David, in your last response in our ongoing dialogue about Lisa De Pasquale’s new book Finding Mr. Righteous, you cited another disturbing passage from the book (shown above) and paired it with some of your own relationship experiences:
Some of the women I dated would shift the foreplay into one disturbing realm or another, either incorporating pain and degradation into how they treated me or requesting I act that way toward them. Never was it just “for fun” or “to be kinky” or to “spice things up”– always behind these outward expressions some inner emotional wounds ached, unhealed by a spiritual practice.
Or rather, as it turns out, the sex and the pain was their substitute for a religion. …The main takeaway that I’ve gotten from Paglia, supplemented by additional reading from books like A History of Sexual Customs and James C. Bennett and Michael Lotus’s America 3.0, is that throughout human history the Judeo-Christian conception of monogamous marriage is actually the “deviant,” unnatural way to live. History shows that the more “normal” way for both men and women to treat each other is the same way animals do in the wild — as disposable meat. Humans’ default setting is not to love just one person forever. When we do we are rising above our nature; do I go too far that Love itself is not natural?
David, I must congratulate you on your epiphany. You have discovered a truth that many in the mainstream Bible-believing sphere have tried to avoid for years: Those who put their faith in the Bible are the cultural deviants. How hilarious is it that a self-proclaimed atheist can state this so clearly? Then again, one of the reasons Paglia has been blacklisted by liberals is that she is so willing to discuss the difference between pagan and Godly behaviors. Liberals, especially the Marxists in the bunch, long ago learned that it’s much easier to behave badly when you do it under the guise of being Godly. In this case, Paglia’s too honest for her own good.
I don’t necessarily agree that human beings are animals controlled by primal instinct, per se. Our free will gives us decision-making abilities that animals lack, and the Bible very clearly notes that our conscience is aware of right and wrong. That does not mean, however, that we are immune from making bad decisions or imitating the behaviors we observe in the natural world. Consider what the “West” would look like if a group of gentiles did not elect to follow (however menially) the Biblical teachings of a Jewish man nearly 2,000 years ago. Consider the economic and political conditions of Europe and Russia half a century after dictators elected to wipe tens of millions of Jews off their maps. Or, simply look at Israel today versus the swampland it was less than a century ago. Even more simply, continue your examination into the relations between men and women — the principle is the same. When God is present, life flourishes; when God is absent, destruction abounds.
Love is not natural, but a God-given gift that we choose to embrace and employ. When we decline that gift, we fill that need with destructive behaviors, sadomasochism being one of them. Second-wave feminists chose to use sex as a weapon to gain power, hence they are so willing to accept violence in the realm of “lovemaking,” both through sadomasochistic sex and abortion. Understand that, and it becomes easy to understand why Godly folk view violence and sex as dichotomous to one another; it makes no more sense to beat our partner than it does to murder the unborn result of our union. Women who identify as feminists become enslaved to an ideology of destruction. However, women who identify as Biblical feminists embrace God’s life-giving freedom to be careerists, mothers, and wives all at once.
You asked if this is the normal way Godless men treat women; I’ll take that a step further to say this is the normal way Godless people, both men and women, treat themselves. And if they treat themselves that way, you better believe that everyone else in their life is also getting the shaft, especially their romantic partners who are often expected to act as fill-ins for the God who is missing from their partner’s life.
I must admit that I am amused at your P.S.:
I do still find myself being embarrassed by the positions which I find myself advocating. Is there any product more uncool to try and sell than monogamy?
Monogamy is hot stuff. Even the most lurid of romance novels features a monogamous couple. They might be beating each other to a pulp, but they are each other’s to ruin. It isn’t the monogamy that is unpopular, it is the Godly attitude towards monogamy that is unpopular. But, given the fact that deviant behavior has always been considered “cool,” I’d argue that Godly monogamy (and the defenders thereof) is most definitely very cool. Just as I’d argue that Biblical feminism is an ideology that empowers women to break the chains they’ve been bound into by various pop culture demands as well as other radical, abusive ideologies across the globe ardently defended by so-called “feminists.”