The Meet Cute as a Positive Feedback Loop

What goes around, comes around, for better or for worse.

Readership: Men; The Married;
Author’s Note: This post was cowritten with Jack.
Length: 2,350 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

The Joys of Headship

Headship and Patriarchy have been some of the most popular targets for feminist ire. The preferred approach is to demonize a straw man representation of Headship, demonstrating an inability to appreciate the benefits of true Headship. They prefer not to admit that those benefits extend to both men and women. This attitude has become so pervasive, that now, the joys and benefits of Headship are no longer well recognized.

Deti pointed out one way that Headship can lead to increased sanctification for both sexes, and which has gone undetected by women.

“When I think back to the women who meant the most to me, they all have one thing in common: They all freely and without reservation gave their entire selves to me, no matter when I asked, or how I asked. Yes, that includes their having sex with me in whatever form or fashion I was looking for.

Yes, those women were looking for something in return for the sex they were giving. The point here is that those women gave me everything I asked for, how I asked for it, when I asked for it. So when it came time for me to give them “something in return”, I was only too happy to give it.

It isn’t just WHAT they gave me. It was that they gave it to me when I wanted it which indicates they cared about ME. It was that they gave it to me in the specific way I wanted it which indicates a willingness to submit and take direction. They gave it to me without a crass expectation that I’d be at the immediate ready with a return ‘payment’ which indicates they trusted me.

A Word to Women: We want you to trust us. We want you to care about us. And we want you to cooperate with us and submit to us.”

Here, Deti basically said that a woman who submits herself fully to what a man wants, how he wants, and when he wants, ends up with a man who will happily meet her request.  This agrees with my own life experience. I would add that in my life, there have been times when a person has given to me, sometimes without even realizing how helpful they had been or how much relief they gave me, and I can say that, for that person, anything I could do for them would be done, just because they wanted or needed it. Feminists prefer to remain ignorant of this basic fact.

Running a 3-Legged Race

Hebrews 12 describes the Christian life as running a race. In marriage, this becomes a 3-legged race (a race among groups of two people who have one leg tied together). To run a 3-legged race successfully, one person has to call the command to execute the cadence, otherwise, they will trip over each other and stumble.

Jack has written tomes about how husbands mold their wives, but wives can have a significant influence on their husbands by serving as a joyful inspiration for men to develop into strong, confident, responsible men. Wives also need to restrain themselves from doing things that would limit or retard the development of their husband’s potential. Women do this by submitting themselves to a man, because when a woman adopts this position of humility, it draws out men’s innate desire to protect, provide, and lead. A husband cannot achieve this state of grace if the wife is expecting or demanding him to be obedient. Of course, women don’t like to hear this truth, but she has the unique role of providing him additional motivation to run beyond the minimum of provision.

We might conjecture that most wives would not mind being in full submission to a husband who loves her enough to die for her and shows it by the way he lives for her. But getting to that state of bliss is another matter.

The current zeitgeist maintains the idea that marriage is a 50/50 relationship,* but this concept doesn’t agree with a Biblical concept of marriage, and it certainly fails to consider the admonition in Ephesians 5:25 that a husband should be willing to sacrifice his own life for his wife (although this aspect of Christianity does appeal to women). If the husband must go to extreme lengths to appease or protect his wife, without any internal motivation, then that is a losing race. In a 50/50 relationship,* it is not the wife who is being manipulated, it is the husband who has been duped into forfeiting his place as Head. Such a deluded and weak husband might be willing to wash the dishes for his wife, but when shove comes to stab, it is unlikely that he would have the wits and courage, or even the desire, to give his life for hers.

* A 50/50 relationship is a flight of fancy as there can be only one captain of the ship.  In practice, any relationship that is described as being 50/50 by default means the woman rules as the man has yielded his rightful captaincy (headship).

Homeless man dies while saving a woman being held at gunpoint.

Case Study — RedPillApostle’s Marriage

I am a very good example of a man whose wife actively tore her own house down.

My primary reason for wanting Mrs. Apostle as my wife was the foundational friendship and openness that we shared in the beginning. But over the years, she has consistently undermined the trust that I once had in her. In addition to most everything else Jack listed in his post about women’s manipulation techniques, over the course of our marriage she has used sex as a weapon, as a negotiating tool, and when she has not, it has been begrudgingly given with a bad attitude, and only in a manner as she wanted, accompanied with obstinate arguing, backbiting, and defiance.

Had I more Red Pill knowledge back when we first married, I may have been able to mitigate the damage to our marriage. But because I operated under a faulty Blue Pill paradigm as a husband, I did not check her poor behavior. Now, it’s damage control, risk maintenance, and stress avoidance. Since being Red Pilled, I have made some major adjustments, and since then, I have won all the major battles in our marriage due to pure force of will, such as how we manage our finances, where we go to church, the cars we drive, and even stopping the behaviors that led to a sexless marriage. However, these battles were incredibly stressful for me at times, and often prolonged over a period of months. The victories — over the areas of our marriage that are mine to determine — came at a great cost. It is a cost, the depth and breadth of which, she may never fully realize because we live a comfortable life in a good area of the country.

But there is another cost to her as well, and it is this: If the biblical admonition to a husband to lay down his life for his wife ever became a circumstantially legitimate question for me, the honest answer now, as sinful as it may turn out to be, is almost certainly not. But it was not always this way.

Incentives

Ephesians 5:25-27 indicates that the husband should be willing to die for his wife. But given the condition of marriage these days, I doubt that many men, even Christian men, would have such willingness. Not even close! Many men (if not most) would rather avoid marriage altogether!

Willingness is driven by incentive and motives. So when Christian men ponder what this verse might mean for them, maybe the right question to ask is, “What is the motivation?” In his book, The Marriage Builder, Larry Crabb boiled it down to this—is the motivation manipulation or ministry?

If it is manipulation, then the husband is doing it because he expects his wife will be happier and treat him better. This is reminiscent of the “Happy Wife, Happy Life” dynamic which we know is basically the dancing monkey type of male submission. A husband operating within this paradigm is holding himself to an inherent covert contract* and is thus a weak husband. Again, a weak husband would be less likely to die for his wife.

If he is doing it out of the idea of ministering to her then he isn’t doing it for his own benefit. He is doing it for hers. But if the relationship is not glorifying God by conforming to a Headship structure, and thereby tapping into the blessings of the Holy Spirit on a daily basis, then they’re only left with a unilateral will (his) to maintain the union. Even the most generously loving and self-sacrificial husband will eventually reach that limit if his gestures are not returned nor appreciated.

Baumeister, et al. have concluded that repeated acts of self-control can have short term impairments on subsequent acts of self-control, suggesting that willpower is limited by energy levels (i.e. blood glucose). However, Baumeister et al. found that motivation and Framing (really!) can block the deleterious effects of ego depletion.

Someone might say that it is neither manipulation nor ministry, but merely glorifying God by being obedient and imitating Christ. If a life threatening situation ever arose, would it glorify God to be obedient to this scripture? Does it ever glorify God to be a lemming? Was Jesus a lemming when He submitted himself to death? No, the message of the gospel contained in John 3:16 states that Jesus had an external purpose (our salvation), and Hebrews 12:2 states he had an internal motivation. Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before him. What kinds of joy do husbands get from their wives, that they should be willing to suffer or die?

* A covert contract is an unspoken agreement you have within your head between you and somebody else. It’s what you expect someone to do — based on what you’re doing for them or based on what you expect from a relationship — without actually telling them about it. You assume they’ll just know. The covert contract was described by Robert A. Glover in his book, No More Mr. Nice Guy (2003). A summary can be found here.

How Scott’s Axiom Applies

There’s an old meme that says, “If someone hates you for no reason, then give that motherf___er a reason.” It’s dank and uncouthly funny, precisely because it’s inherently true to human nature. It’s also a viable Tit-for-Tat strategy, although altruistic Christians might be hesitant to admit this. We could spin this in a positive way to apply to marriage: “If your wife loves you for no reason, then give that sweet c___sucker a reason.” The same psychological and iterated game dynamics apply. The overriding idea here is that we get a loop that feeds on itself both positively and negatively.

What these sentiments point to is what an attitude of gratefulness does inside a man and this is something that almost all women miss — that the secret to her happiness in marriage is cultivating that attitude of gratefulness in her husband.

Which brings us to why Scott’s Axiom about a woman being so crazy about you that she would break all her rules for you is so important.

Scott’s axiom applied to relationships is the best bet for having a built-in positive feedback loop from the start.  Just like Deti described above, she’s willing to do anything you want, when you want, how you want, just to please you… and the gratefulness that motivates a man shows up in his fond thoughtfulness towards her, and in a willingness to do things for her that she wants.  She then feels loved and cherished which reinforces her behavior that is pleasing to him.

When you have a woman like this, Jesus, Peter, and now you, are the only people who walk on water!

Conclusions

A woman has great control over the happiness of her own life by serving and pleasing her husband, but feminism has made this culturally taboo and goes the complete Satanic route of labeling that which is good (male Headship and female submission) as bad.

What the obstinate and belligerent wife gets for her behavior is the exact opposite of what she wants from a husband.  She gets emotional distance, physical withdrawal, less patience, less kindness, less love and grace… and should the man have the temperament to endure the behavior long enough and not divorce her, then she gets apathetic indifference.  This type of relationship is characterized by a man minimizing the hassle in his life.  She adds an unbearable amount of stress, so he seeks to reduce it by limiting contact with her, and by looking for less stressful endeavors in other areas of his life.*  The relationship is characterized by tolerance and meeting a minimum standard to perpetuate the status quo.  In short, what should be a rich relationship that serves as a metaphor of the church’s relationship with Christ becomes one of endurance, sheer willpower, and desensitization to one’s wife — and this only serves to make life tolerable and prevent any more advanced destruction — hardly a marriage that glorifies God.

Whereas the woman who is strong in faith and obeys God’s Word about pleasing her husband and obeying him willingly does the opposite and ends up happy as a result.

* Some men will pour themselves into long hours of work, while other men might turn to alcohol, gambling, gaming, smoking, or other stress-relieving activities. Some high value men may even find a paramour. This is not to say these distractions are Christian methods of dealing with marital discord, but rather to point out how unChristian behavior can naturally result from a wife’s marital disobedience.

This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Conflict Management, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discipline, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Forgiveness, Headship and Patriarchy, Influence, Introspection, Male Power, Meet Cute, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Persuasion, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Sexual Authority, Stewardship, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to The Meet Cute as a Positive Feedback Loop

  1. Red Pill Apostle says:

    This post was written months ago as part of an email exchange with Jack. In the time since much has changed with Mrs. Apostle and we are much more in the better behavioral loop described in the post. I believe how this came to be is important as the behavioral changes highlight how important headship and masculinity are in a marriage.

    Here is the background and then the timeline of events that transpired up to the change. On a Monday evening in September, Mrs. A was in a snit and behaved in a way that was disrespectful. I had been thinking deeply on the idea of being open and honest (Jack’s heart trust) with Mrs. A because that was what I wanted from marriage, otherwise it was not worth it to me to be married. Without the heart trust we were merely co-parenting “friends with benefits”, and that missed the full emotional intimacy of the marriage relationship. To have this, I had to know that she would not revert to old behaviors and tactics, and so I laid out my list of boundaries and made it clear that if she were to cross them, we were going to see lawyers that same week to start divorce proceedings. One of those boundaries is that she is to maintain emotional control so she would not say or do things detrimental to the marriage. For instance, she can’t threaten to use the courts to keep my from my kids just to hurt me enough that she wins an argument or bring the boys into an argument to tell them how horrible I am in order to hurt me enough to win the argument. Both examples actually happened and this type of behavior is not something I will endure further. She did not like the idea of having behavior that triggers divorce, but she did like the idea of reestablishing a deeper connection.

    I have email strings that are well over 100 replies with both Deti and Mike Davis. (His site is NSFW, but his specific advice via email is quite good and Mrs. Apostle even said so. More on this momentarily.) They pull no punches. The language is what you would expect of men in a locker room, where everything is directly called what it is without having to worry about feelings, because we’re all big boys and can take it.

    A couple days after I laid out my clear boundaries for my wife’s behavior, I let her use my laptop and my email was up. She spent over an hour reading everything in my correspondence with Deti and Mike. Then she came to chat with me. In the emails, she saw where I had recounted conversations with my brother (Proverbs 17:17), laying out the issues and where I had told him she was a (rhymes with “ducking hunt”) as part of working through things. She was aghast that someone close to her knew about her behavior, and she was hurt and livid over being called a “hunt”.

    Here’s the summary of the conversation with my brother, on knowing how she had behaved and about being called a “hunt”. Because I had set firm boundaries on what I would put up with regarding her behavior, she kept it together and did nothing that would have triggered divorce proceedings. In response to the anger over being called a “hunt”, I recalled the list of specific things she had done, and told her that I said and wrote what I did because it is true, and that her behavior had been atrocious. Her response was to admit she behaved poorly and in no way was acting in love. She was, and still is to an extent, mortified to know that her behavior behind closed doors is known beyond those doors. On this topic, I told her that she should have behaved better if she is embarrassed by what people think about her. I did not apologize at all during the conversation.

    Had I not set firm behavior expectations or cracked and apologized or backed down in any way, the following outcome probably does not happen. Since then, I have had a wife and marriage that is vastly better. We are each free to be ourselves without fear of reprisal, which means we can share what is on our hearts and minds with each other. Physical intimacy is better too. I tell her what I want and for the most part we try it. She is learning what I like and tries to do those things for me (Proverbs 5:19), and there have been a list of firsts in the past 2 months even though our next anniversary will be our 19th. We still have our bumps, and I expect that in the learning process we are going through, but all in all, marriage to Mrs. Apostle has been quite good of late and we have a ton of fun together.

    If you contrast the before and after, it is readily apparent the damage that the Blue Pill “Happy wife, happy life” headship inversion creates and what is possible when that is reversed.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “For instance, she can’t threaten to use the courts to keep me from my kids just to hurt me enough that she wins an argument or bring the boys into an argument to tell them how horrible I am in order to hurt me enough to win the argument.”

      At first reading, it seems ludicrous to say, “If you (threaten to) take me to court, then I’m taking you to court!” But it is not when you realize that her threats to impose court sanctions are only just an empty threat intended to make you angry and push you to capitulate to her whims. In other words, it is a stupidly destructive way to elicit the Feedback she wants. It is stupid and destructive because it tears down any Heart Trust you might have in her. If she does it enough, then you’re seriously thinking you might be better off to make her threats come true. I was there for several years before I realized that it’s all a ruse. I wish I had known about Agree and Amplify at that time, because that is basically what RPA is describing, and I think it would work. Make her consider the seriousness of what she is saying, and make her face the reality of it.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack – When I finally decided what makes marriage worth it to me with Mrs. A, my course of action became crystal clear including what I will not tolerate. I married her because she was the best friend I’d ever had and was the person I’d been able to be the most honest with, which is a deep connection at the heart trust level. So if she is using her knowledge of me to hurt me, that’s the end and I’ve told her as much. She has expressed similar sentiments about me being her best friend and that it is important to her as my wife to be honest with me. So when I set strict boundaries on behavior with regard to this topic, it is me exercising headship in a way that establishes the guiderails that give my marriage the chance to flourish the way we both want.

        Mrs. Apostle threatening to use the courts was, like you wrote, a lever for her to pull to exert power over me utilizing my love for my sons against me. This, and similar behavior, is why I chose to label her the way I did. The behavior that destroys heart trust is also part of what Proverbs 14:1 is referring to regarding a woman tearing down her own house. Everything women say they want from a husband and marriage is attainable, but because of the curse they can’t help themselves when it comes to exerting power over their husbands. This means that part of a husband’s headship is reigning in his wife’s poor behavior to protect her from herself, much like Christ does for the church.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Oscar says:

    “In his book, The Marriage Builder, Larry Crabb boiled it down to this — is the motivation manipulation or ministry?”

    I read that book. It’s absolute, 100%, utter garbage.

    Dr. Crabb claims that if you criticize, then you are unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister.

    Now, let’s look at that logically.

    By claiming that people who criticize are unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister, Dr. Crabb is is criticizing people who criticize, which by his own standard makes Dr. Crabb unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister.

    Why would I listen to someone who, by his own standard is unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister?

    But wait, it gets worse.

    In every single page of his book, Dr. Crabb criticizes somebody. Sometimes it’s husbands, sometimes it’s wives, sometimes it’s other marriage “experts”. So, not only is Dr. Crabb, by his own standard, unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister, he’s also a hypocrite.

    But wait, it gets worse.

    Did Jesus criticize people? Hɘll yes. And, no, it wasn’t just the Pharisees. Read Revelation 2-3, where Jesus criticizes his bride, the Church. Did the Apostles criticize people? Hɘll yes. Did God’s prophets criticize people? Hɘll yes.

    So, according to Dr. Crab – who, by his own standard, is unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister, and is also a hypocrite – Jesus, His Apostles, and His prophets were unloving, manipulative, and unwilling to minister.

    It is absolutely shocking how a person that is so stupidly, blindly, self-contradictory can actually earn a Ph.D.

    Absolute, 100%, utter garbage. Worst book on marriage I’ve ever read. And I can’t even say I’ve ever read a good one.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      “Dr.” Crabb joins most other churchian “marriage experts” in the garbage peddling business.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        Oh, it gets even worse. Dr. Crabb writes that married couples need to “get past ‘fun sex'” to true “physical oneness”.

        The whole time, I was thinking, “You idiot! ‘Fun sex’ is precisely the physical mechanism God created to bring married couples to physical, and emotional oneness! If you really cared about oneness in marriage, you’d be encouraging married couples to have as much ‘fun sex’ as humanly possible!”

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Eric Francis Silk says:

    I don’t think that the “Meet cute” is a viable method for meeting a prospective spouse, at least if you want to marry within your own religion. The way things are, the girl at Starbucks probably isn’t a Christian (not even nominally).

    Could you try and influence her into participating in your religion? I guess you can try. But the words, “I can fix her”, is often followed by even more regret than “Hey, watch this!”

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      EFS — Can you elaborate further on the religious aspects that potentially limit having a Meet Cute? I have not necessarily thought about that angle and it might be worth exploring further.

      Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        You should date/marry only within your own religion. For Christians, that is directly advised in the Bible, plus it’s just a good idea in general.

        Are we using the same definition of Meet Cute here? The one I’m familiar with is the movie trope of a chance encounter that leads to date/relationship. Think of romantic comedies that start where the two leads meet because the man bumps into the woman, she spills her coffee, the man buys her another one, they talk for a bit and end up scheduling a date.

        That’s movies of course. Nothing that dramatic ever happens but the idea of a chance encounter with a stranger can certainly happen.

        The point is, in our society almost all strangers you meet are going to be nominal Christians at best.

        Want to marry within your own religion? Well you’re not going to do it by chatting up strangers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        If you live in Christian community, your chances of having a “Meet Cute” with a Christian girl increase dramatically. But, that requires living in a Christian community.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        EFS – It’s the differing thoughts on the Meet Cute that caused my inquiry. I think of the Meet Cute being the way Scott described his with Mychael. They had talked and had become familiar with each other prior to meeting. When they did finally meet in person, he recounts it as being a special, memorable event. I forget the exact details that made it like that for them, but for them it was a story worthy (in a good way) moment.

        I have a similar fun story about meeting my wife face to face for the first time. We had talked and IM’d (texting cost money back then y’all) for weeks prior to meeting because we lived in different states at the time. When we finally did meet in person, Mrs. Apostle did not tell her parents the details of how and where we met until after we’d been married for years, and her mom still wasn’t happy about it. It’s not a movie script where a chance encounter leads to dating, but 2 decades later it is a story that is ours that we can look back on and joke about.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        The Meet Cute is more than just a “special, memorable event”. And, EFS, John Hughes did not invent the Meet Cute. He just depicted it on film better than anyone else ever has. He also made a specific point of including and depicting Meet Cutes in his films. Other films depict Meet Cutes. But Hughes perfected how Meet Cutes are shown in audiovisual media – so much so that if your Meet Cute circa 1988 didn’t look EXACTLY like a John Hughes MC, then you didn’t have a MC. Or so you think.

        The Meet Cute requires instantaneous sexual attraction from her to him. Love at First Sight. She sees him and is instantly gobsmacked and smitten with how attracted she is to him. It is her inner voice immediately saying “Oh, yes, I am having sex with him just as soon as I am even a little comfortable. All I really need is to get the pleasantries out of the way and it is GAME ON.

        It is Mychael looking up at Scott.

        It is Elspeth’s saying, “When I first saw him, I thought he was beautiful.”

        That, and ONLY that, is a Meet Cute.

        Like

  4. Eric Francis Silk says:

    There are probably more practicing Sikhs or Confucian/Buddhists in my community then there are practicing Christians.

    Maybe in the 1950’s you could have a decent chance of meeting a suitable spouse at the local malt shop but that world no longer exists. There are fewer and fewer Christian communities. I know you’re going to suggest moving but the problem with running is that you eventually run out of places to run. No, you have to adapt your tactics to the environment at hand.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “Maybe in the 1950’s you could have a decent chance of meeting a suitable spouse at the local malt shop but that world no longer exists.”

      False. I’ve been to multiple places where that is still the case. You don’t want to move there? Fine. That’s your choice, and you’ve made it. You don’t want the solution available to you. Okay. You will live with the consequences of your choice.

      “…the problem with running is that you eventually run out of places to run. No, you have to adapt your tactics to the environment at hand.”

      It’s a lot easier to make a stand when you’re surrounded by a like-minded community. But, again, you’ve rejected that solution. You will live with the consequences of your choice.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      OK Oscar.

      Where are these places of which you speak? Lands overflowing with milk and honey in the form of real Christian women? Get specific, please. I want to know specifically where these places are and who populates them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti,

        I’ve been specific multiple times. I found those communities in Branson, MO, Moscow, ID, and Saint Marys, KS. I wasn’t even looking for such communities when I found them. That leads me to believe that, if you intentionally set out to look for such communities, you would likely find more of them.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Those are all cult communities that are Blue Pilled AF.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Uh huh. My bet is that most of the single women populating these churches are Evangelical American Princesses, and self proclaimed “Daughters of the King” who live double lives partying on the weekends and having premarital sex.

        What I know — not “bet” — is that in all these places, men and women are getting married young. The churches I’ve visited are full of couples in their 20s with armloads of toddlers.

        A friend of mine in Branson who has 14 kids has married off 7 of them, all in their late teens and 20s. An employee of his with 11 kids has also married off several of his. In most of these cases, the kids met at The College of the Ozarks.

        Another of my friend’s employees (an accountant) recently got married, at 25, to his 22-year old fiancé (a nurse). They also met at College of the Ozarks.

        The things I keep hearing are impossible in today’s world are actually happening in these places.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        And they all get divorced. Ozarks is a great place to practice family law, and that business is booming there right now. Most of those kids who grow up in those religious communities eventually snap and divorce/leave their faith by their 30s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Are these municipalities? Are they churches? Faith communities?

        I want names. Names, addresses, and contact info.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “The things I keep hearing are impossible in today’s world are actually happening in these places.”

        Where, SPECIFICALLY, are “these places”? I want names. Names, addresses, and contact information.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Probably the Chick-Fil-A on Jefferson Davis highway across from the ninth Pentecostal and the third Baptist church on second street.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Probably the Chick-Fil-A on Jefferson Davis highway across from the ninth Pentecostal and the third Baptist church on second street.”

        And right across the street from the fourth Fifth Third bank on Second Avenue. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Where, SPECIFICALLY, are “these places”? I want names. Names, addresses, and contact information.”

        I already told you where. Moscow, ID, Branson, MO, and Saint Marys, KS.

        If you want me to get even more specific, Christ Church, which includes Logos School, and New St. Andrews College.

        I already gave you College of the Ozarks, and its URL. I’m not going to give my friend’s name and contact information publicly on the internet. Considering that you use an anonymous handle, I hope you understand why.

        As for Saint Marys, KS, that would be the Immaculata Church, which includes St. Mary’s Academy and College.

        I’m pretty sure you can find the contact information you want for all those places with a quick internet search. If you’re not even willing to do that, I don’t see how I can help you.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar:

        Christ Church… which is where? Where is Logos School? Where is New St. Andrews College?

        Email me your friend’s name and contact info, please. Jack, please give my email to Oscar.

        Thanks for the rest of the info. That’s 4 or 5 places… out of tens of thousands of communities across the land. I respectfully stand by my position that these communities are not commonplace and that it is extremely difficult for Christian men and Christian women to find each other, meet, and marry. Most Christian women disdain and reject the Christian men they know, and have sex with nonChristian men.

        Moving and relocating is simply not an option for most men, unless they’re young, in which case it should be encouraged. But it is still not easy — I will bet pretty much everything I’ve got that even in the places you’re mentioning, most of the Christian women are refusing and rejecting the Christian men and having sex with nonChristian men. Reason: No downside. No reason not to.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        He’s referencing Doug Wilson’s Blue Pilled cult in Moscow Idaho. The CREC is a church that people flock to because believers prioritize American politics over a coherent reading of the Bible.

        St Mary’s Kansas is home to a sedevacantist sect. (They believe the papal seat has been vacant since the 60s.) They are an off shoot of an off shoot and don’t play nice with all the other off shoots. They believe the Roman Catholic Church has been correct in all things until a few decades ago, because they say so, but that anyone else who said they were wrong before then is wrong. Have fun with their logical loops.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ thedeti

        “Christ Church… which is where? Where is Logos School? Where is New St. Andrews College?”

        Dude, I’ve told you. They’re in Moscow, ID.

        “Email me your friend’s name and contact info, please.”

        No. Would you want your friend to email your contact information to a complete stranger? I wouldn’t.

        “Thanks for the rest of the info. That’s 4 or 5 places… out of tens of thousands of communities across the land.”

        Those are the ones I’ve found. You’re free to look for more. I can’t do all the work for you.

        “I respectfully stand by my position that these communities are not commonplace and that it is extremely difficult for Christian men and Christian women to find each other, meet, and marry.”

        I agree. Which is why it’s a good idea to go to the places that make it easier.

        “Moving and relocating is simply not an option for most men, unless they’re young, in which case it should be encouraged.”

        That’s false. My parents moved our family to an entirely different country, where they didn’t even speak the language, when my dad was 50. They did it to give their children a better life. Surely a married man with children can move to another town, or another state, with the same language, to give his children a better life. We do it all the time for work, after all.

        “But it is still not easy…”

        So?

        “I will bet pretty much everything I’ve got that even in the places you’re mentioning, most of the Christian women are refusing and rejecting the Christian men and having sex with nonChristian men.”

        If they’re “refusing and rejecting the Christian men”, then please explain how the Christian men keep finding Christian women in their late teens, or early 20s to marry, and make big families with.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “If they’re “refusing and rejecting the Christian men”, then please explain how the Christian men keep finding Christian women in their late teens, or early 20s to marry, and make big families with.”

        It’s a very, very small number – so small as to be statistically insignificant.

        It’s also unreasonable to expect men to do all the work, all the moving, all the relocating, all the giving, and all the initiation. Women are going to have to give some here too. Women are going to have to do some work, some seeking out, and some movement toward these men they claim to want.

        Until women start doing their share, I’ll believe it when I see it, and not one minute before.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “No. Would you want your friend to email your contact information to a complete stranger? I wouldn’t.”

        Fair enough. Then I guess people in these communities don’t want to find each other and connect badly enough to fix the issues we identified here.

        No, you don’t have to do all the work. But I’m not going to do all the work either. I’m already doing way, way more than most people are doing, and I can’t do any more. My people gotta eat and have a roof over their heads, and it’s my job to do that. I’m already doing more than enough. It’s time for other people to step up and work on fixing this problem.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        “I’ll believe it when I see it, and not one minute before.”

        Then, go see it. I already gave you all the information you need to do so.

        “Then I guess people in these communities don’t want to find each other and connect badly enough to fix the issues we identified here.”

        They’re already found each other, and connected. That’s why they have a community. You don’t have a community because you “don’t want to find” them and “connect badly enough to fix the issues we identified here.”

        “It’s time for other people to step up and work on fixing this problem.”

        They already are. That’s why they formed communities. You’re free to join them, and you’re free to complain about what you don’t have, and continue to refuse to join the people who already have it. The choice is yours.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Like I said, Oscar:

        I’m not going to do all the work either. I’m already doing way, way more than most people are doing, and I can’t do any more. My people gotta eat and have a roof over their heads, and it’s my job to do that. I’m already doing more than enough.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “I’m not going to do all the work either. I’m already doing way, way more than most people are doing, and I can’t do any more. My people gotta eat and have a roof over their heads, and it’s my job to do that. I’m already doing more than enough.”

        Okay. Then, you’ve made your choice. You — and yours — will live with the consequences of it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’m not doing everything. I’m already doing more than I can reasonably sustain.

        Like

      • info says:

        Just for your guys information in regards to Doug Wilson:

        Steven Sitler — Moscow ID (Search: Wilson)

        He is an evil wolf in sheep’s clothing.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @Lexet,

        “St Mary’s Kansas is home to a sedevacantist sect. (They believe the papal seat has been vacant since the 1960s.)”

        No sir. St Mary’s is SSPX. The SSPX are not sedevacantists, they are a group of canonically irregular Catholics. That is, they effectively ignore the authority of the local/territorial diocesan bishop. They claim that emergency provisions in canon law allow them to do this and they believe the church is in an emergency situation necessitating this.

        They commonly refer to their churches as “chapels” since they do not want to give the appearance that they are a separate church independent of the diocesan bishop.

        Their approach is “recognize (the pope and bishops as valid) and resist” (their progressive innovations).

        The opinion that Francis is an anti-Pope and Benedict’s resignation is invalid has become more popular even among canonically regular Catholics who lean conservative.

        For a summary, there are three categories of Latin Mass TradCaths:

        1– Sedevacantists: Believe the papal throne has been unoccupied since 1959 and there is no legitimate Pope right now.
        2– SSPX: Recognize the Pope and bishops as valid but resist the progressive innovations of the Vatican (by de facto placing themselves outside their authority via canon law provisions).
        3– ICKSP/FSSP and other personal parishes (e.g. Park Hills Kentucky, Tampa Florida, Huntsville Alabama, Charlestown West Virginia, and some others) are completely de facto and de jure within the authority of their diocesan bishops. They have, in many cases, achieved certain statuses (e.g. Oratory) such that their priests can’t be moved around by a progressive bishop. This provides stability for their parishioners. Some parishes that are not personal parishes nevertheless have become gathering points for TradCaths seeking the Latin mass, and monasteries, Carmelites, etc. – you can find these using resources like this one: Reverent Catholic Mass (map)

        There are also other groups like Eastern Rite Catholics and the Personal Ordinariate (for former Anglicans) who are conservative, although my impression is that these are less consciously counter-cultural than the Latin-mass types.

        Look for parishes where the women cover their heads in church and where the nuns (if there are nuns) dress like Sally Fields not like your liberal shrew high school English teacher.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “He’s referencing Doug Wilson’s Blue Pilled cult in Moscow Idaho. The CREC is a church that people flock to because believers prioritize American politics over a coherent reading of the Bible.”

        And yet, they’re doing what is supposedly impossible. You want to see a church full of young couples with arm loads of toddlers? Go to Moscow, ID.

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      There are over 700 churches in Davidson County, TN (Nashville) and that has been consistent for decades. It’s a great area to live in and has a much larger Christian population than any major metro area in the north. I’d start there if you’re willing to relocate.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Uh huh. My bet is that most of the single women populating these churches are Evangelical American Princesses, and self proclaimed “Daughters of the King” who live double lives partying on the weekends and having premarital sex.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I won’t argue with you over EAPs because they exist. For men who live in areas where there are fewer Christians, finding a wife becomes a marketing math problem. Doing what Oscar suggests and moving is a way to improve the odds that a woman you meet values Christian morality. Perfect, no. But when is anything perfect? The whole Old Testament is filled with less than ideal sexual situations, such as men who go to prostitutes (Judah, whose daughter-law-pretended to be one and he knocked her up), prostitutes (Rahab), people from the incest tribe (Ruth, Moabites were descended from Lot’s incest with is daughters), adultery and murder (David and Bathsheba) and those are just the ones off the top of my head in Jesus’ chosen lineage. Anyway, we do what we can to put ourselves in the best situation possible then we don’t sweat the outcome, EAPs and all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “There are over 700 churches in Davidson County, TN (Nashville) and that has been consistent for decades.”

        Deti sort of beat me to the punch below, but the “number of churches” in a given location has zero/zilch/nada/aught to do with Christian presence. Heck, by that standard, Las Vegas ought to be the most Christian city on earth, given its record number of “churches.” But we don’t even need to go that far; will anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that if I were to travel to Davidson County, Tennessee, that I would find a county visibly more Christian in character than any other locality in the country with a fraction of that number of churches?

        Don’t answer that last question, it’s rhetorical. I have family in Tennessee, am well familiar with the state, and know for a fact that it’s like the rest of the “Bible Belt”: morally rotten to its churchian core.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It’s called “Trashville” for a reason. It’s also the city that became famous at one point for having the most churches converted into bars.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Femmy says:

    Go to church.

    Every church I’ve been to has single women looking for a Christian man.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Terrible advice for men.

      Every church I’ve been to has single women complaining about how unattractive the Christian men are, while having sex with nonChristian men.

      Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I’ll use my home parish as an example. There are to my knowledge, three or perhaps four single women between 20 and 30 years old. All of them seem to be reasonably devout Orthodox Christians. They are all normal average women with normal average looks and normal average bodies.

        Now, I can pretty much guarantee that none of them are looking at what I would call their peers among the young men.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Ditto what Deti said. This is adverse selection 101. The chance that a woman, who’s looking for a man at church, to have some issues that cause her to get passed over increases. All the women who were looking to be a good Christian wife for a Christian man are usually pulled off the dating market relatively quickly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Yeah. E referred to the men she went to church with in her early 20s before she married SAM, as “neomaxizoomdweebies”. She had that moniker for one man she knew and I think expressed some interest in her.

        She was quite unimpressed with all the Christian men. So, she did what most other women do — dated outside the church. She had premarital sex with, and got pregnant by, a nonChristian man.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Deti, you have known Elspeth much longer than I have. I thought her story about the boys being “neomaxizoomdweebies” was in reference to her daughters not her. My impression is that, when she was young, she went to a black church. I grew up around plenty of black men who went to black churches in the 1980s and they were definitely NOT dweebs. The dweebs were at the United Methodist Church or First Church of the (honkey) Baptist or whatever.

        Since she’s not here just wanting to make sure we get her story correct. It’s not like I have time to go look up all her comments on this.

        Like

    • Random Angeleno says:

      I cosign Deti and RPA. I’m a divorced older Catholic who takes his faith seriously. But I have never met an eligible and age appropriate Catholic woman in any parish I have ever attended. Such women may exist, but they sure aren’t making themselves visible to me. That’s what invisibility looks like in the one real life environment that we are told is supposed to be the best place for us to find wives. Most single men who attend churches are in my position. Women in churches simply don’t see Andy Accountant, Ernie Engineer, Paul Plumber, Ted Telecom, Mike Manager, etc., sitting nearby.

      Women have agency: If they won’t see those men in their midst, they deserve nothing but cats and wine.

      Shrug

      Liked by 3 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “Most single men who attend churches are in my position. Women in churches simply don’t see Andy Accountant, Ernie Engineer, Paul Plumber, Ted Telecom, Mike Manager, etc., sitting nearby.”

        Ditto for the church I used to attend. The saying among the men was that the women in the church wouldn’t see Jesus either if He should walk in.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Yet they never date or marry within the congregation. It is always with an outsider. Always.

      Like

  6. Femmy says:

    Well, I don’t go to those churches.

    The churches I go to have traditional conservative women.

    What churches do you guys go to?

    I am hoping you don’t attend very large churches. In very large churches there are no “rules”. And difficult to shepherd.

    Go to smaller cities where everyone attends church and where there are churches on every corner.

    Forget the largest cities. Everyone there just wants a good worldly time. Not spiritual.

    And I’m not suggesting small towns of 1009 pop.

    I’m suggesting small cities of 200,000 pop. They are the best for finding a mate.

    The thinking is so different in these smaller cities. Family oriented. Business minded. Community minded. Very different from the largest cities.

    Go visit one around 200 thousand pop for the weekend and go to one of their many churches. There will be plenty of churches to choose from, and you just might find someone to your liking who wants a family too.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      These “other churches” are like people who’ve won the MegaMillions or PowerBall, or who voted for Joe Biden. Everyone insists that they exist, but no one has ever seen or met one.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’ve been to large churches, very small churches, and everywhere in between. Ostensibly ultraconservative, fundamentalist, traditional Christian. I am very familiar with nondenominational Christian communities. I have attended their churches and speak their language. I understand their nomenclature, culture, traditions, and practices.

      And the women who attend these churches are having sex with nonChristian men and rejecting the men they attend church with.

      This is Christian woman standard operating procedure, everywhere.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      LOL! They aren’t conservative nor are they traditional. I’ve been in those churches for many years — churches led by people known in very conservative public circles etc.

      The women are independent feminists who want careers.

      They are all hoes.

      You are blind.

      Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        I want to God to force them to either actually, truly repent or to drop their pretenses of being Christian.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      Femmy,

      “The churches I go to have traditional conservative women.”

      What church do you attend?!?

      “I’m suggesting small cities of 200,000 pop. They are the best for finding a mate.”

      A city of 200,000 is only considered “small” in Asia. I assume that’s where you’re from.

      Like

  7. cameron232 says:

    I can’t tell you what fraction of SSPX, FSSP and ICKSP girls are virgin brides vs. ex-CC riders but I’m fairly confident it’s considerably lower than in most N.O. parishes. I think you could do worse than St. Mary’s (or Maple Hill next door).

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Tell us what those initials stand for.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Society of St. Pius X
        Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
        Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
        Novus Ordo (modern Catholics)

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        How are any of these women free for marriage? If they’re in religious orders they’ve taken vows of celibacy, yes?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “If they’re in religious orders they’ve taken vows of celibacy, yes?”

        It’s not that kind of order. They’re more like denominations under the umbrella of Catholicism. The community I mentioned at Saint Mary’s is SSPX. You can read more about them in this article I’ve posted before.

        The Atlantic: The Christian Withdrawal Experiment (2020-01)

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes those are priestly societies. Traditional Catholics. I think the important thing is they are consciously counter cultural.

        Like

  8. Random Angeleno says:

    Most men don’t have the luxury of relocating unless they have little to lose or they are geographically independent.

    Men do have to own the circumstances they find themselves in.

    Just as women have to own the choice to not notice the eligible men nearby.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      That’s a load of crap. Relocating isn’t a “luxury”. As I replied to Deti, my parents moved our family to an entirely different country, where they didn’t even speak the language, when my dad was 50. They did it to give their children a better life. Surely a married man with children can move to another town, or another state, with the same language, to give his children a better life. We do it all the time for work, after all.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Relocating is a luxury. I can’t take my six figure income with me. Is someone going to do do that for me? Am I going to start over and build a new practice elsewhere at 53?

        Best I can do here is send my kids on to greener pastures and follow them when I can retire.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        The other thing is, sure, a guy can relocate to one of those communities … where he’ll most likely find that most of the “Christian” women are rejecting him, and having sex with the nonChristian men in the community.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “I can’t take my six figure income with me.”

        What’s more important to you? Your six-figure income, or your kids’ odds of finding a good, Christian spouse?

        “Is someone going to do do that for me?”

        Why would you need them to?

        “Am I going to start over and build a new practice elsewhere at 53?”

        My dad did, under far worse circumstances.

        “The other thing is, sure, a guy can relocate to one of those communities … where he’ll most likely find that most of the “Christian” women are rejecting him, and having sex with the nonChristian men in the community.”

        Ever heard of recon?

        Like

      • Random Angeleno says:

        Your dad likely had no more than $50 and the clothes on his back when he and his family got here. Under those circumstances, yes, any other place will do to get away from the crappy place one might be in. Or else, why are we getting so many migrants from south of the border?

        But there are many with ties to their current circumstances that run deep enough to make relocation difficult at best, which was the point Deti was making. For instance, I’d like to move out of the blue state I live in, but my elderly mother isn’t going anywhere and she’s almost at the point of needing more of my time. It is what it is and I own that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Cosign you, RA.

        Yeah, if things get bad enough in this blue state, I’ll go. Right now I’ve got a kid in high school and elderly parents who will need us. I also stand to lose literally hundreds of thousands of dollars – that’s money my family needs to eat.

        I’m already doing all I can do. I can’t do any more. Demanding more of me is patently unreasonable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        People who say, “Just move”, (1) Don’t know the costs associated with it; (2) Are low income, in sh!tty jobs, and are definitely not business owners; (3) Are disconnected from the realities of the current economy.

        Professionals can’t just up and move to another state to start anew. What happens is that you now become low guy on the totem pole.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Lexet

        “People who say, “Just move”, (1) Don’t know the costs associated with it; (2) Are low income, in sh!tty jobs, and are definitely not business owners; (3) Are disconnected from the realities of the current economy.”

        None of which describes me.

        “Professionals can’t just up and move to another state to start anew. What happens is that you now become low guy on the totem pole.”

        Yeah. Sometimes you do. That’s what happened to my dad when he moved his family to a whole other country where his engineering degree wasn’t recognized, and he couldn’t speak the language well enough to work as an engineer anyway.

        As I keep saying, it’s a matter of priorities. What’s more important to you?

        @ Deti,

        “Yeah, if things get bad enough in this blue state, I’ll go.”

        See what I mean?

        @ RA,

        “Your dad likely had no more than $50 and the clothes on his back when he and his family got here. Under those circumstances, yes, any other place will do to get away from the crappy place one might be in.”

        Isn’t if funny how people’s reaction to seeing someone in far worse circumstances doing what they won’t do is, “If I was in those circumstances, I’d do it too”? Why isn’t the reaction more like, “His circumstances are far worse than mine, so if he can do it, so can I”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar,

        “As I keep saying, it’s a matter of priorities. What’s more important to you?”

        Bingo. And it’s OK to have differing priorities. A man can recognize the value of living in a predominantly Christian community without feeling called to live in one himself. I continue to work in a role where I make less than I could elsewhere, but that gives me enough freedom to allow me to be involved with my family the way I want to be.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Joe2 says:

    The other thing is, sure, a guy can relocate to one of those communities … where he’ll most likely find that most of the “Christian” women are rejecting him, and having sex with the non-Christian men in the community.

    Sure you can relocate to one of those communities, but will you be accepted as an equal in the community and church or always viewed as an outsider? I know from my own personal experience and that of friends smaller communities (especially in more rural areas) tend to be insular and only have interest in those who have roots in the area. Families can go back generations and most in the community are in some way related to others in the community.

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Sure you can relocate to one of those communities, but will you be accepted as an equal in the community and church or always viewed as an outsider? I know from my own personal experience and that of friends smaller communities (especially in more rural areas) tend to be insular and only have interest in those who have roots in the area. Families can go back generations and most in the community are in some way related to others in the community.

      In this way they’re really no different from the typical churchian franchise, where a tiny handful of “founders/founding families” are a clique that holds all power, makes all decisions, and associate amongst themselves. Everyone else is a NPC.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Yep. I live very close to one such secular community. People from outside the community who purchase homes there are viewed with suspicion and distrust for at least a decade. You have to have lived there that long even to begin to be viewed as part of the community.

      So, yeah, I know I’m a negative Nancy, but I don’t care. I asked for Oscar’s friend’s email so I could talk to him. You would think that people would be absolutely clamoring for like minded Christians to move there … but the resistance to getting his contact info speaks volumes to me. He’s not really interested in new people coming alongside him. These communities are insular and provincial and extremely unwelcoming of newcomers.

      Well, I’m not doing everything. Others are going to have to do some of the movement.

      Women can start by actually dating and marrying the Christian men they claim to want. They can start by making THAT their SOP — not their usual MO of spreading their legs for Harley McBadboy and Frank Fratboy on Saturday nights, then a few hours later, turning up their noses at the men sitting around them in the pews.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink. It’s a lesson most people forget. Sometimes you just have to put up with and survive sh!tty situations. Stop buying BS from YouTubers who say that everything is a problem you can solve by acting. That’s not true.

        These mythical perfect churches don’t exist. The entire visible church in the west is rotten to its very core. It’s built on a tax code that subordinates Christ to the federal government. Pastors get paid a ton of money because the wealthy get a tax deduction for giving. The poor are compelled to give to fulfill their “duties.” Pastors are controlled by their congregations because they come from seminaries that recruit their students out of high school. Scriptural qualifications for pastors and teachers has been abandoned. The sermon is now entertainment not subject to review by a cautious audience, also contrary to scripture.

        There is just not a single d@mn thing about American church culture that is in alignment with scripture.

        And that includes the cult communities listed earlier and the Ozark region of the United States.

        They all enjoy tax exempt status and are led by individuals with a personal following and high income.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “People from outside the community who purchase homes there are viewed with suspicion and distrust for at least a decade. You have to have lived there that long even to begin to be viewed as part of the community.”

        “He’s not really interested in new people coming alongside him. These communities are insular and provincial and extremely unwelcoming of newcomers.”

        I lived in southern Maryland for a year, and it was the same way. I (and other newcomers I knew) were treated like second-class citizens — avoided in social settings, not taken seriously at work, passed over for job offers and promotions, and people always assumed the worst of me (us) and treated me with suspicion. On a couple instances, when I thought I had gained acceptance by a couple local individuals, I went to visit them at their homes in the evening after dark (which is something that friends commonly do where I come from), but instead of welcoming me into their homes, they called the police on me. (One was a girl I was seeing, and the other was the pastor of the church I was attending.) They knew it was me, because they gave my name to the police. They did not press any charges, but the police called me and asked me what I was doing. It sure made it clear to me that I was not as accepted as I believed. Because no one was willing to trust me, it was really hard for me to trust anyone while I was living in that area. After a year and a half, I eventually said “the ħɘ11 with this place”, and I got a new job elsewhere. The only local guy I made friends with during that time was a tobacco farmer who hunted deer and squirrels with WW2 rifles (and ate them), and who was roundly regarded as a hic.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “I asked for Oscar’s friend’s email so I could talk to him. You would think that people would be absolutely clamoring for like minded Christians to move there … but the resistance to getting his contact info speaks volumes to me. He’s not really interested in new people coming alongside him. These communities are insular and provincial and extremely unwelcoming of newcomers.”

        Really? Then how did I become his friend? I’m not from Missouri. I’m not even from the USA.

        Again, what am I supposed to believe? Anonymous randos on the internet, or my own lying eyes?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “These mythical perfect churches don’t exist.”

        Who said anything about “perfect”?

        “There is just not a single d@mn thing about American church culture that is in alignment with scripture.

        And that includes the cult communities listed earlier and the Ozark region of the United States.”

        Yeah, every church is a cult. Every church is wrong. The only pure one who knows what’s right is Lexet. Boy, it’s a good thing you didn’t live in 1st century Corinth, or Ephesus, or Galatia, or Thessalonica, or Crete, or pretty much anywhere else for that matter.

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Especially in the south. The congregation will never accept you unless you heavily fund it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Caution here Lexet … funding a congregation, i.e. tithing, is an act of worship. I won’t be so naïve to think that big donors aren’t noticed, but I will say that being faithful with your tithing, regardless of your income level, does tend to get recognized.

        What I found to be more crucial in being accepted in a close knit group, is if you are similar to the people who are already in the group. I chose my little area of the South because people are overly passionate about college football, are loyal to a fault to their preferred truck brand (Ford or Chevy) and love to hunt and fish. It took a little while for them to get to know me, because I’m a natural introvert, but once common interests were discovered, nobody cared that I was a transplant from around NYC.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Opposite experience. They hate anyone who isn’t from their community or grew up in their churches. You are just a tool for them to use. They are all dirt bags

        Liked by 2 people

  10. thedeti says:

    I have no problem whatsoever with women not being attracted to the men they go to church with.

    What I do have a problem with is women’s lying, fraud, deceit, and hypocrisy in passing themselves off as devout Christians while having sex with nonChristian men.

    I have a problem with Christian women complaining incessantly about how“there are no good Christian men”, when what they really mean is “there are no hot, good looking, confident, professionally successful, productive Christian men earning $100,000/year or more, who are falling to one knee and offering me marriage right off the bat.”

    I have a problem with Christian women who see no moral impediment to having sex with attractive nonChristian men, or with men who are all of the above, sans the “Christian” part.

    I have a problem with Christian women who have sex with nonChristian men and then justify it with “Well, men are doing it too”, and “You just don’t understand him, he’s a good guy”, and “maybe I’ll get him to come to church”.

    Christian women: Just own it. Just admit to what everyone except your pastor and your mother knows you’re doing. Just fess up already.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “Just admit to what everyone except your pastor and your mother knows you’re doing. Just fess up already.”

      I’m sure their mamas and their pastors are fully aware of what they’re doing, they’re just never going to hold them accountable for it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • anonymous_ng says:

      @Deti, do you remember there was a guy who commented at Dalrock’s occasionally who claimed to be Orthodox Christian in the LA/Hollywood area? He mentioned there was a man at his parish who worked in Hollywood. Once that guy got married, a bunch of women in the congregation married in short order. His conclusion was that they were all holding out in the hope that this man would choose them, but once he didn’t, they took their next best option.

      Orthodoxy does have a “where are all the good men/women?” problem, as most parishes are tiny in comparison to your average non-denomination/evangelical church. My home parish averages 200 people for liturgy most Sundays, and I can’t think of more than about 10 people between the ages of 20 and 30 in the entire congregation.

      The solution is to check out the people at other parishes during pan-Orthodox vespers or one of the various cultural days, or find someone who is willing to convert to Orthodoxy and take your chances.

      Like

  11. feeriker says:

    “Women can start by actually dating and marrying the Christian men they claim to want. They can start by making THAT their SOP – not their usual MO of spreading their legs for Harley McBadboy and Frank Fratboy on Saturday nights, then a few hours later, turning up their noses at the men sitting around them in the pews.”

    I don’t think that it’s incorrect, excessive, or unrealistic to say that most of the REAL Christian women are already married to REAL Christian men. The hordes of single women in the churches who aren’t already married either (1) aren’t making marriage and family a priority, all of their EAP rhetoric to the contrary, or (2) are shagging non-Christian bad boys outside of the church because their “faith” is false front. Of course 1 and 2 are by no means mutually exclusive.

    Liked by 2 people

    • anonymous_ng says:

      @feeriker, BINGO!!!

      One thing I’ve noticed since getting divorced and trolling the girl catalog (online dating sites), there seems to be a dearth of attractive, conservative women in my local area. The conclusion I’ve come to is that they, more so than their liberal counterparts, aren’t crazy and haven’t blown up their marriages. It’s a selection bias if you will.

      Then, to agree with your point, women who prioritize marriage, weren’t too choosy, found someone, and got married. As you noted, those who are left aren’t that serious about it.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. rontomlinson2 says:

    Thanks, Deti and Jack.

    “A Word to Women: We want you to trust us. We want you to care about us. And we want you to cooperate with us and submit to us.”

    Very true. I’ve always been moved to love, protect and go the extra mile for those very few, feminine women who have put their trust in me. By contrast, if a woman implies that I may be some sort of abuser… Well, I think this is the most offensive thing possible.

    “She adds an unbearable amount of stress, so he seeks to reduce it by limiting contact with her…”

    Yes. Though it can be tricky. Sometimes ‘limiting contact’ necessitates a certain minimum amount of contact. Hence cultivating aloofness is important. Any tips?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      “Sometimes ‘limiting contact’ necessitates a certain minimum amount of contact. Hence cultivating aloofness is important. Any tips?”

      I wrote a post on this over a year ago.

      How to Develop an Attitude of Detachment (2020-07-10)

      Liked by 1 person

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        Thanks. I actually invested in Cloud and Townsend in response to that article, but to my shame I haven’t yet read it!

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Rontomlinson2,

      “She adds an unbearable amount of stress, so he seeks to reduce it by limiting contact with her…”

      “Yes. Though it can be tricky. Sometimes ‘limiting contact’ necessitates a certain minimum amount of contact. Hence cultivating aloofness is important. Any tips?”

      Since I actually lived this and came out the other side I can tell you what I did wrong and how I fixed it. I let Mrs. Apostle’s behavior get to me, which is understandable since we were married already and leaving, while possible, had a large cost. My reactions were certainly not of the aloof kind. It is my belief that my reactions confirmed for her that we were equals in marital authority. You want to avoid this with any woman you are in a relationship with, dating or married, because it usually does not end well.

      Being aloof implies an aspect of not caring, which is not good for relationships. I tried this and I came off as distant and flippant. What I found worked is an attitude of being unaffected in an authoritative way. Christ models this for us in that He is constant and loving in how He corrects us and it is always with an attitude of the shepherd of lost sheep in that He expects us to be dumb and helpless.

      With my wife the easiest way for me to describe the attitude of being unaffected by her is how a parent deals with a child’s mistakes. When a child misbehaves the parent knows they have to correct the behavior. When they temper their admonitions with the understanding that it’s a child who is going to make age appropriate mistakes, this is the attitude I’m referring to. The mistakes are expected and the corrections are made with the child’s best interests at heart. When I realized that applying headship meant expecting certain follies from my wife because she is a woman, being unaffected by her follies and gently correcting them, the rate of progress increased.

      Here is a real example of what I am talking about. In the past she would argue with me that when I take a certain action it makes her do whatever it is she does. This is her admitting to me that, like a child, she does not have control over herself (agency), which I now correctly recognize as merely an excuse for her to justify poor behavior. About 5 months ago, she tried to pull this and I told her that she’s either an adult with control over her own behavior or she’s not, and that my actions can only make it harder or easier for her, but do not make her act a certain way. I haven’t heard a behavior justification along this line of thought since, which brings me to how this applies in a dating relationship.

      If you are dating a woman, use the same unaffected attitude with her behavior, as if you expect if from her, because you should. Obviously don’t put up with it by setting your boundaries and expectations in a calm way to correct the fault in her. How she responds will be telling. If she arrogantly refuses your input, move on. But if she is willing to take the correction and really does work on herself, you might have a decent woman on your hands.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        “Being aloof implies an aspect of not caring, which is not good for relationships…”

        Nice distinction, thank you.

        Like

  13. thedeti says:

    As for the post:

    What this should show is that the success of a relationship depends just as much on the woman’s conduct, reactions, responses, and mindset.

    — Men, do not pick women you have to “win over”. If you have to do this much work to make a relationship work, she’s not attracted to you and doesn’t want you. She’s using you.

    — Men, you’re not responsible for her reactions and responses. She is. If she isn’t responding to you and your actions, if she will not hold up her end of the relationship, you need to end the relationship.

    — She has to carry her weight in the marriage. You cannot do it for her. You also have to hold her to account for her responsibilities to you. If she’s not carrying them, call her out on it, point blank and tell her she needs to fix it, right now, or there will be no more marriage.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “…she has to carry her weight in the marriage. You cannot do it for her.”

      If you are married already, God gave you a wife to be a help. Make sure you are letting her know what you need help with so she knows what weight to carry. It’s part of guiding the ship.

      “You also have to hold her to account for her responsibilities to you. If she’s not carrying them, call her out on it, point blank and tell her she needs to fix it, right now, or there will be no more marriage.”

      Well said. I’d add that husbands should use a little wisdom here. If she is honestly trying and slips up, that is something you can live with as you, as the husband, grow in headship, and she, as the wife, grows in submission.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      “What this should show is that the success of a relationship depends just as much on the woman’s conduct, reactions, responses, and mindset.”

      Yep. Women are not just responders. Everyone responds to others’ behaviors.

      Women are human beings who bear God’s image (come at me, Sharkly!), and are therefore endowed with free will, moral agency, and moral responsibility.

      If you’re a man, choose accordingly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar – The moral agency aspect of women is interesting. When authority of husband’s and father’s in Numbers 30 is combined with Sarah lying at Abraham’s request and the sin not necessarily counting against her, but apparently against Abraham, we are left with headship seemingly having more authority in God’s understanding, even over female agency, than we in modern times think.

        I have not yet fully thought through where I stand regarding the application of this particular topic. That being said, I still treat Mrs. Apostle as if she is fully culpable for her choices, even if only for purely functional reasons in the imperfect world we inhabit. The more I read and think about headship, the more I am humbled and grateful for the implications of Jesus’ sacrifice in my life and the more I believe we underestimate the authority of God ordained headship.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Since you asked:

        Nowhere does the Bible ever say that any living woman or women are the image of the Father, the Son, or their united masculine Spirit. You’re just misreading God’s words to suit your Feminism.

        Here is what the Bible does clearly say:

        1 Corinthians 11:7
        For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

        First you make incorrect assumptions as to what the image of God is, and then you say that women must have it because of your false assumptions. For starters, it appears that you don’t know what an “image” is. An “image” is a visible representation of something which almost always can actually be seen, but is occasionally something seen in the imagination. “Free will, moral agency, and moral responsibility”, are all invisible concepts that do not constitute an image at all.

        This heresy of emasculating God or making God a hermaphrodite, by saying women are His image, was definitely not the belief of the first churches.
        Ambrosiaster clearly stated the early church’s position: “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. … A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

        Falsely attributing the image of God to women is the foundational basis of Feminism. If you foist upon women the image of the most high God, because there can be no image higher, that obviously makes them equal to men in the absolutely highest possible way. And thus it becomes a slavery for them to serve men and marriage is no longer a helper serving her superior, but becomes one equal subjected and enslaved to serve one no better than herself. The husband no longer is reverenced as the glorious image of God, but is viewed as a usurping tyrant ruling only by the unmerited fiat of a vindictive God. To truly appreciate marriage you have to understand that the man is superior and it is righteous holy and in everybody’s best interest for him to maintain the exalted headship in marriage, just as Christ is superior to His ever straying church.

        Answer me this: In Ephesians 5, where the husband images Jesus Christ and the wife images the church, which is the image of God?

        Here are a couple personal resources to help you straighten that out:

        — Laughing at Feminism: Sharkly — Heresiarch or Church Reformer? (2019-10-15)
        — Laughing at Feminism: Genesis 5:1-5 (2020-11-17)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Falsely attributing the image of God to women is the foundational basis of Feminism.”

        No, dude. Marxism is the foundational basis of Feminism.

        “The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” ~ Fredrick Engels, coauthor of The Communist Manifesto

        “It is a peculiar fact that with every great revolutionary movement the question of ‘free love’ comes to the foreground.” ~ Fredrick Engels, coauthor of The Communist Manifesto

        “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital” ~ The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels

        “If you foist upon women the image of the most high God…”

        I didn’t foist anything on anyone.

        “Answer me this: In Ephesians 5, where the husband images Jesus Christ and the wife images the church, which is the image of God?”

        Both. Men reflect God’s image like a mirror reflects a person’s image. Women reflect men’s image just as a mirror reflecting another mirror’s image. But, whose image is the first mirror reflecting? God’s, obviously. So, whose image is the second mirror reflecting? God’s, obviously.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA

        If a toddler can be held accountable for his/her actions, then so can a grown woman.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Sharkly,

        “An “image” is a visible representation of something which almost always can actually be seen, but is occasionally something seen in the imagination. “Free will, moral agency, and moral responsibility”, are all invisible concepts that do not constitute an image at all.”

        I disagree. “Free will, moral agency, and moral responsibility” are aspects of humanity that resemble the same characteristics of God. If you insist that “the image of God” only includes what can be seen or visualized in the imagination, then that excludes the grand majority of attributes that mankind shares in common with God.

        Moreover, the crux of your argument is to discount any claim that women are made in the image of God. We have argued about this before. Although I agree with your main message of Headship and the grand majority of your talking points, I staunchly disagree with the overall tone and tenor you take of dishonoring women as a sex, not because of what they do (which is justified in many cases), but because of who they are. 1 Peter 3:7 says we should honor our wives and live with them in an understanding way. But you seem to regard this as being the same thing as pedestalization and woman worship.

        Furthermore, the idea that women are infernally inferior is one of your talking points that you often revert to, and it is hardly related to the topic of this post. If you wish to continue with this topic, please do so at your own place. Many of my readers are also your readers, so I’m sure your message will not be missed by them.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Oscar says:

        “No, dude. Marxism is the foundational basis of Feminism.”

        “The first condition of the liberation of the wife is …”

        Feminism and its foundation obviously goes back further than Marxism. Clearly Mr. Engels already considered it a common opinion that women needed liberation from God’s holy patriarchal kingdom. And why? Because they were supposedly enslaved. And why? Because women supposedly are equal to men, and so it would not be fitting for them to be under subjection to their equals.

        Colossians 3:18
        Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

        Feminism goes clear back to Eve’s usurping and is based upon her envy of Adam’s and God’s existence being above hers. Adam was like God, or made in the likeness of God, and Eve wanted to be like God also. She was deceived, but, Adam was not deceived, he ate the forbidden fruit because his wife gave it to him, even though God had told Him it wasn’t for them to eat.

        In the early church, the unanimous belief of the early church was that women were not in the image of God. Feminists today call the early church fathers, “misogynists” because they believed that women professing godliness should be shamefaced, as the scripture also tells us. (1 Timothy 2:9) However, Feminism crept into the church at Rome (around 380 A.D.) with women being claimed to be in the image of deity so that Mary could become a substitute deity for forcibly converted goddess worshippers in Rome. Mary then was made co-equal with Christ, and co-redeemer, and so on. The reformation rolled Mary’s divinity back, but didn’t take the image of God back away from women.

        I totally agree that Marxism is evil and promotes the worst of Feminism, but it isn’t the foundation of Feminism, the lie of sexual equality, or the quest for sexual equality is the bedrock of Feminism. Engels wanted women freed from subjection so they could become equal, because the Feminist foundational idea that women should be equal to men was already present in society to be drawn upon.

        1 Corinthians 11:7
        For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

        The woman does not reflect the image of man, but the woman is the glory of man. Surely God is not that poor of an author that He has accidentally spent the entire Bible not saying that women reflect His image while saying that men do. No, it is on purpose that God identifies always as male. Wives do not merit the same reverence (Ephesians 5:33) a wife should give her husband. Wives are just to be honored as heirs together with men of the grace of eternal life. But today’s women firstly need to be humbled from their arrogance.

        Tertullian wrote of women:

        “And do you not know that you are Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.”

        Jack, yes, we disagree on where the pedestal starts. The primary reason I’m here responding about this topic is because Oscar challenged me, by name, to defend my beliefs here. Oscar said:

        “Women are human beings who bear God’s image (come at me, Sharkly!) …”

        I’d be happy to discuss the difference between God’s image and God’s invisible attributes with Oscar or others at my site, and I have many posts on the topic including the two I previously linked. I consider it a privilege to defend God the Father and the Son against those who would neuter their masculinity and thereby even blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Himself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Sharkly,

        “Jack, yes, we disagree on where the pedestal starts.”

        I would be very interested in reading a post from you that explores how you interpret 1 Peter 3:7, and what you believe about where “honoring wives and living with them in an understanding way” ends and pedestalization begins, and why you think so.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar, I wish it were so. Modern (early modern if you prefer) feminism was a thing in England and parts of Anglo-America before Marx, Engels, et. al. It actually goes much further back in England, at least in certain circles. The men you mention were great popularizers of others’ ideas.

        It kills me to write that since I’m an Anglophile.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “I would be very interested in reading a post from you that explores how you interpret 1 Peter 3:7 …”

        Thanks for the promo! Here it is, and it’s a doozy!

        Laughing at Feminism: God hears husbands! (2020-03-28)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Sharkly wrote,

        “Oscar challenged me, by name, to defend my beliefs here.”

        That’s true, so if anyone derailed the conversation, it was me. Sorry about that, Jack.

        Sharkly: We’ve sparred over this issue multiple times on multiple blogs, but sparring is what you do with your own teammates.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “I would be very interested in reading … what you believe about where “honoring wives and living with them in an understanding way” ends and pedestalization begins, and why you think so.”

        Well the short answer is that “living with them in an understanding way”, is a major godly portion of the essence that drives the quest for Red Pill knowledge and a large portion of the end goal of both the Christian and secular Manosphere. Whether married, MGTOW, or an incel, we all need to learn how to deal with women wisely.

        As far as honoring wives or women, I generally think we as a society are drowning in the worship of the female sex. The worth-ship given to womankind by hearkening to and obeying the woman above obeying our own Creator was the original sin that got the whole earth cursed. And God’s first of 10 commandment was then to put no others before Him, which was exactly what the first sin had been, putting a woman’s wishes above God’s. Men are too very prone to fall back into that sin. It is often a sin of complacency, in that it seems easier to give in to a woman than to fight a constant battle against her manipulations and her quest for more control.

        All this talk of women having low self-esteem is just a satanic lie. I have never known a woman who was too humble. I can’t say that I have even heard of one. And quite frankly, I’m not sure if it is possible for a woman to be too humble. The early church fathers didn’t exalt women:

        “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.” ~ Clement of Alexandria

        Anyhow, since our world’s problems started with the worship of women, and still today so much of our problem is putting women’s wicked desires above God’s, and since there are a million woman-worshiping churchian pastors already out there praising and adoring womankind and White-knighting for their wickedness, I think it is counter productive for me to publicly say things to further honor women, besides just acknowledging that they are also heirs of the grace of God. To flatter women is a self-serving sin. Flattering women is corrosive to a holy and patriarchal society. I have no desire to make things worse by bolstering the vanity and arrogance of womankind.

        Clement of Alexandria would have thought that you were pedestalizing women if you didn’t agree that, “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.” I have come to discover that he is absolutely correct in his Godly statement. The defilers should not be proud but penitent. If you are saying things that might likely turn a woman from a proper attitude of godly shamefacedness or might likely lessen her penitence, you are doing that defiler’s soul a disservice for your own selfish reasons.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “What this should show is that the success of a relationship depends just as much on the woman’s conduct, reactions, responses, and mindset.”

      True. Any LTR that works you’ll find a woman in it whose ‘conduct, reactions, responses and mindset’ are predisposed to making it work. I’m talking here about LTRs that work, not the one’s that don’t work, e.g. staying together just for the kids sake until their grown, or one’s involving a dead bedroom, etc. The woman is actively involved in making it work because, well I guess just because she wants to, e.g. she believes in marriage or she’s committed to her marriage or something or other.

      “Men, do not pick women you have to “win over”. If you have to do this much work to make a relationship work, she’s not attracted to you and doesn’t want you. She’s using you.”

      I’m increasingly coming to see this in real life examples surrounding me. I live in an area where there are a number of successful marriages, quite a few of them involving couples under 40 years old. As I thought through each one of them, the one thing that occurs to me as a COMMON DENOMINATOR among them is that the wife looks up to the husband. I mean, some of these guys are what we’d call beta, and by that I don’t mean they have no masculine qualities whatsoever, what I mean is that they don’t appear to me to be what we’d stereotypically refer to as alpha males. But the way the wife looks at him, with the loving submissive gaze, he might as well be alpha. And let me tell you, a number of these women are 7s and 8s, and I’d put their husbands as 6s or 7s, maybe (on a good day). But the way these younger wives look at their husbands, you’d think they were 9s. I think, good on you man, foxy mama bear is really into you and your kids (and hers).

      It still happens. But then again, I live in a town of around 80,000, not a big city, maybe that has something to do with it. When I drive two hours north to the big city, Atlanta, I don’t see much, if any of this, that we’ve got going on down here in middle Georgia.

      Like

    • anonymous_ng says:

      These are good points. One thing I’ve had to learn in the OLD realm is that if I have to drag a conversation out of her, she’s not really interested, or if she is, this is a harbinger of what life will be like with her, and I don’t want that.

      If you try and make plans to get together and she’s busy, once is a conflict of schedules, twice is a red flag, three times and she’s just not that into you.

      Guys really need to learn these truths. It took me a long darned time to learn them.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. RICanuck says:

    There was earlier discussion of the good Christian women in church looking for a Christian husband. Oscar mentioned some communities, while Deti shared a great deal of cynicism about single Christian women.

    An online friend, a former Catholic seminarian is so disgusted by the Catholic Church he decided to explore liturgical Protestantism; Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans etc.

    He started going to an AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church. He liked the enthusiasm, the vibrancy, and the heart trust in Jesus that the congregants have. There was a surplus of ‘good Christian women’ who seemed very friendly and approachable. Now, granted a certain proportion were single mothers. He even had an elder talk to him about how the lowest divorce rate according to the Census Bureau’s racial categorizations was white husband/black wife.

    He left that church after about six months because he felt under pressure. He feels too badly damaged to consider himself as a husband and father. He has no faith in family life because of a weak father and his mother taking the side of Fr. McCreepy.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      Your friend dodged a bullet.

      For starters, the mainline Protestant denominations are ALL rotten through and through with heresy and modernism. Second, while the “enthusiasm” of churches like the AME might be “infectious” (at least, if your worship of the Father depends on emotional highs), the theology of such churches is, to put it politely, “shallow.” I’m not picking on black churches here; their white counterparts are in just as deplorable a condition.

      Had your friend stuck around that AME church for more than six months, he would probably have witnessed scandal, drama, and ugliness that would’ve tempted him to run back to the Catholic church.

      Like

  15. Pingback: Summary of the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: A Volitional Model of Cascade Courtship | 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