As found on Reddit (screen-capped for obvious reasons), we have a perfect psychological study of Blue Pill Churchian female worship:
Unfortunately, this is more the rule than the exception. While I’m tempted to leave much of this to the commenters here, the notables that haven’t been said are worth explaining.
This guy likely struggled for 18 years against this woman’s resistance, society, his church, and everything else, until finally he had that Fireproof moment where he finally gave into Satan’s tempting and followed into the sin of Adam by submitting to his wife. One could naturally say that things might get less hectic since he finally stopped fighting her resistance, realizing he had no control anyway in this modern age. Sadly to say, this poor tool bought himself a one way ticket off the narrow road due to his resulting abdication of his God-given role, not to mention the idolatry and goddess worship he exhibits in this post.
Regardless to say, this is a great illustration out of many of how Godly marriage (Marriage 1.0) has grown completely bankrupt. The wise will know that this inversion of marriage from one that glorifies God to one that glorifies Woman has unfortunately become the norm due to deliberate action of both the churches and society:
Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. Thomas Nelson; 1 edition (September 1, 2004).
As always, there’s an interest in marriage, and especially Biblical-defined marriage on this blog. To that end, this book is of interest given its popularity. As requested by Jeff, here is a review.
Eggerichs makes the whole basis of his book one verse in Ephesians: However, you also, everyone, let each one love his wife as himself, and the wife, that she give deference to the husband. (Ephesians 5:33) In doing that he attempts to describe it using two acronyms in order to avoid the conflict in marriage that the author calls “The Crazy Cycle”: COUPLE and CHAIRS. In using the COUPLE acronym in relationship to men loving women, Eggerichs points to Closeness, Openness, Understanding, Peacemaking, Loyalty, and Esteem. In using the CHAIRS acronym in relationship to women respecting men, the author refers to Conquest, Hierarchy, Authority, Insight, Relationship, and Sexuality.
At 324 pages, this book offers an incredibly repetitive view of one Scripture and could have been shortened considerably. To that end, Eggerichs pulls in other Scriptures, but often pulls them wildly out of context to support his views. The author ignores other Scriptures in order to attempt to make his message more palatable to the world and to the sensibilities of women. In addition, the book offers a feelings-oriented, psychologically-based view instead of a factual-based covenant view of marriage as described in the Bible with the goal to honor God. Eggerichs comes close to this idea in the final chapters (“The Rewarded Cycle”), but falls short in relating this. This is a New York Times bestseller, and if the world loves you, watch out!
While the book contains some kernels thrown towards the men in the name of “respect”, the book fits the definition of traditional feminist marriage to a tee. The book offers no solid discrete Biblical definition of either “love” or “respect”, nor addresses Biblical submission of the wife to the husband sufficiently. Submission is defined as the husband’s responsibility to “protect and provide”, whereby the woman submits by simply accepting what he is expected to do by her will.
The bulk of the good in this book is found in the final chapters in that Eggerichs rejects the idea of the wife being the husband’s Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the message to men is that “loving their wives as Christ loved the Church” is that they are to be doormats (or worshipers) to women in the guise of chivalry in order to allow her to “change” him. This book encourages the average immaturity of women, and places them as the sole beneficiary of the marriage. Ultimately, respect becomes as described by Dr. Laura in terms of praise and appreciation for all the good “tricks” her husband does to service her every whim.
Finally, Eggerichs shows a poor understanding of marriage and of the natures of men and women in general. He misses the import of what happened to Eve, Adam’s resulting sin and God’s resulting judgment (Genesis 3:17: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” [rather than God]). He rather misses the rebellious nature of women in buying into the “women as responders” doctrine – “if he would just love her sufficiently, she would fall in line and respect him”.
The reviews of the book on Amazon illustrate a number of other topics that Eggerichs refused to deal with, such as the erroneous view that women need to be respected rather than honored (her desire that her husband submit to her, not existing in Scripture). The average state of rebellion that women exist in before God is a major issue of marriage, but sadly is not dealt with in this book in the name of “respect”.
Overall, this book is another excellent manual of what Blue Pill marriage (Marriage 2.0) looks like. While excellent as a chronicle of such things, it is ultimately useless for advice in dealing with the real and numerous obstacles the society, the churches, women, blue-pill men, and other entities have placed on men who have desired a God-honoring meaningful marriage that bears fruit to His Name.
While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.
Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.
I never argued that marriage and family are feminist concepts in total. As I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society. What I do argue, however, is that those things have been subverted into tools by the feminists in order to facilitate their control of men and perpetuate the view of female superiority that swims in the mind of every woman from birth. To that end, all women are feminists and a large degree of men that follow into the pattern taught them and function as enablers of the will of women into society.
To that end, marriage and family has been redefined from something that brings glory to God into something that brings glory to the woman. Besides leading men into committing the sin of Adam and forfeiting the grace of their salvation before Jesus, the idea of marriage has been changed to support these basic feminist concepts. I denote this change by using the appellation of version numbers. Marriage 1.0 is marriage and family as God intended it. Marriage 2.0 is the feminist redefinition. I posted a chart reflecting the differences here.
Part of the function of marriage is to secure the enslavement of men to women. This is reflected by the base definition of marriage to be the prostitutes deal of conditional sexual access for lifetime enslavement to the woman. Children further reinforce the shackles the man has been placed under, as the sole reason for the woman to have sex with him dries up after she’s obtained the number of children she desires. She has her hooks into her prey.
Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it. I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her. The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.
Then we look at the period within the marriage. Say we find the perfectly marriageable woman who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the goddess, who doesn’t believe that the world should revolve around her and her desires (Satan generally takes care of that not happening anyway through the children). The rest of society is there to council her in feminist ways, including all the women in her social circles. His money is really yours, the sirens whisper in her ears. How dare that man of yours tell you “No”! These people, including those preaching in the churches, sway the woman into a feminist position. The men are not immune either, constantly being reminded of how lesser they are compared to their wives in society, and reminded they need to man-up and marry and then in the marriages “step-up and lead the family” – or in other words, submit to his wife and fulfill her will. This redefinition has been rationalized into the Scripture via tradition to the point that almost nobody sees this, including Ramsey.
There Is No Good Marriage
This leads into the next thing Ramsey wrote:
But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win.
Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡
As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”. Just a feminist one that continues to feed men into the fire while putting their resources in the hands of women, creating children to perpetuate the process. The marriage ultimately just produces children to feed right into the process, starting with the mother’s own feminist indoctrination from infancy. As aptly stated, feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children, which is done well within the home, schools, and wider society. This indoctrination is an inevitability with feminism in place – there is no place that anyone can go without being exposed to feminist messaging and consequences for not heeding that programming. Marriage is not a counter to feminism, but the vehicle in which feminism is effectuated and grows.
A lot of men have looked at the issue with wisdom and have determined that as long as feminism exists, marriage is a counter-productive activity which only perpetuates feminism instead of ends it. There can be no other answer until feminism is dealt with. Deal with feminism, then we’ll talk about marriage and children.
When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless.† Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.
In looking at Ramsey’s parting shot, it shows just how illogical both posts have been. As shown, the tool required to solve the problem of feminism is not marriage, as lack of marrying is not what is creating the feminism problem. The problem is a systemic failure of wider society that has infested marriage, causing women to reject marriage for their goddess delusion and men to reject marriage for the factors mentioned above. As long as Marriage 2.0 remains the default and only expression, marriage is poisonous for men. I respect the choice of men to marry or not, unlike Ramsey and the other advocates of feminism that make their man-up rants. The more that men don’t enter into marriage, the more that feminism doesn’t work. This alone scares supporters of Marriage 2.0 into making these man-up rants, since married men are needed to make feminism work and when marriage is gone, feminism ceases to function. Add to this the effects that Marriage 2.0 have on society like the economic ones Ramsey points out and it scares them even more. The house of cards is toppling, deservedly so:
Brother Derek has had the luxury of having married a decent woman early in life. From this perspective, his viewpoints are pretty solid. The problem is that the vast majority of men (and women) can’t enjoy the same luxuries as Ramsey (and his wife), and we know this is because of the bastage of feminism.
After reading all the horror stories and general facts of life, it’s hard to not believe there’s an incredible amount of solipsism and deception out there. “Since marriage works for me, it works for everybody”. They do not heed the horror stories as a wise man would (Proverbs 22:3) and avoid them. They rationalize that they just didn’t do it right or some other such thing. Yet the facts on the ground are what they are, and can not be changed by those that would wish it all away.
As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.
That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.
Ultimately with male mother need conditioning both parties from birth, both parties are willing throwing themselves into this arrangement. Women are raised to believe that their will, whims and fancy are supreme and that all needs to be fulfilled, and they are pointed to the men in their lives. Men are raised to believe that the entire worth of their lives is wrapped up in the approval of and service of women. They are taught that women are greater and men are lesser, and that consequently men are put on this earth to serve women. Women are not the image of man anymore, but beyond images of God (gods themselves). Men are not the image of God anymore, but useful tools put on this earth to serve the gods in the flesh with the construct of Marriage 2.0 as the vehicle to do so.
This leads us into a video entitled “Chad Prather: There Is Nothing Toxic About REAL Masculinity”. (H/T Boxer)
This marks the second video I’ve encountered now in the history of this blog that I couldn’t get through all the way without losing my lunch. This is the “real” masculinity that the blue-pill idiots espouse:
Respect to a woman is a deference to her. It is manliness. That’s why I bow. That’s why I open the door. Whatever you want, I got it.
What is a man? What is masculinity? It is the bowing of my head to you, it is the bowing of my will to you. That’s what a man is. That’s what masculinity is.
You yield to the will of the woman. That’s a real man…
See the slaves/cucks extolling the virtues of their own enslavement. Gentlemen, if you didn’t believe me in modeling what marriage is, believe this:
These are the “good men” and “real men” that you are expected to become in “marriage”.
Her will is supreme and she has her friends, family, church and the full force of the court system to back it up if you don’t submit to her.
The courtship and marriage exists to train and vet your ability to submit to a woman.
This is not a facet of modern feminism. Before the advent of the divorce court and child support enforcement, women used societal disapproval to punish non-compliance where the man became persona non-grata to everybody. The only difference is that Christ and the Church was replaced with the State.
Part of the delusion of traditional marriage is the idea that the man is the “head” of his family and that the wife will be a good loving wife who will submit to you. This “Driving Miss Daisy” submission is the hallmark of traditional marriage, where the woman in the backseat tells the driver to go somewhere and he does it.
Marriage 2.0 is far from Scriptural or God-honoring. His design was not for men to take women as their gods over Him, following after the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:17).
She is not really in love with you, but what you can do for her. Once you become useless to her, you will see exactly how “in love” she ever was with you. The marriage you thought you had will prove the sham that it always was.
If you are Christian and think Christian women don’t do this or believe this way, think again!
I can keep going, but the point is made. There is nothing honorable in the sight of God about “marriage” in this day and age to the point that it’s a falsehood to call it that. Men, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose in this day and age by marrying a woman.
To clarify, I’m not telling you to not marry, as I always believe it’s the man’s own choice in the end. I’m just telling you the facts on the ground, as it were. The Red and Blue Pill are before you – it’s the question of which one you will take.
In light of the last two posts, I thought I’d focus on something encouraging, and something that was in my “to be posted” list fits right into the current trend of discussion. While this guy opposes MGTOW, it elicits an interesting response compared to the others within and without the manosphere.
Notice something different and unique about him compared to the average way men are dealt with in the church? He’s showing respect towards the men in his audience as human beings and actually shows he is listening. He hits most all (if not all) points I hit back here regarding why women aren’t finding marriage. While I can find much disagreement with him on this and other matters, I can respect him and how he deals with men regarding this issue. He sees men not as chattel to be cudgeled into submission, but men with choices before God. More importantly, he actually acknowledges the reality on the ground men are facing with respect to women and quite obviously sees men as equal participants on the walk with God. He actually acknowledges women as just as sinful as men and actually rebukes women. He doesn’t shout down at men, doesn’t seek to break men at every turn. He actually treats the men in his audience as men and not as chattel that won’t know their roles and shut their mouths. He doesn’t accept the base tenets of feminist doctrine.
He seems mad because I don’t trash women on my blog. The lack of men in church isn’t a man problem or a women problem or a pastor problem. It’s a system problem.
I’m “mad” because you are trashing men on your blog and making the lack of marriage in the church into a man problem. Beyond that it is a system problem and you are contributing to the problem. The problem is the “system problem” is quite routinely the “man problem”. In other words:
It would all just work right if men would just know their role and play along.
David, be the solution, don’t be the problem. I link to you on the side because in a lot of respects you do address problems within the church. The sole reason I bothered to respond at all, is because you are the problem in that post and not the solution.
Why do men hate going to church? Because men don’t want to be unjustly vilified as the problem of everything wrong in the church and the world. You don’t need a whole book to answer that. Place the blame where it properly lies.
While he uses much less harsh language than the typical man-up rant, it still illustrates a false perspective colored by feminism inherent to the church: It could never be what everybody else is doing. Murrow begins by showing us the female-centric nature of this post:
Ask any young woman what the Christian dating scene is like these days.
So why are all the single Christian ladies having trouble finding single Christian guys for companionship and romance?
So what caused this imbalance? Why is there such a shortage of godly young men?
Simple. We screened them out of church as boys.
Replying to such a post seems incumbent, as such a post is emblematic of what David Murrow claims to be out against in his book and much of the rest of his blog. It offers a female-centric view of the issue and assumes the problem is wholly men. Such things as this post is a major contributor to driving men out of the church, especially when voiced in the chorus of misandrist pastors that exist in the churches such as Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, and Albert Mohler. Such rants from those figures and others are so ubiquitous that they have earned a meme title in a lot of circles: “Man up and marry those sluts”. Men definitely do not have a desire to show up to a church service and be blamed incessantly for not measuring up to a masculinity that demands he be shamed and blamed at every opportunity.
In fact, if one wants to observe the real causes of this, they need to get away from secular and feminist sources (like was quoted in this post), and start talking to men. The problems are readily known and dealt with in legion on this blog and in other places.
3. Lack of commitment by women. It could be argued more forthrightly that women are the ones delaying marriage. This is encouraged by the “True Love Waits” movement, and other like movements such as the courtship movement. Add to that the influence of modern feminism, and a woman must never seek marriage until she’s attained the Feminist Merit Badges. With her parent’s support, she must attain college, a career, travel, missionary or volunteer work, and ride the Carousel before she ever considers marriage. When the time comes that she is ready (in her 30’s, funny huh?), all the “good men” are either married or have given up. The “true love waits” message is for us men, not the women. Wait until she gets done with her adventures and then be ready and waiting for her. When this doesn’t work out they complain that the “good men” just aren’t there waiting at their beck and call. Perish the thought!
4. Unsupportive church environment. The general environment of the churches is anti-marriage formation. Misandrist man-up rants have been dealt with, already. Murrow himself points out in his book the issues of segregation and other factors that keep men apart from women. Then, the general way that mating is treated by others in the churches (gossip), just push men away from it.
In conclusion, while it’s expected for man-up rants to come from most of the church and secular crowd, I find it disappointing to read a “blame the men” style post from David Murrow, who I would think would know better and would take steps to research things a lot better than what is demonstrated in that post. Unfortunately, his post is a good example of what drives men out of the church. Given his platform, he could call for things that would deal with these problems, but unfortunately he missed that opportunity with this post.
The Personal Jesus is there to fight for wives in their marriages.
While it shouldn’t be a surprise that the gospel presented in this movie is consistent with the Personal Jesus, the movie covers more intimately the role the Personal Jesus has in the proper “God-fearing marriage”.
(For those that really care, thar be spoilers afoot from here)
We are presented with a couple, Tony Jordan and his wife Elizabeth (most notably played by “Christian” feminist teacher Priscilla Shirer, also notable that her colleague Beth Moore makes an appearance in this movie). We are first confronted with the thoughts of war and battle early in the film and the comparison of it made towards marriages. This made the title of this post seem apt to me. So, as the movie says, it could be said that:
Marriage is the battle of a woman to claim domination over her husband and gain his submission to her.
Tony: So I just got a notification that you moved $5,000 from our savings into your checking account. That better not be so you can prop up your sister again.
Elizabeth: You just gave that much money to your family last month. And my sister needs it more than your parents do.
Tony: My parents are elderly. Okay? Your sister married a bum, and I’m not supporting someone who’s too lazy to work.
Elizabeth: Darren is not a bum. He’s just having a hard time finding a job.
Tony: Liz, he is a bum. Look, I can’t even remember the last time he had a job.
Elizabeth: Can we talk about this later?
Tony: No, we’ll talk about it now. Because if you want to give them what you make, that’s fine. But you’re not giving them my money.
Elizabeth: Your money? The last time I checked, we both put money into that account.
Tony: And the last time I checked, I make four times what you do. So you don’t move a cent out of that account without asking me first.
In other words, she wants to help her sister, who happened to be married to Harley Rockbanddrummer, despite the counsel of just about everyone, especially her husband. The tension behind the argument is immediately given in the very next scene, the idea of wifely control couched in “communication”. Doesn’t he know who he belongs to, who OWNS him? This leads into the usual “lack of submission” category by a man who just doesn’t know his place (house slave), which will lead in the natural feminist mind to the notion that the husband is abusing her! This, and the whole dynamic of what marriage is, is shown by a scene about 15 minutes into the movie (brackets are my comments, noting this is Beth Moore’s whole appearance in the movie, as “Mandy”):
Elizabeth: And he thinks it’s my sister’s fault. Can you even believe that?
Mandy: Well, if my man said that to me, I’d be angry, too. We don’t fight that much anymore. After 31 years of stalemates, girl, it just is not worth it.
Third woman: Oh, I wouldn’t put up with it. His money became your money the minute he said, “I do.” So I’d give it to my sister anyway. I don’t even like my sister.
Mandy: Just be careful Elizabeth. You do not want World War III to break out in your home.
Elizabeth: No. No, I don’t. But there are days, Mandy. There are days. It’s hard to submit to a man like that.[who won’t submit to her own Personal Jesus!]
Mandy: You know what my mama used to say to me? She used to say that submission is learning to duck so God can hit your husband.
All marriage has always been Marriage 2.0. There is no difference.
Now to continue our story, Elizabeth gets the “Love Dare” moment in the form of an older woman selling a house who brings prayer up in introducing Elizabeth to her “war room”, the closet she has laid out as her “quiet area” (ironically taking this Scripture quite literally, while ignoring the others endemic to female rebellion). Naturally, while this message may be good in isolation, it’s done in light of goals that are clearly anti-God, as proven out by Scripture (the avatar clearly held up within the movie). Meanwhile in all of this, the Courageous portion is presented in the daughter, of whom the husband “ignores” in favor of working. There really isn’t much to say about this part that couldn’t be dealt with in Courageous, as it’s a tack-on part of the plot.
Satan is out there and exists to keep her from attaining her full glory before God!
Satan is the one that keeps her from following the deceptions of Eve! The one who keeps her from her rightful place by assaulting her heart and keeping her from what she’s destined to be! The one that keeps her from becoming the true feminine God that she was made to be by her Personal Jesus! All it takes is just forgiving and accepting the Personal Jesus, who will enthrone her in the proper place. Because She is the Princess. She is the Queen. Even God is her mere servant, there to romance her, and make her feel good. This is the true feminine god, worthy of a prideful woman, the one who puts her as head over all. After all, she is Woman. She is the Crown of Creation. God is there to serve her and please her. Along with man, who is commanded to commit the sin of Adam against the one true Lord. Along with man, who is the one who always does wrong, and as in the previous movies it’s only the man that is at fault, and women are to never bear responsibility for their own actions.
Elizabeth illustrates this in the screaming fit she makes towards “Satan” in this movie – if there was any better statement of the rebellion that “Christian” women are exhibiting, this is it. Calling the one true God, “Satan”, and then following after her sister Eve in rebellion. But in this movie, “God” is the one she casts out, and “Satan” is the one she lets in. The old woman commanding a robber to put down his knife in Jesus’ name and him doing it is another illustration. In bringing the action of God into this, one clear message is sent:
You better know who your true lord is on this earth (your wife), or have God against you!
Naturally, “God” answers Elizabeth’s prayers, so we come to the moment that causes Tony’s change of heart. It’s not impending divorce, as he pulls away from the woman he is with right before the opportunity to cheat, but the company he was working for discovering he was stealing from the company, along with a nightmare he had of being the robber. In the aftermath, Tony discovers his wife’s “war room”, with all her prayers written out about wanting him “to be the man God called him to be”. This veils the original intent of Fireproof, casting his “evil” elsewhere other than not worshiping his wife as his lord. Elizabeth even says “I’m His [her Personal Jesus] before I’m yours”, but this is never to be the case with men.
She becomes his spiritual head, as he finally listens to her heart and prostates himself before her (literally!) asking for forgiveness. Later on, we have him doing the same with the kid, and joining in with her activities. Most of the rest of the plot involves Tony dealing with the aftermath of what he had done at the job (he stole), and involves a good Christian example of dealing with wrongdoing, though all at his wife’s direction. But it serves to cloud the real wrong doing: He didn’t submit to his wife and serve her as he should have. The change is that he is now doing everything his wife says.
Also, notice something absent? He’s not looking for work, and the wife didn’t care (he ended up finding work for half what he made before, and asked the wife for permission beforehand). Naturally, this lends to credibility issues, as what woman wouldn’t care, and wouldn’t want him making as much or more as before! That’s the whole purpose behind marriage! Women just don’t think like that, but like the dialogue above!
Of course, what story for women wouldn’t be complete without the “happily ever after”? In the last scene, the husband arranges for the child to stay at a friend’s house, we find out the sister got the money, and she gets her dream (a sundae and a foot washing and rub).
As mentioned last time, I have the intent to go through some of the anti-courtship literature that’s been produced. The fact that it has been produced is interesting in itself in light of a lot of the attitudes that exist within the modern churches. Given the path of one of those pieces of literature, an observation of what exactly has happened with the mating process will be interesting.
In a chapter titled ” Unleash Your Libido or Real It In” he talks about at least one situation where he has counseled people that were involved in a church where dating is frowned upon . He found that with this person “this ’spiritual’ teaching was covering the fact that he was hiding from sexual problems, insecurities, and lots of weirdness”
He then states his opinion on the affects of a non dating policy:
In the name of purity, chastity, and good morals, singles have been desexualized. The are often repressed beyond normal decency, and as a result they are in a “presexual” stage of development.– what psychologists refer to as “latency/” In other words, out of a fear of sex, they have regressed to preadolescents, and they are feeling and acting like twelve-year-olds instead of adults who have gone through adolescence and figured all of that out.
He additionally states later in the chapter:
Keeping one’s sexuality in an immature and unintegrated state makes it neither holy nor ready for real relationship. … It keeps them out of what God designed as natural attraction, and it keeps them sexually disintegrated from the rest of their personhood.
He also goes on to state that he is not advocating “sexually acting out.” He was advocating sexual ownership as part of who you are. He also quotes Col 2:23.
The courtship movement eliminated dating and replaced it with nothing.
Or, put another way, they replaced dating with engagement. The only tangible difference between an engagement and a courtship is the ring and the date.
If anything, the way a dating system should be evaluated is if it functions well in bringing members of the opposite sex together, and it produces candidate pairings for marriage. Without a doubt, courtship has failed to hit this mark. As Umstattd points out:
Young people are expected to jump from interacting with each other in groups straight into “pseudo-engagement”. This is a jump very few are prepared to make. The result is that a commitment to courtship is often a commitment to lifelong singleness.
If you wanted to eliminate and inhibit marriage, courtship is a great way to go. If you want something that works, go elsewhere. Unfortunately, given the state of what marriage is, what that dating has been turned into, and the misandric conditions of all of it, nothing is really functional anymore.
The History of Mating Since the 1950’s
The weakness Umstadtt exhibits in his work is primarily a lack of focus in defining the way things have gone. I decided to start from the 1950’s because Umstattd did. As well, most of the tradcon feminists I’ve encountered like to harken back to the 1950’s as some dream state utopia. Umstattd describes this sufficiently, in terms of dating, going steady, engagement, marriage. This also describes it in good detail.
The term “hookup culture” — often alcohol-fueled sexual encounters with no strings attached from either side — has also emerged from the buzz. For some millennials — anyone born between 1982 and 1994, though some stretch that to 2000 — having several intimate relationships, open relationships and casual sex are all viable options, albeit personal choices for the individual to make.
“Dating” has taken on a different meaning for today’s generation of students. And for many, it means too much commitment for comfort.
“Dating is way too serious. Dating is like being married,” Stepp said. “Your generation doesn’t have a good word for between hooking up and being married.”
Now, young women cannot only show their faces on Friday night sans dates, but they are also less likely to be considering men as marriage prospects. With improved gender equality, many women in college are preparing for self-sustaining careers and are more likely to be scoping out Mr. Man-for-the-moment rather than Mr. Marriage material.
The hookup culture has its pros and cons. Among the pros: “It’s allowing women to go out and have a good time,” Stepp said. “The girl doesn’t have to sit at home at night waiting for a boy to call.”
Today’s romantic relationships are often perplexing at best. As my therapy clients often struggle with understanding what to make of different relationships, I too find myself struggling beside them trying to make sense of their stories and concerns. The television storyline today looks much different. Boy meets girl (or boy). They text, message, or “talk” (which is apparently some sort of code for not quite in a relationship, but not out of the realm of possibilities either). They may or may not “hook-up” and the definition of this may vary depending on region and other sociocultural factors (for more info on hook-up culture and friends with benefits, see previous article here). Dating may occur, but will more likely be referred to as “hanging out,” although it can be challenging to tell, as it may literally mean just hanging out, but can also mean more. Also important to note is that being “asked out” on a “dinner date” is exceedingly rare among contemporary millennials.
How two individuals may find themselves in an exclusive dating relationship with one another is often the great mystery. Actually, I jest here, but not entirely. The more I ask couples how they came to find themselves in a relationship, the answers vary greatly from “it just kind of happened,” to matters of convenience. As Generation Y is often touted to be that with the highly fragile self-esteem, “fail” is one of their greatest four-letter words. It makes sense then that putting themselves out there to ask someone out can seem terrifying. The harmless equivalent of “hanging out” however, not so much. Often young women will decide to take matters in their own hands and turn the tables of the waiting game altogether. And yet, young men and women alike still seem to find themselves lost in inaction.
A state of confusion gets generated of how things get there, and the boundaries fall between meeting, relating, and relating. It seems only natural that those who created “courting” have confused “hanging out and hooking up” with “dating” and further compounded the confusion by removing this step entirely, which has been documented above, and in the other parts, along with actively desexualizing their children. Unfortunately, this has only served to confuse matters much more, and increase the control that parents exert over their children.
In conclusion, I present a diagram, which will be useful to the visual learners here:
Overall, dating is a cultural construct more than anything Biblically-inspired, though anything of this nature should honor God in *all* things. The premium in “fixing” dating comes out in the question of whether it works or not. Unfortunately, fear and other devices have conspired in making people adopt their own ways to the death without looking at whether things are working (How many church marriages do you know? I’m aware of exactly 2 in the entire time this blog has been live), and working out for the best interest of everyone involved.
I Kissed Dating Goodbye is not an unfamiliar thing to readers of this blog, as it has been referenced repeatedly in posts done here (“Related” link set to come) and elsewhere in relation to the common problems that have been noticed in inherently Christian environments. While I have not read the book until now, this book and the contents within have been incredibly popular to the point that I had a very good idea of what to expect, to the point that most of the “problems” have already been addressed previously on this blog in some form. But I thought it would be interesting to directly look into the book for a more formal evaluation.
Harris writes with the understanding that dating is flawed and against the word of God, and aims to offer something better. He begins with his view that dating is flawed because it is not done in service to God’s glory and other people, especially that purity is not maintained within dating. He then describes his reasons why dating is defective, like lack of commitment, romance being made the cornerstone, allowing for lust, isolating the couple, distracting from preparing for the future, discontentment, and creating an artificial environment.
He then describes attitudes which he believes avoids “defective dating”, which includes changing the view of love to reflect the modeling of Christ’s love, treating unmarried years as a gift from God, seeking commitment over intimacy, and avoiding situations that would compromise purity.
Harris then describes his plan for living with these new attitudes that he proposes. He starts with his suggestions for building a godly lifestyle. Then he describes his views on how to be friends with women, and guarding one’s heart. Harris then describes his suggestions on dealing with others on the decision to not “date”. Then he describes what a single person should be doing with their time in lieu of seeking “dating” relationships both to honor God, and prepare for marriage. Finally, Harris describes his view of marriage and standards of selecting a wife, and how a person should deal with the “courting” process.
While offering many good items for thought, this book is colored by both the experience that Joshua Harris’ age (a 21 year old who was homeschooled his whole life) brings to the table, along with the sense that this was more of a testimonial book than a doctrine book. This makes it much more fit for a teen environment than for those who are older. Much of this book offers good ideas that can be taken under advisement and evaluated in a sober way (and have been echoed here and other places in the manosphere), but offers very little true Scriptural backing. Furthermore, obvious deficiencies of his suggestions are not discussed (it seems clear that his method not only shares a handful of his “defective dating” problems, but exacerbates them), giving the perception that these things are “perfect” suggestions.
Sadly enough, Churchians have taken things from this book and run with them to the point of legalism. Given the content of this book, what has been done with it, and the endorsements within (Rebecca St. James wrote the foreword, and Elisabeth Eliot is highly spoken of), the content is obviously a statement of the doctrine of the “True Love Waits” movement. To add to that, it’s interesting that while Josh is married today, it appears that he did not follow his own advice in the course of doing this upon research.
Consequently, while this presents a decent voice among many guides through the dating realm, the couple of Scriptural errors that permeate the book derail the book. Coupled with the legalism exhibited by others in popularly using what has been written in this book (IKDG is almost the buzz term for this doctrine now), it has contributed to the typical dysfunction in mating that has widely permeated that environment. In that sense, it presents a chronicle of how mating in the church has gotten so messed up. Exactly how that happened will present forthcoming posts.