Men Step Up

[Lyndie]

One question.

By definition does normal mean good and acceptable?

No. But nowhere in the book does it say it's unacceptable either.

 

[mkgal1]

One question.

By definition does normal mean good and acceptable?

That is the trouble....the author didn't say......she stated what I quoted (and it posted strange)...then ended the chapter saying, ""God did create him like this. And He said His creation was good."

And the "this" was all that I quoted....so...what I am saying is by writing it that way....she IS linking the two together that what is "normal" for men is "good"...and "created by God".

 

[chaz345]

Again, nowhere does it say that urge is WRONG! Is the urge to kill someone wrong? Is the urge to have an affair wrong? YES!!! If we want our me to step up and become Christlike, how about asking God to take that urge from you instead of say "I'm made that way"????

No that's just it. The urge itself, especially as relates to something like sex, or eating or anything else that we need is NOT wrong. What's done with the urge is. Even in the case of an affair, the temptation itself is not wrong, not a sin. In the case of the book and it's topic, NO the urge is not wrong, what is or isn't done in response to the urge is what's wrong.

The problem with asking God to take away the urge is that the urge is part of sex drive. That it's so often misapplied does not make the urge itself wrong or bad. But like Cons said to Janni, if you really want the urge gone, go find a man with zero sex drive because that's what removing the urge would result in.

 

[chaz345]

No. But nowhere in the book does it say it's unacceptable either.

Why does it need to? Isn't it obvious that it's not good, not Biblcial?

 

[chaz345]

That is the trouble....the author didn't say......she stated what I quoted (and it posted strange)...then ended the chapter saying, ""God did create him like this. And He said His creation was good."

And the "this" was all that I quoted....so...what I am saying is by writing it that way....she IS linking the two together that what is "normal" for men is "good"...and "created by God".

You inferr much, as usual.
Like I challenged Lyndie, go ahead and e-mail her directly and see what she says. But like I said, I doubt it will happen since the meaning you've constructed is so comfortable for you. That and it ties in nicely with your underlying anti-male attitude too.

 

[Lyndie]

EXACTLY. Now I know by agreeing with that I'm likely to get accused of blaming women for men's failures. So be it. Not the first time, won't be the last.

A problem is that many men are choosing to not "step up". That choice is 100% their responsibility. See, 100% their own responsibility so I'm not blaming anyone else. But as I've said before, the efforts of the church in this area for the last 30 or more years have basically amounted to just repeatedly saying "men step up". Nothing wrong with that message. It's true, it does need to happen. But 30 or more years of saying it over and over is having little to no effect. Maybe, just maybe it's time to try something else. Not instead of, but in addition to the men step up message.

But how many times have women heard 'if you just...he would'...I have heard it more times than I care to count. Do you know how many times I've read that men don't step up cause of feminism or the feminism of the church??? That imo is men blaming women.

 

[chaz345]

But how many times have women heard 'if you just...he would'...I have heard it more times than I care to count. Do you know how many times I've read that men don't step up cause of feminism or the feminism of the church??? That imo is men blaming women.

That's certianly a problem. But it's no bigger a problem than all the "if you would just... she would...." that men hear.


And blaming the problem of men not stepping up on feminism is not blaming women. About half of the most radical feminists are men. Blaming feminism is not about blaming a gender, it's about blaming an attitude/agenda. The thing that would be comical if it weren't so sad is that it is the very characteristics and traits of masculinity that are most attacked by feminism that are the ones needed for men to step up.

 

[mkgal1]

You inferr much, as usual.
Like I challenged Lyndie, go ahead and e-mail her directly and see what she says. But like I said, I doubt it will happen since the meaning you've constructed is so comfortable for you. That and it ties in nicely with your underlying anti-male attitude too.

She left a LOT of room for filling in the blanks though....that is my exact issue. It leaves room for misunderstanding. A person should not write a book and leave huge gaps like that.......it wasn't as if she were talking with a friend and didn't explain herself well....this is a book...sold to many. It is like how legal contracts are written...they are ambiguous and can be taken either way.

That is the trouble...there are confusing messages out there that lead to justifying sin. Not that the author is actually justifying the sin....but. the door is opened for men to do that.

The meaning I have "constructed" is FAR from comfortable to me....AND....take your own advice and start believing me when I say "I do NOT have an anti-male attiitude....just an anti-coddling sin attitude."

 

[Conservativation]

But how many times have women heard 'if you just...he would'...I have heard it more times than I care to count. Do you know how many times I've read that men don't step up cause of feminism or the feminism of the church??? That imo is men blaming women.

Uh, whats this got to do with the fundamental question about excusing mens nature and the Rolodex thingy?

Where is MK to accuse of deflection here? This is a swerve, I sense because maybe chaz finally broke the code on the other.

 

[Lilymay]

I just read thru the except, and what I got from it is information & encouragement.
'Men are like this, and they have to struggle against the natural tendency, and this is how you can help them.'

I didn't see excuses, just a reassuring note that your husband/guy does look, but where he goes from there is up to him, and is helped by his relationship with God, and church and perhaps an accountability partner.

And yes, if I'm going to gender-generalize, I do remember past hurts. I try to keep them in the past, but sometimes they get back out.
faith

I have to agree with HopefulFaithful, I read thru the excerpt also and pretty much got out of it what she did. I did not see excuses, justifications, etc. to sinful behavior.

Maybe it is because I am one of the 25% of women who are visual, maybe that is why I understand it. There is nothing wrong with being visual... like cons and chaz have said... it is the choices after the visual that could become sin.

 

[c1ners]

I'm confused.....That's what I thought MK and and the others were saying too.

 

[chaz345]

She left a LOT of room for filling in the blanks though....that is my exact issue. It leaves room for misunderstanding. A person should not write a book and leave huge gaps like that.......it wasn't as if she were talking with a friend and didn't explain herself well....this is a book...sold to many. It is like how legal contracts are written...they are ambiguous and can be taken either way.

That is the trouble...there are confusing messages out there that lead to justifying sin. Not that the author is actually justifying the sin....but. the door is opened for men to do that.

The meaning I have "constructed" is FAR from comfortable to me....AND....take your own advice and start believing me when I say "I do NOT have an anti-male attiitude....just an anti-coddling sin attitude."

If, as you now claim, your problem is that it was a confusing message that left room to fill in blanks, then why were you saying something else entirely a couple of pages ago. If you had, all along been saying "hey there's a problem in that this could be taken to be justifying sin" then there'd be no problem. But that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying all along that the author IS justifying or excusing sin.

 

[JanniGirl]

That's what we were saying . . . . . but by pointing out that dwelling on these images, storing them up and "using" them later, and actively seeking out these experiences (ie following women in store aisles, etc so that you can get additional viewing time) is sin, we somehow demonized the male sex drive.

I have read the book, it does tend to give men almost an "excuse" by pointing out how HARD it is for them not to sin . . . . and that we should give them a bit of an "out" if they choose to sin in this manner. Once again, I've read the book . . . . .

 

[chaz345]

I'm confused.....That's what I thought MK and and the others were saying too.

Really? You don't see where MK and the others are accusing the author of justifying or excusing sin?

 

[Conservativation]

I'm confused.....That's what I thought MK and and the others were saying too.

Not even close.....mk and lyndie are saying that men use 'we are visual" to go on ahead and ogle women, then say "see we are made that way we are allowed to do it or we cant help it"
They are confusing a weakness with actually commtting the sin. If I say I have this tendency....they equate that to me saying that JUSTIFIES me sinning. Its insulting demeaning, and VERY useful for them to not get this.

 

[chaz345]

That's what we were saying . . . . . but by pointing out that dwelling on these images, storing them up and "using" them later, and actively seeking out these experiences (ie following women in store aisles, etc so that you can get additional viewing time) is sin, we somehow demonized the male sex drive.

I have read the book, it does tend to give men almost an "excuse" by pointing out how HARD it is for them not to sin . . . . and that we should give them a bit of an "out" if they choose to sin in this manner. Once again, I've read the book . . . . .

That you've read it does not mean that you've understood her points. Again, given that a huge percentage of relationship books are purchased by women, if what she was doing was justifying men's sinning, how would the book have gotten so popular? Why would so many women be embracing such a teaching?

 

[c1ners]

Really? You don't see where MK and the others are accusing the author of justifying or excusing sin?

I don't see them saying that, no

 

[Robinsegg]

EXACTLY. Now I know by agreeing with that I'm likely to get accused of blaming women for men's failures. So be it. Not the first time, won't be the last.

A problem is that many men are choosing to not "step up". That choice is 100% their responsibility. See, 100% their own responsibility so I'm not blaming anyone else. But as I've said before, the efforts of the church in this area for the last 30 or more years have basically amounted to just repeatedly saying "men step up". Nothing wrong with that message. It's true, it does need to happen. But 30 or more years of saying it over and over is having little to no effect. Maybe, just maybe it's time to try something else. Not instead of, but in addition to the men step up message.

Something else . . . like biblical discipleship, perhaps?
Rachel

 

[JanniGirl]

Useful in what way? If you say, "I tend to sin in this manner . . . " how is that useful to them? Is it wrong for anyone to agree that its a sin? Or are you saying that its not a sin to have this tendency to ogle women . . . . . ?

Can't have it both ways, Cons.

 

[chaz345]

Something else . . . like biblical discipleship, perhaps?
Rachel

Maybe that would be a good part of it. But what I was getting at was maybe taking a good honest hard look at WHY so many men are choosing to not step up and seeing what might be done about some of those factors. While it absolutely still remains 100% the choice of the person choosing to not step up, looking at and addressing the factors that go into the making of that decision is most definitely useful.