27 January 2014

The Language of Seduction



I’ll just go ahead and throw this out there now, but the next link in the chain back is: Why did we stop using matchmakers, betrothal, etc.? This is part of the breakdown; the wrongness. Yet if you say it you’re a quack. By and large, one cannot get Christians to repent back to mere courtship; much less step back to arrangements.
Yet, the Bible generally presents a man choosing his spouse as the thing he does that brings trouble down on his head: Jacob (with Rachel), David, Solomon, Sampson, Pharoah [sic] (with Sarai)…I can’t think of an example of a man picking his spouse and it going well.

Let’s work backwards on this one.

I can’t think of an example of a man picking his spouse and it going well.

From a logical perspective, this is simply an admission of ignorance.  All it proves is that Cane doesn’t know something, which is hardly a surprise.  It naturally begs the question of whether Cane’s ignorance is conclusive of an assertion because of his masterful knowledge or whether it merely speaks to his general ignorance.  Ignorance is usually a safe bet.

Yet, the Bible generally presents a man choosing his spouse as the thing he does that brings trouble down on his head: Jacob (with Rachel), David, Solomon, Sampson, Pharoah (with Sarai)…

And the Bible also presents arranged marriages as bringing down trouble on men’s heads.    David’s marriage with Michal was arranged (or partially arranged, depending on your perspective), and that marriage ended with Michal being banished from David and left alone and childless for criticizing the king.  Isaac’s marriage was arranged, and that led to Rebekah betraying Isaac’s trust and leading to Jacob deceiving his brother and running away from home.  Let’s also not forget the very first arranged marriage (way back in Genesis 2, remember that one, where God designs the perfect helpmeet for Adam and then presents her to him?), which ends with the man and woman being kicked out of the garden.  No trouble there, huh Cane?

If there’s any general tend the Bible presents regarding marriage, it’s that women are often troublesome and generally exploit the weaknesses of man.  Cherry-picking a small selection of anecdotes from the Bible and calling it a trend is a bit of a stretch.  Yes, examples are written for moral instruction, but looking at, say, Samson’s life and concluding that arranged marriages are the bomb is a bit like looking at a car wreck and concluding that riding a horse is safer.  It may be true that horses are a safer form of transportation, but it doesn’t follow that automobiles are absolutely unsafe, and it also ignores the intrinsic tradeoffs that come from choosing one form of transportation over the other.  So, while choosing one’s own wife may often lead to trouble, it doesn’t follow that other forms of wife selection are trouble-free, nor it does it follow that the tradeoffs aren’t worth it, since choices often reflect subjective preferences instead of absolutes.

By and large, one cannot get Christians to repent back to mere courtship; much less step back to arrangements.

Likewise, one cannot get Christians to repent back to riding in horse-drawn wagons, much less to step back to simply walking everywhere.  Again, this is simply comparing subjective preferences for mate selection.  Courtship makes more sense when the one you’re potentially marrying is extremely likely to be a virgin and stay married to you out of fear of facing social ostracism.  You can’t expect anyone to be that serious about courtship and marriage if no one is going to be that concerned about sexual purity and divorce.  The only denominations that have any success with intentional courtship usually tend to be hyper-conservative fundamentalist denominations (e.g. Baptists and Church-Of-Christers) that make a big deal out of fornication, divorce, and adultery.  Trying to go back to courtship without saying a damn thing about divorce is simply intellectual frivolity, and simply has no place in this sort of debate.

In keeping with the above, if most Christians aren’t serious about divorce or fornication, just why the fuck would anyone trust any of them to pick a spouse for them?  An unfortunate number of Christians are fools or worse (as evidenced by the state of their marriages), so why would anyone even begin to assert that they should have any say over someone else’s marriages?  Is compounded foolishness really that desirable?

On a personal note, I would never want my parents to arrange a marriage for me.  Why?  Because I’ve seen their marriage and do not wish to replicate it.  My parents are nice folks and all, and have done a pretty good job raising me (I hope).  However, my dad is a complete nice guy who worships the ground my mom walks on, which has led to an unfortunately large amount of familial friction (in particular, I happened to get disowned as a direct result of my dad being completely pussy-whipped, though this was rescinded once my mom regretted having my dad disown me).  Now, given how backwards their marriage is, what hope could I possibly have that they won’t select a girl who is exactly like my mom, and what hope do I have that they won’t pressure me to do whatever I can to make her happy (i.e. submit to her)?  So, how can it possibly be surprising that most Christians don’t favor courtship or arranged marriages in light of the fact that most Christians are equipped for neither?

I’ll just go ahead and throw this out there now, but the next link in the chain back is: Why did we stop using matchmakers, betrothal, etc.? This is part of the breakdown; the wrongness. Yet if you say it you’re a quack.

Why did we stop using all that?  Probably because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter that much anyway.  If God himself can’t arrange a marriage that doesn’t eventually lead to major trouble (like getting kicked out of the garden), then what hope do mere mortals have?  Perhaps it might be wise to consider the wisdom of Solomon.  Who can find a virtuous wife?  Time and chance happen to them all.”  Perhaps it simply the case that most women aren’t virtuous, and that simple odds suggest that most men won’t be able to snag a virtuous wife.

Now, this doesn’t mean that men can’t marry a woman and mold her into a more virtuous wife, but that is not the same as finding a woman who is already virtuous.  To this end, Game is a very effective tool in making a woman more submissive and obedient to her husband.  A virtuous man might even find a way to make his wife more virtuous by using the tools of dominance and leadership provided by Game.

Unfortunately, Game is nothing but an intrinsically sinful crutch that pussy-ass Christians use because they are too seduced by Satan to know better.  At least that’s the impression I get from reading Cane.  So, if Cane is trying to take the crutch of Game away from those whom he perceives to be as weaker in the faith, how is this materially different from the atheists who wish to strip those who they perceive as weaker humans of their faith in God?