Daily Stormer & Andrew Anglin Thread

Raskolnikov said:
I think that's an issue of desensitization towards sexual acts. My take is that if people practiced more restraint in terms of sexuality, then our "standard repertoire" would probably look more modest. I don't think fellatio itself is such a big deal, but technically, it is a sexual act that is geared solely towards pleasure. Then again, it is practiced among loving married couples, and usually not excessively.
Ultimately, I guess you'd have to ask a priest. I have obviously only been in premarital relations prior to my baptism, and I imagine that the attitude towards sex is somewhat different when you do it the right way, with premarital chastity between man and woman.

The big issue about fellatio is that when you go back in history, this is what got people hooked on the idea of sexual adventure and pornography when the Jews brought out Deep Throat in the 1970s. It basically turned sex from an intimate activity into an event for excitement in the mainstream.

So culturally, I am against fellatio the way people talk about it. I don't personally think it's bad when married couples do it, but it does represent an attack on Christian culture.
Click to expand...
Since there is no unified Orthodox position on this, I think it's very much a case where you need to ask a priest when you get married. Of course, I think there is a difference between oral sex as foreplay preceding intercourse, and oral sex performed alone to completion. The latter is pure hedonism, while the former can further the spiritual goals of marriage including communion with your wife and procreation. At least that's how it seems at first glance.

What is interesting though is that we know sodomy has very many negative physical and psychological consequences. These include a monumentally huge risk of STDs, the frequent occurrence of rare gastrointestinal diseases, extensive anal trauma, and lower life expectancy and elevated depression and suicide risk (at least for homosexuals). Which seems to be God's way of telling us to stay away from it. But I don't see any such negative consequences of fellatio unless they are very subtle.
 
analyst_green said:
Since there is no unified Orthodox position on this, I think it's very much a case where you need to ask a priest when you get married. Of course, I think there is a difference between oral sex as foreplay preceding intercourse, and oral sex performed alone to completion. The latter is pure hedonism, while the former can further the spiritual goals of marriage including communion with your wife and procreation. At least that's how it seems at first glance.

What is interesting though is that we know sodomy has very many negative physical and psychological consequences. These include a monumentally huge risk of STDs, the frequent occurrence of rare gastrointestinal diseases, extensive anal trauma, and lower life expectancy and elevated depression and suicide risk (at least for homosexuals). Which seems to be God's way of telling us to stay away from it. But I don't see any such negative consequences of fellatio unless they are very subtle.
Click to expand...
Oral sex is considered sodomy by the Fathers. I recommend “On Marriage and Concupiscence” by St. Augustine to understand the interplay between marriage/procreation (which he views as good) and concupiscence or the gratification of lust (which he views as bad).

Essentially, at least in Augustine, there is a hierarchy in terms of how to best deal with concupiscence. From lowest to highest the levels are:

1. Fornication / sodomy / adultery / marital sex which precludes the possibility of conception due to birth control (which he views as fornication under the guise of marriage, and not genuine marriage)

2. Sex between a married couple for the purpose of gratifying lust, but without preventing conception and thus being open to procreation

3. Sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation, especially if the couple intends to have the children Baptized

4. Celibacy in marriage

5. Monastic celibacy

His basic paradigm is that concupiscence should either be reined, in by making sure it leads to children, or subdued altogether if one seeks the highest level of virtue.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0808.webp
    IMG_0808.webp
    1.5 MB · Views: 51
Last edited:
Anglins take and lecturing on sex is merely meant to provoke. Id take his opinion on what couples should do in their sex life in the same lense as Roosh's Public Rape thought experiment.

And ultimately this conversation is not anything anyone who's living any form of biblical marriage should really pay much heed to....unless your smacking your old lady during sex and calling her a whore...(which is not ok obviously)

BrotherAugustine said:
Oral sex is considered sodomy by the Fathers. I recommend “On Marriage and Concupiscence” by St. Augustine to understand the interplay between marriage/procreation (which he views as good) and concupiscence or the gratification of lust (which he views as bad).

Essentially, at least in Augustine, there is a hierarchy in terms of how to best deal with concupiscence. From lowest to highest the levels are:

1. Fornication / sodomy / adultery / marital sex which precludes the possibility of conception due to birth control (which he views as fornication under the guise of marriage, and not genuine marriage)

2. Sex between a married couple for the purpose of gratifying lust, but without preventing conception and thus being open to procreation

3. Sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation, especially if the couple intends to have the children Baptized

4. Celibacy in marriage

5. Monastic celibacy

His basic paradigm is that concupiscence should either be reined, in by making sure it leads to children, or subdued altogether if one seeks the highest level of virtue.
Click to expand...

Far be it for me to criticize a Saint... But it's my understanding that Augustine was also know to have a pretty vibrant sexual history before he became celibate. So while I'm not going to that what he's saying is invalid... His take is the logical progression from someone whose had a challenging past with that passion and.... I think that's worth noting as something that heavily influenced his views. We recognize that a Saint is capable of being a Saint and having not complete accurate or somewhat incorrect views on a subject and still be a saint. For instance, from my understanding.... Augustine is largely responsible for the Original Sin argument, something we reject as Orthodox.

In conversation with my priest during time of being a catechumen... What I took was: "unless you're trying to re-enact a sex act you saw on the Internet...sex is, when treated as a loving act between a Madrid couple is a good thing and one of the joys of the sacraments of marriage." He certainly didn't say anything about "you can't open mouth kiss your wife" and while I never asked about oral sex...what I took is that it comes down to "are you treating your spouse with love and respect when having intercourse?" If you're using that lense to view sex... I think it's a much easier way to keep things on the level.
 
Get2choppaaa said:
Anglins take and lecturing on sex is merely meant to provoke. Id take his opinion on what couples should do in their sex life in the same lense as Roosh's Public Rape thought experiment.

And ultimately this conversation is not anything anyone who's living any form of biblical marriage should really pay much heed to....unless your smacking your old lady during sex and calling her a whore...(which is not ok obviously)



Far be it for me to criticize a Saint... But it's my understanding that Augustine was also know to have a pretty vibrant sexual history before he became celibate. So while I'm not going to that what he's saying is invalid... His take is the logical progression from someone whose had a challenging past with that passion and.... I think that's worth noting as something that heavily influenced his views. We recognize that a Saint is capable of being a Saint and having not complete accurate or somewhat incorrect views on a subject and still be a saint. For instance, from my understanding.... Augustine is largely responsible for the Original Sin argument, something we reject as Orthodox.

In conversation with my priest during time of being a catechumen... What I took was: "unless you're trying to re-enact a sex act you saw on the Internet...sex is, when treated as a loving act between a Madrid couple is a good thing and one of the joys of the sacraments of marriage." He certainly didn't say anything about "you can't open mouth kiss your wife" and while I never asked about oral sex...what I took is that it comes down to "are you treating your spouse with love and respect when having intercourse?" If you're using that lense to view sex... I think it's a much easier way to keep things on the level.
Click to expand...
A few points:

A. While it’s been “common knowledge” that the Orthodox “reject St. Augustine’s view of original sin” since the supposed “Patristic revival” of 1960s Greece, the reality is that his view is not only accepted by the Orthodox, but dogmatically correct as per the Council of Trullo’s acceptance of the Council of Carthage 418 (at which his view was expressed as a canon). The spearhead of the Greek anti—Augustine crusade, Fr John Romanides, believed in a version of Orthodoxy that was closer to a figment of his imagination than anything resembling our actual faith. There has thankfully been major pushback against his ideas recently. Until the 1960s, original sin was not considered a divisive issue between East and West; there’s one article out there claiming St. Photios was against “the Augustinian doctrine of original sin” but no scholar familiar with the topic considers that to be accurate. I’ll have much more to say about that article soon as it’s a deep and complicated topic that does not lend itself to a simple forum post. What is typically promoted as “the Augustinian view” is a caricature of his actual position and I would agree that we reject said caricature. If you were to read the Rudder of St. Nikodemos for example instead of Romanides, you would find nothing but praise and approval of Augustine’s position.

B. Yes, St. Augustine led a degenerate life before his conversion. However, his views on sexual restraint are not unusual within the Fathers. Not one Saint in history approved of birth control or oral sex. As far as I know the Saints did not disapprove of “open mouth kissing” but I haven’t seen them address that.

C. It was a common Pelagian tactic to accuse St. Augustine of denigrating marriage by disapproving of concupiscence, but he wrote at least 1,000 pages against the Pelagians and consistently affirms that marriage and the union of man and woman are fundamentally good things. Many of the modern attacks him are just rehashing the arguments of condemned Pelagian heretics, and sadly these are very widespread since the 1960s. Typically, those who screech the loudest against Augustine have no familiarity with his work or the fact that these debates were already had in the 5th century.

And for the record I’m not claiming to be pure or virtuous by posting these thoughts. I recognize that the Saints called us to the highest levels of virtue and that most of us, myself included, are not there yet. I just think it’s good to know what the goal is to have something to work toward.

 
Last edited:
BrotherAugustine said:
As far as I know the Saints did not disapprove of “open mouth kissing” but I haven’t seen them address that.
Click to expand...
I guess we can all agree that the open mouth kissing in public we tend to see a lot nowadays is definitely bad mores.

BrotherAugustine said:
What is typically promoted as “the Augustinian view” is a caricature of his actual position and I would agree that we reject said caricature. If you were to read the Rudder of St. Nikodemos for example instead of Romanides, you would find nothing but praise and approval of Augustine’s position.
Click to expand...
I think what people refer to as the "Augustinian position" is the very legalistic view of sin as something that is conferred to you via birth, which in turn led to the forensic reductionism (not sure what else to call it) we see in certain Calvinist groups. I noticed that in the debate between Seraphim Hamilton and Matt Slick.
When I read the part of the Confessiones that deals with it I also noticed that I felt some irritation that he seemed to use reductionist language around Original Sin, but it's not unlikely that that's only due to the lens of the heresies that popped up way later and that Augustine wasn't aware of.
I assume a similar thing happened when the Greeks became more averse to him. They view him in light of the schismatics and heretics who use him a lot and then throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm also not sure how Augustine's retractions play into it, or if they do at all.


EDIT: I also remembered that we have the Saints of Joachim and Anna, the Holy Virgin's parents. They are presented in tradition as having achieved the highest degree of sanctification in marriage, to the point that Mary was conceived without ignited passions.
I am not entirely sure how that worked, but it's not my place to judge, as it is tradition.
I don't think it's something to go crazy about, the Saints are held up as a standard to shoot for.

Andrew is a perfectionist and thinks dialectically and politically, meaning that he wants to find a one-size-fits-all solution for rules people should adhere to. To my knowledge, sexual passion within marriage isn't per se a sin in the forensic sense, but it makes sense to me that love is perfected when the passion subsides (which luckily, it seems to do automatically after a while).

This is obviously in opposition to the modern view of relationships where passion is regarded the primary reason for marriage and its absence seen as a legitimate reason for divorce, when marriage is about much more than mere passions.
 
Last edited:
Raskolnikov said:
I guess we can all agree that the open mouth kissing in public we tend to see a lot nowadays is definitely bad mores.


I think what people refer to as the "Augustinian position" is the very legalistic view of sin as something that is conferred to you via birth, which in turn led to the Penal Substitution reductionism (not sure what else to call it) we see in certain Calvinist groups. I noticed that in the debate between Seraphim Hamilton and Matt Slick.
When I read the part of the Confessiones that deals with it I also noticed that I felt some irritation that he seemed to use reductionist language around Original Sin, but it's not unlikely that that's only due to the lens of the heresies that popped up way later and that Augustine wasn't aware of.
I assume a similar thing happened when the Greeks became more averse to him. They view him in light of the schismatics and heretics who use him a lot and then throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm also not sure how Augustine's retractions play into it, or if they do at all.
Click to expand...
I (and my priest) would agree that a lot of the sins imputed to Augustine (😏) are actually derived from certain distortions of his work propagated later by those claiming to follow in his footsteps. His view of original sin is simply that “all are in the devil’s power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 2, Chapter 25).

When he says “born in sin” he means deprived of grace and the Kingdom, subject to concupiscence, and unable to be joined to Christ without Holy Baptism (or another mode of reception which nonetheless requires having had baptism in a heterodox confession). This is the consistent witness of every Canon, Council, Catechism and Confession in the entire 2,000-year history of Orthodoxy. Nearly 200 years before he said this, St. Cyprian said the same thing at the Council of Carthage 252 - that Baptism in infants “remits not their own sins, but the sins of another” - ie, Adam - and is necessary for salvation. In other words, the effects of Adam’s sin are present in all of us at birth and require remission even though we are not personally guilty of having committed that sin.

The people claiming St. Augustine taught that we are “personally guilty” of Adam’s sin have no idea what St. Augustine taught, and those claiming that babies have no sin requiring remission via Baptism are utterly unable to engage with the fact that every Orthodox conciliar authority which has ever taught on this topic disagrees with them.

The highest level of authority for the Orthodox is an Ecumenical Council, and the relevant ECs are Ephesus (which condemned Pelagius and his disciples Coelestius and Julian) and Trullo (which accepted, in its second Canon, the Councils of Carthage which express the Church’s teaching on original sin).
 
Raskolnikov said:
heh





I'm not familiar with Romanides, but I once listened to a 2 hour stream Jay did on him and had him filed as a strange figure in Orthodoxy in my head.
Click to expand...
He has a stellar reputation with most clergy because they were taught that he was a genius in seminary. However, those who have looked more into the topic are generally not impressed by his loyalty to scientism, rejection of fundamental Orthodox beliefs, and caricature of everything as “East good, West bad.” The Old Calendarist Vladimir Moss wrote a very good book called “Against Romanides” that I recommend to those with the time and interest to explore this topic.
 
BrotherAugustine said:
He has a stellar reputation with most clergy because they were taught that he was a genius in seminary. However, those who have looked more into the topic are generally not impressed by his loyalty to scientism, rejection of fundamental Orthodox beliefs, and caricature of everything as “East good, West bad.” The Old Calendarist Vladimir Moss wrote a very good book called “Against Romanides” that I recommend to those with the time and interest to explore this topic.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm European and Romanian Orthodox where American Orthodox authors, aside from maybe Fr Seraphim Rose among younger people, aren't received very much, because they like to stay with the "classics" of Orthodoxy. So, mostly Romanian, some Russian and some Greek Athonites.
Maybe there is a Romanides strain among our clergy, but in that case I haven't been made aware of it. Orthodox in the Old World often don't deal all that much with interfaith debate and dialogue, which has upsides and downsides. It's bad for mission to Westerners, it's good for tradition and consistency within the Church.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm European and Romanian Orthodox where American Orthodox authors, aside from maybe Fr Seraphim Rose among younger people, aren't received very much, because they like to stay with the "classics" of Orthodoxy. So, mostly Romanian, some Russian and some Greek Athonites.
Maybe there is a Romanides strain among our clergy, but in that case I haven't been made aware of it. Orthodox in the Old World often don't deal all that much with interfaith debate and dialogue, which has upsides and downsides. It's bad for mission to Westerners, it's good for tradition and consistency within the Church.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. In that case he’s probably not very relevant to your experience of Orthodoxy. Father Dumitru Staniloae seems like a much better modern theologian anyway (from what little I’ve read of his) and it seems from his reputation may even be up for canonization someday.
 
BrotherAugustine said:
That makes a lot of sense. In that case he’s probably not very relevant to your experience of Orthodoxy. Father Dumitru Staniloae seems like a much better modern theologian anyway (from what little I’ve read of his) and it seems from his reputation may even be up for canonization someday.
Click to expand...
Yeah Staniloae, Arsenie Boca, Gheorghe Calciu, Iustin Parvu are all held in very high esteem at my home parish.
I read Fr Dumitru's "Spiritualitatea Ortodoxa Ascetica si Mistica"( I think this is the book in English, but they don't offer to see the first pages so I cannot check: Amazon product ASIN 1878997661 ) and it's very dense but also superbly written.
He has the ability to boil down complex theological topics into digestible sub-themes in a way I've only seen otherwise with Fr Seraphim. He was a very pedagogical man and wrote a lot of guides for clerics and laity alike.

Anyway, to end back on topic, it seems very obvious to me that Anglin really longs for the missing puzzle piece that Orthodoxy offers. He has a lot of good spiritual instincts, but he lacks the dogmatic structure to reign them in.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Yeah Staniloae, Arsenie Boca, Gheorghe Calciu, Iustin Parvu are all held in very high esteem at my home parish.
I read Fr Dumitru's "Spiritualitatea Ortodoxa Ascetica si Mistica"( I think this is the book in English, but they don't offer to see the first pages so I cannot check: Amazon product ASIN 1878997661 ) and it's very dense but also superbly written.
He has the ability to boil down complex theological topics into digestible sub-themes in a way I've only seen otherwise with Fr Seraphim. He was a very pedagogical man and wrote a lot of guides for clerics and laity alike.

Anyway, to end back on topic, it seems very obvious to me that Anglin really longs for the missing puzzle piece that Orthodoxy offers. He has a lot of good spiritual instincts, but he lacks the dogmatic structure to reign them in.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know whether he's aware of this forum? Surely he knows who Roosh is and there must be at least some crossover between RVF/CiK and whatever forum Anglin frequents. It would be great to have him here and expose him to more Orthodox ideas.
 
BrotherAugustine said:
Does anyone know whether he's aware of this forum? Surely he knows who Roosh is and there must be at least some crossover between RVF/CiK and whatever forum Anglin frequents. It would be great to have him here and expose him to more Orthodox ideas.
Click to expand...
God willing. I've been trying to find ways to get into his gamersuprising forum but it only seems to work via invite. I think there are probably some people on this forum who also have access to gameruprising.
 
analyst_green said:
Since there is no unified Orthodox position on this, I think it's very much a case where you need to ask a priest when you get married. Of course, I think there is a difference between oral sex as foreplay preceding intercourse, and oral sex performed alone to completion. The latter is pure hedonism, while the former can further the spiritual goals of marriage including communion with your wife and procreation.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how something can be hedonistic unless your intention is procreation, then it becomes virtuous.

Are you going to stop having sex with your wife once she’s pregnant? Is oral sex allowed if she’s pregnant or does it switch to hedonism again?

This literally sounds like the prevalant, modern male thinking. Not very different from a womans. Get a woman you like to like you, get her into bed, mark your territory, release your pent up sexual energy, justify everything retroactively as far as what happens after.

We have billions of people that can go their separate ways after sex, billions of people for whom sex becomes boring with the same partner, and we have a concept of “sexual compatibility” which is basically a hedonistic pleasure/ego score card for sex.

Yet what I’m hearing is that when a married couple are licking and sucking each other off, they’re actually growing spiritually closer. Make it make sense.
 
Sandalwood Peak said:
I don’t understand how something can be hedonistic unless your intention is procreation, then it becomes virtuous.

Are you going to stop having sex with your wife once she’s pregnant? Is oral sex allowed if she’s pregnant or does it switch to hedonism again?

This literally sounds like the prevalant, modern male thinking. Not very different from a womans. Get a woman you like to like you, get her into bed, mark your territory, release your pent up sexual energy, justify everything retroactively as far as what happens after.

We have billions of people that can go their separate ways after sex, billions of people for whom sex becomes boring with the same partner, and we have a concept of “sexual compatibility” which is basically a hedonistic pleasure/ego score card for sex.

Yet what I’m hearing is that when a married couple are licking and sucking each other off, they’re actually growing spiritually closer. Make it make sense.
Click to expand...
Why doing you specifically ask a priest at the Church you're inquiring at about the topic of oral sex and see what he says.

Its never been something I've spoken with my priest and not something I'm particularly interested in inquiring on.

That said... I would say... People can indeed be capable of committing sins and still net net be growing in their faith. Just saying...

As far as the sex while pregnant... I'm pretty sure plenty of that is still going on... Women, church women or not, still have certain physical needs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top