Some may look at my recent posts and see some apparent contradictions (I say "apparent" as opposed to "actual"). First I say "incels" do not exist, but then I acknowledge that people are having difficulty obtaining intimacy. I say that men can control their sexual appetites and live happy lives without obligating themselves to women, if need be. Yet, in the same post I acknowledge that men are biologically hardwired to want sex with women. Moreover, I acknowledge that the male sex drive is strong enough for some sex-deprived men to want to go into pornography, etc.
I don't think I'm contradicting myself. I am reacting against some extremes. On one hand, too many people want to box men in and tell them that they can't be independent of romantic relationships with women. On the other hand, too many want to turn men into polite eunuchs and ignore the natural reality of the male sex drive, chiefly its intensity, ardor, and attraction to physical beauty in women. That is why male chastity that honors a man's sex drive is a more complex matter than a chastity that demeans men (especially a type of demeaning chastity that incriminates and/or devalues men and pedastalizes women). A Christian man that doesn't want to get married is called to be chaste, but that chastity should be informed by a male-friendly type of "gender realism," not a white-knighting, Estrogelical narrative that is so common among religious pundits. The male-friendly chastity of which I speak requires an unlearning of things (an "unplugging from the Femamatrix" if you will) and the inculcation of a new knowledge base and mindset, but I nonetheless think it's doable and in reach for nearly all the men who want it.
On a related note, an "incel" site called love-shy.com has picked up my post on the "incel" community. Needless to say, the folks at that site are none too pleased with what I have written about the matter. It's too bad, really. I understand that many people are lonely and not in a good position to enjoy intimacy under the circumstances they would choose or tolerate. But frankly, the "incel" label is a self-imposed form of victimhood. It's like some people getting together and starting a group called the Society of the Involuntarily Socially Awkward. As it is, very few people can truly say that they absolutely cannot get sex. There is, more often than not, some desire that is stronger than the sex--a desire to avoid rejection, to not be bothered with too much effort, to save money, to save time, to save one's sanity, to "keep oneself unspotted from the world", etc. Sometimes these desires are legitimate; sometimes they are not. The "incel" label doesn't take this matter into account, though. Rather, the label is counterproductive, given to waving the white flag and lying down in the ditch. It's especially tragic since a happy and productive life should not be held hostage to having sex with people.
Phil Robertson Enters the Culture Wars
1 day ago