Love, marriage, and sex.
Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill / Misunderstood Models
Length: 1,750 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes
Love, Marriage, Sex, and Sanctification
Outside of marriage, sex and romantic love inevitably lead to heartache, bitterness, and ultimately perdition. Marriage provides the context in which sex is confined to its many purposes and is thus honorable, and love can be preserved. Therefore, we say that marriage sanctifies the individuals sharing love and participating in sex.
But today, the world believes that romantic love provides the context in which sex is most consuming, ingratiating, and satisfying, and marriage is worthwhile. Therefore, it is assumed that romantic love is what sanctifies marriage and sex. Extramarital sex is acceptable if one is “in love” with one’s paramour. Nuptial vows have been reduced to nothing more than a declaration of love for one another. When love evaporates, then it is logical to break up or divorce so that one is free to fall in love again. That is why vows are carelessly discarded on the basis of what people FEEL about the relationship.
St. Dalrock was perhaps the first to bring to our attention / awareness that this modern worship of aphrodite* is not only preeminent in Western culture but also in the converged church. In his post, Does romantic love sanctify married sex? (2018/11/20), Dalrock reveals that Pastor Tim Bayly’s stance aligns with the cultural / worldly belief that romantic love is what sanctifies marriage and sex, while the Bible tells us it is marriage that sanctifies love and sex.
* Aphrodite (see image at right) is an ancient Greek goddess associated with love, lust, sex, beauty, pleasure, desire, fertility, passion, procreation, prosperity, and victory. She was also the patron goddess of pr0st!tutes. Her syncretized Roman goddess counterpart is Venus.
Here, Dalrock writes,
“This isn’t to say that romantic love in marriage is bad. To the contrary, it is truly wonderful! But it isn’t sanctifying. It is marriage that sanctifies romantic love and sex, but in our modern rebellion we have twisted this around and assert that romantic love sanctifies marriage and sex.
Pastor Bayly has much company in his assertion that romantic love sanctifies sex. This is the overwhelming consensus in the secular world, and is the moral basis for both g@y marriage and no fault divorce. Moreover, this perversion is the overwhelming consensus in the complementarian Christian world as well, even as they deny the logical conclusions of the perversion.”
I am usually in full agreement with most all of Dalrock’s main arguments, but I disagree with a couple parts of this essay.
Can G@y Marriage be Sanctified?
My first disagreement is merely a quibble or perhaps just a more precise explanation.
Dalrock said the idea that romantic love sanctifies sex is the moral basis for g@y marriage, but the mental gymnastics required to arrive at such a conclusion are more complex than this. It is true that g@ys think romantic love sanctifies sex, but this is not their moral basis for g@y marriage. Instead, they have used this idea to identify with the wider culture’s idolatrous emphasis on ‘love’ and thereby gain popular acceptance and recognition of g@y marriage.
The reason they want marriage is to gain a sense of dignity and pseudo-morality, to use this legal status as an acceptable cover for their abominable activities, and to obtain the attached legal rights and social recognition.
G@y marriage is not a Christian relationship / Covenant marriage, and is therefore a misnomer that contains a moral contradiction. But if we allow for this redefinition of ‘marriage’ for the sake of discussion, then it is more (but not explicitly) accurate to say that g@y marriage is what sanctifies the g@y individuals sharing love and participating in sex, which is the correct line of reasoning concerning marriage in general. Interestingly, this is closer to the Biblical ideal than that of our rebellious culture’s, so the g@y community is countercultural in this regard. It is amazing to think that g@ys are more Biblical about the purpose of marriage than the converged church (e.g. Bayly, et al.).
But when g@ys want to divorce, they’ll revert to the cultural ‘love’ programming to explain their motivations and to justify it.
What is “Good Sex”?
My second disagreement is more significant.
Dalrock’s post cited Pastor Tim Bayly’s post on Warhorn media, Authority and submission: muscles needing exercise (2018/11/17). In this essay, Dalrock compared Bayly’s approach to Milton’s, and shows that they both agree that romantic love sanctifies sex. Dalrock compares this view to St. Augustine’s and St. Jerome’s shared agreement that passionate sex in marriage was disgraceful.
Dalrock wrote,
“Both sets of teachings are wrong, and you won’t find them in the Bible:
- That sex with passion in marriage is a sin. (Jerome and Augustine)
- That sex without romantic passion in marriage is a sin. (Milton and Bayly)
I objected to this post because Dalrock used the words, (1) “with passion”, (2) “without… passion”, and (3) “in marriage”, to make it appear as though these two views (1) are the diametric opposite, and (2) both pertain to marriage. But in fact, they are not and do not, respectively. They are both very objective discussions of what makes sex “good” under two different contexts.
The first issue of confusion revolves around the context of “good sex” and what this entails. I dissected this question before in The Mosh Pit of Sex Analysists (2019/3/24). Some relevant exerpts have been updated here in blue text.
I was not alone in this objection. David Gudeman at Brain Legions criticized Dalrock’s arguments in his post, Sex and the Straw Man — an Exercise in Logic (2019/2/10). Gudeman also identified Dalrock’s error in reference to Bayly’s nebulous concept of “good sex”, but then he got sidetracked in the analysis.
We can only assume that “good” means deeply gratifying, and not the other meaning of moral good. This would agree with Dalrock’s running point that brutish passion makes sex good. See Dalrock: Like a rutting buck (2016/12/21).
For example, some men might say spinning plates with BPDs is “good sex”, while others would say marital bliss is “good sex”. (We could add other perverse forms of “good sex” to the list, again depending on the context and one’s spiritual constitution. PS: Thedeti has added 3 more female views of “good sex” in the comments below.)
To spell this out in scientific detail…
- PUA Spinning Plates = “good sex” = brutish passion absent of love (c.f. Jerome and Augustine)
- Marital Bliss = “good sex” = Romantic Love (Milton and Bayly)
To edit Dalrock’s points for the sake of accuracy, these two views could be better represented as follows.
- That extramarital sex with brutish passion is absent of love. (c.f. Jerome and Augustine)
- That sex without romantic love in marriage is emotionally unfulfilling. (Milton and Bayly)
Moving on, the second area of confusion is whether both arguments truthfully pertain to marriage.
Both Jerome and Augustine drew these conclusions after their conversion and in the context of marriage (which Dalrock accurately conveys). However, both men’s marriages followed years of sexual promiscuity. Although this is speculation, I tend to believe their sexual sins before conversion had corrupted their appreciation of all sexual relations, such that they (1) had grown accustomed to associating brutish sexual passion with a lack of love for women (including their wives), and (2) attached the resultant guilt to the act of sex, even within the context of their marriages (or perhaps any context as suggested in their writings).
Defilement = Sanctification?
Many pastors and authors have committed a significant malfeasance surrounding their conceptualization of sanctification, in that they did not recognize all the following truths about sanctification.
- Sanctification (and/or defilement) is determined by the context within which sex, marriage, etc. occurs.
- Many things contribute towards sanctification, including commitment, marriage, self-sacrificial love, romantic love, passionate sex, having children, and perhaps others.
- The things that contribute towards one’s sanctification within marriage are also the same things that can contribute to one’s defilement outside of marriage. For example, sex sanctifies a wife to her husband, but if she were to have sex with another man, then this act of sex would make her defiled. A woman bearing a child would sanctify her in the context of her marriage to the father of the child and only in this context; whereas having a child out of wedlock renders her defiled in the eyes of other men seeking marriage.
- Combining points (2) and (3), however “good sex” might be defined by each individual with respect to context, the shared denominator is that the qualities that make sex “good” are the same qualities that characterize / reinforce either perdition (postulate 1 in the previous section) or sanctification (postulate 2).
- Moreover, sanctification (or perdition) is a state that is dependent on the context. But Dalrock, Bayly, et al. have described sanctification as a quality, instead of a state.
- It is PEOPLE (souls) who are in a sanctified or defiled state; NOT romantic love, sex, contractual marriage, g@y marriage, etc. as these pastors and authors have assumed.
Case Study — Love with No Make-Up Sex
I found an old comment from Derek L. Ramsey that got hung up in the moderation folder. It’s unfortunate that it was excluded from the discussion because he makes a couple noteworthy points of discernment on the place and importance of make-up sex.
Derek denied ever having make-up sex with his wife. He wrote,
“Sex doesn’t sanctify the relationship. As Dalrock said in his post, Does romantic love sanctify married sex? (2018/11/20).”
“Make-up sex is a fundamentally defective strategy. It puts the cart before the horse. The notion that sex can repair something that is broken in the relationship is backwards. It is a trendy psychological concept, sure, but it isn’t Christian.
“If we had sex to cover over disagreements, it would encourage a false sense of serenity. That’s not ideal. If all we needed was to have sex to behave properly to each other or to forgive each other, that’s not ideal either, nor is it biblical.”
Amazingly, Derek has recognized that the brutish passion that is characteristic of make up sex is absent of romantic love after a conflict (c.f. Jerome and Augustine), and that passionate sex without this romantic love is emotionally unfulfilling, nor does it fulfill the purpose of marriage, and thus, it is dishonorable and unbiblical (c.f. Milton and Bayly). He has miraculously juxtaposed and condensed Jerome, Augustine, Milton, and Bayly, and has proven Dalrock wrong IRL!
Another explanation is that Derek and his wife are both over the age of 70, have been married for over 50 years, and haven’t had sex in 10.
Related
- Eternity Matters: Churchgoers Who Support “Same-Sex Marriage” are Indistinguishable from the World (2024/4/12)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
A few thoughts:
Used to be that romantic love “sanctified” sex and marriage; i.e. romantic love was considered the only appropriate place for sex and marriage. Sex is “ok” if you love them. Marriage works only if there is “love”.
That’s not the case anymore. Now, it’s considered that sex, “good” sex, “sanctifies” love and marriage. The only appropriate place to experience satisfying love and marriage is with people who give you “good” sex. So, the logic goes, if you want to love someone or get married, you have to have (“good”) sex with them first. You can’t love someone unless you first have good sex with them. You cannot, or should not, marry unless the sex is good. If the sex ever becomes “not good”, you don’t love them, and the marriage fails. That’s the logic now.
________________
Something that’s happened a lot to the old AFC’s around here is “what is good sex” in marriage and “who decides” what “good” sex is in marriage. And it was always “she decides when the sex is good and what that is” and “we guys just take what we can get”. Most men here weren’t getting the kind of sex they wanted, and weren’t getting as much as they wanted. But, women and wives always complained about this because “brutish” sex, i.e. rutting like a buck, is “not nice” and “not Godly” and “not “God honoring” and “defiled”. (never mind that these women had absolutely no problem with Chad rutting like a buck on them.)
The problem was… wait for it…. these women married men they weren’t sexually attracted to. They married men less attractive than the objectively attractive men they enjoyed buck-rutting with. They don’t want Billy Beta rutting like a buck because, well, he’s not attractive. Billy doesn’t get to rut like a buck, like Chad and Tyrone did.
That’s just one of the problems here – it’s not that women don’t like buck rutting. It’s that they already did their buck rutting before marriage; and they married men they don’t want to buck rut with. So they call it “eww, nasty and defiled and gross and icky and sinful”.
It’s considered “sinful” because these women are married to men they just don’t want to have sex with.
LikeLiked by 5 people
In the church today, “good” sex is “nice” sex. ”God honoring” sex. ”Godly” sex. Making sweet love by candlelight, nice and slow. She doesn’t give you a blowie. Blowies are gross. See, she’s a nice Christian woman and married and so she doesn’t have to do that nasty stuff anymore. She ain’t putting that in her mouth. But you better go downtown and make her … arrive 4 times before you get anything.
And sex happens only when she is OK with it. And only when she is in the mood for it. And only when she feels like it. And only when she prayed first and God said it was OK. And only when the pastor said it was OK. And only when the other girls in her “ministry” said it was OK.
That’s “good” sex today, in what passes for the church.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thank God I’m a lifelong celibate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maniac,
You have more to be grateful for than you know. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
… and only if you unloaded the dishwasher, cleaned the garage, and asked if you could “take something off her plate”.
LikeLike
Young couples should start out their marriages having lots of sex. As much as either or both of them wants. A young man under age 30 has near-limitless potential for sex. He can have sex several times a day. And if that’s what he wants, his wife should be giving it to him. She should have married a man she wants to have that much sex with. If she doesn’t want to have sex with him every day, something is wrong.
Men – do not, DO NOT, pick any woman who isn’t literally begging to f__k you. I know that’s hard to find. Hold out for it and DO NOT marry any woman who isn’t doing that. And then when you marry, expect that and don’t accept less. If you’re not getting that in your marriage, she lied to you, she defrauded you, and you have grounds to leave. That’s a woman who has effectively abandoned her marriage.
It is not normal for a young woman to not want sex. It is not normal for a young woman to not want sex with an attractive man. So, men, if you’re a young man and you’re with a woman who doesn’t want to literally rip your clothes off you and bounce on you with sheer abandon, something is wrong. Either you’re Billy Betaprovider and she’s had lots of sex with Chadrone before (which in 2024 America is by far the most likely cause of this problem); or something’s wrong with her physically or mentally or emotionally.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Women need to have sex when their husbands want, too; and not just when THEY want it. There’s a man there, and he has wants, needs, and desires too; and they are important too; and she needs to take care of those things for him; just as she demands that he meet her needs.
She demands that he meet her needs. Well, dammit, she needs to meet his needs as well.
When you get married you make promises and you take on duties and obligations. Both the man and the woman. Both of them. She makes promises to him. She takes on duties and obligations to him. And she needs to see that her promises are kept; and she needs to make sure she meets her duties and obligations.
Ladies, that means sometimes you have sex with your husbands the way he wants, when he wants, how he wants, where he wants. That means sometimes you have sex even when it’s not convenient, when you’re not really in the mood, and when you don’t feel like it. Sometimes. Sometimes you do it because he wants or needs it. Sometimes you do it because he desires it. Sometimes you do it this way and not that way because he wants it this way and not that way.
You women are all over the place demanding that men honor their promises to you and meet their obligations to you. Well, dammit, women, you made promises. You took on duties and obligations. You owe him things too just like he owes you things.
You need to start keeping your promises and living up to your obligations.
LikeLiked by 7 people
And when you women complain about this, we know why:
It’s because you married men you’re not sexually attracted to.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is 100% true.
Even if she has not been taken by a bunch of men out of her league, there can still be issues. Any dating relationship that has potential needs to be vetted well in the area of sex. The man should lead very open conversations on the topic and they should be him listening and evaluating much more than talking.
These need to happen relatively early on in the relationship. If a man has any doubt at all about what she believes about sex, he needs to dig further to to verify and if he doesn’t like what he learns he needs to move on quickly. It is not worth the headache, heartache and indigestion to move forward with a woman like that.
LikeLiked by 4 people
thedeti,
Marrying a man she is attracted to does not magically turn off the solipsism spigot. Women complain about having to have sex with their husbands, even those wives who are attracted to their husbands, because they are wrapped up in their own little worlds, with their own priorities and don’t consider their husband or marriage. Essentially, they are little princesses expecting to be taken care of and their thoughts often end up at the question, “What is in it for me?”
AWALT. No exceptions. Even the good ones falter at times which is why all men have to maintain frame.
LikeLiked by 8 people
deti,
As I said in the OP, we can add other perverse concepts of “good sex” to the list, depending on the context and one’s spiritual constitution.
You have added three more viewpoints of “good sex” to the roster. Here, I’ll add the context and spiritual constitution.
Your other comments contain admonitions to single men and married women.
Unpacking this a bit, the primacy of sex has always been women’s viewpoint, as per the Feminine Imperative, Women’s Existential Fear, etc. But since the sexual revolution, this viewpoint has slowly replaced* the marriage primacy viewpoint in secular culture.
In the church and UMC polite society, the ‘romantic love’ view, which had always been popular, slowly replaced* the marriage primacy view. This change really took off in the late 80s and 90s.
What has changed more recently is that women’s sex primacy viewpoint has become standard fare in the secular SMP, and it is gradually replacing* the ‘romantic love’ viewpoint in the church (albeit covertly, only the Christian Manosphere has recognized this).
* When I say ‘replaced’, I mean it had always been going on, but it became openly accepted as the norm.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The church first replaced arranged marriage with marriage based on spousal consent (chivalry, romantic love). In practice only nobles could afford a church wedding, nobody gave an eff about the rest, which still got “married” by starting cohabitation and by showing the most obvious results of it (babies).
During the Victorian era certain classes tried to bring back arranged marriages with weird courtship rituals and made it the law for everyone else (Hardwicke Marriage Act) . The plebs still didn’t give a eff.
With the advent of the 20th century white weddings, wedding rings and later engagement diamonds became popular with the masses and then declined sharply with the expensive divorces following up. Afterwards everyone did go back to Pre-Victorian customs.
I don’t see the current SMP being any different from what has been the informal norm for the masses for several millennia. The wealthy lived a Noble fantasy for a few decades, that’s what has happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MR,
Ever since I wrote those posts about the history of marriage, that’s kinda how I see it too. The one thing remaining constant throughout history is that young people are going to F around and eventually settle into LTRs, and this process is always heavy laden with intersexual competition and evolutionary prerogatives, as described by the Red Pill. Everything else is bells, social conventions, and paperwork — and these all change every century. Any kind of church or government intervention tends to make it more complicated and phony. The big blip that has slowed everything down and postponed / sabotaged family formation is birth control, and to a lesser extent, legalized abortion and women’s ‘liberation’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abortion and birth control just introduced society to another form of artificial “courtship” ritual, which won’t persist. While some moralists work themselves up at the fact, that there it lots of sterile sex, from an evolutionary perspective that doesn’t matter at all. There is probably lots of sex in Florida retirement homes too, and it doesn’t matter either.
Until Stacy successfully competed for Chad and got pregnant in the process, nothing really happened. Then and only then the governing bodies exist to provide the paperwork for evolutionary success.
Reproductive unsuccessful gammas believe that governments / churches / institutions are about brainwashing people into “standards”, enforcing courtship rituals, equitable distributed brides, mandatory sex or other fantasies.
LikeLike
Malcolm,
A quick interweb search for STDs in FL retirement communities comes up with dozens of articles. They are mostly founded on rumors that got out of control. Tucked within some of the articles, at least ones with reporters that have a shred of curiosity, are interviews with primary care physicians and some decent nuggets about addressing low testosterone levels and what we will call prescription blood flow meds for men.
The mandatory sex part is interesting when considering incentives. Without institutions putting their thumb on the incentive scale and creating paperwork for marriage and children, the free market could effectively mandate sex at satisfactory levels for at least a portion of the population. My guess is that portion of the population then was larger than it is today.
When a man could walk it meant women had responsibility for their choices forced upon them. There would be incentives to only procreate within strong, stable long-term relationships and incentives for a woman to keep her man happy.
In today’s market here are some men who are desired enough to still create the incentives of the past simply due to them having options. This is a smaller percentage of the population and birth control and legalized abortion remove from women the incentive for caution when choosing who to do the two-backed beast with. When the outcomes that would trigger women’s risk aversion are largely removed, more women are free to chase what they think is the best outcome. This dynamic is one that can be predicted by game theory.
LikeLike
RPA,
Gamma men try to define the 20th century marriage craze as the new norm:
“Everyone should marry.”
“Being married means everyone should have an unlimited supply of sexual intercourse.”
“Being married means everyone should reproduce.”
And then invent bureaucratic ideas trying to enforce it. While evolution tells us the story that the majority of men never had reproductive sex and never will in the future.
The latter is the only kind of sex that matters from an evolutionary PoV. Everything else including sterile marriages is just another form of “courtship” with nothing settled. Just gamma men make the mistake of loading these circumstances with meaning they don’t have.
From an evolutionary PoV unless you successfully made a child — proven by DNA test — and continue to do so (!) you are not even in a factual marriage. Paperwork doesn’t change that.
LikeLike
Married people should be able to have as much sex as they want especially at the beginning of their marriages.
LikeLike
thedeti,
Back when gamma men managed to marry, they ended up in sexless marriages, getting cheated on and divorced. This is of course a consequence of the “everyone should marry” bridal equity policy, which is dysgenic and therefore gets eliminated by stronger evolutionary forces.
LikeLike
MR,
Being h0m0sexual is also dysgenic. But, it is not eliminated by stronger evolutionary forces.
LikeLike
Indeed. And lest anyone have the wrong impression. There is genuine abuse of the body which has resulted in one man’s wife that I know from anecdote needing to wear adult diapers afterwards. Practices undoubtedly promoted in p0rn that is genuinely evil and disgusting.
That is distinct from what is being talked about here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m pretty sure I know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Yep. I actually saw a comment on BGS website about a man trying to justify this nonsense. There is a proper use of the body in fact that should be plainly obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BGS = Butthexed Gynormous Sex ???
LikeLike
Biblical Gender Roles.
LikeLike
An adult woman does stupid stuff and bears the adult consequences. This is what female agency is about.
LikeLike
@Malcolm Reynolds
In the case of that story. She submitted to what the Husband wanted.
P0rn is pushing this nonsense I believe.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s the “logic” now. Additionally, you have to have sex with many people of multiple “genders” to figure out what you really like. Definitely don’t rush, though, because you never know if the next person (or whatever) might be what you really like.
LikeLiked by 4 people
When (or because) a critical mass of people think this way, then this becomes the primary reason why ‘running the gauntlet’ is more or less necessary in the secular SMP, and also in many churchian SMPs, since the church is fem-centric and the women are worldly-minded.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The comments are dandy, but the original post is just a bit overwrought, and that’s because the subject itself is overwrought. There is a good biblical model (AKA, the ancient Hebrew model), not too complicated, and everything else is wrong. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is very wrong and getting worse. I’m glad you shared Derek’s comment, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Extra: Get Out – Catacomb Resident
Not sure if I agree with this.
Sex generates feelings of oneness and closeness and generally increases positive response toward your spouse. If this helps a married couple resolve arguments rather than get caught up in a cycle of negative emotions and being mean to each other I can’t see how this is a net negative.
I agree with the stance that we shouldn’t use sex to cover up issues in a marriage like they don’t exist, but sex may be able to used analogously to 1 Peter 4:8 love covers up a multitude of sins. The passage is not talking about erotic love of course but erotic love can be used in that manner as well.
I agree with the rest that quality of sex is not related to sanctification, but it can be a decent thermometer on if there are some potential issues within a marriage. However, the complementarian interpretation of the wife’s respect and willingness to have sex with a husband as the thermometer is clearly wrong.
There’s a lot of nuances that are not obvious when one buys into the worldly versions of love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This reminds me of something I heard from Dr. Laura Schlessinger. A female caller asked for help with frivolous (my wording) arguments with her husband that turned into much bigger conflicts. Dr. Laura told her that the next time an argument started to escalate, she should flash her breasts at her husband.
The caller tried it, and it worked so well that she told the women in her Bible study, who then tried it on their husbands and loved the results. The caller called Dr. Laura again to report all of this. It was one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard on radio.
Husbands and wives rarely argue over factual or intellectual issues. Most of the time the arguments are over feelings, usually the wife’s feelings. If the feel-good hormone cocktail that results from sex can promote emotional harmony between spouses (it does), then what’s the problem?
Better to save the arguments for when they’re necessary.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The Happy Wife School: Why Women Always Argue
The wife exposing her breasts ‘works’ because she is willingly humbling herself, and it is a non-verbal recognition of the man as her head. It also skips the argument and goes straight to the make up sex.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And isn’t that the point? Aren’t most spousal arguments kind of stupid and pointless? We’ve discussed ad-nauseum how men can avoid them, but really that’s all we can (and should) do – avoid the argument.
However, as deti has been pointing out for over a decade now, women have the real power here.
Proverbs 14:1 The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish pulls it down with her hands.
As silly as flashing her husband may seem, that’s what the wise woman does. And since it’ll lead to sex, it may literally build up her house(hold). The foolish woman keeps arguing, driving her husband crazy, and tearing down her house with her own hands.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Plus, women are supposed to be more intuitive and better skilled in communication than men.
That’s why I say that contentious wives are responsible for 100% of conflict in marriage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i.e. “Happy wife, happy life.”
LikeLike
Apparently sex doesn’t make some husbands feel happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack,
Contentious wives are responsible for marital conflict because they are fighting to be the patriarch. It started with Eve in the Garden and has not stopped. The only difference is Eve was bold enough to go after our heavenly father’s role and mortal wives are stuck with going after their husband’s position.
My guess at the root cause for why women on the whole want to have the status they perceive men to have is discontentedness. Discontent leads to jealously which then pours out in the words and actions of contentiousness. Show me a woman who knows the importance of the role God created women for and I’ll show you a woman who is generally content and has purpose in life. This woman will be happy and won’t seek to usurp her husband’s place making the home more peaceful.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RPA,
What you’ve described is what Freud would say is a woman who has resolved her penis envy. She realizes she did not get a penis, but has a vagina, and that with that comes a certain role that she should take on, instead of trying to take on the role of the man. She resolves herself to her role, accepts it, and tries to then make the best of it. Most women never resolve their envy of the male, and their fundamental discontentment with being female. They want to be the one with the man’s greater inherent glory and privileges, while they usually are not wanting to accept the man’s incumbent responsibilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sharkly,
This is always the case of women not realizing the grass is never greener on the other side. They are able to see the flash but somehow are blind to the effort and sacrifice that is put in before the flash can be seen. Hence, they think the blessings men have earned through effort are the same as the blessings that come from beauty she was born with.
Generally speaking, women are the walking solipsistic clueless.
LikeLike
DS,
It was intended as a thought-provoking satire and a playful jab at Derek. But if I made it any more obvious, then it would not be as thought-provoking or jabbing.
I agree with your assessment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The early church was surrounded by Gnostics, Stoics, Cynics, and Ascetics, and the early church syncretized a lot of their pieties into the early church’s Christianity. The church adopted the Gnostic idea that the physical world was corrupted and inherently evil and that truth, knowledge, wisdom, and intangible things are contrastingly the morally good and uplifting things. So, sex, being a physical act of the flesh, was classified as always bad. The church then viewed sex as always bad, and that sex could only be made right through God’s curiously conflicting command to be fruitful and multiply. Which is why the RCC still views any intentionally non-procreative sex as being evil, even if the two are married. Because they see any sex act as fundamentally evil when it is not directly linked to God’s command to multiply. And it is also why they insist on the celibacy of their leaders. They don’t want them to be compromised by the sex act.
However, the Bible doesn’t teach that, and in fact Paul recommends not abstaining from married sex, nor defrauding the other of sex, because that unnecessary abstention places you under greater likelihood of temptation from Satan. (1 Corinthians 7:5)
But the fools don’t listen to God’s words over their syncretized Gnostic traditions, and so their priests privately bugger their altar boys, rather than openly getting married to a wife. They choose rather to burn than get married.
So, if sex is always viewed as evil and only allowed by a conflicting command where God tells them to do that very evil, then they’d naturally say that enjoying the sex passionately would show that your heart and mind were in the wrong place, set on the appeasement of the flesh, and not focused on higher and holier abstract thoughts about God.
And if you go down that path, then enjoying your food is also bad, and eventually you get to intentionally mortifying the flesh by wearing a hairshirt and Self-flagellation. And in all reality then I could presumedly improve your spiritual state with a swift kick in the nuts. Or I could bitch-slap you and give you the spiritual opportunity to turn the other cheek. It really does get silly when you define the entire physical world including your own body as inherently evil in every way. Then everything you physically do has to be done through some spiritually authorized exception. And since you started with wrong conclusions you then have to make all sorts of workarounds and allow for cognitive dissonance to live your life.
If it feels good to your flesh to take a dump, then it must be more holy to mortify the flesh and go around constipated, Etc. Whoever can hold their pee in the longest is most godly! /S The devil is likely laughing about all the lunacy his Gnostic nonsense has caused within the church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Church powers came up with convoluted justifications to control the reproduction of their subordinates, because this is what people in power like to do.
Ordering someone to stay celibate is probably the second biggest power move that has ever existed in human history, just short of taking someone’s life.
LikeLiked by 1 person