of aware men that this article and others like it highlight that not only do men need regular and enthusiastic sex with their wives, these men when deprived will take the path of less damage and look at dirty pictures and videos instead of carrying out an actual affair with another woman, which in reality if done, may have a far greater negative consequences for the marriage than a man simply looking at porn, or would it?

Jenny Erickson left her husband over his alleged porn use.  It seems that in her case and with the many men who have to resort to porn and masturbation to relive themselves in their sexless marriages, porn is just a symptom to the far greater problem of having a wife who continually denies sex to her husband and when he finally does get it on his birthday and anniversary, if that, it is worse than lame.  In these marriages porn is more fun than having to throw a fuck into and likely overweight, definitely overbearing unpleasant woman.

There are many real world consequences for women’s prior and current bad behaviors.  Sex and female promiscuity prior to marriage and women’s entitlement attitudes are two issues that have negatively affected more marriages than any other issue, including men looking at porn.

I found this post on Alpha Game to be a very entertaining and illuminating back and forth between an older Christian man denouncing Game and Deti, Vox and Yohami to name but a few.  The OP was originally about a socially inept liberal manboob’s rant calling Roissy an asshole for his writing about Game, women’s natural hypergamy, and essentially the poor state of things in our morally corrupt society that has gotten rid of all restrictions on bad female behavior while shaming men who exhibit positive masculine traits.   Unfortunately this is a common stance held by the majority of men who throughout their lives, have utterly failed with women and the White Knights who proclaim themselves followers of Christ.  (There are also many secular white knight manboobs.)  Both groups, while sometime differing in their ideology, cause great harm by encouraging women to not only behave badly but they give an air of acceptance to women’s poor behaviors and downplay the consequences of those behaviors.  They are also harmful in respect to misleading men by denying the true nature of women (they think they are all special snowflakes) and denying all levels of Game.

It’s interesting to note a few things found not in the article per se, but in the comment section.  The first issue of import is that all women are in fact sexual beings.  I even read something recently that stated that women are in fact more sexual than men.  I can see some truth in that.  For the sake of staying on topic we can put that aside for now. The important issue is that all men and women, in and out of the Church are members of the SMP.  Whether they are married or not is also irrelevant because even in marriage couple have sex, or at least they should be doing so, exclusively with each other of course.

As Deti stated here, even women in the Church are looking for sex with attractive men.  In fact some of these women may even have husbands.  You can go into any medium or large sized church and see that the women are dressed not for church but for the Sunday Morning Nightclub.  I think the short skirts and panty shots should be proof enough.  However too many men will try so hard to tell us aware men that these women are all good girls when in fact many of them are reformed (born again) sluts.

I encourage you to read the article and the comments for a pretty good debate that shows how Game is not only valid but a necessary component to not only meeting women but maintain a happy marriage.  I will point out that Game itself is not immoral.  Some aspect such as banging many different hot women may infuriate the moralist in some of you, but before you condemn game, lets condemn the behaviors of women and our society at large, like female sexual promiscuity and no fault divorce that gave rise to the necessity of Game in every man’s life and in every mans marriage.

Personally I like having sex with a variety of attractive women, but I prefer the special connection found only in a monogamous relationship with one woman I can love and trust.  However those women are exceedingly rare.  Because of this I am selective about the woman I have sex with by my choice, not social ineptitude.   Game and my naturally attractive persona give me this ability to not only make this choice but to be choosy.  Without Game I am susceptible to not only falling into beta behaviors in a comfortable monogamous relationship with a woman and thus would encourage the premature end to the relationship, I would only have 2nd or 3rd tier women to choose from or be chosen from.