Christian Dating Foreplay: A Requirement Today

panties

Attractive And Over 22?  Odds Are, She’s Not A Virgin

According to the CDC, the average age at which a woman in the US loses her virginity is 17.1 years of age, which means literally half of the girls are no longer a virgin within a month or so after turning 17.   By the age of 20, some  76% of them are no longer virgins and by age 22 that jumps to 86% which means there’s only 14% who are still virgins.   The virgins past that are, as a rule, either very intelligent, very ugly or have strong convictions about sex before marriage.  Those are not necessarily three separate groups.

As has been explained before, sex with an eligible virgin results in marriage.  Whether she agreed to it or not, whether she knew it or not.  That means if she’s not a virgin she’s married and no, she doesn’t know that.  So… why are you interested in some other guy’s wife?  Oh, right.  She doesn’t know she’s married and doesn’t understand how or why because she was never taught.  Someone needs to explain things.

Dating Foreplay:  Ensuring She’s No Longer Married

This is very similar to sharing the Gospel.  It may surprise you, but the vast majority of Christians have never shared the Gospel with anyone and wouldn’t know how if they tried.  If you were to ask them what the Roman’s Road was they wouldn’t know and even if they recognized it only a few would be able to explain it.  And the ones who have those 5 verses memorized?  There might be one or two in your church.  Maybe.   And it’s so simple, all it takes is being able to do napkin theology:

napkintheologyThink of this as a strange form of missionary dating, because this is your reality.  If you’re a Christian man who wants to get married you will have to deal with this because the likelihood of meeting a virgin over the age of 25 that you would want to marry is slim.  Very slim.

Sharing the gospel takes practice if you’re going to be effective.  You have to know your material, cold, and have the verses memorized.  You know, like you actually care enough to memorize it?

It’s the same thing with Dating Foreplay.  Part of the problem with sharing the Gospel is it can be difficult for someone to recognize their condition and be able to confess being a sinner.  Even more difficult is handling the issue of the woman not being a virgin (translation:  YOU SLUT!) and on top of that being an adulteress.   Prepare and understand what this is all about, because it isn’t a virgin vs whore paradigm, it’s an eligible vs ineligible paradigm.   The problem with the woman who isn’t a virgin is that except for rare exceptions, she’s married, doesn’t know it, never agreed to it and doesn’t want it.  That’s a problem and the first part is similar to a doctor telling a patient they have cancer: their first reaction is to refuse to believe it.

The explicit instruction of Genesis 2:24 is that for a man, the act of inserting his penis in a woman’s vagina is both his consent and his commitment to marry her.  Every time.   This gets interesting because the Bible does not restrict a man to a single wife, anywhere.   Men marry a woman with the act of sex and are not restricted to a single marriage, which is why there is not a single passage in Scripture that prohibits a man from having sex with any eligible woman, except one.  Just one.  That’s 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, which forbids a Christian man from having sex with a prostitute.

Virgins don’t have agency, which is a nice way of saying that according to the Bible their consent is irrelevant to being married.  The proof of that is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that raping a virgin results in marriage to her.   But what happens if an eligible woman is not a virgin?  She has agency, which means her consent is required in order to marry her.   Her consent to have sex is NOT her consent to marry, it’s just sex, it’s not prohibited and it’s not a sin.

If you try to explain that to the average woman …  you’ll see something like this:

shock

Everything in this post hinges on her father being alive because if her father isn’t alive it’s a much different problem- at that point getting out of the marriage depends on her husband being a non-Christian.  That gets complicated quickly and isn’t something that can be dealt with by a single phone call and her father saying seven words.

Keep in mind that the fastest way to destroy a woman’s attraction to you is to share the Gospel with her.  With Christian women, as a rule her attraction toward you DIES as soon as you seriously talk about what the Bible says because of the twin issues of guilt and judgment.  This is because she’s been taught that all the erotic things she’s been thinking about doing with you are WRONG and she doesn’t want to be judged.   The truth of what the Bible says contradicts everything she’s ever been taught, but her parents, pastor and teachers will all tell her  this is crazy and they’ll preach the party line.  What to do?

You Must Seduce Her

The irony in this is off the scale, because you’re flipping the script on Satan.  Your most powerful ally will be her rationalizing hamster and her solipsism will take care of the rest.

Build attraction, comfort, more attraction and at some point this has to be presented as something of a compliance test.  If she’s attracted she’ll play along but if she’s not prepared, somewhere around half-way to three-quarters of the way through she’ll get really nervous.  Which is why you have to prepare her.  Alcohol is also useful, but only in moderation.

The preparation starts with what falls in the realm of “conspiracy theory” and there are a lot of good ones.  One example you can tie in with all the crazy political stuff today:

Did you know there was a plot to overthrow the US government during the great depression?  It’s true.  General Smedley Butler was picked to lead a force of US veterans to take over, but he contacted the authorities and shut it down.   It was a group of the richest and most powerful men in the country, who believed those in charge were destroying the country.  They were so powerful that nothing was done and the history books hardly even mention it.

The place you’re going with this is all the crazy stuff the Catholic church teaches and it’s a target rich environment.  The simple truth is the church claims the Pope is infallible and they can’t admit they were ever wrong about anything, no matter how crazy it is.  With a good foundation laid, start with something along the lines of

“The whole “sex doesn’t make you married, there has to be a ceremony” thing?  That was something the church made up and used during their war on the nobility back in the middle ages.  What the Bible actually says is that a woman is married to the guy who took her virginity, whether she knew it or not.  But the thing is, God knew girls would get seduced and He gave them a way to end it with seven words.  But churches today won’t mention that stuff because then they’d have to admit almost everything they teach about sex and marriage is wrong and it’s possible to have sex outside marriage and not be in sin.  They’d rather have most people in the church living in adultery than admit to that.”

Keep in mind you are talking to an adulteress.  If she’s not willing to deal with that by asking her father to annul the marriage, your only legitimate response is “Next!” and move on.  If she’s teachable, proceed.  Again, I approach this from the standpoint that you’re a Christian man and you’re interested in marriage and family.  This is a deal-breaker, right up front.  It’s like an STD with a 1-shot cure.  If she’s in denial and won’t take the cure, they only thing you can do is walk away.

 

Two Keys To Understanding

The first is the fact that yes, sex does make you married.  The easiest “cut to the chase” way of explaining this is to use the New Testament to interpret exactly what the Old Testament said back in Genesis 2:24.

comments 51The second is that her father has the authority to annul her marriage because he didn’t give his approval beforehand.  But, and this is important, only if she did it when she was in her youth living in his house.  That boils down to being under his authority, not having “left home” so going to college on his dime still counts in terms of being under his authority.

There is a progression here, first one has to understand that yes, sex with a virgin does make her married to the guy who did it.  THEN we go to Numbers 30:3-5

“Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand.  But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.”

I’ve never been asked if that authority extended to getting married, verse five seems to be enough.  However, the point of the text is that it refers to a vow to the Lord.  Obviously a vow to the Lord is of more consequence than a vow to your neighbor, so if the father has the authority to annul a vow to the Lord then he has the authority to annul a vow to anyone else.  And if the Lord forgives her because her father has forbidden it, everyone else must forgive her as well.  Her father has forbidden it.

Still, the question might come up as to whether the father has the authority to annul her marriage to a man in the day he hears about it (which would always be after the fact) and Scripture definitively answers that question.  In Exodus 22:16-17 we have the situation in which a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged (she’s eligible to marry) and has sex with her.   Nobody questions the fact that according to Genesis 2:24 they are married, but her father has something to say about that.  In verse 16 the father doesn’t object to their marriage, which is why she’s referred to as his wife.  In verse 17, her father refuses, annulling her marriage and they are no longer married.

Then we have the situation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which the woman was raped.  If they were discovered, meaning there is witness to the fact she did not agree, they are married.  Nothing is said about what happens if they are not discovered and in that situation the father decides the issue.  Perhaps she did agree.

At any rate, the only way her father can’t annul the marriage is if she were discovered being raped.  That’s important because of the number of women today who claim to have been raped as children and the issues surrounding that.  Oh- and that means two or more witnesses, one isn’t enough.

These two points are not difficult to comprehend, but dealing with the idea that as far as God is concerned… she’s married…  that’s difficult for her to wrap her head around both intellectually and emotionally.  However, the point is that it’s a problem that can be fixed and now all she needs is some encouragement to get the problem fixed.

The Action That Must Be Taken

It doesn’t matter what her father believes, it doesn’t matter what he knows, Scripture says that if he forbids it in the day he hears of it, her marriage is over.  Seven words.

I Forbid Your Marriage To ______  _______

If her father is a Christian (and probably even if he isn’t) then I can say with a good deal of certainty that he didn’t want her to have sex before she got married.  Yes, she was married the moment she had sex, but the point is her father wanted that marriage to be one she wanted and walked into with her eyes wide open.  Not one entered into in ignorance.

What does it cost him to say those words?  Nothing.

“Dad, I’m going to ask you to do something for me, and it’s really important to me.  It’s more important than you can imagine.  I want you to tell me I can’t marry ______  _____.  Seriously, I want you to say “I forbid your marriage to ______  ______.”  Will you do that for me?   Will you say that and mean it?”

I find it hard to believe any father in this day and age would refuse.  He will no doubt be curious, but even if they have a bad relationship, he will say the words.  After that, she needs to ask his forgiveness because when she gave that guy her virginity it was an act of rebellion against him.  She may not be able to do so, but if she can then it will be the beginning of healing in their relationship.  Healing neither of them may have known they need.

For any married men, don’t do this.   If you’re married, go directly to your father-in-law and deal with him yourself.  There are a lot of reasons for that, but if you have any trouble in your marriage you don’t need your wife suddenly being morally turned loose.  “What?  We were never married?  Yippee!”  And that’s just the beginning.  Are you previously divorced?  Want to try explaining to your wife that her “divorced” Christian husband is still married to his 1st wife and she’s wife #2?   I will cover dealing with this subject within the context of already being married in a later post.  Right now I simply don’t have any data to rely on.

And one other thing.  This issue is more explosive than any I can think of and in a situation in which nobody likes the message and it really can’t be argued with, as a rule the messenger gets shot.  Or churches split when an ambitious young leader sees the opportunity to develop his own niche.  Sorry, when he develops a conviction about it.

Putting It All In Context

After her talk with her father, you may find she has a need to confess.  She has a need to confess because what she really needs is forgiveness and absolution.   Deal with it, because by the time this is over you will have an emotionally intimate relationship.  You might find a little prodding helps:  “Anything else you want to get off your chest while you’re in confession mode?”  If she feels comfortable (meaning you’re not giving her a judgmental vibe) she will and you’ll get to listen to it, make appropriate noises and give her the restoration she needs.

Now she needs to understand the position she’s in.  She’s not a virgin and she’s not married.  She will never again be married without knowing it because she now has to give her consent before she can be married.  So, if she has sex with an eligible man it’s just sex, it’s not prohibited and it isn’t a sin.  There isn’t any obligation and she isn’t married until she agrees to marry, but that was also the last time her father can annul her marriage.  Because she’s no longer in her youth and living in his house.

Foreplay is now complete, she is eligible to marry.  She’s not a virgin so that means if you two want to give sex a test drive you can, but be careful.  What I’ve just described can be a very emotionally bonding experience and if you drop sexual intimacy into that mix you may be setting yourself up for some serious pain.  Because hypergamy doesn’t care and she may decide to take a few guilt-free rides on the carousel.   On the other hand, you have your conscience to deal with and your conscience might let you know it would be wrong to have sex with her, even though it’s not prohibited.  Or you may be convicted the right thing to do is remain chaste.  If that’s the case then it’s sin for you to have sex with her.

As far as the pain goes, you don’t know how she will process this and it may not go the way you think.  But, at the end of the day, what alternative do you have?  You do your part and let the Lord do His part.  Even if she goes off the deep end she’s no longer in adultery and she’s better off because of you.

save a virgin

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Polygyny And The Beta Apocalypse Fantasy

Richard_Francis_Burton_by_Rischgitz,_1864

Sir Richard Burton, 1864

Recent commenter Birchwood brought up a standard argument against polygyny and brought home the fact that this blog has not addressed it.  Given that it’s an argument often made, it will be addressed now.

The argument is given that we see an almost equal number of boys and girls born, therefore any arrangement of polygyny would result in a significant number of men who would not be able to marry, to the detriment of society.  For this reason polygyny cannot be allowed, for it will be the trigger event that brings about the beta apocalypse in which the betas (low deltas, gammas and omegas) rise up against society because of their anger over not getting a wife as they deserve.

The argument is as false as its assumptions and more of a fear-fueled fantasy than an argument.  I will start by quoting Sir Richard Francis Burton (pictured above) in his comments to the Anthropological Society of London, published in Volume II in 1864.  It should be noted that Sir Richard and Dr. Hunt jointly founded the Anthropological Society and he was the senior Vice President.  The subject at hand was a discussion of the negro race, which devolved to a discussion of the disastrous job the English missionaries were doing in Africa.  In fact, some gentlemen of the society raised the question of whether the church ought to find out why the Muslims were so much more successful at evangelizing the natives of Africa than Christians.  In the course of that discussion Mr. Reade made certain remarks about polygyny which were objected to by certain other gentlemen of the society, such as M. Schon and Mr. Owen.

Mr. Reade, versus M. Schon, is not solitary in holding that the African is benefited by polygamy, which I admire to see characterised by Mr. Owen as an ” unnatural institution.” One would think he is speaking of the peculiarities which the Christian Greeks taught the heathen Turks. Polygamy, the practice of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the ancestors of the Founder of Christianity, who came from a peculiarly polygamic family—polygamy unnatural ! The force of prejudice and pharisaism can hardly go further than this.

Of course, in polygamy, few men have more than one wife. But why repeat the trite old trash of strong- brained and hard-headed Paley about the superior prolificacy of monogamy ? I am weary of recounting the rule, and thought that my City of the Saints* had to a certain extent established it. But I must do it again for the benefit of Mr. Owen. In monogamy, ours for instance, there is a slight preponderance of male births ; in polygamy female births become greatly in excess ; in polyandry male births are enormously numerous, as many, for instance, as 400 boys to 120 girls.** We sometimes read that polygamic lands are thinly populated : true, but it is their population which causes polygamy, not vice versd. Moreover the two most populous empires in the world, China and Japan, are eminently polygamic.

Mr. Reade is perfectly right in stating that in Africa wives are furious at the abolition of polygamy. The Church of England missionaries at Abeokuta actually unmarried many converts’ wives and remarried them to others. This is a power to bind and to loose with a witness. Anything more degrading to the woman I cannot imagine. Mormon girls often refuse to ” nigger it with a one-wife-man,” and perhaps they are not wrong. In polygamic countries of course there are many scandalous tales about polygamy, so there are in monogamic England about the mother-in-law. But it remains for the monogamist on the West Coast of Africa to poison a sister-in-law *** by way of concealing his and her shame, and to be removed from his mission without other penalty for the slight offence.

* See “City of the Saints” by RF Burton (1862), an account of his visit to the Mormons in Utah, wherein he recounts his observations of the increased birth of females over males in polygynous households there as well as in the Far East.

**   See “Hunting in the Himalayas”, by R. H. W. Dunlop, C.B., B.C.S., F.R.G.S. London : Richard Bentley, 1860. That well known and experienced English official has published the results of personal observation; and he wisely remarks that he ” gives more weight to natures adaptability to national habit, than to the possibility of infanticide.”

**   Sir Richard was the British Consul in Bioko when the incident he refers to occurred in West Africa.  An English missionary committed adultery with his sister-in-law and she became pregnant.  Her husband, in England, could not possibly have fathered the child so the missionary poisoned her to prevent scandal.  He was not charged with the murder although it was not a secret, rather, he was removed from his office in Africa and sent elsewhere.

What Sir Richard quoted from “Hunting in the Himalayas” is this:

Hunting in the HimlayasSir Richard led a rather interesting life and given his time in Africa and other places around the world, he was qualified to make those comments. However, he was no mere traveler but rather a man who had an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and understanding. He didn’t just visit a place, he learned all he could about it, took extensive notes and later wrote about his experiences.

The specific reference to Dunlop’s observation was notably in reference to his commentary on polyandry, which is historically extremely rare. It was well known to these men that the birth rate of girls in polygynous families is far higher than that generally found in a monogamist societies yet this is completely overlooked by scholars today.

The modern data from the National Child Development Study offers support to this: “fathers over the age of 40 are significantly less likely to have sons, with the proportion of sons at .3592” . Given that polygyny is often characterized by successful men taking younger additional wives as they get older it is reasonable to see a biological mechanism at work to ensure an adequate supply of females in a society that accepts polygyny, which negates the arguments of “men won’t have wives!”

That’s just to get started. The study of game teaches us that only certain men have the ability to attract multiple women who are willing to share him. A reliable indicator is the threesome. If a man cannot get multiple women in his bed he can’t get multiple women into his marriage. Observationally that’s less than 10% of the men, but let’s call it 10%. In looking at both historical and modern examples of polygyny, we find is that over 90% of polygynous marriages have only 2 wives.

If only 10% of the men can get a polygynous marriage, then in general only 20% of the women will be taken off the market by that 10% of the men. And this assumes the entire 10% of men actually would do so, but life doesn’t work that way. Observe that this matches what Sir Richard said 152 years ago: “Of course, in polygamy, few men have more than one wife.” Not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

Even when the society accepts and allows polygyny, only a few men have more than one wife. Think about that. Unless we have a system of slavery, men must necessarily get women to agree to a polygynous marriage and share him. As a rule, that only happens if he’s a very attractive man and women determine who is attractive and who isn’t.

The idea that if polygyny were “allowed” that women would be snapped up in harems and many men would not be able to find wives is a ludicrous fantasy of men who don’t understand women. Especially low-ranking men who would love to have multiple wives as sexual partners but could never manage to do so. On one hand they know that if they could they would and on the other they fear if it were reality they would not have a wife at all. The entire fantasy is just that: a fantasy. However, the reason why has very little to do with the men.

The idea monogamy is best and the egalitarian availability of women somehow produces strong societies is just as much a fantasy as the idea that almost any man could have more than one wife if he were only allowed to do so. This fantasy is rooted in the concept of assortive mating.

If one were to put a random sample of 100 single women together with 100 single men, the idea of assortive mating is that they’d all pair off, like with like. The idea assortive mating occurs naturally is preposterous because it only happens when a rigid social construct of commitment forces it. 75 years ago when such a rigid social construct existed, the most attractive men paired off with the most attractive women and took themselves off the market. Then the most attractive of those left paired off the most attractive of what was left and they left the market. Rinse and repeat, down to the last quintile. Here we find that the 20% of the women left refuse to marry the men in the lowest 20%. Those men are left out in the cold, not by their choice but by the women.

Parretto’s Law Applied To Women

In today’s culture with no social requirement for commitment, we can put the same 100 men and 100 women together and reliably about 70% of the women will pursue and willingly share 20% of the men. The 20% who are most attractive. Attractive, in this case, doesn’t just mean looks. I like Donal Graeme’s LAMPS model in describing male attractiveness to women: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status; power being the most important.

Today, attractive men won’t commit because there’s no point. Women are interchangeable and there are always more of them, so why commit to any one of them? At the same time, women are being told to spend the years of their greatest fertility and energy chasing cock rather than settling down and chasing children. We see the effect of this as the average age of marriage continues to climb and currently some 70% of the men between the ages of 25 and 34 are not married. There should be a loud alarm ringing somewhere, but there isn’t.

In addition to the trend of women being encouraged to not get married until their fertility is already in decline, we see a similar trend in men: MGTOW (Men Go Their Own Way). These are the men who have foresworn the idea of getting married because of the incredibly high risks for the man in marriage.

Consider what happens if 10% of the men who are able to garner a polygynous marriage take the top 20% of the women off the market. That leaves 90% of the men and 80% of the women, which has the effect of promoting 10% of the women. The effect at the top isn’t much, but it’s very important at the lower end because that bottom 20% of the men still aren’t going to manage to get a wife. This means 80% of the women are in competition for 70% of the men and this actually results in more women being married than under the old rules of rigidly enforced commitment. And, yes, the bottom portion of men still lose. Just like they always did.

The solution for men is to not be a low-value man, rather, work to become a high-value man that women are attracted to.

Can He? Yes. Will He? Probably Not.

The marriage standard exemplified by Genesis 2:24 is that the husband’s commitment is permanent but non-exclusive. When a woman is cognizant of that and she works from that perspective, monogamy works. She doesn’t have a monopoly and she knows it. The thing is, she doesn’t want to share him but she knows that it’s a possibility, which is a form of accountability because her husband has the right to say “Next!” That doesn’t mean she’s cast off, because she’s still married; it means she will have competition for his attention in her home.

As already pointed out, some men are of such high value that women will willingly enter a relationship knowing they will be sharing him. Some of these men choose to settle down with one wife, others refuse to get married and instead engage in long-term relationships with multiple women. Given our culture, very few would even consider a marriage to multiple women but it happens from time to time.

Keep in mind though, women look for different things at different points in their lives. When they’re young and at the height of their fertility they place a greater premium on alpha dominance, later as they’re hitting the wall they place a greater value on provisioning. Rare is the young man who can manage a polygynous marriage to young women, but as these same women get older they become more willing to share a husband in return for greater provisioning.

We are talking about high-value men and the fact that it’s the women who determine their value.  Instead of complaining that one is not a high-value man, the better solution is to become a man of high value.  In general, what would that take?  That begs the question of what women are attracted to, which is where this all began in the PUA community decades ago.

Becoming High Value

Confidence.   Observably, women love a confident and self-assured man.  In what follows, the things described are often cited as things women are attracted to, except that they are not.  Just as women will say they’re attracted to men who are honest, loyal, faithful, kind and caring, the truth is they are not attracted to those character traits so much as they want to see those character traits in an attractive man.  Bodybuilding, strength training, martial arts training and economic security all go hand-in-hand to build a man’s confidence.  Learning game teaches how to develop and frame that confidence to make one very appealing as a high-value man.

Physical Appearance.  There isn’t much one can do about one’s height, hair (male pattern baldness), or race.  Nor can anything really be done about serious physical defects which are either congenital or from injuries other than to do one’s best.  However, that said, there is nothing to stop a man from taking control of his physique.  Hit the gym, adjust the diet and do the work necessary.  I’ve never advocated steroid usage due to the side effects, but for some men I would advocate the use of SARM’s (Specific Androgenic Receptor Modulators).  This is a new class of drugs which provide many benefits such as stimulating the production of growth hormone, ease of weight loss and steroid-like performance enhancement in terms of muscle growth.  Without the side effects of steroids.  In a few cases I’ve watched in amazement as the fat shrunk off while the muscle mass piled on.  In an amazingly short amount of time.

Look around at how many men over the age of 25 have a visible 6-pack and a muscular physique.  It isn’t that uncommon.  What percentage of men over the age of 30?  Now there’s not nearly as many.  By the time 35 hits?   It’s rare.   The answer has a lot to do with geography because in most areas men put on a few pounds every year.  It’s true that in some places the competition is fierce.  The men are tall, good looking, muscular, many of them cage-fighters and their game is tight.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that they compete in other areas as well.   In other areas, the competition isn’t nearly as tough but there are still plenty of good-looking women available.

Physical Abilities.  In addition to building the body, a man needs to be capable of fighting effectively- which requires training.  If only one style were to be learned, make it Brazilian Jui Jitsu (BJJ) because as they say, sooner or later the fight always goes to the ground.  A second style to complement the BJJ would be boxing or Muay Thai kickboxing.  It goes without saying that in learning these skills one has to fight, and fighting is good.  After you’ve been punched in the face a few times, you realize that while it hurts it isn’t something to be frightened of.  And wear your wounds with pride, they set you apart as a man who fights.  A man who is confident of his ability to defend himself.  Learning to fight has an amazing effect on a man’s confidence.

Game.  The importance of learning Game cannot be overstated.  If it had to be summed up, Game could be called learned charisma.  Mostly it is an attitude adjustment that, done correctly, gives you the attitude of a ruler, not that of a serf.  You, sir, are the prize that she should be working for.  Chase women?  No, they should be chasing you, because you are the prize.  While the study of Game came out of the PUA community, the guys who did the hard and heavy lifting, Game is no longer a PUA thing.

A basic primer for understanding women in the socio-sexual environment is “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi.  The sequel, “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” is equally well-worth reading (I’m recommending, not pimping- I don’t get any commissions here).  Rollo’s blog is free and also a great resource.  Another must-read book is “The Book of Pook” because if one compares the Book of Pook to the Rational Male, the evolution of the study of Game can be seen easily.

Real Social Dynamics is an example of “PUA” teachers who exemplify the progression from a focus years ago on outlandish behavior and pick-up lines to a focus on female behavior patterns and male attitude today.    About 8 years ago RSD gave the “Blueprint Decoded” seminar that really marked the turning point from “classic” PUA to what we’re seeing today.  There are two main YouTube channels, one for Tyler and the other for Julian. The RSD website has lots of articles and videos as well and if you want to learn, the information is here.

While the target market is still centered on men who want to be successful with women, what they’re teaching has broad application in many facets of life.  Consider that most HR departments are staffed by women and they frequently run job interviews.   There is more and more evidence that job interviews today are more like “get to know you” dates than interviews.

Economic Success and Provisioning. Simply put, an attractive man with a good (disposable) income and good prospects for a higher (disposable) income is better than an attractive man without much disposable income.  This becomes more apparent as women age, but that is a separate discussion.  There is absolutely no reason a young man can’t get into a good field and be making money within a few years if he’s willing to work at it.  Of course, as the years go by it becomes more difficult and the results of bad decisions can wreck your life.  Two big ones are child support payments and student loans.  Neither of these can be bankrupted away and while not paying on student loans might have nasty consequences, not paying child support can and will get you jailed.

Contrary to popular belief, unless pursuing a specific field such as STEM, going to college doesn’t do much for you.  The problem is that it’s a great credential and many jobs require a college degree (any degree), so do it as cheaply as possible.  The best current option is the University of the People, a fully accredited online university that doesn’t charge tuition.  There is a fee for taking the final exam in each course, but at $100 per final, one can have that diploma for about $5,000 or so.  And since the fees for exams only come due when you’re ready to take them that means the payments are spread out.  No need for loans.

All of the things I’ve just mentioned can and do build a man’s confidence, but it’s the study of Game that really makes you stand out in terms of being an attractive man.   The truth is that most men could do this but the vast majority will not.  It is your character that will move you forward from there.

Yes, women really do want kind, decent, honest, loyal men, but they want those men to be attractive.  If you want it, do the work to make it happen.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny | Tagged , , , , , | 17 Comments

The Lie That Caused The Adultery Epidemic

tradition-crest

“Sex doesn’t make you married.  There must be a ceremony!”

They say you can’t fight tradition and of all the things I’ve written about, the one thing that gets the most negative response is stating that under certain conditions just having sex, regardless of intentions, can and will make the two married.  “Sex makes you married” flies in the face of over a thousand years of churchian lies, in which the Easter Bunny claims sex does not make one married, that a marriage requires a ceremony of some sort or another officiated by a third party.  He says that any sex before an official wedding ceremony is “fornication” or “premarital sex” and a woman who does that kind of thing is a harlot.

This is the most important issue I’ve written about and according to the Bible, my critics are wrong.  In some cases it’s tradition-driven ignorance and in other cases it’s willful disbelief, some having their heads up their asses, refusing to look at the Scriptures, while others know the truth but choose to support a lie.  Because the Easter Bunny said so and they don’t want to make anyone upset.  Especially the adulterous wenches in the church.  The ones they’re married to.

The truth is that for a virgin who is not formally engaged, having sex with an eligible man (not incest or ineligible because of a betrothal contract) means she is married to that man.   His intent is irrelevant because for a man the act of having sex is to demonstrate his commitment to marry and to consummate the marriage at the same time.  It’s the same as signing a contract to buy a car.  His commitment to purchase and the actual purchase of the car takes place with the single act of signing the contract.  According to the Bible, the virgins intent and consent to marry is completely irrelevant and it doesn’t matter whether she consents or not.

conned about marriageYes, ladies, you married the guy you gave your virginity to.

Since this is so contrary to tradition, I’m going to demonstrate what the Bible actually says and why it means that for a virgin, sex does make you married.  You may not like it (probably won’t) but God didn’t ask your opinion on this.  As Scripture says, “does the pot speak back to the potter?”  If that’s the case you either don’t believe He has the right to order your life His way, or you don’t believe this is what He said.  I’ll first lay out what Scripture says, then I’ll explain the lies the church has told.

The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) is pretty straight-forward if you know what you’re looking at.  The problem is looking at what the words say and getting what the words mean in order to understand.  In order to do this we have to interpret Scripture with Scripture.  The following graphic explains what is really happening.

comments 50

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”

Genesis 2:24 has just 24 words.  Leaving his father and mother is a status change, in that he is no longer under the authority of his father and mother as part of his father’s household, he is setting up his own household in which he will be in authority over his wife.

The thing everyone has trouble with is “shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” and the question is what that actually means.  Beginning about 1500 years ago, the Easter Bunny (he really hates sex and sexual pleasure) decided that contrary to what the Bible says, marriage was just a commitment and the commitment should be separated as far from the sexual aspects of marriage as possible.  He made the claim that the “shall cleave” portion of Genesis 2:24 meant the couple was to have a public ceremony blessed by the church in front of witnesses and redefined the “shall become one flesh” to be the sex part that happened only after the ceremony.

1881472107_10fa028611Almost all Christians believe the Easter Bunny teaching and they don’t understand what the Bible says because “everybody knows” there has to be a ceremony.  There are laws that require a ceremony (although very few understand those laws are nothing but polite suggestions).  The point is “everybody knows” so why study it?  So, they don’t and they don’t and they believe a lie.  The Easter Bunny’s minions think that’s hilarious.

The Easter Bunny lied and the church has been teaching lies for well over a thousand years in this area.  We know this because in Matthew 19:6, Jesus said “they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”  That clearly indicates the “shall become one flesh” is an action by God, not the man, which means the only place for the sex is in the “shall cleave” part.   The Easter Bunny says no, that’s not true.  The “cleave” part is the commitment and the “become one flesh” is the sex that takes place after the ceremony and God takes care of making them one flesh.  However, in studying the text we know he’s lying.  It still amazes me people even believe in the Easter Bunny..

Words Mean Things

Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-9.  The Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for “cleave” is Strong’s 2853 and in 1st Corinthians 6:16 the Apostle Paul used the same word (“kollaó”) for the act of “cleaving” to a whore.  In that passage Paul was saying not to “cleave” to a whore because that was how the man became “one flesh” with her and Paul then quoted from Genesis 2:24 saying “For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”  From that we know the Hebrew word dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24 to mean sex, but it also had the meaning of commitment.  Put together it meant that the man was demonstrating his commitment by having sex with her.  His intent is irrelevant, because to have sex with a woman is the act of marrying her that demonstrates his commitment to do so.

comments 51

Isn’t it neat how Scripture interprets Scripture?  The Apostle Paul not only told us that the Hebrew word “dabaq” used in Genesis 2:24 meant sex, but he also made it clear that the sex came before the becoming one flesh.  The sex only makes the couple “one body” while God makes them one flesh.  And yes, he used both phrases (“one body” and “one flesh”) in the same verse and he knew exactly what he was saying.

But, what about the ceremony?  Doesn’t there have to be a ceremony?  Don’t people who desire to marry have to stand up in front of witnesses and make a public commitment?  The answer is no.  We know this because of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.   The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife.   Because he has violated her he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

There are two things here that must be pointed out.  First is the act itself is rape and there is no difference whether they know each other or whether they are complete strangers.  It doesn’t matter if the man is already married or not.  The point is she was raped (violated).  She did not consent or agree to the sex and that fact is evident because they were discovered while she was being raped.  The reason this is important is because Numbers 30:3-5 gives the father the right to annul any agreement his daughter makes when he hears of it (after the fact), which annuls any obligations arising out of that agreement.  If the evidence (they were discovered) indicates she did not agree, the she made no agreement her father could annul and thus they are married.  She “shall be” his wife.

This really bothers people a lot, because it is saying  a woman is married to her rapist by the act of being forced to have sex.  Quite literally, sex makes the virgin married whether she wants it or not.  This bothers people so much they spend a lot of time trying to explain that the woman was not raped, when the passage clearly says she was “violated” and that same word is used to describe what happened when Amnon raped his sister Tamar, when Shechem raped Dinah and when the Levite’s concubine was raped to death.  It also describes the rape and seduction of a virgin who is betrothed just 4 verses prior to that.  When used in a sexual sense, the word describes either rape, rape/adultery or rape/incest.   Not only does sex with a virgin mean you’ve married her, it means you’ve married her even if you rape her.

But, they can’t let it go and say, “Ok, she got raped, but they’re still not married!  That passage says she ‘must become’ or ‘shall become’ his wife.  That means they aren’t married yet because they haven’t had the ceremony!!”

Sigh.  No, the phrase in the text “must become” (other translations say “shall become”) is the same phrase used in Genesis 2:24 where it says “the two shall become one flesh.”  The same phrase used for the same act and it should be taken the same way.  The two shall become one flesh when they consummate the marriage and thus with no way for the father to annul the marriage, she shall be his wife when they have sex.  There is nothing left to do.  If you notice, when looking at the Hebrew you’ll see the plain English translation is “she shall be” is used instead of “she shall become” his wife.  There is no ceremony required or needed, there is nothing left for them to do, she is his wife.

And that upsets a lot of people. So much so that they try to disguise this.

We also see this in the only other passage on the initiation of marriage, Exodus 22:16-17.  That was a case in which the girl did make an agreement (she was seduced, which means she willing engaged in the act of marriage) and so her father had the option of annulling the marriage (again, after the fact).  In verse 16, the father does not annul the marriage and in verse 17 he does annul the marriage.  Notice:

16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. [The father does not annul the marriage]

17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.  [The father annuls the marriage]

In verse 16 the translators added the words “to be” that aren’t in the text to give the indication that they aren’t married yet (you can see this on the linked page, the added words are in brackets).   However, the text actually said he has to pay a dowry for her, his wife.  They are married, there is nothing left to do, she’s his wife and there obviously hasn’t been any ceremony.

In verse 17 there is added confusion because the English phrase used is “to give her” when a better word rather than “give” is yield, allow, permit or deliver.  All of these words are used to translate the Hebrew word nathan” (Strong’s H5414).  A better reading of the text in light of Numbers 30:5 would be “If her father absolutely refuses to deliver her” which reflects the fact they are married.  But, the Easter Bunny doesn’t like that because he says there has to be a ceremony.  And his minions were in charge of translating Scripture for over 1000 years.  Isn’t it amazing how this works out?

As we’ve just seen in both Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, sex is what makes the two married, which is exactly what Genesis 2:24 said.  In 1st Corinthians 6:16 we discover that the Hebrew word “dabaq” that gets translated into English as “cleave” or “joined” in Genesis 2:24 actually means sex.  There is no ceremony and nobody has to preside over anything or solemnize anything, all that’s required is sex… and that’s the problem.  Yes, the problem is that it’s so easy to get married that people have been struggling with this for thousands of years to throw in all kinds of other requirements to make it harder to get married.  For hundreds of years the Easter Bunny made it practically impossible to get married without violating his rules.

 

Which Leads Us To The Epidemic Of Adultery

Genesis 2:24 only has a single tangible act necessary to produce marriage and that’s sex.  That means virtually all women are virgins when they marry because they are married when they lose their virginity.  What do you call it when a woman has sex with a man who isn’t her husband?  Adultery.  What do you call her when she is joined to (“marries”) a man who is not her husband?  An adulteress.

If the statistics from the CDC and other organizations are to be believed, that means that somewhere around 90% of all couples in church today are living in adultery because the woman was already married when she joined herself with the man she calls her husband.  Because she married the man she gave her virginity to.

No-one likes that.  At all.  And virtually ever single one of those women can tell you exactly who they married because they remember their wedding in great detail.  They can tell you where and when and under what circumstances it happened.  They remember just about everything about it except for one critical detail:  they don’t remember it as their wedding because they didn’t know they were marrying the guy.  They didn’t know it, but God does.

 

How The Easter Bunny Lies About Sex With The Truth

easter bunny sm

“If you have sex before the wedding ceremony, you are fornicating, having premarital sex.  That sex before the ceremony will not make you married and it’s a sin.”

There is one particular condition under which that is true, but premarital sex exists and will not make the couple married under that condition.  Remember, a broken clock is still right twice a day.  Having sex with a virgin will not make you married and is “only” premarital sex if the couple is engaged to be married and has voluntarily agreed they will not have sex until the wedding day.  The thing is, it’s voluntary, not required.  Numbers 30:2 says that if a man makes an agreement he must keep it.  If a father (who is in authority over his daughter) makes an agreement concerning her it is binding on her.

If a man negotiates a marital contract with the girl’s father that calls for a betrothal period followed by a celebration/ceremony in which the father pronounces an end to the betrothal period and releases them to be married, while it is completely voluntary… once the agreement is made… it is binding.  If that agreement is violated it’s a sin.

So, if the engaged couple has sex during the betrothal period, they are literally having premarital sex because they have not yet arrived at their wedding date.  Because the girl is not eligible to marry until the day set certain in the contract, having sex with her will not cause them to be married.  The act of sex itself is not a sin, but because the man is violating his word to wait until the end of the betrothal period.  However, if the woman is not a virgin because some other man got her virginity, it isn’t premarital sex, it’s adultery.

That is the only way “premarital sex” exists and in the absence of a wedding contract there is no such thing as premarital sex because no marriage date has been set- and in the absence of that (assuming the girl is a virgin) having sex will make them married.  So, when someone from the church says, generally, that sex before marriage is premarital sex and the sex will not make you married, they are literally telling the truth… but not the whole truth.  You must be careful because the Easter Bunny loves to tell lies using the truth, just not the whole truth.

Ironically, this is not just the only way “premarital sex” can happen, but under these conditions when the “premarital sex” is actually real, nobody cares.  After all, they’re about to get married…

 

BONUS:  The Most Idiotic “Biblical” Explanation Of Why
Sex Won’t Make You Married That You’ll Ever See.

Over at Keoni Gault’s blog, “Avraham” said:

AT thinks sex with a girl makes one married. This is not true. Otherwise how could many people in the Bible have concubines that were not wives. Start with Lemech. Then Abraham. Then the friend of Joshua, Calev Ben Yefuna. His wives and girl friends were at least two each. Chronicles ch 2 verse 46.  To be married one needs to acquire the wife with two witnesses.

Who told you they weren’t wives, Avraham?  Exodus 21:10 instructs us that concubines have conjugal rights.  How does a woman get conjugal rights without being a wife (have you checked the definition of “conjugal rights” recently)?  Being a concubine describes a status issue- that the wife is not free but a slave.  Wives are bound by marriage, concubines are wives who are owned as property but they still have rights.

על כל דבר ערוה every matter involving sexual relationships needs two witnesses. That is anything related to the עריות requires two witnesses. על פי שני עדים יקום דבר   “Any matter shall stand on two witnesses.” Thus acquiring a wife is not the same as acquiring property. One needs to acquire her in front of two witnesses for the sake of marriage. This is clear in the Bible. Otherwise there could never be a girl friend concubine. This is obvious to anyone who has spend any time learning the Bible seriously AT has simply read a few verses out of context and spun a web out of them.

[Seriously, I don’t know where these people come from but you cannot make this stuff up-  Toad]

Notice there is no citation for where his brilliance comes from.  However, he throws some Hebrew text in there in an attempt to look smart (but do click on the first two links to see what they mean- it’s way too good to pass up).    The Law does indeed require two or more witnesses to resolve a matter, but it isn’t what Avraham thinks.  However, let’s not take my word for this, see what Scripture actually says about the two witnesses thing by reading Deuteronomy 17:6 for yourself:

“On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”

What about Deuteronomy 19:15?

“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”

Perhaps in the world “Avraham” lives on marriage is defined as something to do with incest, which requires a death sentence; or perhaps something pertaining to lewdness that would be iniquity and sin.  Obviously, on Avraham’s world it requires two or more witnesses so the man can’t deny it at a later date.  But that isn’t this world.

Oh- and any of you minions of the Easter Bunny reading this, I suspect “Avraham” is from Uranus.   Everybody knows that’s where the Jesuits are from.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Marriage Is A Business: Use A Contract

e3214bf5f13b9df15b896487bb76aae3

Regardless of what one wants to do, there is generally a right way, a wrong way and the accepted way.  With some things, the right way and the accepted way are the same because that’s the best way to do it and it works.  However, there are some issues in which there is debate over what the right way and wrong way actually is, with the result is that the accepted way is the way that doesn’t cause women to get their panties in a wad.

Case in point:  Marriage

Quite literally, nobody knows what they’re doing anymore.  There was a time when marriage was a serious business, back when boomers weren’t cruising the highways in land boats spending their children’s inheritance.  There was once a time when it was expected of couples to leave their children better off than they were.  No more.  There was a time when marriage combined property and there was a sense of stewardship.  No more.

Every state has a law stating that those who wish to get married must get a marriage license from the state and almost nobody knows that law is, according to the Supreme Court, nothing more than a polite suggestion.  In 1878 the court visited the issue and declared marriage to be a fundamental right, stating that laws regarding marriage licenses and such were “merely directory.”  Look up the word “directory” in a legal dictionary and you’ll see what I mean- there can be no invalidating consequences for disregard for such a law.

Understand what it means to get that license:  you are putting the State in charge of making the rules for your marriage.  Isn’t it far better to have the rules for your marriage set down on paper, one which you have signed and had witnessed?

marriage1333338471639

Far better than relying on the state’s whims is to get married with a well-written marriage contract that functions as both a pre-nup and a contract of marriage.  If done right and all the requirements are observed, a court would be leery of disregarding such a contract because they know they’d lose on appeal.  You see, there was a time when people got married with a contract.  Yes, they observed the social niceties but the contract was serious business because there was property on the line.   Assets that took generations to accumulate.

It’s time to return to the use of the marriage contract and do it right.

ferris_jean_1789_the_marriage_contract_600px

Those individuals who are numbered among that most despicable class of persons known as attorneys often protest that a marriage contract doesn’t work, a judge will throw it out and proceed as planned.  This is incorrect and I have yet to have a member of that most despicable class present me with evidence in which a couple was married by right, without a license, using a contract of marriage that specified:

  • The authority under which the couple was married (God’s not the state);
  • Who the parties to the marriage were (specifically excluding the state);
  • Why the parties chose to get married, listing the reasons and expectations;
  • What the standard of commitment called “marriage” they were agreeing to;
  • What the rules for the marriage are (only from God or by mutual agreement);
  • How such rules were administered and by whom;
  • How the posterity (children) might be dealt with (inheritance);
  • Who had the authority to adjudicate irresolvable disputes within the marriage, and;
  • When and how such a marriage might end.

Don’t take that the wrong way, I’m not saying all attorneys are personally despicable because they’re not.  I’ve known a few almost all my life and a few were likely enough wenches to take to my bed, but they’re still members of that most despicable class of persons due to their training and egregious profession.  As proof, most attorneys will have nothing to do with helping draft a marriage contract designed to exclude the state and avoid the court system because it’s a conflict of interest and a violation of their rules.

Use a contract.

The images in this post are real wedding pictures from hundreds of years ago.

Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , | 21 Comments

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

lostvirginity

 

It is with frustration that I have to say that I lack data on one of the biggest problems facing the church and culture today in terms of marriage.   We lack data because nobody understands what marriage is according to the Bible because for 1500 years the church has taught lies about marriage and sex.  In fact, even though study after study has been done and boatloads of money has been spent, they ask the wrong questions because the lies the church tells have worked their way into law and we don’t know the answers to critical questions because definitions have changed.  Take a look at the following graph:

linear

Notice the divorce rate on married women is less than 10%.  Got that?  Because that is all the solid data we have.  Every other group representing 1, 2, 3-4, 5-9, 10-20 and over 20 partners all represent adulterous unions.  Because all women are virgins when they marry and if some guy joined himself to a woman who was not a virgin when he got to her… it means she is actually married to someone else.

This is probably the real reason we see the divorce rate jump from less than 10% to almost 30% with one previous partner (her husband):  the current union that’s referred to as a marriage is actually an adulterous union.  With the exception of N=1, every subsequent partner was and is an adulterous partner.  Yet, due to the change in the definitions we have lots of theories trying to explain why the more sexual partners a woman has before “marriage” the harder it is to make the marriage work.  The simplest explanation is because they don’t understand her “marriage” is actually a case of adultery.

The truth is there isn’t any solid data.  From what we see and know, we have multiple possibilities and issues regarding everything that’s N>1:

  • The so-called “marriage” is actually an adulterous union, God won’t bless it.
  • Except for the 1st one, all previous partners have been cases of adultery.
  • It is possible all of the problems stem from the fact the union is adulterous.
  • It is possible that it’s all because of the number of sexual partners.
  • It is possible the real problem is a combination of any or all of them.

The only way to have insight into the real problem is if we had data on women who were unknowingly married and later ended the initial marriage they never intended.  If that happened and they later legitimately married, what would be the outcome?  We don’t know.

I suspect the outcome would be worse than the less-than 10% divorce rate of intentionally married virgins but not as high as the unintentional adulterous unions, but we have no data.  In fact, we won’t have that data until women understand the true ramifications of losing their virginity because there are plenty of women who think they’re single and eligible to marry but they aren’t.  Do what we call “divorce rates” really reflect the propensity to divorce?  I’d say not, because nothing but adultery explains the jump from less than 10% with intentionally married virgins to the almost 30% with the women who were on their second partner, but it was a case of adultery.

Think of what Jesus said in Luke 12:47-48:

“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few.”

Is it possible that at a certain number of partners they know what they’re doing is flat-out wrong and God punishes them more harshly?  I see plenty of room for variation, justice and mercy all rolled into one.  What we don’t have is any data on women who repented, got rid of their first marriage, later legitimately married as a non-virgin and tried to make a go of it.  While I’m sure there are differences with the adulterous unions highlighted in the graph, what are the differences?  Will we then see that the number of previous sex partners doesn’t make that much difference, or will the number of previous sex partners still affect the data, just at lower rates than adulterous unions?  Again, we don’t have the data necessary to say anything.

That’s sad.

But, it gets worse.  Keep in mind these studies are based on self-reported data. I think it’s safe to say that for some women being a virgin at marriage is a big deal and there is incentive to lie about it. It’s also reasonable to say that 2 out of 10 did lie about it because we already know that this is an area very sensitive to women and they will lie about it.

So, if 20% of them lied and were actually in adultery instead of being legitimately married, that puts their real divorce rate up around 30%, which is 6 divorces for those 20 marriages. That leaves 4 divorces for the other 80 marriages, or a real divorce rate for virgins of 5%.

Just to give you an idea of what this really means, I graphed the increase in divorce risk going from the 5% divorce rate for a legitimate marriage compared to the adulterous unions.

increase in divorce risk

On a brighter note, the Chart on Marriage is getting pretty close to being done.  Check it out, there’s something there to outrage everyone.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | Leave a comment

The Easter Bunny And “Zanah”

Looking at Zanah...

This is Zanah. Did she just take that off, or is she just carrying it? We’ll never know, shall we? Zanah is like that…

On my travels through the interwebzs, I once again stumbled across further evidence of the Easter Bunny’s nefarious work and the insidious damage done by his scheming minions.  We all “know” the Easter Bunny isn’t real, but under the right conditions almost everyone claims he exists.  What amazes me is no-one recognizes all the easter-eggs he’s dropped over the centuries and the damage they’ve done…   this is an example:

The Hebrew word “zanah” (whoring) refers to a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife, or a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband. By definition, “zanah” also includes all forms adultery and prostitution. Yet some people have made the false claim that Scripture does not speak against sex outside of a marriage covenant. They claim that the Hebrew word “zanah“, at least as it’s used in Scripture, only refers to sex in exchange for payment (prostitution), denying that it can also refer to sex apart from marriage (promiscuous sex). This article intends to debunk such false claims by demonstrating conclusively, from Scripture, that “zanah” does NOT mean “prostitution” exclusively, but rather “whoring” or “fornication” in general.

I am absolutely convinced that these folks are very sincere in their faith, but sincerely ignorant as well because the Easter Bunny got to them.  Their ignorance is by design and I want you to see not only the truth, but how this ignorance is sincerely used to propagate lies.  Further down that page is the key to the whole thing that conclusively proves the work of the Easter Bunny.  They are convinced that the standard of marriage is the A-J perversion of equally matching exclusively-committed monogamy.

Scripture demonstrates that whoring occurs when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife (including when she prostitutes her body for hire). Scripture demonstrates that adultery occurs when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is another man’s wife (including when she prostitutes her body for hire). This is why every single case of adultery is also whoring, yet not every case of whoring is necessarily adultery.

Obviously, these folks don’t understand The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24), but honestly, it isn’t their fault.  It isn’t so much that they are wrong, but that they cannot be right.  You say the Hebrew word “zahah” is a sin?  Great!  Have you seen Romans 4:15 and 5:13 recently?  No?  Well check this out:

“for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.”

“for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

If we put those passages together, we have something like this:

“Where there is no Law, there can be no violation; and while we know sin it in the world, without a violation of the Law, there is no sin imputed.”

Catch that?  Although sin exists in the world, when the Bible specifically calls something “sin” it’s because there is a specific prohibition in the Law and a violation of that prohibition makes it sin.  So, look at the Hebrew word “zanah”  and what, specifically, are the violations of Scripture that “zanah” might be referring to?  Let’s see:

  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of any close male relative (Leviticus 18:6).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his half-sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his daughter’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife’s daughter by his father [half-sister by father] (Leviticus 18:11).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:12).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:13).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s brother’s wife [aunt] (Leviticus 18:14).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s wife [daughter-in-law] (Leviticus 18:15).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife [sister-in-law] (Leviticus 18:16).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter [step-daughter] (Leviticus 18:17).
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her son’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).  [Polygyny ONLY]
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).   [Polygyny ONLY]
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her sister as a rival while the woman is still living (Leviticus 18:18). [Polygyny ONLY]
  • A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman during her menses (Leviticus 18:19).
  • A man may not have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
  • A man may not have anal sexual intercourse with another male (Leviticus 18:22).
  • A man may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
  • A woman may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).

OK, that’s 12 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the ever-favorite, having sex with a woman (to include your wife) while she is on her menses.  But, they left something out!

What about all the instances in which sex played a part in the act of idolatry?  The word “zanah” is as often translated with an idolatrous connotation as well as with a sexual connotation, and sometimes…  both.  Because a man or a woman can commit idolatry, which makes a sexual act that would have been lawful a case of sexual immorality.   And the victims of the Easter Bunny all scream “NOOOOOOO!  as they pull out their lexicons and dictionaries and make longwinded arguments about why the Easter Bunny is right.  Except that he’s wrong, and he intentionally lied about this stuff.

Did you notice there is not one prohibition on sex with a prostitute back in the Law?  That’s almost a trick question because it doesn’t appear on the list, but idolatry is forbidden and part of many of the idolatrous practices was having sex with cult prostitutes for money or with ordinary individuals for free.  Deuteronomy 23:17-18 condemns and prohibits both male and female cult prostitutes.  But not ordinary money-for-sex prostitution.   So actually, what would be perfectly legitimate sex, if done in the context of idolatry is now a sin.  Because of the idolatry.  But the Easter Bunny needs the idolatry separated from the sex to claim that sex is sinful.  The Easter Bunny hates sex.

Even in the New Testament, where 1st Corinthians 6:16-17 forbids Christian men to use a prostitute, there is nothing forbidding a woman, even a Christian woman, from working as a prostitute.  That passage is actually not quite what you think, but the fact remains, there is nothing in all of Scripture that forbids or condemns a woman (even a Christian woman) from selling her body as a prostitute.

Notice there is not a single reference, anywhere in the Law, that prohibits a man from having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry, whether he is married or not.  It is not a sin.

But if some lawful act is done under the auspices of idolatry, it’s a sin.  The act of sex with your wife is not a sin but with your neighbors wife it is a sin.  Some might say, yeah- well, they’re different people.  OK, ordinarily sex with your wife is not a sin, but if you have sex with her while she’s menstruating that is a sin.  Same act, same two people, one is a sin and the other isn’t.  The jumbled up focus on the word “zahan” is because there is no prohibition on men having sex with eligible women.  Certain Bible scholars know that, but they don’t know why so they assume its sinful because for 1500 years the Easter Bunny has been telling people it’s sinful.  So, they redefine “zanah” to mean anything but marital sex.  The fact that it’s not prohibited doesn’t matter, it’s “zanah” so it must be sinful.

The prohibition isn’t there and the reason is the Law of Marriage, but nobody knows that because the Easter Bunny and his minions have hidden it in plain sight.  These sincerely mistaken folks even continue into the New Testament, spotting a tie-in between the word Hebrew word “zanah” and the Greek word “porneia” that indicates they mean the same thing:

The verse in 1 Corinthians 10:8, “Neither should we commit whoring (porneia), as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell” links the Greek word porneia with the Hebrew word zanah. Paul is referring to the thousands of men who committed “whoredom” with the daughters of Moab [Numbers 25:1]. Paul is clearly condemning these acts of sexual immorality for married as well as unmarried men.

And even though the men of Israel had idolatrous, adulterous sex with the women of Moab, these guys can’t see that.  All they can see is sex without a marriage so it must be a sin.  Prohibitions?  We don’t need no stinking prohibitions!  We’ve got “zanah”

But, let’s look at the elements of “zanah” in this mix.  The women who did this were not virgins, which means they (according to the Law of Marriage) were already married.  So, they were having adulterous sex as part of the process of worshiping their heathen gods.  That is the very definition of “zanah” but these guys completely skip the idolatry and the adultery and only focus on that which isn’t even prohibited:  sex without being married.  But that sounds really weak so they play the translation game:  The word in Hebrew doesn’t mean what they want but it’s translated into English as “fornicate” because that’s what the Easter Bunny said to do.  Let’s define “fornicate” and now we get our prohibition!

The bottom line is this.  The Hebrew word “zanah” means some form of adulterous sex or some form of idolatrous sex.  It does not mean the use of a prostitute.  Calling someone a “zanah” does not mean they are a prostitute and even if she was, she still hasn’t committed a sin.  Other than cult prostitution (we just covered that with idolatrous sex) there is no Law against prostitution or using a prostitute.  However, anyone studying this will be lost until they understand The Law of Marriage so we’ll assume folks can educate themselves and we’ll compare and contrast:

This Is “Zanah”

  • If a married woman commits adultery she is a “zanah”
  • If a married prostitute commits adultery she is a “zanah”
  • If a cult prostitute has idolatrous sex, she is a “zanah”
  • If any eligible woman has sex as part of idolatry, she is a “zanah”

This Is NOT “Zanah” Because “Zanah” Is A Sin

  • If a money-for-sex prostitute services men, their sex acts are not sin.
  • If an eligible woman has sex with a man (married or not) their sex acts are not sin.
  • If an eligible woman has sex with a man (married or not) and consents to marriage, their act of sex is the consummation of their marriage and they are married.
  • If an eligible woman has sex with a man (married or not) but does not consent to marriage, they are not married and the sex still isn’t a sin.
  • If an eligible virgin has sex with an eligible man (married or not) they are married.

 

How did all these definitions get so screwed up?  The simple answer is the Easter Bunny has had a long time to put this plan into action.  In order to understand how things got this way, let’s go back some 1600 years or so and look at quotes from church history:

The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430).  Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent(3).
Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs (4). Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful (5). Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond (6).
Not only was sexual desire a basic and pervasive evil, according to Augustine, but it was also a vice that no one could be sure of mastering. We are born with it and it lasts as long as we live. No one, whatever his age or position in life, can confidently claim to have conquered it (7). “As I was writing this,” Augustine noted in his polemic against Julian, “we were told that a man of eighty-four, who had lived a life of continence under religious observance with a pious wife for twenty-five years, has just bought himself a music-girl for his pleasure.”  (page 80)
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection (13).
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources (14). But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential (15).  (page 82)
Patristic writers assumed, as Roman law did, that consent made marriage. They rejected the notion that consummation was an essential part of marriage.  It made no difference whether a couple ever went to bed together; so long as they consented to marry one another, that was what counted (63). If consummation was not essential, it might follow that sexual impotence constituted no reason for holding a marriage invalid, and Augustine at any rate seems to have subscribed to this view (64). (page 92)
The marital debt created a parity of rights and obligations between the spouses. Each had an equal right to demand that it be paid; each had an equal obligation to comply with the other’s demands. Equality of the sexes in marriage meant equality in the marriage bed, but not outside of it (69). Just as each spouse was entitled to sexual service from the other on demand, so each was entitled to require sexual fidelity from the other. Neither had a right to seek sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, even if the other party was, for example, absent or ill and thus sexually unavailable (70). Cessation of marital relations did not break the bond of marriage, just as the beginning of sexual relations was irrelevant to the contracting of marriage (71). The evident aim of patristic matrimonial theory was to separate marriage as far as possible from its sexual component, defining it as a contractual union, separate and distinct from the sexual union of the married persons. (page 93)

 

What you should be able to see is that the church, the guys who were in charge of holding, preserving, transcribing (reproducing), evaluating and translating the Scripture had a vested interest in defining all sex as sin.  Their attitude, to this day, is “we decided what Scripture is and we decide what it means.”  To illustrate this, look at the public pronouncement at the conclusion of the Council of Trent:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, [THE COUNCIL] decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs, to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.

Just read the underlined part and you’ll understand what they were saying.  “We don’t care what you just read, we don’t care what you learn and we don’t care what you know: We decide what Scripture means.”

If you ever have the privilege of debating a Catholic priest, especially a Jesuit, you’ll find that they have an unshakable faith that their position is correct no matter what the text says.  This is because the church, in addition to the text of the Scriptures, has the collected traditions and teachings of the church which are held to be the equal of the Scriptures.  If there is a conflict, then the matter is decided in favor of the teachings and traditions.

Got that?  The guys who laid down the traditions and teachings were the ones who hated sex, thought sexual pleasure was the most wicked of filthy sins in existence, rejected Biblical teaching that the consummation of the marriage actually formed it and instead claimed it took public consent; who claimed that both men and women were to be held to the same norms of sexual behavior and decided marriage was to be monogamous with an exchange of permanent and exclusive commitment.

It is the result of this Easter Bunny teaching that causes protestants to be convinced that “zanah” means that any sex outside the bounds of established matrimony is sinful.  That marriage is some form of covenant made by men and not between the man and God.  That the actual marriage takes place when the man makes some form of public confession of commitment to marriage to his woman.

That’s Easter Bunny teaching, not what Scripture says.

 


 

  1. Augustine, Contra Julianum 3.11.22, in PL 44: 713: “Nam cum hoc opus in minibus haberem, nunciatus est nobis senex octaginta et quatuor agens annos, qui religiose cum conjuge religiosa jam viginti quinque annos vixerat continenter, ad libidinem sibi emisse Lyristriam.” Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 405.
  2. Augustine, Sermo 151. 5, in PL 38: 817: “Ergo semper pugnandum est, quia ipsa concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus, finiri non potest quamdiu vivimus: quotidie minui potest, finiri non potest.” See also St. John Cassian, Conlationes 4.11.2 and 4.15.1, in CSEL 13: 105, 110, as well as his Institutiones 6.1, in CSEL 17: 115.
  3. Miiller,  Lehre, pp. 22-23; Lecky, Hist. of European Morals 2:281-82.
  4. Augustine, Contra Julianum 4.14.71, in PL 44: 773-74.
  5. Augustine, Contra Julianum 4.5.35, in PL 44: 756: “In quibus [cupiditatibus malis] libido prae caeteris est, cui nisi resistatur, horrenda immunda committit.”

 

  1. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 390-91; Edward A. Synan, “Augustine of Hippo, Saint,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages,  ed. Joseph R. Strayer et al., 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982- ; cited hereafter as DMA) 1: 646- 59. See also Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 58-59; Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality,  p. 36.
  2. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.13, 1.26, 1.28, in PL 23: 229-30, 246, 249; Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate 2, in PG 46: 323-24; Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 45-46; JoAnn McNamara, “Cornelia’s Daughters: Paula and Eustocium/’ Women’s Studies 11 (1984) 12- 13.
  3. Jerome, Adv. Jov.  1.49, in PL 23:280-81; Aries, “L’amour dans Ie mariage,” pp. 118-19; Philippe Delhaye, “Le dossier antimatrimonial de L’Adversus Jovinianum et son influence sur quelques ecrits latins du Xlle siecle,” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 68. Jerome found some strands of Stoic ethics so congenial that he numbered Seneca among the saints; De viris illustribus 12, in PL 23: 662. But his use of the Stoics was highly selective; Colish, Stoic Tradition 2: 70-81.

 

  1. Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 2.1.2, in CSEL 43: 82; De nupt. et concup.1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224; Ambrose, De institutione virginis 6.41, in PL 16: 316; D’ErcoIe, “Consenso,” p. 28; Jean Gaudemet, “Indissolubilite et consommation du marriage: rapport d’Hincmar de Reims,” RDC 30 (1980) 29; William Joseph Dooley, Marriage according to St. Ambrose, Studies in Christian Antiquity, no. 11 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1948), pp. 1-2.
  2. Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.7, 15.17, in CSEL 41: 196-97, 209-10; Josef Lamer, Die Storingen des geschlechtlichen Vermogens in der Literatur der auctoritativen Theologie des Mittelalters: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Impotenz und des medizinischen Sachverstiindigenbeweises im kanonischen Impotenzprozess,  Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mainz, Literatur, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1958), no. 6 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958), p. 300.

 

  1. Augustine, Epist.  262, in CSEL 57: 621-31; Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence, p. 104; Berrouard, “Saint Augustin et L’indissolubilite,” p. 141.
  2. Caesarius of ArIes, Serm. 43.7, in CCL 103: 193-94.
  3. Augustine, De nupt. et concup. 1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224.

 

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , | 21 Comments

The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve

The polite folk who somehow feel like I’m fixated on sex should notice something that I’ve pointed out a few times:  The very first commandment God gave to mankind was “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Translation:  “Go at it like rabbits.”

Because God said so.

The very first Law that God gave was the Law of Marriage, and as we’ve seen, marriage begins with the act of consummation.  Because the entire concept of commitment and intent is wrapped up in a single act, which once done cannot be undone.  As we’ve already noticed, the Law of Marriage is significant in what it says as well as what it does not say.  The Law of Marriage says that it’s a grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage and it explains how that works.  But what it doesn’t say is that while it is a grant of authority to initiate marriage, there is no authority granted to end marriage.  Likewise, there is no restriction on how many times a man can initiate marriage.   But let’s put that in terms of commitment, because that is the standard by which marriage is defined:

The man provides her with:
Permanent Commitment, Non-exclusively.

The woman provides him with:
Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

That is absolutely foundational to God’s design for marriage, sex and male-female relationships, but that’s as far as things got before something happened.  Something really big, so big it was literally world-changing and it effected all of Creation.

Remember that we’re talking about Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden.  Sin had not yet entered into the world.  Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening.  They were naked and unashamed.

Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less
than the ideal woman?

I’m dead serious when I say that. This was the dawn of creation, there was no sin in the world. God created Eve, from Adam, and all women are descended from Eve, so does anyone believe that women are getting better? Is there any woman alive who could do a better job of being a wife than Eve? Seriously.  In other words, are women getting better?

For the answer, look at women today…
quod erat demonstrandum

God gave them one rule. Just one, single, simple rule. And the ideal woman, with no job, no stress, no children to chase, seriously- what did Eve have on her plate other than obedience to that one single rule? “Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And what did Paul say about it? He said Eve was totally deceived.

Notice that I’ve said nothing of Adam.  He knew what he was doing, because God had said “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die.”  After his wife had eaten of the fruit, Adam knowingly decided to eat of the fruit, choosing to die with his wife rather than refuse and live, knowing she would die.  In doing do he displayed a remarkable lack of faith in God, but given the way men are about their women, it was understandable.

And do you not see how Satan took advantage of the woman’s weakness to then use her as a weapon to take down the greatest man who ever lived?

So, God held court and He was faced with a decision.  What do you do with women, when at their best and I mean at the top of their game, in a world in which there is no sin and no distractions like other women, social media, television or you name it… when in the absence of all that they demonstrably can’t obey one simple rule?

You appoint a guardian for them because
they’ve proved they are not competent.

But God, being God, did it in a certain way. He gave Eve a desire to be ruled and He said “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is where hypergamy came from, which we’ll talk about later at length in another essay.

Now, we already know that when God gives a command like “he shall rule over you” that He implements these commands with laws, statutes and ordinances.  So let’s find out what this “rule over you” means. On its face it’s pretty clear, her husband is in authority over his wife and she must obey him. But what happens when others are involved? What happens if she takes a vow or makes an oath or an agreement that has consequences? We start with Numbers 30, the Law of Vows. You can read it for yourself but I’ll just make a few condensed points of what it says.

1. If a man makes a vow or agreement, he must keep it. A man is commanded by God to honor his word. For the Lord has no patience with fools, if you make a vow do not delay carrying it out.
2. If a daughter in her youth, in her fathers house (under his authority) makes any vow or agreement with obligating consequences, her father has not just the authority but also the responsibility to review that decision.  If he says nothing, it stands. If he objects he is free to nullify it, cancelling the vow or agreement and all obligations that devolve from said vow or agreement.
3. When the woman marries, her husband has the right and responsibility to review all her previous vows and agreements her father previously approved and if he chooses he can nullify any or even all of them. After that, any vow or agreement with obligating consequences or even the rash words out of her lips that bind her, he has the authority and the responsiblity to review them and if he agrees it stands. If he doesn’t like it he has the authority to annul it, cancelling any and all obligations that might be involved.

That pretty much sums up Numbers 30. There are those reading this right now who can remember a time when a wife had to have her husband cosign a contract or other legal instrument with binding obligations. Numbers 30 is where that came from.

When we get to the New Testament the “he shall rule over you” is very specifically laid out in no uncertain terms. Notice that in the Ephesians passage, the wife is instructed to submit herself to her husband in the same way she is to submit to God. In other words, her husband’s authority over her is the same as God’s authority over her.

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24, NASB)

This provokes all manner of screaming. “My husband isn’t God. He’s only human!” Implicit in this argument is the idea that the wife’s responsibility to obey her husband is dependent on his righteousness. In other words, if her husband doesn’t act like God then she doesn’t have to obey him. As it turns out… No. That idea is shot down here:

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” (1st Peter 3:1-6,  NASB)

However, what the New Testament did that the Old Testament did not do was to also instruct husbands in the treatment of their wives. The husband is specifically commanded to love his wife. It isn’t enough to manage her and hold her accountable, the husband is now commanded to love his wife.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27, NASB)

Looking at that passage, it’s clear that a husband is to display his love for his wife by holding her accountable. This is made all the more clear in a later passage in which Christ describes how He loves His church:

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” (Revelation 3:19, NASB)

It should be pointed out that reproof is verbal, but disciplining encompasses physical discipline such as corporal punishment. That, of course, elicits howls of outrage from women who do not care to be held accountable, but this is part of what husbands were commanded to do. We also see instruction to husbands from Peter:

“You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” (1st Peter 3:7, NASB)

Remember that the Law of Marriage was put in place to implement the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” and that happens with this thing called sex. Bedrooms and bathtubs full of sweaty, screaming, sex. That brings us to a most interesting point in this body of law that implements the command “he shall rule over you.” As it turns out, even though she has a guardian, she has rights when it comes to sex.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” (1st Corinthians 7:3-5, NASB)

In plain, ordinary everyday language that means neither the husband or the wife have the right to say no to sex, except for limited periods of time devoted to prayer; and then only by mutual consent. Where did that come from? They are one flesh. Her body belongs to him, his body belongs to her. The woman who claims “my body, my choice” is claiming she isn’t actually married to her husband.

So all this submission stuff that women rebel against, it all goes back to Eve.  Because women simply cannot admit that when we look at all of womankind, Eve was the superstar.  The top of the pile, the first and best.  And when women at their best, at the top of their game with no distractions…  when they can’t handle obedience to one rule…  Seriously.  She had ONE JOB.  Obey ONE RULE.  And she blew it.  Thus proving that women need a guardian because they aren’t competent.  And that’s not saying that men are automatically competent because they have the “why” chromosome, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  And, as God said,

“HE  SHALL  RULE  OVER  YOU.”

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Crazy Women, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 11 Comments