You’re so vain, you probably think this post is about you.

For the past six months, I have been receiving emails full of vitriol and nastiness from a certain woman who used to comment here and at my old blog admiringly. That is, until she decided we’d gone too far on the male dominance side and had become too critical of femDOM/batshit/masquerading Christian women. It seems that she has to insert herself into what we post, personalising things that aren’t about her, feeling, then projecting onto us because she doesn’t like the message we send out.

At first I didn’t really understand where this was coming from – particularly when she accused me of envying her. (I don’t envy anyone as a habit, so it took me a while to twig this, but a good rule of thumb is that when someone accuses you in such a way that is totally confusing and seems out of left field, there’s a good chance it says more about them than it does you).

Today Kathy (a.k.a. katmandutu) hands me this gold to work with (which, believe it or not, is far from the worst she’s sent me):

Nothing new under the sun

“After a man has good fun sex with a willing wife and he cums deep inside her, he feels so grateful for her. He will show his appreciation later and is much more easily influenced when his wife has given him the gift of receiving him with as much thought for his pleasure as for her own. A woman that actively spreads her legs and smiles will have a man willing to do much for her. This is true for the majority of men”

I MARVEL AT YOUR NAIVETY..  I REALLY DO.  My mother told me this kind of  stuff before I first got married…

As for the husband not getting it up. Bullshit!   He is either drinking too much, is a heavy smoker or is just too old or  unfit!

One in two men have erectile dysfunction once they hit fifty.

I am just one of the lucky ones, I guess.  Never ever had a knock back either…. Hubby  is fit, exercises, does not smoke nor drink to excess.. Eats healthily..

Have a good day now, won’t ya.

Kathy and her trademark digs and bragging, not forgetting the insincere wish for a nice day. Make no mistake, people like this want to see you fail, at which time they are likely to play sympathetic friend, but should you find yourself with nothing to complain about, no sad and unfair misfortune, they will turn on you like a hungry jackal.

First off, where have we claimed to be proposing anything new? That’s not really possible when one is attempting to follow Biblical principles and that’s the whole point – why mess with what works? I also don’t know where it was mentioned that her man would have difficulty getting it up, but her insatiable need to brag about his reportedly ever-hard cock compels her, as does her need to insert herself into everything and find a way to dig at her favourite hated Team Her Man – a feeble and contemptuous implication that 7man must have erectile dysfunction is all she could come up with. Truly pathetic.

I sure hope her husband doesn’t ever experience his body not co-operating on her demand, because it seems he won’t get a good reaction from his loving wife. The occasional softie is not a dysfunction; this happens to young men too. The point was that taking it personally would not be productive, but it seems Kathy can only find value in herself by virtue of the fact that her man gets a hard-on for her on command.

Is is really dysfunctional when a 50 year-old man doesn’t have the perpetual raging hard-on of a 20 year-old? Or is it just part of ageing and is it just our cultural propensity to label anything that doesn’t meet a particular standard as pathological? Perhaps when women get wrinkly and saggy, that should be considered a dysfunction too. What is truly dysfunctional: accepting normal ageing, or taking Viagra and getting cosmetic surgery?

 

The more curious thing, however, is that if she calls what we wrote BS, does that mean that she thinks a man given that gift will not be grateful, treasure his wife and be more easily influenced?  Since Kathy implies that her mother’s advice was wrong, does that mean that Kathy thinks a woman must take charge in the bedroom? This seems to be strong evidence that Kathy is a femDOM who must be fucked on command (“never had a knock-back”) and the idea of a submissive woman who, rather than being the aggressor, entices and receives, somehow makes her feel guilty about something.

Rather than face whatever it is within herself that is bothering her, she lashes out at people who had been her friends until she chose to sever that relationship with all her best insults because the message of this blog made her feel something she would rather hide from. Making a woman feel bad is a cardinal sin in this post-feminist nightmare in which we’re all living now. FemDOM women have to attack submissive women because we’re a threat to their painstakingly hamsterised reality. It must take a lot of energy to pretend to be something one is not and the cracks are bound to show, face lifts or not.

But hey, it’s always good to hear from old friends. Y’all come back real soon now, d’ya hear? Just don’t expect me to help hide the ugliness in your soul from the light of day.

A Sex-Obsessed Shrew

I stumbled across another Christo-femDOM extraordinaire, writing under the pseudonym Charis R. Hart, via a comment left here. The semantic acrobatics (a.k.a. hamster wheeling) are something to behold. In her post, Are you “subject to your husband in EVERYTHING”?, she claims that she is “subject” to her husband in “EVERYTHING” but that she does not  “SUBMIT to him in EVERYTHING.” [All emphasis in the quotations cited is hers – there is so much emphasis added that one wonders why she can’t make a point without shouting]. Please do click on that link – the graphics alone are worth it. For more fun with semantics, check out this pretzel logic she linked to: Good question…did/does God order wives to ‘obey’ their husbands?

Of course, one can’t mention submission without providing the fodder for women to see themselves as abused. Granted, there are situations that are abusive – I don’t deny that at all – but this constant emphasis on male abuse of women makes it seem more prevalent than it is, and that women are always blameless. So, What if he is abusive?, she asks. In this she repeatedly implies that her husband is/was abusive, that he needed to repent, that he caused her to “WILT”, and the only way to change this was to lead the marriage herself.

Is this accurate though? In another very strange post, she emphasises the word “sex” over and over in huge red letters. The title of the post is: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex- Is it really ALL about SEX???? This looks like someone who is repulsed by sex, for whatever reason. Speculatively, they probably has a ‘chaste courtship’ and the sex was never that great, or it was duty sex to make children (they have eight). It might have been something like this:

In this post she examines the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:5, using a modern literal translation: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (RSV) Her contempt for men is loud and clear:

So don’t refuse sex to each other..
(Contemporary English Version) 1 Corinthians 7:5

One needs to go back and look at the Greek, because every English version is a translation with the translators being mostly male (with their “biases” and “SELF-interests” shall we say?) Contrary to popular belief, the passage in question is not a teaching restricted to SEX

So what she is saying that sex is something those filthy men want, and a pure and holy woman is repulsed by the base male sex drive. She equates unsatisfactory marital sex with harlotry, and to drive home the point that the husband should respect his wife first she offers evidence in the placement of the word “likewise” in 1 Corinthians 7:3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (RSV) If she’s going to argue that way, how does she reconcile the fact that the wife is instructed to submit before the husband is instructed to love her in Ephesians 5?

 

A bit more digging turned up this gem: Coming out of “Complementarianism” and Becoming Equal. On the about section of that blog, she says this about her marriage:

Our marriage was not at all egalitarian and to be honest, my husband has not arrived here by choice.  He dug in his heels and fought my journey out of submissive wifery.

Now we get to the truth. She is a femDOM shrew who doesn’t enjoy sex and who has hen pecked her husband into submission under the banner of egalitarianism. I’ll say it again, the true egalitarian ideal is functionally impossible.

The constant application of negative epithets to describe her husband (she does this in a clever, underhanded way, perhaps similar to her methods at power grabbing in her marriage) betrays her attitude. If he was truly abusive or personality disordered, he wouldn’t have changed that easily if at all. She sees leadership as power, but nowhere does she mention (that I was able to find) the responsibility and burdens that go along with power, or that she has taken on some of these along with the leadership role, or even the claimed “co-leadership” role.

This is yet another example of people who try to teach others based on how they cope with their own dysfunction. Not content to be miserable alone, they need to drag others into their frame.

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).