Retched

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.

It’s Probably Nothing

The point of my last few posts appear to be lost on more a a few people. In consideration of my readers, I will stick with the example of Jesse Stone because I both enjoy the show, and I also think that it often has a deleterious effect on women’s psyches.

First: We all must agree that violence and sex are similar in that they can both have their place, but use outside of their respective places can cause great destruction. Defense of another or an innocent is almost always good, and outside of that it is usually evil. Likewise, sex in marriage is almost always good, but sex outside of marriage is nearly universally bad. So far, so good, right?

  • If the Jesse Stone character stopped solving murders, men and women would stop watching the show. It would have no purpose.
  • If he unrepentantly murdered a man every episode, and then continued on with his day (and the show in general), we would all stop watching Jesse Stone. We would recoil from the wrongness of it.
  • If he stopped shooting the bad guys men would stop watching the show, because men watch the show to vicariously right wrongs. Men want him to continue dispensing street justice when deserved. It would be a bummer if he quit.
  • If he stopped fornicating women would stop watching the show, because the draw of the show for women is reveling in such a man. Women want to vicariously sleep with Jesse Stone. What upsets women is that he doesn’t continue fornicating long enough to get married. (Catch that?)

If you don’t get understand these principles, then you don’t understand human nature, and you’re not educated enough to make good decisions about what you or others watch. Your eye is too dark, and so everything is darkness to you.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

A darkness so great that men come to me for advice after 20 years of marriage. That’s 20 (more) years of allowing their wives and daughters to soak up any manner of pleasure without guidance, without confrontation.  As long as it had an appropriate rating, or doesn’t use the word “fuck” in it, then it made it past their dim eyes, and their wives dim eyes. The darkness deepened. Then they show up on the doorsteps of the Men’s Sphere; heartbroken by the world, divorced form their wives, and discarded by their children; asking, “What happened? What did I do to deserve this?” The answer is, “Probably nothing.”

Jesse Stone is lawful. Downton Abbey is lawful. The NFL is lawful. All these things can be consumed for nourishment and the waste eliminated by the body.

8 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

A lot of us (including myself) allowed these things in because we were told they were okay; we were told we could trust Disney, and the rating system, and network television, and adult time slots. Implicitly, too, we were told we could trust the the rack behind the counter at the convenience store to contain the lust; that we could trust the neon XXX sign to corral the smut. We were told–even while we read and heard the Bible say that all are sinful and everyone’s heart is deceitful–that Mama is a good person; that girls are pretty because they’re good, and good because they’re pretty. And the truth is that, generally, men will admit that they are sinful; actually sinful; as in right now; as in not because of what they are even doing, but for what they want to do, but aren’t. Women won’t.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. 15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

Look again at 1 Corithians 8:10-13

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

And then take a look at the devastation of divorces around you; divorces whose causes mirror the lust, dissatisfaction, and thrill-seeking in those shows. Why argue with me? I didn’t accuse any of you.

Jesse Bone: Women on Tap

The as-promised Jesse Stone analysis.

I first heard of the Jesse Stone series a couple years ago when they showed up on Netflix Instant. I tend to like the movies that Tom Selleck picks, and from that I deduced that I would probably like the sort of work produced by the sort of people that would pick Tom Selleck to star in their movie. While Magnum P.I. is his most famous, his cowboy roles are not far behind in popularity. Westerns are one of the few genres where conservative minds are still depicted in an unabashed manner. It’s a natural fit for the outdoorsy and Republican-voting NRA spokesman. So, on that recommendation I watched the first one, “Jesse Stone: Stone Cold”. It was sort of slow, and quite somber; which pretty much describes the whole series…or at least the first five. It’s also directed squarely at the kind of people who would be accused described as conservative-minded; particularly those who are middle-aged (or soon to be) and female.

Jesse Stone is a former Los Angeles homicide detective who takes a job as sheriff of a sleepy New England village. He does this because his wife started having an affair which culminated in her leaving him. In turn, Jesse began drinking heavily, even getting in trouble for doing so on the job. Though he ran away from that life he remains in daily contact with his ex-wife via nightly phone calls; usually with the handset in one hand, and two fingers of Johnnie Walker Red Label in the other. In between solving murder cases, shooting bad guys, talking to his ex, and getting blitzed on good booze, Jesse finds the time to bed a number of women; at a rate of about two per episode. They are all attractive women between 32-to-40 years of age, have their own careers, and are eager to jump in the sack with him. That never occurs later than their first date–if they make it that far.

From a marketing perspective it is very clever. For starters: They managed to combine ALL the conservative heroic career tropes into one character: wrongly disgraced former cop, current cop, cowboy from the wild west, even a Los Angeles noir vibe. The only thing missing is military service, but I’ll bet it’s in the backstory somewhere. As I said: clever. That conglomerated conservative hero outline suggests that a whole lot of thought when into making him as broadly appealing as possible.

Here’s where I think conservatives are confused (see: Sherlock-by-way-of-GKC “You see but you do not observe”): Can you tell me which of the romantic plotlines is meant to appeal to men, and which to women, and why?

The phonecalls with his ex-wife are mostly for the male viewers; men who want their women to appreciate them for who they are, what they’ve done, and what they’ve sacrificed. Granted, this pulls a bit on the heartstrings of women, because they’d really like their respective men to be this hung-up on them, and they believe they’d treat their men better. If you took this storyline out, men would be less satisfied with the show. Women could take it or leave it.

But female characters in the series take their turns on Jesse’s bone for the female viewers; who identify with and idolize the strong female character with a great figure, good career, and space in Jesse’s bed. It doesn’t bother the female audience at all that he’s had many women there; all that matters is that their avatar–the sexy empowered career woman–secures the chance to be the last one there. Men, I think, don’t care about the bed-hopping either way. You could take these parts out of the story and male viewers wouldn’t care at all. Women, however, would stop watching.

If you point out this female preference for illicit sex in film they will deny it all day long, and if that doesn’t silence you then prepare to be called: petty, judgmental, tyrannical, disproportionate, etc. If you were to do the same to a guy about Maxim magazine, he’d shrug, and say, “Yeah, you’re right, but I like boobs.”

The real truth about porn is that it’s not even “mostly” a men’s problem. I have read several times now that porn is “becoming” a problem for women because now they comprise 30% of the hardcore video porn consumers. So that’s…

  • 30% of hardcore video porn
  • 97% of porn literature (smut novels, etc.)
  • 97% of porn in R movies
  • 72% of porn in music (generally, guys don’t listen to female artists, but girls do listen to male artists)
  • 72% of porn in magazine racks (tabloids, Cosmo, Maxim, Redbook, etc.)
  • 2% of porn in adult magazine racks (Playboy, Penthouse, etc.)

I took off 3% for the gays. If we factor in who is creating and modeling all this porn, then the percentages only go up. All I’ve included is (reasonable guesses of) the consumer market.

The Deliciousness of Bad Eggs

There exists a context–pop/current culture–that is totally out of our control. If I examine a show as if it existed outside that context then I might say: “Hey, that show is fine.” In my opinion it is very stupid of conservatives to do this, and this is how they lose the culture war. It’s not a coincidence that every year Disney makes a movie about strong entitled princesses that either reject their father, or he is simply not around. It doesn’t matter to them either way, because the main point is to make movies that highlight strong females who do not need a father to succeed; that all their sins mistakes make them the beautiful heroines they were always meant to be.

I do not buy the line that women filter out the things we want them to filter out; the “bad eggs” as bad, for example. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard women say–of a pop hit they’re singing–,”Oh, I don’t pay attention to the words.” It’s a lie. It’s a flat-out lie, and they think they can sell it because they know men want to believe women are angels; that they don’t want dick; that they don’t think about sex; that they don’t linger on John Mayer’s much discussed sexual merits when they listen to his songs; that they don’t want to be the most beautiful and haughty princess who lives in a castle and has a potentially dangerous but ultimately harmless liaisons with foreign princes. Women don’t exist in a moral vacuum; waiting to be pulled towards or spared from bad eggs. They love them some bad eggs. (Which is why I detest the stupid idea that women like strong provider types, and that why they like bad boys is because they are actually displaying provider tendencies. My experience is they liked me bad.)

Re-purposed from this comment.

Are You Ready for Some Downton Abbey!

There arose, in the comments of my previous post, both a question about, and a defense of, Downton Abbey. So, why exactly have I banned Downton Abbey? Easy: For the same reason I banned pro football in my house.

Let me explain.

I have a friend who hates his job. It’s just above entry-level. It’s not exciting, challenging, or terribly rewarding. He works with (and for) a fist of women who are fat, gossipy slobs. To make it worse: His wife is a low-level executive at a major corporation. She is the bread-winner, and his income is rather superfluous. They use it to pay off their accumulated debt.

For years, every several months, my friend would ask me: “Hey, Cane, do you think you could get me on where you work?”

“Well, you’d have to have the skills I have. You need to get training.”

“Oh, ok.”

And then we’d go back to our beer and cigarettes and crack jokes, or maybe he’d start telling me a story which was ostensibly about the difficulties of raising children, but was actually about how his wife doesn’t contribute enough to that process. This is, of course, assuming he got permission to come hang out with me. [1]

This friend is certainly smart enough to do the work I do, and his logistical skills are better than mine. He could definitely do my job, but he won’t get the knowledge. This guy knows every name and statistic of every NFL starter, and has for the past 20 years, but he can’t be bothered to get a couple certifications that I could use to sell the rest of his experience. He spends hours every day watching sports broadcasts, watching sporting news[2], playing Madden, listening to sports radio in the car…

The common refrain is that he needs to man up, and it’s true. Yet, he’s already keenly aware of that. The mirror tells him this every day of his life. My saying it one more time won’t do anything but confirm him of the opinion that he’d better get used to the pain of being a lesser man. So, what could I do? One thing for sure: I knew the NFL wanted my friend in this state. They want his life devoted to professional football. They want his wife working to buy more crap to justify more Super Bowl commercials. They want him fantasizing and idolizing the life other men lead. So, I said, “To Hell with the NFL.”

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

To be clear: That’s my charity for my neighbor. Forgoing pro football is not an imperative for everyone who would be a Christian. It’s not the law. I’m not even recommending it.

Now that we’ve made a full circuit of my perspective you hopefully have a better idea of my perspective on the utility of entertainment, and how I judge what is good to consume. Taking this back to Downton Abbey, I wrote:

“[…] I put forward that the major dilemma of season one–Mary’s fornication and it’s, ah, resolution–was picked precisely because the one thing they [the producers of the show] knew all women can agree on is that banging a foreign prince and getting away with it is just too hot to ignore.”

To sum up the action under discussion: A Turkish noble visited the noble family in residence at the show’s title, and the eldest daughter (Mary) took him to her bed almost immediately after meeting him. That’s where he died. The women of the family conspire to hide it–not only from the public–, but the father and future suitors.

Of all the women on the show, Mary is the prettiest and the most broadly sympathetic for modern women. She’s mouthy, bored, and derisive of anything except what strikes her fancy. Because of the expense of television production, it is in the best interest of the producers to use their most enticing hook in the first season. They need to get viewers to commit to watch it every week so that the advertising companies will offer more money to run their ads around the show.

The hook is this: “Imagine being your beautiful entitled self, but in the past; back when clothes were more elegant; back when there were horses and castles; back when you could really earn a risky thrill by fornicating with the irresistible foreigner.”

The conspiracies of the women is a major theme of the show, and the first time we see fully see it is in the cover-up of Mary’s fornication. The argument has been made that what we need is more of this conspiratorial action by women; that a missing piece of today’s social puzzle is women pulling levers behind household thrones to machinate good works, and that Downton Abbey provides a pretty good template for how that works. It’s my opinion that to say such a thing is to admit to having fell for the ruse. Yes, women’s conspiracy and impudence can be put to very good use and is too often missing in the background of Christian affairs. Playing upon this truth is how they get the conservative-minded sort of folks who like a good period piece to accept it. This way they get the introverted and extroverted sluts hooked; all with Dad’s approval.

I don’t know about other households out there, but this is something to which the females of the Caldo family are remarkably susceptible. And it’s not a movie, but a series; something to which you have to make a commitment of many hours to watch and understand. Even if every episode after the first two seasons are gen-u-ine conservative hallmarks, I cannot forgive the deep cynicism used in those twelve episodes. More importantly: I’m not so stupid as to think it just flies right by my wife and daughters without whispering in their sinful and relatively undiscerning minds that they are missing out on some really good fucking and drama.

Before you start harrumphing that nearly every show worth watching has some form of perverted content in it, let me spare you: You’ve missed the point. What I ban is not based upon whether I agree with the actions of the characters, but whether I believe the show has a corrupting effect on the neighbors who live in my house. It very well could be the case that this doesn’t tempt your neighbors…but the fact that it’s a hit show–from Britain–speaks against that possibility…that and the fact that American women practice fornication almost universally.

[1] I adore his wife. She’s very sheep-y, and I believe would follow his lead if he took it. At least, that was true a few years ago. Now they’ve established patterns, and breaking patterns is painful even when it is helpful. Resetting mishealed bones is no work for sissies.

[2] Sports broadcasts and news are a double-whammy because cable/satellite is expensive. In the age of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Instant the only reason to have cable is for the sports. Very often one of the bills that send women to the office to act as other men’s wives is cable/satellite. It’s part of a larger cycle of pushing women to “produce” in the corporate fields so that they can be “better” consumers. Then, having developed a taste for consumption, feel compelled to “produce” to obtain and justify that consumption.

On Loyalty: Some Excellence from Mad Men

I’m a big fan of a good story, but I especially like those that can be learned from. That should explain a bit of my over-eagerness to compare Game writings with The Marix more completely than just the concept of the Red Pill ushering one into reality.

Netflix only has through season four of Mad Men, so that’s as far as I’ve watched, but the first season is very good, and of course there are many Game-related topics to investigate. I’m sure there’s been quite a bit of it: Roissy has talked of the main character Don Draper several times. There’s a scene from the end of the first season that came to mind when I read a comment from one of my more passionate detractors. He wrote:

I think we’re all waiting for your teachings on a Christian frame of masculinity that is as rapidly digestable as the Red Pill. Meanwhile, we read your stories about you handle your wife and think “he just Gamed her textbook”, to which you reply “Nah, I used being a Christian” that I can’t help reading in Mark Driscoll’s* voice.

Now, I never said “rapidly digestible”. Very few things that solve fundamental problems can be done quickly. Indeed, Game might be a useful stop-gap, as several people suggested. At this point, in the gun-to-head scenario, I’d have to say it’s not a solution. As to me gaming my wife: I must admit that it certainly looks that way; except the examples he’s referring to were from before I’d even heard of the term (“He got game” withstanding). This is why I keep trying to crack this nut. Furthermore, in those instances I was just angry, not calculating. There are plenty of men who became furious at their wives, and still were served papers.

Let’s get back to the topic. The people that are still mad at this man don’t seem to understand that I did something that is pretty difficult to do: attempt to synthesize all the disparate aspects of Game**, and address how that synthesis is not useful to the Christian Married Man. Ok, so I’m wrong. Who Cares? Many (including me) wouldn’t even know why or how it is wrong (if it is) if I hadn’t attempted it. The links I gave in the first post were to some very powerful rebuttals to me, and I challenge anyone to synthesize even those. I can’t, but I learned a lot from each of them and their respective comments…even of the detractors…maybe even especially of them. Which brings me back to Mad Men.

Mad Men Spoilers Ahead, and in the Video

Don Draper is living a lie. He stole a dead man’s name to escape the Korean War. One of his underlings, Pete Campbell, found out and tried to blackmail Don by threatening to reveal his secret if Don doesn’t give him a promotion. Don calls his bluff and gives the promotion to another character; which plays out in the clip below:

In one sense, I played Don Draper in Bert “Dalrock” Cooper’s office to all the incensed Pete Campbells out there. My story doesn’t fully jive with the wider narrative of my life. But from a different perspective, I was the Pete Campbell, bewildered and angered by the unspoken inconsistencies of the Don Drapers of the rest of the Game blogs–several of whom displayed much more displeasure than Don shows in the clip above. The Coopers responded to me: Who Cares?

The point of this blog is to put my energy into bringing in accounts***, and I suggest my Pete Campbells do the same. One never knows how loyalty is born.

* A particularly, and mostly justifiably, hated-in-the-manosphere preacher.

** And I was at least partially wrong; maybe fully wrong. My thesis isn’t completed yet.

*** I have four, no: five, no: six as-yet-to-be-completed posts waiting for more time and more specific inspiration, but accounts are coming.