COE VI: We Have No Such Custom, on Head Coverings

In March of 2016 I wrote a post about the “Head Coverings” passage from 1 Corinthians 11.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

A pretty good discussion followed in the comments. One of the parts which was not good was my reply to GK CHesterton wherein I wrote:

I think a fair reading of Paul’s teaching is that a woman’s long hair is an acceptable covering of itself, but perhaps I am just a big lib. But it must be long, and–as one under authority–the owner of the hair is not the one to decide how long is long enough to be a covering.

It’s one of those times where what I wrote was correct, but yet still not good. A woman’s long hair is an acceptable covering generally, but it is not an acceptable covering for prayer or prophecy, if I accept that 1 Corinthians 11 is truly God’s word. Verse 6 is the lynchpin.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Paul said that a long-haired woman who won’t cover her hair should have her hair cut off. That is a simple statement which makes it clear that obedience on head coverings is not covered (rimshot) by long hair. Paul addressed my mistake directly because it is important that the conspicuous sign of submission by head coverings was not optional.

I had no excuse for my error except that:

  1. I lacked the imagination to think that there was a time when women really were disciplined (discipled) at church.
  2. I feared a battle with my female relations over something that no one else obeyed; which signaled that it was an unimportant custom. Did I really need to start a fight that would end with me being angry at them all, and them at me? I would have been angry if I did not get obedience, and they all would have bound together.

Well, after I wrote that post in March 2016 I was, in my spare time, hassled by 1 Cor. 11:6 until the following fall when I read the passage to my wife and daughters and asked them if they could see any way around it. They did: They said (like I had) that long hair was a covering. I brought it back to verse 6. They were unhappy, but they obeyed God and did not grumble at me too much…though they were sometimes “forgetful” until I was “remindful”.

“But! But! But! Times have changed…” Indeed they have. It is common in Christian circles, when it comes to time pray, for one man to remind another that he still has his hat on. When we do that we harken back to that custom that a man should not pray with his head covered. What time changed was whenever it was that a woman would be reminded to cover hers up.

Paul closes the section on head coverings with:

But if any man seem to be contentious [CC: about the custom of head coverings], we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Stop Being Distracted

Taken (only slightly edited) from several comments on Dalrock’s post, “First They Came for the Bald Men”.

The movement of which Antifa, commies, Democrats, etc. all belong isn’t anymore essentially Left than its opponents are Nazis. The essence of the movement to which these groups belong–what they have in common–is a hatred of three things:

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

The order of hatred depends on with which faction of the movement one deals, but the three are essential. For example: Feminism hates men first, then Christianity, then whites. Black Lives Matter orders it Whites, Christianity, then men, I think. Sometimes, as in the case of Antifa, more than one plank is of equal weight. Antifa hates America as a whole because it recognizes that America is fundamentally a work of white Christian men.

It’s not autonomous vs. totalitarian, nor is it globalists vs. nationalists, nor is it politically correct speech vs. free speech. They are not FOR anything in particular. They exist to be AGAINST things. Specifically, they are against

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

Some are fine–and even for–capitalism in China, India, wherever–as long as the benefits are not for Christian white men. They love to welcome Muslim mid-easterners, but the Christian mid-easterners are served right to be killed and exiled. There is no rhyme or reason to these affiliated groups except what they are against. Leftism has nothing to do with this movement.

They don’t know or care what Left means.
They don’t know or care what Nazi means.
They don’t know or care what Globalism means.
They don’t know or care what Right means.
They don’t know or care what Fascist means.
They don’t know or care what Nationalism means.
They don’t know or care what Communist means.

The words, to them, contain no meaning whatsoever. Those things are just words that dead white oppressors made up to separate the real people of color from each other and their belongings. They appropriate and use these terms as various forms of subversive weaponry: dog whistles, cloaks, and diversions.

Most people, people who describe themselves as Conservative, or even merely “normal” just don’t accept what they actually see. And the self-styled Conservative press are trained to look for ideological underpinnings and try to perceive the “end game”. There aren’t any. It’s just envy and hatred. The average American refuses to believe that and so they theorize imaginary ideologies and end games for BLM, Antifa, Feminists, and so forth.

Envy and hate aren’t ideological points. They are of the spiritual realm. It’s a spiritual war; not an ideological war, nor an ethnic war.

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…

Conserving Rebellion in Canaan

I think I’ve demonstrated (at least somewhat) how God’s command to Sacrifice of the Canaanites indeed is tied into Christ’s story and how we should approach it. The centrality of Christ to all of God’s plans should be obvious, but these are humans we are dealing with, and worse: conservative-minded ones like myself.

Stick with me through the upcoming juke in conversation because I’m going to make a third course change before this post is done.

It has been said that Democrats are the party of sex, and Republicans are the party of money. There’s some truth pointed to in that statement. I would say that some of that truth is that–from a spiritual perspective–liberals tend more to lust, and conservatives to miserlinessLiberals cannot resist whatever is before them (finders keepers); while Conservatives resist restoration (losers weepers). What they have in common is a penchant to distort reality; to let their desires obscure their vision.

Examples of this are conservative men who either explicitly support, or demure from denouncing, female suffrage. It is better to them to keep their reputations as enlightened romantics than to be seen as barbaric patriarchs; even in the face of the wholesale death, destruction, fraud, and whoring of Western Civilization that has occurred since. Very few conservative women will even countenance the idea. The more common response is: “What makes so you special? We should just do what you say because you’re a man? Pfft! NEVER!” Even if they say they believe that God ordained public leadership for men, and even if they aren’t demonstrating and vandalizing businesses like the original suffragettes: It’s theirs now, you see.

Going back to look at McGrew’s problem with the clear commandment to kill all the city-dwelling[1] Canaanites during the conquest of Canaan, we see this same error. To her credit, she does wisely insist that the command was meant literally, and that the Bible says the Israelites did indeed kill Canaanites, even infants.[2] She mentions no problem with the Lord drowning every human on Earth. The killing of the first-born of the Egyptians doesn’t bother her. Sodom’s destruction is acceptable. She says explicitly that if the Lord Himself does these things then it is acceptable…but if God gives commands of authority to men, then she will have no truck with it. It must be a mistake, a lie, or otherwise false.

In the final analysis, McGrew’s objection to God’s command for the conquest of Canaan is nothing short of conserving rebellion. Finders keepers, losers weepers.

She’s not the only one among those who say they fight liberalism; nor am I immune from the temptation. How one can be so liberal as to reject clear bits of God’s Word piecemeal and yet still claim to fight liberalism is not hard to understand. We are not called to head out and take on liberalism in the first place. We’re to submit ourselves and those under us to Christ, and proclaim Him to those around us; that they might repent and make peace with Him before He returns to claim His promised kingdom. We don’t have to understand all the nuances of liberalism, or all the faults of Islam and other pagan beliefs. We just have to recognize Christ as Lord of our lives; the instructions of which are in His Word, and the evidence of which is all around us if we have eyes to see. He’ll lead us to the peoples and cities (and churches) that need to repent, or be destroyed.

[1] Get thee to the sticks, unless otherwise directed.

[2] Far from running from this, Christ prophecies another total destruction  to come within a parable which I’ve talked about before.

25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

It’s identical to the manner of the conquest of Canaan. Notice that Jesus doesn’t mention the attacking King proposing terms of peace to the defender. The responsibility is on the defender to see that doom approaches, and to go out and submit himself and his city to the King–to make it Christ’s city before it is made desolate. Every man has a conscience to guide him; the law of God is written on our hearts; etc. 

Then the Storm Passed

When I was a kid (pre-10), I wasn’t allowed to turn on the TV or get something to eat without asking. Most Saturday mornings, I would get up and ask Mom or Dad, and they’d say, “Sure.” Sometimes though, they would still be asleep, and I’d knock on their bedroom door. No answer. I could hear them rustling around in there, so I’d knock again–in case they hadn’t heard me, you see–and I’d throw in a plaintive, “Mooooom!”.

“BOY!”, Dad would thunder, “the house better be burnin’ down!”

Then I’d hear Mom giggle; which I thought was pretty rude seeing as how I’m getting in trouble for following directions.

I always wondered why Dad was so cranky on Saturdays. He’d slept all night, and he didn’t have to go to work!

Fun times, looking back…then I moved out and they divorced. I guess Dad finally got enough sleep.

Welcome Aboard, John

Dalrock encouraged a reader of his, John, to check out my post Tacomaster Desires Steadfast Love for some advice and perspective. John writes:

Dalrock pointed me to your blog (the “Tacomaster Desires…” post in particular). I’ve enjoyed your reading your advice. I believe you commented on a thread at Dalrock’s where my post elicited many replies. I’m another sex-deprived (as in zero sex for months) husband. I’ve also struggled with porn, but haven’t viewed it (or done any activities associated with viewing it) for over 2 months. I’ve told my wife about this. She was mildly impressed, but it hasn’t changed our zero sex/intimacy relationship at all. She keeps saying it will “take time” for her to build back her trust due to my porn use and other past wrongs. (Most of those wrongs are sins of which I’ll readily admit, but a few are more debatable.)

I have a question that’s on a more tactical level. She’s been letting our youngest (almost 3) sleep with us since she left her crib. We’ve let others sleep with us here or there (when they wake up in the middle of the night, special occasions, etc.), but nothing like this. I think my wife’s allowing this “co-sleeping” (to use the hip, modern term) to make intimacy all but impossible for us.

I’ve been thinking about telling her it needs to stop. Something along the lines of “This is our marriage bed (Heb. 13:4). It’s a place for the two of us to sleep and make love. I don’t mind our kids occasionally coming in when they wake up with a nightmare or something, but not on a regular basis. If you disagree, you can sleep with the youngest in her (twin) bed. I’ll sleep here.”

At this point, I’m sure she’d choose to sleep with the youngest elsewhere. But it would be a way for me to put my foot down and set a boundary. I think I’ll have to do things to force the issue unless my wife suddenly builds her trust. And the longer I’m staying away from porn, the more confident I’m getting.

Your sense on co-sleeping is absolutely right. Your child…

By the way: YOUR child. Possession is important. She can refer to it as “our child” if she wants. You are the farmer who plowed the field. The fruit does not belong to the ground. Insomuch as the law transgresses this basic fact it is an evil…hence, the law is quite evil.

…should definitely not be in the sanctuary of the marital bed. There are times when we should make exceptions in times of need, such as thunderstorms, illness, etc., but, generally, the child should be in her own bed. You suggested saying this:

“This is our marriage bed (Heb. 13:4). It’s a place for the two of us to sleep and make love. I don’t mind our kids occasionally coming in when they wake up with a nightmare or something, but not on a regular basis. If you disagree, you can sleep with the youngest in her (twin) bed. I’ll sleep here.”

but I strongly suggest you leave off the qualifiers, and the alternatives. In your case, I further suggest you leave off that scripture, too. If she takes the Bible seriously, it sounds like a softball for a response of, “Well, you’ve already defiled it!” It would be evil for her to do this, but she is already in rebellion, and even willing to use your child to be so.

Show. Don’t tell.

“This is our marriage bed. It’s a place for the two of us to sleep and make love. The children do not belong in here.

Simple, direct, and declarative. Women respond to the declarative. It may not be a good response at first (or ever, depending how sinful she is willing to be), but it is unavoidable; like a steak before a dog. She’ll have to do something with it.

Why no qualifiers or alternatives when you know she’s going be thinking about it?

Because we’re men, we want to do things like try to head-off at the pass a woman’s reasoning and logical arguments. This is stupid of us because she’s not interested in a logical argument for OR against co-sleeping, the holiness of the marriage bed, or almost anything else.

An example: When a woman starts using coupons it’s to save money, but it’s almost never to save money for retirement, or for the general welfare of the family, or even to satisfy the monthly budget. She might do it:

to feel like she got something for nothing
to please her husband (two thumbs up!)
because she has to do so to get everything needed
because she feels superior to those dupes who pay full price
because she wants an excuse to buy something else.

But once she experiences the benefit of successfully living on a budget she will be the biggest proponent of the budget, coupons, super-saver bonuses…the whole shootin’ match. She’ll tell her friends that they ought to do like her, and clip coupons. If a friend argues back: they won’t be friends much longer. Soon after the discussion the wife will notice things about her friend, “I don’t know; she’s just not that good of a person. We don’t really talk anymore.”  It doesn’t matter whether it logical, reasonable, or even true.

As I wrote in “TM Desires…”, fervent Muslim women are the most fervent of Muslims. Women get sold out for the cause. Your goal is to get that going in your favor; to get your wife sold out for you. Logic won’t do that. In fact, if you confront her heartfelt feelings with logic she’s going to take it as a sign of stupidity and weakness. What idiot brings a mind to a heart fight?

The real fight is going to come to you when you actually follow through on banning your daughter from the bed and expect her to obey…now…tonight…not some time in the future like she’s probably used to. If she brings the child in, remind her what you said. Is she still brings her in, take the child out. If you see that you are going to have to physically take the child out: make no moves until you do what you are going to do. Do not telegraph your intents, and don’t struggle. Take the child into her room, and either put her to sleep, or leave. It’s a tough call because now she’s used to sleeping with someone, I’m sure. Do what you think is GOOD; not what you think is easiest, or will resolve the situation fastest, or leave the least hurt feelings. Do what you think is GOOD! If your wife goes to retrieve your daughter, say something along the lines of, “You can stay out until you’re ready to come to me alone. My daughter does not belong in here.”

Exceptions can be made, but I wouldn’t bring that up. I say this for your edification. A sick child, a bad storm, or night terrors are a different matter. If she brings those things up: DO NOT FALL FOR IT! Do not argue about exceptions. Exceptions will be handled as need arises–that’s why they’re called exceptions. Co-sleeping as a bonding strategy is not an exception.

Considering everything that’s going on, it seems possible that she’s forming a vampiric bond with your child. She’s figuratively harvesting love from your daughter instead of getting it from you. Since it is a girl, this has a good chance to backfire monstrously when the smothered child is older, or for your wife to become resentful of your daughter when she fails to fulfill your wife’s needs.

Otherwise, everything I said to TM and to WheelMonkey applies here, too; as far as I can tell. I can’t stress enough to pray to God earnestly in private. Commenter Bill F referred to my advice as creating a crisis point. He may well be right, but my perspective is that it is crisis points that drive men to ask for help. You have arrived at the crisis already.

That being said: This is serious business. A wife might decide to detonate the marriage, as a response to this crisis. God bless you all, and your families. 

Do Not Monkey Around with Despair

I just made a response to WheelMonkey, who is having nearly identical troubles as Tacomaster. It struck me as deserving its own post.

Stick with me here, WheelMonkey, and read to the end. I am being your friend.

I feel like damned if I do and damned if I don’t. Sigh…

Your mindset is all wrong. Damning is an action taken by someone with the authority to condemn. She does not have that authority. The husband has authority over the wife. In the Kingdom of God this servant has authority over that servant, and the Kingdom of God is at hand! She can kick and bite and refuse and scream divorce as much as she wants, and yet she is a helpmeet under authority as we all are servants under authority. The Master will return, and there will be a reckoning. Be of good cheer!

When Jesus is on the cross, He does not take issue with the crowd (society), the Romans who are crucifying him (the courts), or even the Jews who lied and betrayed him (the wife who played harlot because the Messiah wasn’t “man enough” for them). He cries to God: “Why have you forsaken me?” He does for many reasons (not the least of which is to fulfill prophecy) but because He knows all things are in God’s hands, and the Father wants us to come to Him…just as you want your wife to come to you.

Are you doing this? You have the luxury of not being nailed to a physical cross, yet there is little in your replies of your conversations with God about this. No, He is not going to reply audibly any more than He did to His own Son on the cross.

You are not to “try to have sex with your wife”. You are to desire to reflect and manifest the love of Christ for the world (though the world knew Him not) that God has consecrated solely for husbands and wives no less than He has consecrated priests and prophets to their callings. In this, you and your wife are not so dissimilar. You want her to fulfill you first, just as she wants you to fulfill her first. With that in mind: If you bid her to come to bed with you, and her response is pitiful at first: do not be surprised because she is reflecting your own sin; your pitiful attempts to fulfill the merely physical and ignoring the glory of the spiritual. There are serious things going on here. Your pain at her rejection is a sign of the damage being done. There is no fault for you feeling that.

“Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading out the grain”. This command appears three times in scripture, and it’s about not stopping the laborer from enjoying the fruits of his labor. Let the animal enjoy itself as it WALKS over the harvest to produce SEED. You are to be about doing the work. God will sort out the muzzling, and repay those who have denied you. The Lord will harvest, and separate the wheat from the chaff, and the chaff will be burned up and blown away.

Furthermore: You have not done any of the things I recommended–which I did in the spirit of a man walking in understanding with his wife (1 Peter 3), and with the intent of washing your wife of her uncleanness (Ephesians 5)–but you have done what I said NOT to do. Now you are feeling hopeless, having done nothing with what was given to you in love. Here, you are the bad servant.

Do not speak of divorce. Do not speak of her wrongs because she is trapped in sin, but forebear them. Do not speak unless you have something to offer her.

Do pray heartily, and I suggest literally on your knees. It is good for us. (Wives should pay MUCH attention to that, too, when dealing with their husbands.) Do take care of your responsibilities with as much joy as you can muster. Do see to your appearance. Someone suggested asking her to shower with you. That’s a wonderful suggestion.* Do walk. Do bid her walk with you. There are recurring themes within scripture; particularly as regards relationships: bread, wine, blood, trees, washing, sheep, harvesting, threshing floors, seed and not the least among them is WALKING.

* Feel free to either comment on how you love her body, or simply silently admire, but do not be coy, or look away. If she makes a negative comment in response to something like, “I love that body!” then just smile, or say, “Hey, I like what I like.” Your desire is just.

Cane Reads the YSV Bible: 1 Samuel 17

This is the beginning of a new series: Cane Reads the Y(our) S(tandard) V(ersion) Bible.


Now the Feminists gathered their armies for battle. And they were gathered at WordPress, which is on the Internet, and encamped between WordPress and BlogSpot, in Cyber-Space. 2And Vox and the men of Christendom were gathered, and encamped in the Manosphere, and drew up in line of battle against the Feminists3And the Feminists stood on the mountain on the one side, and Christendom stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. 4And there came out from the camp of the Feminists a champion named Roissy of Chateau Heartiste, whose bed held six sluts and a model5He had a helmet of the Ignorance of Beauty on his head, and he was armed with a coat of seduction, and the weight of the Frame was two chicks at the same time.

And he had bronze Frame on his legs, and a javelin of Evolutionary Psychology slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his Intellect was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head had weighed six hundred vaginas. And Irrational Confidence born by Church Apathy went before him. He stood and shouted to the ranks of Christendom, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Hedonist, and are you not servants of Vox? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” 10 And the Hedonist said, “I defy the ranks of Christendom this day. Give me a man, that we may fight together.” 11 When Vox and all Christendom heard these words of the Hedonist, they were impressed.

Now Cane was the blog-son of a blogger of a Christian part of the Manosphere, named Dalrock, who had many commenters. In the days of Vox the man was already a hit and advanced in posts13 The three oldest blog-sons of Dalrock had followed Vox to the battle. And the names of his three blog-sons who went to the battle were Ashur, the wittiest, and next to him Deti, and the third Brendan14  Cane was the youngest. The three eldest followed Vox15 but Cane went back and forth from Vox to feed his father’s sheep in the Manosphere16 For forty days the Hedonist came forward and took his stand, morning and evening.

17 And Dalrock said to Cane his son, “Would you be interested in writing a guest post making your case instead of defending it piecemeal here? See if your brothers are well, and bring some token from them.”

19 Now Vox and they and all the men of Christendom were in the Manosphere, fighting with the Feminists20 And Cane rose early in the morning and left the sheep with a keeper and took the provisions and went, as Dalrock had commanded him. And he came to the encampment as the host was going out to the battle line, shouting the war cry. 21 And Christendom and the Feminists drew up for battle, army against army. 22 And Cane left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage and ran to the ranks and went and greeted his brothers. 23 As he blathered on about The Matrix, behold, the champion, the Hedonist of Chateau Heartiste, Roissy by name, came up out of the ranks of the Feminists and spoke the same words as before. And Cane heard him.

24 All the men of Christendom, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid. 25 And the men of Christendom said, “Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Christendom. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Christendom.” 26 And Cane said to the men who stood by him, “What shall be done for the man who kills this Hedonist and takes away the reproach from Christendom? For who is this uncircumcised Hedonist, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” 27 And the people answered him in the same way, “So shall it be done to the man who kills him.”

28 Now Ashur his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men. And Ashur’s anger was kindled against Cane, and he said, “You have a problem with wiles? I get it – you have an axe to grind, don’t we all. You also don’t seem to realize that trying to “prove” something on the internet is something no one should ever attempt. At the root of it, you long for a victory, you desire to taste the visceral thrill of a bold internet triumph.” 2And Cane said, “Don’t mistake my fervor for the topic for a generic desire for victory. I confess to being over-eager–I’ve been musing on this for literally years, and I’ve been hyper-focused on it for the past week.Was it not but a blog post?” 30 And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.

31 When the words that Cane spoke were heard, they repeated them before Vox, at AlphaGamePlan, and he sent for him. 32 And Cane said to Vox, “Let no man’s heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this Hedonist.” 33 And Vox said to Cane, Game is not a lifestyle or a philosophy, it is nothing more than an analytical tool, moreover, it is a tool that can be broadly applied to a broad spectrum of human behavior. Cane isn’t looking deeply enough, he is too focused on the particulars of what Roissy is advising to understand what Roissy is doing. 34 But Cane said to Vox, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, 35 I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth. And if he arose against me, I caught him by his beard and struck him and killed him. 36 Your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Hedonist shall be like one of them, for he has defied the armies of the living God.” 37 And Cane said, “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Hedonist.” And Vox said to Cane, “Go,and the Lord be with you!”

38 Then Vox clothed Cane with his Frame. He put a helmet of Ignorance of Beauty on his head and clothed him with a coat of seduction39 and Cane strapped his Game over his Frame. And he tried in vain to go, for he had not tested them. Then Cane said to Vox, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.” So Cane put them off. 40 Then he took his discipline in his hand and chose five verses from the Book and put them in his laptop. His conviction was in his hand, and he approached the Hedonist.

41 And the Hedonist moved forward and came near to Cane, with Church Apathy bearing his Irrational Confidence in front of him. 42 And when the Hedonist looked and saw Cane, he disdained him, for he was but a commenterbeta and churchian in appearance. 43 And the Hedonist said to Cane, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Hedonist cursed Cane by his god of biomechanics44 The Hedonist said to Cane, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.” 45 Then Cane said to the Hedonist, “You come to me with Game and with Intellect and with Evolutionary Psychology, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Christendom, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Feminists this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Christendom47 and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with Game and Intellect. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand.”

48 When the Hedonist arose and came and drew near to meet Cane, Cane ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Hedonist49 And Cane put his hand to his laptop and took out a verse and slung it and struck the Hedonist on his forehead. The verse sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.

50 So Cane prevailed over the Hedonist with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Hedonist and killed him. There was no Game in the hand of Cane51 Then Cane ran and stood over the Hedonist and took his Game and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Feminists saw that their champion was dead, they fled. 52 And the men of Christendom and the Manosphere rose with a shout and pursued the Feminists as far as Chateau Heartiste and the gates of UMan, so that the wounded Feminists fell on the way from The Society of Phineas as far as Chateau Heartiste and UMan.53 And the people of Christendom came back from chasing the Feminists, and they plundered their camp. 54 And Cane took the head of the Hedonist and brought it to Texas, but he put his Frame in his blog.

55 As soon as Vox saw Cane go out against the Hedonist, he said to Keoni, the commander of the army, “Keoni, whose blog-son is this youth?” And Keoni said, “As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.” 56 And the king said, “Inquire whose blog-son the boy is.” 57 And as soon as Cane returned from the striking down of the Hedonist, Keoni took him, and brought him before Vox with the head of the Hedonist in his hand. 58 And Vox said to him, “Whose son are you, young man?” And Cane answered, “I am the blog-son of your servant Dalrock the Manospherian.”


Now if it strikes you that I have must have Irrational Confidence to write myself into this position, that just means you’ve missed the point. Besides, it’s in my tent–with all the other armor. This post was born of an email to a friend, and in the middle (it took quite awhile to do this. My own words are easier.) another friend made the comment that my advice leaves men defenseless. That just means he’s missed the point of the Real Story.

And if it bothers you that I’ve camped PUAs in with the Feminists, then you don’t understand that it is the state that lends women from its harem, for use in the harems of others.


Update: Free Northerner tackled this scripture well, here.

Should Marriage Be Easy?

AR10308 continues to prove to be a very valuable critic, and I appreciate it.

I think that this demonstrates that for most things mean to be widely consumed, being able to simplify for accessibility is the way to go. Granted, there is value in doing things that are hard, like Ranger School and SEAL training, however those are only meant for a select few. If having a good marriage required that level of focus and intensity at all times, there wouldn’t be hope for anyone.

I’m going to suggest that we’re often not understanding the depth of the problem. As Christians we must take into account that:

1) Marriage is a very serious business from the Christian man’s perspective, with serious rewards and consequences. It’s not merely about having poon-on-tap (although: be fruitful). To begin from that frame of reference is to lose sight of the inherent godliness of a Christian wife, and therefore lose sight of what we’re to be about as Christian husbands. Sex isn’t just something we do in the meantime. It’s part of our calling. Ask any husband currently being denied, and he’ll tell you he’s not only dealing with a physical hunger, but a spiritual one, as well. If we don’t agree with this, then Game (simplifying the accessibility) is what you want.

2) We shouldn’t gloss over the fact that when a Christian man chooses marriage (as he should if he burns with passion), then he is giving up most, if not all, of his effectiveness to the larger Kingdom of God. His focus must now be on his wife and family. We skip this point a lot, in our desire to fulfill our physical urges.

3) From the legal perspective: modern marriage is a pit-trap over Hell, covered over with the palm fronds of emotional imperative, dating around, and princess weddings.* Marriage is a must for the sexually aroused Christian, so he has to step out over that pit. Game seems to me–at best–a latticework that can be placed over the fronds. It can be of some use, but it has so many holes in it that, perversely, it seduces not only the woman (as is its intent), but also the man into thinking that he’s safe. What we want is a reliable, full, covering of the pit, to rescue us from that Hell.

4) The Christian marriage is also about bringing forth fruit; not only of the spiritual kind, but with a decided emphasis on the physical fruit of children, and rearing them until we give them back to Christ; as co-conspirators, not mere underlings. The married Christian must confront this. Imagine the conversation with your son, with whom you wish to be not only honest, but useful: “No, no, no. I’m not mad at your mother: I’m just Gaming her.”

I’m going to stop here, because I think that thinking through the problem from this perspective on my own was very helpful to me, and can be for others.

End Note: One of the things that was reinforced by writing this, was how much scripture has to say on the subject, and how thankful I am to my father (and my Father) for giving it to me. Thanks, Dad. There’s a lesson here about how to develop your frame.

*Dalrock and I seem to be singing from the same hymnal today. Not sure who’s the melody, and who is the harmony.