Patheological Weddingsday – When wanton treachery brings shame, not honor.

Rules are lightning rods of shame for those seeking after the flesh.

Readership: All
Length: 3,200 words;
Reading Time: 12 minutes;


So far, I have covered two posts at Patheos, written by Jackson Wu.  This post will cover Wu’s third and conclusive article about the Purity Culture at Patheos, When purity brings shame, not honor (2020 August 19). Of note, the title of this post is a gaffe.  True sexual purity brings holiness and honor, not shame and ignominy.  The shame results from the lack of purity.  Let’s not skirt the issue.

Wu hits a lot of topics in this post, so my analysis here stretches rather long. However, I urge readers to take the time to go through it because there are some important takeaways.

Guarding Your Heart

The author brings up a catch-phrase that was common in the Purity Movement,
“You have to guard your heart”, which is based on the following scripture passage.

“Guard your [own] heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.”

Proverbs 4:23

This verse uses “keep” instead of “guard” in most translations (ESV, NASB, NRSV, NRSVA, RSV, et al.), but several other translations use “guard” (CSB, HCSB, NET, NLT, TLV, et al.).

It was presumed that “guarding one’s heart” was directed against the possible temptation to sexual sin.  But the author notes,

“Christian subculture sanctioned mass segregation of gender and a guarding of others’ hearts not my own.  Much of the onus fell on women, who were told that their bodies were “stumbling blocks” for men.”

Actually, gender segregation is a common practice in many (if not most) societies, and it has been since before antiquity.  There is good reason for doing so.  People might think this is oppressive, but temptation and sexual sin is more so.  Putting the onus on women is necessary, because if left to their own devices, women will naturally resort to playing games and having fun with their hypergamic sexual proclivities.  It is their nature to do so, although they will soundly deny it.

7 “Lies” that Purity Culture Teaches Women

Wu cites an article written by Natalie Collins at CBE International which listed 7 Lies That Purity Culture Teaches Women (2015 September 8).  So I had to go check out the CBE International site.

When I read through a few of the articles there, I almost choked on all the stars and horns!  To give you the flavor, the banner at the top of the site reads, “Women and men leading together, serving as equals”.  Note that it’s “women and men”, not the linguistically favored “men and women”.

Wowzers! So now I have to segue into this article before I can go on to address Wu’s statements. The seven lies are listed here.

  1. Women are responsible for men’s sexual sin.
  2. Women’s bodies are something to be ashamed of.
  3. Women shouldn’t have sexual desire.
  4. Your virginity is the only thing of worth about you.
  5. Women don’t enjoy sex as much as men.
  6. If women have sex before marriage, everything will go wrong.
  7. There’s no difference between sexual abuse and sex before marriage.

To keep it short, I’ll only go over the 7 lies recounted above. My comments are listed in respective order.

  1. The claim that this is a lie flat out denies that (1) women are the fundamental gatekeepers of sex, and that (2) men are biologically wired to spread their seed.
  2. The claim that this is a lie denies the fact that men are visually oriented, and are easily distracted by the feminine form, which causes them to focus on their fleshly desires.  (See Romans 8:5-8.)
  3. The claim that this is a lie is obviously true, but the motivation behind rejecting this lie is to assert female sexual independence.  The core truth which is never stated (by neither Collins, nor Wu, nor churchianity) is that women should learn to control their bodies (i.e. sexual desire) in a discreet and honorable manner.  (See 1st Thessalonians 4:3-8.)
  4. The claim that this is a lie denies the fact that men prefer virgins for marriage, and for very good reasons.  Actually, “prefer” is an understatement.  In fact, bridal virginity is so important that the Bible says that a woman who is not a virgin upon marriage has “played the whore” and has defrauded her husband, and is therefore liable to the death penalty.  (See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and 1st Thessalonians 4:3-8.)
  5. At face value, it’s true that this is a lie.  Women enjoy sex even more than men do.  Men just have a greater urge to merge, not to be confused with enjoyment.  On a case by case basis, whether this is a lie all depends on whether the man and woman have achieved a mutual sexual authority in their relationship.  There are many reasons why many women do not enjoy having sex with their husbands, but the most prevalent cause (in this day and age) is because they have forfeited their sexual authority and marital sanctification by cavorting with other men before marriage (AKA Alpha Widow Syndrome), and by waiting so long to marry that they cannot maximize their potential in their choice of a husband (AKA post-wall “settling”).  This further supports the necessity of marrying a virgin.  Collins and feminist churchianity make the mistake of thinking that women should prioritize the pursuit of sexual enjoyment, never mentioning that sexual enjoyment is best achieved through being obedient to God (i.e. having sex only within the marriage covenant).
  6. The claim that this is a lie is a bald faced lie in itself.  Just from my earlier comments, it should be clear why.  However, the problem of natural desire combined with the current SMP, the cultural emphasis on the flesh, and the fashionable delay of marriage all contribute to form an environment in which obedience is d@mn near impossible.  As a result, hamsterized excuses and solipsistic justifications have grown to run the gamut of psychological dissociations, including the anti-shame narrative, technical virginity, “re-virginization”, the fear of sex, hopelessness, and the quirky idea that Coram Deo equals Coram Mundo.
  7. The claim that this is a lie is based on converged victimhood naiveté and it is a denial of moral agency.  Premarital sex is an abuse of God’s gift of sex, so it is not surprising that physical and emotional abuse might be a part of that, because one is excluded from the protection offered by God’s covenant.  Collins talks about consent.  Unmarried women don’t have the moral authority to give consent to illicit sex.  According to the Bible, it is the young woman’s father who has the authority to give consent – NOT the young woman.  And not the state either, by way of those “age of consent” laws.  Collins states that she felt humiliated and degraded after she had premarital sex and then concluded that it was “wrong” for her to think this was a result of her failure to remain pure.  She then blames her then-boyfriend for abusing and exploiting her.  But sweety, it is a direct result of your failure to remain pure.  This self-abuse is the reason why God forbids premarital sex.  There’s no way around that.  If you claim victimhood status by displacing the responsibility for your own sin onto your ex, then you haven’t truly repented.  [Note: This is a red flag.]  Of course, Collins isn’t introspective enough to give her personal reasons why she stayed with a man who was pressuring her to have premarital sex nor why she gave into his demands, but I can guess that she wanted something that wasn’t meant to be hers.  She ate the forbidden fruit, and now she’s crying that it wasn’t fair.  Adam and Eve 2.0.

In summary, only one of these statements is truly a lie (#5 in red).  Six of these seven lies are not lies at all.  Collins doesn’t address where these lies originated from, nor the core reasons for why the Purity Movement failed. She is merely putting a subjective feminist spin on the obedience, wisdom, modesty, and propriety that were emphasized in Purity Culture, and calling them lies.  All this hamsterbation is a result of glorifying the fleshly incarnation, and placing the pursuits of the flesh as a priority.

Going back to Wu’s article…  Apparently, he agrees with all of Collins’ points and this disappoints me.

“If women’s bodies are blamed for lust—if the church claims that they need to be covered up for the sake of men—this inevitably leads to shame.”

The shame referred to by Collins and Wu (and many other critics of the Purity Movement) is the natural consequence of being an immodest temptress.  This is in alignment with scripture.

“Indeed, none who wait for you shall be put to shame; they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous.”

Psalm 25:3; Romans 10:11 (ESV)

If a person feels ashamed, then it is probably because he/she has violated the most essential requirements of God’s order.  A refusal to acknowledge guilt or shame and correct one’s behavior accordingly is a rebellion against one’s own conscience.

What does Christian subculture do to combat the threat of impurity?  It creates rules to ensure we go nowhere near anything that might possibly resemble or remind us of impurity.  But such regulations are extrabiblical and only fuel shame in those who transgress them, even though various behaviors are not sin.

In the first sentence of his answer to the question in bold, Wu is right.  Without the broader patrilineal social structure necessary to reinforce the values of purity, cold hard rules of the road for fornication have to be implemented, and this patchwork puppy was ineffective and usually legalistic in the application.

In the second sentence of his answer, Wu is woefully wrong.  The Bible contains chapters and chapters of covenantal regulations surrounding sex and marriage.  (Leviticus 15; 18; 19:20-22,29; 20:10-21; Numbers 5; Deuteronomy 22:5,13-30; 24:1-5; 25:5-12😉  The modern Christian subculture ultimately ignores this, yet it is (or should be) a fundamental part of Christianity. But instead, converged churchianity teaches and exemplifies all manner of worldly feminist values.

Wu doesn’t name the regulations he speaks of that are extraBiblical, but things like sexual purity before marriage, propriety in dress, and even gender segregation are indeed small fries compared to the Old Testament requirements under Covenant Law.  Perhaps he believes the Old Testament is only a historical account that no longer applies.

Imagine how life would be if God were to be so excruciatingly exacting that everyone felt ashamed for violating any and every letter of the Mosaic Law.  We fail to appreciate how the common grace of the Lord prevents us from falling into gross anarchy.

The Taiping Rebellion, an illustration of the attack on Canton (1851).

Cultural Comparisons

Instead of comparing our present culture to the Ancient Near East culture of the Bible, the author compares Purity Culture with fundamentalist Islam.

“In [Muslim] cultures, the honor of a man and a family is closely tied to a women’s sexuality. A woman’s body is a potential cause for shame. If she is judged promiscuous or even flirty, severe consequences may follow. Modesty, therefore, is a virtue stressed upon girls from a young age.”

Yes, Muslims are better acquainted with the truths (and responsibilities) of God’s created order than are modern Christians.  This is why Muslims consider westerners to be infidels.

Wu never describes how female immodesty can be a source of shame in Muslim culture, nor does he mention any of the real reasons why Muslims have such strict norms surrounding sexuality.  But he does mention several ugly manifestations of Islamic culture, such as women wearing hijabs/burkas, female circumcision (AKA genital mutilation), and honor killings.  He lumps gender segregation into this mix to build the case that all social regulations surrounding sexuality are offensive and oppressive.  He never entertains the question of why Muslims would deem these extreme measures necessary, nor why Muslims would agree about such things.  Certainly there must be an understandable reason, or does he believe that Muslims are total barbarians?

How much can I get away with?

Next, Wu brings up an important issue.  How do we deal with every teenager’s question, “How far can I go?”  But instead of addressing this question with a view to determine the bounds of decency, he wants to know how much one can get away with.  In today’s culture, the answer to the second question is a second mile past the first.

“One question on the mind of every church boy and girl is this, “How far is too far?”  In other words, what can I do physically where I can still be counted as “pure”?  The obvious problem with the question is that it overlooks the matter of the heart (the subject of my second post in this series).”

Wu is describing the psychological justification of technical virginity.  The problem with this juvenile approach is not only that it ignores the convictions of the heart, but moreso the fact that it represents a mindset that is wholly focused on the flesh and is looking for the optimal way (in the form of rules) to go about satisfying the desires of the flesh.

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.  For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Romans 8:5-8 (ESV)

Now, I would expect that Wu might say something about getting in touch with the true meaning and purpose of sexual purity.  After all, this was the subject of his last post.  But no…

“In the same way, we need to ask the same question to ourselves.  When it comes to teaching about purity, sexuality, among other issues, how far is too far?  The various guards our (sub)cultures put in place often go too far.”

Instead of setting the record straight, Wu is pressing for an answer to this false question, with an admission that churchianity won’t do it.  It is a false question because there is no true answer.  You can’t use a rule to draw a line between sin and holiness.

The range of formal and informal rules men used to control women creates an environment that breeds shame.  Fear and hypersensitivity to mere social guards push one inward, into hiding, not wanting anyone to see what you might have said or done.  A good reputation is quickly lost, only regained at a slug’s pace.”

Look at this!  Now he goes back to discuss the appropriateness of setting rules, and blames the devastation and shame on men’s habit of “controlling women” (c.f. feminist boilerplate rhetoric).

Is he actually fearful that illicit sex is incompatible with virtue signaling within intersectional feminism???  Has churchianity sunk this low?  Get out!

That sentence in bold is loaded.

First, the idea that “men used rules to control women…”  Let’s back up.  Rules are made to protect good people from those bad people who would otherwise capriciously break those rules.  Rules are also for kids who can’t understand the reasons why there need to be rules.  So in effect, Mr. Wu is admitting that women are like bad kids, and that they have no moral agency, but setting rules is not the right way to handle it, because shame.

Secondly, that “the rules create an environment that breeds shame…”  Shame would only result if someone intentionally violated the rules (which IMO, young women feel entitled to do all the time).  Concerning the environment, enforcing discipline on one who violates the rules is the purpose for having rules in the first place, that is, to protect the others and give them safety and security.

I guess I need to dumb this down even more.  Children, if you don’t follow the rules, then you will get into trouble!

But we’re not just talking about rules, are we?  We’re talking about Biblical Law under the Covenant.  If we think that Biblical Law is merely a collection of rules, things we have to do if we hope for God to bless our marriage or to earn salvation, then we are immature kids at best, and legalistically self-exonerating Pharisees at worst.

Again, rules are created to preserve the social order, and to protect it from those who don’t care about preserving it.  We’re free to go against that order, we’re free to “break the rules”, but if we choose to do so, then we should expect to lose out on certain blessings as a result.  Doing so only proves that we are incapable of integrating into the covenant social order, and therefore are not deserving of the benefits of said order.  If one has inflicted significant damage on the social order, then a punishment is warranted in order to teach one not to continue down that path, and to serve as both a security and a warning to others.

One of the many purposes of the Law was to give us a warning about the consequences of our choices, and a promise of blessing if we obey.  The whole idea behind Biblical law is that we are better off if we trust and revere God, and try to live in harmony with His ordained order.  The problem is that the order is so debauched by Feminism (i.e. converged Churchianity) that it’s impossible to navigate with any confidence or surety.

Of the making of many rules… there is no end. We need to be wary of going too far.  Otherwise, we not only foster shame in those around us; we allow it fester inside ourselves as well.”

Maybe he has a point here.  These days, setting rules to reinforce righteousness and to protect the innocent will not work, because the majority have gone astray, even the leaders, and the mountainous task of enforcement would intimidate everyone and sink the whole ship.  But on the other hand, maybe this junk should be scuttled.

Destroying Chinese War Junks, by E. Duncan (1843). British ships destroying an enemy fleet in Canton during the first Opium War in China, 1841. (Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images)

The Church fails to emphasize the joy of Shalom in Christian community

One, Stefan Stackhouse, left a worthy comment,

“Lost in all of this is any notion of our all being “brothers and sisters in Christ.”  The scriptural truth is that we are all that first, and remain so regardless of our marital status.  This requires more than basic respect for each other, and must go on to kindness, consideration, caring, compassion, and helpfulness.

Of course we all need to maintain proper boundaries, especially young adults.  Unfortunately, this so-called “purity culture” has reduced what should be their sisters in Christ to mere potential breeding material or forbidden fruit in the eyes of what should be their brothers in Christ.  How is that really any different from pornography?  Both, at heart, are just objectifying women – objects for self-gratification, potential or actual.  Christ calls us to see each other instead as subjects for our unconditional charitable love.

A real brother in Christ would never want to do anything to harm a sister in Christ, but always to seek what is best for her.  This is the true and solid ground for a proper and healthy relationship between young Christians of different genders.”

Here here, we have forgotten the blessings of Shalom!  Feminism has objectified women to the point of being degrading, and the church tacitly looks away.

However, I do believe it is quite acceptable for a husband to objectify his wife on the marital bed.  A good hard rutting is conducive towards marital sanctification.


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 Boundaries, Churchianity, Clothing, Collective Strength, Cultural Differences, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Faith Community, Feminism, Hamsterbation, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Introspection, Love, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Near East, Organization and Structure, Purity Culture, Relationships, Reviews, Self-Concept, Solipsism, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Patheological Weddingsday – When wanton treachery brings shame, not honor.

  1. cameron232 says:

    “5. Women don’t enjoy sex as much as men.”

    It’s now common for secular women to claim that women are just as sex-driven as men or even more so. This is emphasized as being “empowering” and is a source of pride for them. There’s an entire documentary on this that was made a few years ago.

    Women’s sex drive is far more discriminating than men’s – under certain conditions it can be just as strong (or stronger) than men’s. “She’ll crawl over a mile of broken glass to get to her demon lover.”

    “men used rules to control women…”

    Well, yes, and that’s a good thing. Harlots don’t tend to have stable, lifetime relationships. Men don’t want that for their female kin whom they love nor do they want to deal with the consequences (abortion, single-motherhood. Have you seen how many Boomer and early Gen-x’rs are raising their grandkids?).

    And men want options for marriage besides harlots.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. bee123456 says:

    “Going back to Wu’s article… Apparently, he agrees with all of Collins’ points and this disappoints me.

    “If women’s bodies are blamed for lust—if the church claims that they need to be covered up for the sake of men—this inevitably leads to shame.” ”

    This shows willful ignorance or female/white knight solipsism on the parts of both Wu and Collins. They are ignoring the heavy teachings and exhortations that young Christian men are given to control their eyes, their thoughts and their lusts. The church I spent my single years in also taught us men to not favor and treat the attractive women at church better than the homely women.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. bee123456 says:

    CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) was formed in 1987 to promote churchian FEMINISM. That Jackson Wu goes there for his truth tells you all you need to know about his foundational bias.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. bee123456 says:

    What do Wu & Collins recommend as replacements for God’s Rules?

    I read Wu’s third article and did not find any practical conclusions for going forward. Collins ends her article with recommending committed and mutual sexual intimacy, but makes no mention of marriage.

    Their teachings result in lots of churches which provide no practical teachings on how to interpret God’s rules about sexuality, sex, marriage, and family leadership. This leads to lots of experimentation, floundering, picking up the popular cultures mores, sin, and confusion.


    • Novaseeker says:

      Collins ends her article with recommending committed and mutual sexual intimacy, but makes no mention of marriage.

      Right. Because feminism is ambivalent about marriage as an institution. On the one hand “Christian feminists” don’t want to come out and outright disown the institution entirety, but at the same time the feminist part of them makes them reluctant to mandate it, either, because they claim that “marriage or nothing” as an approach is used to oppress women and their sexuality. So instead of coming out and saying that as such, and calling for marriage to be abandoned (as did some secular feminists, without much of an impact, mind you, either), they have taken an ambiguous, ambivalent approach, when actually addressing it like that.

      In practice, of course, as we know the ambivalent/ambiguous approach has resulted in the churches adopting the secular world’s approach to marriage: preserve the institution as a shell, on women’s terms, as and when women wish to enter and/or leave it, and impose these terms of men. The church supports this, de facto, 100% by not disciplining young Christians who are more or less openly fornicating prior to marriage, and by minimizing divorce, single motherhood and the like, in terms of actually acting as if Christian marriage is something that is uniquely important in a way that secular marriage is not. And this is why Christian marriage has become, as a practical matter, identical to secular marriage … and this is also why we are a generation, perhaps two max, where same sex marriage also becomes the norm in even conservative Christian churches (other than perhaps outliers), because the young will either force this or leave the churches altogether over it — again, because marriage is, for them, primarily a human institution about love relationships which the church endorses, rather than the reverse.

      In the end, because of the skew in attendance, because of the matrilineality, because of the long-standing anti-male bias resulting from all of these, and because of the practical lack of interest that the church has in alienating both current Christians and hamstringing evangelism efforts among entire generations of Christians … the secular, feminist, woke version of “marriage” has been, and will continue to be, adopted and enforced by almost all Christian churches, regardless of “their theology”.

      Liked by 5 people

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    There’s nothing shameful about the human body. What is shameful is exhibiting that body to people whom God says don’t have the proper privilege for seeing it. Outside of the covenant marriage bedroom, no one is authorized by God to see it. There’s a reason that, after the Fall, God gave Adam and Eve coverings that they didn’t need before the Fall. We are fallen; we need covering. Covering symbolizes a whole range of things.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Off topic a bit but this is why I have some reservations about the Christian bodybuilding thing you see promoted on some Christian manosphere sites. When I used to lift weights and got fairly big, women definitely noticed including Christian women. One of wife’s friends made an explicit remark and another Christian friend of hers told the wife how she wished her husband did the same thing.

      This doesn’t seem charitable to other men to encourage their wives to look at you (I don’t mean to sound arrogant as if I was God’s gift to women-I am simply relating my experiences).

      I understand not wanting to be a fat slob and some of the young boys are really skinny and weak from doing nothing but playing video games. But I don’t think inciting attraction in other men’s wives is a very Christian thing to do. Women can and do lust too.

      Liked by 2 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I dont see how you are culpable in any sin if you look good and a woman other than your wife notices. What are you supposed to do? Wear a sack so nobody sees your musculature?


      • cameron232 says:

        no – I’m saying bodybuilding (not just taking care of yourself) puts a tremendous amount of effort into looking good (the whole point of it) and also you should be at least concious of your effect on other men’s wives – at a minimum don’t go shirtless around them, post selfies etc. This is not charitable to your brother.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron —

        Yes, that’s my view as well. There is nothing wrong with a woman, similarly, taking care of herself so that she looks pleasing to her husband — and as age comes along, this can take a lot of effort. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay for her to “display the goods” in a way designed to draw people’s gaze (“if you’ve got it, flaunt it!” mentality) — that is a different story. She doesn’t need to wear a burka, but she also doesn’t need to wear a sexy, tight LBD with 4-inch stilettos to the neighbor’s party, either. It’s the same principle. In our culture, however, even among Christians the prevailing attitude is “if you’ve got it flaunt it” and, if you look, it’s your problem, not mine, and so on.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        When I was working out a lot (I was no Schwarzenegger), I enjoyed being noticed by women, including married women (no I did not do anything with them). That is not a good motive for a Christian man. We are human and fallible. I think most men who put the extreme effort that it takes into bodybuilding would enjoy their efforts being rewarded with female sexual attention. The point of bodybuilding is to look sexy to women and intimidating to other men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I enjoyed being noticed by women, including married women (no I did not do anything with them). That is not a good motive for a Christian man. … The point of bodybuilding is to look sexy to women and intimidating to other men.

        Yep, for women too, when it morphs from looking good to having the killer bikini bod that no woman her age has. There’s a line somewhere in there between taking care of yourself enough to be attractive to your spouse, on the one hand, and doing the considerable effort that it takes to be objectively hot to most male eyes, and display yourself as such. If you’re in the latter category as a woman who is over, say, 40, the motivation is very transparent (younger women attract male eyes regardless, so it isn’t quite the same thing, but even there there is a difference between attracting regardless and dressing specifically to draw the male gaze).

        Liz Hurley, for example, who is a notable outlier for her age, has the excuse to pose in bikini shots displaying her outlier body to millions of men on a regular basis … but one has to wonder what is the tail and what is the dog? That is, is Hurley really doing that to promote her bikini business, or does the bikini business itself exist as a way to provide cover for Hurley to display her physique constantly to millions of men? In any case, the motive is to attract eyeballs, and not just to “look good and be healthy”. No woman wears a skimpy string bikini for health reasons, after all.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scavos says:


        “In our culture, however, even among Christians the prevailing attitude is “if you’ve got it flaunt it” and, if you look, it’s your problem, not mine, and so on.”

        I don’t know how one can say this and then say, “I care about people and I love Jesus.” That would be like taking a friend, who’s had an alcoholic past, to a bar. It wouldn’t be very considerate, nor would it be a good representation of Christ to others. Saying that it’s your problem and not mine, man or woman, that’s not showing any care towards another’s struggles.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        That would be like taking a friend, who’s had an alcoholic past, to a bar. It wouldn’t be very considerate, nor would it be a good representation of Christ to others. Saying that it’s your problem and not mine, man or woman, that’s not showing any care towards another’s struggles.

        I agree. We all bear responsibility not to cause each other to stumble, as Paul says. America is very individualist, so we don’t really like being held responsible for our impact on the behavior of others as long as their behaviors involve their own volitional will — that is, we will take responsibility for the direct impact of our behaviors, generally, but we don’t generally cotton to being held to any degree responsible for creating the circumstances in which others made certain decisions themselves. People are always responsible for their own actions, of course, but most of us prefer to hide behind that, rather than accepting blame for the impact our own behavior has in terms of forming the reactions of others to it. That just bucks against our national creed of individual responsibility, and where the cutoff lies for that — it isn’t Christian, but the idea infects many (most?) American Christians.

        The alcoholic idea is a good one, but boy are people resistant to comparing that to sex. When I have raised this kind of argument with women in the past, the reaction has been almost immediate hostility — they simply do not see it as their responsibility to avoid dressing in ways that create a great temptation for men to drink in their looks with a lustful gaze. That’s seen as being the responsibility of the men, period, and a woman can dress how she wants to “feel confident” (which as we all know means “generating attention she wants in order to feel attractive, which makes her feel good/confident about herself”).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “[Carelessly flaunting one’s sex appeal] would be like taking a friend, who’s had an alcoholic past, to a bar.”
        “The alcoholic idea is a good one, but boy are people resistant to comparing that to sex. When I have raised this kind of argument with women in the past, the reaction has been almost immediate hostility — they simply do not see it as their responsibility to avoid dressing in ways that create a great temptation for men to drink in their looks with a lustful gaze. That’s seen as being the responsibility of the men…”

        Comparing alcoholism to sexual thirst poses an excellent analogy. But the adverse reaction that follows goes deeper than you might think. It is well known that alcohol and promiscuity go hand in hand, so when you talk about sex and alcohol, you might be describing temptation or addiction on a cognitive level, but you’re also making an implicit, nonverbal, and judgmental reference to a certain kind of lifestyle. Decent people are repelled by the thought of this lifestyle, and worldly people are repulsed by the judgmental undertone.

        The subsequent familiar arguments about responsibility are merely a defense mechanism to displace the conviction, and/or a smokescreen intended to change the subject.

        The next time it comes up, you might try to preface this analogy with an introductory statement, to gauge how it might be received, and then decide whether it would be worth your time and energy to go there.

        Don’t throw pearls to swine…

        Liked by 2 people

  6. bee123456 says:

    II Thessalonians 3:14 NASB
    “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.”

    God endorses shame in order to encourage the wrong doer to stop their damaging behavior.

    Liked by 6 people

  7. feeriker says:

    What do Wu & Collins recommend as replacements for God’s Rules?

    I surmise that the answer is “nothing at all.” More importantly, if God’s Rules are so oppressive and odious to Wu and his fellow travelers, then why do they want to even have anything to do with Him?

    That last question is one that the remnant needs to start asking, point blank, of wishy-washy and recalcitrant churchians, especially feminists like Collins. If we are to describe her “7 Lies” list honestly, it represents her giving God the middle finger by rejecting His rules. We also should not fear any backlash from calling this rebellious heresy out for what it is. While we may earn the contempt and “de-fellowshiping” of the churchians who reject God’s Rules for sex within His Kingdom (their goal, whether or not they are conscious of it, is to keep one foot in the World at all times), how is that any kid of punishment for those who strive to obey Him and keep His covenant?

    Liked by 5 people

  8. lastmod says:

    Well, many men DO hate women. I am surprised by many of the marriages I have seen in this sphere in the past decade if truth be told. The real-alpha marriage model purported here by many men makes it sound like if your wife has to ask permission to use the bathroom, and if she doesn’t…..she’s upsuring your male authority and needs to be disciplined

    Even Scott’s wife has a job………is he now a supplicating Beta-cuck because he doesn’t provide “enough” to support a wife and children on his own???

    Will your own daughters be married off by 19, or if she wants to go into a profession…….you won’t allow her…of if you do its because “she’s so exceptional and gonna be a real catch for a future husband”

    A lot of “do what I say”

    To me, as an outsider in this strange, delusional world you live in………I am starting to see that I would not want marriage. No woman (except your wives of course) can meet the expectations of submission, pietey, holiness, authority, hotness, and all the proper training they got from birth to be wives, and mothers…..

    Yet………clueless men are still told “how to vett a wife” and then told “nope, notta one left, move to Siberia, learn Russian, get a really, really good job in the STEM field, become Orthodox…….women will fall all over you. No problem… this befoer you are 25 or you are doomed”

    Hyperbole aside… does come off this way.

    Too many men here hate women really…… woman can be reclaimed of her past. No woman can change. No woman can get over any mistake……she needs to be shamed forever in the community of faith (that is cucked anyway) and MAYBE she will have eternal life and be forgiven and go to heaven…..where there is no marriage anyway…………but while on earth, let’s make it the most important thing in the world…..



    • AngloSaxon says:

      “The real-alpha marriage model purported here by many men makes it sound like if your wife has to ask permission to use the bathroom”

      I had to comment on this.

      This is nonsense dude.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        If I had a wife, a gazillion meet cutes before the age of 20……..and lots of premartial sex, had women checking me out daily…….perfect children with nice teeth, maybe I would say “This is nonsense dude” too.

        From the bombastic talk over the years about “authority” and “submission” it just comes off that your wives have to ask permission to do anything in the house. You all must be very exhausted micromanaging her……..but you probably are not with all the exceptional talents and gifts you have.


      • AngloSaxon says:

        Yeah she needs permission to walk from side of the house to the other.

        You’ve got it all worked out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I can’t speak for the other gents. My wife accepts headship – what I appreciate is her honesty about what God teaches and it makes me feel good that she trusts and respects me sufficiently to accept something so much against mainstream society. It makes me feel good that her regard for me is high enough to do this. I suppose I could say that she is rewarded with a benevolent head who treats her kindly though I don’t think I’d be a tyrant even if she didn’t accept headship – so it’s not really a “reward.”

        In practice, I am not a natural leader and do not like telling others what to do. She understands in general how I want the children raised – she can accomplish this without me micromanaging her (which I don’t want to do anyway). Maybe we’re just a good fit and headship is easy. Also it helps that she has a natural gift for seeing women’s flaws – she is the opposite of the “team woman” type.

        Liked by 3 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I enjoy being in authority, it is natural and I find it energizing.

        I’m pleased to hear that you have a successful marriage. I know that is rare in the current year!

        Liked by 2 people

    • bee123456 says:


      For quite some time your comments have been repetitive and very boring.

      You need some new material. Head on over to your local Community College and sign up for a Creative Writing class.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Novaseeker says:

    Interesting article for perusal — not specifically responsive to this post but should be of general interest to readers due to the content overall:

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      @ Novaseeker, interesting – but it seems like a soft-feminist reviewing a book by a hard-feminist.

      From the article:

      “When I talked to a women’s therapy group, several members bemoaned the lack of real ‘manly’ men in middle-class circles these days. But when I quizzed them about this, they admitted that they only wanted him in the bedroom department; the rest of the time they wanted a nice sensitive chap who would clean out the cat litter without being asked. Good luck with that.”

      So a soft-feminist is describing AF/BB but doesn’t see it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Oh, yeah the writer’s take on it is garbage — he wants to find a middle ground where there isn’t one. But it’s always interesting to see what the “vanilla” media is saying about us, even the semi-subversive part of the MSM like unherd.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Scavos says:

    I cringe every time I hear “re-virginization” or it’s alternative title “Secondary Virginity.”

    “Women and men leading together, serving as equals.”

    Me: Why are my spidey-senses tingling?

    “Again, rules are created to preserve the social order, and to protect it from those who don’t care about preserving it. We’re free to go against that order, we’re free to ‘break the rules’, but if we choose to do so, then we should expect to lose out on certain blessings as a result.”

    I find it interesting that those, in the church, who have no concern about preserving it (or as Feeriker put it in the above comment, “to have one foot in the World at all times”), are usually the first to cry out “Legalism!” as a shield against any who try to hold them accountable and help them grow.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Pingback: The Feminist Life Script | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Sexual competition continues after marriage | Σ Frame

  13. The first thing I notice (or the second) about some of the “Seven Lies” is that they’re not lines that “Purity culture tells women.” Whether the statements are true or false, maybe three or four at most are even presented in the “purity culture” of church youth programs, AFAICT. So the whole thing becomes an anti-Church-People (and anti-Christianity) strawman.


  14. Pingback: The Christian Marriage Dilemma | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: YOLO = FOMO | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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