The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve

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

Translation:  “Go at it like rabbits.”

Because God said so.

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

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

The woman provides him with:
Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Crazy Women, Marriage, Messages to a young man. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    This article was so good, I read it out loud to my teenagers and wife. Squawks of outrage from her, peals of laughter and blushes from them. Daughter commented “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man isn’t King. He is locked up and marginalized as a threat to the authority structure.”

    • “In the land of the blind, the one eyed man isn’t King. He is locked up and marginalized as a threat to the authority structure.”

      Welcome to my world…

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        She refused to believe Apostle Paul said “Do not deprive each other”, so I told kids: “Get her Popish Bible, and read it to her out of there”. After that she couldn’t say anything, the meaning was plainly identical.

        • Actually, it’s even better in Greek and it carries the connotation of “how dare you deny the other what is rightfully theirs.” The part about temptation places the burden on the each party to ensure the other cannot possibly be tempted, in the same way a person who is stuffed full of food can’t be tempted by any food, no matter how good.

          Go at it like rabbits. Because God said so.

  2. Indeed. Women actually bind to a man emotionally after having sex. I had a college roommate who kept running into this when she was trying to go the “modern” casual sex route. Up front she would agree, “no strings” but every time once the deed was done she would want it to be “more” no matter how unsuitable the guy was as a serious partner, and then when he didnt feel the same she would get very hurt. But not enough to learn the lesson or to stop doing it. So yes, a woman having frequent sex w her husband is going to experience this bonding effect as well, as many wives who took the 30 days sex challenge that was popular in churches a few years ago reported – at first they said it felt like a chore but by the end they were infatuated and did not want the daily (or more than daily) deed to stop! I think the reverse is also true, abstinance can make the heart grow distant for a woman (not being a man I can’t speak for that) so yes, frequent and active sex in marriage is the way to go. After all, isn’t that basically what marriage is about?

  3. Hmm says:

    The bonding often applies to men, too – until they come unstuck one too many times. I strongly recommend this:

  4. feeriker says:

    Arguably your magnum opus, AT. I’m tempted to direct my pastor to this article, if for no other reason than to draw out what will surely be “entertaining” excuses for not delivering a much-needed sermon on this topic.

    • High praise indeed, and I thank you.

      I’ve become more and more convinced the problem with feminism is its moral foundation, which is based on the teachings of the church that were laid down about 1500 years ago when they threw out all the Biblical stuff about marriage and decided that men and women were equal.

      The only way to go after that moral foundation is to start talking about Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 3:16, which means we have to talk about Eve. And there’s so much rhetorical gold in there to deal with people who don’t want to listen…

      Anyway, to put the story in perspective, all women were judged incompetent and given guardians because of Eve. Putting it in a guardian-ward frame destroys feminism. Because God said “he shall rule over you.”

  5. moderncaleb says:

    Maybe a useful analogy is to horses; the one you want is the strong-spirited one that no one has been able to break. Perhaps the best wife, long term, will be the most unruly who is then dominated. This also reminds me of God calling Saul to become Paul on the Damascus road.
    While this would be pretty high risk as a strategy going in to marriage, if many men (like me) when discovering red-pill awareness find themselves already married to a strong willed wife, this could be a helpful perspective. The challenge is great, but the reward may be worth it.
    The prayer shifts from the Adamic “This woman you gave me… ” to “Father, give me the power to break this beautiful high-spirited war horse you’ve given me and harness that energy for productive purposes…”

    • In any monogamous type of relationship that could be deemed to be a marriage, this is an extremely high-risk way of doing things, because all it takes is one phone call in most places and you’re stuck in domestic violence hell. That’s usually followed by a couple of papers filed in court and you’re well on your way to losing at least half your assets. If you plan on having children, I believe it is wrong to hang your children’s future on the whims of a “high-spirited” woman that you just may discover to be far more batshit crazy than high-spirited.

      A polygynous marriage arranged under a written contract would be a completely different situation. And I realize nobody likes that, but under the legal environment we have today that’s just the way it is. Any monogamous marriage is completely in the hands of the woman and the legal system is there to help her destroy her family at the drop of a hat. There are multiple organizations urging her to do so and a myriad of churches that will cheer her on and support her when she does.

      The exception to that appears to be if you marry a virgin. If you look at Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics you’ll see that the real divorce rate when marrying a virgin is down below 10%.

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

      So, given 100 marriages, if 20% of them lied and were actually in adultery instead of being legitimately married, that puts their real divorce rate up around 30% which is 6 divorces for those 20 marriages. That leaves 4 divorces for the other 80 marriages, or a real divorce rate for virgins of 5%.

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

      The increase of divorce risk of marrying a non-virgin.

      A picture says it all.

      At the end of the day, anything that a judge can deem to be a marriage places the future of that relationship in the hands of a woman, so if kids are going to be involved go poly.

      • moderncaleb says:

        I greatly appreciate your blog by the way, you are performing a rare and valuable service.
        I can’t find fault with your advice for a person who is not already in a monogamous marriage with kids. I am, I love my family very much, and would prefer to not blow it up. This is, as you have pointed out, not really within my control within the existing legal climate.

        Regardless, I believe God honors faith and faithfulness, and some situations can be improved in ways that are not obvious or specified in the law. Here’s an example from Exodus Ch 17:

        11So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. 12But Moses’ hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set.…

        So the comment about horses is a point of faith for men in an already disadvantageous situation, but who serve a really big God.

  6. Pingback: The “Cardinal Rule” and Female Competition | Toad's Hall

  7. Pingback: Women, Commitment and Sex | Toad's Hall

  8. Pingback: Ho, ho, ho. | Toad's Hall

  9. Pingback: The Sin Of Adam | Toad's Hall

  10. Pingback: Voicing Disagreement… | Toad's Hall

  11. Pingback: Genesis 3:16 A Man Must Be Fit To Rule | Toad's Hall

  12. Pingback: Women’s Opinions On Submission and Discipline | Toad's Hall

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s