RSS

The Punk and Priest Both Walk the Earth, One Just Holds His Knuckles Higher

13 Dec

GLP wrote a post arguing that feminism is a direct result of Christianity.  The comments have offered good refutations, including some by our own Will S., but I wanted to elucidate on what I view as the fatal flaw in GLP’s argument. Like the meaning of the word ‘is,’ we’re about to get caught up in semantics, but with a few tautologies thrown in for fun.

Christianity came before and fed into female-centrism. It wasn’t the other way around. It is incorrect to only blame feminism for the recession of masculinity and patriarchy in both society as a whole and the church in particular. Because Christianity holds both men and women to the same moral standards, –especially as it pertains to sex – Christianity would naturally be a precursor to the female pedestalization that many MRA-ish decry. Christianity, in my eyes, greased the wheels for feminism.

The word that GLP is looking for is not Christianity, it’s churchianity.

Churchianity
1. (pejorative) Any practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the habits of church life or the institutional traditions of the church than on theology and spiritual teachings; The quality of being too church-focused.

In other words, Jesus ain’t the reason for our present tumultuous and discordant season.

GLP correctly points out that men left churches when teachings were watered down to accommodate women; he incorrectly identities the source of the law and teachings. As he is a nonbeliever, we at Patriactionary will forgive him for citing terrestrial concerns and biology as the source.

Churches are concerned with weekly attendance, the coffers, reputation, community acceptance, and the like; God is concerned with different matters. The former may seek to soften the truth so the widows and single moms keep tithing; the latter remains a sharp edge. Our biological impulses do not matter. It is our ability to rise above our animal impulses, to control them and behave as men, that matters.

Christianity is not a soft and feminine path. Fealty and adherence are decidedly hard. Churchianity, on the other hand, is concerned with real estate and architecture. It is a focus on optics, aesthetics.

In short, GLP argues that the Kingdom of Caesar is too rapt with the Kingdom of Caesar, while pretending to be rapt with the Kingdom of God, and that it does a poor job of understanding itself. That is a true argument. It is also an argument that has very little to do with Christianity save that it flows from a focus that has very little to do with Christianity.

 
66 Comments

Posted by on December 13, 2011 in culture, religion

 

66 responses to “The Punk and Priest Both Walk the Earth, One Just Holds His Knuckles Higher

  1. G.L. Piggy

    December 13, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Ulysses,

    thanks for the rebuttal. i’ll admit that i didn’t write my piece purporting to have the answer to this question, but it’s one that i have wanted answered for a while. i’ll admit, though, that i’m still not satisfied despite the many good counterarguments i’ve read.

    my main question is this: *assuming* that Christianity is something of a blank-slatist doctrine – that it doesn’t accept that it might, in fact, be “harder” to be a man and live up to the moral standards set forth under the Bible and Jesus – why should it be a surprise that men have moved away from a church or a discipline that holds them as inherently more sinful than women?

    my argument is that everything follows from this naive assumption that the sexes have equal sex drives. if we believe that men and women are fundamentally and essentially different in their evolved sexual strategies, then it seems that the next logical step would be that men are more demonized for their natural proclivities.

    as is the case in many other cultural creations, men were useful in building up the Church – not only the actual buildings but the framework on which it resides. but after the hard, physical labor was done, it settled in and the feminine took over.

    maybe i have mental blockage on this, but i’m listening.

     
    • Ulysses

      December 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      GLP – I’m not the expert around here, but I would not call Christianity a true blank-slate doctrine. As shown in the parable of the talents, we are not born equal. Moreover, I will just admit I am really not qualified to get into how men and women were historically treated differently, but I do feel comfortable saying that churches tend to follow the law, eg. what exactly constitutes adultery, rather than the other way around. (That is, I think the old biblical definition of adultery is marrying a divorcee where as now it’s mainly just described as any cheating, though the Catholic Church may hold to that original definition. That would explain the need for Catholics to get an annulment instead of a divorce.)

      That leads me to your first and last points. I think slumlord’s succinct reply to your post was good. As churches have followed fashion, the primacy of the husband has been eroded and churches, mimicking broader society, have attempted to impose motivational egalitarianism, that is, men and women are equal in their desires and motivations. Society used to shame sluttiness and reward men for not encouraging sluttiness, at least not for being overt and outright cads. Now the opposite is almost true. Men, being stronger and seen as leaders, are still expected, by churches, to not be cads. Women, whom churches still see as weaker, are given the opposite treatment and forgiven, even celebrated, for being “victims” of the cads.

      Which is all my long and roundabout way of saying, old time religion had higher expectations and society had lower. Somewhere along the way, the churches started ignoring the religion that society didn’t like and claiming that’s always what the Bible said.

       
  2. Will S.

    December 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Spot on, Ulysses.

     
  3. Master Po

    December 13, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Churchianity, on the other hand, is concerned with real estate and architecture. It is a focus on optics, aesthetics.

    Ya mean like in the book of Exodus where many chapters are dedicated to the minutiae of the Tabernacle?

    Churches are concerned with weekly attendance, the coffers, reputation, community acceptance, and the like; God is concerned with different matters.

    Ulysses, you prove too much. Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus. There is no Christianity without the Church; there is no Bible without the Church; there is no doctrine without the Church. There is no, known to us, Jesus without the Church.

    Just as no true Scotsman would, we are to believe, turn down haggis, you are asking GLP to believe that no true Christian would support feminism. Moreover you are accusing him of confusing the messenger (the Church) with the message (Christian doctrine). That isn’t Christianity that’s screwed up, it’s Churchianity.

    Well, I am here to say that it ain’t that easy.

    Liberalism is a Christian heresy–and by that I mean that: Without the unique doctrines of Christianity, twisted out of context from the greater Whole of Revealed Truth, no one would ever have come up with liberalism. Feminism is a branch, among the last and more deadly poisonous branches, of liberalism. Ergo, you don’t get to feminism without Christianity. That’s why it arose, and only could have arose, in the West. That does not mean that feminism comports in any imaginable way with orthodox Christianity–it is, after all, repeat after me, “A Heresy”. But it simply will not do to claim that the last 400 years of the rise of liberalism, and with it the last 150 or so years of feminism as a necessary chapter in the larger narrative, was due not to Christianity but some pernicious, heretofore unnamed, bogeyman called Churchianity, as if caring for holy places, or burying the dead, or praying the Divine Liturgy, or ministering the mysteries of God (the Sacraments, by which graces are received), were somehow orthogonal, so much detrius, to the main Christian message.

    No, sir. That will not do. There are answers to GLP’s critique, but divorcing the Church from Christianity, effectively divorcing the Church from her Lord, is not one of them.

    As to specifics…

    *assuming* that Christianity is something of a blank-slatist doctrine

    We assume that all humans born (save Mary and, through her, Christ) are tainted by Original Sin, i.e., concupiscence, i.e., an overwhelming propensity to sin. As Chesterton noted, this is the only Christian doctrine with foolproof empirical evidence. This does not mean “blank-slatist”. Christianity, historically and rightly, takes no particular dogmatic view on the degrees of in-born fitness among individuals or across groups. True Christian doctrine is unaffected by any observations in this realm. Historically, in fact, the Church has recognized the naturalness of bond-slavery, as a solution for those who cannot provide for themselves.

    why should it be a surprise that men have moved away from a church or a discipline that holds them as inherently more sinful than women?

    Christianity, per se, makes no such claim. In fact, it sounds preposterous, even from the mouths of hare-brained Evangelicals. It is possible that some imply it, that some misandrist elements throughout various flavors of Christian accept this as a natural takeaway. Christianity teaches authoritatively that, in Christ, there is no male, no female, no Jew, no Greek, no slave, no master. But it doesn’t, and cannot possibly, authoritaively teach that such distinctions don’t occur on earth… and certainly not that any one class of people is “inherently more” or less sinful than any other class.

    my argument is that everything follows from this naive assumption that the sexes have equal sex drives.

    I know of no Christian, however heretical, that even believes, much less teaches such silliness.

    seems that the next logical step would be that men are more demonized for their natural proclivities.

    It seems to me that the “femininization” of Church has had very little to do with demonizing men for their natural proclivities. It stems more from brain-dead “inclusiveness.” It is therefore not so much active misandry but mindless inclusiveness which, when implemented, adds up to misandry.

    There was a day (it is still today among by Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brethren AFAIK) when only boys could serve at the altar in the Latin Church, when, in fact, only men could enter the sanctuary at all. That discipline was (foolishly) relaxed; when boys become unnecessary, they tend to leave. Men, young men and boys especially, need to be necessary. Same is true for choirs now… and Bible studies… youth groups, and just about everything… all in a rush for inclusivity, foolishly forgetting time honored traditions and aping the larger world.

    Still, non-feminized churches still exist, and where they exist, everywhere and always they thrive. Simba returns to take his place-n-all that…

     
    • Ulysses

      December 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      MP – Architecture = physical structures, not their specs. My style is not free from panache.

      and

      Yes, churches matter, but you’re ignoring the point that I made. Some churches became more about the church than God. You call this inclusiveness. We call it churchian.

       
  4. Master Po

    December 13, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Catholic Church may hold to that original definition.

    The definition of adultery is as it always was. The Catholic Church also, taking Jesus at his literal word, believe divorce to be quite simply: Impossible. A declaration of nullity, while sadly, offensively, and scandalously easy these days, is a declaration that no marriage existed.

    Which is all my long and roundabout way of saying, old time religion had higher expectations and society had lower. Somewhere along the way, the churches started ignoring the religion that society didn’t like and claiming that’s always what the Bible said.

    I wouldn’t disagree with that Ulysses, but that is not to impugn the Church, who has always and everywhere taught the truth on these matters… to those who would listen.

    Women, whom churches still see as weaker, are given the opposite treatment and forgiven, even celebrated, for being “victims” of the cads.

    Even my own wife is still plagued by this response. She cannot help it. She drank it with her mother’s milk, was indoctrinated in it by her Baptist school, was confirmed in it at every turn–like just about every other woman out there. She hates Roissy but refuses to hate with equal vigor the women he bangs, i.e., those women who want him to bang them. It is a hard pill for modern, western women to swallow. I cut her slack, though, because she’s got me… and we’re working on it.

     
  5. Master Po

    December 13, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Hey, Ulysses… can you unstick the spam bot?

     
  6. Master Po

    December 13, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    ‘Dat woiked.

     
  7. slumlord

    December 13, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Ulysses and GLP

    but I would not call Christianity a true blank-slate doctrine

    Agreed.

    This is a complex topic but it is true to say that Church elevated the role women. Prior to Christianity, women were viewed as not much more than chattel goods, and what Christianity did is elevate them so as they were equal in dignity to me; it did not elevate them above men. It also expected men to be the head of the household. The pedestalisation of women and the demasculinsation of men came much later on, particularly as a result of the influence of “courtly” notions of love.

    St Paul seems to have had a real problem with effeminacy in men. From Corinthians:

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    The Greek word for effeminate is malakoi. It denoted a perversion of the masculine essence. Some translations seem to give it a sexual connotation but the “abusers of themselves with mankind” is given its own term, arsenokotai, ( homosexuals). The greeks also used the term malakois to describe hairless young boys; in other words sexually immature men. The term seems therefore to indicate of condemnation of “soft men”.

    The problem what Gucci is alluding to was best described by Chesterton in his Orthodoxy:

    But remember that this text is too lightly interpreted. It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is—Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? THAT is the problem the Church attempted; THAT is the miracle she achieved.

    Courtly, that is romantic notions of love–a love stripped of its sexuality through asceticism –is the Lamb’s sneak attack on the lion, chopping off his nuts. The term “Tolstoyean” tendencies is the important one here, as it tends to see the ideal Christian as a type of Ghandi, something which I imagine would have horrified St Paul.

     
  8. Svar

    December 13, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    “She hates Roissy but refuses to hate with equal vigor the women he bangs, i.e., those women who want him to bang them. It is a hard pill for modern, western women to swallow. I cut her slack, though, because she’s got me… and we’re working on it.”

    She’s like almost all of the Christian women I know online. They all absolutely loathe Roissy. Will think that this is because he shows how easy women are to figure out, but the women say it’s because he promotes sin. I guess with the younger women it’s the former and with the older women it’s the latter.

    I guess women still feel vulnerable around alpha men, no matter how “ekwal” they think they are. I guess your wife is projecting what she would feel on to Roissy’s P-N-D’s.

     
  9. Svar

    December 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    “The term “Tolstoyean” tendencies is the important one here, as it tends to see the ideal Christian as a type of Ghandi, something which I imagine would have horrified St Paul.”

    Exactly. Ghandi’s ideology was the ideology of suicide, sacrifice for no reason except for non-violence, tying one’s self down to inaction for it’s own sake. St Paul would have definitely been appalled by this unnatural and twisted way of thinking

    The Church has never been opposed to violence in terms of just war or self-defense.

     
  10. Master Po

    December 13, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    You call this inclusiveness. We call it churchian.

    Touche’. There are, however, lots of ways to be heretical; among them, an unwarranted or even fetishistic focus on church architecture, or church-related busyness might very well be included. But such effluvia do not seem to me to be in any direct way related to the rise of Inclusiveness as The One New Cardinal Virtue, In Which All Other Virtues Subist. It arises at churches that meet in gyms as well as in ancient and venerable cathedrals, in churches poorly financed and in churches that feed the whole world. I therefore still think the name, i.e., “churchian”, to be particularly poorly suited to the thing it is intended here to mean.

    @Svar: Few people like to be put in a box; and women are below average in maintaining the emotional distance to mentally separate the individual from the group trend. Ergo, most women will hate Roissy. Heck, I hate Roissy… but that does not mean he always fails to tell the truth. (Hitler didn’t always fail to tell the truth either.) Yes, my wife projects her feelings onto Roissy’s conquests, even tho’ she knows, in the intellectual part of her brain, that these women are smart enough to know that they cannot pay sex to find, by way of exchange, what they truly seek.

    What she and I have settled upon is: 1) All women who give sex or sexual favors to anyone other than their lawfully wedded husband are sluts. 2) Sluts should not be encouraged toward nor in any way rewarded for their bad behavior, nor protected from its foreseeable consquences. 3) Women, having on average naturally weaker libidos, are the principal gatekeepers of sex, and therefore posses power, as a group, to at once stall sexual degeneracy. But her emotions do not always follow her in these assertions. The Red Pill goeth down slowly.

     
  11. 7man

    December 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    @Master Po
    When women are ovulating, I don’t think they have lesser libidos, but the rest of the time that may be generally true. When women are ovulating, assertive Game works very well. The libido of women is directly tied to their hormonal cycle so for women not taking artificial birth control there is a time in each cycle when she is sexually raring to go and other times were she couldn’t care less. It seems that Christians forget or deny this variability in women.

     
  12. Ulysses

    December 13, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    I therefore still think the name, i.e., “churchian”, to be particularly poorly suited to the thing it is intended here to mean.

    My use of the term is because it seems the problem arises when churches, think that place down the street and not the proper “The Church,” become more Sunday social club than place where worship occurs. In that context, inclusiveness is key as the way to increase club membership is to not focus on the gospel, but on feeling good. As such, churchian is apt as the goal isn’t religion writ large but that specific building.

    Slumlord – Great points and honestly I am glad that women are no longer chattel. I think the grace of free will should be applied equally. Having said that, pedestalization and the minimization of masculinity does not naturally flow from Christianity. That is where Chuck gets it wrong. Perhaps it naturally flows from the social club church, but that isn’t a result of scripture, that is a result of humans and feelings.

     
  13. Laceagate

    December 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Churchianity revolves around a “feel good” version of Christianity. When people decide that their faith is too patriarchal, demanding, and makes them “feel bad” at times, they whimper and flock to Churchianity.

    Feminism is about attaining equality to appease feelings, and feeds Churchianity since it’s centered around feelings.

     
  14. G.L. Piggy

    December 13, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Gentlemen,
    I appreciate the discussion.

    Please tell me where I’m going wrong though. I’m thinking from a more micro perspective I guess. It was probably a little too strong for me to say that Christianity led to feminism. I think any ideology can turn into anything if it is shaped the right (wrong) way.

    But here’s what I see. If you take a bunch of individual young men or a bunch of individual young women, it seems that the young women will find that they are less likely to fall into the category of sin than are young men. I should just leave whatever Church doctrine says out of it and focus on the response at the individual level – where individuals choose or don’t choose to stay with the church.

    Since the church – especially since Victorian times, but also historically – has strong arguments about sex and sexuality and since young men are more apt to struggle with their sexual drives than are young women (this is the premise of my argument and a premise that I think most men in the Manosphere agree with), it only makes sense to me that young men fall outside the polite confines of the church.

    In essence, I’m saying that the church doesn’t seem to recognize that young men have all of these hormones raging through their body. Society – and by that I mean secular or Church-based – holds the more passive and polite feminine as the common denominator by which everyone is judged.

    Now, *specifically* in terms of how individuals feel in the eyes of the church and the church-going society around them, young men are more likely to feel as if they are living in sin moreso than are young women. This is because more of the things that young men do while growing up are considered sinful. The Bible is much more clear about those behaviors which are actually sins rather than those behaviors that are virtuous. If this statement is wrong, I think it is at least true that a negative criticism of certain behaviors sticks with a young person moreso than a pat on the back for virtuous behavior.

    So I should reframe my fundamental question: where in the Bible do they acknowledge essential differences between the sexes? I see that in some places they proscribe different roles for husbands and wives, but they don’t really deal with the innate drives that might exist to different degrees within a husband or a wife or a young man and a young woman.

    My thinking on all of this sort of developed in response to Dalrock’s example of a wife divorcing a husband who was addicted to porn. But men would be the ones addicted to porn, and I can actually see where an addiction to porn would be considered very sinful in the eyes of the Church and God. But women don’t look at porn that often – they aren’t therefore sinful in that way.

     
  15. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 7:38 am

    GLP: Actually, the Bible recognizes that both men and women have strong sexual drives, passions and desires which, if not confined within the marital context, can rage out of control, like a fire escaping the fireplace and burning down the house.

    1 Corinthians 7:9 states that “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”; in context:

    1 Corinthians 7:1-11

    1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    So, the Bible recognizes that both men and women alike have strong sexual drives, which need to be brought under control, either by marrying, or commitment to lifelong celibacy like Paul himself did. It even recognizes that sex must occur regularly within marriage; note Paul’s command to spouses not to refrain from regular intercourse with each other for very long periods of time.

    I don’t think women have any less sexual drive than men do; else we wouldn’t see so many of them today hooking up with so many guys, riding the carousel… That meme itself is Victorian, that men are more sexual than women; I’m not sure you will find that many of us here at Patriactionary subscribe to that. (Male sexuality may be more visually oriented than women’s, hence porn appealing more to men than women; sexuality may be expressed differently within the two sexes, but that doesn’t make one necessarily more sexual than the other.) I think women who deny sex from their husbands to control and manipulate them, or because their husbands are failing to attract them sufficiently (have become too beta), are cutting off their noses to spite their faces; they don’t realize (due to feminist propaganda), that they’re ultimately hurting themselves, too, in so doing. I believe feminism, whether Victorian or contemporary, has taught women to deny their essential nature as sexual beings, and also as wives and mothers, in favour of focusing on education and establishing themselves in a career, etc. (Then suddenly, when biology become undeniable, because they finally hear the clock ticking, they panic and try to settle down…)

    (Imagine, BTW, that women took seriously the injunction above that if a woman leaves her husband, she has no right to marry another man, that she is to remain alone… Would change things greatly, wouldn’t it?)

     
  16. 7man

    December 14, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Women are not naturally with lesser libido, but theirs is more variable. Artificial Birth Control has caused a decreased sex drive. There are other factors at work as well, but women have a higher sexual urge than men when they are ovulating. The female sex drive is much more variable and can disappear under certain circumstances.

    I disagree that men are more sinful than women in the sexual area. Women just hide it more and men are typically blamed for the sex that happens.

    The conditions within the churches did facilitate the growth of feminism but that was not Christianity but rather the unique American expression of Victorianism and Puritanism. The real foundational fault of churchianity is the denial of the true nature of women by portraying them as having higher moral character.

     
  17. Kathy

    December 14, 2011 at 8:29 am

    “(Male sexuality may be more visually oriented than women’s, hence porn appealing more to men than women; sexuality may be expressed differently within the two sexes, but that doesn’t make one necessarily more sexual than the other.) I think women who deny sex from their husbands to control and manipulate them, or because their husbands are failing to attract them sufficiently (have become too beta), are cutting off their noses to spite their faces; …

    Completely agree with you Will. And while many women may experience a higher libido during ovulation, ovulation itself is not the only driving force.. Sex is a good way of relaxing and re connecting.. It feels good and it bonds a couple.. Deepens their love for one another.. ..When the kids have been driving you mad the best thing a couple can do is to make love once they have been put to bed.. The most exquisite sleep ensues thereafter..

    Speaking for myself after I have had a hard day with the kids my thoughts turn to down time with hubby after they have gone to bed… Irrespective of whether I am ovulating or not..

     
  18. Kathy

    December 14, 2011 at 8:40 am

    “There are other factors at work as well, but women have a higher sexual urge than men when they are ovulating”

    Hmmmmm.. I dunno…My husband has a very high sex drive and in sixteen years of marriage I have never noticed a time when my sex drive has overtaken his…We are pretty evenly matched, I reckon.

    I think it would depend on the individual and their circumstances..

     
  19. 7man

    December 14, 2011 at 9:02 am

    @Kathy,
    Your comment implies disagreement. You say that many women experience a higher sex drive during ovulation, yet it is not the only factor. Then you say your husband has a high sex drive, then you imply your sex drive is quite high and conclude that the two of you are evenly matched.

    Your comment is all over the map yet you imply disagreement while making the same points that I made. I said there are other factors at work. You don’t know, but then conclude with, “I think it would depend on the individual and their circumstances..” What are you trying to say?

    As to the other factors, there are many and those that really want to know should take 90 minutes to watch this: Vicki Thorn – What They Didn’t Teach You in Sex Ed on YouTube. Pheromones are other complex attraction/compatibility/biology factors are not understood by the majority of people.

     
  20. Kathy

    December 14, 2011 at 9:31 am

    No I was quite specific 7man. I do not see any contradiction in what I wrote ..

    Many women experience a higher drive during ovulation.. Not so for me… Yes Hubby and I do have very similar sex drives, and mine is not contingent on ovulation.

    You were not specific only vague, saying “there are other factors at work.” I named these other factors because I thought that they were just as relevant to the argument..If not more so..

    “You don’t know, but then conclude with, ‘I think it would depend on the individual and their circumstances..’ What are you trying to say?”

    Not everyone is the same.. Simple.. There is no hard and fast rule..

    In any event, life’s experience will teach you a whole lot more than any book or documentary ever will..Well it has for me..

    Hey I have better ways to fill my time. 😉

     
  21. 7man

    December 14, 2011 at 9:54 am

    @Kathy,

    I don’t agree with the implication that nothing can be known since there is always an exception. It is misleading to say that “life’s experience will teach you a whole lot more than any book or documentary ever will.” I believe the combination of learning and having life experience is far superior. We are more than what we feel.

    Women who are not on The Pill generally experience a peak desire during ovulation. This might change as a woman ages and ovulation isn’t as frequent. Unless she’s on The Pill, women can be quite reckless during the fertile phase of her cycle. This is true for the majority of women and for those that believe “there are no special snowflakes,” they would hold it true for all women.

    That you might be different doesn’t change what is generally true.

     
  22. Kathy

    December 14, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Well I have 16 years of a very happy marriage that tells me otherwise 7man.. What I have now I did not learn from any books.

    Look I know many women who have no desire for sex, ovulation or not..Whilst others who are always up for it regardless because they enjoy it so much..

    Like I said it’s (ovulation) not the only factor for sexual desire.

    At the risk of offending those that tire of my own personal experiences, (suck it up) this needs to be said.

    I am not experiencing multiple orgasms because of any book that I have read..

    Beacause sex is such an enjoyable part of our relationship it is often on my mind.. Kids are driving me nuts.. Think of something nice… sex! Peeling potatoes, boring.. Think of something nice… Sex! Now if it were not so enjoyable perhaps I would not bbe thinking about it so often.

    You have been reading too many books 7man.. 😉

     
  23. CL

    December 14, 2011 at 10:12 am

    This might change as a woman ages and ovulation isn’t as frequent.

    This is probably true. Into my late-30s I did notice stronger peaks, which I attribute to my body’s last-ditch effort at getting knocked up one more time. So it stands to reason that the peaks will lessen as the clock winds down – overall desire may or may not change, but if there is no ovulation, the hormonal peaks will probably lessen. Women on the pill do not experience the peaks because the body thinks it’s pregnant; off the pill the body wants to get pregnant so the desire increases when that is most likely to happen. Our bodies are designed this way and it all stands to reason.

    Denying that women can be sexually reckless due to the ignorance of biology is a huge problem within the church, which is why Vicki Thorn’s talk that 7man linked to is important. If people don’t want to bother to learn because they think they can feel the answers, that’s their loss. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

     
  24. Kathy

    December 14, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Ha ha ha ha…. I see the reinforcements have arrived.. 🙂

    Nobody is denying women can be sexually reckless. They certainly don’t need to be ovulating to act in such a manner, however…You are off on a tangent here.

    And as I said in a previous comment. “Many women experience a higher drive during ovulation..”

    Look, there is just no substitute for experience.. (good experience.. I should clarify)

    You could speak to couples who have enduring happy sex filled marriages.

    Of course, if you’d rather read a book or watch a talk, go for it.

     
  25. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “Well I have 16 years of a very happy marriage that tells me otherwise 7man.. What I have now I did not learn from any books.

    Look I know many women who have no desire for sex, ovulation or not..Whilst others who are always up for it regardless because they enjoy it so much..”

    As I noted above, “women are below average in maintaining the emotional distance to mentally separate the individual from the group trend.” I think Kathy provides an additional data point in favor of the thesis. My dear, what is true, or even obviously true, on average may nevertheless not be true for you, even in 16 years of observational data. I knew a 6′ white guy in high school that could dunk a basketball–he did not however make the mistake of wondering why all 6′ white guys cannot dunk a basketball, or worse, assume that most of them could.

    Of course there are “many women who have no desire for sex, ovulation or not.. Whilst others who are always up for it regardless because they enjoy it so much”. None of which amounts to the slightest argument against the thesis that on average women have a greater desire for sex when they are, in fact, fertile. (And please note, just to be clear, that “greater desire” does not equate to “unquenchable and reckless desire”, nor does “less desire” (implied in contradistinction from “greater desire”) equate to “no desire”.) All the anecdotes in the world will not necessarily bring down the thesis; although if you are willing to collect the anecdotes into a representative and scientific study, then, maybe, you’ll have something.

    It is well known that in a healthy woman, not on the pill, testosterone begins to pick up during menses and peaks around or just after ovulation. That alone would explain increased sexual desire. Clearly it cannot, nor does it pretend, to explain all female sexual desire, which like most things is complex and not dependent on one factor.

    I do agree with Kathy on the larger point, however, that it, viz., female sexual desire, is a) quite variable across the population, and also b) that it is not common, on average, to rise to the level of a man’s. To add an anecdote, my own wife’s libido does in fact seem to peak near ovulation. Since it is a time that, because of NFP, we are studiously avoiding coitus, I cannot be sure whether it is due to solely to hormone levels, or abstinence making the heart grow fonder. It seems likely that it is a combination of both. Her desire for sex remains strong, Deo Gratia, throughout the lunar cycle, but never, unless I am sick (which I almost never am) or have an undescribable and unfortunate groin injury (which I never do), overtakes my own. I will say that it comes very close right at the end of the fertile epoch, whereupon… well… let’s just say a veritable tsunami of fondness gets released.

     
  26. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    I don’t think women have any less sexual drive than men do; else we wouldn’t see so many of them today hooking up with so many guys, riding the carousel… That meme itself is Victorian, that men are more sexual than women; I’m not sure you will find that many of us here at Patriactionary subscribe to that.

    Will, that is one data point: So it takes two to tango. Go figure. But it necessarily doesn’t tell us why the two are tangoing, or whether they tango for the same reasons. It could be that men give romance to get sex and that women give sex to get romance. Or maybe not. But surely there are other factors that can tell us who, if either among men or women, have the stronger sex drive? Like say rates of masturbation? Check. Porn? Check. Nudie clubs? Check. Paying for sex? Check. Same sex behavior at large? Check. Same sex behavior when lacking natural outlet? Check. Looks like the dudes win, Will. Patriarchy is not, AFAIK, an ideology to which all data must be made to fit. Obviously men have the stronger sex drives. It seems implausible that the Victorians were the first to observe this. Obviously societal safeguards (like religion, taboo, positive law) ought to exist to preserve order and virtue and thereby civilization. Patriarchy is simply an adaptive response to these facts.

     
  27. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    @ MP: I don’t deny that men spend lots of money or porn, strip clubs, prostitutes, etc., far more than women do on the same things. But, on the other hand, men don’t go in for sex toys, and so on, the way women do. The vibrator will probably always outsell the ‘FleshLight’…

    Male and female sexualities may be different from each other in their expression, but can we necessary conclude that the sex drive of the one sex outmatches that of the other?

     
  28. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    To GLP:

    It was probably a little too strong for me to say that Christianity led to feminism.

    I don’t personally think it was too strong. It is a fact. It would however be too strong to say that feminism was a necessary result of Christianity. You cannot judge a religion by its heretics. Or perhaps you can, but the worse the heretics, the better the religion.

    If you take a bunch of individual young men or a bunch of individual young women, it seems that the young women will find that they are less likely to fall into the category of sin than are young men.

    You seem to think that the Church has a narrow view of sin, i.e., that it is principally sexual. The Church has no such view. The 10 Commandments are still in effect, and only one of them, the Sixth (by Catholic counting) ties directly to sexual sin. An other, the Ninth (by Catholic counting) ties to lust.

    Christianity classifies all vice along axes defined by the Deadly Sins: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth (or Acedia), Wrath, Envy, Pride. One, and only one deals with sexuality. And that one, lust, happens to be, according to Christian mystics (and perhaps the mystics of all religions), the easiest one to overcome. The worst, the most deadly and the hardest to detect and root out, is Pride, which happens to afflict men and women equally.

    So where you get this image of the Church only concerning itself with sexual sins is well… if I didn’t know any better I’d say it was from the Cliff’s Notes version of the Slackers’ Guide to Understanding Christianity. The cartoon you keep coming back doesn’t correspond to any widespread reality.

    I’m saying that the church doesn’t seem to recognize that young men have all of these hormones raging through their body.

    Baloney. The Church takes great pains to recognize that men have raging hormones, but also to never deny the truth that Man, and a man, is more than the sum of his Raging Hormones, and the truth that these hormones have a telos–a purpose. Raging hormones may lessen the culpability for certain grave sins (God, knowing all, is always the ultimate judge), but they are not an excuse for them. The Church also has seen fit to promote marriage, as has every civilized people, as a check on the societal disorder that will necessarily arise if sexual desires are not harnessed productively.

     
  29. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Male and female sexualities may be different from each other in their expression, but can we necessary conclude that the sex drive of the one sex outmatches that of the other?

    This article explores it. It asserts that the Feminist (i.e., mainstream) party line denies there are differences, because, of course, there caaaan’t be any real differences between men and women. But it simply confirms the obvious. If that doesn’t do it for ya, then see Gavin McInnes’ take on it:

    HT: Heartiste commenter: Rollo Tomassi (hope that imbed works…)

     
  30. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Ah, in the mod bin…

    Say young whippershnapper, can you fix that imbed whiles yer at it?

     
  31. CL

    December 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    But, on the other hand, men don’t go in for sex toys, and so on, the way women do. The vibrator will probably always outsell the ‘FleshLight’…

    And romance porn – that’s a multi-billion dollar industry built on women’s sexual fantasies.

     
  32. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    I think it must have been because you linked more than a couple things; I don’t know how to change that, nor if I want to; it’s a good safeguard; we’d have to make that decision together…

    I’ve seen that Gavin McInnes video before. Good point.

    I understand why radical feminists want to deny there are differences. I, on the other hand, don’t deny there are differences in sexual expression, and it certainly seems men are more horny than women, yes. Yet is that natural, or a product of our fallenness? And can a distinction be drawn between wanting to have it at any particular given moment, and wanting to have it, in general? The fact that so many worldly women do end up hooking up so much, makes me wonder whether the drive really is that much stronger in women than men. Might it be that it’s frustrated more in men, and so is expressed more loudly? Why does Scripture simply caution both sexes about the power of the sex drive?

    I’m not sure what to think, save that the truth lies somewhere between the feminist extreme of denial of differences between the sexes, and an equally extreme counter-view that the two sexes are completely different in their sexualities.

     
  33. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    @ CL: Yes! An important difference from men, whose fantasies ARE more visual, and less imaginative, shall we say.

     
  34. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    I think it must have been because you linked more than a couple things

    No worries. I don’t mind… especially as you young blokes seem quick to discover spam- or mod-botted posts…

    And romance porn – that’s a multi-billion dollar industry built on women’s sexual fantasies.

    Sex and romance are not synonyms. The term romance “porn” is only fair to the extent that it often serves the same function, for women, as is served for men by actual porn. A woman fantasizing about an illicit romance is commiting a sin very similar to a man fantasizing about illicit sex–but they are not fantasizing necessarily about the same things. Romance is not, strictly speaking, sexual, or not at least entirely sexual. In fact, to the extent that porn tends to appeal at all to women (I acknowledge that, of course, it can), it appeals more the when that porn is more character and story driven and less grindingly explicit. It was no accident that porn’s mainstream breakthrough was Deep Throat, a movie (however ham-fisted) that tried to develop characters and tell a story. That in contradistinction to 80 minutes of non-stop pounding, disembodied phalluses, genital close-ups, and screaming.

     
  35. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    an equally extreme counter-view that the two sexes are completely different in their sexualities.

    Who has such a view? Let us find them… and thrash them.

     
  36. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Hmmm, I don’t know; it was a hypothetical, perhaps a straw-man of my own invention. 😉

    (Defining the two possible extremes, so I might place my view between them and seem moderate, heh heh.)

     
  37. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    A fair amount of romance literature today, though, is sexually explicit in its descriptions. I used to read some in my public high school library, and elsewhere, out of curiosity…

     
  38. CL

    December 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Porn is not only visual and it is arguable that romance porn is more destructive to relationships than visual porn, but I’ll leave it at that since this is kind of a derailment from the original topic.

     
  39. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    certainly seems men are more horny than women, yes. Yet is that natural, or a product of our fallenness?

    My wife has the same problem, but with the entire male polygyny vs. female hypergamy spectrum. The story goes, and we all agree it does, that all that God created the whole world good. How then, can our animal desires, created good by God, be so at odds with the actual good we were created to do? It is a sort of Sexual Theodicy… and I don’t have a complete answer. It seems to be a question of competing desires, higher and lower, and bringing them all under the submission of our wills, redeemed by grace.

    A man has a natural desire, an instinct, to kill anyone threatens him. That is good… but it is not good if he acts without reason without reflection upon that desire every time it presents itself. A man has other instincts that compete with that desire, e.g., reciprocity, social approval, keeping the peace, empathy. Fortunately for the state of civilization, those other instincts usually win… and this is good… but it is also good that, given the right circumstances, a man is capable of killing someone who truly presents a threat.

    I think this applies to the sexual domain, too.

    In order for a man to have offspring, he needs to climax. This is good (prelapsarian). In order to climax, he needs a strong sex drive, visually inspired. This is good (prelapsarian). Because of these instincts, a man may theoretically fuck a ten thousand women and father a ten thousand children. This is bad (postlapsarian). He needs to choose one woman, so that: a) other men may have their their own women and not seek to kill the first guy; and b) children spawned by their mating will have two biological parents who will see to their, extreme by mammalian standards, needs.

    A woman wants a fit mate. This is good (prelapsarian). A woman want the mate to stick around and provide for and protect her and her (their) offspring. This is good (prelapsarian). A woman having this instinct will (sometimes or often) be tempted to dump the shlub to whom she is betrothed in the hope of snagging a fitter mate… or might be tempted to get the seed of a fitter mate and fool the shlub to whom she is betrothed into thinking the kid is his. This is bad (postlapsarian). She needs to choose and remain true to one man, so that a) that one man won’t want to kill other men or her for cuckolding him; and b) children spawned by her and that one man will have two biological parents who will see to their, extreme by mammalian standards, needs.

    Or something like that…

     
  40. Will S.

    December 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    A fair description, Master Po; I concur completely.

     
  41. Master Po

    December 14, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    I noticed CL on your blog that you recently linked, with no obvious endorsement or disdain, to the Erotic Writer. Is that a regular read for you? Do you endorse it? Do you disdain it? I’m not being snarky, just curious.

    I’ve often wondered whether sexually explicit writing might (since no actual deadly sins were committed in making it) might be licit under Catholic teaching and if so how and when. I myself have penned some erotic stories that I’ve only shared with my wife. They are by, Erotic Writer standards (and those of every other “erotic” site) quite tame, but still extremely explicit. In one case I wrote what ended up being a novella about an adultery, the redemption, and wedded joy.

     
  42. CL

    December 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @Master Po

    It was just a post I happened on that was relevant to the topic of consensual non-consent, which relates to women’s common fantasies. No, it’s not a regular read but I do find these things interesting, and the exploration of what’s driving desires is a regular topic for the blog. I neither endorse nor disdain The Erotic Writer but I read lots of stuff and will occasionally link to things that might be a bit controversial (just as I will write things that might be considered controversial while doing my best to stay within the bounds of what is acceptable for a Catholic to the best of my knowledge).

    I figure it’s up to individuals to figure out what they can handle as far as what might cause them to fall into sin – similarly with knowing your limits with alcohol or really anything one might potentially over-indulge in.

     
  43. CL

    December 14, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    @ Master Po

    The Catholic blogger at Eternity Road has written erotica. I think there’s a difference between erotica that actually has a story and a point beyond titillation and the average bodice ripper. I have his book on my Kindle but haven’t got around to reading it yet, but he wanted to write erotica that wasn’t just porn so it sounded interesting. He has a video explaining it ???????????????????, which you might find interesting.

    I don’t really care if people want to look at porn or read porn; I just explore ideas and topics out of interest and to try to discover some truth or other.

     
  44. Master Po

    December 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Master Po has smashwords account. He publish in time under that name. He write NC-17 material that promote Catholic in all respect lifestyle.

     
  45. Will S.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Master Po write like a FOB, surprisingly. 😉

     
  46. CL

    December 16, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Will, it works best if you imagine it in an Elmo voice.

     
  47. Will S.

    December 16, 2011 at 8:41 am

    Ohhh…

     
  48. Matthew

    December 16, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Podles’s The Church Impotent argues that (extremely boiled down and exaggerated here) the Romanist church was almost completely co-opted In the Name of Feeling by women and their monkish fellow-travelers in the 12th-14th centuries. The Triumph of Marianne Dashwood, in other words.

    Even a church where Sense and Sensibilty‘s Mr. Palmer rules would be better than this. Let alone the church guided by a George Knightley.

     
  49. Will S.

    December 16, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    I’ve been meaning to read that Leon Podles book forever, ever since I read a review of it, shortly after it came out, way back in the day.

     
  50. Matthew

    December 16, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Will, the book is worth reading but I found about 2/3 of it to be frustrating and sloppy. When he’s quoting the disgustingly erotic writings of 12th century nuns about the bleeding heart of Jesus, it’s awesome. The case he has to make is against the centuries old perversion of the western church. Sadly, he doesn’t stick to making this case.

     
  51. Will S.

    December 16, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Hmmm.

    I was intrigued by the fact, as you eluded to, that he perceived the egalitarianism rot as starting so early on, long before (hi there, MP!) the Reformation, as many ultra-partisans blame everything for starting at that time, with that.

     
  52. Matthew

    December 17, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Awww, that’s nothing, my erstwhile gathering (the Churches of Christ) thinks the rot was in full, stinky bloom by the time of Ambrose.

    Feminization after the turn of the millennium does make for an interesting read on history, though. You can’t really fit the Heliand and the blatherings of Saint Terese de la Rue Horné into the same religion.

     
  53. Will S.

    December 17, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Matthew, you still up? Check your email.

     
  54. Master Po

    December 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    “Catholic” means, in effect, here comes everybody. It is therefore possible to judge the Catholic church of any era by the sins of her most notorious hypocrites or by the lunatic ravings of her most silly speculators–possible but entirely unfair. That she remains One, in other words that she remains afloat and entire in the wild and rising sea of sewage and sin, is one of her greatest and most defining virtues. That the reformers, in spite of all their many virtues, failed ultimately to reform and therefore chose instead to rend the undivided church is their most defining vice. I pray daily that God would unite under one visible head all people who name Christ as Lord. So should you.

    Christ either founded the Church as a pillar and bulwark of faith, and ark of salvation for all who would enter it… or he didn’t.

    As to the specific charge, I have a great deal of respect for Podles, but he goes too far with this critique. And he is in fact a bit of a one trick pony on the sex abuse crisis, which in point of fact drove Rod Dreher away from RC entirely. I am only surprised Podles remains Catholic. The church “coopted” in the name of feelings? In the twelfth century? Really. And this explains Aquinas and the counter-reformation and the Jesuits and the 19th century popes all just so perfectly well.

    In fact, the aggiornimento party within Vatican II was largely a reaction against what they saw as overly pious (read superstitious), subrational (feminine) manifestations that had arisen in the Catholic life. They wanted people to be engaged intellectually in the liturgy, engaged fully in the life of the Church, doing actual stuff… in contrast to just praying. It is the height of irony that today, the members of that party who yet survive (and they are dying fast) are the ones most vocal for the feminization and homosexualization of the church. Fr. Neuhaus (RIP) was wrong about many things (not least treating MLK as a saint), but he always maintained that the sex abuse crisis stemed from three failures: Those of faithfulness, faithfulness, and faithfulness. He was right about that.

    Of course the seeds of the Reformation (so called) were planted long before. No sin, certainly no cataclysmic sin, springs forth, fully formed out of nothing. Concupiscience is part of the human condition.

     
  55. Will S.

    December 17, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    Ah, MP, you didn’t disappoint. 🙂

    Christ either founded the Church as a pillar and bulwark of faith, and ark of salvation for all who would enter it… or he didn’t.

    Of course Christ founded the church; we agree. We just differ on what constitutes the church.

    chose instead to rend the undivided church

    Pshaw; the Great Schism had already rended and therefore divided the Church. All the Reformers did was rend and divide the Western Church.

    Of course the seeds of the Reformation (so called) were planted long before. No sin, certainly no cataclysmic sin, springs forth, fully formed out of nothing. Concupiscience is part of the human condition.

    Ah, good; I’m glad to hear you argue thus. Of course, I disagree with your take, but it’s still a fair take, from your starting POV; I can appreciate that.

     
  56. Master Po

    December 17, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    He write NC-17 material that promote Catholic in all respect lifestyle.

    As promised, the novella is up. NC-17 might not cover it, however. Be warned. It’s a serious story, but has seriously explicit scenes. Be warned.

    PS. Only very careful readers of this blog know who MP is for real. He very grateful for you keep it as so.

     
  57. Will S.

    December 17, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    Looking forward to it, MP.

    Of course we’ll keep that under our hats.

    BTW, check out the latest dust-up we’re in – our latest post…

     
  58. Master Po

    December 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    BTW, check out the latest dust-up we’re in – our latest post…

    Ack. Master Po have no horse in that race. Evangelicals often have a misplaced and misbegotten sense of niceness. It is, however, no great vice, probably only a secondary or tertiary one.

    Homosexuals have complex problem, likely due to complex factors. It is a sin for them to act on such impulses, just as it is often a sin for the rest of us to act on our own bad impulses. It is, however, no reason to use intentionally inflammatory names. SSA is both accurate and not particularly offensive.

    Some homosexuals live chaste; some make it all the way back to desiring the procreative use. Chastity is a virtue worthy of praise, irrespective of the stumbling blocks and pitfalls we have (sometimes by our own foolishness) put in our way.

     
  59. Will S.

    December 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Is ‘homo’ or ‘queer’ really that inflammatory; or ‘sodomite’, which is Biblical? I can well understand a gay or lesbian objecting to ‘faggot’ / ‘fag’ and ‘dyke’, certainly.

    I don’t know, either, that the misplaced niceness of evanjellyfish isn’t a great vice, particularly today, when we are in a cultural war with the enemies of Christ, here in the West.

     
  60. Master Po

    December 19, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Well, Master Po apply term “sodomite” to any sex act which, by design, contrivance, or chemical, is rendered intentionally infertile. So watch out you fscking sodomite contraceptors…

    “Queer” has, unfortunately, been reclaimed by a significant segment of the otherwise queer population.

    Indeed, we are in a cultural war with the enemies of Christ. SSA people are no more necessarily Christ’s enemies than any other sinners. Even among the elite who wish to normalize perversion, who paved the way for them? Who then is the greater enemy?

     
  61. Svar

    December 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    “SSA people ”

    Please don’t go fucking PeeCee on us.

     
  62. Will S.

    December 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Certainly, they’re not the only enemy; feminists are probably a worse enemy, given how widespread the societal effects of their ideology are.

    Yeah, I guess you would indeed apply that term, thus. Obviously we’ll disagree, there. 🙂

     
  63. Svar

    December 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    “Well, Master Po apply term “sodomite” to any sex act which, by design, contrivance, or chemical, is rendered intentionally infertile. So watch out you fscking sodomite contraceptors…”

    There’s a difference between sodomy and onanism. C’mon now.

     
  64. Master Po

    December 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    There’s a difference between sodomy and onanism.

    Name it.

    Please don’t go fucking PeeCee on us.

    Master Po knows not how you spell PeeCee… He like words that describe accurate.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s