Gender proclivities vs. product perception

Consider my theory, again. The proclivities of men and women are wrapped up in, respectively, physical lust and emotional primacy. Each, unchecked, leads to trouble. One layer deeper, however, and the two things diverge in terms of how they are perceived. They are far apart as, well, east is from west in terms of where they are assumed to reside on the good vs evil spectrum.

The relative moral valuation of these things is so disparate that when a woman wanders into male territory and gives in to physical lust outside of marriage, either when single or in an adulterous affair, her emotional weakness, her gender specific Achilles can serve to mitigate, no, to negate the immorality of her sexual dalliances. It acts as a catalyst for other women to vicariously experience the “hurt she must have been feeling” when she rutted with the pool boy. Its not just team woman. That would not do it in and of itself. They would not be buying this crap buy the pound if they didn’t get something they want in conjunction. What they get is some time in the “Awwwwwww” spotlight.

In order of preference, the empathy that is uncut and most potent is the empathy generated by the self at and to the self from others. The first step down is the empathy that one woman can feel when she engages one on one with the close friend who is at that moment the empathy black hole in their sphere. Sometimes no matter how many times they page the dude he just doesn’t respond, and eventually it is assumed he ain’t holdin’.

When that happens she has to go street. Metaphorically driving along slowly, looking into the eyes of those she passes by, looking for that eyelid quiver that says, slow down, I got you. They recognize one another, these empathetics.

angel_beforegaylene_before

The end up drawn to each other, like the expression from college days, “a friend in weed is a friend indeed”, ideally they agglomerate into an ever reliable pool of shared empathy, like regulars at a crack house they take comfort in always knowing that one of them will show up with something they all need.  They troll other relationships, they troll the news, they troll internet forums, always seeking a morsel that can collectively create a wellspring of empathy. They manage to productively clean the crack pipe over and again until finally, if all else fails, someone will come through and manufacture some circumstances in her own life because wow, after after existing on that residue redo for weeks, the euphoria from a powerful pure hit of empathy is something to behold.

Men sometimes give in to lust and have sex with a woman other than their wife or have sex while they are not married.

Three paragraphs about empathy, one sentence about lust. The built in obfuscation makes turning the tide like standing on the beach saying “no tsunami gonna ruin my vacation”.

A woman who is in full on sexual denial in her marriage, but who has managed to generate a semi-permanent state of receiving empathy from others is solid in her place of primacy. Not only does every woman the couple knows want a piece of her empathy action, most every person man or woman they know wouldn’t waste a fired neuron of sympathy for a man in a sexual drought if he stands in relief against a backdrop of his wife, the Cygnus X1 of empathy. Try shining light of truth and watch it bend and disappear. Try speaking truth directly and feel what its like to be crushed into singularity.

In a consumer culture supply reacts to demand. The manner in which supply reacts is not without its own moral contrast. There are products that are specifically designed for men and woman and their proclivities. Have a look at one product designed to alleviate women of consequences for emotional primacy:

Frownies

facial patches FBE open web

Compare that to a product designed to help men alleviate consequences of lust:

trojan-condoms-lubricated-3-pk-light-blueAny difference in the reaction you have when you look at these products?

Blue Pill Red Pill discussed on Limbaugh

I was in the car at lunch time and a caller said he was once a “typical blue pill liberal”. Rush asked what that means. The man gave a short explanation, insufficient to really press Limbaugh to think more deeply on it. Rush I’m sure suffers from the assumption that its the left feminists causing all the trouble.

I sent a short note to the program and recommended rush start with Dalrock and get informed. I said he is a low information person on this one issue.

For what its worth.

Hamsters eat an Apple

Ive never liked Apple stuff. I bought an Ipod in 2004. When I ran smack into the Itunes interface I rushed out to get an MP3 player that was user friendly. I enjoy listening to intelligent people explain to me that Itunes is simpler than dragging and dropping in a Windows environment.

I don’t like that Apple is insular. It doesn’t play at all, let alone well with others. Listening to Jobs say, as his long fingers splayed across a prototype Ipad, that there would never be something that could plug in, that there would be no replaceable parts, that these are complete, I was left with no desire. Looked like a cool extra toy.

Watching the masses queue up at a new Iphone release is a damning cultural testimony. Like its always been since societies formed, those who would be nonconformists are those most prone to conformity. Now, everyone looks like a hipster. All stores have clean lines and spartan shelves, like a Blade Runner era foreshadow of future retail. And the products that are really really great (Macbook Air) are over priced, while the accessible products are created for those who for whatever reason share Jobs’ vision, whether they do or not.

So, my employer, two years ago, gives me an Ipad. Yes, I liked having a FREE Ipad. Friends of mine, Apple enthusiasts mostly, deride me for complaining I cant plug in a mouse. Fine, like I said its a cool extra toy then. To be carried in addition to a phone and a PC because it cannot and will not do what I need for work.

Don’t talk jailbreak, that proves my point.

Worse, now it stopped accepting charge. Its alive, it sees and acknowledges the power source, but nada. No way to fully boot up.

Who knew you must make an appointment, signing up with an androgynous person whose race is just beyond identifiable because they look like a computer generated member of the new race….”Allrace” and returning a day later. I did. And they said sorry bub, battery bad the Ipad is a door stop.

“Can I get my data?”

“No sir, that’s anti privacy, you don’t want people flipping through your family photos do you, that’s why you should have used the Cloud.”.

Really, hmmmm. I disabled Cloud on my Ipad as well as my kids and wife’s Iphones because there are myriad ways for leakage of private things unless you read and memorize an Apple user manual and disable 15 different ways it defaults to “share” your crap. This problem is not just an Apple issue, its part of the endlessly linked Google options and Microsoft has “One Drive”.

Nevermind, the guy was full of it. One needn’t “flip through family photos” to transfer data. drag a folder, drop in in another device. Job’s didn’t like that. I do like that. And I’m out several hundred funny family photos and videos because I didn’t use The Cloud.

My home is an Apple free zone starting today.

Men happier in relationships, except in elevators

For the time being I have exhausted, beaten to death more likely, the topics that fall under evangelical feminism. Sharing more and more examples I come across has lost luster. Its like tolerance has built and I need my chin to fall to through the floor all the way to China to motivate a post about another.

In my last several posts, irrespective what the specifics where, I started to congeal back on the idea that empathy is a female dysfunction. Early days of this still newish blog I wrote a lot about that. I routinely run across articles on main media sites that I could potentially mine as support text for my theories on empathy, but rarely has there been hook enough in it to prompt me to write. And readers here know I do not toil over my writing based on the mistakes I leave uncorrected.

Yesterday the Headline “Happy Wife Happy Life?” on Fox News website got my attention. Where they skeptical? Were they amplifying that old saw? So I read it. Nah, barely enough there to parse and write about in and of itself.

This morning, because Id been so busy I had not been consuming media much, i decided to go voyeur and watch Ray Rice knock out his girlfriend. For some reason its video-clip-makes-big-news season again, from beheadings to allegations of racism unchecked in both directions and all the predictable hypocrisy. And there is an NFL player knocking out his girlfriend in an elevator.

I’m unsympathetic enough to men striking women that the video bothered me. Some. Its not a dull knife sawing a head off disturbing (which I have not watched) but it is incongruous. In terms of juxtaposition, it is useful for that because its of kilter, out of the ordinary, it stands out verses images of daily walking around.

As I watched it I was reminded, Happy Wife, Happy Life, the article and the cliche. I went back and read the article again.

The gist is that the wife’s opinion regarding the quality of the marriage is the tone setter,

wives’ assessments of the marriage are more important in some respects than their husbands’

The article begins by stating that older couples lives are more satisfactory when their marriage is better. That doesn’t seem like study result worthy information, but OK. Not relevant to this post, but I always wonder if the couples were asked questions in a format and forum that enabled the man to answer honestly and not be concerned that Medusa will be slithering on the pillow later.

The overarching conclusion of the study, that happily married people are happy people when they are older needs to be filed with the one where 100% of people getting out of the shower reported being wet. Nevertheless, this stuff makes news for a reason.

Buried within the happiness survey was a six point section about marriage. The article explains that a main metric was how often and to what magnitude does one spouse make the other spouse “feel tense”. Talk about begging more questions, studies even. We know, however, that “tense” is most likely skewed to “anxious” which is skewed to afraid which leads to “I just don’t feel safe with you” which dilutes the definition of “safe” to parts per gazilion. Had the metric been “nervous” the results would have been squirrely. A man alone, safely able to be honest, may ask “Can time be expressed in increments greater than 100%?” A women, sitting right next to her husband, would still respond as if it meant “safe”. I’m on a tangent.

A couple of things were most disconcerting. the study said that the wife’s assessment of the marriage is more important than the husbands in the aggregate of determining life satisfaction. Well blow me over, they mean happy wife happy life …don’t they. And they explain that by saying

wives’ assessments of the marriage are more important in some respects than their husbands’

Money.

Or, “no fecal matter Mr. Deer Slayer wearing Baker Street flat occupant”.

Then the pontificating study analyzers go all mentally wobbly.

“Women typically provide more emotional and practical support to husbands than vice-versa,” Carr said. “So even an unhappily married man may receive benefits from the marriage that enhance his overall well-being.”

Bullshit on a kebob. Women typically provide emotional and practical support to husbands that are flabbergasted and exhausted, physically and emotionally, or men who have handed their manhood over to be stored in the bottom drawer of the disheveled dust trap of a jewelry box. This is a corollary to the other myth that women care more about marriage as evidenced by their endless consumption of all things romantic and relationship oriented, and its real meaning that they procure the instruments they employ in the relationship Gitmo where they receive their snail mail. Up is down and the next big dietary fad is coprophagous. (Its very sustainable and saves money too!)

There is a sad statement of a knowing nature buried in the article that really brought me down then up.

Additionally, husbands rated their marriages slightly more positively than wives.

Makes me proud to be a man really. Nose to the mill, all that.

Now, Ray Rice. The man did wrong and went big doing it. Not long on impulse control is he? Evangelical feminists and other feminists will be unable to read this because all comprehension of English is gone when the subject is abuse. that’s why the word ought to require a user license .  100% of respondents report zero percent doubt that he abused his girlfriend. See that? The fems see that sentence as if through a kaleidoscope with a lens fogged by nose breathing anger. I don’t care. I’ve explained that I am somewhat immune to instant outrage at the mention of the word abuse because of my personal experience with it that make Ray Rice’s actions look like he is giving a pedicure by comparison. I do not claim my insensitivity as virtue. I do claim to have better moral clarity because of it, ironically because my moral clarity should be all the more muddled. 

If you watch the elevator lobby video before they get in, and you have the :advantage” of the gut honest perspective that I have, you realize that his outburst was likely set in stone as “gonna happen” long before they reached that lobby where she continued to provoke him, likely during overt and passive aggressive provocations for hours prior all done where it could be unknown to all but ray that she was even being anything but demure. Interesting is the fact that, whether he knocked her out or simply stayed silent and stewed a couple of days, in terms of relationship dynamics, she did nuthin’. Worse, conversationally and according the therapy conventional wisdom, silence and emotional withdrawal would be him abusing her as well. In other words she was, is, and ever shall be unrestrained by any social, religious, self sense of morality, or whatever sort of convention that has the effect of rendering judgement of actions and allowing that cause and effect exist regardless that the outcome is not justified by what precipitates it. We simply cannot have this talk. Ever. 

So, consider the compressed view of a relationship seen in those two segments of video. Now, look at the sixty something men responding to the questions that made up the survey in Happy Wife Happy Life. In the juxtaposition, what can we observe.

1. Yes NAWALT

2. Impulse control

3. A trend towards capitulation and men preferring lives in hair shirts and calling it cozy.

4. The primacy of the conventional wisdom bias.

To end with some levity…last evening my wife was showing me some nursing school work. She is a senior, 4th year so in the clinical setting and doing patient write ups and the like. This thing was huge. Knowing that the right thing is to attentively read it I set about to do just that. Not every sentence nor every page as there were over 30. Think patient chart wildly expanded.

As I put my readers on and started I noticed her to my 4:30. And she was rocking foot to foot. Folks I wanted to flatly ask she walk away, but the moment deserved better. So, I lowered the paper and said, I said, “if you’d move away and stop quivering like a Minion I’d better be able to read this” (a Despicable Me reference for non-animated movie watchers)  Maybe its a spouse thing but we laughed with tears.

Couldn’t have said it better

Today I was again forced into the huge acronym dietary church. I stumbled upon an article that warns people about a food allergy that is growing more common among the gluten free set. Lupin is the culprit. Seems Lupin is a frequently substituted ingredient in gluten free food.

Ever hear of lupin? Me neither. That is, until last week, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a warning about this legume, stating that it can cause allergic reactions ranging from a mild case of hives to full-blown anaphylaxis (yikes).

Every time I see “gluten free” on a menu I start getting full blown hives. If I was hooked up to an MRI to map the electrical activity in my brain, the regions that light up when I read anecdotes in the manosphere, where team woman follows a rationalized pattern of behavior regarding marriage and divorce, that same region lights up like a Christmas Tree when I read about gluten and other acronym church issues. I sensed a connection. But I have peeve chasing to waste my time. Or, do I?

Lupin got me motivated. I had not checked the male to female ratio on celiac diagnosis, or more importantly, on celiac claims. More fundamental, I’d not looked for collated gluten mania debunking information. I started there.

In the article Is your gluten intolerance real? Study says gluten sensitivity is fake, the findings seem compelling. I’m not one who googles, posts claim, crosses arms, nods and hmmph’s as if that’s that, but this sounds pretty straightforward. An Australian Dr. fed a carefully controlled diet to self reported gluten intolerant patients. You can read the control details in the article. About the lab controlled diet fed group, the Dr. reported:

participants reported stomach pain and sensitivity even when they weren’t eating gluten. Each diet had patients reporting pain, bloating, nausea, and gas after their baseline treatment, Real Clear Science reported.

The outlet suggests a “nocebo effect” is at play. Only eight per cent of the participants had “gluten-specific effects,” according to Gibson’s study published in the journal Gastroenterology.

He concluded:

Some supporters of the gluten-free diet may say that they feel healthier with better digestion since adopting the diet, but the latest findings suggest that if you aren’t suffering from celiac disease, your intolerance is likely in your head.

Elsewhere I read something from a geneticist who spoke to the fact that celiac or celiac reports have a gender imbalance. It ranges from 2.3/1 to 3/1 female to male. As an inherited condition this makes no sense. It would make more sense is the skew was closer to 1/1 or to 100/1. Here is one study about gender and gluten. All we need is for one of these doctors to become ensconced in manosphere type thinking and we would have a full expose on our hands about what is really at work here.

Bringing it all down to my level, I found one of those articles that had me doing mental fist pumps. No, its not really peer reviewed, and I know, I know, some may agree that this condition is over reported but your own gluten intolerance is a real as toe nail fungus, but it was fun to read these quips.

How do you know if you are gluten intolerant?  Elaborate assays?  DNA? At least a blood sample?  Nope, you just have to give up wheat and say you feel better and you are allowed to claim you have it. And proponents have even scarier numbers – they claim 97 percent of the people who have Celiac disease don’t know they have it, so their ranks are really much bigger.

Brilliant in its creation of a circular reasoning trap. Not quite Kafka, but It’ll do.

Maybe fashion disease people grew up in the 1990s when teachers wanted all kids to be labeled ADD, or they are the types who go to parties today and determine 80% of other party-goers have Asperger’s.  They are used to having something.  They need it. (My emphasis)

The author tackles ancillary benefit claims of gluten free dieting like weight loss with sarcasm that has me looking for where I can sign up to read more:

there being no scientific evidence that going gluten-free causes weight loss, other than any sudden shock to your system causes weight loss – if Lady Gaga went on an all Meat Dress diet she would also lose weight. Heck, some studies even show that if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. Modern dietary science is downright revolutionary like that.

He also links ideology and in group thinking and lays out a fantastically wry illustration of the irrationality of herd behavior.

So it would seem, at least according to trends about other beliefs.  Along with believing more in UFOs, psychics and astrology than right-wing people, left-wing people also believe they are hyper-sensitive to food. That could be genetic and may lend credence to often-dismissed kooky claims that they can taste GMOs or are allergic to them.  Same with vaccines.  Anti-vaccine people are overwhelmingly left-wing; while a right-wing state such as Mississippi is almost at 100% vaccination, left-wing Washington State is sinking below herd immunity levels and  kindergartens in Seattle report 25% non-vaccinated children.  Maybe they don’t need vaccines the way genetically inferior right-wing people do. It could be that left-wing people have co-evolved a much stronger immune system to go along with their super-smart brains. Well, except for celiac disease, they have a super-strong immune system.

Here, in Eyeing a gluten free revolution another writer may not realize it, most do not because they are themselves caught in the wild eyed trends they report on, but he offers a glimpse at reality.

“There are a lot of people on a gluten-free diet, and it’s not clear what the medical need for that is,” said Dr. Joseph Murray of the Mayo Clinic and co-author of the study and a member of NFCA’s Scientific/Medical Advisory Council. “It is important if someone thinks they might have celiac disease that they be tested first before they go on the diet.”

There are simple reasons behind the over the top claims of gluten intolerance. People get fuzzy feelings, there is EMPATHY

“I get hugs, and every time I’m reduced to tears,” she said. “I’m certain that will continue.”

And there is profit

As for Moreland, her work is ongoing, noting college campuses and senior living centers as target areas for gluten-free education.

“We’re at the tipping point in this gluten-free culinary revolution,” she said.

Gotta wrap it up. Wife came out ready for church wearing all beige. I asked her if she could go change into something “less Mao, more now”. Pray for me today.

 

 

 

 

 

I wish I could be…

…like this dog every day. This guy runs headlong through some abrasive obstacles to get to to something that, once he reaches  it and is enveloped in it makes any craggy things he may have scuffed up against, rocks, thorns, briars, shrubs, cactus,…..it makes it worth it. 

 

 

Since I read the following well known doggy metaphor some years back I’ve been keenly tuned in to The Ministry of Dogs

 

A sick man
turned to his doctor as he was preparing to

Leave the
examination room and said,

‘Doctor,
I am afraid to die.

Tell
me what lies on the other side.’

Very
quietly, the doctor said, ‘I don’t know..’

‘You
don’t know? You’re, a Christian man,

and don’t
know what’s on the other side?’

The doctor
was holding the handle of the door;

On the
other side came a sound of scratching and whining,

And as
he opened the door, a dog sprang into the room

And
leaped on him with an eager show of gladness.

Turning
to the patient, the doctor said,

‘Did
you notice my dog?

He’s
never been in this room before.

He
didn’t know what was inside.

He knew
nothing except that his master was here,

And
when the door opened, he sprang in without fear.

I know
little of what is on the other side of death,

But I
do know one thing…

I know my
Master is there and that is enough.’

The intersection of Christianity and Churchianity is r(w)ife with problems

Some recent posts delve, again, into churchianity. This time it is as chronicled in the book Mere Churchianity. Society of Phineas has a good review of the book here.

We rightly denigrate churchianity as is deserving of a faux version of the single most important truth that exists. Churchianity, it can be said, has precluded the actual salvation of multitudes especially in the U.S. Churchianity is a religion without a relationship. I dislike that expression because the expression itself has become a part of the very thing I’m using it to condemn. It is there, at the point of intersection of authentic Christianity and churchianity that another great danger resides.

Churchianity affords itself many manifestations. Churchians can be utterly ignorant of scripture yet subscribe to the particularly refined task list of a given churchian church and appear to be overtly pious. Conversely, churchians can be encyclopedic regarding scripture, also having the appearance of piety, because scriptural literacy is a tenet of their particular churchianity. But here I am more interested in how churchianity has impacted the values that should be inherent to Christianity, specifically as it relates to men, women, sex, marriage, and divorce. At the intersection of Christianity and churchianity there is a mushroom cloud of hypocrisy. It is so big, so roiling, that only blinders created by the father of lies can prevent seeing the sociological post apocalyptic wasteland sweeping outward from the point of impact.

Provoked by an example, I commented on this in the comments section of the last post.

My in laws are sincere followers of Christ. I have zero doubt of their authenticity. To the highest degree one person can know the spiritual condition of another, I rate them 10 on a 1-10 scale of authenticity. Recall my mention of an extended family member who, at 30, jettisoned her husband and immediately married a 19 year old boy. Her and her husband had met in bible college, maintained sexual purity, married young, both had been home schooled and raised grounded in Christian values. Appearances suggest that they were (and are) sincere in their faith as well. But there was one problem. She is stunningly beautiful, and he ain’t. BIG margin. So, she married a young great looking stud and sent her crushed ex back to his state of origin, likely to wallow in his own mucus for months.

My in laws, visiting now for week two, brought up the new happy couple yesterday. They gushed that the boy works at a retail store and the girl manages a department at a store at the mall and they are doing just marvelous. After a week of holding my tongue,  and all things that would provoke my tongue, I could not not help but ask, “anyone know what happened to Mr. Ex?” The answer, dismissively, “not really I suppose he went back to XXXXX.” FIL added, “I didn’t really like him anyway”.

To be honest, neither did I. But it was a generational thing, not a testament to the young man’s character. “That’s so unfortunate, I hope he is OK”, I added, “he got a bad deal in that situation”.

“How so?”, they asked…and here I was finally shocked. I was not just shocked because of what happened to Ex, but because of the rush of memories built over 25 years that all started fitting into little randomly shaped boxes perfectly.

Let’s juxtapose.

Over the course of the previous week a few things had been said. Seemingly innocent things but dots to connect.

On Tuesday when I had a business dinner, my MIL asked, “will there be women there?”. No other comment. I asked, “why do you ask?” That was that. They hint at the immorality of a man having to take a business trip. They miss the irony contained in the fact that mine is one of the only households in the whole group that have sufficient resources for even the basics of life.

Watching the movie God’s Not Dead, when a woman buys a bottle of wine to take home for dinner with her fiance, they both agreed, “he must be an alcoholic”.

And throughout the week there were the expected references to hahmaseksyuls and pornography .

I could go on. But the point is evident. The nature of the things they find objectionable fit one of two criteria. They are church-safe things to oppose, like gay marriage, or they are the things women like to keep in the forefront of moral discourse, like male infidelity, male workaholism, pornography, men not “being nice” to their wives or meeting the emotional needs. Like that. But it still gets worse.

I still blame my generation for the ground swell of support for liberal marriage and divorce policies in the public domain, and the practice of family destruction in the private domain. However, something was happening before then, especially in southern conservative churches. They had the veneer of being patriarchal. Men, after all could divorce more easily than women therefore is it not only natural that men would take advantage of that power?

Not really. Churchianity was still in its primordial muck pool. The pool was for years not coed and it was the equivalent of a puddle. It was girls only, but they had no way to grow the pool beyond the women already in it. So, they set about usurping male influence in daily life by carrot and stick. Suddenly these little pools were popping up in every back yard and men, women, and children were splashing around in them…because it seemed to make the women happy. Once the men got in the pool, the gals had’em where they wanted them. The men let it all slip away for the desire to make momma happy. And the men ended up miserable and old like I witness with my guests. My FIL barely speaks, when he does his wife contradicts him, corrects him, interrupts him, talks incessantly, and rejects his innocent 80 year old affections like a Liberian health worker would reject a kiss from an Ebola patient.

So, he takes naps. he goes to bed at night by 7PM, and emerges at 8AM. he naps 2-3 hours several times a day. And the females present think he is tired. Oh, he is tired alright but even he could not explain why he does what he does because such is the insidiousness of the deception at the intersection of churchianity and Christianity.

There, each of the four corners is occupied by an edifice built by bricks kilned of female primacy. Female primacy in scripture understanding, in what is right and what is wrong for men to do and not do, and of an utter inability to even process the concept of female sin and responsibility for same.

I’m not usually willing to lay out the dirty linens like this but I have no other way to illustrate that there are churchian Christians. I won’t claim that I am not somehow tainted by this, as much as I may like to think I sit over it and judge it. This kind of deception is of a nature and complexity that one of the only things that can so deceive is a willful clever manipulative woman. Even my young colleague, today, was quick to respond, after I’d vented a bit, “that guy has clearly allowed that to blossom over decades of marriage”.

How nice it is that there are bright shoots of understanding in the generations that came of age in this century. They may have to work tirelessly through all this to reach half a block’s distance from the intersection, but I see them moving into places with addresses that are uniquely Christian, leaving those on the churchian route, and those at the intersection there to die off, some dying well, some ending up gnashing.

Its obvious and credits me with no special insight that this, to me, is just a very large forbidden apple that women are still salivating over. And because she wants it, men are willing to slice and peel it, make a cobbler or pie, cover it with chocolate, whatever she wants. Because in doing so he may be bestowed the biggest of kindnesses. A moment with the woman he loves where she, for a fleeting second, is sated.

Men Looking at Other Women?!

I have discovered the Counseling Men Blog: Advice for Men, and the Women Who Love Them! The topic I am focusing on from their site is “Looking at Other Women”.

Before I go into this: I have to confess to feeling completely tired just looking at the title, anticipating what it is about, and discovering that I was completely right. Take a look for yourselves. The usual Christianese formulae are there—in a Q&A, husband admits that though he loves his wife, he can’t stop looking at other women.

When younger I was just another guy who looks at other women, even when with my wife. I meant no harm, but it upset my wife and hurt her. My reaction was to stop looking at other women and avoid dealing with women. I have no interest to meet any one else or look at any one else. I am totally satisfied with my wife.
Like other men looking at other women, I get incidents that happen without control, a glance, that I hate and am not comfortable with and especially if the other woman notices me looking. I do not look again, but just this uncontrolled look makes me awkward and I panic, mostly out of fear of hurting my wife and risk of losing her.
When with my wife, my wife reports that I become a different person and not notice her. I notice that I feel awkward and I am not comfortable when out. I feel as if I have to keep my guard up all the time and if I relax I will fall!
(bold above is on the site)

So that is the fellow’s dilemma as presented. I have to say that I’m a bit puzzled—what exactly is meant by this stuff? What does ‘looking at other women’ mean? Is it a glance? A full on ogle? A Loony Tunes stare with eyes bugging out and train whistles going off and a loud whistle? We don’t know.

What are incidents that happen without control? Is he becoming painfully aroused, is he unable to keep from snapping upskirt shots? Again, we don’t know.

And how exactly is he hurting his wife? How does he become a different person? What does that even mean?

Anyway the author of the article goes on to explain something of why men look at other women.

Why do men look at other women? Most of us first developed the habit of looking at women when we were teenagers. It happens naturally and then we encourage it because of how good it makes us feel. Each time we see a sexually attractive woman our brain rewards us with a chemical high. It’s a minor high compared to other drugs, but it’s still enjoyable and addicting.

This natural reward system is the beginning reason why men look at other women. With the almost constant barrage of attractive women we’re exposed to in our media crazed world, many of us men have developed a regular “habit” of looking at other women. This habit can become so ingrained that our looking becomes like a natural reflex and one that we can feel we have no control over.

Unfortunately, our media exposure has only made this a more and more difficult battle for men. Advertisements by Carl’s Jr., Victoria Secret, car and beer makers all use scantily clad women, in sexually provocative poses to sell their products (are we buying the car, the girl, or does the girl come with the car?) contribute to why men look at other women.

When we get married or in a committed relationship we need to stop being a man who looks at other women. If we don’t, this “habit” can cause us a lot of problems, just as you’ve described.

Before I continue, I must say that while sure, one would expect that there is a need to demonstrate devotion to one’s committed relationship, that again there is this odd phrase: looking at other women. I’m still not sure what this means exactly here. Does he mean notices? Ogles? We still don’t know.

Anyway, here’s some advice he gave on how to control this, barring being so obviously addicted that you need counseling.

1. Recognize that it is a habit that you’ve built, not an uncontrollable reflex.
2. Begin to look for ways you continue to build that habit — such as movies, TV shows, magazines, football games, or internet porn and stop feeding it to your brain (read My Husband Looks At Porn to learn more).
3. Accept and get comfortable with the fact that it is natural to notice attractive women. The goal here is not to eliminate noticing, but rather how often you look and for how long.
Well wait a minute—let’s suppose we accept these three pieces of advice are reasonable. What exactly does ‘how often you look’ mean, and how long is too long?

And in fact, what is the actual goal here? What is this trying to achieve?

I read a bit of the comments section but there was only so much that I could take. A common theme was agreeing with the article which suggests that overwhelming amounts of sexual materials in the media are one of the causes of men being obsessed with sex. Which is interesting—why then are subjects like lust, adultery, falling in love, so common in the writings of the ancients? Were things more moral in the bronze and iron age or something? Doesn’t seem like it if you read the Bible or any ancient history. But one poster said that she felt human beings could be like penguins and mate for life. Um…no, actually they can’t. Human beings just aren’t wired that way. Human beings are naturally opportunistic, it’s one of the reasons why we are a successful species. Faithfulness for human beings is a moral choice, not a natural inclination. And here’s something to consider: one of the first things we are attracted to about anything is appearance. Other things tend to follow after that first impression. That doesn’t magically go away because of a ceremony and signing a piece of paper.

The issue I have with this sort of thing is not that it is trying to encourage moral behaviour—it’s rather that there is no real yardstick for moral behaviour in it; it merely feeds into women’s fears, worries about their looks and self esteem, without offering any real practical advice.

I’m sure that sites like this have the best of intentions, I really do. They see a crisis and want to respond to it. So I am NOT condemning this website in particular—I think that it reflects a generally faulty line of thought in our society, which I think this ignores a real factor in divorce: women generally feel a strong inclination towards letting their morals be guided by their emotions.  You will notice that women who are enjoying being married will often be amused or even arrogant in the face of their man giving a glance to another woman, the “sway your hips if you want honey, he’s going home with ME” attitude I’m sure we’ve all seen. But for the woman who is unhappy about her marriage anyway, everything the guy does will become a suspicious clue as to why she’s unhappy, no matter what it is. Like the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the start of WWI—if conflict and condemnation are wanted, women who want out will find a way that allows them to feel like the wronged party.

Worth it?

Men and women civilize one another. Lacking the civilizing effect, what happens? Women lack

 

Divorce punishes men. It punishes them for making women unhappy. Men who go to work, do some chores, are not abusive or addicted, but fail to calm the storm of her ever changing emotions are tossed from the lives of their children.

 

marriageggMan-CryingWhat happens next? When men are rejected and peel away the civilization that they created…..for the love of a woman and their children?

Men, uncivilized.

Men lacking

 

Feminism. Evangelical feminism. Worth it?

Not my fault, I was pushed

I have been able to resist the siren call of bashing the church of GFOFHAVVAGM . I had to add AGM, anti-genetically-modified. Maybe the church is growing because it’s name is growing. Like Captain Dan strapped to the mast, Ive wrestled my internal wry sarcastic beast of low tolerance for fads and let it all slide.

The beast was nearly released when I read about the President’s meddling in the usually free of controversy twice per decade release of government dietary guidelines. The new tzar is a synergistic companion to the naked emperor.

Tagtow is the first executive director of CNPP to have neither a Ph.D. nor a career background with extensive experience in food science and public health.

Well versed in Alinsky that one is.

Tagtow’s ideas center less on sound dietary science and more on “sustainable agriculture,” a niche cause of the bourgeois left that has no practical implications for the broader public.

To wit:

Instead of analyzing the relative benefits of grains, meats and vegetables, the committee has discussed the carbon footprint of farmers’ markets, federal bans on sugary drinks, urban agriculture, climate change and the sustainability of the plant-based diet.

Now we need to move away from a grain agriculture based food industry. Gluten Free Farming? Anyone???? I am gonna need veneers. I’ve been gnashing for a decade or who, but when I learned about this it stopped being particulate bits of enamel ground off my teeth. Chunks are starting to go missing.

While dialing up some cosmetic dentistry I saw this article which links to this study. Made me collect the bits of tooth surrounding my chair and give super glue one more try. It also ultimately did release my inner Kracken.

From the article:

By raising doubts over the scientific consensus on pesticides, hormones, and GMOs, organic food marketers deliberately played on people’s fears in order to expand the industry. One company, Organic Valley, even goes so far as to distribute activity books and promotional materials to schoolchildren that tout the alleged health benefits of organic food, indoctrinating a new generation of consumers. Parents are urged to lobby schools to serve organic-only meals.

The study quotes a question:

            In January 2014 Wall Street Journal reporter Sarah Nassauer
            asked “What will make people pay $3 more for frozen pizza that
            says “organic” when they been eating non-organic pizza for
            years?”
A bit later they offer a response:
            In 2014 the organic food industry has grown globally to more than
            $63 billion and is part of an even larger green industry market
            (SustainableBusiness.com, 2013). In one of its “Lifestyles of Health
            and Sustainability” (LOHAS) reports, the Natural Marketing
            Institute (NMI, 2010) reports that the natural living marketplace
            is valued at $290 billion in the United States alone.

I have a question. At what point does revenue reach a level that deserves the moniker “Big Corporate”? $290 billion must not be enough to provoke scrutiny of the companies that comprise the industry. There have to be some big companies in there somewhere.

A quick look at the 2012 Annual Report for Whole Foods shows sales of nearly $12 billion with a gross profit exceeding $4 billion, and an ROIC of 12%. The report shows the rate of expansion, stores added, square footage added, and an outlook for same in coming years. I shared the anecdote about sitting with a group of execs from my employer, for our annual cloistered “Christmas with the BOD” dinner and the sobre mesa that occurred during. The crew were uniformly agitated that construction for the new, closer Whole Foods was being delayed because some group deigned oppose it based on the fact that it would destroy a large swath of green belt urban property. My wife and I were alone in our awareness of the irony.

I predict there is another more palpable irony coming just around the corner. In fact its already started but has yet to reach the critical mass that creates a trend or fad. Whole Foods is or will be soooooo yesterday because they WILL be branded big-corporate. The points made in the article will become fodder for organic feeders to eschew the chain, using what is really indictment of their religion to indict its first national church. They will become to the church of GFOFHAVVAGM what the Church of England would be to a Southern Baptist.

I’ll close with a weak effort to tie this in topically. The strident defense of the church of GFOFHAVVAGM and its requisite evangelizing and behavioral choices is actually not something unfamiliar to us in the sphere, tactic wise. A reading of any newly arrived woman to one of these blogs and her objections to the facts that form the foundation of conversion to clear sight on gender matters is no different that what one encounters when they discuss GFOFHAVVAGMism. There, I tried.