Religious Women Who Are (Gasp) Porn Users

From time to time, the religious status quo has to acknowledge the truth that the rest of us take for granted. A recent article at Boundless.org on female use of pornography is one such example. I just wonder this: When Christian women use porn, are they heartless perverts that demean and objectify men and children? Or are they poor little souls trapped in sin who need the love of Christ? I suspect there's a gender difference in how we "love" the sinner.

More Thoughts on My Thoughts on Sex

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.

The Mutton Chop Tease Show

In C. S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, there is a peculiar quote about sexuality. I think I recall it being quoted by others in defense of conservative sexual mores:

You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act--that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such strip-tease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. He means, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than has been since Pagan times. [C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1973), pp. 89-90]

So, according to Prof. Lewis, our age is one of sexual gluttony, since our appetite for sex is keen even in the presence of bounteous access. I have never fully agreed with Lewis' above quote and even now find myself siding somewhat with his unnamed critic. Lewis' wrote his work in the middle part of the last century. I highly doubt he could have foreseen the wreckage that feminism and the Sexual Revolution has wrought on our cultural fabric.

Sure, the socially dominant and the unscrupulous may be getting more sex, but others are finding themselves increasingly isolated in a depersonalizing culture. The burgeoning online dating industry, as a case in point, is indicative of how intimacy has become elusive for many souls. Moreover, if we are to believe, as some do, that married people have more sex than singles, then a decline in marriage itself can point to sexual starvation.

Some fellow bloggers tackling men's issues also point to the haremization of our culture. It could be the Government Harem of Marriage 2.0 and family law. It could be the Cultural Harem of women chasing a tiny pool of "Alphas" or women holding out for idealized mates that don't exist. Either way, men are getting locked out.

So I think Lewis' appraisal of our situation is deficient. I am not surprised that porn has mushroomed and been normalized. I am not surprised that some are now talking about the next phase of technologies in the sex industry (teledildonics, haptic technology, sexbots, whatever). What else could have happened? The relationship between the sexes is highly dysfunctional. Men are told that they can't live without sex or women. The Pink Wurlitzer plays that tune non-stop. So when people don't get any intimacy in a healthy way, its understandable when they scrape around in trash cans for poor substitutes.

Social conservatives just don't get it. They are following C. S. Lewis' line of reasoning. They typically think gluttony is the problem, when in many cases, desperation borne out of deprivation is the problem. If they do acknowledge an intimacy famine, their "solution" is Marriage 2.0. That is no real solution. The institution of marriage must be fixed in our culture, shorn of its misandrist elements before it can be taken seriously again. I have consistently preached that men can do without intimacy with women if only for the sake of their dignity and sanity. Indeed, sensible men will do without if the medicine is worse than the ailment. In many cases, it is.

Yet the problem remains. Men don't really have a lot of good options, so many of them take poor ones. The solution to our sexual ills cannot be reduced to theological and political soundbites. The religious pundits will yammer on and rail against men, but more male-bashing will accomplish very little. The hungry are still hungry. We've only just made them feel guilty about it. The Mutton Chop Tease Show will continue.

Female Sexuality, Ambient Porn, and the Pink Wurlitzer

The feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said:

"When women can support themselves, have entry to all the trades and professions, with a house of their own over their heads and a bank account, they will own their bodies and be dictators in the social realm." [Emphasis mine]

Dictators in the social realm indeed. There is one area in the social realm where men know all too well how women wield a dictatorial power that rivals that of any oriental despot--female sexuality. To quote Novaseeker:

Basically it's fair to say that women defended their own power bases and actually increased their power over them substantially such that they have a near totalitarian power over their own traditional bases of children and sex (abortion rights, VAWA, rape and harassment laws, c/s regimes, family law) while aggressively colonizing the male space. When women speak of equality, therefore, I think what they really mean is (1) equality between men and women in what was previously the male space coupled with (2) absolute power of women in the female space. [Emphasis mine]

How can women wield absolute power in the realm of sexuality? Well, the degree to which female sexuality is celebrated and publicly flaunted in our culture is unprecedented. I cannot but wonder if there is a connection between the fact that (1) a lot of women are increasingly incapable of relating to men in healthy ways and (2) women are increasingly resorting to extreme measures to beautify themselves and flaunt their sexuality in front of men. In short, we may have a craven attempt to heighten the demand for something that is losing its real value.

There are all sorts of studies on the long term affects of being exposed to environmental noise (how it causes mental fatigue, reduces productivity, etc.), but do men think about exposure to the amped-up sexual noise of our culture? There is a name for this sexual noise in our public spaces--ambient porn. When men think of pornography, they think of Playboy, nude bodies, videos of sex acts. But what about all those stupid billboard ads, flash animations for online dating sites, suggestive scenes on television, etc.? The women need not even be scantily dressed. There are plenty of advertisements directed at men that feature fully clothed women with flirtatious looks and poses. The problem is that men are not aware of how this constant bombardment of stimuli affects them because it is so subtle, hence the term "ambient porn."

Like it or not, men react on a very basic biological level to sexual stimuli, even when they are virtuous enough to not want to follow through on anything illicit. Do we, as men, stop to think about what the constant barrage of female sexuality does to our mental and emotional health, if not our spiritual health? Think, for instance, about the unwanted sexual tension and the mental and emotional stress, anger, and depression that all too often follows. Think about all the compromises that men make with regard to their dignity and self-worth in order to fulfill a strong drive that has been overstimulated (marriage 2.0., woman-firsterism, illicit and immoral sexual acts).

What is particularly galling about discussing this matter is that it will be greeted in three very unhelpful ways:

1) Mockery: A man will be accused of being a "frustrated loser."

2) Apathy: You will be regarded as a prude. After all, it is supposed that men want non-stop titillation by women.

3) Chivalrous male-bashing: There may be some acknowledgment that wanton displays of female sexuality are a problem, but men will be held solely responsible. Men will be regarded as lecherous beasts, while fashion models, porn stars, and other immodest women will be regarded as precious, unfortunate victims who have been exploited.

All of these approaches are blindly myopic and refuse to acknowledge the biological and psychological realities of male sexuality. These approaches have their roots in woman-firsterism, the "blank slate" lies of feminism, and the such like.

On the third point above, I will say that women who knowingly and voluntarily flaunt their wares cannot in any way be called victims. They are no more victims than a drug pusher on some street corner who sells an ounce of crack cocaine to a minor is a victim. These women know what they are doing. On a religious note, if lust is a sin in men, then so is inciting that sinful desire. Jesus said, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1). The logical end is that there is a place in hell for immodest women if there is one for the male lecher.

But there are some things my male readers ought to agree on, regardless of whether or not they are religious or conservative. I submit to you that a society that amps up the noise of female sexuality while curtailing the means by which men can express their sexuality (whether the curtailment be through law, religion, workplace rules, custom, shame, what have you) is clearly demonstrating a demeaning and hostile stance towards men. I count every porn star, bikini model, and woman who dresses immodestly to seek the attention of males as my enemy. If the dish isn't for sale, it shouldn't be on the menu. For it to be on the menu is a clear case of unethical fraud.

Yet even beyond the widespread flaunting of sexuality is the whole foundation of attitudes that nourishes it and exacerbates the problem for men. It's like the "Mighty Wurlitzer" (a term that people use to describe the agitprop of the mainstream media). What we have is the "Pink Wurlitzer," an incessant droning on and on in our culture that makes female sexuality out to be the valuable prize that cannot be turned down but rather must be sought out at all costs.

One odious idea piped by the Pink Wurlitzer is that men need to seek out intimate relationships with women. Even church leaders are guilty of propounding this ridiculous lie while the Bible contradicts them (1 Corinthians 7:25a, 7:37-38). Attitudes like this only serve to inflame the sexual desperation of men to where they compromise their happiness, integrity, and sanity. As desirable as intimate relationships with women are (Proverbs 18:22), such relationships are not a necessity for a virtuous and fulfilled life. A man thus needs to be on guard against the shaming, peer pressure, and social coercion that shoves him into relationships with women. Such strong-arm tactics don't serve him as much as they serve the agenda of other parties.

Anyway, I could write much more on this, and perhaps I will in the future. In the mean time, any man who is concerned about the anti-male ramifications of unbridled female sexuality needs to spare some time for the following links.

1. A post on what "ambient porn" is (from a religious perspective).

2. A reader comment at Boundless.org that discusses how the porn industry preys upon insecure men.

3. A post on how female sexuality is used against men (from a Roissyphere/Game/MRA perspective). The blogger Snark writes, "Feminists have certainly played their part in boosting the demand for women's bodies - at which point, they about turn and tarnish men for succumbing to their physical desires. The sexual desires of men - provoked by women - are then used to denigrate men, as rapists and oppressors who see women only as sexual objects." I think this may be a collective case of what psychologists call projective identification. In other words, self-styled victims (such as feminists) provoke people into behaving in ways that reinforce the self-styled victims' persecution complex (see this post by Dr. Tara Palmatier for more information).

4. A male-friendly, four-part series on managing your sex drive (see these links: 1, 2, 3, 4). You mileage may vary on what you get from this one. But read it nonetheless. If you are out of control, others will be in control.

5. A post I wrote at Scripturally Single on what the Bible has to say about men needing sex. I quote something interesting from Abraham Maslow on celibacy. It's noteworthy because Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a concept that is often bandied about among some "Game" advocates.

6. This post by Social Pathologist on the consergame approach Christian men can take to female sexuality. One reservation I have: He says, "The other interesting thing about it is that love is not chosen, it's an involuntary reaction to the other person, you just can't will yourself to do it." If he means eros, then yes. But if agape, then he is flat out wrong, and it takes more than eros to build the kind of relationship that God wants between husband and wife.

So, my fellow men, when the three Sirens of biology, ambient porn, and the Pink Wurlitzer sing their tune and bid you to do something against your better judgment, will you be brought to your knees or will you "go your own way"? I ask this because every red-blooded male (whether he be a husband, boyfriend, or unattached) is one sex act away from being a supplicating, white-knighting beta. Any solution to this potential problem will probably have to be implemented on an individual, personal basis. I can't force you one way or another on the matter. Rather, I will close with this thought: Sex is good and fun, but it should be your handmaiden, not the Red Queen that controls your life. You may reach a situation where nothing is better than something. Think on these things.

Psalm 127:1 and the Sexes

Over at MarkyMark's blog, there is a post about a show called Jersey Shore that is of particular interest to me. MM writes:

In far too many modern relationships, the only glue holding them together is the physical. There is little or no mental connection made between the man and the woman. There is little or no emotional connection made. Finally, there is little or no spiritual connection made. In order for a relationship to last-REALLY LAST-it has to have all four elements present; there have to be mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical bindings holding it together. Only then will a relationship have what it takes to last. When there's only one binding (especially when it's the physical, as is usually the case in modern relationships) holding it together, the relationship simply doesn't have the strength to withstand any serious stress.

A show like Jersey Shore confirms what MM is saying. The show is sickening and sad, and yet it points to the existence of God. How so? Well, when I read MM's reaction, I notice that he mentions the "spiritual" component. Human beings can't get away from this. Jersey Shore illustrates what happens when God is not present in people's lives. The young people of that show are following verses 20 to 32 of Romans, chapter 1 to the script; and they most likely don't even know it.

God creates human beings. We create things. It's no surprise, then, that in a godless culture, we reduce people to the status of things--from the impersonal, dehumanizing environment of the workplace to the pornification of our sexual relationships. Even "love" becomes a product to be sold, negotiated for, and consumed.

Around Thanksgiving, I said the following at MM's blog in response to a post about "Game" ...

There has been a lot of talk about LTR Game but frankly I think it is overrated. The bottom line is that people are more materialistic, self-centered, into instant gratification, etc. than ever before. Young men may learn about seduction the way young women learn about dressing to the nines. But, today, the youth of either sex have extremely poor relationship skills that doom any chance of monogamy. That's why cohabitation is on the rise and marriage is in decline.

Relationships are just another form of recreation, a hobby, a drug, an appliance, what have you. When people get bored or dissatisfied, they just trade in their partner for a new one. The values of integrity, loyalty, industriousness, sacrifice, compromise, humility, patience, longsuffering, and selflessness that are needed for marriage are nonexistent among a huge swath of young people. That's why LTR Game is a nice theory, but in practice, it has no remedial effect in stemming the mass decay.

When people mention LTR Game, I sometimes think what they are really saying is: "I hope to get a hottie to love me forever" or "I hope to get married one day after I have all my fun." They don't realize that sleeping around is a strong predictor for relationship failures down the road.

The people of today are wanting the quick fix. And I'm afraid they see "Game" as the solution. But secret to relationship success is not "Game" per se. It's a nice component. I certainly am not against men and women making themselves sexier in the eyes of each other (within the bounds of reason, morality, and good taste). But, like I said, "Game" is not the fix.

This is the 300-pound gorilla in the room. This is what some "Game" advocates are failing to address. Relationship success in the past depended not so much on "Game" as it did on character. Today, a lot of people have an insufficient amount of character. They break their promises and think only of themselves.

In terms of male-female relationships, society especially encourages women to be completely devoid of any sense of responsibility for how their relationships turn out. The whole woman=good, man=bad paradigm has resulted in a whole generation of self-absorbed harridans that have no business getting within 100 feet of a bridal shop. So the question needs to be asked by men interested in LTRs and marriage: Why practice "Game" to attract the attention of a female demographic that is pretty sorry in the first place? And if you are a man from one of the more recent Media Saturated Generations, then you may need to consider if you are all that mature and selfless yourself. [quote edited for typos and layout]

Why do I bring up what I wrote? Not to criticize "Game." That's not my point. If a man wants to practice "consergame," there nothing is wrong with that, per se. I suppose it works for some people. Moreover, I am not pinning the blame entirely on women, although I believe society is arguably more lenient about their peccadilloes than those of their male counterparts. What I'm saying is that a lot of people are missing the big picture--the spiritual aspect of relationships, as God intended. When it comes to heterosexual relationships, hookups represent the bottom of the food chain. It's diving for rotting leftovers in a dixie dumpster. A God-honoring marriage is what men and women must pursue if they are thinking about intimate relationships. I do not apologize for saying that.

"Love" is an abused word in this society. I'll tell you what love entails. It entails forgiving the faults and failures of a person because you made a vow "for better or for worse." You see, when you recognize the personhood of another human being, you have to recognize the whole package. You embrace that person, not just what that person can do for you. Love will demand you to sacrifice for that human being even when you are not thanked for it. Love can be a painful, thankless task, and it makes no apologies for that. This kind of love is pretty much impossible without a meaningful relationship with God, who helps us to love others (Galatians 5:22-53). It's no surprise to me. God loves those who have been constantly thankless towards him--that includes you and me (Romans 5:6-8). At some point or another, we have acted or are acting in a thankless manner towards him. So now you know what the scoop is. Read 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 and it will tell you what love is all about. Does that describe your relationships?

When someone belittles a single man as a loser, etc., the charge is usually hollow and effete. Why? Because the ones who sleep around, get into shallow relationships primarily based on status or infatuation, etc. can be just as relationship-starved and deprived of love as the man sitting at home alone on a Saturday night eating cold pizza. Don't tell me how well-fed you are if your idea of nourishment is eating Skittles all day long. Day after day, socially unattractive people fall in love and have deeper relationships than the Hollywood celebs that hop from one bed to another. Why do we envy the latter group's sad existence, then?

I daresay the kind of love I've been talking about is the kind most of my readers want, regardless of their background or whether or not they agree with my posts. But it costs something--your selfishness and your ego. When I hear the talk of some people who fancy themselves as winners in the relationship game, I can tell they are not ready for love and that they are doomed to failure if they don't clean up their act. The men and women who have been consistent, who have stuck with it for the long haul, who have gone through the peaks and valleys with their spouses, etc. do not talk so loud about their conquests. They do not gloat so much in front of others who have been unlucky in love. They usually don't yammer on about "losers who can't get laid." These men and women who have stuck it out understand the price. Love has humbled them. It makes them thankful, not arrogant. As for the ones who continue to be arrogant about their social value in eyes of the opposite sex, poetic justice will find them out and kick them in the posterior (Proverbs 16:18).

Is the heterosexual love I'm talking about worth it? Sure it is (Proverbs 18:22). Furthermore, if you are trying to live up to the vows you have taken before the Lord even when it gives no paybacks, it is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58). But having said that, you should think before you leap in the first place. That's my take, folks. This culture has all sorts of ideas about love and how to get it, but like Psalm 127:1 says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" (NASB).

Christian Women Are Easy?

Christian women are easy ... or, uh, at least this guy thinks so. Needless to say, his message is disturbing to me as a Christian man. And yet I see his point. Take his post like you would take one of the Screwtape Letters. He might be correct in a lot of cases. The Church in the West ain't what it used to be.

It takes two to tango, ladies. So I won't be blaming the PUAs who bed you as much as I will be blaming you, who claim to follow Christ and claim to know better than those "worldy women" that I can't date. Although I believe in second chances, you'll might end up being one of these (especially the one that says "Project"). Don't say you haven't been warned.

"So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Cor. 10:12-13, NIV)

Later.

Biological Gynocentrism

When our mainstream media broaches the issues of gender in whatever context (law, medicine, or even biology), it often does not favor the male point of view. So, I am not surprised when so-called "academics" talk about the disappearing Y chromosome, reproductive technologies that favor women, studies that underscore some supposed cognitive edge women have over men, etc. There is a clear anti-male bias in our public narrative about the science of gender. That's why Larry Summers gets fired for going against the tide. What then? Obviously, men need to take note how discussions about gender and sex usually get framed in this regard.

One thing that concerns me about men's issues advocates is that men whose writings I often agree with and support are falling down in the matter of scrutinizing mainstream ideas about gender and are inadvertently supporting a woman-firster mentality. How so? By coopting popular discourses about the science of mate selection, etc. These discourses may be framed in ways that support biological gynocentrism. I especially see this as a concern with respect to some of the men who champion "Game."

What does biological gynocentrism (or biogynism, as I am going to call it for the sake of convenience) often entail? At least three beliefs: (1) Women are biologically designed to choose among men who compete for female affection; (2) men who don't have sex are losers; and (3) women, biologically speaking, are the more valuable sex in general. Evolutionary Psychology is usually invoked to support these assertions. I am calling "foul" on all of them, though. First, let me state up front that as a Christian, I don't even believe in evolution. But I shall, for the sake of argument, approach the above issues on the basis of practicality, if not morality or spirituality.

She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not

First, let's deal with the matter of sexual selection. If the Law of Jungle is true, then do women have a choice about mates? If they do have a choice, then why on earth do we have to have laws on the books protecting that choice? In the wild, females are often weak and vulnerable (that includes human beings). They are no match against males. "Females choose dominant males." What a stellar observation. What other choice do they have!? If I am a hairy male animal that just kicked the stew out of a rival male and I approach a female, what is she going to say to me? "Sorry Mr. Bull, but you're not my type"? Yeah, and I'd honor that opinion about five seconds after I overpowered her and mated with her. That's why some female primates have to travel in herds to ward off male aggression. Of course, males can cooperate, too, rendering the whole matrilocal defense shtick meaningless.

But honestly, when we start looking to animals to understand human behavior, we open a can of worms with faulty assumptions, hasty generalizations, and bad analogies. At the end of the day mice are mice, chimps are chimps, and humans are humans. They ain't the same. If you want to understand human behavior, you have to understand humans. Otherwise you're likely to get ideological spin and biased nonsense like this article from a feminist.

Evolution or no evolution, take a good look at the whole of human history instead of myopically focusing on what's going on in our own culture. How have women fared in the game of love with respect to arranged marriages, being punished more severely than men for adultery, sexual slavery, war, mass rape, etc.? How are they faring outside of the Anglosphere now? Do you think Westernized Chivalry is hardwired in the men of Sudan? Do you think the Ferragamo-pumping sisterhood of New York City would want to trade places with the women of North Africa in the dating game? If women are hardwired to possess some sort of "reproductive choice" then I'd like know what feminists have been fighting for all these years. The truth is that in the natural order of things, women don't have reproductive choice. They have often been the property of their fathers and the men who paid some money (dowry, etc.) for them. The only reason women have the choices they have now is because of the goodwill of men, not because of some evolutionary form of supremacy.

Mate or Die

Another aspect of biogynism is the belief that one's manhood and life is based upon sexual success with women. And why do biogynists believe this? Because if you don't pass on your genes, you are a supposedly fundamental failure. Laying aside the conflict such a sentiment has with Christianity (Isa. 56:3-5), there are other problems with the assertion. People are conflating reproductive success with sexual attractiveness. The two, of necessity, have been separated since the advent of birth control.

Let me tell you something: You could be handsome, intelligent, rich, have "Game", and bed the most attractive women in the world, but the moment you slip on a condom or the moment your paramour takes the pill is the moment you opted out of the race. If you are a biogynist and tie your worth to reproductive success, then you are a loser by your own definition unless the reproductive community of which you and your descendants are a part are having kids above the 2.10 replacement level. I highly doubt that many of the folks into Evo-Psych are part of such a demographic. I highly doubt the women they are chasing are part of said demographic, either. Why? Because rearing a house full of kids would cramp their lifestyle.

Let's face it. Sex is fun, but raising three or more children is not. And of course, rearing children in order for your descendants to have a chance in life puts a leash on your sex life, too. Do you want to be in a strict sect that demands that you have children and ties you to a rigid code of behavior (Amish, Mormon, Hasidic Jew)? How about living like the folks in the third world? They're having children! You see, in our modern world, there is a necessary trade off between quality of life and "reproductive success." That's why when women pursue education and other forms of advancement where they don't have to depend on men, they tend not to have many children. In short, the Lotharios and the women they are chasing are, to use a popular secular phrase, "Darwinizing themselves." Westernized cultures are dying out because they want to.

Here's something else to think about: We are all descendants from the same genetic family. Both the Bible and science hold to this view. So if you don't believe as I do in the scriptural Adam or Eve (whose is called the "mother of all living" in the Bible), then what will you do with Y-chromosomal Adam or Eurasian Adam? There is something Obi-Wan did not tell you. I am your cousin! Search your feelings. You know it to be true! And so is Cupcake that you've been kissing and smootching with, fellas.

If one looks at things from a naturalistic viewpoint, then "reproductive success" is a value neutral enterprise. The indifferent universe, in such a case, does not care about your genes. Therefore, for non-religious Darwinists to talk about "winners" and "losers" in some judgmental, value-laden way is ludicrous. When you tell me you are winning the game because you had a child, I can reply, "Thanks for being my surrogate." Hope your descendants don't break your patrilineal or matrilineal line. Of course, with the coming depopulation, that's a very real possibility.

Still obsessed with your pedigree? The world is full of people who have children and grandchildren that didn't turn out the way everyone expected. Most people do not live the kind of lives that are immortalized in history books and on monuments. Abraham Lincoln's descendants are no longer around and there's no guarantee that yours will be in a few generations either (if it they are not absorbed in some longer pool of humanity, making whatever contribution you made unrecognizable).

Look, love for women and family is not rational. It's emotional. That's the way love is, and there's nothing wrong with that. One can hope that your love is realistic and reigned in by sound judgment, but at the end of the day, it's emotion that impels you into marriage, sex, and family. If you try to make a rational case for why men should want to have sex, get married, or have children, then you will lose your case. It's like to trying make an argument for why I ought to like sunrises, peppermint ice cream, or fluffy kittens. I either like these things or I don't. Barring obvious considerations of morality and wisdom, it is utterly stupid to force your emotional preferences on other people. That's why the term "evolutionary mating strategy" is such a misnomer. Bacteria don't sit around at a mahogany table deliberating on how to take over the biosphere. Neither do birds, bees, fish, elephants, or fluffy kittens. Well, maybe the HBD crowd, but I jest.

She's One in a Million

Another idea floated by biogynists is that men are more disposable than women because "eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap." This is nothing more than a classical case of the Fallacy of Composition. Pray tell, which gender tends to draw the short end of the stick in sex selective abortions? Which gender typically inherits the property of the parents? Do we know something traditional cultures closer to margins of survival than we are today didn't know for thousands for years?

Somebody has brought up the matter about men, as opposed to women, being sent into battle. What about that? I think the reason women have not often been sent into battle is because they generally can’t fight and kill as well as men. Which, by the way, is the real reason why men are called upon to “sacrifice” and “be protectors.” Not because there is something inherently valiant about killing other people. That’s just a bunch of psychobabble to motivate young men to do dangerous things that no one in their right mind would do. No, it is about who is the most effective killer–and that’s men. Who makes killers out of men? That’s right--the big men at the top. War is young blood for old money.

Anyway, have women been valued more than men? Probably for the same reason that donkeys, coconuts, and seashells have been valued more than men. That’s what men in power do--cherish things and use men. They dehumanize others. Ogg the Barbarian may have valued his gold, donkeys, and women more than his hostile neighbour Uluk, but he didn't necessarily value them more than himself or his sons. He certainly didn't value his daughters more than his sons. So why are women esteemed so highly today, even over their male counterparts? Like I said, it has to do with the goodwill of men, not some evolutionary edge.

Anyway, Novaseeker delivers the coup de grâce to the "disposable male" meme:

As men, we should never, ever, buy in to the idea that we are disposable or of lesser value than women. Disposable? If all men went on strike for 48 hours in North America, we would soon see just how silly it is to view men as the disposable sex.

In closing, if we are going to dispose of something, let's dispose of the mentality that makes men out be a bunch of bulls and steers paraded before female auctioneers at a cattle show. This kind of thinking is detrimental to men, period. As men, we can do better than this. And when it comes to a Christian context for all of this, don't try to argue with me on that (1 Cor. 11:3, 7, 8-9). Both sexes have equal value before God (Gal. 3:28)!

Addendum: This recent article at Mensnewsdaily.com makes some good points about biogynism. See also this excellent post by a reader at Ferdinand Bardamu's blog.

Defining "Game" and Consergame

I think one of the most frustrating aspects about debating the pros and cons of "Game" is the loose way the term is defined. Why, even looking up information on the internet is daunting, given all the other ways the word is used in our post-Nintendo culture. And a lot of the people in the "Game" community are conflicted in the ways they use the word themselves. One has a basic definition of the word here:

Game is the sum total of the attitudes and behaviors that women find attractive in men. Practice and perfect game and women will be attracted to you. - Ferdinand Bardamu

Sounds good enough, but then one gets into arguments about who has "Game" and who doesn't, what's necessarily a part of "Game" and what isn't, etc. The one yapping in your face about you not having "Game" may be less attractive to many women than you are. When one thinks about it, there are a lot of miserable guys who have "Game" by the above definition. After all, they got married. They must have some relationship value for a woman to want to be with them.

So, does "Game" mean something more? Does it mean using your attractiveness to get women to comply with your demands? Does it mean being attractive to the woman you find attractive? But what if she's below a "6" on the looks scale? Does that make you a "Herb" or a "beta"? Does "Game" mean being attractive to women other men generally find to be physically attractive? But what if you're a stereotypical "Nice Guy" ("beta"/"loser"/"AFC"/whatever) that managed to marry a pretty girl from Laos, all without having to "learn game"? Confused yet? I think these are valid questions to ask, nonetheless. Someone can accuse me of being "anti-game" but then I could ask, "What game are you taking about?"

Consergame

I myself have been blindsided by some socially conservative and religious men telling me that "Game" is good, moral, Apple Pie, and that stuff. But when I was talking about "Game" some time ago, I mainly had in mind "Game" as many PUAs embrace it (viz., for recreational sex). So maybe I should distinguish between PUAism and consergame, the latter being "Game" as practiced by guys who just want to find and keep a "good woman" for the sake of marriage, family, hearth, and home. Consergame is "Game" for the wholesome boy-next-door who goes to church every Sunday.

I don't have a problem with consergame in and of itself. Any religious guy that wants to be happily married should learn some form of Biblically sound consergame. The problem I have is that some fellows who are into consergame also seemed to have dipped their cups into the brackish waters of sexual nihilism and the naturalistic, atheistic system of Evolutionary Psychology. Or at least, that's the vibe I'm getting from some of things they are saying. If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?"

If the relationship between the sexes boils down to raw biological tokens of looks, status, power, etc. then why on earth would you even bother with marriage?! Let me figure this out. Supposedly, Cupcake doesn't love me for the "special snowflake" that I am, but only loves me to the extent that I can play Top Alpha Dog and do the DHV thingy. So if agape is passé in the New Era of Things then, um, what exactly am *I* getting out of the deal if my dearly beloved is going to age like cottage cheese? It's like Ferdinand said, "I’m no economist, but a commodity that gets more expensive as it becomes increasingly worthless sounds like one only a sucker would buy – and make no mistake, when you get married, you’re effectively 'buying' a woman."

I don't get it. I don't get how men can preach consergame and yet accept the brutal claims of Evolutionary Psychology (viz., that we are nothing more than naked apes with mercenary mating strategies). If I wasn't a Christian, if I didn't believe in agape, if I didn't care about sexual morality, if I accepted Evolutionary Psychology, then I would run straight past the Chapel and the wedding going on there for me, go to the nearest college pub where the co-eds are, and round them up like there was no tomorrow. Or maybe not. Maybe the thought of STDs and mindless conversation might drive me to porn instead. But the bottom line is this: If women are entitled to chase Alpha boys, then I am entitled to chase women who are young and physically attractive. Evolutionary Psychology says so, don't-cha know, so let's be consistent!

Let me put it to you another way. If I am not the "special snowflake" that will be loved "as I am" in my weakest moments, and if women in this culture act in a way that supports Evolutionary Psychology, I'd rather stay celibate than be married. No, don't bristle. Think about the balance sheet, folks. I rather live alone than be stuck with a female Evo-Psych specimen who will still hold the marriage bond over my head, test me, and demand Alpha performance from me while she goes through menopause and turns into a old crone. That's not Biblical matrimony, that's not living a life, that's not "Game." That's a rip-off! There's no ROI there, fellas! I say, "Ladies, either love me for real or go find another sucker." Life is easier without having to be under the gun of someone who is not doing much for you.

For the Christian man who thinks about this, marriage makes sense ... but only in the context where husbands and wives live according to the Law of Agape, not the Law of the Jungle. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense ... especially if a Christian man keeps running into "Christian" women who want to act like the "naked ape" and not like they are created in the image of God. Hmmm. Maybe that partially explains why some of us are not so sanguine about dating and marriage.

Postcript (A Morality Play)

Anglosphere Chick: "Anakin, your bitter for writing a post for like that. You just need to accept the fact that women are attracted to certain traits, blah, blah, de blah, blah."

Anakin: "Well, men are attracted to good looking women. So what happens when you hit forty and your looks go south? What exactly do I get at that time for being the Alpha husband to you?"

Anglosphere Chick: "You're so shallow and cold. Can't you love a woman for her character?"

Anakin: "Well, there were a lot of unassuming guys with character that you passed by in your youth, hypocrite."

(Overcome by frustration and impotent rage, Anglosphere Chick spontaneously combusts in a puff of smoke.)

The End.

Boundless Shenanigans

Albert Mohler, Steve and Candice Watters, and the Boundless staff in general no longer surprise me with their behaviors. In the last couple of weeks or so, they have been ramping up their predictable marriage mandate nonsense, gynocentrism, and misandry. Some developments ...

1. Candice skewers a young man who is going to be a pastor because he is not committing to a female friend. Read this excellent analysis from Puritan Calvinist on the matter.

2. Boundless staff showcase a series of posts by Tim Challies that excoriate men about pornography but downplay the problem of "female porn" (romantic novels, chick lit, and the such like). Ted Slater makes a point of telling everyone that he even deleted an article on "female porn" from the Boundless site. Well, fortunately we need not depend on Mr. Slater to find out the truth about how "female porn" is ruining relationships between men and women. Thank you, Ted, for being oh-so marriage-friendly that you've turned the other way while women indulge in destructive fantasies about men and relationships. This Boundless reader gets it. Ted doesn't.

3. Candice comes unglued when a Boundless fan writes in about a boyfriend not wanting to have children (see 33:55 of this broadcast). According to Candice, the lack of desire for children is right up there with being unequally yoked with non-believers as a "deal breaker." Of course, when I tried to make the Boundless folks and their readers aware about this post of mine, my comments didn't get published. Needless to say, Candice's rabid pro-natalist dogma is clearly an unscriptural addition to God's word.

4. Ok, this one takes the prize: Albert Mohler along with Steve Waters and Lisa Anderson of Boundless beat the drum about marriage on a radio broadcast. They claim marriage brings people back to Christ in a way that age "cannot." Also, receiving marriage, among other gifts from God, supposedly brings other issues of life into "alignment," giving people a "wholeness" they will never "find anywhere else." Listen to 31:30 onward in the broadcast. If I was standing next to Mohler and the others on a golf course while they said this, I would run for the sand pit and duck so I wouldn't get hit by the lightning. It borders on sacrilege. Marriage is necessary for a wholeness I can't find anywhere else? Marriage brings people back to Christ? Hey, folks! What about the plain preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? Or the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11)? Or Christ giving us "wholeness" through our relationship with Him (Col. 2:10)? I fear some people are really going off the deep end.

When She Asks About Your Past

In response to a recent Boundless post about recovering porn users, I wrote basically the following:

To any Christian man who has turned from using pornography ...

Don't count on forgiveness or trust from Christian women. If it is such a problem for them, they are better off not wasting their time or your time. They should find a man who hasn't struggled with pornography.

Men, work on being happy with your life. Your freedom from pornography is proof that you don't need women (because if you are practicing self-control over that, then you are practicing self-control, period). You'll be much happier by yourself than with someone who is going to hang your past over your head anyway.

I don't know if they'll publish my post, but I was thinking at lunch yesterday: It's hypocritical for me to come down hard on Christian women who slept around in younger years if I, as a man, was doing the same thing or championing men who do it. If a woman has a problem with me not being a virgin and/or using porn, that's her right.

Men, if and when the subject of your past comes up with a Christian woman, be honest and ask her if she is going to hang it over your head. Because if she is not resolute about letting the past be the past, then you and her are going to be miserable together. Cut it off right there and go your own way. You don't need women to play back your sins to you. If a woman thinks she's alright with it, then she needs to promise to not let it get between the two of you. If she does it later, call her out on her lying and broken promises. Remind her that fidelity is more than just the sexual part. She needs to be good as her word. If you are married to her and she is still pulling this garbage on you, she is sinning against you and the marriage bond. You probably need to take the matter to a church leader you can confide in. And men, you need to swallow the pill on this one: the rules of forgiveness work the other way, too, if you chose to marry the reformed bad girl.

I believe God can bring good out of a bad situation. Look it at this way, if you are a man and you messed up in your past, then your past sexual sins can help you separate those who really are caring from those who just warm pews. As a bachelor, if you got the nerve to be direct about this with people at church, you can find out quickly who is the real McCoy. The women, in particular, who have hang-ups about sex and won't put out in marriage are probably the ones that will freak when they find out your looked at porn or slept with a woman. Congratulate yourself on dodging the bullet. The woman who lovingly embraces you with a spirit of charity is only one you need to bother thinking about pursuing, if anyone at all.

There's another benefit if you are not in any hurry to get married. Marriage mandators and other anti-bachelor zealots won't have much of a comeback if you tell them, "Look, Christian women will probably have doubts about dating me because of my past. So why beat a dead horse, here? We should be considerate of their feelings." Your inquisitors will probably love the part about being considerate of the feelings Christian women have. Turn their own chivalrous impulses against them. Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove (Matthew 10:16). Escalate the game. And, again, congratulate yourself on dodging the bullet.

Manhood: It's Not About Her

One of the primary problem's men face in society is this: Their masculinity is too often tied to being accepted by women as potential mates. If women reject a man, then his manhood may be regarded by some as being less than fully realized. However, the problem is that women are not obligated to accept men as mates, even when there is nothing particularly wrong with the men in question. So we are left with two choices for men:

1) Men expressing anger towards the women that reject them.

2) Men expressing anger towards a social system that defines their masculinity in terms of the interest women have in these men.

Option #1 is the option that is often taken, but ultimately, it is counterproductive because women are free moral agents who have a right to their own preferences regarding mate selection. Option #2 is logical but draws criticism from those indifferent or hostile to men's issues (socons, liberals, and other individuals held under sway to popular ideas about manhood). I suppose many expect men to embrace a vision of masculinity that depends on the romantic interest of women and yet, at the same time, expect men to accept rejection from women as a fact of life. Such an expectation amounts to nothing more than asking men to accept humiliation and dehumanization.

To hold a man's self image and self-worth hostage to the whim and caprice of what others find to be sexually or romantically attractive is one of the worst forms of psychological slavery there is. It is unjust and inhumane, and no society built upon such a foundation deserves to survive. Indeed, given the judgment of history, such a society probably won't.

"Game" - A Summary (But Perhaps Not a Conclusion)

I am hoping against hope that this is going to be the last post devoted to PUA theory that I feel the need to write for some time. I'm certain my critics feel the same way. But all joking aside, I offer this post as a summary of my previous three posts (see here, here, and yes, even here). I have no illusions that what I'm about the say will be the "last word" on this topic, either for myself personally, or for the whole discussion in general. But I'm a busy man, and I don't have a copious amount of time to burn on chasing rabbits. Here are my main points:

1. "Game" advocacy must come to terms with the historical baggage of the Seduction Community.

This includes: (1) The sexual immorality, (2) any behavior that would be deceitful and fraudulent in what it conveys [Are you making a concerted effort to give a false impression of what you really are?]**, (3) encouraging the Alpha Jerk culture and skank behavior in women, (4) engaging in any other unethical and sinful behaviors in the name of masculinity, and (5) making an idol out of sex. One reader ("Thursday") retorted, "None of the bad behaviors you described are even close to being necessary to attract women" but he seems to contradict himself and Ferdinand Bardamu, who has said the following:

Have you considered, Mr. Auster, that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive? Namely, that in the absence of social conditioning, women will blindly follow their genitals straight into the arms of violent dirtbags? Those men are socially dominant by dint of their nature, which is why women are drawn to them and why, when they get slapped both silly and senseless, they almost always go back to them.

Which is it? Do women flock to alcoholic philanderers and other baddies or not? If not, then why are the baddies not alone? If women do flock to baddies, then what makes anyone think that Game Lite will do the job? If being a thug is what it really takes to do the job, then just what is the Christian man's option "in the absence of social conditioning?" Either you admit that Christian men are going to have a hard time finding decent wives in today's social climate or you admit that women can choose to change.

2. "Game" advocacy must disassociate itself from the Seduction Community.

My critics insist on using the language of PUAs (even invoking the acronym itself, which means "pick-up artist", duh!) and yet take exception when they are lumped in with the PUAs. Folks can't have it both ways.

3. "Game" advocates must be more forthcoming with specifics about how "Game" can contribute to interpersonal relationships between men and women in ways that others sources of knowledge cannot.

I have come across two "success stories" thus far, but when one drills down the narratives, they merely talk about about the husband being more assertive with his wife (something a man could just as easily learn from a tome in a family bookstore). The reader "Thursday" remarks that attracting women requires "considerable nuance" above and beyond merely being a confident and responsible man. Never mind that another "Game" advocate assures us that, "Game is not a series of tricks. It teaches men to grow a spine and grow a set."

How strange that our ancestors never heard of the "Mystery Method." I can hear it now, "Oh, but Anakin, they practiced game." Funny that none of the people I know who lived in the 20th century B.F. (before feminism) have ever mentioned anything about the "considerable nuance" of seduction techniques being the key to success to their dating and their marriages. Funny how men of old managed to find good women without the benefit of the modern Relationship Expert Industry (PUA, Christian, feminist, or otherwise). I tell you what changed: the expectations of many women. Instead of calling women out on their unrealistic nonsense, some men apparently want to kiss up and try to please the Exulted High Maintenance Ones. If you have to walk on sexual eggshells to please the modern woman then what does that say about her expectations and the viability of the relationship itself?

4. The claim has been made that "Game" can benefit Christian men hasn't been substantiated.

I threw down the gauntlet. I raised my ethical, moral, spiritual, and theological concerns. The responses on this matter have been disappointing. Anyone who has following this blog knows how I take great pains to answer any critics who say my views are not scriptural. But what do I hear from "Game" advocates? Something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter what you say Anakin. Women won't change. Game works!" Pragmatism and utilitarianism may work for a secular audience, but as a theological argument for Christians, it falls flat. How does "Game" square with what the Bible says about manhood? Can anyone take a stab at that question?

5. "Game" advocacy must show that it something more than "Cosmo for men."

I fear that the Beta Revolution, for example, is reductionist to a fault in its embrace of "Game." The Beta Revolution, like social conservatives, are concerned about normal, hardworking men dropping out of society. The Beta Revolution, however, thinks sex will motivate these men back to the salt mines. The critics of men's rights advocacy often declare, "You guys are just mad because you can't get laid." The Beta Revolution, in effect, says, "Yep, you're right!!" But does the Beta Revolution (or neo-traditionalist conservativism, for that matter) really focus on fixing society or dealing with women's behavior? Not to any great extent that I can see. It's mostly about fixing men. Men are the problem. Either they are not nice enough, or as the PUA seems to think, they are not sexy enough.

So, if a man learns "Game" and becomes desirable enough for women, just how exactly is his lot improved? How does he win, if at the end of the day, society doesn't respect men? How do his male descendants win if nothing changes for them, either? What reward is it to be the stud horse if, at the end of the day, you are still locked up in the same stall of those who own you?

Over at Novaseeker's blog, I wrote:

Let me remind you that I am not one of those evil "socons" that want men to be doormats to their wives. As a Christian man, I have written more against the misandry of social conservatives than anything else. However, the "beta revolution" will die in the nursery if you and others don't deal with the moral, ethical, and religious concerns of your target audience (responsible betas).

I stand by my words. The discussion has been lively and heated, but I am not out to spoil anyone's party. On the other hand, I am trying to offer constructive criticism. "Better the wound of a friend than the kiss of an enemy."

**On the deception issue, someone might counter, "Hey, women wear make-up and push-up bras." Well, for starters, I have some questions about Christian women wearing immodest clothing in public. Secondly, sooner or the later, the make-up is going to come off and I am going to see the woman for who she really is physically. But I don't hear anything about men letting their Alpha facade down. This, by the way, gets me to my next point: Men and women set each other up for disappointment by putting on an act during dating. If the relationship progresses, sooner or later, you are going to see your mate as he or she really is (bad habits, vulnerabilities, etc.). The eventual slam of reality is most painful for those who rode their ship on the crest of romantic illusions (including those generated by male "Game" and female "Rules").

Baptizing "Game"?

From the feedback I received on my last two posts, I've learned some about how people understand the dynamics of mate selection between men and women. My last two posts (see here and here) stated my moral and theological objections to the PUA community. I have had basically two reactions from my readers:

1) People agreeing with me and saying what PUAs espouse is evil. The idea of seducing women with manipulative techniques in order to bed them is understandably off-putting to people of faith.

2) People who think I misunderstand "Game."

What I am seeing is a lot of cross-talk, argument over semantics, perhaps some special pleading and a few other things that impair clarification and resolution of the issue. I am certain I can take some blame for this, but I don't think I can take all of it.

There is apparently a group of men in the blogosphere that want to bowdlerize PUA tactics. That is, they want to crop off the seedier aspects of "Game" and talk about ways that men can improve their interpersonal relationships with women. "Game", for this group, is understood in a general and innocuous way. Indeed, some posters even talk about "Game" saving marriages. But that doesn't answer what I have already written:

Some readers want to redefine "Game" to mean things men have always done to catch the eyes of ladies. Historically, the word "Game" has had more negative connotations than that. I say it has too much to be used by Christian men.

When a godly women makes herself attractive, we don't call this "teasing." When she is sexually assertive with her husband in the bedroom, we don't call her a "porno slut." Likewise, we should not the use the language of PUAs to describe what godly men do to attract women ...

In short, I ask why some male bloggers feel the need to use the language of "playas," pimps, lotharios, lounge lizards, and the such like to describe the general concept of making oneself more attractive to women? And to say a Christian man can do this? Why would a Christian man want associate himself with the sexually immoral by using their language to describe his dealings with the opposite sex? It doesn't help his testimony, even if he has no intention of sleeping around. I can see it now: "Hi. I'm Chad. I go to Grace Community Church and I'm into Game!" What do you think Jane Q. Public is going to think about that? It's like saying, "Hi, I'm Hannah, I go to Grace Bible College, and I'm into teasing guys!" No, uh, "epic fail." You are not going to win the hearts and minds of men who are serious about sexual purity by asking them to borrow terms from the Seduction Community. At the very least, a new set of terms and/or concepts needs to be put forth that are acceptable to men of faith.

What is it that the Seduction Community can offer men of faith that they can't pick up elsewhere? I can go to a family bookstore and there are plenty of books telling men how to romance their wives, how to stop being a wimp and be a "real man," etc. Ever read No More Christian Nice Guy by Paul Coughlin? Many of the authors of these books are licensed counselors and therapists. Consider that there are also marriage enrichment seminars, workshops, etc. to boot that a religious man can attend.

You can teach men how to approach women and how to maintain the interest of women. All fine and well. More power to you if you can approach this subject in a format acceptable to Christian men. But the bottom line is that teaching men how to approach women is a meaningless exercise unless men and women genuinely love and respect each other. I am all for being physically attractive and romantically attractive to one's spouse, but I am not going to be able to do much seducing if I'm wasting away from inoperable cancer. The same goes for women. I've said a lot on this blog and elsewhere about Christian women needing to be more responsive about what turns men on instead of be such priggish prudes. One thing I will not do, however, is to suggest that sexual attractiveness is the foundation rock of a godly relationship. Agape is the foundation. Agape expresses itself by being considerate of the erotic needs and desires of one's spouse. However, the fruit of a tree should not be confused with the tree itself.

As it is, the three-hundred pound gorilla in the room is this: A lot of women and men don't love and respect each other. Seduction techniques, per se, cannot create this love and respect. Without the prerequiste love and respect, seduction techniques only lend themselves to sports sex, grudge sex, sugar daddy prostitution, trophy spouses, or what have you. Such is a turn-off to a godly man. Until men and women respect each other, their relationships will essentially be nothing more than détente at the genital level. Obviously, there are men in the PUA/Seduction community who are not bothered by this, but the rest of us should be bothered. And when it comes to love and respect, women have their work cut out for them, given the fact that they gotten off with something less than a slap on the wrist for the last 40+ years. That's what lies at the heart of the issue - people's integrity, not a technique.

The Behavior of Women (A Video Interview)

A few days ago, I came across a video interview between Dr. Helen Smith (aka "Dr. Helen") and Dr. Richard Driscoll that was originally aired on Father's Day. Novaseeker has already covered it (with probably some other bloggers), and perhaps some of you may have already seen it. All the same, I find the interview to be thought-provoking for what it has to say about the behavioral patterns of women as a group. It's telling when two psychologists reiterate what many MRAs take for granted.

Here's what grabbed my attention ...

1. Driscoll indicates that our status quo depends on chivalry and men who are desperate for female approval (i.e., getting sex).

2. Driscoll affirms that men like sex more than women and that women are choosier in mating. This shows how utterly hypocritical people are in attacking the so-called "unrealistic standards of beauty" men putatively have without addressing how women can be picky to a fault.

3. Driscoll claims that women are hardwired to perturb men and give them grief (to "test" them, as it were). He also confirms that women are hypergamous, which doesn't bode well as women economically disenfranchise men.

4. Driscoll points to a survey where 34% of women were found to be always resentful of men, compared to 14% of men being always resentful of women. Quite chilling, but it confirms the prevalence of misandry (and why the charge of misogyny is often false and patently stupid).

5. Driscoll avers that relationships are predicated upon the exchange of a man's resources for sexual access to women. Driscoll narrowly skirts by calling marriage "prostitution" but I think it's worth addressing. Is Marriage 2.0 nothing more than "prostitution" with a grossly-inflated price tag? Are religious conservatives basically pushing church-sanctioned prostitution? Are married men nothing more than glorified Johns, where the primary thing that is valued is not their humanity, but their money? How do women view their relationship with men when the money dries up? Do women really take hubby "for richer or poorer" or are they lying through their teeth?

Bottom line: I am not a hardcore marriage-avoider, but having watched the video, I will not be surprised if more men have vasectomies and stay inside with the video games.

Recommended Essay

I was troving the MRA blogosphere when I stumbled across a wonderful essay by F. Roger Devlin ("The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution and Its Limitations"). Devlin has written for a publication called Occidental Quarterly and apparently the essay in question was supposed to be published by that journal. The piece is over year old and perhaps some of you have already seen it, but it nonethless gets to the heart of one of things this blog has been trying to fight. That is, the whole neo-chivalrous, "damsel in distress," marriage mandate, Makenite tripe that has gripped the imagination of religious conservatives. Devlin's article busts the stupid myth that women are just precious little angels that need to protected from unscrupulous, immature men.

A juicy quote:

When the sexual revolution began, women imagined that the "slavery" of marriage was unfairly standing between themselves and endless erotic fulfillment. Forty years later, many are imagining instead that the availability to men of sex outside marriage is standing in the way of their wedding. "If other women were not sluts," they reason, "the man of my dreams would be forced to discover my true value and come crawling to me with a diamond ring." One of the interviewees from Shalit's first book, for example, complains: "After three dates when I wouldn't sleep with [a certain man], he dumped me, just like that! If you ask me, it's because it's way too easy for them. Why should they waste time with a girl like me when they can get it for free?" (RM, p. 104)

Now, how does the woman know this is the reason he "dumped" (stopped courting) her? Never once have I heard a woman say: "I am such a pain in the derriere that after just three dates men are charging for the exit." Appealing to the supposed universal availability of sex has become a way for women to avoid facing the reality of rejection. Men break off courtships for all kinds of reasons: they may sense that a particular girl might not be faithful, is not careful with money, has too many bad habits, or just plain is not for them. Holding out for wedding rings is not going to solve these women's problems and allow them to live happily ever after. If we could wave a magic wand and cause extramarital sex to disappear overnight, many women would be shocked to discover that handsome movie stars were still not flocking to their doorsteps with flowers and chocolates. (emphasis mine).

Devlin's essay is actually a review article of Wendy Shalit, but it could have just easily been a response to Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, certain staff writers for Boundless.org, and the Evangelical Establishment Media to boot. It's a lengthy piece, so don't scan over it and miss the good stuff. Enjoy.

Feminist Stupidity from Boundless Readers

Over at Boundless, Adam (I don't know if he is Puritan Calvinist or not) started a lively discussion when he stated the following:

"I would say that, if husband or the wife has to demand sex or rape their spouse, their spouse has sinned, even before they themselves have sinned. Paul is very clear that sexual relations are a marital debt that is owed between both the man and the woman. This not just true if a man wants sexual relations with his wife. The same thing is also true in reverse. If the woman has to demand sex or rape her husband, there is already sin as well. The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 that this must be the case because of sexual immorality. If it is not, then we run the risk of driving our spouse into sexual temptation, because we are denying them something that is rightfully theirs."

Adam then clarified what his views were on marital rape:

"Paul's command does not excuse things like rape of a spouse. That is sin also [and a far greater sin]. However, I would say that there is already problems if it has to get to that point."

And furthermore, he said:

"Read what I said in my clarification post. I am not saying that forcing it out of someone is right. What I am saying is that sin is already present if it comes to that point. Granted, the person who forces it out of the other person is committing the much more grevious sin, but, in such a situation, there were clearly other problems that lead up to the rape.

The point is that, if marriage is lived according to the scriptures, it should never come to this point. God set up the man and the woman owing each other the marital debt for a reason, and that is so that this would never happen. There will be times when you will want sexual relations, and your wife will not feel like it. However, the beauty of the Biblical teaching is that, sooner or later, your wife is going to want sexual relations when you don't feel like it. Hence, it all evens out, and it prevents sexual debauchery in such situations."

Simple enough to understand. Rape is wrong, period. It is a heinous sin. But are women entirely innocent when it happens? Not necessarily. One has to take responsibility for provoking another person to sin just as much the one who sinned. After all, if depriving a spouse of sex never caused anyone to sin, then why did Paul command people to not deprive their spouse?!

Christina understood what Adam was saying. However, many of the replies to Adam were certifiably numb-skulled. Most of them accused Adam of "justifying" rape. One of the most inane comments comes from a man:

"Yes. I saw where you indicated where a man is still responsible for his sin. I will agree with that, but you still justify the act of RAPE with the rest of your comment. You are writing that if she does not submit it is ok to rape her."

Erm, if Adam says rape is a sin, then how is he saying it is okay to rape anyone? The male gynocentrist then goes on to say this:

"In my opinion a sexual assault is the worst thing that another person can do to another. Check out Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org), The White Ribbon Campaign (www.whiteribbon.ca), and One in Four (http://www.oneinfourusa.org/) for some information on ending sexual assault from a male's perspective. Since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men we as men have the power to challenge stereotypes and other people into thinking and behaving differently."

Sorry, but much of the activism targeted against rape is underwritten by feminists with a misandrist agenda. The "one in four" slogan has been disputed. The saying, "Men can stop rape" is stupid. It makes no more sense than the statement, "Women can stop child abuse" (even though most acts of child abuse are indeed committed by women). Just because you are a mother doesn't mean your are culpable for what every other parent does. The same principle applies to men. Implicit in the statement "men can stop rape" is the misandrist suggestion that men are collectively responsible for the actions of a few bad men. I say a better slogan is this: "Feminists can stop whining."

Anyway, the posters who piled on Adam needed to look up the word "justify." But that is not the only stupid nonsense to be uttered by Adam's critics. Here are some other comments:

"Please do not contribute to the domestic violence lie that it is 'the woman's fault.'"

So should we contribute to the feminist lie that it is the "man's fault"?! Some folks need to look up what DV researchers Murray Strauss and Donald Dutton have to say about the matter.

"I am so dismayed I can't even think straight... A woman DOES NOT instigate abuse or rape. PERIOD. I'm just glad I'm not your wife."

I'm glad you are not my wife, either, lady. A woman never instigates anything? Ever? Period? They are entirely innocent 100% of the time and contribute nothing to the husband's actions? But, hey, this female reader admits, "I am so dismayed I can't even think straight." That's the problem, isn't it?

Boundless staff writer, Heather Koerner, then weighs in with a post about the matter. Here is what she has to say:

"What about if the wife is withholding sexual relations from her husband? Is that sin? Yes, it is. As Paul tells us, I should fulfill my marital duty to my husband. I should be concerned for his well-being. I should not be self-seeking. But can my sin 'cause' his sin?"

"We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But when we start to apply causation to sin, we aren't just on a slippery slope, we're plunging over a cliff. The circle of sin is unending. Just as I could point to my children's behavior as the spark to my sin, they could then point to my grumpiness at breakfast, to which I could point to them keeping me up at night, to which ... ad nauseum. As 1 Corinthians notes, love does not keep a record of wrongs."

Well, Heather only gets it partly right. If I sin, then yes, I don't need to be pointing to how others made me do it. I still had a choice to resist sin. I need to take my lumps and not play the victim card. However, it doesn't take away from the guilt of those who contributed to my sin (Mark 9:42). What ticks me off about Heather's comment and about Boundless.org is that if the roles were reversed--if the woman was caught up in sexual sin--the man would probably be blamed. I infer this from what Boundless has published before. It's not Biblical Christianity. It's neo-traditionalist woman-firsterism.

But wait there's more. One reader, Bek, said the following about 1 Cor. 7:1-7:

"The verse says that the wife's body belongs to the husband, but the husband's body also belongs to the wife. Immediately, this shows marital rape to be against whatever Paul was trying to say. If her body belongs to him you could argue that he could have sex with her anytime he wanted, but since his belongs to her also, she could chose that he doesn't have sex with her anytime she doesn't want him to. I think it's probably intended to be more like the parts of a body stuff...that both partners need to properly consider the other's needs (in this case, physical desire) and work together for the good of the 'body', in this case, the marital unit of man and wife together." (emphasis mine, Anakin)

Ok, so you having power over your husband's body means you can refuse sex? But, uh, the Apostle Paul goes on to say, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time." So, sorry, but you and your friends have failed, my dear.

Anyway, I have proffered my two cents worth at Boundless. You can read it at this link. One of the things I said was this:

"Rape is a terrible sin. Many times women are not at fault and have indeed done nothing to bring about their misfortune. But when a woman knows that she was being a selfish jerk for refusing sex to her husband, then she has to live with the fallout of her stupid choices. Sin often has earthly consequences and no amount of Politically Correct, Oprahfied spin will change that. We are not called to ape the feministic sentiments of our secular culture. We are called to stand on the truth of the Bible."

In sum, this whole affair underscores how the gynocentrism of the broader culture has crept into our faith communities. Men take note.

How to Drive Men to Porn

Well, Puritan Calvinist has moved to his new blog, and I have followed him to peruse his posts. At the beginning of this week, he posted a wonderful piece on some worrisome comments by Albert Mohler. At issue is the mistaken notion that getting married will help someone get out of porn. Puritan Calvinist rightfully takes issue with this idea.

I'll go one further, though. I think Mohler and others in the Marriage Mandate Movement may actually drive men to porn. I can hear someone retort, "Anakin, how can you say that!? Nowhere do these people tell men to use porn! Just the opposite! Stop putting words in their mouth!" Of course, the marriage mandators are against pornography. That's not the point. The point is that the logical end of their dogma makes men spiritually vulnerable to sexual temptation. I've touched upon this matter before. If you keep telling men that most of them can't live apart from women and be chaste outside of marriage, then what do you suppose men who have no immediate prospects of marriage are going to do??? No good woman in sight? Here come the mouse clicks. Q.E.D.

Buzz Bomb #2

[For the first buzz bomb, click here.]

For those of you who think sexual tension, per se, is a sufficient reason for getting married (as per a popular reading of 1 Cor. 7:9), I ask the following: Do you think any religious man could admit this to his fiancée and keep a straight face? Or does that objectify women? If so, don't there have be other reasons for marrying a woman?