I certainly never expected 172 comments on the previous post. I am extremely happy that with several exceptions, participants were very civil – that *is* a reflection of character, previous assessments notwithstanding. I have one or two notes to make, and then I will let the matter lie.
To begin with, let me acknowledge that describing “most” manosphites as perverted may have been unfair – it’s always easy for one to be given the wrong impression by a vocal minority. Nevertheless, the comment stream left me feeling largely vindicated, as it mirrored the tone I have generally seen elsewhere, on every major manosphere blog that I can think of, including the Christian ones. It is upsetting to me to think that we have reached a point in society where the bar for sexuality is so low that we have Christian commenters saying things along the lines of, “What do you mean so-and-so is a pervert? It’s not like he’s endorsing anal sodomy, for crying out loud!” The question of sex is not meant to be a legalistic one about what exactly is allowed and how far the bounds can be pushed. A good general guideline, though of course not foolproof, is the grandparent test – that is: would your grandparents have done this? Or would they ever even have *thought* of such a thing? If the answer is “no”, then your mind has been warped by our pornografied modernity.
Zippy Catholic twice offers a far better articulation than I could muster:
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.
…
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.
Just so, Zippy; thank you for offering this. It sums up my conclusion (after several years’ participation and observation) very well. Similarly, in response to complaints that I have not identified whom or what I am talking about with exact precision: I decline to do this because I think such things ought not to be talked about and find discussion of them to be creepy. That is the end of it.
For my Catholic readers: I assure you that your teaching on Natural Law forces me to consider swimming the Tiber at times. It’s something I strongly urge the Protestant church to re-visit.
My thanks to the commenter who pointed out that Samson’s Jawbone is ranked something like 20 millionth in the blogosphere – I did get a good laugh out of that, and would frankly *prefer* fewer commenters with *deeper* relationships. Unlike a good many other bloggers, I guess, I write mainly for myself and my own therapy, which helps explain the occasional outburst or premature remark.
Samson, I’ve never liked you. You have an obsession with sexual acts the same way the puritans do. You spend time generalizing about other people on the smallest of statements and attribute people thinking that X is good simply because they don’t trash the people who think X is good. You paint with a broad brush that does nothing more than confirm what you want to see. Someone disagrees with you and you think they’re evil.
It’s sexual and familial relationships that the bible spends it’s time on and not which sex acts are good or bad. And for good reason as it’s relationships that matter in life. How you take a dump, how you have sex with your wife, and the way you eat your food isn’t something anyone needs to give two shits about. Stop judging people for not living up to your puritanical sexual sensibilities and focus on the relationships which is the only thing the bible talks about when it comes to sex.
Dear Samson and all,
One must admit that Dalrock and Heartiste pass a lot of judgment on the decline and decadence, exposing/exploding “pretty lies,” and speaking of that truth that sets us free.
One thing that has puzzled me is why there is so much “in-fighting” in the manosphere.
I mean is not the true enemy:
1. The decline of the family
2. The decline of civility
3. The decline of a man’s rights to raise his children
4. The decline of a man’s right to be treated with respect for being honorable, as the Bible teaches he must
5. The decline of a man’s rights to spend his money as he sees fits
6. The decline of the spirit of the Great Books for Men in our schools and universities
7. The decline of the spirit of the Great Books for Men in our popular culture
8. The decline of the spirit of the Great Books for Men in our government
9. The decline of the spirit of the Great Books for Men in our family life
10. The decline of the spirit of the Great Books for Men in our blogs
Would it not be better to fight for these things, as Dalrock and Heartiste are trying to do, than criticize them?
I understand that criticism is good, and bickering is OK.
But at the end of the day I think everyone should also keep focused upon the common causes, dictated not by the “manosphere” nor the MRM, but by a man’s classical quest for liberty, freedom, and justice.
Best to all and here’s to peace amongst those with a common cause,
GBFM
I would also like to add
That the Judeo-Christian heritage is VERY SPECIFIC about sex.
Jesus stated that he had come not to abolish the law, but to to fulfill it, which was “THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY” and “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE.”
Sex outside marriage is a sin, and is NOT allowed.
And thus, the vast majority of women you meet in church (let alone in a club or bar) are NOT practicing Christians.
The hippocracy that Dalrock is quick to point out is that the preachers never teach women the fundamental teachings of Jesus nor Moses nor Genesis, which state that “her desire is to be towards her husband.”
Simply put, to pretend to be a “Christian” while fornicating is to claim one is on a diet as one is only eating twinkies bit no ho-hos. It’s like taking the handlebars and wheels off a bike, and then telling men that they are not “man enough” to ride it.
The Ancients civilized the powerful quest for sex and exalted it with the familial story. The modern neeoeontchz have decivilized it and robbed it of its soul. But please criticize those who create and enforce the context, not those who merely note it and must operate in it.
Best,
GBFM
Samson, I support you. You have a legitimate reason to want to distance yourself from the Manosphere. And your adversion towards perverted and unnatural sex acts is nothing but natural. Don’t let the naysayers bring you down just let the dogs bark.
I will admit, I am surprised at the reaction towards what you said in your last post. As you can see in even Red’s mark, the Sphere is angry that you have decided to leave it behind and therefore you are “OBSESSED” with sexual acts(even though you’ve mentioned sexual acts only once) and you’re a puritan.
Shaming is just the way the Sphere works. Don’t pay it any heed.
“A good general guideline, though of course not foolproof, is the grandparent test – that is: would your grandparents have done this? Or would they ever even have *thought* of such a thing?”
That is the rule I often live by. It has not steered me wrong yet. The result may be a less “exciting” life but we are here (I assume) as traditionalists, trying to better ourselves in our religion and in our overall character. I never write on the subject of sex except in passing, believing it is best left in the bedroom, not on a blog.
Regardless of what people such as Red say, I believe what you wrote is accurate.
Samson, my gosh, there’s so much wisdom in what you write here, I could gush. Right on, brother! I think the first touchstone of sexual faithfulness to one’s wife certainly has to begin with: Love thy neighbor as thyself. The assumption that only the wife has to perform sex acts which her husband enjoys, and that he would have no similar obligation to perform unwanted sex acts upon here because, after all, she is not the “head,” enjoys no support from the Bible whatsoever.
I’d swim the Tiber too, were it not for the Catholic teaching on justification and their doctrine of the Church.
If you haven’t, you might dip into the stuff by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Fantastic stuff on biblical masculinity and femininity. The best book on this stuff is “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Secure yourself a copy if you’ve not done so already. You won’t be sorry.
Finally, as Kramer on Seinfeld said, when asked why he was holding down a job: “I’m doing this just for me.” We write for the similar reasons. If someone happens to be edified, glory to God.
Keep writing, man. I’m edified!
“Regardless of what people such as Red say, I believe what you wrote is accurate.”
Indeed, Chesterpoe, I do as well. There will always be haters for those who wish to stay true to the Lord, His Word, and the Natural Law as you can see in the other thread where I tried to explain to the Sodoteam that anal sex is immoral.
Instead of honest debate, I got flimsy arguments, hysterics, and whining.
@ Samson:
“It is upsetting to me to think that we have reached a point in society where the bar for sexuality is so low that we have Christian commenters saying things along the lines of, “What do you mean so-and-so is a pervert? It’s not like he’s endorsing anal sodomy, for crying out loud!” The question of sex is not meant to be a legalistic one about what exactly is allowed and how far the bounds can be pushed. A good general guideline, though of course not foolproof, is the grandparent test – that is: would your grandparents have done this? Or would they ever even have *thought* of such a thing? If the answer is “no”, then your mind has been warped by our pornografied modernity.”
And this.
@Zippy:
“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.”
Yes, nothing is sacred anymore, even in the bedroom. I have found myself slowly turning away from most of these blogs(including the christian ones) There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with sex.. And it is less than edifying..
Sadly, not much is said about love.. REAL love.. Not the corny kind. Love where you put your spouse first. Where you consider their needs above your own. Where you care just as much for their spiritual welfare, as their earthly welfare, for the two cannot be separated.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”
A husband is the head of his family and represents Christ. In view of the above exhortation, should it not then follow that a wife should love her husband with all her heart and with all her soul and tend to his earthly and spiritual needs.
I rarely see anything written about wives LOVING their husbands.. Mostly it’s all about respect, duty and submission.
If a wife truly loves, then surely the rest will follow.
To you Samson and Zippy, I take my hat off to you!
Good Christian men.
Respect..
Sorry, I messed up, there. As you can see by my avatar , I am Katmandutu/ Kathy
One sympathizes.
I agree with Zippy’s (I’m a big fan of him too) comment that one is within the bounds of reason to depart. My concern is the move from pity (and even disgust) to hate.
One thought:
“A good general guideline, though of course not foolproof, is the grandparent test – that is: would your grandparents have done this? Or would they ever even have *thought* of such a thing? If the answer is “no”, then your mind has been warped by our pornografied modernity.”
This advice will be very bad indeed, if it is not already. Which gets us back to the problem of how to discuss these things as Christians. Not everyone has the same understanding, and we DO live in a thoroughly pornographic culture. Therefore, these things are going to have to be discussed. That does not mean I believe the bulk of these conversations are being promoted and hosted in an appropriate manner. That’s why I haven’t tackled them myself, or contributed to those topics. It’s about having the right spirit.
Anyway, enough for now. I hope you continue blogging. I’ve been reading you since 2010.
Dante’s Divine Comedy is a Christian work of the highest caliber, and the first third–The Inferno–is filled with Dante’s witnessing of sins that your grandparents likely would not have partaken in. The Bible is also filled with descriptions of dark sins that one’s grandparents would not have indulged in. Perhaps what separates many modern “Christians” from Dane and the Biblical Prophets is that modern “Christians” see no need to pass judgment on sins nor sinners, nor even acknowledge that such entities exist.
One of us is misunderstanding the other. Some of my grandparents were Boomers. My parents definitely were.
No, I would not use my grandparents or parents as a guide. Not because I don’t pass judgment, but because I do.
I really don’t know what my grandparents did. They never talked about it.
No one talks about wives loving their husbands because the bible does not state that as their duty in the marriage. If you are debating or stating scripture, it just doesn’t come up.
I support anyone separating themselves from the manosphere, it concerns itself mostly with the material life. Sometimes a decent article is posted, but this river isn’t worth panning for gold. Unfortunately most Christian sites aren’t worth looking at either.
When people are against you, they will try to box you up in some way to make you look bad. You talked about sex, so now you are a uptight extremist in their eyes. Truth is you revealed their obsession with sex, and they derailed the comments of the last post with it.
The bible says a lot about fruit revealing the condition of the tree. A mind that is constantly spewing out garbage is not one to listen to.
Hope your blog goes up a few notches in the ranking from all of this
“You talked about sex, so now you are a uptight extremist in their eyes. ”
Indeed. Any restrictions on sex, in their eyes, makes you a puritan extremist. I was one of the guys who derailed the conversation, but I did it because I was angry that they implied that neither Samson, nor anyone else can be against anal sex or consider it to be what it is, a perversion.
“No one talks about wives loving their husbands because the bible does not state that as their duty in the marriage. If you are debating or stating scripture, it just doesn’t come up. ”
While that is true, wives can and should love their husbands. Most women do. As Kathy stated, when a woman loves a man, submission and respect easily come.
“No one talks about wives loving their husbands because the bible does not state that as their duty in the marriage. If you are debating or stating scripture, it just doesn’t come up. ”
While that is true, wives can and should love their husbands. Most women do. As Kathy stated, when a woman loves a man, submission and respect easily come.
…
I think the respect comes first, with love flowing naturally from it. I don’t know if that is the reason why the Bible emphasized respect over love from a woman to her husband, but I wouldn’t be surprised. That said, marriage back then wasn’t usually a romantic matchup, but arranged I believe. I agree though in general with the reply.
Titus 2:3-5 does in fact refer to wives loving their husbands.
Good catch
Titus 2:3-5 does in fact refer to wives loving their husbands.
Different word used in Titus 2 – phileo – love of family, friends etc versus agape – same love with which God loves the world.
Glad you found my comments helpful, Samson.
My (one guy as a stranger across the net) impression is that people read a lot into Dalrock as a web persona that isn’t necessarily there in the man: that he usually speaks rather parsimoniously and folks tend to fill in the blanks with all of their own biases. I can relate, because people have always done that sort of thing with my writing as well. Some writers are Rorshach tests for their readers, I suppose.
Naturally, “complaining” type places such as Dalrock are going to attract defectives and degenerates of various types. Many other places such as Heartiste are strongholds of nihilistic hedonists conspiring to get theirs while they mourn the death of western civilization. This is ironic because nihilistic hedonism is the reason civilizations fall.
Disregarding the matter of whether Christianity is “true” or not for a moment, the reason it “won” is because the Roman pagan world was primarily interested in worldly pleasures. They practiced infanticide and sterile (that is to say perverted) sex in various forms while young men shunned the expense of starting families. It was much like the western world of today. The Christians of that time forbade infanticide and encouraged marriage among other things, and they practiced a form of patriarchy unimaginable today once Paul’s letters entered widespread circulation.
I would argue there is nothing especially distinctive about this shift, Roman paganism once adhered to family strengthening pro reproductive values, as did the Greeks, Persians, and ancient Israelites among others. Over time they all succumbed to luxury and the pursuit of pleasure and were displaced by peoples who valued the next generation over pleasures in this life. This is a natural human cycle which is well documented in the old testament and other ancient sources.
I too maintain a folder of “manosphere” style blogs I frequent and have pruned over half of them out of disgust, though for different reasons than you. The things that I can no longer abide are complaining and signs of weakness and/or helplessness.
I would caution you however, that in your desire to avoid things that weaken your faith that you don’t substitute your particular culture for your religion. Like Bruce Charlton, you possess notions of propriety and wholesomeness that are uniquely English and not necessarily biblical. Jesus was not a kindly rural gentleman in the real life shire of Merry Olde England. He was at times intentionally offensive and a sower of social discord, particularly in regards to his treatment of the temple establishment of his day and their traditions.
I would draw your attention to the distinction between “vulgar” and “profane” which Vox Day mentions in this interview
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/01/interview-by-speculative-faith.html,
Jesus was never profane and treated biblical institutions with reverence. He was at times vulgar in the general sense of talking in a way the common man could understand and not pretending that everybody acted like preening upper middle class social climbers. He directly addressed things like adultery, fornication, profligate spending, prostitution, corruption in business, religion, and government, and other things not generally mentioned in polite society. He did not directly engage in them of course, but he spoke of them, acknowledged they were real, and made a bold case against them. He never shrunk away from what he believed to be evil. There is a strong “pretend bad things don’t exist and never mention anything that upsets decorum” strain in English culture. You need to be aware of it. Avoiding something which poisons one’s mind is one thing (though I confess I don’t understand the psychology, I intentionally read people I disagree with and enjoy my mind’s quick examination and rejection of false claims) but retreating from something you should be combating boldly is quite another.
Coward.
“Coward”?
You can talk!
[...] in biblical marriage, he should be able to point out the offending text. In true chick mode he followed up with another post, including a refusal to do anything beyond making cowardly and passive aggressive [...]
Svar: “Shaming is just the way the Sphere works.”
Well, yes. And it’s humorous, isn’t it? I mean, given their obsessions and especially their rhetoric.
=========
Peter Blood: “I really don’t know what my grandparents did. They never talked about it.”
Well, then, modify the “guideline” — would you talk about this in front of your grandparents?
I think the most important thing that Dalrock and Heartiste do is PASS JUDGEMENT on the myriad corruptions of our day.
They both have manly, Mosaic spirits.
Once upon a time preachers and Christians would pass righteous judgment.
But today it is rare.
If you look at Dalrock’s and Heartiste’s blogs, pretty much every post, in one way or another, passes judgement on the decline and decadence.
Does not Christ teach us to speak truth to power and be the voice of righteous, manly reason?
I think a key reason for the obsession with sex and marriage is for the same reason that a man who is promised regular access to food, then periodically starved with societal support for the one denying him food might become obsessed with a steady, regular meal plan. In my encounters with other Christians, most of the time Christian men who are on the losing end with their wives are treated mercilessly by other Christians. His inability to lead is his fault–never mind the distinct possibility that he is quite possibly fatherless or quasi-fatherless (divorce or a dad who was unwilling or unable to be involved). His wife might be rebellious to the point of her own soul being in danger, but that again is his fault. He is expected to repent of his sin–even if his own sin is not actually the cause of what he is experiencing.
“A good general guideline, though of course not foolproof, is the grandparent test – that is: would your grandparents have done this? Or would they ever even have *thought* of such a thing?”
Whether or not they would have done or thought such a thing, they certainly would never have talked or written about such a thing; you would be therefore entirely in the dark about whether they would have done or thought such a thing.
@Samson’s Jawbone
I wouldn’t use the “grandparent test” — as a Christian, I’d use the Jesus test. …God tells us repeatedly in His Word (e.g. Proverbs 15:3, Psalm 139, etc.) that He sees everything we do. Therefore, if we wouldn’t be happy doing what we’re doing in front of Our Lord’s eyes, then we shouldn’t do it. Does what you engage in draw you closer to Jesus in gratitude and love for His blessings, or does it make you want to shut the bedroom door on Him?
Sex isn’t dirty — He created it — and neither is loving, godly sensuality (see Song of Solomon). But the obsession with fellatio, cunnilingus, slutty sex and using filthy language, even for married couples, is anything but Christian. …But then how many of these people are actually Christians? Anyone can say they’re a believer. Obeying Him is another matter.