John Paul II the Average

I wrote something like this at  The Social Pathologist tonight:

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/11/sometimes-its-hard-to-be-pope.html

“In search of moral guidance on various issues, I came across some references to the newly invented idea that mutual orgasm is a Catholic virtue. News to me! This seems to be another one of John Paul II’s little brainstorms.

That man was a really silly feminist underneath it all. “Mutual submission” in marriage – a total novelty really. Men not to “lust after” their wives! Mutual orgasm to be the goal. On what planet did this man live? And why do so many Catholics buy this silliness? It has nothing to do with anything the Church ever taught previously.

The more I come across the last pope’s sillier effusions, the more I am grateful for my Traditionalism, and the more determined I become that the guy was simply out to lunch on a lot of his fruitier ideas. As people say, when I consider his ideas “What’s true ain’t new, and what’s new ain’t true.”

His unrealistic and angelistic ideas about marital sex, the Assisi nonsense, the Koran kissing, and the Luminous Mysteries thing have lowered my respect for John Paul II.”

If he is eventually canonised, I will accept it as a loyal son of the Church, but I would recommend that he become Patron Saint of Manginas, Pedestalisers and the Pussywhipped.

39 responses to this post.

  1. Why, he lived on planet Earth! A planet where self-flogging has become the rule for all Westerners, he was simply no exception to the rule of thumb.

    Reply

    • Actually, he did beat himself ritually.

      Perhaps God wanted us to give our wives a good rogering every now and then? You certainly don’t get that impression from the Church and yet the desire seems innate in both men and women.
      More importantly, a lot of women don’t want tender lovemaking, rather they want animal caveman sex, something which strengthens their love for their husbands. Is the current Church teaching making things worse for marriages by “beta-ing” a naturally alpha male?

      I thought this comment from SP was very good. If anything, the focus on “tender lovemaking” and lapdog husbands might be reducing women’s orgasms, rather than increasing them.

      Reply

      • Posted by CSPB on December 7, 2010 at 11:15 pm

        Yes, I smiled when I saw that the first time and again when I saw you quote it.

        A “good rogering” does more for a woman’s contentment than a “mutual orgasm.” LOL

      • Posted by Kathy on December 8, 2010 at 2:50 am

        Yes, I agree. Damn good quote, and spot on.

        “More importantly, a lot of women don’t want tender lovemaking, rather they want animal caveman sex, something which strengthens their love for their husbands”

        It works for me 🙂 In fact, the whole experience is heightened, as a result.. And, it does strengthen and reinforce the bond between husband and wife.

        Tender lovemaking is just not as exciting, irrespective of whether a woman orgasms or not, I think.

      • A little late here but I have to agree with that. A little tenderness is nice, but after a point it’s just tedious – I like to feel that I bring out the animal in a man, and by “animal” I don’t mean miniature poodle. The best sex is not about an orgasm but whether or not you walk funny afterwards. 😛

  2. Posted by CSPB on December 6, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    I can understand and accept some of the JPII’s concepts in light of traditional teaching. Unfortunately most people cannot apply the necessary ancillary information and feminists have twisted JPII’s pandering language. I think the error is more in what JPII didn’t say. Teaching 100% truth about half of reality leads to confusion.

    Only after learning game and more about female psychology could I reconcile my beliefs with what actually happens between men and women. For all JPII’s brilliance and insight, he didn’t really teach how women actually think and behave.

    I think it is the long standing problem of Christian/Catholic seeing women how they want them to be, rather than how they are.

    Reply

    • Posted by slumlord on December 7, 2010 at 10:06 pm

      @CSPB

      I think it is the long standing problem of Christian/Catholic seeing women how they want them to be, rather than how they are.

      I think it is one of the great “cultural” fault lines of Western society. It was a weakness that the feminists and “sexual liberators”
      were able to exploit in order destroy Western society.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Gina on December 18, 2010 at 4:32 am

    “I think it is the long standing problem of Christian/Catholic seeing women how they want them to be, rather than how they are”

    Yeah. They see women as less intelligent and needing subordinate status, whereas women are really capable of being co-rulers of earth and just as dominant in sex as men.

    There’s nothing wrong with mutual submission, nor should anyone confuse “caveman” sex with being a caveman asshole in general. Exciting sex means both partners are running themselves hard. Don’t for a second think most women are stupid enough to want a man dominating them in general.

    Reply

    • Thank you for comment, Gina.

      In real life, I think your theories fail.

      Reply

    • Posted by CSPB on December 20, 2010 at 11:16 pm

      You are attempting to put words in my mouth. I was thinking of something more general.

      It seems you really have a chip on your shoulder. I believe that those women that protest and twist the beliefs of others the loudest, actually are trying to cover up their own insecurity.

      Reply

      • Posted by Gina on December 21, 2010 at 1:36 am

        Something more general? LOL So was I, and something I’ve literally observed, like certain Catholics literally saying women are less smart.

  4. Posted by Gina on December 18, 2010 at 6:34 am

    No, I’m afraid your theories do. Women want to be dominated? Are lesser in being? Forceful sex means domination in general? Don’t think so. That’s not reality, nor is it Biblical, though you claim to believe the Bible.

    Reply

  5. Posted by Les on December 18, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Re John Paul’s words:

    Wow, part clarity, part bullshit. Catholicism sure it a mixed bag these days.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Gina on December 18, 2010 at 8:52 am

    *sighs* Thanks for answering.

    Reply

  7. Posted by modernguy on December 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    So what now, ‘game’ supersedes the Church too? Give me a break. Peace, tenderness, willingness to submit, this is what men want in relationships. Otherwise no one would have to learn ‘game’. We come from a place of constant strife and struggle. It’s women who are bored by docility, who need drama, who want to be fucked like animals. How can you blame JPII for projecting ideals that are supposed to be examples of holiness? It’s women that brings us back down to the dirty realities of the world. ‘Game’ is the real triumph of feminism. For two thousand years men have been striving towards peace and now we find out that we can’t have it because women don’t like it, so we have to start acting like bold assholes to please them. ‘Game’ is pleasing women, it’s the final nail in the coffin of masculine power.

    Reply

    • You are wrong. Women don’t want to be fucked like animals. Women want to be fucked like women. Evolution doesn’t work that fast. Just because JPII has decreed that women should prefer tender lovemaking doesn’t mean that he can snap his hands and it will immediately be so. He was Pope, not God.

      Men didn’t used to have to learn Game because it was simply the way that they were raised, and their dominance was supported by the laws and society of the time. Feminism’s triumph was in wimpifying an entire generation of men. That is not holiness, that is docility rather than leadership.

      Reply

      • It is actually kind of hard to fuck a woman at all without being a bit, um, assertive. I don’t know how one would actually do PC sex. My wife sometimes teases me that I am not penetrating her; she is “engulfing” me. Yeah, OK.

      • Posted by modernguy on December 22, 2010 at 8:08 am

        Still, there is a disconnect between the idealization of love that a man is capable of and what ultimately a woman wants to be satisfied by. Women are always bringing us back down to the muddy reality of things. When poets wrote love poems they were about an idealized ethereal love, not sweaty rhythmic pounding. Your points are valid, and I especially agree that in the past men were brought up differently and masculinity was respected. At that time the reality was harsh and difficult and the ideals were romantic. Now reality is easy and comfortable and we are forced into harsher ideals.

      • Posted by Kathy on December 22, 2010 at 1:45 pm

        “When poets wrote love poems they were about an idealized ethereal love, not sweaty rhythmic pounding.”

        Modernguy, the ethereal floating on cloud nine kind of stuff comes first, the sweaty rhythmic pounding comes later 😉

      • Kathy,
        With me, it’s the other way around.

        I don’t think reality will be “easy and comfortable” for much longer, and soft men will again become a liability. Really, the ideal is a mix of hard and soft. We don’t talk about the soft side much because we can generally take it for granted with Western men.

        Women wouldn’t be “testing” men so much, if someone else was testing them. Women in more primitive countries don’t test their men because it would be redundant, but after they move to the West they start shit-testing, as well. Testing is just as effective and reassuring if it is observed, rather than artificially instigated by the woman. But, as ModernGuy notes, men are rarely tested anymore. Or, at least, they were rarely tested in the past.

        You don’t want someone who’s being hard all the time, as that would just make them a tyrant. You also don’t want someone who is soft all of the time, as that would just make them a wuss. You want a balance. Modern men are often missing that balance, or are at least skewed too far to the soft side (and women too far to the hard side, for that matter).

      • Actually, Alte, I am not so sure about the idea that tough times will create tougher men. Australia is – despite the outback image – mostly a safe place to live. Low crime, little severe poverty. And yet men seem to be in a stronger position here than in America.

        I tend to think it is original ethnic makeup, and the fact that this was numerically a man’s country for a very long time. Also the original Australian woman was not the “angel in the home”. More likely the “convict moll in the Female Factory in Sydney”. So Australian women have never been that full of themselves.

        I do suspect too that if times get tougher in America, the government will simply double down on protecting women and leaving men to fend for themselves.

      • But men are the government protectors. They can’t get enough decent cops, as it is.

        I was thinking about this some more this morning. I wonder if men developed to give women this type of sex, or if women developed to give men this type of sex? As much as women like animalistic sex, the effect it has on men is profound. Could it be that women who like that type of sex have done better at keeping their mates around for protection/provision?

  8. modernguy

    I don’t think women are uniquely difficult these days. I think it is really that both men and women have forgotten what they used to know. That women respond best to firm handling.

    You don’t have to behave like a huge “asshole”. All you have to do is behave like a traditional husband. I get a much happier wife when I do.

    My problem with John Paul II is that he clearly had no idea what women are really like, and have always been like. Earlier Popes knew that wives need to be treated firmly. Even in the 1940s, the Pope of the time (Pius XII?) enjoined husbands to show “firm command”.

    Despite what the biased media claimed, John Paul II was a liberal, with – in my view – a defective understanding of human nature, especially female nature.

    Reply

    • Posted by modernguy on December 22, 2010 at 7:53 am

      I agree with you. But the whole trajectory and tradition of Christianity is to strive towards holiness – and the attributes that embody it. So I don’t really blame him for maybe going too far in that direction. Perhaps the earlier Popes were more realistic. It might be human nature, but that’s still no excuse. We’re supposed to be rising above that.

      In some sense I think that maybe it’s men who are foolish to think we can be something other than what we are, and women – who can never seem to rise above their own makeup – serve as reminders and anchors.

      Reply

      • No, what John Paul II was dealing in was not holiness – it was angelism. The false and dangerous belief that man can rise above his nature.

        This was my problem with his teaching on mutual submission in marriage. I think his teaching on this score has been overinterpreted by liberals, but he left it open to such misinterpretation. And I strongly suspect he wanted to moderate what seemed like a classic “hard saying”. It never seemed to occur to him that there might be a reason why wives have always been required to obey their husbands, and all previous popes had taught that. One would think that John Paul II had personally discovered that suddenly, after two millennia, women were not to be in subjection. Somehow, the wisdom of the ages could now be abandoned.

        Look around: how have women used their increasing freedom? How is Catholic marriage going, in the West? To put in the vernacular, “How is that working out for us?”

        Also, why does holiness mean ethereality? Why is carrying on like a eunuchoid troubadour (supplicating, as the “game” boys say) morally a good, while actually having a lot of “sweaty rhythmic pumping” that might impregnate a woman, a bad thing morally? Such an idea is just gnostic.

        Despite what every cultural message in recent years would have you believe, I have almost never gone wrong by being firm with my wife.

        Putting it crudely, if you are not fucking her hard, someone else will be, at least in her fantasies.

      • Also, why does holiness mean ethereality?

        It derives from the modern Christian tendency to disregard large portions of the New Testament (all of it, really) in favor of Jesus-fluffy-bunnies. Jesus was actually a very hard man, so why do men (who claim to be following in his footsteps) insist on being soft? That doesn’t make any sense. Likewise, women are given Mary as an example, as wise obedience is considered the Christian ideal for women. I suppose we women struggle as much with that, as men struggle with following Christ. But I think in more natural (read: traditional) societies, it is much easier for each sex to follow their particular example. We live in a very unnatural society; one that we are not well-suited to.

        Southern Cross calls it meliorism:

        Meliorism is the belief that man can improve and is perfectible, that man is either good or, at best, neutral. This obviously ignores the taint and the persistence of sin so easily observed around us, as Nathaniel Hawthorne strove to demonstrate. Man is intrinsically evil, and guided by petty selfish impulses and base egotism. Men do not deserve to be saved, but they are saved out of mercy and compassion, but never because they deserve it. This does not mean there are no good works or that there exists no acts of kindness and generosity. However, meliorism has already exacted much, and has had a destructive influence as it has led and still leads many thinkers (e.g. John Stuart Mill) to a naïve viewpoint and excessive confidence in their fellow (a trait exposed by John Adams). Meliorism was a recurrent trait of Rousseau’s philosophy and sentimentalism, and one routinely expounded by the rest of the Encyclopaedia clique. Absolute liberty, they believed, would free man from the shackles of determinism, order, class and poverty, except it would have to be enforced by an absolute state (Rousseau’s words reflected his contempt of minority rights). Absolute liberty, in turn, would spawn pure democracy and equalitarianism. Equalitarianism holds that all men are created equal, which is an insult to human intelligence and nature as it is manifestly untrue. We are born with different faculties, different physical or intellectual abilities, into vastly different families, why not acknowledge the obvious and get over with it instead of promoting permanent frustration and sowing the seeds of future anarchy?

    • Posted by buckyinky on December 28, 2010 at 10:39 pm

      It does appear that JPII knew very little about reality in human relationships, especially those between men and women. This is a difficult pill for many Catholics to swallow, especially those of the conservative bent, who have been frequently told, and had been inclined to believe, that the late Pope was actually particularly astute when it came to understanding human relationships.

      I include myself in the above-described category of Catholics. Now that the dust has settled from his passing, I still have a difficult time understanding how the Pope could have been so deluded about certain things.

      Reply

      • Catholic husbands certainly have nothing to thank him for. He made our lives harder. I wish he could have had to live with a wife for a week, and try some of his “mutual submission” nonsense. He would have wised up very quickly.

  9. Posted by Les on December 22, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Alte, excellent points. Many try some half-assed attempt at being too hard or too soft (men and women) then blame the opposite sex for not swallowing it. Truth is, Mary had to be tough as nails. Truth is, Jesus was everlasting love, but He was also the toughest guy on earth. Trust human beings to miss the balance.

    Reply

    • People accepted Christ’s hardness because he also had softness, and they understood that he was like a doctor, administering harsh medicine for the good of the patient.

      People can tell, often, if you are fundamentally motivated by The Good or you are fundamentally selfish. It is possible to be firm in a good cause, and soft in a selfish one.

      I had to correct my 16 y.o. fairly seriously in the last few days. She had gone AWOL for a few hours. I was very angry with her, fearing for her safety. A fool of a woman had dropped her at a bus interchange, which is one of the worst places in town. We don’t live in a tough town, but still. My daughter does not seem to resent our “grounding” her for a couple of weeks, because she would know that it is done out of concern.

      Reply

  10. I think many kids, once they’ve been in deep crud (the real kind, not the angry-parents kind), they appreciate their parents’ concern and actions.

    Reply

  11. I should say that I have developed a more ” nuanced ” attitude to John Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem since I wrote this blog post. I believe it can be squared with the traditional teaching on marriage roles, and I regret my tone in the original post.

    Reply

    • Have you written anywhere about this more nuanced view? Link?

      Reply

      • No. Frankly, I am tired of the subject (no pun intended). I read a pungent critique of MD by Bob Sungenis which had a strong effect on me at the time. Since then I have been able to puzzle out what JPII was likely trying to say. I still think it was highly inopportune teaching. What people don’t realise is that JPII was probably the most feminist pope we will ever see. He seemed to pedestalise women. Even his famous catechism is pretty weak on traditional teaching on marriage.

        Some later pope is going to have to clearly restate traditional teaching. Benedict made some moves in the correct direction. But the only reference to the marital hierarchy in the contemporary catechism is a coy citation of the line on husbandly love in Ephesians.

        MD does actually restate the traditional teaching, just in a waffly, unclear way. Poor teaching, in my view.

      • I think, unless you have changed your policy about concealing your true identity in the Catholic blogosphere, that you have mistakenly commented with your real name.

        It is understandable if you do not wish to cover the topic any further, but if you ever do write about how you reconciled MD with traditional teaching I would be happy to read it.

      • I have changed my policy. See the header on this blog. I am retired and living in a small, remote country. There is little risk in using my real name. Also, I wanted to claim the poems here under my real name. I am getting interested in writing more poetry.

        On MD, basically, a careful reading shows that all JPII was saying was that, in a sense, the Christian concept of mutual submission could be expressed in the different roles of husband and wife. People, including me, got misled by the mutual submission phrase, which was wilfully overinterpreted by liberals.

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

%d bloggers like this: