Framing Marriage; Feeding The Dog

Frame is everything, because frame determines what is in the picture and what isn’t.  What you can see and what you cannot see.  Frame determines what fits in and what doesn’t.  What is allowed and what isn’t.  Frame is everything.  Nothing illustrates this better than how marriage is framed these days as a strictly monogamous affair.  Because that’s not the way God designed it.

The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) says a lot in a mere 24 words, but what it doesn’t say is just as important as what it does say.  We know this because Jesus pointed it out in Matthew 19.  Then, as now, people look at the three elements of that passage (shall leave, shall cleave, shall become one flesh) and assume that all of these are the actions of the man.  Not so.  When the Pharisees asked what the grounds for divorce were, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, and pointedly explained “they shall become one flesh” was something God did, not the man, saying “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”

But Christ was making two points here, not one.  The first was the real interpretation of what Genesis 2:24 says, the second was to juxtapose what the passage says with what it does not say.  He was subtle, but He emphasized what the passage did not say with what He said next, still referring to the Law of Marriage.  “For hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.”  From the beginning.  Why would that be?  Because the Law of marriage granted the authority to the man to initiate marriage and explained the procedure of how marriage is initiated, but that law contained no grant of authority to the man to end the marriage.

And what does that point to?  If one thinks about it for a moment, it becomes obvious that  it didn’t contain a restriction on the number of wives a man could initiate marriage with.

Under God’s design, a man can have more than one wife because divorce is not permitted.

Under Churchianism, divorce is permitted because a man can have only one wife.


Framing Accountability

Under God’s design, if things don’t work out in the marriage, regardless of what kind of problems there are with the wife, her husband is still stuck with her because he made a vow and entered into a covenant with her.  She’s his wife and will be until the day he dies, but he isn’t limited to her.   How this would be interpreted is flexible.  Everyone understands menopause and the problems that causes, so if it was a wife of a certain age and the husband took a much younger second wife, well, probably not such a big deal.  There’s no shame in the changes a woman goes through and the fact that the changes can have a serious impact on marital relations.

But if this was a case of a wife refusing to meet his needs or was known to be rebellious and contentious to the point that her husband hated her, it stands to reason that everyone knows that this wife was hated by her husband.  It isn’t something that can be hidden.  If he took another wife, that would be open to a much different interpretation than if it were the case that he was taking another wife to meet a need his first wife could no longer meet.  Especially if she had not given him a son, because inheritance was very much an issue of importance.   We know this because Moses made a ruling (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) on the matter that bears our attention.

“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and both the loved and the hated have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the hated,  then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn.   But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

Two wives, one loved and the other hated.  The question of why the wife might be hated is open to interpretation, but anyone with any observational skills can probably provide a list without thinking about it too hard.

Should he take another wife under such conditions his first wife gets the shame of being publicly identified as such a poor wife that her husband had to take a second wife.   Which isn’t going to help with her attitude problem.  And everyone understood that bringing in a rival wife would increase the level of conflict in the home.  So, if a husband chose to go that route it meant his wife must have been a special kind of failure when it came to doing her job.  There was no way to blame anyone else but herself.

In other words, complete accountability for the woman, the vows of marriage are honored (the MAN kept his vows) and the family was preserved, intact.  Regardless of what a poor wife she was, she wasn’t kicked to the curb, she continued to be supported and honored as his wife.  Because he kept his word even when it hurt.  Because that’s what God expects out of men.  Under God’s design, the success or failure of a family rests solely on the shoulders of the husband and father.  His wife can be a helpmeet or a hindrance, but the responsibility belongs to the man.

Under the rubric of modern monogamous marriage, if a woman is such a poor excuse for a wife that her husband can’t tolerate it, his only “legitimate” option is to set aside his vows of marriage and divorce her because keeping a mistress on the side is considered to be a horrible sin of adultery, an offense to all decent women everywhere.   Yes, far better to destroy the family than allow a husband to be honored by a woman who vowed to “love, honor and obey” him.  It’s a hell of a twist on morality.

So now we’ve got a divorce and the modern legal theory that women can do no wrong applies, so he will lose his children, half his assets and be sentenced to regular payments for years to come.  Because he made a bad choice in who to marry.  More importantly, if a divorce occurs it’s generally held that the man had at least some portion of responsibility in that happening, which has the effect of removing some portion of accountability from the woman.  Because men are expected to keep their word and honor their vows even when women don’t.

But, it’s worse than that.  A wife is under the authority of her husband and even after Moses allowed divorce, a woman had no authority to divorce her husband and there are no grounds for a woman to divorce her husband regardless of his behavior.  1st Peter 3:1 commands wives to submit to their husband even if he is disobedient to the word and win him over, without a word, by their quiet and chaste conduct.  Not much of that in the church today.

In the frame of modern monogamish marriage, women use divorce to shift accountability for their own failures onto their husband, destroy the family, ruin their children’s lives and avoid any accountability in the entire process.  And they use divorce proactively to steal their husband’s assets and rob him of his children and rob their children of their father.

The monogamy – polygyny issue is all about how to frame marriage in order to allow women to avoid any accountability for their behavior, but it’s also a false dichotomy.  The Biblical standard is the man gives permanent, non-exclusive commitment.  That means all marriages (unless maybe you’re a king) start off with just one wife.  If she does a great job, why add another one?   However, the man is permitted to take another wife no matter what the reason, even if it’s only because he wants sexual variety and he can afford it.

With God’s definition of commitment a woman cannot avoid accountability for her behavior because she does not have a monopoly on her husband.  She’s exposed to the competition of other women and if she does not compete (do her job well) she can find another woman brought in and promoted above her within the marriage.

With churchian cuck “equal” commitment, a woman cannot be held accountable for her behavior because of the monopoly conditions that allow her to act with impunity.  She has no competition within the marriage and the only way around her monopoly is to destroy the family with a divorce.

Again, under God’s design, the majority of marriages have always been and will always be monogamous.  The problem enters when marriage is framed as “Monogamy ONLY” because that usurps the authority God granted to the husband at Genesis 2:24 and transfers power to the wife.  Polygyny is acceptable under God’s design and as an available option it creates an environment in which women are accountable for their actions.

Women say “I cannot stand the thought of having to share my husband!”

Well, honey, make sure the thought never crosses his mind by being such a successful wife that he doesn’t have the time, energy or inclination to look at other women.  It’s called accountability for a reason.

And… don’t take this the wrong way, but your vagina isn’t nearly as special as you think it is. Sex is not this mystical holy grail of marriage.  After a while, it’s just sex.  Your husband has a need for sex but you can’t fathom that because monogamy puts the woman in charge of sex in the same way an owner is in charge of feeding a dog.


Does It Really Matter Who Feeds The Dog?

Let’s say you have a dog.  You have to feed the dog or the dog will die, but feeding the dog is just the most basic task in having a dog.  The dog has to be trained and disciplined and cared for and all that takes time and energy.  And if you don’t feed the dog regularly with the right food in the right amount, that dog isn’t going to be healthy and won’t respond well no matter what else you do.  The dog is going to be cranky and temperamental and will probably do things you don’t want him to do (like digging through the trash) because he’s hungry.  And there was a time when everyone knew this.

Yet, you were taught to make a major ceremony out of feeding the dog because the act of feeding him is somehow oh-so-special.  That’s what you were always told, because your bowl is special.  And you have to be in the right mood for for the ceremony…  because you were taught that pouring dogfood out of a bag is just so damn special.  Because it’s all about you and your special bowl.  But when the dog is cranky and temperamental and isn’t a good dog because he hasn’t been fed, well… that just kills your mood to have the ceremony and feed the dog.  Everyone understands that a woman just has to be in the right mood before she can be bothered to feed the dog.  He can howl all he wants, she has to be in the mood.

Besides, feeding the dog is messy and it take a whole 5 minutes out of your day to give the dog what he needs.  And sometimes he wants to lick the bowl and play with the handles!  Who has time for that?  While it may feel good for him to be eating out of your bowl, getting fed is something he needs and he really wants it… but that doesn’t matter to you because feeding the dog is not that special to you, it’s just a chore.  Sure, sometimes it’s special for you and you enjoy it, but day in and day out it’s just a chore.  And a woman has to be in the mood.  Everyone knows that.

What you really like to do is play fetch with the dog because that’s all about you and having your desires met.  Especially when your friends are around to see how the dog tries to please you.  That makes you feel really good.  But, it was too much of a chore to feed him and the dog is starving and doesn’t have the energy or the motivation to play fetch.  So you complain to all your friends about how horrible your dog is and you don’t understand it at all because the dog has such a wonderful home and such a loving master but he won’t fetch the damn ball when you want him to.

And you spend your time complaining to your friends while you starve your dog of one of the most basic elements of what he needs.

What the dog needs doesn’t require a ceremony with a special spot and a special bowl.  Starve the dog and he’ll try to find what he needs in the trash and make a mess of things or wander out on the street looking for food.  And naturally you’ll blame the dog for looking in the trash for something you were supposed to be providing for him, not recognizing the fact that under this scheme of things he’s only supposed to be getting his food from you.  Well, of course you know that.  Everybody knows your bowl is special and he’s only supposed to get what he needs from your bowl.  But you’ve got this insane notion that while he’s always hungry and everybody knows dogs are always hungry, he only needs food if you’re in the mood to give it to him.


But, what if your dog had
the right to choose who feeds him?

“Oh… how horrid that would be!  My roommate has a bowl too, and hers might be much nicer than mine! I’d hate to have any comparison because my bowl is special!”

News flash:  he wants to be fed.  Nice bowls are great, but they don’t mean a thing if they aren’t providing him with food on a regular basis…  and every woman has a bowl.  Once he’s been fed it’s all about how he’s treated.  Her bowl isn’t the issue: it’s how she treats him.  Treat him right and take care of him and he’ll be too busy watching the place and making sure those damn coons don’t come in the yard to care what the food bowl is like.  As long as the bowl has got food in it when he’s hungry.  And treats?  Treats are wonderful.  They motivate.  But you can’t confuse food, which is a regular requirement, with treats.  You can decide when he gets a treat but don’t make the mistake of thinking his food is a treat.  Dog’s know the difference and when he’s well-fed, treats make all the difference.

“Gosh.  TREATS!  How do I get more treats?  I know!  I’ll add squirrels to the list!  You gave me treats?  Now you don’t have squirrels.  Wait… fetch?  You want to play fetch?  OK!  Let me go find the ball!”

What did a little kindness and consideration cost you?  Now he fetches the hell out of that ball every time you want to play.  Every. Single. Time.  He has the energy because he is well fed.  He has the motivation because you gave him a treat.

Guess who else is motivated?  You are.  The thought that some other woman would be feeding your dog has a remarkable effect on your mood.  Everyone knows a woman has to be in the mood, but it’s amazing how fast she gets in the mood to feed the dog when her roommate is also available to feed him.  Because her bowl is special.  She’d hate for the dog to get fed from another woman’s bowl.  “Gosh, what a GOOD DOG!  Want more?  I can do that.”

The thing is, if your dog got to choose who fed him, would it really matter who fed him? He’d be getting fed regularly and he’d get his treats on top of that and he’d be keeping the coons and squirrels out of your yard.  You could even work out a deal with your roommate and she feeds him and you give him treats, since obviously 5 minutes a day is just too much for you to handle.  But if it’s such a huge deal because your bowl is so damn special, either feed the dog or she will.

That’s called accountability and it’s produced by competition.  And believe it or not, your roommates’ bowl doesn’t have anything to do with it.  It doesn’t matter that you both have a bowl, it’s how often somebody’s bowl gets used to meet his needs.  But if you took the responsibility to do your job and fed him regularly (that’s when HE needs it, not you), then your yard would be coon and squirrel free and all your friends would be amazed at how he fetched the ball for you and he’d never even look at your roommate.  And when one of the snakes that walk around on two legs shows up, that dog is going to be there to defend you.  Why?  You think it has anything to do with how special your bowl is? Because you have a magic bowl?  If that’s what you think you know nothing about dogs.



But you can’t comprehend that.  You threw your roommate out because she has a bowl and he was hungry and started looking longingly at her.  You’re too upset with your dog because he’s starved and temperamental and cranky and won’t make you look good in front of your friends when you want him to fetch the ball.  And he’s not in good shape and not exactly motivated to please you because you’re starving him. And the idea that he should be able to get his food from someone else?  “OMG!  That’s HORRIBLE!  I can’t STAND the thought!  There needs to be A LAW AGAINST THAT!!!”  Because he belongs to you and you alone.  Because the system says that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

God said to feed the dog whenever he wants food, that your bowl belongs to him.  But that’s crazy fundamentalist wacko talk.  The government and the church say you own your dog.  You and nobody else, and he isn’t supposed to be fed by anyone else.  Even if he’s starving.  Because you think your bowl is so special.  And you get away with it because the dog belongs to you.  He doesn’t get a choice.  Because those are the rules.

And you’d think that the dog would run away after he’d had enough, and sometimes they do.  But they’re usually so loyal they put up with incredible abuse and stick around until they get sent to the pound.

So you get tired of listening to him howl when he’s hungry and blame him for not being a good dog and ship him off to the pound because obviously it’s all his fault.  It can’t be your fault, you’re a woman.  He was supposed to be there for you to fetch the ball when you wanted to play but he was too busy howling with hunger.  Maybe that’s all it took or maybe you caught him eating out of your neighbor’s bowl after you’d starved him long enough.  It doesn’t matter, he wasn’t a good dog so you got rid of him.

When the snakes show up (and sooner or later they always do), it won’t matter whether your ball got fetched.  The dog won’t be there to sound the alarm and he won’t be there to defend you.  If he was there he’d defend you even if he was half-starved and abused.  Because that’s what dogs do.  It’s their job to defend you from snakes.  But he’s not there.  You put him into the system to be ground up and destroyed because he was too starved to be motivated to fetch your ball when you wanted to show off for your friends.

And when they find your body they’ll find that damn ball of yours stuffed in your mouth… but everyone who knows the truth will be too polite to call it poetic justice.  The snakes did that so you couldn’t make any noise while they did nasty things to you.  And they took their time enjoying themselves while you suffered.   The dog would have died defending you from that, but you got rid of him.  And all your friends will say how horrible it was that you had such a bad dog that you had to get rid of him and then he wasn’t there to defend you.  And it will be sad because if you’d had some accountability you’d have fed that dog and he’d have been a good dog and he’d have been there, willing to die for you.

But you couldn’t stand the thought of accountability and you only fed the dog when you felt like it… because he didn’t have a choice… and now you’re dead.  Because you were wrong.  It’s not about your bowl, it’s about you, and your fantastic special bowl is worthless if the dog doesn’t get fed.

And the most amazing thing is that some women will think that story is about a dog.

This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Framing Marriage; Feeding The Dog

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    Wow! This is, dare I say, poetic! What a great, albeit somewhat odd analogy! I seriously think this should be required reading for any woman a man is about to marry. If she doesn’t get it, drop her like a hot potato and find a woman who does! Ha, ha! I have heard them called boxes, but never bowls!

    • You’ve never heard of “doggie dinner-bowl eyes?”

      Besides. It’s dogs with bowls and cats with boxes. We mustn’t mix our metaphors. I should probably go put on my body armor now.

  2. caprizchka says:

    Guess who else is motivated? You are. The thought that some other woman would be feeding your dog has a remarkable effect on your mood. Everyone knows a woman has to be in the mood, but it’s amazing how fast she gets in the mood to feed the dog when another woman is available to feed him. Because her bowl is special. She’d hate for the dog to get fed from another woman’s bowl. “Gosh, what a GOOD DOG! Want more? I can do that.”

    Evidence that I’m not a woman. Damn it. OK. OK. Cursed with evidence that I’m not a woman. Better?

    Do you know what a Butter Face is? That’s a woman who is good for everything but her face. I am not a Butter Face! Yay!

    I have a great mood because I love dogs and love happy dogs the best. Word to the wise, unhappy men hate happy dogs as much as monopolist women do. They’re ready to castrate those dogs at the first hint of happiness. They’ll even make up some pretty nutcrackers with gold teeth and gorgeous tails to strut about looking for nuts. Yummy yummy nuts.

    In the human body, “the dog” is in the tailbone. Sometimes a gal has to go “walk the dog” and wag that bone. Way better to wag it at home, but, if it ain’t getting wagged at all at home… then all the women with bad moods in the neighborhood chain up their dogs to the TV as such a woman “walks” by wagging her tail. Iron curtains aren’t considered overkill for that objective. Drones, spies, listening devices…it’s all good. Insurance companies are counting on all the good women to keep their nice dogs chained to the tube. Oh look! Sports! Watch the other dogs play! Good dog!

    Why wouldn’t such a woman (one with a great mood) prefer a different neighborhood? What kind of a crazy bitch would prefer to wag her own tail rather than be put into traction by a bunch of women and the dogs who they own and who are kept on short leashes with very tight collars? Why that would be crazy, man. KkkkkkrAAAazeeee. Crunch.

  3. norfolkfiona says:

    Actually, it works beautifully the other way around 🙂 I love the healthy competition between my husbands, and I know exactly what it entails to be polygamous since I have been now for so many years. To two wonderful men. But I take it this is not true about the author of this piece? 😀

    • Where’s Dan Aykroyd when you need him? Oh- there he is:

      Fiona… you don’t have husbands because a marriage requires a man.

      Any man who willingly “shares” and “competes” for his WIFE isn’t a man. He’s a functioning castrati not worthy to be called a man. Assuming you’re not just a garden-variety troll, and even if you are, what you’re describing is part of the ongoing castration of men who willingly debase themselves because they’re so thirsty for even a chance of getting laid. I’m guessing that your ‘husbands’ aren’t the kind of males who would be described as “masculine” in any sense of the word, probably running a chronic deficit in testosterone. In fact, the only real examples of this kind of thing I’ve ever seen is when the males were sexually attracted to each other. In which case you’re not the sandwich meat, you’re the condiment or maybe the pickle on the side. Something like this:

      But that’s probably either giving you more credit than you deserve or maybe coming down on the guys harder than I should. There’s a good chance you’ve got a couple of guys who are so thirsty they’re willing to play your games to get a shot at what you offer no matter how distasteful it might be. Something like this:

      You’re braying about your power over a couple of males (again- males, not men), which means you’ve never actually attracted a man who was masculine and dominant enough that you cheerfully got on your knees and called him “sir.” You can’t have what you want so you play games with the males you are able to attract. You’re able to attract them because they’ve already been emasculated and they’re so thirsty they play your game for the chance to sniff your skank panties.

      I suspect what you really want is a confident, masculine dominant man you’d cheerfully get on your knees for… and while you know a few of them, none of them are even slightly attracted to you. And you know why.

      What you have is a consolation prize, but the males willing to debase themselves and play your game aren’t much of a prize. In fact, this is probably the only way you can put up with the unattractive males you are capable of attracting (for anything more than a pump and dump). The power they give you makes up for the fact that they aren’t what you really want.

      It’s really very simple. Men who can attract women with options who are then willing to share him in a relationship tend to be top-shelf men who have a lot of confidence and masculine dominance. What you’re talking about is the other end of the spectrum because males who are willing to share a woman in a relationship tend to be either really damaged or so unattractive and thirsty they’re willing to put up with anything just to get their dick wet. In either case, we aren’t talking about the bottom shelf because the bottom-shelf guys still qualify as men. We’re talking about the stuff the cat dragged in. Literally.

      Fiona, you don’t have to settle for what you’ve got.

      I suggest you team up with a couple of girlfriends, get in shape and offer yourselves as a package deal. That’s probably the only way you’ll get the kind of man you really want and while you’re looking for him, you can take care of each other. That way you won’t have to deal with any unattractive men. And I said “get in shape” because I was being optimistic. Fat, slovenly and lazy can be fixed but if you’re physically attractive and still cause the men you desire to run, your problem is most likely that you’re batshit crazy because of previous trauma and damage. Irreparably damaged goods, in other words. Your medicine cabinet will probably tell just as much of the story as your mirror.

      When I discuss polygyny what I’m talking about looks (for a lot of reasons) more like this:

      And This:

      And This:

      If you think that a guy with enough confidence and masculine dominance to manage a polygynous relationship would put up with the kind of shit you’ve got going, you just passed the litmus test proving you’re batshit crazy. And that may well be the case. But, I’m an optimist and I try to show people that no matter how far they’ve degraded themselves there’s always hope. Scripture says that nothing is impossible for God, but I’m not God. There’s nothing I can do other than point to the fact that there is hope for you. It sounds like you need it.

      • norfolkfiona says:

        🙂 Oh dear, am I that threatening to you? All I see here is me being married to two men, and you being married to nobody. Sort of says it all, don’t you think? 😀

        • Your response begs the question of what marriage is, but we’ve already established that whatever it is that you have, it isn’t with “men.” That, as you say, says it all.

          It reminds me of the joke about the drunk and the fat woman, the punch line being the drunk saying “Well, I may be drunk, but tomorrow I’ll be sober and you’ll still be fat and ugly.”

          I’m sure you’d like to think your situation threatens me because that’s a very empowering idea for a female to have. Believe it or not, I appreciate the opportunity to use your special flavor of batshit craziness to illustrate the extent of the ongoing emasculation of men. It’s sad, but I actually need examples like yours to demonstrate to men the depths of the degradation they’ve allowed themselves to sink to. For pussy. Because they refuse to be men.

          So, no, you don’t threaten me or bother me and if you want to be the resident troll I will not object as long as you behave yourself. I don’t judge you because I’m commanded not to judge people like you and if you can convince males to degrade themselves for your pleasure, that’s on them, not me. You might think of them as men because they have the requisite plumbing accessories, but that doesn’t make them men… and deep down you know it.

  4. Hey AT, you should give us a wife discipline primer over on Married Red Pill. It should be a hoot.

    I love the extended dog analogy. What do you say when the fems, manginas, white knights and assorted riff raff say sex is not like eating. You need to eat but you don’t NEED to have sex. You can learn to starve yourself for decades. Sick that is the best argument they have but there it is.

    • Shoot me a link, but it may not be pretty. I’m old corps- not into taking prisoners. Kill em, wrap them in pigskins and throw them in a pit. Black Jack Pershing was my kind of man.

      It doesn’t matter what a woman thinks about a man’s need for sex because sex is not this huge metaphysical construct that women make it out to be. The Bible says a wife’s body belongs to her husband and if he wants sex he’s supposed to get it. If she wants to play little miss bitch, under God’s design for marriage the man has every right to say “Next!”

      And, believe it or not, that isn’t limited to a taking another wife. That cute widow down the street? She’s not a virgin so her consent is necessary to marry but she is eligible to marry. If he has sex with her he’s married to her if she consents but if she doesn’t, then it’s just sex and it isn’t a sin. Same for a divorced woman. Which is why wives have always had a problem with widows and divorcees.

      The Bible is way more red pill than almost any Christian can possibly imagine. God built dread game and female competition into the marriage. Genesis 3:16 is where hypergamy came from. “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

      There’s no way to force a wife to do something she doesn’t want to do, so under God’s design for marriage the wife is still competing for her husband’s attention even after she gets married. Because under God’s design marriage is a permanent commitment but not an exclusive commitment.

      Women compete. They always have and they always will. They like it, they like the drama and thrive on it. And they will willingly, cheerfully be attractive, submissive and sexually available in order to win the competition against the next woman because that’s the only way to win- give him what he wants.

    • Renee Harris says:

      Not true. A man needs what the act of sexual submission represent: I am yours. I chose to take my free will and use it for you pleasure bc your my husband. We all enjoyed getting off I think, but God design sex as reward from being a husband or Godly men..
      And you don’t need food you can 45 without before your body behind to eat itself

      • The fact is, a man initiates marriage with the act of sex. That means the man consents to marry every single woman he has sex with, just with the act of having sex with her.

        However, some women cannot marry him because they are married to someone else. When a man has sex with such a woman he commits the crime of adultery. If he has sex with a close relative he commits the crime of incest. Some women are eligible to marry, but the marriage is only established if they consent to marry.

        Under the Law, there was no prohibition on a man having sex with a prostitute. The reason is the men were not forbidden to have sex with any eligible woman, because sex is how marriage is initiated. The prostitute is eligible because she isn’t married. However, she isn’t a virgin so having sex with her does not automatically result in marriage. That is because she is neither married nor a virgin, so in order to initiate a marriage with her she must consent to be married. If she doesn’t consent then no marriage is created and it’s just sex.

        What the Apostle Paul was forbidding when he prohibited men from having sex with prostitutes was the abuse of their authority to initiate marriage. What they were doing was having sex with an eligible woman under conditions in which no marriage would possibly be created. Keep in mind that the act of sex is the precursor to God joining the two as one flesh.

  5. Pingback: Spiritual Quest | caprizchka

  6. RichardP says:

    AT – haven’t read this article yet, but will. Came from Rollo’s thread where you linked to here. I like what you wrote there, for the most part (the evidence doesn’t much support that God cursed Adam and Eve, so much as told them about what he created them to be before he sent them away from his presence. Consider: when did Eve decide that there were benefits to be had from disobeying God? Before he “cursed” her, or after?). For anyone willing to actually read what is written there, it is obvious that Eve was rebellious before she bit into the forbidden fruit. Which means that she was created with that ability. It is not a state imposed on her by a curse. But I digress from why I came her.

    Re. your post at Rollo’s “Good Girls, Bad Girls – I want to ask you to re-think your logic. You refer to Genesis 3:16 as the start of hypergamy (your desire … ) and God’s solution to it (he shall rule over you). You augment that logic by stating that the church got in the way of God’s natural control for hypergamy by introducing monogamy. But later, you say the following:

    “This all boils down to the question of how to control hypergamy. The answer is that you can’t do it with force. Sure, force might work for a while, but as history has shown us it will fail.”

    Some might conclude that “manage hypergamy by unfettered freedom to rule over” and “you can’t control hypergamy with force” are contradictory statements. It might be useful to refine your wording just a bit to avoid that appeance. Perhaps by emphasizing that there are more ways to rule over someone than through the use of force.

    Otherwise, good post over there.

    • the evidence doesn’t much support that God cursed Adam and Eve,

      We’ve been over this before over at Dalrocks. I understand your position but I don’t agree.

      You refer to Genesis 3:16 as the start of hypergamy (your desire … ) and God’s solution to it (he shall rule over you).

      There more to it than that. The first part is her desire shall be for her husband. The second part is he shall rule over her. Thus, her desire is to be ruled, but only by a man who is fit to rule over her. Parsing out the meaning of the word desire, it comes back as a combination of the desire to control and a sexual desire. I look at it and I see hypergamy.

      You augment that logic by stating that the church got in the way of God’s natural control for hypergamy by introducing monogamy.

      No, there is only marriage and the number of wives a man might have does not change that. What the church did was change the standard of commitment on the part of the man. Under God’s program the man gave permanent commitment to the woman that was not exclusive. The woman, in exchange for permanent commitment, gave exclusive commitment. In this way we still see the vast majority of marriages as monogamous with a few that are actually polygynous.

      The church, however, changed the nature of the mans commitment from permanent but non exclusive to permanent and exclusive. This was like removing the blow-off valve from the design of a hot water heater. I won’t carry that analogy too far, but suffice to say that the church had, at the time, sufficient power and control over marriage to contain the build-up of pressure. They were also the largest brothel owner in all of history and that, no doubt, contributed to the release of pressure, but that’s a different story. When the church and later the state no longer had the strength to contain the pressure the marriages started blowing up. Instead of returning to the previous condition, it was decided to legislate a system in which if the pressure got too high the boiler was dismantled. For the last 100 years or so the fight has been about the justification for dismantling the boiler and how the parts are allocated. That’s where we are today. The children are the real victims.

      What is needed is accountability for the women because in requiring exclusive commitment from the husband, the church created a monopoly condition for the wife. Monopoly conditions never work out well and are always prone to abuse. The solution to the problem of a monopoly is competition because that competition is a form of accountability that ensures the market players provide the best possible service to the customer.

      My conclusion is that marriage needs a return to the permanent but not exclusive commitment because that is the structure in which the children are raised by both their biological parents until adulthood. The wife is subject to the threat of competition and if that isn’t enough the husband can bring a competitor into the market and she now has direct competition. In other words she has accountability, the marriage continues, the children have a stable family to grow up in and all is as well as it can be based on the structure.

  7. Renee Harris says:

    OK I’m dumb is the bowl p8ssy?

  8. Ironthumb says:

    A great idea would be to switch to Islam.

    I am not Muslim though, but they are big here in the Philippines – but which I don’t need to switch now because our Church and Government don’t permit divorce.

  9. Pingback: Sodomy vs. Polygamy | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s