Legalism and Game.

I grew up in a legalistic Church. Think Amish with cars. The rulebook for how to operate in this “fellowship” wordwise was somewhere in the vicinity of Atlas Shrugged. The elders had met over the years and decided upon the propriety of everything from bicycles to how to best hold up your pants and whether photography was “the debil”. Higher education was frowned upon and there was no doubt when the wifely submission verses came up they were NOT glossed over. I’ve really put a lot of my life into realizing what was wrong with all of this. While the rules would always be justified and many made a lot of sense they are reactionary. Worship songs were sung at Alvin and the Chipmunks recording speed in a capella because over 100 years prior people had danced to their singing. Plain was the watchword. They needed a preformatted answer to EVERY situation and the “right” answer could very easily be right because it was the opposite of what everyone else was doing. In short, they reacted to EVERYTHING. (I never joined that church to the dismay of many parents whose sons and daughters looked up to me).

It dawns on me that strict adherence to Game can be very similar. I’ve been reading Dalrock for a couple of years now and seen the pro and anti game arguments and have had something like a pragmatic ambivalence. I’ve been chided for making game-like or even white knight type correlations between a husbands good behavior and a positive outcome on the marriage front and I am better seeing why that is happening. My faith can easily be regarded as determinism, that if you follow the rules that nothing bad will happen. I know better. Tight game AND/OR epic feats of white knightery do not automatically result in a good marriage (quite the contrary); as I have stated even perfect obedience to God is often insufficient to keep a relationship together (Jesus and Judas). Here is the rub as I see it, having an understanding of hypergamy and the basic understanding of human nature is a useful tool as is having all of the verses which tell us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church memorized. The application of those tools is a field where many problems arise.

I suggest that game and white knightery are two sides of the same reactionary coin. They are both the feeble efforts of men trying to take control of an uncontrollable situation. The white knight supposes that he has a Godly blueprint for success with the opposite gender and that all he needs to do is more zealously apply himself to make the system work, following the rules and pressing harder will surely reap success. The gamer supposes that he understands the flesh nature of women and goes about trying to work it to his advantage and like the cocaine addicted monkey he thinks that as long as he keeps pressing the “right” button he will be assured game success. Both of these positions are in an orbit around women, not as it should be centering on God. We seek a rulebook like those plain folks of my youth to evade the facts, we don’t want to hear from God and we want to pretend we can handle it in bite size rules.

Turning to a rulebook to guide us in human relations is a mistake just as turning to God with a rulebook is. Yes, there are rules, but if they define the entirety of our interaction then we have NO relationship. Never fail a fitness test. Display higher value. Utilize preselection. Those can be rules that replace relationship, I’ve even seen this advocated (Don’t share your day to day struggles with your wife). This type of legalism can feel like it has all the answers, a solution for every problem, in our wives the appropriate reaction to every display of fitness testing, in the case of God a way to measure up in our own strength:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mat 15:8-9)

 

Rules don’t replace relationship. That was one of the biggest lessons the plain folks taught me. Does my wife have a sin nature, exhibit hypergamy, test my fitness? Of course and it’s good for me to see that dynamic. Do I want to systematize my interactions with her? To turn my responses into a static “defense”? Absolutely not. I want to relate with her and that is the interaction that is under attack by Satan and his minions in the feminist movement.

If we are not careful we will be pushed into two reactionary tracks in response to this attack. I reiterate, game and man-up. The third way is God, who understands the sinful nature that we are fighting in ourselves and in our wives better than we do, He knows the plans and schemes of feminists and He knows how to beat them before they even show up. God is neither reactionary nor static.

I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
(Php 4:12-14)

 

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(2Co 3:5-7)

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Mat 11:28-30)

 

It’s all about relationship. We turn to Jesus, and that life under His yoke becomes an organic way of dealing with feminism, our wives and each other (without pulling out a volume that rivals “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for verbosity.) It’s no guarantee of marital success, but in my estimation it is far superior to the rulebook.

I have an analogy that I go to when discussing relationship. Jesus described Himself as “the way”, so I cannot claim originality with this picture.  I have a road map and a set of rules for operating my car, I can use them to envision a trip to Anchorage. For some people this seems like enough, they have the directions, the rules. I want to drive to Anchorage (rarely, but you get the point). I want to go there and interact (buy stuff). I want to enjoy the mountains on the drive. I have to get in the car and apply myself, understand the directions yes, but the trip is always about more than the directions in practice while not in theory. One is rules, the other about experience.

It’s all about relationship.

Pizza the Hut Ate Himself to Death

Its going to be tough, but I will make that title fit this piece. I have wanted to use that for years, and maybe I was gifted the opportunity. You have to like Spaceballs, if you don’t, I am truly sorry. I need to now go back and watch it and figure out which character is the abuser, what with all the mention of Schwartzes there’s gotta be an abuser in there somewhere. Why? Answer this question: What do Edward Cullen, Christian Grey, and Steve the cowboy have in common?

Answer: They were highly sought after romantic protagonists in stories, factual or fiction, and attracted millions of women seeking similar vicarious experiences They are abusers.

And Pizza the hut was made out of such damned good pizza he ate himself in his own limo. Make sense?

Remember when the network TV stations ran some version of Chiller Theater late on Saturday nights? It was the old Lon Chaney movies, werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein, etc. Towards the end of the genre, the later made movies, they started to mix the characters up, releasing Frankentein vs The Werewolf, and Swamp Thing meets Dracula and so forth.

Comes Edgar and Christian and Steve. Ossiana Tepfenhart has written an article that frames three contemporary and popular stories as how to manuals for spotting an abuser. She is of course referring to the Twilight movies, the 50 Shades of Grey book, and another book called The Feminist And The Cowboy.They are the monsters that are attacking these poor women.

That’s how I envision the writer portraying the protagonists from the stories she mentions. The similarities are eerie. In all those old black and white movies there was a woman who was romantically invested in one of the scary creatures, and in the end, one monster had to resist his base nature to defend the feinting woman from the attack of the other creature. The suddenly good monster often died after saving the damsel. But while he was alive, he was a beast. He may have even frightened her through her window and in more scandalous films, torn her bodice.

Edgar and Steve and Christian are abusers, kidnappers, takers, all the alpha dark traits tied up in one studly hot offensive misogynist nightmare.

But wait, scores of women are lining up to consume these products, some  admitting to being powerfully attracted to the imagery to the point of acting out. They are (gasp) chasing the bad boy. They are succumbing to hypergamy. And they are enjoying it.

Now Ms Tepfenhart comes along like the other monster from the black and white horror films, risking everything to save the innocent damsel. In this case, the other monster is a ghost.

Be it for a blog, a testimonial, or even ghostwriting. You name the topic, and I will use research and personal experience, or given materials to write it.

Maybe she had an abuse fantasy book queued up and ready, a book that would quiver the jello so to speak, and was beaten to it.

Quiz: How does Pizza the Hut fit into this? Answer: I’m not sure.

But it was fun using him in the title of a blog entry that shows how hypergamy and women’s vehement denial of same have them eating themselves alive in fits of cognitive dissonance. .

Hypergamy Confirmed (again)

We know that she gets desirous around her ovulation time. We know that hormones cycle through her body in varying waves throughout the month, leaving men utterly flummoxed and unable to figure out if up is really down. We then know that after menopause the lack of certain hormones further confuses the mix. And we here in the sphere hopefully have a grasp on that which is hypergamy, with all of its resultant dysfunction potential.

Today Fox News has an article called “Sexy guys get more love from fertile gals”. We didn’t really need another article or study to prove hypergamy. But this article goes a little further and touches on other behaviors that are perhaps side effects of hypergamy; and it doesn’t take a genius to see that these things have as much or more deleterious effect on relationship as they have potentially beneficial ones.

The results are summarized up front:

In a new study, heterosexual women who rated their guys as highly sexually desirable felt closer to their partners and more satisfied with their relationships just before ovulation, as compared to their less-fertile days. The opposite was true for women who said their partners were less sexy; they felt less close to their male partners and were more critical of their mate’s faults as they approached ovulation.

Previous research has shown that the type of man a woman prefers tends to change across her ovulatory cycle, as she becomes more attracted to masculine faces and bodies, and bilateral symmetry, when she’s fertile.

This is the first research to show that these changes have implications for relationship functioning,”

The researchers draw on the obvious evolutionary psychology about fitness and genes for healthy babies and survival as they describe their theories as to the reasons behind the responses the women gave. Then they tell men the bad news.

The findings are in line with the so-called dual-mating hypothesis, which suggests that women have two mate-choice mechanisms: “one leading to preferences for sexually desirable men who have high-fitness genes, and one leading to preferences for men who are able to invest in a woman and her children,”

Nice to know. Mr. Smith, if you are hot, your wife will find you sexually satisfying while she is ovulating. If you are not, she will think you are a pain in the ass most of the time. But there is good news! Even if you are a pain in the ass, she choose you because you are better able to invest in her and her children. Yippee!

The study authors admit that while there didn’t really measure any hormones in this study, you know, its kinda obvious that since estrogen is up at menses that has to be the reason for ALL of this.

Sorry, it is too much to take in. So they are saying that women have two types of preferences, one for hot sex guys, the other for steady draft horse type guys. Guys, regardless which one you are, there is a preference inside your women for that type, so you are just fine. Oh, but rather than making your wife hot, you irritate the hell out of her and she will let you know. But for you guys, there was some extra good news.

Although a woman’s time of the month seemed to influence her feelings about her partner and relationship satisfaction, her commitment to the relationship stayed constant throughout the cycle.

How did they figure this out? They asked the women of course, and dutifully recorded the responses. It takes five minutes to deconstruct the lie they recorded as fact. Maybe if they changed the wording to her relational satisfaction stays constant ….. until it doesn’t.

Lets draw a parallel. imagine all the evo psych rationale about men and mating. Full hips and ample breasts on women, all the better to birth and care for babies right? Men have this hormone, testosterone, and its pretty much always there, not cycling monthly. So, ladies, men have two mating and relational preferences. One is for hot sex with buxom babes, and the other is for that steady reliable care giver to children.

In another article on Fox, the writer talks about the benefits of testosterone. side from the fact that that hormone is one that elicits ire and disdain from women all the while loving most of its effects. But the clincher regarding testosterone was:

Plus, sex with new or multiple partners sends your levels skyrocketing

Women and their hormones…good, men and our hormones….bad; where does it net out?

Oh, he checked the committed box for either type of wife too.

If he and she checked the committed box, what can we conclude? They lie? And we know which one lies 70 or more percent of the time. What is the reaction to this from the church?

Men step up. Now I get it. It is not only a message about men taking responsibility, it is also a message telling men to man up in ways that activate the tingle. I wonder if the preachers even know what they mean.

Noah’s Response

I wanted to address Noah’s response to Ham’s behavior.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
(Gen 9:20-27)

He cursed Ham. How did he do that? Upon what basis would the Old Testament patriarchs bless or curse their progeny? What gave them the right, the authority? In short God honored their words. God gave them authority and he backed up their words. So what? God tells husbands to love their wives as themselves and honor them as the weaker vessel, good deal for the wife. On the other hand the Bible commands wife’s to fear and submit to their husbands, God commands them to do this. Who has God given the authority, the responsibility to? Not the woman.

When a husband abdicates his responsibility he is doing what Adam did, he steps aside and lets the woman chart the course of their souls. He ignores the authority that God gives him to bless his wife and both are going to miss out on God’s blessing for their family, in trade for the feminist dream of equality. Women are buying the lie that it is better to be equal than to be blessed. They are taking matters into their own hands, exactly like Eve did when she decided to make herself “like God”.

As a husband I am absolutely obligated to love my wife, as myself. Would a loving husband allow his wife to follow in the footsteps of Eve? Would a loving husband abdicate his responsibility and meekly follow in the draft of his “powerful” wife. No. Does he buy into the worldly prospect of “equality” and reject what the Bible instructs his wife to do? Does he lead her or poke his toes in the dirt and sheepishly allow her to do what she pleases in the name of “love”? What does leadership look like?

Leadership looks like Noah, he doesn’t hang his head in shame over the exposure of his nakedness, he asserts his authority. He reminds everyone that he is the man God spoke to and that God’s authority flows through HIM. At the end of the day husbands need to realize that they answer to God for how well they love their wives, how obedient they were to God’s voice, we don’t answer to our wives. Ultimately, God is our judge and that is what matters, looking to our wives for affirmation, for approval, for love. That isn’t their job and expecting that from them only causes to make them unhaaaaapy (and us too). Looking to them for something we should only be seeking from God is a sin.

When I screw up I need to deal with God. I need to get straight with Him, my wife is basically my sister in Christ who I’m obligated to love as her husband, she is not my confessor, my accountability partner, my compass to God, or the pure heart of light that should guide all my steps. Treating her as any of those things is not fair to her, it isn’t loving and it isn’t leadership.

My wife used to complain that I pedastalized her as God and I could never understand why she thought that. I get it now. I was forcing her into the place of leadership by constantly abdicating to her judgment. I could never understand how it was possible to lead while being locked in a perpetual pursuit of her feminine approval (as per the feminist prerogative). By doing this I was cutting her off from being blessed by God through a properly delegated husband, one that doesn’t abdicate at the first failure.

Besides hypergamy dictates attraction to a strong man, not a weakling who caves into the feminist culture at the first blush. Noah was a strong man, not a perfect man, but a man who had the authority and the relationship with God to give blessings/cursing and salvation to his family. God instructed Noah in the construction of the ark, how do we think it would have gone if he had listened to the popular culture of HIS day? He and his family would have died with the rest. Noah saved his family because he was a strong man and he had a relationship with God, his wife is barely mentioned.

Something tells me she was glad to have him in her life even though she didn’t receive equal billing.

What is the point of all of this? I think it is our job as husbands to counter the feminist culture, in the world and in our wives. We need to love our wives like Christ loved the Church, and not respond like they are God Himself when the criticize us. Not receive the fruit of the rebellion and validate it as viable and useful behavior. By doing that we are encouraging our wives to rebel and miss the blessing of having a God-fearing husband. I recommend deflecting, ignoring, and dismissing criticism from our wives. We need to prayerfully consider what God might by revealing to us both concerning the criticism and also how to address the rebellion in our wives. That is love.