Dalrock, thanks for another great post, and apologies for reblogging: I’ve learned it’s the best way to keep what I’ve written where I can find it.
I do object to the following. “…Christianity teaches that marriage makes sex and sexual desire moral…” I concur with your larger point: that Chivalry reverses the morality of Christianity. However, I think it is a grave error to imply that “sex and sexual desire” are made moral by marriage. Sex and sexual desire are moral per se, without any sanctification. I would argue that a man, upon sexually joining with a woman, thereby initiates the marriage, and by returning habitually to that union, confirms his choice.
The assumption of Christian scripture is that Christian men do not fornicate and do not divorce, therefore, when a Christian man chooses his sexual partner, he is de facto choosing his wife. If he divides sexuality from marriage he is fornicating (or he is an adulterer), and the sin thereby is not sex, per se, but sexual partnership without commitment to his sexual partner.
I anticipate my argument may seem too much like Chivalry, so I’ll flip the perspective. If a woman, likewise, is fornicating (or an adulteress), then she also divides sexuality from marriage, when Christian scripture describes these as one and the same thing. Worse, she cannot, per Christian scripture, give herself to more than a single man at one time without becoming a whore – a woman who quits one “marriage” after another by continually violating each “marriage” in turn.
This, as I see it, is the real danger of fornication and adultery: both rip apart what is a single entanglement, the sexual partnership called marriage, into romance and expedience.
The Christian model isn’t sex made moral by marriage; it is marriage as sex and sex as marriage, inextricably, integrally, inseparably wedded.
After due consideration I have decided to adopt the label unchivalrous Christian. The label is more accurate than anti-feminist Christian, or traditional Christian, because antifeminist and traditional Christians almost always stress chivalry as their strategy for fighting against feminism. Yet chivalry is at the core of the problem and is the crucial enabler of feminism. It is chivalry far more than feminism that has corrupted modern conservative Christianity. Worst of all nearly all conservative Christians mistakenly believe that unchivalrous Christian is a contradiction in terms, when the reality is that chivalry as we know it is and was created as the antithesis of Christianity. Adopting this term both identifies where my stance radically differs from other conservatives, and invites a much needed discussion on the astounding differences between Christianity and chivalry.
What am I rejecting by rejecting chivalry?
In both Christianity and chivalry we are redeemed and…
View original post 1,533 more words