A Preface to the Discussion on Whores

The Bible tells us that our conduct will speak for us and for Christ as we make our way through this time of exile in the world before our Lord returns. We can either honor Christ and ourselves with our conduct, or bring both into disrepute.

Last week I saw a retweet from someone in California of a guy who looked like someone from around where I live. So I followed the original tweet to its owner to see if in fact he did live in Texas. I didn’t find out, but I did see his tweet was also retweeted by some young woman not only in Texas, but in the town where I live. Small world and so forth. That young woman had in her Twitter feed an exhortation to herself that Jesus was looking out for her. So far so good, you may think.

As you know, newest tweets are at the top and you have to scroll down to go back in time, as it were. Long story short, about four hours before she tweeted about Jesus, she had tweeted, “I miss being choked at night.” My hope is that there is no connection intended.

I can hear your wheels spin from here. “Oh, she’s not a real Christian.”, your mind ejects. Whew! That was a close one. Now you can go back to pretending girls like that don’t know really know Christ is the son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and was crucified for our sins and raised on the third day. Right? Therefore she’s not a girl from your church who went off to college to learn a career and “find herself”. Shhh… Be at ease, sleeper…

The next day I went into work and heard this conversation between three college-aged coworkers:

Senior Cody: …and just say to her, Look, you swiped right, I swiped right. We both know what this is about. Let’s get it on!

Underclassmen: Hahahaha! Right! Exactly! What else could she be thinking?

Cody: And, hey, listen…listen…if she’s got a Bible quote on her profile then definitely go for it because you know she’s a ho!

Maybe your daughter isn’t one of these two women. Maybe she’s just one of her hundreds of co-eds, roommates, coworkers, social media followers, church group buddies, and BFFs.

Some More Thoughts on Marriage as Grafting

Marriage, according to the paradigm of grafting, solves a lot of what appear to be riddles in the minds of modern people. It gives a legitimate, visible, tactile comparison that anyone with the mind of a ten year-old can understand, and possibly even perform…the grafting, if not the marriage. (This does raise an interesting point though about what sort of consent and is necessary. Maybe next time. I know everyone loves it when I talk about less-than consensual marriage.)

One of the noticeable things about grafting is that what will become one plant is, at first, only two small parts of what were much larger plants. There is a lot of cutting. Obviously the location of the grafts are cut. The rootstock is usually cut way down to accept the scion–the branch portion[1]. The scion is cut from the midst of its plant; above and below are removed. Sometimes the leaves are cut from the stock and the scion, but not always.

In the case of grapevines, the stock is also sliced in a location away from the actual graft cuts so that it bleeds. Otherwise the pressure of the sap in the stock will dislodge the scion.

The graft has to be bound together for a season so that it will take.

When the case happens where there are several shoots from the budding graft, it is a good practice to cut off the latter shoots and give the strength of the resources to the first large bud. Obviously, the law of resources requires that any malformed or diseased buds be cut off from the new plant.

Once the graft has taken, there is no way to cut cleanly excise what was grafted in. There will be changes. Even before the cambiums of the stock and the scion fuse, there must be an infusion of sap from the stock to the scion. It cannot be extracted. The scion portion of the graft can of course be cut off, and perhaps even grafted onto another rootstock, but it will not be the same scion that was originally grafted. Bits of the previous rootstock will adulterate the new graft. Nor will the original rootstock be the same. Remains of the scion will very likely be present in all but the earliest dissections, and at any rate the stock will still have been cut down, bled, and it’s cambium scarred; making future grafts less likely to take.

[1] Interesting use of the word scion.

I Was Wrong About the Trees

When I was young and married, people felt very free to express to me their horror at young marriage. “You were so young!”, they’d say. “I think people settle down too fast. You’ve got to take time to become your own person. People change, and you don’t want to match up with someone now because they won’t match who you will become.”

By my very early twenties, I had a pat retort.

“Have you ever,” I’d ask, “seen two trees that are growing right next to each other? You can see in the whorls of the bark where one tree has overlapped the other, and then pushed back again. Their trunks are like two halves at the bottom, but as it goes up they are twisted into a seamless one. That’s how I think marriage should be. Marrying young gives us time to grow around each other.”

It is true that it silenced my attackers and put them on the defensive; to explain to me how they would one day find that tree specially fit for them.  But to be honest, I didn’t feel very clever back then. My speech was born out of desperation. I hoped that’s how marriage was to be because otherwise I was a fool. I often feared I was wasting my time while my “perfect fit” ran around somewhere out there.

Friday night I worked and in the gaps I thought about where I wanted to go with my next post, and about the comments to my last post. My thoughts went something like this:

  • What is marriage?
  • What is marriage like?
  • Well, it’s like Christ’s relationship to the Church. He is its head. What does that mean?
  • Why do feminists Christians think that head-as-source means less obedience from what flows than to a head-as-authority?
  • They shouldn’t. Headwaters literally in-form bodies of water. Any body of water that ceases to be informed by its head is not that head’s body of water.
  • What other analogies is this like?
  • “I am the vine, you are the branches.”
  • Shazam!

My canned response came back to me. I had thought I was looking at two trees planted together, but what if what I had seen–looking at marriage–was a branch being grafted into a vine? Did that make sense?

Immediately, before I had an answer, another thought crowded into my mind: Don’t be so arrogant, Caldo, as to think you are like Christ. But I searched around my thoughts and after a few seconds decided that what I felt about being like Christ was irrelevant to the facts. The facts are that I relate to my wife like Christ relates to the Church, and that I am to relate to her in the same fashion. Which is to say that, in some way, to my wife I am the vine and she has been grafted into me.

“Cleave unto her” suddenly came into sharper focus, too.

I thought again about how her sense of humor had changed over the years. Once she only laughed. Now she contributes jokes–good jokes–nearly as often as I. Had I changed to be like her, as she has towards me? I have certainly changed, but I couldn’t think of a way that I have become more like her. Perhaps I had missed something? So I texted Mrs. Caldo; who had no idea.

CC: Do you think that over the years I’ve changed to become more like you? Take your time to answer.

MC: What? No

CC: Have you become more like me?

MC: I believe that’s the more likely scenario. What is your opinion on the subject?

CC: I agree on both. Coffee?[1]

MC: Yes.

I will think more about the idea of marriage as a process really like grafting. The “better half” comments are worse than I thought because the portrait is more wrong than I knew. If we are ever to understand and teach the lost art of marriage we must, I think, accept that marriage is not the coming together of two equals who will share their independence together. Nor is it the coming together of two equals of whom one pretends to relinquish control. It must be as the one is weaker than the other as the branch is weaker than the vine, and it is why and how the vine must nourish it as its own flesh.

These are all verses and ideas we’ve heard and discussed many times before, but the perspective of grafting showed me the matter of marriage in a whole new light. I doubt St. Paul and Peter would be surprised by any of this except that I have been so dense. There is a lot of deep knowledge lost for those of us who don’t toil in the dirt. (Though sometimes I have an inkling.)

For example: In that video the grafter cuts into the side of the stalk and it’s in that cut where the branch is grafted and becomes one with the plant. If you squint a little it looks like women appears on the scene when Adam’s side is cut, and God shapes Eve from the rib taken from it. The Church lives on the blood of Christ; which was spilled for her most effusively when His side was pierced and He died.

There are probably some earthy, common sense lessons, too. One video I watched mentioned that it’s important to graft when the branches are young. The grafts don’t take when they are too old.

The cut must be made in one attempt. Multiple cuts will prevent a successful graft.

The cambium layers, just below the bark, need to be aligned for the graft to take; which means that relative size matters, and that in a mismatch success is more likely when the stalk’s diameter is more than the branch.

Draw your own conclusions.

[1] Text-speak for “Can you get some coffee ready for me?”

A Very Brief Note on How to Vet a Potential Wife

This post is sorely delinquent, and I apologize to the emailer; whom I long ago told I would respond. He writes:

I got together with my girlfriend less than a month ago[1]. I’m ashamed to say that at 39 years old, I’ve never had a girlfriend. She’s my first. I am inclined to steer our relationship slowly towards marriage — a Christian marriage — and I realised the importance of having fun with her. Having said that, I hope you can share with me some advice on how I should “vet” a girl on whether or not she can be a good (Christian) wife. In fact, I’ve been reading Dalrock’s post about how much a husband should share with his wife and I picked up your comments, which to some, is a dismissal of “Game”. However, I believe your perspective is — as men we should be astute in choosing our wives, so much so that any form of “Game” or “manipulation” will never be necessary in the marriage.
So, I will be grateful if you can share some thoughts about vetting for a potential mate.

The first thing to vet is your attraction. Do you find her attractive? Do you want to touch her, etc.? That part is easy.

The second thing to discover is whether or not she is a Daddy’s Girl. Does she listen to her father? Does she express love for him? Does she speak of him respectfully? Does she live at home? When she discusses a past moment of disrespect or disobedience of him, does she express regret?

No woman is perfect and all of them have been given bad advice (even by their fathers), but you must get a sense of this, and you must see it in action. You need to see them together. Is she affectionate towards him? A woman’s love of her father is the best indicator of whether she has

  • self-control
  • dedication
  • love of family
  • mental sobriety
  • piety
  •  (importantly!) whether she will submit your children to your headship.

You may respond that it’s hard to see her and her father’s relationship in action because she lives in a different city. Well, that’s an answer. It may be that her father encouraged her to move away. Take the fullness of that into consideration. While it demonstrates regard for her father, it also demonstrates that her father didn’t train her up to be a wife; that he encouraged independence and ultimately rebellion. Be wary!

Searching out a woman for Daddy’s Girl qualities is much easier than finding out her IQ, or her time orientation (if such a thing be real), or her theology, or any of that other stuff. In the end, these qualities are beside the point; nor do they address women’s imaginations and frailties. Every day smart, forward-thinking women with in-depth theologies decide they are too good to listen to their husbands. A future-time oriented wife who doesn’t put her husband first is a woman who won’t get on the stick when her husband needs present-time faithfulness. And when a woman decides to leave her husband with half his paycheck: She is thinking longterm.

Also: Be doubly wary of the father who married another man’s divorcee. If he is not repentant of that, he will shelter and foment a daugther’s rebellion.

[1] Email was sent to me on 3/9.

Future Time Orientated or Daddy’s Girl?

The marriage/divorce stats show a (morally) positive correlation between a woman’s achievement of a bachelor’s degree, and a continuance of marriage. Because of this, the idea has been put forward that this correlation centers on a (supposed) “future-time orientation”; i.e. the ability to delay gratification. Do we know how soon after graduation the women (who do not divorce) marry? I’m wondering how future oriented they are. Isn’t is possible that the ones who follow this pattern have made a decision to marry as soon as social pressures allow?

It seems to me that a college degree is the feminist merit badge among them all. It certainly is the prevailing notion for modernists, generally. Isn’t there the possibility that the women who are the most maritally stable are those women who both submit to the narrative of their leaders and media, and who also are really focused on (that is: strongly desire) marriage so to love a man? Is it possible that, given another set of priorities–or even just the removal of the bachelors degree notion–that those same women might do just as well marrying younger than 22 simply because that’s the demographic that wants to be married, and is also willing to listen to their authorities; that they wanted to marry earlier, and they only put it off as long as they needed to be respectful members of society as they were instructed?[1]

Maybe it doesn’t have to do so much with future time orientation as it does their respect for authority. Maybe daddy’s girls are a good thing, but not all daddies have the proper priorities. Of course, I don’t mean to say that all girls love and respect their fathers (or even that among those, they always do), but today we are talking about those girls that do.

EDIT: Let me ask it a different way: If there is a correlation between Daddy’s Girls and the continuance of marriage, and if there is a correlation between future-time orientation (impulse control, responsibility, etc.) and the continuance of marriage; then is it more likely that love for dad would arise from FTO, or is it more likely that FTO arises from love for dad?

[1] Not to say that such women do not also have desire to better themselves, or not to say that they aren’t also tempted to pride.

Three Peaces of Command

Yesterday I wrote:

[B]ecause I was too chickenshit to appear sexist or hypocritical about work,–I had been passively hoping that she would pick “stay home, cook, and clean”, and therefore angry that–in the absence (and complete abdication) of my direction–she had chosen neither and both…just as I had demonstrated.

The question, then, is why was I chickenshit? What was it of which I was afraid? Well, one can chase that squirrel for a long time, but it always comes back to the fact that I chose to believe my modern instructors

  • parents
  • teachers
  • pastors
  • peers
  • TV shows
  • pop music
  • movies
  • newspapers
  • magazines
  • billboards

were right, and that the clear text of the Bible was wrong; that Paul and Peter’s instruction–and Mary and Sarah’s examples–were wrong. I believed that what God had called righteous, I should call foolish. Even though the anger and confusion–within me!–witnessed that I was convicted this crap ain’t right, I still felt like I had to make up my own mind about it. Even though I wanted to have a wife follow me I still didn’t want to lead her and instruct her. Rather, I thought it better to let her wander after me[1] because… because why?

Because I got a paycheck? Because I’m smarter?  Because I was taller? Those things are fleeting, like beauty, and so even if they are momentary gifts from God, it is foolish to make them requisites for headship. The need for a husband’s headship will very often outlast these conditions.

That truth of the withering nature of material worthiness hounded me in my heart. I knew I could not keep it up forever, but my hope was in human frailty and inertia; that if I was just patient then she would realize what sweet and worthy guy I was.

At the same time I knew that wasn’t true because the longer we were together, the more we fought. If a wife’s drive-by spats are fitness tests of me, they should have subsided upon proof of fitness because I gave better than I got. They didn’t. They just got more frequent, pettier is scope, and grander is exercise. Bitterness crept into everything. No peace. Because I hated what God had to say–and because I did not speak out against hate –there was no peace in my house. No peace with my wife. No peace within me.

Really, I have those three peaces listed backwards. The argument that I described yesterday (“What do you want me to do?”) took place after I had moved back in from a nine month separation. My agreement to reconcile was based on several demands I made of her: You will always do this; you will never do this; etc. They were very specific to my main frustrations. But before I even made those demands, I had already decided the most important thing that I would ever do for my marriage.

I confessed, angrily, to God that I did not like His way; hat I had not tried it because it seemed crude to me; that I had tried to do my own thing that looked like His way, but which was more sensible for our progressed times and people. Now, no matter what, I would try His way, and by this I would prove whether He was right, or whether He was wrong. Either I would live or die and my marriage would survive or not, but I would do so by His Word, and everyone would know. If I had not made that decision, I would not have had the answer to my wife’s question of what I wanted from her.

At the point of the question I walked away and went to smoke a cigarette. There I reflected on what I had said to God I would do. I went back into the bedroom and said, “I want you to clean, and cook, and take care of my children and my house like a wife is supposed to.” To which she spat, “Great.” and we continued our fight…but this time I did so with peace; with the knowledge that I could not lose because it’s not Cane Caldo’s word or headship at stake.

Ten plus years of poor leadership, bad habits, and entrenched rebellion is not undone in one fight, but from there things got better. For one, our fights had a real basis of disagreement instead of just festering feelings and bitterness. I felt free to say to her, “Didn’t I tell you to do this? Why isn’t it done?” And she could be mad at me all she wants, but the truth is that I don’t ask her to do insane things, and the reason she doesn’t want to do them is because she’s got an ugly, rebellious spirit, and that she’d better check herself because the Lord loves a quiet, respectful spirit.

She could have left, but she didn’t. She still gets mad at me, but she does what I say. She quit her job (against her wishes). We homeschool now; which was my idea, not hers. The house is clean(er) now, but I am satisfied that she does her best. I put the kibosh on a lot of volunteer activities that she claimed to enjoy, but actually drained her energy and spirits. The further I went along with this idea of being a husband according to God’s Word, the more I realized I wasn’t doing, and started trying to implement. And the more I implemented, the more I realized that my wife hadn’t really been disciplined about anything. She had no idea what it was like to live under real expectations; not the pain of failure, and not the joy of success.

Wash, wash, wash…

[1] Who could only be described charitably as misguided. It is more honest to say that I was deliberately going the wrong way.

You Must Be Because You Are

A female commenter over at Dalrock’s writes:

He brought up submission recently and I am concerned that he is overly focused on it. But when I asked him what submission would look like to him and his answer was vague each time. So it is something that is important to him but he can’t or won’t really describe or explain how it would work in our day to day lives.

This was me even after ten years of marriage. I recall one particular argument between my wife and I about her responsibilities; back in probably 2005. She, exasperated and angry at my hemming and hawing around (Yesterday I might have criticized her for leaving work early, and today I might have been angry that the house was a wreck.) cried out, “What do you want me to do? Do you want me to cook and clean all day, or do you want me to work, or what?”

Right then, for the first time, I fully realized that–because I was too chickenshit to appear sexist or hypocritical about work[1],–I had been passively hoping that she would pick “stay home, cook, and clean”, and therefore angry that–in the absence (and complete abdication) of my direction–she had chosen neither and both…just as I had demonstrated. Husbands don’t just need to be the leaders. Husbands are the leaders, and therefore must act accordingly. That’s not a guarantee that she will follow, but if she stays, she will follow. A wife cannot divorce staying a wife from following her husband anymore than a son can stay in his father’s home while refusing to mimic the father’s behavior, or reject his genetics. The consequences are unavoidable.

[1] Outside of the house work (earning “my own” money) was something of an idol that was given to me by my parents, and thoroughly enforced by American society as a whole. 

“The Difference between Gold and Pigs”, or “Mennonites in the Mist”

Some people are laboring under the delusion that there exists a continuum upon which modesty slides; that on one end there is attractiveness, and on the other end there is immodesty, and on the other end there is unattractiveness, and on the other end there is gaudiness… If you have figured out that we have too many ends for one continuum, then keep reading this post.

Modesty is first and foremost about holiness. Holiness is about keeping things separate that do not belong together, and keeping things together that do; to set aside for a particular purpose.

Immodesty isn’t about being “too attractive”. Bare breasts aren’t immodest because men find them alluring. Bare breasts are immodest because they don’t belong to anyone but the owner and her husband; who are one flesh. Don’t show what cannot be shared, and what you do show be prepared to lose. Likewise, modesty isn’t about being “not too attractive”. A nude fat guy with seeping wounds all over his body is not modest either; no matter how unattractive he is.

Modesty is on its own continuum, and attractiveness on its. They are separate things, and the second is much more subjective than the first in the eyes of those on this side of the dark glass. The author of Proverbs 11 said it this way:

Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
    is a beautiful woman without discretion.

Neither diminishes or even modifies the other. Gold is worth its weight whether it adorns a pig or a king, and a pig is an unclean beast no matter how much gold it drags through the mud. It only seems like the pig and the gold are modifying each other if we walk by sight rather than by faith. The faithful one distinguishes (again the idea of setting aside; making discrete) To the pure all things are pure: pigs, breasts, gold…everything. Even Mennonites!

Mom in a Shoe linked to some clothes

2010 sized3

that others[1] labelled “uncool”, “unattractive”, “weird”, and so forth. Whatever else one may say about them: One must admit that Mennonite women dress as their fathers chose, and not as their own natures tempted them. If you cannot say one other good thing about them, then you can say–must say–that they are obedient in their dress, even if nothing else. If modesty is of a kind with set apart, and separate, and pure, and obedient, then the dress of Mennonite women should be seen as–at the very least–women in contrast to the bedazzled pigs of modern society.

Do not put them down. Do not put down the clothing of any modestly dressed women if you want to see more modesty in general. You can encourage, or suggest, or model..but what does it mean to call a woman “uncool” in a world full of pigs? It’s foolishness. Say nothing if you cannot say speak good of good things. From the same Proverb:

With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor,
    but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.
10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
    and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.
11 By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
    but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown.
12 Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,
    but a man of understanding remains silent.
13 Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets,
    but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.

Besides: Look at the picture. Those are four beautiful girls. Appearances can certainly be deceiving[2], but judging by appearances: Any young man would be lucky to gain the favor of those girls’ father, marry one, and then in holiness dress her up for himself however he would like.

[1] These people are mostly young, and had the poor judgment to be born in the modern era just like the rest of us. I don’t blame them for being ignorant, but here it will be challenged. PancakeLoach was one of them, and she’s now engaged in a multi-comment, multi-post rant against me which is totally incoherent. This is what she choose to do when I pointed out that she is among those who are sneering at Mennonites. This has seemed better to her than to say, “My bad”, “point taken”, or something similar.

[2]For all I know they might not be family, and that photo could have been taken right before they modeled bikinis for another company. 

Because He Said So

Despite devilish and divisive opinions to the contrary, there exist persons explicitly ordained and commanded to say what is–and what is not–modest. They are called fathers and husbands. The reason I said “To get out of this trap is going to take generations. I suspect that my daughters may be among the first Yiayias in a long time” is because Yiayia’s don’t occur out of nowhere. Nor do their standards of modesty arise from the ether. They are the product of long and loving toil from their fathers and husbands.

A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
    and favor is better than silver or gold.
The rich and the poor meet together;
    the Lord is the maker of them all.
The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
    but the simple go on and suffer for it.
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
    is riches and honor and life.
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
    whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
Train up a child in the way he should go;
    even when he is old he will not depart from it.

and

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

The generations before us–since at least and including “The Greatest Generation”–have not only dropped the ball, but tossed it out of the park and declared the whole activity of raising children to be a null and boring and even oppressive pastime. The field itself was let to go wild; so now men like Empath, Dalrock, Oscar–and yes myself–are flat lost in a thorny, rocky, arid wilderness that many pretend is still a fit ballpark. It’s a lie.

What seems so mysterious and subjective to women is not to men. That is because while women are well-positioned to police these matters, they are not the arbiters of them. Husbands and fathers are. What makes Yiayias unseemly to modern people–why they work to make them irrelevant, and corral them into oblivion–is that those women bear the beauty of truth from a lifetime of listening to their husbands and fathers; who they did not rebel against and who they did not divorce as our post-modern women do.

Of those husbands and fathers, not one of them was perfect. It didn’t matter because for the person in the position of submission: Obedience unto a husband and father and unto God will itself prove fruitful. Likewise, imperfection in training a child or washing a wife with the Word does not nullify God’s promise. Steadfast faithfulness with what we have been entrusted will bring forth a harvest.

So, modesty is defined and judged by the fathers and husbands, and policed by older women

But as for you (Titus, the pastor of the church in Crete, a man) , teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Likewise, despite raging controversies over whether Christians ought to date, hook-up, engage in formalized courtship, whathaveyou–the main and Biblical thing is to do is: What your own father and husband approves.  Dating, courtship, “the college experience”…these are all systems that may have been put forth as helpful guidelines, but the moment the father becomes subject to them rather than the systems subject to the fathers, then they become corrals to pen in the shepherds. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Patriarchy scares women. More importantly it incites them to harridan heights under the excuse of fear. But like a man must gird his loins even when fear turns his bowels to water, women are going to have to reach deep down insides themselves and kill that rebellious spirit.

If the Christian’s Men’s Sphere proves anything, it’s that fathers and husbands will have discussions among themselves. They will set the community standards; fluidly and organically, but like concerned family farmers with a vested interest and not as eco-crazed nihilists or money-crazed corpo-rape-tions.  These things can remain subjective and mysterious to women (as their nature adores), but to us they will be toiled over and decided in love. At the same time, we depend most heavily on the support of women to uphold us as we undertake these tasks. It is not good for us to be alone. The blessings of Yiayias are hard to overstate. Just ask those of us fathers and husbands who lack them.

Back in a Bit & Katy Perry Puts the Fun in Funeral

I’ll be gone a few days, and have set the comments to moderation. (Back now.)

In other news, Katy Perry tells it like it is. Therefore, there is no excuse for missing the message that feral women are celebrated, and celebrating as they sing along in their cars.

It’s strangely fitting that the interludes are reminiscent of old horror-core rap like Gravediggaz and some of Wu Tang Clan’s more gruesome tracks…which is saying a lot. Investigate at your own risk. Vile stuff.

Dark horses draw hearses. Of course, we have heard and known these things.

5 My son, attend unto my wisdom,
and bow thine ear to my understanding:
that thou mayest regard discretion,
and that thy lips may keep knowledge.

For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb,
and her mouth is smoother than oil:
but her end is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a twoedged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps take hold on hell.
Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life,
her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them.
Hear me now therefore, O ye children,
and depart not from the words of my mouth.
Remove thy way far from her,
and come not nigh the door of her house:
lest thou give thine honour unto others,
and thy years unto the cruel:
10 lest strangers be filled with thy wealth;
and thy labours be in the house of a stranger;
11 and thou mourn at the last,
when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,
12 and say, How have I hated instruction,
and my heart despised reproof;
13 and have not obeyed the voice of my teachers,
nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!
14 I was almost in all evil
in the midst of the congregation and assembly.