The Real Problem With The Trump Tape


The hysteria about the Trump tape comes down to one thing:  Truth.

“When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy.”

Want to know why the women are offended by that? Because what he said is the absolute truth and they know it. Know why the men are so offended? Because they are scared shitless that it’s the truth, knowing they are NOT a star, that they are not attractive men.  Even more so, they know they could never get away with something like that.

The important truth in that statement was “When you’re a star they let you do it” but pussies focus on the word pussy.

It’s just another one of those hard truths about women that men don’t want to acknowledge and women don’t want men to understand. Because a better way to say it would have been:

When they’re highly attracted to you they let you do it.  A lot of them want you to. You can do anything. Whatever you want.  Grab them by the pussy.

Look at the man who is saying this, because he’s a bull alpha.  He (especially when he was younger) combined power, status, money and looks in a way that very, very few other men have ever been able to do.  As the poisonous troglodyte Henry Kissinger once said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”  He has the respect and honor of other men.  Men want to be him and women want to be with him.  In other words, he’s a very attractive man.

Does that mean all women are like that?  No, but the percentage who are not is very small if it’s the right man at the right time in the right place with the right line.

But women cannot allow the truth of what he said to stand and in the feminist-controlled modern discourse, the truth is automatically denied by those who know it to be truth as well as by those who wish it wasn’t true.

The “grab them by the pussy” remark proves that Trump understands this.  And by doing it, he proves to the women that he is what he comes across as.  Does it always work?  No, but I’ll bet that the vast majority of the time it did work.

Posted in Crazy Women, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , | 41 Comments

The “Cardinal Rule” and Female Competition


I have long considered Rollo Tomassi one of the most erudite thinkers of the manosphere.  Taking the hard-won data about women that came out of PUA field research, Rollo created useful information with insight that men can use.  I really don’t have a problem at all with the data, the problem is the paradigm through which it came and was then analyzed- evolution.  The issue here isn’t an argument about evolution, it’s about the impact evolution has on his analysis and conclusions.   While Darwin’s theory (adaptation of species) is both observable and provable, the general theory of evolution is far more theology than science and requires far more faith than Christianity.  The point is the Bible has a much different paradigm (frame, if you will) within which to place this data.

What I’m trying to illustrate with this essay is the difference in paradigm and the resulting difference in answers the different paradigms yield when comparing the same data.  In his post “The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies” Rollo made a number of points from his paradigm of evolutionary psychology that I’ll respond to from the paradigm of creationism using the standard of what the Bible actually teaches- which is the opposite of what the churches teach.

“The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

The “standard” that frames this rule is monogamy and ironically, monogamy is the arbitrary church-created standard that hands women a monopoly within marriage.  Which means no competition and thus no accountability for the women.  Even more ironically, we have the evo-psych based position holding monogamy as the correct standard versus the Bible-based position holding that the standard is non-exclusivity for the man.  And we know that monogamy is an artificial and arbitrary standard.

“It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.” [Emphasis added]

So, where did this artificial standard that surrenders the male sexual strategy come from?  Underlying all of this is the idea that men and women are equal and are to be held to the same sexual standards, anything less is feral worst consequences and monogamy is the agreed upon solution.  There can be no better illustration of Rollo’s “Cardinal Rule” than socially imposed monogamy as a moral obligation, which was created by the church for political reasons.  When it comes to marriage:

Monogamy Is The Ultimate Surrender To Women

Modern monogamous culture has only been around for about 1200 years and honest historians provide the answer why:  The ancient (Catholic) church.  The exquisite irony of this is in creating socially imposed monogamy, the church threw out the Biblical standards of sex and marriage, replacing all of it with a mixture of pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.  They did this so long ago and preached it so hard that people actually think this is the way God designed it.  As Rollo put it:

“The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.”

“Pair bonding.”  Now claimed to be some sort of evolutionary development, this is nothing more than the concept of monogamy the church imposed because their thought leaders hated sex.  How about that. Pair bonding is actually real and the Bible describes it as becoming one flesh.  The thing is, while we don’t know how it works because the Bible clearly states it’s spiritual in nature, we do know when it happens- which is when the woman gives her virginity to a man.

The church was so effective in replacing the Biblical standard with garbage that today, as Rollo demonstrates, everyone is convinced that what the early church put in place 1500 years ago is actually the “old” way of doing things.  In other words, the “right” or “correct” way of doing things.   What Rollo refers to as the “old set of books” isn’t because it’s actually the second set of books.  What we have today is simply a continuation of the second set of books unbound by any societal restraint.  From a Biblical standpoint monogamy was a radical change from the old, which actually laid the moral foundation for feminism and was the cause of the sexual revolution.

There are 4 specific points that must be understood in order to grasp the magnitude of what happened, because the standard that God put in place originally is one that solves all the problems.

1.)  “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”  That was the original command to mankind.   The law of marriage was given in Genesis 2:24 to implement that command.  According to what the law says, marriage is initiated with the act of sex and with that act God joins the two as “one flesh” (pair bonding).  Further, while there is no restriction on a man taking more than one wife, there is likewise no authority to terminate a marriage once it is begun and the virgin’s commitment is not required.  From this we can see the God-given standard of marriage:

With the act of penetration of the virgin, with or without her consent, the man makes a permanent but non-exclusive commitment of marriage to her, binding her to a permanent and exclusive commitment to him until the day he dies.  With that act, God joins the two as “one flesh” (pair bonding) in ways we do not understand and as Christ said “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”

The purpose of marriage is to create a permanent, durable and stable “container” called family which has as it’s purpose the production of children.   The emphasis on permanence cannot be overstated, as we can readily observe the social pathologies inherent with broken families.  The purpose of marriage is not romance, nor love nor even sexual gratification and fulfillment, but children.  That is not to say a marriage cannot provide all these things, but the purpose of marriage is to produce children who will be legitimate heirs and raise them to adulthood under the best conditions possible.

2.)   God’s first judgment on mankind stated (among other things) that the desire of the woman would be for her husband and “he shall rule over you.”  The context of that passage is the events of the fall in the Garden and the woman was literally declared incompetent and her husband appointed her guardian.  The evidence for this is the requirements of Numbers 30, which states every vow, every agreement with binding consequences and even the rash words of her lips which create obligations is subject to the review and either approval or annulment by her father or husband.

Rather than being an evolutionary development, we can point to Genesis 3:16 as the origin of female hypergamy, for the woman was given a desire for the man who is fit to rule her.  The meaning of the word “desire” is dualistic, meaning both the desire to conquer and overcome as well as a sexual desire.  We see this in the form of fitness tests in which the woman tests the man with a desire to overcome him.  If he is fit to rule her and passes those tests her desire becomes a sexual desire.  This is Game 101: Shit Tests.

3.)   The consent of the virgin is not required for her to be married and her father has the authority to not only select her husband for her and turn her over to him to be married, but if she decides to marry without his permission he has the authority to annul that marriage in the day he hears of it.  In other words, the virgin has no agency because her father has the authority to give her in marriage whether she likes it or not.

4.)  Men and women are absolutely not equal in any meaningful way except in value.  Women were declared incompetent and it was God’s desire that they be married and under the authority of a man who will rule them and hold them accountable.  The only change from the Genesis 3:16 standard in the New Testament is men were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His church.   Effectively, Christian men are to treat their wives as loving guardians who act out of love rather than despotic rulers.  To treat them “in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman” while keeping in mind that the standard for accountability has not changed.  For, as Christ said, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.”  All of which sends feminists into screaming fits of hysterical rage.

All four of the previous points are Biblically irrefutable, but the most influential people in the church back in the 4th and 5th Centuries were men who hated sex.  They hated the idea of sexual pleasure and they laid the foundational doctrine that sexual standards applied equally to men and women:  marriage is by consent rather than sex and since the only reason a man would have more than one wife was sexual variety and pleasure that must now be forbidden.  In doing so they threw out the Biblical standard of marriage in favor of their own opinions.  One of the principle architects of this was Jerome.  He was also the guy who translated the Vulgate.  Just saying…

The doctrine that men and women are equal and are to be held to the same standards of sexual morality is the moral foundation of feminism.  Out of this came the imposed standard of monogamy.

As Kevin MacDonald explained, this doctrine was used to good effect in the church’s war against the nobility after the fall of Rome and throughout the middle ages.  By requiring the consent of the woman and a church ceremony they completely usurped the authority of the father to determine who his daughter married.  By upholding the prohibition on divorce for Christians and forbidding the taking of another wife, the church created a condition in which it held the keys to the annulment of a marriage, which is the authority of the father.  And, of course, when the man died without legitimate heirs there was really no other option but to leave the property to the church.

Women and Competition

Unknowingly, the church laid down the moral foundation of feminism by declaring men and women equal and giving women a monopoly condition within marriage.  While the Bible says the husband has authority over his wife and she is required to be in submission to him, submission does not mean obedience, it means accepting his accountability.  In order for a woman to submit to a man long-term, the woman must desire to submit to him.  In large part this is just as much a function of attraction as her desire to have sex with him.  A woman can be 95% in obedience to her husband but if she refuses to accept his accountability for that 5% of the time when she refuses to be in obedience, she is 100% in rebellion against him.

Read the last paragraph again.  Keep reading it until you understand it.

Pronouncing monogamy as the only marital standard of sexual morality was the first and most critical step in removing accountability for women because it re-enforced the church’s false moral doctrine of equality and gave the wife a monopoly condition within the marriage.  It should come as no surprise that “dread game” is acknowledged as the only tool available in a long-term relationship or marriage that really has any effect once one gets past the basics.  The reason is what we know as dread game is supposed to be part of marriage because the husband has every right to add another wife if he wants to.  What he doesn’t have the right to do is kick her out.

Women respond to competition from other women and the Biblical non-exclusive commitment on the man’s part kept her in competition with other women even in marriage because even the remote possibility of adding another wife was enough to change the entire dynamic.  The ultimate act of accountability was for a husband to uphold his permanent commitment to her and add another wife.   This was a very public display of the fact she didn’t do her job.   The threat of competition, however small, provided accountability to wives.

As Rollo has pointed out time after time, the best sex a man is likely to get is before and at the very beginning of a relationship.  Competition is part of the reason why, because the only way a woman can compete with other women is to give the man what he wants.  And what does he want?  A sweet, feminine, attractive, submissive and sexually available woman.  Why isn’t the sex as good later?  Because she no longer has competition.  But look what that competition does…

“The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel.”

This is the modern view as seen from the woman’s perception that she has competition, but under the Biblical standard of marriage it represents accountability.  It puts her on her A-game because if he’s straying it’s her problem and anything that results won’t be infidelity unless it happens with another man’s wife.  And the result could be a new wife in the house.  Call it Biblical dread game.  One of the major arguments against this sort of standard is the perceived interference with “pair bonding” that would result, but the truth is that a man creating those conditions of competition is viewed as being immoral.  Better stated, anything that forces the woman to compete is viewed as being immoral.

Which brings us back to the church-imposed monogamy based on the idea of equality issue, which is NOT what the Bible says.  According to the Bible, a woman can only be the wife of one man at a time while a man can be the husband of many women at the same time.  Because they are not equal.  Yet, everyone buys into the idea of monogamy and “pair bonding” on an equal basis as if it’s some sort of holy writ.  When it isn’t.

“Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial.”

This is complete and utter bullshit.  In this case, “pair bonding” is a magic code word for monogamy and a rhetorical argument for hard monogamy.  The evo-psych idea of pair bonding is similar to what Vox Day describes as the theory of “magic dirt” when it comes to immigration.  The idea that a commitment by both parties will cause a change that bonds them to one another.  Pair bonding is the result of God making the two one flesh and I point to the fact that the real rate of divorce is somewhere around 5% in support of that.  Which, to most, is a preposterous statement.  The problem, as explained in that post, is one of definitions.

The church says the woman’s commitment in a ceremony is required for marriage and any sex prior to that time is just “premarital sex.”   In order to do so, the church had to interpret Genesis 2:24 in such a way that becoming “one flesh” meant the act of sex rather than the spiritual joining together that Christ described in Matthew 19 as “what God has joined together” and the Apostle Paul described as spiritual joining that was on par with becoming a member of the body of Christ- a “great mystery.”

In denying that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her, we deny that God made the two one flesh with that act.  In doing so the culture rips them apart and permanently damages them.

By society refusing to recognize the marriage the two are joined together only to be ripped apart, leaving a mass of broken women who cannot ever have that pair-bonding experience again.  Because while all women save themselves for marriage, the vast majority don’t know that they’re getting married when they actually do so.  For those virgins who know full well they are marrying the man who gets their virginity, the divorce rate for those marriages is around 5%.

The Church Lied and Claimed Only A Ceremony Created Marriage
The Church Created The Doctrines of Equality and Monogamy
The Doctrines of Equality and Monogamy Created Feminism
Feminism Is Destroying Marriage
The Epidemic Of Adultery and Divorce Is Destroying the Church
The Church Leadership (not the Bible) Is Responsible For This

With marriage essentially destroyed and unbridled hypergamy being the order of the day we are now seeing other patterns emerge.  Because women compete.

“It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta.”

Here we get to the heart of the difference.  Women would rather share the confirmed Alpha if they have the chance; that is, if it was socially acceptable.  In other words, the absence of shaming.  However, sharing something less than alpha runs contrary to their desire for monopoly power.   It isn’t that she is compelled to settle for monogamy with the dutiful Beta, it’s that she demands monogamy as the price for settling for the Beta.   In theory, nobody walks into a competitive market unless they can put something on the table, but a monopoly situation in return for “settling” for the beta is a rather unequal trade.

What does the woman bring to the table in order to get this monogamous monopoly?  A vagina?  Really?  There is no equality because this dynamic assumes the woman is superior to the man.  What the reader must keep in mind is this system was set up by people who hated sex and sexual pleasure, it was NOT women who did this.  Jerome’s view of women was much worse than the modern MGTOW’s and the idea behind monogamy was sex was ONLY to have babies and after that be celibate.  Sex, at best, was a necessary evil.  It didn’t matter if the woman refused to have sex because sexual pleasure was wicked and evil.  Their idea of equality in sexual morality was that neither women or women should be having sex.

I should also mention that the church was the largest brothel owner in the world at one point…  and while they were forbidding the married couples to have sex in anything other than the missionary position in darkness with the minimum amount of clothing removed and get it over with as fast as possible….   the women of the brothels were not required to follow the same rules.

In my mouth?  Of course, sir, and I swallow too, but there is an added charge for doing that.  Yes sir, anything you desire.  The women of our order have received a special dispensation from the Bishop and nothing we do is a sin because we serve the church.  If you have enough money I can get one of the other girls to help me give you an experience you’ll never forget!

Monogamy vs Polygyny:  The False Dichotomy

The idea we have either Polygyny or Monogamy is preposterous because what we see from history is that in cultures in which polygyny is accepted, very few men have more than one wife.  Because there are very few alphas.  It follows that the vast majority of the men are monogamous.  Now we run into the definition of monogamy and the problem of keeping a marriage monogamous, which the church solved with the “forsaking all others” clause in the marital vows.  Why, exactly, do the marriages require such a vow to remain monogamous?  The only reason is to voluntarily make a vow that prevents polygyny and reinforces the wife’s monopoly.

Fortunately, because the vast majority of marriages are fraudulent (the woman was already married), such vows are null and void.

History tells us the church was in conflict with the Nobility in the Middle Ages and the Nobility were the only ones realistically able to have more than one wife.  Interestingly all of the church’s policies with respect to marriage were designed to constrain the Nobility and had little or no impact on the peasants.  These policies (doctrines) were designed to usurp the authority of the fathers (requiring the consent of the woman and a marriage within the church- the father can no longer arrange a wedding) and husbands (requiring monogamy, invading the family and regulating the marital bed) for the benefit of the church.

Commitment vs Biological Attraction:  A Logical Fallacy

The idea that biological attraction is meaningless once a commitment has been made is a historical legacy of the period when the church claimed that commitment was the end-all and be-all of a marriage.  In fact, sexual attraction was evil and a sin.  Yet, it is the woman’s attraction to the man that best indicates whether she will make and then keep a commitment to him.  A woman’s attraction to a man can be plotted in three ways depending on his masculine dominance, personal attractiveness and her personal proclivities:

  • Will she give him Sex (how willingly, in what ways, how often)
  • Will she Submit to him (level of obedience, up to D/s relationship, spanking)
  • Will she Share him with other women (privately, publicly, shared bed)

While it would be nice to think that a woman’s commitment to a marriage is something she values in and of itself, history tells us that the best way to keep a woman committed is to keep her attracted.  Interestingly, polygyny is a structure that re-enforces the attractiveness of the husband.  However, most people do not understand the interaction between polygyny and monogamy.

  1. Very few men have the capacity to have a relationship, much less marriage, to multiple women.  His ability to get a threesome is a good litmus test.  No matter what the man wants, in the absence of slavery if he isn’t attractive enough it probably won’t happen.  The majority of men do not have the capacity for a polygynous relationship, but that does not mean they cannot change.
  2. Removing the male exclusivity requirement for monogamy as an agreed upon standard removes the monopoly situation and keeps the accountability of competition in the relationship dynamic, even though there is only one wife.  It is this point that drives the fact that polygyny accepted for some is very beneficial to strong monogamy for many.  Because just because it *could* happen is enough to keep the women in a competitive mode.
  3. Accepting polygyny means the woman’s SMV is no longer the end-all and be-all of her MMV (within reason) and an older, skilled and experienced woman could be a beneficial addition to the household.

Consider: The assumption the second wife will be younger and better looking is just that: an assumption rooted in the paradigm of monogamy.  In fact, as soon as monogamy as a hard standard is taken off the table, a womans’ SMV is not nearly as relevant to her MMV as it once was.

Once we get away from the assumption that the only standard of marriage is hard monogamy, everything changes.


Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man, Polygyny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

You Need To Be Spanked

pinup_girls_3How a woman responds to the statement “You need to be spanked” speaks volumes about her attraction to you, the possibility you might have a future relationship or perhaps the likelihood your current relationship will continue.  And that’s a good thing.

But before we begin, this post is about masculine dominance and submission, not punishment and pain.  Women are attracted to dominance and men are attracted to submission.  Attraction is the coin of the realm and as a rule, a woman chooses to submit to a man based on her attraction to him.  The willing submission to physical discipline is the ultimate expression of both dominance and submission.   All other things being equal, if he has what it takes, she will choose to submit herself to that.  If he does not, she will not willingly do so.

The problem men have in choosing a woman to commit to is sorting them out.  Deciding which category they go in is can be difficult, but to put any woman in the “keeper” category she really needs to have at least a good amount of attraction for him and she needs to have a desire to submit to him. Those are two different things.

Both of those points are dependent on the man’s perceived fitness to rule.  How willing or eager she is to get undressed and how badly she wrecks his bed once she’s there often says a lot about her attraction.   There are plenty of women who might cheerfully wreck your bed, especially if you have money, but that’s an imperfect measure of attraction.  After all, some women get paid to do that sort of thing, cash up front.  Then there’s the old saying “crazy in the head, crazy in bed” and it’s a fact that women who are batshit crazy can and will wreck your bed on the road to wrecking your life.  Others are willing to wait for the divorce for the big payoff and you want to avoid those.  You definitely don’t want to be a “starter husband.”

The area of submission is a different measure of attraction.  Sex is one thing, but obey him? Different story.  While a woman’s physical attraction is largely driven by his alpha dominance, her submission is driven by the total package of both alpha dominance and beta comfort and loyalty, which is best described as his fitness to rule her.

Biblical submission is begins with obedience and is really about submission not to obedience but to being held accountable for that obedience. By definition, a woman who allows herself to be held accountable for her obedience to her husband is in submission to him.   The amount of obedience a wife gives her husband is irrelevant if she refuses to accept his accountability for those points at which she does not obey him.   That begs the question of what the standard she submits to is. The best answer is that it’s his standard that she’s required to keep and will be held accountable to. That’s what that passage in Ephesians means when it talks about wive submitting to their husbands in “everything.”

Everything?  Or Everything Except THAT?

There is a spectrum for submission that could be described as the “Everything But THAT” scale. Discounting moral issues, the bigger the list of “that” a woman has, the lower her willingness to submit and be held accountable. But, how do we measure this?

After the marriage is way too late to find out how attracted and submissive she actually is.  Interestingly, I find this issue is neatly encompassed with the woman’s reaction to a single statement:

“You know, you really need to be spanked.”

The response indicates to one extent or another the combination of both her attraction and her willingness to submit to the man.  Wait until she violates one of your standards, look her in the eye and say it in all seriousness. How she responds will speak volumes for where any relationship is or might go, so think of it as a spectrum.

(0-4) On the low end of the scale is the reaction of contempt and taking offense.   How dare you!  This indicates she sees your value as low and you didn’t make the cut.  There is only one wise response:  Next!

There are women who say “I would never allow a man to spank me” and of those I’d say they either haven’t met the man who triggers their attraction point, or they’re personalizing it and thinking of the man they have at the moment.  And some women might have real baggage in this area, in which case saying that might trigger a panic attack.  Use your best judgment, but in general if you hear something like “you will never…” or she takes offense, she’s just told you all you need to know.  Next!

(4-5) Somewhere in the middle she’ll joke about it, but that’s as far as it goes. Her attraction might be growing and she doesn’t know what she thinks yet.  Observe her behavior.  Is she acting like a brat intentionally?  She may be telling you she needs to be spanked.  Make the point that she is asking to be spanked with her behavior and watch what happens. It will not stay at this point, it will either drop to taking offense or it will get upgraded to a shit test.

(6-8) If she turns it into a shit test, she’s attracted and the man has to pass the test by requiring her to submit to a spanking. Not forcing her, she has to submit to it. And this is a world-class shit test.

If she refuses, she’s testing to see how the man handles her refusal to submit to him. Next! is the only move for the man.

If she submits at that point or if she returns in submission later, you passed the test and now you have a new one, which is how you handle the spanking you’ll have to give her.  Despite it’s popularity, 50 shades is not an instruction manual.

(9-10) If instead of turning it into a shit test she agrees she needs to be spanked and asks when you’d like to take care of that, and she’s serious…   The question is whether she’s so attracted that she desires to be fully in submission, whether she has a desire to be spanked or whether it’s a combination of both. And there’s nothing wrong with spankos- they are delightful creatures, they just need to be handled differently due to their desire to be spanked.  For a woman who desires physical discipline, getting a spanking is a reward, not a punishment.  This can create huge problems if it’s not understood that she wants to be spanked and if you love her you’ll do it.


What you cannot do is think of spanking as a punishment for such a woman.  Because it is something she desires, you must reframe it as a reward or she will “brat” in order to get her spanking.  You will literally be rewarding bad behavior.

Many women and most men will object to this for many different reasons, but if a woman is sufficiently attracted to a man and desires to submit to him, she will submit.  From that point on it’s his game to lose.  For those men who have a moral objection to using sex as their personal litmus test of attraction, this is a substitute.  You’ll wind up having sex afterward, but you’ll do it knowing she’s a keeper.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

The Objections Of Men

There are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

If a woman is sufficiently attracted to a man who desires her, she will find a way to have sex with him.  The medium is the message.  It isn’t what she says or doesn’t say, it’s what she does.  In the same way, a woman’s willingness to submit is also communicated by her behavior.  If she’s attracted enough to the man, she will submit to that.  Women who are in such a relationship usually enjoy the occasional reference, the playful swat on the ass, “the look” and other hints.  The spanking itself?  Not so much.  However, it becomes part of the dynamic of the relationship and that expression of dominance makes a definite impression on the woman.  Men reject this because of what it says about them as men and their lack of masculinity and dominance.

The woman who makes it clear that any form of discipline is unacceptable is communicating that regardless of what else the man might be, he doesn’t have what it takes to hold her accountable because she won’t put up with it.  She might have sex with him, marry him, have his children and live with him but the message is she will not submit to him.  Not that she won’t submit to any man, but she won’t submit to him.  And as a rule, the man who doesn’t have what it takes will probably never have what it takes for the same reason the “friendzone” is a place from which men almost never escape.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

The Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive


Modern Christianity is broken.  While I could detail a lot of specific points, it all boils down to attitude.  The modern Christian really doesn’t care what the Bible says, they want to do things their way.  This is especially true of the leaders in the church.

One of the most significant hold-overs from the early Church that is still present within the protestant churches is in the form of attitudes toward sex.  Jesus predicted what would happen in His parable of the wheat and the tares and soon after the church was planted took root… the enemy scattered his own seed.   Men like Augustine and Jerome, prolific writers with a hatred of all things sexual, especially sexual pleasure.  Their position was that sex was vile, disgusting and sinful even in marriage.  Noteworthy is the fact that Jerome got tapped to make the official translation of the Bible for the church.

One of the key points introduced in the early church that is completely contrary to Scripture is the idea that men and women are equal with regard to sexual morality.  The truth is they are not because there are two different standards of sexual morality for men and women.

  • There are some things men may do that women are forbidden to do.  One example is a man can have more than one wife, but a woman may only have sex with her husband and sex with any other man is adultery.
  • There are some things men are forbidden to do that women may do with impunity.  An example is if a man lies with another man as with a woman, that is an abomination.  However, the only way sexual contact between women is wrong is if it’s incest (Lev. 18:17-18) because there is no other prohibition on such activity.
  • The difference between men and women in the area of consent to marriage provides the final key to understanding the lack of equality.  The consent or lack of consent to marriage by an eligible virgin is meaningless.  She may be married against her will without consent through rape (Deut. 22:28-29).  She may choose to marry and do so, only to have her father annul the marriage without regard to her desires  (Numbers 30:5).  The man, however, not only gives his consent but also his commitment to marriage with the act of intercourse, every single time.

Yet, early church thought leaders like Augustine and Jerome rejected the Biblical standard, claiming marriage was formed by consent and sex had nothing to do with it.  In addition, men and women were both held to the same new and perverse standards of sexual morality which claimed all sex was vile, disgusting and even within marriage sinful, thus all should avoid it at all costs.  In short, the early church threw out what the Bible said in favor of pagan practice, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.

The true effect of these changes was to lay the moral foundation for feminism.  Feminism cannot be defeated as a philosophy until its moral foundation is destroyed and that cannot happen until Christians return to the Biblical standard that the early church rejected.

Officially things have changed a bit in modern times, but the underlying attitude has not.  Polygyny is so well-supported in Scripture that it cannot be opposed on any rational basis, but it still meets strong opposition because it bothers people.  That an eligible virgin is married when she first has sex is even more strongly opposed and pointing out that God simply does not have a problem with sexual contact between women is anathema.  Yet, that is what Scripture reveals.

The Depraved Passion Of Feminism

Feminism is the moral philosophy established by the early Church, claiming that men and women are equal.  The doctrine of equality that was promulgated by the early church is the moral foundation of feminism.

This idea of equality is not what drove a “monogamy only” policy in the early church, rather, it seems to have been early church leaders reacting to Roman law.  The Romans did not recognize the structure of polygyny and the early church seemed to have distanced itself from the practice in order to conform to the Roman standards. Centuries later the church claimed the “tradition” of monogamy was holy writ, banning polygyny.  It just so happened that such a ban facilitated their conflict with the nobility.

Likewise on the idea of consent being required for the marriage.  St. Paul made it clear in his first letter to the Corinthians that the father was still in absolute authority over his daughter and he may choose to allow her to marry or he may choose to not allow her to be married.  The point is the father has the authority to make that choice.   Ignoring Scripture, the church usurped the authority of the father and required the consent of the woman in a church ceremony under the authority of the church in order for her marriage to be valid.

For the vast majority of the people at that time such a requirement was irrelevant.  However, that was of particular importance to the nobility because a valid marriage was required for the children to inherit.  Only the nobles had anything of significant value to pass on to their children.  Dynastic considerations and inheritance were the reason why the nobility had long practiced arranging marriages for their children with an eye toward conserving and consolidating their holdings and power.  Another aspect was first cousin marriages were frequent and most Christians today would be appalled to learn that such a union is not forbidden by Scripture.  The church’s strategy against the nobility was a long game, because by taking control of marriage and usurping the authority of the father they significantly weakened the nobility over time.

Unintended Consequences

One has only to read the works of the Patristic church fathers like Augustine and Jerome to know they would be rolling in their graves if they comprehended the result of what they had done.  Over time the solid foundation of feminism settled and grew stronger, waiting until social, political and economic conditions finally changed to allow feminism to flourish.

One must keep in mind that the changes the church made when they threw out Scripture and replaced it with pagan beliefs, Stoic philosophy and Roman law increased the power of women over men.  The behaviors taught within the church to men produced a likewise interesting unintended consequence.  The church’s elevation of women as paragons of virtue (with the development of the cult of Mary) caused men to put women on a pedestal and idolize them as possessing qualities they did not have.  In doing so they debased themselves, but that was relative.  When we read “knight in shining armor” the operative word there is “knight.”  A warrior.  He wears armor because he fights and kills.

At that time in history the social, political and economic structures kept women in check.  However, over time the process accelerated and in the twentieth century women finally achieved political, economic and social equality. Men were no longer masculine and dominant, they became feminized from the cultural conditioning.  The cultural axiom of “never hit a girl” completely ignored the question of “what if she deserves it?”  The ingrained philosophy was that women never deserved it.  Women took full advantage of that situation.

The major changes began during the industrial revolution with women’s increasing economic value.  Later came women’s suffrage and the accumulation of power progressed as women gained political power.   With industrialization and education on a mass scale women gained economic power and the ability to support themselves without the need for a man.  Biologically a huge change came with the introduction of hormonal birth control, which allowed women to take control of their fertility.  The results were predictable and women began to behave in a manner never contemplated by Christendom.

The Return To Biological Attraction

Without a real “need” for a man and no objective consequences for being sexually promiscuous, women exercised their freedom in ways that were shocking.  Divorce became endemic, with half of all marriages ending in divorce.  That women actually filed the paperwork in about 70% of such divorces is misleading, because demonstrably women were capable of making things so uncomfortable within the home that the man filed for the divorce.  The laws concerning divorce were stood on their head with the introduction of “no-fault” divorce.  “No-fault” divorce is somewhat of a misnomer because what it actually means is either party can file for any reason or even no reason at all and the divorce will automatically be granted.  The rules for settling a divorce changed as well and the women became the big winners.

The result, today, is that over 70% of the men between the ages of 25 and 34 are currently not married.  Of the men from 20-29 who do not have a college degree, over 20% have not been employed in the past 12 months.  Dr. Helen Smith wrote a polemic, “Men on Strike” to describe the phenomena of men “checking out” of a system that is arguably designed to destroy them.  Indeed, it is difficult to look at the way the rules are arranged and come to any other conclusion.  That there can be no rational discourse on this is another indicator of the true state of things because any attempt at such is branded as misogyny.

Yet, within the church, the old bias against sex and the fear of biological attraction continued.  While the women embraced their promiscuity in response to their biological attraction to some men, the church tended to blame the men.  That this is another aspect of feminism was beyond their comprehension.


In the final years of the 20th Century an interesting thing happened and men began to make a systematic study of what women were biologically attracted to.  Research was performed and a body of data accumulated.  With the previous data available new avenues of investigation were taken and more data collected.  This data was analyzed and systems were developed that allowed a man to stimulate biological cues within women through behaviors and attitudes.

The backlash from feminism was loud and long, especially within the church, was because within the sexually promiscuous environment what men wanted was sex.  All the research was effectively done to answer a simple question:  “What do I need to do to get laid?”  The men doing the research were known as “Pick-Up Artists” or “PUA’s” and they became hated.  The fact that the research took place and was analyzed from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology is irrelevant.  That the investigation was done for the purpose of facilitating promiscuity is irrelevant.  The primary mistake of removing God from the equation had taken place well over a thousand years prior and that had been forgotten.

The observations, conclusions and theories about stimulating a woman’s biological attraction became known as “Game” due to a book by Neil Strauss titled “The Game.”  The idea of Game was tied to the “Red Pill” analogy from the movie “The Matrix.”  The blue pill puts you back to sleep, you wake up and everything is normal.  The red pill takes you down the rabbit hole and you learn the truth that has always been hidden from you.  The Red Pill encompasses much more than merely Game, it is a perspective that tries to recognize feminism for what it is and the truth of what is happening in society as a result of what feminism has done.

Fit To Rule

One of the most difficult aspects of understanding female biological attraction was that the standpoint of evolutionary psychology was and is incorrect.  Hypergamy was not an evolutionary development, God did it and the event is recorded in Genesis 3:16.  That was not noticeable within the church until the latter half of the 20th Century because it was not until the advent of unrestrained hypergamy resulted in rampant promiscuity that the underlying tenets of Game were researched and explored.

Genesis 3:16 says, in part, “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

The particular Hebrew word translated as “desire” in English is only used two other places, one of which is Genesis 4:7 in which the desire is to conquer.  The other is in the Song of Songs 7:10, where the desire is sexual desire.  For centuries Bible scholars argued whether the word “desire” in Genesis 3:16 meant the desire to conquer or a sexual desire.  There was ample evidence in the real world that both existed.  The problem is that it wasn’t until we had the data from the study of women’s biological attraction that we learned that it is not an either-or question, it’s both.  That stands a lot of Biblical scholarship on its head.

Observably, if a woman is interested in a man (meaning there is some attraction there) she responds with a desire to conquer, to overcome.  This takes place as what is known as a shit test or a fitness test.  Fitness test is a far better term from a Christian perspective for reasons you’ll understand shortly.  If the man passes the fitness tests more attraction is generated and as he continues to pass the fitness tests the desire changes from the desire to conquer (she stops testing him) and is replaced by a sexual desire.   This process is so well understood that we could literally call it “Game 101” for beginners.

The problem is one of perspective.  The Red Pill community and particularly those with a focus on Game tend to fall completely in the evolutionary psychology area in terms of the underlying motive behind this.  They claim it’s an evolved behavior.  From a Christian standpoint the answer is clear because that section of Genesis 3:16 contained two points.  Her desire would be for him, and he would rule over her.  We can condense that to say “her desire is for her ruler.”  Since she doesn’t have a man to rule over her yet, we can look at it from the front-end and say “her desire is for a man to rule over her” or a bit better,

“her desire is for a man who is fit to rule her.”

Now the two points go hand-in-hand quite nicely and we can see why she first tests the man, to ascertain whether he is fit to rule her.  If he passes the tests and she decides that he is fit to rule over her, her desire to try to conquer him is replaced with sexual desire for him.  It is the “fitness to rule” that is the elusive component that Game has tried to define as a group of attitudes and behaviors, not physical appearance.  Certainly physical appearance adds to the attraction, but it is the underlying attitudes and behaviors that are most attractive and signal that the man is fit to rule over her.

Observe the qualities women appreciate: high confidence, masculine dominance, an attitude of amused mastery and ZFG, a very high level of state control and a focus on his mission.  These are the qualities of  a man who is fit to rule and women find such a man attractive at a biological level.  In addition to that are other qualities like kindness, humility, truthfulness, loyalty and fidelity that one really wants to see in a ruler. However, given the traditional shaming of biological attraction, women never mention the issue of biological attraction and when asked what they are attracted to they focus on the qualities of a good ruler.  Which leaves men thinking all they need to do is be a nice guy and then they couldn’t understand what it was that women really wanted.

Visually, one way to differentiate men has always been by appearance because some men look better than others.  Some men have an appearance that is very appealing to others.  One aspect of masculinity is the ability to project masculinity and dominance to others.  A strong, muscular physique adds a great deal to that, as does height.  These are aspects of a man that women find attractive as long as the other components of being fit to rule are present, but in and of themselves they are merely appealing.  This is one reason why men were so confused when they began to study Game.

It cannot be denied that Game is a learned set of attitudes and behaviors, which means that a man who would not otherwise be considered “fit to rule” can become “fit to rule” by learning the rules and adopting the various aspects of Game.  In other words, a man can shift his attitudes, change his behavior and become more attractive to women.

The Church:  The Origin And Last Bastion Of Feminism

The idea that a Christian would be in sin because they worked to increase their attractiveness value is particularly egregious, but that is the current attitude of the church.  It has been interesting to watch within the manosphere as various Christians came to grips with Game.  The arguments over whether Game was moral, whether women had agency, lots of things got discussed and it was obvious there were strong emotions.  However, what is most interesting is the overt hostility of Christians in general to Game.

Watching their responses has been interesting.  I recently used an example of teaching a boy just a bit of game.  There was a girl he wanted to get to know, but she was pretty and got lots of attention.  My advice was to walk over to where she was with her girlfriends and talk to them, not her.  Ignore her.  Just be the happy and fun guy he normally is, but ignore her.  When she demanded some attention, tease her.  She would react, tease her some more.  Finally tell her that he couldn’t take her anywhere because she couldn’t behave in public.  That would get her desire to do something with him to show him she could behave in public.  Anyone who knows this is already aware that it’s Game 101.

A certain group of Christians objected, saying that what he was doing was a form of lying, of putting on a false face.  No, he should be demonstrate his “Godly masculinity” by explaining that he wanted her, he wasn’t going to chase her or beg her, she would have to make the decision to come to him.

Well, anyone who has eyes can see what was happening.  Following the instructions, he demonstrated rather than explained.  Was she pretty and desirable?  Of course.  She already knew that.  He demonstrated his desire by choosing to spend time with her.  He demonstrated that he would not beg her or chase her, what he did was get her to chase him.  He didn’t lie or put on a false face, he actually ignored her until she decided she wanted attention from him and communicated that.  What’s not to like about actions rather than words?  For Christians with their deep-seated fears and insecurities, there is evidently plenty not to like about Game.  This goes hand in hand with the ongoing crusade by both men and woman in the church to stomp the masculinity out of the boys and men.

Then came the moral question of whether working to make one’s self attractive was the right thing to do and the shaming was heaped on.  The fact that Game works isn’t the question, the problem is that women are not supposed to like that stuff.  Really.  They said that.  Like they get to decide what women respond to.  Then came the twisting of Scripture and the tone policing.

The real problem was I pointed out the difference between single women and married women in the church, that a huge percentage of the married women are pathetically easy to seduce.  Any reasonably attractive and game-aware man understands this if he visits a few of our modern churches.  The single women will compare him to every other man they know, but the standard of comparison for the married women is their husband.  The fact that the feminist church works hard to make its men unattractive is a known fact but they don’t want to hear about it.

This is one of the reasons why the modern churches are so opposed to any form of self-improvement in a man that would make him more attractive to women, especially learning Game:  The men know they cannot compete.  They fear confident, masculine, dominant men and the pain they feel when they see their women reacting to such a man is off the scale.

The modern church is a broken mess.  Women rule them with angry frustration because in the process of taking power that was never granted to them, they stomped the masculinity out of the boys and men using a variety of shaming techniques.  Masculinity is literally seen as a source of shame in the church today and is attacked at every point.   The leaders forced the men to drink the Kool-Aid of “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” such that the outcome was predictable.  While the “Y” chromosome exists, masculine and dominant men are few and far between in the churches today.  The women have voted with their feet, which is why they almost exclusively “date” non-Christian men.  The feminized Christian men are so cringe-worthy as to be beneath their threshold of attention.

All a man has to do to completely prove the foregoing is to take the basic Red Pill advice of learning Game, hit the gym and get in shape, improve his income and start approaching women.  Improving one’s appearance and increasing earnings is not viewed as a bad thing, per se, but let it be known that you’re learning Game and all hell will break loose.  The only reason for a man to learn game is to increase his biological attractiveness to women.  It is on that point that the modern church will attack with ferocity.  While the modern church has the medieval attitude of hating all sexual desire, because of feminism that hatred is now directed solely at men.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers.

Chess, not checkers.

The past few days have been amusing, as commenter whysoserious? has provided enormous entertainment.  While probably not apparent to the casual reader, the reason is simple.  He followed the script perfectly.

My position is the truth of what Scripture actually says.  The Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex.  We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek by the Apostles to record Christ quoting Genesis 2:24, using the Greek word “Kolloa” to translate the Hebrew word “dabaq”.  Then, the Apostle Paul used the context of Genesis 2:24 (quoting half the verse) in his prohibition that forbid Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.  In that prohibition, which was structured in the same way as Genesis 2:24, the word “kolloa” was used to mean sex.  A=B and B=C, thus A=C.  Simple.

The Dilemma Of The Status Quo

For the defenders of the status quo this is a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t argument because the “status quo” on sex and marriage is irreconcilable as it is now, due to the Catholic church’s decision to throw out what the Bible said about marriage and sex a long time ago.  As it is, the cucks get a choice:

There is NO prohibition on sex with prostitutes


Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her. 

There is no middle ground, they can’t avoid both, because bringing 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 into harmony with Genesis 2:24 will result in one of them.  It’s unavoidable.  This is why I suggested in my last post that readers present the original argument of whysoserious? as the argument that the Bible didn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes. Let’s face it, that really is an absurd argument, but you’re playing chess.  Let them play checkers.

Let them make the conservative defense of it and properly give the correct exegesis.  When they win their game of checkers and demonstrate that sex with prostitutes is forbidden, you’ve won your game of chess.  Because the final argument by whysoserious? of throwing out Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage is completely preposterous.  It’s one thing to do something like that online, anonymously, but not where you live.  Not in front of the people who pay your salary.

One of my goals in this sort of argument is to keep things on the “common man” level and I made every effort to avoid using the jargon of theologians.  The reason is we are dealing with the truth and the Bible was written to be understood by the common man.  Certainly study and training helps, but there is no substitute for time spent in serious study.  The tools available today in the form of computerized databases allow the kind of study that was all but impossible only fifty years ago.  Combine those tools with time in diligent study and the truth comes out.  One of those truths is that Genesis 2:24 should read like this:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and he shall have sexual intercourse with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”

That result of that is the man who has sex with an eligible virgin marries her and every other man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery.  Since this truth is unacceptable to modern churchians, they must find a way to attack it in order to preserve the status quo.  There are only a few ways to do that.  Obviously, this argument devolves to the word “kolloa” and the fact it means sex as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  That calls into question the word “porne” which is the word for prostitute.  If “porne” doesn’t necessarily mean a woman who sells sexual access to her body for money, then “kolloa” doesn’t necessarily mean sex.  That was the first line of attack that our commenter whysoserious? used.

Round One

When determining the meaning of any given word in the Bible there are some rules, or hermeneutics used, which is to say an accepted way of doing so.  The Protestant Reformation was based on the hermeneutic of “Sola Scriptura” which means “Only Scripture.”   That tossed out the teachings and traditions of the church contained in the Easter Bunny’s book of opinions called the magisterium.   Conservatively, when we want to find out what a word means we look for how it’s used in other places in the Bible, in general, and specifically in context.

The first line of attack by whysoserious? was on this front.  He made the argument that because in the other places in which “kolloa” was used of human interaction, it carried the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness (the hallmarks of the marriage relationship), so that was the meaning that should be used in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  Further, because the Greek word “porne” was somewhat related to the Hebrew word “zanah” and the Hebrew word “zanah” was used occasionally to metaphorically describe an adulterous wife, the Greek word “porne” should mean an adulterous wife or a promiscuous woman.  The resulting argument was 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 wasn’t really forbidding Christian men from banging whores, it was a warning not to marry an adulterous or promiscuous woman.  It was a fine sounding argument if one is willing to overlook the sheer absurdity.   But, there was this little problem with the unintended consequence of stirring up that witches brew of absurdity.

When confronted with the fact that if his interpretation was correct, there was no longer any prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, it was time to shift gears.  Uh oh.  Back to the drawing board.  The reality hit that the meaning of the word “kolloa” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16 must be sex and the use of the word “porne” must be a prostitute.

Remember, I previously stated that given a choice it would be to go with the prohibition on using prostitutes.  This is because women control the money and of the two, they’ll vote for the prohibition on prostitutes every single time.  Guess which one whysoserious? went with?

Round Two

Now it was time for another attack.  Remember, there are only three elements to this.  It cannot be questioned that Christ quoted Genesis 2:24, and if the word “kolloa” means sex within the context of 1st Corinithians 6:16 it means the Hebrew word “dabaq” means sex in Genesis 2:24 and that means…   the eligible virgin is married when she has sex the first time.  No ceremony needed, nothing else.  The man and woman have penetrative intercourse, God seals the covenant by making them one flesh.  Every single time.  Because the text says so and because Jesus said so.

Commenter whysoserious? concedes the argument, that “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 does actually mean sex.  But he still can’t tolerate what that means.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has to come next.  The only thing left to do is attack Genesis 2:24.  Which is what our commenter whysoserious? has done.  Watch carefully.

“The reader of the Bible is assumed to know what marriage is, just like he’s assumed to know what a man is, or a king, or a nation. These words, though integral to understanding the Bible, are left to the reader’s cultural knowledge of the ancient Near East.”

WRONG!  For Christians, the reason we know the meaning of marriage, or at least the reason we should know the meaning of marriage, is because God told us what marriage is.  He did so in Genesis 2:24.  It is true we pick up on cultural cues, but it’s also true that our cultural cues in the United States and other nations derived from Great Britain are derived from the teachings of the church when it comes to things like marriage.  That is beyond dispute.  That such teaching and practices don’t actually match the Bible when it comes to marriage is not the fault of the Bible, but of the ancient church.  Readers of this blog should understand that.

“Genesis 2:24 is NOT a law or a definition; it is the conclusion to a story that explains why a man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Read it yourself: you’ll see this is the natural context and interpretation”

See the attack on Genesis 2:24?  This claim would come as a great surprise to Christ and to the Apostle Paul.  When asked about divorce, Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage.  When comparing the one-flesh bond of marriage to the one-body bond of being part of the body of Christ, Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31-32.  Both of whom cited Genesis 2:24 as authoritatively defining at the very least.

If one could believe this twaddle about Genesis 2:24 not being authoritative on marriage, it leaves us in the uncomfortable position of having the death-penalty offense of adultery in a situation in which marriage is not defined.  If one cannot define a marriage, one cannot know when the wife violates the marriage. Forget about what someone might think of near-eastern cultures, we’re talking about God’s chosen people.

However, from a strategic point of view this is exactly what the cucks want.  Genesis 2:24 is the law that grants the man the authority to initiate marriage.  Get rid of Genesis 2:24 as being authoritative and who has the authority to initiate marriage?  Who can require that the prospective couple obtain permission or a license?  Who can say what a marriage really is?  Obviously, if there is no definition of marriage, then homosexual marriage is allowed and there can be no crime of adultery.  In fact, without a definition of marriage and the authority to marry, there can be no marriage.  I’m not saying whysoserious? is one of the cucks, but he’s certainly playing their tune.

All people will be judged according to the Law, which defines what sin is (Romans 4:15, 5:13).  Just as only those who receive salvation in Christ will receive eternal life.  The Bible is very clear on that.  Since the Bible testifies of itself that the Law of the Lord is perfect, we would expect to see a standard of marriage that exists across all cultures, times and peoples.

As it just so happens, God provided that standard in Genesis 2:24 and He chose to make the act of sexual intercourse the initiation of the marriage. This fits perfectly with the fact that God chose to create women with a hymen.  Think of it as a tamper-proof seal.  A study of covenants indicates that covenants with God are initiated by the man with the shedding of blood.  Thus, when the man uses the act of marriage to begin the marriage, with the shedding of blood the covenant of marriage is initiated.   God responds by making the two one flesh.  For all people of all times in all cultures, nations and races.

Observe Deuteronomy 22:13-17

“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.”

What was the evidence?  A bloody garment, proving she was a virgin and he broke her hymen when he penetrated (married) her.  There’s more than meets the eye here, but the point is simple:  She was presented at the beginning of her betrothal as a virgin.  Legally she was married while betrothed.  Not a virgin at the end of the betrothal period?  That’s adultery.  And no bloodstained garment for evidence meant she got stoned to death for it at the door of her fathers house.

The standard of “sex with an eligible virgin consummates the marriage” as stated in Genesis 2:24 leaves room for any cultural issues, voluntary agreements and what have you, because it boils down to one question- did the man have sex with a virgin eligible to marry him?  If yes, they’re married.  If no, then not.  Reams could be written about the fact that across the cultures and geographic locations, sex remains the definitive act of marriage, but commenter whysoserious? wants to imagine that Genesis 2:24 is now just part of the story in Genesis describing what happened with Adam and Eve.

No.  Genesis 2:24 is the law of marriage.    It provides the authority to marry, describes how marriage takes place and from what is not provided we have the parameters that a man can take more than one wife but has no authority to divorce.  The divorce issue got modified a few times, but in order to understand the divorce issue it’s critical to understand what Christ was talking about when He said “but from the beginning it has not been this way.”  (Matthew 19:8)

As we’ve already seen, Christ obviously considered Genesis 2:24 authoritative enough to quote it as the standard of marriage, as well as the Apostle Paul.  But is there anything more?  Yes.  Consider Romans 7:2-3

“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.  So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress, even if she marries another man.

Consider 1st Corinthians 7:39, speaking of Christian wives.

“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, as long as he belongs to the Lord.”

By what law is she bound if Genesis 2:24 is not a law? One might argue that this passage is speaking of the law concerning adultery, but there can be no adultery without a married woman.  Further, the law concerning adultery prohibits violating, you guessed it, the marriage.  How is the woman bound?  By the law of marriage, the law concerning her husband:  Genesis 2:24.

Genesis 2:24 was the first law given to mankind, which implemented the Command to be fruitful and multiply, because God wants children born within marriage.  We know this because God said no illegitimate child shall enter the assembly of the Lord down to the tenth generation.  Marriage is the container designed by God in which to bring children into this world.  We all know how that happens, with the act of marriage.  Sex.

The Pooch Is Screwed

Most interestingly, this little exchange illustrates the lengths to which those with the training to know the truth will go to disregard the truth.  Our fearless commenter states:

“You’re closing your eyes to anything that could reveal an alternate interpretation.”

Let the reader be reminded of the facts.  My argument has not changed, nor has my approach to the interpretation of Scripture.  His statement here is pure projection.  He has jumped from the amusingly absurd to the preposterous.  On the one hand he states he prefers “the tried and true” but that only works as long as “dabaq” means “commitment.”  As soon as it means “sex” he is willing to toss Genesis 2:24 in the trash if it’s necessary to prevent this truth from being recognized.

This is why we have such a dilemma.  It is unquestioned that Genesis 2:24 is the origin and authoritative definition of marriage in the Bible.  It is unquestioned that men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  But, under the definitions now in place, something has to change because they are not in agreement.  Either you get sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her or you no longer have a prohibition on banging whores.  Which is why the argument presented by whysoserious? is so preposterous.  He wants to keep the prohibition on banging whores and get rid of the law of marriage.

His two linguistic arguments centered around adding the Septuagint to broaden the specific meaning of the critical text, as well as to make a literal use of metaphor to add requirements where there are none. I, of course, reject this.  Metapor is metaphor and it isn’t to be taken literally, but read metaphorically or allegorically to grasp the underlying truth.  Otherwise we have naked brides, cloaks and oaths required for marriage and women only committing adultery when they find men possessed of genitalia the size of donkeys.  I grew up on a farm and having seen the real thing I can factually state that not even porn stars make it into the donkey league.

When the man has sex with an eligible virgin they are married.  That’s what this is about.  That cannot be allowed to be known because the adultery epidemic must continue.  As soon as the people discover how badly they have been lied to, everything changes and the money spigot for those who knew or should have known will be turned off.

What has not been stated is that throughout this argument I have used the basic, conservative rules of Scriptural interpretation approved by such bastions of conservatism as the Southern Baptist Convention and that Evangelical pastor pupation station, the Dallas Theological Seminary.  In addition I’ve used the “common man” argument style, eschewing jargon, with Scripture as my sole authority.  I’m told it’s the sort of thing only a complete asshole would do.

Commenter whysoserious? knows that he can’t win this argument on the merits.  He tried and he failed.  But, he thinks I’m wrong.  He protests:

“You reject a corpus of ancient Greek text which gives insight into the definitions and usages of words important to this discussion, you “don’t accept” illuminations of relevant cultural practices that cast doubt on your ideology; all to save your precious syllogisms of contrived equivalences, concocted from methodical exclusions of linguistic and cultural context. I expected more from you, sir: you broke free from the shackles of popular doctrine, only to lock yourself in a new prison… or something like that. I never feel like I stick the landing on my melodramatic sentences.”

To put it another way, I make a very narrow argument using conservative methodology that points to a serious dichotomy between some definitions which has a huge impact on doctrine.  Just like the homosexual men arguing that God loves everyone and their homosexuality isn’t actually a sin, Sola Scriptura isn’t a winning strategy for whysoserious?.  He rejects Sola Scriptura in this case because it does not yield the result he desires. For example:

“Plus, the word [used by the Septuagint] for temple prostitute in Deut. 23:18 is, you guessed it! porne. This preserves the Law and the consistent nature of God. Rather than sticking out like a sore thumb, this passage can fit seamlessly into the Biblical narrative.”

No.  The word “qadesh” (temple prostitute) is used in the prohibition against temple prostitutes in verse 17.  The word used in verse 18 is “zanah” so there is no connection with temple prostitution at all.  Verse 18 forbids the wages of a prostitute from being used for any votive offering in the temple.  However, the word “zanah” carries with it added meaning that the word “porne” does not (adultery), which allows the meaning of the word “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 15-16 to be shifted to something more to his liking.

What is truly hilarious is that he claims I’m closing my eyes to anything that would yield an alternative explanation, somehow forgetting that he is supposed to be defending the status quo.  When he discovered that the defense of the status quo means either sex with a virgin results in marriage or sex with prostitutes is a permitted and moral activity, he became the one with the alternative explanations.

The thing about the Septuagint and Deuteronomy 23:18 is whysoserious? has demonstrated he only wants to use that connection through the Septuagint in order to make “porne” about temple prostitution, even though he knows better.  This is what we call eisegesis, which is to read into the text what we want to see.  In this case the text written by Apostolic authority won’t support what he wants so he turns to the Septuagint to broaden the definitions that don’t exist in the New Testament in order to re-define things to his liking.

He also wants to use an obvious metaphor involving God being married to an entire nation to create further requirements for a man to be married to a woman.  However, this is just sour grapes because it’s too late.  With the admission that “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 means prostitute, the word “kolloa” can only mean sex, which means “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex.  Which means that Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 nail down the point that there is nothing else required and his metaphor is simply a metaphor.

The pooch, as they say, has now been thoroughly screwed.

Thus, he wants to do away with the law of marriage entirely.  He claims it’s not a law, it’s not a definition, it’s just part of the story of creation.  Why?  Anything to get away from the truth that when a man has sex with an eligible virgin he’s married to her.  The absurdity here is hilarious.  The claim that the description of God’s metaphorical marriage to Judah and Israel in Ezekiel creates a requirement for marriage because, as he stated, marriage requires something more than sex.  But, the text doesn’t support that any more than it supports naked brides and cloaks.  In the same way that adultery doesn’t require men with genitalia the size of donkeys.

The night ends and the pooch is now hiding behind the couch, howling.

Awareness dawns and suddenly Genesis 2:24 is nothing but a story.

The irony is the role reversal.  Normally, when anyone presents a radical departure from what our commenter calls the “tried and true” of the Bible they do exactly what whysoserious? is doing.  Those defending the status quo stick to the conservative hermeneutics, which is what I’ve done.

In this case what the Bible says is clear.  What is also clear is the Catholic church chose to throw out what the Bible said about sex and marriage, replacing it with a mixture of pagan practices, stoic philosophy and Roman law.  The historical record is rather precise as to the development of these doctrines, as well as the political reasons why they were put in place.

There is one point I didn’t address, and that was the comment about my hypothetical honor.  I think I saw her once, but from a distance.  I can’t be sure.  But, honor is as honor does.  I have certainly enjoyed this exchange.


NB.  The pooch was metaphorically screwed by metaphorical donkeys.  No dogs were actually violated, even the pooch was a metaphorical construct.  The howling was real.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Black Knighting Churchian Marriage

Black Knight

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Really.

Commenter whysoserious? presented a rather interesting argument.  It was rather long and I wanted to address it so I turned it into a post all its own.  That continued in the comments and he finally narrowed things and presented the argument.  It was fascinating, actually.  In fact, it was so good that it pointed to a tremendous opportunity for serious black knighting.

Readers of this blog are aware that I have advanced the point that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.   What that means in practical terms is simple:  the man who got the woman’s virginity is her husband.  The guy who had a wedding with a woman who was not a virgin isn’t really married to her because she was already married.  The technical term for this is adultery because unless the man who got her virginity was dead, she was still married to him.  According to information from the CDC and other organizations, at least 80% of the so-called marriages in any given church are cases of adultery, not marriage.  Which probably has a lot to do with why we see so many divorces.

For those who are familiar with this you can skip down to the next heading.  For those who are not, you need to read this to understand why this is so much fun.

I have repeatedly made the argument using the text of what Genesis 2:24 actually says.  Genesis 2:24 contains three elements.  The first is a change in status, that by virtue of the fact he is marrying a woman, the man leaves from under the authority of his father and his mother in forming his own family, over which he is the head.  This isn’t physically leaving because a man can get married and continue living in his parents home, this is a change of status.  To date, no-one has ever argued to the contrary with me.

The second element is where the man has sex with his wife.  The Hebrew word that is typically translated into English as “cleave” or “join” is the Hebrew word “dabaq.”  That word is used 54 times and while I argue that it definitely means sex in Genesis 2:24 and I will also argue that it should mean sex in 1st Kings 11:2, in all the other usages of the word it basically means commitment.

(I believe a far better translation of 1st Kings 11:2 would be “Solomon loved to have sex with them” instead of “Solomon held fast to them in love.”  We’re talking about the man with 1000 wives.  That wasn’t about commitment, it was about sexual variety.)

The third element is the action of God, in which the two shall become one flesh.  We know that it’s the action of God because Jesus said so in Matthew 19:6.  In the first element we have the change in status, in the second element we have the action of the man and in the third element we have the action of God.  This isn’t difficult to understand.

That view is completely contrary to the interpretation advanced a long time ago by the Easter Bunny.  He claimed that because “dabaq” meant commitment everywhere else, so it meant commitment in Genesis 2:24 and that’s where the wedding ceremony was inserted.  No, they claim, sex cannot make you married, there has to be a ceremony where the couple makes their commitment to each other.  After that, the two became one flesh, which he defined as the point at which the couple had sex.  There are multiple problems with this, but ultimately they all hinge on the meaning of the word “dabaq.”

Dabaq Gets The Shiv in Translation

I advanced the argument that we know the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex because Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 and the Apostolic translation of the word into Greek used the Greek word “kolloa.”   With that we have a hard and direct translation of dabaq to kolloa.  Then, the Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 used the word kolloa within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 to textually define kolloa as the act of becoming one body with a prostitute.  Sex, in other words.  The context of Genesis 2:24 cannot be questioned because Paul quoted half of Genesis 2:24 within the text of verse 16 and the structure makes it clear that kolloa was used in that verse exactly as dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24.

A = B and B = C, therefore,  A = C.  It’s that simple, and as used in Genesis 2:24, the word dabaq means sex.  Which means that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her.  But, this gets even more interesting.  The word dabaq is used everywhere else as commitment and and kolloa is used everywhere else in terms of human relationships as fidelity and faithfulness, so within the context of Genesis 2:24 sex is clearly the way a man demonstrates his commitment of fidelity and faithfulness in marriage.  In other words, sex is the act of marriage for a man, the specific act by which a man marries a woman.

This answers the question of why the word dabaq, which means commitment everywhere else, would suddenly mean sex when it comes to the initiation of marriage.  Because sex is how the man makes his commitment to the marriage.  And, this fits perfectly with all the ancillary Scripture such as Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  Again, I’ve written about this repeatedly.

That is the setup.

In order to defeat this argument, one has to show that the word kolloa does NOT mean sex in 1st Corinthians 6:16, that instead it means something else.  Since, like the word dabaq, the word kolloa means faithfulness and loyalty in all the other times it’s used, that would be the logical way to go.

Commenter whysoserious? decided to make what he called the reasonable argument that kolloa meant marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16, and the meaning of the passage was that the Apostle Paul was telling Christian men they were not to marry a prostitute or a promiscuous woman.  This is where the fun began.

Having been on the receiving end of this type of argument as it applied to dabaq, I was very familiar with it, but I wanted to see how far he would take it.  And credit must be given to whysoserious? because there was obviously a lot of work put into that argument.  Yes, it was weak.  The points were specious and none of it hung together very well, but on the surface it sounded damn good.  For those Christians who don’t know their Bibles well, it would be an extremely intimidating argument.  It doesn’t get much better than this.

Unintended Consequences

There was a problem with the argument, which falls into the category of unintended consequences.   The only reason to make the argument in the first place was to defeat the point I’d been making, that the Hebrew word dabaq meant sex when it was used in Genesis 2:24.   Seriously, who in their right mind would try to reinterpret 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 to mean that it’s not talking about sex with prostitutes unless there were a damn good reason for doing so?  The passage is so clear that it’s been recognized for exactly what it means for 2000 years.  Banging prostitutes is forbidden for Christian men.  It’s so well understood that it’s where the English word fornication actually comes from.

As a result of torturing the text and twisting it out of shape to claim that kolloa meant marriage and not sex, there was an unintended consequence.  Many people do not know this, but the only place in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with prostitutes is 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.  There is a specific prohibition on cult prostitution, which is associated with idolatry, but not on ordinary prostitution.  An odious profession, but not an immoral profession.

However, the only way that prohibition exists is if, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, the Greek word porne means a prostitute and the Greek word kolloa means sex.  As long as the word kolloa means sex there is a prohibition on using prostitutes and possibly even promiscuous women for sex.  But, what happens if someone creates an argument designed to prove that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in order to support the Easter Bunny’s claim that dabaq doesn’t mean sex in Genesis 2:24?

There is no longer any prohibition on having sex with prostitutes.

Consider for a moment just what kind of fun you can have using this on churchian cucks.  All that’s happening is the dabaq script is being flipped on kolloa, but when it’s presented as the “proof” that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes, it only forbids marrying them, it will provoke the insane desire to overcome the argument.  Which is exactly what is desired.  Commenter whysoserious? did all the heavy lifting in putting this argument together and if I ever create a “Toad’s Hall of Fame” then he’s got the first nomination in the “Unintended Black Knight” category.

So, make the argument that the Bible only forbids marrying prostitutes, not having sex with them, because kolloa doesn’t mean sex, it means marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  The little known fact that the only prohibition against having sex with prostitutes is that particular passage and the even less well-known fact that if it weren’t for 1st Corinthians 6:16 banging prostitutes would be a moral activity (within certain limits) combine to really set things into high gear.  Because those points are the absolute truth and easy to prove.  It all comes down to the meaning of the word kolloa and the argument is that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in that passage.

Your favorite churchian cuck is now on a mission to prove the truth, that in 1st Corinthians 6:16, the meaning of the word kolloa is in fact sex because the meaning of the word porne in that passage is a prostitute and men go to prostitutes to get sex, not marriage.  The Black Knight’s job is to get them stirred up so that they put some energy into solving this little problem.   Be obnoxious about it.  Taunt them.  Make sure they want everyone to know when they defeat your argument, because after publicly owning it, you can congratulate them on proving that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.

Oh- and what are we going to do about all the adultery here in the congregation?

Best of all, this is an either or choice.  If kolloa means sex in that passage then banging an eligible virgin is to marry her.  If kolloa doesn’t mean sex then there is no prohibition on banging prostitutes.  Words mean things.

In modern churchianity it’s the women who control the money.  In large part it’s women who determine whether a family attends any particular church.  Ask yourself this:  which of these two options will the women choose?  My money is on sex with an eligible virgin is marriage.  There are options there, like Daddy annulling the marriage.  Not so with the moral legitimacy of her husband getting the odd piece on the side.  That’s not going to fly.

Keep in mind the power dynamics and Black Knight the hell out of this.  Now that the Cucks have proven that kolloa means sex, it means dabaq means sex.  What about all the adultery around here?  This is a tar baby of magnificent proportions.  So don’t forget to thank whysoserious? for doing the heavy lifting by putting this together.



Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

The Necropsy Continues


Commenter whysoserious? dropped an interesting protest the other day and again I decided to turn the response into a post because his arguments are sophisticated enough that it takes a bit of effort to nail down exactly what he’s saying and respond on point.

[Pleasant introduction omitted]

That said, I do believe you are mistaken about premarital sex. The way I understand it, you say that the Greek ‘kollao’ signifies sex in Matt. 19:4-5 (and so too in Gen. 2:24) because Paul writes about ‘kollao’ with a prostitute in I Cor. 6:16. You assume that, since a prostitute is involved, ‘kollao’ must mean sex. Consequently, if a man marries a woman who had premarital sex, his marriage is actually not valid, and he is really committing adultery against her true husband. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your perspective.

Yes, you’ve misrepresented me. The differences are extremely significant.

Let’s begin with the first sentence, referring to “premarital sex.” To use the term “premarital sex” is to say that marriage does not get initiated with the act of sex, there is something else that has to be done. That is the position of the Catholic church and has been for over 1000 years, but that isn’t what the Bible says.  Not once in your entire comment did you ever hint what this extra something might be but the implication of your argument is clear that there must be something extra.

“You assume that, since a prostitute is involved, ‘kollao’ must mean sex.”

The correct word is “assert” rather than “assume.”  I have made assertions because I have provided exhaustive exegetical support of my assertions.    I do not present assumptions, which is to suppose something to be the case, without proof.   And, yes, I assert that in the 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 passage that the act of becoming one body with the prostitute is the act of having sex with her.  From your argument, you assume that it doesn’t mean that and it’s an assumption because you provide no evidence and no proof.

Please tell me, of the men who use prostitutes, why do at least 99% of the men pay those women? What is it that they are paying for if it isn’t sex? That’s a serious question. I’m sure there are various men who pay prostitutes to engage in various fetish behaviors that don’t involve his penis and her body, but these are abnormalities and represent an extremely small amount. If it isn’t sex, what is it? That’s the first olive out of the jar.

The context of visiting a prostitute is all about sex. Sure, there are emotional needs being met, the ego is getting stroked, maybe back in the day it also meant a place to stay, but at some point it meant a pair of legs would be spread receptively because that is the hallmark of what prostitutes do.

To claim that “kollao” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:15 does not mean sex is at best disingenuous and at worst an attempt at malicious deception. If you desire to make the claim that the word means something other than sex, please, make the argument. We all need to be amused from time to time and I’d like to hear it. Until someone can make a convincing argument otherwise, it means sex on this blog.

And not just the married to a cringe-worthy wimp kind of dead-bedroom starfish sex that one gets from a wife who is repulsed by her husband; but the kind of enthusiastic sex men are willing to pay for. Where the woman at least fakes having a good time and tries to see to it that he has a good time because he’s a paying customer.

Paul uses the interesting play on words between one body and one flesh in that passage to make the point that Genesis 2:24 made and Christ explained in Matthew 19:  the act of the man is to have sex with the woman and the act of God is to make the two become one flesh. Not only is sex the hallmark of prostitution, but combine it with the act itself described in the text as becoming one body. Can there be any doubt that it means sex?  Does it depend on the meaning of the word “is” or some other Clintonesque term of art?

However, the point is NOT that Paul simply used “kollao” as a descriptor of sex, but he used it specifically within the context of Genesis 2:24, partially quoting Genesis 2:24. So it’s not that “kollao” might mean sex in the context of Genesis 2:24, but that it definitely means sex in that passage as translated into New Testament Greek by translators with Apostolic Authority.

Therefore, according to Genesis 2:24, it’s the sex that makes the eligible virgin married. There is no requirement, anywhere, for a ceremony or any outside third-party permission of any kind. And that blows the current idea of “premarital sex” all to hell and gone because according to the Bible, the only possible premarital sex is when a betrothed couple have sex during the betrothal period. That is, before they were permitted to. It isn’t the sex that’s the problem, it’s the violation of Numbers 30:2, the man gave his word and made a vow that he didn’t keep. That, of course, is being liberal with the text, because conservatively sex with a betrothed virgin is death-penalty rape even if the guy who did it is her betrothed.

Premarital sex is what the Catholic church came up with after they inserted their unbiblical requirement of consent by the woman (to usurp the authority of her father) and the unbiblical requirement of a ceremony with witnesses and the church’s blessing (to usurp the authority of the man) in order for the marriage to be considered valid.

Now, in Ezekiel 23:1-4, we read God describing himself as a man married to two sisters who were prostitutes in their youth. Yet this is not seen as adultery! What gives? I suppose you would say that a) their father annulled their initial marriages or b) they are divorced or widowed. But the text says nothing to support that theory. Likewise, the sexual histories of Rahab and other prostitutes in the Bible are rarely mentioned, which seems odd for a matter of (theoretically) such moral importance. Your view is internally consistent, and you could brush these concerns off as culturally assumed in ancient times, but I think there may be a neater solution.

This appears to be intended to throw further doubt on things, which allows offering a “neater solution.” However, as I stated in the comments, we need to examine the text.

“The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. Their names were Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister. And they became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah and Jerusalem is Oholibah.”

First, it does not say the women were prostitutes, it says they played the harlot.  Not the same thing at all, not even close.   We are dealing with the word “zanah” which carries with it definitions of illicit sex as well as idolatry (spiritual adultery). The word “zanah” does not necessarily mean sex. For example:

1) Leviticus 20:5 (Zanah defined in the text as Molech worship)
2) Leviticus 20:6 (Zanah defined in the text as using mediums and spiritists)
3) Leviticus 21:9 (Zanah contextually implied as being sexual idolatry)
4) Numbers 25:1 (Zanah defined in the text as Baal worship)

While some might say that the Numbers 25:1 reference is to having sex, and the implication of sex is clear because the young women went into the camp to lure the men into going with them, the text is also clear that their sin was bowing down to the baal of Peor. Pour girls at a liquor event are there to use their innate sex appeal to convince you to buy their liquor, not to have sex with you.

However, we should continue with the text of Ezekiel 23 and look at verse eight, which further describes what the two sisters did in their youth:

“She did not forsake her harlotries from the time in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her, and they handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust on her.”

Again with the virgin reference and they didn’t pour out their lust in her, they poured out their lust on her. Some might look at the “lain with her” and conclude they were no longer virgins. However, we see something different if we examine the text closely. “men” (plural) had lain with “her” (singular) and “they” (plural) handled her virgin bosom (again with the virgin identification and the breasts reference) and poured out their lust on “her” (singular).  Here we see the image of multiple men handling her virgin bosom, pouring out their lust on her. Not in her, not satisfying their lust. She’s only a virgin up until the first guy bangs her so it isn’t possible that multiple men are having sex with her and she’s still being described as virgin.

And verse 21: “Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.”

Lewdness is Strong’s 2154. “zimmah.” a plan, device, wickedness. And again the reference to having their tits played with.  Evidently they had spectacular tits.

The meaning of the text can be completely satisfied with the interpretation that they didn’t have sex, they just got close to doing so. What we’re left with is the impression of two precocious little cock-teases that played with the boys and had lots of fun but never quite went all the way. Still virgins, in other words, but morally corrupted. That moral corruption didn’t leave them and later after they were married and had sons and daughters, they did commit adultery, returning to the lusts of their youth, but unlike in their youth they took things to its conclusion.  Witness the term “uncoverd her nakedness.”

Perhaps some might choose to interpret this as the two sisters having sex and thus they’d been married to the man they gave their virginity to, in which case God committed adultery.  Rather than look at that as the confirmation that they were virgins, you use this as the excuse to say that the standard doesn’t exist.  Right.

I have two alternate theories of sex and marriage to try to explain this, and I would appreciate your feedback.

1). I Cor. 6 is a continuation of the discussion of sexual immorality that began in chapter five. Here, ‘porne’ is used like ‘zanah’ to signify a sexual loose woman, but not necessarily a cash-for-sex prostitute. ‘Kollao’ means to be contractually joined in marriage, and ‘one flesh’ is the quality which results from marriage. Given the use of ‘kollao’ elsewhere in the New Testament, this isn’t far-fetched at all. Contextually, Paul is discussing sexual immorality – adultery, incest, bestiality, sodomy – and adultery is the only sin that makes sense here. So, Paul is condemning ‘wife-sharing’ practices, or anything else which defiles one’s own wife. Since a man is one flesh with his wife, the immoral practices of his spouse are also his own; as he is a Christian, they also reflect on the Church. Sex with cash-for-sex, non-cult prostitutes is left free of regulation. (See my explanation of the Exodus passage after 2).)

This is where we get to the heart of where you don’t get it.

Women can have sex one of four ways, and only four ways.

  • First, they can have married sex. Every eligible virgin who has sex is having marriage sex because that’s what makes her married.
  • Second, they can commit adultery. That’s sex with any man other than their husband.
  • Third, they can have sinful sex, which is sex within the context of idolatry, incest or even in which they are the victim, such as a married woman when she is raped. It wasn’t her sin but it was sinful sex.
  • Finally, there’s sex that doesn’t fall into any of these categories. It isn’t prohibited so it isn’t a sin and if the non-virgin unmarried woman in question doesn’t consent to marriage it isn’t marital sex. It’s just sex.

What is commonly known as “premarital sex” is most frequently either marital sex if it involves a virgin, or adultery if it involves a woman who was previously married when she gave her virginity to another man.  In rare instances it might be the fourth one because the woman is neither married nor a virgin.  Even in instances of “real” premarital sex in which the betrothed couple has sex, if the man gets a pass then the sex isn’t the sin, it’s the violation of his vow not to have sex.

Under the Law, sex with a prostitute falls into category #4. 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 changed that for Christian men and only for Christian men. If you want an exercise in extreme frustration, attempt to find a single passage anywhere in the Old or New Testament that forbids a woman from engaging in money-for-sex prostitution. It was forbidden to be a cult prostitute (idolatry) but there is nothing in the Law that says an unmarried non-virgin woman can’t survive by working on her back and that didn’t change in the New Testament.

What most Christians don’t understand is that when Paul said don’t have sex with prostitutes, that was new, because prior to that men were not forbidden to do that regardless of whether they were married or not. Keep in mind, the reason men pay prostitutes is two-fold: they provide sex and they leave when the man is done with them. That was important for several reasons. The non-virgin eligible woman has to give her consent in order to be married, but the act of marriage is still having sex. So if you’re banging the widow down the street and she says she agreed to be married, you’re married. If the man denies it, the only question is whether you were banging her. The known prostitute? No way would the community support her if she claimed she was married to a guy because they had sex and he said no, it was a cash transaction. The only way anyone would believe the man was married to her is if they both claimed they were.

You see, back before there were SDT’s and Paul’s prohibition, sex with a prostitute was the original safe sex. She dealt with the risk of pregnancy, she supported herself, she took care of everything and charged a reasonable fee to spread her legs. And since I brought it up, it wasn’t until the Catholic church went on its war against all things sexual that men started with the sheep-shagging which is where syphilis came from.

A prostitute is still a prostitute at the end of the day. A wife is still a wife at the end of the day. Wife swapping is adultery, not prostitution. The text means exactly what it says.

2). I Cor. 6 is a reference to the widespread use of temple prostitutes in Corinth (immoral behavior according to the Law), and ‘kollao’ does mean sex. However, we interpret Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 differently, focusing on the agent of unification. Genesis 2 explains why sex exists: because the woman was taken from the man, so that man would not be alone. It is a declarative passage, explaining a phenomenon – not defining a moral law. Christ in Matthew 19 explains that divorce is a separation of what God has put together. Where’s God in Genesis 2:24? Nowhere to to be found – the unification is left passive, without an agent. In Ezekiel 16:8, we see an explicit example of marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman, consummated by sex. If a marriage covenant is before God, then God is the unifying agent who made the two into one flesh when the couple consummated their marriage, and his hand in the matter should be respected. This also explains why the blood of a virgin is important to the marriage process – it’s a blood covenant before God. So, if God wasn’t involved in the sexual relationship, the maintained status of being ‘one flesh’ isn’t morally binding, and can be dissolved at will.

This argument isn’t bad for someone who doesn’t know what the text actually says, but the truth is it’s absolute horseshit in terms of an argument.  The sort of an argument a well-trained Jesuit would never make.

“Genesis 2 explains why sex exists: because the woman was taken from the man, so that man would not be alone.”

You left out the command “be fruitful and multiply.” Commands are implemented with laws, statutes and ordinances. What is the natural function of woman? To be a wife and helpmeet to her husband and a mother to his children.

“It is a declarative passage, explaining a phenomenon – not defining a moral law”

In other words, we have no law of marriage, no way of specifically knowing when a man and woman are married, even though the penalty for adultery is death. Right. God puts the death penalty on something that can’t be defined? Please, don’t show this one to your old logic professor.  Or, in the alternate, take some courses on logic.

“Christ in Matthew 19 explains that divorce is a separation of what God has put together. Where’s God in Genesis 2:24? Nowhere to to be found – the unification is left passive, without an agent.”

In a word… No.  Genesis 2:24 has three elements describing three separate actions.

  1. First we have the status action of the man leaving his father and his mother. With the act of marriage he is creating his own family which will not be under the authority of his father and mother.
  2. Then we have the physical action of the man as he commits to the marriage with the act of having sex with the virgin.  In doing so he initiates the marital covenant with the shedding of the virgin’s blood.
  3. Finally we have the spiritual action of God as He seals the covenant of marriage by making the two become one flesh.  Thee two shall become one flesh and the words “shall become” are imperative.  It “shall” happen.

You are attempting to conflate the physical action of the man with the spiritual action of God, which the Apostle Paul described as a great mystery.

Where is God in Genesis 2:24? We notice that Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 and then specifically stated that God is the one who joined them together. Not the man, but God. Helpfully, with the language of 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, we can see that the man and woman become one body through the action of the man when they have sex. That being the case, the only thing left is the becoming of one flesh which is the only joining mentioned in Genesis 2:24, so by process of elimination God has joined them as one flesh.
That is where God is in Genesis 2:24 and your idea that God is nowhere to be found is pure fantasy.

“If a marriage covenant is before God, then God is the unifying agent who made the two into one flesh when the couple consummated their marriage, and his hand in the matter should be respected.”

First, a study of covenants reveals that they are not “before” God, rather, God is a party to the covenant. The man initiates with blood sacrifice and God plays His role in some way or another. Since we know from the Apostle Paul that the becoming of one flesh is a spiritual joining that he compared to the spiritual joining that occurs when a person becomes a Christian and becomes part of the body of Christ, both of them being a great mystery. Christ said in Matthew 19 that God joined the two together. Not physically, but spiritually as one flesh. The man is the one that joined the two as one body. Therefore it is impossible to say that God does not have His role to play in the marital covenant which is initiated with the shed blood of the virgin when her hymen is broken.

Your following statement reveals you are making the claim that you do not believe there is a marriage covenant that God takes part in, when the Bible clearly says it exists.

This leaves us with civil laws pertaining to sex, virgins, and oaths. Exodus 22:16-17 deals with the seduction of an unbetrothed virgin. It follows a long list of property violation and reimbursement laws, so I consider this a civil law rather than a moral law. In your Twenty-Four Words piece, you make the error of striking through ‘to be’ in your second infographic.

  • The commandment was given, be fruitful and multiply.
  • The law of marriage (Genesis 2:24) was given to implement the commandment.
  • The judgement of Genesis 3:16 was given and God commanded, speaking to the wife, of the husband, “he shall rule over you.”
  • The law of vows was given to implement the commandment.

A careful study of both the law of marriage and the law of vows reveals an apparent loophole, in that with the act of marriage the eligible virgin is married to the man to took her virginity.  With her marriage she is no longer under the authority of her father but now under the authority of her husband.  The father is in complete authority over his daughter and possesses the authority to sell her as a servant or concubine.   He has the authority to give her in marriage to whomever he wishes.  The law of vows gives him the authority and responsibility of reviewing all vows and agreements his daughter makes and he may annul any of them at his discretion in the day he hears of them.

The judgement of Exodus 22:16-17 resolved two issues.  The first was whether a man might seduce a woman and thereby marry her without agreeing to pay anything to her father. The reason why it might be important for the man to pay the father a bride price is irrelevant because the question before Moses was whether in the absence of any agreement, the man might avoid such payments now that he has married the woman according to the law of marriage.

Second, is the agreement the daughter made to give the man her virginity, which resulted in her marriage, subject to his review.  The answer is yes.  That means that the father can annul the marriage after the fact in the day he hears of it.

The judgment of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 resolved the question of what happens when an eligible virgin is raped.  The qualifier “if they are discovered” provides a second witness and if so they are married.  The witnesses prove the act was against the will of the daughter which means no agreement was made on her part that her father could annul.  Lacking the authority of Numbers 30:5, the father has no authority to annul the marriage and so he can’t.

As to your assumption that I erred, you are incorrect.  The strike-through (to be) is because the words “to be” are not in the original Hebrew text. They are a translator addition and the NASB puts them in italics for that reason.

“If you examine how that word is used throughout the Old Testament, you’ll see it pertains to the process of becoming a wife, not an existing wife.”

This is similar to the shop-worn argument that “dabaq” (translated as the word “cleave” in Genesis 2:24) means commitment, not sex. Because every other time “dabaq” is used it means commitment. The problem with this line of argument is that when we compare and contrast Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we see that your argument doesn’t hold up. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:29, the phrase “shall become” (shall become married) is the exact same phrase used in Genesis 2:24 where it says the two “shall become one flesh.” This is not a future action, it is imperative, a judgment of what is. It has happened. There is no other action required, nothing further to do, they are married. Note also that the word translated as “become” is just as legitimately translated as the word “be” rather than “become.”

Notice that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes the virgin not betrothed who is raped (violated). The judgment is that if they are discovered, they are married. There is no further action to take.  No other requirements are left to be fulfilled, they are married.  The same situation exists in Exodus 22:16, in which the father does not annul the marriage.  They are already married and there is no further action to take to make them any more married.  As to the dowry, consider Jacob.  He worked seven years, was tricked and got the wrong wife.  Then he received Rachel and was obligated to work another seven years after marrying her.

Also note that the emphatic construction promotes payment associated with marriage, rather than a marriage itself (contrast Deut. 22).

You take this perspective because you conflate the payment of the dowry with the act of becoming married.  They are separate.  That passage is more logically read from a practical perspective as stated above in the first part of the two issues being decided: that the man cannot seduce a woman and then claim that because he never had an agreement with the father that he doesn’t have to pay the dowry. The dowry can be a tool for the father to use, but this really isn’t about the money but rather about the authority of the father over his daughter.   Yet, this is exactly the kind of statement that leads the unwary off the path and down the Easter Bunny’s rabbit hole.

“Since sex without a covenant isn’t sufficient for marriage, there is no reason to suppose such a couple is married.”

Wow.  There is so much Jesuit mind-trick in this statement, it’s a classic for those who study this sort of chicanery.  Pure Jesuit, it’s the use of the truth to tell a lie.  Observe that the correctness of this statement, which can be both the absolute truth or a misleading falsehood, depends upon the character of the individuals involved.

  • If the woman is not a virgin but is eligible to marry, sex in and of itself is not sufficient to create a marriage and in the absence of her affirmative consent to marry the act of having sex does not create a marriage.  Such an act is only forbidden if the woman is a prostitute, but if she is not a prostitute the act is in no way forbidden regardless of the marital status of the man.  There is no sin.
  • If the woman is an eligible virgin, not encumbered by a betrothal or other restrictions by her father and the man is eligible to marry her, sex with her will positively result in the initiation of the covenant of marriage, God will unite the two as one flesh and they are married with the act of having sex.  Such an act is the consummation of their marriage and it is impossible that it is the “sin” of “premarital sex.”

I’m not saying you’re a Jesuit or any of the other flavor of Catholic apologist because you’ve already made some arguments and statements that are way off their script.  However, that last statement is the kind of thing I get from them.  Using ambiguous statements like that, ones that under certain conditions can be true but are generally false…. that’s their stock in trade.

Consider this excellent rhetorical argument:

“Premarital sex is a sin and it does not make you married, you must have the ceremony!”

There is an extremely narrow condition under which that is a true statement, which is in the case of a man who first agreed with the father of the bride on a specific period of time for the betrothal, followed by a ceremony, and then the betrothed couple had sex prior to the ceremony.  In that case, the act of violating his word (Numbers 30:2) would be the sin (the sex is not a sin because there is no prohibition) and since the woman is not eligible to marry him until the betrothal period is complete and the ceremony is accomplished, the sex with the virgin doesn’t make them married.

However, this is a condition that is so rare as to be practically non-existent today and those who make such a statement know that, as well as the fact that others define the terms in a different way.  Still, they were thinking of the condition in which it would be a true statement so they did not technically tell a lie and they can claim a clear conscience.  Simple claims that the statement is a lie will fail because there is a condition under which the statement can be true.  Such a statement is made by those who know better in order to deceive those who don’t.


Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | 22 Comments