A thread at Vox’s has now run over 950 comments, although it’s been put in moderation and is now moving at glacial speed. It started off on the subject of my last post and moved on to the subject of polygyny and girl-on-girl sex. Yes, guilty as charged. For those of you who’ve seen me do this elsewhere before and wonder why I do this every year or two, part of it’s developmental and part of it is looking for patterns. As far as the argument goes I think it’s as developed as it’s going to get but I believe I’m finally seeing patterns of behavior associated with this argument and it don’t look good.
I’ve been through all the arguments before, so on this particular thread I took a new approach. I decided to grab the “third rail” of polygyny and bring the issue of “sleeping arrangements” and female-female sexual contact to the forefront and deal with it head-on. After months, my primary opponent was reduced to this:
I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin. Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?
Look at that: He said an attack “cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.” That’s an admission of defeat because according to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 “where there is no law there is no violation” and “there is no sin imputed when there is no law.” These passages define what sin is in the general sense, that is, applicable to all people for all time. In order to make a Biblical case that “it is a sin” where God was silent, one has to add to the Law, which is specifically forbidden at Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.
In other words, a Biblically correct case for sin on this issue cannot be made without either violating Scripture (adding to the law) or engaging in intellectual dishonesty (lying about what Scripture says). The argument is mature and ready for live audiences, it just needs a little polish. This is my exegesis of the matter:
If God had wanted to declare female-female sexual contact to be a sin, He would have done so. God chose not to do so. He didn’t forget and He didn’t accidentally leave it out because God is perfect. In Leviticus 18:22-23 God universally prohibited certain classes of sexual acts, but look at the sequence:
- Men with men: prohibited
- Men with animals: prohibited
- Women with animals: prohibited
- Women with women: *TOTAL SILENCE*
All other prohibited sexual contact is relationship based. God’s inclusion of women with animals as universally prohibited indicates He chose not to prohibit or condemn women with women. Quite often we see the male pronoun used to represent both men and women, but in some areas of the law we see both men and women mentioned. This generally means the men and women are being treated differently. Numbers 30 is another example, with the Law of Vows.
Where there is no law there is no violation and no sin is imputed when there is no law (Romans 4:15, 5:13) means sexual contact between women is not sin. Adding or taking away from the Law is prohibited (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), so Romans 1:25-27 cannot be construed as a prohibition or condemnation of whatever the women might do sexually with each other without placing Paul in violation of Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 with respect to what he wrote in Romans 1:25-27. I’m pretty sure Paul’s response to that charge would be “May it never be!”
After that are the minor quibbles that try to paint polygyny in a bad light.
- Deuteronomy 17:17 says the king is not to multiply wives so more than one is wrong.
- God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve and Amy. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman because this is how God created marriage.
- Can you show me where God gave polygyny explicit moral approval?
- 1st Timothy 3:2 Elders and Deacons are to be husbands of one wife, so obviously there are problems with polygyny if it keeps a man from assuming leadership.
God claimed to be the husband of two wives (Israel and Judah). See Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23. If God did it how can you claim it’s morally wrong? In 2nd Samuel 12:8 God took credit for giving David his 8 wives and said He would have given him more if that hadn’t been enough. Obviously 8 wives is not “multiplying” wives and God was pointing out that the multiple wives were a good thing and I’d call that explicit moral approval.
In 1st Timothy 3:2 the word translated as “one” is “mia” and it can mean “first,” “one,” or “a”. (article adjective) — and is used elsewhere by Paul in those ways. Let’s see how this works: “The [bishop, elder, overseer] should be… the husband of his first wife.” (or, “a wife”, if you prefer. Both are better, or at LEAST equally good, renderings.) There is another textual argument but there isn’t much point in making it.
- Show me where God established or commanded polygyny
God established marriage (with no regard to the number of wives) at Genesis 2:24 when God gave the man the authority to initiated marriage but didn’t limit the man to one wife. God commanded polygyny at Deuteronomy 25:5-20 in the law of the Levirate (childless wife to marry her husband’s brother if her husband dies in order to carry on his name).
Based on that exegesis this is the challenge he was responding to:
Either show me where God said sexual contact between wives married to the same man is sin, or show me your delegation of authority that allows you to arbitrarily step into another mans’ family and declare something to be a sin when God didn’t.
Again, this was his response:
“I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin. Attacking Artisinal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?“
He also put out a call for help, saying
“I [am not] trained in Scripture. I am a laity, doing my job. If there is anybody of the faith, who has the training and intellect to lead this battle I appeal to them to step forward”
“Artisanal Toad’s argument is, as I have stated previously, attractive and coherent within the mano-sphere. It does nothing less than invite lost souls into a false doctrine under the label of Christianity. Like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.”
He admits there is no passage anywhere in Scripture that prohibits or condemns female-female sexual activity, then ignores Romans 4:15 “Where there is no law there is no violation” and Romans 5:13 “there is no sin imputed when there is no law” and then calls it a “false doctrine” and says “like all sin, it will be tempting and attractive.” This is a guy who cannot let go of the false tradition he’s been taught all his life. He calls polygyny a sin and defends monogamy even though he knows it’s a losing proposition for men. Why? Because tradition? I wonder.
So, I ask the question: why do men fight and white knight so hard over this subject? Why is the idea of two or three naked women enjoying group sex with their husband so frightening? I made one off-hand comment about the popularity of lesbian porn and the screeching was amazing. I was called a serpent, trickster, degenerate, tempter, a vile reptile, satan, the dark one, a heretic; I was accused of leading my brothers into sin, of being corrupt, of wallowing in sin, of desiring only the pleasures of the flesh… it was amazing.
On top of that it seems like this issue brings out the blue-pill, gamma, churchian white knights in droves. Why? Because it destroys their blue-pill gamma worldview? Just like this kid I’ve been arguing with, he already knows he’s wrong but he can’t allow himself to admit it. Why would an otherwise bright and very logical man act this way?
Oh- and he’s quite sure the sweet little wives are being violated in bed, commanded by a husband acting like Caesar who makes them do that which is against God’s will for their lives; convinced they hate every second of it. He truly believes they need to be rescued and it is the duty of the church to step into their marriage and straighten things out.
Why do so many Christian men white knight so hard over this? Maybe for some of them it’s baggage from the past, but I’m about convinced a man’s reaction to polygyny (and all the possibilities available with multiple wives) is a good indicator of his socio-sexual rank.
From alphas and a lot of betas there’s no objection in the practical sense and the benefits are obvious and substantial, but people just don’t do that. These guys play by the rules and doing something like this could threaten their position, so they’ve either got the balls to agree and maybe even go for it, or they shrug their shoulders and say “I’m OK with what I’ve got. If we get divorced I’ll think about it.”
From the lower betas and high deltas a lot of suspicion and logical concerns come to the surface but these can be dealt with and if they’re aware these guys already know they’re prime candidates for divorce court drama. Then come the questions. Lots of them. After that it’s frame and state control with a reasonable level of game. Most of the guys I know with multiple wives started out as lower beta or mid to high delta. The structure makes them situational alpha. The rest (unsurprisingly) are sigmas. I have yet to meet a guy I’d call a serious alpha with more than one wife.
From the lower deltas, gammas and omegas, I get fear, loathing and hatred. They will stop at nothing to find an objection or reason why monogamy must be enforced. I’m fairly sure at least some of them see the acceptance of polygyny as the final nail in the coffin that forever imprisons their hopes of finding a wife.
Acceptance of polygyny would change the entire SMP and MMP landscape for both men and women but especially for men. Let’s say you’ve got a tall, reasonably good looking, successful guy that marries a solid 8.5 beauty. He’s feeling like he’s at the top of the game until he meets an average-looking guy with three wives going from 6.5 to 7.5. And… wow. They’re feminine, sweet and submissive. When he tells them to do something (hey- why doesn’t he ever be gentle and just ask them?) they smile and do it. Immediately. Then he notices his wife is treating their husband differently and after a while starts being deferential, almost submissive! He’s thinking “Why is she acting that way toward him but not me?”
Anybody that understands game knows the answer. Multiple wives is massive pre-selection bias and a huge demonstration of high value. He comes across as alpha and she’s attracted. She begins to mimic the behavior of his wives (deferential, submissive, obedient) to fit in with the herd and doesn’t realize what she’s doing (competing for his attention). Later, alone with hubby, she isn’t as attracted to him, throws a few shit tests his way and he picks up on that too.
How does that make him feel? Like he just met a serious threat that needs to be destroyed. How much more so the gamma?