Blackdragon describes an alternate view on the problem of porn:
As I’ve spoken about many times before, we live in a society overloaded with sexual imagery, but not a lot of people actually having sex. Married couples have far less sex today than in the 1940s. Millennials are having far less sex than any other prior generation. Night game, daygame, and online dating have all become more difficult as women simultaneously become more masculine, bitchy, and picky. This, plus weaker economies and enticing distractions like porn and sexy video games are inducing many men to opt out of the sexual marketplace altogether.
And so on. I listed all the stats about how much fewer people are having sex than before right here, but the point is people aren’t getting laid. You just think people are getting laid because of all the false Societal Programming in Hollywood, porn, dating apps like Tinder, sexy pictures of Instagram models everywhere, and so on.
This sexual imagery overload, which I agree is sort of stupid, has led to a new movement of people (some traditional right-wing conservatives and delusional unicorn seekers), men (MGTOWs, incels, and others) and women (exasperated over-age-33 women who can’t find perfect husbands who don’t exist) who have come to the conclusion that sex just isn’t that important. Moreover, if you really like sex or have a lot of it, there’s something wrong with you.
One could speculate that, if there are a number of evil masterminds behind the industry, that there is an ulterior motive to the porn industry aside from making money. Perhaps the intention is to manipulate people to have less sex by overloading people with sexualized images.
The over-abundance of porn triggers feminists to think that sex “objectifies” women. It triggers church leaders to think that, all of the sudden, there is something wrong and sinful about the male’s fascination with nude women. It creates distractions for unmotivated men who might otherwise go out and get a wife.
In other words, we’ve all been tricked into thinking we’re a sex-obsessed culture. So we feel guilty about our sexual impulses. But hardly anyone is having much sex.
One of the things I like to do on my blog is throw in a little humor and conspiracy theory to keep things fun.
I think one reason we like humor and conspiracies is because they point to important truths without requiring us to be too serious about it.
Case in point:
I’ve been thinking to myself, “why all the focus on struggling?” Everything is a “struggle” against lust or a “struggle” against porn. It’s “every man’s battle.”
I found this odd, because it seems that, with the vast majority of Christians already believing pornography is a sin, we all would all be quite aware of the “struggle” phase and would be moving on to the “solution” phase.
Plus, if you want to persuade someone to change a behavior, you don’t keep talking about the struggle. You expose a problem and provide a solution. Imagine if you went to a doctor and all he told you was to “keep struggling” against your disease. If he’s a good doctor, he’ll identify the root of the problem and tell you what you need to do to become healthy again.
But the Church provides no solutions to what is supposedly a “grave threat” to the spiritual health of the Church today. And we’re told it will be a “lifelong battle” for every man.
As I was pondering this, some dark and dusty corner of my brain retrieved an old meme. It’s my all-time favorite “demotivational” poster:
Perhaps as applied to the Church, this meme could read:
If You’re Not Part of the Solution,
There’s Much Power to Be Had in Prolonging the Guilt.
One of my favorite Christian blogs to follow is Desiring God.
Not because I agree with their arguments (I rarely do), but because their blog serves as a perfect microcosm for the present worldview of most conservative Christians. Additionally, they do not shy away from covering sexual topics and other thorny issues so it’s always an interesting read.
And, in a case of perfect timing… or, to use the proper Calvinist rhetoric, an event that was pre-ordained by a Sovereign and Almighty God before the foundations of the earth were laid… Desiring God published an article over the weekend titled “How Not to Fight Pornography” just in time to fit into my series on the topic.
I’m going to do an analysis of the article here. Specifically, I’m going examine the assumptions behind the argument.
Testing assumptions is one of the most important parts of learning and spiritual growth. And since it’s easier (and more fun) to find flaws in the thinking of other people, I find article analysis to be a great way to indirectly examine my own assumptions.
So buckle up… here we go…
(The following are selected excerpts. I have bolded the untested assumptions. [Emphasis mine.])
…you first need to realize that your “struggle” [with porn] is no struggle at all. You need to admit that you are participating in blatant infidelity. You’re married, but you take off your ring for a moment and indulge yourself. You’ve been united to Christ, but you unite yourself to prostitutes.
The author is assuming that viewing pornography is equivalent to infidelity and having sex with prostitutes but provides no argument or evidence to establish this claim.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:1, Paul makes known to the church how she “ought to walk” or how it is necessary to live. This general statement becomes a specific command in 1 Thessalonians 4:3–4: “Abstain from sexual immorality,” knowing “how to control [your] own body in holiness and honor.” Apparently, some in the community were struggling to master their body or “vessel” (which may be a euphemism for genitalia). They acted out in lustful passion like the pagan Gentiles “who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:5).
In many modern translations, ktaomai, is rendered as “to control.” But the older, more literal translations are consistent with the Greek. The word means to “acquire”, “win”, “purchase,” etc. Furthermore, the word eidó (know) conveys a deep understanding rather than just a superficial knowledge. It means to “see”, or, metaphorically, to “perceive” or “grasp reality.” If we go forward with the assumption that the “vessel” refers to one’s own body (or more pointedly, one’s own penis), then Paul is essentially saying, “Men, I want you to grasp reality and acquire a penis of your own.” Or, “I want you to perceive how to possess your own penis.” This sounds like some weird new age masturbation advice. But if you assume “vessel” is a metaphor for a wife, the command makes much more sense.
To “know God” is covenantal language. Acting as those who “do not know God” is to live as if you’re not in a covenant relationship with God. It is to live a life of infidelity, without the slightest concern for how your spouse will respond; in this case, the God who “called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Here’s a little Friedan slip the author let out. Where does the Bible include not being concerned with how your spouse will respond with breaking a covenant relationship with God?
Pornography not only hurts you. It severely hurts others. It dehumanizes real people into images for one’s own sexual gratification, and it completely “destroys life-sustaining relationships” (Gabriele Kuby, The Global Sexual Revolution, 127).
Both of these assumptions are impossible to prove. “Dehumanize” is a rhetorical word with no precise meaning. “Destroys life-sustaining relationships” is also rhetoric. Depending on what one is looking for, there are cases of broken relationships where porn use was a factor and there are happy relationships where porn is used. It’s all about how you frame the issue and which studies you trust. Furthermore, the author is assuming that pornography, in and of itself, is the cause of the problem. He does not take into account the human factor. Ironically, this is arguably a “dehumanizing” way to make a claim.
You lose interest in your spouse. You emotionally distance yourself from your family. You lose your ability to love. You cause your spouse to leave you. You entertain a false view of sex no one can meet. You develop a degrading image of the opposite sex. You become a recluse who can’t wait to see pornography one more time.
All of these things could be true in some cases. But it is a HUGE leap in logic to assume that porn viewing is the cause of all these problems. Most likely, porn use is typically correlated with all the above problems and perhaps exacerbates the problems. Imagine a man who doesn’t work and lazes about and binge watches movies all day. We then discover that he is emotionally distant from his family, he’s reclusive, his wife leaves him, he’s developed a skewed view of reality, and he has no motivation. Would we say movies are the problem? No. He‘s the problem. Movie watching is just his chosen outlet for the expression of a poor character.
Is it surprising to hear that God is an avenger who will punish those in the church who persist in sexual immorality? It probably stunned the Thessalonians. Earlier, Paul mentioned that Jesus delivers the church “from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10) and he later speaks about God’s people not being “destined for wrath” (1 Thessalonians 5:9). But to demonstrate the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God, and the ultimate outcome of sexual sin, he declares that the Lord Jesus will punish those who unrepentantly “struggle” with pornography in the church.
This not only an untested assumption, this is a blatant lie about what the Scripture says. Paul never “declares” that the Lord Jesus will punish those who look at pornography. The assumption here is that continuously looking at pornography is equivalent to sexual immorality (porneia). This would be a difficult argument to make as porneia simply means “selling off one’s body” (as in prostitution.) It’s pretty obvious that most men consuming the porn are not having any sex with women (paid or not.) However, it is worth examining the cases of men paying women for “virtual entertainment” and how much responsibility a man has by viewing the photos and videos of an industry that openly engages in porneia. Would this be a “meats in the marketplace” type situation, or something else?
Sexual sin is such a grave threat to the church today, and it will not go down without a long, drawn-out fight, as if eternity were at stake — because it is.
Let’s just call a spade a spade. The author is claiming that men who look at pornography will burn for eternity in hell. Unless one is a Calvinist who is absolutely confident that he is one of the lucky few who are part of the elect, that’s a heavy burden for a sex-starved man to bear.
I also fail to see why sexual sin will not go down without a “long, drawn-out fight.” To me God’s instructions for avoiding sexual sin are clear: have sex with your wife and don’t have sex with anyone who is not your wife. Also, don’t have sex with animals. It’s not that complicated or difficult… well, provided that you don’t force yourself into years of involuntary celibacy by following Churchian marriage advice.
u/Whitfield puts forth a hypothesis worth investigating in response to a question I posted on the Red Pill Christian reddit:
I highly suspect the Feminine Imperative to be responsible for some, if not all of the anti-porn sentiment. The Christian world has a strong visceral reaction against visual erotica, as compared to “word” erotica, and we are not exempt from this. This is one of the less talked about issues in the Christian Manosphere, for pro-porn beliefs are often seen as “hamstering” (which is often the case too). More can be discussed about this. Not the issue of porn, but rather, the influence of the Feminine Imperative on Christian beliefs of porn/erotica.
Personally, I suspect there is something wrong with porn… namely, there is something wrong with the stereotypical scenario of the lonely sex-starved male wanking off to PornHub videos in the late hours of the night.
But I also suspect that the reason porn is a problem is not the same as the knee-jerk reaction of most Christians. If we’re going to exercise wisdom, we need to have a mature understanding of the issue instead of just echoing soundbites that earn us applause from fem-centered churchians.
Side note: I hope my site doesn’t get spammed with a bunch of porn bots as I delve into this topic. But that is a risk I’m willing to take. I have girded my loins and my quick finger is poised and readied to reject all incoming spam attacks with a click of my trusty mouse.
The vast majority of Christians and conservatives think porn is a problem.
But, due to the taboo nature of the topic, there’s not much open discussion of it among Christians. This has resulted in a lack of clarity on what the real problem is. The conversation is not as simple as it seems. Here’s some questions off the top of my head that are worth examining:
- Is there a difference between porn and erotica? If so, what distinguishes them?
- Since erotic poetry is included in the Bible, does that mean it’s ethical for Christians to publish and enjoy other erotica?
- If the Bible includes verbal erotica that prompts images in the mind, is there any reason we can say it is wrong to create or enjoy other forms of erotica?
- At what point (and why) in the following sequence does enjoying sexual imagery become immoral?
- The Song of Solomon => Other Erotic Poetry => Erotic Stories => Artistic Renditions of Nudity => Artistic Renditions of Sexual Acts => Animated Videos of Sexual Acts => Photography of Nude Women => Photography of Sexual Acts => Videos of Sexual Acts
- What is the difference between the erotica found in the Song of Solomon and the most frequented porn sites on the internet?
- Is looking at porn equivalent to lusting after a woman? If so, why?
- If a wife divorces her husband because he looks at porn, is that a legitimate divorce in God’s eyes?
- Does viewing porn really cause a man to lose sexual interest in his own wife… or is this just unfounded rhetoric?
- Does viewing porn cause single men to be less motivated to get a wife? Or would these men be unmotivated regardless of their porn viewing habits?
- Does porn create unrealistic standards for women?
- Is there any ethical way to consume porn? In other words, is porn inherently sinful or is it contextually sinful?
Fundamentally, we have a conceptual problem. The definition of erotica is “literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.”
The Song of Solomon is erotica.
50 Shades of Gray is erotica.
PornHub is erotica.
And, arguably, this blog is erotica.
Yet looking at them together, we instinctively know there is a difference between them. Yet we have not yet developed the sophistication to distinguish good erotica from bad erotica. Perhaps we could say ethical erotica is simply “erotica” and unethical erotica is simply “porn.” But we are still unable to distinguish the two.
When it comes to women, it’s an all or nothing game. If you’re alpha, you get all the best from a woman in increasing quantities over time. If you’re beta, you get all the worst from a woman in increasing quantities over time.
When I was a single in college, I was an introvert who was completely clueless about women. I never had a girlfriend prior to my wife. My physical appearance was sub-optimal to say the least. But I had a vision for my life. This vision translated into a genuine “IDGAF” attitude and a single-minded devotion to my cause that she found intriguing. I also had a vision for her life (an underestimated quality in game theory IMO.)
So in spite of my flaws, I had enough of an alpha vibe going to bring an attractive woman into my life. I never had to “ask her out” and she even dumped her current boyfriend at the time so she could be with me. (Vision is powerful.)
(I had also earnestly prayed specifically for a beautiful wife since I was a teenager. Another underestimated strategy for wife-getting.)
So when I met my wife, I didn’t think of it as getting “lucky” nor did I understand why she was attracted to me. I just assumed it was destiny and told her we should probably get married.
But shortly after we got married I became a beta. I tried to make her the center of my life. I started believing people when they said how “lucky” I was to have such a lovely wife. I started thinking “I better not screw this up. I’m going to do everything I can to be a good husband.”
But, much to my confusion, the harder I tried to be a better husband the unhappier she got.
I had a meager sex life the first several years of marriage. I felt lucky if I got any kind of action once-a-week. And I certainly didn’t want to bug her or pressure he to do anything more than that.
That’s the beta side of sex.
But after discovering the truth about women’s sexual preferences thanks to the red pill movement, I managed to “crack the alpha code” and turn my marriage around. The differences of experience is astounding.
It wasn’t an instant transformation. But it was a transformation that led to accelerated returns. What started as simply me feeling a little more confident turned into her nagging me less… which turned into more action and a happier woman… which turned into her doing things on her own initiative that she previously said she’d never do… and the rewards just seem to keep coming.
The marriage experience as alpha vs. the marriage experience as a beta is night and day.
“Christian” marriage advice is a scam because it doesn’t teach men and women to be happy. Rather, it only teaches men and women to reframe their standards to accept smaller blessings and learn how to cope with another “sinner.”
But, because the differences are so extreme between the alpha marriage and the beta marriage, I feel it would be a crime to merely equip men with “coping tools”. I don’t want to give you a metaphorical aspirin for your marriage. I want to help you restore your health as a man at the deepest level.
Because of this vital distinction, I think it is important to have clear and practical indicators to know whether you’re truly on the alpha path or not. It does a man no good to merely imitate alpha behaviors while never truly reaping the alpha rewards.
Alpha vs. Beta: A Practical Distinction
There are two aspects to determining whether you’re on the alpha path: the internal feedback and the external feedback.
The external feedback comes from your wife. Does she actively try to please you or does she merely comply with your demands?
A brutal, but effective test for this is as follows:
Don’t initiate sex for a week and don’t drop any hints that you’re interested. Does she initiate sex?
As Rollo Tomassi has pointed out, women have sex with alphas for validation; sex with betas is transactional. In other words, a woman needs to have sex with an alpha and if she doesn’t get it for an extended period of time she become anxious and seeks it out to validate herself. To use an analogy, it’s like a woman posting something on Facebook and anxiously checking in to see if anyone “liked” it. This is how a woman feels in the presence of an alpha husband. Every sexual act, regardless of how “good” it was, is like another “thumbs up” that validates her. It’s not so much the quality of the sex that matters, it’s the validation.
But sex with a beta is done from a sense of (reluctant) obligation. This is why wives often worry about “mismatched libidos” or ask “how often should married couples have sex to maintain a healthy marriage?” These questions indicate she’s looking for the minimum acceptable dose to qualify as performing her “Christian duty.”
My guess is that very few Christian men experience a true alpha frame. At best, they experience a beta frame with some “game” tactics thrown in to give the illusion of progress.
But do not despair. Your future is not determined by her current response to you. If you are willing to set your ego aside, there is an internal feedback you can use to recognize whether you are on your way to being a true alpha or not.
I’ll say it again: your ego is what will prevent you from becoming a true alpha in your marriage. Everybody wants to identify as the alpha. But it’s more useful to accurately identify yourself as a beta so you can finally recognize the root of the problem.
The internal feedback you need to examine in yourself is this:
Do you play to win? Or do you play to not lose?
Every time you try something, your most likely outcome on the first attempt is no success.
For example, if you call a company to see if they need your skill set, they will most likely decline.
The first time you try a new move in the bedroom, it will most likely not work.
The first time you try to assert yourself, you will most likely not be taken seriously.
You get the idea.
Your response to these kind of scenarios is what determines whether you can become the true alpha. Alpha and beta is not just about your behavior in the sexual arena. It’s how you approach all of life.
Alphas play to win. They know that every time they try something, they have a chance of winning.
Betas play to not lose. They interpret “no success” as failure and play it “safe” to avoid pain.
The alpha will contact the company unsolicited because they might have work for him. The beta will avoid the call out of fear of rejection or making some blunder that will cost the sale.
The alpha will invest some of his money in a new business venture because he might be successful. The beta fears losing his money and so he “responsibly” keeps it all in a savings account.
The alpha will pay for information that might give him a personal advantage. The beta worries about getting “ripped off” and so doesn’t buy the eBook, course, membership, etc. saying it’s “too expensive.”
The alpha will try out a novel idea he learned from a stranger on the internet because it might work. The beta will disagree with the idea and rationalize how it won’t work in his situation… or else he’ll agree with it and tell himself he’ll try it when “the time is right.”
The alpha will speak his mind or publish his thoughts because he is probably right. The beta will remain silent because he might be wrong.
The alpha will prioritize his own interests above his employer’s because he’s playing to succeed in his mission. The beta will say “yes” to everything the boss says because he doesn’t want to lose his job.
The alpha will get his “skin in the game” right away so he gets immediate feedback. The beta will spend his time prepping and organizing but avoids making first contact, telling himself he only wants to put his “best foot forward.”
The alpha will try new approaches with his wife if what he’s currently doing isn’t working. The beta will continue to use the same approach because the new approach might offend her.
Alphas are unphased by a lack of success. They know there will always be another opportunity. They do everything they can to increase their chances of success and they keep trying.
Betas are devastated by a lack of success. They think they had only one chance and they blew it. They do everything they can to avoid failure and only try things once.
I know all this because I’ve been on both sides of the equation.
If you want to become the alpha that a woman needs to have sex with, tell yourself the following statement every time you face hesitation:
I’m the type of man who plays to win.
Whenever you do anything important, imagine that you’re being paid to do it.
Many men are confident on their job. Few are confident elsewhere. Acknowledged responsibility gives a man confidence.
Thinking of myself as a “professional” helps me focus on skillful execution rather than on my doubts. And it helps me overcome my objections to investing the time and money to learn to do something properly.
Perhaps it will work for you too.
After reading Dr. Catherine Shanahan’s excellent book, Deep Nutrition, I’ve begun to suspect that the decline of female beauty and the rise of feminism is an effect of an even more fundamental cause that is not being discussed.
The following is an excerpt from Shanahan’s book. It’s lengthy, but well worth reading in its entirety. Emphasis mine:
Beauty researchers have divided female body types into four categories. In order of declining frequency they are: banana, apple, pear, and hourglass. Several studies performed in 2005 showed that apple-shaped women (with short waists and narrow hips) had almost double the mortality rates of women with more generous curves. Why would that be?
Voluptuousness is an indication of healthy female sexual dimorphism, while a lack of voluptuousness indicates a problem. Normally, the hips and bust developments involve expansion of the pelvic bones along with the deposition of fat and glandular tissue within the breasts. But women whose genetics are such that their spines are abnormally short or their hormonal surge less pronounced–or whose diet is such that it interferes with the body’s response to hormones–end up with boxier figures. If they’re thin, they’ll end up as bananas. If they put on weight, it gets distributed in a more masculine pattern–in the belly, on the neck, and around the upper arms–and they’ll become apples. Today, after three generations of trans fat consumption (which interferes with hormone expression; see Chapter 7), and with daily infusions of sugar (which interferes with hormone receptivity; see Chapter 9), hourglass figures have become something of a rarity. According to a 2005 study commissioned by Alva products, a manufacturer of designers’ mannequins, less than 10 percent of women today develop the voluptuous curves universally recognized as the defining features of a healthy and attractive female figure.
In a world of apples, pears, and bananas, writer Nancy Etcoff has suggested that the most beautiful among us are “genetic freaks.” It’s not an insult: she is merely referencing the statistical improbability of someone growing up to look like, to use her example, Cindy Crawford. But the suggestion seems to capture Etcoff’s general thesis accurately: when a stunningly beautiful person is born, it’s largely the result of (genetic) chance. These select few, the thinking goes, played the genetic lottery and won big. But I couldn’t disagree more. Why would biology program us to be hot for “genetic freaks”? It seems to me far more probable that we are attracted to beautiful bodies because they advertise superlative health. In keeping with this idea, researchers studying the effect of these four female body types on life span find that women with the most attractive of the four body types, the hourglass, not only live the longest, they also live better. Statistics consistently show that having a longer, slimmer waist and more womanly hips correlates with reduced diagnoses of infertility, osteoporosis, cancer, cognitive problems, abdominal aneurysms, diabetes and its complications, and more.
So far I’ve shown you a good deal of evidence that beauty is not incidental, not an accident of fate. It is the default position, the inevitable product of natural, unimpeded growth whose progress conforms to the rules of mathematic proportion. Just as the laws of physics dictate that six-sided crystals inevitably result when clouds of water vapor form in freezing air, generations of optimal nutrition prime human chromosomal material for optimal growth. If optimal nutrition continues throughout childhood development, the laws of biology dictate the final result: a beautiful healthy person.
[Note: Dr. Shanahan footnotes about a dozen or so primary sources which I have not indicated here. This excerpt can be found in her book on pages 68-70.]
If Shanahan’s thesis is correct then I believe she has, perhaps unintentionally, identified the root cause behind the sexual market crisis, the market saturation of pornography, and the feminist redefinition of beauty.
In other words, the first step in decline was to deprive women and girls of the nutrition needed to develop healthy beautiful bodies (i.e. the hourglass figure, large busts, pretty faces). Over several generations, this created a large female population of sexual “have nots.” In other words, beauty is now the rarity whereas in the past, unattractive women would have been considered rather rare and unfortunate.
This decline in beauty, as well as the rise of photography, video, and the internet created an interesting opportunity for these young “genetic freaks” who happened to look stunningly beautiful. They could now get paid simply for allowing their beauty to be photographed or for being filmed while having sex with hot masculine men. This was a completely different model than prostitution. It was not desperate women having sex with desperate men in exchange for money. This was “sexually liberated” women getting paid (or least promise of pay) to have sex with the alpha studs they always fantasized about. The title of the recent documentary on the pornography industry sums it up well: Hot Girls Wanted.
Both men and women became transfixed with pornography… not so much because of a decline in morality… but because men and women instinctively knew that this is what healthy, beautiful people full of vigor are supposed to look like. And in a world of sick, unattractive people, this contrast is all the more alluring. Unfortunately, this saturation of pornography seemed to have done little more than make men feel insecure about their dick sizes, encourage excessive fapping and lower motivation among young men, popularize the “cucking” fetish, make us think that blacks are a superior race, and make “normal” women feel insecure about their bodies and perhaps even envious of beautiful women.
In other words, watching beautiful people f**king each other does not seem to motivate average people to have more sex. But it does serve as a convenient and inexpensive way to keep the masses of malnourished unmotivated people from growing too discontent and protesting in a world of declining beauty.
I believe it was necessary for the success of feminism to preserve a remnant of pure unadulterated beauty as nature intended. Feminists may be opposed to pornography, but I imagine the evil mastermind that is leveraging feminism (probably men) see pornography as an indispensable propaganda tool. It would not be effective to simply allow all women to get uglier. If that were they case, we truly wouldn’t know any better. We wouldn’t be able to conceive of any greater beauty than what we see in front of us. There has to be contrast. As Saul Alinsky discusses in his Rules for Radicals book, the key to gaining political power is to divide the world between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Pornography shows women the “haves.” The rest of the population is the “have nots.”
Once you can convince people that they are the “have nots” and that the “haves” have benefited from an unfair system that they don’t have access to, you have gained political power. Withhold the truth from them. Rather than encouraging them to reverse the trend of downward beauty, tell them the standards of beauty need to be “redefined.” Yet encourage them to buy products that promise to make them more beautiful (but don’t address the root of the problem.) You have to keep dangling that carrot in front of them while telling them that they are a victim of an unfair system. It’s the “patriarchy” that’s oppressing them and imposing unrealistic standards of beauty onto them. Men are the problem.
Whether this decline in beauty was a masterminded plan by the elite or simply an unintentional bi-product of corporate greed, I don’t know. For the sake of intrigue, let’s assume it was a multi-generational conspiracy. At the least, it proved quite convenient for those who wished to leverage a large population of unattractive women for political gain.
All that said, I have a new perspective on the following verse:
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
Yes, the spirit is more important than the body because the body will perish. But spiritual virtues are expressed in a physical world. And we shouldn’t ignore the plain meaning of the command at the expense of being more “spiritual.” One of the most loving (and subversive) things a modern husband and father can do is this:
Take the lead in helping your wife and daughters properly nourish their bodies so they can become as beautiful as their biology will allow.
I recommend starting by reading the book Deep Nutrition with your wife. Any time is a good time to start. But I’d say it’s especially urgent if you will be having a kid soon or if you have daughters who will be entering puberty in the near future.
You have the power to reverse the trend of declining beauty for your progeny. (And, as a bonus, you can help your wife become more attractive and vigorous.)
Here are two troubling enigmas that are beyond my current understanding:
- Why do the vast majority of people choose to remain stagnant when it is in their power to change?
- How do we reconcile the drive to create life-saving technology with the consequence of more unhealthy people reproducing (saving lives vs. decline in beauty and genetic fitness)?
Both questions are related. People have far more power to change than we acknowledge. Apparently, we even have the power to change our genetic expression, thus becoming healthier and more attractive and producing beautiful babies (see the book Deep Nutrition.)
It is creative, intelligent, attractive people who invent and propagate the ideas and technology that allows unhealthy, unattractive people to live. Biblically, this seems right as each life has inherent dignity.
Yet it seems that the vast majority of recipients of this new freedom to live do not make much of it. They remain unhealthy (both physically and spiritually) and grow worse as time goes on (e.g. the fat angry feminist and the bitter emasculated soy boy). They develop a victim mindset and seem to serve little purpose other than to prop up an increasingly tyrannical government.
One hypothesis I have is that the spiritual health eventually manifests itself physically. For example, poor genetic fitness and physical unattractiveness is a result of poor nutrition which is a result of disregarding the wisdom of our ancestors (“honor your parents so that your days may be long…”) Also, continued poor health is a symptom of a lack of self-control, one of the spiritual fruits. And mental instability is (at least in part) a result of repeating negative or fearful thoughts; people who don’t dwell on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute” tend to have mental problems.
Our beliefs can be reprogrammed through propaganda so that we think what is ugly and unhealthy is acceptable. But it appears that propaganda cannot change our biological instincts. Men don’t want to mate with ugly women and women don’t want to mate with mentally weak men.
So, perhaps in the end, the seed of the spiritually unhealthy eventually dies out when it becomes physically manifest to the point of being sexually repulsive.
But perhaps God is so merciful that He wants to give the lower class a fighting chance. Even if it results in an epidemic fat ugly feminists and bitter mentally unstable men who reject Him. Perhaps God is willing to put up with a lot of crap just for the sake of a few repulsive people to repent and choose life… both in the spiritual sense and (as a consequence) a more vibrant physical life.
Theologians don’t get laid often.
This is why they have great difficulty grasping the ideas in the Song of Solomon. They literally have no “skin in the game.”
In reality, the Song of Solomon can be better understood by connecting the references to popular songs about sex. Take the following example from Song 2:17:
“Until the cool of the day when the shadows flee away, Turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle Or a young stag on the mountains of Bether.”
A theologian might get hung up on the individual words and come up with some historical references while still missing the point entirely.
But a fan of AC/DC already gets the point:
Taking more than her share
Had me fighting for air
She told me to come but I was already there
‘Cause the walls start shaking
The earth was quaking
My mind was aching
And we were making it and you
Shook me all night long
Yeah you shook me all night long
Wanted no applause
Just another course
Made a meal out of me and came back for more
Had to cool me down
To take another round
Now I’m back in the ring to take another swing
‘Cause the walls were shaking
The earth was quaking
My mind was aching