Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification

Sanctification is the ultimate compatibility.

Readership: All; Single Christian men;

During the discussion last week, several tangent subjects emerged that are related to sanctification.  The one I’ll cover in this post is about sexual compatibility.  Related comments from other readers have been adapted below in an easy-to-read format.

Caterpillar asked a question about how a sexually inexperienced person is supposed to ascertain whether a particular potential partner will be sexually compatible or not.  This is something that is a grave concern of high priority to randy young Christian men who are holding out for marriage, but interestingly, this is not as important to God as it is to young horndogs.  What is important to God is a person’s sanctification, among other things.  But that doesn’t mean that sexual compatibility has to remain a worrisome contemplation.  It is my hope that this post will put the matter to rest.

Derek: My suggestion to men like caterpillar345 is to master the sexual urges.  Mastery is a masculine virtue that will serve well.  Whatever you do, don’t take her for a ‘test drive’ to determine sexual compatibility.  Men with a ‘dirt bag sexual past’ or those who have already married know how sexual compatibility works, but this actually a liability.

Caterpillar: I’m probably overthinking it but I just fail to understand how I’m going to end up with any semblance of a fulfilling physical relationship by me and a hypothetical potential wife going from none to anything goes after saying “I do”.  But I suppose it will just happen naturally or it will just happen because I’ve done what God said and stayed chaste until marriage or something…

So again, the question I keep asking is something like “How do I, coming from a rather traditional, “hands-off, no touching” approach to relationships (and presumably intending to marry a similar woman) understand whether we will be sexually compatible for the rest of my / our life?”  Perhaps there is no good / straightforward / universal answer.  As I have a tendency to do, I’m probably looking for an “equation” that I can solve and get “the answer”.  One way to look at it is that the process of discovery along the way is what makes life interesting.  But another way to look at it is that I’d like to seek the advice of men with more experience than me so that I might make fewer mistakes.

Derek: It was scary [for me] to marry without knowing what our ‘sexual compatibility’ was.  We had read some books on sex, but nothing prepares you for the reality.  For a while, even after marriage, I wished I had known the answer to your question.  I was wrong.

I’ve been married now for a long time and I know all about sexual compatibility.  Had I taken her for a test drive—as statistics show—I would have had a substantially higher risk of marital sexual dissatisfaction, divorce, or one of us might have decided not to marry!  [See Derek’s original comment for more details about why these things are so.]

Jack: Derek is right about the test drive argument.  It is an excuse based on the augmentation of doubt.  If you’re both fresh virgins, then you create your own sexual compatibility.

Since then, Sharkly wrote a post, Laughing at Feminism: Virgin Imprinting (2020-3-1) in which he describes the spiritual experience of sanctification.

“I just gradually came to notice that I now strongly preferred everything to look exactly like how [my wife] looked.  I now strongly prefer my wife’s size of nipples, the size and color of her areolas, the size and shape of her breasts.  I also strongly prefer the size, shape, color, and texture of her pussy lips.  I’m sorry, but I just do now.  Apparently [she imprinted me] sexually, and she is now what I just strongly prefer.”

Sanctification is when you identify with one person and her body, mannerisms, tics, and other characteristics, and you simply don’t want anyone else.  You just can’t relate as strongly to anything any different.

Sanctification is what makes it possible for a married couple to remain faithful to each other throughout their lives.

Wife Goggles™ are a thing because of sanctification.

Parental affection is a manifestation of sanctification.

Sanctification is the ultimate compatibility.

One of the negative consequences of sexual promiscuity (including the Test Drive™) is that it reduces one’s capability of achieving a consummate sanctification with any one person.

But for those who enter into marriage in a sexually pure state, sexual compatibility is a non-issue because sanctification is yet to occur.

For those who are seeking a sexual partner after having many other partners, however, sexual compatibility involves finding someone who matches the imprinting received by the most charismatic and memorable previous partners.  The sad fact remains that no one can completely fill the shoes of another lover who made the first imprint in the context of an innocent, romantic, youthful fling.  This sanctification cum defilement is the origin of the Alpha Widow™ syndrome.

In conclusion, it should be clear to the reader by now that the best way to achieve sexual compatibility in marriage is to retain one’s sexual purity before and after marriage.  Purity is all about the completeness of one’s sanctification.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Discernment, Wisdom, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Respect, Sanctification & Defilement, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Strategy, Vetting Women and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification

  1. Sharkly says:

    I endorse this post! It is a great post. Better than mine.

    Although I had a little confusion at first with how you were using the word “sanctification”. But I eventually figured it out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Thank you Sharkly. Sanctification is one of those words that is constantly bandied about in religious circles. We see a lot of scriptural references to sanctification, but I don’t think most people know what it really means. I can’t say that I fully understand it either, but I have a better grasp on it than most. I will focus on sanctification in this week’s posts, so stay tuned for more.

      Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        Webster’s defines it as consecration, purification, or making sacred or holy. For general purpose definitions, these are very good. Biblically, sanctification is about actively making something sacred or holy for God’s use and to be set apart. In addition to Webster’s list, it also includes sacrifice.

        That marriage sanctifies sex is why newly married virgins create their own sexual compatibility. Marital sanctification involves physical, mental, and spiritual bonding. When you have sex, you and she are setting apart something holy and sacred. This imprinting is permanent and, I believe, only gets stronger over time (as Sharkly demonstrated).

        By contrast, sexual defilement attempts to ‘make sacred’ and ‘set apart’ that which is not and cannot be holy (1 Cor 6:15). In Hebrew thought, sexual immorality was often inextricably linked to idolatry (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9). It is why adultery is one of the ten commandments and why idolatry, adultery, and murder were considered equally heinous sins.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        In my opinion, English language dictionaries can’t give us an accurate account of words like sanctification, consecration, defilement, and others. Even many descriptions of these terms from religious sources are confusing and/or don’t give us the full flavor. I will be discussing some aspects of sanctification in this week’s posts. Stay tuned.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Scott says:

    There is nothing factually wrong about the assertions made in this post. What it does is lays the foundation for what I think most Christians can agree is the ideal marriage situation.

    Ideals have been a running theme of my own thinking and blogging for the entire time I have been at it. I think the reason I do this is because we currently live in the world that is the final result of an all out war on ideals, and scratching back to those will take effort.

    Recall, An ideal is description of the most favorable outcome or pathway to thing. A situation that has all the best possible features. When that idea is agreed upon by the society at large, it means we all, as a group strive to meet that ideal. There are a number of ways to encourage that striving, but even THAT (how do we incentivize the striving) is an ideal that must be debated.

    At this point, the concept of an ideal is an offensive anathema to most people around us.

    To make ideals even clearer to me, I have, in my mind the ideal itself, and then a cascading list of less-than-ideal situations below it. I then ask myself, what can we do to see more the top one, and what does it mean if you strive for it, but hit somewhere just beneath the target.

    There is an ideal courtship to me. I’ve described it elsewhere and its probably on this site somewhere. (Basically two families of the same faith tradition whose children are faithful. The children develop strong physical attraction to each other. The parents are consulted and agree. A marriage occurs, THEN sex and babies.)

    An ideal family, to me is an Orthodox married mom and dad raising their own biological children, no steps, no 1/2s, no adoptions. I myself have met neither the ideal courtship nor the ideal marriage. I’ve been over that roughly 1.23234879247^6 times.

    There is an ideal way to buy a car–cash, no financing. I guess next down from that would be huge down payment, a little financing, very easy interest rate.

    You get the idea.

    The reason we have a war on ideals is because having an ideal means that if you did not meet it, you are being judged. It hurts peoples feelings to be compared to an ideal that they did not obtain. But beyond that, even if we could stop the hemorrhaging of the beautiful, the ideal and sublime by simply getting our guttural society out of that mindset, we would not agree on WHAT those ideals are, and HOW to obtain them. Sharkly would have me and my wife forever shamed in the public square and killed. Regardless of how much good we have done with our tale of woe and “don’t do it like we did it–don’t be foolish and think our hypocritical ways will wind you up in a bliss marriage.”

    I’m kind of looking for another approach that doesn’t require mass murder.

    So, I continue to offer my ideals, my path to get back them. Readers can say its too slow, its making a deal with the devil, it’s moral relativism. Whatever.

    And on that, I would offer this final observation–Roosh traveled the world fucking (thousands?) of women and writing books about his conquests and how other men could do the same thing. And I guess hes an Orthodox Christian or whatever now. I had a standard, normative American boy life trajectory, and never monetized the story of my life, nor have I ever encouraged anyone else to do the same. I’ll let readers decide if they feel that comparison is fair.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      A side note on roosh, since I recently came across some old blogs, but people were calling him a tradcon infiltrator over a decade ago.

      So odd how he discovered religion when his slice of the market started shrinking.

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Well, I am happy for the changes RooshV is making, and I’m optimistically assuming the best, that his change is genuine. Although he is human, and will no doubt disappoint us at some points, I’d like to believe his 180 degree change is an astounding repentance by a profligate man.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      The war on ideals – I think this is basically what young people are up against. One’s focus should be on the mission that God outlines for one’s life, but we (as a culture) can’t get to that point because we don’t even know what to believe anymore. There needs to be a standard, a structure, an ideal, to serve as a foundation to launch from. For Christians, this should be the Word of God, but even though many Christians might subscribe to the Word as an ideal, the conditions on the ground are too messy to make any sense of it’s practical implementation.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Yes. And not to put too fine a point on this part. There is no award for being the “most extreme” in a group of people who are already WAY out on a limb by even taking part in these conversations.

        It’s the same thing that makes Artisinal Toad look ridiculous.

        Like

      • Bruce Batsche says:

        @ Scott

        This is the whole “my pill is redder than yours” dynamic you see. You see this in other “spheres” too – e.g. politically reactionary websites.

        It’s basically the internet version of an old fashioned pissing contest.

        Like

  3. ramman3000 says:

    “It’s the same thing that makes Artisinal Toad look ridiculous.”

    It’s funny that you bring up Artisinal Toad in this context. When you examine both polygyny and remarriage, you find that neither are declared to be essentially sinful. Yet, there is a distinct sense that they are inherently disordered. First, when biblical polygamous marriages are described, they are (almost?) always disordered. Second, the NT declares that anyone with more than one wife (whether at the same time or different times) is disqualified from church leadership.

    It is my belief that the sanctification described in this post is the reason. That imprinting is real and important.

    “Wife Goggles™ are a thing because of sanctification. […] you simply don’t want anyone else.”

    As I and my wife age, I see it happening physically, but for the life of me I am unable to see her as less beautiful. Indeed, to me she is more beautiful.

    When I think about having sex with other women, I feel a measure of repulsion. Just like almost all women, I have, for example, negative attraction to Scott’s wife (no offense!), who is not at all like my own wife. Her objectively fine attributes are completely irrelevant. That look that she gives Scott all the time that sends his heart racing? I find that very off-putting.

    I understand that men who struggle with pornography addictions have a very difficult time with sexual compatibility, even losing the desire to have sex with their imperfect wives. For you married men with a history of multiple sexual partners, I don’t really understand how you pull off your latest marriage successfully. If my wife were to die, I’d be desperate to remarry out of necessity (5 kids!), but it is hard to imagine having sex with another woman, let alone trying to replicate my current marriage.

    Like

  4. Scott says:

    You can’t imagine it because it’s never been required of you.

    I feel the same way about my wife. The older she gets, the more beautiful she is to me. Even with the number of previous relationships I’ve had. Every new wrinkle or part that doesn’t return exactly to the same place after each baby, I grow fonder. It’s like we earned those imperfections together. They are mine.

    My marriages grosses you out because your haughty self righteousness makes it impossible to perceive the grace found within it. More legalism.

    When I see other men’s wives looking longingly at them I get all soft and sentimental. To each his own I guess. I don’t think “I wonder how many guys she screwed on the way.”

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      Sigh. That is not at all what I’m saying. Your marriage doesn’t gross me out. Objectively, you have a fantastic marriage. I just don’t find other men’s wives sexually attractive. Indeed, I assume that other men feel the same way about my wife! How you get to “haughty self righteousness” and “legalism” from that is… unfathomable.

      Perhaps your reference to ‘legalism’ refers to my distaste for all divorce and some remarriage? That’s God’s word. I’ll continue taking an uncompromising stance of God’s ideals. If that qualifies as ‘legalism’, then so be it.

      I don’t know how someone adapts from the imprinting that comes with sexual baggage. How can it be something easy to do that comes naturally once it is required of you? That doesn’t make sense.

      Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      I think I understand what you are saying here:

      “your haughty self righteousness makes it impossible to perceive the grace found within it”

      Are you making the claim that the grace of God wipes out all consequences of sin? If so, that is not how grace works and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding.

      The grace of God wipes out the punishment for sin: death. The penalty for sin—death—is no longer charged to your account, having been paid for by Jesus. It is replaced with eternal life. If I suggested that you must continually make recompense to avoid sin’s punishment, then I would indeed be legalistic, but I rightly reject works-based salvation.

      At the risk of sounding like a broken record, past sins cannot be worn like a badge of honor. The grace of God does not wipe out earthly consequences of sin, as I have previously made clear. You can certainly be forgiven debts against you (and their consequences) by others, but…

      “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body”

      It is a consistent teaching of the Bible that sexual sins are not like other sins. They are permanently damaging. For example:

      “But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away.”

      We are told that the sexual bonding, licit or illicit, cannot be severed. It takes a death for another bond be legitimately established (Matt 5:32,19:6; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7). And yes, I come from a tradition that rejected remarriage because it is adultery. Again, this is not legalism, but a plain reading of the words of Jesus and Paul. That you (obviously) disagree does not make me a legalist (or incorrect).

      When we hear how there were no notable consequences to past sexual activities because of God’s grace, we are right to be skeptical and wary of false theology. We expect to hear how those consequences were overcome (if at all), not that they were no big deal, or worse, beneficial.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        This is perfectly predictable response to what I wrote.

        Your seething contempt for people who have forgiven each other (not the same as wiping out all consequences) who you see as beneath you and undeserving of a happy marriage is really showing now.

        You really, really want me to do more public self-flogging. How can these people be truly happy in their marriage and have previous sex partners? I did it the right way! No fair! They should be miserable and suffering because of their evil pre-marriage ways! Why does he get to go on all those “test drives” and then land in a happy marriage?

        I don’t misunderstand grace or consequences. I just don’t make it worse by evaluating whether or not they have experienced the consequences I believe they should have and then feign confusion and bewilderment at how their marriage works.

        You can keep throwing Bible verses at me. I went to seminary before becoming a psychologist. Learned the Greek, the Hebrew, studied hermeneutic principles and parsed ancient language verbs all night long to impress my professors. Been there, got the T-shirt. It breeds pharisees.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I think the big problem here is that like so many people in this corner of the web, Derek doesn’t really believe in the transformative power of the gospel. That we can be changed, that old things can be passed away and that -behold!- all things can become new as 2 Corinthians 5:17 declares. Does it happen overnight? Of course not! But with a commitment to God’s truth and through walking in it by faith, it certainly does happen.

        Some people believe that all Christ’s sacrifice buys us is a ticket to heaven, and we are condemned to sackcloth and ashes until we die or Christ returns, even though that is the EXACT opposite of what the Bible teaches. We can hold God’s standard high and in the holy place where it belongs and STILL be legalistic. When you tell a man like Scott, who clearly loves his wife deeply and truly, that you don’t see how he possibly could, given his past, that’s displaying a legalistic spirit.

        In general, we’re all prone to picking out certain parts of the Scripture as our pet doctrines that we hold high above all others. It’s human nature to pick the one that we’re successful at, that we struggle with (for whatever reason), or that we have deceived ourselves into believing we’ve mastered.

        We tend to be more lavish with God’s grace as we bathe in it to assuage ourselves in areas where we have fallen short.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    I don’t know how someone adapts from the imprinting that comes with sexual baggage. How can it be something easy to do that comes naturally once it is required of you? That doesn’t make sense.

    This is the condescending, “whoa you took it wrong” way of saying the exact same thing I just said. When folks with obtuse personality defects get caught in their thinly veiled slurs, they always do this.

    “Ewww. How gross that you married someone with a past. I could never get over that.”
    “How could you dive right into that so easily?”

    I didn’t say it was easy. I said it takes grace (for both of us).

    I get that you married under ideal conditions and have never had to deal with the complications that most of the living western world has. Good for you.

    Want more psychoanalysis? Go to my website and make an appointment.

    Like

  6. Scott says:

    It’s funny how I am painted by some as placing too much emphasis on sex.

    Like

  7. Scott says:

    E-

    I think the big problem here is that like so many people in this corner of the web, Derek doesn’t really believe in the transformative power of the gospel. That we can be changed, that old things can be passed away and that -behold!- all things can become new as 2 Corinthians 5:17 declares. Does it happen overnight? Of course not! But with a commitment to God’s truth and through walking in it by faith, it certainly does happen.

    Some people believe that all Christ’s sacrifice buys us is a ticket to heaven, and we are condemned to sackcloth and ashes until we die or Christ returns, even though that is the EXACT opposite of what the Bible teaches. We can hold God’s standard high and in the holy place where it belongs and STILL be legalistic. When you tell a man like Scott, who clearly loves his wife deeply and truly, that you don’t see how he possibly could, given his past, that’s displaying a legalistic spirit.

    In general, we’re all prone to picking out certain parts of the Scripture as our pet doctrines that we hold high above all others. It’s human nature to pick the one that we’re successful at, that we struggle with (for whatever reason), or that we have deceived ourselves into believing we’ve mastered.

    We tend to be more lavish with God’s grace as we bathe in it to assuage ourselves in areas where we have fallen short.

    Correct. This is what makes it possible to pretend to be inquisitive when its really just smug condescension. “Thank God I married a virgin unlike the gutter trash carnal Christians Scott and Mychael sharing all those disgusting bodily fluids with the whole world.”

    When confronted, it defaults to “oh, you misunderstood.”

    I was that guy. My first wife was a virgin. I thought “I own that pussy!”

    Lot of good it did me.

    And all of this is interpreted as me saying people should go on “test drives” because in the end you will be forgiven. Anyone who has read more than 8 words from me knows this is not my position. Life is way more complicated than that.

    Like

  8. ramman3000 says:

    This…

    “Your seething contempt for people who have forgiven each other (not the same as wiping out all consequences) who you see as beneath you and undeserving of a happy marriage is really showing now.”

    …and this…

    “When you tell a man like Scott, who clearly loves his wife deeply and truly, that you don’t see how he possibly could, given his past, that’s displaying a legalistic spirit.”

    …reflect a fundamental misreading of what I actually said, which is this…

    “It’s not about guilt and repentance either, for that is between God and the people sinned against.”

    …and…

    “You can certainly be forgiven debts against you (and their consequences) by others”

    I asked a genuine question. Among the extreme overreaction, I did get the answer I was seeking, so thanks for that. I will give it some thought before responding again.

    Like

  9. Scott says:

    15 minutes to show time!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. OKRickety says:

    My marriages grosses you out because your haughty self righteousness makes it impossible to perceive the grace found within it. More legalism.

    WTF? I didn’t (and don’t) read Derek as legalistic or haughty here or elsewhere. In fact, I consider your multiple responses to Derek to be far off the mark.
    To my (professionally untrained in psychology) eye, I wonder if you are overreacting due to the “baggage” of your Church of Christ experience and training.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Trey Magnus says:

      I agree completely. I did not take what Derek was saying anywhere close to the way Scott did and I consider myself to have a reasonable amount of discernment. Scott does seem to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder.

      Liked by 3 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “I didn’t (and don’t) read Derek as legalistic or haughty here or elsewhere.”

      As best I understand it, the (alleged) legalism is that I’m discounting the possibility that God’s grace extends well beyond salvation from death into the realm of real, meaningful and merciful relief from the secondary consequences of sin in this earthly realm. This is a fair objection.

      It is a complex topic, requiring time to consider. I have a detailed response on ice, but I don’t want to inadvertently provoke Scott further. Rather, all I will say now is that my view is informed by 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 and the words of God:

      “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

      Like

      • Bruce Batsche says:

        From an Eastern perspective – Western Christianity can seem legalistic. Just guessing.

        Like

  11. Bruce Batsche says:

    Marriage is created by the consent of the will of both (baptized) parties to God’s definition of marriage (it isn’t legalistic and it isn’t antinomian in nature). It is subject to the Evangelical law, the law of Christ. This is a sacrament (Holy Mystery for the Orthodox). If your marriage is sacramental, it doesn’t matter what “baggage” was brought into it.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “If your marriage is sacramental, it doesn’t matter what “baggage” was brought into it.”

      I don’t understand what you are trying to say. By “doesn’t matter“, I doubt that you mean “completely irrelevant in every possible way.” Can you clarify?

      Like

      • Bruce Batsche says:

        I mean that you’re really married and can’t get out of the duties and obligations of marriage. It’s perfectly fine to consider various “baggage” (which we all have) when deciding to marry – once the sacrament is there you’re obligated and should make the best of it through loving the spouse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “I mean that you’re really married and can’t get out of the duties and obligations of marriage. It’s perfectly fine to consider various “baggage” (which we all have) when deciding to marry – once the sacrament is there you’re obligated and should make the best of it through loving the spouse.”

        I completely agree with you. Ironically, I was first called legalistic immediately after I focused on the duties, obligations, and permanence of marriage (see this comment). I’m just going to throw my hands up on this one.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: The Alpha Widow Syndrome – A Manospherian Allegory of Defilement | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Sexual Compatibility – Cornerstone

  14. JPF says:

    One couple I knew only kissed twice before the wedding. They held hands. I assume there was no passionate hugging, given the “no kissing” part.

    For a couple with a completely hands-off relationship, I understand the concerns about whether the other will be as passionate, or will burn as strongly, as they do. In a perfect Christian marriage, this should not need to be a concern, as they each would fulfill the desires of the other without limit or restriction per 1 Cor 7. In the real would with sinful people however, the concern is valid. And in a western culture with selfish, lazy women, a man would have to be naive to the point of stupidity to be unaware of the need for the concern.

    However, I see a false dichotomy or forced choice between “completely moral” and “fornication / sex before marriage”. I am sure many couples, prior to marriage, had lines they would not cross, wherever those lines were located. This does not mean they did nothing before marriage. If she kisses you passionately, and obviously wants to do so many times a day, then I suspect you’ve got no reason to worry. (Apart from the normal ability of people to be deceitful and manipulative.)
    My wife and I both firmly believed in the need to wait for marriage. I was and am grateful she did not try to tempt me. And going to “full-marriage” mode was very much NOT a problem after the wedding. Really, I see no validity in the concern that a woman who passionately loves you will somehow be unfulfilling in bed. I’ve only been married to one woman, so you could correctly accuse me of having an insignificant sample size. But I don’t care; she is a great wife, and treating either of us with contempt prior to marriage would not have improved the situation at all.
    A man worried about compatibility could also ask her to state out loud that she knows she’ll give him sex x times a week, for the next 50 years, after marriage. Maybe do this outside, or in the presence of chaperons, so both understand these statements will not lead to immediate sex. This regular reminder would hopefully weed out the cold fish that wants sex only once a week, or who thinks sex is “dirty” or “sinful” within marriage.

    Perhaps we should seek a better starting point. Ask, Does this woman have the obedience to God / unselfishness / love for me that will lead her to want to cheerfully do something for me, for no other reason than because I want it? If she does not like something, but I do, will she regularly do it for no more reason than because I desire it? Men are expected to do this every day. Why not a woman?
    And if you cannot find such a woman, admit that your church/culture is a sewer and go look elsewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      There were some conservative American subcultures long ago, who were graphically specific about their conjugal duties in their recitation of the wedding vows. I always thought this was both necessary and beautiful.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      It can be hard to judge attraction. A woman determined to get married can fake it or even have it for the moment. My wife had an intimacy-anorexia that did not show up until we got married. She literally went from being what I wanted to being a frigid bitch on the drive to the honeymoon suite. She was suddenly a whole different person.
      What I learned was:
      To be safe, don’t marry somebody who has not been a solid Christian making sacrifices to be a Christian, like staying sexually pure, for at least a decade. The churchians taught me blue-pill and I didn’t have a clue. I married a woman who rediscovered her Christianity and “got saved” just as the wall was approaching fast. She was going to two different Bible studies plus a mega-church. She said all the right stuff, and agreed with all my conservative beliefs, right up until it we got married. Then she had no interest in anything but hurting me and being evil and distancing me, so that their would be no intimacy of any sort in our relationship. I got conned. My marriage was the biggest “bait & switch” in history. Sometimes I think she defies God, just because she knows it will bother me, even when she has seemingly nothing to gain from it.

      Like

      • JPF says:

        Thanks for the reality check Sharkly. I was not deceived… but that does not prove no man is or can be.
        This unfortunately reminds me of one of Jason’s complaints. He perceives some men to claim that, “if you just vet the woman enough, you will know what she will be like for the next 50 years”. (Not his exact words of course.)
        Perhaps my statements above would fall into this category. I did mention the possibility for deception, but Sharkly has given a very valuable reminder that women lie.

        May God guide you and give you solace Sharkly. Since intimacy was my #1 reason for marrying, I can at least partly understand the pain, disappointment, and feeling of being cheated that you must have endured.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “I got conned. My marriage was the biggest “bait & switch” in history. Sometimes I think she defies God, just because she knows it will bother me, even when she has seemingly nothing to gain from it.”

        Sorry, Sharkly…
        I don’t mean to discount your testimony, but you’re assuming that women have the awareness and the agency to con the man. I don’t doubt this happens, and it happens too frequently at that. But if this is truly the case, then the marriage is rotten to the core, simply because of the implicit fraud and the intentional breech of trust on the woman’s behalf.
        However, I don’t believe all women are that aware, and are so skillfully deceptive. I think there are a number of women who deceive themselves, and then they are genuinely surprised and confused to suddenly discover that marriage doesn’t wave a magic wand over their lives. Of course, they naturally take out their disappointment, anger, and frustration on their unwitting husbands, who can’t understand nor relate to them at all, because they are quite happy to finally be getting some regular action (or at least, that’s what they expect).
        Men who have this kind of experience should first try to identify whether the woman actually conned herself. There might be a glimmer of hope for the marriage if this is the case.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bruce Batsche says:

        “However, I don’t believe all women are that aware, and are so skillfully deceptive. I think there are a number of women who deceive themselves,…….”

        Well sir, you just described many women.
        From the book “Smart & Sexy”:

        “women rely on the interpretative left hemisphere speech centers in their cognition and which results in enhanced Machiavellian reasoning. The left hemisphere interpreter acts as a sort of lawyer that can “justify” even outrageous behavior or beliefs, and women have better built-in lawyers.”

        This is probably the biological origin of “the hamster”, “female solipsism” (add “built-in-lawyer” to manosphere jargon), etc.
        Recognizing this actually makes you less sexist since you’re less likely to be resentful and angry at women who do this than if you believed they manipulated and deceived awarefully.
        Qualifier/weasel words: yes, some men do this too (we have a left hemisphere, less dominant for biological reasons) and, of course, NAWALT!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @ Bruce,
        It all makes sense.

        Speaking of the hamster, recently I did a little search on the origin of the word part “ham” (as in “hamburger”), and I found this interesting article.
        https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-scare-when-will-hamsterkauf-become-an-english-word/a-52635400
        Apparently, “ham” means to eat, consume, or forage in an excited, crazed, or obsessive manner, possibly due to dire hunger or desperation.
        It is the same origin as the words hamster, and hammer.
        Also, the German word for mutton (sheep meat) is hammel.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @Bruce

        If women rely on the left hemisphere, emphasizing the left hemisphere results in Machiavellian reasoning, 90% of women are right-handed, and right-handed people favor their left hemisphere, then wouldn’t we expect left-handed women to be less manipulative and deceptive? I ask, because my wife is left-handed.

        Like

      • Bruce Batsche says:

        Derek, doubt that has been studied.

        Female advantage is not just dominance (corresponding to delayed development in males) of left-hemisphere speech centers.

        The male brain shows greater lateralization, greater intra-hemisphere connectivity (greater inter-hemisphere for women), etc.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3964116?dopt=Abstract

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1009

        Liked by 1 person

  15. lastmod says:

    One of the most plain truths i got from the bible was “have your yes mean yes and your no mean no” there is no “well in greek this means actually this but god really meant was in this or that context before he sent jesus….”

    Pretty clear. My parents knew each other six months and married. My mom always said “your father and I never kept a match or score on each other”

    My dad always said “Your mother and I just took our wedding vows seriously. It was a promise before family, friends and god. It was just understood, abd esp after your older brother…..we only had each other…..we had to make it work.”

    So vetting. Books. How to’s and everything else with my folks really didnt matter. They were just people of their word. Hell….today the advice to my dad would have been “fly over to Wales and interview / invetigate his bride to be’s past friends, her third grade teacher, her first boyfriend and every guy she ever went on a date with”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      @ Jason,
      Your parents were of a different generation who got married during a previous time that was more favorable for marriage. Consider yourself one of the few fortunate ones. A large number of later generations experienced the divorce of their parents, including myself. Times are different now.

      Like

  16. lastmod says:

    Its what I know and saw. I cant help the situation i was brought up in for good or ill. Despite this good marriage i fell into drug addiction. Sure, got clean and never relapsed. I was raised better and yes “knew” better. Drugs didnt give me confidence or make me cool. It just masked the deep pain of not meeting “cute” excuses now…..

    Hence why i did believe when i was a practicing christian that people could indeed be reclaimed. I learned the opposite sadly. The world was much more forgiving and at least understanding than fellow believers.

    Times have changed. No kidding. I dont live in a plastic bubble. I have lived in California now most of my life….and it has vastly changed since I arrived out here at the tender age of 23 in 1993 when I finished grad school….and even then…..it was not in its heyday of 1960’s / 1970’s america

    Like

  17. Pingback: The War on Ideals | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: On the Concept of Sin and the need for Marriage | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s