A Gross Indecency

(Alternate Title: ONE OF US)

Free Northerner has alerted me to a column at the Red Pill Woman sub-reddit over at Reddit. The subject of the column? I think that the author’s words speak for themselves:

I hate lying, but I’ve had a few boyfriends, so at 26 I’ve now slept with 12 men. I’m thinking seriously about marriage now, and I know many men find women with a double-digit partner count not marriage-material, so I’ve been telling the last couple boyfriends that I’ve only slept with 3 people. I was wondering if RedPillWomen has an opinion on this. Will this help?

That in itself is not surprising. Women know deep down inside, whether they admit it or not, that men will judge them when it comes to commitment based on their partner count. Deception on their part is only to be expected. At least, to be expected if they aren’t Christians. You would expect Christian women to tell that woman to come clean, right? To advocate honesty? Superficially, you would be correct:

Exactly. A quality man may or may not care about partner count. He will most certainly care about honesty.

Or:

Honesty is the most important thing. Lies destroy relationships.

On the face of it, those statements seem to be in the right direction. They emphasize honesty and the danger of lies. But as the thread progressed, this semblance of honesty is shown to be as hollow as a reed. First is this statement by The Ringmistress:

Don’t lie. Reveal on a need to know basis, but don’t give a hard number unless it is the real number.

Here we have an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, we have “don’t lie.” But on the other hand we have “Reveal on a need to know basis.” The first sentence advocates honesty, the second does not. How so? Honesty defined according to Merriam-Webster:

“fairness and straightforwardness of conduct”

Can anyone square away “reveal on a need to know basis” with “straightforwardness of conduct?” I sure can’t. But that statement is mild compared to this one by Sis:

12 men is a lot for a guy to swallow, but honesty is important in a relationship. I would try to avoid the question. If he asks, look down bashfully like you are too modest to talk about sexual things. Realize that once you tell him, it is a burden he will have to work through, forgive you for, and repeatedly let go throughout your marriage. When you do have sex with him, let him lead, learn what he likes, and appreciate and enjoy what he does. Don’t try to impress him with your skills.

The part in bold says it all. Sis isn’t just advocating that the woman not bring up the subject here. Sure she says that, but then she goes a step further and encourages the woman to create the impression that she is too modest to have engaged in sex with other men. Is she telling the woman to lie? Not really. But she is telling the woman to deceive men. As I explained over at Free Northerner’s blog:

All lies are deception.

But not all deception is lies.

And what we have here is deception. Sis encouraged that woman to “give a false impression” to any man who asked her about her sexual past. We are talking about something as fundamental and important as marriage, and Christian women were encouraging deception by a woman they didn’t know. Some might argue that deception doesn’t matter, that what you don’t know can’t bother you. So lets examine it from a different light…

Suppose you are on the market to buy a house. You see an ad in a paper, and visit an open house. While there you manage to spend some time with the owner, and ask a variety of questions. You ask:

“Is the house in a safe area?”

The answer:

“It has been safe enough for me.”

“Well, have any houses in the neighborhood been burglarized in the last few years?”

“Burglarized? How horrible! I shudder at the thought of it.”

Not mentioned is that a dozen homes have been burglarized in the last five years. Did the home owner lie? No. He gave an answer which said that he shuddered at the thought of houses being burglarized. That is almost certainly the truth. But it is a truth arranged so that the listener would walk away with a false impression of the situation. That is deception. It is not honesty. How would you feel about being deceived here? I imagine most people wouldn’t take it well. And that kind of deception is nothing compared to what a woman lying about her N is to the man who marries her. There are many more metaphors or analogies where that one came from. All speak to the same thing.

Ask yourself this…

Now ladies, in your haste to rush to the aide of this [sinful woman], did you ever stop to consider the man she was hoping to snare? Did you ever consider the effect on him from this deception? Did you ever stop to consider his welfare and well-being? Did he simply not matter to you, because he would be some nameless man?

Did you ever stop to consider whether this man being duped could be a friend of yours?

Or a cousin?

Or a brother?

What if it was your son she was hoping to marry?

Would that have changed your mind any? Would you be perfectly alright with your son marrying a woman with an N of 12, thinking it was 3? Even knowing the risks that he would face? Or do you have no problem with your own blood ending up as a statistic? Somehow I think that if the man in question was related to our advice givers, that they wouldn’t be so quick to aid a harlot in ensnaring said man into being a Beta Provider.

So this begs the question, why would these Christian women go out of their way to advise a [sinful woman] to deceive some poor man into thinking she wasn’t a [sinful woman]?

Why? Because she was a woman in need of help, and they were women. To them, she was ONE OF US.

Why? Because “Us ladies need to look out for one another.” She was ONE OF US.

Why? Because she was one of The Herd. A member of Team Woman. ONE OF US. (skip ahead to the 40 second mark)

Look at how quickly these Christian women were willing to set aside their ethics and their faith to help another woman. It should be obvious to everyone by now why Paul explained that women had no place in Church leadership. That command is necessary because women will set aside wisdom, reason and faith to help ONE OF US.

This post, and the research and reading that lead to it, has left me with a cocktail of emotions. But one has emerged as dominant in that admixture: disappointment. I am disappointed that so many “Red Pill Women”, including several Christians, were willing and eager to aid a woman in deceiving men about something which would have a huge impact on a relationship. Not all failed the test, TempestTCup as near as I can tell never engaged in the encouragement of deceptive practices.  In response to this story Deti left this comment over at Free Northerner’s site:

I didn’t want to believe it donal, but I think I’m going to now.

Even Christian women have a lesser sense of honor, justice, fairness and integrity than men do. These women’s status as Christians — even that does not overcome the female tendency toward emotions, fudging, gilding the lily, and doing what must be done to serve one’s self interests.

Even Christ’s commands and His Word are insufficient to overcome the feminine imperative which burns in the minds and hearts of every woman.

Astonishing. These women would jeopardize their eternal salvation to help a woman feel better about sexing up a few too many men.

Un. Be- freakin – lievable.

I have never been a supporter of the theory that women are “morally inferior” to men, a theory which often finds its home in the MGTOW side of the manosphere. But occasions like this make me sometimes wonder if there is some truth to that line of thought. However, I think that ultimately it all comes down to the ONE OF US mentality that is part and parcel of a woman’s mind. Women are, by default, part of Team Woman. Even if she is also a member of Team Her Man, that instinct is still present.  Sis seems to have later apologized for her “slip up.” But the episode has me worried. I’ve always liked Sis, but if someone like her is able to fall into the trap of aiding and abetting a [sinful woman], then what does it say about women in general? She apologized, yes, but only after Free Northerner called her out on her behavior. Until he did that, I’m sure that it never entered her mind what she had actually done. Her instinct to aide ONE OF US proved the greater.

In Conclusion

I know that many of the Red Pill Women out there have daughters of varying ages. I assume that they would like for their daughters to get married some day. Elspeth over at Traditional Christianity has remarked that her young, chaste Christian daughter is having trouble finding a husband. I suggested that part of her daughter’s problem might be that many of the “good Christian men” out there have been so emasculated by Churchian culture that they now lack the confidence and will to approach a woman like her daughter. However, there is another possibility. Perhaps all of the “good Christian men” out there that her daughter would like to meet aren’t interested in marriage at all. Perhaps they have taken Paul’s advice to heart and decided not to marry, that the risks and costs aren’t worth the benefit. Perhaps they have become convinced that marriage in this day and age is a trap, a snare set so that men can support women living lives of sin at the expense of men. And with incidents like this, who can blame them?

Red Pill Women, do you want your daughter’s to marry? If you do, then you need to stop giving men a reason to think that marriage is a bum deal for them. Do you have any idea how much incidents like this cause Christian men to question the faith they have in Christian women?  If you want your daughters to find men who are willing to marry them, then you need to demonstrate that women can be trusted. That they won’t discard their faith out of convenience, or to serve Team Woman. I can think of at least a half-dozen men in the manosophere off the top of my head who fit the bill of being devout and chaste [N=0] Christian men, including, but not limited to, myself, ar10308, Earl, Seriouslypleasedropit, and possibly even Free Northerner himself. I can’t speak for them, but I can speak for myself. And what I have to say is this: When I can’t trust Christian women to avoid helping unchaste women deceive unsuspecting men, marriage loses much of its appeal for me. I am not a MGTOW. I want to get married. But how can I avoid despair when this is what I can expect from my sisters of the faith?

[I had another section here which I edited out. It didn’t really contribute to the point of the post, and as Deep Strength has pointed out, was foolhardy in its suggestion.]

Update: Ringmistress created an apology thread over at the RPW reddit, found here. It is a good step towards calling women to think about whose team they are playing on. There were some good responses, and I encourage my readers to take a look. But I want to take the time to address  a comment left by commentator Amissmiss:

Okay, I read the blog post, and I’d like to address two points:

I think he is right to call out the advice to deceive through omission.

I think he’s wrong to judge women unfit for church leadership or morally inferior simply because this advice was given, or, as he puts it, we have a ‘one of us’ mentality.

Let me explain.

Becoming a part of church leadership should be a process that requires a great deal of study and growth regardless of gender. You must learn and strive to be the best version of yourself. This is a process both men and women must go through.

For a woman, this may involve learning to resist the temptation to have a hive mentality and protect ‘one of us.’ For a man, it might be learning to judge not less ye be judged, which would mean stepping away from dubbing a woman a ‘harlot’ because that is St. Peter’s call Instead, he must learn to act more like Jesus and realize that the vulnerable, sick, and fallen are the one’s that need care and consideration the most.

We both have to learn to overcome our nature.

Before I address the heart of this, I want to say that I don’t “judge women as morally inferior.” If you read above you will see that I said I have never believed that. Also, my comments were directed at the Christian women who were dispensing advice.

Now that we have that bit out of the way, lets examine this section:

Becoming a part of church leadership should be a process that requires a great deal of study and growth regardless of gender. You must learn and strive to be the best version of yourself. This is a process both men and women must go through.

I would like to point out that Paul is clear that women aren’t to speak in Church, which means they cannot hold a position of leadership (outside of administrative functions). While I am not a sola scriptura supporter (Novaseeker has a good post on this), that doesn’t mean I think we should simply tear out and ignore sections of the Bible that we don’t like. While the advice given is solid, scripture makes it clear that it is a process for men. [What I have done is try and explain why that might be the case; that it wasn’t merely the product of some “oppressive patriarchal culture”]

For a woman, this may involve learning to resist the temptation to have a hive mentality and protect ‘one of us.’ For a man, it might be learning to judge not less ye be judged, which would mean stepping away from dubbing a woman a ‘harlot’ because that is St. Peter’s call Instead, he must learn to act more like Jesus and realize that the vulnerable, sick, and fallen are the one’s that need care and consideration the most.

And here we see the standard line of “Judge Not Less Ye be Judged” come up. It is a trope at this point that when the topic of female sexual immorality shows up, this line from Matthew 7 shows up. Of course, the whole section on sin and judgment doesn’t get brought up, because the actual meaning of what Jesus was teaching is quite different. Here is the full text on that subject:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Once we have the full scripture before us it is clear that Jesus was warning about hypocrisy, not about the act of calling out others on sin. He was telling us that whatever measure or set of rules we applied to others, would also be applied to ourselves. That if we accused others of sin, then if we committed the same sins we ourselves would also be accused. And you know what? I am fine with that. I am not without sin. I’ve disrespected my parents, I’ve taken the LORD’s name in vain, and at times coveted that which wasn’t mine. But I am not accusing that sinful woman of something I have done myself. We are all sinners, and I am not different. But fornication is not one of my sins. So let me be judged, because there is no log/plank/beam in my eye to interfere with my judgement. Does my judgment mean that the sinful woman who started this is going to hell? No. That is not within my power.

What I am doing is pointing out to Christian women who were advising that sinful woman, that the woman was unrepentant. She didn’t express guilt about her sins. Instead, she was worried that they might impair her ability to ensnare a man into being her meal ticket… er, husband. She was unrepentant, and she was being advised, by Christian women,  on how to cover up her sins. And lest you think that I was not acting as Christ did, perhaps you have forgotten this episode:

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” 19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.

Jesus didn’t call the woman a slut, he didn’t need to. By reminding her of her sins, he accomplished the same thing. While calling the original author a harlot was inaccurate (see below), calling her a sinful woman is appropriate. Jesus called people out on their sins, He never  pretended that they hadn’t happened. How can you act as a doctor to the soul if you refuse to recognize that there is illness? Unless you recognize sin for what it is, and call it out, repentance cannot happen.

When I wrote this post, I originally referred to the woman as a harlot. While writing this update I looked up the definition and its etymological origins. And what I found is that harlot is more accurately used for a prostitute or a whore, as compared to a promiscuous women. Since the original author of the reddit column wasn’t a whore (or at least didn’t confess to being one), it wasn’t appropriate for me to label her as such. So in that case I apologize for that mislabeling. As a result, I have removed the previous references to “harlot” and replaced them with [sinful woman], as that is more Biblical in nature.

Update 2: Free Northerner has a response to this post, addressing the question of how a repentant woman with an N>0 should react to being asked her N count. His post reminded me a sinful woman from the Bible who sought to repent for her past:

36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” 48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

(Luke 7:36-50)

Advertisements

64 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Marriage, Moral Agency, Red Pill

64 responses to “A Gross Indecency

  1. Thank you, donalgraeme.

  2. Pingback: Links and Comments #13 | The Society of Phineas

  3. Hannah

    Got to go with truth at all costs.

    I was 22 when I met my husband. After a couple of weeks he let me know I could stick around. At one point I was moving home to N.Z temporarily to look after my sister. I recall saying to my him perhaps we’d have to break up because of this. He said we were committed for life. I believed him!

    After seeing each other for several months, my boyfriend (now husband) asked me how many people I’d slept with. I asked him if he really wanted to know. He said yes. I said he would hate it. He told me to say anyway.
    I told him I’d slept with as many people as he had.

    He stopped, stared at me for a long time and then swore.
    We’ve never discussed a number since.

    He did learn that I’d only had 1 boyfriend from the age of 13-17 (no sex).
    He did learn he was the only man I’d lived with.
    He did learn he was the only man I’d been on a date with.
    He did learn I was medically clean and keen to have many children if possible.

    The rest is ugly whorish history.

    As far as HIS history goes, I agree that it’s not good to ‘come clean’ to your woman all in one go. It undoes things.
    I knew my husband had very dark areas but would not ask him to reveal anything. If I accidentally tripped over something he would often say “What’s your next question?” and literally wait for the awkward silence to disappear.
    My husband invited me into HIS world and I made the decision to accept. What he chose to tell me or not tell me is his prerogative.
    What he chose to demand I tell him is his prerogative.
    What he chose to insist I never tell him is his prerogative.
    I entered his life under these circumstances and accept the conditions.

  4. Remo

    Christian women are *not* understanding their mistakes they are attempting to deny them, hide them, justify them, or blame others for them. When they can’t be hid, obscured, deferred, eliminated, wiped away or whatnot then the person who feels bad about their prior actions is shamed, or publicly told he shouldn’t care then the trope about all of us being sinners comes out not to state truth but to justify evil and gloss over it. The reason hymenoplasty is popular isn’t to admit evil but to cover it up like a cat who buries its business in a litter box. There is nothing good or just in the action and there is nothing at all penitent in a woman doing any of the above.

  5. embracingourfemininity

    Of course it is not good. I was just giving an example of the lengths *some* women will go to to cover their mistakes. Not all Christian women are the same, we can’t tar all with the same brush.

  6. embracingourfemininity

    “As far as HIS history goes, I agree that it’s not good to ‘come clean’ to your woman all in one go. It undoes things.

    Honestly I don’t think I would want to know a man’s history. When I marry I don’t want to think about if he has been with another woman before, and I think it is inevitable that it will come into my thoughts at some point. I may wonder if he is comparing me to them.

    I had feelings for a man before, it didn’t progress to a relationship, but he was somebody who I could have seen myself marrying, but unfortunately his history got revealed to me by many different people, it wasn’t pleasant. Especially when one woman in particular who he had a past with told me things in graphic detail, I felt terrible. I asked him if it were true, and he told me yes, it is true. I respected him so much for telling me the truth as he could have lied and I wouldn’t have known any better. But he was honest with me. I could have looked past it, but I still would have preferred not to know. It wasn’t because of this that nothing further happened with us, it was other reasons, and overall he was really great I just wish I hadn’t been burdened with so many dark details of his past. I don’t know if that is wrong of me to feel that, I just wouldn’t ever want to know details and then maybe feel inadequate like I can’t measure up to all the other women he has been with.

  7. I don’t think you are at all wrong for having felt uncomfortable once you discovered the details of his past.

    One of the reasons why I believe chastity, or saving oneself for marriage, to be a good thing is because it means that your future spouse never has to worry about measuring him or herself against someone else. A marriage works best if you give all of yourself, without reservation, to your spouse, and know that they are doing the same. When there are past men and women in their lives, doubt is inescapable (and there is good reason for it).

    For this reason I think assortive mating is best; people should marry those with similar experiences.

  8. Pingback: Addressing Your N-Count | Free Northerner

  9. Pingback: Why are we pedestalizing “red pill” women? | Sunshine Mary

  10. Ellie

    Donal, since you are Catholic, this might interest you from traditioninaction.org:

    “It is a good tradition of the Church not to admit the unwed mother to a normal social life. Otherwise, the same status would be given to the honest wife and mother who maintained an upright life accomplishing all her moral duties in marriage, and the adventurous woman who gave free reigns to her caprices and passions. This would be an injustice toward the honest mother and a discouragement for her to continue her life of virtue… To admit the unwed mother to a normal social life or a normal parish life is to implicitly attack the morality of the well-constituted family.

    This sanction, therefore, is a salutary one. Mothers may take advantage of it to teach their daughters not to follow the same path, but instead be chaste until marriage. Young unmarried women may criticize the unwed mother, encouraging one another to be faithful to Catholic Morals. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a normal reaction of the instinct of conservation of virtuous women who are struggling to preserve themselves and not fall into sin.

    It is part of the progressivist mentality to oppose this treatment, and label it as uncharitable. ”

    Our ideas of charity, as modern women, have become corrupt. Our ideas about repentance washing away consequences of sin have also been corrupted. The Christian woman who condemns the behavior of a former slut is looked down on and ostracized as being uncharitable and mean spirited. The Christian woman who has maintained her virtue is lowered to having the same status as a former whore has… the injustice is great. But men uphold justice and women charity. Another symptom of feminism in the church.

  11. Thank you for those words Ellie. I think they might be worth a post in and of themselves. It really is especially important that we encourage virtue, and the best way to do that is to make the consequences of a lack of virtue clear and potent.

  12. Ellie

    I just don’t know how to do that without running into arguments with people who think that repentance puts all people on a level playing field. It does as far as forgiveness from sin is concerned, but apart from that….? People do not want to admit that sin has long reaching consequences. Consequences that can curse succeeding generations. Or, put another way, it seems that the sins the father and mother succumbed to are placed upon the children to test them… and the only way to break free of the cycle is for one generation to not buckle under the temptation.

  13. In this day and age you will run into those arguments, make no mistake. The reason why is because most people are not repentant. They give cover to other sinners in large part because they sinned themselves. They don’t want to contemplate their being permanent worldly consequences to sin because it suggests terrible things about themselves.

    Beginning with the Boomers, we are running three generations which have been living in corruption, vice and sin. When you have boomers who lived sinful lives before “returning” to the Church, more often than not they will not teach their children the importance of virtue. And those children will then do the same as well.

    Each generation makes matters worse. It is not easier to break this cycle, as you suggest. Given what I know of history, and of what is taught in the Bible, I suspect that it can only be broken through massive suffering on a society-wide scale which forces a re-evaluation of how we act.

  14. Pingback: 100th Post Blogapalooza | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s