The Cuckoo’s Egg of Courtly Love

In English, the only word for “marriage sorting and arranging ritual” we have is courtship; even though the act is as old as people. That’s because the cuckoo’s egg of Courtly Love has hatched, and the nest of Christianity is overtaken with its progeny; the assumption of women’s moral superiority, Feminism, egalitarianism, and complementarianism.

The Shadows Cast by Goddess Idols

In my previous post I limited myself to the narrow and easily observable fact that Pro-Lifers view every woman as living fertility goddesses over their own little clans. But this worship has gone on for awhile now, and, like all, religions these idols have accreted spheres of influence under the ministrations of their devotees, as each one seeks to please the goddesses better than other rival worshippers. Zippy pointed out the obviously related sphere of sex itself fell under the shadow of women’s authority even though the centrality of sex belongs to men.

And not just babies, but children too. Before now there was the invention of the “Tender Years Doctrine” which provoked judges to deny the fruits of marriage from the farmer and leave them to the fields. (One eyes might perceive such a phenomenon as letting the fruit rot and the field go fallow.) Then there’s modern alimony and child support. The sacrament of No-Fault Divorce was key. It’s a ceremony of “pastoral exception” with two applications:

  1. Allow a goddess to discard her husband without refusal or compunction
  2. A husband can discard his goddess without publicly shaming her, and therefore avoid the offense of shaming a goddess

both of which pastorally except women from pondering consequences, repentance, or any other act that might anger her.

Now the cult’s shadow advances rapidly and we have passed quickly through the penumbral age of No-Means-No into the silent dark of Yes-Means-Yes and Marital Rape; when every man must first pray to his woman for sex, and then wait for an audible acceptance lest he trespass.

All that is just a broad (rimshot!) sketch to give you the lay of the land of where we are now so that I can talk about one little prayer to the goddesses that tires me.

 

Pro-Lifers’ Terrible Vision for Marriage

I closed the previous post by saying that the implications of Pro-Lifers pigheadedness to hold abortive mothers as not guilty by reason of: Life is Hard are even worse. Let’s consider marriage.

Lydia McGrew, PhD wrote:

A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth.(Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.)

Until thinking about this topic of abortion and women’s ability to choose, I have considered myself a strong supporter of marriage. That will continue, but I confess that it will do so under the powers of habit and will; yoked by conviction from the Word of God. If those (my efforts) fail, then only by the power of the Holy Spirit shall they be maintained. And only if He is so inclined.

She said that abortion is unique in that the victim is “physically” hidden, but this is a perversion of the truth. Pregnancy is visually hidden–not physically–and it is far from unique. Who has seen God? Who has seen Jesus? Who has seen the Holy Spirit? Who has seen a merely human spirit? Who has see the human heart as it is spoken of in the Bible? Who has seen Heaven? Who has seen Hell?

Who has seen marriage? Marriage, like pregnancy, is a good thing. Also like marriage it is surrounded by fears and anxieties and real sacrifice. We can see the evidence of it, but no one has put eyes on the mystery of two flesh become one. It must be accepted on faith. Under the Pro-Lifers’ terrible rule of eyeballs: If no woman has the moral agency to refrain from commitment to abortion, then no woman has the moral agency to commit to the good of marriage. There is not even a matri-gram to prevent women from becoming the puppets of divorce lawyers.

Though, It Would Explain “Pro-Lifers”

Unwanted pregnancies do pose serious problems for expectant mothers even in the best of cases. The birth of a child is itself physically painful, and–in some ways–it gets worse from there. The mother will be materially poorer than before. If she has a husband, his attentions will be further divided. If she doesn’t, her attentions will be less diverted. And these are only a small sampling of heart-aching issues pregnant women will face of which we can be sure. In truth, there are a great many terrible, unknown, and unknowable heartaches in the life of a mother. Some children develop disease later. Some refuse to be disciplined. Some children simply die.

It has been said that these burdens are so overwhelming that, combined (and added to the mother’s presence in the midst of a society that permits abortion; and also without the benefit of a medical license so to know whether or not human offspring are actually human) a woman has lost her ability to make a choice to abort. She is but a marionette and everyone around her (and whatever is in her that she can’t determine) cruelly pull her strings.

Lydia McGrew at Something’s Wrong with that Girl went so far as to imply that the death penalty is not too harsh for abortionists (doctors) because it would teach women that abortion is wrong. Yet, she says, it would be wrong to apply any punishment to a woman who earns, begs, borrows, or steals the financing for an abortion because dead doctors are enough to teach any woman that life is precious. From the post:

A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth.

Check out what Lydia McGrew, PhD wrote next:

(Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.)

So much for the special mother-child bond and so much for the Tender Years doctrine. I sure as hell don’t want to hear a word about women’s intuition. Women can’t know what they can’t see, you see. Swelling and hunger and sickness and kicking and all those other sensations that brought her accidentally to the abortion clinic instead of accidentally to the dentist’s office, are irrelevant.

As with Doug Wilson, it must be amazing to McGrew that any of us are here at all! How did women cope before the sonogram? What is that in there? Is it a scared ostrich? Is it a weasel?

But it gets worse…

Babies Away? Nah, too Bourgie

Must…break…inertia…so I lifted a comment I made at Bonald’s Throne and Altar. (My first, maybe? I forget.)

Bonald asked:

Can anyone explain this mystery to me?

God to Arab Muslim:  Strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up in a crowded space.

Arab Muslim:  God is great!

God to Catholic couple: Have unsterilized sex and have lots of cute babies.

Catholic couple:  But, but, but….our freedom!!!

Am I just fooled by (a particular strand of) Muslim devoutness being so much more spectacular than Catholic devoutness?  But there are an awful lot of young Muslims who, although not signing up for suicide missions, are fired up over the same causes.  The population of Catholics of suicide-bomber-age who are fired up for fighting the Church’s fights and making babies seems to be just nonexistent.

In response to him (and Nick B. Steve’s comment that Bonald was comparing the most devout Muslims to the widest group of Roman Catholics) I wrote the following…


 

In comparing would-be Muslim bombers with would-be Christian parents there are extreme differences in soteriology, and differences in targets.

According to my formerly Muslim step-father: Islam teaches that each person is judged and weighed according to their earthly deeds. Unlike Christianity, this measurement is not thrown out on account of Jesus’s grace extended to us (I’m simplifying, here.) who are in communion with Him.The only sure way to avoid being found unworthy is to die in jihad.

What jihadi clerics do then is prey upon those Muslims who have been, or currently are, the most Westernized; the most decadent; etc. Went to a stripclub and snorted cocaine of a stripper? My son, only death in jihad can outweigh that. You’ll notice that the facts surrounding who blew up what, where they were raised, how much money their family had, etc. supports this.

In contrast, virtually all Christians are called to marriage and procreation. What is not rare is often not valued, so marriage and children seem to many like humdrum aspects of Christianity; such as candles or modest clothes. Like those things: Marriage and children aren’t even peculiar to Christians alone. It’s a case of Christians starving to death in the middle of an supermarket because supermarkets are bourgie, yo.

We’re all hipsters, now.

Real Colored Jazz: Pretension, Robosexuals, and Homosexuals

One of my favorite movies was A River Runs Through It. It may still be. It’s been a long time since I’ve last seen it. It’s a story during the 1920s about two Montana brothers; one dangerously adventurous (Paul), and an older, pensive writer (Norman); who is the narrator.

In one scene, Norman comes back home from between semesters at a Chicago college. As he attempts to regale his old friends with big city life he boasts about the jazz he’s heard in clubs; “real colored jazz”, he calls it. He also derides a popular white jazz act of the day called the Clicquot Club Eskimos. His gambit of ur-hipster status-signaling fails among his townie friends when the bird he likes protests that her mother loves the Clicquot Club Eskimos. It won’t be so simple in the near future.

When the robots… arrive they will quickly become townie objects. When that happens, the Normans of the world (and most people are Norman at one time or another) will begin their search for authenticity. This earnestness won’t cause them to get rid of their robots and virtually real pornography. Nor will the pressure robosexuality will exert on human mating choices be lessened. People will still want increasingly unrealistic standards of more and better sex.

What it will do is make homosexuality seem authentic. “At least,” they’ll say, “a man having sex with another man is natural.”

At the same time, robosexuality will make sexual perversion un-real. “It’s not really gay,” they’ll say, “to pretend to have sex with a pretend man.”

Robots with Benefits

For women, this has already happened with the explosion of the sextoy market, and now Lesbian Until Graduation is an accepted practice. The thinking goes (not that there’s much consciousness involved) that, if its ok to pleasure yourself just for the sake of pleasuring yourself, then what is the problem with allowing another to pleasure you? Just as there is no romantic attachment or sexual orientation in regards to vibrators, then there needn’t be the implication of romantic attachment with a sexual partner.

And so–somewhat athwart my previous statement that the sexbot apocalypse will generate male homosexual activity–the robot-buying-base will be women. (I think male homosexual activity will increase [especially among affluent whites and asians), but it won’t overtake heterosexual fantasies.) I base this on the fact that while sales of male sextoys have increased a bit in recent years, they are far from overtaking the smorgasbord of options on the female market.

From a cultural perspective, I’ve never actually known of a man who owned a sex doll or other item. If they did they hid it. Meanwhile, vibrators have been sold for decades as “personal massagers” in beauty supply stores; right next to the old lady hair blueing.

If I’m right, none of it bodes well for anyone.

She Got Games You Ain’t Even Thought of Playing

I’m going to continue on with the rest of a girl’s comment from Dalrock’s…

After reading the comments here (that a wife should submit to her husband even unto housework) I am going to ask [her prospective husband] how he feels about housework because I can’t see myself married to someone who has issues with it. I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.

which will, rightly, set off alarms for any man who is not a confessed feminist. It’s easy to see that before she’s even married she’s already rebelling against being a wife…not because she doesn’t want to clean toilets (no one does), but because she is both setting arbitrary rules against an imagined offense (which makes her the de facto ruler, and therefore against submitting to her husband) and because she is manipulative and deceptive. Though, feminist or not, most men would only feel the manipulation and deception. Many men couldn’t pinpoint it, but I’m here to help.

Check out the framing of her statement. “I’m going to ask him…” It’s a test, plain and simple. It’s a test that she knows she cannot possibly grade him fairly upon because she has already stated that he doesn’t know what he expects from a wife; particularly about submission. She’s counting on him being rattled by the question, and just backing off from the whole concept. She, however, does know the answer to the submission question test: It means she cleans a toilet if he says “Clean the toilet.”

“…[H]ow he feels about housework…” is so untrue it’s not even wrong. Feel has nothing to do with it. By moving the rational decision from the questions of

  • What should a wife do?
  • What does submission mean?
  • Who’s going to clean the toilets?

This way, if they argue, it happens in the arena of feelings and “he-said/she-said” instead of “Let’s look at the Bible.” This is necessary for her because she doesn’t want to admit that–way deep-down in her gut–that she hates what God has said. By he-sad/she-said she can’t really lose, because if she loses that means he’s a big meanie picking on a girl. Therefore he isn’t worthy anyway. When she really thinks about it, the way he doesn’t let her have her way is emotional abuse. So she will tell herself.

And let us not overlook the fact that this isn’t about housework. It’s about submission overall. She knows that, but he may not. She knows that if she gets her way about housework, she has precedent to get her way about everything. Sometime later, she’ll give-in to something that she feels is just his want (not her duty), and pat herself on the back for her maturity and willingness to compromise. If he ever brings up that it was her duty then she’ll regret it, and think of the whole incident as the time that he took advantage of her mature generosity. It’s like clockwork.

“I can’t see myself married to someone” has the subtext of “I’m considering others.” If it was a PUA’s statement some would call it Dread Game. She’s communicating that she is ready to replace him if he doesn’t let her have her way. Again, this will set a precedent for all future disagreements.

“I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.”

Classic ugly feminism for her to focus in on what she hates instead of what she loves.

Family-Friendly Films: Sabotaged to be Supplanted

While laws can influence culture in ways great and small, the usual way of things is that culture informs the law. By culture I mean that alloy made of the a society’s aspirations, desires, fears, and biases. These are what they hold important. It is the stuff their art and media is made of. And by law I mean not only the letters of the laws that are passed, but how they are passed, and how they are enforced…or not, as the case may be. Right now there are a lot of people across the political spectrum who are anxious to control the law because they don’t understand that the winner of this cycle of political battle we’re in right now has already been decided by the culture (especially the art and media) of the 80s, 90s, and before.

So when we look at a smear campaign by the pink mafia that causes the destruction of a TV show about brothers flipping houses for in-need families on the HGTV network,

HGTV announced on its Facebook page Wednesday that it was scrapping plans for the upcoming series after a report emerged identifying one of its stars as an activist against gay marriage and abortion. After the CNN interview, David told Deadline he and his brother had been “really excited” about the reality series, thinking it would give them “that opportunity to show America that you can be Christian and not be so extreme on one side of an issue that you’re not loving toward people. I was excited about that opportunity,” he said.

we’re looking at secondary explosions of a bomb that went off in previous decades. Those decades gave us cable and wealth. They gave us the housing market boom that increased homeowner envy, incited irrational exuberance for building more and bigger houses, created the glut that makes flipping houses a thing people believe anyone can get into, and the Internet makes all this knowledge available. Without those things, you don’t even have a show about flipping houses to be cancelled; or even an HGTV to cancel it. And sometime before all that: Homes and gardens–the church buildings of the family–became the cultural domain of homosexual men. We should not be surprised that two straight white men’s[3]  show about helping actual families (Dad, Mom, and kids) live together got caught in the blast.

The Good News: At least one man has heard the call to arms. His name’s John Erwin, and he’s not going to let the next generations suffer the same fate.

Erwin, whose new film “Moms’ Night Out” opens in theaters nationwide Friday, lambasted the industry for failing to take the time to consider the social consequences of distributing messages rooted in rampant violence, sex and smut.

[…]

Hollywood, he charged, doesn’t “have a soul anymore” — a paradigm he’s hoping to change through the work he’s doing with his brother, Andrew Erwin. The two co-directed “Moms’ Night Out,” a comedic follow-up to “October Baby,” their dramatic feature film about abortion survival.

The Erwin brothers are taking an entirely different approach.

“There’s no emphasis on anything other than, ‘Does this make money?,’” he charged of studios’ movie-making decisions. “There’s no boardrooms where people are asking, ‘Is ‘Grand Theft Auto’ good for people?’ They only ask, ‘Does it make money?’”

Erwin, a Christian who’s bent on producing films that focus on a fulfilling story or an uplifting message, said it’s long past due for Hollywood to really take the time to pursue a “double bottom line” — that is, creating content that is both financially profitable and ethically sound.

The Bad News: He’s leading F Troop.

Instead of a pretend enemy of equally hapless American Indians, we’re up against a deadly serious new Reich hellbent on slaughter, sodomy…nothing less than general and utter desecration. To see what I mean about leading F Troop, watch this trailer for John Erwin’s film-as-cultural-cannon, “Mom’s Night Out” as it topples the watchtower of patriarchy.

It’s a film about how mothers are over-worked yet under-appreciated, and how if they didn’t labor under this unfair burden all our children would be dead. All the fathers are inept, ignorant, and with one exception completely unappreciative. Even that guy suffers being tied-up and injured to the point of needing an ambulance–and that at the hands of small children. Every single father in the preview tries to weasel out of taking responsibility of his children; either by whining to his wife, checking them into an arcade, and even up to dropping them off at a tattoo parlor.

A bit of good luck there for our surrounded and outnumbered wives, though. Because while tattoo parlors are generally considered dens of slightly-less-iniquity than whorehouses, they also come stocked with presumably (and hopefully!) unmarried and fearless bikers who will stick by those wives no matter what to save those kids. Good thing, too, because the dads are too busy bumbling, hiding, and healing up from their traumatic experiences in babysitting to be of any help whatsoever. The necessity of the bikers is depicted in the clips where the bikers are leading even the police in the rescue, and will not hesitate to rough up another idiot father who stands in the way of their mission.

The snippet that really drives home the beautiful alliance of the bikers and the wives…

Did I forget to mention those wives are also smoking hot when they’re not being kept down by the idiot bastards to whom they’re married?

…is when they show the massive and tattoo’d leader[1] of the bikers sitting with the wife in the little black dress at the police station. Bikers–as everybody knows–aren’t only in it with your wife for the excitement. They’re in it for the long haul of fretful nights, too. One imagines those bikers could be in all kinds of things for wives.

There’s your Family-Friendly Film warriors at work; bringing us an “ethically sound”, clean and relatively painless lethal injection of fatherhood that frees up wives to have real adventures, sexy bikers, great clothes, the joy of kids…everything.

Before some wiseguy cracks that I haven’t even seen the movie yet, and so I can’t know what I’m talking about: You’ve not only missed the point of my post, but the point of movie trailers altogether.

Later in the Blaze interview I linked above, John Erwin says:

“There was a day when Hollywood really had a moral fiber in my opinion, that there was clear good versus evil and there were rules for what could and could not be portrayed,” he told TheBlaze. “I love comedy, but it stinks that there are so few comedies that I can go and see.”

Erwin said it’s unfortunate that so many people of faith are put in positions in which they need to sacrifice their values in order to get a good laugh, many times feeling like they “want to take a bath afterwards.”

[…]

“We’re going off a cliff in the kind of content we’re creating,” Erwin said. “My appeal to everyone in Hollywood is, can we please clean up our act?”

Tell me about it, Captain Parmenter.[2]

Edited to include footnote [3], which is out of order.

[1] Played by country singer Trace Adkins. Trace is 6’5″ and has family values written all over him. He’s sold millions of albums filled with dozens of songs about himself, been married and divorced three times, and has had at least five children by at least two women. (His groupies declined to comment during the calls I didn’t make for clarification.) 

[2] For those of you in the mood to take another beating, check out this clip of the creators of this film talking about why and how they made it. One pitch for the movie–by the co-writer, director, and brother to John: Andrew Erwin–is such a farce that I will transcribe it here:

It’s this feel-good, empowering story, and it’s really about a husband and wife fighting for each other and fighting for their family. And I hope there’s just this resounding message to moms to keep going; just keep going; just keep doing what you’re doing[…]

  1. It’s not a story about a husband and wife fighting together, but rather wives, their friends, and bikers.
  2. Keep going towards what? Divorce, girls’-nights-out, and bikers, presumably.

[3] As I have already received and deleted one off-target racial comment meant to redirect from my post to a discussion about race, let me make my inclusion of white clear. It matters in this case because NAMs, when attacked, can always resort to their Aggreivance Protection Policy to abjure the haters. In the alternate reality where everything is the same except the twins are black, their show is still in production. But if you’re a white guy: There’s no APP for that. I’m not particularly upset about that, either. Find the black dudes who are housing and supporting families and put them on the air.

Prayer and Sodomy in the News

I was going to do a real post on this, but I want to move onto the flip side and talk about those people who are going to Save Our Society. Instead, just read this article about how bowing down in prayer is risible, but bending over for another dude is laudable.

One more thing: One of the jokes I cut from my last post was about Michael Sam going to school at (vulgar term ahead[1]) FDAU. I blinked because I am sometimes overly sensitive to the need to “not contribute to the pollution”. But, dammit, that is exactly what homosexuality is. The perversion of homosexual behavior isn’t fond feelings between two (or more) men. The perversion is sex (including sexual desires) between men.[2] Homosexuality is fundamentally about one man putting his dick in another man. It’s sick. In the inversion of the truths Dalrock spoke: A people who cannot even bring themselves to say sex between men is grotesque have no hope to turn the ship of marriage around.

This is already more of a post than I intended at the start.

[1] Ironically, I hear about most NSFW things at work.

[2] This fits with what I’ve said about divorce, and sex in a marriage. Don’t do the first, and keep doing the second. Work together on the desire.

Eurovision Owns NFL at Tolerance. Film at Eleven*.

The Pink Mafia is successfully erecting their goalposts right in our faces and mushroom-stamping all of Western Civilization along the way. This past week the NFL drafted its first openly homosexual player. THWACK! Not to be outdone by wee Yankee upstarts: Europeans choose a bearded transexual as their mascot of pop music. THWACK! THWACK!

It was an ignoble effort, but (unfortunately for the Americans) their sexual deviant icon is a large black man who–if you can avoid the picture of him kissing his white bitch boyfriend–still clings to some vestigial masculinity. The European candidate for degenerate of the year is a full-blown nut bag…which is even more fitting than the American one’s overly developed fondness for balls. All hail the queen.

* For the edification of the even younger fogies than I: