The Red Pill’s New Hamster

Had some technical issues putting this post up, but they should be fixed now.

Here is a post by Matt Walsh. I like Walsh. I’ve linked to him in the past. He actually has some excellent stuff out there. But he has a blind spot – a HUGE one – where it comes to marriage and sexual issues. He is what the manosphere would call blue pill. Here is a quote from a post of his:

First things first: if you’re married and you look at porn, you are cheating. Period. From a Christian perspective, this can’t be debated. Christ laid it out very clearly: if you lust after another woman, you have committed adultery. When we look at porn we are choosing to succumb to that lust; we are indulging it, fertilizing it, giving it respite in our minds. We are diving into it headfirst and soaking in it like a sponge. We are lessening ourselves, betraying our wives and participating in the violent exploitation of women (and girls). Or minds and our bodies belong to the Lord and to our wives; pornography, therefore, intrudes on their domain. If we look at porn, we are adulterers. We are adulterers in all the worst ways.

Very blue pill, right? Look at how the whole thing is aimed at men. And his biblical reasoning is very out of whack, right? Red pill men would never do something like that.

Here’s Bluepillprofessor From Dalrock’s thread “Slow your roll”*:

A frigid, sexually denying wife has violated her marriage vows just as if she has “cheated” on him. Indeed, she is “CHEATING” every single time she plays her sexual denial games. Sexual denial is adultery in every meaning of the Lord’s words. Jesus said: No divorce “excepting for marital unfaithfulness….” Denying sex is CLEARLY being unfaithful to the marital vows and Dalrock would keep this man a prisoner to HIS promises while SHE is free to fulfill HER promises. I don’t believe that is what Jesus meant.

Remember, Matt Walsh was blue pill. This guy was red pill, and they’re completely different.

*I consider this post fair game since I responded to this poster’s comment directly in the thread.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Red Pill’s New Hamster

  1. “sexual denial is adultery”

    Well I learned something new today. Either the prof doesn’t know what adultery is and what it entails or he just, in a bizarre way reaching in the tactical bag of modernists, redefined ‘adultery’ in order to suit his argument.

  2. darrenl says:

    Something is not right here.

    Adultery, according to Oxford dictionary: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”

    So…how is “sexual denial” turned into “voluntary sexual intercourse”? You can’t have adultery if sex is denied. Is denying sex a cruel, dishonorable game? Sure. Is it adultery? No. Why? Because the sexual act is absent. It’s a big stretch to turn denial of sex into adultery unless you change the definition to include the non-existence of sexual intercourse. Sounds like there is a narrative to be maintained here and definitions are being wrapped around it.

    This argument is quite weak. You might want to bake it a bit more.

    • toddes says:

      Follow the link and read the rest of comment.

      For myself, Jesus said that sexual immorality not adultery was the only cause for divorce. Sexual immorality covers a large swath of actions.

      If I force myself sexually on my wife most everyone would say that I have acted immorally. On the other hand, if my wife withholds herself sexually from me, has she acted immorally? Consider Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 7.

      • Res says:

        She hasn’t acted sexually (with you).

      • Sexual immorality does indeed cover a large swath of actions, including porn, anal sex, oral sex, and artificial contraception. Would you consider all of them grounds for divorce as well?

      • toddes says:

        If one type of sexual immorality is grounds for divorce then all types sexual immorality are grounds for divorce. However, while there is agreement on porn, the others you mention are not agreed upon even within related traditions.

        A question: If a man is irreparably sexually impotent, does he sin if he utilizes other means to pleasure his wife?

        An analogy:
        Marriage is a contract. A binding agreement between a man and a woman and pledged before witnesses (in this case, God, as well as others).

        Just as the husband cannot forcefully take from the wife neither can the wife forcefully withhold from the husband. Given that the withholding is in regard to the sexual relationship, then from my POV both acts are sexual sins.

        Let’s try a different approach, if a wife fully withholds sexual relations from her husband but instead pleases herself, has she acted sexually immoral against him even though she has not sexually acted with him?

      • Hm, so you would agree that divorce is acceptable in cases where the husband watches porn?

        As for lack of agreement, well, if we use that as a marker of truth then we’re going to run into a whole host of other issues.

  3. Ilíon says:

    All this silly “Game” bs is keeping me from getting *your* point.

    But, yes, using porn *is* adultery — even if you’re not even married.

    And, yes, denying your spouse sexual relations *is* adultery.

    • But the type of adultery that would be grounds for divorce?

      And don’t worry, I’ll get back to other, possibly more interesting stuff soon. My interests tend to go in cycles.

      • Ilíon says:


        As for Mr Walsh … he needs to lose the “meterosexual” vibe, starting with those fag-glasses he favors.

      • That’s interesting (coming from a Catholic). Out of curiosity, what denomination are you from? Or are you unaffiliated?

    • Drew says:

      Technically, the word that the Bible uses for denying sex isn’t adultery; it’s “fraud.”

      1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

      Also, strictly speaking, Jesus said that a man who looks lustfully has “committed adultery with her in his heart.” It’s a stretch to equate adultery of the heart that with full adultery. The same type of logic would require the death penalty upon people for getting angry with their brothers without cause. It would destroy the entire law of Moses, which Jesus specifically said in the same sermon that he was not trying to do.

  4. E.Seigner says:

    malcolmthecynic “As for lack of agreement, well, if we use that as a marker of truth…”

    In this case we are not discussing truth, but exactly an agreement. Marriage is not truth, but an agreement. When there’s no agreement, this is already a small divorce. Dead serious stuff. You don’t patch up disagreements with insistence on (your preferred) truth, but with sincere attempts at reconciliation.

    • I was responding to this:

      If one type of sexual immorality is grounds for divorce then all types sexual immorality are grounds for divorce. However, while there is agreement on porn, the others you mention are not agreed upon even within related traditions.

      …And saying that just because we don’t agree that something is sexually immoral doesn’t mean that it isn’t.

      Now, as a Catholic, I believe NONE of this provides grounds for divorce, actually. I was trying to point out what I saw as hypocrital, or if you want to be more charitable, inconsistent, logic – namely, if the husband does something sexually immoral short of actual sex with another person (like watch porn) the wife is friovrcing if she leaves him, whereas if the wife does something sexually immoral (like withhold sex), it’s solid grounds for divorce for the husband. And so people like Walsh will be mocked for referring to porn as adultery, but comments like this either go largely unchallenged or are met with agreement.

      More than just being wrong (a lot of stuff is wrong without necessarily begging to be commented on), it shows a sort cognitive dissonance at work that I felt worth mentioning.

  5. Erik Seigner says:

    malcolmthecynic: “As for lack of agreement, well, if we use that as a marker of truth then…”

    Marriage is agreement and about agreement. Lack of agreement is already a small divorce. You cannot patch disagreement up with your version of truth, but with sincere attempts at reconciliation.

  6. The Deuce says:

    And note, though not directly relevant to the point you’re making, that Matt is an equal-opportunity so-called “Blue Pill”-ist:

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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