Theology of the Marriage Bed (Things Go South)

In the last installment, I presented the guiding Biblical framework from which sexuality is to be understood and contrasted. I presented it in terms of Creation.

When God created man and woman, He created them male and female; the response was one of jubilation; this served as the basis for marriage; and sex is the consummation of that covenant. It was all good.

Then, in Genesis 3, things go very badly.

Eve, who knew better than to eat of the fruit of the tree, was deceived into eating of the fruit of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam, who also knew better and was not deceived, consciously chose to rebel, eating of said fruit.

The aftermath:

  • The serpent was made a perpetual belly-crawler, and promised eventual defeat (in hindsight, many commentators look at this as a reference to Jesus on the cross.)
  • Eve was promised painful childbirth.
  • God promised perpetual conflict between man and woman. (“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”)
  • God cursed the ground, making the work of men perpetually difficult;
  • All of Man was cursed with eventual death.

Among those punishments is a very poignant statement God made to Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This is often referred to as “Eve’s Curse”.

In a nutshell, that threw a monkey wrench into both interpersonal as well as sexual relations. Women would constantly aspire to the privilege, authority, and prestige of the men, and men would have an innate tendency to squash women like bugs.

We have seen this play out throughout history: whether it’s foot-binding in China; various forms of sex slavery; Islamic tribes that perform genital mutilation on women; feminist movements that promote goddess worship and fertility cults and various forms of witchcraft. Today, feminism has given us mass murder on a scale that would make Stalin blush, while Middle East cultures treat women like chattel, and in spite of this we have American teenage girls seeking to join radical Islamic groups such as ISIS.

In terms of gender relations, I would argue that the bondage-submission dynamic began with what we now call “Eve’s curse”.

That was the beginning of the corruption of sex. And it would get worse rapidly.

After Cain killed Abel and was forced to flee, we have this tidbit a few verses later:

And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
    then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”

What began with eating some forbidden fruit would lead to murder in the first generation, and then, five generations later, we have Lamech taking two wives (making him the first polygamist) and committing double murder.

This is contrasted with the very next block:

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

The line of Cain–from murder to double murder and polygamy (which is an aberration of the marriage covenant)–differs markedly from the line of Seth, whose generation is tied to “people [beginning] to call upon the name of LORD.”

Things would get worse:

  • In Genesis 6, the “sons of God” would marry the “daughters of men” and produce an evil generation that led to the flood. While some take that as angels marrying humans, I take that as descendents of Seth (believers) intermarrying with the sons of Cain (non-believers).
  • After the flood, Ham disgraced his father by telling his brothers about his father’s nakedness. (No, he didn’t commit a homosexual act, as some commentators suggest. At the same time, an integral part of sex is knowing someone else’s nakedness. Ham’s sin was not in a sexual act, or even in stumbling across his father’s drunken nakedness, but rather in telling his brothers of his father’s indecent exposure, rather than keeping his mouth shut.)
  • Abraham took his maid as a mistress and sired a child (Ishmael) with her, thus giving us perpetual mayhem in the Middle East.
  • The men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels who were intervening for Lot’s family.
  • Lot’s daughters, after getting their father drunk, had sex with him, got pregnant, and had children, giving us the Moabites and the Ammonites.
  • Jacob took two wives (who were sisters), and also took on their servants as his mistresses and had children with them.
  • One of Jacob’s sons would have sex with one of his father’s wives.
  • In a serial scandal, Onan would be struck dead by God for disgracing Tamar via coitus interruptus; and Tamar–after Judah refused to marry off one of his sons to give her children–disguised herself as a temple prostitute, had sex with Judah (who was on a journey), and had a child with him.
  • Dinah, a daughter of Jacob, was raped by Shechem. Levi and Simeon, in turn, slaughtered all of the men of Shechem after they were circumcised and promised safety.

Oh, and that’s just in Genesis!

Remember: in Genesis 2, it was all good.

Here we are, nearing the end of the first book of the Bible, and we have had multiple cases of polygamy, believers marrying non-believers, homosexuality, women fighting each other via mistresses, men offering their daughters to appease would-be rapists, multiple cases of incest, and even rape.

Suffice it to say that sin has clearly worked its way into the marriage bed.

My point here is that, in terms of depravity, what we see today has ample precedent in history. You will hear many voices in the world, appealing to “progressive” culture to be more “open-minded” to things that are clearly perverted, and churches are under constant pressure to cave.

Today, the big issue of sexuality for the Church–on the surface–is gay “marriage”.

And while the Church must preach and teach truthfully regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality, a larger issue under the surface exists: we have a large swath of Christians, who have had a pornified, corrupted erotica slammed down their throats from all angles, who, as they marry, are forced to reconcile their desires–which include normal libido and curiosity to explore (which is otherwise legit), as well as desires that are stoked by illicit and worldly media that are degrading to sexuality–with the goodness and high purposes for which God made it, which include a very positive erotica that, like Genesis 2, is presented in celebratory terms.

Yes, we will go there. And I promise to keep it clean. Next stop: The Song of Solomon.

By Amir on October 25, 2014 | Christian Life, Theology | 3 comments

Double Standard Conviction

My husband of these last five years has taught me unconditional love. While amazing, it’s also convicting. I used to think I was a pretty good person, but when he shows love rather than anger, my selfishness is revealed. And I’m convicted.

Like … the other night. (So, here’s to keepin-it-real . . . tellin-the-truth.)

My husband loves, loves football and baseball. He played both well. He spent some time as an adult refereeing and umpiring both sports. He loves to watch them on TV.

I’m cool with all that. He loves golf, too, and plays and watches that, too. I’m cool with that, too.

And then came Fantasy Football. OH.MY.WORD. I HATE fantasy football! But he LOVES fantasy football! He loves the challenge of it. He loves everything about it. And he doesn’t mind the time it takes … although I do. And I’ve been a bit vocal about that, give or take on the ‘bit’ part … and not necessarily happily so.

He endures my nagging commentary on the subject and often kindly jokes about it. We’ll laugh. Then he continues to invest time in that stupid thang. And I’m learning to have a better good attitude about it.

And then … several nights ago I was up till the wee hours of the morning finishing up an art project. I love art. I love being creative. I also love reading a great book. And I get so involved in what I’m doing I loose sense of time and even forget to eat.

I was pondering the next day how forgiving my husband was that night and all the other late nights when I’ve engrossed myself in one of my projects, never complaining, always supporting, encouraging, letting me enjoy what I love.

And it hit me like a ton of bricks . . . the double standard.

I’m convicted.

 

 

By Ame on | News/Opinion | A comment?

Theology of the Marriage Bed – Introduction

For a few years, I have envisioned formulating a theological framework regarding sexuality. For most of the nearly ten years that I’ve been active in the blogosphere and twenty-plus years of teaching Scripture in various capacities, I have engaged in discussions in multiple Christian forums from time to time encountering various issues regarding sexuality.

As a rookie youth minister in 1994, I found myself with a group of teens in which the promiscuity rate was 100% and very few had a concept of why that was wrong. (I proceeded to spend 4 weeks teaching what Scripture said about the matter, catching no small amount of backlash from church leadership, although the promiscuity rates dropped during my tenure.)

I’ve seen churches embark on various anti-promiscuity campaigns, such as True Love Waits, aimed at getting teens to save sex for marriage. I personally know gals who today look back at their “chastity rings” and question the wisdom of the efforts, well-intentioned as they were.

I’ve seen pastors implore teens and adults to save sex for marriage, but present it in terms of cause-effect: it’s all about consequences and having a better life for yourself. And while God often commanded His people to obey Him “that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you”, that is far from the only aspect of God’s admonitions to His people. He is hardly appealing to a framework that offers a “better you”.

At the same time, here’s what I have not seen much of over the years:

  1. Teaching from Scripture about the purpose and goodness of sex;
  2. Teaching regarding how husbands and wives ought to approach sex in terms of mindset.


Complicating matters
, we have various schools of thought that have emerged among Church circles, as high profile Christian leaders have provided guidance—from hard Victorian to free-spirited libertine to downright bizarre and various shades in between—regarding the ways that Christian husbands and wives must or should or ought to express themselves.

More recently, former Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll, in a book co-written with his wife, wrote an entire section that green-lighted activities that should raise a number of red flags. His recent departure from Mars Hill has rekindled various debates, with some venues going as far as dismissing him as a false teacher for his views on sexuality. While I would stop short of calling him a “false teacher”, it would be fair to call him—and the libertine types—out on some matters while giving them credit where it is due. (I will do both.)

Here are my objectives, not to be accomplished in any particular order:

  1. Present a Biblical framework for sex, developing some key operative principles rooted in the purpose of sex.
  2. Provide a backdrop for the conflicting views.
  3. Provide a contrast of my proposed Biblical framework against the backdrop of the world.
  4. Assess the different schools of thought—from libertine to Victorian—in light of that framework.

I realize that this is going to stoke animosity from both extremes. Victorians are going to accuse me of promoting licentious behavior, whereas the more libertine folks are going to accuse me of “meddling.”

While I am more than willing to enter the arena and have the discussion, I’m too old to be terribly offended with the dismissive types. I have big shoulders, I can handle it. If you want to know the truth about me, just ask my wife. Fair warning: I’m the “good cop” in my household.

Seriously, I come to the table addressing this as a grownup, and my intended audience is grownups, or those near the age of majority. I will strive to keep it clean, doing justice to the Biblical text.

So why is there so much confusion on sexual matters?

That’s a good question, because you really don’t see much confusion in Scripture. While people often disobey God’s commands in that area, you don’t see much debate about the sinfulness of immorality or the goodness of marital sex. There is no confusion about homosexuality, bestiality, or incest, as those get outright condemnation every time whenever they are mentioned in the Bible. While God permitted polygamy in the OT, every instance of it in the Scripture stokes conflict that often lasts generations. In the New Testament (NT), Paul expressly prohibits polygamists from church offices.

In the NT, Paul admonishes Christians to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and the writer of Hebrews (13:4) implores husband and wives to let the marriage bed remain undefiled. Paul calls on husbands and wives not to deprive each other (1 Cor 7:5).

Even in the Old Testament (OT), sex is presented in terms of God’s Creation (Genesis 2), Solomon admonishes his son to enjoy the wife of his youth (Proverbs 5:19) while repeatedly warning against the dangers of adultery.

The OT expressly prohibits adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, prostitution, marrying outside God’s people, and sex that is part of a cult. If it ain’t within the marriage covenant, it’s sin. Period.

The OT is also very sex-positive, as Solomon promotes marital sex in very positive erotic terms.

So what explains the confusion that we see today?

On one front, we live in an America that continues to reap the whirlwind from the Sexual Revolution (SR). This had been smoldering since the early 1900s, but completely metastasized with the work of Alfred Kinsey and the “Kinsey reports”, and the American Law Institute’s using of them to undermine the common law standards in the several states.

The SR was a broadside against any Biblical rendering of sex, promoting the idea that everything is on the table, and that moral standards are mere taboos. The SR stoked a counter-cultural attack on the moral fiber of America, undermined social standards for sexual propriety, and promoted the moral neutrality of homosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

This has manifested itself in the undermining of marriage via no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the “hookup culture”, the mainstsreaming of pornography, and even the toleration of a President who argued that “oral sex doesn’t really count.” (Since Clinton made that argument, the number of teens engaging in that act skyrocketed.) Since then, we now are facing a legal system that sanctions “gay marriage” and is increasingly hostile to those not so accepting of it.

While not going this far, some Christian leaders have embraced a modified libertine position, arguing that, as long as you’re married, anything you do as husband and wife, provided both consent to it, is perfectly legitimate. I’ll assess this viewpoint and the Biblical “proof” that is often parroted.

On the other front, we have the Victorians. This camp, to their credit, seeks to keep the marriage bed holy, and promotes a legal framework—expressed in the Victorian understanding of English common law—designed toward that end. To them, the only acceptable sex is a husband and wife in the “missionary position.” Anything else is illegal. The old-school Victorian definition of sodomy was any sexual act that could not result in conception. The Victorian view on sexuality was very common in America prior to the SR.

(Complicating matters, Many states wrote their sodomy laws around that definition. While sodomy laws were primarily aimed at homosexuals, the definition includes a variety of heterosexual acts, some of which are arguably depicted in the Song of Solomon.)

Along similar lines
, we have the old-school Catholic view: not only is sex is exclusively for marriage, every sex act must also be procreative in intent. Some—not all—in that camp view sex as a necessary evil that God permits in marriage.

The Catholics, to their credit, have been excellent in their defense of life. They were ahead of the curve in the culture wars many years before the Southern Baptists and evangelicals had even figured out that a war was going on. At the same time, their presentation of sexuality has become jaded by centuries of institutional dogma that is profoundly disconnected from Scripture.

Meanwhile, we live in a culture in which sex is in front of us everywhere we go. Put simply: sex sells. Companies use it to sell food, cars, trucks, motorcycles, sports equipment, clothing, cosmetics, toiletries, home appliances, you name it. Recording artists often must make racy videos to promote their songs.

Even before the advent of MTV, Donna Summer rocketed to the top of the recording world with “Love To Love Ya Baby”, in which she repeatedly simulated orgasm. (She would convert to Christianity and spend her remaining years trying to break the stigma of that song, which defined her entertainment persona.) The pornography industry was, for many years, the main driver of technology innovation for the Internet. E-commerce, a feature we take for granted on the web, was pioneered by the porn industry to bring in the revenues for online porn. Pop culture gives us a world where just about anything goes.

For the Christian, however, sexual ethics—from shalts to shalt nots to oughts and shoulds and ought nots—are defined by Scripture, not popular culture.

So here we go.

Not surprisingly, sex is addressed very early in the Bible. In fact, it’s part of Creation. No, it doesn’t say, “On the sixth day, God created sex, and Man pumped his fist and screamed ‘Boo-yah!’”

Or does it?

Let’s pick up the action in Genesis 2:

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

God clearly made woman out of the man, as a “helper” for the man.

God brought the woman to the man.

The man’s response was a song!

That provides the backdrop for the stated conclusion: “THEREFORE a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Whenever you see the word THEREFORE, the indication is that the prior text supports the conclusion that follows. In this case:

Marriage is for grownups. “A man shall leave his father and mother…”

Marriage is a good thing. “[A man] shall “hold fast” to his wife…”

Sex is the act of marriage. “…and they shall become one flesh.”

Given that the man’s response to the presentation of the woman was quite positive and was in fact in the form of song, we can reasonably conclude that, while the text does not say “Boo-yah!”, the atmosphere was indeed one of jubilation.

I must also note that, with respect to Creation, both male and female are given the anatomical and physiological capacity to enjoy sex. It was clearly made to be pleasurable, and, in the context of Creation, God and Man agree that it is good.

While, because of sin, things would quickly go south in Genesis 3, in Genesis 2 it is all good.

In fact, as we shall see, marriage is actually the first covenant that Man experiences with God, a covenant rooted in Creation and is a portrait of the love of Jesus Christ for His people.

And sex is the act that consummates that covenant.

All further discussion of sex in these units proceed from this foundation.

By Amir on October 24, 2014 | Christian Life, Theology | 1 comment

Men Aren’t The Only Ones Who Lust

I realize that headline probably qualifies as a “No duh!” to anyone with a cursory amount of grey matter, but we DO have a fair share of folks who deny or minimize that reality. And the way we treat it as a society differs markedly depending on the offending sex.

Kirsty Young–of whom I’d never heard–has expressed a sexual interest in Tom Jones. On one hand, that’s akin to a guy saying he found Marilyn Monroe attractive. Jones himself was, and perhaps still is, quite legendary for “getting around”, so Young is hardly the first woman to admire him.

Personally, I think she made an idiot of herself by expressing the obvious: she, like a lot of women, finds an Alpha like Tom Jones attractive.

By Amir on October 21, 2014 | Feminism | 1 comment

Hillsong On The Edge Of The Cliff

As someone who has a few Hillsong CDs, I found this news saddening.

In addition to this news.

By Amir on October 17, 2014 | Christian Life, Theology | 2 comments

Driscoll Resigns

His leave of absence has become a resignation.

Can’t say that I am surprised.

By Amir on October 15, 2014 | Christian Life, Theology | 3 comments

“Why Women Spurn Marriage”

Feel free to discuss this piece by Pepper Schwartz, a professor of Sociology at University of Washington.

I’d say she is ignoring a couple of large elephants in her office that are crapping all over her carpet.

I’ll elaborate more later.

By Amir on | Feminism, Game, Game/SMP | A comment?

Even When a Cult Leader is an Obvious Idiot

People will still follow him.

I remember seeing Ernest Angely’s program on television. I thought it was a comedy skit.

He was more plastic than my American Express card.

Sadly, there are enough suckers out there who will send him their money. After all, the clown is still in business.

By Amir on October 13, 2014 | Christian Life, Theology | A comment?

Thoughts on Death

I’ve wondered about death often in these many months since he passed so unexpectedly. My grandparents have all been gone a long time, but I wasn’t close to any of them, and I do not believe any of them chose Jesus on this earth; very sad. He was the first person with whom I was very close to pass through into eternity. So it’s really the first time I’ve pondered death.

I wonder … did he know ahead of time? He had been ill and not well for a few days before we believe he actually died (we know there were at least two days he had been gone before he was found).

If he knew he was at the end, what passed through his mind? Forgiveness? Anger? Hate? Retribution? Sorrow? Repentance? I have since learned he was on a flight that had fairly severe technical difficulties while mid-flight and made an emergency landing a year or so ago (he traveled often). The one who shared this with me was on the flight with him and said he looked very peaceful and calm during the incident and descent and emergency landing, and even thought he was praying. When I have thought back to that time frame, I cannot recall any change in his behavior toward our girls or myself. Sigh.

When he entered heaven, was there any remorse then? I so wanted to hear him say he was sorry before he left this earth. I wonder if he was. I wonder if he knew I truly forgave him. I wonder if he ever forgave me for anything real or imagined.

There are so many things, so many things, I do not understand about God. I know when we choose Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, we are forgiven, washed white as snow, made pure. So, are there eternal consequences for the Believer for our sin-choices on earth? A part of me wants him punished. But I know if he is, then I will be, too, for my sin; for all sin is sin in the eyes of Holy God. And if I want him punished, have I truly forgiven him? For everything? Or am I reacting to the pain and consequences his choices have left behind.

A large part of me is full of sorrow and sadness for his life, so much of which was a tragedy.

So many thoughts, of which these are a few.

And in the world of reality … grief sucks … living life one day at a time … and eternally grateful for a husband with patience and love beyond the stars and back.

 

 

By Ame on September 28, 2014 | News/Opinion | 4 comments

Hub City Tour 2014: Century Challenge Complete

At the urging of my spin instructor, I decided to tackle the Kentucky Century Challenge this year. The Kentucky Tourism Cabinet sponsors a challenge involving four century (100-mile) bicycle rides: the Redbud Ride (London, KY) in April, the Horsey Hundred (Georgetown) in May, the Preservation Pedal (this year in Winchester) in June, and the Hub City tour (Elizabethtown) in September. Finishing three of the rides allows you to purchase a commemorative jersey for $30. Finishing all four gets you the free jersey.

After finishing the first three rides, I figured that it would cost me more money to do the Hub City Tour than to just pay $30 for the jersey. My only incentive for doing the Hub City ride was pure bragging rights.

At the end of the day, I decided I needed to finish the job and do that last ride, on 13 September 2014.

The weather was just about perfect: overcast, morning temperature just under 60 degrees, with a projected high temperature approaching 70.

The ride map–with hill profile–showed some menacing hills, with the worst of them between mile 45-78. Total elevation gain was just a bit higher than the Redbud Ride, but not as much as the Preservation Pedal or the Horsey Hundred. But the toughest portions were clearly on the back 50.

My plan was to go out with the early-birds. I enjoyed riding with them at the Preservation Pedal, so I figured this would be a good way to finish. This time around, though, there were only three of us: the leader (Bill), myself, and another rider named Tim. We departed at 7:15.

The first 45 miles were pretty easy. Because the temperature was so mild and conditions were so good, I barely broke a sweat. The hills were relatively mild, there was no storm-related debris (which was a problem at the Preservation Pedal), and the overall number of cyclists was light. The rest stops were well-stocked, although we all had plenty of Sports Beans, water, and Gatorade “just in case”.

After mile 45, the ensuing 33 miles were easily the most difficult of the entire Kentucky Century Challenge.

The hills were steep, but not too steep, and yet there was very little downhill relief. With rolling hills, you can use the downhills to provide power to guide you through the uphills–this worked well for the first 45 miles–but if the relief provided by the downhills is not commensurate with the difficulty of the uphills, you can get knocked out of kilter.

I got knocked out of kilter.

Making matters worse, I started having trouble with my shifters. My first gear wasn’t quite catching, and that made the uphills more difficult than they otherwise were.

On top of that, no matter which way we turned, there always seemed to be a menacing headwind. I remarked, “God has a sense of humor.”

After the rest stop at mile 65, we were all hurting. Not from fatigue–I felt great on that front. But my quads were hurting. Bill was also hurting in the quads. (That was saying something, too, as Bill is a very seasoned rider!) We weren’t looking forward to the nasty hill that was coming up at mile 78.

But something interesting happened. From mile 74-78, we boned up for that hill, and–yes–there was a set of hills that were sort of challenging, but nothing seemed overly nasty. (It didn’t hurt that my shifters started working and I got my first gear back!)

When we got to the rest stop–which was at mile 78.3–I asked, “When are we supposed to get that really bad hill that was on the elevation chart?”

I was told, “That was it. You’ve already done it.”

Me: “Really? That wasn’t that bad.”

All that worrying was for nothing; the nasty hill wasn’t really all that nasty. My quads still hurt, but I knew the worst was over. It was going to be rollers for the next 24 miles in.

At the final rest stop (mile 94), I got some cookies and Gatorade. My quads were sore, but I wasn’t really that bad otherwise. I figured I’d get some extra carbs “just in case”, but I figured I had this one in the bag. Just don’t do anything stupid.

The last 8 miles were relatively easy. Turning onto Ring Road–one of the main loops around Elizabethtown–was good psychologically. I also enjoyed going through the E-Town sports park. I knew we were getting close. When we turned onto Mulberry Street, I felt even better. Then we made it to the intersection of Helm Street, just one left turn and about 100 yards to go.

At the end, my quads were killing me. Most of the pain was from the 33-mile stretch from 45-78. I figured I’d recover pretty quickly, and I was correct: I had no leg soreness in the morning.

Overall, I thought this ride was the toughest of the 4, mostly because of that 33-mile stretch. The weather was perfect, though.

In a sinister way, I like century rides. They are comparable to ultramarathons: you’re guaranteed to have your endurance tested, and there will always be a suck factor. I’ll never be fast, so I might as well just go far.

Now I have a critical decision to make: the Ironman folks have moved the Louisville Ironman triathlon to October starting next year. This is due to the fact that–being in August–the nasty heat has made Louisville a proverbial grave yard for triathletes: they have more dropouts than any other Ironman event.

I’m strongly considering signing up for the Louisville Ironman next year.

After doing the Century Challenge, I have a good idea where I stand and where I need to be for the Ironman. I’ve done marathons, so I know I can handle the distance. I’ve done century rides, so I know what goes into one. I’ve never done a century ride and and marathon on the same day, let alone after a 2.4-mile swim on the same day. It will be a heck of a time–and money–commitment for training, but it’s doable. I have a psychoticpsychological mindset for a long day of endurance.

But Ironman or no Ironman, I plan on doing the Kentucky Century Challenge again next year.

And my quads will be ready.

By Amir on September 14, 2014 | Endurance Sports | 2 comments

Academic Funnies
Aerospace
America the Beautiful
America's Best
Book Reviews
Can't Fix Stupid
Cats
Christian Life