The impasse, as I understand it

With a few modifications, I left this comment at Dalrock, in response to Rachel who asked:

Ok, so I get the AF/BB analysis and agree that AWALT. Do you think that women have just been spoilt by getting a taste of an AF that is above their MMV and are therefore unhappy with their BB or is it that we have lost the art of submission and that that is what fuels female sexual desire. I think that the alpha provokes/demand submission but a woman can choose to give it and create a similar effect. Or is it that the way society was ordered in the past made all men appear more alpha because they had the automatic social standing of being a man among men rather than a good guy in a feminine centric society?

This is a question that I can only remember being asked once before (on the old Sunshine Mary blog) and it has not been sufficiently answered. (Disclaimer: I have not read every word of every manosphere/red pill blog since the beginning of time, so its probably been addressed elsewhere).

If, as you write, willful submission to a husband who otherwise does not generate attraction on his own merits, (because he is not a natural super hot alpha rockstar drummer dude) works to generate it, then snarky obnoxious ball busting wives of the current era are sitting on an untouched goldmine of marital satisfaction. Just try submission for a week and see what happens! One argument for this is a faith-based one. That is, submission is a commandment, and it takes a tremendous amount of faith (especially for women) to submit to a man. This is because of their tendency to always have anxiety driven questions in the backs of their minds. “Why should I submit to some man?” “What if he makes a mistake and it costs us our livelihood/security/house/etc?” “What if he tells me to rob a bank?” “If I am accountable to my husband, who is he accountable to?” and so forth. In that context. she must suspend those fears and submit anyway. And what if, on the other side of that submission she finds herself more attracted to her husband, the leader. (I write that this is a bigger problem for women, because men find it infitinetly easier to obey orders from proper authorities even when they personally disagree with the orders. This is what my life in the military for 17 years has taught me.) It occurs to Rachel that this would create a power differential in favor of the man by bestowing status upon him–and male status is one of the vectors of attraction for women. I do not recall this being a promise of God (submit and you will find him a hell of a lot more sexy. This is probably because “finding your husband sexy” was not a part of marital success prior to the advent of the gospel of personal fulfillment in all things).

If, on the other hand, the problem is a naturally occurring one that is extremely amplified by the fem-centric order and societies caving in to female sexual strategy, the problem was created by a systemic rebellion against God and His created order. At this point, it is impossible to know.

However, and this part may get me in trouble with Christian game types, if there is a solution to it–that is, if the question can be answered–only women can do it under the current laws (crushing DV and divorce court) and mores. The risk of employing “game,” even under “your own” roof is just off the charts high for most men to even consider. (And we return to the chicken and egg conundrum. Are men with a low appetite for risk just too pussy and beta to try it? Some Christian game pushers come across that way to me sometimes).

Basically, wives, on an individual basis have to wake up tomorrow and try it, voluntarily. They have to arise in the morning and resolve “I am married and living under the authority of my husband. I am going to behave that way on faith.” This is very unlikely. But its why I regularly implore the women of the Christian red-pill (the Elspeths and so on of the world) to network together and plead with younger Christian wives before its too late. To get together and speak of these things — no catty shit talking about their husbands — just building each other up in Christian love and desire to fill the role laid out for them as wives. Maybe they already do, and that is all that can be asked. The basis for this could be as easy as “hows snarky #hesnotthebossofme working for us? Maybe, just maybe, we could try something else. It certainly couldn’t be worse.” This would require raw courage. Courage is a precious commodity among all of humanity. It is even more so among women, because they were not built to be heroic risk takers.

Otherwise, I am afraid the “enjoy the decline” types are right. The correction will come after a collapse. It will be a dystopian world where order is restored through much pain and suffering. I do not want that. There is enough of that in this world already.

Anyway, I made this into its own post because several of my readers are not also Dalrock readers.

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “The impasse, as I understand it

  1. As I said before, I am pretty sure that if I dropped a few pounds and put on some muscle it would make a difference.

    Question: What physical condition is your wife in? AFAIC, if she ‘s a landwhale, or even anything less than fashion model build, she has ZE-RO right to demand any improvement from you. Indeed, if she ever brings it up in a contentious manner, you respond with “I can lose [her weight] pounds faster than you would want me to!”

    Like

  2. She’s in good shape. Up until a few years ago she was a personal trainer, but her genetics (she is from Oklahoma) mean she isn’t rail thin in the hips anymore, and I doubt at 40 years old she could be again. I’m not tall (under 6 ft, but barely) and weigh in around 200-210 on a typical day, but I am in no way built. I didn’t realize the importance of lifting until a couple of years ago and now at 42 it is a real struggle. I have had bad knees since jr. high and its bad enough that even doing upper body exercises cause pretty rough pain and walking for more than an hour can leave me in a lot of pain the next day. I know losing weight will help. I did a HCG diet a few years ago and dropped from my highest weight of 230 down to 190 in a month and kept it off for around 2 years before it started coming back on. I don’t want to do that diet again because its very sedentary (your not supposed to work out) and I want to get into the habit of lifting consistently. Because of financial issues (due to the hospital earlier this year) I haven’t been able to rejoin the gym, though I am going to try and get a membership after the first of the year.

    She has held up well over the years, and I think she is still an attractive woman, if she would just start acting like a woman instead of a man with boobs.

    Like

  3. I have since decided rather than tell her I can lose weight faster (which she is aware of anyway because of her training) it would be much more effective if I just keep quiet and let her see by herself that I AM losing weight, but with my Hispanic genetics and age its a real struggle for every pound. Thinking of just trying a ketogenic diet for a while until I can get to an ideal weight to start trying to put on muscle. I figure I am going to need some help with that and have been talking with my doctor about testosterone pellets, but they have to cut you open and place more every six months, which I’m not really sure I’m invested into doing. I’ve been looking for an alternate and legal method, but the FDA has been killing options left and right lately. Going to give one more try to something from Red Supplements when it comes out, but if it doesn’t work I’m just going to go with the pellets.

    Like

  4. The best any of us can do with women whom we have no real connection is plant seeds here and there, and pray they take root. I have had the experience of a young bride coming to me to ask my advice and wisdom. A couple actually, and I offered them the counsel I could, and have even done so in writing so they could keep it for future reference. This is a variation of such a letters I write ONLY WHEN ASKED (edited for anonymity):

    https://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/how-to-stay-happily-most-of-the-time-married/

    The result was basically that the one who was raised in an environment where she saw her mother demonstrate some level of submission followed her husband’s lead. The two who had been raised in environments where their mothers wore the pants basically reverted to type. All Christians.

    My relationship with my husband is pretty much a reversion to the type of relationship I grew up around (strong, dominant father, mostly submissive stepmother) coupled with the fact that he is a very dominant personality and was taught (albeit imperfectly) that husband headship was normal. We were bolstered by Scripture to have our motivation and expression of that design fall into a more God-honoring place.

    Without a firm commitment and a serious daily crucifying of our flesh(and of course, this applies to more than just submission in marriage), it is very hard for most people to do this. It’s one of the reasons why I am so reticent. That, and I really believe that the teching that Paul wrote to Titus about requires a level of relationship that gives us the authority to speak into a young bride’s life.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. We are all doomed if we are waiting for women to do the right thing on a voluntary basis. If they were capable of such a thing we wouldn’t have had to establish patriarchal society before creating a civilization

    Liked by 4 people

  6. @ SnapperTrx
    NOVEMBER 8, 2017 AT 11:28 PM

    “Thinking of just trying a ketogenic diet for a while until I can get to an ideal weight to start trying to put on muscle.”

    You’re thinking backwards.

    Your body is already in an anabolic state. That’s good for building muscle. Once you’ve built a solid foundation of strength, it’ll be a lot easier to lose fat. In fact, you may even find yourself losing some fat while gaining muscle.

    Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health measured the activity levels of over 10,000 men aged 40-plus, monitoring their weight and waist circumference over a 12-year period.

    They found that those men who spent an extra 20 minutes a day weight training gained less abdominal weight over the course of the study than men who increased the amount of time they spent doing aerobic exercise.

    I recommend the Starting Strength program.

    You might think that your “bad knees” will prevent you from doing squats. That may not be the case. I’ve had surgery on both knees for torn menisci (20+ years in the Army tend to do that), and squats don’t hurt my knees. Running does, but squats don’t. As a general rule, squats – when performed correctly – don’t hurt your knees. In fact, they’re the best thing you can do for your knees.

    Once you’ve completed the novice phase of strength training, you can add some “cardio”, and that’ll make losing fat much easier. But, don’t be surprised if you find you don’t need to do that.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Oscar-

    Real quick–the only reason that last comment went into moderation is because my comments is set for “if the comment has more than one link put in moderation.”

    However, I wish someone could explain to me why other regular commenters, who comment here all the time all the sudden get put in that bin. Its annoying.

    Like

  8. @Oscar ‘if you’re attractive to her, she’ll want to submit to you”
    Hmm, That isn’t quite what I’m saying. Clearly women can just choose to be rebellious no matter how good a man she has. I’m just trying to work out what women can do to help the attraction equation and it seems to me that genuine submission is a big part of it. I don’t think there is a lot a man can do with a rebellious wife – which is probably why it is better to live in the corner of the roof of the house rather than inside with her. Women do have a promise that they can win their husbands without a word. (talking about salvation not their relationship but still describing a marital dynamic)

    Like

  9. @ Snapper
    Thank you for your comments. I am in the UK where we are very much in a deluge of feminism. I was given Debi Pearl’s book by an American friend years ago, she buys them by the box load to give away. – (so there are women hard at work Stateside, but being decent women they don’t draw attention to themselves.) I have tried to lend it to a couple of people here. They were not impressed. Christians here even tried to get a homeschool company banned from entering the UK because they carried adverts for the Pearls. So yes, we have feminism in the church too. I have only heard of the sin of servility from Dalrock though.
    Looks like I have my work cut out. At least our daughters will listen. I hope that as the contrast grows between truly Christian marriages and the rest people will begin to notice what works.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I get a little tired of hearing alpha males demonized.

    Alphas aren’t always viewed negatively. If they are capable men, people respect them. What pisses many fellas off is the fact that women mistake nothingburger local rock band drummer as an alpha. Doing this type of thing makes women look rather silly

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Settling is a reality for most people, men and women alike. That is, most people won’t reach their “realistic optimal” (that is, not the perfect which is out of reach, but the realistic best which is still very hard to get but not out of reach), because it’s really hard to reach the realistic optimal, and there is a lot of competition for the realistic optimal, and you may be out-competed. It becomes a timing and lifestyle choice game after a time — a cost/benefit analysis of the current sub-realistic-optimal person as compared with the future potential (which could be time-consuming, and is always uncertain) of obtaining someone closer to the “realistic optimal” person. That cost/benefit analysis, when assessing someone who is sub-realistic-optimal, is settling in its essence. And most people do it.

    Not everyone, though. Some people are fortunate enough or optimal enough themselves to achieve the realistic optimal in the mate search. They do not settle, because they have the realistic optimal. Some of the commenters here fall into that category, clearly. And that isn’t a criticism, because it is something that either happens due to them being quite optimal themselves in terms of attractiveness, or being fortunate — and neither is a legitimate source of criticism. But at the same time it must be realized that most people are not optimal and are not so fortunate and so they “settle” with a sub-realistic-optimal person. That is reality.

    No doubt many (most?) people don’t tell themselves that they are settling. Some people are more realistic/cynical (take your pick) about themselves, but I can believe that lots of people cover up their decision to settle with other things so as to convince themselves that they have not, in fact, settled for a sub-realistic-optimal person. Fine — whatever people need to do for their own mental health is good enough. But settling is a reality for most people, whether they admit to it or not. It isn’t unequivocally bad, if people are accepting of it and willing to make it work despite it being a sub-optimal settle situation — these situations can work, with commitment and effort, if people are willing to do that.

    As for submission, attraction and related issues. Attraction is everything, period, when it comes to male/female relationships. Even if it is a sub-realistic-optimal situation (which is most situations), there needs to be a baseline of attraction which is strong enough for it to work. I think, though, that the only marriages that survive without a lot of tension, downside and dead bedrooms and what have you are the ones that have large amounts of visceral attraction on both sides from the outset. Those are the ones that are the really good marriages. Most marriages are the settle sort (sub-realistic-optimal), and so are not capable of being like that, but they can still last, despite the issues, with commitment and effort.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. You tube Dave Tate and so you think you can squat

    You shouldn’t have much knee problems if you sit back when you start the squat and spread the floor while you squat. Which makes no sense reading but will once you watch the videos. Any rate, those two things take your knees out of the equation. The way men are typically taught to squat makes it a knee exercise and it does all sorts of unnatural things to your hinges/ knees.

    My guess is the typical gym rat could put 60 pounds on his squat in 90 days if he watches those videos and learns to squat…. can do that easy if he add glute- ham raises

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Any rate real reason I came back to post was to tell you I read your comment at Dalrocks about moving up the social ladder. Gave me a chuckel because i remember when I started bumping into those those things. It’s a strange trip my friend and I would say the UMC rung was strangest, and least favorite. As a rule i got the impression they were offended by all things not UMC approved. The rung above that was when things started making senses and the folks returned to normal. Nova hits it on the head with the high income vs wealth deal

    Like

  14. @ SFC Ton

    “My guess is the typical gym rat could put 60 pounds on his squat in 90 days if he watches those videos and learns to squat…. can do that easy if he add glute- ham raises”

    I’ve done the Starting Strength program after each of my service-related surgeries. This last time, I put 90 lbs on my squat in three weeks.

    Three weeks. And I’m 42. No glute-ham raises necessary.

    Obviously, progress slows after the first few weeks, but linear progression with barbells is the best way to start strength training.

    Like

  15. I’d echo what Nova has said.

    Also, for Elspeth and Hearthie: You know women, you talk to them, you try to mentor them. But respectfully, you don’t know what goes on with women as they deal with men behind closed doors. You’ve never dated any women. You’ve never had sex with any women. You’ve never been in any sexual relationships with any women. And you’ve never been married to a woman.

    I’ve done all of those things.

    And it looks different from the male side, man dealing with woman, than it does from the women’s side, women dealing with women.

    Attraction is EVERYTHING. You have both said so yourself. Neither of you settled on sexual attraction. Neither did Sunshine. Neither did Mychael. And that’s made the difference.

    Not once has a woman who never was all that attracted to the man she settled on ever come here and verified anything you’ve ever said.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. @ deti

    “Attraction is EVERYTHING.”

    As I said before, I used to believe that, but I can’t agree with that statement anymore. I’ve seen too many couples in which the wife is attracted to her husband, and yet she’s still ungrateful, disrespectful, contentious, and rebellious, and lets herself go until she looks a like beach ball stuffed with lard.

    Makes no sense to me, but I gave up on struggling to make sense out of other people’s nonsense long ago.

    Like

  17. Oscar:

    I’ve seen that too. And from what I’ve seen, men are much more capable of accepting a wife like that than a wife is capable of accepting a husband like that.

    Second: My comments are a response to Elspeth and Hearthie essentially saying wives can submit themselves into sexual attraction to men they aren’t really all that sexually attracted to, because, well, those women just never really liked the way their men looked. Those women settled for those men and accepted those men they married for reasons other than sexual attraction:

    –she was aging out and needed a husband NOW NOW NOW

    –she was poor and needed a husband for financial support

    –everyone else is getting married so she needs to find someone

    –she wants kids and needs a father to supply the sperm and the money now now now

    –she’s early to mid 30s, she’s in a barely concealed desperate panic, and she’ll take any guy who’s not a complete moron or horribly physically deformed, just so she can claim the title of “Mrs.”

    Elspeth and Hearthie don’t see this, for some reason. They seem to think that because they themselves were really hard sexually attracted, that women are always sexually attracted to their husbands and never settle on sexual attraction. And even if they do, they never say so. And that just isn’t true, not at all, and they have a real blind spot here. I don’t think they can even conceive of a woman marrying a man she’s not all that sexually attracted to. But just because they can’t conceive of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It most assuredly does exist, and E and Hearthie have absolutely no idea how to respond to it or help women through it.

    Like

  18. @ deti

    I understand now. I was looking at the issue from the opposite direction.

    “… E and Hearthie have absolutely no idea how to respond to it or help women through it.”

    Does anyone? No one can help a person who doesn’t want help, or even admits to needing help. Elspeth and Hearthie are at least doing what they can do. Let’s not criticize them for not doing what they can’t do.

    Look at it this way. How does a husband lead a wife who refuses to follow? The answer is; he can’t. Likewise, Elspeth and Hearthie can’t help women who persist in rebellion.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. I can see where, in days long past, a man being able to physically discipline his wife without fear of being arrested or called an abuser could come in handy. Not every woman needs it, but some do at some point, it seems. The “pimp hand” might be a little harsher than what I have in mind, but hey, the Lord gave kids butts for a reason, right? He gave wives one too…..

    Like

  20. @Oscar” “… How does a husband lead a wife who refuses to follow? The answer is; he can’t.”

    That is probably why God did not tell Eve that Adam would lead her. God said that Adam would rule over her. No lead her. Not rule her. Rule over her. She is a part of the kingdom that is his. Eve was created to be a fitting and proper help for Adam. How is she going to know what to do unless Adam sets the boundaries, and tells Eve what he needs? In the act of “helping” Adam, in the act of helping to bring about his agenda rather than hers, she is submitting. But she is submitting through / by the act of helping.

    God did not tell Eve that she was to submit to Adam. I challenge you to find anywhere in the Bible where God says that. Neither does God say anywhere in the Bible that a wife should submit to her husband. We think Paul says that. But unless we want to think that Paul was adding a requirement to husband / wife relationships that God himself did not place on them, we must interpret Paul’s comments in the light of what God actually said. God made Eve / wife to be a help to Adam / husband. In the act of Adam telling Eve what he needs, and Eve giving that to Adam, she is submitting. But the focus in on helping – not on submitting. One can “submit” without ever helping. One cannot truely help without submitting to the desires of the helped.

    Church is to Christ as wife is to husband. Church and wife are equivalent in this scenario. Christ and husband are equivalent. God says nowhere to the Church “come, let me lead you”. Rather, he says “if you love me, keep my commandments”. “You are neither hot nor cold, so I will spit you out of my mouth.” Basically, do as I command you / ask you, or you are not of me, not mine, and I will break off my relationship with you. That is how Christ relates to the Church. The model for husbands to follow. The model that God told Eve about – he (Adam, Christ, husband) will rule over you.

    If we can agree that God made us, so he knows what is best for us, what behavior on our part will lead to the best outcomes for us – then we can easily accept that the “commandments” God requires us to keep are not arbitrary or capricious or mean or evil. Rather, they are designed for our benefit. So if you think I am advising that God told Eve that Adam was supposed to mistreat her you have totally missed my point, which is God’s point as laid out by what he actually says in the Bible.

    Christ is the example for the husband. He say to his bride, “if you love me, keep my commandments”. Do as I ask you. If you don’t, you are not mine, and our relationship is broken.

    God does not present us with a solution beyond that one. Even God himself admits that those he wishes to draw to himself will sometimes refuse the invitation and so be cast away, have the relationship broken. God does not say anywhere that if we just find the right words to say, the right things to do, that we can create a perfect relationship. If you ignore for now the logic that the reformed folks present (predestination), God does say words in the Bible that confirm that there are some relationships with those he would have as his Bride that even he cannot keep together.

    It doesn’t make sense to think that we are guaranteed to succeed where God admits that he himself sometimes does not.

    As someone else often says: let s/he who has ears, hear.

    Like

  21. Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Numbers 30:And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded.
    2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
    3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth;
    4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
    5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
    6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
    7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
    8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.
    9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
    10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
    11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
    12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her.
    13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
    14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
    15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
    16 These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.

    This is what the bible says. Do you think any woman, even a Christian one, would adhere to it? This is “rule over you”. God gave fathers/husbands total control over their daughters/wives, even to revoke any vow they made. No modern Western woman would allow herself to be under this kind of leadership.

    Like

  22. @ SFC Ton
    NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 8:59 PM

    “A man can lead a wife who doesnt want to follow but a strong pimp hand is outlawed and frowned on by polite society types”

    That would also violate 1 Peter 3, so…

    Like

  23. @ RichardP
    NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 9:25 PM

    “God did not tell Eve that she was to submit to Adam. I challenge you to find anywhere in the Bible where God says that. Neither does God say anywhere in the Bible that a wife should submit to her husband. We think Paul says that.”

    Who’s “we”? You got a mouse in your pocket?

    What those of us who believe the Bible know is that God the Holy spirit commanded wives to submit to their own husbands by inspiring both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter to write those words multiple times in multiple epistles.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. @Scott: “If … willful submission to a husband who otherwise does not generate attraction on his own merits … works to generate it, then … wives … are sitting on an untouched goldmine of marital satisfaction. Just try submission for a week and see what happens!”

    If the command from God is to help, rather than submit – if submission is a natural outcome of helping – consider the plight of the wife whose husband has no need of her help.

    If you think that through carefully, you will see that the lack of need for her help creates a situation that is not addressed at all by focusing on the concept of “submission”.

    How do you solve a problem like Maria ? How do you solve a problem like the unneeded wife?

    If God had told Eve that she should submit to Adam, her lack of submission would be the problem. But God did not tell Eve to submit to Adam. God said that Eve was created as a help for Adam. So . . . . . a problem would arise if Adam does not give Eve any work to do that will help him.

    She was created to help him. What is her purpose in the relationship if Adam says he doesn’t need her help with anything? How does that problem get solved by focusing on the concept of “submission”.

    (And once that issue gets properly addressed we can then turn our attention to the wife who refuses her husband’s request for help. Was she that way in the beginning of the relationship? Or did she become that way because Adam didn’t incorporate her into the process of building their life together from the begining – so she has felt useless and unneeded for a long time?)

    Like

  25. @Oscar: “… those of us who believe the Bible know is that God the Holy spirit commanded wives to submit to their own husbands by inspiring both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter to write those words multiple times in multiple epistles.”

    You make exactly my point. That is why I referenced Paul in my comment. I know the verses you just referenced. Your response does not indicate that you got my question, so here it is more specifically:

    Did God make Adam and Eve and all the rest of humanity to relate one way to each other as partners up until the time of Paul and Peter. And then did God have Paul and Peter issue a commandment under his (God’s) authority that totally changed the way that spouses related to each other for several thousand years.

    If you think that God changed the way he wanted spouses to relate to each other, than I assume you can find words to that effect in the New Testament somewhere. where God says that. Occam’s Razor suggests that the words of Paul and Peter, in their original language, in their original social context, were simply reinforcing the words that God actually used when describing what he made Eve for, and how Adam and Eve’s relationship was designed to play out. Eve’s created role was to help her husband, and in the helping would be found her submission. Adam’s created role was to rule over Eve – that is, give her boundaries and guildelines as to how she could be of help to him.

    I’m not going to get into a lengthy exchange over this issue. It is plain to see in the Bible what God is quoted as saying directly. Either Paul and Peter were creating a requirement for couples different from what God originally said, or their words need to be interpreted in light of what God originally said. That is the simple logic to be addressed.

    Like

  26. @ RichardP
    NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 10:33 PM

    “If you think that God changed the way he wanted spouses to relate to each other, than I assume you can find words to that effect in the New Testament somewhere.”

    Where did I state that “God changed the way he wanted spouses to relate to each other”? Can you provide a quote?

    Like

  27. @Snapper:

    You are quoting from the Law that God gave to the Hebrews through Moses. The Law was given only to the Hebrews and not to anybody else. Paul makes reference to the gentiles, “who have not the law”. Read Acts 15, where the Council in Jerusalem is trying to decide whether new converts (after the death of Jesus) should be bound by the Law given to the Hebrews. The ultimate answer was that they should not be. This thread is not the place to debate the “who was the Law for” issue. I’m just giving a heads up that those who subscribe to the notion that the Law was given only to the Hebrews, and only until the final sacrifice was made (Jesus on the Cross), those folks will not see the words you quoted as binding upon modern relationships.

    That is why I jump all the way back to what God said to Adam and Eve about his purpose for the male and female that he created. The words God spoke then are not part of the Law given to the Hebrews through Moses – and so cannot get caught up in debates about whether we are still governed by them. There are words to the effect that the redeemed, post-Cross, are not bound by the law. There are no such words to indicate that the relationship between male and female (spouses) that God laid out to Adam and Eve has been rescinded. She will help him; her submission will be made visible in that helping. He will rule over her; his rule will be made visible in the boundaries and guidance he gives his wife. His rule will be made visible in the managing of his kingdom, or the “husbanding” of that for which he was responsible, in the truest sense of the old meaning of husband, husbanding, or husbandman (it’s useful to look up those definitions). That behavior on the part of Adam becomes “love” when you understand that love is a verb, not a Hallmark Card sentiment. The help given by Eve represents “submission” when you understand that we cannot truely help someone except by submitting our will or agenda to the will or agenda of the helped.

    So – what happens when the husband tells the wife, through his behavior even if not through his words, that he doesn’t need her help?

    Like

  28. Oscar – you are making it obvious that you either did not understand my point, or you don’t want to accept my point. Either way, I’ve left words to be studied. Either Paul and Peter’s original words are in agreement with what God said to Adam and Eve or they are not. If you decide that they are in agreement with what God said to Adam and Eve – then I would encourage you to reflect on how Paul and Peter’s words should play out in modern lives in a way that reflects what God said to Adam and Eve.

    Like

  29. I understand what Oscar means about attraction not being some talisman against a woman being a daughter of Eve, she is going to test the waters, that is going to happen from time to time and to a greater or lesser degree. They come that way from the factory.

    I also understand what Novaseeker and deti are saying and all my observations and lived experience bears it out. Unless there is obvious physical/sexual/pheromonal/animal magnetism ATTRACTION from the beginning, the woman to the man, that man will always be holding a weak hand. Lack of this form of attraction cannot be conjured up later. She may learn to respect him and maybe even learn to be content with him, but that primal shock effect will not be part of the equation.

    If you’re not a married man but you are marriage minded, put this on your list and don’t move forward without it. This is often downplayed in Christian circles, as though it shouldn’t carry much weight. Many men have been thereby crushed, and their wives are unsatisfied without knowing exactly why.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. @ RichardP
    NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 11:01 PM

    “Oscar – you are making it obvious that you either did not understand my point, or you don’t want to accept my point.”

    Really? Are those the only two possibilities you can think of?

    “If you decide that [Paul and Peter] are in agreement with what God said to Adam and Eve… ”

    So, still no quote from me stating that “God changed the way he wanted spouses to relate to each other”. Why might you be having such trouble finding that quote?

    Like

  31. Pingback: Be the peoples of God. | Dark Brightness

  32. If you’re not a married man but you are marriage minded, put this on your list and don’t move forward without it.

    Problem is, too many women know how to fake this. They know how to feign sexual attraction to reel in the unsuspecting man.

    Like

  33. Problem is, too many women know how to fake this. They know how to feign sexual attraction to reel in the unsuspecting man.

    That’s a fact. I thought about that even while typing it, and I don’t actually have any answers for that peril. What a man usually can tell though is when there is no chemical spark coming from the woman, and he shouldn’t try to work around that or hope it will get better later. It’s probably more of a hazard for well churched men than anyone else, because they are often told it’s not important.

    Like

  34. LostPatrol:

    Yes. The minute, the very minute, a man gets a sense that she’s just not feeling it, that the relationship is getting to be more work and less enjoyment, that he gets pushback on “sexual” escalation, he needs to Next her and move on.

    The reason he needs to see clear, sustained and strong sexual attraction for him is because if it’s not there and he marries her, the best case scenario is a strained relationship with duty sex. Worst case is divorce rape.

    Like

  35. Pingback: She does exist | American Dad

  36. Pingback: Open rebellion | Christianity and masculinity

  37. About the “impasse” in the main post… I totally agree. A thorough study of Red Pill blogs, and some experience in life, should be enough to form a convincing case that the onus is largely on women to create a spiritually thriving atmosphere in the marriage and family environment. “A man builds his house, but the woman makes it a home.” (I have addressed this concept in several posts on my blog.) I think the real challenge is to convince women that this is truly the case, and get them to take an interest in educating themselves on the matter. It is for this reason that I (try to) make my posts attractive to female readership.
    I like what Rachel and Novaseeker said about “settling”. My take on this is that most people end up married to a person who is more-or-less their “equal” (all things considered), so I think the real problem with the “settling” mentality is when marrieds cling to this ego-bolstering idea, and it comes out as a snarky, flippant attitude, which invariably sets a bad mood in the marriage. If attraction is absent in the female, then this spells doom.
    I interpret SFC Ton’s “pimp hand” comment to be a humorous exaggeration of how to handle a rebellious wife. I do agree that a disciplined approach is necessary, if not in that literal severity. Anyway, I am sure there are a small number of women who would actually get a kick out of their betaboy husband playing the godfather, even if just for show.
    Concerning the argument between a woman’s place as being either a “helper” or “one who submits”, I believe both are not mutually exclusive roles. They key here is in the honor that her husband bestows upon her. Also, the locus of a woman’s power lies in the fact that she fills a need. If her husband has no needs, then she will not have the opportunity to express her relational value. I believe a lot of women recognize this, and so attempt to sublimate needs by imposing rules and standards on the man, which, if not done right, can come off as high-maintenance nagging.

    Like

  38. Deti,
    It is true that I have never come here and verified what Elspeth and Hearthie have said, but I have done so on Elspeth’s blog. Long story short, I didn’t have sexual attraction for my husband (or any man) when we married. I have a documented and physically proven history of sexual dysfunction (thankfully solved now) that meant had the Bible not mentioned anything about sex, my husband hadn’t wanted it, and it wasn’t essential for having kids, I’d have been perfectly glad to forego the whole thing. Fun times….

    However, I never felt that I settled for my husband. I knew my sexual issues (as did he) and that they weren’t about him at all. Quite frankly, I’ve always been kinda shaking my head over how I managed to land him. Not in a woe-is-me sort of way, just thankful.

    Would I recommend a guy blow right past sexual red flags? No, and my husband didn’t either. He confronted me while we were dating and I was open and honest with him. He believed me and I did what was necessary to fix it (he took some steps here as well). We’re both glad he didn’t move on to someone else.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s