So-Called Christians

Interacting with Christians on the Internet doesn’t do much for my faith. For a long time I was what you might call a ‘Christian sympathiser’ but I kept professing my atheism knowing it wasn’t worth being attacked for being a Christian and not having enough knowledge or even faith to be able to defend myself effectively. What I didn’t expect was all the sniping and in-fighting from Christians themselves and it’s a disappointment to say the least.

Syrupy coatings don’t do a great job of hiding nasty and vindictive words and I find it unsettling. All the projection and obfuscating that people do in order to maintain an aura of holiness doesn’t further the cause. There are huge problems in the world and one doesn’t have to be a picture of perfection in order to see and to attempt to remedy some of that.

I thought it would be non-Christians holding me to a higher standard than that to which they hold themselves, but it turns out it is other Christians who want to tear each other down. This is not what is meant by “iron sharpening iron”. It is one thing to correct and challenge each other’s ideas; it is another to attack based on sketchy information about the person himself. Is it not so that the greatest of sinners can become the greatest of saints?

I’m not going to let any of this affect the faith I’ve found, but I won’t say it does it any good. I’m not doing this for ego-gratification or fame or what have you. I write what I see as the truth; I look for what is true and that requires getting down in the mud sometimes to see what is beneficial there. I have always been a seeker of what is true and good and it is a lifetime’s work that continues; inevitably, mistakes are made along the way. Being judgemental toward those on the same path of truth-seeking is self-defeating.

It seems that if someone admits to being a Christian, they must write PC stuff that will not offend anyone with delicate sensibilities, which means that Christians do not like being challenged and wish to remain self-satisfied with their often-feigned holiness, while they pretend that they do not think about the things others do. Maybe Shelia’s clinical sex stuff is all they can handle. How sad and boring and backwards that is.

With everything going on, it causes us to question whether this is too little too late and immaterial. After all, this is a world in which a proposal to disallow children to weed gardens or pick eggs, never mind drive a tractor on farms, can be made in the name of keeping people safe; Russian troops are training with the US military; Homeland Security has bought enough hollow point ammo for 7 years. This ammo is banned in war according to the Geneva Convention since it is so nasty to human flesh. Last but not least, CISPA is coming to infringe on Internet privacy and freedom of speech.

With all that, how fruitless it is to nit-pick and pass judgement, as if anyone could know the state of another’s soul or where they’re headed in the end.

Truths Seen In The Mud: Part 2

This was originally published on August 29, 2011 at Traditional Christianity. It is republished here in two parts.

If he is not leading her, she will try to lead. This is a her desire to control and it exists on the dark side of her nature. Men need to learn how to avoid certain women and how to manage the woman that he chooses to commit to. If he does this well, everyone wins. He cannot be too “nice” because women are drawn to the masculine. The man that is always nice and appeasing is destined to make everyone miserable, especially his woman. It disgusts her when he is always gentle and tender in lovemaking. She doesn’t understand why he disgusts her but he is that way in life too. No one has told him that it is OK and natural for him to do it rough and take what he wants from the woman he committed to.

This is why the nice guy fails in meeting the best kind of woman for him. The best women are drawn to men with an edge. The nice guy has an edge but it is blunted. He thinks it is a bad thing, so he represses it and does not speak of it or show it. The edge exists in his fantasies and anything repressed usually comes out in worse ways… passive-aggressive behavior, a secret life, or just withdrawing into other vices to attempt to soothe or temper his desires. His edge needs to be be sharpened. This man is not being REAL and his woman feels this because women are extremely perceptive. Because he is hiding his REAL self, she doesn’t trust him. He is pretending to be what he thinks will please her and others. When she doesn’t trust, she will attempt to control in order for her to meet her greatest need… feeling safe. Such a man is afraid of a woman’s sexuality and believes how things “should be” rather than how they are. He needs knowledge so he can grow to overcome this fear.

A woman with a nice guy can’t express her desire to be “taken” and to be ridden hard because she fears she would be rejected if she expressed these desires, but she can express this to the bad boy because he won’t judge her for her nature. The nice guy cannot tell her his desire because she would likely fear it since she already doesn’t totally trust him. The concept that women are sweet and delicate, morally superior and that women deserve to live on a pedestal, is promoted everywhere. Her life, up there on that pedestal, is lonely and she fears stepping down because she would disappoint her friends, and family. She needs to belong and cannot risk alienation from her support network. She longs to jump down and play in the mud but fears rejection if others saw the REAL her. So in a similar ways her niceness is a prison as is his.

It would be a good thing for the man to first embrace his masculinity and recognize that she doesn’t belong on the pedestal. Metaphorically, he should swat her on the ass and help her come down off that pedestal into his protective arms. Then she can be connected to the world and feel the mud squishing between her toes. Just as women don’t want a perfect man, men shouldn’t want a perfect woman.

Two people pretending to be nice often have big fights with lots of shouting, and the drama threatens to escalate into the physical. Each is constantly reminded of their less than perfect nature, but each copes by attempting to displace the blame on the other or by accepting the blame that they should not own. This is all kept behind closed doors because of the shame they feel. They cannot reveal to the world how messed up their relationship is because they fear the judgment of others. They already judge themselves harshly and believe that if others knew their true selves, their own personal harsh judgments would be confirmed to be true.

In reality others know that something is “off” and the situation is not rosy, but others pretend to not notice. After all, it was the family that taught the nice person to pretend, and that this behavior is normal and necessary to be accepted.

Thus the manosphere and exposure to the seedy side at Roissy is often beneficial to men. It is obvious that some of the intellectual progeny of Roissy have produced good fruit. But the roots of the tree are down in the dirt.

Truths Seen In The Mud: Part 1

This was originally published on August 29, 2011 at Traditional Christianity. It is republished here in two parts.

Most people mentally cling to how things should be rather than how things are. Most men here used to read Roissy and still occasionally do. It made them better men because men sift through a lot of information before applying it to their lives, according to their own moral principles.

A good man longs for a good woman. The nasty side of women must be revealed to most men. Game tactics and methods for seducing women must be revealed to him so the playing field is leveled. This fills in the gap in his understanding regarding why things happen with other people, how other men are successful with women and why his relationships have turned sour. He may and often does have to try some of these things to learn to calibrate to individual women and to gain the experience of leading without becoming a captive to her emotional variability. Problems created by women are usually blamed on men and it takes time to see the reality beyond this façade.

Reading Roissy will not turn a decent man into a cad. Men might dabble and try a few things, but the heart of most men is drawn to loving one woman well and being a father to his children. A decent man will become a better man but it is a journey and sometimes there is a side trip along his way.

All too often the blame of slutty women is placed upon men that should know better. This fails. A man is responsible for the consequences he creates in himself and she is responsible for the consequences she creates in herself. Men need to understand the dark side of women and how easily women can succumb to sexual temptation. Still women were basically created good, as were men.

Right now society is pulling out all the stops to blame everything on men. It has gotten worse in the last couple of years. There are few societal controls or penalties on women acting however they please and thus men need to be aware. This is why the character of a woman is of greater importance now than ever before. Society does not impose any behavioral boundaries, so it is up to him, but society has also usurped his ability to do this. The societal balance of power in male/female relationships has tipped totally to the female.

Men need women and women need men. A man needs a woman and a family to give his life purpose. This condition self motivates a decent man. It is not her that must motivate him. A woman needs a man to provide her a safe place to exist. But the man has to be the leader or she will not feel safe. She needs him to enforce the boundaries around her to prevent her from acting in destructive ways. Of course she has license to act as she wishes, but then he must make it clear that she loses his service of protecting her from the world.

Women are taught from an early age to be wary of the nature of men and that there are bad men that will hurt them. Men are not taught that there are bad women or that there is a dark side of women, which often leads to destruction.

Sexual Submission is Central

If there isn’t D/s in the sexuality of the couple, it is femDOM. A true egalitarian dynamic actually cannot exist. The void of leadership will be filled one way or the other and struggling with trying to achieve a true egalitarian ideal will only result in constant flux until someone gives up struggling and lets the other take the lead. Since historical traditional Christian women are instructed to submit to their husbands in everything, women have to give up this struggle and allow the leadership vacuum to be filled by a man.

How do we know this is as God intended – or, that this is natural?

Look at how man and woman are made. Look at the sex organs: she is void, he is form. This is as central as it gets – both physically, as this is at the centre of our bodies, and spiritually, as the sexual union is the sacrament of the marriage. For Catholics, the heart of the Christian life is the celebration of the Eucharist and this is comparable to the marital act as the heart of the Christian marriage.

7man: The Mass is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Many old traditional churches contained a baldacchino which is symbolic of a canopy over a marital bed. This symbolic theme is represented when a Jewish couple stand under a Chuppah during their wedding ceremony.

Yes, the Covenants of God are similar to the oaths, obligations and promises of marriage which are a foretaste of what we hope to have in our heaven. We must be in submission to God and it is absurd to think a wife should not be in submission to a husband. This message is stamped on our bodies and it is SEXUAL.

Without this central piece ordered correctly, nothing else will ever quite sit right no matter how a couple builds a façade that appeals to the neo-traditionalists.

I honestly have trouble understanding why anyone would want to build up a façade and then be forced to maintain it. It seems a lot of work for nothing solid. It’s a sad waste.

7man: I suppose there is also a similarity to those defying God and doing their own thing according to the rules they invent. That sounds like a feminist. It is amazing how many of the same traits feminists and many professing Christians have in common. Both want to police the bedroom and tell others how to live out their relationship. Neither really apply principles but instead construct values (which are subjective).

Suz says: About Submissive Women

These comments are from the same Suz previously turned into the post: Suz says: About Dominant Men

Dalrock again has a great post up: Reframing Christian marriage and the comments left by Suz relate to CL’s recent post: The Christian Dissing of Submissive Women

Suz says:

Beautifully done, Dalrock! It takes courage for a woman to live by it, yet just try to convince a “Christian” (or any) woman that a submissive wife is not a mindless doormat begging for emotional suffocation.

Yoo-hoo! Ladies?

Start by marrying a man with a history of integrity. (Some of them are sexy even when young, but most will get sexier as their confidence matures. Those hot bad-boys have no intention of maturing.)

Trust him completely, give him the best of yourself, and build him up; this builds you up as well, because your “identities” are intertwined. (Result: your best gets better. Win-win! No, really!)

No matter how you “feel” on any given day, he has not betrayed you unless he has betrayed the marriage (and ultimately himself as well). If he should betray the marriage covenant, THAT’S what divorce is for. (Nobody is asking you to be a martyr.)

Start by marrying a man with a history of integrity.

Suz says:

I think one of the most subtle yet convincing lies told by feminism, is its definition of “submission.” The grrlz have convinced everyone (yes, men too) that submission is passive, silent and repressed, with no will, thought or intent. Our idealized image of a submissive woman is folded hands, downcast eyes and a sweet smile. Bull!

A passive, weak woman who submits to her husband, will also submit to whatever influence is right in front her at any given time – that hunky neighbor, her willful disobedient children, her shrewish femiNazi coworker, her interfering mother, the internet and the TV, you name it. Such a woman must be guided and managed around the clock like a child. What man with a job, friends, hobbies, and any sort of life, needs such a burden?

Yes, I said burden. A married man needs a wife who supports him with her words and her deeds, whether he’s right next to her or on a business trip to the other side of the world. Submission isn’t passive. It isn’t silent. It can’t be repressed. It holds its head up, sometimes defiantly, and rolls its eyes at those who would belittle it. Its back is straight, it makes eye contact, it is steady and confident, and occasionally it’s noisy and fierce.

Suz says:

empathologicanism, Jacquie and I are clarifying what should be obvious, but isn’t. (All of us, you included, are in the process of unlearning what we’ve been taught all our lives.) I hope you’re not suggesting that assertive language and open defiance against those to whom one hasn’t submitted, is somehow “not submissive?”

Surely you don’t subscribe to the myth that feminine submission is always quiet, gentle and meek? It’s not. It’s part of a woman’s entire essence. It competes ruthlessly to win a dominant man. It becomes unladylike in bed. It screams in pain during childbirth. Its face gets puffy and snotty when it cries. It works itself to exhaustion (well, not so much these days) creating a nurturing home environment. It gets discouraged and it gets sick.

Wifely submission is not a pretty display of love, patience and serenity, suitable for framing and hanging in the parlor. It’s a living commitment to honor her husband and her god; it involves every aspect of her life, and sometimes it gets its hands dirty. If you doubt me, try quoting this comment to a “Christian” white knight and his non-submissive wife. They will react with outrage and disbelief.

Feminism wants us to believe that attaining and maintaining independence is the only permissible use for female strength and assertiveness. Feminism wants us to forget that human history is more than fifty years old, and that strong, moral, outspoken women existed before feminism did. Back then, most such women devoted their strength to their marriages and families, as submissive wives. It worked pretty well for millennia, until feminism hijacked the language and co-opted the attitude.

Our verbiage didn’t create the dichotomy, it addresses the dichotomy, which most of the modern world accepts and tries to hold over our heads. We’re just saying it out loud. Who else does it this explicitly? Not the church, the self-proclaimed milieu of “submission.”

FH, you are correct, although I think Jacqui used the term “stand on your own two feet” to indicate the ability to go it alone should it be necessary. All four feet in a marriage are intertwined.

The point we’re trying to make is that a strong, even forceful woman isn’t necessarily a ball-buster. She can use her force FOR her husband, rather than against him. She won’t overshadow him unless HE is submissive. Marital dominance/submission is a two-person undertaking.

Mother’s Day is a day we should especially recognize good submissive women (according to the traditional historical accurate definition and not the modern perversion of that definition). These submissive women are the best mothers to a man’s children.

The Ultimate Short Advice About Women

A principled man must assertively claim a (good) woman, treat her well (with fairness) and be the leader.

He must maintain this and be willing to walk away from her if she tries to change this dynamic.

He will be a woeful man if he forgets that she is an adult woman (accountable for her actions) and instead allows her to become an entitlement princess.

Relationship Cycles Can Solidify the Foundation

ALL relationships have ‘down time’. This can be anything from introverts who need time to themselves to minor quarrels to huge, catastrophic events. The key for any kind of down time is having the patience to wait and the willingness to talk through it. This is different than wanting to ‘work it out’ on the spot, which is something women tend to want to do more than men. Men are not so fast moving or as emotional as women; his periodic withdrawal is not so laden with insecurity as hers.

We can recognise that relationships have cycles and that, so long as emotional distance isn’t left to go on for too long (I think Athol Kay’s two-week limit is a pretty good time frame), this is normal and nothing to worry about. Many of us have experienced this withdrawal as beginning of the slow deterioration of the relationship because it never gets dealt with properly and so is left always partially unresolved (and we all know how women want resolution – popularly termed ‘closure’, a term I dislike).

It is sad how many people end up like this:

It is impossible for a relationship to be nourished unilaterally. It is true that everyone is flawed, but it is also true that some will absolutely refuse to allow themselves to be vulnerable enough to work through the difficult emotions. A couple will inadvertently hurt each other, but we can choose whether we take this clumsiness (that we all have) as a deliberate personal slight or not, and that is the indicator of our respective ability to forgive truly.

Of course, we should never allow attacks on character to pass our lips; we have to guard our own words and watch our own thoughts and re-frame it in terms of how something made us feel, rather than what a poor excuse for a human being our partner is. Furthermore, we need to accept that sometimes we will hurt each other so that we can accept the other’s emotions as valid and real, that we were the cause of them, but in a way that this is not one attacking the other or purposefully hurting the other. We can avoid escalation by accepting whatever each has to say, not being personally offended, and not expecting the other to change who they are.

This is comparable to the life of faith. Sometimes it is rather dry – sometimes more often than not – and the rewards seem few. It is a human tendency to expect rewards to be forthcoming and to desire a life of bliss, and then to be disappointed when it is not delivered to us. Do we persevere or do we give up? It can be tempting to put up a pretence of perfection otherwise known as keeping up appearances, but when we do that, does it help us to grow?

In the same way we ought to practice patience with each other, we know God is patient with us and that we cannot make demands on Him to conform to our schedule or to relieve our suffering. If He relieves it, it is only through His good grace, not because we deserve it. We need to practice that kind of love with each other. We will always have to be hurt and forgive, over and over, just as we must see ourselves unworthy of the presence of God, yet He doesn’t stop loving us. When our prayers seem to fall on deaf ears and our spiritual practice seems dry, do we feel forgotten and curse God’s name, or do we wait?

If our partner hurts us, do we close our hearts, or do we remember that “wounds from a friend can be trusted”? In the latter case, there is the possibility of finding a deeper love, even of falling in love all over again. In the former, we will likely lose the love we had.