Posts Tagged ‘virginity’

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

Advertisements

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