Tag Archives: Sex

Guest Post: Minimizing Sex Starvation

***I’ve been busy lately, so here’s a guest post from Bee.  There’s a decent chance this post was submitted to me to advertise a particular site (Edit: From the comments it seems not. My apologies to Bee.) but the post is readable and on topic and cleaning and routines is something I struggle with (or, more accurately almost completely ignore in my bachelor home) so some encouragement to keep on top of things is helpful.

As well, the idea of scheduling sex is interesting and not something I’ve thought of. On one hand, it seems like it could be a good to get it regularly, but maybe it’s a bit of a forced buzzkill. What do y’all think?

I do accept and post guest posts that may give my readers some value or information related to the topics of this blog, so if you have something worthwhile feel free to submit it. Lately, I’ve been getting a lot of people submitting near illegible spam. So for those people sending me spam, this post represents the bare minimum of quality I will accept for future guest posts, so if you can’t reach this, don’t send anything. ***

In this world, risk can never be eliminated or fully controlled; it can only be reduced and managed. My two suggestions can minimize the possibility of ending up in a sexless marriage. My two suggestions can not guarantee you will not end up in sexless marriage.

This post is for single, Christian men. Because Christian men can only find sexual release in marriage with their wife this makes avoiding a sex starved marriage very important.

We see from Genesis 2 that the wife was brought into Adam’s existing life. Before Eve was created, Adam was an adult and was working a job given him by God.

Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. (Genesis 2:15 – 20 NASB)

For most Christian men their God given job is:

  • to worship and give thanks to God.
  • to grow the church by having more than 2 children.
  • to disciple their wife and children to grow in Christ.

Eve was brought to Adam to be his helper in his already existing work and life. Eve needed to fit into Adam’s existing life and world.

I believe that one important part of being a helpmeet is to meet her husbands’ sexual needs.

In the pioneer days of North America mothers taught their daughters a weekly routine that organized and prioritized their work as married home helpmeets. Monday was washday, Tuesday was ironing, Wednesday was mending, etc. This weekly routine focused their energies and helped prevent discouragement or depression. Mrs. Bee has told me that looking at her weekly schedule helps her when she forgets or loses track of what she should be doing.

As a single man you want to be able to practice what you preach about schedule and routine. While single, begin to incorporate the power of routine into your life. Start going to bed at the same time each night. Designate one evening a week for cleaning your apartment or home. Incorporate exercise, grocery shopping, Bible study, fasting into your week. The FlyLady is a good source for help with cleaning and routines.

My solution to minimize the chances of a sex starved marriage is based on two foundations.

Choose a woman who believes in personal submission to her husband. A sexually available wife is also a submissive wife.

Make sex a regularly scheduled event. Begin with a 20 or 30 minute session three times a week. Most married men will be fine with that but if you need sex more frequently, then change the schedule after awhile. For the Christian man who married because he “burns’, sex is too important to let happen only when his wife is emotionally in the mood.

Like Adam, you have job and a regular schedule before getting married. As a Christian man, you are not scheduling sex in your routine before marriage. But, as soon as you are married, you adjust your existing bed time 3 or more nights a week to accommodate your sexual release, your wife’s sexual release, fleshly uniting with your wife, and your procreation duties.

Jesus told two short parables illustrating that major decisions should be considered carefully before commitments are made.

For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends [o]a delegation and asks for terms of peace. Luke 14:28 – 32 NASB

These parables means you should inform a women of what your schedule after marriage will be like and allow her to decide, without pressure or coercion, if she is willing to enter into this kind of relationship with you. Be wise, don’t bring this up on the first 3 dates, but do bring it up shortly before you are ready to propose. It would be natural for most women to experience some trepidation at the thought of performing sexually three times a week, or more. Trepidation alone should not be a deal breaker. Try to discern if willingness is present with any trepidation.

Your convictions regarding birth control and sex during menstruation (Leviticus 15:19) may be factors in adjusting your schedule with your wife. Those details are best left up to each couple to work out.

If your wife gives you regular sex make a special effort to reward her. An occasional longer time with more romance for her can be a reward. Helping her with house chores so she can get to bed on time is also something I have done that has not hurt my sex life. I have not done chores to get more sex, I have done chores because my wife was freely giving me plenty of sex.

I hope these ideas help single, Christian men avoid a sex-starved marriage.

About myself; I met my wife at church in North America. My N was zero. Her N was greater than zero but she has not had a problem bonding to me. We have been happily married for 21 years. My wife has never sexually refused me even though I did not know these principles before I got married. I was fortunate that my wife believed in being submissive and in serving me sexually – I was not wise enough to look for those qualities when I was looking for a wife. In the last 9 months we have been scheduling sex 4 times a week. I am very happy.

On Pedophiles

SoBL has noted that the NYT have tried to make pedophiles victims. He does not take kindly to this:

I do not care if they are taking their meds. We make alcoholics jump through many hoops to get their driver’s license back, so why should we be helpful to pedophiles at all? That type of attraction is a disorder, and the sign of a broken human being. I looks at pedos as people we should be hanging in the town square when caught. Sure, it is a disorder, and a crime, and I do not want your part of the gene pool to pass on your pedo-ness or be free to roam and molest kids. These are not oppressed victims; these are people who are messed up in the head and should be sequestered.

I’m going to disagree with SoBL here, at least partially.

Before I begin, I should establish some definitions because people tend to use words related to this topic in a very slip-shod manner and I’m trying to establish a nuanced view here. I will also note that there are many problems in researching this particular area of study, so a lot of these numbers have wide variance.

A clinical pedophile is someone with a primary or sole attraction to pre-pubescent children. Of clinical pedophiles, true (or exclusive) pedophiles are attracted solely to children, while non-exclusive pedophiles have normal adult attractions in addition to their pedophilic attractions. Depending on the source, anywhere from 1-7% of men are clinical pedophiles, although, most estimates I’ve seen tend to be on the lower end.  (I have not seen a number breaking down exclusive and non-exclusive pedophiles).

Besides the clinical pedophiles, there are those with pedophilic tendencies. These are men who are primarily attracted to adults, but also have some level of attraction to children. About one in five men have some level of pedophilic tendencies. (I remember reading somewhere that one study found that half of men have some level of attraction to children, but I can not find a source).

Not all clinical pedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are clinical pedophiles. A pedophilic offender is a clinical pedophile who molests children, while an situational molester is someone who is not a clinical pedophile but molests children. An archetypical example of a situational molester is a step-father who has a fight with his wife, gets drunk, then sleeps to his step-daughter because he’s horny and she’s available. The proportion of molesters who are pedophiles varies by source: Some sources say that less than 20% of child molesters are clinical pedophiles, while others put it up to 80%.

Many people also incorrectly use pedophilia to refer to attraction to the legally under-age but pubescent. Attraction to pubescent teenagers is not pedophilic. People attracted young pubescent teenagers are referred to as ephebohpiles and hebephiles.

An ephebophile is someone who is primarily or exclusively attracted to teenagers in their late adolescence (ages 15-19 or so). Given that I recently argued adolescence is an unhealthy, aberrent infantalization of adults, I obviously reject the category of ephebophilia as a pathology (as do psychologists), as attraction to adults is normal as is a strong preference for youth.

Someone who is primarily or exclusively attracted towards young but pubescent girls (ages 11-14 or so) is called a hebephile. There is overlap between pedophiles and hebephiles. I would say that while some level of attraction to young pubescents is normal, especially among men, a primary or exclusive attraction to young pubescents is probably unhealthy and pathological.

Hereafter, pedophile/pedophilia on their own refers to a clinical pedophile/pedophilia.

****

With words clearly defined, I will now explain why I disagree with SoBL. Pedophilia is a disorder, but non-offending pedophiles should not be “hanging in the town square.” A pre-disposition to a particular evil is not the same as committing that evil.

We’ll liken pedophilia to homosexuality. Sodomy is a sin, but those who are biologically pre-disposed to homosexuality can still have a fruitful and happy marriages without sin. Not all (clinical) homosexuals commit sodomy or try to normal homosexuality. Opposing pride parades and homosexual “marriage” does not mean we should condemn the homosexual living a healthy life with a wife and three children.

We can also liken it to rape. I’ve noted before that about one third of males have rape fantasies; a large portion of male population is inclined to this particular sexual crime. Only about one in six of those so inclined actually act on the fantasies (as I’ve noted before, about 6% of men are rapists). We do not imprison those males who merely fantasize about rape, only those who act. As well, it is not a sin to be inclined to rape, only if it the inclination becomes lust or action does it become a sin.

Likewise, just because a man is predisposed to pedophilia does not mean he can not still be a useful and accepted member of society. If he does not commit any evil actions and does not try to normalize pedophilia, he should not be condemned. He has certain inclinations, but he is not acting on them. He is committing no sin and no crime, and should not be punished as if he is.

Not to mention, we need to take into account the practicalities of the situation: Are we really going to jail/kill 2% of men? If we include everybody who has pedophilic tendencies (which SoBL seems to be indicating), then what? What could we possibly do with 20% of the male population?

This is why I disagree with SoBL. A natural inclination towards a particular temptation is not sin and persecuting people for crimethink, even if that crimethink is pedophilic in nature, is unjust.

****

This is not to say that nothing should be done. A known pedophile should not be put into position where he is left alone with children not his own (including step-children) and he should be barred from jobs that require regular interaction with children. We should not put temptation to crime and sin in front of a man with inclinations towards that particular crime/sin. Hence, we should keep pedophiles from situations where he has hidden access to children, just as we do not serve alcoholics wine, we (should) keep college dorms segregated by sex, we disallow men from leading girl guide troops, and we (should) ban homosexuals from leading scout troops.

As well, none of this is to say that a child molester should not be punished. If a man molests a child, he should be punished; in many cases executed. Given that about 25-50% of prosecuted child molesters commit future molestations, molesters who are released back into society should be watched closely to prevent them from interacting from children.

Dianna Anderson: A Wolf in the Pen

This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”
(Proverbs 30:20 ESV)

Dalrock pointed out this piece by “Christian” Dianna Anderson where she called her fornication “a different kind of sacrament.” She then rages against the purity culture. Now, I’m no fan of the purity culture, having called it a sickness, among other epithets, but the proper reaction against the purity culture is not to embrace sinful hedonism, it is to embrace God-ordained marriage.

Looking over her Twitter and blog, she’s obviously your average young progressive with the typical progressive beliefs about social issues glossed over with a smear of vague “Christianity” over it. As with most progressive “Christians”, she loves the world and has simply smeared a Christian sheen over the doctrines of the world. Now to any orthodox Christian Dianna’s obviously a false teacher, and 2 Peter 2 says all that’s necessary about false teachers:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

****

There’s nothing all that special about her beliefs and her article is chalk full of such obvious rationalizations for sin that commenting on all of them would be a waste of time but I think there’s a few things here worth pointing out.

I’d met him at a local book club, and we hit it off almost instantly. Our first date started at eight p.m. and ended shortly after one a.m. Though we’d planned a second official date for the following Tuesday, we ended up hanging out every evening for the next few days. I was smitten, he was smitten, and it wasn’t long before we were A Thing.

Two months later, I moved to Chicago and we broke up. But before all that happened, before this relationship went down in the flaming ball of pain that plagues so many long distance relationships, we had several wonderful evenings together.

I obviously can’t say for sure why she moved to Chicago but moving at age 25, moves are almost always either the pursuit of a job or the pursuit of a relationship, and given that she worked “as a radio producer in Chicago” it can reasonably be assumed obvious she left for the job.

The problem here is not the purity culture, the problem here is that she had what likely would have become a marriage, then dumped it so she could pursue other priorities in her life. While pursuing other priorities is fine, she can not then turn around and blame purity culture for her own choices. So, all her feeling “totally abandoned and misled by this God” was not God depriving her or the purity culture damaging her, but her depriving herself of marriage to a guy she cared about so she could pursue a career. Her entire “ministry” is little more than her rationalizing her mistake and blaming the natural consequences of her own decisions on others. “I have done no wrong” indeed.

****

She outlines six warnings of purity culture (which she obviously thinks are wrong):

Having sex outside of marriage will take away pleasure from sex within marriage.

Absolutely true. Most women’s best sex was with someone other than their husband and most women would rather do almost anything else before sex. Anecdotes of alpha widows are legion.

Having sex outside of marriage with make connection with your future spouse harder.

Absolutely, it does. Pre-marital sex is one of the strongest indicators of future divorce.

Having sex outside of marriage means disappointing God, disappointing family, and causing unnecessary pain and heartache for yourself.

Absolutely. Regret over sexual encounters is common among women. Deuteronomy 22 alone is enough to show exactly how much fornication disappoints God. As for family, that would depend on your family.

Having sex outside of marriage will essentially destroy you, ruining your witness, your faith, your relationships.

Given that the woman writing this is currently advocating sin as a form of sacrament, it would be hard to argue this is not true in many cases.

Having sex outside of marriage is the slippery slope to hedonistic atheism.

Not always atheism, sometimes its a slippery slope to a false, damnable “Christianity”.

Her ‘problems’ with purity all fall on the side of purity culture being right.

****

My doubt had taken a toll on me; I didn’t know how to process this new perspective of God that I was developing. I was beginning to see the cracks in the armor of the evangelical church, especially as my views on politics became more progressive and I began to be more concerned about loving LGBT people than condemning them to hell.

And yet, she insists on condemning them to hell. Why do progressive “Christians” not realize that by tolerating sin they are the ones condemning people to hell?

Also, take notice of the order of events. She did not have a theological revelation that turned her to progressive politics. She became progressive then decided to fit the superficialities of her old faith to fit her new religion.

She had a choice between the world and Jesus, she chose the world.

This also isn’t a conversion story of how losing my virginity made me realize how far away I’d fallen and now I’m chastened, back on the straight-and-narrow and celibate. I’m not celibate and I’m dating around. And I’m a Christian whose faith, at this point, is probably stronger than at any point in my younger years. And I know that this faith, this commitment, wouldn’t have been possible had I not actively made the decision to give up on purity.

I believe her here, her faith is probably stronger than it’s ever been, but the mistake she makes is that her faith is not Christianity, it is progressivism.

Rather than preying on the flock and destroying whatever remnants of morality still exist in the church, she should be honest with herself and God and either repent or go apostate.

For me, making the decision to have sex without shame, to own that part of myself and to make those decisions, has only improved my faith and my understanding of God’s love. Sex liberated me from my puritanical judgment and strict ideas about what’s right and wrong.

Peter was so very right, “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”

It taught me to meet people where they are – just as Jesus did – and in that way, it became a different kind of sacrament.

Just like Jesus did to the adulteress, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” Dianna is missing the ‘sin no more’ part. Also, I’m not sure she even understands what a sacrament is.

I judge people less now. I don’t wrap my faith up in whether or not I’m performing the rules in the right way. And I understand God’s love for God’s people on a deeper, more personal level than ever before… Sex, in this way, can be a sacrament, a movement toward understanding God, a form of holiness experienced in a deep, mystical way. Sex can be holy, whether or not you have a ring on your finger.

Peter once again speaks, “For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error.”

I’m almost surprised just how well she lines up with Peter’s words on false teachers.

In conclusion, Dianna Anderson has chosen the side of darkness and her own words pronounce her own judgment on herself. I hope she can see the errors of her ways and repents or at least stop trying to drag others to hell with her.

****

My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding,
that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge.
For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol;
she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it.

(Proverbs 5:1-6 ESV)

Unrealistic Expectations

Donal pointed out this comment by Elspeth:

Most people (men and women) have unrealistic expectations, about themselves, about what they are worth, about what they should be able to have. And those who know they can’t have what they want will go without. Especially men. I’ve heard a couple of young men actually say that.

He then defended those with reasonable, but possibly unrealistic requirements. (Read his post for definitions).

I’m going to go farther: as a man you should have unrealistic requirements for marriage. I’ve created my list for marriage and it’s reasonable, but possibly not realistic.

Based on previous analyses only about 40% of women are even worth considering for marriage looks-wise (ie. are not fat or actively ugly) and only about 30% of women would be in the 0-2 sexual partners category (although, that’s a bit higher if you go younger) and less than half have not had a one-night stand. Throw on top of that that you should almost never* marry a woman over 30 and be wary of those over 25, and your pickings are getting slim. That’s not even considering the much more important (for marriage) aspects of personality and inner beauty.

we can estimate that only about a fifth of eligible women would be even worth considering marrying. If we then look towards such things as religion, shared values, mutual compatibility, personality, and the like, the percentage of women that would make a decent wife for any particular man is shockingly low. (The only reprieve is a man only needs one reciprocating girl to meet those requirements).

If only 20% of women are worthy wives, then that means that 80% of men are not going to be able to find a worthy wife. Now, it should be noted that most men won’t meet the requirements a worthy wife should have and many men will choose unworthy wives, but still, if even a quarter of men are waiting for worthy wives that means that 20% of those men are simply going to have to do without.

****

It is better to live in a corner of the housetop
than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. (Proverbs 25:24 ESV)

While a good marriage can be a great blessing, the consequences of choosing an unworthy wife are huge.

I remember reading somewhere (I can’t find the link) that 70% of marriages either end in divorce or perpetual unhappiness, which means that only 30% of marriages end up being happy and healthy. (That’s pretty close to my estimation that only 20% of women who are worthy wives, is it not?)

There is a 40% chance the marriage will end in divorce, the odds of which are strongly effected by how worthy the wife is. The cost of an average divorce to a man is about $150,000, the price of a smaller house. (This does not include child support, which will run an average man a pretty penny as well). The emotional costs of divorce are also huge: it is better to be single than divorced.

But even if the family stays together, there’s a chance the marriage will be miserable. Number I’ve read range all over the place. This study shows that 97% of marriages are ‘very’ or ‘pretty’ happy with their marriage, while this one shows 80% are satisfied with their relationship. I’ve seen lots of other numbers bandied around of anywhere from 20-60%, but most of these did not seem supported by anything. 80% satisfaction sounds right, which means 20% of marriages not ending in divorce are unhappy.

So, there’s a 50-70% chance that a marriage will be unhappy or end in divorce. If a man chooses a wife wrong, he will end up miserable.

****

Men should have unrealistic (but no unreasonable) requirements for marriage. IF only a fifth of women display the qualities that make a good wife, not all men will be able to find a good wife. Going without is much superior to entering a marriage that will end in divorce or misery.

So hold those requirements high and be unrealistic if necessary to so.

****

Before the accusations of misogyny start flying, know that I also advocate women demanding more from their relationships. Women should also hold high requirements for marriage and relationships.

****

* I have talked with one girl approaching 30 whom, had circumstances been different, I may have considered, but she had been engaged in her mid-20s then the guy calling it off because she wouldn’t have sex with him until marriage. There are not many women out there with that level of virtue, but every rule has an exception.

Digging Deeper on Power

We come to a third edition of the topic of women and power. Both Donal and Chad have responded with criticisms, so I’ll respond.

Donal’s response is, as he admits, somewhat unordered and incoherent, but essentially he denies that men act as a class and states that modern weaponry has lowered the power differentials between men and women.

Chad’s response is wrapped in parable. I’ve never been too good with allegory and as of my writing this I don’t think he’s done yet, but from my understanding he’s likening men to land and women to water. The land shapes the environment and guides and controls the water, but the water flows where it flows within the framework the land has shaped and has the power to either destroy the land or make it bountiful.

From these, I don’t think we disagree as much as my critics think we do.

****

First, on the nature of power:

The female, and indirect method, is to make the world desire to change and help it do so.

I think many of my critics are missing or misunderstanding a critical piece:

any power [women] may display is simply proxy power given them by men.

They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

So maybe I should restate a little: women as a class do not have any inherent public/political power.

Women do have political/public power but only that given them or supported by men. Indirect power, the power the make the world desire to change and to help change is only effective when men give them men’s power to effect that change.

****

Second, we will go more into the nature of the public and private realms:

Oh, and another thing: the personal is the political, at least in the sense that political power is heavily influence by personal and private spheres of power. As anyone who has worked in the political field knows, politics is largely about managing personal connections and networks of like-minded people.

Donal seems to be misunderstanding what I meant, which is understandable as I didn’t explicitly state or link to some background assumptions:

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence,

The Way of Men has more on this, but men exist in a world of function-based, hierarchical organizations, ie. public organizations, while women exist in a world of one-on-one personal relationships. The former does not eliminate personal connections or friendships, but rather changes the nature of them: the personal relationships and networks exist in a framework where function, shared virtue, and ability towards a shared goal are the measures of judgment rather than emotional closeness, non-judgmentalism, and acceptance.

To explain what I mean, think of the playground. Boys generally self-organize into large group activities, such as soccer, where most other boys are allowed to join as they will (except maybe the occasional incompetent or nerd). Girls generally break up into pairs. This doesn’t mean the boys playing soccer don’t have personal relationships, but that the relationships exist in a public, hierarchical, function-based environment, the soccer team, and are superseded by a higher value, winning the game. Politics is playground soccer on a grand scale. The management of personal relationships and networks in such a public system is different than that in a private system, such as the family.

****

Finally, on women and men as a class.

Speaking of unified displays of male strength, I think that it should be noted that men rarely act together as a “class.” It isn’t how we are wired. There isn’t really a Team Man counterpart to Team Woman. So any argument founded on a notion that men can overcome women “as a class” fails as a foundational matter.

This misses the entire point of my argument. There is no ‘overcoming women’. There is no war between men and women, to think there is a class war based on sex is to fully adopt the neo-marxist foundations of feminism. To think there is a power conflict between men and women is to lose the ideological war entirely before it even begins. If we accept a sexual class struggle exists, we might as well give up now and enjoy the decline because we’ve already accepted the enemy’s frame and joined him.

****

Here we get to the main point I’m trying to make:

Men and women are not enemies and are not in competition, they are naturally made to complement each other. Women are naturally creatures of the private sphere, men are naturally creatures of the public sphere and the social arrangement of men and women, often referred to as patriarchy, of each tending to own their sphere works fantastically well for both men and women. Women have no inherent public political power because their inherent power rests in the private sphere, the sphere in which they are comfortable.

We do not have a competition between male power and female power, because the nature of their power is different. Rather we have a competition between one group of civilization-hating men and other groups of men, particularly white conservative males, in which women are but one group being used as weapons. Women are involved because the former group, using their control of cultural institutions, have managed to take the concerns of a small group of hurting, betrayed, broken, self-destructive, and/or high-testosterone women and elevate them to a class struggle in which most of the class does not share the small groups concerns and does not want to fight and most of those that do want to are primarily doing so because they have been lied to and the struggle is just the accepted environment in which they live.

The war is against that group of civilization-hating men. Feminists are the symptom of entropy not the disease. If we want to start winning we have to avoid mistaking the leaves for the roots.

Private and Public Spheres

Some have disagreed with my previous post, both in the comments and on their blogs. The jist of common objections are:

Women have the power of supplying willing, enthusiastic sex.

Only a Godly woman, submitted to a man with Godly masculinity, will be able to resist. His masculinity will appeal to her flesh, he will be put in authority by God, and hr will derive his direct power from God in the same way she will derive her indirect power from the same source. She will magnify everything in that household to be more as her husband and more as God, and the same in the community.

It overlooks the realm of indirect/private/influence power.

Now these are not wrong, a woman does have power in her private sphere: she has power to influence her husband, power to inculcate values in her children, and power to otherwise influence her local community and personal relationships.* I even briefly mentioned this in my original post: “Women do have a specific power: women are wonderful.” But this power is irrelevant to the discussion as women’s power lies in the realm of individual private relationships.

On the other hand, men’s power lies in the realm of hierarchical public organizations, although, they can bring their power to bear in the private sphere as well.

That is why I specified that women as a class are powerless. A class can only exist in the public realm and women’s power does not transfer into the public realm unless men allow it to and support it. (This does not mean that women’s power if meaningless or non-existent, only that it does not exist in the public realm).

In the private realm, emotions and personal relationships rule. Where harmonious relationships are paramount power can come in many forms as emotional and spiritual violence, the kinds of violence women excel at, are just as effective against individuals as physical violence and the use of physical violence is often destructive to harmonious personal relationships.

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence, however well-hidden the violence may be. Spiritual and emotional violence are useless as as they can only truly work against isolated individuals or family units, not tribes or thedes. In the public realm, even when public power may come from authority, legitimacy, expertise, tradition, at heart it still flows from physical violence or the implication thereof. Democracy is bloodless war, public policy is coercive confiscation, redistribution, and regulation, authority derives from implied violence, and legitimacy derives from being a part of a hierarchy backed by violence. In our modern society, violence is mostly implied and hidden behind many layers of bureaucracy, but the system still rests on it.**

And women, as a class, are not capable of violence. They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

In the public realm there is know balance of power between the patriarchy and the matriarchy, there is only a power balance between civilized men and uncivilized men, and the women belonging to either group.

****

Why do you think feminists try to make the personal political?

If feminists could succeed at extending the personal realm into the public realm, to have it annex the public realm, women would be able to exert far more power over the public realm through their power in the private realm.

Of course, the personal can not be made political, you can not have individual private relationships with more than about 150 people, let alone millions. It is impossible for the private realm to conquer the public realm, but the public realm can conquer the private realm, so when trying to mix the two the public realm always comes out on top. This is why feminism always ends in bureaucracy. This is why leftism, however pro-anarchy it may be, always ends in bureaucracy.

****

This separation of public and private power makes a case for extreme subsidiarity. If most political decision making is devolved to the Dunbar level, the private realm could conquer the public realm, and we could have a political structure that does not fundamentally rest on violence. This is called tribalism.

****

As for sex explicitly, there is nothing women could do if men decided to take it forcefully. Thankfully, due to the Christian civilization feminists are intent on destroying, most men have been inculcated with values that are in opposition to rape. While women’s love might be a strong private force, I’m fairly sure that if civilized Christian values stopped being indoctrinated into children from a young age, most men would not be as adverse to rape as a few of the commenters think they are.

****

As for female serial killers: as I said, “There is a .01% of women capable of physically matching the average man. This is not significant.” Some women are outside the norm, that doesn’t mean anything to women as a class.

****

* I should mention that even here, those powers exist only because the stronger men in her life allow them to women. Men could easily take them away, making those powers dependent on men.

** This is not necessarily a moral judgment; morally legitimate violence is necessary for any polity. Also, for those wanting to get metaphysical on my use of morality here, God is good because God is powerful.

Sex Ed Hypocrisy

I found this both amusing and angering:

EDMONTON – An Edmonton teenager and her mother have successfully filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging the Edmonton Public School District’s use of a Christian fundamentalist abstinence education program infringed upon their rights as non-Christians.

Dawson’s mother Kathy, an agnostic who supports sex education, signed the permission slip for Emily to attend CALM’s sexual education classes. She was shocked when Emily texted her to say the “sex ed” class was being taught by an anti-abortion activist, from the American-based Pregnancy Care Centre.

The leftist theocrats spent decades ramming “sexual education” into the public education system against the vocal opposition of Christians, the right, and anybody with any sanity because indoctrinating elementary-school children in the joys of sodomy and pedophilia is essential for the leftist goal of destroying the family.

One pro-life Christian group manages to infiltrate their sexual indoctrination sessions and make it vaguely pro-family and suddenly it becomes a human rights issue that must be dealt with in court.

It’s funny how suddenly teaching children about sex is wrong when it comes from a point of view of Christian morality rather than nihilistic hedonism.

Remember, its all about forcing their views and destroying traditional values, nothing more.

To add even more joy, this is how the article ends:

It’s absurd. CALM isn’t religion class. That’s not what parents sign up for. Sex education in our local public schools should be delivered in a scientific, non-judgmental way, by qualified professionals, not outsourced to an American-based pro-life lobby group.

Emily and Kathy Dawson have inspired an important public debate about the nature of our public schools. They deserve our thanks for their courage in speaking out.

This left-wing moralizing BS is a part of the news story. It’s not an editorial, it’s in the national news section. The priests of progressivism aren’t even trying to hide that the news is simply propaganda any more.

The gloves are coming off, they’re coming into the open, and they won’t stop until they’ve devoured your children’s souls and destroyed whatever is left of the family.