The Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive


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

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

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

  • There are some thing men may do that women are forbidden to do.  An example is a man can have more than one wife but a woman may only have sex with her husband and sex with any other man is adultery.
  • There are some things men are forbidden to do that women may do with impunity.  An example is if a man lies with another man as with a woman, that is an abomination but the only way sexual contact between women is wrong is if it’s incest (Lev. 18:17-18).
  • The difference between men and women in the area of consent to marriage provides the final key.  The consent or lack of consent to marriage by an eligible virgin is meaningless.  She may be married against her will without consent through rape (Deut. 22:28-29).  She may choose to marry and do so, only to have her father annul the marriage without regard to her desires  (Numbers 30:5).  The man, however, not only gives his consent but also his commitment to marriage with the act of intercourse, every single time.

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

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

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

The Depraved Passion Of Feminism

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

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

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

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

Unintended Consequences

One has only to read the works of the Patristic church fathers like Augustine and Jerome to know they would be rolling in their graves if they comprehended the result of what they had done.  Over time, by throwing out the Biblical standards the solid foundation of feminism was laid in place until social, political and economic conditions finally changed to allow feminism to flourish.

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

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

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

The Return To Biological Attraction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fit To Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church:  The Origin And Last Bastion Of Feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers.

Chess, not checkers.

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

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

The Dilemma Of The Status Quo

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

There is NO prohibition on sex with prostitutes


Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her. 

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

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

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

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

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

Round One

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

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

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

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

Round Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observe Deuteronomy 22:13-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pooch Is Screwed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Black Knighting Churchian Marriage

Black Knight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dabaq Gets The Shiv in Translation

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

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

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

That is the setup.

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

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

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

Unintended Consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The Necropsy Continues


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

[Pleasant introduction omitted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this excellent rhetorical argument:

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

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

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


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

A Tired Old Argument

Commenter RichardP makes an old argument, one that really should be picked apart because it encapsulates so much error.  Rather than respond in-line in the comments I decided to turn this into a post.  Recently he said:

Re. Therefore, what God has joined together ….
Will God ever join together an unbeliever with an unbeliever? A believer with an unbeliever? (Rhetorical)

The question for which the Bible gives no definitive answer is “What constitutes a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ?” .

If God does not join together a believer with an unbeliever, then sex with a virgin does not automatically create a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ” They would both have to be believers, and only God can see the heart. Society, not so much.

(If God DOES join together a believer with an unbeliever, then that opens a whole nother theological can of worms. Primarily because it would give theological backing to the command to “man up and marry that slut” meme.)

Society cannot abide uncertainty. Particularly around marriage (are they married or not) – due to laws regarding who gets to inherit what. So – society creates artificial boundaries where the Bible is not clear what those boundaries are (this is marriage, this is not). In an imperfect world, where there must be a clear demarcation upon which the division and inheritance of property can rest, society is compelled to create such boundaries, artificial as they may be. It makes sense that the church would follow along.

For – in spite of all you say AT, the Bible gives no clear demarcation of what creates a union of which God says “Therefore, what God has joined together …” Because we do not have the skiz to say for certain who is a believer and who is not. But the succession of property rights demands a clear answer.

It basically boils down to that.

RichardP asks a question that isn’t that difficult to answer, then claims it to be rhetorical as if it really doesn’t matter.  The problem is that it is an excellent question that can easily be answered.

“Will God ever join together an unbeliever with an unbeliever”

For those who don’t know the Bible well, this is a great strawman argument and that’s what RichardP is trying to do, but for those who do know what the Bible says it’s the key to unraveling this knot of error.  Let’s first make some observations.

The first commandment to mankind was be fruitful and multiply.
The first law was Genesis 2:24, the law of marriage.
The first judgment on mankind was Genesis 3:16.

All of these things occurred in the Garden of Eden with just Adam and Eve, the mother and father of all.

The first commandment applied to all of mankind, the law of marriage applied to all of mankind and the fact is that all snakes crawl on their bellies, all women bring forth their children in pain and all women are hypergamous and desire a man who is fit to rule them.  To ask whether the believer can be joined to the unbeliever is to ask if Genesis 2:24 still means what it says.

One must ask whether God changed, or whether the law of marriage still applies as written.  Either God changed or He didn’t.  Either God lied or He didn’t.  Either Genesis 2:24 means what it says or it doesn’t.  Scripture helpfully answers these questions.

So, it follows that the answer to the question is yes, God will join together an unbeliever and a believer as one flesh if, according to the law of marriage, they marry.  We know this because Scripture says “the two shall become one flesh.”  Christ helpfully pointed out that God is the one who makes them one flesh in Matthew 19.  Since God does not change and God does not lie, this must apply to all people of all times of all situations.

The command in 2nd Corinthians 6:14 that forbids the believer from marrying the unbeliever is necessary because they can be married.  Genesis 2:24 states that when the man has sex with the virgin, God shall make the two become one flesh.  Therefore it will happen, which is why the command was given.  Otherwise it would be unnecessary.

The idea that some sort of “theological can of worms” is opened and some credence is given to the meme of “man up and marry the slut” is preposterous. RichardP might have read the relevant posts that I’ve written on the issue, but he clearly does not understand that the “slut” was married to the man she gave her virginity to and unless he’s dead or she’s a reader of my blog and has taken my advice, the “slut” is not actually a slut at all. She’s a married woman who has been committing adultery. It is not possible to marry a woman who is already married.

“The question for which the Bible gives no definitive answer is “What constitutes a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ?”

That is a lie.  RichardP claims the Bible is not clear on what constitutes a marriage because it doesn’t define the spiritual act of becoming of one flesh. Richard, that’s what we call a non sequitur. It does not follow.

Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her because that’s what the Bible says and this blog has carefully pointed that out repeatedly. Did the man and the eligible virgin engage in the act of marriage? Yes or no? If yes, they are married. If no, they are not. Her consent is not required and as we see in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the rape of a virgin who is not betrothed, if they are discovered, results in her marriage to the man who raped her.

Interestingly Deuteronomy 22, which is the only passage in Scripture that discusses the crime of rape, only lists three categories of women. The eligible virgin, the betrothed virgin and the married woman. Not mentioned at all is the widow or divorce woman. Does this mean that God has no problem with the rape of widows and divorced women? No, it’s evidence that the issue is complex, because if for whatever reason the widow or divorced woman claimed that she agreed to be married to the guy  who raped her, they’re married.

The word “irony” comes to mind.  Some might think of “poetic justice” but the fact is, under the system God set up any man should think long and hard about the consequences of putting his penis in a woman’s vagina before doing it.  Because it’s the act of marriage.

Numbers 30:9 clearly says the widow and the divorced woman (the two primary examples of women who are not virgins and not married) are held accountable for their agreements without the oversight and accountability of any man. 1st Corinthians 7:39 says the Christian woman who is not a virgin and not married is free to marry whom she wishes, but only in the Lord. As to the women who desire to marry, Paul says “let them marry.” From the context and in keeping with the rules already laid out, Paul is speaking of women who are not virgins and no longer under the authority of her father or another man. Clearly her consent to marry is required because she is not a virgin.

The Bible is very clear on what the physical standards for marriage are, which is to be expected because adultery is a death penalty offense. How can someone be put to death for adultery if one cannot define when a person is married?  The apostle Paul stated that both the becoming one flesh in marriage as well as becoming part of the body of Christ was a great mystery. Yet, to follow RichardP’s logic, since becoming one body with Christ as part of the body of believers is a great mystery, we should institute arbitrary requirements for becoming a Christian.  You know, because certainty.

Well, no.

The Bible is very clear what physical acts a person must perform in order to become a Christian, stating that the person who believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord shall be saved. We can hear the words and get an idea of what happened in the heart by seeing what kind of life they live.  Witness the standard for how to tell if that person who claims to be a Christian actually is a Christian, found in 1st John, chapter two. The fact is, our lack of understanding as to how the spiritual joining of the believer into the body of Christ occurs in no way changes the very real physical requirements that the Bible provides for becoming a Christian. In the same way, our lack of understanding about how the spiritual joining of the two as one flesh in marriage occurs does not change the very real physical requirements that the Bible specifically lists for becoming married.

Did the man have sex with a virgin woman that he was eligible to marry? He is married to her if the answer is yes.

Did the man have sex with a non-virgin woman who was eligible to marry him, after she agreed to marry him? He is married to her if the answer is yes.

This standard is not difficult to understand, there is no uncertainty. God even helpfully provided women with a hymen. If one understands what the Bible says about marriage, it becomes apparent that the woman’s hymen serves multiple functions, all of which are related to the act of marriage and the marriage that occurs when the virgin has sex for the first time.

It’s also true that lots of bells and whistles can be added to this, with betrothal periods and agreements between the father and husband-to-be and ceremonies and celebrations and obnoxious mother-in-laws…  but the basic requirements stay the same.  If other requirements are added, then according to Numbers 30:2 the men are required to keep them, but they are voluntary.  These sorts of agreements affect the eligibility of the woman to marry, they don’t change the standards of when and how the couple is married.

Hidden behind this ridiculous argument is the idea that some authority figure in the form of the church or the state is required in order for a marriage to be legitimate.  Because of property?  No, because of power and control.  That is the argument the Easter Bunny made well over a thousand years ago and it keeps cropping up, but that isn’t part of the system that God designed.  It isn’t that God’s design wasn’t clear on who is and who is not married, it’s evidence that the Easter Bunny rejected God’s design and instituted his own as a scheme to gain power and control.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage | 9 Comments

Christian Dating Foreplay: A Requirement Today


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:


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 , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Polygyny And The Beta Apocalypse Fantasy


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 , , , , , | 20 Comments