“Yes, God has given us the sex drive, but that doesn’t mean we must gratify it. We are not children any more…I can accept the sex drive to be almost impossible to resist when one is a teenager and the hormones are wild, but I cannot accept an adult man trying to excuse his adultery – or coerce his wife to have sex with him – by “I have a sex drive and my wife doesn’t!”.
This is an excerpt from a comment I received today from a Christian wife who calls herself ‘ketutar’. She was commenting on my post “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood?”.
This comment is just another textbook example of the problem with the poisonous feminization of marriage that we see today throughout America and the Western world.
Here is her full comment.
Ketutar’s philosophy of sex in Marriage
“I’m OK with this, except for two things.
1) Your marriage doesn’t need sex. If it does, you’re doing it wrong. Due to my health, we have not had sex for several years now. Our marriage is not suffering in any way. We are very intimate, kissing, hugging, holding each other, petting each other – we give each other compliments and express our love in all kinds of manners, like doing small favors to each other, giving each other tokens of love, thinking about the other, sending each other messages and kisses and hugs. Marriage needs intimacy, not sex.
2) Yes, God has given us the sex drive, but that doesn’t mean we must gratify it. We are not children any more. We don’t use diapers, we wait until we can use the toilet. We don’t need snacks, we wait until the meal is served and eat by the table with the family at decided times. We don’t need a bedtime story, teddy and a glass of water before we can sleep. We get up in the morning even when it would be so nice to stay in bed. We don’t have a 2 mile present wish list, nor do we go and buy whatever we might want just because we could – no, we are adults, so we see if the thing fits our economy, home, family and plan. If it doesn’t, we forget the whim, not the family and plan. I can accept the sex drive to be almost impossible to resist when one is a teenager and the hormones are wild, but I cannot accept an adult man trying to excuse his adultery – or coerce his wife to have sex with him – by “I have a sex drive and my wife doesn’t!”.
Also, God gave your wife her sex drive, too… if she got less than you do, should she go against God’s will to adjust to yours? Or should you perhaps exercise not giving in to your animal instincts, bodily whims and yetzer hara?”
My response to Ketutar and other Christian wives who may think like this
You said – “Your marriage doesn’t need sex. If it does, you’re doing it wrong.”
No I am sorry Ketutar, but if your marriage does not need sex – you are in fact doing something wrong. The Bible shows sex as a need in marriage.
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” – Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)
God compares sex with food and clothing which are both needs as well. In a marriage – sex is a need. While it is true that no person has ever died from not having sex, it is equally true that plenty of marriages have died from lack of sex.
Your husband is commanded by God to seek sexual pleasure in your body, and for you to give it to him.
“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” – Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)
A man wanting sex when his wife is not in the mood is NOT childish.
In fact I would argue that women are often the ones who are acting childish for the reasons they often turn down their husbands for sex.
A big part of what it means to be an adult and growing up is doing things when you don’t feel like it. It is getting up for work when you don’t feel like it. It is talking to your spouse when you don’t feel like it. And yes it is having sex with your spouse when you don’t feel like it.
That is what it means to be a Christian spouse and an adult in God’s eyes.
Sex is what separates marriage from friendship
It is one thing for a married couple to not be able to have sex for brief periods of time due to health issues, surgeries or being physically separated(like because of job situations). But if a couple simply chooses not to have sex anymore that is no longer marriage as God intended it.
Even if it is due to health reasons. I am going to be frank here. Unless it becomes a physical impossibly for a man to achieve an erection or for a woman to have vaginal penetration a couple ought to be having sex. This goes to the core of marriage. Even with ED issues or women having issues with vaginal penetration there are other ways for a couple to have physical sexual intimacy.
Ketutar – you and your husband have allowed the “one flesh” aspect of marriage to be neglected or basically removed. You no longer have a fully functioning marriage as God designed it to be – instead you have at best a close friendship.
In fact I would take a guess and say that you have successfully converted your husband into your girlfriend.
The only way your husband is not suffering is because of one of these possibilities:
- He was and has always has been an asexual man. So when your health problems came along he was like “Yeah – I don’t have to have sex anymore”.
- He has homosexual tendencies. So when you were first married he had sex with you but he really did not like it – he just did it to please you. Then when your health problems came that burden was lifted off his shoulders. Now he just has to suppress his desires toward other men.
- He is simply doing a very good job of hiding his displeasure and frustration about not having sex with you. If this is the case he is probably relieving his sexual tension by looking at porn and masturbating. But this in no way can completely replace that physical sexual connection that he needs with you. He may also be hiding affairs or seeing prostitutes.
Adults don’t need snacks?
You said “We don’t need snacks, we wait until the meal is served and eat by the table with the family at decided times.”
Well I don’t know about you – but as an adult I still need a granola bar or other snacks in between meals. In fact many studies have shown that eating 4 or 5 small meals a day is better than eating three big meals a day the way many of us do.
And yes as adults we need “sexual snacks” as well as “sexual meals”.
Sexual snacks are quickies. That is when you don’t have a lot of time and maybe only one of you is in the mood but the other needs it so you go have a quickie. Every healthy marriage should have quickies as part of its sexual diet.
Sexual meals are the full treatment. This is when both people are in the mood (or get themselves in the mood if one is not) and they take their time with foreplay and just enjoying one another’s bodies until they get to the actual act of intercourse. This is the kind of sex where you hold each other afterwards and just cuddle.
A Christian marriage needs both sexual snacks and sexual meals. Without sexual snacks and meals the marriage will starve to death and at best become a close friendship and nothing more – as your marriage has apparently become. At worst it will lead to sexual immorality and the marriage may end.
Is a woman going against God’s will if she has sex with her husband when she is not in the mood?
You said “Also, God gave your wife her sex drive, too… if she got less than you do, should she go against God’s will to adjust to yours? Or should you perhaps exercise not giving in to your animal instincts, bodily whims and yetzer hara?”
Ketutar – do you honestly tell yourself that you are going against God’s will if you have sex with your husband when you are not in the mood?
It is ABSOLUTELY God’s will that you give your body to your husband whenever he needs it!
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” – I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)
I realize you may have some health problems. But health problems are not an excuse to end sex in a marriage. They may be cause for brief delays and rainchecks, but they should never eradicate sex from the marriage.
Ketutar – you have defrauded your husband (I Corinthians 7:5) and he has sinned by not finding sexual satisfaction in your body (Proverbs 5:19). It appears he has abandoned his leadership position at least in this sexual arena, if not others. He has enabled your sin now for “years”.
I pray that you will both repent of this mockery you have made of marriage and that you will indeed become “one flesh” as God designed you to be.
82 thoughts on “Is wanting sex with your wife when she is not in the mood childish?”
You are not married… If you hold to even catholic teaching (I was raised RC and went to a Jesuit school, I am recovered and born again) you would understand that you are under your dad’s authority right now. Does he know you are on here argueing about sex in marriage?
Oh my and yes you have more freedom (que the lady in a dress frollicking in the meadow) and can do more things like….? Yes in the 30s women had to do…. laundry? They couldn’t go out and carouse at the bar, couldn’t what, do a bunch of unchristian like things? Vote? You mean like for Hitlary? They could be lawyers, doctors etc way back when they just didn’t get much business or respect from the men OR women. Now that women have shamed everyone into making them get hired because of their XX chromosome they think they have it better. Remember a day will come where it will go full circle. Like King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun….
Who is making her submit? She with holds sex, the husband with holds emotional support and finances. No big deal on either end. I can use scenarios about my sister-i-l or b-i-l as well and how screwed up all of them are. You seem like a very bright woman. If a woman divorces her husband for no-fault, is it ok for her to get half of everything and the kids?
Statistically women are more abusive…. men are more violent so we hear those cases, but look up Alabama Family Support. Women abuse kids more than men and they abuse men more, yet 77% of all divorces are filed by women. They are false abuse cases. And I have news for all here… when you are married you are both abusive to each other. With holding sex and then expecting him to not be tempted and commit adultery is abuse of the highest degree.
NOT to mention abortion. Even christians abort babies. There is something like 57 million abortions. Do the statistics. If christians mirror secular society it is something like 8 million christian abortions done since RvW. What that states is that CHRISTIAN WOMEN HAVE MURDERED MORE AMERICANS THAN ALL THE WARS IN AMERICA HAVE KILLED AMERICANS.
Who exactly is the more violent gender? Saying it’s mean old mysoginistic doctors is laughable only because if women are now more empowered all we have done is allowed women to show their true colors. Getting this Emily?
If I called my wife the C word every month for the next 20 years I might come close to how many times she’s called me a mysoginist BEFORE I found the RP. She doesn’t call me that now that I have corrected her meaning of the word. She would blurt it out when she could no longer let the facts get in her way.
Right or wrong, RP awareness is happening. Women who have been awakened and have even a slight empathetic pulse to what men have gone through in the past 50 years and are going through now admit all of these things. Look on youtube, good morning america asks the question why men are not marrying. One beautiful woman on there gets it. She says with divorce and the fact that women are waiting because they want career first etc is exactly what RP has been saying for years now. When women take off their solipsism glasses all of a sudden they get it.
Jeff, this is Anna’s husband, Tobias. You brought up 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 5. And you argued that Sarah obeyed Abraham, even when he told her to lie. This is true, and Sarah is, in this instance, an example of submission and is used as an example of submission in 1 Peter 3. However, having an example of submission is not the same as having the right to enforce submission. In fact, let’s consider how God commanded Abraham to handle it when Sarah wouldn’t submit to him. In Genesis 21:9-21 we have an example of Sarah refusing to submit to Abraham. In fact, she demanded that Abraham cast out Ishmael and Hagar even though he clearly didn’t want to. In fact, scripture says that the matter ‘distressed him.’ The Hebrew word used here is Ra’a, which commonly means ‘evil,’ but as a verb it can mean to be wounded, injured, distressed, or broken. So, literally, her demand was not only unloving and unkind to Hagar and Ishamael (i.e. going in the wrong way), but it wounded or broke Abraham. In this situation, does God tell Abraham that he must go back and set Sarah right? That he must take away her privileges away until she comes around? No. Instead, God commands Abraham to give her want she wants, and comforts him with a promise that he (God) will care for Hagar and Ishmael. So, while Sarah’s general attitude of submission to Abraham is certainly a useful example in 1 Peter 3, which is first and foremost a command given to women, the example of Abraham and Sarah, and of God’s commands to Abraham concerning Sarah doesn’t jive with your conception of leadership and discipline.
Similarly, you bring up the example of Ephesians 5, which again does command women to submit to their husbands ‘as to Christ.’ Literally, the command here is for women to follow their husbands as though they were following Christ, which is a difficult command that many people don’t like. This command does require women to put aside their own preferences and desires, and I’m not going to argue that it doesn’t. However, the word ‘submit’ actually doesn’t appear in Ephesians 5:22. Instead, in Greek, the word is assumed from the previous verse, ‘Submit yourselves one to another’ and it isn’t actually used again until Ephesians 5:24 when the subject changes and Paul points out that the church is subject to Christ. So, separating 5:22 from 5:21 isn’t entirely appropriate. Further, this is another example of a command to women, not to men. Women are commanded to submit to their husbands as to Christ. However, Ephesians 5:25-30 are the complementary command to men. Does this passage tell us to force our wives to submit? No, instead it tells us to love our wives as Christ loves the church, and I and Anna both agree that when and where discipline fits into love, then discipline is appropriate. However, that’s the rub. Christ is perfect in his discipline of the church, but can you say the same about your wife? I know that I’ve come down on Anna for things that she certainly didn’t deserve because of my own selfishness. Further, even if she did deserve them, if my discipline is motivated by selfish desires, or by anger, or by a need to be respected, then it isn’t motivated by love. I teach university classes, and I can use examples from my students here. There are plenty of instances when my students ask me to give them extra time, to bend the rules for them, to offer extra credit, etc. Many times I am initially inclined to say no, simply because I don’t want to and the rules allow me to say no. However, this is motivated by my own desire to avoid the extra work. Similarly, there are times when a student has done something to irk me, and I want to say no because I’m frustrated or angry with the student. Further, there are time when I want to say no, and I convince myself that saying no is in the student’s best interest, but when I look back at my choice I must admit that it was really motivated by my own desires to avoid work or get revenge. If it is difficult for me to treat my students in love, and to discipline my students in love (even though I have relatively little attachment to them and they have little to know ability to actually hurt me or inspire strong emotions in me), how much harder must it be for a man who is deeply hurt by his wife to discipline her in love?
Lastly, you bring up the responsibility that you have to lead your wife well, and I agree that you have this responsibility. To a point you are responsible for her sins, and for the sins of her children, just as a pastor is responsible for the sins of his congregation, and a teacher is responsible for the ignorance or foolishness of his students. However, the key word here is to a point. Remember that the sins of the father are not counted to the son nor are the sins of the son counted against the father. Ezekiel 18:18-22 reminds us that we are all ultimately responsible for our own sins. Further, Ezekiel 3:16-21 sets out a great example of what responsible leadership looks like. In both of these passages we see that the leader is ultimately responsible to exhort and encourage his followers to godliness. God tells Ezekiel that if a man is doing wrong and Ezekiel does not reprove him, then the wrong will be on Ezekiel’s hands, but if Ezekiel does reprove him, then the wrong will be on his own hands. In this case, Ezekiel’s reproof is verbal. He is to tell the people of Israel (technically the people of Judah) what they are doing wrong, to stop, and how to begin doing right. Ezekiel, as a prophet, is a great example of what acting as a medium of God’s authority to a rebellious people looks like. God never mandates, or even allows, Ezekiel to punish the people. His job as a leader is to guide and direct them, not force them to follow that direction. This is because it is impossible to force the heart, and the heart is what matters. You can practice any kind of behavior modification you want with your wife. Ultimately, what you can’t do is force her to want to do what is right. However, as God does with us, and commands us to do with our wives and children (remember that Ephesians 6:4 commands fathers not to exasperate their children), showing love, kindness, gentleness, and patience while at the same time administering loving reproof (i.e. gently [in a loving and appropriate way and at an appropriate time when she is most likely to hear and respond well] pointing out areas where she might grow and improve, or areas of sin that are currently active strongholds in her life) can melt even very cold hearts.
Is this always going to work? No, it won’t. And when it doesn’t it is no longer the leader’s responsibility. Even the best leaders may find themselves faced with followers who are embittered and unwilling to hear any reproof. At that point, the leaders responsibility is to continue leading well, even in the midst of failure and rejection, because the authority of the leader is not his, but God’s. Thus, he can only go as far as God allows, and ultimately a wife’s sin, a child’s sin, a church member’s sin is between that individual and God.
Jeff, this is Anna again. As far as no-fault divorce, I don’t think that should even be a thing. It grieves me that our nation has gone so far away from Godly values. I don’t really know where your response to me ended and where your response to Emily began, but I would advise reading some on Roosh V (or his other site Return of Kings) and Matt Forney before giving a blanket support of red pill theory.
Excellent! Love it. I disagree with the separation in Eph. submitting to one another is for the church, not husband and wife. Yes we are called to love our wives, but which command comes first and why? Your comment on 1P 3:1-6 is excellent, but only agreeing and saying to a point doesn’t nail it down. Using Sarah’s disrespect to send Hagar away only came back to haunt her when she gave Hagar to Abraham. The distress Abraham had was because he followed Adam’s sin in listening to his wife, thus it came back to haunt him as well.
Using Ezekiel is great reminder and much appreciated. I agree, but in that case does that allow Ezekiel to divorce himself from that leadership, no as you say that is between them and God for his punishment. Great examples, thank you. Let’s get back to Christ and the Church and husband and wife. If a change can be made with righteousness I think it stands on it’s own. You are not harming the wife by taking emotional support away anymore than she is harming you by with holding sex. You cause the other to be tempted and this goes against scripture. This is repaying evil with evil…. in your words “to a point”. Christ’s words to let a man out of the church do to his regenerate nature is in righteousness. The man was not harmed, embarassed, shamed, humiliated? Yes. Why the discipline? To bring them (the church) back under FULL submission under Christ as the church body. To allow one man (one paticular insubordination in this case with holding sex) in the church to continue in his rebellion is wrong in the eyes of God. God gave the chruch body and Paul this authority and ability to discipline. If a pastor has one wife, has his house in order, but is a drunk is it ok for him to lead a flock? No, there are conditions and roles. Biblicalgenderroles.
I do not believe in corporal punishment by the way. It makes me sick to think about it.
Headship, leadership, authority. All of these go together. If you cannot discipline why exactly does God allow it? (real question that needs to be answered). He allows discipline of those in His church, He himself disciplines, and rebukes those in the church. Christ over the church…. Husband over wife. Why have this? Why give someone authority and then say, “Oh by the way you can’t discipline them, that’s my job.” I agree the wife will be accountable, but just like a pastor is MORE accountable for his sheep, so too is a husband with his wife…. that is not even arguable. Why though?
Thank you for your fantastic lesson (absolutely no sarcasm meant) and I appreciate Anna asking you.
God bless you and keep you.
I believe many RP truths. I do not believe in their way. Besides, again you are pointing me to PUA redpill. I am talking purely the social studies/engineering of the genders. Although I consider with holding sex abandonment (slight on adultery) and reason to divorce, my marriage is far from that now. Many christian men will not divorce, but are utterly frustrated.
These blogs, this one included, show RP truths that are out there. That is why so many men feel like they are in a Christian Hell.
God ABSOLUTELY made continuous sex in marriage an obligation.
Men and women emit a hormone during orgasm that makes you bond to the receiver physiologically and this has an effect mentally, emotionally, and as a christian I believe spiritually. Look it up, PLEASE! When you have many partners, that bonding feeling becomes desensitized. This becomes a psychological blocking point when there is no orgasm. Women have been taught to expect this BEFORE sex. This is satan’s lie. “if they don’t feeeel it, then it must not be right, the right time or the right person.” The deception is inverting God’s plan and we think we are not deceived is part of his plan. When a woman refuses to allow this she is rebelling.
BGR could do an entire post on the physiological effects of sex and how it is BY DEVINE DESIGN even without the fleshy part!
Thanks Anna and Tobias!
Of course I’m under daddy’s authority. And I’m sure he’d agree 100% with everything I’m saying.
I do have more freedom. Freedom not to have to tolerate a husband’s abuse and adultery. Freedom to be sexually free just like men have always been (though I won’t.) Freedom to vote. Freedom to choose any career I want (there were female doctors and engineers in the 1950s? Yeah right. Is that why whenever I walk past the 1950-1980 medical/engineering graduates of my university all of them are men?.) Freedom to marry whoever I want. Freedom to do anything that a man can.
Nothing will ‘come to a full circle.’ We have our freedom now, and we’ll never relinquish it. I know that’s a sad thought for you, but the days of coverture and female oppression are over, and they will NEVER return.
I don’t know why you RP creeps have such a problem with it. Want to live the old way, where you can use, abuse and control your wife? Well, you can, you can find a woman with absolutely no self esteem and ruin her life, as I’m sure you are in the process of doing. The only thing that has changed is that women don’t HAVE to tolerate it anymore.
You go cupcake. Swearing is how you prove you are a modern woman… wew! You gave it to me. Oh, the shame I feel.
I had no idea that YOUR school DEFINES ALL schools and ALL PAST CLASSES. Let me guess…. Northeastern I Got In Because I Am A Woman University. Women definitely need affirmative action and X amount of girls as professors and attendance because…. let’s hear it, if they didn’t have that help they couldn’t get in.
Yes you are right though it will be hard to change since satan has changed everyone’s thinking. Ie. hyper fidgety boy? Needs meds. Hyper, fidgety girl? Oh she is so smart and creative and needs to let her self go.
Uh, wait a minute. Why do I not hear women screaming for them to be added to the draft? You do know they lowered the standard to let those women through Ranger school right? Yep, the marines wanted it investigated as they film everything….. nope Army will not allow the investigation because….?
Why is it that when a building is burning down women do not demand to be the last out? Crickets chirping. You my sweet buttercup are an enigma of your own deluded mind. Solipsism at it’s best. Can I get mayo on my sammich?
Did something I said set you off? Here’s a made up woman quote, “Sorry I’m not sorry”.
If I swore like that would you not have deleted my comment? Please leave hers. It only shows her tendency to feign nice only to go wretched as most do when facts get in the way. You would almost think they are the weaker sex.
[EMILY – the reason this did not post is because it requires me to approve posts that have links in them. – BGR]
Yes Jeff, I have the freedom to swear at misogynists too. Wow!
“I had no idea that YOUR school DEFINES ALL schools and ALL PAST CLASSES. ”
It does, you idiot.
10%, to 48%. Does the progress make you bitter? Good.
” let’s hear it, if they didn’t have that help they couldn’t get in.”
No you dolt, it’s because the establishment was dismissive towards them, just as it was dismissive towards black people. But right now? Women outperform men in middle school, high school, and college. The only exception is in Mathematics, where I agree men are more naturally gifted.
As for the rest of your post.. chivalry does not require female oppression. Females can have freedom, and men can still be, and should be, chivalrous. Of course, evidently that is not what has happened. Instead, many men are bitter and sour towards women for having fought for their rights. But there are still some who are chivalrous..
“It only shows her tendency to feign nice only to go wretched as most do when facts get in the way. You would almost think they are the weaker sex.”
On manosphere blogs I have been called the most disgusting things possible. I suppose they didn’t like the truth.
Just go back to the RP blogs. Larry says some outrageous things every once in a while (don’t look at her face while having sex w her) that you probably get turned on by, but on the whole he is not a misogynist. So this isn’t the blog for you.
Before you go, pass my condolences along to your wife.
Ugh, for some reason my post failed.
Anyway, wow! Look I swore!
“I had no idea that YOUR school DEFINES ALL schools and ALL PAST CLASSES. ”
Yes it does you unbelievable idiot.
I posted a graph but I guess thats why my post failed.
Anyway, it shows women proportion of lawyers and doctors has increased from 10% in 1970 to 48% in 2012. I bet that makes you bitter doesn’t it? Good.
“let’s hear it, if they didn’t have that help they couldn’t get in.”
Women outperform men in academics. In all countries.
Also, chivalry does not require women to be subservient in order to exist. Men should be chivalrous even if women are free. Of course, that hasn’t been the case, but there are some good men out there…
“It only shows her tendency to feign nice only to go wretched as most do when facts get in the way. You would almost think they are the weaker sex.”
Oh really? All the folks at the manosphere must be women then, considering they called me heinous things when I disagreed w them.
Just leave. BGR isn’t red pill. He says outrageous things time to time (dont look at her face) but overall he’s not a misogynist. Oh, and before leave, pass my condolences along to your wife.
Jeff, I am not an expert at where PUA Red Pill and the other Red Pill differ. I know Roosh refers to himself as a straight up Red Pill man (while obviously giving PUA advice). However, I feel like you are trying to convince me that marital sex is an obligation and that having multiple sexual partners is a bad thing. And please believe me I agree completely. Ironically enough, the typical “alpha male” that the Red Pillers promote, have no problem whatsoever with multiple sex partners as long as it’s the man not the women. While we might differ on how to handle sexual refusal, we both agree that it is a completely and thoroughly ugly sin.
Tobias takes the GRE tomorrow and is out of town the rest of the week so he may or may not be able to respond.
Coming from another woman, please calm down. I realize this is an important topic to you and I’m guessing this is far more personal than anybody else knows. Larry has brought me to tears before (although pregnancy hormones might have played a role), and there are some things that I think we will probably always disagree on until Heaven. However, I don’t think he or Jeff really hate women. Jeff and I have been able to have an enjoyable and educational conversation about topics we clearly don’t see eye to eye on (although we have a similar foundation). I’m guessing you guys have more in common than you disagree on. Sometimes that can be helpful to remember. Have a blessed evening, Sister!
We don’t have anything in common. The Red Pill is altogether toxic for women. It preaches outright hatred of women.
Don’t believe me? Go read a few threads over at reddit / redpill
I am calm. I’m not talking respectfully towards him (as I usually do to everyone) because I don’t think he deserves my respect. I’m not going to give any of these goons any respect. No way, thank you very much.
By the way Anna. Do you know why the red pill people, and even Larry, don’t believe in corporal punishment? It’s because we fought for it. We have to fight for everything. Believe it, sister.
Emily, I have said numerous times that I dislike the Red Pill. This is not to say that there are no truths contained in it, but that in general I don’t give my allegiance to it.
I think you both love God and try to follow the Bible (even though I’m guessing you guys have denominational differences and don’t see eye to eye on every truth). My dad used to quip that the entire Bible and even the entire existence of the universe could be summed up in three words: God saves sinners. We might disagree on whether sexual denial is a cause for divorce, or whether or not non-enthusiastic sex should be pursued or given, but at least we can start with this basic agreement and remember we are truly on the same general side.
I don’t wish to speak for Rollo, Dalrock, or any other bloggers I dont’ read on a regular basis, but I’m guessing Larry would say that he disagrees with corporate punishment in marriage d/t spiritual convictions and not because it is currently socially unacceptable. Also please realize that there are plenty of good men included in the ‘we’ that had to fight for everything. It is a mistake to assume men and women are pitted against each other.
Anna, my argument with Jeff isn’t about divorce or sexual denial. I disagree with Larry about these issues, but I still respect him. But Jeff is different. It didn’t take much prodding for him to show his misogyny. Fooor example:
His rant about divorce. Yep, it’s all our fault.
He thinks men experience more abuse than women. Which is not true, of course.
He thinks we are murderers for having abortions, when a lot of those abortions are done with the fathers consent, and sometimes with the fathers pressure.
“if they didn’t have that help they couldn’t get in.”
He thinks women are inferior mentally.
Oh and then there’s the victim mentality.
“These blogs, this one included, show RP truths that are out there. ”
So he agrees with the ‘RP truths.’ Double standards, control, abuse, ‘dread’, discipline, ageism etc.
He’s a typical red pill guy. If someone associates himself w a toxic ideology then he does not deserve respect. I would not respect a man who’s part of the KKK either. TRP is a hate group, nothing else.
Yeah Larry wouldn’t agree, simply cause the churches stopped teaching it. It would have been seen as perfectly okay in Biblical times, which is why we should we a little wary of the logic often used here. Yes, you could make the case that the Bible has always forbidden wife-beating, but you’d have to use very modern concepts of love, respect and individualism.
Why don’t the red pill guys agree with corporal punishment? It’s an interesting subject. If they think women should be subservient to them, what better way to enforce that than to beat them? /s
It made sense in 1900.
Oh and you are right of course! The woman’s rights movement never would have got this far without the many amazing, godly men who supported them.
“Larry says some outrageous things every once in a while (don’t look at her face while having sex w her) that you probably get turned on by, but on the whole he is not a misogynist.”
You are right – I am not a misogynist, I just vehemently hate feminism.
I realize you might get frustrated at some comments but please do not swear. “Yeah right.” would have worked just as well.
Biblical, I distinguish ‘feminism’ from ‘radical feminism’ now.
Feminists who are protesting about toplessness, equal pay (when we already have equal pay), attacking women who choose to be housewives, screaming rape culture about everything… they are worth your disdain.
But.. there are others. Malala Yousafzai is a feminist, and I love her and think her work is necessary. Women protesting double standards, sex trafficking, sexist remarks, sex tourism.. they are all fighting a good fight.
I don’t think only feminists believe that women should be able to go to school, Emma. Nor are only feminists against human trafficking and/or sexual tourism.
Nice strawmen though considering your ostensible “feminist” does not call herself a feminist. To quote someone else, and truer words have never been spoken: Anyone who’s ever made payroll has horror stories about being falsely sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Women know they can’t be fired for behavior 10x worse than what gets a man the boot. Double standards indeed.
Not Emma, Emily. Meant to say.
“Biblical, I distinguish ‘feminism’ from ‘radical feminism’ now.”
Emily I understand there are different levels of feminists.
But opposing sex trafficking and sex tourism is not something that is unique to being a feminist. Christians of all backgrounds oppose these things.
I will be having an upcoming post addressing among other things the subject of ‘sexist remarks’.
You made some great points.
I am truly sorry for slinging mud. Not your fault at all. As a christian I am called to live in harmony… I did a very poor job of doing that within these comments toward you. I hope you will forgive me.
Reading through your posts again, you are very articulate and obviously intelligent. Thank you for making those points and I wish you the best. We may disagree on some things. I understand where you are coming from. You can think of me as horrible redpiller, you certainly saw that in my comments. I was once a white knighter and do not lean that way any longer, but I do care for many of the things you point out, thank you for that.
@ Emily. I continue to ignore your insults as the Catholic Church to which I belong to teaches me to bear wrongs patiently. You seem to believe that I wish to engage you in a some sort of theological debate. I do not. I responded to you only to do two things. One to hopefully instruct you as someone who claimed they were Catholic regarding Catholic doctrine of which you seemed to be either unaware or hopelessly confused about perhaps because of your feminist blinders.The second was to make sure our Protestant bothers and sisters aren’t led astray by your mischaracterization of Catholic teaching. Not that the Church needs my defense but I feel honor bound to do so.
Emily, If you are Catholic then you understand how what an encyclical is but others reading on this board may not. An encyclical is a letter that a Pope writes and circulates to the entire Church when he wishes to teach on an important matter. They are rare indeed. You probably know that Catholics do not use artificial e birth control. The reason for that is because of the teaching contained in an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI in 1968 called Humane Vitae.
With that background lets do some work. For example, when Emily tells you that the Catholic Church does not teach about female submission in marriage she is not telling you the truth. Here is Pope Pius XI writing in 1930 in an Encyclical called “Casti Connubi”
“With great wisdom our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which we have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honour or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church” (CC, para. 29).
Two Popes, one paragraph, same message. Him who rules and her who obeys. Crystal clear isn’t it?
Emily also would try to have you believe that the Catholic Church would countenance one spouse imposing involuntary celibacy on the other. Nonsense. I think someone said we breed like rabbits. Just to be clear though read a little further in the same encyclical. Here is Pope Pius again writing about conjugal love in marriage:
“By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,” express not only a law of justice but of charity.
Pius here is of course just reiterating what St. Paul teaches. Conjugal love is for procreation yes, but for other good reasons as well. Which is what anyone with even a passing familiarity with Catholic doctrine would expect.
There my friends is authentic Catholic teaching on the subject. Unfiltered.
I hope this helps and eliminates any confusion Emily may have caused you on this matter.
Pay no attention to anyone like her who tries to convince you that the Catholic Church teaches anything less than the biblical view of gender and marriage.
Why are you censoring polite comments, Larry? Are you that afraid of an honest discussion?
JPII’s Theology of the Body, which is what Emily talked about, does not support the idea of male headship and female submission.
JPII is explicit on the matter, saying that husband and wife are two halves of the same body, with the same dignity and rights, to be exercised according to their complementary roles in marriage and in the world.
JPII is also very explicit on the matter of sex in marriage, warning against its perversion which happens when one spouse, typically husband, imposes his sexual needs and wishes on the other, typically wife. This leads to objectification of the human person, who becomes nothing more but an instrument of another’s pleasure — one of the gravest sexual sins that JPII warned against.
Since you reference Pius XI, here is a more nuanced look at his views on the matter:
Pius XI doesn’t just say, after the Fathers and countless others, that male headship should be exercised in love and respect. He also says much more.
First, “this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time,” and Pius cites approvingly Leo XIII writing that the wife must be “not as a servant but as a companion.” Moreover, male headship must not take away the wife’s liberty, which “fully” belongs to her “in view of her dignity as a human person”; it does not entail that the wife “obey her husband’s every request”; indeed, the only thing it does is prevent “exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head.” In other words, male headship boils down to this: wives should not be derelict in their duties as wives and mothers, which seems to be something everybody should agree with (obviously, as Pius writes elsewhere, husbands have a similar duty). Finally, writes the Pope, “[i]n fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family.”
For the source, look up “Male Headship in the Catholic Tradition.”
There’s nothing to forgive. But thanks. I just don’t like people who associate themselves with a hate group. If the ‘red pill’ is the gateway to the truth, then the only ‘red pill’ is the path to God. I hope and pray that you see the red pill for what it really is, and Rollo, Dalrock and Heartiste for who they really are.
Liz and BGR,
Malala is absolutely a feminist, within Pakistani society. She doesn’t call herself a western feminist, because she isn’t. But the reason I brought her up was to show that feminism is still necessary in certain societies, and in certain situations in our society. We should examine each issue feminism attempts to tackle individually, rather than just criticizing the whole ideology.
“Women know they can’t be fired for behavior 10x worse than what gets a man the boot. ”
I won’t argue the point right now (though I think you are wrong,) but I will say that women also have to work 10x harder to get to those positions. So men aren’t exactly the victims.
As Jeff said (thanks), nothing in recent Catholic scholarship points towards any support for male control and dominance in a marriage. The Catholic Church has for the last century supported complimentarian marriages.
Dash, I think you are just pushing your own beliefs into Catholicism. Nowhere in the Catechism is there anything to support your position. Actually, there are several teachings that completely contradict your beliefs. Sex should be unitive and procreative. Unitive, as Pope John Paul II explained, means to harmonize yourself with your wife, not control her and treat her as an object.
What Pope Pius XI was saying does not contradict what Pope John Paul II said. Wives being obedient does not mean that the husband should take advantage of that fact. JPII was not saying that wives should refuse husbands sex, he was speaking mostly to the husbands.
Dash, stop preaching false theology. If you want to control and abuse your wife, and call it scriptural, the RCC is not the right church for you.
There are 2 jeffs. I didn’t talk about jpll…. I am no longer catholic and do not care what he says. He is only a man same as me, but I am the one who apologized.
@ Emily. Yet again with the insults? Now I am a wife abuser because I quoted the teachings of Pope Pius XI who quoted St. Paul.? Do you think St. Paul was a wife abuser too? Or that Pius came home from seminary and kicked his mama around the casa? Hilarious. Better get thee to Confession tomorrow afternoon !
You really are such a little silly thing when you get your dander all up 🙂
St. Paul didn’t have a wife.
So you misquoted Pope Pius XI, and completely ignored what Pope John Paul II has taught, and you think that’s an argument?
Go home. Catholicism isn’t compatible with your misogynist TRP BS.
I totally agree with this, if only every marriage followed this. And if the husband and wife followed Gods word and did what they are supposed to do. There would be a lot less problems.