Prayers For The Fallen

Unfortunately, I ran out of time yesterday to do a scripture post. Since today is Memorial Day here in the US, I think it would fit to do a post that tries to cover both bases. Here is a reading from Second Maccabees which is relevant:

38 Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adul′lam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there.

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

(2 Maccabees 12:38-45)

3 Comments

Filed under Christianity

Compatibility And Failure

A two topic post today. The first topic is this post over at Deep Strength’s blog. In his post Biblical prescriptions with no bible, DS examines an ostensibly Christian article which discusses sex and marriage. As DS points out, actual scripture doesn’t show up very often in the article, and the most important parts (at least of the New Testament) are missing. The key part I want to talk about is his response here:

One would think that those who burn with passion and get married would have “great sex,” especially with lots of practice. If they’re burning with passion, they’re going to have lots of sex. Of course, it’s not guaranteed there will be “great sex,” but if the each spouse is focusing on the needs of the other, then it will definitely improve significantly over the course of time.

Then you have garbage like “sexual incompatibility” which is just a “lack of practice” and “lack of focusing on the other’s needs” and/or “lack of attraction.” In other words, selfishness.

Given how it is used, “sexual incompatibility” is a concept which means both everything and nothing at the same time. It is a catchall term that means whatever the user intends it to mean at any specific point in time, without necessary reference to how it is used elsewhere, or even before by the same person. Thus, it is basically worthless.

The way I see it, most sexual problems in marriage are rooted in one of these problems:

  • One or both spouses is not sexually attracted to the other spouse
  • One or both of the spouses has some sort of mental hangup with sex
  • One or both of the spouses has some sort of medical condition which is tied to sex (perhaps something that causes pain during the conjugal act)

Now to talk about each.

Sexual Attraction is one of those elephants in the room that most Christians will just ignore. And I suspect most “compatibility” issues are tied to this. I’ve written on the subject numerous times before, but it never hurts to repeat myself here. Unless the situation is truly extraordinary, a couple should NEVER marry unless they share at least some sexual attraction towards each other. It is never certain that this will change in a positive direction after marriage, and even then, it won’t make for a fun wedding night. Solutions to a problem here are for another post, but this is definitely a problem.

Mental hangups can come from a number of sources. Perhaps one of the spouses was the victim of sexual abuse in the past, and this has colored his/her view of sex. Maybe one or both of the spouses engaged in sexual sin in the past, and this has interfered with their ability to be one flesh with their spouse (say, because of a lack of bonding or an inability to be aroused normally). Or maybe one or both spouses was raised and taught an improper view of human sexuality which has had a lasting impact on them. For example, maybe they were taught sexuality was inherently “dirty” or evil, and thus they tried to repress their sexuality (rather than discipline and control) it in the past. Finally, there are issues of heart and attitude- normally based in how one spouse views the other. This is mostly a female problem, as it is tied to attraction, which is based in part on how a woman views a man.

Medical conditions are another possibility. Some might not have solutions, but many do. As so many commercials say, see your personal physician about the matter.


The second topic has to do with failure, and relies on this post over at Alpha Game. Vox uses the example of a “Gamma” to explain this important point:

What [the “Gamma”] has to do is adopt the philosophy “fail faster”. The more you try and fail, and the faster you can speed up that process, the more likely it is that one or more of your future endeavors will meet with success.

This is a tough thing for some men to accept. We can grow up with a sense that failure is to be avoided at all costs. That was me growing up (I definitely had Gamma tendencies). But failure is a necessary part of life. Without failure there can be no growth. Everyone fails at some point. Everyone. If you aren’t failing, it means you aren’t really trying. And if you aren’t really trying, you won’t ever get anything of important done in your life.

This is especially true, and especially difficult, when women are concerned. Rejection and failing with women isn’t easy for a man. At least at first. But it is part of the process of becoming good at interacting with them. A man just has to learn to deal with the frustration and feeling of failure. Like death and taxes, it is just part of life.

And yes, I know it is easier said then done. I flopped recently, and it was damned frustrating for a while. But I got over it. And I am still going forward. Self-pity of self-loathing might appear to feel good at the time, but you always regret them in the end. Remembering that helped me overcome any sense of failure, and instead try to look at it as a learning experience. It is always good to remember what Vox has to say in his closing lines:

Don’t be afraid to fail. Don’t be afraid to be seen to try. Even the most successful people fail, badly, most of the time.

3 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Desire, LAMPS, Marriage, Men, Pair Bonding, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Strategies, Sin, Temptation, The Church, Women

Sometimes It Is The Little Things

I was at a dance recently, and one of the ladies I danced with stood out above the others. It wasn’t that she was the best dancer. Or that she was the best looking there (although she was cute). Rather, what set her apart was her attitude… and her smile. She came across as happy, even joyful. And her smile lit up her face.

This is something that a lot of women could afford to learn: A pleasant attitude and a cheerful smile go a long way in setting yourself apart from other women.

15 Comments

Filed under Red Pill, Women

Overt Versus Covert

Short post today. I hope that my readers will really drive the discussion with this one.

I have been doing some thinking lately how the whole process of actively trying to “woo” someone. There are two main models which are proposed, one of them the more widely accepted model and the other more common around the manosphere. They are:

  • Men are the pursuers and Women are the pursued
  • Men display and Women choose

I would like to examine these two models, because I am wondering if they are necessarily mutually exclusive. One way of reconciling these two is the following:

Men Display –> Women Choose –> Men Pursue –> Women are Pursued

All of the potential models involve men starting the process. Not really a surprise, I guess. Now to get to the title of the post.

One way that I have been looking at this is that men generally are overt in their actions, and women are covert. For example, men display overtly- they are proactive in their masculine endeavors, for example. Or in their gaining of status/money. And of course, when it comes to actual pursuit, they are definitely overt.

On the other hand, women tend to be covert when they are pursued. They lead men on with IOIs and reciprocal behavior, much of it subtle. The interesting question then, is whether women are overt or covert when they “choose.” A covert approach would be to show subtle interest in a man, such as display IOIs or spend time near him. An overt approach though… I doubt it would look exactly like a man’s.  Probably much less subtle IOIs.

What I would like is my reader’s input. What do you think tends to happen? Which model? And is it usually men are overt, women covert? Or are women just as overt? And does it look different from how men act overtly? Please give your thoughts below. Feel free to throw personal stories and anecdotes around all you want.

 

 

12 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Courtship, Men, Red Pill, Women

Saturday Saints- #128

Today’s letter is the letter “T.” This gives us our saint, Saint Thorlak:

Saint Thorlak Thorhallsson (Old Norse: Þorlákr Þórhallsson; Icelandic: Þorlákur Þórhallsson; Latin: Thorlacus; 1133 – December 23, 1193), also spelled Thorlac, is the patron saint of Iceland. He was bishop of Skalholt from 1178 until his death. Thorlac’s relics were translated to the cathedral of Skálholt in 1198, not long after his successor as bishop, Páll Jónsson, announced at the Althing that vows could be made to Thorlac. His status as a saint did not receive official recognition from the Catholic Church until January 14, 1984, when John Paul II canonized him and declared him the patron saint of Iceland. His feast day is December 23. He is currently being considered as a potential patron saint of people with autism and autism spectrum disabilities by a grassroots movement called the Mission of Saint Thorlak.

(Gotta love that name, eh?)

More can be found out about him at his wiki, located here.

saint_thorlakur

Leave a comment

Filed under Saturday Saints

Random Musings and Links- #9

Its been a while since I’ve done one of these, so here goes…

A random thought I had recently: Are most “social niceties” something that women created just so that men could break them?

Scott over at American Dad wrote a post over at American Dad titled Christian MGTOW as Pauline Celibacy.  He asks:

As “game” supposedly has a Christian application, (within the context of honorable courtship leading to marriage) does also MGTOW?

I don’t know. I’m just asking. I just know that I have obligations as a husband and father that make a certain level of risk for the Kingdom unacceptable. I try, I really do. This very site is risky in light of what it could cost me if taken the wrong way. But are the MGTOWs the true warriors of the faith?

My own take is that it probably isn’t, at least when you look how how MGTOW is usually defined. As commenters over there pointed out, MGTOW means Men Going Their Own Way… and we as Christians are supposed to be going God’s way. MGTOW is a secular response to widespread problems with the marriage market. A Christian response is necessarily different. As others have pointed out before, Christian men are called to be patriarchs or monks (which is not the same thing as a hermit, despite moderns tending to think as much). We are called to actively serve God- whether by raising a family, ministering to those in need or devoting our lives to prayer (which is ultimately about praying for the sake of others).

Ace over at 80 Proof Oinomancy has an interesting new post about friendship and social media.  If I read him correctly, he is suggesting that people are using social media to try and keep friendships alive which rightly should be allowed to die. I suspect he is trying to point out that friendship always has a utilitarian component to it. By that I mean that when we have friend at some point in our life, they are our friends for (presumably) good reasons. And when those reasons are long gone, why exactly should we try to keep them our friends? Indeed, with those reasons gone, are they even friends any more? Food for thought.

Deep Strength wrote a post a few days back about the Questionable Strategy that woman employed. If you read through his post you will realize that she is on the wrong track, and so are a lot of other women.  Now there is the thing- I will defend such women… to a point. They have almost certainly been mislead their whole life about how to increase their changes of snagging a good man. Including and especially from those they trusted to help them. Where I won’t defend them is when they refuse to listen to reason. When they will refuse to change their approach and ignore the advice of those who are genuinely trying to help them (in an effective way). And a whole lot of people fall in that category, unfortunately.

Mrs. ktc linked to an interesting poll. Loyalty and obedience (but I repeat myself) go a long way in the eyes of men.

[If I can think of others to add, I will update this post and mention them here. My readers are of course encouraged to offer suggestions of their own if they read any good posts lately.]

Update 1: Another rather random idea that popped in my head:

A woman either looks up to the men in her life, or looks down upon them. There really isn’t any room for a middle ground.

16 Comments

Filed under Red Pill

The Courage to Empathize

Today’s post is something of a spur of the moment thing. It comes about as a result of two posts intersecting in my mind today. The first is “well, when I called her ‘evil’, she just laughed” over at 80 Proof Oinomancy. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, as it is pithy, in keeping with Ace’s usual style. The most important parts are these:

See, the vast majority (I’d say ≥ 95%) of women that play “tough” are, at their core—

Terrified.

Odds are they had a very weak – if not completely absent – father figure.

This left them feeling twice as vulnerable as the average female.

Now, be sure to understand, dear reader, fear is a female’s default position.

coupled with:

So, am I saying all of those women are – at heart – just frightened, little girls?

(Permit me to be uncharacteristically clear, rather than my usually cryptic self.)

Yes.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Now, all of this I have heard and known before. Still, a refresher never hurts, especially when the timing matches up with something else you read. In this case another post.

The second post is one over at Scott’s blog, Ideals are never fully attainable.  The relevant part is this section at the end:

If may also be true that women do not naturally respond with graciousness at the sight of their husbands trying harder, this is also something that must be addressed. I don’t actually believe that women struggle with empathy. I do, however believe they tend to lack the courage and/or motivation to turn the data provided by empathic responses into actionable items. In other words, the kind of empathy that changes your life and the lives around you. This is what happens when you see something that is not right and then you make a series of decisions about what can be done, and then do them. But no one escapes the Lords wrath in the end when He will ask “why did you stubbornly wait to do the right thing?” and we respond:

 

“I was waiting for the other person to go first.”

Both of these posts together, or at least the ideas they presented, made something click in me. You see, I have a theory now why women seem to have trouble with empathy. This is something long discussed in the manosphere, and there are even some commenters who argue women are incapable of empathy. Of course, there are also those who argue women have no agency or are incapable of loyalty, etc.

As for myself, I think women are entirely capable of empathy. I have known some empathetic women. And history is filled with numerous examples of such women- indeed the general culture still clings to the notion that women are naturally empathetic. That had to come from somewhere. My suspicion is that it did in fact used to be the case, although in recent years that has changed.

So where am I going with all of this? Here goes:

I theorize that women are having difficulty in this age with empathy because they are insecure and afraid- and empathy requires courage to carry out.

Here are the individual arguments which lead to this conclusion:

Argument 1: Empathy requires courage-

To empathize with someone is to put yourself in their shoes. This requires that you both understand their position, and mentally assume it as well. That involves, by necessity, assuming a vulnerable state in order to feel what they feel. That requires courage because you will be experiencing- and confronting-  fears and insecurities you would otherwise not face.

Argument 2: Women’s default state is fear-

As Ace explains, fear is a female’s default state. This is difficult for men to internalize, because while we feel fear we don’t live it like a woman does. Consider their vulnerability and weakness compared to ours, and this becomes so much clearer. Not to mention test this argument against their actions and see how things start to make sense.

Argument 3: Women are more insecure than ever-

While there are exceptions, most women these days are profoundly insecure. It is no wonder why. Masculine men are increasingly scarce. They are cut off from the traditional sources of security and sense of belonging- families are small, separated and play little role in everyday life, a sense of greater community is non-existent, and they have increasingly been pushed into roles that are traditionally male (which under natural conditions would only occur in a state of social/community distress).

Argument 4: Insecurity undermines courage-

To be insecure and to be afraid are not necessarily the same, but both are closely aligned and both together interfere with courage. To feel fear, and to be afraid, are also not the same. It is natural to feel fear at various things. But to feel afraid is to let that fear take hold of you and guide you. Herein lies the problem- fear, when it guides an individual, interferes with our higher callings, such as empathy. I believe this is because being afraid is inherently emotional, and thus tied to our bodies and their Appetites, while being empathetic is a matter of the soul and the Reason/Will. Being afraid is an instance of the body suborning the soul, and thus matters of the soul, such as empathy, are tossed aside.

Argument 5- Notable empathetic women felt a sense of peace-

If you look back in history at some of the female saints noted for being empathetic, there was a profound sense of peace in their lives. They were unafraid- often despite great and obvious perils to their well-being. I believe this was a product of two functions. The first and most important was the peace that their Faith gave to them- a peace given not as the world gives it. The second reason was that the culture of the time didn’t encourage or stimulate female insecurity like ours does now. Thus, it was easier for them to overcome and rise above that default state of fear.


When you take these different arguments and combine them, the natural conclusion is that women have trouble with empathy because they are profoundly insecure and afraid. Until those insecurities are resolved, and until they are no longer afraid (or are at least able to overcome their fears), they will lack the means to show true empathy.

In the context of Scott’s post previously  mentioned, you can see the problem with the Promise Keeper’s movement. The men were doubling down on actions which made their wives even more insecure. Which only increased the tendency of those women to act out in a negative manner. Which of course made the men feel bad, and believe they were doing something wrong. So they doubled down again on the foolishness, with even more negativity resulting. It is a vicious cycle which cannot end well.

 

17 Comments

Filed under Civilization, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Women