My son’s belief in my greatness knows few bounds. Sometimes I will give him a new food, and I’ll say, “Here, try this. I like it.” On occasion he likes it, and will ask for more. Many times he does THE BEST THING: As he chews the food, he gets this grimace, but he chokes it down. I’ll ask him, “Was it good?” and my beautiful boy smiles wide and says, “Uh-huh!”–like that yuck-face never happened. “Do you want some more?”, I ask. “No thanks, Dad.”
Regardless of his own tastes, it is more important to my son to proclaim as good what I have said is good. The world will tell him he’s a liar to say something which tastes bad to him is actually good. The world is not reckoning with the fact that my son has decided that what is good to me is what is good to my son, and not even his taste-buds are going to tell him different. You can’t force this worldview on people. It’s an upward-oriented love that grows out of a deep respect for what the authority has done for the subordinate.
I’ve spent a few posts talking generically about dicks, and a little more specifically about the fact that women like them, and that it’s good that they like them. I don’t think I’ve ever actually told my son his dick is great, but I might have. He just assumes that his is because I have one and I’m not ashamed of mine; so insofar as he is like me, his is great, too. We usually shower together because I’ve always hated giving kids a bath, or baby-sitting them while they bathe. When my daughters were babies I was more likely to take them into the shower with me than to kneel beside the tub, leaning over and all that hassle. When they got to be toddlers I just delegated it solely to Mrs. Caldo. After all: daughters are not sons.
My son being a son, there’s been no reason to stop. He’s old enough to wash himself (and does), but we still shower together. We both look forward to it. It’s just us, together. His sister’s can’t come in. We race each other undressed, laugh loud, sing songs, cheer the Bronx, and laugh some more. Sometimes Mrs. Caldo gets jealous wants to share and comes into the bathroom (but not the shower!) to listen to us horse around. He learned from me how to wash himself properly without a spectacle being made of it, or a bunch of nonsense words. He just copies me. We talk about sports, LEGO’s, our bodies, today’s events, and move smoothly among them all. Nobody hushes him, or gives him those disapproving looks. On occasions when I’m out of town, my wife supervises his showers, and he waggles around just the same.
This loving respect of a devoted follower is what husbands want from their wives, and this is what wives want to give to their husbands. A woman’s love is ALWAYS oriented-upward; out of respect for his authority; for what he produces and provides; for his abilities. She will never feel intimacy with him for who he is except as she recognizes him on the basis for what he has done, what he currently does, and what she expects him to do in the future. This isn’t a bug in women, but a feature: It’s another way of saying, “women like dick, and that is good.” Within this relationship, there is no room for judgment, or recrimination; just enjoyment and intimacy.
There is, of course, a difference in methods of sharing from husband to wife, as compared to, from father to son. Wives need to be given dick on a regular basis, and so must come together with their husbands. At birth sons are given their own permanent and separate installations; with which to woo their own wives. Wives must grab their kings’ scepters to act in the king’s stead, with the full weight and pleasure of his authority, and both will be fulfilled. (King and queen shower time has a much different feel. Hey now!) Sons must wield their own scepters, and will be kings in their own rights.
There’s been some feedback that my language is too salty, and a general undertone in some of the comments that what’s really important is the spiritual truths underlying these sexual truths. Quite so, but the simple fact is that the physical signs of the truth are what are given to every man to point us to the real Truth. In fact, you can’t understand the Bible until you start to grasp some of these truths, but understanding the Bible will deepen respect for the sign of sex. There’s an interplay in the mating of the two views.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate….
This monarchist is liking the royalty references.
@Elspeth
I take it that was inspired by SSM’s comment?
@TMR
Wait ’til I start talking about commodes.
I take it that was inspired by SSM’s comment?
Well, yes. 🙂 .
Now that I have offered my cheer, I ask for your indulgence as I disagree slightly on a point you made:
I see where you’re going with this, and the fact that you asserted that this does not make a woman’s nature bad, I appreciate that. That said, I can think of many character qualities I admire in my husband that are wholly disconnected from his abilities or provision. He is fearless, honorable, brutally honest (took me a while to be able to swoon over that, LOL). He is faithful, generous, competent. Yes, I know that’s connected to what he does but it’s a huge part of who he is.
I don’t know if I can get behind your statement completely. I think your words may have been an accurate characterization of my thoughts toward him in the early years, but the longer we are married, the less surface these things should be, and what you described is very surface oriented.
I hope that made some kind of sense as I wasn’t quite sure how to express what I was thinking at first.
Or is it your assertion that women are just shallow like that, and that’s a good thing?
@Elspeth
You can only recognize and appreciate those things as much as he demonstrates them, and your love of him directly will never outpace your love of all the things he does for you. As you said: No sooner did you learn to love him more directly than you discovered you appreciated things that you had not before. The respect perpetually outpaces the love, beckoning it on.
For men, this is not the same. He married to own her, and whatever good things grow in her garden he expected by right. This sometimes manifests itself as “taking for granted”, but husbands really aren’t very, or very often, shocked by what their wives can do. We knew you had it in you.
It’s a post or so further down the line, but I’ll make next comparison, and I think you’ll see what I am talking about. While a wife’s love is upwardly directly, and therefore based almost wholly on respect, a mother’s love is based on ownership. She loves the child not for what it does, or might become, or for any of its traits, but because it is hers. She will learn to love the traits as fallout of loving the child; compared to with her husband it’s her admiration of his traits that leads her to love him.
Hence: Husbands love your wives. Wives respect your husbands. Children obey your parents. Fathers don’t provoke your children (which ruins respect) but nurture and admonish them (which encourages it).
It’s just the way we were made.
It’s called gratitude. We’re not allowed to talk about it in the manosphere, though, unless we immediately explain that women are scheming users looking to suck men dry and then discard them. Which may be true outside of marriage, but inside marriage that gratitude for what my husband has done for me mirrors my gratitude to Christ for what He has done for me. Do I deserve any of what Christ or HHG has done for me? No. But I’m grateful for it nonetheless, grateful in a way that makes my heart ache.
Thanks for the reminder about this. I used to be a devoted rebel in the early days of our marriage; if my husband took one position, I automatically took the other. Rather than a devoted follower, I was a perpetual debate-starter. Just what every man doesn’t want in a wife. It’s nice not to feel compelled to do that anymore.
Nice cheer, Elspeth. 🙂
@SSM
Yes, exactly. Gratitude for what he has done; admiration for what he is capable of doing. And expectation of what he will do in the future. Expectation often goes overtly unmentioned, but is almost always covertly present. For example: I read it in the way you talk about HHG and Elspeth talks about SAM.
Women are always after this because that is the way they were made to be. It is inescapable. Even when some harpy divorces and tries to trade-up, she is trying to trade up to a man she can admire and of whom she can have expectations. That’s always their desire, anyway. Their methods are often stupid.
From the evo-psych/materialist perspective it is impossible not to see women as pleasurable parasites with one upside: bearing children. It then becomes the materialist’s burden to prove what possible materialist reason there could be for giving a damn about carrying on the species, or furthering the bloodline. There is none. They’ll say, “Oh, instinct, and selfish genes and so-forth..”, but that’s no more than an appeal to a multitude of very small, idiosyncratic and utterly stupid, mute, and blind gods. It’s not Christianity versus science, but Christianity versus a very pitiful paganism.
You are free to talk about it here, SSM.
There was a time when I would have found being compared to a child offensive. I find it interesting that I don’t now. Perhaps it is because I view my husband as abbot of our domestic church, and king of his domain, that this isn’t a problem.
SSM hit the nail on the head. It is easy for men to whine that women don’t love them for “who they are” and are incapable of love. I’ve also overheard the same complaint from the distaff side, from every girl upset that men aren’t attracted to her mind, but seem to be hung up on her being pretty and approachable.
These complaints ignore how women and men are made. I have immense respect for my husband, gratitude for the care he has given us and the sacrifices he has made. And I have high hopes for where he is going in the future. I know plenty of people who find that sentiment off-putting, and few who understand that it is genuine love.
> It is easy for men to whine
Wait what? No, I don’t think so. Let me check something. . .mmmyeah, no, I’m pretty sure that if it was easy for us to whine about anything, suicide wouldn’t have increased from our 8th largest cause of death to our 7th largest.
But thanks for jumping up and down a bit on the locked and welded shut cellar door holding us down here in the filthy, diseased darkness where we suffer and die for you and your nice, safe, warm femisphere, dear.
As I pointed out over at HUS some time ago, to an echoing silence: what do you women do, collectively, for we men and boys, that comes even remotely close to our commitment to step between you and violent harm?
You’ve had cheaper medical care in general and cheaper female OB/GYN care in particular your entire life because I and millions of boys like me were sexually mutilated at birth, and the bill payment went in part to lowering your costs, including the profits from reselling our sexual flesh to bioresearch and -production companies.
@acksiom,
Please, learn to read a paragraph before you respond to part of it.
I was noting that both men and women whine about how the opposite sex is incapable of real love and won’t “appreciate me for who I am.”
Our host had shot that down by pointing out that women’s love is real love, but is tied to and follows respect and appreciation.
I am not a feminist. 4 of my 5 children are boys and I care rather deeply about their future prospects. I think health care for women stinks because it focuses on funding for chemical sterility as a cure-all. Ask me how I know.
I’m not sure what you mean by mutilation unless you mean circumcision? Not standard medical procedure anymore, and considered cosmetic, and uncovered as a result, by insurance.
I will not speak for all woman kind. For my own husband, I school his children, cook nutritious meals, make his home clean and beautiful, seek to creatively bring in extra income when possible through monetizing my hobbies, fulfill his desires in the duties of the marital office, and help him stay healthy and same. I thank him every day for protecting.me from the insanity of the wider world. I gave him my loyalty and have not betrayed it.
If someone has hurt you I am sorry. Do not project it onto the entirety of my sex.
@CC, is your nom de plume Latin?
If someone has hurt you I am sorry. Do not project it onto the entirety of my sex.
This you need to get used to. Sorry, it just is. Because frankly we CAN project widely across your gender with scoped generalizations that are valid points of reference in context. The majority if not the entirely of the corpus of thought found in the manosphere, secular and Christian, is born of pain wrought by your gender. You will not find the men here having gotten exercised about generalizations of men if they have statistical merit. Things are just what they are. What you do for your husband is great, but totally irrelevant to the point he was making.
His point about health care finds no rebuttal in reference to hormonal birth control.
Insurance DOES cover circumcision.
Too clever (and reactionary) by half.
I have deleted a rather rambling defense of my point. I’ll summarize with this.
Feminism isn’t anti-man. It’s anti-human. Which means it’s from Hell. Attacking the distaff side of the human race won’t cure the evils wrought by the various waves of feminism.
I have gained nothing of material or spiritual worth for my so-called liberation and don’t see how complaints about my illusory “gains” will right the injustices wrought against men in general. But I also don’t see why I shouldn’t want society ordered so that both sexes aren’t wholly screwed by the system.
(its OK to say “female”, shall I call myself spindle?)
Then you’ve fallen into the insidious balance-as-solution workaround.
Attacking is not the point. Rebuking? Maybe. Leading? Definitely. Truth telling? Certainly.
You’ve also fallen into solipsism by using your gains and their nonexistence or their illusory nature.
Nothing wrong with a society that screws no gender. But, the system is the people, and the people are women and men who are useful idiots fearing them.That women see some truth about their rarely challenged moral superiority, that men be made to see that said superiority is non existent, and that both then proceed accordingly, is good. The feminism in this case is not one of the “waves”.
You need to do some further reading around these parts because you are presently stuck in eloquent beginner mode.
@Acksiom
Your worldview and mine are totally different. If you knew anything about even Game, you’d know that men put themselves in harms way for women mostly for selfish reasons. It’s Beta Game.
Men are in the cellar. They walked themselves into it at the behest of devious Alpha men because they thought a life a leisure was inside. Then the same Alpha men told the women to have a seat on those doors, and since women want their leisure to: They did. The Alphas now flit about the cellar-trap world sampling the lazy tarts lounging on the doors.
I’m not in the cellar. I can also see women lounging on the doorway, and that really bothers me to have my brothers trapped under. I suppose I could go over and cart women off one-by-one, instead I woo-ed about 40 of them over here.
By the way: circumcision isn’t mutilation. I know this because it was God who commanded circumcision. It is true that today holiness does not require circumcision, but for the previous 6,000 years it wasn’t mutilation, and it isn’t mutilation now. There was a future post on this, so it’s not off-topic.
However; I was previously unaware of the selling of foreskins. That is interesting. My initial thought is that it’s one more reason not to give to the state what belongs to God. Perhaps we should do like Orthodox Jews, and have priests perform circumcisions. I’ll tell you what: It would go a good ways towards sorting out who REALLY feels led to be a minister.
@TRM
I-talian, as we say in Texas.
@CC
Google Translate, and my rusty Italian confirm what my husband’s Latin caught at first glance, since this one is the same in both languages.
We are amused.
@empath,
I never claimed moral superiority. I tend to take a pox on both your houses approach. Yes, you may say spindle, or not as you prefer. I don’t demand anything of my interlocutors, especially not my preference for archeologisms. I have a childish love of preserving $50 words so that they’ll survive another generation.
My actual preference is not balance. I want to live in an Eastern European style mixed monarchy under the Emperor, with authority vested at the top and power distributed to the lowest local level. I want families to be arranged along traditional lines because that is what God ordained. I want to help women see that they gain nothing from voting rights and jobs and nanny state interventions, and everything from a patriarchy that they serve as wives & mothers (or consecrated virgins). I think no fault divorce is evil.
I loathe that I need to have a precis of this stuff to establish my bona fides.
I’ll happily clarify my position, but please ask for rather than assume my starting point.
Nice cheer, Elspeth.
Thanks. I wanted to take a minute to mull this over before I responded:
You can only recognize and appreciate those things as much as he demonstrates them, and your love of him directly will never outpace your love of all the things he does for you. As you said: No sooner did you learn to love him more directly than you discovered you appreciated things that you had not before. The respect perpetually outpaces the love, beckoning it on.
I have concluded that I agree with this and I also agree with the principle of a husband’s ownership and it has never bothered me the way it seems to so many other women.
@ SSM:
It’s called gratitude. We’re not allowed to talk about it in the manosphere, though, unless we immediately explain that women are scheming users looking to suck men dry and then discard them. Which may be true outside of marriage, but inside marriage that gratitude for what my husband has done for me mirrors my gratitude to Christ for what He has done for me.
That was very well put, SSM. I have always been slightly bothered by the notion of my physical and provisional dependence on my husband being characterized as “leechiness”.
At least CC has permitted us to express a bit more freely here.
I loathe that I need to have a precis of this stuff to establish my bona fides.
There is a USD 0.25 answer to this,…..man up…..so to speak, because you do have to do so. Well, its not my blog so I do not offer repercussions, just that that is the cost of discourse on these topics.
Balance-as-solution was not to imply a system that is balanced, rather to describe an effort used to arrive at a system. The system can look any way the desirous one wants, its the manner of getting there that would be “balanced”, as represented by the pox on both houses remark. You cannot stay above the fray. It is fallacious there. Coincidentally (or not) I’ve noted that it is haughty at that height with the above the fray group (and it is a group) as well.
I won’t clutter Cane’s topic further as I am way off it.
Sigh. One of these days I’m going to learn not to get into arguments on the internet. I’m not Katherina the Shrew, but I resemble Beatrice from Much Ado a bit too much at times.
@TRM
There is something to Empath’s point. Women in gaggle have a tendency to go overboard in the pursuit of the idea of balance; a balance which they themselves can hardly measure, and of which the balance weights and measures of our age are truly fraudulent.
That being said: I think you’re doing a stellar job establishing your bona fides right now. Perhaps your “distaff” language confused Acksiom. Your comments have proven to be reliable springboards to good conversation. I’m always happy to see your avatar in the sidebar.
Thank you. That clarifies the balance thing, which I was going to question.
Rather than be above the fray, I actually tend to civilisational despair. Let the Zombie Apocalypse come and destroy the whole mess! May something better rise from the ashes.
Of course, nothing better will unless it’s founded in Christ.
This oddly parallels the conversation I’ve been having with my homeschooling internet friends. I’d bring them here, but only one or two have even begin to realize that we’re all shackled watching shadows on the wall. The light’s a bit too strong here yet for them.
I am awaiting the zombie apocalypse eagerly. I love the idea of some Christians in dystopian environs.
That you are working to establish bonafides was never in question. You said that you hate it. You mustn’t because its something that one must do, and you are no different than another. That the burden is heavier on females is understandable, but make no mistake, we’ve all earned our niche even if its microscopic.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/26 | Free Northerner
Hello there, Mr. Caldo –
I am trying to locate the post in which you explained why hypergamy is not a priori a bad thing, but I cannot find it. Perhaps I am misremembering, but I really thought you had written about that. If you have, would you mind giving me the link? I need it for something I’m working on. Thanks!
@SSM
I’ve mentioned it several times, but here’s the latest exposition that I recall:
Show up
To see nothing
Sadness
(2/4/2 form)
GKC can you put a comment on my blog so I can send you an email?