![]() In the end Savannah decides that she isn’t attracted to Finn, but with the intervention of her own father on behalf of Finn Savannah decides to formally LJBF him. …grandfather Finn that if he continues pouring himself out in love for others, he will find the healing he seeks. Unable to shake away his experiences in Africa, coupled with his memories of Savannah, Finn writes a heart’s cry on paper, and leaves it in the Mason jar on his grandfather’s desk… The rest of the story are the painful adventures of a beta orbiter, and his grandfather’s wisdom never to stop being what Vox Day has dubbed a feelings slut: Shortly thereafter she breaks it off with Finn and returns to her abusive ex boyfriend. During that meeting this sudden love-of-his-life steps away to take a call, and from then on she is distant from him. A character named Finn (bearing a striking resemblance to Lingerfelt’s own bio) falls deeply in love with a strong independent woman named Savannah and flies out to Colorado to meet her parents. In another post Lingerfelt offers a synopsis of the book, and it reads like a beta orbiter’s manifesto. Again, here we have more old school packaging literally surrounding and delivering new age ideas. In the novel the letters are passed from grandfather to grandson via a mason jar on the grandfather’s desk. The use of a letter from a fictitious grandfather is a smart literary trick to package n ew age foolishness to seem like old school wisdom. After a relationship ends between he and his first love “Eden” during his senior year of college in California… The following letter is from an eighty year old grandfather to his son, Clayton “Finn” Fincannon. In the same post Lingerfelt quotes from his novel The Mason Jar to make this case: ![]() Like the slut who gives away her sexuality on the cheap, accepting sexual attention with no commitment or provision, the beta orbiter gives away his provision and commitment without any corresponding receptivity to his sexual attentions.īut Lingerfelt and countless others would turn the vice of misusing romantic love into a virtue. Modernity has turned sexuality into a buffet: what used to be a loving commitment for life to a particular person, where sexual intimacy and provision formed the mutual society of a family, has turned into cafeteria sexuality wherein people are encouraged to assemble their ideal virtual mate from the disparate contributions of different real people. In fact, as Zippy Catholic explains in Women have harems too, the man who offers romantic love inappropriately is in some ways the male equivalent of a slut:įrom an intersexual behavior standpoint, the male equivalent of a slut is the beta orbiter. And when it was over, though the echoes of the painful experiences reverberate in the depths of our being, we picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and we keep pressing onward.Įither way, misusing romantic love outside of marriage isn’t moral just because one decides not to misuse sex in the same way. Whether chaste or not (it isn’t clear from what I have read), he argues from the moral and philosophical frame of the serial monogamist:īecause we chose to be vulnerable and self-sacrificing a requirement for love. This does not mean we are unloveable or unworthy of love. We’re not idiots, fools, or weak for loving. We can love, love, love but sometimes that love isn’t returned. In his post Don’t apologize for loving someone – not ever Lingerfelt argues that offering unrequited romantic love is both wise and courageous: Indeed, the elevation of romantic love as a good in and of itself is something Lingerfelt argues with a passion in the few posts he authors himself, and it is implicit in his choice of content from other authors. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere. Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage. The other striking feature of the blog is something I’ve written about before, which is the fundamental problem of elevating romantic love to a virtue. The title of the blog itself gives a great deal away, starting with him referring to himself as a male and not a man. ![]() Since my last post I’ve poked around a bit on James Russell Lingerfelt’s blog love story from the male perspective.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |