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.

Sleep Naked! Live Naked!

I don’t know the numbers but it’s a fair bet that, as with just about everything else simple and natural, North Americans are more uptight about nudity in general than Europeans. How many husbands and wives go to bed every night fully clothed?

Women especially seem to ‘feel the cold’ more and complain about a cold bed like the princess with the pea under her mattress(es). I rather like getting into a cold bed and warming it up – all the better if I’m not the only one warming it up – but then, I also hate sleeping in a too-warm room and open my windows a crack even in the dead of winter.

I think it is healthier to have fresh air and not to be so warm at night – it’s unnatural, at least for northerners (my negligible Romany blood notwithstanding) – as that induces an almost coma-like sleep that I find leaves me fuzzy the next morning. It’s also a lot more comfortable not to have clothing getting bunched up and twisted all night. But besides that, in a marriage there are definite benefits to sleeping naked. For one thing, it’s a lot of skin-to-skin time, which builds oxytocin response, which builds the relationship at a foundational level, oxytocin being the ‘love-comfort hormone’.

It also allows for the higher likelihood of regular sexual intercourse rather than avoidance or simply following the path of least resistance. There’s more shared body heat for you cold people too, so there goes that excuse. Skin to skin contact reduces stress – look how much ‘kangaroo care’ does for premature infants. Why shouldn’t there be a similar response in adults?

Biologically, we don’t change that much – adults still need hugs, adults still get a lot out of skin contact, so why would we deprive ourselves of such a simple, no-work way of reducing stress? Co-sleeping babies bond with their parents better for the same reasons and they have a lower incidence of SIDS (it wasn’t previously known as ‘crib death’ for nothing) and mothers are more attuned to their babies. The combination of co-sleeping and breastfeeding reduces the severity of post-partum depression.

I would posit that it’s not only the breastfeeding that raises a baby’s IQ, as commonly stated, but also the close contact with the mother in those early months as well as the fact that the mother is not so out of whack, depressed and exhausted. Could the cultural push for mothers to return to work as little as 6 weeks after giving birth (barely even time to recover physically from a normal, natural birth) be part of the effort at dumbing us down?

Our physiological responses are complex. Even the mere sight of a nude person can induce a relaxation response and men experience lower blood pressure from looking at women’s breasts (and it’s not just because the blood goes elsewhere!) We are supposed to be generous with our bodies when it comes to marriage, and going to bed almost fully clothed and burrowing under two blankets doesn’t seem very generous.

People often have an irrational paranoia about children seeing their parents naked, so this often ends up being a ‘reason’ not to go naked even in bed.  If husband and wife sleep naked, the kids will assume that is normal and then it also provides an example of what they should do in marriage, which will promote closeness and intimacy in their future marriages. Kids who grow up with normal, natural, non-sexualised nudity tend to have a healthier self-image as well as a healthier attitude toward sex and relationships.

This is the antidote to a pornified culture and mass media brainwashing.

So, be counter-cultural and get naked!

The Perversion of Normal

The perversion of normal into debased kink is everywhere. Recently CL saw an ad plastered all over a streetcar in Toronto for a touring fetish circus called Torture Garden. Clicking through to the site (the front page is a warning that it is for 18+) a video plays (you need to manually slide the volume up) showing a sample of the events and you can observe that the only male dominance that is apparent is a man chopping up meat, including a pig’s head, while wearing a full head mask of…a pig’s head. There is blood smeared on a tarp behind him. Any actual BDSM displays appear to be femDOM and the entire thing is more about shock value and cheap thrills than anything real.

D/s is just the fun (and natural order) of male power and the taking of a willing woman.  It feels good for both and obviously must be consensual.  But when a man spanking a woman becomes a perverted kink then the only place to satisfy this natural D/s desire is in perverted ways and we see women dominating and spanking other women. Then since the mainstreaming of these desires is watered down and false, the reaction to any discussion of them is associated with the reaction to the perversion.

There is a propaganda element in all of this that affirms a woman to be femDOM, empowered and to accept her own sexual depravity without any submission to a man in a monogamous relationship.  Men are taught to be pansies.  This entire thing is anti-family. Furthermore, the framing of it as a circus freak show is further affirmation that only “circus freaks” would take D/s seriously.

Average Christians see this stuff and rightly know it is wrong and so they go in the opposite direction and become bland and nice. Christians are taught that loving sex must be gentle and ‘heavenly’.  This is bland and not satisfying for either men or women.  Women are physically much tougher than we are led to believe; she will not break or be injured with some raw passion.  Since that element is missing in most marriages and has become forbidden expression, men generally look to porn and women generally look to erotica to experience these normal desires.

The ironic thing is that experiencing this dynamic when ordered rightly is the furthest thing from a circus.  It is peace and security, so that must be why the propaganda indoctrinates most people to look with disgust and face away from what would satisfy their heart (only if ordered rightly).

With the recent media obsession with fem-porn, people seem to be surprised that women have these desires. Why is that? Why should anyone be surprised? The way it comes out is in debased kink, but the debased kink reveals some deeper desire. Erotica is safe and under her control so it can be as debased as the readers want it to be. But men and women have become afraid of each other, afraid to trust, afraid to take risks with real intimacy while telling lies with our bodies in order to get some shadow of what we really desire but are afraid to admit.

More male spanking of wives would lead to greater contentment for all and men would become more protective of their wives too. So many are afraid to give it a try because the dominance of men and the submissiveness of women have been demonized. You need trust for D/s and you need D/s for trust. Those who attack or wince at it have no idea what they could experience; often they find it fascinating because they can’t find anything real to dispute (disgust is not necessarily an indication of immorality in that which causes the reaction) yet haven’t experienced it directly and it speaks to their heart’s desires – and they are afraid of those desires. If only they knew how much peace they could achieve! This is not a circus!