Modern Women: Schrödinger’s Cats


The reader may or may not be familiar with the concept of quantum superposition, but most of us have heard at least a reference to Schrödinger‘s Box or Schrödinger‘s Cat.  It comes from a “thought experiment” by Edwin Schrödinger in 1935, in which a cat is locked in a steel box with an amount of radioactive material that triggers a release of poison when it decays.  After a certain amount of time the material may or may not have decayed, so the poison may or may not have been released.  The cat may or may not be alive.  Thus, according to the superposition theory, the cat simultaneously exists as a living cat and a dead cat until reality intrudes and someone opens the box to observe the outcome.

Make of it what you will, but here at Toad’s Hall we have identified Schrödinger‘s Cat: the modern woman.


Schrödinger‘s Pussy?

We start with a little girl who grows to become a woman and one day (the median age is 17.1 years of age) she decided to give her virginity to a guy named Jimmy Schrodinger.  With that act she and Jimmy were married and he is her husband.  But she didn’t tell her father about this and he had no idea that in giving her virginity to Jimmy that they were married.

This is described in Scripture as the man seducing the eligible virgin.  And maybe Jimmy did, but these days the girls don’t need much encouragement if they’re attracted to the man.  The thing is, giving her virginity to Jimmy triggered the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) and according to that Law she was married, but her father wasn’t part of that decision.  That is critically important because as a young woman living in her father’s house, she is subject to the Law of Vows (Numbers 30) and her father has the authority to review any and every agreement she makes in the day he hears of it.

She knew Jimmy wanted sex.  She didn’t have to say anything to agree and when she lifted her ass so he could pull her pants and panties off, that was agreement enough.  For an eligible virgin, the act of sex is marriage.  When she agreed to have sex, she agreed to marry that man.  That agreement to marry was then consummated when they did have sex.  This brings up a serious question because she made that decision and then followed through on it before Daddy had a chance to review it.  And with the act of marriage, the authority over the woman passes from her father to her husband.

Does that mean Daddy  is shut out?  Or does he still get to review her agreement?  If Daddy forbids her agreement, are they married?  That is the case described in Exodus 22:16-17.

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [a]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”  Exodus 22:16-17

The first thing we should note is the underlined words “to be” are in italics.  They are a translators addition not found in the original text  and instead of clarifying what the text says, the added words change the meaning.  Verse 16 describes the father allowing his daughters agreement and they are married.  Verse 17 describes the father forbidding her agreement, meaning he refuses to allow his daughter to marry this young man.  Which is why the text says “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…”

Understand that if he forbids her decision, he is not annulling the marriage, he is refusing to allow the man to marry his daughter.  Meaning, from the moment of the agreement (which he later forbid) she is no longer eligible to marry the man.  Because that man is no longer eligible to marry her, the subsequent act of coitus does not create a marriage.  She is left unmarried and no longer a virgin.

Interestingly, there is no time limit on the father’s authority to forbid an agreement his daughter might have made when she was in her youth living in his house, he may forbid it in the day he hears of it.  That may not be until many years later.

Quantum Vagina

If the father never hears of it he can’t forbid that agreement so our girl was married when she gave Jimmy her virginity and she stays married to him.  And after she breaks up with Jimmy (and it’s pretty much guaranteed she will), every other man she has sex with after that is an act of adultery.  And when she finally has a wedding and “marries” some man years later, the entire affair is fraudulent because she is still married to Jimmy.  And if she later decides she isn’t haaappy with the man she had a wedding with and decides to divorce him, it’s meaningless because she wasn’t really married to him in the first place because she’s still married to Jimmy.

If her father does hear of it and he forbids her agreement, even many years later, then that original act of coitus in which she gave Jimmy her virginity did not result in marriage because the agreement came before the penetration and when the penetration occured she was no longer eligible.  Because Daddy said no to the marriage.  Which is why Exodus 22:17 states “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…”  When he forbids her agreement to marry he is refusing to give her in marriage to that man.  He is no longer eligible to marry her.  When Daddy does that (after the fact), it means she is no longer a virgin but she is not married either.  Which means that every other man she had sex with after that was not a case of adultery, it was just sex.

Because she was no longer a virgin and never married, when she finally agreed to marry some man, she was married to him because she was eligible to marry AND she was agreeing to marry.  Prior to her father forbidding that original agreement she was living in adultery with the man she only thought she was married to; after he forbids it she’s living in marriage with her husband and has never committed adultery up to that point.

The modern woman as Schrödinger‘s Pussy.

She is both an eligible virgin and an ineligible virgin.  Depending on her history, she is married to one man and married to another man at the same time.  She is married and not married at the same time.  She is an adulteress and also a woman who has never committed adultery.  We do not actually know the reality of the situation until we can observe that her father forbid his daughter’s agreement to get married.  It’s a box that stays closed until her father takes action or dies without taking action.

This illustrates the power of fathers.  Oh- and do make note of that part about “in her youth and living in her father’s house.”  That’s a limiting restriction on her father’s authority to review and forbid her agreements.  Perhaps that’s why there is such a satanic focus on separating children from their fathers.  Regardless what churchians know or don’t know, Satan knows full well the power of a father.


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

18 Responses to Modern Women: Schrödinger’s Cats

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    What if this woman is abandoned by the one she gave her virginity to, as in they break up and he leaves, never contacting her again? Is she, according to 1 Corinthians 7:15, no longer in bondage if this man were not a believer? Should she still seek her father if she wished to get release from that bond of marriage, or has she been released by being abandoned?

    • Was she in her youth, living in her father’s house when she agreed to marry the man?

      Was her father unaware of her agreement to marry, and the subsequent act of marriage? It isn’t enough that he knew she had sex, he knows she signs her name all the time. Was he unaware that giving her virginity to that man was her marriage to him?

      If the answers to those two questions are anything other than “Yes, she was in her youth living in her fathers house” and “Yes, her father was completely unaware of her agreement and what it meant” then no, her father cannot do anything.

      If she was no longer in her youth, no longer living in her father’s house; or if he was aware of her decision to marry and he did not forbid it, then she is married with that act.

      The thrust of your question assumes that he knowingly abandoned his wife. He didn’t because he didn’t know they were married. The point is, if both of the questions are answered yes and yes, then have her father forbid her marriage to that man. There is no formula or anything like that, it could be nothing more than “I forbid your marriage to (his name)” and that’s it.

  2. Pode says:

    The uncertainty compounds. Once father has forbidden the marriage in the day he hears of it, she is no longer a virgin and is unmarried. If she then leaves her father’s house and moves in with Jimmy to be his wife, are they married again? Or is it only widows who are free to choose?

    So much to think about, so little time to think.

    • “are they married again?”

      I say no, but bear with me as I explain my reasoning. Please feel free to point out any problems you see.

      The way things are supposed to work, the girl grows to be a woman living in her father’s house and at some point she becomes a wife with her father’s approval. She then lives with her husband. If he is later killed she is a widow and if she had not born him an heir, according to the Law she is to go to his brother so that she might bear an heir to carry on the name of her dead husband.

      If the woman is unfaithful and commits adultery her husband may, according to Moses, divorce her and send her away. Thus, the widow is no longer married through no fault of her own, while the divorced woman is no longer married because she betrayed her husband. As a Christian, the woman may no longer be bound in marriage because her unbelieving husband left her. She may or may not bear culpability in that and God will judge.

      It is the natural state of women to be under the authority of a man. Part of God’s program was that a man can have more than one wife, which means a woman’s SMV doesn’t play that large of a part in becoming married. There are many older women who might be an excellent addition to a man’s household because while their youth and fertility is spent, they have experience and skill. This assumes they have a gracious attitude.

      However, we are seeing a situation today that God never intended, so let’s look at the instruction from Scripture to put us on the right path.

      1. The eligible virgin woman is married when she gives her virginity to an eligible man.

      2. The virgin, in her youth and living in her father’s house (which is where she should be until she gets married) is under her father’s authority and he has the authority to review and either approve or forbid any agreement she makes.

      3. Points #1 and #2 create a special situation in which, because the woman was under the authority of her father, might not be married with the act of coitus.

      4. IF such condition existed AND her father forbid her agreement to marry after she engaged in the act of marriage, THEN she she would not be a virgin and she would not be married because HER FATHER FORBID HER MARRIAGE TO THAT MAN.

      5. Numbers 30:9 states that the widow and the divorced woman are in authority over their own decisions and will be held accountable for any agreement they make. They are not released from previous agreements just because their husband died or divorced them.

      6. According to 1st Corinthians 7:39, the woman who was previously bound in marriage and is no longer bound because she was abandoned by her unbelieving husband is free to choose whom she may marry, only in the Lord. Again, her agreement to marry is not subject to review by a man.

      As to your question, I think 1st Corinthians 7:8-9 is instructive in this case:

      “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.”

      Paul addresses the unmarried and the widows, saying it is good for them to remain unmarried. Then he addresses the church and says “let them marry” and states his reasoning. Why would Paul tell the church to let them marry unless the church was trying to exercise the authority of the father over the unmarried and widows?

      Paul is being clear that the church does not have the authority to forbid the unmarried woman to marry and in Verse 39 he made it clear that the choice of whom to marry is hers (as long as he is a believer).

      Note, by “unmarried” Paul was not talking about virgins, because in that chapter he covered the issues related to virgins. He said “unmarried” which would cover the divorced woman, the woman no longer bound in marriage and the woman who was not a virgin but not married.

      So, the widow and the unmarried woman have the authority to choose to marry any eligible man.

      The more delicate issue you raise is whether the girl’s father has the authority to permanently forbid her marriage to a particular man and make him permanently ineligible. She is not married to him because her father forbid it and I do not see how his ineligibility could change simply because she removed herself from his authority.

      Such is the authority of the father, as stated in 1st Corinthians 7:36-38. Keep in mind that Paul could not add anything to the authority of the father that he did not already have and (as the text indicates) the father has the authority to forbid marriage to any man to his daughter. Paul’s entire purpose in making that statement was that she might be completely focused on the Lord, which is the only reason to disregard the first command to be fruitful and multiply.

      What are the limits of the father’s authority? In my opinion, the father’s authority in that matter ends on the day he dies in the same way that a husband’s authority over his wife ends in the day he dies.

      I realize the argument can be made that in leaving her father’s house and going out from under his authority, the unmarried woman becomes responsible for her own decisions. Obviously, one might assume part of that is the authority to set aside the decision her father made for her when she was in her youth and living in her father’s house.

      • Pode says:

        Well answered, I think. She is free to make her own new decisions / vows, but not free to reverse her father’s decisions until he dies.

  3. happyhousewifey says:

    What about most fathers: they do not approve, but stay silent, unaware of their power/authority. If asked, they would confirm that they are against it. They are never told outright that their daughters are sexually active, but they can guess. Can they forbid it years later if their daughters spell it out to them?
    Should the daughter take the unspoken disapproval into account?

    • Girls are not taught that by giving her virginity to a man she is marrying him. The fathers have been lied to as well and the church, as an institution, is at fault in this matter.

      The woman’s agreement to have sex the first time was her agreement to marry.

      Yes, years later the father can forbid that agreement, if it occurred when she was in her youth and living in her fathers house. The authority for doing so comes from Numbers 30:5 and that authority does not contain a time limit, it says “in the day he hears of it.” If he does not hear of it until many years later, so what? He has the authority to either accept or forbid that agreement of hers in the day he hears of it.

      I am not speaking of whether he hears of her being sexually active, because if he does not understand that sex is the act of marriage then he does not understand. He must understand that her agreement to have sex the first time was her agreement to marry. And that the subsequent act of penetration by that man married her.

      I am now working on a post to deal with this.

      • Pode says:

        it says “in the day he hears of it.”

        When written, the relevant part of “it” that he would hear of was his daughter having sex. Now, the relevant part that he needs to hear of is that his daughter having sex means she’s married. So in the day he hears of THAT, he can still forbid her marriage IMO.

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

  5. mala says:

    I can’t believe I’m going to ask this question, but what if the girl’s “husband” committed suicide? What then? Is she just a whore, or what?

    • When a woman’s husband dies, she’s a widow. She is a “free agent” if you will, free to make her own decisions as to what she does. And, yes, that means if she chooses to have sex with a man but does not agree to marry him, it’s just sex. It’s not wrong, it’s not a sin, it’s just sex.

  6. Pingback: Theology For Men of the West: Adultery | Toad's Hall

  7. Derek Ramsey says:

    A man and virgin woman have sex and are married. They are married for 10 years. The father of the bride then revokes the marriage. Now the woman, no longer a virgin, is free to marry again. What if she and the original man immediately choose to have sex and be married? Then they are married again and the father no longer has any say in the matter.

    Numbers 30:3-5 only applies if the woman is living in her father’s household. Numbers 30:6-15 declares that once a woman is married and out of the father’s household, it is the husband, not the father, who has the exclusive right to revoke her vows. Exodus 22:16-17 doesn’t apply if either the woman is living outside her father’s household or she is not a virgin when she marries. The father cannot cancel her daughter’s marriage once she leaves the household. The reason is as obvious as the absurd example I gave and the absurdity of your post.

    Exodus 22:16-17 does not actually say that the marriage is cancelled. It only says that the man must pay the bride-price, which may be a greater for v17 than for v16. While it does seem implied that his refusal will be honored, I don’t see how that can be maintained if she is determined to leave her father’s house and move in with her husband because she is no longer a virgin and no longer subject to Exodus 22:17. Moreover, describing the act as seduction implies that the action of the woman was not well-considered. The payment of the bride-price and the father’s refusal are two ways to protect the daughter. Yet if she presses the issue, the father can do nothing to prevent that under the law, for she can leave her father’s house and she is no longer a virgin.

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      I made a serious exegetical mistake in my previous comment.

      The Exodus 22 passage gives two protections for the daughter. The first is the payment of the bride-price by the man. This is unconditional and must be paid if the marriage continues (v16) and if it does not (v17). The second protection is optional: the father may refuse the husband’s marital rights to his daughter. The rights of the father (Numbers 30:3-5) override the conflicting rights of the husband (Numbers 30:6-15) in this specific situation where both are exerted. The husband cannot force her to go through with the marriage (if, say, she regrets it) without her father’s approval.

    • “Numbers 30:3-5 only applies if the woman is living in her father’s household.”

      You left out the important point, which was that she had to be living in her father’s household in her youth when she made the agreement. There is no time limit as far as when the father hears about it, and thus “in the day” he hears of it could be at any further point in his lifetime.

      If the agreement occurred on his watch, when he was in authority over her because she was in her youth living in his house, then the father can forbid the agreement at whatever point he hears about it. That is the limit of what Numbers 30:3-5 is saying.

      “Exodus 22:16-17 does not actually say that the marriage is cancelled.”

      What marriage? He “absolutely refused to give her” to him. Give her to him, how? In marriage. He refused to uphold her agreement, forbidding it, therefore the man is not eligible to marry her. You seem to be having difficulty with this.

      Understand that the authority of the father is to forbid vows his daughter made, even to God. And God, having delegated that authority to the father, will honor that decision of the father. Consider the magnitude of that.

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “she had to be living in her father’s household in her youth when she made the agreement. There is no time limit as far as when the father hears about it”

        This is delicate splitting hairs as far as interpretation goes, but I can see how you would come to this conclusion. For once I don’t feel like you’ve made any great error in interpretation, but I think it can be demonstrated logically that it is not the preferred interpretation.

        The phrase “and her father hears about her vow” in v4 is the same time frame as “when he hears about it” in v5. He hears about the vow and then either allows it (v4) or rejects it (v5).[1] So that leaves us with “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow…and her father hears about her vow”. I see no reason at all to assume that these two are not directly connected by the conjunction, tying both events to the same time frame. She must be living in her father’s household when (1) she makes the vow; and (2) when her father hears about it. This makes a whole lot more sense and avoids legalistic absurdities.

        Now it would be especially interesting to see what external commentators, especially experts in Hebrew grammar, have to say about this. I didn’t look this up, so I don’t know which of the two interpretations is preferred.

        “What marriage? … You seem to be having difficulty with this.

        Ha! Yeah, I’m not going to yield on this point until you prove it conclusively. But since we are discussing it elsewhere, there is no need to say more about it here.

        “Consider the magnitude of that.”

        Yup, pretty amazing stuff.

        [1] This is a remarkably similar construction to Exodus 22:16-17 where one thing is optional (revoking of the marriage) and one thing is required (payment of the bride price) in both cases.

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