Authoritative Love, Marital Discipline, and BDSM

Σ Frame’s concept of authoritative love, and contrasting views on Marital Discipline and BDSM.

Readership: Mature audiences

Introduction

Warhorn’s interview with Dalrock gave me the impression that the general public’s perception of the Red Pill sphere is all about BDSM. This characterization is hardly accurate, because there are some people who are into that, of course, but most are not.

I have written a lot about discipline in marriage, but I’ve never gone to the trouble to explicitly explain my views about how marital discipline is vastly different from BDSM.

I was wondering if I should give this point any attention in a post, when a fellow RP blogger asked me this question in a private message.

“When Warhorn mentioned followers of Dalrock who discussed “wife spanking” and spousal discipline, do you think they were referring to you?”

I took this question as a confirmation that I need to properly address this subject in a post. I replied,

“I am not sure. I haven’t found any comments that finger me out as a proponent of this. But I can see why they might. I think a lot of people associate the word “discipline” with BDSM, but I don’t use the word under that connotation…”

So I decided to write this post explaining the difference, and expounding my views on both. I also need to first explain a conceptualization of how to administer authoritative love, since this is important towards understanding the purposes of marital discipline.

you knew me not

A Simple Concept of Administering Authoritative Love

Very few individuals receive perfect love from their parents. Most people’s personal problems are thought to be a result of bad things that we get from our parents, usually because these bad habits and false notions about life are what introduce the most obvious headaches that we encounter, as well as anger and bitterness.

But the real problem is not that we struggle against these lies of omission and the resultant intrusive emotions. The thing that hurts us the most is that there was something good and important that we did not get from our parents. If we could only discover this missing piece, then the lies would become obvious, and would lose their grip on us.

So the challenge of getting our basic love needs satisfied (from people) lies in identifying the thing that we’re missing.

Love has a spectrum of constitutional elements that can exist in extremes. Figure 1 depicts a greatly simplified illustration that is sufficient to get my point across here. On one end is unconditional acceptance and favor, and on the other end is instruction and discipline.

Love Fulcrum

Figure 1: The fullness of authoritative love is comprised of administering a balance between unconditional acceptance and discipline.

For the person who had a lot of training and discipline, but failed to get unconditional love and favor during childhood, they grow up with the idea that they must always work, earn, and perform, just to receive a meager ration of acceptance, and to escape punishment.

Such a person may come to believe that any expression of love is not real love unless it’s unconditional. The problem is that unconditional love (from people) is very rare. As a consequence, this person would never feel loved by people.

On the other hand, the person who received a lot of unconditional favor and no discipline may grow up with a grandiose sense of liberty that is self-destructive. This person naturally wants to continue taking unconditional acceptance for granted, often from whomever happens to offer it, and will patently refuse to be disciplined.

These problems are compounded by the fact that people subconsciously prefer to stick with their longstanding habits of unbalanced love, and are often unaware of how far off the mark they stand.

For example, the person who never received unconditional acceptance will want to continue working, earning, and performing, if only for the security and benefits, even though they’re not getting any satisfaction from being accepted, nor the contentment of feeling loved.

Likewise, the person who never received any strong discipline will want to continue partying in their carefree, wasteful fun-house, even though they’re not obtaining anything of real, permanent value in their lives.

It is human nature for people to fly on auto-pilot, in which they simply continue in the ways most familiar to them. To do so, they often develop a multitude of coping mechanisms, and sometimes resort to toxic love (i.e. controlling and manipulative relationships), to offset the misery of the love they are missing.

Now let’s apply these concepts to the real world.

Most women in Western societies are bona fide princesses on a pedestal. They’re granted too much permissiveness, adoration and attention.

To make matters more complicated, this love and attention is not truly unconditional, but is merely bestowed on those who are blessed with those characteristics that the Socio-Sexual-Marriage Market Place (SSMMP) deems worthy. Most are not very well aware of it, but this brand of love is extremely conditional and superficial. Photoshopped Instagram shots, Farcebook likes, and the whole selfie culture enshrines feminine glorification to unsubstantiated heights. Virtual neighbors who are lucky will find out early that it’s all an illusion.

While most women are taking this fake acceptance and adoration for granted, most men are lurking at the other end of the fulcrum. They’re overburdened with the demands of performance, and feeling the brunt of the law, literally. The majority of men are either forced to conform to soyboy insolvency, go MGTOW, or else be left out in the cold. The end result is that women are drifting into Lay Lay Land, and men are giving up and checking out.

The bottom line here is that people are getting neither of the extremes of true love, and certainly not experiencing any grace either. But they’re living and thinking at the extremes.

I believe the missing piece of the equation is that men need to stand up to women and start delivering the disciplinary aspects of love (on the right in Figure 1). In other words, we must deliver what is missing, in order to achieve the balance. Of course, this is easier said than done, and it’s actually extremely risky. Most of the stuff I write about are thin mints I have sucked on to help me swallow the bitter taste of this endeavor.

I know I’m not alone in this. So if my posts can encourage any of my male (or female) readers, then it’s well worth all the time I spend in maintaining this blog. As a note of encouragement, I am changing how I deal with life and marriage, and I am seeing slow improvements over time. I wish the same for my readers.

handcuff allyship

Marriage is spiritual BDSM.

My Views on Marital Discipline

I have been forced to address the issue of discipline in my own marriage, because my wife did not receive proper training or spiritual nurturing during her upbringing. To put it bluntly, she was the spoiled baby (youngest daughter) in a large, wealthy family of origin; one that had a very casual, take-it-or-leave-it approach towards religious matters of faith and personal development.

I believe a Christian husband should be the pastor of his family, so with a wife like this, I would consider myself to be irresponsible for her spiritual growth if I did not reign in her excesses and give her some tautological instruction.

I just see myself as a determined man who is not going to give in to the dictates of the merciless culture. By lickspittle luck and the grace of God, I’ll love my spoiled wife by boning up on proscribing boundaries and setting limitations on her behavior.

I love her enough that I’m not going to let her languish in a spurious, self-centered existence of spiritual immaturity any more than I can help it. Neither am I going to wait around for her to make any effort on this, because generally speaking, women are poor initiators (except for conflict).

So maybe now my readers can understand that when I write about “discipline in marriage”, it is concerned with completing the missing aspects of love, so that a balance can be obtained. (Please refer to Figure 1.)

To me, discipline means that I construct a standard of interaction that conforms most closely to what I believe God wants for our marriage. I teach it as a goal to aspire to, and I enforce it when necessary. At times, I also have to make it clear why God’s plan is best. To do this, I must constantly examine myself, my motives, and my emotions, and regulate the overall effect that I have on my marriage and family.

This means,

  • If my wife is being selfish or disrespectful, then I should call her out on that.
  • If she chooses to be emotionally abusive, controlling, and manipulative, then I need to pull out the Game tactics.
  • If she falls into a furrow of laziness, then I need to come up with some way to inspire and motivate her.
  • If she chooses to be good, then I cannot let her efforts go unrewarded somehow.
  • If she chooses to be bad, then I have to let her know, in no uncertain terms, that her behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

It’s really all about applied Classical Conditioning and setting healthy boundaries. Contrary to what a permissively liberal culture teaches us to think, these boundaries actually provide a sense of security by creating a safe space for passionate love, vivacious life, authentic self-expression, personal growth, and spiritual renewal.

The bottom line is that I must never allow her to continuously do anything that would destroy the shalom of our marriage, our children, or our relationships to God. I see it as my responsibility to God as a man to keep my family on the straight and narrow.

Some feminists might think this is equivalent to “controlling”, but I am convinced that those who think this way have an unhealthy fear or hatred of masculine authority. As I’ve described above, real controlling behavior is intended to be a hack job to compensate for that which is missing, and to patch up a habit of lopsided, dysfunctional love, without doing the grunt work of getting down to the root issues. If a man is making an effort to balance out the love see-saw, there should be less manipulative behavior, not more.

Here is a short list of a few masculine qualities that draw my wife to me, and I believe these hold true for many women.

  • Confidence – being able to tell her “No”, and explain why.
  • Strength – being someone she can trust and depend on.
  • Resolve – dealing patiently with all her headaches and $h!t tests, and sticking to a plan of action that I know will work out well for both of us.
  • Detachment – not allowing myself to get spun into her web of fears, anxieties and insecurities.

Now on to BDSM, which is another matter entirely.

heels and cuffs

My Views on BDSM

Most readers will know that I’ve dedicated a number of posts to the topic of disciplining spiritually disobedient wives. I suppose these studies have earned me somewhat of a reputation as a medieval gestapo slave driver (viz. a demanding, zero tolerance husband). But those readers who come to my site looking for titillating BDSM literature are bound to be sorely disappointed. I’ve never had any commenters discuss “wife spanking” or any sort of physical punishment.

You see, I’m not really into BDSM. I’ve written a couple posts that are suggestive of BDSM, but only as a satirical examination of the subject. However, judging by at least one comment, I’m sure some readers have taken it to heart and were offended.

But now that I’ve explained the real nature and purpose of Marital Discipline, the very idea of BDSM should be a gaffe. To be honest, the whole idea of “wife spanking” seems like slapstick comedy to me. So it’s hard for me to take that seriously.

However, even though I myself am not sexually attuned to BDSM, I do know my wife loves to be handled roughly in bed. Holding her down, slapping her face and butt, yanking her hair, and drilling her brutally and without mercy during coitus really blasts her to the throes. After sessions like this, she becomes a gasping, quivering bun of hot dog loving affection for a couple days, during which time she is begging me for more every night.

So I do it for her, and for my marriage.

Maybe some hardcore, “whips and chains” BDSM proponents would not consider this BDSM, but it is for me. It took me a while to adjust to her sexual needs.

I also recognize that my wife is not an outlier. There are a significant number of people who attend the mule skinner’s funeral. I have no idea of knowing with certainty, but I’ll guess that about 20% of people like it rough and kinky. I think this is natural for those people, so I’m not about to label mild domination as degraded or perverted (that is, short of bleeding and branding).

But going beyond this (what I’ve just described about my wife) into hardcore BDSM seems rather grotesque in my opinion. Going to even further extremes, like flipping the roles to dominant-female/submissive-male, like Boxer examines in his post, Transgressive Subcontinental Paraphilia (March 10, 2019), is even more revolting. Anytime we see male ego flattened or exterminated, we are venturing into dark terrortory.

alan-and-megan_etorfkbx9mig

Final Statements

In several comments under a previous post, some readers discussed the Quivering Fool movement, and how spiritually abusive it has been. I have no experience with, or knowledge of QF, but judging from those readers’ comments, QF adherents are obviously lacking discernment and wisdom in handling their families, and have thereby missed the joys of family unity.

But the commenters make a good point about how people misunderstand defacto homographs (words that can have multiple interpretations) and talk past each other. (We saw some of this between Dalrock and Warhorn.)

I also believe people’s views on the subject of marital discipline are an extension of their own life experiences. The conditions of men’s marital lives can wholly explain their differences of opinion.

I know men who have very tight marriages, and others who live with marital stress day in and day out. From what I have seen, men who have a very warm, loving relationship with their wives, invariably have a wife who is contented, kindhearted, and respectful. Whereas, those guys who have a bitter relationship with their wives predictably have a moody, temperamental wife who likes to do her own thing, her own way, and argue about it with their husband every day.

The wife has a 70% responsibility for setting the emotional tone of the marriage. It’s not 50/50 like most people want to think.

Even so, a man should not be aimlessly capitulating to her every demand. He needs to have a clear vision for the family, and talk about it frequently. It’s better if she cooperates with his vision, but if she doesn’t, then of course, both of them are at a disadvantage.

Concerning how to handle contension in a marriage, I take a moderate view. For the most part, I think there’s not much a husband can do to get his wife to be more obedient to God in her dealings with him. Maybe prayer is the most effective recourse, and that strongly depends on how sophisticated a man’s prayer life might be. However, there are certain situations which demand immediate action, and women are not known to be initiators.

The final question is… Do I spank my wife?

No, not as a formal punishment. Dread Game is more effective under tortuous circumstances, like when she’s talking bull$h!t about getting a divorce. The trick is in eliciting her humility without pricking her pride.

However, there have been times when my wife was in a sour mood, and I gave her a firm but playful smack on the butt with a mockingly serious angry look on my face, saying, “You’re not allowed to be unhappy!” Some variation on this parody of being her “other” father always gets her to smile and lighten up.

I have a lot more to say about how to improve marriage, so I guess I’ll continue blogging.

Related

Advertisements
Posted in Determination, Discipline, Enduring Suffering, Influence, Leadership, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Perseverance, Questions from Readers, Relationships, Strategy, The Power of God | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Hitting a glorified nerve at Patheos

The world’s largest multi-religious website takes aim at Σ Frame.

Readership: Regulars

Introduction

A week ago, Σ Frame posted the firebrand article, Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores? (February 23, 2019). I knew this post would spark a controversy, because it is an unseemly characterization that no Churchian person wants to consider.

The article has apparently hit a nerve with Suzanne Titkemeyer, a writer at Patheos who penned a criticism, Christian women are whores? (February 26, 2019)

Instead of honestly contemplating the question I posed in the title of that post, she resorted to the point and shriek reaction instead, much like Warhorn did with Dalrock.

Well, I can understand such a reaction, although the reasons a woman could have that reaction are many. I’ll politely refrain from speculating about Titkemeyer’s personal motivations for writing her article. Instead, I’d like to express my gratitude to the editors at Patheos for bestowing such an honor on me. Also, my daily viewership has doubled, so thanks for the traffic! I’m glad to have you as a partner in getting the RP gospel out to those searching for spiritual substance on Patheos. Hallelujah!

To be honest, I felt a little ashamed for stating that question in the title of the post, because I knew it wasn’t going to glorify Christ. But on the other hand, it does crucify the flesh. This is something that we’ve grown unaccustomed to in the age of instant digital gratification.

Showtime-offers-glimpse-of-new-romantic-drama-The-Affair

Some TV series, like The Affair, glorify the glorification of women having glorious affairs. Producers cash in on SAHM’s desire for vicarious fornication by broadcasting female pornography directly into millions of living rooms across the nation. It’s Showtime!

The drama has grown so titillatingly good, that it’s hard to deny it any longer. It’s time to separate the sheep from the goats. Some anonymous Christian RP blogger needs to finger this out – that among Christians, sexual purity should be important!

6 “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?”

9 “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.” ~ 1st Corinthians 5 (NKJV)

Here, the apostle Paul makes it clear that sexual immorality in the church is unacceptable. Yet Christian women, as much as Christians are inclined to deny it, are known to the world as being looser than the norm. I covered three case studies in the other post, just to illustrate this very point. The question is, why has this impression reached phenomenological proportions?

A review of the criticism

I’ll respond to a few statements in Titkemeyer’s article.

“…many of the female cultural enforcers have started to embrace these men devoid of any morals. I didn’t quote the parts where he called Christian women demeaning names like whore and worse.”

Female cultural enforcers are beginning to wake up to the fact that if they don’t have men on board, then their enterprises won’t go very far.

As to the charge of being a man devoid of any morals, I won’t deny that I’ve been immoral in the past, especially in my search for a Christian wife, but that doesn’t change the truth of what I’m saying. In fact, it confirms it. To be clear, I am certainly not endorsing sex before marriage as the way to go, if that’s what Titkemeyer means by immoral. I’m just pointing out that this is the norm for most people everywhere, including those in the church. Personally, I tried to avoid premarital sex as much as possible, but after many years, I had to face the fact that it’s essentially a prerequisite for marriage. I say this to the shame of western society.

But perhaps Titkemeyer thinks something else is immoral about my post – namely that I had the gall to bring such things to light, and label it for what it is. Surely, no one likes their sins to be exposed, and women are certainly no exception.

But which is more immoral? An immoral person pointing out immorality and saying it’s a problem, or a pretentious person pointing out that it’s immoral for the immoral person to point out immorality?

If someone really wanted to make the case that I am immoral, I think the best way to go about that, would be to argue that I am being legalistic, ungraceful, and profane. But that still doesn’t affect the truth of what I’m saying.

this-is-what-happens-when-you-dont-shear-a-sheep

Please keep your sheeple trimmed and tidy in preparation for glorification… or slaughter!

“…he is arguing that Christian women are more likely to have an affair during marriage.”

She’s not reading well here. I didn’t make the claim (in that article) that Christian women are more (or less) likely to have an extramarital affair. I think this is largely determined by personal characteristics and context. I only posed the question of why Christian women have the reputation of being easy, and gave some anecdotal examples of how or why people might think so. I didn’t offer a conclusive answer to the question in the title of that post, but instead left it open for readers to reflect on.

The answer to why Christian women are thought to be easier is complicated, and is further complicated by context, but in general, I think it’s about values and having a sense of life purpose. Feminist culture has hijacked both of these. In the conclusions, I pointed out that modern western culture has removed all consequences of illicit sex. There definitely needs to be a “coming out” from the culture, but since most churches are converged, there is no place for marriage minded people to congregate.

“He claims as many as 65%, based on the figures by another guy. I don’t know if it’s that high.”

She obviously misunderstood the meaning of the 65% figure as representing the number of Christian women who have had an extramarital affair. But according to another guy’s post, 65% is the number of regular church-going women who say they had premarital sex. The figures don’t say how many men those women slept with before marriage, but with a figure that high, it’s reasonable to assume that for many, or even most of these women, their eventual husband wasn’t even their first partner. That’s where Cane came up with the label of whore.

Since this is a slippery slope assumption, I’ll go into a bit more detail to show why it’s reasonable.

First, there’s this data from a scientific study, showing that the number of premarital sex partners is going up on the average.

slutfactory

Secondly, there’s this grain of salt from Ask Men: Science Discovers Strange Link Between Promiscuity and Divorce (June 17, 2016). This is actually a concise summary of many issues discussed around the ‘sphere.

Third, we consider the sex selective dickotomy of self-perception. In a couple previous posts, Hamster’s Hierarchy of Sluts (October 11, 2017), and Bon Mot of Slut Science (October 13, 2017), I examined how men and women have different definitions for a slut. If a woman has more than three to five lifetime partners, a typical man would consider her to be venturing into slut territory. Whether she is a Christian or not, doesn’t make any difference at all to men in determining this label. This is because this assessment is rightfully based on the information previously mentioned, and how one’s sexual history affects the marital relationship. Women, on the other hand, use the term slut loosely, and their appraisal is largely based on their personal experience relative to their social standing. Consequences be sheared!

For example, a woman who has had 5 partners would think that another woman who has had 30 partners is a slut. Through this comparison, she can avoid considering herself to be a slut, but nevertheless, a man would. The same thing goes for the N = 30 woman when she judges a woman who has had a hundred partners. To men, they are all sluts. But from a woman’s viewpoint, it’s relatively immoral for any man to call a woman a slut, regardless of her N count. This is partly because the feminine imperative requires women to have the sole voice concerning their own bodies, and however they may choose to use them. Never mind that a Christian woman’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Men are not allowed to have any opinion about women’s sexuality or reproductive potential.

Furthermore, the terms, slut and whore, are generally synonymous, but there is a slight difference. Oholah whores are slightly better than Oholibah sluts. Sluts do it just because they can, or just for the fun of it, whereas whores expect some kind of return investment from the man. For example, prostitutes are whores that do it for the money. We can assume that a Christian woman who had sex with a man before marriage did so because she expected to receive that man’s commitment, possibly a marital commitment. So you see, Cane and I are being generous in generalizing these women as whores and not sluts.

wtoutiao

Continuing on…

“Seems to me that infidelity across religious/non-religious lines might be similar.”

Yes, we agree on this point. But surprisingly, she makes her own case for Christian adulteresses next.

“The statistics I keep finding cited at both legitimate studies, several books and in newspaper articles on the subject put women’s infidelity at about 33%, or as high as 40% depending on which study you cite. It’s not 65% cheating, unless something has changed drastically in the church.”

I don’t know what sources she is citing, but I presume she is readily admitting to 33 to 40% infidelity of Christian women, after marriage! These figures actually suggest that Cane’s claim of 65% having premarital sex is reasonably accurate.

This really turns my tripe!

In my earlier post, I made the offhoof comment,

“…the only times I have ever seen women spiritually glorified is when they were having an affair, or were just about to. I’ve seen this so often, that now, whenever I see a woman glorified, I automatically jump to this conclusion.”

Titkemeyer responded to this point as follows.

“This seems so wrong!

So if you seem happy, or glorified, or spiritually fulfilled you are either having an affair, or will have one. How is he determining this? Is he aware that personal observations without empirical studies and peer reviews are relatively meaningless.”

I am a professor who is very familiar with research methods, so my personal observation of 4 women revealing this phenomena is worth 4 data points. My pastor’s opinion could be considered a peer review, because in addition to being an ordained minister, he is a professional psychologist and counselor. Well, he actually agreed with me on this. (He added the “…or are just about to” addendum.) So I think his observation is worth at least 5 points, maybe more. So how much data do we need to form a predictive model?

“This is like looking outside at twilight, with the sun sinking while bathing the green grass with a reddish hue. You might momentarily see ‘red’ grass, but that is not proof that the grass is actually red. It’s still green.”

I appreciate the meditative pastoral reflection based on the 23rd Psalm.

1 The Lord is my shepherd;
I shall not [remain in a state of] want.
He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters.
He restores my soul;

According to additive and subtractive color theory, green grass in red light would appear mostly black, with only a little red light reflected. (See photo below.) An object that appears green in white light (which contains green light) cannot appear green in the absence of green light. Moreover, the visual appearance of an object’s color depends on a particular color of light being present (additive color theory), and the ability of that object to reflect that color (subtractive color theory).

I’m not sure how this analogy supports her argument, because the church should not be a red light district. Maybe she is hinting at the allegory of Christians being in the light, as 1st John 1:5 says,

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

Well now, if you can’t see the true color of objects, then you’re not experiencing the full spectrum of God’s light of Truth. BTW, black is pretty dark, and black sheep appear black, even in white light.

plants in red light

“While I don’t doubt there are more very unhappy marriages with spouses thinking about cheating in Quiverfull and Evangelicalism I do doubt that more of them take that step. That is another one of the very harmful things taught in religion, that you’re somehow sinful if your mind strays or you glimpse someone else you find attractive in a sexual way.”

Yes, religion does have an effect. As Cane reported, those who never attend church have a 96% occurrence of premarital sex, while 88% of those who occasionally attend church put their spoons in the haggis pudding before dinner is served. So 65% among the fully churched is indeed lower. My original question still stands, but reviewing this statistic just makes the incongruity more glaring. If regular churchgoers are less likely to have premarital sex, then why do they have the reputation of being more likely to get on down and party?

12-2

Figure 12.2 Premarital sex by religious service attendance. Image taken from Relationships in America: How common is premarital sex?

“I am skipping a great deal of this man’s post because he is using words unprintable on Patheos.”

Translation: “I can’t wrap my head around many of the questions he poses because he’s speaking an unregulated, non-PC dialect.”

“Here he goes on to brag that if you want to find someone to have sex with find a Christian women.” [sic.]

I’m not bragging. Laaamenting would be a better characterization. As I mentioned earlier, I’m rather ashamed to have to point out that Christian women have a reputation of being easy, and that my personal experience tends to confirm this notion.

“I cannot believe I’m having to defend the notion of Christian women being more likely to cheat. But this is telling, this is exactly the kind of men that The Transformed Wife’s Lori Alexander purposely chooses to quote and hang around with on Dalrock’s blog.”

Again, this statement is more evidence that she misread the discussion of premarital sex as being one about adultery, instead of premarital sex. Furthermore, she clearly wishes to distance herself from others who are verbalizing uncomfortable truths, or else, maybe the Indignation™ is intended to be an authoritative literary effect of superiority.

The comments section is mostly comprised of presumptions that I am a basement dwelling incel who’s down with yellow fever. ***Sighing with a smile***

They took particular issue with my statement,

“If a man wants to have a “Christian marriage”, he’s wiser to marry a thin, mature, submissive, respectful, Buddhist woman, and lead her to Christ in the process.”

Of note, the descriptors “thin” and “submissive” received considerable criticism, which is predictable.

A couple of them did pick up on the irony of the term, “vertical dance” in my post, but they didn’t get the meaning that vertical comes before horizontal. They thought it should read “horizontal dance” instead.

Conclusions

Overall, Titkemeyer’s article leaves me with the impression that she’s feigning shock that I violated a feminist taboo, and that this is what makes me and my blog worthy of being labeled immoral. This confusion redefines a moral conscript according to a Power vs. Fear ethical structure. Let’s not forget that true morality is determined by one’s ability to discern right from wrong, and to take the most appropriate action determined by the situation.

Also, Titkemeyer doesn’t really come out and say this, but I get the impression that by highlighting the 33-40% adultery marker as a fact, her article is normalizing Christian women having affairs. I’m afraid that this may be empowering to any sheared ewes who are on the sledge of glorification.

Related

Posted in Asia, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Churchianity, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Hamsterbation, Purpose, Reviews, Satire, Society | Tagged , | 25 Comments

Called to return from exile

Christians cannot directly change the converged, Western culture. The only solution is to be separated somehow.

Readership: Christians; Marriage advocates;

I came across a thought provoking article from AlfaNL, Wrath of the incels (April 29, 2018), in which he discusses the disturbed behaviors of Alek Minassian and Elliot Rodger, and concludes that it is an “entirely predictable consequence” of the demise of a Patriarchal establishment. In this article, he writes (emphasis mine),

“Such continual rejection hits a man right in his balls. It’s a soul-crushing rejection: you are not man enough for society. And society encourages this behavior. Society says: it is deeply empowering of girls to reject loser incels, also it is deeply disturbing that incels think they are entitled to sex.

Normies, being as egotistical as anyone, have trouble wrapping their minds around this point. In their minds society is an innocent bystander. Nonsense. Society determines male status, and if society lowers male status, the males already on the lower end of the ladder feel it the heaviest.”

Yes, this is what Western, Feminized society says to the grand majority of men, and most of these men, including Christians, can’t comprehend any choice in the matter.

Yet, the Bible gives us clear instructions about what we should be doing.

14 ”Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” ~ 2nd Corinthians 6:14-18 (KJV)

1 “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, ‘Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.’

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.’” ~ Revelation 18:1-6 (KJV)

More verses on “coming out of the world” can be found on the King James Bible Online: Bible verses about being set apart (search engine).

Alek Minassian and Elliot Rodger did right in rejecting that Society which prejudicially rejected them first. However, they took the wrong, nihilistic path of Revenge.

MGTOW’s also choose to reject society’s norms, but they have enough dignity and self-esteem to skip over the terrorist response, and choose the relatively more honorable lycanthropic mode of existence.

Lycanthropy: a frenzy or melancholy, which causeth the patient (who thinks he is turned wolf) to fly all company, and hide himself in dens and corners.

But contrary to their impressions, MGTOW’s are not the true wolves of Society.

MGTOW’s do well to “go their own way”. But for most men and women, singleness is neither normal or desired. I think many MGTOW’s would agree with this on a gut level. But they can’t admit this to themselves, because not being able to follow it through to the logical conclusion creates too much frustration and cognitive dissonance. Thus, MGTOW’s are also victims of a feminized society.

The true wolves are the top 20% of high-SMV men in western society, according to the 80/20 rule. They are the lynchpin of western society’s fallen ontology, as they willingly express their satyriasis when sexually engaging themselves with the theoretical 80% of liberated females, and thereby defraud all other men from achieving a satisfying pair bond in marriage to a choice female.

But we admire those guys, because they’re just… so cool. They truly know the grace of God! We won’t ever condemn those guys, because everyone loves them too much. Our society depends too much on charming Alphas!

But no one realizes that this is exactly how Absalom undermined his father David’s kingdom: beautiful vanity, a sexualized comportment, compassion for the common man, promises of justice and political equality to those feeling wronged…

Here we have an evil hierarchy of authority: Society worships female dominance, but dominant females worship the archetypical, satyrical cad. In turn, the promiscuous cad worships Baal as the head of the hierarchy. This has gone on for so long, that Baal has by now institutionalized the covenant of his society-wide worship, making it very difficult for a typical Christian to escape the curse.

exile

Because Satan designs his traps specifically to appeal to the weaknesses of the flesh, it is too easy to get caught up in this mess. Young, naïve, pubescent, easily impressionable teenagers are especially vulnerable.

Scott’s assessment of how to create an institutionalized path towards marriage says a lot about the problem of convergence. I might take the liberty to summarize his points as follows.

  1. Marriage is an antithesis of worldly society. I’ll add that worldly society is anathema to marriage.
  2. Marriage requires a Christian man to be the head of authority in the home.
  3. Marriage requires an ordered structure centered around shared values.
  4. Separate yourselves from Babylonian-American culture!
  5. Separate yourselves from the converged Church!
  6. Abandon the false belief systems that you learned in Babylon (e.g. Chivalry, Feminism, Egalitarianism…), and separate yourselves from any people or social groups that might be holding you back.
  7. Separating yourselves may require some planning, financial backing, and strong resolve.
  8. Expect something better to come, after a time of trials and persecutions.

A comprehensive reading of Scott’s analysis strongly indicates that a “coming out” is absolutely necessary. He hinted at this in points 1, 4, and 5, and he states it explicitly in point 7.

So by now, it should be clear to my readers why Christians are called to separate ourselves from the world. But how should it be done?

Young Christian, yearning for the blessings of home and family. Return from the mass exile to Babylon! Come out of her, and receive the fruits of the Lord’s promises!

Related

Posted in Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Determination, Discernment, Wisdom, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Strategy | Tagged | 11 Comments

Scott’s conclusions on courtship and marriage incubation

American Dad outlines the purposes and challenges of devising a path to successful marriage.

Readership: All

Scott K. is the host of Ljubomir Farms, and he previously hosted the American Dad site. From 2013 to 2015, he started a weblog promulgating institutionalized courtship procedures for Orthodox Christians. That site was called Courtship Pledge (Archived ca. 2015). Unfortunately, this site crashed, and his contributions were not recovered. Notwithstanding this loss, he took what he learned from that experience and established an online matchmaking service for Orthodox singles.

As a blissfully married husband and father, he remains intensely enthusiastic about the institution of marriage and family. He has written to me privately to express that he would like to periodically submit guest articles to Σ Frame in response to the page on Courtship Models.

Please welcome Scott!


Thank you Wayne, for your invitation to discuss this on your venue.

Here’s how I approach the problem of courtship right now:

Let us first attempt to surmise what the Christian Manosphere has reached consensus on. I do not presume to know this outright, but I think I probably have enough “chops” around the ‘sphere to weigh in on what that looks like to me. So, this is what I think.

  1. “Marriage,” as we who write around here understand it, is essentially outlawed and those who are practicing it and discussing it openly are at great risk to losing their freedom, their livelihood, and the very families they enjoy. Therefore, any serious discussion of the topic must include an acknowledgment that, based on the strict definition of the term, we are antisocial.
  2. Marriage is an institution that, in a rational-Christian civilization takes two otherwise unrelated people and makes them next of kin*. It consists of a hierarchy, with the husband at the top place of honor and authority, and that rational-Christian civilization, were it to exist, would reinforce the marital hierarchy in law and all the surrounding institutions as well.
  3. Attempting to discuss a singular “purpose” of marriage in such a large and diverse group of Christians from different faith traditions is probably less fruitful then acknowledging what strong marriages actually accomplish. That is, they are an incubator and perpetuator of the values held most dear to a people. This is true of ANY good institution, which is why others such as the military, the Boy Scouts, ad infinitum, are considered failed ones by the entire Manosphere. When you use this rubric and ask yourself, “What values could we perpetuate in a strong marriage-based culture?”, the rest of the debate about its “purpose” seems to fade away. All those other institutions have failed to perpetuate values across generations. Marriage is no different.
  4. All the debate about whether or not there is a core “American” ethnic or cultural identity aside, it does not offer a set of values that most in the Christian Manosphere can agree on moral grounds are worth perpetuating. This might be considered liberating to some Christians who wish to shed “American” values as an anchor point for what is to be perpetuated.
  5. The institution (and its leaders) that should be standing most firmly by the side of those wishing to live this marriage ideal out in practice–the church–is currently doing the most damage after ingesting a number of poisonous philosophical viewpoints (chivalry, feminism, egalitarianism) and is most likely hopelessly anti-marriage at this point.
  6. Even those of us who are fiercely in opposition to these developments and are committed to living out the truth of marriage at home are converged on some levels (due to living in the culture), and even if we were perfect, our single-family entities are surrounded by people who think we are crazy.
  7. Those of us with small children, who can envision a future marriage for them cannot simultaneously see a way to help them accomplish it in the context of number six without dramatically exiting the culture, which would require near-unlimited funds and defense against litigation, ostracizing, and so forth.
  8. When Dalrock asks the question, “Is marriage for the elite?“, one cannot simply dismiss this as a rhetorical device. Using present company as an example, I am not willing to marry off my children to “just anybody” and insuring the kind of marriage we are dreaming about must include discussion of limiting their options to something like “the elite”, even if you mean “holy.” No matter how you slice it, you are looking at a tiny target of folks on the bell curve. A strong marriage culture does not currently exist, so only those with certain traits, appetite for risk, and so on can accomplish it right now.

All of these conditions create the context under which parents in the Manosphere would be trying to create a new mate selection model. If it could be done, it would, by definition be small, outside of cultural norms, very expensive and very risky. I therefore proposed some years ago, on my courtship pledge website a small list of “must haves” in an effort to broaden the tent under which some folks might be interested. This was intended to be a discussion about, “What are the bare minimum requirements for a mate selection process to be consistent with Christian values?” Even so, it was considered so weird, so unrealistic, as to be unobtainable.

I stand ready to open the discussion again, my children being several years older and the crisis even hotter than ever.

* HOW it makes those two strangers next of kin is a matter of debate amidst the Manosphere. This writer understands this process to be achieved via sacrament, performed by a duly ordained priest with holy orders traceable through lineage and apostolic succession. It transcends time and space and is eternal and permanent. Others see it as contract, and others still as a covenant.


Related

Posted in Child Development, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Organization and Structure, Relationships, Stewardship, Strategy | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores?

Christian faith transforms the soul and spirit, but is insufficient for redeeming the flesh in a fallen world. The combinatoric result can be sexually liberating. Includes a fem-lexicon translation.

Readership: Red Pilled Christian Men

Warning: Contains descriptions of sexual encounters; profane language;

Introduction

Cane Caldo’s post, A Preface to the Discussion on Whores (February 5, 2019) brought up the elephant issue of how sexual sin is regarded so casually by Christian women.

Cane’s second post in his Discussion on Whores series, DoW I: Celebrating Hay in a Needle Stack (February 14, 2019) reported that 65% of regular church-going, married individuals reported having premarital sex.

So anyway, let’s assume that 65% figure is legit for the sake of discussion. That leaves 35% who are supposedly not doing it. We know from the 80/20 Rule that 10-20% of those couldn’t get laid if their soul depended on it, and let’s face it, no self-respecting man wants to marry a woman with whom he wouldn’t do the vertical dance. The remaining 15-25% is wound up on fears, or still waiting for “the One”, or some other solipsistic, hamsterbated inhibition is keeping their ankles tied… Then there’s a small number who keep themselves pure because their love and obedience to God keeps them waiting.

A couple pastors I have known estimate that only about 10% of their congregation are true believers. If your woman is one of those 10%, you probably shouldn’t have to worry about her indiscretion. The problem is the other 90%, who claim to be Christians, but who have a rodeo hobby horse reserved for stimulating what others mistake for the glory of Christ. Truth be known, the only times I have ever seen women spiritually glorified is when they were having an affair, or were just about to. I’ve seen this so often, that now, whenever I see a woman glorified, I automatically jump to this conclusion.

Cane’s third post, DoW II: Diversity Plus Proximity Equals Whore (February 19, 2019), basically discusses how women effectively separate the concept of marriage from the thrills of sex. Women want to be ruled over, but only in a hotel room by a cad for a few nights a month. Lawfully wedded husbands, on the other hand, are to be dominated, every day!

Cane’s series, and their comments, have brought up the following questions in my mind.

  1. Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores in the first place?
  2. Why are Christian women who indulge in promiscuity typically lacking all sense of shame?

For the Case Studies in the following discussion, I’ll use the two examples given in Cane’s first post, and two examples from Boxer’s archives.

the Lord spanks us

Let thy beehive be only for thine husband’s stick!

Case Study 1: Jesus saved her from being choked to death by her bondage masters

Cane tells the story of tracking down an interesting Twitter feed, only to find a surprise at the end.

“[The tweet was from] some young woman not only in Texas, but in the town where I live. Small world and so forth. That young woman had in her Twitter feed an exhortation to herself that Jesus was looking out for her. So far so good, you may think.

As you know, newest tweets are at the top and you have to scroll down to go back in time, as it were. Long story short, about four hours before she tweeted about Jesus, she had tweeted, “I miss being choked at night.” My hope is that there is no connection intended.

I can hear your wheels spin from here. “Oh, she’s not a real Christian.”, your mind ejects. Whew! That was a close one. Now you can go back to pretending girls like that don’t know really know Christ is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and was crucified for our sins and raised on the third day. Right? Therefore, she’s not a girl from your church who went off to college to learn a career and “find herself”. Shhh… Be at ease, sleeper…”

Becoming a Christian doesn’t immediately remake a woman into a shining angel. She has the same personality, the same desires, and the same feral nature as she always had. If she had a kinky sexual blueprint before knowing Christ, then she’ll always have a weakness for the snap of a whip and a forceful grip. The only difference is that she’ll not be worshipping phalluses because she’s desperately addicted to the toxic love she gets out of it. No, instead, her familiarity with the soul warming love of Christ gives her the power to say “no” to illicit sex, if she should ever decide to show her love for God through being obedient. [Question to ponder: What would motivate her to be obedient?] But either way, her Freedom in Christ gives her the liberty to accept and thoroughly enjoy being herself, whoever (or whatever) she might be. Depending on her degree of cooperation, the process of her sanctification may very well extend through her entire lifetime.

That’s the ugly truth about Christianity that you’ll never hear from the pulpit!

swiper_no_swiping_by_letiprincess

Dora gets swiped, by LetiPrincess.

Case Study 2: Swiper, no swiping!

Cane tells of a conversation he overheard at work.

“The next day I went into work and heard this conversation between three college-aged coworkers:

Senior Cody: …and just say to her, Look, you swiped right, I swiped right. We both know what this is about. Let’s get it on!

Underclassmen: Hahahaha! Right! Exactly! What else could she be thinking?

Cody: And, hey, listen… listen… if she’s got a Bible quote on her profile then definitely go for it because you know she’s a ho!”

People have suspected that Christian women are bigger whores than non-Christians for who knows how long. But since the advent of women’s liberation over the past 60 years, it is no longer taboo to say so.

With my experience in Asia, the only women that post Bible verses or Christian inspirational quotes on their profiles are Catholic Filipino migrant workers. Whenever I saw those Christian moxies under the woman’s photo (or in lieu of a photo), I knew I was dealing with a married adulteress with a lot of emotional issues, and maybe who had some kids back home. Every time. I am guessing they mainline moxie to deal with their shame and separation anxieties. The bottom line for them is that making money abroad is more important than maintaining fidelity and family time. [Question to ponder: How could a man sort out women who cite Bible quotes as a method of ameliorating their guilt and shame, from those who do not?]

Case Study 3: Boxer and the Christian-Easy Red-Head

A while back, Boxer recounted this story of how he quickly and easily bedded a hot, red-headed frivorcee who claimed to be a Christian. He writes,

“The first thing she told me was that she was “a devout Christian woman.” I took this to mean that she’d be easy to fuck on the first date. I fucked her within two hours of meeting her.”

Sadly so, Boxer… the statement, ‘I’m a devout Christian woman’ is commonly understood to mean, ‘I’m DTF!’ Even according to my own life experiences which pale in comparison to Boxer’s, I believe it’s quite true. Christian women are the first to jump on alphas, and the first to shrivel up around betas, and they’re not hesitant to get things jiggling.

Even here in Asia, if a western guy wants to get laid, scoping out the local single women at the nearest Christian church will yield a better lay ratio than hitting up a bar. Many women go to Church for the sole purpose of meeting and slaking foreigners. If a man wants to have a “Christian marriage”, he’s wiser to marry a thin, mature, submissive, respectful, Buddhist woman, and lead her to Christ in the process. That’s no joke! They are more likely to be loyal for life, because they take their wedding vows seriously.

[Question to ponder: What benefits do Christian women offer to Christian men seeking a wife? More to the point, why should I ever have to ask this question?]

derelict church

Her body is the Lord’s temple.

Case Study 4: Boxer and the Furious Femme Fatale

Before we all jump on the bandwagon in roundly condemning Christian women who freely sample the pleasures and comforts intended only for marital life through illicit sex, let’s consider a non-Christian woman who does the same. This last case study is presumably NOT a Christian, and so we’ll let her serve as the experimental control for this study.

Boxer’s follow up post, described how he gamed two women, including the red-head in Case Study 3. Boxer showcases the volatile emotional nature of the second woman. He intentionally flamed her, just to watch her flip. Let’s examine some of her text messages, and see what she’s made of.

“It’s okay that you like me, but I’m scarred and damaged. I’m thinking now that I might not be fit for dating.”

“I’m thinking I might drive a sane person crazy about now.”

“Cuz I know I’m not sane.”

These coded statements are LOADED with non-verbal trickery laced with chick crack. Here we have Psychological Projection, a Bait-and-Switch in the making, and a Petition for a License to Ill. Let’s translate these statements into plain language.

“It’s okay that you like me” = “You have passed my alpha filter… so far.”

“But I’m scarred and damaged.” = “The Feelz are my Lord and Master, and my soul has already been marked with the evil badge of sadness.”

“I’m thinking now that I might not be fit for dating.” = “I am going to do whatever I feel like doing, and I don’t have to give you, or anyone else, any apologies or justification for not feeling committed.”

“I’m thinking I might drive a sane person crazy about now.” = Psychological Projection that could be interpreted to mean, “Right now, I feelz like doing something crazy. Are you crazy enough to get on down with it and not judge me?”

“Cuz I know I’m not sane.” = “I am one h*ll of a psychopathic, Tingle-crazy, nympho-b!tch who has gone full tilt in my zenith breeding mode! I am totally DTF with anyone who passes my Alpha filter and strokes my Tingles, and I hope you are not going to waste my time and disappoint me!”

If we read between the lines, I can guess she is also saying,

“Let’s see how much Alpha you are, and how much I can control you, use you, abuse you, and get away with it.”

“I’m coy now, because that’s my man-bait, but once I get my teeth in you, I will chew you up and sh!t you out the same @ss orifice that just ate your jizm.”

Boxer writes,

“If a man decides to treat a skank-ho wimminz decently, and is honest about his lack of interest, then this is the likely result. The following message was sent by a crazy little brunette that I banged a couple of times in the last month. Note that I dumped this particular piece of lackluster tail just to see what she’d do. She even managed to impress me. I thank her for providing my younger brothers of an(other) example of wimminz insanity.”

“I KNOW ALL YOU WANTED FROM ME WAS SEX YOU MOTHERFUCKER. DON’T EVER TALK TO ME AGAIN!!!!”

“Now, the chances that a wimminz will make a false complaint of sexual harassment, assault, stalking, etc. against a brother are minuscule, but those chances are greater than zero, and moreover, they are much more likely to come from the wimminz who is motivated to send you angry text messages, than one who thinks she dumped a needy whiner. This is true simply because the Christian redhead is now embarrassed to have let me fuck her, while the crazy brunette feels cheated out of her chance at romance and a relationship by a cad, who had sex with her and bounced. If she decided to make a false complaint, she would feel as though she were complain-bragging, whereas the first woman would feel like she’d be admitting to stooping to sleeping with someone who will always be beneath her.”

Women who say this line, “All you want from me is sex”, or some similar variant, are women who possess the following qualities.

  • They are extremely solipsistic.
  • They have absolutely no control over their sexuality.
  • They have never had the notion that it might be wise to exercise self-control.
  • They have no sense of personal responsibility, and are prone to place all blame on the man.
  • They see men as merely as a material resource provider, and an ego stimulant. If a man fails to deliver these, he is demoted to being a sub-human, leg humping beast with no personality.
  • They have a severely maladjusted appreciation of male desire, and therefore tend to see it as an annoying bug, instead of the primary channel of their feminine powers.
  • They may have suddenly discovered that the man in question is much less Alpha than originally presumed, which produces the outrage.
steampunk cuff

Her bondage is her watch and compass!

Analysis

When Boxer presented himself as a beta, he quickly got dumped by the ‘Christian’ red-head. But when he presented himself as an alpha-chad to the other, he became the target of the scorned woman’s fury.

The idol here is the ego trip that the woman gets out of controlling men, and consuming them in various ways at her leisure. If she is successful in this endeavor, she will throw the man away after her purposes for him have been fulfilled. If she is not, she will attack that man until she can fulfill her desire, or else gain a sadistic satisfaction over destroying him in some form or fashion.

Following Boxer’s analysis, there is no fundamental difference between women who claim to be Christian, and others who do not. They both behaved exactly as Boxer predicted. I have to agree that in terms of people’s actual behavior, Christians are not much different from non-believers. Christians put their pants on every morning, just as non-Christians do. The real difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians tend to be more spiritually and psychologically healthy. This is a quality that cannot be readily observed, and it is even more difficult to detect in a relationship because,

  1. Both men and women find it difficult to judge the socio-spiritual trustworthiness of members of the opposite sex. Instead, their attentions get caught up in a selection criteria based on attraction and Feelz.
  2. People always wear their best face going into a relationship. This hides personality glitches and character flaws, while delaying the process of knowing the person.

In fact, it is nearly impossible to tell if a woman is a true believer or not, unless you’ve spent a lot of time in close proximity to her, met her family and coworkers, and have basically become a part of her life. I’ve heard some old hands say, you never really know a woman until you’ve slept with her for a few months.

The point is, women are women, Christian or not. But if a woman is a Christian, I suppose that’s better for her own soul and psychological well-being, but it’s no guarantee that she won’t slooze around in college, or even step out on you after marriage.

why-does-it-feel-so-good

Conclusions

The Bible encourages us (or warns us, depending on your view) to pursue honorable lives, and not fritter our freedom of faith away in the pursuit of vainglorious or destructive bemusings of the flesh.

“For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” ~ Galatians 5:13 (NKJV)

“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. ~ 1st Peter 2:15-16 (NKJV)

These exhortations presume that Christ gives us spiritual liberty and psychological health, but what a person does with this freedom is wholly up to them. Indeed, the introductory paragraph of Cane’s post is a reflection on God’s purpose for believers.

“The Bible tells us that our conduct will speak for us and for Christ as we make our way through this time of exile in the world before our Lord returns. We can either honor Christ and ourselves with our conduct, or bring both into disrepute.”

If a man opts for a Christian girlfriend or wife, she’s only better in the sense that she won’t be as depraved and manipulative as the Femme Fatale in Case Study 4. But whether or not she will take the effort to be obedient to the Word is entirely up to her, and whether she is one of those 10%.

In addition to the “Sunday Christian” problem of true-but-trivial faith, there are many larger problems looming. Modern culture makes it waaay too easy for all women to flirt with the devil and not have to face much (if any) consequence or censure. His tools of seduction include,

  1. The widespread social acceptance of sexual liberation.
  2. The six sirens of the sexual apocalypse.
  3. Social media and dating websites which provide whoards of opportunities with men.
  4. SMS and internet communications which are easy to hide and delete.
  5. The flaccid “love and forgive” social atom-osphere of the church.

People hardly ever feel guilty about any sort of sexual transgression. There’s literally no opportunity to be shamed for it.

If it is any consolation, a Christian woman is not likely to speak in coded language, and if/when she does screw around, she’s more likely to be open and honest about it. Although I’m not sure if that would be a “confession” or “profession”. Hence, the apparent “lack of shame” lamented in Cane’s posts.

Related

Posted in Asia, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Female Power, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Hamsterbation, Internet Dating Sites, Models of Failure, Satire | Tagged , | 21 Comments

They’re telling us what Courtship is not, and not what Courtship is.

The perpetuation of the Christian faith through marriage and procreation is facing an existential crisis. What are we doing about it?

Readership: Christians who support the institution of marriage.

Since I was 14, I knew it was God’s will for me to marry and have a family. I expected that I would get married soon after finishing college, around the age of 24 or 25. Since I was serious about preparing myself for marriage, I immersed myself in reading all the most noteworthy Christian “experts” on marriage and family of the day. James Dobson was reportedly the most outstanding expert on Christian marriage back then, and Elisabeth Elliot was the angel of yearning singles. Joshua Harris reneged on dating altogether, only to have the bitter reality of the modern MMP come back to bite him. Naturally, I was a part of the early 1990’s abstinence movement, which sent my social life to h@ll in a millisecond, not that I cared.

You can laugh all you want now, but this was the best Biblical interpretation available to marriage-minded Christians back then.

DSC_0253

Now we know that many of these authors actually contributed to the convergence of the Protestant Church with Feminism. Only now do I realize that their rhetoric was a large source of my frustration as a marriage-minded Christian youth.

It should come as no surprise to my RP’ed readers, that I never found a suitable Christian woman to marry in my 20’s. It was only later in my early 30’s when, in a fit of disappointment and frustration, I gave up on those hopes of having a Christian marriage, and started engaging in extramarital sex. Only then did I stumble onto the dark secrets of the converged MMP, and soon thereafter discovered the mystery of how to seduce a woman into marriage – just bang her really hard, and let her know that she’s not the only one. (BTW, I would not recommend anyone to repeat this approach.)

Unfortunately, my sad story is rather common among those of my generation who were seeking marriage over thrills – and that wasn’t very many of us.

One of the most urgent needs in Christianity today, is to have an institutionally supported path towards marriage available for those who are called. This is especially dire for young women, who are tempted to explore the ways of Feminism before settling down.

Within the last decade, the Christian Manosphere has introduced the most crucial Red Pill knowledge about intersexual relations, attraction, and the nature of the flesh. Around 2015, the Manosphere split into various factions, with only a  small remnant clinging to the institution of marriage as a viable option. As of 2018, young Christian truth-seekers are choking on the bitterness of the Red Pill, and are not finding their way into a blissful marriage. (I know many of my readers will chuckle at the phrase “blissful marriage”.) This has got to change, and soon!

Right now, we do find many criticisms of the faults of modern Churchianity, but these insights have only pinpointed the fallacies, while failing to redirect towards the narrow way.

For instance, consider this post from Dalrock: If Christianity isn’t Feminism and Courtly Love, what is it? (September 17, 2018)

The title is quite fitting of the post – it tells what it is not, and not what it is. What it is!

In this post, Dalrock answers a reader’s (Tim) question by comparing the present adulteration of the church with feminism and the Courtly Love model, to a future adulteration of the church with homosexuality. It’s a classic Dalrock piece that is quite satirical (which is why I love reading his blog).

Through this illustration, Dalrock points out that homosexuality, feminism, and the Courtly Love model are unchristian, but he doesn’t take the trouble to illustrate a more excellent way, nor does he give any clues about what he actually believes. Thus, he has avoided Tim’s question.

I’m not throwing stones. I can understand why. Dalrock knows it’s unwise to be a zealot these days.

However, judging by some of the comments, this type of response comes off as a little annoying (and slightly arrogant) to many readers. The reason I take the time to cover it here is because some readers might think he’s missing the chance to set Tim right by giving him a clear choice in the matter.

Specifically, opponents could argue that Dalrock failed to answer Tim’s question by mentioning that the Christian alternatives to homosexuality (following his analogy) are either going straight with a view towards marriage, or else, celibacy. Certainly, this is one of the most unpopular beliefs within Christianity (along with forgiveness and suffering), but it has to be said anyway.

If I’m interpreting Dalrock’s analogy correctly, he appears to believe there is no other alternative to the Courtly Love model, but actually, there is. In fact, Dalrock has often dropped hints about a better way for straight Christian horndogs to approach courtship and marriage, but he never tackles it head on.

The problem with stating an obvious truth is that most individuals cannot appreciate it as truth unless it is hard won. But why hide (or fail to mention) the unappetizing aspects of Christian beliefs?

Sure, a man might examine Christianity and then decide, “I don’t like this religion because I can’t screw around as I please, and it will make me look too Beta. Christ is not for me.”

Or else, he might say to himself, “God says I shouldn’t do that, and I’m sure He has some good reasons for that. Not sure if I can do it, but I’m going to go with God anyway, and try to honor Him. I’ve heard He is graceful to those who love him and seek to follow Him.”

The real decision is not, “To F, or not to F”, and not even, “husband vs. wife – who’s the boss?”, but rather, to choose God’s Way or not. If the basic question is centered around the first issue, image and lifestyle, or the second, about headship roles, then we never approach the third – loving and obeying God, and living a life that honors and glorifies Him.

The problem is that it is not enough to tell people the conclusion of the matter, because society is too far gone. I don’t believe that the average person has enough faith to take God at his Word.

In response to this need, the author of Sigma Frame, along with a loose cooperation of a few other RP bloggers, are attempting to lay out all the options in order that people may see for themselves that God’s way is best. It may not seem like that in some of the presentation, but I am sure that the conclusion will come to that. I also expect to find further details about the implementation of the various courtship models.

In other words, let’s lay it all on the table, so that we can give people a clear, well informed choice. Set them free from the bondage of confusion.

Even for those people who do not come to the conclusion that God’s way is best, then at least they will know why Christians believe so, and being better informed, they will be better able to take responsibility for their own choices.

I’ve collected noteworthy articles on the subject of Courtship, and listed them together in a new page, entitled, Courtship Models. We see the development of a dialectic here to sway future generations. If this is a topic that interests you, then bookmark this page, and check back periodically for updates.

Related

Posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Strategy, Zeitgeist Reports | Tagged , | 13 Comments

Mount Moriah – The Place Where You Meet God

Mount Moriah, in Jerusalem, is the most historically valuable piece of Real Estate on planet Earth.

Originally written on Saturday, April 7, 2007

Could all these events have possibly occurred at the same location?

  1. God promises to make Abram the father of faith.
  2. Melchizedek blesses Abram at Salem (an old name for the city of Jerusalem).
    • Genesis 14:18-20 (NIV) – “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.”
  3. Abraham offers Isaac on Mount Moriah.
    • Genesis 22:1-19 (NIV) – “Some time later, God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”…”
  4. Jacob’s dream occurred on Mount Moriah, according to Rabbinic scholars.
  5. Ruth comes to Boaz at the threshing floor.
  6. The Lord God appeared to David.
    • 2 Samuel 24:18 – “And Gad came that day to David and said to him, “Go up, erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.”
    • 1 Chronicles 21:18 “Therefore, the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David that David should go and erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite.”
  7. 840 B.C. – Solomon built the First Temple on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem.
    • 2 Chronicles 3:1Now Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite.”
  8. 586 B.C. – Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar.
  9. 520-515 B.C. – The Temple was rebuilt on Mount Moriah, Jerusalem under Zerubbabel.
  10. From 37-11 B.C., Herod the Great added to Zerubbabel’s Temple located on Mount Moriah to such an extent that this Temple became known as “Herod’s Temple.” This was the Temple of Jesus’ day.
  11. From 26-29 A.D., Jesus Christ appeared in the temple as the Son of God, and as God’s Word to men, declaring himself to be the new temple, and preaching and teaching salvation for all.
    • John 2:19-21 – “Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”  But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
  12. In 70 A.D., the temple was destroyed by the Romans, under Titus.
  13. In 135 AD, Hadrian, the Roman, completely removed all the ruins and traces of the second Temple.
  14. In 625 AD, according to the Muslim faith, Mohammed left the earth from Mount Moriah.
  15. In 635, the Muslims conquered Byzantium, and took control of Jerusalem.
  16. In 685, a Moslem mosque, called, “The Dome of the Rock” was built on Mount Moriah.

Future Events at Mount Moriah

  1. Scripture describes events of the Temple that have not yet come to pass. Therefore, the temple must be rebuilt at some point in the future. Many Christians and Jews believe that The Dome of the Rock will be destroyed, and the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt after the Ark of the Covenant is found.
  1. When the “abomination of desolation” is brought into the holy of holies, the end of the world will come.
  • Daniel 11-12
  • Daniel 12:11 – “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.
  • Matthew 24
  • Mark 13
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 – “1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Present Application

  1. Since Jesus Christ came and paid the ultimate sacrifice for all time, there is no longer any need for a temple. No longer do we need a place to offer sacrifices.
  • Mark 12:33 – “And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifice”
  • Hebrews 7:26-27 – “26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.”
  • Romans 12:1 “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”
  1. The Lord no longer uses Mount Moriah as a holy place of interaction with the human race. After Jesus finished his work on earth, the door was opened for God to relate to each man personally.
  • 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (NIV) – “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.”
  • 1 Corinthians 6:19 – “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?”
  1. God appears to us personally in a certain holy place in our hearts. It is important to nurture our relationship with God in this place.
  • 1 Corinthians 7:17-23 – “17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.”
  1. If you are seeking God, look for Him in places where you have found him before. If you seem to have lost God, go back to the place where you last remembered Him and experienced His presence.
    • Luke 22:39 – “Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.”
  2. Once the Lord finishes his work in a place, he will never again be found in the same place, in the same way. To seek him in the same place is to insinuate that God did not finish the work He came to do.

Sources

Search terms: temple; mount moriah; sacrifice; threshing floor Araunah; Bethel; Salem; Jerusalem;

Related

 

Posted in The Power of God | Tagged | Leave a comment

Yankee Stay Home!

What is the real purpose of building the wall?

Readership: All

Venezuela yankee go home

Anti-American intervention protests in Venezuela.

American Thinker (feat. Elad Hakim): For Trump, Pelosi-Schumer clown show is the gift that keeps on giving (January 10, 2019)

“Tuesday night, President Trump delivered a powerful speech from the Oval Office regarding the need for strong border security.  During the speech, Trump laid out specific facts explaining why the country needs to secure the border and how his plan would accomplish this.  According to Fox News, at one point during the speech, Trump directly addressed his colleagues, stating, “Wealthy politicians … don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”  The speech was effective and convincing.”

Let’s reinterpret that quote from Trump as it applies to the common American citizen.

“The wall is not meant to keep illegals out… it’s intended to keep Murican’s in!”

Right now, the squawk is over “undocumented” immigration eroding nationalism and the source of violent criminals, like MS-13.

For their part, the Democrats are theatricising a controlled opposition to the wall, to rally public support for the government-wide plan mandated by the Deep State.

So the current puppet show makes it appear as though building the wall is a Republican project. Not so! This is a recent development since Trump took office.

The time will come when there begins a reverse osmosis of human flow at the wall.

What, pray tell, would be a reason why anyone would want to leave the U.S.?

More Americans agree that this is an excellent time to go live abroad.

Delete Farcebook while you still can. The time is coming when your smartphone will be used to monitor your every word and move.

The writing is on the wall, although what it says, exactly, is different for each person.

writing on the wall

Related

Posted in Culture Wars, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Where is your life headed?

Think about where you stand in the order of things. Is it where you want to be?

Readership: Men

Larry, from Larry’s Musings, left a heavyweight comment under an older post, Profile of an excellent leader (December 22, 2014).

“The post above raises the issue of people deciding (choosing) which groups and/or individuals to associate with and follow. This is important. What we see today in many Western societies is many individuals not consciously and rationally thinking about their choices, but acting rather emotionally and thus following “leaders” because of their appeals to our emotions.

It does not help that our educational system is currently one of indoctrination, and does not work to develop the pupils’ critical thinking skills. Add to this the propagandized nature of our history text books and our media, and we see that so many people really are lost and in ignorance. We need true leaders to help liberate the people of their ignorance.

The post above seems to have an emphasis on a leader’s role in the business and corporate world, but leaders in other walks of life also play critical roles in our societies.”

where is my life going

Here follows an abridged section of the post he is addressing.

“People don’t have hope, but they need to have hope. Leaders bring hope that lies within a purpose – something that people can sincerely believe, and work patiently for it to come true.

We should ask ourselves, “Is this purpose really true, right, good? Is this what I want to become?”

The purpose is to find meaning in the somewhat imminent future (few months to a few years). This purpose requires some time, effort, and maybe even some $$$ to reach it.

We need a small group of people working together as a team to reach our purposes in life. Part of your choice is in the people you associate with. With the right combination, one can achieve great things.

We all need to feel like we are an important part of something larger than ourselves. (This is why some people join street gangs.) We have a responsibility to ourselves to choose what we want to become and make it happen. To this end, a leader offers a viable and wise course of action.

It is necessary for one to agree and follow the leader of a group, in order to be a part of a group. So we should ask ourselves, “Can I trust this group of people? Can I trust this leader? Can I sincerely believe what they believe?” If trust is not important, then why not join a street gang, just to find hope and purpose in life?

Do I have value? What is my value? Who am I? How do I maximize my self-worth? A leader offers answers to these questions.

I also hinted at this idea in a recent post covering the witches brew ad from Gillette,

“…don’t ever send your resume [to a converged corporation], unless you’re an upper level manager who plans to reorganize the structure. It’s time for America to realize that an employee of a company does the bidding of his overseers, for better, or for worse. So choose your employer wisely, and know your life purpose before accepting any job offer.”

Listen up fellas, because I know what I’m talking about here. I used to be employed in a Top Secret government job in the defense sector. There was extravagant waste of hard earned tax dollars. There was cronyism in the arrangements made on research contracts that had absolutely zero scientific foundation. If you made a mistake, people died. In fact, people died even if you did your job well, as mass carnage is merely a presumed byproduct of any military aggression. And make no mistake, any armed offense is aimed at asserting power and control over others. It’s the old, “You will obey my will… or you will die!” routine.

But no one really cared about all of this. You see, the matrix asserts various “patriotic” buzz-moxies, like “defending our country”, “preserving freedom and democracy”, and “liberty and justice for all”, which are merely cathetic motivations held by those who enjoy the comforts of lies, and who have never looked down the barrel of a gun (one way or the other). So there were few people who saw it like I did. Instead, my coworkers spent most of their time drinking coffee and boasting about their children’s career accomplishments, or the vacation cottage in which they planned to retire after they had put in their 20. This insular corruption went straight up to the top brass, and even they felt helpless to change it. So I knew there was nothing I could do to change this place for the better.

After enduring this working culture for only a few months’ time, I had an existential crisis. I couldn’t focus. My mind kept wandering away to thoughts like…

“Is this really what I want to do with my life? Stuck in this carpeted cage as a genteel wage slave… Fabricating weapons of warfare… Supporting engagement campaigns that I really don’t agree with? Always waiting for the news of another kill?

And these people! Do I really want to spend the next 20-40 years commingling with these people? I could foresee that I would become just like them after 20 years. Do I want to be like them? A gubmint wanka?

I took this job because I wanted to do something great for my country, but actually, there’s no honor there, nothing to be proud of… It’s not the 007 secret agent James Bond assignment that I had imagined…”

govt employees after shutdown

My conscience wouldn’t let me sleep at night, so I resigned. Many of my coworkers feigned tears of despondency over the news, but their micro-expressions [YouTube tutorial] told me they were glad to see me go.

After that, I spent a couple years in an urban wilderness, wondering, “where is my life going?” But then, on a whim, I decided to get out of billville and start seeing the world.

I never regretted it. I’ve traveled around Asia since then, learned a little Kung Fu, met some terrific people (and women too). I found much greener pastures. Best of all, I got out from under the Feminista Thumbrella™ of the Globalist sociopathology.

In conclusion, if you’re in a place where you never feel confident about your work, or get a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction, you know you’ll never reach your potential, and maybe this post has been shouting at you, then it’s time for you to make your move.

A leader – be one, or choose one!

Related

Posted in Choosing A Profession, Collective Strength, Discernment, Wisdom, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Leadership, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Self-Concept, Strategy | Tagged | 1 Comment

Time Frames for various forms of sexual bonding and maturation

A timeline for sexual bonding and sexual maturation.

Readership: +18

Most people want to have sex, or more sex, but in their zeal (or frustration), they seldom recognize how their sexual experiences (or lack thereof) change the constitution of their personality. This post is intended to provide a brief summary of how the sexual experience typically affects individuals and relationships.

For younger people who have no experience, this should give you an idea of how fragile our sexual nature is, and how quickly certain things can progress.

For men who are settling into a new relationship with a woman, the following bulletin should give you a better idea of how experienced she is.

  1. Instant (upon awareness) – Visual attraction, vibes, tingles, chemistry.
  2. A few seconds, up to a few hours – A decision is made whether to pursue a sexual relationship or not. Non-deliberative (feral, instinctive) decisions are made sooner.
  3. A few seconds, up to 1 minute – Penetration, loss of virginity/purity.
  4. 5-10 minutes of sexual intercourse (or orgasm) – Sanctification/defilement/alpha enwidowment. A deep sexual bonding forms.
  5. 2-3 months of regular banging – The dopamine/endorphine/oxytocin “high” associated with “falling in love” begins to abate.
  6. 8 months to one year – The initial feelings of love and attraction subside.
  7. 1-2 years of regular sexual intercourse (certain individuals may be shorter or longer) – Sexual maturity, familiarity with the processes leading to sex, and the sexual interaction develop. Individuals are learning to trust one’s body and control one’s sexual desire (sexual confidence). The development of trust in one’s sexual nature allows responsibility and personal agency to fully take root. Younger women are especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation before this phase. This is also when individuals “bloom”, and become sexually attractive to the opposite sex.
  8. 2-5 years – Head Trust develops with the attrition of Heart Trust. Cognitive knowledge of the sex act, and related activities, leads to sexual saturation. Individuals learn to objectify sex and sexy people. Feelings of predictability, annoyance, or even annui, commonly set in here. Most affairs and divorces happen in this stage. Women who have significantly negative experiences may grow to despise men and male desire during this phase. If not, they learn to be content with themselves and the man they have chosen.
  9. 5-10 years – Deeper personal understanding, friendship and affection gradually grows, producing more contentment and satisfaction in the relationship. For poorly adjusted individuals who may choose to stay in an unhappy union, sexual deployment and displacement may dominate their lives.

Males and females both experience similar time frames of bonding, but the emotional experience is usually more intense for the female.

From this itinerary, it can be seen that sexual bonding happens quickly, but usually sublimates and fades within a year. Since it is rather difficult to establish a monogamous, LTR, a deliberate effort and planning is required to form a stable long term union, such as marriage.

Related

Posted in Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Relationships | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment