Disclosing the Taboo of Masculine Sexuality

…because it should not be a taboo.

Readership: Men; Christian Men;
Author’s Note: This post expands my comment and is coauthored with Jack.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

It’s not uncommon to see lots of discussion about sex and fornication in a Men’s space like the Manosphere, but what is unique about such discussions at Σ Frame is that we consider its effect on us spiritually and our salvation. Practically all other Christian Red Pill sites avoid this topic altogether, even forbidding it. This is wrong for several reasons.

  • The area of sexuality and sexual intercourse is one of the most powerful spiritual manifestations of the soul, having eternal ramifications.
  • The fact that God has made the blessings and curses of human sexuality applicable to unbelievers does not mark it as somehow less sacred or holy, but rather more so.
  • The Bible covers sexual conduct in excruciating detail. It’s there for a reason and should not be overlooked nor considered a taboo.
  • Sex is a basic need for men. We are driven to have it. We need it like we need to breathe air or drink water. It’s good that men are driven to it because if we weren’t, the human race would have died out a long time ago.
  • A key developmental milestone for a man is his relationship to his own sexuality, and I mean that in the broadest possible terms, “sex” including his maleness, his masculinity, and his manhood.

The church does an OK job with “maleness”. (“You’re a male, not a female.  You’re different from women.”) But some churches have bought into the equality moxies more heavily, and have thereby puffed up women’s pride.

The church thinks it does really well with “manhood” (spiritual development, a man’s relationship with God the Father, coming into sonship, etc.)  But much of this is limited to doctrinal teachings and seldom goes into life applications.

The church does a terrible job with “masculinity” (men’s relationship to the world and other humans, and men’s sexual conduct and behavior). In fact, the church and most everywhere else has been trashing and demonizing masculinity for decades. Everyone, including most men, completely fails at teaching and understanding “masculinity”.

Leaving aside everything else, we’re homing in on that part of “masculinity” that deals with a man’s relationship to sexual conduct, and his relationship to women. How he deals with women, the role women play in his life, the role sex plays in his life, the kinds of women he likes, the relationships he has with women, the relationships he wants with women, and living with and interacting with women.

Sexual behavior and conduct is part of a man’s masculinity. It directly relates to how he views women, how he relates to them, and how he deals with them. It’s something he has to learn about, try out, and eventually master.

One of the ways men do this is through fornication. Trial and error. You find out that without a human connection, it’s pretty meaningless.

You find out that if you don’t love, trust, or care about the woman you just fornicated with, it’s at best fleetingly pleasurable; at worst painful and dangerous. Most of the time it’s just mundane. You find out that it’s all pretty much the same and not worth the effort unless there’s something more profound going on. Roosh discovered this.  He coined the term “player burnout” after finding out that all the sex he’d been having was the same – same positions, same Game, same fungible women, same tactile sensations, same vague feelings of emptiness and meaninglessness afterwards. He realized he was just going through the motions, it was unsatisfying, and he had grown bored with it.

The earlier a man learns these things about sex, the better:

  • Women are pretty much the same.  (AWALT)
  • Women are not complex or hard to understand.
  • Sex isn’t worth the effort without some connection to her.
  • Don’t take women seriously.
  • Until a woman proves herself worthy, she gets nothing from you.
  • Under no circumstances is a woman you’re not married to “entitled” to anything from you.
  • Women don’t run the show and don’t tell you what to do

It’s better to learn this in your late teens and early 20s as a young single guy, than it is to learn this 15 years into a marriage with children’s lives in tow. The problem is that the overwhelming narrative in western culture and in the church is wholly gynocentric, and male viewpoints are dismissed, ignored, and demonized as misogynistic.

Maybe a lot of men have to find mastery over sexual behavior and their own sexuality by misusing it first. Through some misuse, you might be able to find proper use. Yes, I think it’s less injurious for men to engage in some misuse.

I am not saying it’s “OK”; I’m just saying that men bear fewer and less painful consequences through fornication than women do. I’m saying it’s easier for men to recover from fornication than it is for women. Men have more time to figure it out than women do. Men have less to lose from making errors. Is this fair? No. But it’s not fair that men have to work so damn hard to get anything. It’s not fair that men have to build themselves up from nothing and women are born with enormous advantages. It’s not fair that women are born with inherent value; and men have to create their own value. Life’s tough all over. We’ve all got our crosses to bear.

I don’t know if fornication “leads to” salvation or not. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. But it is part of a lot of men’s journeys. It’s a stop on the road for a lot of men. That is because sexual behavior is part of men, it’s part of masculinity, it is essential to a man’s nature. It is also because our society has demonized men’s fullest expressions of male sexuality. It is also because the Church has completely failed at expressing and teaching masculinity. It is also because men are strongly discouraged from overt expressions of sexual behavior, desire, and need.

We have to do better with masculinity. We have to do better teaching masculinity. We have to stop demonizing masculinity. We have to let men flex their masculinity muscles. We have to give men some room to run, some space to make errors, some grace to return to the fold. Let’s also remember that nothing about men is perfect. Our masculinity, our expressions of masculinity, or others’ interpretations of those expressions – none of these things are perfect. We move closer to perfection through trial and error.

We have to do better. Otherwise, we will only get more of what we’ve been getting for the past few decades – more fornication from attractive men; and more dysfunction from less attractive men. We have GOT to do a better job with our boys and our men.

Related

This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Education, Influence, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Purpose, Relationships, Sexual Authority, Stewardship, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Disclosing the Taboo of Masculine Sexuality

  1. info says:

    Christ will only allow the Churches that do a good job of this to survive. Too many false ideas and preaching going on here.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. lastholdout says:

    Good exposition. How do we press this beyond the walls of SigmaFrame? The church leaders need to be hit between the eyes with this message and many other messages that have been well articulated on this blog.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Oscar says:

    “The church thinks it does really well with “manhood” (spiritual development, a man’s relationship with God the Father, coming into sonship, etc.) But much of this is limited to doctrinal teachings and seldom goes into life applications.”

    Oh, man, is this ever true!

    At one of the men’s Bible studies I attend, we just finished the Book of Proverbs. I conducted an experiment throughout the study. Each time we read a Proverb about a woman to avoid (the immoral woman, the foolish woman, the contentious woman, etc.), I asked the following question — “How do we teach our sons to identify these women, so they can avoid them?”

    Mostly, I got blank stares.

    Once I got “seek the Lord with all your heart, and all these things shall be added onto you.

    Finally, when we got to Proverbs 31, I decided to answer my own question. I said that one way to make sure our sons end up with a girl who has the potential to grow into a Proverbs 31 woman (there’s no such thing as a 20-year-old Proverbs 31 woman) is to teach them to weed out the bad ones by holding them accountable for their actions, because accountability to a bad woman is like a cross to a vampire. For example, if she lies to him — no matter how small the lie — call her out on her lie. Never let her get away with lying.

    Oh, man! You’d think I’d dropped a flash-bang into that room!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      I like this approach Oscar. We could spend a lifetime with our sons trying to teach them all the characteristics and behaviors to avoid in women and still not exhaust the list. Or, we do what you mentioned and teach them the characteristics and behaviors of an authentic Proverbs 31 woman. Those women who are at odds with the standard will stick out like a sore thumb.

      What will be the harder exercise is backing into what the characteristics of the Proverbs 31 woman look like in a woman who is around the age of 20. I’d start with being obedient to her father and bringing him honor. How she manages her resources and her time would be important too, which would point to aspects of self-discipline.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Unfortunately you will never open their eyes. Most people who attend church are ignorant and don’t know anything unless the pastor said it.

      You can point to scripture until you are blue in the face, to no avail. You can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make it drink.

      The king of all nuclear truth bombs is bringing up head coverings. People go apoplectic.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        True, Lexet. The head coverings thing is a good litmus test. So is women with long hair and not getting short haircuts.

        Dalrock dropped bombs when he suggested that women should not be teachers because they’re more easily deceived – even that women should not teach other women. He also suggested — rightly — that if a woman has a question about scripture, the pastor and other women should be telling her to ask her husband.

        Around the Christomanosphere there were a gaggle of women who use their pastors and priests as “appellate courts” to review, affirm, and overrule their husbands’ decisions: “Well, if I don’t like it, I’ll just go to the pastor and he’ll set you straight!” These are the same people who constantly carve out exceptions to the “wives, submit to your husbands” rule. Submit, EXCEPT…

        — when you don’t agree

        — when you don’t like it

        — when his decision makes you afraid/uncomfortable

        — when his decision will require you to do things you don’t want to do/go places you don’t want to go

        — when he isn’t going to church

        — when he’s not reading the Word to your satisfaction

        — when he’s not praying to your satisfaction

        Or whatever else the wife doesn’t like/makes her squicked out.

        Sheesh.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “I asked the following question – “How do we teach our sons to identify these women, so they can avoid them?”

      “Mostly, I got blank stares.”

      This is because of what Dalrock explained. Most people in today’s Church — most men — don’t think women are like this. They really, truly think women don’t sin. To them, women are doing everything right. Women don’t do any wrong. If a married woman is saying/doing something, then it’s right. Whatever she wants, does, or is, is “right” and “good” and “moral”. Women are incapable of being wrong, bad, or immoral, in the view of the church today.

      People in church are convinced that the worst things women do are “have low self esteem” and “fail to be true to themselves”. We first have to convince the church that women sin beyond not liking themselves enough and not acting in accordance with their fee fees.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Women are incapable of being wrong, bad, or immoral, in the view of the church today.”

        Here’s what blows my mind. I mentioned in a previous post that at this same Bible study, two men opened up about their horrible (and I mean way worse than normal) experiences with divorce, crazy exes who use children as leverage in court, etc. Those two men opened up because I made the point that the “women are responders” trope is another way to blame women’s sin on men.

        Despite that, one of those men remained quiet, and the other criticized me with “It’s not what you’re saying, but how you’re saying it”, when I said we need to teach our sons how to hold women accountable.

        The only man who was even remotely receptive (as far as I could tell) was the worship pastor. He’s in his early 30s, and has been married since he was 20, I think. His oldest son is about 11, or 12.

        There may be some hope. I think I’ll work on him.

        I mean, I already got myself kicked out of one church (for pointing out that they should have been calling the lezbo couple to repentance, not coddling them). What’s the worst that could happen?

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “We first have to convince the church that women sin beyond not liking themselves enough and not acting in accordance with their fee fees.”

        The likelihood of being able to convince churchians of this is extremely tiny. They’re not interested in the truth, they’re interested in what makes them feel good, what helps them avoid even a hint of unpleasantness or conflict. I’ve reached the point where I don’t even bother engaging with them anymore. It’s both frustrating and pointless. They’re simply too brainwashed in the ways of the world, and, to be brutally frank, too dense to be able to understand the deeper truth. As Lexet points out, they’re ignorant. They’re also proud of their ignorance.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        Somehow many of those Men believe in another Jesus and in another Gospel that somehow teaches that women don’t need redemption. Only Men do.

        Like

  4. Lastmod says:

    “We need it like we need to breathe air or drink water…”

    No man “died” because he didn’t get sex. Your post still justifies premarital sex for Christian men, and at the same time you say, “The Bible covers sexual conduct in excruciating detail. It’s there for a reason and should not be overlooked nor considered a taboo.”

    It also makes men who are of faith and do wait into “betas” or “not real men” and your post doesn’t explicitly say this… it feels and is implied.

    It also seems to make men who DON’T get sex, due to looks, status, and money, and just being socially inept, as “lesser men”.

    The Christian sphere and man-o-sphere talks about sex MOST of the time….. This page really isn’t an exception or does a better job at it. Mostly it’s a humblebrag here.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      “No man “died” because he didn’t get sex.”

      True. But the man who wants sex (which is almost all men) and who cannot get it, loses a piece of his humanity. He becomes less human, less masculine, less “a man”, even if only in his own eyes and in relationship to himself. It causes great distraction and excruciating pain. It causes emotional instability and mental disorders.

      We men are designed, we are intended, to get a woman and inseminate her. We are intended to fertilize women. We are designed to make copies of ourselves.

      It is the same with sterile, barren women. Women are absolutely driven to marry and have babies. A woman who wants children but who cannot get pregnant views herself as less human, less feminine, less “a woman”. She lives in great distraction and excruciating pain. It literally drives her insane. I’ve seen it. There are few women so maladjusted as those who wanted children but could not have them.

      Women are designed, are intended, to get pregnant and have lots of babies. They are intended to get fertilized. They are designed to make copies of themselves. Why do you think so many young women are out there copulating with the most attractive men they can find? Because they’re genetically programmed to get pregnant and have babies with the best men they can find. (The fact that it’s fun, it feels good, and there are no consequences for doing so doesn’t hurt.)

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        “True. But the man who wants sex (which is almost all men) and who cannot get it, loses a piece of his humanity. He becomes less human, less masculine, less “a man”…”

        Gives a big “middle finger”, and you saying this NEVER lived it, but you would know. Arrogant prick!

        Like

      • Jack says:

        LastMod, have you not experienced this “loss of humanity” yourself? Isn’t that why you’ve been so angry at other men?

        I’ve experienced it. It’s maddening. Can’t concentrate. Can’t relax. Can’t stop being self-conscious. Spending 70% of all my energy trying to fight against nature. 90% of my thoughts are about mind control and not about anything beyond “managing” myself. Always jerking off and can’t stop, and feeling guilty and ashamed of it. My grandparents generation typically referred to this as a “young man’s problem”. It’s a huge burden.

        Can’t you relate?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Yeah, actually I did live it. For a long time.

        You’re flipping me the bird because you have lived it. You’ve written about it here, eloquently, many times. And I and others have stood beside you hearing you out and offering what we can. So you can call me whatever names you want. It’s OK with me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        So I am a “lesser man” than the rest of you now? You are more about “manhood” than the gospel of Jesus and what he supposedly promised and gave the opportunity to all men…. but you all here on earth…. the real men, who are supposed believers…. built a wall, used man-made metrics, and deemed men like myself, and a VASTLY growing number of other men, LESSER men because they didn’t happen to be born with good looks like you all, or get to have sex and “have trial and error” like the rest of you did.

        I’ll say it: You all want YOUR sin justified, and you actually hate men who are virgins, or did wait by choice or no choice of their own.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        There isn’t a man alive who hasn’t wanted sex and couldn’t get it. This has happened to EVERY man IN THE WORLD. I don’t know ANY man who hasn’t gone through a period of sexual frustration and forced celibacy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The bigger issue is regulating the discussion of sex to the level of it being a need or not. Technically, all a human “needs” are food, water, air and sleep. The way to evaluate sex, for both men and women, is against what God’s purposes for it, which is to bring depth, richness and connection to a covenant relationship that you do not get in other relationships and to fulfill His command to be fruitful and multiple.

        I believe that the intimacy of sex with your spouse is designed to be an earthly representation of the intimacy and knowing that God the father, son and Holy Spirit have. As such, regulating sex to the arena of needs greatly discounts the benefits and blessings that come from sex within the confines of marriage. There is a reason that shrill feminists default to the “sex is not a need!” argument as a reason to defraud their husbands. If they were ever to face sex for what it really is, their horrible sinful behavior would be laid bare and they would have to give account of their behavior towards their spouse this side of eternity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “The bigger issue is regulating the discussion of sex to the level of it being a need or not. Technically, all a human “needs” are food, water, air and sleep. The way to evaluate sex, for both men and women, is against what God’s purposes for it, which is to bring depth, richness and connection to a covenant relationship that you do not get in other relationships and to fulfill His command to be fruitful and multiply.

        The idea that “all a human “needs” are food, water, air, and sleep” only covers the first level of Maslow’s Pyramid. For some people, I’m sure sex is on the first level, but most people would put it on the second or third, and I think this is what RPA is saying above.

        “…relegating sex to the arena of needs greatly discounts the benefits and blessings that come from sex within the confines of marriage…”

        It depends on what level of Maslow’s hierarchy you’re talking about. I’d say sex is absolutely necessary for a healthy marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “You all want YOUR sin justified…”

        No. I want it explained. I want to look at it and face it head on. And I want to help other men face it head on so they understand themselves and why they do what they do and why they feel what they feel. From understanding and honesty come mastery.

        “…and you actually hate men who are virgins, or did wait by choice or no choice of their own.”

        No. I would have to hate myself then because I was a virgin, I have lived forced celibacy, and I have lived with choice and with no choice.

        I am not here to tell you what to do nor do I condemn you. Was I more fortunate than you? Maybe. Or maybe I responded differently. It’s about what my response was, what I chose to do about it, and what I would and would not allow to affect me. We all live and walk that out differently. The only question for you is: What will your response be? What will you do about it? How will it affect you? You have more control over this than you realize.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        GTFO Deti. You guys just want your sin justified, and premaritial sex okay and allowed, while at the same time cursing women who were with more than one guy and “lesser men” because we didn’t have all the amazing genetics you and most of you here just happened to have.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jason

        “You guys just want your sin justified…”

        Who’s “you guys”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        The loss of humanity was ALWAYS set by men ALWAYS above me. Not because “I-didn’t-get-to-have-sex.”

        Also, the statement was being a LESSER man. Plenty of men who do have sex have abysmal lives… are they lesser??? No, according to you, all because the ONLY thing that counts in this faith and being a man is “how many women” and “how often” and “how hot” and “how amazing she tells you you are.”

        And….. sex is now like air, and water……… if you are not getting that, well sucks to be you. You’re “dead”.

        No, we’re dead when we stop breathing and body dies.

        Never had porn problem. Was told as kid and young man, “my time would come” and as adult, “learn game”, and as an older man, “Well, I guess you just like being a chump / didn’t want to put in the work”, while being told at the SAME time that “women are easy to figure out” (but then why the gazillion advice, books, podcasts, and blogs…???), and the clincher, “looks matter to women…… Oh, you’re ugly / short / old????? Don’t worry, Jesus loves you and this faith is suffering”, and now, “Oh, and because of this, through no fault of your own…… you are now deemed a LESSER MAN than the rest of us.”

        Middle finger to that and you.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      “Your post still justifies premarital sex for Christian men, and at the same time you say, “The Bible covers sexual conduct in excruciating detail. It’s there for a reason and should not be overlooked nor considered a taboo.”

      There’s a difference between “justifies” and “explains”. I’m not “justifying” premarital sex for Christian men. I am explaining why men, including Christian men, fornicate. I am also saying that there needs to be a clear path to repentance when it happens. Men are going to mess up, so let’s help them come back to the fold.

      Let’s be real here — most men are going to fornicate. Let’s deal with it head on instead of screaming at men not to do it and condemning them when they do. Let’s stop screaming at men to not look at women with lust and not look at porn, and calling that a “men’s ministry”.

      You know what most church men’s ministries are? Men sitting on their asses drinking coffee and eating donuts while self flagellating about what crappy husbands they are and telling the younger guys not to masturbate and not to look at porn and to start dating one of the “reformed sluts” (usually a divorced mom or a single mom/baby mama) teaching a Sunday School class.

      That is NOT a men’s ministry.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        You men who “contribute” to a womans higher N count want your mistakes “justified” and “Jesus understands”, while at the same time telling men like me, “you’re a lesser man”, and also calling out women with that higher N count that you contributed to “no good”.

        This is why the faith is a club. This is why it is only for the 20% and this is why men are not banging on the doors here to “learn about Jesus”.

        You just shut most of them out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        If you get to the point where you accept, and even expect, that almost all men are going to fornicate then why continue to see it as a sin?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “If you get to the point where you accept, and even expect, that almost all men are going to fornicate then why continue to see it as a sin?”

        Because God says it’s a sin, and He, not you, nor anyone else, gets to decide what is, and is not a sin.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      In the faith as I understand it, you are a greater man for being celibate and not using substitutes like porn. No one here except, maybe, occasional visitor dpmonahan will agree.

      It’s just that such a thing is very difficult for men in general.

      The Council of Trent: Canon X

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Except that most men aren’t intended to be celibate. It’s unnatural. Most celibate men have been such by choice.

        Are there incels? Yes. But that’s not the natural state of man or woman. There have always been involuntarily celibate men. The difference is that we hear about them now and from them now, because we have the internet.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah, that’s what I mean by “such a thing is very difficult for men in general.”

        I think the “loss of humanity” and “feel like a lesser man” comments were intended to capture how inceldom tends to make men feel about themselves, not how they should be seen by other men.

        The virgin men undefiled with women from the Apocalypse comes to mind when I say we shouldn’t look down on virgin/celibate men whether voluntary or involuntary. We men have an instinct to compete with each other so this can easily carry over to how we think of and treat men who are not successful with women. Not directed at anyone here just a general observation.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      No man died from a lack of social contact either but, the hermit lifestyle is not a healthy one for the vast majority of men.
      There are different levels of needs.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Maniac says:

    As I’ve said before, a lot of this shaming of men in the church can be traced back to Matthew 5:27-28. Associating guilt and shame with every sexual thought and urge at a time when those things come with some regularity doesn’t exactly do wonders for male sexuality.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      I don’t see male sexuality being “shamed”. When I was in church…. plenty of men were getting sex. Plenty of men here get and are getting sex and don’t seem too worried about “bolts of lightening” striking them down. Guys…….. quit making this into something it isn’t.

      A mans sex appeal or now “maleness” is determined at a young age. You all were blessed with this….. and now YOU all turn the tables and make it out like men like me were shamed, and thus are not “real men”.

      In fact most of the shaming of me came from OTHER MEN…. not women, if truth be told.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        “In fact most of the shaming of me came from OTHER MEN!”

        Did you ever consider the possibility that having “a seething hatred for” your “fellow men” might result in negative relationships with those men?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anonymous says:

        Glad you were able to miss the whole Purity Culture craze! Grew up in the 2000s and all of that and the things Maniac’s saying were alive and well in the Southern Baptist church.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        No Oscar, only a hatred for you because you are such a ray of sunshine here. You dislike everything about me, so the feeling is mutual.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “No Oscar, only a hatred for you because you are such a ray of sunshine here. You dislike everything about me, so the feeling is mutual.”

        You’re lying, Jason. You said you’ve had a “seething hatred for” your “fellow man” since high school. You’re in your 50s now, right? That’s a long time to seethe with hatred. Did you ever consider the possibility that seething with hatred isn’t the best way to make friends?

        Also, I’m not the one who just called Deti an “arrogant prick”. Way to make friends and influence people.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Maniac

      “…a lot of this shaming of men in the church can be traced back to Matthew 5:27-28.”

      I doubt Matthew 5:27-28, or any other Scripture, has anything to do with the fact that most “Christian marriage experts” refuse to acknowledge men’s need for sex in marriage, or the importance of wives maintaining their appearance for their husbands, etc.

      Heck, the Puritans were a lot more realistic about these subjects than modern Christians are, and they knew the Bible a lot better than modern Christians do.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        “I doubt Matthew 5:27-28, or any other Scripture, has anything to do with the fact that most “Christian marriage experts” refuse to acknowledge men’s need for sex in marriage, or the importance of wives maintaining their appearance for their husbands, etc.”

        I agree, mainly because “Christian marriage ‘experts'” avoid Scripture like the plague, heavily favoring either world-influenced pseudo-Christian psycho-babble spewed forth by Oprah Winfrey clones (with the appropriate “fish label” slapped on), or secular philosophy that leaves God out of the matter altogether.

        Like

    • Joe2 says:

      @Maniac –
      Yes, I agree. The shaming of men can start very early, as soon as a boy enters puberty and begins to experience nocturnal emissions at around 13 or 14 years of age. These usually occur during dreams that are of a sexual nature. Young men can be told, “don’t touch yourself, exercise more, take cold showers”, and so on, implying these nocturnal emissions are undesirable and / or sinful and are under the control of the young man. The reality is nocturnal emissions are perfectly normal and there is nothing he can do to control / stop them. Masturbation may reduce the frequency, but that’s a sin, too. Thus, a young man’s sexual awakening may be associated with guilt and shame right from the beginning causing untold psychological and emotional distress.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. anonman500 says:

    “A key developmental milestone for a man is his relationship to his own sexuality, and I mean that in the broadest possible terms, “sex” including his maleness, his masculinity, and his manhood.”

    I thought there was a promised godly alpha masculinity post from RedPillApostle, Dr. Klajec, and Marriage, Sex & More.com’s Mike Davis?

    All of us young men still learning about the gospel, applied charisma, and Red Pill could really use such a post.

    Just make sure not to include anything too masculine from Sigma Frame or Marriage, Sex & More.com though, because my long-term girlfriend and her protective puritanical family might object to too much blatant masculinity in one post.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “I thought there was a promised godly alpha masculinity post from RedPillApostle, Dr. Klajic, and Marriage, Sex, & More.com’s Mike Davis?”

      Deti, RPA, and I are working on this. Drafts are in progress. I don’t expect Dr. Klajic or Mike Davis to write about this.

      “All of us young men still learning about the gospel, applied charisma, and Red Pill could really use such a post.”

      I recognize that this is a dire need, especially for younger men, but whipping up a new model of Christian masculinity is not an easy task. As CatacombResident wrote,

      “…it would require a monumental amount of work to get anywhere close to just the part we could play, never mind crossing the vast gulf to where it ought to be.”

      I like your sarcastic humor. Do Puritan girlfriends now eschew “toxic masculinity”? Things are worse than I thought!

      Like

  7. anonymous_ng says:

    A friend talks about the lies we tell to children, the simplified stories we tell them before they are able to accept and comprehend the messy truth about things. The flip side of that was an idea I got from a post-nuclear apocalypse novel from the ’90s, that only some of the ostensible adults in a group are part of the inner circle who know the messy truth about things. The other adults are grownups still believing the lies they were told as children.

    IMO, there is only one lie we tell about sexuality. We lie about female sexuality, but that lie is only to the men. The young women know that it’s a lie. They know that they aren’t sugar, and spice, and everything nice. They know that they, like the young men, are also balls of raging hormones.

    Young men aren’t lied to about their sexuality because like the young women, they know their urges, but also because the topic of young men’s sexual nature and urges is constant and perennial and never positive. Even adult men are shamed for their sexuality if they look at porn, if they have desire beyond that which their wives deign to allow, if they desire things in the bedroom about which she is uninterested, or unwilling to do.

    There are undoubtedly people in every church who are the adults, the ones who know which of the young men, and which of the young women are sexually active, but they can’t say anything except to others of their little club because the grownups of the lie will fight tooth and nail to avoid having their worldview shattered.

    My experience is that men who are good with women are unapologetic regarding their sexuality and desire, it’s the guys who are ashamed of their desires who are the ones home alone. One observation I made while in the pickup world is that some of what’s taught is an attempt to get men to stop being ashamed of their desires.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lastmod says:

      Men who are good with women don’t have their behavior ever called out, yet these same men will set “standards” for every other man to follow that they themselves never had to follow. Also being good looking and having the ego the size of god probably helps too.

      “It’s the guys who are ashamed of their desires who are the ones home alone.”

      Was never ashamed of my desires, when I made them known I was told by PUA and men like you “how wrong I was”, or “how female nature REALLY works”, and women thought I was a creep for letting my desires be known.

      It just depends on WHO you are. 80% of us today just have to accept that god made you just better.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Men who are good with women don’t have their behavior ever called out…”

        That’s another lie. On this very blog, I literally spent months pushing back against the idea that we can make exceptions for sexual sin because of some “emergency”.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “The young women know that it’s a lie. They know that they aren’t sugar, and spice, and everything nice.”

      I’m not so sure that’s true. I think most young women believe themselves to be “sugar, and spice, and everything nice”, no matter what they do.

      They don’t believe that of other young women, but they sure seem to believe that of themselves. Is that delusional? Yes. Oh, well.

      Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @Oscar, yeah, that’s a pretty good point.

        I was thinking about my son telling me this girl at school told him that she wanted him to bend her over the desk and . . .

        I would hope that a woman like that wasn’t delusional, but who know, right?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ anonymous_ng

        Yikes! The mouth of an immoral woman is a deep pit, indeed!

        Like

  8. Lastmod says:

    I just wished I looked like all the men you use in the photos on your posts Jack. If I did…I def would have had some options as a younger man.

    I wish you all well….. well, except Oscar. You’re a real jerk.

    I have to leave now, and I would like myself banned here so I don’t get the temptation to slag back at you here for incorrect information you post about men like myself…….. but you know what I go through anyway….. you all had that week, that two months, that year in college when you could not get sex… and that equals a whole life now evidently.

    You guys know everything and can’t be told nothing. Equating men like myself as LESSER now because I have not had sex really, really hurt. Equating it as oxygen and food, and water…….. GTFO!

    A huge barren world of men are not getting sex and they are far from overweight / living in a basement with Cheeto dust on them thinking Star Trek is “real”.

    I won’t be around men who think and believe I am lesser because I have not had sex, nor never had appeal to women, or was never desired or wanted.

    I can feel that way on my own, and did for decades…….. but to have fellow men behaving like this to me and a sh!t ton of men like me…. and even at this age….. forties and fifties???????? How immature is that?

    I don’t need pity or empathy. If I can’t even have a basic fellowship with men……… I will find it in myself, away form you all.

    On this issue, a big middle finger to this idea, and the defense of it.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      “…except Oscar. You’re a real jerk.”

      Sweet!

      “I would like myself banned here…”

      If you get banned here, will you go to another blog and whine about getting banned here after asking to be banned here, like you did about Dalrock’s?

      “…but to have fellow men behaving like this to me and a sh!t ton of men like me…. and even at this age… forties and fifties???????? How immature is that?”

      But, having a “seething hatred for” your “fellow men” for over three decades; that’s totally cool. Right?

      “If I can’t even have a basic fellowship with men…”

      Well, you know, having a “seething hatred for” your “fellow men” will do that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Equating men like myself as LESSER now because I have not had sex…”

      For the record, that is not what I wrote. What I wrote is up there and is clear for all to see.

      Like

    • Jack says:

      Jason!

      “I would like myself banned here so I don’t get the temptation to slag back at you here for…”

      I’m not going to block you. You’ve already earned your wings. Scott, Deti, RPA, others… we all care about you, whether you want to believe it or not. Even Ed gave you a thumbs up. Marvels never cease!

      “I won’t be around men who think and believe I am lesser because I have not had sex, nor never had appeal to women, or was never desired or wanted.”

      Who are you talking about? What has been said that made you feel like you’re looked down on for giving Deti the virtual bird? If you think it’s for not fornicating, then I think you may be hung up on some distant memories.

      “I don’t need pity or empathy. If I can’t even have a basic fellowship with men… I will find it in myself, away from you all.”

      This is fellowship, bro (or about as good as you’ll ever find online). You can thank Oscar for making sure you’ll never get too much pity.

      Like

  9. thedeti says:

    Well, this post went over well, didn’t it? Guess we really cannot talk about fornication and male sexuality here. Christians really do have a problem talking about sex now – even male sexuality.

    Gee. I wonder why men are leaving the church. Why, oh why, might that be happening? Such a conundrum, I cannot imagine why men might feel unwelcome at a place where talking about and facing up to something essential to them as men is viewed as anathema and unChristian.

    We men must now neuter ourselves and render ourselves sexual blanks to be in a church body. All of a sudden I’m reminded why the Church and I are not getting along lately.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “Well, this post went over well, didn’t it?”

      You can’t communicate with a person who insists on dishonestly interpreting your every word as a personal attack. Nor can you communicate with a mind reader who insists on believing that he/she understands your meaning and intentions better than you do.

      Incidentally, this is why it’s so difficult to communicate with women, SJWs, etc.

      “All of a sudden I’m reminded why the Church and I are not getting along lately.”

      Dude. This misunderstanding wasn’t the Church’s fault. Nor was it yours.

      Like

    • feeriker says:

      “We men must now neuter ourselves and render ourselves sexual blanks to be in a church body.”

      Given that what passes for “the church” these days has capitulated fully to the culture and that “neuturing” men is one of the culture’s highest priorities, this statement cannot really be taken as satire. Note also that the “church” doesn’t have the guts to say this directly, even though it’s clearly what their behavior and attitudes endorse. Like the world it worships, the “church” lies and obfuscates compulsively. (Say this to any EAP or her male enablers and watch World War III ignite!)

      Like

  10. thedeti says:

    We have to talk about this stuff, guys. We have to. Because exhorting men “don’t look at porn” and “don’t look at women lustfully” is NOT “talking about sex” and it is NOT biblical. Telling men to deny their own masculinity is NOT “talking about sex” and it is NOT biblical.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “[E]xhorting men “don’t look at porn” and “don’t look at women lustfully” is NOT “talking about sex” and it is NOT biblical. Telling men to deny their own masculinity is NOT “talking about sex” and it is NOT biblical.

      It is, however, thoroughly and quintessentially churchian. The challenge is in being able to steer men away from that toxic, misandric environment before it destroys them.

      Here’s an even bigger challenge: avoiding toxic, misandric churchianity when your wife is addicted to it and refuses to give it up, no matter how destructive to her marriage AND her soul it is.

      Liked by 2 people

    • jvangeld says:

      I was thinking about this in terms of Peter Leithart’s response to the Manosphere. In it, he praised ignorance of women’s nature, under the guise of mystery. There seems to be a biblical argument here, because Ephesians says that marriage is a mystery, and Solomon said he couldn’t understand the mating dance.

      But Solomon did understand women. He laid the heart and motivations of prostitutes and adulteresses open to us in Proverbs. If pastors go around saying, “Women are a mystery, I don’t know why she had sex with that man.”, then they won’t get around to judging the adulteresses and prostitutes in the church.

      It could be that I am mischaracterizing Leithart’s words. But I think a deeper examination of his writings show that spirit at work. And certainly that spirit shows up in pastors and churches.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        jvangeld,
        Last year, when I first read Leithart’s observations of “mystery”, it struck me as out of place, or a form of denial, but at the time, I could not put my finger on why or how. I think you’ve made an important point, that the “mystery” of women and intersexual attraction is being schmoozed with feminism’s concept of “the feminine mystique”, and then used as a cover for the more notorious aspects of the feminine imperative.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Ephesians says that marriage is a mystery…”

        How God binds two individuals, man and woman, makes distinct persons into one is a holy mystery or sacramentum in the western tradition. This is the meaning of the verse. How do two become one in a ontologically real manner? A mystery to men.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Jack — The quote of my comment and your reply that I have included below, brings up an important issue that I did not express well. It is because of my years in a sexless marriage, and the endless discussions on the subject with Mrs. Apostle, that I recognize the disservice to men of relegating the discussion of sex to the arena of needs. Your reply to me is typical of what happens when the sex as a need discussion comes up. The discussion is framed around sex being a need, or not, for life, or for marriage or to stay sane. The debate then revolves around this topic.

    Framing the debate about sex in the hierarchy of needs and where in that hierarchy it falls is not productive. Sex is one of the key methods God gave married people to experience openness, emotional connection, physical connection and all the bonding and contentedness associated with those. Why in the world would we debate if sex on the basis of it being a need or not, when God is flashing a massive neon sign that says regularly giving yourself to your spouse sexually is one of the methods He has for the marriage relationship to have the joy and intimacy He intended for it?

    I will tell you from experience, that until I hit bottom and finally told off Mrs. Apostle about her withholding sex, that she only thought of sex as part of Maslow’s hierarchy. She is a psychologist, so she is very familiar with Maslow. Changing her thoughts of sex as a need to sex being a unique connection between spouses was one of the keys to shifting her behavior. Now, after about a year and a half of work, sex is one of those things that we both look forward to. There is obviously the component of physical enjoyment, but there are also all the other aspects of it that I mentioned earlier.

    “The bigger issue is regulating the discussion of sex to the level of it being a need or not. Technically, all a human “needs” are food, water, air and sleep. The way to evaluate sex, for both men and women, is against what God’s purposes for it, which is to bring depth, richness and connection to a covenant relationship that you do not get in other relationships and to fulfill His command to be fruitful and multiply.”

    “The idea that “all a human “needs” are food, water, air, and sleep” only covers the first level of Maslow’s Pyramid. For some people, I’m sure sex is on the first level, but most people would put it on the second or third, and I think this is what RPA is saying above.”

    “…relegating sex to the arena of needs greatly discounts the benefits and blessings that come from sex within the confines of marriage…”

    “It depends on what level of Maslow’s hierarchy you’re talking about. I’d say sex is absolutely necessary for a healthy marriage.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      RPA, I get what you’re saying.

      Maslow’s hierarchy was already her initial frame regarding sex. You had to move her into your frame as sex being something more than her psychology theory. I can guess there’s much more to the story — about how you got her into your frame.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      In my view, it’s simpler than that.

      “Wife, I don’t give a ____ how Abraham Maslow prioritizes needs. I need sex, I need it from you, and you promised to give it to me. Everything else is academic, but this is not: You are my wife, you promised to give me sex, I need it, and I need it from you. If you want to continue in your status as wife, I suggest you find a way to meet my needs. Or, I will cease to meet your needs and you will not be my wife anymore.”

      “Do we understand each other? You catching my drift? You GOT IT??”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        For those men who are not married yet, Deti and I are getting at the same concept different ways. What you really need to understand is that we had our discussions after the vows, when they should have been before them. It’s MUCH easier to set the expectations prior to exchanging rings. You may even weed out a woman or two this way. With the expectation set, if marital obligations are not being lived up to, the conversation is ideally more of a gentle reminder than a hammer. Usually, if you set expectations ahead of time and she agrees with you, many of the obstacles are already out of the way.

        The approach of setting expectations of behavior prior to an event works well with kids too. Not that I am implying anything in any way comparing women to children. I would never, ever do that. But I would directly state that there are times when Mrs. Apostle is the most responsible teenager in the house. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • caterpillar345 says:

        @RPA

        “What you really need to understand is that we had our discussions after the vows, when they should have been before them. It’s MUCH easier to set the expectations prior to exchanging rings.”

        Ah, this might be the best realization out of all of this for men in my position (i.e. unmarried). That along with the understanding of what can happen if the conversation is not had before the wedding (i.e. dead bedroom, disrespect, frivorce, etc.). And conversely, what is possible that is worth being picky and waiting for (e.g. Scott and Mychael, Elspeth, Liz, Mike Davis, etc.).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I’m a big advocate of having the big conversations before marriage, and as soon as possible. Heck, I told my wife on our very first date that I was going to be a career Army officer, and that I expected my wife to raise our children herself, not delegate the job to paid strangers.

        However, be aware that you can have a blunt, clear conversation about expectations with a woman before marriage, and she still reserves the “right” to change her mind after the wedding. I’ve had that experience, and Scott has told us all about his ex saying “I meant it when I said it“.

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        I believe scenarios like this one are what led to polygyny being popular and widespread in so many cultures.

        “You’re done with sex? Fine. I’ll find another wife who will supply that. Meanwhile, since f***king isn’t to your liking, you can justify your presence in this household and earn your keep by making sure the house is clean and that meals are on the table when I’m hungry. So get to work. I’m going out to find your replacement in the bedroom.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      ”Framing the debate about sex in the hierarchy of needs and where in that hierarchy it falls is not productive.”

      I agree. Scripture gives us what we need to know about sexual relations – i.e., becoming one. It just needs to be dusted off and used. Putting it in the context and instruction of Scripture is the only way we can have a chance at moving the churchians from where they are. I wrote about “Becoming One” here:

      Desire at the Door: Uncovering the Biblical Marriage Foundations in the Post-Modern Era — Chapter 3 — Foundation #3: BECOMING ONE

      If our wives had heard this type of message from the church for the last 50 years, I don’t think we would be having these conversations today.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. caterpillar345 says:

    Re: Jason vs. “all you other men”,
    I understand where Jason is coming from. I do generally agree with what Deti wrote in his post. However, it just seems like another re-statement of the problem with no apparent productive way forward to deal with the issues either collectively or individually. And I suppose at the end of the day there isn’t a good answer.

    I am in my mid 20’s. I grew up in a good Christian home, regularly attend church, serve/lead on the technical crews (which aligns with my abilities), and have a good (probably very good, for my age) Biblical understanding. I spent several years with my head down and got a STEM degree without partying and carousing in college, assuming that this would be looked upon favorably in the future. I have a good paying job in my field and live on my own with paid-for vehicles and no debt. I have hobbies including ones that involve using my hands and building things (and I don’t play video games). I’m not overweight and am reasonably fit; although I’m not an athletic stud, I certainly hold my own with backpacking, mountain biking, motorcycles, rock climbing, downhill skiing, etc. The church I attend is fairly conservative (not SSM affirming, no women pastors/teachers, sermons always refer to scripture as their basis, etc.). I’m not a particularly charismatic or extroverted man but I work on putting myself out there. And yet, it seems the women I meet (in the church or certainly those not in the church) are not interested in what I’m offering or are not currently (or on track to be) the Proverbs 31 woman I’m looking for.

    I alternate between:
    — Seeing the vision of what a Godly marriage could be and having faith/hope that if I keep doing what I can then God will direct my path to put me in contact with such a woman and bless me with a Godly marriage.
    — Hopelessness about finding such a woman and the fact that God isn’t making any promises to give me such a woman and accepting that I may never have that, meaning a continued celibate life, which causes me to feel guilty about being faithless.
    — Frustration about being in this position, trying to figure out how to get there by hook or crook (such as fornicating if the opportunity presented itself), and again feeling guilty about not having faith that God can provide, and then feeling that I’m having a victim mindset for “trusting God to provide” instead of doing something about it to solve the problem.
    — Frustration towards God because He gave me my sexual nature and said that “a good wife is from the LORD”, and “it is not good for the man to be alone”, and then “don’t fornicate either”, but here I am on my own.

    I can only assume that:
    — My attitude, emotions, and social skills still need work in order to be attractive (which is likely).
    — I need to spend more time in the gym and get ripped (which couldn’t hurt).
    — I am not trusting in God to provide so He isn’t providing for me.
    — I still have things to learn before God will bless me in this way.

    And yet, none of that takes away from the fact that, as Jack commented:

    “It’s maddening. Can’t concentrate. Can’t relax. Can’t stop being self-conscious. Spending 70% of all my energy trying to fight against nature. 90% of my thoughts are about mind control and not about anything beyond “managing” myself. Always jerking off and can’t stop, and feeling guilty and ashamed of it. My grandparents generation typically referred to this as a “young man’s problem”. It’s a huge burden.”

    Respectfully, Deti, sex is NOT a need on the same level as food, water, sleep, and air. A man will not die without having sex, as evidenced by incels, monks, and any of us (including you, as mentioned in a comment) who go without sex for an extended period of time. But I do agree it is a deep-seated need for men in the way that Jack mentioned in his comment.

    I guess I do feel like a “lesser” man or that part of my masculinity is missing because I’m not successful with women, if that is defined by sleeping with one (or more) of them or being married. But it’s really hard to ignore all of the above and just redefine “success” to be “faithful in God’s eyes because I kept myself from fornicating, even though it was never available to me as an option.” I try hard not to be bitter or resentful about it but the thought of being in Jason’s position in another 20 years is not very encouraging.

    So believe me, I’m happy that someone is talking about Christian men and sex because it’s certainly not happening in my church. At least I can understand some of the issues better and look at reality instead of lies. And maybe it will help me recognize the proverbial unicorn if I met her.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Caterpillar — Some books that I found helpful for me in my grappling with the concept of masculinity and how I communicate non-verbally with others are listed below. None of them are written as Christian books, but all of them were good for self-analysis.

      No More Mr. Nice Guy by Robert Glover
      The Way of Men by Jack Donovan
      The Appearance of Power: How Masculinity is Expressed by Aesthetics by Tanner Guzy

      They are easy reads and useful if you are willing to be honest about yourself and willing to work on those areas you see need it. Everything you do should be to make yourself into the type of man you want to be with the focus on seeking God and fulfilling what He put you on earth to do While you want a wife, always remember she is secondary to your purpose.

      For me, the focus on masculinity has been the difference. I’m average height, but still check off many of the appearance metrics that women look for and they were not enough. I still ended up in a sexless marriage because I had stuffed being masculine into the category of “things good church-going men don’t do”. Supplication, indecisiveness, calculating her reactions to my actions are all things that became common behavior for me. My wife didn’t respect me (I know this because she told me, “I don’t respect you.”) and would recoil at anything beyond plutonic physical touch. The other day she grabbed my backside as she walked by because she wanted to. The difference has been a loving and firm masculine approach to taking my marriage to where I want it to go.

      While I do not have your specific details, I’d start with Glover, then Donovan, and follow that up with Guzy. If you see areas where you can improve then get busy. What will work for you is going to different than what works for me and vice versa. My biggest area of need was a masculine attitude, so that is what I worked on. Most men have one area to improve that will yield the most return, so figure that out and start working. If you want specifics on the actions to undertake that is better addressed off thread.

      Liked by 1 person

    • zeonicfreak says:

      I definitely feel you on all these things you listed. This site and Biblical Gender Roles really put in perspective that what I’ve been “taught’ about sex in church was utterly demonized regarding male desires. It go to the point where the church I was attending was doing a book about fighting porn or “lust” and I wasn’t going to go because I already knew that it was going to be people in leadership beating down men for sexually enjoying women the way God made us. I see it was a bunch of betas running the show and I didn’t want any part of it. I soon after left that church.

      I’m in my mid 30’s now and still single. My last relationship was over 4 years ago to a girl I was engaged with and I wanted to keep the relationship pure and as much as I desired her I felt in my heart not to fornicate since we weren’t married yet. I believe that must’ve been a strain for her that she must’ve wanted me to go all the way and I didn’t and that might’ve pushed her away. I figured that is one aspect among many that was an issue at the end of our relationship. I wanted to honor God first and foremost, and I felt God move me away from her. I truly did love her, and part of me thinks that maybe I should’ve done it to keep the relationship. But that would’ve meant I would be ignoring the other red flags that I was finally seeing that would’ve been hell for me being with her.

      Right now, I’ve got my stuff to work on and having God work on my heart. The breakup was the biggest hell I’ve been through and I don’t ever want to go through that again. But I’ve grown significantly from the pain, and I’m completely blessed for what I’ve gone through to get my heart broken and to make that decision to end it. There’s been several positives being single again these past 4 years, meeting new friends, getting back into old hobbies and staying committed to my hobbies, and using that as a ministry the best I can. I’m fully content now to wait on God to move on a spouse, my real contentment is through him. I want sex more than anything, but my desire is to be with God fully as he continues to grow me into the man he needs me to be.

      My desire for someone has died down where I now just want to focus on improving myself for where God wants me to be and focus on my tasks God wants me to keep my eyes on, patience being one of them. I have total satisfaction in my heart knowing these things. I feel that waiting is what I need to do for the time being as of now, and I say that with complete fullness in my heart.

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      “Respectfully, Deti, sex is NOT a need on the same level as food, water, sleep, and air. A man will not die without having sex, as evidenced by incels, monks, and any of us (including you, as mentioned in a comment) who go without sex for an extended period of time. But I do agree it is a deep-seated need for men in the way that Jack mentioned in his comment.”

      It’s a deep seated need for men because it’s essential to a man’s masculinity and a man’s masculinity is essential to his God given identity.

      Even the expression of a man’s sexual desire has become verboten. Most men are required to neuter themselves in public. They aren’t permitted to express themselves as men. To make a long post brief, it’s because most men are not sexually attractive. It’s because people have a lot of discomfort with bottom 80% men (of which I am one) expressing themselves as men. Part of expressing oneself as a man is through masculinity which includes his sexual desire and desire for sex. It’s because, if you have that desire, you probably will, at some point, act on it, and women DO NOT want bottom 80% men acting on their sexual desires toward them. Or in public. Especially not in church.

      The Church has a problem with this too. Men are not supposed to be men in or around church. Men are supposed to be good little beta bitchbois with their heads bowed in eternal submission to everyone. They’re to submit to their wives, to other women, and to the effeminate pastor who screams “HOW DARE YOU!” at them. They’re never ever to express that they are sexual beings who desire sexual congress with women they’re attracted to. They’re not to feel that, experience that, want that, or even SAY that they want that. They sure as hell are not to act on it or act like that in any way whatsoever. In Churchian World, even men feeling or expressing sexual desire for attractive women is bad, wrong, evil, immoral, perverted, sick, and criminal.

      I have been saying this for years, and I now know why. It’s because the church has largely succeeded in turning its men into not-men. And then they have the nerve to bitch and complain that the not-men they demanded to be created are not men.

      Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yes, yes, I know that sex isn’t a “need” like air and water. I don’t care. Men still need it.

      Monks and men in religious orders who take vows of celibacy do so by choice. No one forces them into it. So we can’t use monks and priests who CHOOSE celibacy to “prove” “men don’t need sex”.

      Further, neither you nor anyone else gets to decide what I need. God does, and I do. If God decides I need it (and He did, by creating me as a man with inherent masculinity), then I need it. If I decide I need it as a married man and I choose not to do without it, then I need it, and it is my wife’s duty to give it to me. If I decide I need it as a single man, then I have the right to go out and find ways to get it within the bounds of God’s strictures on me and the bounds of the law.

      I, for one, am done listening to the likes of Al Mohler and John MacArthur and James Dobson and Dennis Rainey tell me what I need or what I should do. I am done listening to them tell me basically that Wife gets everything at her beck and call; but I have to earn anything I want/need from her. No. That is not how it’s going to be. And I don’t really care how the church views me or what I say about it.

      You want to know why men aren’t “stepping up”? This is why…

      — Because women are telling men they are nothing and they deserve nothing except whatever leftovers and table scraps some used up slut is willing to toss them, and because the Church fully endorses that viewpoint.

      — Because the church is telling men they have to give all they have and then earn what they want from a slut who has nothing to give because she let dozens of other men jackhammer her heart into hamburger.

      — Because the church is telling men they have to sit there and listen to some effeminate p_ssyboy who couldn’t assert his way out of a wet paper sack tell them what masculinity is.

      BULLSH!T.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, Lutheran Matt Cochran agrees with you in this well argued post:

        Matthew E. Cochran: On the Necessity of Sex (2021-07-19)

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        If my wife gets to decide “Husband, you don’t need sex”, then I get to decide “Wife, you don’t need my provision or protection”.

        I’ll just take the bank accounts that I accumulated, my 401(k) that I amassed, and the house, cars, furniture, appliances, and clothes I bought. That will include the furniture and clothes I bought you. Yeah, I’m keeping those. I bought them with my money so that means they’re mine. You can take the bras, panties, clothes on your back, and a toaster, and you can be on your merry way. I’ll even spring for the Uber to take you to the airport, and a one-way plane ticket to wherever you’d like to go. Here’s your copy of the divorce petition. Let me know how it goes because I’ll be taking 28% of your income as child support.

        Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @cameron232, this one seems pretty good.

        Matthew E. Cochran: Lies, Damned Lies, and Submission (2021-09-07)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Yes, yes, I know that sex isn’t a “need” like air and water. I don’t care. Men still need it.”

        “Monks and men in religious orders who take vows of celibacy do so by choice. No one forces them into it. So we can’t use monks and priests who CHOOSE celibacy to “prove” “men don’t need sex”.”

        It will be helpful here to consider some of the attributes that God has revealed about Himself and about His creation. We know that God is relational. We know that He desires intimacy with his children, probably more than we will ever know. We know that He designed marriage to model His relationship with His children and that he created sex as a means of growing families and as the chief way that the marriage relationship develops the intimacy that differentiates it from every other human relationship.

        The stronger debate point, as men who are made in the image of God, is to discuss sex in terms of fulfilling what God created us to be as relational beings. We are not designed to be alone. We are designed to live in relationship with others. Out of all of our relationships we are were designed to experience unique intimacy and joy with one other person in a relationship so important that God made it the earthly model of His relationship with His kids. Sex within marriage is how this happens. The desire to attain this relationship when single is highly motivating and the hurt and pain that stems from sexlessness in marriage is nearly all consuming (years of personal experience) because we were designed by God to experience the joy and intimacy of sex with a spouse. This is why sex is part of a wife’s calling as her husband’s helpmate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The stronger debate point, as men who are made in the image of God, is to discuss sex in terms of fulfilling what God created us to be as relational beings. We are not designed to be alone.

        OK. Fair enough. We are preaching to the choir then. And the only thing to tell men to do now is to walk away immediately from any woman who will not at once get in line and follow whatever man she’s dating or considering for marriage.

        The problem is here that it takes women to follow, and they won’t do it. That means women have to actively and affirmatively show they’re attracted to and want a particular man. I make suggestions for how women can demonstrate their attraction and their desire to follow, and I get shot down with “hurrr durrr… but that means women have to take some initiative. That means women have to “lead”. That means women might have to (gasp) take some risks!! Oh my God the inhumanity, I have to put myself out there! I have to lay myself bare, make my intentions known! I might get hurt! I might get embarrassed! I might have to rely on my dad and other men in my family to help me cuz I can’t do it myself! Whatever shall I do!!” And I get shot down with “but that means women have to pick men they aren’t sexually attracted to!”

        Well, hell’s bells people. If women aren’t going to cooperate, I don’t know what to tell you. It takes two to tango. Someone’s gotta lead and someone’s gotta follow. Women want to lead and they can’t, and at the same time they’re shrieking at men to lead and then complaining that when men lead, they’re “not doing it right” or “driving the bus into the ditch”. Women demand that men lead and then at the same time complain about where they’re being led. Ladies, if you don’t like it then do it yourself — and then we’ll just get more of the same. Devout Christian women will do without, or settle for unattractive men, or (like most women) will go ahead and have sex with attractive men who will not commit. And IT IS SIN, no matter what Mark Driscoll says.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – I’d argue that shifting the argument from need to God’s intention for what is best for relationship is more than preaching to the choir. If you can stomach it, go look some of the comments from Gregoire’s minions who say sex isn’t a need to justify that X number of times a month is enough. Mrs. Apostle gave me the same snarky line about sex not being a need for years. There are real applications for reframing sex discussions from “need” to God’s intention for marriage and the purpose of sex within that context.

        What’s the woman’s response to explaining God’s intended design for sex to create amazing emotional and physical intimacy in marriage? The common juvenile response, “Well, you won’t die if you don’t have sex!” is nonsensical. If she’s that pigheaded and disinterested at that point the reply is, “You’re right, I won’t die if I don’t have sex. But you will certainly die alone with your cats if you don’t give it.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “What’s the woman’s response to explaining God’s intended design for sex to create amazing emotional and physical intimacy in marriage? The common juvenile response, “Well, you won’t die if you don’t have sex!” is nonsensical.”

        That response indicates that she’s not interested in being a wife.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        RPA:

        I suppose we should tell our wives:

        “Yes, dear, you’re correct – I will not die if I never have sex again. But our marriage will.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        RPA:

        I suppose we should tell our wives:

        “Yes, dear, you’re correct – I will not die if I never have sex again. But our marriage will. My love for you will. My concern for you will. My caring for you will.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        @Deti,
        After reading your responses here, I think I finally understand what you’re getting at. I think you’re overstating your case just a bit but on purpose for the effect of getting her attention and expressing in no uncertain terms what you expect from her. It occurs to me you are laying out an expectation and drawing a boundary (there was a comment discussion about this on a recent post by Jack ).

        This is probably what you’ve been trying to say all along and I’m just now getting it… And perhaps because you didn’t do that before you were married (as RPA mentioned), you’re now having to state it in clear, unambiguous terms to get her attention and get your point across. I like how you have stated it now:

        “Yes, dear, you’re correct – I will not die if I never have sex again. But our marriage will. My love for you will. My concern for you will. My caring for you will.”

        This seems to me like a more accurate way to state the problem, the consequences, and the expectation moving forward. You and others have noted that the main differentiator between a proper marriage/LTR and any other relationship is sex. If that component is not present the marriage is in jeopardy. I think what you’ve written and expounded on here ties this together nicely.

        I also think Oscar’s observation of a woman’s/wifes’s juvenile response to a man saying “I need sex” is keen: “That response indicates that she’s not interested in being a wife.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti — “Yes, dear, you’re correct – I will not die if I never have sex again. But our marriage will.” This was my implication of dying alone with her cats.

        Caterpillar — While we often use hyperbole to make a point, the sentiment in my marriage was clearly communicated. I may not have done the best job with the delivery, but the message certainly contained the sentiments of what Deti expressed.

        It took me a while to figure out what I really wanted. Not what I thought I wanted, or what Mrs. Apostle wanted, but with honest self assessment, what I wanted from marriage. It also took me getting to my last straw, where I accepted that I want and need from a wife what I want and need and that might mean having a different Mrs. Apostle.

        The process took a little over a year of research, thinking, and writing before I determined what it was I really wanted and figured out the plan and the boundaries on Mrs. A necessary to make it happen. There are strict boundaries that if she ever crosses again she will no longer be Mrs. A. I told her these when I laid out my vision for our marriage and my family.

        To give you a better idea of what I am talking about, here is what I value from Mrs. A, along with knocking boots. I asked her to marry me because she was the person who I felt at ease being honest with when we were dating. We talked about everything and anything, without condemnation, and she quickly became my best friend. The boundaries I set are in place so we have the freedom to be open with each other again. We both know the rules and she knows what happens if she doesn’t control herself adequately. The irony in this is that my best option for saving my marriage was to risk it by heading where I wanted to go, knowing that she might not follow and be comfortable with that risk. It is working out but it easily could have gone the other way.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Joe2 says:

      You mentioned you are in your mid 20’s and single. It has been my experience, as well as that of many other single Christians as documented in Julia Duin’s book, “Quitting Church” the older you get the less you are wanted in church. The message becomes clear that church is for families and singles are considered second class and are stigmatized as failures. That is a very toxic environment to experience. In effect, the church forces singles out the door.

      Liked by 2 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        It seems faithless to “quit” the church because I’m (me or anyone else) still single and haven’t been able to find a wife. It feels like Abraham taking God’s promise for a son into his own hands with Hagar. But on the other hand, it seems like an external locus of control and a victim mindset to just stay in the same place “waiting on God” to provide for me which amounts to not trying something different when something doesn’t work.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. MLT says:

    Speaking of not looking at porn for Christian men, a Christian blogger which goes by the handle Biblical Gender Roles has some things to say about porn and what it relates to Christian men. A caveat: There are chances any of you may not agree on what he has to say about that topic. I can assure you that he has written about wives defrauding their husbands sexually and why it is a sin for her to defraud him sexually. I am not sure if any of you are familiar with this Christian blogger. I have been reading it for years. I would suppose that a healthy Christian marriage has taken on a regular basis the “vitamin” S. Some Christian women would say, “Oh well, then such marriages on a regular basis takes a kind of vitamin C, not the kind you find in citrus fruits, but rather that vitamin is, guys, communication, communication, and yes, communication. We women maintain female friendships largely by communicating. That is how we get ideas, express feelings, and all that, gents.”

    I have read Sigma Frame, Biblical Gender Roles, and other similar blogs for years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      “ . . . vitamin C, not the kind you find in citrus fruits, but rather that vitamin is, guys, communication, communication, and yes, communication. We women maintain female friendships largely by communicating.”

      This is another lie. It relegates intimacy to a transaction. It requires the man to offer just the right tokens for her to give what should be out of a desire she cultivates for him by her own will. Plenty of women have written books about how they overcame lies like this and how their marriages became what they always wanted.

      In her article, “Not My Problem,” Chris Taylor, at http://www.forgivenwife.com, highlights the necessity of sex in marriage when she tells of her lack of understanding early in her marriage: “I didn’t understand that I needed the emotional connection that came with sex. Most of all, I didn’t understand that even when a husband and wife don’t individually need sex, the marriage needs sex. Sex is a central characteristic of marriage. I just didn’t get it.” Her blog is a beautiful account of her transformation from “gatekeeper” of sex to “needing” it as much as her husband – and she did it all by her own will, not by requiring her husband to jump through hoops to make her feel like it.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “I didn’t understand that I needed the emotional connection that came with sex.”

        Female promiscuity before marriage damages if not outright destroys the ability for women (and possibly men too) to emotionally connect during sex. Lori Anderson has documented this with many female testimonials and this is also reflected in n-count vs. divorce numbers and what the Manosphere commonly refers to as “pair-bonding.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Female promiscuity before marriage damages if not outright destroys the ability for women (and possibly men too) to emotionally connect during sex.”

        I watched a documentary where a bunch of former porn actors and actresses gave testimonials about that. One of the actors said that sex for him is now like “masturbating with someone else’s body”. That quote stuck with me, obviously. He said that it’s become like any other bodily function. He felt a need to relieve himself, and nothing more.

        Sounds gross.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Robert Bremner says:

      “Communication”. That word does not mean what you think it means.

      Women communicate with women to share feelings, express emotions, and achieve consensus. Once they all agree they have communicated.

      Men communicate to share and contest facts and opinions. If I communicate with Jack, he will tell me something I don’t know, and I will tell him something he doesn’t know. We may or may not agree, but if not confrontational (looking at you Jason), we can complete the communication without rancor.

      Within marriage, the woman does not want to hear the man’s opinions, or emotions, or feelings, except the man’s feelings that make her feel good.

      Three generations of feminism have taught women that only her feelings count, only her voice needs to be heard.

      One test I have done to several women who mention the importance of communication in marriage is to ask, “Have you ever communicated with your husband about the state of your realtionship”?

      She always says “Yes”.

      I then ask, “Tell me something he said.”

      Never had I had a women able to remember something her husband said while “communicating”.

      When I point out that she obviously did not hear anything he said, do they get angry. If I have this conversation in front of their husbands, I bet they get in deep sh!t when they get home.

      Liked by 1 person

      • zeonicfreak says:

        I gotta remember to try that one, just for my amusement.

        Liked by 1 person

      • caterpillar345 says:

        At any church-based “relationship” event/seminar/bible study I attend in the future, if I hear a statement similar to “Yeah, sex is important, but it’s not the only important thing…”, I will ask the presenter(s), “When was the last time you and your wife had sex?”, and possibly, “How often would you say you and your wife have sex?”, for the benefit of everyone who is listening to evaluate where the presenter(s) are coming from…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I’d like to try this one, but I don’t attend mixed-sex Bible studies anymore, mostly because I always piss off the women.

        Liked by 3 people

  14. catacombresident says:

    God’s promises and commands about sex and marriage and so forth are not absolute. They stand in a context. That context is far, far different from our world today. As so many of you have noted, churchianity is not at all like the biblical model. We all might argue about that model, but most of us seem to agree what we have now isn’t it.

    Well, since this appears to be the flailing end of Western Civilization, there’s not much hope of fixing what we have now. I submit that the burden upon us is to grit our teeth and look at building something better by laying the groundwork for future generations. Ours is pretty much toast. There are individual bright spots (like a few really good marriages here) but if we forget our place in the long historical story, we’ll miss out on some rich opportunities to restore what God had in mind. I submit that it would require a monumental amount of work to get anywhere close to just the part we could play, never mind crossing the vast gulf to where it ought to be.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Oscar says:

    Off topic: there’s at least one in every conversation about why it’s good to lift weights.

    Like

  16. feeriker says:

    “It seems faithless to “quit” the church because I’m (me or anyone else) still single and haven’t been able to find a wife.”

    You wouldn’t be quitting the church, you’d be quitting a false imitation of it. The real Body of Christ is welcoming of all who are believers, who live by God’s Word, and who serve Jesus’s kingdom. Any “church” that shuns believers on the basis of their being single, elderly, poor, or just plain “not cool” isn’t part of the body of Christ. It’s a social club of which you shouldn’t even want to be a member. Admittedly, finding the Body of Christ is generally a lot harder.

    Like

  17. Joe2 says:

    @Caterpillar345,

    “…if I hear a statement similar to “Yeah, sex is important, but it’s not the only important thing…”, I will ask the presenter(s), “When was the last time you and your wife had sex?”, and possibly, “How often would you say you and your wife have sex?”, for the benefit of everyone who is listening to evaluate where the presenter(s) are coming from…”

    Would you have a follow-up if the presenter(s) said something like, “three (3) times a year, once on our anniversary, and once on each birthday”? And they went on to say they have a strong marriage and found that more frequent sex isn’t necessary.

    I pose this hypothetical because I’ve met Christians who have some strange ideas about the need or value of sex in marriage. In particular, I know a Christian girl who wanted to get married and said that for the first six months we’ll have our fun and then start a family. After the first six months, then what? That’s it, nada, nothing, no more sex. (An exception would be made for the purpose of adding to the family.)

    Like

    • caterpillar345 says:

      In this hypothetical situation, assuming the presenter(s) was speaking in front of a large group, I probably wouldn’t ask any followup questions for the sake of not being too disruptive (on the assumption that asking the question may have already been a bit disruptive). Those with ears to hear could discern that the presenter comes from a perspective that sex 3 times a year is enough and judge for themselves whether they agree. It would hopefully color a listener’s view on what they hear.
      However, if the atmosphere was more discussion-oriented and the presenter didn’t shut my question down but followed up with a question asking why I asked, I think a followup question getting at what value they place on sex in marriage would be in order. Or perhaps a statement that the typical man is not likely interested in providing for a woman for the duration of the marriage and raising one or more kids “in exchange for” 6 months of sex.
      My first thought about the woman you mention is either she has never had sex (and doesn’t know why she might enjoy it) or “Next!” How do women like this suppose that a man would be interested in marrying her??

      Like

  18. Pingback: October Epilogue – Gnosticism | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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