Rationalizing Fornication

by Frost on September 18, 2012

Pimpin’ ain’t easy.

Young Christian men have it especially hard. Not only must you navigate earthly bitch shields, you have to fight through the last minute resistance of God Himself. You must pass the shit tests of his beloved Son. You must invite the Holy Spirit upstairs to your apartment, so that it may sample some of your finest tap water, but only for a minute because you have to wake up early tomorrow.

I am presently withholding judgement on the question of whether or not the bible actually condemns pre-marital sex. Depending on how you interpret various scriptures, and which Greek-English dictionary you happen to have lying around, the bible may or may not give contemporary Christian men some wiggle room that allows some compromise between God and Game.

In this post, I offer my best attempts to rationalize the peaceful coexistence of the two. If I’m right: Christian men, go forth and seduce. If I’m wrong, I hope learned men such as Dalrock, Bruce Charlton, Koanic Soul, Vox Day, Bonald, The Gentleman Poet, Patriactionary, Ulysses and ballista will set us straight. Without further ado:

Rationalization #1

Banging a non-virgin woman with a condom doesn’t violate the biblical injunction against adultery, because you’re not actually going to adulterate any of her children. Non-procreative sex upholds the spirit, if not the letter, of the biblical injunction against adultery.

Rationalization #2

You are free to assume that any woman you bang is a virgin. If you make the (shocking!) post-coital discovery that she is not, let Deuteronomy 22 be your guide and divorce he:

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

(Note that Jesus would likely prefer that you delete her number, rather than cast the first stone.)

Rationalization #3

In the time of Christ, marriageable women abounded. Those men who sought, found them. The world we live in is different, and requires different coping strategies. Consider Matthew 19:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Can you bear to live as a eunuch? I can’t. So, this word is not for me. In a simpler time, I would be obligated to find a virgin bride and marry her. But these days, virgin brides don’t exactly grow on trees . So what’s a modern Christian man to do? I suggest: Make an honest and dedicated effort to finding and marrying one of the few remaining decent Christian women. But while that search is ongoing… a man has needs.

Rationalization #4

Ephesians 5:5 warns against whoremongering. But perhaps there is some acceptable level of whoring that qualifies a man as a dabbler, rather than a monger-er of whores. Since most contemporary American women are best viewed as whores with poor negotiating skills, we have a free pass to occasionally taste their wares, so long as we don’t let our pursuit of them cross the line from idle hobby to all-consuming obsession.

Rationalization #5

Christian sexual morality only applies to Christian women. Outsiders are fair game. I believe the Koran states this for Muslim men. (Either that, or my Muslim friends are also expert rationalizers.) Does the bible contain any indication that its decrees on sexual morality are void when it concerns non-Christian women? The Add Comment button is below and to your left.

And finally, the single best rationalization for the modern Christian man who would like to spend his salad years playing the field before he settles down, is this:

Every man must learn how to play the Two Games. This requires exposing himself to the temptations of the flesh. If a Christian man eventually marries a non-adulteress and spends the rest of his life doing his duty as a husband, father, provider, and follower of Christ, perhaps he will be forgiven some youthful indiscretions – especially if those indiscretions were a critical foundation to his education as a man, and as a Christian.

{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }

Koanic September 21, 2012 at 2:02 am

The whole “get out of jail free if she’s not a virgin” thing doesn’t apply unless she was falsely represented to you as a virgin, and her not being one is a dealbreaker. Otherwise you’re just mendaciously exploiting a loophole to fornicate.

It’s a situation embedded in the ancient Israeli culture where the father gives away the daughter. A similar situation today would be marrying some girl you met at church, finding out she’s not a virgin after she said she was, and then divorcing her.

The Gentleman Poet September 20, 2012 at 12:45 am

“You should read some C.S. Lewis. Not the Narnia stuff, the serious Christian stuff.”

I think CS Lewis would be gravely offended by that.

Cane Caldo September 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Koanic September 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm

What you’re groping towards is that fornication is not for men the big sin Churchians make it out to be. It’s still a sin, just like gossip.

Simon September 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm

So, where are you at the moment? Have you accepted that true purpose requires God? Are you leaning toward Christianity? I can’t get a gauge.

You might be better off actually trying to work out what God requires from you, than rationalisation.

asdf September 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm

“So, where are you at the moment?”

Faith as a means. That’s my guess.

And I’m not trying to be harsh here. Frost has posted a lot of personal stuff that leads me to believe that some Christianity is going to do him some good. But it has to potential to be really bad if he comes at it the wrong way (like cutting the wrong wire on a bomb).

I’d work on some psychology before any theology. Check out http://www.therawness.com

sonny September 19, 2012 at 1:23 am

heavens no, not the green one, anyone but the green one.

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 11:26 am

Still an agnostic. But obviously, one who takes Christianity much more seriously than your garden variety agnostic.

There is a lot of wisdom to be found in the bible, and Christianity may be a useful focal point around which reactionary forces can coalesce. Atheism is philosophically ludicrous, and the historiography of Christianity strikes me as more credible than Judaism or Islam.

So there’s a bit of faith as a means to wisdom and earthly political change, yes, but I certainly haven’t dismissed actual Christianity. The way I see it, learning more about the Christian religion, seeking God via prayer/meditation, and engaging with intelligent non-Churchians via this blog – all of these are worthwhile pursuits, even if their is no magic sky fairy.

But if He is there, then I am seeking him. And those who seek…

asdf September 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm

I don’t think we are that far apart. I hold very similair views with perhaps more background in the basic Christian theology and no real hangup over Biblical literalism.

You should read some C.S. Lewis. Not the Narnia stuff, the serious Christian stuff.

Capsaicin September 20, 2012 at 4:26 am

I know exactly the dichotomous situation you find yourself in — wanting to bed any pretty girl you choose but also desiring to do what is right. That’s why you’re looking for loopholes and rationalizations.

I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. It means that you take the Christian claims seriously enough to care about trying to reconcile hedonism with faith, even if it can’t be done in the way we might like.

Two resources you should check out.


And my favorite:


The White Horse Inn is a thought-provoking, intellectually honest, theologically orthodox Christian organization that seeks to connect the historic faith to today’s culture.

Their radio show is top-notch and anything written by Michael Horton, the group’s founder, is worth a look.

I grew up in the church and quit going once I entered college. Haven’t been able to fully break its hold on my mind and spirit, though, and have constantly thought and read about it. I guess I’m meanderingly finding my way back.

Elihu September 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

Thanks for the links.

Yeah, I enjoy how some ‘real’ Christians find my attempts to actually discern what the bible commands humanity to be cynical, missing the point, or in some other way inadequate. Apparently ‘true’ faith requires accepting whatever twisted version of your religion your thoroughly progressified pastor has fed you.

As for finding your way back, you don’t need to be a Christian to appreciate the tradition as such. Even if Jesus was just a weird schizo David Blaine, Christianity is still a much saner starting point for your worldview than modern conventional wisdom.

Pode September 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm

By the numbers.

1a – non virgin women:Adultery isn’t about adulterating (from your link, making impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients) the kids, it’s about adulterating yourself. The two becoming one flesh, again. IIRC it’s in one of the Corinthians, Paul talks about the Holy Spirit dwelling in each Christian, so our bodies are literally temples of God. Christ is the head, we are His body on earth. Sex makes the two humans one flesh. Again from memory “Shall I then make the body of Christ members with a prostitute? Certainly not!” Adultery is mixing something (or someone) impure with yourself. So the eligible pool is virgins, widows, or divorcees who were cheated on through no fault of their own (I’m sure there must have been one sometime, somewhere.)

1b- condoms: They can break. So the sin nature of the act depends on how vigorously you do it? Not buying it as stated, though I think it’s an open question where the forbidden line falls with nonprocreative sex acts. Met a couple once who declared they were certain that kissing was too much. Actually she declared it and nice handsome wholesome Billy Beta enthusiastically nodded in agreement. I imagine they’re divorced now. Want to return to pull this thread on nonprocreative sex a bit later.

2: “If any man take a wife…” Suuuurrre you intended to marry her. “God is not mocked”

3a – rarity: Proverbs talks about a good woman being worth more than many rubies and an honorable wife more than fine gold. Human nature doesn’t change. Cultures change in the degree to which they fail to contain the damage human nature would otherwise cause. Some (patriarchal, Christian, or better both) fail less extensively than others.

3b – eunuch: Have we not been made eunuchs by men, our forefathers, the men who gave women the vote and fell for feminism’s lies over and over until the very idea of manhood is borderline criminal? My translation says let him who is able to accept it accept it, which sounds a lot like a divine command to MGTOW. Paul says it’s better to remain as he was (single and celibate) since a single man seeks to please God and a married man seeks to please his wife. Sound like a Christian’s version of Make your mission not your woman your priority? He also says it’s “better to marry than to burn with passion”, so if you absolutely have to, go ahead and marry. Do you really HAVE to have that HB8 whose number you’ll erase after you rail her? Is that the most passion you can muster? Take your daily bread, give thanks that you’re not being nailed to a tree, and get over your “need.”

4: See above about not making the members of Christ members of a prostitute.

5: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” Hard to be more yoked or more unequal than when you’re one flesh. What the unbelievers do amongst one another is on them, but Christians are supposed to represent Christ to them, not use them to get their rocks off.

I’d comment on Islamic morality but a) it’s off topic and b) factual summaries of Koranic teaching are anti-muslim hate speech responsible for numerous deaths and violent uprisings around the globe, or so I’m told.

6, your last and best: Yes, all men, Christians included, have to deal with the reality that both genders sin. Churchianity has and continues to dedicate all its strength to denying that women sin at all. The hardest part of taking the red pill for me has been the additional red pill that my entire family and every church I’ve ever been to has worshipped Hera/Juno, goddess of motherhood, instead of Christ. Wait, that’s not fair. Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, whenever some kid enlists, and 9/11 they take time out to worship Ares/Mars the god of war instead.

Sorry, derailed. Playing the two games. Where I’ve settled on this whole question so far is catch and release fishing. Getting oral as objective confirmation that my game was adequate (or not), then calling it a night. If I want to see her again, I’m evasive about why, if I want to make certain she likes me but never calls again, I tell her the truth. “Aww, that’s so sweet, you’re a great guy” “Goodbye to you too dear”
Like you I can’t accept being a eunuch, but witholding myself from her prevents me from feeling a unitive bond. Whether that’s enough to prevent becoming one flesh I don’t know, I may be rationalizing what I want to be true. Because none of this sounds much like fleeing from temptation, more like actively seeking out just as much temptation as I can stand. So I don’t know. Maybe the answer is to ignore it all, focus singlemindedly on my mission, and if God throws a woman in my path that I go out of my mind for I’ll think about marrying her. ‘Cause going out of my mind is the only way I’d get legally married.

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Thanks for the lengthy response. I’ll try and do it justice…

1) Interesting take on the meaning of adultery. But considering that the sin of adultery consists of all sexual acts that can potentially ‘adulterate’ children, and does not include many sexual acts that most certainly adulterate your soul (say, bestiality) I’m going to stick with my interpretation.

Re condoms, fair enough. So what about an infertile chick? Or if you have a vasectomy? Or she’s on Depo?

2) Here’s how I see it playing out.

A Christian should only bang a girl who he would consider ‘marrying’ i.e., if he later finds out she is a virgin and willing to do her duty as a faithful and doting Christian wife, then the man is obligated to do his Christian duty as a husband to her.

If she is not a virgin (i.e. an adultress) or unwilling to uphold her duty as a Christian wife, than she is effectively divorcing you. Your soul is clean.

Of course, as a Christian man, you must be genuinely ready to acknowledge your duty to any virgins you bang who don’t subsequently leave your flock. I imagine this is what Koanic is talking about above.

3) Paul says it is better to be celibate, but this command is only for those who can bear it. ‘Marrying’ a non-virgin and committing yourself to a lifetime of adultery strikes me as more unChristian than the PUA lifestyle. Since only a very small percentage of modern women will make good Christian wives, our options are Celibacy, Adultery, or some combination of concubinage and harem management. see Friday’s post for my solution.

4) God surely frowns on whoremongering. But sin exists on a gradient of severity. If the choice is between whores, adultery or celibacy, and celibacy is unbearable, bring on the whores.

5) Hmm. What does it mean to be unequally yoked with a non-believer? That seems to imply servitude, i.e. do not make non-Christian slaves a part of your household. But I admit I have no knowledge of the context of this passage.

As for representing Christ, perhaps the best way to spread the word is to achieve a position of ultimate emotional power over women, and then explain to them exactly why you have no interest in ever marrying/committing to them. In the past few years, I’ve explained to several girls that if they want men to take them seriously as commitment prospects, they should stop acting like whores.

6) I think the typical 1st century Roman would consider your oral sex approach to me more fornication-y than mere sex! If you’re looking for a rationalization, why not just say that the physical barrier of a condom is sufficient?

I have more to write but I think I’ll just put it in Friday’s post.

What’s your background by the way? Age, country?

Cheers and thanks for the response,

Pode September 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Briefly (yeah right)

@ 1, the doctrine that God/Christ/Holy Spirit lives in the body of the believer and therefore the physical body is spiritually relevant shows up all thru the New Testament, Romans, Ephesians, 1st Corinthians, etc. Specifically 1 Cor. 6:15 “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!” So my interpretation seems unfortunately a difficult interpretation to avoid. But of course everyone says that about their own interpretations.

@5 it’s 2 Cor. 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” Hey, there’s that pesky body as temple thing again. At least there’s a fringe benefit in that it forbids both your wife and you from becoming disgusting fat beasts. Temples should look good, it’s kind of a functional requirement.

@ 4 “But sin exists on a gradient of severity” If only. No, sorry. In this world, yeah. Tycho of Penny Arcade says he feels great pity for anyone who says all sins are the same, they tragically lack imagination and he’d like to show them some of his bookmarks. Unfortunately God isn’t of this world, and doesn’t grade on the curve. If I mix a glass of fine wine and a glass of raw sewage, I have sewage. If I mix a barrel of fine wine and a glass of sewage, I still have sewage. From Isaiah, “All your good deeds are as filthy (used menstrual) rags” Jesus taught that the thought was just as much a sin as the deed (calling someone a fool is the same as murdering them in your heart, looking with lust is adultery). Without God we are just hopelessly and utterly screwed.

All because Adam told Eve a little white lie to make sure his precious snowflake stayed away from the tree. Read Genesis carefully, God tells Adam (but not Adam and Eve) not to eat, then Eve tells the serpent “But God said if we *touch* the tree we die.” Serpent replies from the branches of the tree, “you will not surely die” and Eve buys it because hey, the serpent’s *in* the tree and clearly not dead, plus the fruit looks SO yummy and why shouldn’t I be like God anyway? Later we hear that sin entered humanity thru *Adam*, not Eve. Adam treated Eve like she was the only woman in the world (understandable, but God had made him one before, He’d make him another) and he was afraid to lose her. Rather than own his authority as husband and tell her “God said don’t eat, I’m telling you don’t even go near it”, he wimped out and claimed God had commanded what he wanted to command her, to make sure she’d obey. That was a real red pill moment for me, to see that Original Sin was failure to properly command a woman for fear of losing her. And I know all too well exactly how that gets passed down from father to son.

@6 Sex = marriage, so I’m exploring things which are fun but not necessarily sex. Weaselly rationalization that I’ve already been called on, but damn, after 25 years of blue pill misery and not entirely voluntary celibacy, necessity is the mother of invention / desperation sets in.

About me, I’m 2 years and a few weeks shy of being a Steve Carell movie, born and raised in as blue pill / Church of Hera / tradcon feminist a family as they come, with scary abusive grandfathers on both sides to make sure I never ever saw masculinity as positive in any way except lip service. Bounced all around the States growing up, settled in DC burbs, and started scraping the bottom of the women barrel rather than question my own blue pill BS about why it was that all women said I’d make some woman very happy (just dear God don’t let it be me!). Curse of the moderately intelligent, your hamster is smart and thus you believe your own BS.

Kalim Kassam September 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm

“I’d comment on Islamic morality but a) it’s off topic and b) factual summaries of Koranic teaching are anti-muslim hate speech responsible for numerous deaths and violent uprisings around the globe, or so I’m told.”


Please do comment! Your commentary on the Christian view was enlightening and, as a red-pill taking Muslim trying to sort through analogous issues from this side, your thoughts may well be helpful to myself, other Muslims, and the just-plain-curious.

To address a) If there were a Muslim manosphere or some other appropriate venue I knew of where these questions could be seriously asked & intelligently considered, I’d go there and be “on topic”, but failing that, this seems the best place.

To address b) I’ll just say seek Truth, you pussy.

I think the biggest difference between the Muslim view and the Christian view is that the “Christian Man’s Trilemma,” as Frost/Elihu has described it, is for us a “Muslim Man’s Dilemma”. Celibacy is, contrary to the NT view, a strongly disfavoured option.

Muhammad is reported to have said: “He who marries has completed half of his faith” & the Qur’an in 57:27 explicitly condemns (presumably celibate) Christian monasticism.

These are sourced here along with other sayings on the topic of marriage by the Prophet and the Shi’a Imams including Imam Jafar As-Sadiq, founder of the Jafari Madhab [legal school] which I follow (though I’m not endorsing the link, what with it’s cwies of waaycism).

So…any thoughts you’re willing to share on what Islam has to say about what sexual morality a Muslim man living in the modern West should practice?

Elihu September 20, 2012 at 10:22 pm

Kalim, I didn’t know you were a Muslim! Let’s pow wow about this over Skype. Also please don’t blow up my house. (Just kidding, I want to make sure this blog remains an “unPC Safe Space.”)

I was under the impression that for Muslim men, sex with non-believers doesn’t count, i.e. that Islamic sexual jurisprudence is primarily concerned with upholding the purity of Muslim women. But I could be wrong.

And a broader question: Why Islam? Christianity and Islam both make equally large demands of my credulity regarding their supernatural claims, but Christianity strikes me as – at least – a much more impressive conspiracy theory/magic trick than Muhammed’s cave revelations.

Care to make your best philosophical/historical argument as to why I should pick up a scintar and start waging holy war?


Kalim Kassam September 21, 2012 at 4:14 am


Yes, I’m a recent “revert,” just making my first steps on the path, its only been a few months since I started seriously practicing. I was still in the seeking phase when last we spoke.

I can only share some of my reasons for deciding to follow Islam but I don’t expect them to be compelling enough for you or other readers to join with me in the forces of jihad, as they’re quite personal.

My path to Islam certainly came largely through Christian apologists (CS Lewis & Peter Kreeft chief among them), but one reason that I ended up with Islam is that it is the faith of my fathers; I also like that the faith was chosen for me when I was formally inducted into it as a baby rather than one I chose. This whole idea of picking and choosing which rules or religion or whatever you want to follow, though commonplace today, was not present in most traditional societies. As a reactionary, you should grok all of this. There are still some matters of doctrine I sometimes harbour doubts about, but I try to increase my faith through orthopraxy, prayer, obedience and further education.

In terms of swallowability of the claims of Christianity versus Islam I found the historical claims of the former but the theological claims of the latter easier to accept. Christianity & the Gospel emerged much more fully in the view of history than Islam and the Qur’an six centuries later. But some of the the theological claims of Christianity I had difficulty really understanding let alone accepting (such as the Trinity and the atonement) whereas I had a better understanding of what the main points of Islamic belief are (i.e. one God, His Angels, His Scriptures, His Prophets, the afterlife and Judgement Day). I think I’ve recommended to you before the works of Seyyed Hossein Nasr as an accessible but philosophical exposition of Islam.

I do have a great love of Christianity and in addition to my Islamic religious obligations, I’ve been frequently attending an Anglo-Catholic high mass where I love the sung English-language liturgy and profit from the scripture readings, sermons and formation sessions.

I am relatively uneducated on these kind of matters in Islam, but I had never heard the view you are putting forward. It’s probably worth noting that Islam is not monolithic and interpretations vary. For example, in Sunni Islam, there are 4 different legal schools that have different rules but all consider each other mutually and fully orthodox, further, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the premier institution of Islamic scholarship, and other Muslim authorities also accept the legitimacy of the Shi’a schools. My own specific brand of Islam: Shi’a Nizari Ismailism is also a bit of an oddity, for example we pray and tithe in a different way from other Muslims, and we have a great emphasis on the esoteric aspects of faith. I don’t know a good article to summarize what we’re all about but this video is excellent and this article by the same guy will take you quite a bit deeper.

I would really love to be enlightened by anyone with a some more knowledge than me, but the view you put forward seems unlikely to me for two reasons

1) In Islam there is not a 2-way distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, but rather a 3-way distinction between Muslims, People of the Book (i.e. Christians, Jews, Sabians and arguably some others), and full-blown heathens. Chaste women from the first two categories are lawful for a Muslim man to marry (5:5).

2) The same basic story appears in both of the two most authoritative Sunni Hadith collections (Sahih Muslim & Sahih Bukhari) where Muhammad ordered a Jewish couple stoned who had committed improper sexual intercourse. Now, he was, in this story, enforcing the Torah, but he was also in a way defending the chastity of a non-Muslim woman. I’m not sure whether this story appears in authoritative Shi’a Hadith collections.

3rd Millenium Men January 7, 2013 at 6:23 am

“I also like that the faith was chosen for me when I was formally inducted into it as a baby rather than one I chose.”

How could anybody ‘like’ that?! Some people might feel grateful because they eventually accept the faith for themselves, but simply because it was placed onto you as a child? That makes no sense.

asdf September 18, 2012 at 3:49 pm

This whole series, and many comments, betrays a real lack of understanding of basic Christian theology.

Your morality is not some ledger book with some good acts on one side and some bad acts on another and then when you get up to the pearly gates Saint Peter adds up the tally and sends people with a positive balance up and a negative balance down. That’s the kind of Christian morality they teach you when you’re eight years old because they know you can’t understand anything deeper.

Christian theology demands the submission of the ego. A perfect Christian submits to God completely. He does not negotiate with God. He wakes up in the morning and asks, “what does God want me to do today.” Taking it further he sees himself as an extension of God’s will.

If you do many great works, but do so to feed your own ego, you are as destined for hell as any other sinner.

Taming your own ego is way harder then any particular moral act, though it makes all moral action afterward much easier. If you, like me, relied on your ego for strength most of your life this is a very very hard thing to do. However, the other path, the one that thinks your always just one notch or one benjamin away from happiness, let’s just say there is no bottom to that well.

Obstinance Works September 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm

“Christian theology demands the submission of the ego”

And that is where the way people actually participate in Christianity, and where the Bible, in it’s purest sense, diverge. There is always a third way.

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 11:00 am

Sure, I agree with all this. Excellent points.

But I don’t see how it refutes the point I’m making, i.e. that the modern Churchian interpretation of Christian sexual morality is flawed.

Cane Caldo September 19, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Yes, the modern Church’s attitude towards the sexes and sex are wrong.

Pode’s individual responses below are great. We can skip his own rationalization (as he is obviously aware), and his last two sentences are gold

“Maybe the answer is to ignore it all, focus singlemindedly on my mission, and if God throws a woman in my path that I go out of my mind for I’ll think about marrying her. ‘Cause going out of my mind is the only way I’d get legally married.”

Lines up pretty well with the disciples reaction (some married) to Jesus’ teaching on divorce.

asdf September 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm

I don’t know what the modern church is like. I haven’t been to church much in 20 years. I’m going to my first confession in two decades this weekend.

I was pretty scared about what I read for a lot of the protestant faiths when I was researching what church to try. After attending a few different churches lately I’ve decided to go with my original Catholic faith.

John Doe September 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm

It’s easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than to get permission before the fact. Rationalization is an attempt to “get permission” before the fact. You may be right, perhaps the Bible does not condemn out of wedlock sex, but you would be going against the entire weight of deep thinkers who have considered the topic before you. Dunno about you but when I am so far out on a limb that nobody else chose to go I start doubting whether I am missing something that everybody else was able to see…

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 10:50 am

Well, rationalization in this context is actually a good-faith attempt to understand exactly what the bible really commands. I certainly have a conflict of interest in the sense that I would rather find scriptural justification for a non-celibate lifestyle, but at least I’m trying not to let that cloud the issue.

If I come across like a rationalizing little cunt, it’s only because I’m playing devil’s advocate. I’m basically the only person in the world arguing for my position, so I might as well do my best to give it a fair hearing. If I’m wrong, better minds will strike this series of posts down.

Koanic September 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm

The bottom line is, God hates bonobo mating. If you perpetuate it, he’ll hate you. God is to be feared. Unlike Mohammad, Jesus was no casuisting excuse weasel. We already know his answer: if your prick causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s no use lying to yourself, he sees straight to the heart. Available pussy is just like riches – both make heaven difficult to enter.

The solution to the modern Christian male’s problems is to practice a brand of monogamy/polygamy so vicious it makes pimps flinch. Righteousness requires emotional sadism and reproductive exploitation. When dealing with feralmales, anything within the letter of the law is fair play.

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 10:46 am

What are the details of the strong pimp hand you perceive Jesus as preaching?

I’m posting my conclusion on Friday, would be interested to see yours as a counterpoint.

Koanic September 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm

I wasn’t proposing Jesus as the model of the alpha to be followed for modern Game. That’s a jackass Churchian move. Totally different environment back then.

Elihu September 19, 2012 at 3:42 pm

I’m asking for more details on this:

“The solution to the modern Christian male’s problems is to practice a brand of monogamy/polygamy so vicious it makes pimps flinch. Righteousness requires emotional sadism and reproductive exploitation.”

But you may want to wait for Friday’s post.

Koanic September 19, 2012 at 9:15 pm

I just mean the sort of Game where you view emotionally disemboweling a girl as strengthening the relationship. Verbal cruelty, takeaways, jealousy, physical roughness if you can get away with it. Lying, too.

With sufficient levels of dark triad game, plus the threat/reality of additional wives, Christian guys should have no troubles despite the anti-hookup rule.

Basically, drop the usual mores of social interaction and recognize that truthful, fair, honest, virtuous dealing in this case means continuously communicating masculine dominance to her womb, NOT with logical words or objective behavior but with emotional impact.

Previous post:

Next post: