Selected Sunday Scripture- #6

You will notice a common theme in this short post. The first passage today comes from the Letter of James:

¹² Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. ¹³ Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; ¹⁴ but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ¹⁵ Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

This matches up with another passage from the Book of Sirach:

¹¹ Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”;
for he^[b] will not do what he hates.
¹² Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he had no need of a sinful man.
¹³ The Lord hates all abominations,
and they are not loved by those who fear him.
¹⁴ It was he who created man in the beginning,
and he left him in the power of his own inclination.
¹⁵ If you will, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
¹⁶ He has placed before you fire and water:
stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
¹⁷ Before a man^[c] are life and death,
and whichever he chooses will be given to him.
¹⁸ For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
¹⁹ his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man.
²⁰ He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
and he has not given any one permission to sin.

God is never to blame for our sins, fault for them lies upon us alone. God has given us agency or free will, depending on how you define it. Choice is granted to us. We can choose how to apply our God-given talents, and we will be judged on that choice.

Godly Masculinity Versus Game

In the comment section of my latest post Leap of Beta, who makes his home at Staged Reality, left what I thought was an insightful comment. Reading it helped solidify some thoughts that I hadn’t been able to settle enough that I could include them in that post. Given how long it already was, I’ve decided to write a new post to lay them out. I am going to track his comment somewhat through my post, so lets begin with this paragraph:

The problem where semantics come in is that there is a very, VERY big difference between Godly Masculinity and Game, yet Dalrock and Vox lump them together. Heartiste does not. I’ve written before about the difference between temptation vs attraction. Temptation is the heart of Game, attraction is the heart of Christian Masculinity; though I actually would go farther and call it Adoration. My reason for this is that the reactions I’ve seen of women to Christian masculinity is a strong mirroring of the adoration a Christian woman will give to God.

One way of reading Leap’s comment is that Godly Masculinity and Game are two very different things. Here is a visual representation of this:

In this model, the two have nothing in common. This is the preferred model of most opponents of Game around the manosphere.

Leap then followed up that paragraph with this sentence:

It should be noted that many, -MANY- of the things game advocates fall in line with those patriarchal teachings.

This provides a different potential visual representation of the two:

Under this model, there is a certain amount of commonality between the two. The graphic itself isn’t exact, the overlap I included (the part in green) was merely to show that there were some areas of compatibility. This model is the one which Christian advocates of Game seem to have adopted.

Much of the debate from my last post centers around which model is correct. If Model 1 is correct, then Christians should have nothing to do with Game. If Model 2 is is correct, then Christians should be trying to determine just where the “green zone” is located. Before trying to resolve this debate, I want to go back to Leap’s comment. The part that I initially overlooked, but has intrigued me since, is this:

I’ve written before about the difference between temptation vs attraction. Temptation is the heart of Game, attraction is the heart of Christian Masculinity; though I actually would go farther and call it Adoration. My reason for this is that the reactions I’ve seen of women to Christian masculinity is a strong mirroring of the adoration a Christian woman will give to God.

I initially dismissed Leap’s thoughts here because Attraction is a critical component of Game, not just Christian Masculinity. Because of this, I didn’t give his ideas on Temptation any real thought. But as I was writing this response, I realized that he was on to something. I don’t think his initial statement was correct for the reason I mentioned above, but it provides the kernel of thought necessary to germinate a full concept. You see, both Attraction and Temptation lie at the heart of Game. Not one or the other. Both reside there, although in different ways (as I will explain shortly). As for Christian or Godly Masculinity, Attraction and Adoration are to be found at its heart. [The concept of Adoration seems fairly similar to my thoughts on Desire, although I don’t think that they are an exact match.]

For Game, Temptation is the second step. The first step is to generate Attraction. Once a woman is attracted, then you can tempt her. Or perhaps a different word is appropriate: seduce. Many Game advocates in fact recommend a three stage model:

1) The Attraction Phase

2) The Comfort Phase

3) The Seduction Phase

(One example is found here.)

To tie this in what what I and Leap have mentioned before, “Step 1” is a combination of the Attraction Phase and the Comfort Phase. Personally, I think that they are an unnecessary attempt to distinguish between the two. Both involve attraction, with the nature of the attraction moving from more appearance or status based to more emotion based over time. Once Attraction is taken care of, then you can move to the Seduction phase, or what Leap deemed Temptation.

As for Godly Masculinity, you start off in a similar way: by building Attraction. Once you have established Attraction, then you can lead things towards Adoration. Unlike the unbridled lust or the lure of the forbidden fruit found in Game’s seduction/temptation, Adoration is based off a God-fearing woman’s acknowledgment of a man’s righteous character and her respect of him for it. Whereas a woman who is tempted with Game merely wants to sleep with the man tempting her, a Godly woman who adores a man wants to follow him, to join herself to him and his mission/cause.

From this perspective we can see where Game and Godly Masculinity are “compatible”: the generation of attraction. However, both take very divergent paths once you have achieved the necessary level of attraction. Although I think that they actually may share an even earlier frame of reference, if you will. By that I mean that “Frame” is something that is a component of both Game and Godly Masculinity at an even more base level than attraction. Perhaps the best way of visualizing this is as a pyramid. Lets start with Game:

Masculine Frame forms the base of pyramid. Everything starts with that; forming a Dominant Masculine Frame is the first step in the whole process. In fact, it is so elemental it must be established before a man even approaches a woman. After Frame is established a man can approach a woman and begin step two, which is the building of Attraction. After sufficiently building Attraction, a man can then move to the third and final step, Temptation. Moving on to Godly Masculinity, we can see that it looks fairly similar:

The only obvious differences is the pinnacle of the pyramid. Temptation has been replaced by adoration. However, I think there are probably some base differences (no pun intended) in how Masculine Frame works between the two. Even if there aren’t, these two new models provide us with a better understanding of how Game and Godly Masculinity interact. We can see that the intersection between the two is found in generating attraction, and in some measure in Masculine Frame.

All of which leads to the major question waiting to be resolved:

Is it possible to separate the Attraction aspects of Game from its Temptation aspects?

In other words, are the tools which are designed to generate Attraction so intrinsically linked to Temptation that they cannot be used apart from those purposes? If this is the case, then Great Books For Men and other opponents of Game are correct- it has no place in Christian circles. On the other hand, if the tools to generate Attraction and Temptation are different, then it stands to reason that Christians who wish to advance Godly Masculinity can appropriate the tools to generate Attraction for their own, holier ends. A similar analysis can also be applied to Masculine Frame as well, although I think that it is sufficiently different from the two stages that the same ethical concerns are not implicated.

As a final thought, if one uses Leap’s definitions for Game and Godly Masculinity, or at least his understanding of how they work, then there really isn’t any room for Christian men to “Game their wives”. Temptation has no place in marriage, and since Game inherently involves Temptation, Christians must eschew it. Of course, that just gets us back to the original point of Leap’s comment, which is that much of our struggle here is over semantics. So rather than argue over what is and isn’t game, we can instead direct our efforts to answering the question I raised above.

Thoughts on Marriage and Game

I. Introduction

I don’t talk about Game much on this blog, as I consider this to be more of a “Red Pill” Christian blog. Game, in all of its various forms, tends to be centered on specific behaviors and actions; whereas I tend to focus on the bigger picture, primarily the general nature of men and women. In a way my blog is more “Macro” whereas Game blogs tend to be more “Micro”. I bring this up to provide some measure of understanding, because I will be talking about Game in this post, although from that “Macro” perspective that is my usual style. In particular, I will be talking about Game and how it relates to Christian marriage. Also, I will spend some time talking about how Christian marriage and the legal system interact.

[Note: Game is a multi-faceted subject. When I talk about it, I am being inclusive, ie., I mean the overall field. Some types of Game are necessarily not going to be included here. ]

II. Game

While I have been meaning to write a post like this for a while, I was spurred to do so by a recent post by Great Books For Men, True Christian Women Do Not Need To Be Gamed By Men (Warning: link is NSFW, profanity and obscenity abound). GBFM takes the position that Vox Day and Dalrock are preaching falsehoods when they expound the value of Game in Christian marriages. In GBFM’s view:

A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed.  A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill…

There is more, of course, but rather than simply quote the profane and often all but unreadable language of GBFM, I will translate some of his major arguments. They include:

-1) Women no longer follow God but rather their primal instincts.

2) Instead of trying to “resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women”, men like Dalrock and Vox instead advocate that men Game women.

3) Game necessarily involves men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women.

4) Serving the primal instincts of women above the laws of God is the heart and soul of Game.

I agree with GBFM that #1 is the case with most women these days. When it comes to #2, I’m not sure that is the position that Dalrock and Vox take, but I will let them account for themselves on that. As for #3 and #4, I disagree strongly with GBFM. I think that he misunderstands Game, and much more besides.

The first error that GBFM makes is failing to understand the true nature of women. To begin with, his argument that “A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed” gives every appearance of being a variant of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”. He is trying to create a distinction where none exists. What GBFM does not appear to acknowledge or understand is that Christian women, “True” or not, are still women. And no amount of proper parenting, instruction or wishing really hard will ever change that. There is a certain base set of behaviors and instincts that all women possess. A woman embracing the message of Jesus who becomes a Christian will still have those base set of behaviors and instincts. The only difference between her and a secular woman is that the Christian woman is instructed to restrain those primal behaviors, and has an incentive to do so. Those instincts and behaviors do not disappear after she becomes a Christian. For as Jesus explained:

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This weakness in women is a weakness of the flesh. Though a woman might be a “True Christian”, she is still a flesh and blood woman, and thus prone to weakness. When you consider all of the negatives influences which are pressing upon Christian women these days, it becomes very easy for them to give in to temptation. Of course, Christian women should avoid these influences, but often don’t because they fail to realize them for what they are.

GBFM’s second error lies in declaring that Game is all about men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women. The foundation of this argument seems to be that when a man Games a woman he is in fact catering to her selfish wants and is effectively making himself subservient to the woman. The thing to understand here is that Game is all about manipulating women (through controlling their attraction to a man). While doing so involves giving women attention, which is something that they do want (and often selfishly so), it is only a byproduct of the manipulation process. And manipulation, as any Red Pill aware man should know, is merely one form of exercising control. Here the control is over the woman’s perception of the man: Game makes him more attractive in her eyes, which gives him greater power over her, and thus more control over her. Knowing this, we can see how Game is not about serving women per se, but about controlling them.

What seems to confuse a lot of people (GBFM apparently being one of them) is that controlling a woman also involves serving her. This is because women need and want to be controlled. Now, this probably seems counter-intuitive to most folks who haven’t really delved into the quixotic nature of the female mind, so bear with me for a bit.

A key thing to understand about women is that what they want and what they think they want can be, and often are, two very different things. Such is the case for women and control. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to separate female wants into conscious wants and unconscious/subconscious wants. Consciously a woman might want to be “strong, proud and independent.” She might think that she wants to dominate a man, and buck any form of control of her actions. But her subconscious has another idea: it wants her to be submissive to a man and for her behavior to be fiercely controlled. This split between the conscious and unconscious of a woman’s brain is why it is so essential to watch what a woman does, and not listen to what she says. It also explains the War Bride phenomenon.

To summarize, Game is a form of manipulation. Manipulation is a form of control. Women want to be controlled, although they do not consciously recognize this and may consciously reject it. So when you Game a woman, you manipulate her, and when you manipulate her, you control her, and when you control her, you give her want she wants. From just this perspective, GBFM’s argument that when you control a woman you become a slave to her primal instincts seems rather silly. After all, it amounts to an assertion that when you control a woman you become her slave. But there is more.

GBFM’s central argument is, after all, that “True Christian Women” don’t need to be Gamed. This assessment is based in large part on an implied assumption that Game is a recent invention (it isn’t) and that it wasn’t necessary to Game Christian women in the past to get them to honor their marriage vows. While his initial assumption is incorrect, GBFM is correct that Christian wives didn’t need to be Gamed in the past in order for (most of them) to honor their vows. Of course, that is not because women (Christian or otherwise) were any different back then (they weren’t), but because the environment they lived in was very, very different.

Since GBFM loves to talk about the law of Moses, lets discuss it briefly. The law of Moses set up an impressive amount of social and legal controls over women. Women were in most cases under the authority of their father or husband, they had limited legal standing outside of the men in their family. A woman who committed adultery was stoned to death, and a woman who fornicated but pretended to be a virgin, likewise. In short, women were soundly controlled by general society, and prevented from acting up their primal instincts.

Those laws were not unique. In most civilizations women faced significant legal and social restraints that controlled their behavior. As for those civilizations which failed to establish that kind of order and structure for women, they usually didn’t last very long. Or never became civilizations in the first place. America was no exception to this. For a good part of our early history women were subject to an array of controls, some social, some legal. Divorce was especially difficult to go through. The doctrine of standing consent meant that a husband couldn’t rape his wife; furthermore a wife denying a husband sex was actually one of few things which permitted divorce. Women got little to nothing out of divorce unless the husband was grievously at fault, and they still faced huge socials costs. Because the consequences to women of misbehavior were so drastic, they were compelled in most instances to behave. As such, men could live a married life without having to Game their wives into staying married.

This is all gone now. The social and legal restraints that used to exist, the various controls in place that kept women in check, have been removed. A man who is married can no longer rely upon the mechanisms of the past to protect his marriage, he must do so himself. In fact, the situation is even worse that that. You see, the social and legal climate is such that it encourages women to act destructively in marriage, a complete reversal of how things used to be. The State, which used to have a man’s back, now has the woman’s back. And she, by her very nature, is inclined to use that authority when convenient.

In case that wasn’t clear enough: True Christian Women didn’t need to be Gamed in the past and followed the Law of Moses because we actually had laws that matched up with the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was obeyed because it was the Law of Moses. It was designed to keep women in line, and largely succeeded at that task. Remove those kinds of laws, and women will revert to their feral selves. If a wife has no checks at all on her behavior, if there are no controls in place on her, then the odds are good that she will blow things up; that is simply her nature as a woman. Women need to be controlled. Few, if any, can do this themselves. They need social, religious and legal restraints on their behavior if they are to behave.

Hence the need for Game. Game is perhaps the only method available to most married men to bring some measure of control to their marriage. The State no longer provides that control. The general culture no longer provides that control. And increasingly religion, Christianity itself, no longer provides that control. Married men (most of them anyways) need Game in order to combat an environment that encourages self-destructive behavior in women. Should they need it? No, of course not. If our civilization was sane Game wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t sane, and men need every tool at their disposal to make marriage work. This includes Game.

Not everything that is included under the umbrella of Game is necessarily proper in marriage, mind you. “Negs” are an example of something that might run afoul of several commands in scripture. But other ideas, like “Agree and Amplify”, would be fine.

The reason why the early Fathers of the Church never talked about this is because they lived in a culture where the notion of giving women the kind of power they enjoy now would have been considered madness. In the Roman Empire women could divorce men (hence Mark 10:12), but the encouragement of divorce we see now is unprecedented. We tread new ground now, and must find our own path now.

I should also point out at this point that Game, as we understand it, is merely a modern version of what we could call “masculine wiles.” The art of seduction and manipulating women is an old one, probably as old as humanity itself. In the past it largely wasn’t necessary to ensure that a marriage stayed together. Indeed, when it came to marriage early Game was probably mostly employed by men to get married in the first place. However, Game was still valuable because it helped make marriage more tolerable for men, even enjoyable.

III. Marriage

I also wanted to briefly talk about Christian marriage and how it relates to legal marriage. Many folks around the sphere use the term Marriage 1.0 to describe traditional marriage, before the changes in divorce law, and Marriage 2.0 to describe what marriage is like today. I happen to like these terms, as I think they help differentiate the legal development of marriage in the West. Something I have noticed, though, is that some bloggers and commenters confuse Marriage 1.0 with Christian Marriage (or Biblical Marriage).

Marriage 1.0 is not Christian Marriage, it was a legal regime which established how the State treated and recognized marriage back in the day. Christian Marriage is an ideal, a spiritual construct, something that exists outside of any legal context. The various “versions” of Marriage, starting with Marriage 1.0, moving on to Marriage 2.0 and now with a nascent Marriage 3.o in development, provide a background and context for Christian Marriage, they do not set it. For example, the State could theoretically outlaw marriage all together. Under those circumstances, Christians could still marry, because marriage is set by God, not by earthly authorities. Yes, it would make you a criminal to go ahead and marry anyways, but isn’t that a consummately Christian thing to do? Certainly it is in keeping with the spirit of the earliest Christians in the Roman Empire, who suffered persecution and death for their beliefs.

The confusion probably arises from the fact that Marriage 1.0 was the state of affairs for so long that bloggers/commenters in the ‘sphere mistake it for having been the background for all of Christian Marriage. But it wasn’t. For example, in the time of Jesus “Christian Marriage” was not a legal reality. And Jesus makes note of this:

³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

Here is an example of the law of man and the law of God not matching up. However, it was still possible to live in accordance with God’s laws under the system at the time. How? Simple: a husband could refuse to make use of the legal tools at his disposal to put away his wife. When St. Paul was instructing Christian communities in the Roman empire during his evangelical missions he faced a legal regime that also didn’t match up with God’s laws. In that time period both men and women could often initiate divorce, and it was usually a fairly simple affair to manage. Just like Jesus, Paul was teaching people that their obligations to God required them to set aside the power given to them by the existing legal authorities. As Christians, we are required to live our lives in accordance with God’s will, and that often involves us living under a legal regime that doesn’t match up with our beliefs.

That doesn’t mean that we should ignore the legal environment. But it does mean that we need to learn to accept that living as Christians entails living in a world which hates God and His laws, and consequently, us as well. Because of this, the “system”, the legal and social environment in which we must live, will often be against us. And the sad truth is that when the system is as bad as our is, then marriage is a huge risk. It empowers the worst of female behaviors, and cripples the most necessary of male ones. Given all of this, it might indeed be better for many Christian men to not marry. Unless they are willing to assume the risk, or buck the system and possibly become an outlaw in order to adhere to their faith, marriage may just not be in the cards for most Christian men right now.

I mention outlaw because we still don’t know where Marriage 3.0 will end up. At this point it seems all but certain that same-sex marriage is going to happen across the country, and polygamy is probably only a decade or so away as well. I don’t imagine that laws against incest will survive either. In all of this, part of me is concerned that feminists will seek to criminalize patriarchal marriage as well. The exact mechanics of how they would do this are uncertain, but I can think of several possibilities. The first, and perhaps easiest, would be to change DV laws so that abuse includes anything resembling male headship, for example any attempt by a man to get his wife to submit to his authority. Another might be to require that those who file for a marriage license swear an oath to live an egalitarian marriage. However it turns out, I wouldn’t be shocked to see this coming in the near future.

Ultimately, I think that for Christian men the choice comes down to two things:

1) Which path is the least likely to lead to sin

2) What are the results of a cost/benefit analysis of the non-spiritual aspects of marriage

There is no universal answer, Christian men will need to decide for themselves. A man who is able to control himself and avoid sexual sins, and sees little benefit to marriage, or that the costs are too high, would do well to not marry. But a man who has trouble controlling himself, and who might see the costs of marriage as bearable, would do well to marry. Wisdom, discernment and prayer should all be relied upon.

As for myself, I know that I am constantly evaluating where I stand. Right now my position is peculiar- I am reasonably confident I can avoid most forms of sexual immorality without having to marry, reducing my “need” for marriage, but on the other hand I very much would like the various benefits that come along with a healthy/happy marriage. All of which means that I am near a tipping point of sorts, and therefore very particular when it comes to a potential wife. In fact, I may write a post in the next few days giving some insight into my thought process on how I evaluate a woman as “wife material.” [A short post.]

IV. Conclusion

It cannot be denied that before the advent of Marriage 2.0, it wasn’t necessary for Christian men to have to Game their wives. Nor did they face an environment which was set up to ruin marriage as much as possible. Unfortunately, we do live in the Marriage 2.0 regime now, and Christian men must adapt to the times. For some men, that means a decision on their part not to marry. For others, that means marrying and accepting the possibility that their wives may blow up their marriages at any time, and they have no means of recourse. Those Christian men who take their chances in marriage must use whatever methods of maintaining control in their marriage are available, with Game being one of the few things still left in the toolbox.  Should any of this be necessary? Of course not. But these are evil and desperate times, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

[I realize that this post could have been more comprehensive. However, the length would have been too great to provide for a practical discussion and debate if I really let myself go. As is its one of my longer posts. I suspect that I will flesh out some of the gaps in further posts in the subject down the line.]

Update: The debate continues in my next post- Godly Masculinity Versus Game

Another Birth to Celebrate

So I’m breaking my word on not posting for several days, but I wanted so share some good news. Sigyn, who comments here on occasion, gave birth recently to her first child, a daughter. You can find out more, and congratulate her and her husband, here.

Light and Truth

Rejoice!

²  The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
on them has light shined.
³ Thou hast multiplied the nation,
thou hast increased its joy;
they rejoice before thee
as with joy at the harvest,
as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
⁴ For the yoke of his burden,
and the staff for his shoulder,
the rod of his oppressor,
thou hast broken as on the day of Mid′ian.
⁵ For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
and every garment rolled in blood
will be burned as fuel for the fire.
⁶ For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
⁷ Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,
to establish it, and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and for evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

(Isaiah 9:2-7)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God; ³ all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. ⁴ In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

(John 1:1-5)

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. ² This was the first enrollment, when Quirin′i-us was governor of Syria. ³ And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. ⁴ And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, ⁵ to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. ⁶ And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. ⁷ And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

⁸ And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. ⁹ And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. ¹⁰ And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; ¹¹ for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. ¹² And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” ¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

¹⁴ “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

¹⁵ When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” ¹⁶ And they went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. ¹⁷ And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child; ¹⁸ and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. ¹⁹ But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart. ²⁰ And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

(Luke 2:1-20)

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

(John 3:16-17)

Merry Christmas to everyone. I will return to blogging in a few days, although I will keep an eye on the comments and e-mail. Until then, have a blessed time celebrating our savior’s birth. Also, for those interested, CaseyAnn has a post concerning Christmas Traditions which is fascinating. Sadly, what few Christmas traditions we have here in the States do not match up well with the heartfelt celebrations of the Old World.

Selected Sunday Scripture- #5

The first passage from scripture today comes from the First Letter of St. Peter:

³ Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, ⁴ but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

This is a very popular passage around these parts, as it provides a valuable insight into the kind of character that a Christian woman should develop. However, that is not what interested me in my latest read-through of this part of the New Testament. Instead, I was intrigued by the notions of modesty that it presented. As I thought on it, I realized that there are really two different forms of modesty, one in harmony with chastity and the other in harmony with humility. To be somewhat clearer, one form of modesty is about dressing and acting in such a way so as to not call unnecessary sexual attention upon oneself. The second form of modesty is about not dressing and acting in such a way so as to flaunt one’s influence, wealth and station in life. Part of me recognized this already, although I never fully digested it. I think that it is not uncommon for many Christians to fail to appreciate the differences between the two, despite the fact that many dictionaries recognize the two modes of modesty. Certainly this confusion seemed to manifest itself in this thread over at Cane Caldo’s blog. Both types of modesty are similar, in that they both involve flaunting to some degree, but the nature of what is showcased, and how this is done, can and often does differ greatly.

The modesty that St. Peter is referring to in his letter is the second type of modesty, the type which centers on flaunting station and authority. He is advising Christian women to not be show-offs, because their focus on outward appearance through clothing, jewelry and makeup is inherently tied up with worldly concerns. I would venture that in most cases this showing off is not in any way connected to something holy, such as a wife providing a good face for her husband. Instead, it is about impressing others (especially other women), and so to be avoided. This concern about showing off one’s station appears many times in scripture, especially the New Testament. And a common theme seems to be protecting something holy from being tainted by worldly concerns. The Gospel of Matthew has another example of this kind of twisting of what is holy:

“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

² “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. ³ But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, ⁴ so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Here it is Charity that is being twisted into something it was never meant to be. It was not meant as a means of demonstrating wealth or station, but of trying to helps us to show concern for our fellow man. And in the process hopefully teach us a valuable lesson about love. But instead the hypocrites (probably Sadducees here) perverted God’s purpose, thwarting what could have been something that would have helped them store rewards for heaven. Let Jesus’ message here serve as a warning, attention is a reward all right, but not one that is going to truly last.

The final reading today is from, you guessed it, the Book of Sirach:

⁹ A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
¹⁰ while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
¹¹ Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly of^[a] the people,
and put you to shame in public gatherings.^[b]
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.^[c]
12 Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;^[d]
13 for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.

Sadly, this is another part of Scripture that seems to be overlooked these days. Many fathers don’t appear to have the appropriate level of worry for their daughter’s well-being. Or any, really.  Rather than worry about their daughter’s not marrying, they push their daughters to get an education and then get the right career afterward, with no concern for how those paths might impact their daughter’s chance for a good marriage.  Since the “fear of being disliked” here probably references divorce, many Christian fathers do seem to fear this. They fear it so much they push their daughters towards paths that increase the chance of divorce. And of course, in many most cases it is the daughters, not the husbands, who file for divorce.

As for fear of seduction, father’s don’t seem to be concerned about that terribly much these days. After all, they have no problem sending their daughters off to college, far away from the kind of moral support and strong masculine presence they need resist “Alpha” males. Oddly enough, it seems like many fathers are more willing to support their daughters when they fornicate and became single mothers, than support them and their husbands as newlyweds. As for preventing daughters from parading their beauty in front of other men, do I really need to say anything? Have you see what many young women wear to church these days?

When it comes to spending time with married women, well… to be frank spending time with most nearly any woman who isn’t an immediate family member (and one of good character at that) is tantamount to child abuse, given the negative influences young women will likely pick up. I suppose I should also point out that Ben Sir knew about “The Herd” over two thousand years ago, so once again we see how the ancients understood so much we are now finding out. Ours is a mission of rediscovery, not of boldly going where no man has gone before. Perhaps if more Christians actually read the Bible, and spent less time singing “worship” music that resemble love songs about Jesus, we wouldn’t be taken for fools so often.

Why Does My Boyfriend Pressure Me For Sex?

[Note to my regular readers: the first part of this post is aimed for newcomers. The second section will contain material aimed more towards my regulars.]

The short answer to the above question: Because most women these days will give it up when pressured, or even without being pressured.

The first part of this post is aimed at young women interested in marriage (and primarily Christian women, although it is still valuable to non-Christians) who have asked that question before or are frustrated by the constant pressure for sex by most men in the dating scene. The long answer to that question, which follows this paragraph, is more complete and provides an explanation of why things are like this right now. I’ve broken it into segments for ease of understanding. The first segment deals with men, the second with women, and the third ties it all together. The second part of this post is designed for my regular readers, although it might interest newcomers at well. It covers some of the implications and wider impact of this paradigm, plus personal anecdotes. Expect to see some “insider language” in the post and in some of the discussion to follow. If you have questions feel free to ask in the comments below. Now, on to the long answer:

I. The Long Answer.

A. Men

While trying to fit people into neat categories is usually problematic at best, it can really help with a general understanding of people’s motivations. Towards that end, I think it is helpful to break men into five different categories based on their attitude towards sex and marriage in order to understand male behavior in the dating environment.

1) Men who aren’t interested in marriage

2) Men who are interested in marriage but won’t marry a woman they haven’t slept with

3) Men who are interested in marriage and will push for sex before marriage but won’t insist on it

4) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage but will happily accept it if offered

5) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage and will not accept it if offered

Before I talk about the different categories, it is essential that female readers of this post understand how powerful the male sex drive is. Even at the peak of their cycle and with all of the right environmental factors in play, the female sex drive never gets to be as powerful as the male sex drive. To put it another way for the women reading this: Think of when you were the most sexual excited, the most aroused in your entire life. Then realize that feeling doesn’t come near to what men experience every minute of every day from the time they hit puberty until the time they die of old age. While it isn’t the only thing that men look for in women, sex is by far the most important need that women can meet for men.

For the purposes of this post, the men in category 1 are mostly irrelevant. They aren’t interested in marriage, only in sex. The problem they represent in the dating system is that it isn’t always easy to distinguish between them and men who are interested in marriage but push for sex.  Before “dating” became the norm such men were both less common and easier to spot because their attention was directed primarily at prostitutes and “loose” women. They are more common now than in the past for a variety of reasons. Among them are changes in the family law system, the diminished respect for marriage and husbands/fathers in society and the greater availability of of sex outside of wedlock.

The next two categories, 2 and 3, are both very similar. The only difference is that men in category 2 insist on a “try before you buy” model of dating. I suspect, though cannot prove, that they are far, far less common than men in category 3. The most important thing to understand is that the overwhelming majority of men fall into category 3 2 [In the past category 3 was the most common, but with talk in the culture of “sexual compatibility, and concerns of frigidity, category 2 is probably the most common now]. And this has almost certainly always been the case.  These men want sex and marriage, but they want sex more than marriage. If they can get sex without marriage, then great. Otherwise, if they have no choice, they will marry.

Categories 4 and 5 are, for the practical purposes of this post, nearly the same. The only difference is that only the men in category 5 are truly chaste (which is as much about thought as deed). Understand that the men in category 5 are the rarest by far, and this has probably always been so. Men in category 4 are  more common, but not by a whole lot. At least, not these days.

With all of this in mind, it is important to understand that the majority of “Christian” men fall into category 3 as well. Despite clear commands in the Bible against fornication, most Christian men see no problem in ignoring them. When it comes to sex, men are very capable of rationalizing away nearly anything. And most men exercise this ability as often as they can.

Now on to women.

B. Women

These days the vast majority of women are willing, and often more than willing, to have sex prior to securing commitment from a man. But this wasn’t always the case. Before the “sexual revolution” (which actually started decades before the 60’s), most women were far more circumspect in their sexual activity. As a general rule women wouldn’t have sex with a man prior to his committing to her. This was because of the high cost of sex at that time. In an age before effective contraceptives and wide scale use of abortion, sex could easily lead to an “inescapable” pregnancy, which if it happened out of wedlock was social death for a woman. Even if pregnancy didn’t result, the social costs to a woman were still significant if it was discovered that she was having sex out of wedlock. The major effects of these costs was to severely curtail a woman’s chances of marrying, much less marrying well. Considering the limited work opportunities available to women back then, this meant a abysmal standard of living for all but the highest class women.

Because of this, most women (outside of the lowest classes) insisted that a man commit to her before she would have sex with him. I say commit and not marry for two reasons. The first is that in the past there were a large numbers of “shotgun” weddings, perhaps even a majority of marriages involved the first child being born before nine months had passed since the wedding. As for the second reason, in the past engagement actually was a form of commitment on the man’s part. A man who broke an engagement with a woman was potentially subject to a civil action known as Breach of Promise to Marry. Couple that potential financial liability with a social penalty to a man who unjustifiably broke an engagement, and most men really were committed when they became engaged. This protection is largely gone now, as the social penalties are pretty much non-existent and Breach of Promise only exists in a handful of jurisdictions these days. The only kind of secure commitment that exists now is found in marriage itself.

With the above in mind, you can see that the reluctance of women to sleep with men prior to commitment was mostly based on self-interest. Some women might have been influenced by morality or religion to not have sex until marriage, but not all given the common occurrence of shotgun weddings. Certainly it wasn’t because women didn’t want sex; they do, provided it is with the right man. It is just that women wanted commitment, and the security that went with it, more than sex. All of this has changed. Women have far more job opportunities than they did in the past, and can rely on government support to cover what they cannot meet themselves. The social costs of sex out of wedlock and even children born out of wedlock are pretty much gone at this point. Not to mention contraception and the widespread availability of abortion further reduces the costs to women of sex.

C. Then Versus Now

Now to combine all of this together.

In the past, men, just like now, wanted sex. A lot. And so they pressured women for it. But most women would not give in until they secured commitment from the man. Essentially men demanded sex and women demanded commitment. The category 3 men were thus faced with a choice: either accept the woman’s terms and propose to her, or “dump” her and court (there was no “dating” back then) another woman. However, the odds were not in his favor, because most women would make the same demands. Thanks in large part to this solidarity amongst women those men who pushed for sex had to play by the rules women set. Since men valued sex more than they valued withholding their commitment the women won out.

This brings us to today. Men are the same as ever. But the vast majority of women have changed. They no longer insist on commitment before sex. Or at least, real commitment. They still want attention and validation and material resources if they can get them. But their security is not tied up to commitment like it was before, and so they are far freer to indulge their passions. And men know this. When a man from category 3  faces a woman who won’t sleep with him until they are married, he faces the same choice as before: accept her terms or move on. But the math is different this time; unlike before, the majority of women are more than willing to sleep with him before securing commitment. This means the odds are in his favor now. If he leaves the woman holding out, the odds are good that the next woman he dates will give him what he wants, without making him commit first. Because the old solidarity amongst women no longer exists, men no longer have to play by the rules that women set.

This brings us back to the question which started it all: why does my boyfriend pressure me for sex? The long answer is that he not only wants sex more than anything, but he expects to get it. Personal experience and/or the culture has told him that most women will sleep with men before they marry. Men want sex more than pretty much anything. They want it now. And nearly all don’t want to have to pay for it with commitment if they can help it. Truth is, most men have always pressured women for sex, and they always will. What has changed is how women act.  So long as the majority of women are willing to give men what they want without demanding commitment first, men will pressure women for sex and leave if they don’t get it.

If you are looking to blame anyone for this present situation ladies, don’t blame the men. Blame the women who are empowering them.

II. Further Thoughts

This section is aimed at my regular readers. For those curious as to why I wrote the part above, and why I did it in that manner, I had a couple of reasons. The first is that I wanted to create a post that I could link in the future to provide female newcomers to the ‘sphere when they had a question along this vein. Over time expect to see more of these types of posts. The second reason is because I wanted to reply to one female commenter over at Peaceful Single Girl who asked this question in this thread. As for the title, I have seen it pop up on search inquiries that lead people to my blog in the past, so it seemed appropriate. While the answer itself seems obvious, I thought that there was some depth worth exploring there, plus it might help out younger women trying to come to grips with the SMP/MMP.

A. The Good Guys

There are a number of commenters in the ‘sphere who insist that there are a lot of “Good Christian Men” out there whom women ignore. That if only women would give those men a chance then they would find someone to respect them and treat them right. However, the truth is that a large number of these Christian “nice guys” fall into category 3. They are not chaste, and would gladly leap at an opportunity for fornication if it should become available. It is not a stretch to realize that if Christian women engage with them romantically then these “Good Christian Men” are just as prone to pushing them for sex as the bad boys are.

I know this because I know men like this. Guys who aren’t even nominal Christians, but seem to take their faith seriously. Except when it comes to sex. In that one particular field they are no different than their secular counterparts. Let me back this up with a personal anecdote.

When I was younger I went on a road trip with a friend of mine back from high school. He was an Evangelical Christian, and was more fervent in his faith than I was at that point. We arrived at one of our stops, which happened to be a rather fancy hotel that we got a great deal for. Basically a mini-resort kind of place. Well, after we check in and drop our bags inside our room we find out the hotel has an attached night club. We investigate and find out that it is a “happening” place most nights because there aren’t any other spots like it nearby (the hotel was kind of out of the way). Upon discovering this, my friend turns to me and tells me that if he lucks out that night I would be sleeping in the car. I was so surprised by this all I could respond with was a hesitant ok, while my mind tried to wrap itself around my friend’s words. Here was a guy who had “found Jesus” during high school and was very active in Christian activities, and yet had no qualms with the sin of fornication. Though the memory faded in significance over time, I never really forgot it.

And so when I read accounts from female readers of my blog via e-mail, and read comments by Christian women on various blogs all talking about how most Christian men don’t respect their desire for chastity, I didn’t dismiss them out of hand. The story I mentioned above, and others like it (and yes, I have more like it), all remind me that male chastity is a rare thing, perhaps even rarer than female chastity. Good Christian Men swim in the same sewer of modern culture that women do, and pick up the same messages about sex. And they are still men, with the corresponding male sex drive. While the female Rationalization Hamster is more active than the male version, men have a Hamster too. And sex is the one thing guaranteed to get the male Hamster spinning that wheel at full power. The truth is that only a handful of men have the discipline and the devotion to pursue a chaste life.

B. Looking In From The Other Side

I feel a lot of sympathy for chaste women out there who are trying to make their way through this mess of a Sexual Market Place. They don’t even want to be there in the first place, but the Marriage Market Place and Sexual Market Place are both basically existing in the same space. Chaste  women are as much losers in this present system as are men who are looking for a chaste/virgin wife. For women, if they stick to their values there is a very good chance that most men they date will leave them and look elsewhere. It can take a very long time to find a man willing to respect their chastity. For men, we can spend a very long time looking for a woman who has been chaste and not find her. Or even if we do, we find that we are incompatible in some way.

The only way to turn this system around is to make the cost of sex significant again for women. Going after men won’t work for a variety of reasons, but the past has proven that if you convince women that being promiscuous is against their best interests then most women won’t be promiscuous. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to convince other people, even (or maybe especially) Christians of the importance of punishing promiscuity in women. Here is a quick story to help explain why.

I was talking with a female Christian acquaintance a few weeks back and mentioned the impact that other women’s behavior has on Christian women who desire to maintain their chastity. When I explained to her how I knew women who had trouble finding a husband because the men they dated kept on dumping them when they refused to have sex, she was flabbergasted. She had trouble believing this, not understanding how a man could fail to appreciate them. What she couldn’t grasp is that women with Marriage Market Values close to average (either just above or just below) don’t have the kind of value to keep a man around if they won’t put out. The woman I was speaking with did have a high MMV, on the other hand. Very few women match her value, and most any man who thought about dumping her because she wouldn’t sleep with him prior to marriage had to know that he really couldn’t do any better for a wife. But other women, women aren’t aren’t as good looking and don’t necessarily have all the other traits that make for a high MMV, they can’t rely on that. There are plenty of other women out there just like them, and they know it and men know it. The lower the woman’s MMV, the worse this system is for her.

As this story indicates, men and women with very high MMVs are less affected by the present MMP/SMP. Their value gives them the leverage they need to either find a chaste wife or to maintain their chastity. They don’t really feel the effects of the overall dysfunction. And because of this they don’t feel the same pressing need to change the system. Those from more protected backgrounds are probably the same way, because they never felt the full effects of the SMP/MMP they don’t see it as a problem worthy of what they are apt to call extreme measures. All of this makes it difficult to convince even those who should support a change culture to endorse the methods necessary to bring about change.

[I may include a part C here at some point if I can somehow collect my thoughts.]

Honor and Faith and the Red Pill

[A shorter post today. Working on something longer which I hope to upload tomorrow.]

It has been well over a year since I first took the “Red Pill”, and opened my eyes to the true nature of men and women. During that time I’ve learned a lot, and unlearned a whole lot more. I’ve changed a lot of my life around, and despite being more aware of how dark my future is likely to be, I can confidently say that I’m better off than I was beforehand. However, one thing that I have yet to do is really broach the Red Pill and the subjects around it with my family, especially my parents.

I know that I must at some point, but I keep putting off this confrontation. And a confrontation it will be, because both of my parents are very much invested in what some call “Blue Pill” thinking. Both are also what you could call Churchians, although we Catholics often call them “cafeteria Catholics” instead. Informing them of what I have learned, and the life I intend to live will put me in direct opposition to them. And this is where I am uncertain what to do. I am called to honor my mother and my father (this message is one of the most frequent throughout scripture), and I am not sure how to do that while still introducing them to the Red Pill. It will necessarily require that I point out their hypocrisy, their ignorance and other flaws in their character, if only indirectly. Frankly, I know my parents and I am sure that it will hurt them to some degree. So I hesitate. And yet, I keep in mind these words of Jesus:

³⁴ “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ³⁵ For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; ³⁶ and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. ³⁷ He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; ³⁸ and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. ³⁹ He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.

So I guess the purpose of this post is to solicit advice for how to explain the “Red Pill” to one’s parents, while still showing them the respect and honor they deserve.

Also, I have been thinking of talking with one of the priests at my parish (the Pastor actually) concerning the Red Pill. He is a very down-to-earth kind of guy, and I suspect probably is already aware of some of it. Plus he never struck me as inclined towards the feminist streak which sadly manifests itself in a lot of priests these days. Does anyone have any advice on how to broach the topic with a pastor/priest? I know that several of my readers have discussed some aspects of the Red Pill with Christian leaders before, so I would like their advice on the matter. I’m asking because I have been thinking of getting involved or creating a ministry for young men at my church, and the Red Pill will be part of it. Which means that I need him to understand and support what I am doing. Any advice here would be appreciated.

Selected Sunday Scripture- #4

The first passage of today’s post, comes from the book of Malachi:

¹³ And this you do as well: You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. ¹⁴ You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. ¹⁵ Did not one God make her?^[d] Both flesh and spirit are his.^[e] And what does the one God^[f] desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth. ¹⁶ For I hate^[g] divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.

This passage meshes well with this verse from the first letter from St. Peter:

Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex,^[a] since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.

Reviewing both of these passages, one from the Old Testament and one from the New, we can see that God will consider a man’s prayers in light of how he treats his wife. The second passage gives a glimmer of understanding in why this is so: because they are the weaker vessel, a wife has been entrusted to her husband’s care. A woman who marries becomes subordinate to her husband, who has authority over her. But if he should abuse his authority, then he is not only abusing himself, but is flagrantly disobeying God as well. If the third servant who hid his talent was stripped of his wealth and cast away, then what fate awaits the servant who should actually lose or diminish that talent? The message is clear: with great power comes great responsibility, and a husband who abuses his power will find his prayers unanswered.

The second passage is from St. Paul’s Letter to the Colossians:

⁶ As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue to live your lives^[b] in him, ⁷ rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe,^[c] and not according to Christ. ⁹ For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰ and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. ¹¹ In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,^[d] by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; ¹² when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³ And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God^[e] made you^[f] alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. ¹⁵ He disarmed^[g] the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

¹⁶ Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. ¹⁷ These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. ¹⁸ Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling^[h] on visions,^[i] puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking,^[j]19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God.

The parts that I have put in bold are the ones I found most relevant. As you can see, Paul was warning the church in Colossus that they needed to beware of worldly thinking. Human tradition infecting the church is not a new phenomenon, it had already begun to infect the church only a few decades after the death of Jesus. Paul’s words seem very timely right now, because worldly philosophies, Feminism being paramount, have replaced Christian Tradition inside most churches. And that second part in bold seems a perfect description of modern day Churchian Women, who are “puffed up” with notions that they are Daughters of the King and the like. Instead of nourishing ourselves with the food of life, we instead fill ourselves with poisons, both worldly and spiritual. Given all of this, it is no wonder that the Church, and our general society, is sick and possibly dying. Until we renounce the world and embrace God, things will only continue to get worse.

Knowing When To Escape

The topic of Moral Agency in women is among the first subjects that I discussed on this blog, in part to preserve a post and discussion that took place on Sunshine Mary’s old blog. Since that first post, I left the subject fallow for a long time, until a comment left on that post led me to tell the commenter’s story in Confessions of a Good Christian Girl. After reading her story, I thought long and hard on the subject, and went back through my previous post and the comments there. Rather than write a long post trying to hash out new ground, which wouldn’t really be new, I instead decided to briefly state some of the more important ideas that have emerged as a result of those posts, and then develop them further.

Flee Temptation

¹² Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. ¹³ No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

(1 Cor 10:12-13)

This verse has been quoted often by those who disagree with my assertions on moral agency. And I can understand why, from a simple reading of it one could easily gather that we can always resist giving in to temptation. But that simple reading fails to take into account the most important word in verse 13: escape. Other translations of course provide different interpretations, although escape is common. While a few use “bear it”, most make some sort of reference to moving or getting through it. This distinction is important, even essential, as it gets to the heart of my theory.

You see, a woman simply cannot face the temptation of a Dominant Alpha Male and resist his charms forever. If her goal is to resist temptation, to not give in, then she must escape, she must move through or past that temptation. In essence, she needs to get away from him. As long as he is nearby, and without other sources of moral authority to guide her, she is vulnerable. This is the central message of Jesus in Matthew 5:29, to remove from our presence those things which lead us to sin.

The Good Christian Girl (“GCG”) who lost her virtue foolishly believed that she could hang around that Bad Boy and escape giving in to temptation, to giving in to sin. What her pride and arrogance blinded her to was that she had already given in to temptation by letting herself get too close to him, and then staying near him. She knew before then that he was trouble, but despite this chose not to escape. What came next was pretty much inevitable.

The Die is Cast

Another major concept that these discussions have explored is the “moment of decision.” That is, when exactly you give in to temptation. My argument is that the moment when most women give into to temptation around a Dominant Alpha Male is much sooner than they, or anyone else, thinks.  These easiest way to think of this is as a series of concrete steps, rather than just one big event or a point on a scale. So, instead of saying:

A Good Christian Girl agrees to go out on a date with an Alpha and ends up sleeping with him.

You get this:

1) GCG agrees to go out on a date with an Alpha

2) GCG goes out on the date with the Alpha

3) CGC doesn’t drive, but lets Alpha pick her up and drive her to the date

4) GCG drinks some wine while out on the date with the Alpha

5) GCG agrees to let Alpha take her back home

6) GCG invites Alpha into her home “just for a coffee or something”

7) GCG and Alpha start to engage in “kino”

8) GCG make out

9) GCG and/or Alpha start to remove clothing

10) CGC loses virginity to Alpha

When you break it all up like that, you can start to see the problem with saying that the woman can resist. Until you get to point 9, there is nothing that makes it obvious that the woman is going to engage in fornication. And yet, when you examine the overall context of the situation, you can see that each point involves giving in to some measure of temptation. Certainly by point 6 the GCG has already given in to enough temptation that what comes next seems only natural. The problem is that because each point is so minor, the obvious temptation so seemingly insignificant, it becomes very, very easy to give in along the way. By the time you get to the “point of no return”, the GCG has already given into so much temptation it is probably too late for her to realize what is going on, especially when you factor in the next idea.

There’s too much Confusion…

The last major idea I broached concerns the mental state of women in these kinds of situations. As I explained it in my original post:

The essence of the theory is this: the female brain might work in such a way that if a woman were to find herself in a position where she was under the influence of a man with a dominant, masculine frame, the rational part of her mind stops working properly. She can’t think straight. The only things running through her head are base instincts, with desire for the man being the most paramount.

Every straight guy around can tell you that we have trouble thinking clearly when a beautiful woman is around (except perhaps those men who are so successful with women they are no longer fazed by them). For women it is probably worse. We men must become accustomed to our sex drive. It is pretty much always active, and always interfering with our ability to think clearly. Women, however, do not have that active of a sex drive. Theirs is less potent, and “flares” much less often than a man’s. This means that women do not have the same experience in overcoming the effects of their sex drive in their thinking that men do. As a result, women will be less likely to act rationally in a situation where they have become sexually excited.

Also, I have talked with some folks familiar with PUA concepts and the lifestyle, and they have relayed to me similar thoughts. One explained that for women the “mental aspect” of sex begins much sooner than it does with men, and the result is that they stop thinking clearly sooner than men. That same man explained that one way women manifest this is when they go “Doe Eyed”, a sort of dreamy stare directed at a man which is indicative of unfettered attraction for the men. While that man didn’t take advantage of the situation, he explained that he would have had no problem doing so; once a woman enters the “Doe Eyes” state she has essentially surrendered her agency to a man.

Conclusion

The most solid advice to be offered to women who want to maintain their virtue is to never allow themselves to get into a position where there isn’t someone else around to stop things from getting out of hand. Use the buddy system. Don’t drink if it will affect your thinking. Never invite a man whose integrity you are uncertain of into your home at night, or enter his home at night. Most important of all, never assume that you can always resist. Flight, not fight, is your best option when temptation is concerned.

So, to the “Good Christian Girls out there, remember this: as a woman, you were meant to be conquered. When alone with an attractive man, every cell in your body will scream for you to yield yourself to him, to be conquered by him. So guard yourself, guard your virtue. Ensure that when you are in a situation where you might yield, it is a situation where you want to yield, a situation otherwise known as your wedding night.