RSS

A Gedankenexperiment to Disprove the Existence of the Rationalization Hamster

28 Sep

The 19th century saw a debate about the nature of light. It had wave-like features and particle-like features. The particle-favoring people pointed out a major failing of the wave people: all known waves propagated in a medium, like waves moving on the surface of a pond. What was the medium in which light would vibrate to cross space? Theorists postulated the existence of a substance, luminiferous ether, that was pervasive, and formed the medium through which light propagated. The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that no such substance existed, and is one of the hallmarks of 19th century physics.

The Rationalization Hamster is Roissy’s magnificent creation, as Dalrock showed in his hilarious Rationalization Hamster 500 post (Another great exposition of the concept is Mentu on Hamsterbating). I prefer Solomon II’s description:

If you’re a woman reading this, please note I’m talking about every woman but you, so no worries. Let’s start with the Rationalization Hamster, Whorus justifyus.
Whorus justifyus is believed to be the single most powerful creature on earth.

Scientists theorize the creature evolved from the cells of a busted hymen approximately 200 million years ago when a meteor crashed into the planet bringing with it radiation that increased estrogen levels in unborn fetuses. Over time, the rationalization hamster grew stronger until it completely took over the left side of the female brain, rendering women unable to be reasonable or logical regarding anything that goes against their wants, wishes or desires regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Now, there is a problem with this description: men make rationalizations, too. Men will typically rationalize any number of things that they do. Consider the classic lines from The Big Chill:

Michael: I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

Women might make more rationalizations of bad choices than men do. There is a reason for this. As Roissy writes: When a woman has an incentive to lie, she will choose dishonesty over truth EVERY SINGLE TIME. There is no lie worse than the lie to the self.

The objection to the concept of the rationalization hamster has to do with this: it is a form of pedestalization of women. Implicit in this concept is the idea that women would make the good choice, but a rationalization hamster leads them astray. But the truth of the matter is…

Women are perverse

We take this insight from the paper that Roissy calls the NY Beta Times. Oh, in the months before I found Roissy, I was reading stories like this one, bits of examination of the female psych in the mainstream media. Titled “What Do Women Want?”, it’s an article that traces the work of Meredith Chivers, “a highly regarded scientist and a member of the editorial board of the world’s leading journal of sexual research, Archives of Sexual Behavior.”

Chivers created what author Daniel Bergner called “Bonobo Pornography.”

“The bonobo film was part of a series of related experiments she has carried out over the past several years. She found footage of bonobos, a species of ape, as they mated… She showed the short movie to men and women, straight and gay. To the same subjects, she also showed clips of heterosexual sex, male and female homosexual sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a chiseled man walking naked on a beach and a well-toned woman doing calisthenics in the nude.
While the subjects watched on a computer screen, Chivers… measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively. …The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the penis and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.”

Literally, she was testing for what it is that makes women wet. What were the findings? Well, men…

“on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms ‘category specific’ ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.”

I would think this is categorically true about men. If they are not into fatty porn, it will not excite them. What about the women?

“All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes.”

So the human female is turned on by a wide range of stimuli, and she often does not KNOW what turns her on, or cannot admit it. The article continues:

“(W)ith the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.”

It would seem that women rationalize away their arousal, even when it is objectively measured and present. In other words, they do not rationalize a reason to BE aroused, they rationalize a reason NOT to be aroused. In the clinical environment of a researcher’s lab, they knew better than to admit that hot monkey sex had turned them on. The reason for this is clear:

You don’t have Free Will

What is going on in the female brain is the same process that goes on in the male brain. Women think they are making a conscious decision FOR something, while in fact the motivation to do something has bubbled up from the hindbrain. As this article in Psychology Today tells us:

“There is an interesting and hotly debated line of research focused on the neuroscience of conscious choice. This research explores the relation between brain activity and voluntary motion. The most prominent of this work was a series of experiments in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s by Benjamin Libet (1916-2007).

The paradigm involves research participants flexing their wrists or fingers (at a moment that they choose) while the researchers measured the timing of three things:

  1. the moment of conscious awareness of an urge to flex the wrist (noted by the participant on a special clock),
  2. the moment that electrical activity is recorded in the brain (EEG of the motor cortex) indicating the brain’s initiation of action (known as a “readiness potential”), and
  3. the moment that electrical activity is recorded in the muscles of the wrist (Electromyogram, EMG), indicating that the voluntary flex was being enacted.

Given our common sense notion of how our actions work, we might expect that we first have a conscious awareness of an intention or urge to act, then the brain activates the motor area that sends a signal to the muscles of the wrist or fingers. The surprising thing is this is not what Libet found.

The not-too-surprising finding was that when averaged across participants the results revealed that activity in the motor area of the brain preceded the electrical activity in the muscle by 550 ms (milliseconds). Our brain activity precedes our muscle activity. Surprisingly, the participants’ reports of their conscious awareness of the urge to move were only 200 ms prior to the electrical activity recorded in the muscle. Brain activity preceded conscious awareness by about a third of a second! What does this imply?

The brain unconsciously initiates the process of “voluntary” action. Subsequently we become aware of this. On the basis of these results, some researchers concluded that free will is an illusion.” (emphasis in original)

It seems, then, like we are naught but automata, obeying the programming of our deep hindbrains. However, there is some bright light. We might not possess the ability to consciously decide to DO something, but we do have the capability to suppress the urge to do something: Free Won’t. The article continues:

“Libet had participants in the same basic paradigm, but he instructed the participants that once you become aware of your urge to flex, then stop it. Don’t flex your fingers or wrist. Libet believed that there was a window of about 150 ms in which the participant could do this (note that the whole 200 ms between conscious awareness and muscle movement is not available, because once the spinal nerves are activated, somewhere around 50 ms before the muscle movement, this can not be stopped). The results indicated that the cortical readiness potential did develop (even earlier than in the past experiments), but this brain activity flattened out just before the muscle action, which indicated the vetoing effects of conscious choice. Libet concluded that participants were using conscious choice to veto the muscle flex at the last moment.

We have free will to abort an action. So, we may better think of volitional action in this case not as free will, but as “free won’t.” We can stop an action initiated by our brain nonconsciously.

This capacity of “free won’t” is generated by free choice. This is our conscious will at work.” (emphasis in original)

What the experimental psychologists are discovering here is empirical support for a Victorian concept,

Willpower

The book of that same title was reviewed by Free Northerner on this site. It is an overview of recent work in experimental psychology by Roy Baumeister and John Tierney, a popularizer of science in the New York Times. There are a few takeaways from the book, and one of them is that the Freudian concept of willpower is, in fact, well-grounded. Without referencing the idea of “free won’t,” they talk about “decision fatigue” in the actions of an Israeli parole board considering parole for two Arabs and one Jew, only one of whom, we are told, received parole:

“There was a pattern to the parole board’s decisions, but it wasn’t related to the men’s ethnic backgrounds, crimes or sentences. It was all about timing, as researchers discovered by analyzing more than 1,100 decisions over the course of a year. Judges, who would hear the prisoners’ appeals and then get advice from the other members of the board, approved parole in about a third of the cases, but the probability of being paroled fluctuated wildly throughout the day. Prisoners who appeared early in the morning received parole about 70 percent of the time, while those who appeared late in the day were paroled less than 10 percent of the time.

The odds favored the prisoner who appeared at 8:50 a.m. — and he did in fact receive parole. But even though the other Arab Israeli prisoner was serving the same sentence for the same crime — fraud — the odds were against him when he appeared (on a different day) at 4:25 in the afternoon. He was denied parole, as was the Jewish Israeli prisoner at 3:10 p.m, whose sentence was shorter than that of the man who was released. They were just asking for parole at the wrong time of day.

There was nothing malicious or even unusual about the judges’ behavior… The judges’ erratic judgment was due to the occupational hazard of being, as George W. Bush once put it, ‘the decider.’ The mental work of ruling on case after case, whatever the individual merits, wore them down. …

It’s different from ordinary physical fatigue — you’re not consciously aware of being tired — but you’re low on mental energy. The more choices you make throughout the day, the harder each one becomes for your brain, and eventually it looks for shortcuts, usually in either of two very different ways. One shortcut is to become reckless: to act impulsively instead of expending the energy to first think through the consequences. (Sure, tweet that photo! What could go wrong?) The other shortcut is the ultimate energy saver: do nothing.”

What causes this lowered mental power? It is as simple as this: lowered blood glucose.

“(R)esearchers set out to test something called the Mardi Gras theory — the notion that you could build up willpower by first indulging yourself in pleasure, the way Mardi Gras feasters do just before the rigors of Lent. In place of a Fat Tuesday breakfast, the chefs in the lab at Florida State whipped up lusciously thick milkshakes for a group of subjects who were resting in between two laboratory tasks requiring willpower. Sure enough, the delicious shakes seemed to strengthen willpower by helping people perform better than expected on the next task. So far, so good. But the experiment also included a control group of people who were fed a tasteless concoction of low-fat dairy glop. It provided them with no pleasure, yet it produced similar improvements in self-control.”

Where did the improved willpower from the tasteless, non-reward drinks come from?

“Even the tasteless glop had done the job, but how? If it wasn’t the pleasure, could it be the calories? …For decades, psychologists … liked to envision the human mind as a computer, focusing on the way it processed information. In their eagerness to chart the human equivalent of the computer’s chips and circuits, most psychologists neglected one mundane but essential part of the machine: the power supply. The brain, like the rest of the body, derived energy from glucose, the simple sugar manufactured from all kinds of foods. To establish cause and effect, researchers at Baumeister’s lab tried refueling the brain in a series of experiments involving lemonade mixed either with sugar or with a diet sweetener. The sugary lemonade provided a burst of glucose, the effects of which could be observed right away in the lab; the sugarless variety tasted quite similar without providing the same burst of glucose. Again and again, the sugar restored willpower, but the artificial sweetener had no effect.” (emphasis added)

So it would seem unfair to characterize female “choices” as due to rationalizations. What is happening is exactly OPPOSITE, and helps explain…

Why Game Works

As evidenced from the above, women are turned on by pretty much anything. Yes, even that neck-bearded cretin might spur a fantasy in the female brain. She literally has NO control over these ideas bubbling up from the hindbrain; they are always present. What she can decide to do is NOT act on her impulses, which requires an assertion of willpower.

Now, this is where game comes in. Roissy describes one element of game, as derived from Mystery, as “flipping the script.” In a sense, women stereotype men who approach them for the same reason WE ALL stereotype: it is a way to avoid making a conscious decision (or to suppress an unconscious desire), and thus conserve the blood glucose that helps preserve willpower. By running the script of male pursuer, woman denier, they can save the mental effort that it requires to evaluate their many offers.

Flipping the script now forces them to think, to decide, to become the pursuer. As this is NOT a subroutine they can easily run, they need to dedicate mental energy to it. This effort depletes their supply of brain glucose, and so they are less able to control their urges. This, I believe, is the ultimate science behind game, exploiting neurochemical energy pathways.

When Women are Most Vulnerable

Much of the PUA scene focuses on getting girls in bars. The “drunk slut” has a basis in willpower. There is the direct effect of alcohol on the brain, but there is another effect, more subtle, but perhaps more important. Diabetics are discouraged from drinking heavily because the liver is the main site of alcohol processing in the body. The liver is also the source of glucagon, a chemical that can be used in times of stress (like a low-blood-sugar incident caused by too much insulin) to raise blood sugar rapidly. A liver stressed by processing alcohol cannot also produce as much glucagon, and so heavy drinking can be literally life-threatening in the diabetic.

In a woman in a bar, the alcohol has a similar effect on the liver. They are less able to generate the blood glucose that would strengthen their willpower, and more susceptible to pickup.

There is another time when this applies. It has been noted that “women are also more likely to cheat when they’re ovulating.” We need not wonder why. Women are constantly aroused by things they cannot explain, but ones with self-discipline keep it under control through an exertion of willpower. However, the effort to prepare an internal bassinet for a fertilized egg to grow in, on a monthly basis, requires a TREMENDOUS investment of energy. This energy investment naturally lowers blood glucose levels, making women less likely to resist the temptation to cheat when ovulating, and more unable to resist the grouchy, nasty, bitchy impulses the hindbrain throws up during PMS.

 
76 Comments

Posted by on September 28, 2012 in Game, Life is stranger than fiction, Sex

 

76 responses to “A Gedankenexperiment to Disprove the Existence of the Rationalization Hamster

  1. Will S.

    September 28, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Intriguing, EA.

     
  2. okrahead

    September 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Another reason to take away her candy bars and soda pop!

     
  3. electricangel1978

    September 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    @Okrahead,

    “Another reason to take away her candy bars and soda pop!”
    It would appear that the candy bars are an effort to add glucose to restrain from doing something else. Chocolate as substitute for infidelity, perhaps?

    One point about the book Willpower is this: we are all subject to poor decision making and fatigue when we decide too much. People who cultivate good habits, who don’t GO to bars to meet guys, are less likely to make decisions they will regret. Preserving the will to avoid temptation is much more important than having will in the first place, and a “good girl” will know that she ought not tempt herself. A good boy, too, but as I pointed out, women are more susceptible due to the energy demands of their cycles.

     
  4. Will S.

    September 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Of course, the ‘rationalization hamster’ is just a metaphor, and its descriptive power may be nevertheless sound enough according to its own frame of reference, even if it gets things exactly opposite, similarly to how Benjamin Franklin thought electrical charge was positive, rather than in fact negative, as we now know – but Franklin was the first to ‘get’ electricity in terms of the concept of charge, even though he had it ass-backwards. 🙂

    So, rather than creatures of impulse, women are creatures of extraordinary restraint, normally, except when short-circuited by desire, brought on by various factors? Again, a most intriguing contention.

     
  5. electricangel1978

    September 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    @Will,

    So, rather than creatures of impulse, women are creatures of extraordinary restraint, normally, except when short-circuited by desire, brought on by various factors? Again, a most intriguing contention.
    Well, they seem to be turned on by an AWFUL lot of things. The best ones, the ones heralded in the manosphere, are the ones most able to control those urges. Rationalization of bad thoughts isn’t what they have to do; it’s SUPPRESSION of bad ideas and urges thrown up by the hindbrain that is their challenge. Over-thinking, too much deciding, weakens their ability to tamp down their desires, and that’s how the pool boy winds up screwing the CEO’s wife. Or something like that.

     
  6. Will S.

    September 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Hmmm. I dunno. It fits with the knowledge we Christians have that we are tainted with Original Sin, so that even our very natures are corrupted, and that we’re inclined to all manner of evil. And yet… What of men to whom women don’t say they find themselves attracted to, and who by all outward appearance, appear repulsed by; the ones they call ‘creepy’? Are they actually turned on by them, but their rational mind says no, whereas some alpha guy finds away to short-circuit their normal tendency to almost always automatically say no even though, as with less desirable men, she is still nevertheless attracted? I dunno. I know women are complicated, but…

     
  7. a tiny little mouse

    September 28, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    A woman loves her master. When Western men ceased being masters and started thinking of women as their equals, Western women stopped loving them.

     
  8. Free Northerner

    September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    Excellent post. I remember reading that NYT article when it first came out, it was actually the first time I took Roissy and game seriously as an intellectual concept, rather than just an interesting curiosity on the internet.

     
  9. David Collard

    September 29, 2012 at 6:40 am

    Most husbands have sex with the hamster chattering away, shit testing and complaining. The hamster will tell you she is not interested, she never enjoys it, she will never do it again; the hamster will bitch all the way through the sucking and fucking; while the actual woman is lubricating and spreading with evident enthusiasm.

    The hamster is not interested, but the inner woman is.

    mouse is correct too. Equality is totally anaphrodisiac.

     
  10. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    @Will,

    What of men to whom women don’t say they find themselves attracted to, and who by all outward appearance, appear repulsed by; the ones they call ‘creepy’? Are they actually turned on by them, but their rational mind says no, whereas some alpha guy finds away to short-circuit their normal tendency to almost always automatically say no even though, as with less desirable men, she is still nevertheless attracted? I dunno. I know women are complicated, but…

    Let’s think about this for a minute. Later in the same NYT article it talks about the number of women who have rape fantasies (of course, since it’s a FEMALE sexologist saying this, she can get away with it). Heightened female response to just about any sort of sexual stimulus (especially a response that they cannot either admit or recognize, take your pick) is not something conscious; it must be evolutionary behavior. Rape and violence would have been common in the past, as would hypergamous mating. In contrast to the perverse concept in southern Africa of dry sex, a woman who COULD lubricate when the possibility of mating is near, whether voluntary or forcible, is a woman who would be less likely to suffer fertility-lowering damage to her internal plumbing.

    So, what happens when ANY guy approaches, I conclude from these three articles, is this: women are always stimulated by approaches; it validates some sense of desirability and self-worth. But the approacher is quickly evaluated with respect to body language and masculine expression. Alphas always have the air about them of taking what they want, and PUAs, by flipping the script, cause women’s “no” circuitry to be suppressed. Creepy guys are quickly read not as violent, but not dominant, and the script for “no” can run, easily. What I find most interesting is that the women were more turned on by the naked woman doing calisthenics than the naked man; I have to conclude that this is because a naked woman, contorting, suggests sex is happening, while a naked man does not.

    Recall, as many a PUA has said (and I think these articles demonstrate): Attraction is not a choice. Suppressing the desire to act on the attraction IS a choice, and it’s got to be easy to run the script of rejection (recall the Willpower quote where the parole board, when tired, went to the default choice in granting parole: no.). A creepy guy is a guy whose indications are that there’s no reason to not run the rejection script; this allows the woman to conserve energy and time to suppress urges for varying shades of beta.

     
  11. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    @Maus,

    A woman loves her master. When Western men ceased being masters and started thinking of women as their equals, Western women stopped loving them.
    It’s demonstrable anywhere: men are more extreme than women. Simply look at height: men average taller than women, but men are also FAR more widely spread around the mean. This is design, not error, and suppressing design in the pursuit, literally, of mediocrity is utter foolishness, on an individual and a societal basis.

    I don’t know how long you’ve been reading in the ‘sphere, but I wonder if you could read and offer feedback on this article, specifically to do with Germany:
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/10/german-family-minister-slams-feminism/

    There are over 600 comments, of which only a few are mine. Roissy in the old days would get 1000 comments, but this thread might someday be used to show a turning point.

     
  12. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    @FN,

    That article, in the time before Roissy for me, had the same effect. WTF? It’s a superb source of insight, unassailable because it’s by a woman. Drop it on your unfriendly neighborhood feminist.

     
  13. Will S.

    September 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    @ EA: I see; fair enough; that makes sense.

     
  14. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    @DC,

    The woman almost always IS interested, and is more likely to be interested when the male shows aggressiveness or assertiveness. Of course, this conflicts with a culture that permits concepts like “marital rape.”

    How do you manage to get flattery spam? I had not seen it before.

     
  15. Will S.

    September 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    @ EA: “How do you manage to get flattery spam? I had not seen it before.”

    Are you asking me? Maybe you haven’t seen it because I constantly empty the spambox, multiple times a day.

     
  16. a tiny little mouse

    September 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Electric Angel, yes I remember reading this article, though I’m not sure I have read all the comments. Feminism exists in all Western countries, but the USA and Canada seem by some reason to have a particularly nasty form of it. IMO, it’s because Americans tend to pedestalize their women, which is certainly not done here to this extent. It’s now election time in America and it seem everything people talk about is women, women, women, war on women. Where I live people are more interested in restricting immigration, at least that’s what gets everybody excited.

    As for Roissy, a lot of things which he teaches are just plain old common sense, if you read some old books and historical accounts you will see that men of the past used to know it. Just one historical example, William the Conqueror fell in love with a woman who rejected him on the grounds of him being a bastard spawn of a low class family. He became so furious that he took a whip and thrashed her within the inch of her life in the presence of her maidservants. As a result, she fell in love with him madly, married him and bore him a huge number of children. When asked how could she have married a man who treated her like this, she answered that he showed a lot of courage in beating her in her father’s house and hence was a real man. Not that I recommend any form of domestic violence, of course, I just wanted to show that there was time when Western men were not pedestalizers:)

     
  17. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    @will,

    Are you asking me? Maybe you haven’t seen it because I constantly empty the spambox, multiple times a day.
    Are you bitching that I don’t do my share of the housework AGAIN?

     
  18. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    @Maus,

    Perhaps the best insight on the uniquely pedestalizing nature of American men comes from our collecting of “aphorisms of the manosphere.” Note this comment in that collection, from a man from Spain, I believe:

    “The mixture of feminism and pedestalization … has produced the mess in America.… It may be the rejection of Mary in the American Christianity (so the eternal feminine is embodied in actual women instead of a religious figure). But the reverence that American men put on American women is the (reason) feminism has been so harmful.”

    I think this gets to the heart of the issue. Germany, being mostly Catholic and Lutheran, would still have quite a bit of Marian worship. More ascetic branches of Protestantism, like those that gained control of the narrative in the USA, would be susceptible here.

     
  19. David Collard

    September 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    I wasn’t going to “go there” but “marital rape” is a diabolical notion from a devilish movement, especially give the way even science shows, it would seem, that women are internally conflicted. Women are always saying one thing as they do the opposite.

    As for aggression in bed, a bit of verbal aggression can moisten the female. Teasingly making “chauvinstic” and “sexist” remarks can work. I have never “forced” my wife physically.

     
  20. a tiny little mouse

    September 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Electric Angel, I’m not sure. Holland is (or was) predominantly Calvinist and there seems to be no problem with pedestalisation. I also don’t see it in old American films and TV series like McLintock or I love Lucy. I have been thinking that may be it’s due to the rise in America of Evangelical movement as opposed to the more traditional churches, as the Evangelicals seem to be emotionally driven, but on the other hand there are a lot of more traditional Protestant denominations which turned even more feminised. Anyway, whatever the reason of it, it’s the fact of nature that as of now American men seem to be more into it than Europeans. Our men don’t seem to constantly live in fear of offending women.

     
  21. Will S.

    September 29, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    @ EA: Yes; how many times do I have to nag you, before you ‘man up’ and do it, like a REAL man? 😉

     
  22. David Collard

    September 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    I wonder if the hamster is a case of adaptive self-deception:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception#Trivers.27_theory_of_self-deception

    I am thinking of doing a post on this.

    Women may be good at misrepresenting their true desires (as expressed by vaginal lubrication and actual sexual choice) because they have deceived themselves. (In a similar way, I once read the suggestion that hidden ovulation in women may have evolved to deceive the woman herself about her sexual state.) Women’s relative interest in alphas is highest when they ovulate. If she can convince herself that sex with the alpha was an aberration, and she really wants that beta with his resources, she can have it all, without any consciousness of deception.

    In other words, the best lie is the one you believe yourself. A male version may be the way in which young men feel invincible, driving fast or getting into fights, quite oblivious of the risk to themselves.

     
  23. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    @maus,

    Recall that OUR Calvinists lived in Holland for 11 years, from 1609 to 1620, but left because they found it too liberal; I guess the Dutch didn’t punish a woman who gave birth on a Sunday, as it was CLEAR to medical science of the time that a woman gave birth on the day of conception, and having sex on the Lord’s day was a problem.

    Look, you guys sent us all the religious nuts too wacky for Europe. So we got the Pilgrims/Puritans, the Hutterite/Mennonite/Amish, the Jansenist Catholics, the Quakers. In the wilderness of virgin forest a lot of crazy ideas go down, and you wind up hanging and crushing “witches” in 1692.

    I think the spirit of decaying Presbyterianism had a lot to do with it. Here’s a quote from Woodrow Wilson, the do-gooder who caused the Germans to loose Lenin on the Russians to take the Russkies out of WWI by deciding to declare war in a conflict that would otherwise have stagnated in 1917:

    When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.”

    This same Wilson, afflicted by a stroke, turned the running of the USA over to his wife for the last two years of his Presidency, this at the same time that the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was passing Prohibition, and the 19th Amendment was passing, giving women the vote in every state int he Union. I think that that is where a lot of our problems started.

     
  24. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    @Will,

    Hey! I do my share, mowing the virtual lawn and taking the avatcar in to the repair shop. I notice you never seem to pick on lil’ Ulysses; is he really my son?

     
  25. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    @DC,

    So you fall on the side of “they know, but they don’t want to admit it?” I wonder; I think a goodly number simply do not know or suppress the signals of arousal. Strap a plethysmograph in there, and I’ll believe it.

    In other words, the best lie is the one you believe yourself.
    As the immortal George Costanza said: “Remember Jerry: it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

     
  26. Will S.

    September 29, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    @ EA: “Recall that OUR Calvinists lived in Holland for 11 years, from 1609 to 1620, but left because they found it too liberal; I guess the Dutch didn’t punish a woman who gave birth on a Sunday, as it was CLEAR to medical science of the time that a woman gave birth on the day of conception, and having sex on the Lord’s day was a problem.”

    Who are you referring to? The Nieuw Amsterdam colonists? I thought they were a bit later than that; for instance, I know Schenectady, NY wasn’t founded till the 1660s, by the Dutch; I lived there for a while, and I visited the old part of town a lot, read all the historical plaques…

    Anyway, where did you get all of what you wrote there? Just curious; I confess I know more about later waves of Dutch immigrants, like the ones who settled in Michigan in the 1830s. I know a thing or two about their grievances with the State church, and IMO, they were not unreasonable ones. I also know they were more conservative than the Dutch colonists of New York, whom most of the Michiganders refused to align with, church-wise, setting up their own, more conservative church. To this day, the division remains; the RCA (the church of the old NY colonists) is a mainline, liberal Protestant church, while the CRC is an evangelical church, and some of its offshoots are more conservative, remaining solidly confessionally Reformed; ditto some other churches that broke away from the State church over in the old country, at different times; the State church now in the Netherlands is worse than the C of E / Episcopalians, for liberalism: it is way further ‘ahead’ in ‘gay rights’, and the like…

    @ ATLM: I’m inclined to agree with you, that the problem lies with North American evangelicalism. I’m Reformed, but I was evangelical for a decade and a half before I became Reformed, and I am quite familiar with their churches; feminism has made much greater inroads into their churches than into confessional Protestant churches, here in North America. Not that there hasn’t been some unfortunate degree of penetration into confessional Protestant churches; for example, many Reformed, like their evangelical brethren, love the movie ‘Fireproof’, and any other movies put out by that Baptist church in Georgia, alas… I’ve tried to fight against such trends, in whatever way I can; I opposed a movie night showing one of them, and convinced at least one person intellectually, why such movies are bad. They didn’t end up seeing it together, though some have on their own…

     
  27. electricangel1978

    September 29, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    @Will,

    The Pilgrims who landed in 1620 were English, but had lived in Holland. They were Calvinists.

    But I have met Dutch Calvinists, and descendants of Huguenots. They’re not whackjobs like our Pilgrims were. Did the Dutch Calvinists ever go on witch hunts? Methinks not.

     
  28. Will S.

    September 29, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Oh, THEM… Of course.

    I don’t honestly know if Dutch Calvinists ever went on witch-hunts, but I suspect not; that’s not like them.

     
  29. David Collard

    September 30, 2012 at 4:56 am

    No, EA, my proposal (which is of course written under this penname and is not meant to be 100% serious) is that the famed and fearsome “hamster” may simply be due to women literally not knowing what they really feel. They verbalise what they believe to be their true feelings, but they are not, as the vaginal lubrication test shows. Seriously, I have literally seen my wife swearing blue that she will never go to the gym again – as she is going out the door to the gym. I have had her swearing that she will never wear some amusing item in the bedroom – as she is putting it on. Yesterday, I had her yapping all the way through a very acceptable sexual session about how she was not interested and not going to have sex. Let’s just say my personal vaginal probe detected plenty of moisture …

     
  30. a tiny little mouse

    September 30, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Electric Angel, Americans seem to be inclined to go the extremes, whether for good or for bad:)
    I am also not aware of any witch hunts in Holland, at least after the Middle Ages. I think I read somewhere that the old laws against witchcraft were abandoned in Europe somewhere in the 16th century, though I couldn’t back it up with links or quotes.

    Will, it may come as a surprise to you, but here nobody ever heard of “Fireproof”. We don’t have church movie nights, either, nor sermons about manning up. I heard one sermon on wifely obedience, where the preacher basically said that wives who disobey their husbands end up in Hell. Mostly, however, our sermons are about Jesus, repentance, salvation, these sorts of things.

    I have not watched “Fireproof” myself, so it’s probably not for me to judge, but from the internet summary I gather that it’s quite feminist. Though the movie itself is bad, I think the idea behind it, to create Christian entertainment, is good. I mean, modern mass entertainment is quite debased and full of propaganda, it’s time for us to reclaim the culture and to create some reactionary entertainment of our own.

     
  31. Will S.

    September 30, 2012 at 9:40 am

    @ ATLM: No, I’m not surprised, but I am very happy to hear nobody there knows ‘Fireproof’ and the like. In confessional Reformed churches here, too, our sermons are like yours; expository, not topical; we don’t have movie nights per se, as a whole church, but the young people / young adults might, as part of their activities… On the whole, confessional Protestant churches here are better at resisting the trends one finds in evangelicalism – but not perfect, alas; the problem is, many confessional Protestants tend to have evangelical friends, read evangelical books and listen to evangelical sermons online, use evangelical homeschooling materials, watch evangelical movies, and so unfortunately, end up influenced by ‘churchian’ evanjellyfish ways ‘through the back door’, one might say. It’s sad; I try to counter such attitudes, bitching about them to anyone who will listen, and personally eschewing evangelical influences.

    There are some Reformed filmmakers out there, and others in the arts and entertainment industry, but not enough, IMO; we really need to work on having a distinct voice, countering that of evangelicalism.

    I haven’t watched ‘Fireproof’ either, but yes, from what I’ve read about it (see Dalrock’s take-downs of it, at his site), it is indeed quite feminist, alas…

     
  32. a tiny little mouse

    September 30, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Evengelicals target younger generation and quite successfully, because their worship is appealing to them. We don’t have rock music in the church, nor slideshows, neither exciting youth days, it’s quite boring when you compare it with the emotion-driven worship of the Evangelical churches. They are also not so kin on preaching about sin. Strange enough, there are many young men who leave the traditional churches for Evangelicalism, and they seem not to be bothered by feminism in the slightest.

    The problem with making films is that it costs a lot of money, which is an obstacle in a lot of cases. To write a book is much easier. However, on youtube there are plenty of films made in the good old days. They were not made to appeal only to women, either. Some films are adaptations of old Victorian novels and deal with concepts of honour and duty, like The Four Feathers (1939 version) or The Lives of a Bengal Lancer. It would be much better if the church youth groups showed these sorts of films on their movie nights.

     
  33. Will S.

    September 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    “We don’t have rock music in the church, nor slideshows, neither exciting youth days, it’s quite boring when you compare it with the emotion-driven worship of the Evangelical churches.”

    We don’t have any of that, either, and I think some young people wish we did; in fact, I know some do… Fortunately, it’s unlikely to happen.

    “However, on youtube there are plenty of films made in the good old days. They were not made to appeal only to women, either. Some films are adaptations of old Victorian novels and deal with concepts of honour and duty, like The Four Feathers (1939 version) or The Lives of a Bengal Lancer. It would be much better if the church youth groups showed these sorts of films on their movie nights.”

    Not familar with either of those, but I agree, there were many good, older films, back in the day, that would be better choices for a youth group. Or something like “Sophie Scholl – Die letzten Tage”, which I think is an excellent movie for teens and adults alike, a very inspiring movie.

     
  34. Spoos in August

    September 30, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I like it.

    However, I always thought of the Hamster as being the mechanism by which women (and men) attempt to construct a coherent narrative around their experience, including desires and actions.

    The impression I got from Roissy, et al. was not that women were pure but for the siren song of rationalization, but rather that women’s desires shaded toward the perverse, requiring the Hamster to spin fast enough to keep everyone from figuring that out.

     
  35. David Collard

    October 1, 2012 at 3:24 am

    Spoos

    I think the hamster is the rationalisation module in the human brain, especially the female brain. It is the bit that explains why she did such a godawful dumbfuck thing. “I let that bad boy fuck me because I had had a fight with my boyfriend, and I was upset”. That kind of thing.

    The science seems to show that women really don’t know when they are turned on. It is as if their brain is not talking to their vagina. What I was saying is that it might be a case of adaptive self-deception, such as that theorised by noted evolutionary psychologist Robert Trivers. It might be adaptive for a woman to be able to rationalise sluttish behaviour and lie about it effectively. “Yes, that huge hulking beast from the tribe in the next valley raped me; how lucky I am to have you back to help me gather berries, my loyal man. You are such a prehistoric nice guy.”

     
  36. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 8:32 am


    The Four Feathers

    Of course, old films are not for everyone, because they lack all those “special effects”, but I must admit I’m a junkie for retro stuff:)
    By the way, Will, I was not aware that European movies were known outside Europe. I generally find them to be less politically correct than modern Hollywood productions. Women tend to be less obnoxious as well:) Some modern Russian films are quite nice, too and they are available with English subs. Have you watched The Admiral, about Admiral Kolchak who was the leader of the anticommunist forces during the Russian Civil War? We found it an interesting movie.

     
  37. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 8:35 am

    I wanted to post a link but now see I posted the whole movie:) I hope it’s not a problem with you! WordPress is different from Googgle blogs, it seems.

     
  38. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 8:48 am

    @Maus,

    I was not aware that European movies were known outside Europe

    We know a few films from Europe over here. My favorite film of the last 10 years has been “The Lives of Others,” which we watched on DVD. I was wondering how they had achieved the FEEL of East Germany in the movie, and the DVD commentary explains that the director is an absolute fanatic. If the Admiral is available on NetFlix, I’ll check it out.

    Of course, old films are not for everyone, because they lack all those “special effects”, but I must admit I’m a junkie for retro stuff:)
    I have a theory: technology has ruined movie plots. Look at a film like “Sleepless in Seattle,” for instance. Does not the pervasiveness of cell phones make the plot ridiculous? How can anyone miss anyone ever again? This is why fantasy, and moves like “The King’s Speech,” get made: you don’t have to deal with the VERY high wall of believability with those.

     
  39. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 8:52 am

    @ ATLM: Oh wow; guess I’ll have to set aside a couple hours, sometime now – and it’s free! 🙂

    Yes, if you post a YouTube link in a WordPress blog, it automatically embeds it. We don’t mind; I think it’s great, myself. 🙂

    I love old movies, too. I love indie films, and foreign movies of all kinds; I’m a cinephile… I’ve reviewed a couple of movies here (and briefly recommended a couple others; see here), and may review more, in the future.

    Yes, there are people in North America like myself, big cinephiles who love European movies, and yes, esp. since they eschew automatically happy endings and political correctness (why, you’ll even see a Frenchman slap a Frenchwoman back in a French movie!). I haven’t seen ‘The Admiral’; sounds interesting. I have seen quite a number of Russian movies, though; I really liked one from a few years back whose name escapes me, about a boy from an orphanage who gets adopted by an Italian family.

    I love many German movies; recently, you recall we discussed the ‘Ostalgie’ phenomenon: I really liked ‘Goodbye Lenin!’. A few years ago, I watched the uncut version of ‘Das Boot’, all five or six hours of it (at least, I think it was that long; it was incredibly long); by far, the best submarine movie I’ve ever seen; no need to watch another submarine movie, ever, after that masterpiece.

     
  40. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 8:55 am

    @Spoos,

    However, I always thought of the Hamster as being the mechanism by which women (and men) attempt to construct a coherent narrative around their experience, including desires and actions.

    I was looking for something specific to women here. As the quote goes, man is less the rational animal than the rationalizing animal. So Roissy et al are less talking about retrospective rationalization than in-the-moment rationalization as a specifically female characteristic. The seeking for a coherent narrative explains a LOT of human history; a great book on this is Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Taleb.

    I think women ARE more susceptible to having their “rational” Free-Won’t circuits overridden than men are, and I outlined a couple of reasons. But the notion that they need a rationalization in flagrante delicto for which we posit a hamster? That does not hold up to the science.

     
  41. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 9:01 am

    @ ATLM: It will perhaps interest you to know, that I once reviewed a couple of old movies for a Canadian Reformed magazine, once, a half-decade back or so. They had dedicated an entire issue to movie reviews; it was great!

    [EA: details, links, or, well, we can’t ask you to GTFO: you ARE Patri…]

     
  42. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 10:58 am

    Electric Angel, I haven’t seen Sleepless in Seattle, so I can’t give my opinion:) But I agree about the technology in general, though for me the biggest turn off in modern films is incessant propaganda of liberalism, and horrible women. I like fantasy myself, but the genre was totally ruined for me by “strong empowered women”. Last time I read that in the new Hobbit movie there will be strong female elf warriors, isn’t it ridiculous? There was not one female character in the book. Why couldn’t they just leave it like that? It is as if they are bent on ruining everything.

     
  43. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Will, so you are also doing movie reviews, how nice! I don’t know if Admiral is available on NetFlix, but it’s currently on Youtube and with English subs, too. I haven’t see the film about the orphan boy you mentioned. Russians made several interesting movies about war in Chechnya, and then there was this TV series about Russian mafia in the 1990s. Das Boot is a great film, but I wasn’t aware there is an uncut version as well. It wasn’t on the TV> .

     
  44. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 11:08 am

    @ EA: This is the magazine; the issue isn’t online, however – it was their July/August 2006 issue, and they only have a few issues up, to entice potential subscribers. You can ask editor Jon Dykstra if you don’t believe me; he’ll confirm I wrote two reviews for them.

    Here are the reviews:

    Dear Mr. Dykstra,

    I have seen Martin Luther and High Noon; here are my capsule (101 and 102 words, respectively) reviews for each:

    Martin Luther does an excellent job of portraying the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, and Luther’s struggle against its corrupt practices and false doctrines. A quiet film, largely dialogue-driven; Niall MacGinnis captures Luther’s passionate, faithful nature very effectively. Not a biography per se , it doesn’t follow the entire story of Luther’s life from birth to death; rather, as a movie which was funded by a Lutheran denomination, Martin Luther focuses on the main events of the Reformation itself. It concludes on a stirring note, with Luther’s great hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. Highly recommended.

    A Western classic, High Noon portrays a town sheriff who has to face an unrepentant criminal just released from jail; the sheriff finds himself increasingly isolated, as the townspeople turn away in fear. Not a Christian movie per se, High Noon nevertheless should strike a chord with Reformed viewers, with its portrayal of the universal wickedness of humanity (shown as afflicting even the most upright and decent citizens, in terms of their moral cowardice in the face of evil), but also, in terms of the sheriff’s heroic unwillingness to compromise with evil, standing on principle, regardless of the cost. An entertaining, thought-provoking movie.

     
  45. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 11:09 am

    BTW, Admiral nicely illustrates Roissy’s principle that 5 minutes of alpha are worth the whole life with beta:)

     
  46. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 11:12 am

    @ ATLM: See my above comment for the two reviews I did for that magazine.

    I think the version I saw of ‘Das Boot’ was longer than the normal one, but I can’t find any more info about it…

     
  47. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Yes, I have just read them. I liked Martin Luther, too. The second movie I haven’t watched. Do you also do book reviews?

     
  48. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 11:20 am

    @ ATLM: Not published; I did one here for a book that ElectricAngel sent me; here it is.

     
  49. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    @Will,

    OK, now I understand why the reviews aren’t online.

    Martin Luther does an excellent job of portraying the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, and Luther’s struggle against its corrupt practices and false doctrines. A quiet film, largely dialogue-driven; Niall MacGinnis captures Luther’s passionate, faithful nature very effectively. Not a biography per se , it doesn’t follow the entire story of Luther’s life from birth to death; rather, as a movie which was funded by a Lutheran denomination, Martin Luther focuses on the main events of the Reformation itself. It concludes on a stirring note, with Luther’s great hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. Highly recommended.

    Yeah, it must have been horrible for Luther to go to Rome and see all that glorious Renaissance art and architecture that the Church was spending its money on. Sure, there were Popes with mistresses, but what did Luther DO in response? He gave up his vow of celibacy and took a wife (I wonder if he ever took a mistress? Probably would not have made the version of the film you saw, but maybe the director’s cut?) Indulge a 1500-year-old organization a little, will ya?

    I think Luther’s points were well taken, and some reforms were put in place; the Tridentine mass that resulted was a masterpiece of worship until destroyed by Vatican II. I am also sure that Luther himself would have been horrified at the mass killings that resulted from his reformation, especially the 30 years war. Once the fracture took place and all that Chirch land could now be grabbed with impunity, grabbed it was, with the thieves now squabbling and warring over the spoils.

    Found this on Lutherans and sacerdotalism:

    According to Lutherans, the office of the ministry in Christianity is not part of the priestly system of the Old Testament. It is not a self-perpetuating group that can be passed on to successors through ordination. Instead, Lutherans hold that the divinely instituted ministry continues the work of Christ by exercising on behalf of the laity the means of grace, which Christ gave to all Christian believers.

    Any wonder how they wound up with female priests?

     
  50. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    @Maus,

    Electric Angel, I haven’t seen Sleepless in Seattle, so I can’t give my opinion:)
    Please do NOT see it (or at least spend any money to do so) on my account. It’s typical feminist claptrap, but the major plot twist has to do with two people who miss meeting each other at the Empire State Building because no one can contact the other to coordinate. The whole plot is destroyed by cellphones.

    Care to do a Red Pill Review (guest post) on The Admiral?

     
  51. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    @ EA: I should have known I’d hit a nerve by posting that. 😉

    The movie showed Luther’s marriage to Katherine von Bora, who had been a nun, so she, too, gave up her vows. I have never heard any accusations about Luther taking a mistress; do you have any links?

    The only way mainline Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants, have ended up with female pastors, is by disregarding the clear Scriptural injunction by Paul against such. But they are clearly in error; the Reformers would never have tolerated such a thing, grounded in Scripture as they were.

     
  52. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    @ EA: If you want to hammer Protestants, esp. Lutherans, for hypocrisy, you could of course bring up this incident, which has been well-noted by many Catholics.

     
  53. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Will, that was a very impressive review.
    Electric Angel, I guess I could try, but it will take some time as I will have to watch it again (I saw it a long time ago). Also, the post will inevitably contain spoilers, I’m afraid. How do I submit a guest post?

     
  54. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Glad you liked it. I should do book reviews more often, but that would mean reading books more often. 😉

     
  55. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    @Will,

    Interesting link there. I loved this quote: “Philip accordingly wrote Luther for his opinion about the matter, alleging as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs, but Luther replied that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, rather that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction.”

    So I guess Sola Scriptura, EXCEPT when I say God doesn’t say so.

    As to

    The only way mainline Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants, have ended up with female pastors, is by disregarding the clear Scriptural injunction by Paul against such. But they are clearly in error; the Reformers would never have tolerated such a thing, grounded in Scripture as they were.

    I think you are correct that most reformers would be horrified at the great-grand-descendants of their work. But that is the nature of revolt. Could the most radical reformers in 1789 have imagined the terror (the original terror-istes, as you know) five years later? It seems every time a revolt takes place against the Catholic Church that mass killings follow; those killings DWARF the death toll of the Inquisition by many orders of magnitude.

    There a book called The Cathedral and the Bazaar that talks about open-source software, and tries to make the case that open-source is a superior model. Jane Jacobs had a similar idea in Systems of Survival: you’re either a trader, or a guardian. I think what happened with the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to apply the logic of the traders (openness, fair dealing, defined, written rules) to religion, which is a guardian profession. The result, hundreds of years later, is lesbian bishops “leading” men. It also makes religion a competitive activity in the marketplace, causing pastors who need money to genuflect in the female direction.

    Any worth in this idea, or am I just seeing things?

     
  56. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    @Maus, Will,

    If you’d like to do a guest post, Will, would we contact him by email? I owe a red pill review of Groundhog Day.

     
  57. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    @Will,

    I have never heard any accusations about Luther taking a mistress; do you have any links?

    Just spicing up the story for a modern audience. I could see it, though: Luther, torn like in The Last Temptation of Christ, by a buxom Catholic woman who would only have him if he would heal the rift he opened before he opened her rift.

     
  58. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    @ EA, ATLM: Actually, Maus, why don’t you email me; I can be reached at: wgstewart AT gmail DOT com, replacing the capitalized words with the appropriate symbols, of course.

     
  59. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    @ EA: “So I guess Sola Scriptura, EXCEPT when I say God doesn’t say so.”

    No, the Patriarchs were in error, and often suffered consequences for their sins, including much unhappiness in their lives. Anyway, I don’t say Luther was perfect; he was a sinful man, after all, like all of us, and could be wrong sometimes; ditto Calvin, and everyone else.

    “I think what happened with the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to apply the logic of the traders (openness, fair dealing, defined, written rules) to religion, which is a guardian profession. The result, hundreds of years later, is lesbian bishops “leading” men. It also makes religion a competitive activity in the marketplace, causing pastors who need money to genuflect in the female direction.

    Any worth in this idea, or am I just seeing things?”

    I don’t know. I know Catholicism has become just as infected with theological liberalism as Protestantism, from the semi-Marxism of the Latin American ‘liberation theologians’ to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Communist Bishops, to the social-activist ‘nuns’, to ‘Catholics for Choice’, and the like; has the structure of the R.C.C. changed that significantly over the last half-millennium, parallel to that of Protestantism’s reforms? Or is it an effect of losing their primacy of place, subject to the ‘marketplace of ideas’, that has caused the same trends to be present in the R.C.C. as in Protestantism? I don’t know.

    I know that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and that if institutions fail to check error, but accommodate it, that in time, those in error can displace the orthodox, as they grow in numbers and clout. I don’t think that necessarily always means something is wrong in the first place from the get-go with the institution in question, but it means they failed to stop people going too far.

     
  60. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    @ EA: “Just spicing up the story for a modern audience. I could see it, though: Luther, torn like in The Last Temptation of Christ, by a buxom Catholic woman who would only have him if he would heal the rift he opened before he opened her rift.”

    {Snort}

     
  61. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    @ EA: “But that is the nature of revolt. Could the most radical reformers in 1789 have imagined the terror (the original terror-istes, as you know) five years later? It seems every time a revolt takes place against the Catholic Church that mass killings follow; those killings DWARF the death toll of the Inquisition by many orders of magnitude.”

    The French revolutionaries weren’t just anti-R.C.C.; they were anti-God; the first atheist proto-Marxists; as far as I’m concerned, they were rotten from the get-go.

    By contrast, the American Revolution was a much more conservative revolt, which did NOT result in any sort of mass killings on the scale of that in France (though there certainly were mob actions against United Empire Loyalists – tarring and feathering, confiscation of homes, and the like, causing the Loyalists to feel compelled to flee to Canada, so I won’t say there was no terrorism, but it was not at all on the level of that in France, where officialdom itself ended up involved in it), so revolts can happen with a minimum of bloodshed. Or how about the death of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia’s ‘Velvet Revolution’ and division into two countries?

    I don’t think political revolts need have large amounts of bloodshed – and indeed, the Reformation was as much political as it was theological, given the intertwining of the political and the religious in Europe at that time – but unfortunately, people being sinful people, it all too often works out that way.

     
  62. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    And yes, I realize you were talking about revolt against the R.C.C. specifically, but (a) the Reformation and other revolts against Catholic power like the French and Mexican Revolutions have always happened in the context of civil/political and religious authority being intertwined, so there almost always has been a political dimension, and (b) that being the case, I wanted to point out that political revolutions can happen without necessarily having great bloodshed, though all too often they do have it…

    The R.C.C. at the time of the Reformation can be thought of as a political power above the State analogous in some ways to the current-day European Union or the United Nations, except obviously not Satanically wicked like either of those Enlightenment-philosophy-derived institutions, which exist for much different purposes…

     
  63. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Anyway, suffice to say, I’m not interested in refighting the Reformation here at Patri, as you know. 🙂

     
  64. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    @Will,

    No. No refighting Reformations is our motto!

    It’s interesting to me to revisit political revolutions. Leninism is a revolt against Church and State, and leads to mass killings. French Revolution is likewise. The American Revolution was largely political, especially as it did NOTHING to undermine the Established Churches of the individual states. (Puritanism was the state church of New Hampshire, I believe, into the 1850s.)

    Contrast the Velvet Revolution, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unrest, but no mass killings of communists, anywhere in Eastern Europe outside of Romania (and even there, not much.) Even in Nazi Germany there was not THAT much killing required to get people to transfer allegiance from the secular Weimar Republik to the Satanical National Socialist regime.

    The Spanish Civil War (won by the good guys, thankfully), the French Revolution, the Mexican revolution, the English reformation: all had mass quantities of bloodshed. Restorations and counters to the systems set up by these regimes: not so much.

     
  65. electricangel1978

    October 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    @Will,

    I don’t know. I know Catholicism has become just as infected with theological liberalism as Protestantism
    Benny XVI, long may he live and serve, is rooting this out. I think the philosophical liberalism in the Church afflicted all the Prot denominations. They no longer had a strong, theological anchoring point to define themselves against. The cost to the Church of Vatican II has been immense, and B16 has seen the need to evangelize what were once Catholic countries, so disaffected does the thin gruel faith leave folks.

    As you know, I think that the liberals will be outbred by the ultra-conservatives, but this process will take a long time. In the meantime, there are poorly-catechized people who need the faith. I suspect it will go down poorly with those who refused to lead His sheep, even more so than with the lost sheep themselves.

     
  66. a tiny little mouse

    October 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Will, don’t you like reading books? I’ll try to send you the review tomorrow, it’s getting rather late here and I have things to do around the house.

     
  67. Will S.

    October 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    @ ATLM: Oh yes, I do like reading books; it’s just a matter of finding time for them, and disciplining myself to sit down and commit to reading them. That’s actually the main thing; self-discipline, I have the time, but making it, is another matter. 🙂

    @ EA: “It’s interesting to me to revisit political revolutions. Leninism is a revolt against Church and State, and leads to mass killings. French Revolution is likewise. The American Revolution was largely political, especially as it did NOTHING to undermine the Established Churches of the individual states. (Puritanism was the state church of New Hampshire, I believe, into the 1850s.)

    Contrast the Velvet Revolution, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unrest, but no mass killings of communists, anywhere in Eastern Europe outside of Romania (and even there, not much.) Even in Nazi Germany there was not THAT much killing required to get people to transfer allegiance from the secular Weimar Republik to the Satanical National Socialist regime.

    The Spanish Civil War (won by the good guys, thankfully), the French Revolution, the Mexican revolution, the English reformation: all had mass quantities of bloodshed. Restorations and counters to the systems set up by these regimes: not so much.”

    Yes, it is interesting to compare different revolutions.

    “Benny XVI, long may he live and serve, is rooting this out.”

    You think so? He certainly has made some promising moves, but is it enough?

    “As you know, I think that the liberals will be outbred by the ultra-conservatives, but this process will take a long time.”

    Fair enough, but do you think the R.C.C. can survive that long of entrenchment of theological liberalism, in the meantime? I wonder.

    “I think the philosophical liberalism in the Church afflicted all the Prot denominations. They no longer had a strong, theological anchoring point to define themselves against.”

    I’m not so sure of that; I tend to incline toward the view that the mainline Prots went astray on their own, without outside influence. Have you ever read Gary North’s “Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church”? Next time you’re in the mood for an epic, and I mean epic, non-fiction read, here it is:

    Click to access crossed_fingers.pdf

    All 1148 pages worth. North examines the Presbyterian Church in America, and shows how the liberals, influenced by the Social Gospel, liberal German theologians like Schleiermacher, and the like, came to form a camp within the church, alongside a growing evangelical wing in the church, and also the core group of committed Calvinists, and played the evangelicals and Calvinists off against each other, shrewdly. The Catholic Church didn’t play any role in the process, far as North related, and as far as I can tell. Same with my understanding of mainline Protestantism in Canada, in which I grew up, remember.

    “The cost to the Church of Vatican II has been immense, and B16 has seen the need to evangelize what were once Catholic countries, so disaffected does the thin gruel faith leave folks.”

    I wish B16 well, in the immense task before him.

    “In the meantime, there are poorly-catechized people who need the faith.”

    Are they being reached?

    “I suspect it will go down poorly with those who refused to lead His sheep, even more so than with the lost sheep themselves.”

    No doubt the liberals will hate relinquishing power, and will only do so against their will, kicking and screaming, all the way.

    BTW, have you heard what’s been happening with the C of E? They’re having trouble picking a new leader; it’s quite amusing.

     
  68. Zippy

    January 11, 2013 at 10:16 am

    One problem with the Chivers study is that the subjects are by definition the kind of people willing to look at porn with their genitals wired up to a machine. It is conceivable that this limits the study’s validity: it may show how damaged moral freakshows respond to bonobo sex, but it doesn’t show how normal human beings respond to bonobo sex.

     
  69. electricangel

    January 11, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    @Zippy,

    Perhaps. I find it interesting, however, that the sodomite men’s responses were in accord with the non-sodomite men’s responses. Both responded only categorically.

    I do not know how you would find modest or shy women to take part, but the other thing that I did find fascinating is the propensity of the women to lie and deny what was measurable arousal. Would you deny that women have an incentive, for any number of reasons, to be demure, at least the worthwhile ones?

     

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