The Peter, Titus 2, and marriage connection

Since this was being discussed in Dalrock’s comments.

Peter says he won’t deny Jesus, but Jesus prophesies that he will:

John 13:36 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” 37 Peter *said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” 38 Jesus *answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

Peter denies Jesus 3 times:

John 18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

Post-resurrection Jesus gives the opportunity for Peter to redeem himself from the denials:

John 21:15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you [f]love (agapao) Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [g]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you [h]love (agapao) Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [i]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you [j]love (phileo) Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you [k]love (phileo) Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I [l]love (phileo) You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

If you’re familiar with the Greek in the passage, you’ll note that Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agapao) him twice, but Peter can only muster up a phileo or brotherly love/affection response. Jesus, probably with compassion for Peter, finally asks him if he loves (phileo) him.

Although the Scriptures say Peter was grieved because Jesus asked him a third time, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Peter was also grieved because Jesus didn’t expect him to aspire to the higher standard, only knowing what he could do in the moment. Peter wasn’t ready to to have the faith to be crucified for Jesus, even after he saw that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Next, we find out that Jesus loves the Church as husbands should love their wives. Thus, Christ:Church::husbands:wives.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love (agapao) your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love (agapao) their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.

Finally, we come to Titus 2 which commands wives to love their husbands.

Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love (phileo) their husbands, to love (phileo) their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

However, why aren’t women called to agape love their husbands in marriage while their husbands are to their wives? Why are they only told to have affectionate love, to respect, and to submit?

We’ve gone over the discussion before about if women have the capacity to agape love. In the context of general Christians I think yes. In marriage? Questionable. Although wives say they love their husbands, it’s not the same love as a husband gives a wife.

We can see this as the Scriptures giving some grace to wives, just like Jesus did to Peter in the moment. Holding them to the highest standard, when knowing the nature of women may be too great a burden.

There may also be something special about the headship-submission relationship that requires love to go top-down instead of bottom-up. Obedience, respect, and affection are all attitudes and actions that build off of each other to keep a self reinforcing positive cycle.

In general, I am of the opinion that the “agapao love” that wives show their husbands is respect, submission, and affection. How agapao love looks is different per different relationships. In the marriage relationship, it is the roles and responsibilities that the Scriptures state.

Of course, I could be missing something. Maybe my readers may have some other speculations as to why this is the case.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 16 Comments

All I’ll say about the Las Vegas shooter

While the media and other people bemoan the gun laws or the senseless violence, we know better.


While Stephen Paddock appeared to have no criminal history, his father was a notorious bank robber, Eric Paddock said. Benjamin Hoskins Paddock tried to run down an FBI agent with his car in Las Vegas in 1960 and wound up on the agency’s most wanted list after escaping from a federal prison in Texas in 1968, when Stephen Paddock was a teen.

The oldest of four children, Paddock was 7 when his father was arrested for the robberies. A neighbor, Eva Price, took him swimming while FBI agents searched the family home.

She told the Tucson Citizen at the time: “We’re trying to keep Steve from knowing his father is held as a bank robber. I hardly know the family, but Steve is a nice boy. It’s a terrible thing.”

An FBI poster issued after the escape said Benjamin Hoskins Paddock had been “diagnosed as psychopathic” and should be considered “armed and very dangerous.” He’d been serving a 20-year sentence for a string of bank robberies in Phoenix.

The elder Paddock remained on the lam for nearly a decade, living under an assumed name in Oregon. Investigators found him in 1978 after he attracted publicity for opening the state’s first licensed bingo parlor. He died in 1998.

Imagine a 7 year old boy finding out that his father is a top 10 FBI wanted criminal, then growing up without a father role model (and even if his father hadn’t been arrested what type of influence would that be?).

I suppose we don’t need to go through all of the various statistics again, but here some samples.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)

Just as the black boys and teenagers get sucked into violence and criminal activity without fathers, so too those in white middle and upper class upbringings get sucked into gun violence. It just looks like mass shootings instead of gang violence. Others are suicidal. Still others are rapists. Still others abuse alcohol and drugs.

Lack of identity, lack of role models, lack of community. Just another manifestation of a crumbling system.

It does not bode well that the out of wedlock birth rates have skyrocketed as marriages have imploded over the past few decades. Expect more of the same. The crumbling of the black families only shows us how bad it’s going to get.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

80/20 rule followup, masculine attractiveness analysis, and how to fix a dysfunctional marriage

There’s been some good discussion in Tinder reaffirmed the 80/20 rule and Donal’s follow up on that post in Just how universal is the 80/20 rule.

Going back to the very first post on my blog Practical ways to improve your attractiveness and desirability for a Christian spouse, which was deleted off of Boundless, there is the general case that for men and women that:

[Women] conclusion: Women your physical beauty will get you in the door, and your personality and spirituality will make him want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married.

[Men] conclusion: Men your masculine personality and confidence will get you in the door, and your ability to lead her spiritually will make her want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married.

Obviously, I didn’t include appearance in the conclusion which does play a significant role as it forms a distinct first impression. First impressions are big. Women generally like tall men, with muscles, with clean style and hair, and good fashion. There are some exceptions based on amount of musculature, hair style and fashion depending on which crowds she runs with, but these are generally the core of an attractive appearance.

If we were to break it down further, it would generally be along the lines like this:

  1. First impression — how tall you are, musculature, hair and style. Your body language and how you act from a distance.
  2. First communication — your body language while you communicate, your charisma, your ability to exude masculine traits (confidence, boldness, strength, manliness, independence, etc.) through your words, and overall create a fun but stimulating aura.
  3. Pre-date — Your consistency in exuding attractiveness in terms of masculinity. May be able to avoid this if you ask her out on a date right away.
  4. Dating and later Relationship — Learning about your other qualities on whether you are a good mate choice or not. For Christians this tends to be faith, good morals and character, how you treat your family, friends, and others, what you’re like as time goes on (if you’re trying to hide anything or just put your best foot forward all of the time), etc.
  5. Engagement and then marriage — If you’re at this point, you’re already a good choice from her perspective. If you’re not, then she’s desperate which means you may be in trouble in the long run.

In general, Christian men fail these steps at all levels.

Christian men have terrible first impressions. They don’t have any sense of style. They don’t work out. They’re afraid to go talk to women (don’t even make the communication). If they do, they definitely do NOT exude masculinity around women in any sense of the word. They’re timid. They don’t know how to flirt or tease a woman. And so on. I don’t really need to go over all of these to show you that most of the men in the Church today do not exhibit any of these traits.

Now to switch gears, I’ll add in Snapper’s questions on the Curse of the romantic Beta here to comment on them. This is important for men to understand.

It is my experience that women love for alpha guys to treat them poorly. This feeds their need for drama and excitement. For some ladies life is ALL drama and ALL excitement, and these types of ladies are screwed up. Think almost any celebrity woman who is around alpha male celebrities.

Why do women want to have fun and be stimulated? Emotions. Generally, women both in the Scripture and society are a protected and provided for class. They don’t have to deal with all of the crap that men slog through to make themselves something in the world. Women HATE dealing with responsibility and bad situations because it brings them down emotionally (likely one of the reasons why God created man to be the head in marriage). On the flip side, women LOVE being emotionally stimulated and having fun. Her worst nightmare is a man who is *gasp* boring. A secular woman and even some Christian women will take the bad boy over the boring, to her detriment.

A man does not have to treat women like trash or create insane drama to be attractive to women. Such things are stimulating to be sure, but they are definitely inclined toward evil because they are destructive. The general thing is that you should be having fun yourself but in a way that builds up the relationship. For example, these are ways you can do it:

  • Have a good sense of humor
  • Tease her about her opinions or style or other things. Avoid sensitive topics (e.g. teasing her about her weight, especially if you know she’s trying to lose weight).
  • Assume that you’re always right when assert make an opinion and make up crazy answers about why she is wrong
  • Fake bully her with your strength. One of the fun things I’ve been doing with my wife is we got on the topic of the “floor is lava” but in the context of “off the sidewalk is lava.” Of course, I started pushing her off the sidewalk for fun, and she’s tried to push me off but can’t since I’m stronger. She’s since gotten me once though.. ugh!
  • Misinterpret things she says. Can also play into humor. “That’s what she said.”
  • Don’t take her seriously when she’s serious and take her seriously when she’s playing. Although you have to be mindful on this as it can turn into real anger.
  • Playful sexism. “You just sit there and look pretty.” I’ve also told one of my friend’s wife to “run along because the men were talking” to good effect. She laughed and faked outrage.

There’s other sources who would say to treat an attractive woman like she’s a bratty little sister, and there is some merit to that. In general, the common thread among all of these is this: (1) they don’t put a woman on the pedestal, and (2) they treat a woman like a woman, not just like a man with boobs.

The reason why most people think that “jerks” are attractive to women is because there are not many Christian men who are attractive. The reason for this is like I’ve said for a long time: bad boys retain their masculinity because they don’t give a crap about what society says about how “toxic” masculinity is whereas the Christian nice guys become feminized because they buy into cultural standards of masculinity (which are evil and the churchians peddle). Who is a woman going to choose? The masculine man or the feminized man? A feminized man is basically just like one of her girl friends. An emotional sponge to pour out her feelings with zero attraction and romantic interest. (And this is where the false notion of the ladder theory comes from).

Now it is my understanding that a guy should be a proper mix of both alpha (drama) and beta (romance) to keep a relationship healthy, though the “proper mix” of yesteryear is much different from modern times. I refer a lot to the movie “In the Heart of the Sea” in which the main character leaves his pregnant wife behind to go to work, on the sea, for two years hunting whale oil. For the time period he seems to be exhibiting a good balance of alpha/beta traits in that he is very well built physically (from his work), he works a dangerous “alpha” job, yet he cares for and loves his wife when he is with her. This gives her a good balance of both drama and romance. While he is away she can worry about what he is doing, who he is with and whether or not he is still alive, and while he is home he spends time with her and likely brings her back various gifts and trinkets from different ports-of-call.

It is also not so much “alpha” and “beta” but “roles” and “responsibilities.” They are not mutually exclusive and do not need to be balanced.

Women are sexually attracted to masculine leaders, protectors and providers. The role of a man in marriage is a masculine leader and protectors and these also display the quintessential masculine traits: independence, boldness, decisiveness, strength, courage, competitiveness, and so on. The responsibilities of a man in marriage is to be a provider, nourish and care for his wife, with sound Christian faith, moral, and character.

The question is how does the beta husband/boyfriend break free from the curse of romance? For the boyfriend its not so difficult. Change. That’s it. If your lady doesn’t like it, let her walk. Its probably better that way anyway because she has already cemented you in her mind as her beta romance fix. Better to find a clean slate and make a new first impression as the alpha jerk who sometimes has a heart of gold.

For husbands its a much more difficult endeavor. Your wife has already cemented you as her beta romance fix, and simply walking away is not a pleasant option. If your a Christian then walking away is sin, as we are commanded not to part from our wives, and to continue to provide for them (1 Timothy 5:8). Christian or not, husbands also have the pleasant fun of looking down the barrel of the modern divorce court system that almost guarantees your wife walks away with half or more of your stuff, your money and possibly your livelihood if she decides to leave because she doesn’t like the “new you”. Like the unmarried, a married man can simply “change”, but he must live with the fallout. His wife may take a liking to his new attitude, but it is more likely that she will not. She wants her alpha drama fix, but not from you. You are her romance fix, and she will not want to give that up. It gives her power to have an expectation of romance from you. The power to administer guilt, which gives her the power to make demands.

As we know, if an attractive man brought a woman roses she would love it, but if an unattractive or creepy man brought her roses she would go “ewww.” This is where the SNL skit about be attractive, don’t be unattractive rings true.

The best way to think about romance in Scriptural terms is the “nourish and cherish” command to husbands from Ephesian 5. Romance doesn’t need to be some elaborate weekend getaway. It doesn’t need to be a love letter or poem. It doesn’t even have to be about getting chocolates or flowers. It does not necessarily have to be about doing anything or saying anything in particular. It’s about showing you’re thinking about her and that you care.

Now, Christian husbands who are stuck need mainly focus on being a better masculine leader and protector. Work out, dress well, clean shaven, be ambitious at work, take the lead at home in the relationship, make decisive decisions, don’t waffle. By being a better masculine leader and protector you are ACTUALLY showing her romance.

Why is this? To understand this, we need to go back further to some old(er) material on this blog.

Generally, if a husband has become complacent into letting his wife run the marriage or not being a proactive masculine leader in the marriage, the wife becomes discontent and unhappy. This is usually accompanied with decreasing physical fitness, getting fat, and overall sloppiness or laziness.

What occurs most of the time is that the wife sees the vacuum of the leadership position and has taken up the position. This happens because the husband has voluntarily abdicated and/or the wife has willingly or unknowingly tried usurp the position. In essence, the wife steps into the authority position and has become your mother instead of your wife. Ever notice how “nagging” sounds exactly like when your mother told you to go clean up your room or do your chores? Yup, same thing. Your mother had authority to go make you do it, but if this happens in the marriage relationship your wife is stepping into the head of the relationship in the vacuum that you created either by abdicating and/or letting her usurp it.

A husband, by taking up his proper roles and responsibilities in the relationship, is actually removing his wife from those positions that she may have unwillingly and/or unwittingly taken. This will cause the stress level of the wife to go down drastically, and it will make her feel more loved. Why is this the case?

If we look at the Scriptures, it is the husbands role and responsibility to love his wife. A wife feels loved by her husband in his proper role. If the wife is in the headship position, she will feel like she is mothering her husband. She is going to feel unloved because her husband is not her husband but in effect her child. Once you reverse the roles to their proper Scriptural place, she will feel loved again because the husband in his proper role carrying out his responsibility. No need for the go out of your way to do housework stuff that is purported as “romance” by the churchians.

It’s really quite simple when you analyze it in the context of the Scriptures, but modern Christians who have been deceived by culture like to do things that do not align with the Word of God.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 16 Comments

Adam had headship prior to the fall

I’ve discussed authority quite a few times over the course of this blog a few years ago, especially in the context of the the fall. These are Scriptural reasons from Genesis 1-3 and beyond why I believe that to be the case. I posted this on Donal’s but thought it deserved its own post here for posterity.

Adam had headship over Eve prior to the fall based on these Scriptural textual clues:

1. Eve is created as a helpmeet for Adam. Also, she is created second rather than at the same time. (Gen 2, 1 Cor 11)

2. Adam names Eve. Adam also names the animals over which he has dominion. (Gen 1, 2)

3. Eve comes from a part of Adam. Also, man is created in the “image and glory of God,” while woman is created in the “glory of man.” (Gen 2, 1 Cor 11)

4. The case can be made based on the comparison of the creation accounts in Gen 1-3, that it was only Adam that received the commands from God being that much happened between the creation of Adam and Eve and Adam’s responsibility.

We learn that Eve was deceived but Adam chose to sin (Gen 3, 1 Tim 2), and we can see this in how she was deceived: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” — “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

5. Gen 2 indicates that it the man who separates from his parents to create the family unit: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”

6. Text of Gen indicates man(kind) is created in the image of God (distinction in 1 Cor 11). Eph 5 shows us that marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church. Marriage was present prior to the fall. If there was no headship, then there is no reflection of Christ and the Church. Given that the Trinity is present at creation and that man is created in God’s image, it’s likely that there was headship prior to the fall because it reflection the image of God and the future Christ-Church.

7. When God comes to the garden to talk to them after they sinned, He calls for Adam.

8. The pattern of punishment due to sin is to increase the punishment. God told Adam he would surely die if he ate of the fruit. The other punishments were punishments of increase. The ground was cursed and Adam needed to work harder, as he was already commanded to tend to the garden. Eve’s pain was greatly multiplied in childbirth, as there was already pain prior to the fall. This likely indicates the second half of the punishment — “Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” — is about the desire and choice of Eve to rebel or submit to her husband while emphasizing the prior relationship (headship). Hebrew word “desire” is used in Gen 4 for Cain’s desire to cause him to sin, and in Song of Songs for sexual desire.

9. Adam is punished for listening to the voice of his wife [and] eating of the fruit. While not definitive, if Eve was of the same position as Adam it’s likely he would have just been punished for eating the fruit. Not for listening to his wife and eating of the fruit.

I think that 4-8 are the most convincing of the points, but all of the arguments together present a solid case. There are no textual clues that indicate that there was similar positioning in the roles of marriage prior to the fall either.

All of these textual clues indicate why there there is probably around a 99% probability of headship prior to the fall.

Why is this important? Egalitarians and/or “christo-feminists” like to argue that since prior to the fall everything was “perfect” that man and woman had equal positions, and that it was only a result of man and woman being cursed that man has authority over woman in marriage.

The textual clues point to otherwise that it was God’s design and creation that man has headship in the marriage in all four distinct states of marriage in the Scriptures: prior to the fall (e.g. Adam and Eve), post-fall pre-law (e.g. Abraham and Patriarchs), during the Law of Moses (rest of OT), and after Christ’s redemption (NT).

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

How to communicate sexual desire in a relationship

A reader writes in:

Biblically, is communicating your sexual desire to someone you are dating to marry wrong? From the sermon on the mount, I understand the qualifications on what lust is. And premarital sex is wrong I believe, but how do we handle ourselves in communication. I suppose I’m having trouble discerning things. Are we too prude as a culture? Or do we avoid all appearances of sex for a reason? Can I tell my girlfriend the ways she turns me on, etc. Thanks!

I’ve mentioned before how male and female sexual desire is not sinful and why it’s important to talk about sex with your girlfriend and/or fiancee. So to answer the first question, no, communicating the desire is indeed not sinful.

One thing about “lust” in Matthew 5 is that it’s by nature coveting.

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus is speaking to the men — notice how when preaching to the crowds, only the number of men is counted. In particular, He’s also speaking about ‘adultery’ in v27 rather than ‘fornication.’ So the ‘lust’ or ‘passion’ here is about coveting a woman that is not yours — which is unmarried or married women for a married men (e.g. any woman not their wife) OR married women for single men (e.g. not single women).

Why not single women for unmarried men? Remember, Paul speaks this to the unmarried about their ‘lust’:

1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If you ‘sexually desire’ a member of the opposite sex who is single, you should take the steps to marry. This makes logical sense and does not conflict any of the statements of Jesus and Paul on sexual desire.

The gross overstatement of ‘lust’ in “purity culture” in the modern Church for a single man to a single woman or vice versa is definitely damaging to getting people to marry. It causes a lot of single men and women to shy away from their sexuality, which is one factor in delaying marriage (along with life scripts). This often leads toward illicit ways to express sexuality like porn, romance novels, and so on.

Now, what it looks like in practice can be difficult for many men to do. When I was going out on dates with Christian girls I would ask them a few dates in (read: not the first few dates) about more serious topics. Alternatively, if you’re texting or messaging back and forth a lot and the conversation is leading that way you can ask about topics like that too.

There’s a couple different ways you can do this:

  • Ask her what she finds attractive about you, and be ready to answer what you find attractive about her.
  • Ask her what she thinks about particular responsibilities of marriage, and move slowly toward 1 Cor 7 about either spouse not denying sex to each other
  • Ask her what her parents taught her about husbands and wives, and be prepared to answer the same things about your experiences.
  • There are potentially other prospective questions that relate to sexuality as well like abortion. Huge list of prospective questions here.

Like anything you’ll probably usually be uncomfortable talking about these things right away and it could be awkward. If it turns out awkward, you can just say even though it’s awkward it’s good to discuss relationships more in depth. It will get less awkward over time the more you practice.

Overall, there needs to be some discernment, as you mentioned. Things you would say to a 3 date girl would be different than you would say to a 3 month ‘dating’ or ‘courtship’ relationship which would be different than something you would say to a fiancee.

For example, I wouldn’t and didn’t shy away from “that’s what she said” jokes with my now wife for any ‘stages’ in along the aforementioned timeline. However, I did not go up to her right away and say how she looked was turning me on. That was more toward the engagement period. In the earlier to mid part I would say something like “you looked great in that dress or skirt and it makes me want to wrap my arms around her and kiss her” and then actually do it. When we were engaged, I’d say “I want to ravish her.”

I’m also not afraid of hugging and non-sexual contact, and I think that is one of the big things that a lot of Christian men are generally uncomfortable with. Non-sexual contact is socially acceptable contact usually with the back, hands, forearms, or shoulders. Men do it all the time with a slap on the back or fist bump. You can also do this with women, albeit depends on the social customs.

There definitely is some variability and different boundaries. I know some married couples who did not kiss until they were married, so the latter example would not work for them. I think when in doubt you should shy on the less side of things though.

Ostensibly in the relationship you are both there because you find each other attractive. Most cultures tend to find blatant sexual statements too forward and unbecoming and in general the Scripture is like that too on fornication and giving the appearance of evil. However, there is a natural progression from single to engaged to marriage where expression of sexuality grows.

Comments from other married or single commenters to flesh this out for our reader(s) are also good.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

45 tall nude [woman] statue coming to the national mall

You can’t make this stuff up. Relevant tidbits.

If you walk along the National Mall this November, you’ll see the Smithsonian Museums, the Washington Monument, Capitol Hill, and, possibly, something else: a 45-foot tall nude sculpture of a woman.

The Amazonian figure would tower over the National Mall next to the Washington Monument, directly facing the White House until March 7 to promote women’s equality.

Organizers are trying to raise funds to transport the R-Evolution sculpture from San Francisco to Washington. They’ve gotten conditional approval from the National Park Service to have the structure on the grounds of the National Mall.
The sculpture was created by artist Marco Cochrane as part of The Bliss Project. He said the sculpture was meant to combat a culture that increasingly dehumanizes women and sexualizes the female form.

R-Evolution is just one of three giant nude female sculptures Cochrane created with his model and collaborator Deja Solis.

He said the series spawned from an idea of feminine safety that he says he’s been wrestling with since the age of seven, when he learned that a friend had been sexually assaulted.

“These sculptures are about expressing what it would be like if women were safe,” Cochrane said. “To me this sculpture answers that question . . . She’s absolutely fearless and accepting and being able to do that is a really powerful thing.”

Julia Whitelaw, Cochrane’s creative partner, said his early sculptures were often so life-like that people felt uncomfortable looking at them, until he scaled them up — way up.

“There was such this taboo that was happening,” she said. “Men would walk in, look at the sculpture, and they would have to avert their eyes.”

Cochrane was inspired to take his art to new heights by the burning effigies at Burning Man. Instead of working in bronze or clay, he created massive sculptures out of steel rods, tubing, mesh and LED lights.

“It made it okay to look at them,” Whitelaw said. “People feel emotionally connected to these sculptures, they don’t focus on the physical.”
The four-month long vigil is also intended to raise awareness of the Equal Rights Amendment. The constitutional amendment, proposed in 1972, would outlaw discrimination based on sex, but it has yet to be ratified.

The sculptures will inevitably produce some controversy wherever they go, but Whitelaw said she’s confident that there are plenty of people excited to have art “supporting the end of violence against women and equal rights for women right there in the heart of the nation.”

Not even really sure what to say about this.

The sculpture was created by artist Marco Cochrane as part of The Bliss Project. He said the sculpture was meant to combat a culture that increasingly dehumanizes women and sexualizes the female form.

You would think that putting a nude figure out there is actually the epitome of dehumanization and sexualization of the female form… but apparently not.

The ideal that women are not considered already ‘equal’ in the US is laughable. They do ‘better’ at education with higher grades and graduation rates in high school, college, and graduate programs. They are paid the same. Women have the opportunity to do any job they want. They can choose to blow up marriages, have children, and do what they want with less consequences than men.

Now they’re basically putting pornography on the national mall to “promote equality.” Right on.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 15 Comments

Contraception’s under the radar effect on divorce

Now that we’re on the topic of marriages and not marriages, that led me to thinking more about the reasons for divorce. I’ve written on contraception before, but I didn’t really think about it in terms of divorce.

We know that hormonal contraception alters womens’ mate preference attraction. Some articles on how that works here in Time and Scientific American. The general conclusion is that women prefer more masculine features and/or personality in men when off of the pill. Hence, they’re more likely to marry more feminine looking men and/or with less masculine personalities when on the pill, and when they go off of it find them less attractive.

We know that about 50% of marriages implode, and about ~70% of divorces are initiated by women, which means about 35% of all marriages are imploded by women. Many of these which are due to unhaaaapyness and “I love you but I’m not in love with you.”

To connect the dots, it would be interesting to look up the how much of the actual female population was on oral hormonal contraception given that we know the average age of marriage is currently sitting at 27 for women and 29 for men.

CDC data on contraception use for 2006-2012.

A whopping 50% of the population 15-24 of women in the US are using oral hormonal contraception, and it only declines to about 33% in the age at which 50% of women get married.

The use of a hormonal method by nulliparous women, either the pill or another hormonal method, to delay a first pregnancy increased 20% between 1995 to 2006–2010, from slightly more than one-half of women with no births (52%) in 1995 to approximately 63% in 2006–2010.

Almost twice as many women who intend more children used other hormonal methods in 2006–2010 (11%) than in 1995 (6.0%). IUD usage increased by about the same amount among women who intend more children (from 0.6% to 5.5%) as among those who intend no more children (0.8% compared with 5.3%)

Among women who intended to have children, married or not, the rate of oral hormonal contraceptive use increased over the general female population use to 63% and up to 74% for other contraceptive use total.There’s like ~10 points on religious use and contraception, but here are two of the more important ones.

Baptist and Fundamentalist Protestant women used the pill to a lesser degree (21%) compared with Catholic (28%) or other Protestant (29%) women, or women with no religious affiliation (31%).

Catholic women (18%) and women with no religious affiliation (16%) more frequently rely on their partner’s use of condoms as their most effective contraceptive method compared with Baptist or Fundamentalist Protestant women (12%). Women for whom religion is not important (22%) rely on partner’s use of condoms more frequently than women for whom religion is very important (15%).

Lots of nominal Catholics given the Catholic Church forbids contraception. Also shows that the Church is almost no different from the secular on these points, much like other various Life Script(tm) of go to college, get a job, and so on before marriage. Again, not surprising the Church divorce rate is quite similar to the secular when you have marriages that mimic them.

Overall, I am extremely surprised that contraception is as ubiquitous as it is among 15-24 year old women (~50% of all women) and among those who are planning to have a child (~63% for hormonal, ~74% total). Given that 35% of all marriages are imploded by wives, I do not think it would be a stretch to say that contraception plays a significant role in the implosion of marriages due to its effects on wives’ attraction toward their husbands.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

Marriage a mark of privilege?

Pre-posting edit: Dalrock has come out with a post on the same topic while I was writing this. My take is different than Dal’s as he looks at a few different factors, whereas I’m looking at some of the roots.

This article from the NT times on marriage as a mark of privilege.

Fewer Americans are marrying over all, and whether they do so is more tied to socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher incomes.

Currently, 26 percent of poor adults, 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults ages 18 to 55 are married, according to a research brief published from two think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and Opportunity America.

In 1990, more than half of adults were married, with much less difference based on class and education: 51 percent of poor adults, 57 percent of working-class adults and 65 percent of middle- and upper-class adults were married.

A big reason for the decline: Unemployed men are less likely to be seen as marriage material.

“Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” said Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell who published “Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships” with Amanda Jayne Miller last month.

As marriage has declined, though, childbearing has not, which means that more children are living in families without two parents and the resources they bring.

In the article, they make the case that these are the reasons for the decline in marriage among the poor(er).

  1. Unemployed men/Economy — less providers
  2. Education — those with college degrees are more likely to be forward thinking and delay child birthing, whereas poorer people are more likely to cohabitate and have out of wedlock children
  3. Economy — automation killing jobs, bad economy increases bad moral values such as alcoholism and addiction to drugs due to unemployment
  4. Collateral: Men feel it’s important to be a provider
  5. Collateral: Women see divorce and realize that they need to be able to support themselves
  6. Debate — left says economic, right says cultural values; article says it’s both

Marriage, in general, is not a mark of so-called “privilege.”

I don’t think the elites really care what happens to marriage all that much because they don’t believe there’s any inherent value to it. Most of the elite of the elite — those rich enough to afford housekeepers, nannies, cooks, and so on — don’t give a crap about “providership” or “protectorship” or “leadership” or any of the other Biblical components of marriage AND they don’t care about the ‘secular’ reasons for marriage either. They can just throw money at problems to make them go away, so why would they care about what other people are doing in the first place?

In general, they’re more concerned about preserving their way of life, which means lobbying for laws that support increasing their wealth, power, or status. Marriage doesn’t have much to do in that circle, except for a few where marriage helps out in terms of say politics. The rest can just marry and divorce and they won’t even take a huge hit even if they get taken for 50% divorce at the cleaners. They can remarry anyway if need be, and there’s always enough women clamoring to be a trophy wife.

Overall, the elites only participate when it’s in their best interest.

The article did not go into other incentives to avoid marriage such as:

  • Feminism — Wives power grabbing in marriage
  • Feminism — Divorce rape. Men being taken to the cleaners in marriage for 50% of everything AND the children
  • Feminism — Disrespect for husbands and fathers
  • Feminism — Women being pushed to be like men in the workplace and at home
  • Feminism — Women pushed to be independent. Doesn’t work for marriages.
  • Feminism — Feminism – encouraging female sexual immorality especially by promoting contraception and abortion.
  • Lack of fatherhood leading to broken homes and poorer outcomes

Of course, no tradcon or leftist is going to criticize feminism, so not surprised at all.

In general, no one is going to have high commitment toward something they see as a terrible deal for themselves. There’s very little secular incentives toward marriage. Additionally, the Church is not holding up the standards of the Scripture to give Christian men and women the proper incentives toward it as well.

Marriage works because it’s beautiful when it’s modeled after Christ and the Church (morally, economically, functionally, etc.). Another problem is that there are virtually no marriages like that anymore: the only thing left is sinfulness, ugliness, and brokenness. It’s no surprise that most people are opting out, but they are only perpetuating the downward spiral with cohabitation, out of wedlock births, and fatherlessness.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 11 Comments

How much should a woman submit to you before marriage?

A reader writes in:

How much should a girl follow you in dating? How much should she submit to before marriage?

These are actually good questions.

Being that I don’t have daughters (at least yet), I do not believe I have the whole picture down. However, I will answer to the best of Scriptural ability, and I’m sure some of the commenters can chip in as well.

There are multiple things you need to take into consideration here.

  • First, a daughter is still under the authority of her father according to the Scriptures. If her parents, especially her father, have any particular dating/courtship rules that they have given her, she should be loyal to them over you. This is important because it shows that she understands Biblical authority. Huge bonus points if she can point out she’s loyal to them over you because of what the Bible says.
  • Second, insofar as her parents dating/courtship rules do not conflict with anything that you’re doing/saying and you are in line with the Bible, she should be following your lead. Obviously, dating/courtship is a time where you learn about the faith, character, morals, and values of the woman that you are going to potentially spend the rest of your life with, so it is important to find a woman that is willing to follow you in everything that she is able without violating her father and the Bible.
  • Third, it is important for you to start teaching her about this. Most women nowadays, even the few(er) women who are actually legitimate Christians and want to be good wives, have places where they futz around instead of following your lead. You need to be able to gently correct her if she’s off course. Her response to gentle correction will tell you much about her loyalties in marriage: to herself or to you and God.

Overall, these are the main things that need to be taken into consideration. It is important to bring up difficult and/or uncomfortable topics to talk about like sex and make your expectations clear if you prefer things done a certain way.

As a relationship develops toward engagement and/or marriage, her ability and attitude to follow your lead should definitely improve over time as long as she is not in any violation of the Bible and her parents. If that is not the case, I would be very wary about marry such a woman as you may be digging yourself a deep pit.

With all of the feminist crap coming out of the culture and Church and even families, you may not have much support once you’re married if you ignore warning signs. Best to head it off in the first place by doing your best to vet a woman to the best of your ability.

Of course, when all is said and done, you have to live by faith.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 21 Comments

Salt and Light

Donal has a good post up on The high ground right now with some good comments too. Check it out.

Mostly, it all goes back to the roles and responsibilities of Christians to themselves and Christian to non-Christians.

Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how [e]can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a [f]hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a [g]basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

1 Cor 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

Christians have a long history of not policing themselves as much as they should and try to police the world too much. If you’ve read the Nashville statements and the follow ups, it’s basically attempting to negate any semblance of LGBT infecting “marriage.” However, we know that even if people claim LGBT marriages exist, they do not exist to God. Our primary duty is to set an example of how good marriage is to be salt and light to those who support pagan marriages.

The Church should be focusing on the roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage — headship-submission, love-respect, no sexual denial by either spouse, etc. — and fixing the disastrous divorce rates among ‘Christians.’ As long as “Christian marriages” look the same as the world in their marriages, they are not salt or light at all.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments