Gladiator Sex, Russell Crowe vs Russell Moore

Dalrock links to an article about women’s sexual urges from Salon. The article lays bare something most men never figure out. Especially Christian men.

Many Christian men lead sex lives of quiet desperation. Maybe most. And for good reason. The wives of these men are pleased in the knowledge that their man is sexually sated because the husbands tell them they are sated. Why are these men not having sex with their wives, and why are they telling their wives that they are happy with the sexual status-quo? These two questions have the same root answer.

Because of what men are taught about married sex they focus their efforts incorrectly. The disingenuous answer to the question, “honey are you happy with our sex life?” is a part of their misplaced effort to get more sex. Failure on failure. Synergy in futility.

Several years ago Marc Rudov wrote Under the Clitoral Hood. His was the first voice I really read about female sexuality that didn’t worship at the alter of supplication. But, I was not then nor am I now convinced he gets it quite right. He does get close on the nature, but he chooses to spend too many words on sex techniques and anatomy. His ultimate conclusion was that women are “more horny than men”. That is too simple for me; flies too much in the face of reality by conflating male and female horniness.

Reading the article Dalrock linked hit more real life experience based sweet spots, therefore it felt more plausible. But I am a Christian. I look at things differently. Its interesting that we share some things with monkeys, and that the female monkeys are dry humping the males all day. They are created and they are monkeys. What about men and women, image of God, spirits, all that?

Behavior based on reproductive and pleasure drives is fine as a basis. But with the spirit included we can get closer to the truth. I have no thesis beyond what the Bible already tells us about our sexuality and how we should each, husbands and wives, handle it.

Here you can read the exact opposite of the truth. And men line up for this stuff. No, really:

I discovered from the participant guide that the event producers had advertised this workshop as “how to get more sex in your marriage.” Needless to say, about 780 out of the 800 men in attendance showed up at the workshop

Before I write about what the author said regarding how to get more sex in your marriage I need to take a side trip into what the same author says about men in general. In his article “The Heart of Masculinity” he writes:

An authentically masculine man puts aside his needs, desires, wants–and sometimes even his dreams–for the benefit of others. He does this without fanfare and frequently without anyone even noticing. His life is not about his individual rights, achievements, or happiness; it’s about making life better for others. His sacrifices are part of his character and give his life significance. He meets these sacrifices with the stoic nobility that God granted all men by right of their birth gender.

Ok. Correct. This is biblical as stated. The man who is living this authentically masculine life is undeniably a good man. But apparently that has no bearing on how much sex he is able to get in his marriage. That, despite the fact that sexual denial is specifically verboten per scripture with the one mutual exception. The totality of the churchian marriage relationship is based on taking what Johnson describes as true masculinity and setting it aside as a given. It is the baseline, the minimum.

To get sex, he drags out that old set of well worn churchian hoops:

I talked mostly about a woman’s needs and how best to fulfill them. I told the men that understanding a woman’s need for romance would be a key factor in having an enjoyable sex life – that women are physically stimulated through romance because it meets their need to feel cherished and loved. To be romanced is to feel special and valuable. To be romanced is to be pursued. Nearly all women derive some self-esteem or sense of worth from knowing a man wants and desires her. It makes her feel loved and attractive. When her need for non-sexual affection is met she is more able to respond with physical affection.

I know that you, reader, have heard all this to nausea inducing degrees. But, Mr. Johnson doesn’t think we Christian men are getting this important message. In fact, he would say we are getting the wrong teaching more often than not:

Rather than advice from a Lothario’s perspective (which is what most books in our culture promote), we need to teach men (young and old) practical, common sense advice on how to fulfill their wives’ deepest needs

And once we get this new innovative edgy and challenging message we may be lucky enough to get a little bit more sex, and that, well, that could be kinda OK if we happen to.

to create harmony, joy, and contentment in the lives of their spouses. And if they happen to get a more fulfilling sex life because of it – so be it!

Back to his description of masculinity, he flirts with the real truth of sexuality and doesn’t realize it.

Like modern-day gladiators they stand in the ring facing the challenges of life with courage and passion.

Yes. The modern day gladiator is the man with alpha frame. But Johnson says they needed more than that in order to get more sex. And they got it from him. Lives were changed during his presentation. Men were changed, marriages were changed, and gratitude was displayed.

But surprisingly, many came to me afterwards, some with tears in their eyes, and expressed genuine thanks for the epiphanies they had received regarding their wives’ needs

These men left that conference with the assurance they were going to be on the receiving end of some seriously hot………circle rubbing on their backs on Sundays.

During the week the gladiators would be having sex with their wives.

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Gladiator Sex, Russell Crowe vs Russell Moore

  1. Rick Johnson used to attend my church and while I can definitely see what you are saying in terms of where he “goes sideways”, he definitely gets it right more than he gets it wrong. Based on the excerpts here, one would think he’s just another standard “men step up” type of guy. But he has many books and messages aimed at women too. And he really doesn’t pull punches. One of, no wait, the all time best Father’s Day sermon I ever heard was him and the head pastor preaching to women, about the power they have to build up or tear down their man and more importantly the responsibility they have with that power. The standard churchian message to women in a difficult marriage is “well your man is a lout here’s how you change him”. Johnson’s message to women is “if your husband is being a jerk, maybe you are contributing a little bit to the situation.”

  2. Pingback: Lancelot (Red Pill) vs King Arthur (Blue Pill) | Delightful Oak

  3. @ Chaz

    Sounds like this guy is operating out of ignorance rather then malice or greed, which sadly puts him in the minority these days. Still, that doesn’t excuse his actions.

  4. Empath:
    The fundamental problem I see in both sides of the argument is this:

    If God or Nature created men and women with a sex drive, why do we need these endless analyses of how to use it? The answer to this question was touched upon in a link I posted earlier about a study of female sex drives.

    Neither the Churchians nor the Secularists want to come to grips with the fact that the crisis stems from a gender polarity. Neither can reveal that fact without giving up the idea of female gender supremacy or its concomitant, misandry.

    These problems stem from the simple fact that men and male sexuality are hated and despised by our culture at large. The study I quoted on female sexuality is not surprising. Under a misandryist social regime, the female sex drive cannot help but atrophy. The same dynamic is driving all the other insanity about ‘fat acceptance’ and ‘cougar culture’ as well.

    Neither the approach suggested by Dalrock, or the one by Johnson, will change matters in the slightest. What has to happen is for more men to face reality squarely—and realize what they are up against. There is NO way to sexual, romantic, matrimonial, or any other kind of success with a woman educated and indoctrinated under feminism. Her motive is ALWAYS to defeat and feel superior to the man.

  5. @Eric

    “There is NO way to sexual, romantic, matrimonial, or any other kind of success with a woman educated and indoctrinated under feminism. Her motive is ALWAYS to defeat and feel superior to the man.”

    It can seem this way, but there are (at least) two natures warring within a woman; the nature God made her with, and the nature of sin and rebellion. Until the flesh is dead, they will have to war. Many women they never let the God-given nature win. This is why and how women commit evil. What you’re suggesting is that they can’t help it. If they can’t help it, then how can you say they commit evil? That’s like calling a tiger evil for eating a man: That’s it’s nature.

    Maybe marriage just isn’t for you. That can be a very good thing. My hero C.S. Lewis was a bachelor until 60, I believe.

  6. These men left that conference with the assurance they were going to be on the receiving end of some seriously hot………circle rubbing on their backs on Sundays.

    I enjoy your little quips.

    Good post overall, too.

  7. Lewis had what in the U.S. we’d call a green-card marriage, so she could stay in the U.K. He was 57-8.

    Then when she took ill, they were formally/legally/religiously ‘fully’ married – with her in her hospital bed.

    Not exactly a Bachelor Hall of Fame performance, but at least I doubt he had to suffer her rubbing very many small circles on his back.

    Some lifeforms have ironic sex lives.

  8. @donalgraeme,

    I’d disagree. What I’m saying is that his overall message isn’t what it may seem to be based on what’s been quoted here. Yes there are parts of what he says that look almost exactly like standard churchian nonsense, but in the context of his whole message, they really aren’t.

    Here’s the thing. Even the standard churchian nonsense with regards to gender relations has some validity. What IS there is fine, the problem is what is missing which is a similar message to women.

  9. ” Many women they never let the God-given nature win. ”

    A huge part of why this is the case though is that they are told, by the church, that there’s nothing wrong with their sin nature. In fact they are told by the church that there’s nothing at all wrong with them and that any problems in their life are due to their man and his inability or unwillingness to “step up.”

  10. Chaz

    I cannot argue with any authority because I haven’t the context to which you refer. But the message I quoted, in its full form, is fully wrong. I get that there are true statements buried in churchian babble. See the debate with thankful husband at SSM and at Canes place, he makes correct statements, then his context ruins them….which would be the opposite of what you say is happening with Johnson, his context, you say, makes his statements better.

    The thing is, all the talk about meeting the wife’s deepest emotional needs is wrong, in the same way it would be wrong to suggest a wife meet each and every sexual urge the man had, meaning all day, every day, every time his mind fleetingly went to sex, she was ZiiiiiiP, right there to meet it. I cannot envision any context in which what he said in that article would be true. It may be true that on other things he gets it right via context, for example his take on authentic manhood, if there is a coincident message to the women then fine. But again, I cannot get there from here on the message about sex.

    I am the anecdote here that will say that once I was able to put that notion off….not just mentally but functionally, and truly STOP pandering to my wife’s emotions, our relationship improved 1000%, not just sexually, the whole thing is light and funny and enjoyable for every reason BUT what he recommends. There is no scriptural basis for his claims. Some cite 1 Peter 3:7 but they misinterpret that badly, and why is that? Because women drive the message a la Murrow.

  11. “once I was able to put that notion off….not just mentally but functionally, and truly STOP pandering to my wife’s emotions, our relationship improved 1000%, not just sexually, the whole thing is light and funny and enjoyable for every reason BUT what he recommends. There is no scriptural basis for his claims. Some cite 1 Peter 3:7 but they misinterpret that badly, and why is that? Because women drive the message a la Murrow.”

    Great comment, and insight. Women tend to vastly over-value emotions. Trying to meet those emotional expectations is ruinous. It’s trying to grasp the wind. Living with them in understanding (1 Peter 3) is then often about showing them how unimportant feelings are.

    Again, great insight.

    [Hey thanks man; lets suppose I could monetize that stuff and we could call it…..lets see….um….THE GAME, yeah THE GAME. Then I could embark down a path of endless refinements, draw sycophants like deer to a salt lick, and get really really BIG]

    (ETA, is the addition of “THE” enough nuance to get around implied trademarks?)

  12. Empath, you covered what I was going to say. What the Churchians teach about female sexuality (and my latest post shows this applies even to Catholics) is simply flat out wrong. Until this is error is corrected, any other solutions to other problems won’t last.

  13. “once I was able to put that notion off….not just mentally but functionally, and truly STOP pandering to my wife’s emotions, our relationship improved 1000%, not just sexually, the whole thing is light and funny and enjoyable for every reason BUT what he recommends. There is no scriptural basis for his claims. Some cite 1 Peter 3:7 but they misinterpret that badly, and why is that? Because women drive the message a la Murrow.”

    That is a really good insight. My heart kind of breaks for those couples who never seem to genuinely enjoy one another’s company. So serious they are! I used to think it was a personality thing, but I surmised that it is mostly his fear and her contempt that make them that way.

  14. “The thing is, all the talk about meeting the wife’s deepest emotional needs is wrong, in the same way it would be wrong to suggest a wife meet each and every sexual urge the man had, meaning all day, every day, every time his mind fleetingly went to sex, she was ZiiiiiiP, right there to meet it.”

    The thing is I’m not seeing where he’s saying that the man is to meet each and every emotional need on every little whim all day every day.

    Being that men do inherently approach things differently, more fact based as opposed to emotion based, the idea that they may need to be reminded to meet their wife’s emotional needs isn’t really all that offensive is it?

    I will say that there is something missing from his description of authentic masculinity though. A true man, while unselfish in nature, also needs the ability to say no when appropriate, and then not get all twisted up if there’s consequenses. At the same time I’d say that women would need to be reminded that in such cases, punishing their husband because they aren’t happy is not cool at all.

    I do think the whole ‘meet her emotional needs so she’ll feel like sex” reasoning is missing a major point though and that’s that sex in a marriage should just be there. It’s an essential ingredient in making a good marriage, just as much as emotional connection is, just as much as respect is. It goes into those things as much as if not more than it’s a result of them.

  15. Being that men do inherently approach things differently, more fact based as opposed to emotion based, the idea that they may need to be reminded to meet their wife’s emotional needs isn’t really all that offensive is it?

    I’m not convinced of this.

    I am not convinced that men really do need to meet those emotional needs, in the way that is meant by those words. I do not believe emotional needs should be magnified to the degree that entire ministries develop around telling men to meet them, and in fact more need is created where less or no need was because women will naturally want to be indulged in things emotional, creating a vicious cycle of entitlement.

    But definitely men do not need to be reminded of this in the context of sex. If he was talking to men about relationship and talked of this, OK, I guess so, though we hear it all day every day which contributes to what i wrote above. But in this context it is counter productive. Like most of these things, its not about what he says to the men, its what the women HEAR (or read) him saying to the men that is the problem.

    Its hard enough to get the toothpaste back in the tube without him squeezing both ends.

  16. I am not convinced that men really do need to meet those emotional needs, in the way that is meant by those words. I do not believe emotional needs should be magnified to the degree that entire ministries develop around telling men to meet them, and in fact more need is created where less or no need was because women will naturally want to be indulged in things emotional, creating a vicious cycle of entitlement.

    This.

  17. @Chaz

    “Being that men do inherently approach things differently, more fact based as opposed to emotion based, the idea that they may need to be reminded to meet their wife’s emotional needs isn’t really all that offensive is it? “

    It seems to me–and I don’t know you except from your comments here–but what I see is that you’ve been told some shit by a guy you respect, and it sounded wise so you repeat it.

    Can you put those terms into your own words? Serious question.

  18. By “emotional needs” women mean they want to feel loved, and by “feel loved” women mean they want their man to make them feel safe, and by “make them feel safe” women mean they want their man to act dominantly masculine.

  19. Donal….I think you may be more right than wrong in terms of how things actually work. But ask 10 women what it means to feel safe and get ten answers. Want 20? Ask the same ten women the same question tomorrow.

    And the dominantly masculine thing can be misleading. I know you know that, but it neednt be some overt Conan type dominance, though that never hurts at times, it can be aloof, devil may care, sarcasm, wry, many things.

    Some more on the subject from FL website:

    A woman wrote in asking:

    ” I don’t want to have sex as often as my husband does – is there something wrong with me? I try to accommodate him as often as I can, both out of love and a sense of duty, but there are times when I simply can’t respond no matter how hard I try. We’re both frustrated.”

    The response is threefold, and NOT ONE puts any responsibility on her.

    First, sexual unresponsiveness in women is often psychological in origin, stemming from fear, anxiety, guilt, depression, conflict with one’s mate, or feelings of inferiority. It may also be related to past sexual trauma. Did you experience any kind of sexual abuse as a child? Have you ever been a victim of rape? Were you or your husband sexually promiscuous prior to marriage? Have either of you ever been involved with pornography? If you answered yes to any of these questions, it’s possible that past experience is impacting your present ability to respond sexually within the context of marriage.

    Second, your inability to respond to your husband may have something to do with physiological factors. For example, some women find intercourse painful due to insufficient lubrication, inadequate stimulation, infection, or some other physical cause. A chronic illness, certain medications, and some medical conditions can also greatly diminish sexual desire. Other physical factors may include hormonal imbalances, vitamin deficiencies, hypothyroidism, menopause, exhaustion, and childbirth. If you think your problem may be medical in origin, we highly recommend that you discuss your concerns with your physician.

    Third, though it may come as a shock to him, it’s possible that your husband is inhibiting your response himself. Whether he wants to admit it or not, his attitudes and behavior may be squelching your libido. A woman responds more easily and naturally to her husband’s advances when she feels loved, valued, respected, secure, and relaxed. But if she senses that she’s simply being used, her sexual passion almost inevitably dries up. The question to ask here is how does your husband relate to you outside the bedroom? Does he place your needs and concerns ahead of his own? Does he praise you, seek to build your self-image, and make himself available to serve in practical ways? If not, he’s not only falling short of the biblical instruction to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25) — he’s also undercutting his own personal interest in healthy, mutually satisfying marital sex.

    Its him, its him, or its him. See how this, combined with even a fleeting mention of the meeting of emotional needs, feeds the entitlement monster and creates a sexual lack-of-feedback-loop that destroys her sexual desire for her husband…..but…..bet your last half eclair that if she were exposed to a sufficiently alpha male under the right circumstances enough times, the “jaws of life” could not keep her knees clamped together.

  20. @

    “First, sexual unresponsiveness in women is often psychological in origin”

    Sexual unresponsiveness…

    Get back to me when she’s got bone spurs, or hip dysplasia; something that might truly keep her from responding to “Bend over.”

  21. ETA….Elvis Tribute Artist? :>

    > is the addition of “THE” enough nuance to get around implied trademarks?

    FYI – There was a remarkably bad 1987 rom-com movie called The Pick-up Artist (trailer) — Robert Downey, Jr + Molly Ringwald, w/Dennis Hopper as the Dad, and Harvey Keitel as a mobster, plus Vanessa Williams and Polly Draper, too — which has all but been forgotten by current PUA disciples (as well as everyone else), that either didn’t/couldn’t trademark the title, hasn’t gone after the PUA peddlers for infringement, or is in fact the real secret sauce behind all of them, as they’re still trying to pay off the film’s costs.

    [This was stuck in spam, sorry. Yes, being 50, I know the movie and every other brad pack movie that I thought moved me profoundly at that time]

  22. A woman responds more easily and naturally to her husband’s advances when she feels loved, valued, respected, secure, and relaxed. But if she senses that she’s simply being used, her sexual passion almost inevitably dries up.

    What exactly does this mean?

  23. Jack Donovan’ s book the way of men says something about being good men, or being good at being a man. Oddly enough if you choose being good at being a man your sex life gets much better.

    Men care if you are a good man, even better if you are a good man who is good at being a man… Women don’t much care about men being good.

    That’s were the church and Christain advice goes wrong. They are way to spun up about creating lambs, women respond to lions. Probably because preachers and the like are way to soft to be lions as Christ was a lion and default to being lambs. This comes through when the talk about Christ and God as well, as playing up the aspects of God that are soft and cuddly, never mention what Christ will do when he returns, or how God acted in the OT.

  24. Empath, if it makes you better, just remove the dominantly from before masculine. But the point holds that what women want is for their man to be masculine; the more the better. Women enjoy an emotional thrill (“meeting her emotional needs”) from the attention of an attractive (masculine) man, so they want their man to be masculine, although they cannot express it like that because they don’t understand what they want. “Emotional Needs” is just a fluff phrase with no true meaning; it sounds good and feels good, so that is enough to make it good for women.

  25. Empathalogism, what’s the site you got this from?!
    “Does he praise you, seek to build your self-image, and make himself available to serve in practical ways”
    Doing the dishes for the wife will not make her strip naked to have kitchen sex!!!
    What a joke – what rubbish teaching.

    And ‘building your self-image’ screams of Nebuchadnezzar narcissism…
    Less self, more selflessness is the answer here.

    These teachers and preachers need to read the WHOLE Bible….
    Like Ton said – by avoiding the Old Testament, they’re missing the whole.
    God the father is dominant, masculine and to be feared (ie: Awesome)
    God the son is submissive (to the Father) so people reading only the New Testament have no frame of reference to really know WHO Jesus really is. They distort the truth and present Jesus in a feminised BFF emotional way. This makes women appear to be more Christlike.

    Honestly, emotions get in the way of truth. My husband is a wonderful rock who I thank God for every day. He doesn’t indulge my feelings, nor does he join me on an empathy journey I might be engaged in. He shows me he cares for me by being my rock that will tell me what I actually need to hear. ie: Alright, that’s enough of that, You just need to get over it, Well I hope you sort it out, just do it soon, Don’t get involved, If she’s driving you crazy, don’t talk to her.
    That sort of thing 🙂

    I had a friend tell my husband that she noticed he didn’t praise me much (she’s a words of affirmation type on top of being female so it was reaaallly noticed!).
    My husband said, I ltrust Hannah to look after my kids while I’m working every day don’t I?
    What more praise do you need?!

    Back to the original thought… closeness as a couple is the result of daily sex. Who knows – joy in a man might be the result of daily sex from his wife. This reminds me of Bob Dylan’s song ‘Covenant Woman’. It also reminds me of a book I might write one day 🙂

    Question:
    What the hell IS romance anyway?! What do all these women, pastors and writers actually think men need to do for their wife? That’s not rhetorical – I don’t get it!

  26. “Its hard enough to get the toothpaste back in the tube without him squeezing both ends.”

    Hehehe nice 🙂

    Who makes up these rules anyway?! I remember one of those truth moments several years ago when I was going to ‘gently remind’ my husband he’d forgotten to leave the toilet seat down on a midnight trip… then I stopped still, wondered why the heck it has to be, especially given that at the time I was outnumbered in our home by males 3-1.
    I choked mid-grumbling and have never mentioned it since 🙂

  27. @Hannah

    I often ask “what does that even MEAN?”, when I hear drivel that appeals to feelings but has no substance. I have noted that my compulsion to say that and the opportunities to do so have increased every year since about 1980.

    The site in linked in the blog piece. For expedience it is:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/afewgrownmen/2013/04/how-to-get-more-sex-from-your-marriage/#comments

    @Elspeth

    It occurred to me to add this. All the talk about not meeting wife’s emotional needs, strange how it works, when I am doing what i described and doing it well, deflecting and cajoling and such, if you’s ask her during those times I suspect those are the times she would say I AM meeting her emotional needs, and when she feels most peaceful.

  28. I’ve started to say ‘What does THAT look like’? when I hear justification for the emotions-based action… it’s fun just watching the hamster having to sprint 🙂

  29. Your wife’s emotional needs are met by you NOT letting her emotions become things she needs to act on.
    You stand firm, she knows it stops there – nothing to fear. You ground her.
    And she relaxes, confident that you’re in control 🙂

  30. hamster having to sprint

    If we could propagate cigarette smoking to hamsters, we could destroy cardio capacity and thus slow them and ultimately stop them.
    Hamsters….smokem if ya gottem

    Lets hope she is calm….she, like most, can get un-calm pretty fast.

  31. Oh bless 🙂 Nah we’re usually at my father’s warm home at this stage on a Saturday night… my parent’s host a Country Folk club – but tonight my husband’s out for a men’s bbq rugby night.

    It’s 12pm btw… I’m somewhat nocturnal … that’s been exacerbated with 4 littlies 6 and under! Unwinding time doing a little ‘light’ reading 🙂

  32. Cane Caldo:
    “What you’re suggesting is they can’t help it.”

    Yes, women can help it—but nothing within the framework of their education or societal boundaries encourages them to be otherwise. They would have to do something similar to the repentance you mentioned—recognize they’ve been lied to by society and consciously make an effort to change. A few women do this; but not very many.

    Under these circumstances, a man’s best option is to avoid ANY type of intimate relationships with feminist women. They are DEEPLY conditioned from girlhood onwards to hate men and look down on us as inferiors: much the same way that the Old South considered the Negro (and many still do think of blacks that way there, in spite of social engineering. That’s how strong social conditioning really is).

    If a man wants to marry or even interact with women in any positive; he needs to cultivate relationships with foreign-born women from non-feminist cultures.

  33. Ton:
    “Women don’t care much about a man being good.”

    In fact, in the Anglosphere, being a good man is actually a handicap in relationships. Despite all the nonsense written about ‘female hypergamy’ even casual observation shows that women are irresistibly drawn to the worst specimens of the male gender they can possibly find.

    Feminism teaches women that all men are subhuman and that women are the superior gender. Actually most Anglosphere ‘trad women’ believe the same thing. They cannot form meaningful relationships with men, unless the men are so far beneath them that neither female independence nor sense of superiority is threatened.

  34. That link was less than impressive Eric. No understanding of how and why bad boys are attractive, and how that relates to hypergamy.

  35. > … drivel that appeals to feelings but has no substance. I have
    > noted that my compulsion to say that and the opportunities
    > to do so have increased every year since about 1980.

    Good timing…

    “…in common with many of the males of this country, I am indeed a somewhat disgruntled male, and getting more so all the time… for the last ten years or so feminism has in fact been quite possibly the most prolific single fountainhead of fashionably malignant and fraudulent drivel on the national scene.”
    – John Gordon, 1982 (pg. xiii)

    You’re the best, empath!

    Is there anything feminism hasn’t already destroyed, or doesn’t have in its sights?

    ….crickets

  36. Oh no…I should have seen it coming. Today, in the search terms used that led to here I found:

    Gladiators Having Sex

    EXACTLY the folks I am writing for…

  37. @ Cane,

    Sorry I hadn’t seen it, I’m not here all that often.

    What I was getting at was that there is nothing offensive or wrong or un-Biblical about suggesting that the husband seek to understand his wife’s emotions. And that’s really what meeting her emotional needs is really about.

    IMO, Empath “went sideways” a bit when he took his example to an absolute, comparing it to suggesting that the woman meet each and every sexual urge of her husband instantly. Johnson never suggested that the man do that with his wife’s emotional needs.

    Here’s the thing though. I absolutely believe that Biblically speaking, both husbands and wives are called to meet their spouses needs, be they sexual or emotional, even when they may not feel like it. Unlike much of modern Churchianity, I don’t see much significant difference between him, being exhausted and barely able to stay awake, listening to her blather on about her day, and her, not being actively wanting sex, to go ahead and do it anyway.

    I do have issue with what Johnson said in terms of meeting her needs for the purpose of making her feel more like sex. That’s a problem because it reinforces the very wrong notion that she only have sex when she feels like it. But OTOH, I do believe that husbands are in fact called to meet their wives emotional needs. I would disagree with anyone who said that he is the ONLY one who can or should meet her emotional needs. In fact, there’s a marriage speaker who very much advises against moving away from one’s wife’s family and friends if it can be avoided because she’ll turn completely to him. That is where the two, sexual needs and emotional needs differ greatly. In one case the spouse is the only acceptable way to get those needs met and in the other they are not.

    But the real issue is that, from a Christian standpoint, I think that far too much focus is put on one’s self and their own needs and how to get them met. If both spouses are just a little more concerned with the others needs, it changes everything.

    And overall there is definitely an issue in the fact that women and their primary need, emotional connection, is seen by and portrayed by the church, and by society in general, as somehow comming first, or being more important than, or being a pre-requsite to the man and his primary need. And I can very much see where what Johnson said can be seen as a part of that. And as far as that one article went, it sort of is. But his overall message, while maybe not taking on the gender imbalance in the status quo as strongly as some of us would like is actually a lot more balanced than that of most people who speak on gender relations in the Church today.

  38. @Chaz

    Thanks for responding.

    I agree with a lot of what you said, but you misunderstood my question. Let me try to ask it more specifically, and see if we can build on that to a more general understanding.

    What does anger itself need? We know that people have needs (and I think you’re VERY right about too much focus on our own needs and not enough on other), but “emotional needs” is a term that can only imply that the emotions themselves have needs; separate from the person. Can you give me one need born from emotion, rather than emotion as a response to a need, or want?

  39. Chaz, my absolute comparison was not born of objection simply to Johnson. I don’t know any more than what i read in that one piece. BUT, once you go down the road, open ended, of “meet her emotional needs”, where do you stop? Partly I ask in the vein of Cane’s questioning….because words mean things and I cannot go along with fluffy things, but also because what it creates.

    it seems Ive been needing to say this a lot lately, that I get more concerned with what happens in the mind of the woman hearing what is said than I do with what is said. And I believe that is well founded concern because that’s where the admonishment turns to expectation. Expectation for WHAT? That her ever tumultuous emotional storm cloud be constantly catered to (again…in her mind, not his words), that if she feels X, X it is then. A need born of X (feels lonely, give her companionship, etc) is a need that MUST be met because it is an emotionally derived need? What if its the old standard, needs to feel safe?

    I dislike that entire lexicon, because it is so intangible, so nebulous, its a free ticket to nonsensical expectations that lead to discontentment, and in worst cases ultimately to one of two outcomes, supplication to those nebulous whims…..or to divorce. I’m sure we agree on that.

    Its no more possible to meet a mans sexual needs if that is defined as give sex every time it crosses his mind, than it is to meet her emotional needs when that is ill defined and ever changing minute to minute.

  40. Here is the advice of a female divorce attorney that writes a newsletter…it fits here….but for this being advised before the divorce, eh?

    Divorce brings out the lunatic within us. Rage, anger,
    depression, sadness, resentment and blame are just
    some of negative emotions running the show. Your
    emotional state is hard to pin down from one moment
    to the next. This is not the best state of mind to be in
    when you are being called upon to handle so many things
    and make so many very important choices and decisions.

    We need to tame the gremlin, (that negative mind chatter
    within), learn to be less reactive and be in more control of
    our emotional state in order to be able to effectively handle
    our divorce. The good news is there are many tools and
    skills you can access to help you through this difficult life
    transition.

    This is basically what I’m describing but during the marriage the man would be told to “meet those needs”

  41. Donal:
    Maybe their attraction to so-called ‘bad boys’ ought to be proof in itself that females are not ‘hypergamous.’ Bad-boys are not ‘alphas’ in any sense of the word: most couldn’t survive without female enablement.

    That’s what the attraction to bad-boys really stems from: they are males over whom women can exercise their Superiority Complexes.

  42. Cane:

    “What does anger itself need? We know that people have needs (and I think you’re VERY right about too much focus on our own needs and not enough on other), but “emotional needs” is a term that can only imply that the emotions themselves have needs; separate from the person. Can you give me one need born from emotion, rather than emotion as a response to a need, or want?”

    Based on the last sentence it seems we have a difference in terminology issue here. When I say emotional needs I’m not talking about emotions that have needs, I’m talking about the needs of a person that involve emotions and feelings more than they do actual physical needs. Examples would be feeling listened to, feeling valued, feeling loved. And all of those feelings can be built or torn down based on what the other person does.

    Where the whole feelings/emotion thing has gone sideways in my opinion is in the notion that all feelings are what they are and are all equally valid. That notion has caused people(primarily women) to stop looking at why they feel the way they do and sit there and demand that their husband make them feel better because it’s always his fault that they feel the way they do.

    Is that any closer to what you were asking?

  43. @ Empath,

    Yes the problem defintiely exists in the realm of what women may hear as opposed to what is actually meant. Sometimes I think it would solve a lot of problems if directives to one gender were invisible to the other.

    Imagine all the stuff that could be avoided if, for example, in the Bible we could only see the part of Ephesians that applied to us.

  44. @Chaz

    Thanks for “playing through”.

    “When I say emotional needs I’m not talking about emotions that have needs, I’m talking about the needs of a person that involve emotions and feelings more than they do actual physical needs.”

    Physical needs have real and discernible implications. Hunger mean you need food. Pain means you need to stop doing whatever it is that caused the pain. Bladder pressure means you need to release waste fluids. There is no way around urinating. There is no way around sustenance.

    The same is not true of what you’re calling emotional needs, and this gets back to my point. My anger does not dictate that I need to belt the guy in front of me. It doesn’t even dictate that I need to let him know I’m angry. All anger does is…tell me how I’m feeling at the moment. It cannot point to a specific need. Maybe I do need to belt. Maybe I need to walk away. Maybe I need to thank him. St. Paul and the other early Christians rejoiced in prison. How can that be, if they’re emotional needs aren’t being met?

    This becomes more clear when–instead of talking about anger–we talk about sexual desire. If emotions are indicative of needs, then there are going to be a lot of happy women and angry men in my wake.

    You see what I’m getting at? Emotions–at best–indicate there is some unmet and terribly nebulous desire. This gets confusing because we equate the need for food (a real need) with the desire for food, which is not a need. The desire for food (as separate from the actual need of food) is what gives us the gumption to go do something about it.

    More to the point: Emotions are incentive to do something; not to be provided with things. When the Bible says “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind”, the heart is really referencing your gut–that place that gets tight when she first said she loves you; feels like you’re going to vomit when you are horrified. It’s not about responding to those emotions, but wrangling them towards whatever goal that your mind (reason and logic–the truth you have been given) and your strength (your will and perseverance) have set themselves upon.

    In any and every circumstance it is wrong to respond directly to emotions, or to try to satisfy them. Can you give so much wood to a fire that it burns out? At the same time: In the cold of night, wouldn’t you be sorry if you did?

    Dammit Cane, this is a blog, not a place to make good points
    Dr. McCoy

  45. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/05/12 | Free Northerner

  46. “Physical needs have real and discernible implications. Hunger mean you need food. Pain means you need to stop doing whatever it is that caused the pain. Bladder pressure means you need to release waste fluids. There is no way around urinating. There is no way around sustenance.

    The same is not true of what you’re calling emotional needs,”

    I would disagree. They are different to be sure, and those things that you give as examples of needs are certainly more immediate, but people whose emotional needs(the sorts of things I mentioned not necessarily immediately reacting to one’s feelings) aren’t met on a long term basis will often start to develop actual physical sickness. In the case of infants, those who whose basic physical needs are met will eventually get sick or die if they aren’t shown love.

    Certainly physical and emotional needs are different in nature. But I think that the problem we’ve run into when it comes to emotional needs is that we have come to a point where all are portrayed as equally valid and all must be met all the time by only one person.

    Your point about the early Christian prisoners is a good one, but it doesn’t show that they weren’t having their emotional needs met, it shows who they were relying on to meet them, which is God. And that’s another area society has gone sideways. Christian husbands are required/expected to meet needs in a way in which God is supposed to.

    I’m not saying there’s not huge problems in how the whole idea of emotional needs is dealt with. I just think that you go a bit too far in suggesting that they aren’t at all important.

  47. “those who whose basic physical needs are met will eventually get sick or die if they aren’t shown love”

    I’ve been reading this claim as proof text for emotional needs for years. Finally I decided to check it out. It doesn’t pass the test. The need the babies have, and the action they benefit from, is touch. The manifestation is purely physical, measurable in increases of hormones associated with bonding, and decreases in chemicals associated with stress (cortisol). When the topic is infants, it’s impossible to make something cognitive out of it. The analogy or comparison fails completely. It is its own demonstration of the untrustworthiness of emotions, because taking the statement as a proof text for a woman’s emotional needs validity is accomplished because the claim FEELS right. The facts do not work out. However, this does nothing to disprove anything about women’s emotional needs, it just blows up the infant proof basis.

    http://www.benbenjamin.net/pdfs/Issue2.pdf

    That link is one that is frequently cited regarding this issue

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=infant-touch

    This link shows how the female writer sneaks in emotional terms in addition to physical ones. She so craves the empathy that would result in using emotional terms to describe a physical phenomenon.

    I have not shown that these needs do not exist, or are invalid. That has never been my point. I find it interesting though that in the description of what happens to babies, its about skin on skin effects, non-sexual obviously, but skin on skin will be one victim of her thinking her emotional needs have not been met, even non-sexual affection, so upset a woman can grow she won’t even touch her husband at all.

    Cane described an order of operations situation and chooses to place an arrow with the word “important” pointing to a different place in that order of operations, or another difference is simply that he puts an arrow at a specific place rather than at the whole thing called “emotional needs”. The desire for communication is normal, and better described as such instead of “the desire to be heard”. The desire to be heard is a bit selfish if the point of being heard is not to then be responded to and through that either simply enjoys the interchange or get something accomplished about the topic at hand.

    When Cane says “The same is not true of what you’re calling emotional needs,” , based on what I see above about the babies, and considering that what is meant in these articles by emotional needs, then I’d say he is correct, they cannot be classified the same, not even close. Which is why, elevating them into the duties of men as per then the ease of getting sex is very problematic. Take them away from a discussion about sex, and they are still problematic because they do not mean any specific thing. I’d feel safe in saying folks ought to meet

  48. @Chaz

    The trap is sprung.

    “In the case of infants, those who whose basic physical needs are met will eventually get sick or die if they aren’t shown love.”

    The need for love, Chaz, is a spiritual need. Love is not an emotion. The Bible is clear: God is spirit. God is love. He is not an emotion. He has emotions.

    “Your point about the early Christian prisoners is a good one, but it doesn’t show that they weren’t having their emotional needs met, it shows who they were relying on to meet them, which is God.”

    Now that we’ve established that love is not an emotion, and that what you’re calling emotional needs are actually spiritual needs, we can look at the early Christian prisoners again, and understand that their emotions were not what was sustained, but their spirit. Their emotions might very well have been that vomitous feeling in the stomach; yet they harnessed that to drive their songs of praise.

    Chaz, you’ve been lied to by people that have been lied to. Christians in our era have psychologized Scripture to death; when there is no psychology in the Bible. There are no emotional needs. The phrase itself is a ruse. It’s nonsense. It is another version of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    This is the thrust of my message, always: Psychology, psychiatry, marketing, Game, scientism…these are all systems of thought that are in competition with the Bible. They actively remove the spiritual component from the explanations of life that were revealed to us. God has already told us how to think, and part of that is to recognize spirit as separate from emotion.

  49. I suspect that if we were to really did into things, it’s not that we differ all that much, it’s that we’re approaching the same basic position from different sides.

    The problem with putting aside emotional needs because they are hard to define or because they aren’t actual physical, gonna die without them things is that the very same thing can be said about sex.

    I agree, and said, that framing the meeting of emotional needs in terms of getting sex is problematic, mostly because it makes sex conditional.

    Let’s back up though and let me ask this. Is it a bad thing for the man to do things to cause his wife to feel valued and loved and cherished and secure and whatever else? I hope you’d say no that that is not bad. Is it necessarily bad for men to remind other men of the need to do these things? Again, no it’s not. I agree when you say that there is a problem in that women can see what men are being reminded of and make it into an ill defined unmeetable standard. But in my opinion the answer is not to say that emotional needs don’t exist, or aren’t real needs or are bad because they are ill defined. The answer is to tell each gender to pay attention to what they are supposed to do and not make it conditional upon how well or poorly the other person is doing their part.

    In terms of what Cain said about not reacting out of emotion, obviously we’re called to keep our emotions in check, just as we’re called to keep out sexual urges in check. Hauling off and punching someone who makes us angry is pretty analogous to someone who hires a hooker or picks up an “easy” chick in a bar every time he gets an urge.

    The problem is of course in how differently the basic relational need of women is treated than the basic relational need of men is. But if we’re going to sit here and say that emotional needs are inherently bad, and that the shouldn’t be met at all because we’re supposed to control our emotions and because they are ill defined, then we have to say the same thing about sex.

    Like I said, I think the answer is that we should be pushing for each gender to worry more about what they are called to give, rather than on what they are getting. In that context, a man trying to meet his wife’s emotional needs, instead of constantly failing to meet a standard that he can’t meet because she can’t even define it, gets valued and appreciated for what he is doing.

    Humor relevant to the point that women’s needs are ill defined:
    http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi00MzlkNmRhYmFkMDAzMDM2

  50. But if we’re going to sit here and say that emotional needs are inherently bad, and that the shouldn’t be met at all because we’re supposed to control our emotions and because they are ill defined, then we have to say the same thing about sex.

    I can’t agree that these are comparable. They are night and day. The explanation as to why could go on and on. One easy part is that both parties are equipped, by God, to have sexual needs, and to meet the others sexual needs. The meeting of a sexual need is not a nebulous ill-defined thing where one day you’d do one thing to meet them, and the next day do exactly the opposite, then the next be expected to two both those opposites simultaneously, and on and on.
    Not so with these emotional needs. Emotions are designed in. Emotional needs are not. The allowance of an emotion to be a need is comparable to the allowance of sex drive to manifest in porn or hookers.

    The emotion exists….now, what to do with it
    The sex drive exists….now what to do with it

    That’s where the comparison works. Once an emotion creates a need that MUST be met, its already gone over. In the case of those Christian prisoners, there were tons of emotions, fear, anxiety, anger….etc. What need is created by fear? Need for a feeling of safety. Yet that need was not met, and so forth. Yet they stayed spiritually calmed, overcoming the urge to let emotion create a need that would, by design, not be met leading to discontentment.

    Same in marriage. She says she needs to “feel safe”? Why? What does it even mean? She needs to FEEL loved. When she says that it ought to be referred to her what Johnson said defined masculinity. Put your emotion aside and LOOK AT THAT LOVE he is showing, whether your emotions agree or not.

  51. “Same in marriage. She says she needs to “feel safe”? Why? What does it even mean? She needs to FEEL loved. When she says that it ought to be referred to her what Johnson said defined masculinity. Put your emotion aside and LOOK AT THAT LOVE he is showing, whether your emotions agree or not.”

    What feeling safe looks like is going to be different in every marriage and for every individual based on their past and their personality.

    Let’s try this. Let’s say that a woman grows up in a family where her father was borderline abusive and always loud and angry. As a result, when her husband shows any anger or frustration, she feels unsafe. The logical conclusion of what you are saying about emotional needs is that it’s perfectly fine for the man to say “I’m not your father, I’m not going to change, deal with it.” Now I’m not suggesting that an acceptable end result is that he can’t show any anger or frustration ever, but at the same time, doesn’t he, by virtue of having married her, have an obligation to do what he can to help her to not feel unsafe?

  52. @Chaz

    “Let’s back up though and let me ask this. Is it a bad thing for the man to do things to cause his wife to feel valued and loved and cherished and secure and whatever else?”

    Yes.

    Let me say that again: Yes.

    You’re talking mind control; witchcraft, essentially.

    You are to love your wife. Period. Even the Lord God Almighty does not make us feel a certain way. If He did, then it would be His fault if we don’t listen to Him. This is the argument you are making. You’ve fundamentally undermined the Gospel; which is why this discussion is important.

    “In terms of what Cain said about not reacting out of emotion, obviously we’re called to keep our emotions in check, just as we’re called to keep out sexual urges in check.”

    No, not “kept in check”: Harnessed, directed. Not holding back, but firing in the right direction.

    The spirit of this age (the information age) is psychology, and we are called to be transformed from that by the daily renewing of the mind, with scripture. I guarantee you that you can’t find one single scripture that commands us to give another a feeling. Guaranteed.

    You don’t know it, but you’re spouting fundamentally anti-Christian words. Come out of the darkness!

  53. “You are to love your wife. Period. Even the Lord God Almighty does not make us feel a certain way. ”

    True, but at the same time, how that love is expressed is tailored to the individual, isn’t it? I mean God shows us His love in a multitude of ways and some respond to one way and others to another.

    When I say make another feel a certain way, it seems you are taking me too litterally. Of course we can’t force someone feel a certain way. But at the same time, certain stimulus cause corresponding responses in us, don’t they? Does it not make sense that we should seek to minimize the words and actions that foster negative responses in our spouse and maximize those that foster positive ones? And when I say response I’m not talking about their external reaction, I’m talking about their internal gut level first response to the stimulus.

    In terms of your “the trap has sprung” remark from earlier, I really dislike conversational games like that. I much prefer people I’m talking to to just come out and say what they mean.

    And I’m sorry but no I’m not spouting fundamentally anti-Christian words. It is only in taking the idea of causing another person to feel something absolutely and literally that that becomes the case.

  54. “I guarantee you that you can’t find one single scripture that commands us to give another a feeling. Guaranteed.”

    Maybe not but like I said, I’m not saying that we are supposed to give another a feeling. Let’s try a gender reversed example. Scripture is quite clear that wives are to submit to or respect their husbands, right? Well what exactly does that mean? Doesn’t what it looks like on a daily nuts and bolts action item level vary from person to person and even from day to day?

  55. @Chaz

    “Scripture is quite clear that wives are to submit to or respect their husbands, right? Well what exactly does that mean? Doesn’t what it looks like on a daily nuts and bolts action item level vary from person to person and even from day to day?”

    It means she does what I say, and where I have not said, she seeks my counsel, and where cannot find my counsel, she does what she believes I intend and to the best of her abilities. This isn’t hard to understand, but it is hard for someone steeped in the Gospel of Feelings to hear.

    “In terms of your “the trap has sprung” remark from earlier, I really dislike conversational games like that. I much prefer people I’m talking to to just come out and say what they mean.”

    I’m sure you do, but I’m not trying to get you to like me. For me to appeal to your emotions would be stupid, for the reasons I’ve already laid out.

    More to the point: It should matter more to you to discern whether my words lead astray, or whether they point to the truth.

  56. I’ve been following this conversation intently. Before I add my .02, I want empath to grant me permission to do so. This may be one of those things where a female voice is undesirable.

  57. “I’m sure you do, but I’m not trying to get you to like me. For me to appeal to your emotions would be stupid, for the reasons I’ve already laid out.

    More to the point: It should matter more to you to discern whether my words lead astray, or whether they point to the truth.”

    Maybe I should have said that I find that sort of thing dishonest and disrespectful. Not to be insulting but I actually find it to be the sort of tactic that women often employ when arguing from an untenable emotion based position.

    Do you care to address my points within the context of the fact that I never meant that one persons actions or words litterally make or force someone to feel particular way?

  58. “It means she does what I say, and where I have not said, she seeks my counsel, and where cannot find my counsel, she does what she believes I intend and to the best of her abilities. This isn’t hard to understand, but it is hard for someone steeped in the Gospel of Feelings to hear.’

    So then what does the other part of the verse mean? What does it mean for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church? And yes I understand that in that case love is an intentional action not a feeling.

  59. For some reason I get the impression that I’m being perceived as saying that emotions trump everything and must be addressed and validated. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do think though, that to a degree, and to the extent than none of the actions involved violate Scripture, that we should seek to minimize words and actions that engender a negative emotion in our spouse and maximize those that engender a positive one. Doesn’t that to an extent line up with “Romans 12:18
    If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. “

  60. @Chaz

    “Do you care to address my points within the context of the fact that I never meant that one persons actions or words litterally make or force someone to feel particular way?”

    Do I care to address what points? The ones I already eviscerated? The one’s I asked you to back up with a single scripture? The ones that have led innumerable men to ruin?

    It would be foolish and arrogant for me to re-interpret your words for you so that they mean what you think I should think they mean. Instead: Say what you mean. Expecting you to write what you mean and mean what you write is not womanly. It is fact the case that is not me, but you who find yourself on you back; trying to craw-dad out with, “I didn’t mean it literally”. Write something literal like a man. For heaven’s sake: I specifically point out that I have not appealed to you with emotion, but trap-like reason and logic, and you accuse me of arguing like a woman. That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard today, and I have young children.

    You are better than this Chaz, or at least you can be. The reason you have the impression that I perceive you as valuing emotion over all is because your own words have shown that to be the case.

    “So then what does the other part of the verse mean? What does it mean for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church? And yes I understand that in that case love is an intentional action not a feeling.”

    It means I must put her REAL NEEDS before my own. This isn’t hard to understand, either. If you have children, you probably do this all the time for them. I feed them when they need to be fed. I make sure they have a clothes and a roof. I make knowledge available to them. It also means I spank them when they need it. When one child hits another, should I “live in peace with them”, or whip his little butt? Spanking it is, MY emotions be damned. You don’t spank in anger, and you spanking doens’t make them good. It give them the opportunity to THINK about doing good on their own.

  61. I’ll try to be brief and to the point, not always my strong suit.

    @Chaz:

    I sense the mistake that you are making here is one most often made by women and please don’t take offense at that.

    When you read Cane’s words here:

    “It means she does what I say, and where I have not said, she seeks my counsel, and where cannot find my counsel, she does what she believes I intend and to the best of her abilities. This isn’t hard to understand, but it is hard for someone steeped in the Gospel of Feelings to hear.’

    You seem to assume a couple of things simply because they are not said. The first is that men are without emotion. The second is that you readily equate emotions and love. A feminine trait that has spilled over into the larger population.

    My father (81) was a hard man in a lot of ways. His expression of love was his provision and protection of his family. Action, not words, not emotional stroking. I call the “depression baby syndrome”. It was understood by that generation that no one would work themselves to to bone and sacrifice things they would rather have and do for someone they didn’t love.

    What’s more is that men have emotions as well, and most husbands -even the less sentimental ones like mine- derive emotional gratification from seeing the reaction of their wives to their expressions of love. Refusing to capitulate to a wife’s emotional “needs” isn’t the same thing as ignoring her need for passion and validation. Most husbands understand that, at least intuitively and don’t ignore it.

    As for what the “rest of the verse” means. As a wife I have found that it often means ignoring my expressed emotional needs. Feelings are fickle, and I can feel 3 different ways about the same thing in a 24-hour period Which emotions should my husband give credence to?

    Knowing that my husband is going to do what he thinks is the right thing for our family regardless of how I feel about it at the moment makes me feel far safer than I would feel if his resolve was a malleable as my emotions.

    .

  62. @Cane,

    based on this:
    ” The ones I already eviscerated?”

    it seems that you view this interaction as something to be won or lost. I really have no tine or patience for such nonsense. Approaching interactions with people of differing opinions as something to be won or lost is not how you get them to consider the merits of your viewpoint.

    The real problem here though is that you seem to be hearing something drastically different than what I actually mean.

    Let’s back up to the very mistaken impression you have that I’m saying that one can litterally make someone feel a certain way. What I’m actually saying is something that simply cannot be denied, and that’s that our actions and words affect the feelings of those around us. What I want to clarify about your position is that you seem to be saying that we have zero responsibility for the effect that our words and actions have on those around us, as long as we can argue that our words and actions are Scriptural in intent. Any unclairity or misunderstanding resulting in hurt is 100% the fault of the listener and it’s up to them to deal with it with God. Does that accurately sum up your position?

    I’d be the first to agree that feelings have been elevated to WAY to important of a position, many times even taking priority over very plain clear Biblical truth. But if you are in fact saying what I’m hearing, I think you go way too far in the opposite direction.

  63. “Instead: Say what you mean. ”

    I did. You just took it further, to the point where it started to mean something else. It’s silly to believe that it’s possible for someone to litterally make someone feel something so it’s equally silly to interpret what I said as meaning that we should litterally make someone feel some way.

    “The reason you have the impression that I perceive you as valuing emotion over all is because your own words have shown that to be the case. ”
    Where? Where have I said anything like that at all?

    This is again a case of taking what I said to an extreme. I value emotion somewhat more than you seem to so that means I that I therefore value it above everything?

  64. At the risk of having Empath regret giving me clearance to speak, I have another thought that I was going to keep to myself but since Chaz mentioned it, I will go ahead with it.

    What I’m actually saying is something that simply cannot be denied, and that’s that our actions and words affect the feelings of those around us.

    I don’t think anyone here denies this fact. What happens though is that people (women usually, but sometimes men alike) don’t often appreciate the way their mate expresses themselves. Because I am not a particularly needy person, I struggle to sympathize with women in this area, but sometimes I *get* it.

    My husband is most likely to say the most emotionally touching things to me in bed. I can deal with that and it has never really bugged me. Does it matter as much that he isn’t as likely to say he loves me in the kitchen while I’m cooking breakfast? It does happen but rarely, and to harp on it as some kind of marital health gauge is find oneself on a one way ticket to being Traci.

    Some women really are very needy (too much pop cultural psychology) and focus on what they think they are missing rather than really paying attention to the way their husbands express affection, which is often nonverbal. It usually works out that the meeting of “emotional needs” (I kind hate that term by the way it’s so nebulous) increases on the part of both parties as each member gets outside of his or her self and do what love actually does -focusing on their spouse.

    I don’t think that Empath or Cane was indicating that a man shouldn’t speak tenderly to his wife or treat her with respect. That would be silly and unScriptural. I think they are simply questioning the credibility of the very notion of emotional needs.

  65. @Elspeth,

    I would probably agree with you that no one is saying that our words and actions don’t affect those around us.

    It still does very much seem though, that Cane is saying that we bear no responsibility for the effect that our words and actions have on those around us. That their emotions are 100% completely and totally theirs to deal with, even if they arose out of something we said or did.

    As to your last paragraph, if emotional needs don’t exist, then what would be the purpose of speaking tenderly to one’s spouse?

    Like I’ve said, I don’t fundamentally disagree with the idea that emotions have become way too elevated in importance even to the point where plain and simple Scriptural truth is ignored or even outright denied. But it still seems to me that Cane is diminishing their importance, to the point of denying their validity. And for whatever reason he doesn’t seem to want to clarify that point since I’ve mentioned it a few times and he’s not said anything about that not being what he means. TBH it seems like he’s more interested in deconstructing what he’s imagined my point to be than he is in expressing his own position.

    ” Some women really are very needy (too much pop cultural psychology) and focus on what they think they are missing rather than really paying attention to the way their husbands express affection, which is often nonverbal. It usually works out that the meeting of “emotional needs” (I kind hate that term by the way it’s so nebulous) increases on the part of both parties as each member gets outside of his or her self and do what love actually does -focusing on their spouse.”

    I agree completely and have said pretty much as much when I’ve said that we would be better off if each gender simply stuck to what they themself were called to do. When each is focused on what they get, or what they are not getting, a negative feedback loop is created, when they focus on what they give, and/or on what they are getting, even if it’s not their first preference, it sets up a more positive feedback loop.

  66. As to your last paragraph, if emotional needs don’t exist, then what would be the purpose of speaking tenderly to one’s spouse?

    But when a spouse does that, it shouldn’t be based on an obligation to meet an emotional need. I would hate, hate, hate to think that my husband kisses me on the back of my neck out of obligation, or tells me he loves me to fulfill some sort of “loving acts quota”.

    Spouses who genuinely love each other will do that kind of thing as an overflow of the emotions invoked inside themselves and thoughts of affection for their mate. In a good marriage (and often even a not so good one), these things happen naturally.

    The problem with “emotional needs” is that they often call for husbands to play act in some misguided attempt to make their wife feel loved. “You don’t bring me flowers.” “You don’t tell me I’m pretty.” “You don’t tell me you love me.” And this as she ignores all the ways he goes out of his way to show love that aren’t the typical romantic trappings that women have been conditioned to look for.

    I file a lot of the wailing for having “emotional needs” met under #firstworldproblems.

  67. First world problems…..exactly. Chaz and I have had similar interactions before, just not between he and I, rather he and I with the CF crowd.
    I would raise this first world point by saying expectations now are born of too much free time. I would be framing that around frivorce usually, that a man and woman who has tasks to do and thy were matters of life and death, 125 years ago, Id bet they didn’t have a clue what emotional needs would be, I the sense that it would be a sore spot for the wife. No way. That is how I decided it is a luxury concept. Simple really….Idle hands.

    Cane is pretty blunt chaz but don’t let that ruin it if he has a point that is well made. he really isn’t in it to win it so to speak.

  68. @Chaz

    “It’s silly to believe that it’s possible for someone to litterally make someone feel something so it’s equally silly to interpret what I said as meaning that we should litterally make someone feel some way.”

    I agree. That’s why the phrase “emotional needs” is thoroughly stupid. You should stop using it. Everyone should stop using it. Instead we should say the things Scripture says: Tenderness, mercy, love, etc. These are real terms with real meanings, and heeding them leads to no confusion. It can be merciful to be rough. Death, Chaz, is a mercy so that we might have eternal life with God; that we might not continue on in sin for eternity, and therefore separated from the Father.

    It cannot, however, be “meeting emotional needs” to be rough, because the emotions will rebel to the very roughness that seek to provide mercy. Casting the unrepentant sinner out of the church is a mercy on both the sinner (deliver them for the destruction of their flesh, that their souls may be saved, Paul writes.) and the congregation (that they might not be infected with another’s sin.) I guarantee you that the one cast out will feel as if his “emotional needs” are being met.

    I’m not just telling you “emotional needs” is a term I don’t like. I’m telling you it (and other Pink Christian terms) are purposefully designed to lead Christians astray. They are born of the modern wizardry of psychology, and it is meant to absorb and twist Scripture’s instruction to conform us the the spirit of this age; to keep us from being transformed. This isn’t a semantic disagreement, Chaz: We’re talking about different religions. You have been conned, as I was; as nearly everyone is or has been. There are many heresies and anti-Christs, and they actively seek to disrupt the church. The psychologizing of Scripture–with such unBiblical concepts as “emotional needs”–is one of the methods.

    “It still does very much seem though, that Cane is saying that we bear no responsibility for the effect that our words and actions have on those around us. That their emotions are 100% completely and totally theirs to deal with, even if they arose out of something we said or did.”

    The Bible says when you have a problem with your brother, “Be angry, and do not sin.” Who, there, has the onus to not sin; the perceived offender, or the the offended? We each have the responsibility of our own sin. No other. Christ, our example, was sinned against most heinously, and yet He did not sin. By your logic, He’d be justified in replying word for word.

    One day it will dawn on you that Jesus was rough on the pharisees not because He didn’t like them, but because that was what He had to do to penetrate their thick heads. It was necessary for their own good…if they would accept it.

    I win to convince allies, Chaz; not gain trophies.

  69. @Chaz and Empath

    Error above. It should say: “I guarantee you that the one cast out will NOT feel as if his “emotional needs” are being met.”

  70. “One day it will dawn on you that Jesus was rough on the pharisees not because He didn’t like them, but because that was what He had to do to penetrate their thick heads. It was necessary for their own good…if they would accept it.”

    Actually he KNEW that they wouldn’t accept it so His reason for being rough on them had to be something else.

  71. @Empath,

    “Cane is pretty blunt chaz but don’t let that ruin it if he has a point that is well made. he really isn’t in it to win it so to speak.”

    It’s not his bluntness that I have a problem with its in his attacking points and positions that I never expressed. Like I said it’s idiotic to think that anyone can litterally MAKE someone feel something so in saying that that is what I litterally meant, either he’s an idiot or he thinks I’m one. That or he’s saying that’s what he heard as an argument tactic.

    And in saying that my words show that I value emotions above all else he’s just plain making stuff up. I note that he hasn’t even attempted to defend that assertion after I asked him where I said that.

  72. ” By your logic, He’d be justified in replying word for word.”

    No not at all. Saying that we have some responsibility for how our words and actions affect the feelings of another says nothing at all about what’s ok and not ok for the other to do in response to those feelings.

  73. I’m not just telling you “emotional needs” is a term I don’t like. I’m telling you it (and other Pink Christian terms) are purposefully designed to lead Christians astray.

    This is the point. The language, especially the English language, is corrupt for Christians

  74. @Chaz

    “Actually he KNEW that they wouldn’t accept it so His reason for being rough on them had to be something else.”

    Some of them were saved, Chaz. Paul was a pharisee; a pharisee who whipped up mobs to kill Christians. Nicodemus was at least favorable to Christ, and is held as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. It was from Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus that we have the idea of being “born again”. There were probably others.

    “And in saying that my words show that I value emotions above all else he’s just plain making stuff up. I note that he hasn’t even attempted to defend that assertion after I asked him where I said that.”

    Of course there is no transcript: I’m accusing you of something to which you won’t admit. That doesn’t mean I’m making it up. You have demonstrated it enough that others are telling you to listen to me for your own good, but you will not hear it. Others aren’t reading my posts and having their minds changed by me. They are seeing for themselves what you present. The conclusion that you value feelings over all is not reached by my words, but yours.

    “Like I said it’s idiotic to think that anyone can litterally MAKE someone feel something so in saying that that is what I litterally meant, either he’s an idiot or he thinks I’m one. That or he’s saying that’s what he heard as an argument tactic.”

    Stop trying to change the argument away from the uselessness of the concept of emotional needs, towards the fact that you don’t like how I said it. Nobody but you really cares the way you do that you don’t like my style. They simply can’t.

    Is it more important that I and others don’t believe you are an idiot, or is it more important whether what I’ve said is true?

  75. “This is the point. The language, especially the English language, is corrupt for Christians”

    I disagree. I’d absolutely agree that emotions have been elevated to the point where they take precedence over Biblical truth and that’s a huge problem. But that doesn’t mean that needs that arise from emotion are inherently bad. Pandering to them to the point where truth is ignored, or where Scripture is outright violated is obviously a problem.

    Let me ask this though. Why is it that you treat your wife tenderly? If truth is all that matters, then the truth contained in telling her once that you love her is enough, isn’t it?

  76. Also, if emotions or the needs that arise from them don’t matter, are an inherently corrupt concept, then why did Christ even bother with compassion? If Truth is all that matters, it would have been far more efficient for Him to just state the truth and move on rather than spending time listening to people.

  77. “Stop trying to change the argument away from the uselessness of the concept of emotional needs, towards the fact that you don’t like how I said it. Nobody but you really cares the way you do that you don’t like my style. They simply can’t.”

    It’s not about style, it’s about the fact that you are arguing against something that was never said. But go ahead and keep on doing so if you want.

    “Of course there is no transcript: I’m accusing you of something to which you won’t admit. That doesn’t mean I’m making it up. You have demonstrated it enough that others are telling you to listen to me for your own good, but you will not hear it. Others aren’t reading my posts and having their minds changed by me. They are seeing for themselves what you present.”

    So I’m confused here. On one hand you say there’s no transcript but then on the other you say people are seeing what I present. Seems a bit contradictory to me. Also, how can you possibly conclude that I value emotions above all else when I’ve repeatedly said that it’s a problem that emotions have been elevated above Scriptiral truth? I’ve repeatedly said exactly the opposite of what you claim I mean and you still cling to me having meant what you say. So I’ll ask again, what have I said that leads you to decide that I value emotions above all else? Please either answer that or, especially in light of the fact that I’ve explicitly stated the opposite, drop the assertion.

    I’ll ask you what I just asked Empath though. Do you treat your wife and kids kindly and with tenderness? If so why? If the only thing that matters is Scriptural truth and we bear no responsibility at all for the effect that our words and actions have on others, then why bother? Why not simply state the truth and move on?

    Also care to address the point that saying that we bear some responsibility for how our words and actions affect others isn’t in the least bit connected with what they then do in response?

  78. @Cane,
    In terms of accusing me of something I won’t admit to, why do you assume that I’d be deceptive abut what I really mean? I won’t ask you to go through my online history to prove to you that your are wrong about my basic position, but since you have been active here more than me, and seem to understand and respect Empath, ask him, he’ll tell you how wrong your idea that I put emotion above all else really is.

  79. @Chaz

    “I’ll ask you what I just asked Empath though. Do you treat your wife and kids kindly and with tenderness? If so why? If the only thing that matters is Scriptural truth and we bear no responsibility at all for the effect that our words and actions have on others, then why bother? Why not simply state the truth and move on?”

    Because I choose to since she is mine, and they are mine. It is I who enjoy doing things for them that they like; just as Christ died for us because it was His good pleasure. And, yes, whether I am kind or tender, or harsh and rough I do just state the truth and move on to whatever else I have to do. Then I encourage them to get in line behind me and start taking care of their own responsibilities. This is leadership.

    “Also, if emotions or the needs that arise from them don’t matter, are an inherently corrupt concept, then why did Christ even bother with compassion? If Truth is all that matters, it would have been far more efficient for Him to just state the truth and move on rather than spending time listening to people.”

    Needs don’t arise from emotions, Chaz. That’s what I’m telling you. Emotions give energy to the actions we choose to take when we perceive need.

    He was only here a few years. In the scheme of history, He did just state the truth and move on.

    He showed compassion on us because we are His, and He chose to; not to elicit an emotional reaction from us. He literally died for those who would not accept Him. Like I said: Disregarding the concept of emotional needs is paramount to recovering real Christianity in our churches; to rejecting the spirit of the age (psychology) and being transformed.

    Compassion is more than empathizing; it has to cause movement, change, and action. Otherwise, it’s meaningless. Anger can be harnessed to move us towards good action–love.

    @Chaz

    “since you have been active here more than me, and seem to understand and respect Empath, ask him, he’ll tell you how wrong your idea that I put emotion above all else really is.”

    I already know his mind on the matter.

    Chaz, I know I am talking about a way of thinking that seems truly foreign to you. If you ever do hear what I’m saying, you’ll then see that I’m not talking about just a tweak in how you approach Christian living, but a rejection of nearly everything you’ve ever been taught in churches and Christian psychology/advice/self-help materials.

  80. “I already know his mind on the matter. ”

    On the matter of what, the whole emotional needs thing or my basic belief on things? Because you are, at the moment, completely wrong on the second. I absolutely do not put emotions above all else.

    “If you ever do hear what I’m saying, ”

    Something I would be much more inclined to do if you weren’t so busy completely distorting what I’m saying.

  81. In any case this has gotten beyond pointless. Because of the approach that’s been taken, there’s no way this can ever become an actual exchange of thoughts or ideas so I’m out. I can only hope that you can drop your very wrong perception of my basic position so that it doesn’t completely alter future conversations.

  82. @Chaz

    “Because of the approach that’s been taken, there’s no way this can ever become an actual exchange of thoughts”

    Chaz, I don’t want to exchange thoughts with you. This isn’t a meeting of equals. I’m condescending here; passing down what I’ve learned for your benefit alone. Later, when you regurgitate what I’ve written here as though they were your own words, I won’t even ask for credit.

  83. Pingback: Feelings oh, oh, oh feelings… | Traditional Christianity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s