Neither Saved Nor Spent, But Invested

I want to take a short break from my series to talk about a discussion in the comments of Dalrock’s latest post on women delaying marriage. I think he’s right in the aggregate, but there’s also some room to talk about the different ways this is ship is going down within the American Christian community.

When I write this blog, I always do so with my son in mind, but my child who is actually at this phase of life is my eldest daughter, Tina. A few weeks ago we went to breakfast at one of our family’s favorite restaurants. Everyone else was busy, and she’d managed to miss the times we’d went. Our waitress, Kacey, was blonde, petite, and young; no more than 22. After she took our drink order, she walked out of the room. As she did so she turned and locked eyes with me for a full five seconds.

“Tina.”, I said.


“Just…watch our waitress.”


“This is how to get a man’s attention.”

“What?” She had no idea what I was talking about.

“You’ll see.”

What ensued, horrified and fascinated Tina. Every time Kacey came to our table–about every three minutes–she lingered. She’d ask for refills, and then stay to chat. Then she’d come to check to make sure we liked our food…and she stayed to chat. After a few times, she started touching my shoulder. Then she just started stopping to chat and touch my arm. On one of these occasions, when the table behind Tina called for our waitress’ attention, Kacey merely leaned towards their table while extending her hand out to me; physically communicating for me to hang onto her. Tina literally used her hands as blinders; alternately laughing and gawping in shocked horror.

On the drive home we talked about it.

“So, what did Kacey do to get my attention?”

“She just… She was touching you–Dad, that is so gross–and she kept coming by every five seconds.”

“How did I know she was going to do that?”

“I have no idea.”

“Because she looked me in the eye for, like, ten seconds. No, more like five. Anyways: Long enough for me to know she was interested. If you want men to know you’re interested, you have to let them know. We are notoriously bad about noticing it until it’s too late.”

“Wow. That could be so awkward. What if he doesn’t respond?”

“Imagine being the man, and having to risk actual rejection when you ask a woman out.”

“Good point. Still…”

“I was clueless that your mother was interested in me. One day, while working in class, she asked me if I ever just wanted to kiss somebody. Totally did not register why she asked me, so I said “Nope.” and went right back to work. I remember thinking she was a strange girl.”

“Dad…seriously? What is wrong with you?”

“She hadn’t made eye contact. She hadn’t touched me. She had a boyfriend. We’re not mind-readers, and I’ve known plenty of girls that wanted to use guys to pass along their interest in another man. I wasn’t interested in that game.”

“I told Missy what you said–“

“About what?”

“–about us being the most attractive now that we’re ever going to be, and to use this time to find a husband.”


“We both got depressed.”

I laughed. “That won’t do you any good, and it’s exactly why I told you to watch the waitress. You can’t wait around for a guy to overcome your shyness for you. If he’s a guy worth having, he might be too busy doing something else to see that you are interested. You’ve got to make the first move, and then see if he responds. Men should make the call, but women should give out the number. Make sense?”


“Kacey was cute, wasn’t she?”

“Gross, Dad.”

“I’ll let you tell Mom.”

“She’s going to kill her.”

In general, women are the ones delaying marriage, but they’re getting an awful lot of help from their fathers. From the secular view, this primarily takes the form of daddy really pushing college[1] and telling his daughters that you never know if a man is going to stick around or not; they must be able to fend for themselves. Secondly, these days even fathers are telling their daughters to “play the field” before the settle down. “Settle down”…what an ugly way to frame it.

More traditionally-minded Christians practice this same marriage aversion, but add to it the nonsense that their daughters are spiritual princesses. A decade or so ago the keeping-up-with-the-churchy-Jones’ Christian fathers started dating and marrying them. That is…so weird and wrong.

For the moment I’ll ignore the extreme connotations, but, why in the world teach casual, bloodless, dating? That’s crazy, and unfair to both her and her date. They both have sexual energies burning holes in their pockets, and Dad’s modeling for them to bury those talents in the ground when he ought to be encouraging them to invest them. The only explanation is that the sort of Dad who would date his daughter doesn’t actually see sex as the gift and responsibility that it is.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

That gift and responsibility was given to the actual owner of the vagina; not Dad. It belongs to her until she marries; at which point she trades it fair-and-square for a dick.[2] What he should be doing is encouraging and directing her to make the trade with someone worthwhile; both physically and spiritually. Extended, platonic dating during her prime years is not the way to do that.

At the same time these fathers are acting out strange perversions of the modern courtship model, they are disparaging all the young men in their churches. They don’t have a degree. They don’t have a good enough job. They don’t have “godly enough” parents. They don’t have “a heart for Jesus”. It’s all bullshit. While Christian women are taught that Jesus is their personal boyfriend, Christian men are taught that they are the guardians of Jesus’ personal girlfriends; to let one of them be touched by a mortal is anathema. I was a 6’4″ 225lbs two-sport athlete; at church every day but Friday and Saturday; president of the youth council and the youth choir; son of a minister; personally led people to the Lord; had preached a sermon…and I still wasn’t good enough.

The situation is this: We’ve got women who are allowed to walk around in disrobed states, but discouraged from showing specific interest. Men who aren’t allowed to look (because women are half-naked), but are somehow supposed to differentiate and pursue their One True Love who ignores them. The fathers won’t allow their daughters to engage anyone who isn’t the equivalent of an established 35-year old, but in an age-appropriate body. And everybody is convinced that sex is the greatest thing ever and also a naughty thing–all at the same time. These things (among others) exacerbate, and even encourage, the problem of women delaying marriage.

[1] Especially the full away-from-home college experience: “Will this be the night I decide to be a bad girl! I totally could, you know. I wouldn’t, but it’s just so exciting to think about. I mean, I won’t be a real bad girl like Suzy Skankerini. After all, I can control myself if I want to, and I’m pretty sure I want to. Do I want to? Yes, I do…O.M.G, Billy looks so hawt!

[2] This, by the way, would be a good time to cuss to yourself if you’re a father of a daughter. It doesn’t have the same punch to your gut to say, “She wants a husband.”; “She wants a mate.”; “She anticipates marital union.” I really don’t believe you’re telling yourself the truth with those talk-around phrases. What she wants is dick. Marriage is how Christian women go about getting it, and it is good.

Doublethinking Lust II: Let’s All Get Mary’d

The reason I picked on Downton Abbey is not because the show is utter trash that no one should ever watch, but because they know the conservative passwords to use to get past the filters. Rather, they know what words not to use, and what visuals to avoid. They don’t cuss, and they don’t show whatever would lie under a bikini.

The plot of Downton Abbey is that the estate is in peril because the father gambled the estate’s funds away in an investment scheme. When he married the mother, his father and her father tied up her inheritance to the estate. That saved Downton Abbey, but now her inheritance will pass to another part of the family, as the heir apparent dies in the first episode. They have only daughters, and daughters are not allowed to inherit the estate. In other words, the plot of this “conservative show” is the errors of patrirachy. This, in a time when it is fashionable to hate patriarchy.

The best chance the family has to keep the mother’s inheritance close to home is to marry Mary (the oldest and prettiest daughter) to the new heir. Mary is not interested in this. She is interested in Pamuk; whom she takes to her bed; which is where he dies. The women of the family conspire to keep this secret, and are successful until a newspaper man discovers her secret and uses the information to blackmail Mary into marrying him. When all hope seems lost to Mary, she confesses her secret tryst with Pamuk to her father; to explain why she is marrying a man the family dislikes. Her father gives the only acceptable response allowed of fathers in the media: A hug.

The show takes pains to point out that if the other circumstances were different and she was an eligible heiress, then Mary could eat Turkish Delights every day and Downton Abbey would be fine! When you doublethink about it: Mary and Pamuk only sinned in response to the other greater sins of the law and fathers.

Let’s do the emotion math: Consider all the players involved, Mary is at most 1/5th responsible. Then there’s Pamuk (Who seduced poor Mary, so he should take half of her half, too. So, 1/10th blame to Mary, 3/10th to Pamuk.) Her father was the one who lost the money (1/5th blame). Her grandfathers locked up her mother’s inheritance (1/5th each). Let’s not forget English law and the pitiless patriarchy that set up this macabre system of law that doesn’t allow women to inherit estates. (Another 1/5th to them.) Wait…that’s 6/5th’s. Let’s consider poor Mary’s situation: Do we really want to assign blame to her? Her part is the smallest already, and doesn’t our reticence to impugn pretty women mean something? Let’s be forgiving (as we are commanded) and strike her 1/5th blame from the record.

When we add all this up we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that Mary is blameless. There’s just a lot of hurt feelings, and poor Mary almost had to do something she didn’t want to for doing something that–though wrong–is not really her fault. You know…when we feel doublethink about it, while we must admit that committing fornication is wrong, we also find Mary did no real wrong.

This doublethink is what passes for good conservative entertainment.

Folks: Don’t lose the point of my posts: That female viewers are the victims, here; that they are under constant barrage. Pointing out that every single song, show, and movie made in the West includes fem-porn isn’t an indictment of women, but of what is going on; that the situation in the Garden has not changed. The serpent is still whispering, “Would it really be wrong?”

I’m not saying Downton Abbey is the worst show ever[1], or that no one should ever watch it. I’m saying watch what you watch. Even the entertainment that is upheld as decent are infested with rebellion and licentiousness. While many things are used in this endeavor of evil, it is fem porn that is ubiquitously used to incite our wives and daughters. I want to encourage fathers that if you see something that you see or suspect is interfering with your family: It is not only your duty, but your joy(!) to turn that crap off. You don’t have to justify anything. It’s just entertainment, and you are the authority.

[1]And I like to like Justified. How is Justified superior to Downton Abbey? Because they don’t justify the sinful choices of the characters. Raylan isn’t better off for his sexual activity; in fact he’s always worse off. The writers of that show are more honest about life than the writers of either Jesse Stone or Downton Abbey. More to the point: I’m not being sold a bill of subversive goods, and no one in my house falls prey to the mindset of Justified the way women do to Downton Abbey.

Where Have You Been, Son?

I found some old footage of a game I quarterbacked in my days playing for Father State University. We were up against the University of Forni Cators, in blue. I guess I didn’t say the count loud enough, but watch what happens when I take the snap:

Man, I had a great tan in those days.

Doublethinking Lust I: Sex Ed

I fully intended to finish my 1/3 written post on Sunday School, but I don’t feel I’ve done due diligence on the topic of Christians celebrating deviant sex and relationships, and it is nagging at me.  As well, I want to tie in the lengthy conversation about Christians and “bad words” that occurred under the previous post, because it is of a piece with the issue of why so many Christian wives and daughters are so unprotected, undisciplined, indiscriminate, and too often feral.

As I re-read my posts one of the things I failed to do was clearly state my case. Here it is: The media we consume is by-and-large propaganda. It’s intended effect is to destroy authority and create women likely to act on sinful and thoughtless urges, because unregulated urges mean more sales. This dissolution is taught at least somewhere within most television shows, movies, books, and songs.

At the same time, this propaganda machine discourages fathers and husbands from exercising any meaningful authority, and discourages women from taking them seriously if they do. It does so by portraying disapproving fathers and husbands as unreasonable, mistaken, tyrannical, and heartless. Conversely, the only fathers and husbands who are uplifted are those who do not confront actions of rebellion or sin. Theirs is but to give hugs and understanding.

Encouragement of feral female licentiousness and discouragement of the discipline of modesty is omnipresent in the fiction of Western Civilization, and it’s also true of any journalism or editorial that touches on the subject of sex or romance. In effect it is a much more comprehensive sex ed concerned not only with which bit goes where, but how the producers of media believe men and women should relate, how families should be ordered (or not!), and how to make decisions on sexual matters.

Within these (deviously informal but extremely well-funded) sex ed seminars, there are also individual scenes of propaganda are targeted at a particular sex. In the past media was designed to appeal to as broad and general audience as possible, but as liberalism has progressed (and with the aid of technology and increasingly specialized labor) this is no longer necessary to accomplish their goals.

The go-to formula to get men in the theater is to make the protagonist violent. The violence of the protagonist is almost always perpetrated in protection of, or revenge for, some person or people, and the violence is committed against clearly-defined bad guys who–in addition to being generally dastardly–almost always initiate the violence first. There is at least a tenuous relation to the concepts of justice and defense of the weak. Revenge becomes a symbol for justice. (Granted: Somewhere further down the list of tropes to entice men is naked women.)

When media producers want to appeal to women they put the protagonist into a pornographic scene. This is usually fornication and adultery, but an emotional affairs[1] will do. Once in awhile sex and love between a husband and wife is depicted, but by-and-large the captivating moments aimed at women are illicit relationships. These pornographic scenes are intended to appeal to women along the same tenuous lines as the violent revenge and protection themes appeal to men. So, if revenge is meant as a symbol of justice, what ideal is pornography meant to symbolize?


Unfortunately for Christians: Eros does not differentiate between good and evil sexual desires. It’s a pagan concept that has no place in the Christian worldview, yet we accept it reflexively because in our society it is the dominant frame of reference for love between a man and a woman. Consequently, deep confusions of the pagan and Biblical worldviews exists in the Church. We can’t articulate the difference between sex with a whore and sex with a wife. There are Christians leaders out there teaching that husbands should stop lusting after their wives, and other Christians teaching how to find a soul-mate; two actions that are fundamentally impossible if Christianity is true.

Now media can be churned out at a very high rate with cheaper and faster production; especially since they regurgitate [remake or adapt] the same films, shows, songs and books over and over. Each rumination is more granular, more targeted propaganda, than the last iteration of the cud. Family films skew chick flick. Adventures become shoot-em-ups. This in itself purposefully divides the audiences; driving fathers and husbands towards one theater, and wives and daughters towards another; segregated sex ed.

When we uncritically watch the propaganda we not only cannot differentiate between love and lust, but are confirmed in our decision not to. Against this, the argument is often put forth that these bits of propaganda are “just movies”, or “just songs”, or whatever; that we don’t really take them seriously, or even pay attention to them. But, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Depending on the source: 80-97% of American Christians engage in extra-marital sex. Those figures don’t account for french-kissing, fondling, or day-dreams. Does anyone seriously believe 80-97% of American Christians engage in revenge slayings? How many have even started a fist-fight; maybe 20%?

This is because we have a way to talk about justice, to teach it; to have a discipline about justice because it is common between Christianity and paganism…or at least translatable. There is no direct corollary in Christianity for the concept of Eros. The closest is lust, and we–especially women–are taught explicitly to avoid discipline when in pursuit of lust because Eros is explicitly about loss of control, and madness. We’re supposed to let Eros magically happen and simply enjoy the ride.

We kept on confusing pagan Eros and Christian romantic love until now we are at the point where we have realized Orwell’s doublethink about all things sexual; .

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

It’s so pervasive in the culture, that if you eradicated every piece of media that endorsed Eros, there would be nothing left to entertain women but housekeeping shows. If you bring it up too many times they start to get the idea that you’re serious about closely watching what they watch. That might mean boredom, and them’s fightin’ words. More troubling: We like the way we feel “in love”. We like undisciplined nature. We like uncontrolled emotions. We’re “in love” with Eros.

And if you don’t think this describes you, then what is the Biblical corollary to “in love”?

[1]All Christians accept that sex outside of marriage is illicit, but not all Christians know that–outside of marriage–the expression of emotional romance is usually illicit, too. It is, and it shouldn’t be hard to figure out because these expressions are inherently sexual. In fact, I think it is true to say that we do know this, but we choose not to care because no one says anything, and we really like how it feels.

Don’t Shut Your Eyes When I Turn On The Lights

J asks a question:

Why do so many Christian bloggers use coarse sexual language in their writing? It doesn’t seem necessary. I don’t read SSM any more because I got sick of what amounted to lewdness. Couldn’t the immorality of the song be highlighted in a more dignified way?

I can only speak for myself, but here’s why I write the way I write. Most Christians have shut their eyes and closed their ears. So, I bring the heat, that you might feel it. What prompted this question from J was this paragraph from me:

I do have some questions, though: What are we hoping happens in the good old-fashioned version [of Baby It’s Cold Outside]? Are we satisfied with a paltry dose of disobedience towards her father? It seems maybe some payoff is in order: They definitely need to neck, and I don’t think a bit of slap-n-tickle would go amiss in this cozy situation. It’s not as if they have to have actual sex–maybe we hope she just gives him a blowjob, and then returns to press her brother’s cheek, kiss her father with those lips, and tell him everything is fine. Sounds charming, doesn’t it!

Go, J, to the comments of the post I linked, and judge for yourself which is good: Me pointing out that disobedience and improper conduct leads to more improper conduct of the kind we don’t want to imagine our daughters being engaged, or celebrating the “right” kind of disobedience to God at that time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior?

Here’s what doesn’t work: Boring moralization; neither in confrontation of sin, nor in wringing our hands about how we approach the truth. You seem to object more to my use of the word “blowjob” than you do about that fact that for the last fifty years we’ve celebrated every Christmas by singing a song that encourages and celebrates immodesty, disobedience, and fornication. We better start checking our priorities.

The word blowjob is a euphemism for oral sex; it’s what we say when we are trying to talk around the concept of oral sex. The Bible–God’s word– is full of euphemisms about sex, and it’s explicit, too. I think I posted this the other day, but I’m going to post it again so that we all understand–really understand–that God is not shy about His invention of sex; He does not demure from uncovering our nakedness and sin so that we will repent:

19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21 Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

That highfalutin English would have read like this to the ancient Israelites:

She started sleeping around again, after thinking about the fun times she had fucking hot guys in the old days. What she loved about them was they were hung like donkeys, and came like horses; so much did she love those things that she did whatever those men wanted for a chance to play with those cocks. That’s how she remembers those happy times of sleeping around, when those guys were pinching her nipples so hard that they bruised her tits.

This is what God sees, and this is how He told us. Would you like to pass judgment on God for speaking to mankind as mankind will hear; for making the putrid state of our affections known to us so that we might repent?

Is what I write fit for church? Probably not; nor do I tell my young children to crack open their Bibles to Ezekiel 23 and start reading. What I write here, I write for men so that they are not caught unprepared. I’m saying the things that we have heard and known, and uttering dark sayings from of old. These are the things our fathers did not say because they were too stupid, weak, and scared; because they worshiped the things of men rather than God.

Baby, You’re Dead Inside

One last post on another area of our lives where we don’t even begin to plumb the wrongness. Then, for my disposition, I have to take a break from that subject.

I saw a post the other day lamenting a version of “Baby It’s Cold Outside” performed by Lady Gaga and Joseph Gordon Levitt. In the original (and most versions) the female is trying to make her excuse to leave a man’s house (The case could be made that she’s trying to leave a party, but the song is quiet and intimate. It doesn’t jive.), while the male voice tempts her to stay; mostly by saying, “Baby, it’s cold outside.” In this new version with LG and JGL they swap the roles and it is the female trying to tempt the man to stay. The case was made, at that blog, that this was a sign of how far we’d fallen as a society, and that the original arrangement is the better, conservative, choice.

Just to be sure we have this straight in our minds: A Christmas song about an unmarried man trying to talk an unmarried woman into staying at his residence alone and past the acceptable time is the “good and conservative” version of events? She says right in the song that her mother will be worried, her father will be pacing the floor, and even her brother is waiting at the door; sick with worry. Well, my good conservative friends: Fret not! At the end of the song: She stays!

What’s ironic is that the Lady Gaga version is much more likely to occur. That’s my experience. Not only that, when we see remonstrations in scripture to avoid fornication and adultery, it says things like this:

For at the window of my house
I looked through my casement,
and beheld among the simple ones,
I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
passing through the street near her corner;
and he went the way to her house,
in the twilight, in the evening,
in the black and dark night:
10 and, behold, there met him a woman
with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
11 (She is loud and stubborn;
her feet abide not in her house:
12 now is she without, now in the streets,
and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him,
and with an impudent face said unto him,
14 I have peace offerings with me;
this day have I payed my vows.
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee,
diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry,
with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:
let us solace ourselves with loves.
19 For the goodman is not at home,
he is gone a long journey:
20 he hath taken a bag of money with him,
and will come home at the day appointed.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield,
with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
22 He goeth after her straightway,
as an ox goeth to the slaughter,
or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
23 till a dart strike through his liver;
as a bird hasteth to the snare,
and knoweth not that it is for his life.

That’s in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, even when being warned about wayward men, we see this same paradigm of the man in the woman’s house.

3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Whether she is the temptress, or he is the interloper, the most common way this goes down is at the woman’s residence.

I do have some questions, though: What are we hoping happens in the good old-fashioned version? Are we satisfied with a paltry dose of disobedience towards her father? It seems maybe some payoff is in order: They definitely need to neck, and I don’t think a bit of slap-n-tickle would go amiss in this cozy situation. It’s not as if they have to have actual sex–maybe we hope she just gives him a blowjob, and then returns to press her brother’s cheek, kiss her father with those lips, and tell him everything is fine. Sounds charming, doesn’t it!

The good old-fashioned version of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” wrought Lady Gaga; brought down the feminist monster on our heads. Wake up!

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

What we praise and what we entertain in our minds–redeeming the time–has always been linked to the state of our marriages. We cannot conduct ourselves as the world does, and then hope everything is fine after our weddings.

We Can See Your Heart Under There

I’ve been saving this topic until no one was writing about it.

Bikinis are underwear. Men know this. Women know this. The case can be made that all modern swimwear is underwear. This past summer, instead of going to see the new Gatsby remake, I watched The Great Gatsby with Robert Redford. Do you know what he (the character) wore to swim in the 1920s? A one-piece comprised of mid-thigh shorts and a tank-top. I attended church camp every year, and I never saw a woman so modest.

The other name for swimsuits is bathing suits, and we know that bathing is something that is done in the nude. Now, swimming today and bathing today are not the same, but the history before they diverged is something to consider. Bathing with others was something that was only done with members of a close group; a family, or a team; at the very least members who shared a sex. So how did we get to a place where we talk ourselves into bathing with non-family of the opposite sex while wearing underwear?

You see where I’m going with this, right?


Everything above that line was written last night to be finished today, but before I returned here I read Dalrock’s latest post, “Trapped”. In it, he links to the writings of Jenny Erikson, at The Stir. There I saw here latest post, “10 Things Teen Boys Say — & What They Really Mean“.

[O]ne of the things I worry about in particular is boyfriends. As much as I’d like to lock them in a tower and protect their emotional little hearts (not to mention keep them as effectively as possible away from STDs or teen pregnancy), that’s just not an option.

Nope, someday my little princesses will go on dates with scummy teen boys, [emphasis in original] and I’ll have to smile like I mean it and hope to God that he’s interested in something other than what’s in her bra. Because let’s face it — if he’s thinking about anything other than boobs as a teen boy, he’s probably a keeper.

Then she starts a list of 10 things she believes those scummy boys will say as a ploy to either see or touch girls’ boobs. In bold is what the boy says, and after the ellipsis is what he means by it. Here’s number 6:

We should have a swim party … so I have an excuse to see you in a bikini and get in the hot tub with you.

I have to agree, but what else do we know then:

  1. Mothers know this about boys, and still buy their daughters bikinis.
  2. Mothers let their daughters go to pool parties
  3. Any woman who has worn a bikini knows this
  4. Women continue to wear bikinis
  5. Women defend their right to wear bikinis and go to pool parties so that someone will stare at their tits.

These are Christian women; often with Dad in the background looking worried and hang-dog because his baby girl is whoring herself out, and his wife is recalling when her tits were so desired and handled and bruised by all those other men. Too often, and too terribly to contemplate for long, the fathers actually participate in this vicarious cuckoldry.


I’ve spent the last several posts (here, here, here, here, and here) in what must appear for all the world like a long-winded attempt to flip the script; an attempt at a grown-ups version of “She did it, too!” Consequently, the number of minds that have been changed, or even influenced, appears to approach zero. Those who immediately agreed with me still do, and those who did not, do not.

I think you misheard me. Because this is what I said: Porn is a womanly bad thing. I don’t mean that in a man-up sort of way. Matt Walsh is just the latest boob to corner that particular market when he wrote: “Real men don’t look at pornography.” Indeed they do. That’s the problem.

The reason increased use of pornography among men is concerning is because pornography use is something sinful women do, and it’s concerning because porn use by men is the fruit of the labors of decades of the intentional feminization of men.

The feminization of men is something that was done to them; that is being done to us. If you ignore everything I’ve written over the past week, you can still chart the rise of pornography which profoundly corresponds to the deliberate and increasingly successful machinations to make men more womanly.

Do you see how sick that is, to encourage women–those who benefit most immediately from this grotesque facade–to judge and ridicule and divorce these men, and to do so for the crime of acting like those women?

Do you see why women cannot pity, but only despise men who look at porn; why the mirror causes retching?

Do you see how imperative grace and forgiveness is?

Do you see how necessary it is for women to (at the very least) shut their bile-flecked lips when the urge rises in them to bash men for pornography?

Do you see what a black, pharisaical heart lies beneath the breast that says (without irony!),

“Real men don’t look at pornography”?

If not: Just pass by on the other side of the road. When you get wherever you’re going, there will be plenty of Downton Abbey.