Perhaps the most common complaint I hear about RPC is that we're manipulative. This often comes in comments or PMs, but a recent post brought this up yet again, so let's talk about this for a minute.

I want to begin by noting, if you are one of the objectors: DON'T LOOK AT THE CASUAL COMMENT OR POST. LOOK AT WHAT THE MODS SAY. WE DO NOT ENDORSE EVERYTHING POSTED HERE; RATHER, WE OFTEN ALLOW BAD CONTENT TO STAY UP BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION IN THE COMMENTS - ESPECIALLY FROM THE MODS - IS WHAT ADDS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT THE BAD POSTS THEMSELVES.

That being said, the mods have also discussed switching from a self-flair model (which does not get used often) to mod-assigned flair. Look forward to this in the coming months, as that will help newcomers and objectors to filter quickly if they're objecting to the same content that endorsed people would object to.

The Hater's Perspective

First, I find that most people who maintain these objections are: (1) single, (2) young, or (3) stagnant.

SINGLE: Single guys have no experience in actual marriage. They only know what they see in other people's marriages. To all you single guys out there: when was the last time a married couple invited you over to their home to watch them fight about sex? When was the last time a married couple invited you over to watch them escalate from casual conversation to foreplay? It probably hasn't happened. You have no experience either personally or through observation.

So what replaces this observation and experience? Theory and hypothesis. Instead of first-hand knowledge, these people think about how marriage and relationships should function without regard for how they actually function. This degree of ignorance is dangerous.

"But I hear things from people I trust!" Right, but you don't see it. You're trusting in what people say, not in what is actually happening. I remember people looking to me for marriage advice when I was in the midst of an 18 month dead bedroom and my wife threatening divorce. You know what I did? I gave it to them! How awful is that?!? I had no idea how to have a good marriage. I only had theory of what I thought should create a good marriage. It turned out all of my theorizing was wrong. Why? Because it isolated out a few verses away from their context and seemed to jive with what the mainstream church said, so people ate it up. Nobody should have trusted me in those days, yet I was hailed by pastors and elders as the model to look at and my wife and I were asked to teach classes on this stuff!

What's even worse is that I didn't realize how bad my situation was at the time until I actually got out of it. I had these rosy glasses that told me: "She'll never actually divorce me or cheat on me. If she would only get more spiritually mature, then she'd want to have sex with my fat tub of lard just as much as I want to with her." I convinced myself that it was perfectly normal and healthy to have sex once every month or two, and that's just how marriage is in the real world, as opposed to the hyped-up fantasies that people have about marriage involving sex every day or two. Haha!

Simply put: if you're single, you don't know what you're talking about. Reality trumps theory every time. And before you start trusting your friends about how to have a great sex life in marriage, get the details on how great their sex life actually is. When I started asking that to guys who I thought had great marriages, I found that they were genuinely positive-spirited about the relationship, but only because they were placating themselves, learning to treat ramen noodles once a month as if it's a glorious feast to celebrate the monthly time of eating.

YOUNG: I also find that many of the objectors, even if married, are still very young or newly married. They are still living in the honeymoon phase of their marriage, or haven't gotten to the point where difficulty truly sinks in. I spoke about this in greater detail in 208 - Life Path of a Relationship, so I won't rehash too much here. Suffice it to say that the honeymoon phase tends to last between 6 months and 2 years after the wedding day.

Here's something worth noting, though: most guys assume that because they're past the honeymoon phase, they finally "get it." They don't. Even after the honeymoon phase ends, it usually takes another 5 years before the bitterness and resentment formed from a covertly dysfunctional relationship finally sets in, which is why the "7 year itch" is a thing. I can't count the number of divorces that I have processed for couples between 6-8 years or marriage, yet I can use my fingers to tally the number of divorces I've done for couples under 4 years of marriage. Surely NRE (new relationship excitement) has worn off by then, so their eyes should be opened, right? No. Because the bitterness and resentment doesn't start building until after the honeymoon phase ends, and then it must build to a particular critical mass (different for each couple) before they even realize there's a problem.

STAGNANT: The last group are people who are not internalizing any actual improvement in their lives. They may learn and apply a few things here or there, but they are predominantly behavioral modifications. They have not grown as a man; they have only practiced a few new skills. This is where the "RP is a toolbox" metaphor breaks down. You pick up a hammer when you need a hammer. If you don't like using hammers, you can use the side of a wrench. Sure. But at some point you have to move beyond just picking up and using tools when it suits your purposes. You have to internalize and become the tool.

Ever see Terminator 2? Yeah, there's that weird T-1000 guy who can turn his hand into a sword or blade or hammer or whatever he wants. He doesn't need to pick up a hammer - he IS the hammer. Of course, he's not always a hammer. He only expresses his hand as a hammer when it's appropriate to do so. But it's a part of him, not an external thing.

Many men never internalize the things they learn. As a result, they believe they are only using strategies and practices to achieve an intended result. This is very different from improving yourself, and then being yourself and finding that this happens to get you what you want out of life naturally. "Be yourself" is great advice for guys who have a great self. It sucks for everyone else who is stagnant in life and not growing. If your goal is to hammer a nail into a board and you're a screwdriver, at some point the advice has to come: "Don't be yourself; be a hammer." Once you are a hammer, then when you look at nails in boards you can say, "Cool, I'm just going to be myself." And when you see a screw in the board, then you say, "Cool, because I'm a screwdriver too, when I need to be."

BOTTOM LINE: Most people who object aren't qualified to make the objection. Don't listen to the objections of people who have no experiential basis for their objections, unless the theological basis of their objection is air-tight. If an objector does present a seemingly valid theological objection, present the question to the community. I promise: if the Bible tells us to teach or do something differently, this sub will always adapt to what the Bible actually teaches. We are growing and evolving. New ideas are a welcome point of discussion. That's okay. But don't just assume a particular interpretation until you've studied and researched it and discussed it with those here who can be trusted.

"INSTEAD OF MANIPULATING HER, GO TO COUNSELING"

When an objector hates the presented model, but also recognizes that they don't have the qualification to give a useful replacement model, rather than admitting that they might be wrong, they defer to those who are allegedly more qualified: marriage counselors. The post I referenced above seemed to think that counseling was the solution to marriage and sexuality problems. This is extremely common. Go to any RP objector and ask them what their solution is, rather than applying what we teach here at RPC. The majority will suggest one of two things: (1) give up and get divorced, or (2) "Go to marriage counseling."

Marriage Counseling is a Joke

Now, this is something of a joke. There are a million different strategies and theories on marriage counseling, none with a consistently proven track record, otherwise all counselors would be using that strategy, right? The thing is, there is a counseling strategy that works. It's what we teach here at RPC. The problem is that counselors can't use these strategies with their patients because it is politically incorrect. Can you imagine how fast a marriage counselor would lose his or her license or be boycotted out of business if she started telling her female clients that the Bible says their husband is to lead the family and the wife must be submissive toward him?

Also, bear in mind that counseling is primarily a position of teaching. You're exposing people to new understandings about themselves and their relationships and helping them apply this new knowledge in a productive way. That's teaching. Now, most marriage counselors are women. These women, of course, then, believe that it is perfectly appropriate for women to teach or have authority over men. In a secular world, that's just fine, but what if she's a biblical marriage counselor? If she's not using the Bible as her source, then you shouldn't trust her secular conclusions anyway. And if she is using the Bible as her source, then she's going to insert herself as a woman leading men toward improving their marriages by telling them that women shouldn't lead men. Do you know how effective that cognitive dissonance will be? Not. At. All. "So just find a male biblical marriage counselor." Good luck. More on that below.

Another reason marriage counseling is a joke is that I know countless marriage counselors through my profession who habitually encourage their patients to get divorces! What kind of marriage counseling is that?!? They just give up because nothing in their secular wheelhouse can solve the problem they see. Even worse is that this remains true for the vast majority of Christian marriage counselors too, who see themselves as counselors (read: secular strategies) first who happen to be Christians and allowed to talk about their faith. Even those who let their faith inform their model of counseling, the Bible is a big book and there's a lot of one-sided misinformation and willful ignorance from the feminized church about how to interpret the bits about marriage, so even these Bible-centered counselors get it wrong.

What was most hysterical to me about the post from the user I referenced above is the fact that he's on a Christian forum suggesting that counseling is the answer (without even specifying "biblical counseling"), rather than pointing to the Bible. What this tells me is that he hasn't been focusing on the biblical foundation of what we teach here; rather, he mistakenly assumes (as do most) that RPC is a recitation of secular principles that try to find a few verses to support them. I have said it before and I will refrain again: I draw nothing from the secular RP subs as an authority. I only reference them for ease of communication with men who are already familiar with their terminology. The Bible is our only foundation. It just happens to be that the reality the secular world observes is consistent with what the Bible says. Duh.

Biblically, marriage involves two whole people becoming one whole person. Not 1 + 1 = 2. Not 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. 1 + 1 = 1. That's why we can't "math" our way to a great marriage - because it doesn't make mathematical sense. But you must each be one whole, unbroken person before you can create one whole, unbroken marriage. That's why we treat the man, not the marriage. While the secular subs exclusively work with men, I'm not opposed to posts that try to help women become whole either. I openly welcome them - and we have had a few. Women are an essential component of the marriage "equation" and I believe, biblically, that it is perfectly appropriate for the men here to be able to provide input to women on how to be better wives. This is because God has designed men to lead in this way, just as Paul and Peter wrote instructions to women in their epistles. But at the end of the day, if we are trying to help people return to living out God's design for marriage, we must help them live out God's design for themselves first. Most forms of marriage counseling or even individual therapy, even from "bible-based counselors," doesn't do this. They want to address the psychological issues without contemplating the spiritual causes, or even the input that the Bible gives to psychological issues on their own accord.

Suggesting Counseling is Hypocritical

It also needs to be pointed out: RPC is all about giving men tools necessary to improve their marriages. This is often called "manipulation" because we are showing guys how to think, feel, and behave in ways that are not natural to them in order to achieve a desired result. We get accused of being cult-like with the way we push men to internalize the things we teach and make it a part of them, forever changing their internal character.

What do you think counselors do? They help people see things from new perspectives, then give them tools to think, feel, and behave in different ways from what they've been doing in order to help them achieve better results in their lives. The main goal of most forms of therapy is not merely to change the patient's behaviors, but to cause him to internalize a better way of perceiving their world and interacting in it. The assumption of counseling is that if we can get a person to internalize a new sense of understanding over their life and circumstances, then the behaviors will follow - and often-times the behaviors are a starting point to facilitate that internalization process.

Sound familiar? Right. Because that's exactly what we do.

The difference is that we're not counseling through secular means. We are studying and researching the Bible in order to discern what it says and how we can apply it in ways that cause us to be more godly, which has the byproduct of improving marriage and sexuality as well. Who would have thought: when people in a marriage are acting as God intends them, then their sexuality will be as God intends as well.

ADDRESSING THE ACCUSATION

To now, I've mostly focused on why we shouldn't trust many of the people who make the claim that RPC is bad because it promotes "manipulating women." While most such objectors may not have adequate standing to make the objection, let's entertain the notion itself anyway, as hypothetically someone who is qualified to make that claim might come along one day. Are we guilty of "manipulating women"?

Sure. We're about as guilty as God is guilty of manipulating us. He has lots of plans that he doesn't tell us about - plans that influence our behaviors without our awareness, or which cause us to relate with him in ways that we wouldn't have chosen on our own. I mean, heck, if it were just up to me I probably wouldn't have entered into a covenant relationship with God in the first place. Total depravity and all, right? God had to do something to my will to enable me to choose him.

But nobody objects to this type of "manipulation." It's a very broad type - the kind where a mastermind "manipulates" or rearranges moving parts in order to achieve his own intended result. The kind of manipulation that most people object to is that which is malicious toward the person being manipulated. Consider:

  • If I manipulate my kids, for example, by employing reverse psychology or other strategies of causing their behaviors to conform to healthy boundaries that I set for them, I am hailed as a good parent with lovely, obedient children. Chip Ingram once wrote that the primary purpose of parenting is to teach children obedience - if they can obey their parents now, they will be disciplined to obey God later. Technicalities aside, I can appreciate this thought.

  • If I manipulate my kids into giving me all of their Halloween candy so that I can eat it myself, such as through a guilt trip ("If you don't give me all your candy, it must mean you don't love me"), then suddenly I am an evil scoundrel.

Which kind of "manipulation" or "influence" are we employing at RPC? Clearly the first - and I challenge any objector to find a single post by any endorsed contributor (i.e. right now, a mod) that indicates otherwise, or where a mod hasn't stepped in to correct the person.

Now, most people will see these different ways of applying what we learn from the Bible (in RPC) or evolutionary psychology (as the secular RP forums focus on) in terms of whether or not they harm the interests of one person for the advantage of themselves. So, to that I must ask: if a guy finds ways of causing his wife to be attracted to him and desire sex with him, is he manipulating her in this negative, harmful way? Here are the facts:

  • She isn't attracted to her husband and doesn't want to have sex with him.

  • She has sex with him.

What bridges the gap between these two is what characterizes the integrity of the strategies employed? - and much of what is taught here is, by our own acknowledgment, sexual STRATEGY. The gap, at least from the perspective of the objector, is in the emotional disposition of the person being "manipulated." If they suddenly want to do it, it is "persuasion" or a "change of heart" or just "good." If they never want to do it, but are influenced to do it against their actual desire, then it continues to be negative. What we propose should sit between those two phrases is this:

  • He interacts with her in a way that causes her to want to have sex with him.

Is this malicious manipulation? I think not. I'll write more on this in another companion post. For now, suffice it to say, no woman ever complained that her husband became so attractive that it made her horny for him. At least I've never heard that complaint. And if the person you allege is being manipulated actually likes what's happening, what business do you have telling him to stop making her happy?

But you see, that's just it: feminists (especially the male variety) believe it's their imperative to tell others how they should be happy. It infuriates them that women are attracted to men who dominate them, who don't take their whining and complaining seriously, and who have a mission that doesn't include pedestalizing them. They believe that all women should be so self-empowered that, "If you only knew how he was manipulating you into being so happy and gaga over him, you would despise him like I do." See how ridiculous that sounds? "He's taking advantage of your cultural conditioning in order to make you happy, when you should be happy the way I'm happy, instead!" ... is what they say with giant pointed eyebrows and angry faces, unable to remember the last time they genuinely smiled. Don't let any person else tell you how you or your wife should be made happy. Let God tell you. He tells you how this can happen in the Bible. We teach the Bible. It's that simple.

CONCLUSIONS

If you want to object to what we teach at RPC, we welcome your objection. But I'd like to start learning in these posts: (1) are you single? (2) are you young? (3) have you internally changed as a person recently? I welcome contrary evidence, but it must be supported by results and not theory alone.

If you are any of these, ask yourself honestly: how does this aspect of myself affect the way I'm perceiving my world and content that I disagree with? I would also urge you to ask a more critical question: Does the fact that I don't like what's being taught here change the fact that it's causing men to be more godly and women to be happier in their marriages to those men? and Is that something I really want to oppose?

If men internalize what we teach here, incorporating it into your default character and not some strategy you employ to get a result, then there is no manipulation. You're just being a better version of yourself than when you started. That's not manipulation. That's improvement. It might mean improving your physical characteristics, which the objectors often find acceptable. But it also means improving your communication skills and emotional stability, which is where the objectors creep up. They don't like people who aren't easily manipulated by them and who can think for themselves. They use shame and emotional outbursts as their tools to get us to conform to their way of thinking. What does that sound like to you? And yet what do they do? Accuse us of being the ones who are manipulative. Easier to avoid getting caught with contraband if you hide it in your brother's room and blame him for having it. Your little secret will never get found out, right?

Long story short: the Bible tells us what marriage is meant to be. If you are unsatisfied with your marriage, it's probably because you're living outside God's design for marriage. Secular counseling can't help with this. Biblical counseling drawn from misinterpretations of the Bible made by feminized churches can't help with this. We can help with this. But always be a Berean (see Acts 17). Don't just take our word for it. Test it against Scripture. Tell us what you found. Test it in your own marriage. Tell us what the results are. Let's veer away from being a community that focuses on questions and teachings. Let's start focusing on the field reports. I am calling all men here to start sharing stories about how the things you've been applying have worked or not worked. If it's not working, we can all learn from this. If it is working, we can all learn from this. It's a win-win.