I have enough experience working in media to know that a story like Kanye West taking over the PornHub awards is not just some random event of interest.
The people who write the articles do not have time to do their own research. Somebody always feeds them the story.
And people don’t feed the media stories unless it serves an agenda.
My best guess is this was a political move by Kanye in preparation for his future run for president.
What is telling is that Kanye judged hosting awards for a pornography site to be a worthwhile activity to fit into his busy schedule.
Kanye West is no dummy. He recognizes what few are afraid to openly acknowledge: that the pornography industry is a major influence on culture and worldview.
Porn reaches people precisely at the moment when they are most receptive to suggestions: acutely aware of a problem (e.g. unfulfilled sex drive) and indulging in a fantasy where that problem doesn’t exist.
Add to that equation the mind-altering effects of masturbation, and porn is probably the most powerful propaganda tool in existence.
This is why most porn is not designed as art. It doesn’t help you appreciate sex. It is designed to get lonely men to jerk off so they can become more receptive to ideas like:
- You don’t deserve to have sex with a woman unless you have a 8″ cock
- Blacks are a superior race that deserve to breed with white women
- Letting a better man have sex with your wife is a good idea
- You can never perform as well as these alpha studs, so just let the pros do it while you watch
- All women that want sex are out of your league so you might as well just watch from a safe distance
The net effect of these suggestions is that men feel inadequate to satisfy a woman and therefore resort to passive voyeurism.
This is the state in which a man is most politically useful to the elites. Docile. Powerless. Ready to yield his family to stronger men.
You can only bash on men from the pulpit for so long before people begin to take notice.
Here’s a spot-on “fake news” article from the Babylon Bee titled “Pastor Who Breathlessly Praised Mothers Last Month Absolutely Thrashes Congregation’s Dads On Father’s Day“:
“Alright dads, buckle up, because I’m gonna lecture you for the next 30 minutes on why you’re all so terrible,” he began. “I’ve got a 42-point sermon lined up here, and each point is an ironclad argument for why every father today is a lazy, useless, selfish jerk. I don’t wanna see any of you all dozing off or checking scores on your phone, because you really need to hear this, you incompetent goofs.”
“I know this is going to go in one ear and out the other, because you are all so awful,” he continued before launching into his scathing address on the day designed to honor the nation’s fathers.
At publishing time, sources were also able to confirm that Pastor Mills had asked all the fathers in the congregation to stand and be recognized for the worthless oafs that they are.
Desiring God published an article yesterday that seems to signal a turning point.
But the question is, a turning to what?
The article is titled “‘Happy Wife, Happy Life’ and Other Misleading Advice to Young Husbands“.
The author, Greg Morse, goes on to dismiss the following four cliches:
- “Happy Wife, Happy Life”
- “Your Spouse is Your Best Friend”
- “Be a Servant Leader”
- “Marriage is 50/50”
This article is significant for at least two reasons:
- These are the same ideas that red pilled Christian men have been objecting to for years
- The author is the content strategist for Desiring God, so this article indicates a deliberate decision. It’s not simply an allowing of an alternative perspective to “slip through”
The article goes on to drop some surprisingly red pill statements. For example:
Just letting her have her way is much more comfortable than making unpopular decisions on weighty matters, that you think (and pray) are spiritually best for her and your family: Whether they be where your children go to school, what church you join, where you live next, when to have children, or countless difficult choices that require spiritual energy, courage, and faith.
And this one on why the husband can’t be a follower:
It isn’t a symmetrical partnership in which the relational patterns are interchangeable. The elegance of the dance consists in the man leading assertively, lovingly, thoughtfully, and the woman following fearlessly, receptively, joyfully — which is much more than mere friendship. The dance is improper when the husband attempts to follow.
And on “servant leadership”:
The paradox of servant leader devolves, in some minds, into merely meaning servant: You sacrifice your convictions for any and all of her ambitions. You take on her calling, not because of exceptional circumstance but only because you wanted to lay your aspirations down for hers. You coddle her, never asking her to do anything that she does not already want to do — even if you think it best for her ultimate joy in the Lord.
And, perhaps most surprisingly, an explicit acknowledgement of feminism:
Our feminist-influenced, Bible-ignoring, headship-shaming society wishes real men to be milder. They wish you passive. They wish you silent.
But God entrusts you to speak, to sacrifice, to crush serpents. He calls you to be true to your nature — the one he gave you — and play the man that you are. And that man is not timid, not unassertive, not feeble in the faith: “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).
On the surface, this looks like a major victory for the red pill movement. But I wouldn’t be too quick to celebrate. There are at least a couple red flags that raise my suspicions.
First, the author never says the old advice is wrong. He merely describes the advice as “naive” and “easily-misunderstood.” This sounds like a politician’s apology.
Secondly, there is an odd discrepancy between the title and the introduction. The title suggests (at least to young men) “hey, you’ve been lied to and we’re going to open your eyes to the truth.” But the introduction does not empathize with young men. Instead the introduction is about women who are struggling to get their husbands to be less passive. Then the remainder of the article is addressed to men.
I see one of two possibilities here:
One, Desiring God has suddenly (and inexplicably) turned red pill. And since they write for a broad audience they’re trying to give a “soft” introduction that empathizes with women.
Or Option 2: Desiring God has recognized that the old rhetoric is no longer effective as perhaps revealed by this incongruent remark from the article:
[The ‘Happy Wife, Happy Life’ mentality] backfires on us, leaving even a growing number of unbelievers wondering how to get their men to be less passive.
Translation: “Putting the wife on the pedestal has backfired on our agenda. We now have a passive men problem and every one is suspicious. We need to address this now.”
If Option 2 is the case, we can expect to see Desiring God and other Christian leaders start to absorb red pill rhetoric and address the masculinity crisis. But it won’t be to help men. It will be to co-opt the movement for the fem-centered agenda. I believe this is what Rollo Tomassi refers to as the “purple pill.”
Time will tell. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
But one thing we do know: the red pill has broken through.
I was saddened,, though admittedly not surprised, to see the following article published on the CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation) blog:
Sexual Abuse in Marriage
The title alone should be a red flag to those with an advanced understanding of the red pill.
I was saddened because the (now deceased) founder of the institute, Jay Adams, did a lot of great work for the Church. He was the pioneering voice that helped spark a revival of biblical counseling at a time when people assumed the Bible had no relevance to people’s personal problems.
One of the key ways that Satan infiltrated the Church in modern times was to trick pastors into believing that mental and emotional problems were best handled by “qualified” secular psychiatrists. This meant that pastors could provide abstract “spiritual” guidance, but practical problems were best left to outsiders. Apparently the Enemy was fine with leaving the church to teach theology and share inspirational Bible stories… so long as he had influence over the practical matters like sex, relationships, abuse, anxiety, finances, and all the other personal problems.
But Jay Adams boldly stood against all this nonsense back in the 1960s. The Lord blessed his work and it turned into a movement.
And now feminism is ruining it.
I’ve provided a commentary below on some relevant excerpts for those who are interested. This is how today’s Biblical Counselors, who genunely want to help people change by applying God’s Word, are going to be taught to deal with marriages. [Emphasis mine.]
Though the recent #metoo movement has revealed the prevalence with which people are violated sexually, my heart remains heavy for wives who are victims of marital sexual abuse. Their stories remain untold, and I am concerned that many pastors and counselors are unaware of its occurrence. I hear many stories (too many stories) of women being abused, violated or even raped by their husbands.
“Abuse” is a vague concept. What’s going on in these “many stories”? Is he punching her in the face? Pulling a gun on her? Keeping her in a cage? Given the timidness of most Christian men today, I find this doubtful. Also, a husband cannot “violate” or “rape” his own wife. Here’s the common definition of rape:
1. unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
2: an outrageous violation
3: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that having sex with your wife is (1) lawful, (2) doesn’t qualify as an “outrageous” violation, and (3) doesn’t involve stealing your wife away from her home.
Sexual abuse in marriage occurs when husbands make demands on their wives that are not based on love .¹ These demands for sex are not sanctioned by 1 Corinthians 7:3-5,² though the passage is often used as a goad to require a wife’s compliance. To be clear, the men who do this are troubled themselves. They usually have deep-seated problems including a weak or non-existent relationship with God and an inflated sense of entitlement. They believe that other people (including their wives) exist for them—for their comfort and to meet their needs, including sexual ones. When their wives fail to respond as desired, it often results in a pattern of coercive and punishing behaviors designed to force their compliance.³
Having sex with your wife is part of love (Ex 21:10), so this reasoning doesn’t make any sense. And wives do, in fact, exist to help her husband, including meeting his sexual needs (Gen 2). And if your wife has some repressed submissive desires, establishing “a pattern of coercive and punishing behaviors designed to force [her] compliance” might actually be the best thing you can try for your marriage.
The author then lists some examples that are indeed unloving, or at least are stupid strategies for getting sex with a woman. But judging by the dishonest start to the article, I doubt these scenarios are as common as she’d like us to believe.
Marriage does not equal consent. It does not obligate spouses to participate in any sexual act at any time. But devastatingly, many Christian women have come to believe that sex-on-demand is their “wifely duty.”
Actually, this is exactly what the Scriptures do NOT say (1 Cor 7:5).
Those suffering from these distorted, abusive demands should not be left questioning what God says about such evils. The Apostle Paul speaks clearly here. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Col. 3:5-6). Paul is calling on us to eradicate all sexual sin that stands against our identity in Christ—any sexual impurity. He is not setting a low bar here and saying “just don’t cheat on your spouses.” He is saying: Wipe out all sexual covetousness—all your greedy taking—for all sexual impurities deserve the wrath of God.
The author claims to have a “Master of Divinity” degree from Westminister Theological Seminary. But apparently they don’t cover reading comprehension in that program or how to use a Greek lexicon or concordance.
- sexual immorality (porneia): a “selling off” of one’s body (as in prostitution and other promiscuous sex)
- impurity (akathartos): being not pure because of a mixture; being adulterated with a “wrong mix” and hence unclean (such as keeping company with sexually immoral people)
- passion (pathos): raw and depraved strong feelings (implicitly, feelings that are not guided by God)
- evil desire (epithymian kakos): a passion to do evil, rotten things
- covetousness (pleonexia): the desire for more things; a desire for beyond what is needed; implies fraud and extortion
I have a hard time believing that any of these terms could possibly apply to “demanding” sex from your wife. The worst it could be is a poor sexual strategy executed by a sex-starved beta husband.
As if the Church wasn’t in for a big enough shock already, here’s yet another sexual movement on the rise:
The above screenshot is the estimated traffic stats (from SimilarWeb.com) for Incels.me, a discussion forum for men who have taken the “black pill.” The site’s terminology page is telling of the frustrations:
Rollo Tomassi offers some insights into the movement [emphasis mine]:
So what’s different now? Well, to start, we have a generation of lost boys who’ve been acculturated to think that even asking a girl out is a form of sexual misconduct. The Village has raised boys as if they’re defective girls, devoid of any of the masculine discipline necessary to teach these young men how to cope with real rejection from a girl, how to deal with defeat or how to come back stronger as a result. As we’ve feminized these boys so to have we embedded the same feminine victimhood narrative that women rely on into their collective psyche. Except these boys are still beholden to the old social contract that women believe incumbent upon men. This puts these boy-men into a very precarious position: they are educated like defective girls and as such adopt the same frail sensibilities and are subject to the same entitlement narrative as most women are, but they are also male and therefore are expected to suck it up, take it on the chin and carry on. They are told to express their feelings and in the next moment are told to check their male privilege.
Most of the lost boys generation are not ready for the disillusionment that the Red Pill brings to them, but it’s not the manosphere that’s opening their eyes so much as they are having it thrust in front of them by a communication age steeped in the Feminine Imperative. Today, Red Pill truths are harder and harder to get away from as Open Hypergamy and all of the unflattering truths about the female nature are triumphantly lauded by women themselves. Every swipe left on Tinder is one more confirmation of exactly the harsh truths that push Incels to their limit.
Of every article I’ve read on Incels since the Toronto killings not one author has analyzed the problem correctly, but also none have any actionable idea about how to solve the problem of Incels snapping. There are no longer the same outlets that ‘losers’ had back in my day to channel that sexual frustration to more productive ends. Many a frustrated high school boy became his generation’s iconic artist or musician. I think it’s the height of irony that Mark Zuckerberg essentially created Facebook to stalk his ex girlfriend. There are no longer the creative ways to deal with the discontent that comes from sexual rejection. Some will say to me there are, it’s just these guys are too unmotivated to apply themselves. And while that may be true, there are much easier outlets that further stunt that boys development. Rather than redirecting that sexual angst to something creative, it’s much easier to lose themselves in online porn or immersive escapisms facilitated by this age’s technology.
Or they can seek out a forum of similarly disaffected young men and commiserate about the truth of a world that has no place for them. I read that Dr. Jordan Peterson suggested that a social order based on ‘enforced monogamy’ might be a cure for Incels. I get what he was trying to say, but it’s just one more flippant redirection away from the real causes of this rise in Incels. I can remember reading a post that Roissy had made about a knife wielding man in China who had gone to a day care center to specifically kill women and children. As horrifying as that is what had prompted the guy was the understanding that he’d essentially been selected out of the reproductive game because there was a huge imbalance in the ratio of men to women in China as a result of their one-child policy for so long. Roissy went on to suggest that as more and more men are disaffected by a feminine-primary social order, one that bases all its legislation and social doctrine on optimizing Hypergamy, the men disenfranchised by it will become either more violent (in their effort or angst to reproduce) or more suicidal – which we also see in men killing themselves at 5 times the rate of women.
Incels are the canary in the coal mine that is a gynocentric social order. They are what results when a society prioritizes and incentivizes Alpha Fucks (enthusiastic consent) while Beta Bucks is more or less assured by direct and indirect resource transfer to women. When 80%+ of men are evaluated as ‘unattractive’ to women fed on a steady diet of ego inflating social media, you get Incels.
I don’t know if the world has ever faced a problem of this sort at the magnitude we’re going to experience it. But there will always be plenty of work for the righteous to do.
Be as a father unto the fatherless, and instead of an husband unto their mother: so shalt thou be as the son of the most High, and he shall love thee more than thy mother doth.
I’m not sure how to apply the “husband unto their mother” part, but it is obvious who the fatherless are in this generation.
A recent Return of Kings article introduced me to a trend I was completely unaware of:
The rise of the “sugar daddy” market.
The author, George Swanson, explains the growing popularity of this once taboo arrangement:
Today, classic dating sites are slowly but surely dying while sugar baby sites are on the rise. Not only has their user base grown tremendously over the past few years but this kind of relationship has been more and more pushed as normal into the mainstream media. Even feminists found a way to support it. Owners of these sites are speaking freely on Oprah, CNN, and others, doing what they know best, marketing their websites.
Thanks to the unbalanced sexual marketplace and declining public morals, being a sugar baby is a new way to monetize your body as a woman.
(In case you’re not familiar with the term, a “sugar daddy” is an older male who pays a much younger woman a generous sum of money to keep him “company.”)
Apparently, this arrangement is rather popular and has only just recently (i.e. in the last few years) been leaking into the mainstream conversation in a positive light. Other than social proof, Swanson touches on three reasons this trend is on the rise:
- Why would young sexy women continue to extract tiny financial favors from their boyfriends once they realize they could earn several thousand a month for the same service?
- Most men are tired of the online dating game and those that can afford it will gladly switch to sugar daddy sites
- Two-thirds of college students/grads with student debt are women… hence the economic incentive to join the sugar daddy lifestyle
I checked the traffic estimation on SimilarWeb for the top sugar daddy site to see if this trend was legit. He wasn’t lying:
The site gets around 7.5 million visits a month.
Now, as a Christian, I don’t recommend anyone debase themselves by poking around with whores. But I see several probable cultural changes on the horizon that we should be prepared for:
First off, age-gap relationships will become socially acceptable. Expect to see 40+ year old men openly walking about with college-age women. Once the age-gap stigma is eliminated, most women will prefer to be in a relationship with older, more successful men. The young guys who haven’t got it figured out yet will be out of luck.
Unfortunately, as is always the case, most men will never achieve success. They will have no vision. They will be failures in their careers. They will become unmotivated and depressed. Their health and appearance will decline as they age. They will congregate online to gripe about what a bad hand they’ve been dealt in life.
In all likelihood, there will be more attractive young women than successful men. The sex robots will only serve to widen this gap. Many men who could have potentially been sexually successful will opt for the easier path.
The secular dating market, with it’s loose morals, will adapt to this trend seamlessly. But the Church will face an unavoidable crisis: where have all the good men gone? This question will probably trigger at least one of three responses in the Church:
- The Church will realize the error of her ways, embrace red pill truths, and equip more young men to be successful and masculine
- There will be a revival of Christian polygamy
- Most attractive women will leave the Church in favor of the “sugar daddy” lifestyle. The Church will (literally) become so ugly that it fails to reproduce itself.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens and how the Church responds. These are just a few ideas. Who knows how it’ll play out?
It looks as if the sexual market crisis is finally entering into mainstream conversation. From a recently published New Yorker article:
These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad. Our newest sex technologies, such as Tinder and Grindr, are built to carefully match people by looks above all else. Sexual value continues to accrue to abled over disabled, cis over trans, thin over fat, tall over short, white over nonwhite, rich over poor.
Since the church tends to follow suit with the mainstream media, I suspect this will be topic of open conversation soon among Christians. But since Churchians tend to adapt secular conclusions rather than thinking biblically, I expect we’ll see a re-working of the same conclusion [emphasis mine]:
It is men, not women, who have shaped the contours of the incel predicament. It is male power, not female power, that has chained all of human society to the idea that women are decorative sexual objects, and that male worth is measured by how good-looking a woman they acquire. Women—and, specifically, feminists—are the architects of the body-positivity movement, the ones who have pushed for an expansive redefinition of what we consider attractive. “Feminism, far from being Rodger’s enemy,” Srinivasan wrote, “may well be the primary force resisting the very system that made him feel—as a short, clumsy, effeminate, interracial boy—inadequate.” Women, and L.G.B.T.Q. people, are the activists trying to make sex work legal and safe, to establish alternative arrangements of power and exchange in the sexual market.
We can’t redistribute women’s bodies as if they are a natural resource; they are the bodies we live in. We can redistribute the value we apportion to one another—something that the incels demand from others but refuse to do themselves. I still think about Bette telling me, in 2013, how being lonely can make your brain feel like it’s under attack. Over the past week, I have read the incel boards looking for, and occasionally finding, proof of humanity, amid detailed fantasies of rape and murder and musings about what it would be like to assault one’s sister out of desperation. In spite of everything, women are still more willing to look for humanity in the incels than they are in us.
“Men, women are not sex objects. The gospel has set her free from such oppression. I could tell you horror stories of husbands who emotionally abuse their wives by dictating what she should eat, telling her what to wear, and shaming her for her body. The Bible tells us that the Lord judges by the contents of the heart, not outward appearances. Some of you men are still basing your worth on how your wife looks. But Christ Jesus has freed you from such superficial standards.
“And some of you young men are complaining that you can’t find a wife. But what are you doing to prepare to marry one of God’s daughters? We have plenty of fine young ladies right here in this congregation waiting for a godly man to win her hand in marriage. But many of you men won’t man up and marry the girl because your standards are too high. Listen guys, we are all flawed sinners. She’s not expecting perfection in you, neither should you expect perfection in her. I think we guys could learn something from the compassion of women.”
Of course, the young men won’t want to marry any of the “fine young ladies” because they will be objectively unattractive. And since the church will eradicate any hint of alpha qualities out of their men, expect the small number of attractive women to marry outside the church as they go about “witnessing.”
And since unattractiveness generally correlates with poor health, expect to see those prayer lists growing in proportion to the sizes of the women’s waists.
We should always show mercy, regardless of one’s life choices. But I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the coming decades, being a hero for the truth will come down to something as historically obvious as refusing to marry and reproduce with unattractive sickly women.
A quick glance at the top 20 sites on the web reveals there is a major mismatch between what the church is talking about and what people think about:
I’m astonished that the church still hasn’t figured out the following basic truths about modern life:
- People don’t call their pastor to ask about truth or get help with personal problems. They go to Google.
- Social media feeds inform our reality.
- Most people don’t like to read.
- People think about sex more than any other topic.
- People have an unlimited appetite for entertainment.
Here are the essential 21st century skills of evangelism (in addition to understanding biblical truth):
- Search engine marketing*
- Understanding of sexual dynamics
I doubt any church will be offering training on any of these skills, so the field is wide open for anyone who wishes to scoop up the harvest.
* For examples of websites who are using search engines to evangelize check out the following two sites:
I always suspected the public school system was trying to make us stupid, but now we have the stats straight from the horse’s mouth:
(CNSNews.com) – Sixty-five percent of the eighth graders in American public schools in 2017 were not proficient in reading and 67 percent were not proficient in mathematics, according to the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress test results released by the U.S. Department of Education.
Of course, judging by the inability of today’s preachers to simply read and explain a biblical text, I’d estimate the illiteracy rate is at least 65% in the seminaries.
I’ve written before how I think the government wants to do to American men the same thing they did to the American Indians.
Namely, rather than fight the man directly, they want to take the fight out of the man until he becomes a passive dependent suckling at the government’s teat. A recent Rasmussen report gives a hint of what might be coming next:
Senator Bernie Sanders is looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election with a proposed federal government program that guarantees all Americans a job with health insurance. Nearly half of voters like the idea.
Step 1: “We’ll take away all uncertainty and provide a job for you. Doesn’t that sound nice?”
Step 2: “Turns out there’s no longer any productive work for you to do. How about if we just give you a monthly check?”
Step 3: “Oh, you’re feeling sexually frustrated and lonely? Here, have a sex robot. It’s on us. We take care of our boys.”
Step 4: “Here’s your voting guide for the next election. We have your best interest in mind. Don’t listen to those crazy conspiracy theorists who say that we’re evil.”