After years of at least semi-regular reading (less regular in recent months), I am finally inclined to distance myself from the part of the web called the “manosphere”. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that these blogs are more harmful than good. The problem is that there is enough kernelated truth in them to suck you into believing the rest of what you’re reading – and this is dire, because the rest of what you’re reading is terrible, often evil.
A related, second reluctant conclusion I’ve come to is that many, if not most, of the men on these sites are not really worthy of much respect, not worth emulating or feeling much sympathy for. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, not wanting to fall into the same category as feminists who use shaming language to keep men from speaking up. But I can’t resist any longer. When you read between the lines for long enough, it sooner or later becomes clear who these men really are and what they’re really about.
For instance, most of the manosphere denizens are perverts. Even at the supposedly “Christian” sites, most of the men are perverts. I mean this not as a pejorative, but in a literal, clinical sense: these men’s ideas about proper sexuality have been perverted; corrupted. On these sites, there is a good deal of posturing about wifely “submission”, but an awful lot of the time this is followed by complaints that a wife won’t “submit” – to her husband’s pleas for sodomy. This very blog entry was inspired by a sordid discussion that I saw at Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation), in which one commenter was upset and soliciting advice because he expected marriage to be an opportunity to engage in sickening sexual acts, and was disappointed when this didn’t materialize. Another commenter, one I believe to be quite popular, opined that if a woman doesn’t want to perform degrading sexual acts with her husband, she “must not really love him”. I don’t feel any sympathy when these men complain about not getting enough sex.
To echo the opening paragraph: these guys are correct to speak about patriarchy and marital submission – but it’s clear that many of them, if not most of them, are really upset because they couldn’t handle marriage and are disappointed that they can’t command their wives to perform like pornography stars. I don’t believe, by the way, that Pauls’ commands in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 oblige wives to submit themselves to degrading, bestial forms of sexuality.
In the final analysis, I agree with the elders at Joseph of Jackson’s church: I would not allow my daughters to date the men who frequent these sites. I *do* want my sons-in-law to be leaders – but if they don’t learn that from their fathers, they will learn it from me. There’s too much poison in the manosphere atmosphere to lurk there long and escape unpolluted. Flee immorality, for bad company corrupts good character.
I would still like to see a Christian – a TRULY Christian – resurgence of teaching on the biblical definitions of manhood, womanhood, and submission, but after what I’ve been seeing in the manosphere, I wonder whether that’s possible. Theoretically, it should be – but in practice, it doesn’t seem to work out. For whatever reason, the men who are most interested in this topic seem to have their own pathologies.
Henceforth, this blog allies itself with the likes of Bruce Charlton, the first blogger I’ve encountered in a long, long time (perhaps ever) who seems truly to share my views and feelings in most ways. Thank you, Bruce! Besides the Thinking Housewife and Orthosphere, I also want to recommend the Russell and Duenes blog. Of late, they’ve been offering some very compelling arguments dealing with foundational issues of government, Christianity and worldview.
I am, in fact, considering shuttering the blog and beginning anew under a different name. I am not certain I will do this, as anonymity is still valuable.
I read articles from time to time in the “manoshere”, but rarely if ever about game, feminisim, etc anymore. I find the direction of this corner of the web dissapointing. I fought for a short while on Dalrock’s site over the concept of Christian game, which is an oxymoron.
There they place the philosophy of game above scripture, while trying to use scripture as justification for their desires. In the end Christian game leaves you with a wife who is into you for your game, and not basing her respect for you on the Word. When someone else plays the game better than you, she will stray. Game may be the best the world has to offer for heathens, but it has no place in the lives of believers.
Back to my disappointment, once men in this corner of the web were interested in finding ways to be liberated from the madness of modern society and working out a better way to deal with women. Now it is mostly about trying to be a conman, and being even more enslaved to sex.
Liberty is a blessing only God can give, let no one hope on men, for there is no hope in this world.
I would disagree with your assessment on a few points, the first is that Dalrock’s site is open to a fairly wide spectrum of people not just Christians so it does tend to descend down to the lowest common denominator in the comments section but other than that I find his perspective to be very Christian so I believe that you’ve mis-characterized him as affirming that type of outlook which he does not. Also calling him whiny seems a bit much and not really sure where that’s coming from. I also don’t see all that much about wives submitting to various sex acts on that blog and have never seen Dalrock advocate that so perhaps you’re confusing him with the “Married Man Sex Life” blog which is non-Christian and does focus on that type of stuff.
The manoshpere is by and large non-Christian as is the world and unless you want to close off yourself from the world you’re going to have to deal with this. If you want to exist in a purely Christian environment then you’ll have little to no opportunity to influence people for Christ which is the whole point of being in the world. So rather than whine and complain about the approach other Christian bloggers are using to reach the world and the unsaved try engaging and bring your interpretation of “Biblical sex” to the conversation. Also bear in mind that the Bible is very explicit on the types of sex that are prohibited (sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and sex with animals) but is fairly silent on exactly what sex acts are allowed within the marriage so you’ll have a hard time using scripture to make your point. You might try for the mutual respect angle in that you wouldn’t ask your wife to do something she found degrading but beyond that I’m not really sure the Bible sets any hard limits (again within the marriage bed).
Anyway it’s your blog so knock yourself out.
“Also bear in mind that the Bible is very explicit on the types of sex that are prohibited (sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and sex with animals) but is fairly silent on exactly what sex acts are allowed within the marriage so you’ll have a hard time using scripture to make your point.”
This. Elspeth made that point handily in this post.
For Protestants, while we can recoil due to our personal proclivities against the idea of anal sex, for example, we cannot argue against husbands and wives partaking, if they please, in it, on Scriptural grounds, because there aren’t any.
You Protestants always seem to ignore that deal with Onan. As well as Natural Law. Also, I thought the Bible prohibited sodomy?
Protestants try to justify everything by saying that the Bible doesn’t prohibit it but then they conveniently overlook things like Onan and the prohibition against sodomy.
I think that’s the same argument that the gays use for marriage and that the women use for ordination: “The Bible doesn’t REALLY mean that!”
We don’t ignore it, Svar; we recognize it for what it was – Onan was specifically commanded by God to procreate on behalf of his late brother – he was to commanded by God to engage in intercourse with his late brother’s widow in order that she may conceive so that his brother’s line would officially continue; Onan chose to do the first part of that – to have intercourse with her – to get his jollies but then, in direct disobedience to God’s intent and will, pulled out of her so as to not have any offspring result – that, NOT the spilling of seed on the ground, was what offended God so much that He smote Onan and killed him on the spot.
Read it again for yourself if you’re interested; it’s in Genesis.
As for the sin of Sodom, it was homosexuality; the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who visited. Also in Genesis; you can look it up. That’s the sin of sodom; unfortunately, just as the name of Onan has been wrongly twisted by the English language into ‘onanism’ as a synonym for masturbation (which is NOT what Onan did; he did coitus interruptus), so too the English language has mistakenly defined ‘sodomy’ specifically in terms of the acts, and not in terms of the fact that it was homosexual relations specifically that drew God’s wrath against the Sodomites.
The Bible means exactly what it says; no more, no less. We Protestants are NOT doing as queers and liberals do, twisting Scripture; on the contrary, we are standing for it, as it is written, despite prejudices arising out of misdefinitions due to fuzziness in the English language, misadapting Biblical terms, twisting them into meaning things which were not implicit in the texts.
And the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality and the deal about women in the Bible is all cultural because the Hebrews were chauvinistic middle-easterners. C’mon now! Can’t you Prots see how slippery of a slope this is? How can you argue for what you argue and then say that the arguments of the gays and the liberals have no legitimacy? Think man, think!
Not at all; those are liberal misinterpretations, which can’t rationally be argued from the texts. “Bring those men out, that we may know them.”, i.e. have intercourse with them, is fairly straightforward; it has nothing to do with a mere lack of hospitality as liberals would have one believe, by twisting the text.
That’s what liberals do; we confessing Protestants do not. Like you Catholics, we oppose homosexuality. But we can’t join you in your wider definition of sodomy including various acts that may be performed between husband and wife, because Scripture is silent on such matters, as Elspeth rightly argued (see the link above). That is all.
That argument doesn’t hold because the earlier Protestants agreed with us Catholics on contraception, masturbation, and sodomy. Modern day Protestants are just doing what Emergents are doing but just not nearly on the same level.
Doesn’t matter that Protestants happened to hold a different opinion on some things in the past than they do now. We Protestants have a saying, ‘Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda’ – the Church that is Reformed, is always Reforming. That means, that we have the freedom to re-examine long-held practices, in the light of Scripture, and if the reasons for them are found to not be authoritatively compelling, to reject them. Doesn’t matter what the reasons are; whether it’s to have freedom to have new ways to get our rocks off, or to abolish the practice of slavery, or whatever. We Protestants have that freedom.
Tradition isn’t the end-all, be-all for us, in all things; to give an extremely unrelated and trivial example, we don’t dress the same way our forefathers did at the time of the Reformation. An example that is closer to home: Presbyterians have, in the Westminster Confession, prohibitions against card-playing, and watching stage plays; these things aren’t directly mentioned as forbidden, in Scripture, but the Westminster divines reflected on the issues in the light of their understanding of Scriptural principles, and decided they were not justifiable activities, and decided to codify that, in their confession. In more recent times, as per the “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” principle, even confessional, traditionalist Presbyterians have moved away from such stances, and not all of them eschew card-playing, or the theatre / movies. They don’t consider themselves to be sinning, in doing so. But they are engaged in acts, when they do so, that would horrify their forefathers. Oh well! We have freedom in Christ, to reexamine and reconsider our positions, and change them, in the light of Scripture; that is a Protestant understanding – and tradition, in fact.
Okay, so are the Emergents the New Reformers? If tradition doesn’t matter and what was held in the past doesn’t always apply to the present, what exactly make those most ultimate reformers, the Liberal Emergents, wrong? Tell me why exactly are they wrong? If Onan’s sin wasn’t wasting his seed then why isn’t the sin of Sodom a lack of hospitality and why isn’t the reason why St. Paul said what he did just cultural because you know, Middle Easterns are just male chauvinists and their beliefs do not apply to a Modern West?
The truth is that there is no good argument why the Emergents are wrong if you actually believe stuff like this: “the Church that is Reformed, is always Reforming. That means, that we have the freedom to re-examine long-held practices, in the light of Scripture, and if the reasons for them are found to not be authoritatively compelling, to reject them.”
Scripture is Scripture. I honestly think the Lord says exactly what he means. I do not agree with the constant “interpretation”. No matter how plain the Word is, there will always be someone who finds some other way to take it.
I don’t think He would give us riddles. Take it at face value, not viewed through your own perspective, because you want it to say something else.
I’m not agreeing or arguing with either of you, just venting something that fustrates me to know end and forced me to leave the modern Church.
I understand, Dr. Illusion. It frustrates me too and I believe in the Roman Catholic way. I believe in Scripture but I do not think that’s all there is, I believe in the Natural Law, the law written upon the hearts of all men. Just look at the way God designed us. He made a penis for men and a vagina for women. The penis was made for the vagina, not for the anus. Anal sex can cause disease in the man and can damage the body of the woman. There is no way that I can believe that God condones sodomizing your beloved.
Dr. Illusion, are you still a Christian even though you’ve left the church?
I am a firn believer in scripture and God, but I do not self-identify as Christian because, in my mind if no one elses, that word has been bastardized by the modern, backsliding, feminized Church. I looked for a while but could never find a Church that actually followed the word. It’s all about keeping the congregation happy. I was just telling my gf today that I need to re read the Bible because i was in the middle of quoting a passage to her and forgot a name. I was very upset.
Dr. Illusion, you’re more of a Christian than many who go to church and claim to be Christian.
What denomination did you use to be apart of? And how exactly did you feel that the Word wasn’t being followed?
The Emergents end up, like other liberals, abandoning Scripture altogether, saying that what Scripture says doesn’t matter, whereas we hold to what Scripture teaches, upholding the eternal, unchanging truth of God’s Word as our standard, even if that means we may change our thinking over time, about some things in the light of it; that’s the difference between them and us. It’s a huge difference; not one of merely degree, but kind. The Emergents have ended up, like liberal mainline Protestants, abandoning the Faith altogether; while we, on the contrary, hold tightly to it. Which is why we confessional Protestants have traditionalist Christian opinions on most of the same things as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, from abortion to homosexuality to euthanasia, unlike the Emergents, who tend to end up on the liberal side on all those matters.
If you really can’t see how the way confessional Protestants interpret Scripture differs from that of how Emergents do (who instead of accepting what it teaches at face value as we do, tend to try to find ways to rationalize away what it says, in the fashion you describe, re: supposed ‘cultural chauvinism’ blah blah blah), then nothing I can say further on the subject will convince you.
I can not believe that you can not see how shaky a statement like this is: “upholding the eternal, unchanging truth of God’s Word as our standard, even if that means we may change our thinking over time, about some things in the light of it”
This: “even if that means we may change our thinking over time, about some things in the light of it” contradicts this: “upholding the eternal, unchanging truth of God’s Word as our standard”.
The Emergents also believe in new understandings. The so-called “traditional” Protestant belief that Onan’s sin wasn’t spilling seed or the belief that sodomy is not a sin unless it’s performed within marriage is not the belief of the first Protestants and it’s not that far from where you “traditional” Protestants are and where the Emergents are. Why exactly are your rationalizations a-okay but not the rationalizations of the Emergents?
This is what happens when you have no respect for tradition, authority, or Natural Law. Widespread heresy.
Not at all; it’s a reflection of our understanding of our imperfectness as humans, over and against God’s perfect Word.
We do hold to and respect natural law; we just view it differently from you.
You seem to think that despite the, say, 99% of ways in which we agree with you, the 1% in which we differ makes us not that different from the Emergent heretics. Oh well; like I said, if you can’t see how fundamentally we differ from them, in our approach to Scripture, I can’t explain anything further to you.
You do not believe in nor do you understand Natural Law if you thik sodomizing a woman is just dandy with God. You do not view it differently; you do not view it at all.
Your arguments are those of the typical liberal, showing that in essense that there is no difference between so-called “conservative” Protestants and Emergents except in degree of liberalism.
Once again, just to make it clear, if you do not see anything wrong with sodomizing a woman then you do not understand Natural Law in any way, shape, or form. That is much more of a difference than 1%. Your arguments lead straight to the Emergent camp and there is little difference between you and an Emergent. What’s the only difference? Women’s “rights” and gay “rights”? Other than that you’re fine with masturbation, contraception, and sodomy. That’s more that 1%.
There is only one proper way to view Natural Law and to say that you just view it differently is just the moral relativist view.
I can’t believe that you can’t realize how flimsy your arguments are. I would expect this from an emergent not a so-called “traditional” Protestant. Absolutely shameful.
Another thing that just occurred to me; if you believed in or even just understood Natural Law you would know that sticking your penis into the anus of a woman(or man because it’s the same sin) is against Natural Law because the obviously according to God’s design the vagina was made for the penis, not the anus which was made for excreting waste. Even an idiot can understand this and I understand when someone like Elspeth(let’s be honest, she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and nowhere near a mediocre thinker) can’t understand this simple concept but it’s very disappointing when someone like you can’t.
I guess you can make the argument that abortion is a-okay and not a sin because the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit it. The reason why we’re against abortion is because logic derived from Scripture and the Natural Law is why we’re against it. It is against nature for women to kill their offspring the same way it is against nature for a man to stick his penis in an anus. If you can not understand this then you’re just hopeless. It is so simple.
On top of that, anal sex is obviously perverted. Obviously. You don’t have to be St. Augustine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, or Aris-fucking-tostle to realize this. And you can not make a single plausible argument why sticking your dick in a woman’s anus is inline with Natural Law when there is something called a VAGINA.
@ Dr. Illusion: “Scripture is Scripture. I honestly think the Lord says exactly what he means. I do not agree with the constant “interpretation”. No matter how plain the Word is, there will always be someone who finds some other way to take it.”
Interpretation can not be gotten away from; it is what we do when we are faced with any text – we read it, and we interpret what it means.
Now, ideally, we should stick to the plain sense of what the text says; I agree, then, with you, if you are arguing that all too often people try to rationalize away texts they don’t like.
BTW, I’m sorry you don’t self-identify as Christian, though you say you believe in God and Scripture, simply because of how feminized the modern Church is; IMO, that isn’t reason for us to abandon the name of Christ. Do you think the Lord will be fine with us refusing to identify with His name, just because many in His church err? We are to be witnesses to Him; never mind His followers’ many failings; that shouldn’t make us not want to identify with Him!
Protestants or more specifically reformed are always trying to get as close as possible to what the word of god says and what he actually means. Its just that people have amazing rationalization skills that nullify the commands of god especially if they are unregenerated.
I think apart from game and weird sexual fantasies,manosphere is mainly concerned with degrading rights of men in all over the world.The family court system,criminal justice system,universities,media,parliaments are strictly against men and will be for another century.This is what major fight is about.
People have weird sexual fantasies because they are told to get instant gratification.It doesn’t only apply to sex but to every facet of life.Pursuit of power,money,Fast cars, recreational drugs,gory sports,huge houses,vacations…it is part of modern dream.It is difficult to wean people away from this because once you are hooked,you are hooked forever.
Religions have gone extinct because of proliferation of cultural Marxism and modern science ,modern economy.The modern jobs don’t give time to practice religion.World is too fast to understand finer points of spirituality.The horrors of religious wars in Europe,are still not forgotten.People are afraid to declare their religion.The behavior of stalwart leaders of religion betrayed trust of followers.How you can trust somebody if they betray your trust fagain and again?
i always say about manosphere:writing blog is waste of time and money.It is better to converse one to one
I commented on this thread, https://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/everyones-into-submission-fantasies-now-feminists-are-annoyed-while-christians-are-predictably-useless/#comment-10555
and received some interesting ad hominems trying to debase my character, starting with me being silly and logically ending with the downright satanic.
So yes, weird things are going on, shoddy thinking, shoddy neuroscience. Now for my own shoddy bit:)
Here’s what I reached at. People, man or women, have a strong urge to be a very elusive thing: whole. Carl Jung called it individuation. When you are whole, you don’t feel threatened by life so much. You realize the Universe can, of course, squish you like a bug, but you don’t mind that very much.
Now, when you are not whole, life is a lot of fun. You have a lot of itches and urges, a lot of drive, some good, some bad, but mostly society manages to harness your urges for its own ends and you don’t wreck too many things. All is full of action, dynamic. Your outside activities, your relationships, fill the gaps and make you something like whole. But in the midst of seeming plenty and happiness, there’s a little bastard voice inside, asking- is that it? Is that all? Is that what you sold your life for?
And if you listen to that voice, man or woman, you realize you sold your life for peanuts. Wifely happiness? Riches? Depraved sexual acts? The perfect submissive wife in high heels and apron? Nope, still don’t silence the bastard’s little voice.
Oh, but if you really, really submitted, you would not hear that voice.
Oh, really? As in if you died tomorrow, you would be perfectly happy because you wore high heels and it filled your life with meaning? Or would you be perfectly terrified because you forgot to finish another important business…to become whole.
What most Red Pill men want is a stunted, infantile human being, incomplete, demanding outside help for completion. And then they wonder why at some point this being, despite gaming and tasks and keeping her hands busy, goes batshit crazy with a vague unhappiness. Carl Jung would light a cigar.
Yes, you could say two incomplete beings could make one whole family and it would be rather functional. But people are not made like that. People want their personal wholeness and some will move mountains to get it. And some Manosphere men try in fact to prevent the women from individuation. Because they are not whole themselves, you can see it plainly. They are full of gaps for filling. Take away their toys and they become violent, because there is always something missing. There can never be peace, only game and more game, into madness.
Now, you may say all of the above is hamster overdrive, as the jargon goes. But really? A complete, individuated person is not a grrl, not castrating bitch, not a feminist. An individuated man is neither alpha nor omega, a patriarch or a mangina. He just is. And if a woman is complete, alpha antics won’t work. She would need a complete man, too. She would not be impressed by a powerful but incomplete one. He would seem sordid, mad, needy- and he will see her as crazy. I’m speaking from the feminine side, because that’s my experience, but think of your own balancing argument.
So I very well expect those wonderful, young, burning and desirous men to decide this is all hamster speak because they know so much about the hind brain and how a woman’s mind works. I look mulieric, of course, being of the X-chromosome, so it is expected that I am mistaken for a woman, of a womanly mind, prone to wiles and other bad, castrating stuff. But I function on another scale. I like it here. It’s a bit lonely, but I would rather be here. I’m not dissembling myself, I’m not generating the feminine mind just to live in mutual imprisonment, a.k.a. red pill marriage.
And yes, you could very well generate a mind of a certain shape. Act submissive in any form and you will solidify there, you will be submissive. It’s real life method acting. What you are doing, men or women, is to brainwash yourselves. So I don’t care if you are red pill. What matters is- are you free? Can you break out of the character? Dare you ask for more?
Oh, well, I guess when the tao is lost, game is needed.
Oh, well, I guess when the tao is lost, game is needed.
If this is not sarcastic, it’s defeatist and wrong-headed. Ultimately, it’s this thinking that shoves (what I believe to be) well-intentioned people like Samson over the edge. The Tao doesn’t “get lost”. The Tao is the Way, for heaven’s sake! People leave the Tao.
When you realize that the Tao was there for a reason, and that you’ve made a grave mistake by wandering off the Way: the only sensible thing to do is repent–go back–and get on the Tao. What you’re describing is drawing a new and errant map of the terrain, and then following that. I can hardly think of a worse strategy for a man lost in the wilderness! The best thing to do is retrace your steps if you can. If you can’t, it’s even better to sit down and hope someone finds you, than to get further lost.
There are times when the Game-trail crosses over the Way, but if you don’t recognize the Way when you come across it, and divert onto it, then it does you no good.
Jesus is the way.
Yes, He is.
Is Tao the Way or is Jesus the Way? Or, are they both simultaneously the Way?
Great comment hbeeva. I agree that Western people, and maybe most people in today’s world, are incomplete and don’t know how to become whole and piecemeal together bits and pieces from here and there, even widely divergent practices and traditions, in search of that wholeness.
Maybe the Tao or other more all-incompassing Eastern/Asian mind-body-soul wisdom traditions can help them.
All we need is Christ.
Agree. If there was a like button, I would have broken it. Thanks for the blog recommendations and I would like to follow any other blog you may or may not start.
I had to quit reading Dalrock months ago and I don’t consider him to be a Christian due to the stuff that comes out of his mouth. Additionally, I tried allowing some game/manosphere stuff into my relationship and all it did was cause built up resentment in both of us that we are still dealing with. I agree that there is some good and true stuff there, but once you are drawn in by that the rest is complete poison.
I also can relate to the horrendous treatment of individual women in the comment sections like the above commenter, and yes it has happened to me frequently, so much that I just quit commenting. (I think the social pathologist blog recently covered this too).
My bf reads roissy, for which I am grateful, but he only reads it with half his brain and a critical eye, for which I am even more grateful.
Yes, Lodelia, I have seen the way even trad Christian women are treated just for disagreeing and I have found it appalling.
I admire Ariana’s approach to evangelization: apolitical, sincere, patient, amiable, and edifying. I suppose the orthosphere merely just want to impose the ideology of patriarchy on secular society using scripture as a filigree for their arguments. Just try to make an impression on other people through one’s actions without explicitly mentioning dogma and political ideology, unless the person wants to discuss it as some people do enjoy engaging in this topics with intellectual depth and rigor. We should not directly convert people by regurgitating religious dogma nor should we consciously try to persuade them with our arguments, but we should respect their personal experiences and intellectual positions. This should involve listening and sympathizing with others,not merely saying religious cliches and issuing superficial gestures.
I don’t see how advocating patriarchy and a hierarchical society would accomplish this and would reinforce negative stereotypes of Christians being repressive and reactionary. It would seem that patriarchy and hierarchy are the ideologies of oppression, subjugation, and exploitation, not love and forgiveness.
We should be Christ to others, just like my bipolar friend was to me when I was attending Mass.
I think evangelization is doomed to fail. What we CAN do, however, is live lives of such attractiveness to others that THEY come to US. I don’t care to be Mormon, but I have to admit that their approach to life is cheery. I can understand the desire to join the Amish. As the society continues to collapse, strong communities of interdependency will provide economic, physical, an moral comfort to their members.
[...] Samson’s Jawbone is not a fan of Joseph of Jackson: Distancing Myself from the Manosphere [...]
Funny enough it was Great Books 4 Men who made me notice the sodomy fetish in the manosphere.
Don’t give up “Samson’s Jawbone.” It’s great imagery.
Hhahaha, me too!
lozozozolzo
yes sodomy is a sin
a sin a sin a sin
and yet some folksz seemed to be using jesus
and warping jesusu
stating that “but jesus forgives us for our butthext!”
also interesting to note that traditionally speaking
sodomy was not the focus
nor adulated
nor exalted
nor praised
in ANY GREAT BOOK FOR MEN
and yet tody’s “conservative” Weekly standardth
repats tucker maxx rhyemes with goldman sax’s lies about his hieght and succteteh
whil he profits form secrtiev tpaings of butthext
without th girlths conthent
in fact, the new MANHOOD smemees to be defined aorund accepting and adulating sodomy as normal and natural, as the weekly standardth rpestented tukker max thrheyesm with godlman sax as six foot talll buttehxtaual hero
Let he who has never butthexed cash the first check.
Agreed, Samson. I have found that many of the men of the manosphere are perverts as well and I have been disgusted by this.
“This very blog entry was inspired by a sordid discussion that I saw at Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation)”
I have thought this as well. Well, watch out Samson, Dalrock is going to send his sychophants to flood your site like he did to Zippy a while back.
The manosphere is right that patriarchy and hierarchy is necessary for a decent society but they pervert these two things for their own ends not to conform to the will of God. In this manner, the orthosphere is superior to the manosphere.
I read and post here there and some of everywhere including at Dalrock’s place though most of what I say is uncommented on by others. I’m not really that popular with them I think but I don’t care. I don’t know them and they don’t know me so what difference? I find most of what he says interesting and the commentary moreso. I don’t agree with somethings of course and other things I agree with. On the whole, it has been an enlightening journey to see what people are thinking and dealing with, for good or ill. I agree that at times in the ‘manosphere’ there can be a good bit of weirdness, for lack of a better term, but I don’ t think it is any worse than anywhere else. I am glad at least that some are trying to engage issues of masculinity and Christianity.
Haha, bro, you can’t leave! THe manosphere needs its dissenting prophets. Its a biblical calling after all. Unforch u will be forced to sleep outside, wear a camel coat, eat thistles, maybe get fed to the lions, and the king(s) won’t like you. and yes, you are about to get overrun by the Dalrockians. lemme grab my folding chair and six pack, so i can watch the mayhem more comfortably.
I appreciate your perspective. Mine is a love/hate relationship with the manospehere. http://offensewins.com/2013/01/04/blow-the-whistle/ i’d like to see more pragmatics and less dogma.
Love, because it, plus a few other things not only helped save my marriage but helped make it the most wonderful part of my life. The manosphere is at its best when advising and encouraging men to become a better version of themselves in all phases of life. At its worst when it finds a single anecdote of female wickedness and commences cackling that if women just wore aprons and spiky little shoes in the kitchen the western world wouldn’t be doomed (get me another beer, woman).
@hbeeva i too pushed back on something over SSM’s place. got the same reaction. the JoJ commenters also labeled me satanic, as well. i just lol’d. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not red pills, patriarchy, or even healthy masculinity. i advised that handing athol kay’s book, an athiest tract, in a christian church would get one in trouble. seemed obvious to me. they responded that AK is the truth wrapped in an athiest wrapper, and thus must be passed out in church (their implicit logic). i also shared how i would have handled it as red pilled popper, and former church elder and men’s group leader: tell JoJ to chill cuz he’s dividing the church then inviting him to sit down and figure out how we could acheive the same ends without tearing my church. apparenlty, putting the unity of the church ahead of geeky men’s needs to man up with game is….satanic. LMAO.
all sorts of bible verses were thrown at me. christianity is an incarnational religion, based in a man/god, and his relationship to people. jesus highest and last commandment at the last supper was to love one another. his dying wish. all christian action should be drenched in this context. if one has to assert secondary christian teachings (and honestly, patriarchy and wifely submission is at best second, and probably more likely <100 on Jesus' priority list) in a repent-or-perish manner that divides and conquors, then perhaps one is forgetting Jesus dying wish.
Note: ain't no marriage and GFs and sex and patriarchy and wifely submission when we all get to heaven. so this is a temporal mission.
me? i just want me and my wife to be happy with each other. manning up, lifting, setting boundaries, getting more calibrated to her personality, maintaining positive energy flow, getting some pimped style, rekindling her attraction and accidentally that of other women, becoming a more positive mini-Byronic hero, embracing masculine honesty and integrity, exchanging a life of quiet desperation for stoic joy and self-definition, etc, that helped my life. i want to share the practical, helpful side of the manosphere with both Xn and heathen, so i started my blog.
I don’t know if you include me in your defamation. I can imagine it either way because I am an exuberant fan (and friend) of Dalrock, but I also write exuberantly FOR Christian marriage, church, chivalry and against Game…at least inasmuch as it prescribes imitating Dark Triad traits. It’s very likely that you didn’t consider me at all. I am a very small fish.
Meanwhile, not so long ago, you elevated Eminem on this very blog as a guy who “gets it”, but now you’ve gotten your panties in a bunch about some Manosphere commenters who want to do the things that the guy you celebrated is doing?
“Interesting that yet again, the wise of the world are foolish, while this guy, surely representing the dregs of humanity, sees through the charade.”
Should I have put you on the blog rack?
We’ve been here before, Samson. Nearly two years ago you wrote a post on hating women.
“Peering deep into the psyche of woman has rendered me grievously scornful in feeling and mercilessly unscrupulous in behaviour towards these unholy, ungodly beings. I venture to say that… I hate them. Yes, I hate them! And how could I not?”
Now you hate the Manosphere. Not only that: you called out a couple people with enough information for others to find them, but lacked the fortitude to confront them outright. Might I suggest that you too often drift into hate? This emotional pendulum is unmanly, and you’re smart enough to know better. OF COURSE the commenters of the Manosphere are perverted. Many of them have been the chief victims of perversion. Sin corrupts.
Don’t fall into the Pharisee’s trap. It does almost no good to tell people they’re perverted and wicked. They know that. That’s why they’re here. If you can, be the barnacle on the Rock that they can grab a first tremulous hold. If you cannot, without being torn off–as a man might rightly fear–then you should look away. If that is so: It is for the sake of your weakness, not their sin; though their sin is definitely manifest. They are truly pathetic, so take pity on them.
It does almost no good to tell people they’re perverted and wicked.
It did me.
Did it? Only you can say. I believe the call to repent from wickedness is much stronger than vilification.
Well, OK, there was that, too. So I see your points.
Lol a bout of real talk has broken out!
Cane your sychophantic complaints are ridiculous. I knew that the brownnosers would come. This is just the begginning of the Dalrock invasion, lol.
There was no defamation, because what Samson said is accurate. Right about the perversion and right about the misrepresentation that Dalrock is known to do(who’s really the defamer?).
Also, Eminem, unlike the so-called “Christian” men of the Manosphere doesn’t pretend to be a Christian.
It seems that you have your panties in a twist because of how Samson has decided to call a spade a spade: Dalrock is a whiny defamer and most of the “men” of the Fagosphere are pervs. Is he not suppose to find this distasteful? Is he supposed to pretend that they’re something that they’re not? Is it wrong for him to criticize these attitudes and behaviors and to want to distance himself from all this? You can’t make a single argument against what he said, so you just use ad hominems and shaming by comparing him to a Pharisee. I find that charge ironic from a man who says that if a man takes the virginity of a girl before marriage, he must leave her. The Bible is against that, look Deuternomy. You just made that rule, just like a Pharissee.
It’s seems that you’re whining here. Typical.
Young men like me are better off asking our fathers(my father is a traditionalist and my parents are complimentarians) or happily married Christian men like Samson then the black-hearted men of the Manosphere.
Now I’m just waiting for Deti to come and talk about how all women want men who look like Brad Pitt, have the charm of George Clooney, and the money of Warren Buffet while they pass over “decent” guys like him. I’m looking for to Dalrock’s brownnoser sychophants. We already have you I wonder where’s the rest.
I find that charge ironic from a man who says that if a man takes the virginity of a girl before marriage, he must leave her.
I said no such thing.
In general: This tack you’ve repeated of being the unasked and undesired wolf-pup of various blogs is doing you no credit.
You’re a grown man, Cane. You should atleast know better than me.
This sounds like the world to me. The flesh is always present, and there is a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This occurs both within and without the sphere of Christianity. For each man drawn to sexual perversion, there is an ascetic man willing to stamp out any/all sexuality, “just to be on the safe side.” Neither view is Biblically supported.
Of course, if you feel defiled by a conversation, you can withdraw, but please, don’t get into the business of determining someone else’s worth or claiming that they can’t handle marriage. This is a slippery slope, and any commenter pursuing it will quickly become part of the problem.
Keep an even keel, relying upon scripture for guidance. If we accept our human frailties and seek to glorify God above all else (referring to 1 Cor. 10:31,32, among others) the rest will attend to itself. Don’t bother fighting with the world. Instead, do those things that please the Father, and leave the rest to Him.
If you want to see accurate Christian teaching about the relationship between men and women, by all means, have at it.
@hbeeva,
Give us a link to a comment that specifically labeled you as, “satanic”.
@RG3,
Give us a link to a comment that specifically labeled you as, “satanic”.
http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/if-you-challenge-femdom-churchianity-the-white-knights-will-attack-an-update-on-joseph-of-jackson/
Enjoy
Speaking of real talk:
I believe the pastor took appropriate action. Anything that threatens a local body’s unity must be taken very seriously. If I were serving as an elder now, even after popping the red pill, I’d drag Joe into a meeting and confront him directly and forcefully: “you may be right but how you are proceeding is bringing division; until the division stops, your rightness is irrelevant – now let’s figure this out.”
That was excellent; especially because it’s a hard teaching to hear. The pastor might be wrong, as a husband might be wrong. Regardless, we are to submit ourselves to our chosen and legitimate authorities.
I don’t read that blog much, so I would have missed it without your link.
@cane haha thx bro
Hey Cane Caldo do you have a scripture reference about that statement of yours:
“I believe the pastor took appropriate action. Anything that threatens a local body’s unity must be taken very seriously. “
@infowarrior1
Actually, RG3 said that, but I’ll answer.
Are you being specious? How can it be that a man would not recognize the prima facie need for a leader of any organization to protect the organization from schism?
Moreover, you are ignoring the picture painted by the word pastor, and the responsibilities that necessarily follow. You ask for a passage; when whole books of the Bible aren’t enough on their own.
Thanks for the link. I found the comment by Okrahead that did say one of your teachings was satanic.
St. Paul did say that some teaching were the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). Therefore, it would be ok for you and Okrahead to debate this topic.
@bee
St Paul said its ok to call each other satanic? LMAO.
I think I’ll pass on the Okrahead debate.
@RG3
I see. What you are interpreted as saying is that Church Unity is basically saying comply and bend over to the churchian feminist agenda therefore it is as evil as tolerating evil which is as evil as the evil that is done. To dissent is to threaten the unity of the church in other words “Don’t rock the boat”.
There is no social, legal, or moral enforcement of contract between men and woman, least of all by churches. Thus each party will pursue their own particular good, thus, love is war.
Christians find this disturbing, as they should, but should Christian men therefore be losers?
Dalrock’s blog encourages the ruthless pursuit of self interest by men, but Susan Walsh’s blog encourages the ruthless pursuit of self interest by women.
The only blog that I see that vigorously and forcefully discourages the ruthless pursuit of self interest by women is that of the Dark Lord, Heartiste, an overtly and enthusiastically anti christian blog. We have social breakdown and the Church is complicit in it.
Thus complaints that manosphere blogs encourage cynical, self interested, and anti social behavior by men are, though true, misplaced. Self interested bad behavior is the appropriate and necessary response to social breakdown.
JAD: Do you mean this from a Christian or civil point of view? I’m guessing the latter. As to the former, even as the Church decays, we’re called to obediently rise above it. I would prefer that the Church stand in clear opposition to lawlessness, but that isn’t going to happen at large.
James
Dalrocks blog doesn’t preach sole pursuit of only male interests. It advocates the pursuit of family interests. The issue is that a family needs a head of household to function; yet at rhis point in time every part of society (c ulture, church, and gov) only looks out for women and their issues. In order to be a true father and head of household, the times require a steict pursuit of male interests until the pointjs reached where they can expect to effectively lead without being cut off at the knees by the very institutions that should be supportive
@ RG3 regarding the femdom Churchianity post
There you have people — church people, no less! — openly defying Scripture to sate the egos of the female congregants. You claim that the unity of the congregation is most important…even if they are going against Scripture. They cared more about their place in the PC pecking order than they did about the Word of God. All the while calling themselves a “church.”
This hypocrisy right here is the reason why I frequent the manosphere.
Those of you who complain about manospherians’ attitude toward women, consider this: male sexuality is cursed while female sexuality is celebrated. A woman who has a mile-long checklist about what she wants in a man is just “following her heart,” while a man who has conditions for what he finds attractive in a woman is “shallow,” “adolescent,” “misogynist.” A wife can demolish her husband’s financial future through no-fault divorce, and a man has no choice but to provide or her goes to jail. If he gets laid off? Tough.
And then men are given utterly false info about what attracts women. It inevitably fails, and they complain. There’s no sympathy for them anywhere in the culture; no one but the manosphere tries to help them become attractive to women, because no respectable part of the culture even allows this discussion. But even if they succeed, the romantic view of women is shattered.
Now I don’t like when they attack women who agree with them on most points; I think it’s just balls-to-the-wall stupid to do that. I don’t like it, I can’t stop it, but I know why it happens.
I don’t have any bitterness toward women for their natural sexual urges. I’m bitter toward a culture that demands everything of men and nothing of women. I’m bitter toward a mindset that calls men adolescents and perverts for wanting the sex they like while celebrating women as strong and vivacious for wanting the sex *they* like. I’m bitter toward a system that allows wives to treat their husbands like criminals all because they grew dissatisfied with him.
I don’t hate women; if men were given total carte blanche to act on their urges, they’d behave much the same. It’s feminism I hate, because it is feminism that caused all of this.
“I don’t hate women; if men were given total carte blanche to act on their urges, they’d behave much the same. It’s feminism I hate, because it is feminism that caused all of this.”
Agreed. The Manosphere does have some kernels of truth but like Samson said, there is too many harmful things mixed in.
I assume by “harmful things,” you mean bitterness toward women in general, as exemplified by how they use NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) to mock even sincere women who aren’t entitlement princesses. I myself view NAWALT thusly: Yes, not all women are like that, but don’t pour out your support to her simply because she’s a woman. Do not treat women in general as if they are somehow purer than men; in terms of purity, they’re exactly the same as men (not pure at all.)
Keep in mind that the manosphere responds to a genuine need (how to become attractive to women), a need not served by mainstream culture whether Christian or secular. When “good men” (mainstream culture) either do nothing or mock them, “bad men”** step in and provide the need, quite a bit like Communists in extremely unequal societies providing a solution to widespread poverty unaddressed by the rulers.***
* I’m not calling mainstream culture “good,” just illustrating a point.
** I’m not calling the Manosphere bad or totalitarian, just illustrating.
*** I sure as hell don’t support Communism.
Like I said before, I’m not bitter toward women, I’m bitter toward a perverse incentive structure.
@CED
Explain to me how a leader asking JoJ to take a timeout so they could explore working together in calibrating his efforts to both strengthen the church’s man culture while maintaining functional harmony among the group undermines scripture.
Please.
How does that sate female egos?
All my critics are stopping at the word “unity” and not considering that I hypothetically offered to work with him.
Also, somebody please do an exegesis that identifies how high a priority healthy, right male/female relationships are to Jesus?
The funny thing in all this is that I’m a “red pill” sympathizer. My blog is dedicated to helping men fix their relationships using red pill principles. I actively mentor Christian guys in this area.
My disagreement with JoJ was that he had no strategy, and his tactics were sure to undermine his ultimate end goal. That seems patently obvious from reading the first half of the story. The second half is no surprise: they threw him out.
So we can argue the theology of m/f relationships until we are blue in the face (and arguing amongst ourselves is mostly a waste of time). But it doesn’t matter if none of the guardians of orthodoxy, the men who have the ears of blue pill churches, aren’t listening to us.
Somebody, please write me a strategy for staging effective revolution. Arguing amongst ourselves? Those of us who agree on these principles? Laughable. Completely unhelpful to the hurting people we left behind at our old churches. And that’s the point. Feminism is eroding the joy of our bros and sisters lives. We have the some medicine and maybe the cure.
As for me, to repeat myself, I’m going to steadily work on one guy at a time using conversations, my blog, and the book I wrote (errr, sloppily compiled, more the truth) which encapsulates the more practical aspects of the manosphere.
I’m gaining critical mass, slowly and steadily. I’ve been invited to present to several tech/media groups on healthy masculinity in the workplace. The number of colleagues in my Wall Street day job world who have read my “Playbook” is close to a hundred now. My pastor and I had a lengthy conversation on the pussification of the church last month.
I used to lead the blue pill style men’s group at my church. I also used to be the most “revolutionary” elder on the board. I’ve seen personally that a one-man revolutionary crusade is highly ineffective. And this was on issues of much higher priority than masculine church culture, things like establishing a church prayer culture, caring more effectively for the hurting families in our fellowship, serving the needs of our community, integrating the youth into the life of the body, removing leaders failing to live up to their calling, opposing the installation of divisive new leaders bent on pursuing their own agendas. Church leadership is incredibly hard. Dealing w JoJ as a sympathetic church leader would have been a cake-walk.
I’m looking for useful allies. I send my pastor tidbits from the Xn ghetto of the manosphere. He’s warming up. But I can only send tidbits. There’s no comprehensive on-line Xn man red pill resource. Most of the blogs have embarrassing fights among the readers, like the one we are having. Plenty of passion, but little practical value in driving change for a somewhat willing pastor, much less an openly resistant one.
Haley is great. She’s unthreatening, but only writes from a girls perspective. SSM is close. But also a woman and I’ll need to wait for the sexbot post to hit the archives. Dalrock hits on so much broad cultural stuff that he’s useful for context but not direct relational teaching (though I’m considering distilling the practicals on his site to a single doc). And so on. Maybe JoJ’s new site will be helpful.
My ultimate goal is to go back to my church, then others, and teach this stuff. Ironic that the corporate world is embracing it first.
So, I’d love to ally with the more pragmatic Xn manosphere readers but I have little use for dogmatic theoretical dust-ups.
@ RG3
Regarding seeing you as a blue-piller, I stand corrected. I understand that you are trying to introduce these truths in a more effective way so as to reach more people.
However, I cannot agree with you regarding JoJ’s treatment. The pastor told him that they were kicking him out specifically because the females didn’t like what he was saying, even though it was biblically sound. He gave the church’s men the tools they needed to make something of themselves while still living as Christians, and he was backstabbed for the sake of politics. That church seemed smarmy and dishonest, buying into dominant cultural trends rather than teaching what was in the Bible, all because it was what the wives liked to hear. They weren’t teaching Scripture, and when someone comes along that does, the women bully him out of the church.
That kind of thing is just slimy.
I’m an agnostic, so I’m no biblical scholar. I have no solutions for revolutionizing church culture. However, I am sympathetic to the more openly religious, and the way JoJ was treated was cowardly and hypocritical.
I hope we can agree on that, at least.
@CED it’s all good, bro.
I didn’t like JoJ’s “summary excommunication.”
Poorly handled, prob not scripture, and the pastor sounds like a puss.
It was definitely predictable, tho.
Which parts of the Manosphere do you all read? Aside from Dalrock, that is. I don’t read him, personally. I’ve been reading and blogging on the ‘sphere for quite a while and I have not come across this anal obsession, aside from GBFM. Most everything I read/write is self improvement and positive masculinity. Perhaps, instead of making an entire community out to be evil perverts, you should just avoid the blogs that do not meet your criteria. I, personally, find it a bit un-christian and offensive/immature to toss around words like “fagosphere”. You are talking abouy a rather large group of people using, as far as I can tell, a small sample to judge from. And I think the Bible has a few things to say about judging.
I don’t fault you if you choose to distance yourself, but I see no need for the name calling and insults.
Good day and best wishes to you and yours.
-Dr. Illusion
There is nothing wrong with calling a pervert a pervert. Judging means when you judge the state of somebody’s soul and where they’re about to go in the afterlife. Quit crying. The fagosphere is a small sector of men so it is very easy to generalize.
Wow. Impressive. I made a very non hostile comment, simply saying thag name calling is not needed, and you reply with more name calling and an accusation of whining. The ‘sphere is definitely suffering from the loss of someone with your intelligence and maturity.
Cute. Don’t worry, there are enough mouthbreathers and wankers there to satisfy your intellectual needs. LOL.
It’s a bit discordant. I read all this stuff about Christianity and how the ‘sphere is not Christian enough. I grew up in the Church. I never saw strong Christian men flinging petty insults, at least not in the Church I was raised in. Perhaps the Church, or the Faith, have changed and your juvenile behaviour is acceptable now. I certainly hope not.
It takes a real man to throw insults around without any proof, quotes, or even well thought out arguments on how ‘most’ of the manosphere is so obviously perverted.
Feel free to let your fingers rest. It must be hard asking them to do all that heavy lifting required for ad hominem attacks and empty arguments
Dr. Illusion, just calm down and get a hold of yourself. There is no need to cry and be so pathetic. Do you think that your schoolmarm behavior is acceptable? Do you thing that it is masculine? Just get a grip.
Leap of a Beta, I know, I know, Samson criticized that Manosphere. How dare he?
[...] came across this post over at Samson’s Jawbone. He talks about how he must distance himself from the Manosphere, [...]
The manosphere tried in vain to hitch its wagon to an actual activist group who are trying to work for legislative reform of domestic violence and divorce laws and to this day (2 years later) they still try to claim they are part of the activist group. Most of them have had to be banned from the activist’s blogs.
Courageous post Samson.
I do not see Dalrock’s actions as those of a Christian. Whilst he may not always come right out himself and defame women commenters on his blog, he allows others, such as Greenlander and Greyghost (who always whines about women not being able to love, and who often posts drunk , with no paragraphs poor grammar and poor spelling.) to spew their bile and hatred without so much as a whimper from the blog owner.
On the recent Untethered post there was this comment from Professor Ashur.
“Hey, Christian bitches!
You’ll never get my money or attention. Go fk yourselves.”
Now, if Dalrock were truly Christian, he would have admonished the commenter. At the very least the comment should have been deleted.
Dalrock commits the sin of omission..
Just because HE does not say these things himself, means little. He allows these vile comments so therefore it implies tacit approval.
His fallback, that just because he does not reply to certain male commenters ,(turns a blind eye) does not mean that HE supports what they say, is gutless and weak, and certainly not Christian.
A Pontius Pilate act, where he washes his hands completely of certain comments made and the (often) ensuing fallout, does not absolve him of culpability at all.
He is of course quite happy to take to task female commenters with whom he disagrees , knowing full well he will be solidly backed up by his acolytes, who will eventually drive the female dissenters away.
There is nothing brave or edifying about this. But it does keep the blog traffic ticking over nicely.
And yes, I most certainly agree with you Samson, when you say that Dalrock’s style is whiny and often bordering on misrepresentation. I saw many a female misunderstood and misrepresented , on his site. I was one of them.
Dalrock should ponder the following scripture.
Galatians 1:10
“Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
One cannot serve two masters.
Yes. Because allowing free speach is eeeeeeeeevil. So is the idea that you should be able to defend your own ideas to any adversary. Eeeeeeeeeevil. Allosing this to happen in the safest environment possible, so that you can get used to before going out into the real world where you’ll avtually see, hear, and experience the anger and possible physical danger…
Eeeeeeeeevil.
I agree whole heartedly with your conclusions. We should all leave the US, and go somewhere where free speech isnt allowed to shaken our beliefs and make us stronger.
Leap of A Beta, I get it. You used to be a supplicating pussy whom the girls LJBFed and now you’ve decided to atleast try to be a real man. But instead of doing that, you brownnose Dalrock and make fun of women(and other men) who criticize because you think that makes you alpha. LOL.
Carry on. By putting words into the mouths of others and distorting what they say, you’re really making yourself look like a Real Man.
You’re the little bitch who whined about Samson throwing around insults without proof and now you put words into the mouths of others and fling your own insults. And that’s how the Manosphere works. It takes losers who can’t get women to act like they’re Real Men and attack men and women who disagree but all the while they don’t apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others.
Run along now you little pest. We get it. You’re up there in years and women still don’t like you. Alright.
“I agree whole heartedly with your conclusions. We should all leave the US, and go somewhere where free speech isnt allowed to shaken our beliefs and make us stronger.”
That’s not what she said you little puss. Do you even realize how stupid you look?
You’re only proving Samson right.
Sorry. I didnt realize that sarcasm and satire were too lofty of ideas for you to grasp. So here it is in a simple version.
Dalrocks ideas are explorations of what masculinity should look like if supported by the biblical teachings. His commenters are not necessarily of the same beliefs. He, however, believes both in free speech and that an idea, a belief, and a believer should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Thus he gives a large amount of free reign to his comment sections.
This is good as it gives an area for people to test their beliefs. If you dint have the strength to do so, then simply don’t do so. But, as I attempted to tell you before, alienation only serves to ensure that your cause will die when you do. Surprisingly enough (gasp!!!) The bible covers this in the idea of evangelicism and preaching to non-believers. Of forwarding and multiplying ideas.
Yet you insist on belittling names anf untrue statments. You continue to use them without any thing to back it up. You assume I’m an unsuccessful old man instead of a 27 year old living some of the best years od my life. In doing so you ensure that I dont givr a fuck about you or your goals. You ignore evidence I give you of others my age having the same values and feeling just as betrayed by your indifference as I feel disgusted by your hypocrisy.
Is that clear enough for you to understand? Or should I revert to grunts and hand symbols since you obviously didnt get the original satire
As if I care what you care about. You’re a dumbfuck who can’t make a coherent argument and on top of that you’re an ugly as hell ginger. Can’t be living much of a life. Nowhere near as good as mine.
I didn’t know that you’re 27. You look much, much older.
I would consider a blog owner weak if he felt the need to delete any comment thag did not agree with his opinion and world view. Comment section is for comments, not a place for the blogger to flex his censorship muscles.
This is all very interesting to read. Quite a few insults traded back and forth along with accusations of people not being Christian and aspersion being cast on a large group of people as being obsessed with sodomy (not something I’ve really run across in my ‘manosphere’ readings, but maybe I’m simply blind).
It all seems rather petty and juvenile; a long distance internet ‘pissing contest’ as it were (please excuse the crudity) that really provides much less light than heat.
I agree with you that I have not encountered any sodomy obsession on the Manosphere. Maybe I don’t read the same blogs. Oh well.
And Dalrock IS weak, because he will not tolerate comments from women who HE thinks are not toeing the party line.
Get real here. He identifies as Christian.
He puts up with that deadbeat greyghost who is a real nutter, and disparages women at every opportunity..
What is Christian about that?
God created man… and woman, to be the helpmate of man. Men and women go together.
Dalrock is too focused on the earthly.. On women’s transgressions.
He overlooks the sinful things that men engage in.. on his blog because he has a target market.. God comes second.
This is why I have no respect for him.. A sin is a sin. Fornicating women (and men) unless they repent are all going to end up in the same place!
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t read Dalrock. So you may well be entirely correct. But I am firmly against comment censorship of any kind.
Another thing…the Manosphere is not a place for women. It’s right there in the name. The ‘sphere is full of men who have been badly hurt by deceitful women. Most of us don’t want them invading our last boy’s club. Period.
I had no problem with Samson’s Jawbone choosing to distance himself. I have been nothing but polite. But, if he thinks Dalrock condones his bad comments by doing nothing about them…I take it Samson condones the petty insults flung at me when I was being polite and not at all hostile?
I am still not being hostile. I realize some people here had a bunch of agression and bile saved up for Dalrock fans coming to fight, but I am nothing of the sort. I only took umbrage to the constant use of the word “most” when talking about perverts in the ‘sphere. I am close friends with many bloggers/commenters on the Manosphere, and “most” of us are not evil, or perverts.
I’ve met many “Christians” who were sexually molesting family members. Should I say “Most Christians are child molesting perverts”? I think not. Give us the same respect. That is all I ask.
“But I am firmly against comment censorship of any kind.”
In other words, no matter what anyone says, a comment should not be suppressed. What a barbarian thing to advocate.
Ahh, looks like Dr. Illusion has decided to whine about us over at his site that nobody reads….. Isn’t he precious?
I didnt realize that rhe amount of people reading or believing and idea was what made it true rather than, you know, rhe actual truth or I tellectual thoughts. Im sure youre quickly becoming a fan of socialized healthcare and every other ideal if the democrats for the next four years. In that case I’ll convert to a liberal here in the US and a Muslim when traveling anywhere else
The funny thing about his comment…
A quick Alexa stat check shows my site to be ranked 1,300,000th in the world.
This blog (Samsons) is ranked 24,944,951st.
I would think they would be thanking me for the extra traffic I sent them. More people they can spread the word to.
Once again, this poor fellow uses non-factual information for his little insults against me. And do note, please, that I have yet to insult anyone here. I suppose it’s the fact that I have yet to lose my temper that is upsetting him. Remember what UMan had to say about arguing with women? Same applies here. Keep your frame, they just get emotional and try to deflect.
Yes, that’s what I said. You just sound like an idiot because all you do is tear down strawmen. Good job.
As if Dr. Faggot has anything important to say. This site is far more truthful and intellectual than some whiny bitch and his fluffer’s rants about how other people are just sooo mean.
Another fail like you had with Kathy’s comment. Time to give up, you nerdy little gingerbitch. Just run along now.
My word, listen to this Christian fling his insults and profanity, spewing forth filth like the most base heathen.
I assume, since the blog owner is not chastising him, that he endorses this behaviour, since that is the argument he uses against Dalrock.
Most Atheists I know don’t have such filthy mouths.
What happened to the rule Nihil ad hominem?
Keep on whining, Illusion. Fine, so your site has more views. You wanna cookie?
Look, Samson’s site is more than little whinefests about what other people said to hurt his little feeeewings unlike youuu.
Keep in mind that you’re the one who decided to whine like little bitch. Just calm down and stop whining and I’ll stop making fun of you.
I don’t really care which site has more views. I was just pointing out that, once again, you are using arguments/insults that are not based in fact or truth.
You keep saying I am “whining” or “crying” which I am clearly not.
And I don’t mind you “making fun of me” because the more you do so, and admit to it, and hurl profane language and insults, the more you prove the hypocrisy of your claim of Christianity.
You are not providing a very good example of living in Christ. But please continue. I will use your comments later for a post on my blog about the hypocrisy of modern Christians. You are just providing free material to drive my site views.
Okay… And I should care why? It’s not like I’ll read your site. You say you haven’t been whining but you’ve been whining from the very begginning. Go ahead and make some more useless whiny rants based on my comments. I’m sooo scared.
Just like the atheist and the heathen, a Christian is human. I get aggravated with whiners. But I do cede that my language is unChristian and I sincerely apologize. But I do maintain that you are a typical atheist MRA whiner. If you don’t like something then why don’t you just leave?
I was already reading here before this post. I find no reason to stop just because the blogger disagrees with a portion on the Manosphere. As I pointed out in my original comment, which you attacked, I find no fault with Samson for leaving the ‘sphere. I just politely pointed out that “most” of us are not perverts. You, sir, have been attacking me and hurling insults and profanity ever since.
I will not leave because one person is disgracing the Christian tone of this blog.
I am more than willing to forgive and consider this a mistake, embracing you as a brother. I did not come here looking for a battle.
Maybe you should look up the definition of whining:
1. . to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way:He is always whining about his problems.
What I and Dr Illusion are doing is poking holes in your flimsy logic and trying to show your hypocrisy. We’re then asking you to stop so that an actual discussion might occur so that we may all actually learn something.
He is being more polite about it than I, but I suspect that I have less patience when it comes to people conplaigning about someone upholding the same values our country is founded upon, bashing a whole section of men without visible proof or cause, and then avoiding every time I try to point out you are posting nothing in response that entails any actual thought, but merely childish insults I’d expect to hear from an eight year old on the playground. Seriously. ‘Faggosphere?’ Gingerbitch?
Your comments to this point are the equivalent of the eight year old on the playground sticking his fingers in his ears when his mother calls him in for the evening, shouting at the top of his lungs, ‘I CAN’T HEAR YOU!’
Alright, Dr. Illusion, I had mistakenly thought that you had come looking for a battle and no, I do not believe that all members of the Manosphere are perverts. And I am guessing that neither does Samson.
Look, I do feel bad and I truly and sincerely apologize for my dirty and unChristian language. Thank you for graciously forgiving me and taking me to task for my language-I tend to have a weakness when it comes to misusing foul langauge and I want you to keep in mind that we all have our weaknesses-and I am willing to embrace you as a brother as well, Dr. Illusion. Let’s put this behind us.
@Svar
Well spoken, and done. Axe is buried.
From the OP:
Even at the supposedly “Christian” sites, most of the men are perverts. I mean this not as a pejorative, but in a literal, clinical sense: these men’s ideas about proper sexuality have been perverted; corrupted. On these sites, there is a good deal of posturing about wifely “submission”, but an awful lot of the time this is followed by complaints that a wife won’t “submit” – to her husband’s pleas for sodomy. This very blog entry was inspired by a sordid discussion that I saw at Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation), in which one commenter was upset and soliciting advice because he expected marriage to be an opportunity to engage in sickening sexual acts, and was disappointed when this didn’t materialize. Another commenter, one I believe to be quite popular, opined that if a woman doesn’t want to perform degrading sexual acts with her husband, she “must not really love him”. I don’t feel any sympathy when these men complain about not getting enough sex.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I second this specific point (I’d say “significant numbers” rather than “most” as a quibble, because silence doesn’t imply assent). I expect that a nontrivial number of tradcons are disgusted by the manosphere not because the tradcons are pedestalizing white knights or Team Woman; but rather because a significant percentage of manosphere commenters are literally sexual perverts.
I don’t second the gripes about Dalrock, though, just to be clear. He explained his approach here, and I have no reason to think he has mischaracterized himself.
Kathy is right. I remember an anti-Christian leftist attacking the Christian faith. I made fun of him and since he was an MRA, Dalrock took his side even though he attack and mewled about the Christian faith that he now claims to follow.
He then deleted all of the comments. Dalrock has flip-flopped numerous times.
Ah, so now he is selling Biblical marriage?
I had been reading Dalrock’s site since its inception.
Back in the early days he was reluctant to talk about Christianity (I suspect for fear of driving the punters away) He seemed totally MRA and attracted those types.
Because of his coyness, with regards to his Christian beliefs, I ended up googling him and found a couple of comments at other sites where he admitted to being a Christian.
Back then there was no mention of Biblical marriage. The blog was just about “thoughts from a happily married father” I could discern nothing Christian about its content. More (as others have noted ) like a mini Spearhead,a place where men could gather and vent their spleens against women. Many decent women were driven away from the site.
I don’t think it has changed that much actually. Now that I have of late been reading it again, I see that many of the nasty types still frequent that site. It’s not a site that decent Christian women should go to for advice about marriage. Dalrock has no expertise in this area. Great with stats, I will give him that. But he does misunderstand and misrepresent women. How can he make assumptions about a woman’s character through a few blog posts? (This is something I have never seen you do, Zippy). That’s what he does, though. There is a certain arrogance in his dealings with women, who he does not agree with , or who he deems unworthy.
Now had Dalrock reigned in the “perverted” “axe to grind” element, things may have been different. He never admonishes these men or tells them to tone it down. What is a Christian woman to think when she comes across a comment like this on Dalrock’s?
“Hey, Christian bitches!
You’ll never get my money or attention. Go fk yourselves.”
Would you allow a comment such as that on your blog Zippy, without telling the guy that it was inappropriate? I don’t think so.
My own mother( who attends mass every day ) would be appalled at such a comment. As am I! What low standards have we descended to? Had Dalrock told the guy to pull his head in and refrain from such unchristian sentiments, then yes, I could believe that he takes his Christian beliefs seriously.
Lets turn this around for a minute. Say a woman made the following disgraceful comment (on Dalrock’s)
“Most Christian men are hypocrites go fk yourselves”?
Dalrock would be onto her like a ton of bricks castigating her.( More than likely banning her.) And a whole slew of men would be in there as well calling her a feminist and a c**t etc.. And Dalrock would do absolutely nothing to reign in that unchristian behaviour.
Do you see what I mean?
Biblical Marriage? I just can’t see it. If he is serious about promoting Biblical marriage then he needs to clean up his site. There are many men there who are down on women in general and are against marriage. Surely they are not a good advertisement for Biblical marriage?
@Samson’s Jawbone,
I understand and agree with you that you don’t want a PUA who knows Game to come anywhere near your daughters.
The guys that Joseph of Jackson is teaching are church guys with low self esteem, low confidence that have never been taught how to be masculine, how to talk to a woman. They are in their mid to late 20′s and have never had a girlfriend ever. Joseph of Jackson teaches, “no physical touching” and “no fornication.”
These guys are so lacking in social skills & confidence that they will never get within 10 feet of your daughters. You will never teach them because they will never get close enough to your daughters to show up on your radar. Joseph of Jackson is teaching the outcasts. I know, I was one of them.
The manosphere is by no means monolithic, and in addition to Dalrock, there are many other Christians still blogging regularly within it, from Patriactionary’s ElectricAngel and Dr. Eric Stratton, to Simon Grey and the Elusive Wapiti, to Slumlord (the Social Pathologist), Free Northerner, Jehu, Chesterpoe, Chris (Dark Brightness) and several others. I haven’t seen any examples of these endorsing anal sex; on the contrary, if you asked any of them, I’m positive they’d recoil at the prospect.
It just strikes me as irrational and even absurd to write off all of the entire collectivity of sites, and the entire ‘community’, such as it is, because of the non-Christians within it; same as it would be absurd to, for instance, reject traditionalist conservatism as a political orientation just because there are some non-believers, including pagans, amongst the Christians who hold to such a political worldview. (You mentioned and linked to a Reformed political blog; let me ask you, do Reformed folks eschew involvement and/or interest in politics because of the presence of non-Reformed and non-Christians in political movements? No, they generally do not; only a handful of hardline ‘Covenanter’ types do – and those few have chosen a separatist, quasi-Anabaptist withdrawal from the wider world, and generally choose not to even bother paying much attention to the goings-on in the world, from what I’ve noticed.)
For my part, I’m through with blogging for now, because I’m too busy with life these days to devote time to it, but I’m not through altogether with the manosphere; like the aforementioned Christians, I still find much of value, esp. amongst the blogs written by Christians and Christian-friendly folks within it. I choose to ignore the rest.
But hey, one must do as one sees fit.
Are you talking about Tacomaster? He wanted his wife to stop acting like sex with him was torture. His wife went from only having sex with him 1-2 times a month the first year after marriage, to:
What is perverted and degrading about not wanting her to act this way towards her husband? Or are you talking about something else entirely?
I don’t know what discussion Samson had in mind; but in agreeing that he had a (specific) point I had in mind ones like this one.
The idea that because a woman did perverse, intrinsicaly immoral acts in the past it follows that she is (paradoxically) obligated to do them with her husband now is morally problematic.
I understand that many people don’t agree with traditional sexual morality; but then that is kind of the point.
Thanks Zippy. I don’t think that can possibly be what he is referring to because that was a comment I made well over a year ago. I can see how that would appear that I was saying the specific act was a right, and I should have worded it better. The comment in question was in response to Sandy’s comment that it was a “bait and switch” for a woman to offer sex in one way prior to marriage, and then shut down after marriage. My point was that very often it is even worse than a simple bait and switch, where the woman was just fine doing these things with other men, but unwilling to do them for her husband. As I mentioned in a recent comment, I respect that many have a sincere interpretation that oral sex is not biblically permitted. When discussing the issues of submission and denial of sex it isn’t my intent to try to define it down to this level of detail. For example, I agree with your framing that a husband isn’t entitled to physically force his wife to have sex. However, very often these questions are used as smokescreens to avoid admitting the more general rebellion against the biblical instruction. This appears to be what Samson is doing here by suggesting that those who point out the many verses on submission as well as the clear instruction not to deny sex are motivated by sexual perversion. If he can find a finer detail with which to hang me by, he can avoid having to deal with the bold print.
At any rate, I’m surprised that Samson’s Jawbone still hasn’t clarified exactly what I’ve written which would cause him to go so far as to publicly accuse me of being a pervert.
Dalrock:
When discussing the issues of submission and denial of sex it isn’t my intent to try to define it down to this level of detail. For example, I agree with your framing that a husband isn’t entitled to physically force his wife to have sex. However, very often these questions are used as smokescreens to avoid admitting the more general rebellion against the biblical instruction.
I appreciate that and agree that sometimes otherwise legitimate concerns are used as a kind of bait-and switch reframe. Heck, that is probably as common on the Internet as putting words in someone else’s mouth, another peeve you and I have in common. And I definitely think it is ludicrous for folks to conclude that because you allow a given comment you must agree with it: heck, even reading every comment can be a chore at times, and readers get what they pay for out of a blogger.
I do remember the specific discussion Samson is bringing up, but I’m not even sure it was on your blog and I couldn’t find it with a quick search. Instead I found the discussion in your Firebombed post, which I read some time recently drilling down into something else that linked to it. The specific discussion I remember but couldn’t get from a quick Google may have been on The Woman and the Dragon or somewhere else entirely. A few commenters were claiming something to the effect that a wife refusing to perform oral sex or permit sodomy constitutes rebellion against Biblical submission. I may be misstating the particulars, and at the very least in associating your name with it Samson owes a link to the particulars he has in mind. (I don’t remember you participating in the particular exchange, and I’m not a believer in guilt by association). At that point people can evaluate the who’s who of it for themselves.
Here is a comment by the popular commenter Deti:
Gregoire also seems to have an aversion to oral sex, specifically fellatio. She seems supportive of women who want to “make love” (meaning P in V sex). She seems to support women who don’t want to do things that indicate the man is “selfish” (i.e. he wants her to suck his c*ck)
Or, there are men who want their wives to perform fellatio but that reminds them of their “past” (translation: the reader seeking advice was a slut before she got married and did all kinds of unspeakable things with her superalpha ex, and she doesn’t want to do those things with hubby because it’s “immoral” and “unnatural” (which really means she’s just not all that into her husband).
I didn’t reply myself (life is short), but I did notice the framing: “immoral” and “unnatural” can only mean that she isn’t that into her husband. Objection on actual, substantive moral grounds is ridiculed.
No time to do more digging here. I conclude that Samson’s gripe has some legitimacy with respect to some commenters. However, guilt-by-association is unwarranted in my view.
Then there is this by the same commenter, who seems to have a ‘thing’ for oral sex, in a post on a Christian blog discussing sexbots.
I’m not going to go do the same digging w.r.t. anal sex, because the search terms are more difficult and returns they be a-diminishing in any case. It is also worth pointing out that there is plenty of dissent in the comboxes.
But life is short, and I think the point is demonstrated: when it comes to how a Christian ought to spend his time on-line it is legitimate to ask if witnessing (and linking to) debates over whether Biblical submission requires different kinds of sodomy, and participating in discussions only one degree of freedom removed from same, is worthwhile or wise. It is certainly understandable to me that some people who take traditional sexual morality seriously might take a peek at all that and throw out baby, bathwater, tub, and all the plumbing.
“It is certainly understandable to me that some people who take traditional sexual morality seriously might take a peek at all that and throw out baby, bathwater, tub, and all the plumbing.”
Zippy, could you clarify what you mean?
As for Deti…. Deti is the typical Manosphere whiner. He is absolutely pathetic and he says the same bullshit over and over again about how women want men that have Brad Pitt’s looks, Clooney’s charm, and Buffet’s money. Absolute nonsense to anyone living in reality. I’m not Pitt or Clooney and I don’t have a dollar on me, but I do fine with pretty girls around my age.
@Zippy
I think the objection is to her framing herself both as a victim of the men she had premarital sex with and her husband, instead of taking responsibility for her own past sin. This very often comes with a not so subtle dose of “If you are a good boy and do as she wants, maybe she will do the same for you”. I think I referenced an example of this in the same thread.
Zippy:
Is it your position and/or the Roman Catholic Church’s position that fellatio, not involving ejaculation, is sodomy and is unnatural?
Is cunnilingus sodomy and unnatural?
Svar: Whatever. I’m glad to hear you’re doing fine with pretty girls your age. Good to know an early 20s boy like you has it all figured out. Run along now, little boy.
I might also point this out:
If one accepts the premise that fellatio is acceptable so long as ejaculation does not occur, then a wife’s refusal to perform an act that is permissible and that the husband would like is a clear indication that the wife isn’t attracted to her husband.
Lack of attraction from wife to husband, and subsequent divorce (at last record, at 28% among American Roman Catholic adherents) is a big problem.
I’ve hesitated on commenting here even though the OP links to my blog because I don’t consider myself part of the manosphere. However, I do want to clarify a couple of things.
First, I don’t ever recall anyone on my blog saying that a woman is obligated to perform oral sex on her husband if she is morally opposed to it, nor has anyone written (that I recall) that it is unsubmissive or rebellious for her not to do so. Deti recommended it; he is Protestant, as am I, so neither of us considers it sinful, but I certainly respect others’ decisions not to engage in this practice. In terms of a.sex – it’s not been discussed much at all that I remember. Certainly no one has advised anyone to do this. We’re a bunch of middle-aged, married Christians, for Heaven’s sake, not a den of pervs.
But yes, there have been frank discussions about marital sex on my blog, with very direct statements from me directed to married women to stop withhold physical intimacy from their husbands. The Bible simply does not permit a woman to shut her husband out this way, regardless of whatever particular practices they decide are moral for them.
Second, I just can’t understand what Joseph of Jackson has done that would be so offensive. He specifically insisted that the men in his small group class not engage in physical escalation or premarital sexual relations. It was more of a social skills class. RG3 himself was not called Satanic either; the sentence he is referring to by a commenter was just not clearly worded. RG3 is a good guy; he’s not satanic by any means.
Finally, on the Sheila Gregoire post being discussed – the woman in the example had no moral objection to oral sex. She simply wanted to be the one who got to decide exactly what her husband could and could not request in bed at any given time. It wasn’t about morality; it was about being a controlling bossy pants, which is always unattractive in woman.
side hugs for all the ladies of the m/s
Sent from my iPad
Oh deti, sorry. I didn’t see that you were commenting here when I began to write my comment. I didn’t mean to speak for you.
I am going to decline the invitation to discuss the sordid details of various sexual acts, and point out that the repeated instances of enthusiastic fellatio advocacy in the one thread provide context for the other. I reiterate the point that a Christian who takes traditional sexual morality seriously, who finds himself in the middle of a discussion of sexbots and the explicit details of various sexual acts, is well within the bounds of reason to ask himself “what the Hell am I doing here?” and depart, announced or unannounced.
This, again, does not imply support for every contention in the OP; just that specific one.
Hahaha, Deti. What a loser. My balls dropped what, only five years ago? Still more of man than you’ll ever be. You’re just a laughingstock.
Please, tell me more about how the pretty girls didn’t want you and how your wife is so promiscuous.
@ssm:
regardless of whatever particular practices they decide are moral for them
People do not get to decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong.
“People do not get to decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong.”
Thanks for saying that, Zippy. It seems that Prots, the ones who are so enamored with anal sex, don’t seem to realize this.
Ah, but now you are reframing the discussion, Zippy. Now the objection is not that we are perverts; it is that we are not Catholic. That was not the stated reason for Samson’s Jawbone to distance himself in the OP, so I don’t really see that as being a fruitful discussion at this point.
One more quick point:
Zippy wrote: “on a Christian blog discussing sexbots.”
Do let’s be clear about what I wrote about sexbots in that post:
The resulting conversation, over 420 comments, is at times truly heartbreaking, with men recounting their deep sadness at being refused night after night, week after week, month after month by their wives whom they love.
Svar, I would appreciate civility. I do not insult Catholics, so please do not insult my religious beliefs. I am Protestant, yet I am not enamored with a. sex.
@ssm:
Now the objection is not that we are perverts; it is that we are not Catholic.
The natural law is, like physics, non-denominational and knowable to reason. There is no “reframe”; and in any case invoking “your argument is wrong because of reframe” smacks of relativism. The only “frame” we should be coming from is the truth.
I wasn’t talking about you Sunshine, why the guilt? I never thought Mrs. 39-flavors-of-slut would be so easily offended.
As Will has shown with his piss-poor defense of the glories of anal sex, relativism is a standard part of Protestant theology.
LOL, well-played, Svar. Yes, I did call myself that, so I guess I can’t come here and act too prissy, now can I?
I’m not offended, anyway, just trying to clarify some things that have been said, and now that I’ve had my say, I’ll not tie the thread up further.
Did I ever say I was enamoured of anal sex, Svar? I most certainly am not; the idea repulses me, personally; I have said the same elsewhere. Your smear against me as being ‘enamored’ of it, and ‘defending the glories of anal sex’ as is most uncalled for.
BTW, if you had bothered to read the link to Elspeth’s article, you would see she was discussing oral sex, not anal sex.
The principle is the same, though; we confessional, traditionalist Protestants refuse to make rules where Scripture is silent.
But clearly, this is an area where contemporary trad Catholics and trad Protestants will not necessarily see eye-to-eye. No surprise, there…
There is nothing “trad” about Protestants who believe the nonsense you do. We Catholics call what you believe “moral relativism”. And you still haven’t explained how exactly anal sex is inline with Natural Law when there is such a thing as a vagina. I don’t think you know what Natural Law is.
And there is no difference b/w your arguments and the arguments of Emergents which you claim are for some reason wrong even though with your reasoning, they can’t be.
Alot of cog diss going on.
As long as you know your place Mrs. 39-Flavors-of-Slut. So what if there’s a 40th flavor?
Nothing more amusing in my eyes than to see someone ignore a question that they can not answer or refuse defend an argument that even they know is as flimsy as paper.
I certainly understand your feelings on this issue, Samson. Most in the manosphere are not exactly what would be called morally upright. It takes sound judgment to read those blogs and ignore some of the underlying messages advocating immoral actions. Too many treat the subject as though the ultimate goal is not to better oneself for the sake of personal development but to engage in intercourse with as many women as possible. Rather than help men become real men, and thus have a more fulfilling life, they preach degeneracy. This is not meant to be an attack upon all manosphere bloggers or the commenters, only against the many perverts there.
My blog is slowly developing into a more Christian manosphere-ish blog; but I have no use for alpha/beta, hamster, hypergamy crap. We should ourselves be learning and aiding others in becoming better Christian men.
There are a lot of concepts in the manosphere that set the paradigm in which they dwell. Red pill is one of the biggest of course. It comes from a bad movie that was the product of the mind of degenerates(Larry is now Lana, that isn’t a sign of a healthy mind). They think they have truth, but being a believer I don’t agree that they do.The constant defining of alpha and beta is another, which is so nebulous that it has no meaning. Sometimes acting like you are in charge is counter productive, especially when you know nothing. The hamster thing was just annoying.
It is easier to realize that women are fallen sinners, but to realize also that yes men are as well. Mastering your lust will take you further than sating it in fornication. Gamers are constantly obsessed with women, and that time and energy could be focused in more productive pursuits. Even in marriage it is not helpful to be constantly indulging, for the same reasons.
Women caused some problems in my life, but I caused more. The difference is I can control myself, I really can’t control them. Even when someone is forced or manipulated into submission, they resist, and eventually rebel. I am learning to be patient myself, and eroding that rebellion in others in time. This life is not perfect, so we should have some understanding when people aren’t perfect.
Even if nothing goes as I hope, I win, because I have already given up virtually everything of this life. I have nothing to lose, and even death is a victory. People are miserable because they are trying to hold onto things. In better times they may have had a better reason to, but not today.
Everything in this age is corrupt, and we are about to see the end of the Pax America era, and enter into a darker era most likely. America will still be here most likely, but more socialist and possibly fascist. I do not advocate trashing the substance of your lives, only in realizing that it is fleeting indeed. Enjoy today, stop worrying so much. You may not have tomorrow.
Samson’s approach to the manosphere, is proper for his faith, we are to separate ourselves from those who are flesh driven. We share the gospel, and move on when people do not listen. We do not wallow in the same mud as they, but stand ready for those who change their minds and believe on Lord Jesus for their salvation.
Men and women of the Faith arguing Dogma as it relates to the pleasures of the marriage bed. Why all the anger? If this is simply a question if interpretation of scripture, believe what you choose to believe. All you’re risking is your eternal soul. No need for anyone to be bitter.
You sound a little bitter.
Not bitter. Just amused. Hey, everyone could just approach the issue from Babtist’s viewpoint. Do whatever you want…as long as you go to church Sunday morning it’s OK.
Hahaha, Baptists… You forgot to add about how it’s bad to drink even though Jesus’s blood is made from wine and how He drank wine.
I’m curious, Dr. Illusion. What is your opinion of sex in marriage? Is sodding your wife a-okay to you?
I was kind of raised to be amused at Babtists. In response to an earlier question, I was raised Pentecostal Holiness.
It’s not really a question of whether or not it is ok to me, but whether it is sinful. The Bible seems fairly clear on the issue. While I do not believe it was specifically forbidden, I think that’s because it falls under and older directive. “Be fruitful and multiply”.
Thank you!! You understand it like I do. It’s the same thing with abortion. Not specifically forbidden but still wrong, immoral and sinful because of how God says that He formed us in the womb and how it’s wrong to murder.
But of course, Protestants can’t apply this simple use of logic to see why sodomizing your beloved is wrong.
Abortion is wrong precisely because it is murder; and murder is forbidden by Scripture; “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the Ten Commandments.
What is hard to understand about that?
Scripture is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Oh, and that is exactly where we differ from mainlines and Emergents. We go with what Scripture teaches; they try to rationalize it away.
That is a fundamental difference between us and them.
I find it incredible that anyone would conflate us with them.
There is no passage that explicitly forbids abortion. You’re reaching. Your arguments apply to other things. If Onan’s sin isn’t the wasting of seed and if Go Forth and Multiply means that contraception is a-okay then Sodom’s sin was a lack of hospitality and St. Paul said what he did because of his culturally induced chauvinism.
Why are the rationalizations of the infanticidal prostitutes and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays not okay but your rationalization just fine and dandy? You can’t explain it can you? Anal sex is wrong and perverse. It’s as simple as that.
“I find it incredible that anyone would conflate us with them.”
Yeah, you probably would. But it’s not that hard to do. You’re rationalizing away Scriptures on sexual morality as well as Natural Law to make anal sex okay.
Rationalizing just like the mainliners and the Emergents. Ultimately there is no difference amongst you except in degree of liberalism.
I am not rationalizing away Scriptures on sexual morality; I am, or rather we (Protestants) are interpreting them differently than you do though, certainly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control#The_Sin_of_Onan.E2.80.94condemnation_of_contraceptive_use.3F
“As part of this debate, Protestants (as well as some Catholics) disagree over the Sin of Onan as found in the Bible verses of Genesis 38:1-10. Protestants within the “children in abundance” group (see discussion of below) often see Onan’s act of coitus interruptus as condemning contraceptive use, while most see Onan’s real sin as ongoing rebellion against God, with his failure to fulfill the terms of his Levirate marriage (Yibbum) being his final rebellious act.”
As for the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, we hold, as in this Reformed essay:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?id=5702
That it was homosexuality, period. Koukl explains why, in that essay.
As for abortion, it doesn’t matter that it isn’t directly addressed in any Scripture passage; the fact is, yes, the reference to personhood from the womb (Psalm 139), and the fact that it thus snuffs out a life, makes it a form of murder – which is explicitly condemned in Scripture.
Which is why we confessional Protestants, like you Roman Catholics, oppose abortion.
Anyway, just because we interpret certain passages of Scripture differently than you do doesn’t mean we are rationalizing them away; we are simply understanding them differently.
But, if you want to see us as differing only in degree from the mainliners and Emergents, I guess you will go ahead and do so, regardless of what I say.
Your prerogative, of course; everyone is entitled to their opinions…
Then the Emergents are just understanding it differently. They’re not rationalizing either.
Just admit that your arguments do not stand up to logic. How can you say the Emergents are wrong with the arguments that you bring forward?
Btw, I’m happy to see that Leap of a Beta has the balls to talk about me behind my back. It must make him feel good.
Svar if you find anything wrong with a person’s argument you provide the quotation and say why that statement is wrong.
How come?
[...] at Samson’s Jawbone, a blog I linked to in an earlier post, there is an ongoing debate (which started, in part, at [...]
For the record, I don’t advocate anal sex because it is unnatural. I can understand and appreciate that others have differing views on oral sex and I have no problem with that. I know I see it differently from traditionalists and Catholics, who are, of course, fully entitled to their understanding of what traditional sexual morality is.
The point I was trying to make at Dalrock and at SSM’s site, albeit inartfully and in an unrefined manner, was this: there are too many women who are unwilling to have any kind of sex, in any fashion, at any time, with their husbands. There are too many wives who are acting in open rebellion against Scripture and against their husbands’ leadership. There are too many women married to men they don’t find attractive for whatever reason, either they never were attracted to their husbands, or their husbands became unattractive. And there are too many women divorcing their husbands for this, and for other matters out of their control. All of this is causing untold pain for both husbands and wives. Men don’t want to have sex with wives who clearly don’t want to have sex with them. Perhaps the situation could be remedied if women would bring more of themselves to their marriages and not withhold sex from their husbands. Moreover, it is pretty well known that many women withhold sex and use it as either a weapon to coerce a husband into complying with her demands or otherwise bending to her will; or simply as a pretext, because she isn’t attracted to her husband. Finally, I asked a simple question of what the Catholic position/definition on sodomy is; and Zippy answered with only an oblique response criticizing me and accusing me of being a pervert. I was hoping for genuine discussion; but my requests were rebuffed.
Svar: Your internet tough guy/attack chihuahua/amateur theologian posturing is tedious, lame and predictable. Your name-calling and insults, to Leap, SSM, and even to Will S., your former blogging compatriot, are a poor witness to your faith.
A word to the wise: You don’t know as much as you think you do. As you go through your life, don’t burn too many bridges.
Samson, thanks for letting me have my say. I’ll duck out of the thread now.
I wasn’t attacking Will or SSM and LOB had aggravated me. Your whiny behavior and your vitriol to your wife is a poor witness to your faith. “Judge not lest not ye be judged”. Ever heard that? Don’t butt into situations that you don’t understand. Know your place.
Either way, I don’t need to waste anymore time on the Manosphere’s biggest’s loser. From this point on it is obvious that you’re an idiot with nothing important to say. You’re on my mental “ignore” list. See ya.
@ deti: Svar’s viciousness and smears and false accusations against me in these recent days have now cost him his friendship with me; he really doesn’t know when to stop. Ever.
Sad – for him. Perhaps, though, one day, he’ll learn something about loyalty and friendship and honour; he’s still young, after all.
There is hope for him; he has the capacity for further maturity.
http://nybaseballdigest.com/2011/12/12/john-rocker-on-new-book-the-mets-bud-selig-steroids-and-politics/
He reminds me of John Rocker, a former left-handed relief pitcher who was garnered ignominy for saying political incorrect remarks when he confided with a Sports Illustrated journalist, Jeff Pearlman. Pearlman opportunistically engaged in character assassination against Rocker by selective quoting his most provocative remarks during a ten-hour meeting (and of course most readers would be interested in his more raunchy remarks rather than the mundane elements of his conversations with Pearlman). In this context, Rocker is not apologetic for discussing political issues with Pearlman, although he most certainly acknowledges in retrospect it wasn’t prudent to assume that he would be treated fairly by the journalist, but for his audacious, immature attitude. I actually regard Rocker sympathetically for that incident and see him as the victim.
I am not making the comparison to sound derisive or judgmental in a spiritual sense, although it certainly is a secular comparison. Most likely Svar would not deem it offensive since he apparently doesn’t live in a region fond of “political correctness” and consequently he could say such remarks with impunity in that political environment.
Black Rose, I am asking in good faith, why do you seem to be so fascinated by me? I didn’t find your comment offensive, in fact I found it to be somewhat supportive: “There is hope for him; he has the capacity for further maturity” but I just don’t get why you make these little comparisions.
Will, you’re just angry because you can’t defend your flimsy position. I’m young, what’s your excuse for your behavior? Keep whining about me around the Manosphere, you sad, sad man.
We should all put our differences aside and strive to be the best men we can be, regardless of Faith. This infighting is unbecoming of Men. Let us join hands and face the true enemy.
I believe it is courteous to respond to you Svar, even if it has been more than a week.
I am fascinated by a lot of subjects and interests, many that are not even feminine. I do not know if I am fascinated by you anymore. For instance, I spent my leisure time during this month preoccupied with re-reading some PDFs (downloaded about three years ago) on the origin of life and ribozyme catalysis and some recent journal articles concerning this topic, particularly to explore the possibility of whether an ensemble of ribozymes can act as a self-replicating, metabolic competent, Darwinian entity (in other words, to act as a self-sufficient lifeform). Extant ribozymes mainly splice introns by cleaving phosphodiester bonds and, most prominently, directly participate in facilitating peptide bond formation in the “P-site” of the ribosome, but the chemistry for self-replication is inherently more complex than this. Essentially, this would require RNA to act as an RNA-directed RNA polymerase proficiently, but this has not been demonstrate yet
“I do not know if I am fascinated by you anymore.”
Interesting.
@ deti and anyone else who may be listening
“There are too many women married to men they don’t find attractive for whatever reason, either they never were attracted to their husbands, or their husbands became unattractive. And there are too many women divorcing their husbands for this, and for other matters out of their [I suppose, the husbands'] control.”
I think this has been a perennial problem, which traditional societies have dealt with in different ways. For a classic literary example, see Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. I don’t believe it is in the nature of women to be strongly attracted to any but top-tier men, and this is a dynamic, constantly changing subset.
The utopian thinking of the past two centuries has, of course, penetrated the sexual/familial sphere. For men, the playboy/player with his concomitant soft harem is held up as an ideal. Two generations ago, Hugh Hefner made his stake lacing this fantasy with male fashion tips and other accruements of conspicuous consumption. Advertisers loved it. In our less urbane era, we are counseled to toss a drink in a girl’s face and laugh at her for getting her blouse wet (hey, it worked for me once in 1979).
For women, the Cosmo-girl fantasy is marketed. Every girl can have her ravishing banker-thug-athlete whom every other girl desires but who is madly in love with only you because you’re so hawt, and besides, you know the Secret Way of Touching Him that those other bitches are too stuck-up, too prissy, or too prudish to do.
These two incompatible fantasies keep the cash registers of the dream merchants ringing and full. Now, there may be some sigma-four outliers of either sex who can live the dream, but for the largest majority of us sexual satisfaction has to be negotiated.
The traditional wisdom has always been not to expect too much of marriage. For most of us in this fallen world, there is no sexual utopia any more than there is a political or economic utopia. HOWEVER, and this cannot be overstated, if we choose to govern our passions and work with our natures instead of against them, we can effect a substantial improvement.
I think that last paragraph can be an invitation to rejoin a genuine discussion.
I would just point out that Svar was the only person here talking about anal sex and buggery. Neither SSM, nor Will S., nor anyone else was here advocating such practices nor even talking about them.
I would just point out that Deti is a cuckold fetishist that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If this stupid undesirable ugly shit had actually read the thread, he would she that Will had taken Samson to task because Samson had said in the post that he finds anal sex disgusting and perverted. Will then started to defend it and then I debated him on the matter.
You’re just all annnngwie because I don’t think a chronic whiner is respectful so you decided to changed how the situation actually went.
Give your wife a kiss for me.
I just realized that Deti talks about how he’s his wife’s 22nd choice. How he always talks about how his wife has had numerous men before him. According to his logic applied to him, he must be a culkold fetishist since he always talks about how his wife has had numerous partners.
Svar, you’re blinded by hate, for what reasons I cannot tell. Is this truly how you want to act, and how you want to be seen?
Let’s just go look at your site, Riding with the King. Judge not lest ye be judged.
You really can’t play that role, Matthew. Hatred is your game. You taught me how to be this way. And I will be forever grateful.
Forget Deti. He’s inconsequential. He needs an outlet.
[...] Jawbone breaking from the manosphere. A [...]
[...] “Distancing Myself From the Manosphere” on Samson’s Jawbone [...]
I’ll let you men hash out your differences, but since my post was referenced here, I’ll offer clarification (I saw the traffic from here in the stats).
I was always under the impression that sodomy refers to anal sex, which I also understand to be unlawful. Only in recent years have I been informed that Catholicism considers any form of “completion” outside of a wife’s womanhood as sodomy. This was news to me.
For the record, my post did not mention anal sex at all. The conversation between the TC editors that inspired the post did not include anal sex at all. We all agree it is unacceptable. The conversation was concerning the apparent Protestant/Catholic divide on the issue of oral sex.
Okay then. Carry on!
Indeed, Elspeth, I did state what the topic of your post was about in one of my comments, as CTRL-F of your name will show (as well as another comment you may find of interest, not by me).
As I’ve stated, I’m personally repulsed by anal sex, but Scripture doesn’t explicitly spell out that certain types of acts are expressly forbidden, only that acts between anyone other than a husband and his wife are, which was my point, lost on deaf ears.
Will, I assume you mean this:
Even an idiot can understand this and I understand when someone like Elspeth(let’s be honest, she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer and nowhere near a mediocre thinker) can’t understand this simple concept but it’s very disappointing when someone like you can’t.
I actually hadn’t even noticed it before but as I am well aware of what Svar thinks of me, it would be silly of me to be offended by it.
Off topic, I love this song!
From The Simpsons: Duffless. Homer and Marge bike into the sunset.
[...] I’m late to this, but it’s worth [...]
SJB,
What makes you think that the American woman of 2013 deserves anything but degradation?
The ‘Housewife is an excellent blog, yes. It sounds as if you are asking for a male-written version of that blog; or, if you like, a domestic edition of “View From The Right”.
Traditionalist husbands who are also wholesome are out there. I am optimistic that some of these will be able to take some time out of their family and work lives to post a blog now and then.
“I would still like to see a Christian – a TRULY Christian – resurgence of teaching on the biblical definitions of manhood, womanhood, and submission,”
vagina monologues recitals not good enough for you?
anyhow, can’t find fault with the pervertness,
even pervert movie-makers find their way to old fashioned things
http://www.young-goddess.com/2012/02/28/hello-world/
“I would not allow my daughters to date the men who frequent these sites.”
hear hear
and yet I become convinced that feminism was daddies looking out for their daughters
nyudri.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/driwp34.pdf
[...] On January 11th Samson wrote what appears to be a breakup letter with the Manosphere: [...]
“… Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation), …”
I sometimes read some of Dalrock’s entries, and almost never the comments (who’d want to wade into that swamp? It would be like reading the comments at Vox Day’s blog). I’m not too impressed with him, or his style.
I come over here specifically because he was misrepresenting SamsonsJawbone. What I mean is, Dalrock directly quoted SJ … and then proceeded to misrepresent what was written, and to accuse SJ of behaving “in true chick mode” and of “making cowardly and passive aggressive accusations”.
My immediate thought was: “You damned pussy” (with the ‘you’ being Dalrock). Then I closed that window, for my disgust limit had been reached.
Then, I used Google to find SamsonsJowbone’s blog.