50 Shades Of Biblical Marriage

come-here

Occasionally we see something interesting, like the popularity of the “50 Shades of Grey” novels and movie.  While it can’t be denied that the entire thing is a feminist fantasy of the woman taming her alpha, why did it generate such a fascination with Dominance/submission relationships?  There is obviously a desire to claim women are a lot more kinky than anyone would believe, but that isn’t it.

Are Women Confused?

Recently the subject of a Dominant/submissive relationship came up and a woman of my acquaintance said:

I don’t believe in obeying a man. I do believe in respecting him. And because of that, would try to do as he wishes. But I would still retain my right to choose.

To be honest, I do fall into that group of women that prefers to let the man be in charge. But I do not choose to be with somebody who wants to exert complete control and will not allow me to have a voice.  But I would not play a submissive to anyone’s dominant. That’s just not me. But I enjoyed reading about it. More in a voyeuristic role. (Referencing 50 Shades)

Notice the complete incoherence of that statement.  She prefers the man to be in charge, but doesn’t want to obey him.  She would try to do as he wishes but refuses to accept any authority on his part to tell her what to do.   In other words, she reserves the right to do as she damn well pleases and probably expects him to pick up the pieces afterward.  But it isn’t that simple.

On further investigation, she was married to multiple cringe-worthy men who she rapidly became disgusted with.  It’s no surprise the marriages fell apart, but there are two sides of this, his behavior and her behavior.

“I do not choose to be with somebody who wants to exert complete control and will not allow me to have a voice.”

That word “wants” is critical.   The fact he “wants” it means he doesn’t have it.  She didn’t believe he was worthy of it so she didn’t give it to him.  Part of the problem is this attitude represents women who settled for a man they were not attracted to, part of it is that she cannot separate the man from the rank.  We don’t salute the man, we salute the rank.

This conflation of the man with the rank is exemplified by marriage today in the refusal of women to recognize that the husband’s rank is superior to that of the wife.  Very much like officers and enlisted, no matter how “high” the wife’s rank might rise to be, she will never outrank her husband because husband is always superior to wife.

The problem is the legal system has been altered to change the rank system and put the wife in a superior position to her husband.  This is part of the reason we see marriages blowing up everywhere and most women are miserable in their marriage.  This is easily observable.

 

Modern Marriage Emasculates Men

I’ve written enough about socially imposed monogamous marriage and the fact that today, polygyny is a better deal for both the men and the women so I won’t make the point again here.   While one problem with marriage today is that it’s monogamous and gives the woman a monopoly over her husband that creates boredom and frustration, the problem is much greater.

The legal structure of modern marriage and the power the state has over marriage is designed to put women in the power position and give them great power over their husband to the point of emasculating him.   Like children, women claim to want this power in the same way that children want lots of candy.  And, like a steady diet of candy, over time it’s disgusting and makes the women sick.

Women (as a group) don’t want to give up their power over marriage and their ability to divorce-rape men, but at the same time they want a dominant masculine man.  This should be looked at in the same way that women might think that abortion is horrible, but they don’t want the option taken off the table because they might need it one day.  Those are mutually incompatible desires, so what can they do?  They look for some kind of relationship in which they can get the kind of man they really want.

good-girl

The Fascination With Dom/sub Relationships

Women will do amazing things for a man they are highly attracted to, but what happens when they live in a culture in which they don’t encounter attractive men?  A culture in which the women are participating in the process of destroying any masculinity boys and young men might develop?  Just because the dominant men are rare doesn’t mean women stop wanting them.  The only question is what they’re willing to pay to get one.

It appears the fundamental desire women have for dominant, masculine men is being channeled into what we’d think of as kink.  They look around and don’t see any masculine men so they think they should get into a Dom/sub relationship.

A Dom/sub relationship is a modern
facsimile of a Biblical marriage.

The institution of marriage has been wrecked by the false doctrine of equalism, the idea that men and women are equal.  What is the hallmark of a Dom/sub relationship?  Inequality.  There is equity, but the sub is not the Dom’s equal and that is the foundation of the relationship dynamic.  In fact, there are four critical points of a Dom/sub relationship.

  1. The Dom (man) controls the relationship, meaning he has complete responsibility.
  2. Within the framework of Dom/sub, the rules are negotiable in the beginning.
  3. Both the Dom and sub have rights and responsibilities within the relationship.
  4. There is no outside person or entity with authority over the relationship.

The feminist empowerment fantasy of “50 Shades of Grey” is wrapped in kink, but it derives its power from the fact that after marriage a divorce court could give Anastasia half of everything Christian owns and order him to pay millions each year in child support.  The moment a marriage occurred, the Dom/sub relationship in which Christian was the Dom ended and Anastasia became the Dominant one with the power of the State behind her.  The truth is “50 Shades” is not about Dom/sub, it’s about the woman taming her alpha, bending him and breaking him to her will.

Is it wrong for women to be looking for something like that?  If feminism were correct, wouldn’t women be happy to enter marriages in which they have the power to break their husband’s balls?  As it turns out, the fascination with D/s relationships is truly ironic because the standards for marriage drawn from the Bible look amazingly like a Dom/sub contract, minus the kink.

Rules For the Biblical
Dom/sub Relationship Called Marriage:

  1. The act of penetrative sexual intercourse is required to begin the relationship.  If the woman is a virgin sex automatically begins the relationship.  If she is not a virgin but otherwise eligible, she must agree to the relationship prior to the sex initiating the relationship.
  2. The commitment standard of the man is permanent, which means that once given he cannot rescind his commitment (regardless of her behavior).  His commitment is non-exclusive, which means that at his discretion he may bring other women into the relationship at any time.
  3. The commitment standard of the woman is permanent and she is bound to her man for as long as he lives.  Her commitment is exclusive, which means that he is her one and only.  No-one can have two masters.
  4. The relationship between the man and women is one of master-servant, or ruler-subject.  The man is to rule his women and has complete authority over them, over every aspect of their lives, in everything.
  5. The man is required to love his women.  This love is defined as holding them accountable for good behavior and requiring their obedience.  When they transgress he is required to rebuke and discipline them.
  6. Part of this accountability is his obligation to review any and every agreement she makes with others.  If he desires he may say nothing and let it stand but if he does not like it he is to forbid it in the day he hears of it.
  7. The woman is to submit to her man in everything, no exceptions.  Her submission is not dependent on her opinion of his behavior or his actual behavior.
  8. If the man is displaying bad behavior the woman is to submit to him without a word and win him over with her quiet and chaste conduct.
  9. Sex is to be on demand and the woman’s body belongs to the man.  Likewise, the man is to ensure that the women’s sexual needs are met.
  10. Sexual activity such as masturbation, oral, vaginal or anal is all at the discretion of the man.
  11. The woman is required to live with her man in order that he might meet his responsibility to hold her accountable for her behavior.
  12. If the woman chooses to violate requirement #11 and leave her man, she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her man.
  13. If the woman has left her man in violation of these rules, she still retains the right of return.  If she returns in complete submission to him, the man is required to accept her return to the relationship and cannot refuse to be reconciled to her.
  14. The women are not required to love their man but they are required to respect him, obey him and submit to him.
  15. Women are encouraged to call their man “Master” without being frightened by any fear.
  16. As part of the women’s requirement to respect their man, it is appropriate to treat him as if they were enlisted persons and he was a commissioned officer.  Call him “Sir” and be respectful in language and posture, as well as giving an appropriate “salute” such as a bow of the head or kiss on the cheek when that is appropriate.
  17. Women are owned by their man and required to remain faithful to him, although masturbation and sexual activity with other women are allowed at his discretion.
  18. The man may have sex with any woman outside the relationship that he is eligible to marry, except for prostitutes.
  19. The women must not have vaginal intercourse while they are menstruating.
  20. Vaginal intercourse is forbidden following childbirth for a period of 40 days if the child was a boy and 80 days for a girl.
  21. Any other rules are negotiable or at the discretion of the husband.

 

NB:  Yes, those really are the rules and yes, the Bible really does say that.  I changed some wording around, but the meaning was not tampered with at all.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Churchianity, Crazy Women, Marriage, Messages to a young man, Polygyny and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to 50 Shades Of Biblical Marriage

  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    All true, but women still want fried ice. The cognitive dissonance is making them crazy.
    I second your notion that Fifty Shades was all about a mousy girl bagging her alpha. Women love the story because hypergamy wins.

  2. Renee Harris says:

    Both the Dom and sub have rights and responsibilities within the relationships
    What rights does a wife have?

    • Larrup says:

      She has the right to be supported, to have her needs (not wants) met. She has the right to have her childrens’ needs (not wants) met.

      • thedeti says:

        Yes. And she has the right to his “love”, which includes his financial support of her and their children and his dealing with her gently and in an understanding way (which does not necessarily mean catering to her feelz at all times).

  3. Mike says:

    How about the the right to a man commanded to love her? What else does she need/want? Fried ice?

    • Pode says:

      Not just love her, but love her as Christ loves the church and gave Himself up for (the church). What else can she want indeed?

      At the literal question, she has the right to sex with her husband on demand (point 9 applies both ways). She has the right to be treated gently and with understanding by her husband (this DOES NOT include the right to define those terms, or else her husband has no actual authority). She has the right of return, should she be foolish enough to leave and then repent, her husband must accept her back. She has the right for her children to inherit by birth order regardless of her husband’s preference of wife. As Christians are the slaves of Christ, presumably the OT regulations on slavery and protections for slaves also apply to her, as indicated by the requirement that concubines be treated as wives.

      Toad, chapter and verse cites for the individual rules may help to forestall a lot of ignorant argumentation here. I realize I didn’t do so myself in the paragraph above. Mea culpa.

      • Pode, thank you.

        I’ll have to amend the post to include the right of return. I left out the inheritance rights because it actually deals with primogeniture, which is an unknown concept today.

      • Pode says:

        Primogeniture is more known than you might expect due to the popularity of the game Crusader Kings 2, but point is well taken that inheritance rights have been largely forgotten since the government’s forcible takeover of care for the elderly and widowed. Under God’s law this is a filial obligation and so who bore the firstborn son was an issue of great importance to the long term security of women. Sadly God’s law on this subject is so unknown today that not even Jewish culture in the game has proper Biblical inheritance, which is basically agnatic gavelkind but with the firstborn getting a double share.

        • I gave up gaming back in the dark ages of Windows 95 and “Ages of Empire” when I looked around one evening and realized that I’d spent the entire day playing a video game and I’d never have that time back again. I don’t throw rocks at those who play, it’s just something that I cannot (in good conscience) do myself.

          The most significant thing about primogeniture is not the asset side of the inheritance but inheriting the mantle of being the spiritual head of the family. That is not just a spiritual role but also a leadership responsibility. The sin of Esau in selling his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage was to view his spiritual headship as having no value.

    • Renee Harris says:

      Want to know punishment as in want toad wrote in casting calls . Toad made it seems there is discussion before hand then two side agreements. Or the man lead it out and woman ask him to explain this or define that. The rights I was referring is actually what requested should a woman asked for In writing Of contact. Ex I can see my mom who you don’t like again.

  4. Renee Harris says:

    I grew up getting whippings. That is the father’s love that as a husband love. That they only right that a woman has

  5. Renee Harris says:

    Sorry Mike. I understand with told me and when he does love a woman it mean to physically punished her
    So when you say right I’m thinking of the word that means favorable privileges. If a woman never act up you’ll never be punished and Dupitt notion I understand that. And there for her husband will never have to love her Punish her. So assuming a woman get on her a game he had no right in marriage because you’ll never need to be disciplined. Do you know understand my question

  6. Linny says:

    I will admit that I did not live my life by those rules exactly. We did have in place a *captain/first mate* type of relationship. And to a great extent it worked fine. Unfortunately, my partner(husband, SO, man, whatever) was not really up to the job in the way these rules suggest.

    The way the world is today I have to wonder where a woman is to find a man worthy of the position of master? What signs should she look for that would lead her to believe she has found such a man? How many men are out there that actually understand the responsibilities of being a master and can hold that frame long term?

    I feel that if a woman wants a man of this caliber she will forever be hunting the elusive unicorn.

    • Linny,
      Your questions are cogent, especially this one: “where a woman is to find a man worthy of the position of master?”

      The simplest answer is that while a man can have a great deal of talent, skill and potential, it is the relationship itself that will (over time) cause him to become worthy if he takes the responsibility seriously. The woman has to surrender in order for him to do his job and according to the rules, she’s required to surrender in order that the man might do his job.

      The major difference between the fake marriage of a Dom/sub relationship and a real marriage is God. When the woman does her job and gets out of the way, she allows God to deal with the man. When she does it will all work out and the Bible is clear on this:

      “All things work together for the good of those who love the Lord and are called according to His purposes.”

      Women were created from man, for man, to be used by man to accomplish his mission. Which means that men and women are not and cannot be equal in any way in their relationships to one another. This is a teaching that is very hard for women to accept today.

      While on one hand women are being taught to defy their men and create nothing but problems in relationships, the men are likewise being taught to do exactly the wrong things and become disgusting and repulsive.

      The major problem is third-party interference by the state. A man and woman might do well together and work things out, but the impact of the state’s interference is profound. There are only two types of relationships that get around this 3rd party interference; one is polygyny which cannot be defined as a marriage, the other is a Dom/sub relationship- which is essentially an arrangement solely for sexual pleasure.

      Yes, men need to be trained, but women need to submit.

  7. Linny says:

    “The simplest answer is that while a man can have a great deal of talent, skill and potential, it is the relationship itself that will (over time) cause him to become worthy if he takes the responsibility seriously. The woman has to surrender in order for him to do his job and according to the rules, she’s required to surrender in order that the man might do his job.”

    I still don’t understand how a woman is to choose a man. You say that it is the relationship that will cause him to become worthy. What if a woman surrenders but the man fails to do his job?

    What if the man never seeks or receives the training he needs to be worthy? What if he never takes his responsibility seriously?

    I feel as a woman you are telling me it is just the luck of the draw. That is scary.

    • How is a woman to choose a man?

      A woman’s desire shall be for a man who is fit to rule over her. That’s more of less one of the things God said in Genesis 3:16. Women engage in what is known as fitness testing (which includes both shit tests and loyalty tests). When the man fails their tests (and they are unique to the woman and that man) her attraction to him dries up and dies. When he sails through her tests like the champ that he is, her attraction to him becomes sexual in nature.

      So, the general answer is that the women test the men. If they’re fit to rule over her, the woman is attracted to them. The tests establish whether the woman can control and manipulate the man, because what she does not want is a man she can control. This is not luck of the draw unless the woman is using some other criteria (like how much money he has or what he looks like).

      A woman’s attraction to a specific man is critical in her happiness within her relationship, but there is a reciprocal issue here. The woman may want that top-shelf man, but does he want her? Is she worthy to receive what she wants? This is the flip-side of what Fuzzie was pointing to when he said women just want fried ice.

      What we see is there are many, many women who want a man that doesn’t want them. She might be good enough for a pump and dump, but forget about a commitment. What happens is that women settle for something less than what they want and wind up with a man who they are not highly attracted to.

      Because the woman cannot separate the man from his rank, she refuses to do her job. The problems she causes when she refuses to do her job create problems for the man and that, combined with her lack of attraction for him causes a downward spiral.

      The what-if questions you’ve asked are akin to asking “what if your sister had a penis?” Well, if your sister had a penis then he would be your brother.

      • Linny says:

        Okay, I get it now. A woman will know because of her attraction to a specific man. Whether he desires her or not doesn’t really matter. She needs to concentrate on men she finds desirable because that will lead her to one who can rule over her and therefore make her happy. Do I get it?

        I would be interested in knowing what the *tests* are. I wonder if I tested my man or not. I don’t remember doing anything that I considered a test. But who knows maybe I did and just didn’t realize.

        • Whether he desires her or not doesn’t really matter.

          It does if there is going to be a relationship. A man will typically marry the most attractive woman he can in order to regularly have sex with her. The more options he has the more selective he can afford to be in terms of what he’s looking for, but if the woman isn’t attracted it won’t work (long term) and if the man isn’t attracted it won’t happen.

          Perhaps other commenters might wish to explain shit tests and loyalty tests to you. The fact that you ask the question proves the fact that it’s a subconscious thing, but I fear I might have too much fun with the subject.

      • thedeti says:

        “What we see is there are many, many women who want a man that doesn’t want them. She might be good enough for a pump and dump, but forget about a commitment. What happens is that women settle for something less than what they want and wind up with a man who they are not highly attracted to.”

        This is hands down the number one problem women have in their long term relationships today. They meet and have sex with attractive men, but cannot parlay that into LTRs. She then settles for a man who is less attractive than the men she used to have sex with. And she hates every minute of it. She is angry and resentful at having to settle. She is angry at him for not being what she wanted.

        She is angry at herself because she’s angry at him and doesn’t know why. Every time she gets angry at him, he changes to do what she says she wants. He submits to her whims and tirades. This only makes her angrier. What she can’t articulate and what he doesn’t know is that the more he submits to her, the more he changes to be what she says she wants and do what she wants, the more she hates him and is disgusted by him.

        If he would only stand up for himself and say “stop” and “no”, he might be able to turn it around. But he hasn’t been trained to do that. He’s been specifically trained to give her everything she wants, do everything she wants, and follow her orders. He’s not been trained to stand up for anything he wants, to stand on his own two feet. He’s been specifically told and taught his only worth and value is to get a job and make money specifically for the purpose of becoming a husband and father. He’s been told his MISSION is to be a husband and father, when those things are not missions at all. His mission is his vocation, his calling, his trade, occupation and business. The way in which he contributes to the world and carves out his little corner of it. THAT is his mission; not his wife, not his children.

        • “His mission is his vocation, his calling, his trade, occupation and business. The way in which he contributes to the world and carves out his little corner of it.”

          I’m completely familiar with the models from the manosphere, but the problem I see is they are limited to a focus on alpha/beta. Whether one agrees with it’s premises or not, I believe the Bible has a better perspective and it falls to what God said when He told women “your desire shall be for the man who is fit to rule over you.” Rather than “becoming an alpha” a better model is becoming fit to rule. That’s becoming the alpha plus wisdom, courage, fidelity, honor and empathy; as well as a willingness to defend boundaries, sternness and an iron will.

          The man’s mission (if he wants a woman to desire him) is to be a ruler. A king, which means that part of a man’s lot in life (if he is to rule) is to create his own kingdom. This includes not only his occupation as well as avocation. His heirs and the preparation of his heirs is also just as much a part of that mission (which starts with actually *having* an heir).

          And, as you have indicated, where does a man go to learn how to rule?

    • Pode says:

      Proverbs 16:33 says The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. Do you trust God for the luck of the draw or not?

      Women don’t choose, they are chosen, men initiate marriage. The design intent is for a woman’s father to choose her husband for her. If she’s legitimately choosing a man something has gone horribly wrong in her life: she’s a widow, a divorced adulteress, or a virgin in rebellion against her father. Dads worth a damn most certainly do not choose husbands for their daughters based on their attractiveness. Your instincts are set up to make you attracted to the man placed in authority over you, not to help you choose *which* man to submit to. At best, you get to choose from among the multiple men who have offered to marry you, with the understanding that they can never leave you (point 13) and that they will have to answer to God for your behavior. If you have more than one of those in this modern world, you’re pretty special.

      • Pode, while I agree with most of that, I think the most critical part is that “your instincts are set up to make you attracted to the man placed in authority over you.” The fitness testing establishes in her mind his fitness to rule. This is why understanding game is critical for men in order to satisfy that need that women have.

        The fact is, her attempts at manipulation and control are always shit tests and the man must recognize that. While women conflate the man with the rank, so too does the man conflate the man with the rank and thus fail to defend the prerogatives of the rank.

        However, those female instincts are also effective at helping the woman decide which man to submit to in the absence of counsel, if we view the word “attractive” to include a market-basket of attributes and not just looks. The problem is that women are taught to focus on the “nice guy” character attributes to the exclusion of the raw attractiveness of masculine dominance.

        I know a woman who was convinced that her father did not want her to marry her husband because he offered her just about anything to not marry him. After she refused everything and made it clear her desire was truly to marry him, her father walked her down the aisle and gave her away. She was never aware that he was testing her and when she passed his tests he was convinced that she truly wanted that man and truly wanted to marry him. At that point he gave his approval.

      • Pode says:

        “A woman will know because of her attraction to a specific man. Whether he desires her or not doesn’t really matter. She needs to concentrate on men she finds desirable because that will lead her to one who can rule over her and therefore make her happy. Do I get it?”

        My concern was that absent counsel, women in general and Linny in particular will choose the raw attractiveness of masculine dominance without regard for character. That’s a recipe for life on the cock carousel and being eaten by her starving cats once she dies alone. Her father is supposed to filter for a good man of character and then place him in a position of dominance. The de facto dominance then creates the attraction.

        Point is that her choosing to be submissive will make a good man more attractive. Choosing an attractive (dominant) man will not make him more good, which is the common female fantasy of the reformed bad boy. The goal is a godly man, one who is both good and dominant.

  8. Renee Harris says:

    Thank you I just through a love of Christ was a discipline base love. The ideal that a wife have right seem funny and fermist to me

  9. Reverend Pain says:

    Great post Toad. I’ve followed some of your advice and started weight lifting which is doing a lot of good! I’ve got little to no idea how to find a female who will be interested in submission. I’m terrified of modern marriage but all girls will want marriage.

    • I don’t recommend very many books, but Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Male series are required reading. In terms of marriage, which is a long-term relationship, Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life Primer is the best starting point I’ve seen. What is really needed is teaching material for men so they can learn game from a theo-centric world view but I don’t know of any and at this point I don’t have the time to create it.

      The classic manosphere advice of learn game, hit the gym and work on your career is all quite good in terms of becoming attractive, but from a Biblical perspective your goal is to become fit to rule.

      What are the attributes of a king? Confident, charismatic, dominant masculinity… sure. Beyond that, what makes a good king? Wisdom, loyalty, honesty, firmness, fidelity, faithfulness, courage and honor.

      A king has his kingdom. That is something you have to create. Become the man who is fit to rule and you will find that people will enter your orbit because they want to be close to you. Your queen will hunt you down when your establish your kingdom.

      Honor is most often seen in the absence, but it is best seen in the dark. It is in darkness where people have no accountability and they can do as they wish that honor shines like a beacon. Because honor is as honor does and a man of honor makes his decisions based on what is right, not on what is popular or pleasant.

    • Larrup says:

      You *ought* to be terrified of modern marriage, in the English speaking world, due to the sinful nature of women and the incentives (taking half of your wealth) the State gives them to divorce you.

      It is not for no reason that Toad says:

      ‘The problem is the legal system has been altered to change the rank system and put the wife in a superior position to her husband. This is part of the reason we see marriages blowing up everywhere and most women are miserable in their marriage. This is easily observable.’

      and:

      ‘The feminist empowerment fantasy of “50 Shades of Grey” is wrapped in kink, but it derives its power from the fact that after marriage a divorce court could give Anastasia half of everything Christian owns and order him to pay millions each year in child support. The moment a marriage occurred, the Dom/sub relationship in which Christian was the Dom ended and Anastasia became the Dominant one with the power of the State behind her. The truth is “50 Shades” is not about Dom/sub, it’s about the woman taming her alpha, bending him and breaking him to her will.’

  10. Linny says:

    Pode

    Relax. I am not in the market. So I am safe from making a bad choice and the cock carousel and I am allergic to cats.

    I do wonder about the father choosing a man for his daughter. I personally do not know any man who is a father that would even attempt such a thing. Nor do I know of any marriages that were done in that way. Oops, I do know some Indian people who have had arranged marriages and so far they are working great, at least, looking from the outside.

    My father was responsible (or ruled over me if you wish) until my wedding day. I am pretty sure he was happy to be relieved of that duty but just before he walked me down the aisle he gave me a chance to change my mind. Silly me did not take it. I think perhaps he knew that my husband was not the right man but he never said that to me. But I was very young and probably would not have listened to him,

    “The goal is a godly man, one who is both good and dominant.” But for those who have no one to look out for them how are these women supposed to choose wisely?

  11. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Linny,
    Shit tests would be putting your man in a position for him to make an either/or decision that is to be seen as wrong which ever way he goes with it. It is deliberately putting him in a lose/lose situation. Then, when he fails, he is condemned.

    • Linny says:

      Well, my guess is that I never tested him, figuring out a test like that would take deliberate thought and would have to be timed just right. I think I would remember doing something like that even after all these years.

      Off topic – I had appointments this afternoon and on my way home had a really early dinner. Yep, I had a burger and it is all your fault for putting that thought in my head.

      Maybe Pode should worry about me. If you can do that online from afar what would happen to me face to face with a man. Hahaha

      • Linny
        Anything you did where you tried to manipulate him or control him was ultimately a shit test because deep down you didn’t want him to let you manipulate him or control him, but you did it anyway. It was completely subconscious for the most part.

      • Pode says:

        You don’t have to figure shit tests out, they’re subconscious. The proverbial example is “Do these pants make my ass look fat?”
        “No honey, you look amazing in everything.” = suckup tryhard, FAIL
        “Yes” = overly harsh, a lesser fail than the first but still a fail.
        Pretend not to hear = chickenshit, FAIL
        “OMG look everyone it’s a talking whale!” = Agree and Amplify TM. Works on bona fide hotties who know damn well they look good and are fishing for compliments, otherwise too harsh and a fail.
        “I need to see your ass without them on to judge.” = Playful deflection of her insecurities, reminds her that her man’s opinion of her ass is the one that really matters and he approves. PASS.

  12. Renee Harris says:

    How does a woman become more respectful

    • Start by addressing the man as “Sir” and pay attention when he speaks to you. Do not be sarcastic, do not let snark pass from your lips. “Yes Sir” and “No Sir” will go a long way though.

      • Renee Harris says:

        Thank you

        • Do not be surprised at how uncomfortable this will make some men. This is an indication of their confidence. If they accept your respect at face value good… but if they tell you to stop calling them sir they are telling you they are not worthy of your respect.

      • Just Some Guy says:

        This hit me right in the medial temporal lobe. About 20 years ago, I had a girlfriend who called me sir when we first started dating. She was a good christian girl, same church, reared by a man I respected and called friend. After a while, I had to specifically ask her to stop because it made me feel uncomfortable. I didn’t realize, till many years later, what a beautiful valuable gift she was giving me.

    • Pode says:

      Thinking Housewife had a good post a year or more ago about thought exercises for a reformed slut to help her bond to her husband. A lot of material about how to cultivate an attitude of submission, respect, and gratitude applicable to any woman, whether she’s been a slut or just been tempted to be.

    • Bee says:

      Tell positive stories about your man when you are with friends, co-workers, girlfriends, and relatives. Don’t discuss the faults, or negatives of your man with anyone other than your man. Practice, practice; develop the habit of speaking only good about your man.

      My wife’s parents and siblings think I walk on water. I don’t, but my wife only brags about me to them. She is free to point out mistakes, sins of mine to me but she only does that in private. My wife has lost some girlfriends because she won’t rag on me when at lunch with them.

  13. Linny says:

    Toad

    I have a reputation for saying what I think and being blunt. Beating around the bush seems like a waste of time for me. And Joe was known for being extremely stubborn so I never wasted my time trying to change his mind. I may have tried to entice him to do things but he would have done them only if he was agreeable.

    Now I will admit that I probably tested his patience many a time. I hate to give up on anything I feel I don’t understand. So I will beat what many consider a dead horse.

    • I suspect it would have been a far happier marriage if he’d drawn the line and when you crossed it… put you over his knee and warmed your backside. You might not have like it, but you’d have loved having a man who would set a boundary and enforce it.

      • Linny says:

        Toad, you may be right. Much better than being a sulky brat who would withdraw favours or scream about things not being to his liking. But things were what things were.

        It makes me wonder if he would still be here if he had been more like the kind of man you suggest. Sorry, I shouldn’t let my mind go in that direction. What is is and there is no do over.

        I need to find a new focus.

  14. Just Some Guy says:

    “The goal is a godly man, one who is both good and dominant.”

    Which is the exact opposite of what’s being preached from the pulpits. Pastors/Teachers have a scary high level of accountability. As much as the pew-sitter is also responsible for his own decisions and biblical study, the guy upfront feeding out the nonsense has much to answer for. I try to remember to pray for them and not be bitter.

  15. Pode says:

    Relevant, on the extent of both the desire to be subservient and how degraded it becomes outside God’s boundaries, this actual text submitted to Texts From Last Night by the recipient:

    (971): I just want you to make me second guess my worth as a human. Is that too much to ask?
    http://www.textsfromlastnight.com/Text-Replies-68685.html

    Most of the site is just garbage tales of drunken antics and sluttery for the lulz, but every once in a while you find a pure red pill like this one.

    • This is where the whole issue of taking what would otherwise be a Scriptural marriage and wrapping it in kink comes into play.

      There is no way to define “kink” because there is no way to define “normal” in terms of morality because God left that up to us. However, with the garbage the church taught for well over 1000 years, we have all kinds of stuff in which the people think this or that particular act is sinful. Degrading, perhaps, but sinful? No.

      Kink is similar to the word slut. There really is not way to define them in any meaningful way and the truth is that they are more meaningful in their absence than not.

  16. Samuel Culpepper says:

    Mr. Toad:

    I didn’t know where to leave general comments or questions, so I write this here, one a question and the other just a general observation. I may want to read James Brundage’s book you mentioned, “Law, Sex & Christian . . . “, ; does he come to the same conclusion as you and I on the initiation of marriage according to scripture?

    I am finding it hard to find writings on the subject. The scriptures read what they have always read, but I find it amazing that it hasn’t been expounded upon like so many other facets of christian life. That said, it would seem to me that the christian world may have backed into it unintentionally for awhile because of the average age people entered in to marriage and lack of time men/women had unaccompanied access to one another (no bar hoping single scene in the olden days). I have come to the conclusion that but-for early marriage and lack of access, our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. would have been every bit the whores/whoremongers that we have become.

    • does he come to the same conclusion as you and I on the initiation of marriage according to scripture?

      Yes, he said as much.

      What you need to remember is that there were no “good old days” because people do not change. What is, was, and what was shall be again. There is nothing new under the sun. Look at the time of the patriarchs when the land was overrun with temple whores.

      Nothing has changed, everything goes in cycles.

  17. Samuel Culpepper says:

    Well said. Ecclesiates contains some profound passages I think; 1:9 amongst them, as is 1:17-18.

    Galatians 6:7-8 is another favorite of mine . . . I’m rambling now.

  18. happyhousewifey says:

    In the Netherlands, anything like ‘Sir’ is often taken not as a sign of respect, but a sign of someone being an old outsider (who has yet to earn any real respect). It is the polite way of saying you assume they are respectable, but I would never call anyone I truly respected ‘Sir’ (or the female variety). They would feel old and un-intimate. I reserve those addresses for white-haired strangers (unless when we’re in Belgium, where they even use the polite version of “you” for children, they will consider you rude if you use the intimate terms).

    • That is interesting. How would a military officer be addressed? Or a judge?

      • happyhousewifey says:

        They have formal address for them (and many people feel odd doing it, like the English wigs look odd), but if you meet an officer on your day off he will usually be fine if you address him normally. One officer was ridiculed in the press for saying he disliked it when people forgot to address him formally after speaking like equals on the weekend.

  19. Pingback: Perverting The Ideal Husband | Toad's Hall

  20. Pingback: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage | Toad's Hall

  21. Pingback: Theology For Men of the West: Becoming One Flesh | Toad's Hall

  22. 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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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