Tyler

The evil of male sexual desire is the entire metaphysical operating principle of the modern church. Even female sexuality is not stigmatized in the same way because it is considered responsive - if a woman is promiscuous or does porn, it's only because there was male demand for it. Women are not really to blame you see, because if men didn't want sex, women would never have made the mistakes they did. The male sex drive is the original sin. And accordingly, a good "godly" christian man is a man who has entirely suppressed or controlled it. This is why porn is such a fixation for the church - it's an indication a man is indulging this drive. The issue is not so much that he is wasting his life force or acting like a deselected loser, which is why many secular men are opposed to porn. In modern christianity, porn use is a proxy for having sex on the mind period. This is the same reason a very vocal number of trad wives feel no moral obligation to be sexy or sexually available for their husbands. A man needing sex is a fundamental moral corruption. This is also why the church shuns men who are assertive and convey any sexual interest in women. They want "nice guys" who are willing to accept the framing that their sex drive is evil and who agree to hide it. Never mind that this sort of culture creates the perfect conditions for endemic porn usage - all that sexual shame and frustration needs an outlet somewhere. Far worse is that it creates men that the women don't desire to begin with. The result of all of this is a sterile culture where nobody is forming relationships. If they occur at all, it is between neurotic, controlling women and passive, compliant "servant" men. But in recent years as the rot has deepened, even this is happening less. The women are stuck in a bind where the men they want are considered bad Christians, yet the good Christians are men they don't want. And they are tied up in knots because even when a good, masculine Christian man makes them feel turned on, many of these women have so much shame they feel guilty about showing it. This discomfort eventually makes the women project blame onto the man and sabotage things, even if he never took advantage of it. All of this is why men have been leaving the church in droves, and why you are hearing more and more men state plainly that the church destroyed their lives. The culture and environment that exists today is actively hostile to finding a wife and becoming a man. Yes, there are exceptions. But most of these institutions haven't simply become useless due to their inability to help people navigate the modern world, they've actively made things worse by distorting instincts; permitting what shouldn't be permitted and judging what shouldn't be judged. There's a reason most of the masculine men you see in there today are new converts, and why the majority of ones under 40 with healthy polarized marriages typically met their wife in the secular world. And theres a reason these people are all frustrated by what they see, in spite of their faith. The church is sick. It calls itself pro-life, but only in the most limited sense is this true, because it has rejected the vital energy that creates life to begin with. There will be a tendency of some to blame one denomination or another for what I am describing. I would encourage you all to take the specks out of your own eyes. I have worked with protestants, catholics, orthodox, and even mormons. Some are worse than others, but all are affected. It is a cancer that transcends doctrine. If it's not excised it will become existential not just for Christianity, but the West itself.

A few sects aside, Christianity has generally worked constructively with sexuality throughout its history. It's been the funnel and container for male vital energy, transmuting and channeling it productively in society. The religion's responsible use of sex did not simply lead to social stability but higher levels of consciousness. I do not see how people can in good faith separate the rise of the West from its Christian foundations. The sexual revolution, however, decoupled a lot of that energy from the Church. Afraid of what that energy was doing to society untethered, the Church responded defensively and gradually began to view the energy itself as the problem. Compared to the past, however, when the Church's fixation on sexual virtue was mostly directed towards the women (something appropriate based on pregnancy risk and the natural polarity between the sexes), the influence of feminism on the church started making it instead about the sexual virtue of men. This inversion of natural polarity transformed an already bad attitude around sex into a fatal one. I said this on yesterday's show, but this proto-celibacy obsession was never how churches approached the laity in the past. The focus was on getting people married before they had sex... and if that failed, at least before the baby came. People had short courtships and engagements, often only weeks or months long, because the church knew once a man and woman wanted each other, sex was bound to happen soon. The church did not stigmatize this desire, they simply said "OK good, now get married." The attitude you see in the church today is in contrast is more akin to a monastery or convent. If the secular world is the whore, the church is the madonna: being freed from sexual desire has become the ultimate expression of God's salvation. It goes without saying this sort of belief-structure, whatever benefits it has on a personal level, is antithetical towards cultural self-propagation and survival. The Quakers had similar views towards sex; it is notable that out of the 4 founding stocks in America, they had the lowest birthrates (despite the best climate and growing conditions), lost political dominance the soonest (by the 3rd generation, even before the Revolution), and fragmented into insular sub-sects like the Shakers (who died off because they opposed sexual relations altogether.) But the church today is in many ways worse than the Quakers were, because back then at least you still got married relatively early and quickly; if sex wasn't exalted, it was at least facilitated. Now the church is in the bind of trying to reconcile the doctrine of waiting for marriage with the secular expectations (and given the lack of community, to some extent requirements) of extended dating and vetting before proposing. Their solution has been to emphasize celibacy throughout the attraction process and indeed within this new, historically non-existent category of committed long-term relationships. This is an obtuse and clueless attitude frankly, totally ignorant of functional sexual dynamics, and it is responsible for the absence of vital energy in the church - indeed, it is upstream of the church's abject failure in getting young men and women together today. Based on what the church advocates, you are perversely incentivized to be a prodigal son: live a secular life, hook up, find a girl, and then be welcomed back. The number of people I know who have done this is too many to count, because the moral constraints and behavioral shaming the Church places on its young people is out of touch with reality and sets them up to fail. It is a testament to how much these people care deep down about God that anybody returns. This dissonance is why rather than be unified, the right today has become divided into two camps: the trads and vitalists. Both agree the Left is destroying the West, but the trads see the primary problem being the destruction of the moral container; the vitalists, in contrast, see the problem more as feminism's attack on male vitality. On balance the vitalists are more correct, in that the container becomes irrelevant when nothing is flowing into it. You cannot be a good man if you are not first a man; weak men by their nature facilitate evil. But the vitalists are also wrong in suggesting that the container itself has been an unnecessary liability. How a society's vital energy is used is determined by its religious / moral underpinning; this orientation is what decides the trajectory of a civilization. So while a revitalized, masculine West might survive without Christianity, I expect without this container it would also regress - it would become more chaotic and barbarian, and on a long enough timeline, probably evil. This is why, differences that there are, the two factions need to work together and ultimately come together. A Masculine Christianity that honors and properly utilizes male vitality would restore more than simply the religion - it would restore the whole of western society. I think most of the vitalists would come back on board with Christianity if this were to happen, because many of them only parted ways with the church to begin with because of its myopia and eunuch-energy. The real question is mostly facing the trads: in a civilizational crisis like this, how much are they going to let themselves be controlled by doctrine over pragmatism? The bottom line is a lot of this dogma obsession has become a distraction (or even a form of denial/escapism) about the state we are in, and needs to be deemphasized. We cannot be rigid under this pressure; we either bend or we break. To become relevant again the church needs to focus fully on how to solve our existential issues - to emphasize the spirit and essence of Jesus' message in the contemporary context, rather than naval gaze and moral posture. This will require a lot of practicality, flexibility, and yes - sex positivity. The conditions of society are the conditions; we need to pace where people are at sexually in order to lead them to more virtuous expressions of it. If the Church can become a place where sexual energy and polarity are welcomed in a healthy way, secular men and women (who are frankly disillusioned and bored with the emptiness of hook up culture) will return to it, and it will thrive. Conversely, if it remains captured by the current frigidity, it will miss this critical window and fade. The stigma around sex simply needs to die. It needs to be discussed openly and regularly without any sort of shame from the pulpit. It is much better to have your young people less anxious around sex and to WANT to have sex with each other so that they start to date. And yes, it is even an acceptable trade-off if as a result some of these young couples are so turned on that they lose control and have sex before marriage. No it's not ideal, but unlike the current dynamic you can channel that attraction into deeper commitment with trusted guidance. I guarantee with a different culture around male sexuality you will see a lot more marriages and babies among the people in the church, and you will also find people thinking church itself is more valuable. Perhaps it's unorthodox by modern standards, but we should care less about how we get there, and more about whether the fruit yielded is good. I've only seen rotten fruit so far. It's time for a change.

America was not founded on judeo-Christian values because the term wasn’t even created until the 1930s.