Her Buck Stops Here

Modified slightly from a comment I made at Scott’s American Dad Web.


I am convinced that if a man wants his sons to enjoy exclusively male spaces and times, then he must set them now in a way which will seem arbitrary and even unfair to his modern and permissive self who just wants to be loved by his little girl.

And he needs to learn to be fine with his decisions as just and good; despite his feelings, or the feelings of others. He needs to accept that sometimes he must just say, “Nope, sorry honey, but that is a man’s business. It’s not because you might get hurt, or because you’re incapable, or because you’ll be frightened. It’s simply that you aren’t a man.” This will need to be done at relatively mundane times and events if he is to teach his children to respect and honor each sex, without rancor, according to their different natures.

We have tried the other way, and now females are on submarines, on the front lines, in football locker rooms, in the hunting party, and everywhere. These pressures are still out there in the world, and will sometimes effect our children, and we’ll have to respond to them. If your son grows up and complains that his hunting buddy wants to bring his girlfriend, what can you say? If your son asks to bring his own wife on your hunting trip, what will you say?

Will he reply, “Well, you took my sister hunting. What’s the big deal? It’s no different.”

Advertisements

Choose the Battlefield Wisely

The answer–the right warfare against Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Feminists, Democrats–is to put Christ first. The wrong answer is to put anything else first. I said that these groups are against:

  1. Christians
  2. Whites
  3. Men
  4. America (in combination of 1-3)

and that is true. But there are several reasons not to put energy into pro-white movements, or even pro-male movements. The first and most important reason is that Christ is king and lord of all. We are to serve Him in all things we do, and (amazingly, I think) Christ has provided ways for us to serve Him first in all things we do.

The second reason is that we should never let the enemy choose the terrain of the battles; especially when our combatants are so outnumbered. That is when choice of terrain is most vital for victory. So we rightly should counter invasions on whiteness or manhood with counterattacks from Christ; not because we don’t care about whites or men, but because we need to attack from a position of strength. Nothing is stronger than Christ, whose victory is assured. Not only that, but they neither believe nor understand their own motivations and their own spiritual state–or even nature. This makes an attack launched from a Christ-centered force powerful because it is their weak spot.

So what does this look like in practice? That means to put Christians first for Christian reasons. This is something we have taken for granted. The strength of early America wasn’t “Americanism”. The goodness and truth of the founding documents, to the extent that they are good and true,  don’t make appeal to their own goodness, but to the goodness of God and His natural order. The rights of freedom of speech[1], association, etc. are not predicated on either blood or soil, but on the belief that they are God-given.

So, for example: We should counter pagan attacks on Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals, bakers, and florists not on the defensive grounds of freedom of speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion, nor the whiteness of the staff; but on the counter-offensive terms that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are upholding the God-ordained natural order. We don’t “pray those poor people are ok” (though we do pray for them), we make it our business to help them be victorious even at our own cost, and that we offer up those sacrifices for Christ’s glory. We do not offer them for freedom of speech or even religion.

This doesn’t mean we “forget” that we are American, our political traditions, or forget our ethnicity. It means we put them into submission into their rightful place, and by so doing make them worthy. It means we volunteer to suffer in the earthly and unworthy things–whether it is money, glory, status, or even blood–as Christ volunteered to suffer all those things for us so that we could inherit eternal riches and glory, and that we do so for the same reasons.


[1] I do believe these freedoms are real, God-given, and should be protected by a just and wise government. Perhaps I’ll write about that in another post.

A Churlish Defense

I originally posted this as a comment under Scott’s post “The Christo-Rational-Consensus Approach” at his recently revived blog, American Dad Web.  I think it’s coherent enough to stand as a post on its own; though I’m often my own worst critic.


Because we are mostly the sociological descendants of Anglo-Saxons, here’s something to think about:

Before the Norman Conquest of England, the accepted premise was that the land was owned by the people; more specifically by the person who was on it; whether male or female. A king rules over the people, but he doesn’t rule their lands directly. With William the Conqueror comes the French idea that the land belongs to the king, and that the people belong to the land. That is very different. So, for example, peasants couldn’t just up and move to another lord’s land because they belong to a defined space. But a king (as ruler of the land) could give peasants to another land, or his peasants could be another king’s by that second’s conquer of the land. Really, a peasant wasn’t of the king. He was of the land. Kings though are not tied to a land. They are something else; something above. Hence: Rigid class structures. That’s a problem because it fundamentally divides the people from its leader.

Nation states are an attempt to correct that. It says that the people and the nobility (the leaders, regardless of nomenclature) both belong to the land. That’s why Marx saw nation states as an obstruction to class struggle; because it gave an excuse to unite the leaders and the people. Marx saw that the actions of the nobility often belie their true allegiance: Like everyone they are prone to be allegiant to themselves first and to make common cause with other wealthy and privileged people from other nations, rather than with their own native peoples. Technology matters too: Marx lived in the time when the ship and the train raised the ability of the commoner to move across borders just like the nobles did.

Like Marx, I think nation states are a less-than-stable idea. Unlike Marx, I think that the problem is more fundamental than that of classes. I believe “class warfare” is a symptom of the sickness which places people under land instead of over it; of saying that people belong to a land instead of to a family and by extension to a nation of people–and that land belongs to them each, individually.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this. For example: In pre-feudal England, each free man (which were the great majority, only slaves weren’t free men) was required to own a spear and was subject to be summoned for war; usually on a rotation. Which makes sense: It’s your land, you defend it. Feudalism led directly to professional mercenary armies that worked anywhere and everywhere for the highest bidder while the inhabitants of the lands in contest got burned, pillaged, and raped–because it wasn’t the peasants place to fight.

Again, there are a lot of things to look at. Feudalism is like a softer Sparta where the 10% of Spartans ruled (brutally) over 90% Helots. Anglo-Saxon England was analogous to Athens. Early America was also in the vein of Athens (e.g. 2nd Amendment of weapons and militias), but we are rapidly moving towards a more feudal and Spartan model (e.g., civilians thanking warriors for their service of invading countries to the sole benefit of the leaders) instead of actually picking up a weapon and defending what they own.

Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.

It’s Catchier than “Make It More Likely”

Deep Strength says of finding a wife:

You’re pretty much on your own. Make it happen, if you want to be married.

If I understand his own story (It’s the second half of his post, check it out.): Two women connected him with the woman to whom he is now engaged. It’s catchier than “make it more likely” but the truth is that others play key roles in making it happen. Making and keeping friends is time well-spent.

This isn’t to denigrate the specific advice he gives to “make it happen”. It’s actually pretty good. But I want to add that cultivating a group of friends–with whom you are seen by women–not only improves one’s chances and one’s choices, and it not only speeds the whole process along: Friends and their respect also help maintain a wife’s attraction even when one is not on his A game.

Free-Agent Women are Bad for Team You

I saw this video linked on a couple sporting news websites as evidence that NFL Fan Fights season has kicked-off. Language warning for the faint.

Did you see what I did? Because what I saw was:

  1. A Mexican woman allowed to run her mouth while her men looked on, helpless. Watch their expressions. They are embarrassed, but conflicted because–unlike white people–they’ve been taught to stick by their own kind even when she’s stupid, endangering others, and wasting hundreds (or possibly thousands) of dollars in tickets and parking.
  2. More egregiously: A white woman repeatedly put her hand over her man’s mouth, and he tolerating mommy’s physical censorship. Whatever that fat Mexican chick did to the white guy was nothing in comparison to the disrespect his own woman has for him.

I wonder if he knows that, in her mind, contract negotiations are never over and every day is the right day to disrespect him if she can get her way.

Where Your Allegiances…Lie

According to the satanic interpretation of Just War Theory: Rebellion is the only and evergreen ground for initiating violence. Since, by definition, an authority cannot rebel against its subordinates, it follows that the merest use of violence by an authority–even for discipleship and administered in love–is fundamentally unjust according to the satanic interpretation.

Keep this in mind whenever you find yourself supporting an overthrow of some kind. And if you have an unshakeable aversion to the use of violence by legitimate authority regardless of the circumstances, then you should know that part of yourself is in cahoots with the Devil.

If, on the other hand, you revel in the truth that Our Lord Christ will return with overwhelming and unstoppable violence, then you can know that part of you has been redeemed from the bondage of lies.

Matt Walsh Gets Bored and Blows Up Families

I took a trip over to Matt Walsh’s blog today. His most recent post is about the scourge of male adultery in the form of pornography. Actually, that’s not quite right. It’s a condemnation of married men as adulterers if they’ve ever used porn. What follows here is my comment there.

The most likely explanation for the author’s post is that the author struggles with porn use, and his heavy-handed attack here is an attempt to convince himself take his desire for porn more seriously; that–deep down–he isn’t one of Those Guys. And, it is heavy-handed to throw the word adultery out there when women are chomping at the bit to rule over their husbands–as the Bible says they are. Once they’ve got the adultery bit in their mouths grace and forgiveness are thrown completely off.

It’s very true that in many households the husband is illicitly storing highly explosive porn. He keeps it tucked away; that’s why we have to “catch” them using porn, like A Girl reported above[1]. He knows its wrong. He probably hates himself after he uses it. A single match like that can really scar a man.

Forget Fifty Shades of Grey. There are gallons of incendiary Downton Abbey, sticks of Cosmo, molotovs of Teen Mom; gases of Maroon 5, and bricks of The Housewives of Wherever…and they’re thrown causally around the house. Really, it’s stacked to the ceiling.

Here’s come Matt Walsh to throw the bomb of adultery into the house. When it goes up like Hiroshima, what will he say? “Well, that guy shouldn’t have had a drawer-ful of TNT. Serves him right!” Where is the word against the pro-snark, pro-loud, ungentle, envy-raising, emotional porn (Not just “trash”, but trash meant explicitly to titillate the sexual senses. I’m looking at you, Crawley dynasty) that FILLED the house that Matt threw the bomb of adultery into?

Not a peep, Matt?

[1]In the comments, someone calling themselves “A Girl” wrote about walking in on her father viewing porn. I left the following remark addressed to her:

You need to read your Bible before you get on the Internet and retell stories about your father.

<i>Genesis9: 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</i>

And it was so.

Love and Attraction in Eden

To SunshineMary, who won’t give up:

Hypergamy is the female desire for a better man. Koreogamy is the male desire for another woman. Polygyny is what we get when these forces meet. Monogamy is the standard Christians have been given.

Christianity calls us to the Truth, as Christ is the Truth. So how do we reconcile these seemingly un-Christian concepts with the very Christian concept of monogamous marriage? “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

So watch this…

If you are a Christian, that means to be in Christ, and He in you. To be in Christ means to be part of an eternal, ever-new being; the Alpha and the Omega. Who He is today he will be tomorrow, but He will be greater than He was before. You, Christian, are therefore a new creation in Christ; more Him today than you were yesterday; less you today than you will be tomorrow; ever-new, ever-you, as you were meant to be.

If you are married, that means for a man to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. She becomes his body, and he becomes her head. The two become one. Together, in Christian marriage, they are a new creation in Christ. The husband who love his wife, and is respected by her, becomes more Christ-like, renewed and transformed to be more like Christ, more like himself. The wife who respects her husband, and is loved by him becomes more Christ-like, renewed and transformed to be more like Christ, more like herself.

The woman a man marries today is not the woman he will be married to tomorrow, and the man a woman marries, likewise. Through this sanctification process of leading and encouraging each other to be new and more Christ-like; she gets a new and better husband; stronger, wiser, and braver than she had yesterday.  The husband wakes up with a different wife than he went to sleep with. She is more beautiful in his sight, more elegant, and graceful than the woman he married.

Oneitis is the only reconciliation of these truths. Bite once, and bite deeply.

The Jackass Stops Here

I have waited a bit to respond, to see if Gabriella might realize what she is said, and what she continues to say. Her last few comments here were sorrowful entreatments that I don’t understand her, and that she doesn’t know how to get me to understand. For a theology-seeking Catholic, her understanding of relationships, knowledge, and sex is woefully lacking…though she definitely feels the implications. This is my final response to her pleas for understandingShe writes:

My father and husband are unfairly slandered here. Neither deserve to pay for my loose lips and emotional angst. I obviously made a critical error …perhaps out of respect for these men you could do me the courtesy of sharing this information with Elspeth privately rather than showcasing it to the world?

I was wondering whether you’d come back to clarify–as you should have–that it was YOU who slandered your father and husband. (from the husband link:)

Yes, I can admire my husband for the skills he has that I do not.

No, I don’t consider “financial provision” one of those skills that he has that I do not. Earning an income isn’t that difficult. It only takes an average intelligence and modicum of discipline. Those are things even a woman should have.

One of the reasons I find it easy to admire my husbands specific skills is because we often compete for the fun of it and he frequently beats me at certain types of sports. Painball, first-person shooters, play wrestling, certain types of card games, assembling ANYTHING. He is also really good at getting people to do things they don’t want to do. I call it his Jedi-mind tricks.

And then there is Angry Birds. Nothing frustrates me more than how freaking good he is at Angry Birds.

That was in response to a challenge from Unger (another missed soul) that doubted whether an independent-minded woman–such as you are and were claiming to be–could respect her husband. What a pathetic attempt that was to enumerate your husband’s value: First you denigrate his biblical calling to provide as something anyone can do; to make clear we know he is not special. Then you claim to respect him based on his skill in games and recreation, and his ability to get out of work. Unbelievable, truly. You don’t respect your husband, and you said so publicly and flippantly.

In your dissatisfaction you are searching for other authorities than the ones you have been provided; which is what I’ve been saying for two posts and dozens of comments. So, no: for my sake, for you sake, for the sake of my readers, and for the sake of your husband and father I will not take private what you have made public. You may wipe your mouth, but this napkin of a post will testify to your lusts.

She continues:

I don’t crave to be liked. I crave to be understood. And..I crave to understand others. I don’t think it is a sinful desire, but it has come to my attention that I risk my families reputation which isn’t fair to them.

I saw what you want when you disrobed yourself in the comments. I chose the word “liked” instead of “known” to spare you the ensuing connotations, but that was a mistake. Now, I’m not so deranged to say that what you’re after is sex…per se…but you damn well know from whence a woman’s desire for sex proceeds: the desire to be known. SongTwoEleven said it right:

Your job is not to figure anything out, but rather to hear the Word of God (the Bible) and obey according to your current knowledge of His Word. […]

Further, as nice as it is that you seek conversation in the blogs of the so-called “manosphere” in MEN’S circles, I would advise you to cease doing this immediately. If you have a question or a concern about spirituality, the Bible, or a topic on the manosphere, I would go immediately and ASK YOUR OWN HUSBAND. You said he is a hero to you. Does he know that? Does he feel that he is your hero? Begin to ask him about all matters pertaining to men (he is a man, your man for life, after all) – it will foster conversation between the two of you that may be unexpectedly pleasing to him (and you, but it’s not being done for YOU, but for him).

Although you say you “marinate” about submission, you are not sold out to submission in heart. I do not know you very well, only by what you have revealed of your heart here. However, I would suggest that you place yourself in an emotional state of submission by going to your own husband for EVERYTHING. You have a question about men? Ask your husband. You have a question pertaining to a topic you read on the manosphere once? Ask your husband. You want to know what to fix for supper? Ask your husband. You want to know what color makeup to wear today? Ask your husband. You have a question about God and His character and design for your life? I don’t care if you think your husband is not up to par spiritually – ask your own husband anyway.

Gabriella, you’re not here to seek the “truth”. You’re here to mentally masturbate because you imagine that I have the theological girth that you perceive lacking from your husband. You are, of course, suffering under imaginings of both him and I. You’re one of several Emma Bovarys of the Manosphere; conflating theology and passion until you convince yourself that you can combine them into holiness; when holiness is about keeping things separate that ought not be joined. In flits of emotional turmoil, you throw yourself into other men’s figurative beds. That is the shame you bring on your husband.

You’re replaying your Daddy Issues with me cast as the antagonist. Said another way: You want me to make you into a sort of electronic Alpha Widow, as this is what you have come to expect of men you want understanding from; that is, love. I know this because your behavior is different from the other women. They, more or less, treat me like a friend. You, though, are not satisfied to agree, or disagree, or engage in an earnest discourse; reasoning together in friendship. You want me to take you; it’s the fight you make of it, mixed with your openness, that makes your intentions plain.

She finishes:

My husband is a great man. A hero..actually. He deserves nothing but respect.

Well all he has is you. What are you going to do about?

You’re a liar, and an emotional slut, Gabriella. Turn from this path before an unrepentant Rodolphe Boulanger finds you. Depart from me.

Tacomaster Desires Steadfast Love

UPDATE: I have cleaned up some sentences and added a couple more since I first posted this. A friend pointed out that the words I chose could be misconstrued.

Yes, it’s been awhile. This is my return post, wherein I respond to a commenter at Dalrock’s, who asked for advice.

Tacomaster said: Another awesome post Dal and I liked your table.I’m posting before reading the comments so excuse me if this has been touched on. My wife and I are both believers, married almost three years. Initially she didn’t understand the importance of frequent married sex. I was in Hell the first year of marriage with the 1-2 sex episodes/month.

I went to the young couples pastor at church who was an Omega, married about 15 years or so (told me him and his wife didn’t have sex much either and it was ultimately her decision) and only saw him that one time for advice. I fought with the idea of divorce because I was tired of living a sinful life of having sex out of marriage and wanted this to work. My wife and I waited til we were married to have sex by the way. She had one previous partner.

She’s familiar with the verse you mentioned in your opening and the sex has increased but to be honest, it really sucks. She has a ton of stipulations and rules which destroys the passion and spontaneity of it. Plus the fact that she jumps out of bed immediately afterwards to “clean up” kills the mood—oh, and there’s the pressure to “hurry up and c*m” thing that I hate. I’ve never been a porn watcher in my life (never interested me) but these last few months have gotten into it. Is this what Christian marriage sex is? I can’t talk about this with my guy friends. The sex feels like a duty she’s fulfilling. Any input is appreciated.

Here’s my input: Tacomasters’s (TM from here on out) wife is not interested in loving him, or being married to him. They don’t have a sex problem, they have a love problem. Sex is beyond an obligation; it’s a good and necessary function of a marriage; a fulfilling and wholesome manifestation of desire for that person. It is the epitome and consummation of marriage. To say that sex is an obligation of marriage is like saying a mother has an obligation to feed her children. That is to say: A mother who can, but does not, is no mother at all. TM’s wife does not desire him. That’s to say: she does not desire to be desired by him. The first thing TM needs to do is accept this; which is an extraordinarily painful thing to do. This is where TM finds himself: Married to a harlot who is demanding better emotional payment for her services, but expecting a wife.

It must be understood that the sexes were designed for our benefit and understanding. Man was made first, and woman was made for man. Women were designed specifically to be desired by men, and by that desiring to bring completion and projection. That completion shows in the physical world as sex, when the man’s desire for a woman brings forth ecstasy and life. It’s easy to see orgasm as completion, and procreation as projection of life, but there is also a projection of ecstasy that makes the difficult times more easy to bear. Sexual delight is a marvelous grace; a physical symptom of the blessing that love can bring to the lover and the beloved, the man and the woman.

Yes, the woman is the beloved. I do not say that women don’t or can’t love, because they certainly can, and most often do so when men can’t or won’t. (Nursing homes, orphanages daycares, and hospitals are brimming with women.) Nevertheless, women thrive when they are the object of love. Little girls don’t dream of being possessed by the best man in the world. They dream of be the most desired woman in the world, and they dread being desirable to no one. Grown women fantasize about being swept off their feet by powerful men and forces beyond their control. Their bodies are formed in such a way that they receive pleasure in the most vulnerable of positions. They’re mind-bogglingly pliant, yielding, and literally impressionable. Yet, their physical pleasure centers are arranged in such as way as to be accessible to all but the most corporally aggrieved of men. Their emotions are likewise, and we see this in the breadth of men–and the diverse actions among those fellows–that they find attractive.

The desire to be loved is one of the reasons church is so appealing to women. Even if you made churches more male-oriented: as long as mankind is the object of God’s love, and church–that is, communion–is the most tangible expression of God’s love on Earth then women will be beside themselves to get in. The Israelites forbade women from entering the inner courts (you can’t get much more male-oriented than that), and my bottom dollar says ancient Jewesses were dying for access because they were sure those within were more loved by God than those without. No doubt pagans have the same problem. You can always pick out a hindu woman by her dress, but hardly a man. I don’t doubt that for every male worshipper of Zeus, he was but one pebble among the womanly sands of Hera. Among the Muslim extremists, it is the women who are the most extreme. It is women who hold each other’s daughters down for female genital mutilation. It is women who force the burka on each other. These deformities of culture aren’t hate, but perverted concern; that the subjects of such atrocities might be lovable.

Within Christian marriage sex is the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, between a man and a woman; between the lover, and the beloved. No one, but the two consecrated by covenant with each other, are allowed to enter into that blessed union. Which brings us back to TM’s problem: his wife doesn’t want to be beloved anymore. They’ve read the passage from 1 Corinthians 7, so she dutifully doles out sexual welfare every so often to fulfill the obligation they believe is set forth in that scripture. The obligation is not to have sex, but to not deny each other of it, and that is the worst case scenario. It is a warning that sexual denial within marriage is a very serious matter threatening the very existence of the marriage, and therefore their relationship with God which is bound up in the Christian marriage.

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

For husbands desire steadfast love and not duty, the knowledge of him rather than sexual welfare.* A husband wants to know his wife, wants her to want to be known by him, and wants no one else to else to know her; to keep her separate and secret for himself, which is holy and beautiful and erotic. That passage from 1 Corinthians 7 isn’t a rebuke of husbands and wives who don’t want to have sex with each other. It’s an exhortation to fulfill their good and holy desires with one another.

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

We modern Christians (and no doubt earlier ones as well) are putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble because we are not taking into consideration to what St. Paul is responding. The Corinthians had send him a letter mentioning that the church had decided that abstinence was the right thing for all Christians, married or not. St. Paul’s response is to say: “No! By all means: husbands and wives are supposed to have sex!” The Christian marriage covenant is such a powerful spiritual bond that it is to be that the husband controls the wife’s body, and the wife the husband’s. His words are meant to free them from heresies and misunderstandings that have led them into sin and sexual slavery. St. Paul is not merely obliging TM’s wife to have sex with him; he is removing the false narrative that good Christians don’t have great sex. They certainly do, and to deny one another is to deny not only the flesh, but God’s intent, as well. The implication then is that TM’s wife has, in fact, become a non-believer in their marriage. She is a like a priest who has rejected her religion, but still pays tithe out of superstition. It’s a sort of witchcraft meant to protect her from any allegations of wrongdoing.

Wrongness is not the bloody point! She. Is. Rejecting. Him. And she has no excuse because she has been given that marvelous ability to be lovable, and to be loved. It is not TM’s fault. This is a choice she has made. Even if her emotions are not into the idea of sex, she ought to be saying to TM, “Husband, I desire to be pleasing you, and to be pleased by you.”, which is absolutely true. If she did, she would find that–sooner or later (and the sooner the more she means it)–she would get what she really wants, which is to be loved by a man she considers worthy.

In the meantime, TM, do not ask that woman for sex. Stop lying to her and yourself. Stop trying to do what she wants so that she wants to have sex with you. Tell her the truth for a change; that you want to bang her silly, and that she should let you know when she’s ready. Then, stop talking to her except as necessary. When you do, be as polite and formal as you can. Do not hold hands with her. Do not hug her, or kiss her. If she says she loves you, say, “If you loved me, you’d kiss me.”, and be sincere about it. If she comes in for a kiss, then make it a big one, and escalate from there, groping and fondling and all the things a man wants to do his woman until you’re having sex. If she recoils, do not react. Just go back to the routine, and don’t give in.

Make your world what you want it to be, to the best of your ability. Do the chores YOU think need to be done around the house, and only those chores. Regardless of what the previous arrangements were: This is now your house, and you decide what is important. Don’t slack. Do make it a point to take care of the things you think need to be taken care of.

Get your finances in order, if they are not. Make a budget, and stick with it.

Christ informs us of how we should behave when fasting, and I think it should apply even when we are fasting from tasting the fruit of our spouses:

16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

In other words: Make yourself look good; take care of yourself. Groom yourself and dress well. If you don’t know how, start here. I haven’t gone through the new Style Guide, but I imagine it’s even better than their old style series. You will feel better.

If you don’t exercise, start. At least go walk every day. In fact, it would be a good idea to invite her to go walking with you, but do not ask. Say: “I’m going walking. Come with me.” and then go. Either way, it will be important and good for you to be active. Physical activity will help you think clearer, sleep better, and feel better.

Whatever you do, while you are doing all these things: Try to smile. If she tries to pick a fight with you, say: “I’m trying to love you, not fight with you.” Leave for a bit if you have to, but never for the night. Do not–under any circumstances!–sleep on the couch, or in another room. That is your house, your bedroom, and your bed. You are allowing her to use them because you have grace and compassion.

Trust God to bring you through this trial and her and work this out for your glorification, as He promises to those who love Him.

As a side-effect: she will wonder what the hell is going on. That is good. Intrigue is catnip to women. BUT UNDERSTAND THIS: That you are not doing these things to please her. You will do what is good, and she will choose to follow, and to be your helpmeet suitable…or not. This isn’t about winning her over, or manning-up for her. That boat has sailed, and she has committed to before God regardless if you’re a lady-killer or a loser. This is about you loving your enemy as your Father in heaven does, heaping coals on her head, and not giving way before the wicked.

If she tries to “earn points” or appear like the good wife by paying you compliments, or at least like she’s not so bad** then say something like, “Thanks. If you really liked it you’d kiss me.” Let her know what you want, and that you won’t be satisfied with head pats and compliments. So if she says, “Will you stop that!” You say, “No.” with a smirk, or a knowing smile. If she retorts with something passive-aggressive like, “Geez, I’m just trying to be nice!” then you say, “A kiss would be nicer.” Never lose your frame of reference that this about her accepting your good and blessed desire to love her wholly, and that means physically, and that means sex! This isn’t about her being right, or good, or nice, or anything other than her being fully accepting of her husband as wives ought to be.

All the while: be praying for her. It will do you both good. We have been given no occasion to mistreat our spouses, for we are called to love even our enemies…which sometimes our spouses are. Bear in ming that loving them does not mean doing what they want. It means doing what is best for them.

Finally, stop masturbating to porn. It is poison. It is so tempting because those dead soulless pictures of dead soulless women exist to please you, and that is what you most desire from your wife. Do not let them pervert your good and natural desire. It will corrupt you, and has negative effects mentally, physically, and spiritually.

*I encourage you, dear readers, please: By all means look beyond the verse I’ve quoted to the whole context of the book of Hosea. It’s about a man who marries a harlot who scorns him, and how that is a symbol for how God’s people have abandoned the love of their life; who has provided all for them, forsaken others for them, and Who–with long-suffering–desires for them to be reconciled to Him.

**And she will, because she will dread the thought of actually being “that bad”, and therefore unlovable–the one true horror of women.