Strategy For Men of the West: Look First To Your Field

“Prepare your work outside And make it ready for yourself in the field; Afterwards, then, build your house.”  Proverbs 24:27

First establish yourself and develop an income stream.  Then start your family.

That was wise advice thousands of years ago and it’s still wise advice today.  Interestingly, there was a stat quoted at a Cato Institute talk back in November, that a recent study showed almost 22% of men between the ages of 20 and 29 had not been employed in over a year.  Students were specifically excluded.  When asked why they didn’t get a job, the response was typically that they couldn’t see the point.

The cohort in their 20’s has traditionally been the most employed of all groups of men.  This seems to reflect the point that it’s easier to get a job if you’re a woman.  The fastest-growing job fields are all in female-dominated healthcare, which reflects the fact that the boomer generation is aging and needs more healthcare.  If a horrible environment wasn’t bad enough due to working around a lot of women, there is another reason why men aren’t going into female-dominated fields:

Given that “women’s” jobs are growing more quickly, men could enter those fields, Kolko said. There are various theories for why they don’t, including the fact that female-dominated jobs actually tend to pay less overall. In fact, when more women tend to enter a certain field and it becomes more female dominated, pay in those professions drop, according to a study by researchers at Stanford, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania.

The single most influential factor in where you live is where you work.  It doesn’t really matter what you do as long as you find a product or service you can provide for a profit.  That’s called a business.  If you can’t figure out how to provide a product or service to the public and make a profit, you’ll need to work for someone else who has it figured out.  That is called a job.  Everyone focuses on “go get a job” but you should really be looking at it as being in business for yourself.

Over 95 million Americans of working age are not working.   Over 46 million are receiving “SNAP” benefits (foodstamps).  Think about that.  Recent decades have proved that nothing is safe, no job is secure, so what does the point about 46 million SNAP recipients tell you?  What should it tell you?  That anyone who can produce food for a reasonable price will be able to sell it.


Your Labor Is Your Asset:  Invest It Wisely

This is not to tell anyone what to do, merely to point out that of all the areas a person might go into, the most anti-fragile and the most lucrative for the “common man” is not so much a career, it’s a lifestyle called homesteading.   Modern homesteading is centered on farming and the production of food and other products with value.

A homesteader (what was once known simply as a farmer) is among the most independent people on earth and they are anti-fragile in the extreme.  As long as God sends the rain in season and they care for the land, they are independent.   The greatest threat to farmers is government because government can tax the farmers out of existence, steal their land and use force to destroy them.  One of the most famous examples of this was the Holodomor in the Ukraine in 1932-1933, less than 100 years ago.

Today, being a homesteader isn’t viewed as a career or a way to earn a very good living.  In fact, it’s viewed as weird and a rather strange lifestyle.  Everyone will tell you to go get an education in STEM and focus on finding a job that pays well so you can slave away in hopes of a good retirement 30-40 years from now.  Such a career choice usually places the individual in a high-pressure, politically correct environment working for a capricious corporation.  While the money is good the position is quite fragile due to the ability of SJW’s to destroy one’s career with lies or twist a foolish remark out of proportion.

The work environment isn’t the only toxic environment, because such careers typically require living in cities that are governed by the same political correctness.  The cost of living is high and feminism reigns supreme.  The children are practically required to be placed in public school to be indoctrinated with the shibboleth’s of liberalism, feminism and political correctness.

Why not invest your labor to receive a better lifestyle, more money, more control over your environment and less danger to your continued ability to earn a living?  Being a homesteader is the best choice, but most are so ignorant that they disregard it because of what others might think and because of their ignorance of how lucrative it can be.

There’s an old joke about a farmer who won the lottery and when asked what he was going to do with it, he said “I guess I’ll keep farming until the money runs out.”  The reason it’s a joke is because a lot of farmers listened to the USDA and adopted their policies, which is why they were going broke.  When it’s done correctly, farming is a very lucrative business and there are some people who know how to do it right.

Joel Salatin of PolyFace Farm is one of them.   Joel is a farmer, but he’s also a salesman and he’s written multiple books to explain it.  His videos on YouTube are better in terms of learning something.  Best of all he offers internships on his farm, which is where the intern trades hard labor for the chance to learn things.  Joel is an excellent example of a successful farmer.

Booker T Whatley wrote the book “How To Make $100,000 Farming 25 Acres”, which was his plan to save the small black family farm.  He graduated from Rutgers University in 1957 with a PhD in horticulture before affirmative action.  Whatley really knew what he was talking about and that fact that farming would make a lot of money, but none of the blacks and very few of the whites were willing to listen to him.  Those that did have revolutionized agriculture.

If Whatley provided the economic model, Bill Mollison provided the biological model of “permanent agriculture”, or “Permaculture”.  His books on permaculture, especially “Introduction To Permaculture” and “Permaculture, A Designer’s Manual” have been extremely influential around the world.   The concept is simple: work with nature instead of against it in order to get what you want.  Bill was followed by some innovative people who showed others how to put permaculture into practice.  In no particular order:

One might ask…  “What’s the point?”

The point is that everyone has to eat.  The question is where your food comes from.  Right now, in good times, it’s better to be in control of your food and produce it yourself than to not know what you’re actually eating.  In addition it saves an enormous amount of money.  Those are simply incentives, however.  The real value in the long term is having the tools, resources, knowledge and experience to produce your own food if food isn’t available.  The idea that such a thing can’t happen is ludicrous because history says it can and does happen.

But… where does the money come from?  Producing food is great, but what about buying gas for your car and paying the electric bill?

The Problem of the Cash Crop and the Job

We live in a credit-driven world in which it’s almost unheard of to purchase high-value items without a borrowing money.  And, while it’s possible to produce a lot of the things one needs on a farm, there are still a lot of things that cannot be produced and this requires a source of income.  Which is where the concept of the “cash crop” came from.  The farm produced the basic needs for the family and a crop of something was produced for sale off the farm in order to get income for everything else.  Like taxes.

In an environment in which everyone had a farm and was producing the basics, this required a commodity crop that could be sold elsewhere to people who could not produce it.  The English colonies in North America were founded on the production of tobacco, furs and lumber.  Europe provided manufactured goods.  The Caribbean colonies produces sugar, molasses and rum.  Slave labor came from Africa, which worked out to a handy trade pattern:

This graphic illustrates the 18th Century movement of the commodities that were “cash crops” for the various groups who specialized in their various positions of advantage.  And while that’s all very nice, what about today?  We still have the same kind of trade, although it’s a lot more complex and diversified, but one factor has been added to the equation.

People no longer produce their own food, which means they are forced to purchase it.  Not only that, people no longer have the basic knowledge, tools and experience necessary to produce food even when they have enough land to do so.  Today we have basic vegetables moving thousands of miles from from to market instead of moving a few hundred feet from garden to kitchen.

This change means that virtually everything grown in a person’s garden is now a marketable product and there are a lot of consumers who will buy that product.  The trick is to go direct to the consumer and make it easy for them to buy it.

But, what if you don’t want to do the work of direct marketing and selling?  Why can’t you just be like everyone else and get a job?  If you want to be like everyone else there’s no point in reading this blog.  And, before you can do the work of direct marketing and selling of your produce, you first have to grow it for yourself and get good at it.  That takes years.

The truth is that unless you had the good fortune to grow up living and working on a diversified farm, you have a lot to learn and it takes time.  You also need the land and the tools, which takes money.  So, between the time and resource requirements you need a way to make money to get the project financed up front.  The question is how to balance preparation for a career (training and education) that won’t accomplish your goals in the long run and how to acquire a homestead and get it up and running.

Short term, I’d say getting a teaching certificate and working as a school teacher or something similar to that is the way to go.  An elementary school gym teacher is a good choice because there’s no homework to grade.  The downside is having to coach teams.  Other jobs are available that will pay the bills and allow you to move forward.  There are several problems that will prevent you from gaining anything other than “dead end” employment and/or prevent you from going into business for yourself.

Credentialism.  Knowing how to do something is no longer good enough, you need a piece of paper that says an institution or board has decided you know your business.  If you need a degree, the University of the People is probably the best thing going.  Completely online, no tuition, $100 fee for each final exam.  Fully accredited, it’s the best thing going for getting a piece of paper that says you’re a college graduate.  Community colleges and technical colleges offer a wide variety of instruction on various skills and if you choose to pursue something specific you can get accredited.  Becoming a certified welder is a good example.

Lack of opportunity.  A lack of opportunity is frequently location-driven.  A lot of jobs are never advertised and one has to be local in order to have a chance.  One problem is that the average person sees going to a new city to find a job as a huge expense because they want a hotel room and food from restaurants.  If you take the approach from the radical reboot outline, you can move just about anywhere and quickly find a job that interacts with the public.  Talk to people and ask questions.  Spend some time looking around and start applying for work.  It may take a few months, but if there are jobs to be had you’ll find them.  If it doesn’t work go somewhere else.

Ignorance.  Today is a significant event to mark on your calendar because I am now recommending that you take some time and watch TV.  For 8 years the show “Dirty Jobs” ran on the Discovery Network with host Mike Rowe.  Take a look at the list of episodes and give it some thought.  Someone has a torrent up that has all the episodes up to the point the show went down under (49 gig) and there were 15 seeds when I looked.  These shows are more important than they might seem, because they offer a view of work that’s seldom seen and the insights offered by many of the people are profound.

One of the ways you can get into business (especially a dirty jobs business) is to find someone who is already doing it that’s approaching retirement age.  Talk to them and ask for a job.  If you like the job, sit down with them and tell them you’d like to learn everything about the business and in a couple of years take over the business.  You can buy him out over the course of a few years and he can be available to offer advice and introductions for years to come.  One problem with a lot of small businesses is that the owners children have no interest in pursuing it and the owner either has to find a buyer or shut it down.  Often they’re simply shut down.


Diversification, Offense and Defense

The book “The Millionaire Next Door” made the point that when it comes to amassing wealth, quite a few middle-class families became wealthy because they had a good defensive game.  Making money is the offensive side, not spending money is the defensive side.

Having multiple income streams is a good thing if you can handle it.  However, one of the best bets at this point is to have a killer defense.  I’ll talk about this in the post on housing, but adopting a homesteader lifestyle is a very good idea at this point.  With the correct housing you can have extremely low cost of housing.  If that’s combined with the production of most of your food, the two largest items in most budgets are drastically cut.  To put that in perspective, if you figure a mortgage payment of 20% of net income, the food bill is another 25% and utilities are another 20%, it’s possible to save an enormous amount of money with a good defensive game.

Someone who has a $30k annual salary can easily raise 5-6 children on that amount of money and still have some left for savings if they’re homesteaders and homeschool their children.   The kids homeschool year-round and help with the farm.  Around 12 years old they finish their high school material and get started on a bachelors degree (University of the People).  By age 15 they have a bachelors degree for less than you can imagine.  By the time they finish their bachelors degree, if they want a masters degree they can move on with that and have it by the time they’re 18.

That isn’t a fantasy.  In addition to the academic credentials, they also learn to play a musical instrument and become reasonably fluent in a foreign language.  All that assumes everything keeps on keeping on.  If it doesn’t, they’ll also be well-educated with the knowledge and skills to run a homestead and have the tools and training necessary to defend it.  In other words, they’ll be equipped to survive in whatever world they find themselves in.

One might wonder why I’m talking about children in a post about business, money and income, but the children are why we do what we do.  Far too many people have forgotten that.


How To Make Homesteading Pay and Pay and Pay.

There is an agricultural product that is frequently known as “green gold” and it can be produced with very little maintenance.  Just plant the seed and harvest and dry the crop when the time is right.  Check on it from time to time while it’s growing and make sure nobody is stealing it.

This is the sort of crop that has certain requirements in terms of sunlight and soil and it’s best done on a farm out of sight.  However, if set up correctly it’s extremely lucrative.  It takes a while to get going and have a major operation, but once everything is set up then you can plan on going into semi-retirement after 10 years.

No, I’m not talking about marijuana, this crop is legal everywhere.  I’ll cover it in my next post.


Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 11 Comments

Strategy For Men of the West: Asymmetric 4th Generation Warfare Threat

This begins another series of posts, Strategy For Men of the West, which is linked in the blog header.

A Prophecy Of Destruction

As a rule I don’t write about prophesy because in many cases the prophesy only becomes clear after the fact.  There are exceptions.  I previously wrote about a Bible prophesy that applies to the US right now.  There is another prophesy that might play a part in the outcome of that prophesy but it hasn’t occurred yet.  That will be the subject of this post and will probably be my last post about prophesy in the Bible.

In what follows, I’m not claiming this is what will happen to the US, but the fit to the current situation is far closer than most are comfortable with.  Some view this as an end-times prophesy and perhaps it is.  In order for the end-time events to occur the US must be removed from the world stage.  In fact, it is reasonable to say that the end-times events might be triggered by the power-vacuum that results from the US being removed from the world stage.

One of the interesting things about Biblical prophesy is that some of them have a near/far application.  Meaning, there is a near fulfillment of the prophesy that proves it to be a prophesy as well as a far fulfillment.  In this case I’m talking about Isaiah 3:1 to 4:2.  The near prophesy was to Judah, but “in that day the branch of the Lord will be beautiful” designates this as a far prophesy as well.  The branch of the Lord is the Church, the wild olive branch of gentiles that was grafted into Israel.  The other illustration was that Christ is the vine and the church branches out from the vine in order to bear fruit.

There are many who would see this as an end-time prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem at the beginning of the tribulation, the mid-point of the 70th week of Daniel.  The problem is this prophesy doesn’t fit that application at all because there is no invading army and the church plays no part in the destruction of Jerusalem.  The near prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 597 by the Babylonians.

The Prophesy Applied To The Current US

In verses 1-3, God says He will remove the supply of food and water, but take note of exactly what He says:

Both supply and support, the whole supply of bread
And the whole supply of water;

The supply and the support.  Removing the supply is as easy as cutting off the electricity because that cuts the transportation supply line.  Payments don’t get processed, fuel stations don’t pump fuel and trucks don’t roll.  Water well  pumps don’t lift the water out of the ground so the water is cut off and stores are cleaned out within 48 hours.  The cities start burning within 96 hours.

How does He remove the support?  The people who know how to get things done will be removed.   Those in leadership positions, those who command respect, those who are in charge.  Those with experience in keeping the infrastructure working and get it fixed when it breaks.  When it breaks it will be broken and the bloodbath will begin.  Keep in mind, the supply of food and water has been cut off.  Where are all these people described below?  In the cities and areas with no food and no water.  They will die.

The mighty man and the warrior,
The judge and the prophet,
The diviner and the elder,
The captain of fifty and the honorable man,
The counselor and the expert artisan,
And the skillful enchanter.

Then, in verses 4-5 He describes the breakdown of a society characterized by a destructive civil war.  There is no invading army, no outside force to come in and take charge.

And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
And the people will be oppressed,
Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor;
The youth will storm against the elder
And the inferior against the honorable.

Verses 10 and 11 are a comfort to the righteous and a warning to the wicked.

Say to the righteous that it will go well with them,
For they will eat the fruit of their actions.
Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him,
For what he deserves will be done to him.

This is restated in Galatians 6:7-8

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.  For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Back in Isaiah 3 and starting in verse 12 we get a different view of the process from the social perspective.

O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.

That is an excellent description of what we have today.  Keep in mind, those who “lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths” aren’t just government leaders, they include all the media and churchian whores who maintain the status quo.

The Lord arises to contend,
And stands to judge the people.
The Lord enters into judgment
With the elders and princes of His people,
It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
What do you mean by crushing My people
And grinding the face of the poor?
Declares the Lord God of hosts.

As described in verses 1-3, God will remove the leaders who have destroyed the economy, crushed His people and ground down the faces of the poor.  But God isn’t done after that. Recall that I asserted the “depraved passion” of the women who gave up the natural for the unnatural was feminism.  God also deals with the proud, arrogant women.

Feminism Will End With Bloodshed

Moreover, “Because the daughters of Zion are proud
And walk with heads held high and seductive eyes,
And go along with mincing steps
And tinkle the bangles on their feet,
Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs,
And the Lord will make their foreheads bare.

In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent ornaments, dangling earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle chains, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, finger rings, nose rings, festal robes, outer tunics, cloaks, money purses, hand mirrors, undergarments, turbans and veils.

Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction;
Instead of a belt, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp;
Instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth;
And branding instead of beauty.

Your men will fall by the sword
And your mighty ones in battle.
And her gates will lament and mourn,
And deserted she will sit on the ground.

These proud, arrogant women will be humbled, stripped and branded.   Their men will be killed violently as feminism is thrown down.  There will be a bloodbath.  Many will die. The totality of what is being described in chapter 3 is more than just civil war, it’s chaos.  Observe the order in which this takes place.

First comes the hit on the infrastructure and supply chain.  Then comes the bloodbath as people start dying.  I suspect there will be a lot of street-lamp decorations in that day and it would not be a good time to be  a cop.  Or an IRS agent.  Or a family court judge.  The fighting will become racially genocidal.  Payback is a bitch and there will definitely be some with a grudge to settle.

Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him,
For what he deserves will be done to him.

Perhaps the righteous should heed the warnings of the preppers and have a good supply of food and water, as well as the means to defend it.  Observe the words of verse 10:

Say to the righteous that it will go well with them,
For they will eat the fruit of their actions.

And When The Bloodletting Has Ended…

Anyone who understands just how fragile the infrastructure of the United States is can understand how quickly this prophesy could take place.  And then in the aftermath of the bloodshed, look at how the women treat men…

For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!

In the day (period of time) that the women are humbled and their men killed.  A rope, sackcloth and branding?  Sounds like slave girls will make a comeback.  And in that day it will be a reproach for a woman to not have the name of a man.   Think of the pendulum that has been pushed so far away from the point of equilibrium by feminism and understand it will swing the other way just as hard when the power of feminism is broken.  One can easily see that following the bloodbath, women will be desperate to belong to a man who can protect her.  So when does all this happen?

In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel.

The reference to the Branch of the Lord puts this prophesy squarely in the Church age and this has not happened yet.  Which means it’s coming.  When God is ready He will take away the supply of food and water, then remove the rulers and after that it will be a free-for-all.


A Final Note

I’m not saying this prophesy is how things will work out for the US.  Because the text does not say that.  I do say the prophesy is a near-far prophesy that has already been fulfilled in ancient times and will be fulfilled again in the church age at some point in the future.  Which could be next week.

None of the end-times prophesies have anything to say about the West; and by that I mean the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and NZ.  The end-times stuff all revolves around Europe, Russia, the Middle East (Israel, Egypt, Persia, the Assyrians) and even China.  Nothing about the English-speaking West.  Logically, the only reason for this is the West is no longer a player on the world stage, either because it’s been destroyed or because it’s completely unimportant.

Unlike the Romans 1:18-32 prophesy, there is nothing in the prophesy that allows us to nail it down on a timeline other than the “branch of the Lord” reference which puts the far application in the church age.  However, the degrading passion of feminism and the depraved minds described in Romans 1:18-32 have already created the situation that is so perfectly described in verse 12.

O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.

Anyone who looks at just the economics of the current system understands that this system cannot continue as it is.  The US infrastructure is at its breaking point and a few hundred well-trained men could bring the US to its knees in a weekend and there is nothing that could be done to stop it from happening.

The US is the most insanely well-armed nation on earth.  Weapons and ammunition are everywhere while at the same time there is only a few days worth of food in the houses once the electricity goes off.  No food and no water but the people have weapons.

God will remove the supply and support, taking away the food and water.  He will remove the leaders.  The people will be oppressed by one another, young against old, lower classes against the upper classes.  It will go well with the righteous and they will eat the fruit of their actions.  It will go badly for the wicked and they will get what they deserve.  The women will be stripped of their position of privilege and brought low, made captives and branded.  Those who have prepared will be sought out for leadership.  And in the day it is a reproach for a woman to not have a husband, feminism will die.

Is that the future for the US?  Possibly.  It’s certainly a viable scenario.  Scripture doesn’t say how it works out for the US, but wisdom says that having a secure place to hide that will keep you warm and dry with a supply of water and food  would be a good thing.  When the killing settles down things will get interesting.

The righteous will eat the fruit of their actions and those who are prepared will have something to eat and drink.  When this happens it will be too late.  The day before there was still time, but when the power goes out the clock stops for preparation.  At that point most won’t even be able to flee and even if they could, where would they go?

In a previous post I explained the prophesy Paul made in Romans 1:18-32.  Because the people knew God but refused to worship Him as Creator, He gave them over to their evil desires.   I used major milestones in the US that related to the prophesy to mark the coming of new generations.  The timeline started in 1945 and the first generation went to 1973.  The second generation went to 2001.  That puts the 3rd generation ending at about 2029, but there are no guarantees we will make it that far.  In Numbers 35:33 God commanded:

So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

In 1973 abortion became legal in the US and 44 years later almost 60 million innocent children have been murdered by their mothers.  If we consider those women who were 36 years old in 1973 (at the end of their fertility), they are 80 years old this year.  The women who were 26 in 1973 are 70 years old this year.  This cohort is either already in nursing homes or they are rapidly being moved into assisted living.  All the other women who have been murdering their babies are younger.

If God is planning on cleansing the land by killing those who shed the blood, the timing is now ripe.  Somehow it seems like poetic justice that the women who opened the door to the killing of helpless children will be killed themselves at the end of their lives when they are helpless.

The pedophiles and the rest almost seem to be a sideshow in comparison, but it’s time for them to get what they have coming to them as well.  They tend to conglomerate in positions of power and authority and God said He will remove those men.

God told Abraham that his descendants would return in 400 years to go into the land because at that time the sin of the Canaanites had not yet reached its full measure.  When the time was right, God told the Israelites to go into the land and kill everyone.

We don’t know what God’s timetable is, but there are indications that He’s ready to clean house.

This was to have been the last post in the “Theology For Men of the West” series, but I decided it was a better fit for the “Strategy And Tactics For Men of the West”.  This series will allow me to examine ways to deal with the reality of the world we live in, rather than the fools paradise it’s painted to be.

Posted in Theology For Men of the West | 1 Comment

Genesis 3:16 A Man Must Be Fit To Rule

The Judgment of Genesis 3:16

Genesis 3:16 is often referred to as the curse on women, however, because the text does not call it a curse there are many who argue it is not a curse on women.  I leave that for the readers to determine.

In the first part of the passage we see God stating that He will greatly increase the pain of childbirth, that the woman will bring her children forth in pain.  In the previous judgment we saw that the serpent was condemned to crawl on his belly.  Anyone who has ever noticed that a snake crawls on his belly and women bring forth their children in pain should be aware that this judgment carried forward.  It did not apply only to that generation and the coming of Christ did not lift the curse.  Snakes still crawl on their bellies and women still bring forth their children in pain.

Since no-one questions this, we move on to the second part of that verse, which states

your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.

In order to understand this we need definitions for the following words:

  1. desire (teshuqah)  A feminine noun; desire.  Used in Genesis 4:7 as a desire to conquer and in Song of Songs as a sexual desire.
  2. husband (ish)  A masculine noun;  man.
  3. rule over  (mashal)  A verb; to reign, rule, have dominion.

Next, we need to understand the fundamental problem with this passage: it’s stated as a logical syllogism.  “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”  This raises some questions.

  • Do all husband’s rule over their wives?  Obviously the answer is no.  Even in a legal environment in which the husband has all the power, do all husband’s rule over their wives?  No.  Which is a roundabout way of saying sometimes a wife rules her husband.
  • Do all wives desire their husband?  It does not matter whether the word is defined as a desire to conquer or as sexual desire, the answer is no either way.
  • What about the women who do not have a husband.  Do they have no desire for a man until he marries them?  Again, obviously the answer is no.
  • When a woman desires a man and marries him, does she always continue to desire him?  We all know the answer is no.

How can this passage be true if the answers to these questions are all no?


Let Reason Be Silent When Experience Speaks

Perhaps a better question would be “How should this passage be interpreted so that it is true every time and not in conflict with any other portion of Scripture?”  In order to understand this judgment it’s of critical importance to understand the events that caused them to be judged.

Remember the four key points of seduction:  The right man in the right place at the right time with the right line.  Scripture is clear on three of the four points:

  • The Serpent was the most cunning and crafty of all the animals, obviously the right one for the job.
  • The Garden was without sin, a place of innocence.  The perfect place for deception, temptation and seduction.
  • The right time… [Was Adam there or not?  The right time is when the husband is away]
  • The right line was to first bring up the subject of the ONE RULE they had been given.  The single point of temptation.  The woman cited the rule and the reason given (“You shall not eat of it or touch it lest you die”).  The Serpent claimed God lied to them in order to conceal His weakness, that if they ate they would become like God.  Reframing the ONE RULE as a deception by God caused her to question the truth and she was deceived by her own solipsism.

She knew the command.  She understood the command.  And knowing and understanding the command, she was deceived.  Female solipsism took over, she coveted the fruit and she ate of the fruit.  Look at the elements of temptation in Genesis 3:6 and compare to ( 1st John 2:16 ):

  • the tree was good for food, (the lust of the flesh)
  • the tree was a delight to the eyes,  (the lust of the eyes)
  • the tree was desirable to make one wise  (the boastful pride of life)

There is nothing new under the sun.  She looked again and saw the fruit was “desirable”.  The word translated as “desirable” (chamad) means covet.  After the Serpent deceived her, she looked at the fruit again and this time she coveted it.  She succumbed to the temptation, took and ate of the fruit.  There you have it.  Eve broke the commandment and ate of the fruit.  So, why is it that she isn’t credited with the first sin?  Because she was under authority.  After she blew it, the whole thing rested on what Adam did.

And we all know what Adam did.  He listened to the voice of his wife and he ate of the fruit.  In doing so he knowingly violated God’s command.  He did not take his wife in hand and deal with the problem.  He did not kick it up the chain of command and give the problem to God.  He chose to abandon his post and surrender.  That is why the credit for the first sin is given to Adam.

Some claim that Adam was right there and allowed it to happen, but I don’t believe that.  The text (in English) says

“she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”

Critical to this are the words “ish” that’s translated as “husband” and the word “im” that’s translated as “with”.   This passage does not definitively mean Adam was present when the Serpent deceived her and she ate of the fruit, because it can just as reasonably be translated as “she gave also to her man and he ate.”   If we are to suppose that Adam was present when the serpent deceived Eve, it means he saw and heard his wife being tempted and then watched her pick the fruit and eat of it, never doing anything about it.  There are two problems with taking this view.

The text says the serpent was more crafty and cunning than all the other animals and experience tells us that if a woman is to be seduced she must first be separated from her protector and isolated.  The Apostle Paul tells us that Eve was deceived and thus seduced into eating of the fruit.  Experience also demonstrates women hate being held responsible and want others to join in what they are doing so the blame can be shared.

The text also states God’s judgment of Creation was because you have listened to the voice of your wife” and just as important is what God did not say.  God did not say that Adam stood by and allowed his wife to be deceived, watched her eat of the fruit He had commanded them not to eat and then decided to join in.  God said that Adam listened to the voice of his wife.  The implication is Adam was presented with a fait accompli on the part of Eve and she persuaded him to join her with her words.


God’s First Judgment Of Mankind

Look at each of the three judgments, the serpent, Eve and Adam.  Each of the judgments contains two parts.  First was punishment, second was a change due to what had happened.

  • The serpent was condemned to crawl in the dust on his belly.   Following that, God put enmity between the woman and the serpent (hint- when you find a woman who likes snakes there’s something wrong with her) and between her seed and his seed.  Then came the first prophesy about Christ: that He would bruise the serpent on his head and the serpent would bruise Him on His heel.
  • The woman was condemned to greatly increased pain in childbirth, that she would bring forth her children in pain.  Following that, God found her to be incompetent and appointed her husband as her guardian, but to ensure she got a competent guardian He created hypergamy in the woman.
  • Because of what Adam did, the earth was cursed.  The earth would now bring forth thorns and thistles and by the sweat of his brow man would get food to eat.  Following that we see something very interesting.  All the days of his life man would toil and sweat, until he returned to the ground.  He was made from dust and to dust he would return.

In order to understand the change for Adam, we need only look at God’s next words:

“Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden

The tree of life was not forbidden to Adam and Eve, they had not eaten of it yet.  It appears from the text that God’s original intent was for mankind to live forever and the tree of life was part of that.   That, however interesting it might be, is not the subject of this post.

Eve was punished for her part in the affair by having her pain in childbirth increased.  Because of the circumstances she was found to be incompetent and a guardian appointed for her (he shall rule over you).  Eve was the greatest of all women, the first, the only woman created directly by God without sin and not born with a sin nature.

Eve had ONE RULE to obey and living in paradise, a world without sin, with no distractions.  Her own words confirm she knew the rule (she didn’t forget) and knew the consequences.  Yet, under perfect conditions she was not able to follow the one single rule that she was required to obey.  Has any woman ever been born who is better than Eve?  No.  Eve was the greatest of all.

Eve was completely deceived and she violated the command not to eat of the fruit.  Then, she dropped the whole thing in her husband’s lap.    Rather than doing his duty and take her in hand, Adam chose to abandon his duty and joined her in eating the fruit, knowing that he would die with her.  Then, when God confronted him about it he tried to blame his wife.

Adam was a really nice guy who let his wife lead him and he followed her into sin and death.  By definition, Adam was not fit to rule over his wife because as God said:

“you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;”

What do we call someone who, under ideal conditions, cannot follow even the simplest of rules?  They are found to be (judged) incompetent and a guardian is appointed for them.  Which is exactly what God did with Eve.  However, God is just and God is wise.  Adam was part of the problem because he was not fit to rule over his wife.  Understand, although was deceived and she transgressed, she did so on Adam’s watch under his authority.  Man was appointed guardian over the woman, but Adam’s weakness was also part of the problem.

When everything was in the balance and the world needed an incredible asshole, Adam wasn’t up to the job.  He was a nice guy who was so emotionally involved that he was not fit to rule over his wife.   He had a choice between his mission (all of Creation) and his wife.  When all of creation was on the line he abandoned his mission and surrendered.

In light of that, God created hypergamy in women to help ensure they would get a man who was capable of ruling over them.  That is what the “your desire shall be for your man (husband)” is all about.  Contrary to common belief, it’s a feature- not a bug.  With that in mind, let’s look at hypergamy and the woman’s desire for a man who is fit to rule over her.


Fitness Testing and Desire

One of the very basic observations of Game is fitness testing, also known as shit testing.  If we look at the word in Genesis 3:16 that’s translated as “desire” (teshuqah) we see that it’s only used two other times in Scripture.  Once as a desire to conquer (Genesis 4:7) and again as a sexual desire (Song of Songs 7:10).   The major assumption through the ages is that as used in Genesis 3:16, teshuqah must mean either a desire conquer or a sexual desire.   Anyone who knows anything about Game understands that teshuqah means both the desire to conquer and a sexual desire because it describes the process of fitness testing.

A man presents himself before the woman and she observes that he might have what it takes, she tests him to see if he is fit to rule over her.  This is an example of the desire to conquer.  If he fails the test he isn’t fit to rule her and any attraction she might have had for him dries up and dies.  If he blows through her tests like a champ, he demonstrates that he is fit to rule over her and the desire to conquer changes to a sexual desire.

The process of fitness testing involves both dominance testing (shit tests) as well as loyalty tests.  This is an ongoing process that will never stop.  When a man and woman are married the wife will continue to test her husband and if he goes slack and starts failing her tests, she will respond with more testing.  The reason is she wants him to pass the tests and she’s looking for that “line in the sand” that she’s not allowed to cross without consequences.   Because rulers have rules.

What happens if the man does not pass her fitness tests?  She will grow disgusted with him and eventually she will develop contempt for him.  Desire cannot be negotiated.  In a no-fault divorce environment in which there are legions of divorce apologists and a State that is ready to come in and enforce a woman’s power over her husband, contempt is generally fatal to the relationship.


The Ruler’s Authority and Responsibility:  Numbers 30

There is no substitute for reading all of Numbers 30, in full.  Emphasis and dividers added for clarity.


Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel, saying, “This is the word which the Lord has commanded. If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.


“Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.


“However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her.


“But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. 10 However, if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath, 11 and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand. 12 But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the Lord will forgive her.


13 “Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. 14 But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. 15 But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.”

16 These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and as between a father and his daughter, while she is in her youth in her father’s house.


God Does Not Change

The judgment was given in Genesis 3:16, “he shall rule over you.”  In Numbers 30 the statutes were given concerning the authority and responsibility of a man over his wife and a father over his daughter while in her youth living in his house.

Notice that three times it is said “the Lord will forgive her” if her father or husband forbids or annuls a vow or obligation.  Then notice the final point about the man forbidding or annulling her vows or obligations:  “he shall bear her guilt.” That is the responsibility of the ruler.

With that in mind, look at the New Testament and we shall see that while God did not change any of this, He added something more for the Christian man.

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 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. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”  Ephesians 5:22-24

We can just as easily say the husband is the ruler of the wife, as Christ also is the ruler of the church.

“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.”  1st Peter 3:1-2

The behavior of the husband is not a factor in whether the wife is to submit to him, she is required to submit to him even if he is not in obedience to God.

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

Notice that the woman is described as the weaker vessel and husbands are to live with the wives in an understanding way.  She is his ward, he is her guardian.  This reflects the command Paul gave in Ephesians 5:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 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

Notice that the husbands are no longer to just rule over their wives, they are to do so in love.  The husband is to love the wife as Christ loves His church.  This raises the question:  are there any examples of how Christ loves His church?  As it turns out, there are two.

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

This is stated again in Hebrews, but y’all might want to take a look at what these words mean:

For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines,
And He scourges every son whom He receives.”

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had Earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.  Hebrews 12:6-11

A ruler holds his subjects accountable.  He instructs, corrects, rebukes and disciplines (punishes) them for their transgressions in order that they might be blameless.  Yet, this point is the one that makes the churchian cucks and feminists howl with fury.  They claim that it is not a loving act for a husband to take his wife in hand when she needs it.

Does a woman desire a man who makes decisions like this?  Do they desire a man who will hold them accountable and punish them, if necessary?  Churchians claim the answer is no.

Churchians cannot explain the incredible popularity of the 50 Shades books and movies, but anyone who knows that God said a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her understands this.

If a man wants his woman to desire him, he must be fit to rule.  If he is not fit to rule he must become fit to rule.  The doctrines of “servant leadership” and “mutual submission” are for men, not husbands and wives.  A woman desires a ruler, not a servant.  Become fit to rule and stay that way.

Deep down, women want to be ruled, but only by a man who is fit to rule them.  How do we know this?   Because God said so.


Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 9 Comments

Theology For Men of the West: Becoming One Flesh

What If Everyone Has It Wrong?

What if becoming ‘one flesh’ is the mixing of the microbiome and DNA that occurs within an intimate relationship?  The most intimate act is sexual intercourse, but kissing and any other exchange of body fluids, close physical contact and even sleeping very close together (respiratory transmission) would be included.

In other words, what if becoming one flesh isn’t a spiritual joining, but literally becoming one as the flora and fauna of the two normalize between the two as the woman absorbs the genetic material of her man?  The Apostle Paul described it as a great mystery, which makes perfect sense from the standpoint that he knew nothing of genetics or the presence of the microbiome.  Just because something is a great mystery does not mean that mystery cannot be revealed as time goes by.

With that in mind we’ll go over a bit of data and then take a look at how this lines up with what Scripture says.

First, let’s look at the microbiome.

The last point made by the graphic above is critical.  With 99.9% genetic equality, we are 80% to 90% different because of individual differences in the microbiome within each person.  Let’s look at another graphic and see if there’s anything interesting there.

Notice on the bottom row, center, the differences in the composition of the microbes between men and women’s genitalia.  Those are the only two differentiated points between men and women listed in the graph, but consider the exchange of microbes that occurs with kissing on the mouth.  Then consider all the various sexual and non-sexual acts that will be mixing the microbial colonies between the man and the woman.  More on that in a bit.


Genetic Transmission

In the previous post, I mentioned Dr. Lazar Greenfield and the screeching horde of feminists who derailed his career because he had the temerity to point out the benefits of semen to women.  In case you missed it, along with all the enzymes, prostaglandins and other goodies contained in the semen that are absorbed by the woman as a result of sex, the woman is getting a dose of his DNA.  These substances are absorbed by her body and show up in measurable amounts in her bloodstream following sex.  Which is why women who are regularly absorbing baby-batter are provably happier than those who practice “safe sex” or abstain from sex.

The implications, however, are more important that what is actually said.  The women are absorbing the man’s semen, which contains his DNA.  As we shall see, that DNA becomes part of her body.

Telegony is the theory that characteristics of a woman’s previous sexual partner can become incorporated in the offspring of a later (different) father of her child.  The entire monolith of feminism is opposed to such a theory and currently the theory is considered “discredited” by the so-called scientific community.  Interestingly, Professor James Ewart set out to disprove the theory of Telegony propounded by Lord Morton some 50 years earlier with his Penicuik Experiments.  This was prior to Mendel’s experiments into heredity so he was shooting in the dark.  Even as late as 1979 “science” was still hard at work to disprove telegony when Burkhardt’s “Closing the door on Lord Morton’s mare: the rise and fall of telegony” was published.  His work is now cited as the “proof” that telegony is discredited.

Except that it wasn’t discredited: Burkhardt succeeded in designing an investigation that failed to prove that telegony exists.

In the same year it was proven that fetal cells of the baby invade the mother’s body and leave the father’s DNA in her body, including her brain.  It has likewise been proven that the DNA of a previous father can be passed to the younger siblings who have a different father.  If one reads merely the abstract that study, what should get your attention is this:

Male microchimerism was present in 6 of 12 UCB samples analyzed. In conclusion, female UCB comprises HY-specific cytotoxic T cells. The immunization is presumably caused by transmaternal cell flow of male microchimerism present in the mother. (emphasis added)

Umbilical cord blood belongs to the baby.  Pointing to the male microchimerism (presence of DNA that does not belong to either the father or mother) in the umbilical cord blood is to point to male microchimerism in the baby.  Note that the study was oriented toward a different object and this result was unintended.  The point is the study proves that male DNA from a man who is not the father was found in six of the twelve samples analyzed.

The question is whether the DNA was present as a result of the mother’s previous pregnancy or whether it was the result of “merely” having a previous sexual partner is one that was not answered by the study.  What should be understood is studies specifically designed to disprove telegony have been “successful” while other studies have accidentally proved telegony to be a real and observed phenomena.  Does anyone imagine any fair research will be done in this area in the face of shrieking hordes of feminists?

I assert that a fair study to follow up on the observed phenomena of male microchimerism in the umbilical cord blood that would seek to determine where this DNA came from cannot be made.  There is already significant evidence that fetal cells invade the mother during pregnancy (cells containing half the DNA of the father) and this results in genetic chimerism in the mother.  Observably it has been proven that a man’s semen is absorbed by the woman’s body following sexual activity, which opens the door to genetic chimerism or microchimerism in the woman as a result of sexual intercourse.

If we proceed with the understanding that a woman’s previous sexual partners have deposited both their DNA and microbiome in her body and said DNA and microbiome have permanently become part of her body, what impact should this have on our understanding of various instructions of the Bible concerning sex?  Consider these:

  • The command of circumcision.  Circumcision dramatically lowers the amount of microbial material the man places into the woman and with the removal of the foreskin the woman’s microbiome can’t colonize the man in what would have been an equal exchange.  The impact of circumcision is to cause the microbial transmission to be far more of a one-way flow from man to woman.
  • The importance and meaning of virginity to marriage.  Obviously the virgin would not be pregnant with another man’s child, but likewise she would not be polluted by another man’s DNA and microbiome that would result from a sexual union that did not cause a pregnancy.   In this age of so-called “vaginal virgins” a woman can arguably no longer be considered a virgin after having oral and anal sex with other men simply because she hadn’t been penetrated vaginally, given the exchange of microbiome and genetic material.
  • The command against adultery takes on an entirely new light because rather than being a sexual violation, adultery is the act of polluting (adultering) a woman’s body with another man’s microbes and DNA, an act that cannot be undone.
  • The command to the priests to only take a virgin wife.  He is forbidden to take a widow, a divorced woman or a woman profaned by harlotry in order that he not profane their offspring before the Lord.  Considering that the widow, the (legitimately) divorced woman and the woman profaned by harlotry might all lawfully be married, this is more support for the idea that God places a great deal of importance on genetic purity that encompasses the micobiome.  This supports the point that a man’s DNA becomes part of the woman with nothing more than the act of sexual intercourse.
  • The command to the Israelites not to intermarry with the tribes around them, which would pollute the people.  Part of who the people were was found in the microbiome within their bodies and their DNA.  Mixing it with other peoples was forbidden.
  • The command that no child born of an illegitimate marriage (a mamzer) be allowed to join the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th generation.  That word is also translated as a “mongrel race” in Zechariah 9:6, which indicates the word includes children born of an illegitimate marriage to the people God said not to intermarry with.
  • The dichotomy in the treatment of rape offenses: for a married woman or betrothed virgin it was a death penalty.  Rape of an eligible virgin resulted in marriage and there is no mention of the rape of a widow or divorced woman as being a crime.  In the case of the married woman or betrothed woman, there was a man who was injured by having his wife permanently adultered (polluted) by another man.  In the case of the eligible virgin she was married.  The widow and divorced women are not mentioned because they already have the DNA and microbiome of another man.
  • The command of the levirate marriage.  A brother was to take the widow as his wife in order to get an heir who would be an extremely close genetic and microbial match, in order to carry on the bloodline of the dead brother.
  • The prohibition against intercourse with a woman who is menstruating.
  • The prohibitions against bestiality, which would introduce new and possibly harmful organisms into the body.  Syphilis is a disease of sheep.
  • The prohibitions against incest, which can only be aimed at later generations to prevent genetic problems that would result.

I’m not claiming this as doctrine.  Nor am I claiming there is no spiritual significance or spiritual action in the joining as one flesh.  What I am saying is the statement of Jesus that “what God has joined together” could be interpreted as a direct action by God or as an indirect action by God because God designed mankind for this to happen.  That Paul would describe it as a great mystery is obvious.  That we have an idea of what is happening doesn’t mean we’ve solved the mystery, but the mystery may very well have been solved at least partially.

To get started learning about the microbiome, one might want to take a look at “The Human SuperOrganism: How the Microbiome Is Revolutionizing the Pursuit of a Healthy Life” by Rodney Dietert; “The Germ Files” by Jason Tetro; “Welcome to the Microbiome: Getting to Know the Trillions of Bacteria and Other Microbes In, On, and Around You” by Rob DeSalle and Susan L. Perkins.  These books communicate the general ideas.   A quick peek at Amazon demonstrates how the writers of new books on this topic are orienting the information about the microbiome to focus on weight-loss.  With over 70% of the population overweight or obese, this seems natural.  Good luck finding books that explore any underlying issues involved with a man and woman merging their microbiome profiles.


Sex And Becoming One Flesh

As has been demonstrated time and time again on this blog and elsewhere, the perverts in the early church such as Jerome, Gregory and Augustine hated sex and sexual pleasure, considering it to be wicked, evil and a sin.  Yet, there was that command to be fruitful and multiply, so the church eventually settled on dogma that only vaginal intercourse within marriage was legitimate, but only if the purpose was reproduction.  In other words, procreation only and not recreation.  Other forms of sexual expression were forbidden as sodomy (anal) and oral sodomy (oral).  Even vaginal penetration was to be as infrequent as possible and the church went so far as to forbid any position other than the “missionary position.”  Anything that might stimulate sexual desire such as touching, hugging or kissing was to be avoided.

If we consider that the bond of one flesh is an ongoing process similar to sanctification (the process of growing in Christ, becoming more of a part of the body of Christ), it should be obvious the policies of the church were contrary the development of the one flesh bond and actually hurt the institution of marriage.

If we consider the bond of one flesh to be the mixing of the microbiome and DNA between husband and wife, rather than a spiritual joining, it should be obvious that trying to minimize or eliminate sex from marriage was an attempt to minimize the bonding between husband and wife.

For the record, there are numerous historical records from the church that demonstrate the church favored policies (for political reasons) that weakened marriage, but that is not the subject of this post.


Sex, Emotion and Desire

As God stated in Genesis 3:16, a woman’s desire shall be for a man who is fit to rule over her.  Maintaining that desire through the course of a marriage requires the man to be a wise ruler and the data from the study of Game provides some relevant details as to how that process works. Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Male series provides an excellent foundation of knowledge.  The Rational Male and The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine are both descriptive works that should be required reading for every man.   I don’t agree with Rollo’s position on the subject of evolution, but other than that, his work is excellent and I suspect his upcoming third book in the series (The Rational Male: Positive Masculinity) will be worth reading as well.

Almost all feminist churchians and sincere Christians get very upset about data that comes from the PUA (Pick-Up Artist) research.  After all, the PUA’s are a bunch of men who were trying to figure out what caused women to be attracted to a man and how to stimulate that attraction in order to get laid.  “Immorality!” they screech.  Yet, they are comfortable with “science” that is completely oriented around evolution, which is the religion of humanism and a form of idolatry.   Call them out on it and they will hypocritically say that evidence is evidence and we should use it…

The author Athol Kay has taken a prescriptive approach and while he has been criticized for simply gathering the “best of game”, he stepped beyond that.  Athol’s achievement was to take the data and observations of the PUA’s and apply it to long-term relationships, especially marriage.  He detailed the point that women need a combination of alpha dominance and beta comfort in order to ensure the long-term success of a relationship in his book “Married Man Sex Life Primer“.   Notably, he identified the reaction of women to the men’s behaviors in terms of brain chemistry- alpha dominance provoking a domamine response and beta comfort provoking an oxytocin response.

Rollo professes to be a Christian but approaches his study of women from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology.  Athol (and his wife) are former conservative Christians who now profess to be atheists and he likewise approaches his position from an evolutionary standpoint.  Both of them draw on the observations and data collected for decades by the PUA’s which has coalesced into what is known as “Game”.

There is another data source with a number of interesting and provable observations, which is the Dominance/submissive (D/s) relationships within the BDSM community.  The Bible is very clear that marriage is a D/s relationship in which men and women are clearly not equal.  As I pointed out in the post 50 Shades of Biblical Marriage, the Biblical standards for marriage read like a D/s relationship contract.  The point that most will miss is simple:  the various acts within an intimate relationship meet different needs of both the men and women in terms of dominance and submission.

The three basic types of sexual activity can be divided up as follows:

Oral.  This is a one-way act and generally should be construed as an act of worship.  It doesn’t matter which way it goes, but in general it’s an act of worship by the one giving the oral sex that flows to the one receiving.  The one giving receives no pleasure from the act and they perform a sacrificial suffering of discomfort performing the act.  Yet, many women testify they enjoy (on an emotional level) performing the act.  Which describes an act of worship.

Anal.  This aspect of sex is an expression of dominance on the part of the man.  It can be both painful and pleasurable for the woman, although it is almost always painful to some extent.  The one being penetrated is submitting to the dominance of the one doing the penetration. As with spanking, some women enjoy and desire being completely dominated in this fashion.

Vaginal.  The act of vaginal intercourse is mutually pleasurable and generates the most comfort for the woman.  It is the only one by which the woman will become pregnant and is the most equal of the three in terms of pleasure given and received.  Depending on position there can be differences in who is in the dominant position but vaginal intercourse is arguably the act of joining that facilitates mutual bonding and comfort, particularly for women.


Why Bring This Up?

There is a theory which states women need all three aspects (worship, dominance and bonding) in order to have a balanced relationship with their husband and all of these correspond to the alpha/beta dynamic that must be kept in balance to avoid problems.  Which, of course, is enough to make almost all Christians scream with outrage.  Especially the women who are married to a man they aren’t attracted to.

If we consider acts of dominance, worship and joining, there are emotional needs being satisfied with these acts for both men and women.  Only an idiot would look at the situation and say that joining was the only acceptable path because the evidence clearly states women have a need for masculine dominance and men have a need to dominate.  Women have a need to completely submit (and what is more submissive than worship?) while men have a need to be praised and exalted.

All of this goes back to the beginning, where God said “your desire shall be for the man who is fit to rule over you.”  And, yes, that’s my translation and it’s accurate.

It is ironic that Christians who readily accept the theory of evolution and deny that God is the Creator are triggered by the idea that fellatio is arguably an act of worship.  Putting the hypocrisy aside, they cannot comprehend the difference between a woman’s act of worship for her master as her master and the act of worshiping God because He is God.  Ephesians 5:22-24 takes on an entirely non-feminist meaning in this light.

Wives, 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 the Savior of the body.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives to their husbands in everything. (Translators additions to the text removed)

Which is to say that whatever the church gives to Christ, the wife is to give to her husband.  That word “everything” is unbounded within the constraints of obedience and submission.  If the church owes praise and worship to Christ as the Savior, so too does the wife owe praise and worship to her husband as the man who rules over her.  Since God does not change this passage cannot mean the husband is to be worshiped as God, but it does call for her worship of him as her ruler.

Interestingly, there is nothing in Scripture that forbids what a man and his woman do in terms of sex EXCEPT for sex while she’s menstruating.  While those evil Canaanites were certainly engaged in all manner of sexual practices, God’s only injunction was against sex while a woman was menstruating.  The fact that God forbid intercourse while a woman is menstruating is the proof that God chose not to forbid any other form of sexual congress  between a man and his woman.

From the perspective of mixing the colonies of the microbiome, any variety in sexual practices will hasten and reinforce that, with the general flow of colonization going from man to woman.

Some of the more gentle readers might be appalled, but God did not forbid fellatio, cunnilingus or anal sex between a man and woman.  And as it turns out, there are actually good reasons to engage in these activities from the standpoint of meeting needs and relationship dynamics indicate there are likewise good reasons to engage in all of these behaviors.  The one flesh aspects of the microbiome and DNA transmission that are enhanced by such activities depends on whether one believes that “becoming one flesh” is a good thing.

And just as an aside, did anyone notice that the rules and restrictions on sex that the ancient church put in place (without knowing anything about the science) were practically designed to damage marriages?  Evidently Satan understood genetics and the microbiome back then on a level better than we do now.



Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 27 Comments

Theology For Men of the West: One Flesh

Toad has been questioning his assumptions.  As a result…

I believe that up until now I have been wrong with regard to my exegesis on the issue of becoming one flesh as mentioned in Genesis 2:24. 

Whereas previously I believed the one flesh bond between man and woman was the result of marriage to a virgin, I now believe the spiritual bond created by God known as “one flesh” occurs each time a couple has sex regardless of their marital relationship or even the legitimacy of the relationship.  This is in harmony with Matthew 19:6 as well as 1st Corinthians 6:16, as I will demonstrate below.

From an exegetical standpoint this solidifies the doctrine that marriage begins when the eligible virgin has sexual intercourse.  By giving a better understanding of 1st Corinthians 6:16 it is easier to understand the interpretation of dabaq in Genesis 2:24.

The lack of a prohibition that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex points to the fact that “sex outside marriage” is not a sin.   Unfortunately this creates the specter of unrestrained sexuality in the minds of many, but perhaps a better understanding of becoming one flesh will ease those fears.

Recognizing the one flesh bond is created and strengthened with every act of sex reinforces the point that the man gives his consent and commitment to marriage every time he has sex, which results in a one flesh union of the man and woman.   If his purpose is marriage, he does nothing wrong.  If the purpose is any other reason his motives are questionable because once the one flesh bond is created, breaking it later will cause harm to the woman.

Yet, we live in a world filled with broken women and it isn’t that it’s necessary to break some eggs to make an omelet, the eggs are already broken.  A man must have wisdom.



Scripture only uses the term “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 and when Genesis 2;24 is quoted elsewhere (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5 and 1st Corinthians 6).  Genesis 2:24 is the law of marriage and the bond of one flesh is a synonym of marriage within the church.

Because marriage occurs at a certain point and then one is married, it’s assumed the bond of one flesh is created once and exists afterward in the same way we assume the husband only gives his commitment to marriage at a wedding ceremony. Yet, marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and His church so we should understand there is more to it than that.  There is a point at which a person is justified (becomes a Christian), but following that a Christian goes through the process of sanctification as they grow in Christ.  First one becomes a Christian, then one grows as a Christian.

In the same way a marriage is formed with sexual intercourse and that act produces a spiritual bond (one flesh).  The husband makes his commitment to the marriage with the initial act and thereafter renews his commitment with succeeding acts of sexual intercourse.  Likewise the one flesh bond is created with the initial act and renewed and strengthened with each succeeding act.  The two are married and over time the married couple grows closer together.

I was confused about the one flesh bond because of the reference to a covenant marriage in Malachi 2 (in which God is speaking to the priests), which references the command in Leviticus 21‘s instruction to the priests that they must take only a virgin as a wife.  This caused a study of covenants and as a result I viewed the “one flesh” union as being synonymous with a “covenant” marriage that only occurs with a virgin.

As a result my view of “become one flesh” was it occurs as a single act of God when the couple is married.  It followed that after God has joined them they’re now joined in a “once and done” kind of way, but only with a virgin (due to my confusion with the reference to covenant marriage).

Yet, Paul’s admonition in 1st Corinthians 6:16 continued to bother me because he was speaking of becoming one flesh and the men were most certainly not being married to the prostitutes in question.

The question arose:  What if the one-flesh union is a product of having sex that does not require marriage and only the covenant marriage is what is restricted to the virgin?   In that case the “covenant marriage” is not the same thing as becoming “one-flesh”.

There is only one way to deal with questions like that.  Test them.

Assume the spiritual union of one-flesh results every time a man and woman have sex, regardless of their marital status.  Test that according to the Scriptures.


Re-Evaluating 1st Corinthians 6:16, “do you not know?”

Notice Paul states that being “one body” is to become “one flesh” in this passage.  It is a progression: first joined physically (one body) and with that act, joined spiritually (one flesh).  Yet, they are not married.

Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” (1st Corinthians 6:16)

What we know:

  • The Apostle Paul and the men at that time knew that sex with a prostitute was not a sin because that activity was not prohibited and therefore was not and could not be immoral.
  • The prostitutes were eligible to marry and thus were not committing adultery.
  • Paul gave his prohibition within the context of Genesis 2:24 and quoted part of that verse (the two shall become one flesh).
  • The prohibition ONLY applies to Christian men.
  • The men were NOT becoming married to the prostitutes with the act of sex, because a woman who is no longer a virgin is free to marry whom she chooses (1st Corinthians 7:39) and must agree to be married (Numbers 30:9) before sex makes her married.  Prostitutes were the one group of women who didn’t want to marry the men.

Therefore, we cannot place the bond of becoming one flesh only within the domain of marriage.  If not occurring solely with the act of becoming married, it must be the result of having sex and it must occur every time one has sex.  This is the same as the man giving his commitment to marriage every time he has sex with a woman.  He “renews his vow” every single time he has sex with his wife.

Therefore, a superior exegesis of 1st Corinthians 6:16 is that Christian men are not to have sex with a prostitute because sexual intercourse with her results in the one flesh bond and thereby joins Christ to her in the process.  Because marriage is not required to become one flesh.

Think of sex and the one flesh bond as playing with fire.  Fire can be a useful servant if controlled, but a dangerous master that destroys if it gets out of control.

I previously concluded that Paul gave his prohibition on using prostitutes for sex because it was an abuse of the man’s authority to marry.  This correction strengthens the case that the men were abusing their authority to marry, becoming one flesh with no intention of being married.

With the view that the one-flesh union is created any time a man and woman have sex (without regard to marriage), we have Paul saying that because Christian men are spiritually joined with Christ, they are not to form spiritual one-flesh unions with prostitutes because in doing so they join Christ in that union.  In that case, it makes perfect sense to quote Genesis 2:24 saying “they shall become one flesh” because that is the justification of his prohibition. Becoming “one body” causes the man to become “one flesh” with the woman.


Re-Examining Matthew 19:6, “Let no man separate”

Jesus, in Matthew 19:6, speaking within the context of divorce (which can only occur when there is a marriage) said “so they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”   This is the statement that tells us that the “one flesh” bond is something that God does, which allows us to better understand Paul’s comparison between the one flesh bond and becoming a member of the body of Christ in Ephesians 5:28-32.

  • The mere act of sex produces the one-flesh union, a union created by God.
  • This occurs whether it’s within or without marriage.
  • Once the two have been joined in marriage, they are not to be separated.
  • That which is joined by God cannot be successfully separated by man.

This reinforces the point that marriage is begun with the act of sex and for that reason there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex.  At the same time it informs us that the act of sex is to create the one flesh bond which is an act of God.  Separation following that is not something that man was authorized to do.


Conclusions From Scripture

  • The one flesh bond cannot be tied to sex with the virgin because that would associate it only with marriage.  If it were tied only to the virginity of the woman we have a two-tiered marriage system of one flesh marriage and civil (by consent) marriage.  If this were the case Jesus is saying that it is acceptable to divorce in the case of tier-II marriages because they are not one flesh.
  • The one flesh bond cannot be tied solely to marriage because Paul is stating that becoming one body with a prostitute is to become one flesh with her.  This act takes place outside the bonds of marriage (by definition) and will not result in marriage because the prostitute does not agree to be married.
  • All marriages are initiated with sex and therefore all marriages are characterized by the bond of becoming one flesh.
  • The act of sex causes God to join the two as one flesh, so each act of sex renews and strengthens the spiritual bond of one flesh between them in the same way that each act of sex is to renew the husband’s commitment to his marriage.


Science and Observation

The question of becoming one flesh has some interesting possibilities on the physical level that modern science is just beginning to explore.

Each person has a specific microbiome profile of the various flora and fauna living in them.  The microbes in their bodies.  What that means is everyone has about ten trillion cells that make up their bodies, but in addition the body is host to about one hundred trillion cells living in it that are microbes. The human genome has about twenty-one thousand genes, but the microbes living in each person have around eight million genes that interact with the body, turning genes on and off, tinkering with the immune system and things of that nature. The microbes in everyone’s body are part of who they are.

When a woman has sexual intercourse with a man she isn’t just getting his semen, she’s getting a big dose of his microbiome and as time passes they literally become one flesh. The microbiome affects who you are, how you think and how you feel. It has a huge impact on things like digestion, allergies, diabetes, obesity, bowel disorders and even psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and depression. Researchers are just getting started looking at this, but it’s now safe to say that in some ways, mental disorders are sexually transmissible.  Crazy could be considered an STD in another generation.

In a sexual relationship the woman will be receiving the man’s microbiome in the act of sexual intercourse and over time they will develop a similar profile as her body becomes more like his.  In addition, during intercourse his semen is absorbed by the woman and as a result his DNA is entering into her bloodstream and tissue.  As a result of regular sex, over time the man’s microbiome and DNA becomes part of the woman’s body.

This is even more pronounced when a woman gets pregnant because fetal cells will invade her body. These are almost always stem cells and they’ll go to any part of her body that needs help and set to work repairing the damage.  Fetal cells are half her DNA and half his DNA. That means through the action of sex and pregnancy the father will literally become a part of the mother’s body with every baby he fathers in her because those cells don’t go away. His DNA will be with her for the rest of her life along with his microbiome.

At one time doctors thought semen was just the delivery vehicle for the sperm, but not any more. Semen is now considered the most complex fluid the body produces, more complex than blood. It’s loaded with enzymes and prostaglandins that a woman’s body does not produce.  Her vagina, cervix and uterus will absorb the semen and within a few hours after intercourse the woman’s bloodstream shows measurable amounts of the ingredients of semen.  The effect of this is to improve the woman’s sense of well being.

This the definition of becoming one flesh on a physical and emotional level.

Dr. Lazar Greenfield was the president elect of the American College of Surgery, a man at the top of his profession.  His career was destroyed by feminists because he wrote a Valentines Day article in “Surgery News” that discussed the benefits of semen for women.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Read the entire story that I linked to get the rest of the story that discusses the research.  Although the newsletter retracted the entire issue, the essay in question is here at retractionwatch.


I believe an understanding of “become one flesh” is the final piece of the puzzle for understanding Genesis 2:24 and the real-world applications are interesting.

And this means I have a lot of editing to do on posts from years gone by.

Posted in Theology For Men of the West | 24 Comments

Theology For Men of the West: Fathers and Daughters

The authority of the father over his household has been under attack by the leaders of the church for over 1000 years.  Small wonder that today, fathers are an afterthought when one thinks of a family.  Before we get to the Scripture and the history to be examined, let’s look (again) at the impact of a father on his children.  The following table lays out the religious attendance of adult children according to the attendance practice of their parents.

Our first table shows us the father present in the family, a man who places importance on worship attendance in church.  Notice that when his wife is also in regular attendance with him, only just over 1/4 of the children will have no attendance in church as adults.  However, as the mother is less submissive to him both the percentage of children who attend regularly as adults as well as the children who attend irregularly rises.  A devout father with no wife present will see almost half of his children become regular worshipers as adults.

Father Mother Regular
Regular Regular 32.8 41.4 25.8
Regular Irregular 37.7 37.6 24.7
Regular None 44.2 22.4 33.4


The chart detailing what happens when the father is only in irregular attendance.

Father Mother Regular
Irregular Regular 3.4 58.6 38.0
Irregular Irregular 7.8 60.8 31.4
Irregular None 25.4 22.8 51.8


Finally, we have the chart in which the father does not attend church or is absent from the home.

Father Mother Regular
None Regular 1.5 37.4 61.1
None Irregular 2.3 37.8 59.9
None None 4.6 14.7 80.7

The data demonstrates the influence of the mother on the regular attendance of their children in adulthood is negligible.  Indeed, the less a mother goes to church the more likely her children will regularly attend church as adults.

Fathers Have An Incredible Impact that cannot be understated.  The authority that God granted to fathers is likewise broad and deep.


The Authority of Fathers

In Numbers 30:2-5 we read the following:

If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand.  But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her. (Emphasis added)

This passage details the blanket grant of authority of the father over his daughter, which points to his responsibility to his daughters.  The father has the authority to command his children and direct their lives.  The Bible provides several examples that generally make feminists want to scream because they point to the lack of agency for young women.

In Exodus 21:7-10, we observe that the father has the authority to sell his daughter as a female slave to become the owners’ concubine, a wife for his son, or the wife of one of his slaves.  A concubine is the wife of a free man, but she is not a free woman.  If the man purchases the woman for his son, she will enter the marriage to the son as a free woman (according to the custom of daughters).   If he purchases her to be the wife of one of his servants, she will become that man’s wife but as a slave she is not held to the same standards as free women are.  For example, if a married free woman commits adultery, they are to be put to death but in Leviticus 19:20 we can see that if a slave woman commits adultery,

there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.”

In 1st Corinthians 7:36-38, we see the father has the authority to refuse to allow his daughter to marry.  But what if she gets married without her father’s permission?

In Exodus 22:16-17, we see the effect of a daughter choosing to agree to get married (she was seduced and agreed to have sex).   According to Numbers 30:3-5, we see in verse 16 that the father hears of it and says nothing.  She is his wife.  In verse 17, the father forbids it and refuses to give his daughter in marriage.  Thus, because the father forbid it she is not married, even though they had sex.

This passage records a judgment of Moses and the question before Moses was a conflict of Law between the Law of Marriage and the Law of Vows.  According to the Law of Vows, the father has the right to pass judgment on any agreement his daughter makes and if he chooses, he may forbid that agreement.  However, the Law of marriage says that when the eligible virgin has sex, she is married.

Since the father would not hear of the agreement of his daughter to marry until after the deed was done, does the father have the right to forbid her agreement to marry that resulted in the marriage immediately afterward when she gave him her virginity?

As it turns out, the answer is yes and that is illustrated in Exodus 22:16-17.  In forbidding the agreement to marry, the father is forbidding her marriage to that particular man.  The effect of doing so means he was not eligible to marry her and thus the sex did not result in a marriage.  Readers of the Bible generally do not understand any of this and exegesis is further clouded by the fact translators place extra words in the passage that completely change the meaning.  Verse 16:

“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.”

Notice the words that have been struck out.  Those words are a translators addition, but completely change the meaning of the passage by creating the illusion that they are somehow not married yet.   Those who care to confirm this may do so here if they wish, translators additions are in brackets.   Now look at verse 17:

“If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

Following the form set out in Numbers 30:5, first we see the father obviously says nothing and the man must pay a dowry for his wife.  Then we see the father has forbidden the marriage to him (he “absolutely refuses to give her to him”) and he still has to pay the price equal to a dowry for virgins.   Because students of the Bible don’t understand the nature of this judgment of Moses so they are taught that sex doesn’t make one married.  Obviously if sex doesn’t make one married, it makes sense for the translators to add “to be” in order to fool everyone into thinking the text supports that notion.

Understand, in order for marriage to be under the authority of the church, the church had to forbid a marriage that did not have their permission.  In order for the church to get control of this, the marriage had to be a public ceremony of commitment and not sex, which is where the “sin” of premarital sex came from.

The “sex doesn’t make you married” was a doctrinal tool used for the purposes of power and control.  In order to gain the power they wanted they had to steal it from the individuals who rightfully possessed that authority.


A Conspiracy Theory, Or Historical Fact?

Why would Bible translators insert words that completely change the meaning of what the text actually says?  The answer is because 1500 years ago the man who translated the Bible for the church (Jerome) did it that way.  The doctrine of the church was established that a public ceremony of commitment was required because (regardless of what the Bible said) sex did not make one married.

That isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s historical fact.  As to why that was done, observe a brief history of how this happened.

The following quotes are from “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James A Brundage.  Emphasis added in the following quotes.

During Constantine’s reign and those of his sons and successors, Christians secured numerous social and political advantages. By the end of the fourth century the Roman government, with the enthusiastic cooperation of Church authorities, was beginning to persecute pagans and other non-Christians, as well as Christians whose beliefs differed from the norms of an orthodoxy that was continuously engaged in defining itself. Early in the fifth century, Christianity became in law what it had for several generations been in fact: the official religion of the Roman state (1). (page 77)

The church leaders got their first taste of real power when Constantine and his successors granted authority to Christian bishops to adjudicate disputes among Christians.  Provincial civil authorities were required to enforce the decisions of the audientia episcopalis, as the bishops courts were styled.  Following this the boundaries between the civil law and the church law became increasingly blurred once the decisions of the episcopal audientia became enforceable by civil authorities.  At the same time the bishops were becoming increasingly involved with the administration of the government.  What happened then, do you suppose?  Persecution of the pagans.

When people are persecuted by a dominant group, there are generally three strategies.  Fight them, join them or run from them.  One of the results of the persecution of various pagan and “heretic” groups was an influx of individuals claiming orthodoxy.  As these individuals infiltrated the church, just like an invasion of SJW’s, there was a push to codify things and make rules.

Up to the beginning of the fourth century Christians had not yet created a systematic theology; now they felt the need to devise coherent and sophisticated justifications for their religious teachings in terms of current scientific and philosophical thought.
The Church Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries took up this task with zest and vigor. They were determined not only to justify the teachings of their religion to others, but also to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that Christian beliefs accounted for the world and mankind’s place in it more adequately than alternative explanatory systems. Out of the writings of such teachers as Sts. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335-ca. 395) and John Chrysostom (ca. 344-407) in the Greek-speaking East and Sts. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine in the Latin-speaking West, there would emerge by the sixth century a Christian world view that was far more systematic and rigorous than anything that had gone before. The theologizing of Christianity began in earnest during this period. This process required Christian intellectuals, among other things, to account for the place of sex in the scheme of creation and to define the role that sexual relations ought to play in the Christian life. (page 79)

In order to understand why current doctrines are the way they are, one must understand the thoughts and attitudes of the early church fathers who created the systematic theology of Christianity beginning in the 4th Century.  Fortunately they were rather prolific in their writing.

The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent (3).
Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs (4). Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful (5). Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond. (6). (page 80)
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection (13).
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources (14). 14 But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential. (page 82)
Patristic discussions of the place of sex in the Christian life are shot through with a fundamental ambivalence about the place of women in the scheme of salvation. (25) Augustine agreed clearly and emphatically with other patristic writers in requiring that men observe the same norms of sexual conduct as women. (26) At the same time, however, Augustine, like other patristic authors, considered women frankly inferior to men, both physically and morally. (page 85)

According to the Bible, men and women have different norms of sexual conduct.  Indeed, there are two separate standards of sexual morality- one for men and the other for women.  This agreement among the patristic fathers of the church that men and women were to be held to the same standard of sexual morality is the moral foundation of feminism.  We have already seen their disdain for sex, but observe that they changed the Biblical definition of marriage:

Patristic writers assumed, as Roman law did, that consent made marriage. They rejected the notion that consummation was an essential part of marriage. It made no difference whether a couple ever went to bed together; so long as they consented to marry one another, that was what counted (63). If consummation was not essential, it might follow that sexual impotence constituted no reason for holding a marriage invalid, and Augustine at any rate seems to have subscribed to this view (64). (page 92)
The marital debt created a parity of rights and obligations between the spouses. Each had an equal right to demand that it be paid; each had an equal obligation to comply with the other’s demands. Equality of the sexes in marriage meant equality in the marriage bed, but not outside of it (69). Just as each spouse was entitled to sexual service from the other on demand, so each was entitled to require sexual fidelity from the other. Neither had a right to seek sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, even if the other party was, for example, absent or ill and thus sexually unavailable (70). Cessation of marital relations did not break the bond of marriage, just as the beginning of sexual relations was irrelevant to the contracting of marriage (71). The evident aim of patristic matrimonial theory was to separate marriage as far as possible from its sexual component, defining it as a contractual union, separate and distinct from the sexual union of the married persons. (page 93)

That, in a nutshell, is the history of the church’s doctrine on sexual morality you have never heard anywhere else.  There was no conspiracy, the early church fathers openly and prolifically broadcast their hatred for all things sexual.  They publicly threw out the Biblical standards for marriage and sexual morality, replacing them with a mixture of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.


The Church Usurped The Authority Of The Fathers

In its desire for power the church took control of marriage.  This usurped the authority of the man (given the authority to marry in Genesis 2:24) and fathers’ authority over their daughters by making marriage a ceremony of consent rather than sexual intercourse.  The church forbid “secret marriage” and required marriage to be performed under the authority of the church with witnesses in a ceremony in which both parties gave their consent and commitment to the marriage.

The reason the church could get away with this was because having taken control of marriage, the church decides who was married and who was not.  This determined who could inherit and who could not, which was of critical importance to the Nobility.  Again, Brundage:

Roman law prior to Constantine had not required any sort of ritual for contracting marriage, even though in practice ceremonies were in common use. During the fourth and fifth centuries, Church regulations began to require Christians to receive a nuptial blessing from a priest. (37) Christian wedding rituals first began to take shape during this period, and by the sixth century two varieties of ceremony had emerged. One type, commonest in Gaul, featured a nuptial blessing imparted by a priest while the newly wedded couple lay in the marriage bed. Nuptial ceremonies in Italy, by contrast, centered on a blessing bestowed upon the couple either in the church building or, more commonly, at the door of the church, at the time when they exchanged consent. Thus the symbolism of the Italian rites centered upon consent and the Church’s role in marriage, while French wedding symbolism stressed consummation and treated the nuptial ceremony as primarily a domestic affair. (38) (page 88)

Obviously, the Italian rite won out (in keeping with the previously described attitudes) and the church later adopted a uniform marital rite for the entire church that required a public ceremony with witness to exchange vows of consent.

The major opponents to the increase of power by the church were the nobility, who maintained and solidified their dynasties by carefully arranged marriages, often to cousins.  By requiring the consent of the bride and declaring that sex would not create a marriage, the church effectively usurped the father’s authority to decide who his daughter would marry.  Without the blessing of the church the marriage was invalid and the child could not inherit.  By gradually changing the forbidden levels of consanguinity the church made it impossible for the families to continue cousin marriages.

At the same time, given the doctrine that sexual pleasure was evil and wicked, the practice of polygyny was forbidden because the only reason a man could have for wanting more than one wife was sexual variety and pleasure.  At the same time forbidding divorce, this placed the nobility in a very difficult spot if the wife did not bear an heir.  The church had a vested interest in this because when wealthy nobles died without heir, the church inherited the property.  While these policies were aimed at the nobility, they were enforced (as much as is possible) for everyone.

With the protestant reformation and resulting schism in the western church, the civil state seized the power that had once been wielded by the church, especially over the institution of marriage.  As this was firmly established in the culture and law, the state was set for feminism to finally grow and bear its poisonous fruit.

This is the history of how the authority of fathers was usurped.  First by the church and later by the state, then finally by the feminist state.  The goal is to separate the fathers from their daughters and remove daughters from the protection of living in their father’s house.

Fathers, teach your children and understand your authority.  Especially the authority you have over your daughters.  The kindest thing you could do is probably to have a discussion with your daughter and forbid the marriage she began without your knowledge.  It does not matter whether she married a Christian or not, in complete ignorance she was bound to that man when she had sex with him.



1. On Constantine’s life and religious policies see generally Andras Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948); Jakob Burckhardt, The Age of Constantine the Great, trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Pantheon Books, 1949); Hermann Dorries, Vas Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl., ser. 3, vol. 34 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), and Liebschuetz, Continuity and Change, esp. pp. 277-89. On the relationship of paganism to Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries see also James J. O’Donnell, “The Demise of Paganism,” Tradition 35 (1979) 45-88, as well as Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study in Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine (London: Oxford University Press, 1944)
3. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 390-91; Edward A. Synan, “Augustine of Hippo, Saint,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R. Strayer et al., 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982- ; cited hereafter as DMA) 1: 646- 59. See also Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 58-59; Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality, p. 36.
4. Augustine, Contra Julianum 4.5.35, in PL 44: 756: “In quibus [cupiditatibus malis] libido prae caeteris est, cui nisi resistatur, horrenda immunda committit.”
5. Augustine, Contra Julianum 4.14.71, in PL 44: 773-74.
6. Miller, Lehre, pp. 22-23; Lecky, Hist. of European Morals 2:281-82.
13. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.13, 1.26, 1.28, in PL 23: 229-30, 246, 249; Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate 2, in PG 46: 323-24; Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 45-46; JoAnn McNamara, “Cornelia’s Daughters: Paula and Eustocium” Women’s Studies 11 (1984) 12- 13.
14. Jerome, Adv. Jov. 1.49, in PL 23:280-81; Aries, “L’amour dans Ie mariage,” pp. 118-19; Philippe Delhaye, “Le dossier antimatrimonial de L’Adversus Jovinianum et son influence sur quelques ecrits latins du Xlle siecle,” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 68. Jerome found some strands of Stoic ethics so congenial that he numbered Seneca among the saints; De viris illustribus 12, in PL 23: 662. But his use of the Stoics was highly selective; Colish, Stoic Tradition 2: 70-81.
25. This ambivalence appears to be based upon the distinction between body and soul that was central to Augustine’s concept of human nature. See esp. Kari Elisabeth Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Role of Women in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (Washington: University Press of America, 1981), p. 339; Rosambert, Veuve, pp. 94-95; and see generally Margaret R. Miles, Augustine on the Body, American Academy of Religion Dissertation Series, no. 31 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979)•
26. Ambrose, De Abraham 1.4.25, in PL 14: 431; Jerome, Epist. 77.3, in PL 22: 691; Caesarius of Arles, Sermones 32.4, 142.3, ed. Germain Morin, 2 vols., CCL 103-4 (Turnhout: Bn§pols, 1953) 103: 142, 186-87; John Chrysostom, De verbis propter fornicationes 4, in PG 51: 214; Augustine, Serm. 9•4, 392.4-5, in PL 38: 78 and 39: 1711- 12; Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 248.
37, Statuta ecclesiae antiquae c. 101, ed. Charles Munier, Bibliotheque de l’Institut de droit canonique et de l’Universite de Strasbourg, vol. 5 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960), p. 100; St. Basil, Homeliae IX in Hexameron 7.5, in PC 29: 160; and see generally Karl Ritzer, Le mariage dans les eglises chretiennes du Ier au XIe siecle, Lex orandi, vol. 45 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1970).
38. Herlihy, Medieval Households, pp. 13-14.
63. Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 2.1.2, in CSEL 43: 82; De nupt. et concup.1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224; Ambrose, De institutione virginis 6.41, in PL 16: 316; D’ErcoIe, “Consenso,” p. 28; Jean Gaudemet, “Indissolubilite et consommation du marriage: rapport d’Hincmar de Reims,” RDC 30 (1980) 29; William Joseph Dooley, Marriage according to St. Ambrose, Studies in Christian Antiquity, no. 11 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1948), pp. 1-2.
64. Augustine, De bono coniugali 7.7, 15.17, in CSEL 41: 196-97, 209-10; Josef Lamer, Die Storingen des geschlechtlichen Vermogens in der Literatur der auctoritativen Theologie des Mittelalters: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Impotenz und des medizinischen Sachverstiindigenbeweises im kanonischen Impotenzprozess, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mainz, Literatur, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1958), no. 6 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958), p. 300.
69. Augustine, Epist. 262, in CSEL 57: 621-31; Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence, p. 104; Berrouard, “Saint Augustin et L’indissolubilite,” p. 141.
70. Caesarius of ArIes, Serm. 43.7, in CCL 103: 193-94.
71. Augustine, De nupt. et concup. 1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224.
Posted in Theology For Men of the West | 10 Comments

Theology For Men of the West: The Cargo Cult of MGTOW


Toad Has NO Respect For MGTOW

Before I begin, understand that I can cite the stories and statistics better than the MGTOW proponents.  In fact, it’s reasonable to say that I know more about the legal system in terms of divorce, child support and domestic violence than most of the MGTOW.   And I understand what women are really like.

However, I don’t agree with MGTOW on both the definition and the solution to the problem.

First and foremost, marriage is a requirement for men because God said so.  And the MGTOW might say he doesn’t believe in God.  It is written:  “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”  The idiot acknowledges that there is a God and then chooses to violate His commands.  I’m not here to talk to fools or idiots so don’t bother.

God created female hypergamy and it was part of His judgement of Adam and Eve that was detailed in Genesis 3:16.  Deal with it.  Because of female hypergamy, the judgement “he shall rule over you” becomes a backhanded requirement for men:  If you want a woman to desire you… become fit to rule over her.

God created marriage and according to God’s plan the marriage begins when the virgin is penetrated in the act of sexual intercourse.  That is a ceremony known as the act of marriage.  If a man is joined to a woman and he is the man who got her virginity, they are actually married.


The Cargo Cult of the MGTOW

The MGTOW beliefs about marriage and divorce are analogous to the beliefs of cargo cults. They look back to previous generations when planes came from the sky with good things for everyone and believe the reason the planes don’t return is because they don’t have the airport correctly prepared.  So they clear the strip and build a control tower and make things out of sticks that look just like the radios…  in the belief that their efforts will cause the airplanes to come back to them again.

The MGTOW look at generations past when men were able to get married and stay married without being ground up by family court and believe all it will take is a reform of the laws such that men might have decent marriages again because women wouldn’t be able to abuse an already unfair system.   Yet, since it is impossible to change the laws they oppose the idea of men getting married because the system is “too unfair” and a “bad deal” for men.

Due to their ignorance the cargo cults are unable to comprehend the war that caused the planes to come and later for the planes to leave.  The only data they have is the observations of the airport and the logical conclusions they draw from that.  In the same way, due to having been lied to all their lives, the MGTOW have a completely false view on the subjects of gender equality, the nature of marriage and how a marriage begins.  The only data they have is drawn from a paradigm that rejects God or does not accept the truth of His word and is therefore faulty.

God takes a hand in the life of a nation and He blesses those who obey Him and punishes those who do not.  God also takes a hand in the life of a family as it grows and matures.  If the family is founded on betrayal and adultery, problems are to be expected.  If the woman is committing adultery with the man she is with, why would it be a surprise when she commits adultery with any other man?  Or decides to end the “marriage” in order to pursue other men?


The Real Issues With Marriage

Even the MGTOW acknowledge that if a man wants the best odds for a successful marriage that does not end in divorce, he should marry a virgin.  This raises an important question:

Is the success of the marriage because one marries a virgin, or is it because the man is not committing adultery by taking another man’s wife? 

The real rate of divorce for individuals who are actually married is around 5%. If the man is joined to a woman and he didn’t get her virginity, it’s almost a certainty that he is joined to an adulteress and the rate of divorce for such unions starts at almost 30% and goes up from there depending on how much adultery she’s dabbled in.

Considering the 5% divorce rate compared to adulterous unions that begin with about a 30% rate of destruction… a rate that increases from there depending on how many adulterous partners the woman has had, it seems reasonable to say the basic penalty for adultery committed in ignorance is a 25% destruction rate.  The more adultery the woman has committed the higher the likelihood of the ultimate adulterous union breaking up in what we call divorce.  However, that’s just the negative side of the scale.

When a man marries a virgin, with that act God joins the two with a spiritual bonding known as the “one flesh” bond of marriage.  The Bible does not tell us anything about this bonding other than it is a great mystery.  What is the value of this spiritual bond in keeping the marriage together?  We do not know, but God must have had a reason and since He created women it is logical the spiritual bond is important.

In Matthew 19, Jesus said “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”  That indicates (obviously) God has joined the two with a spiritual bond, but it also indicates that it is possible to separate them afterward.  What is the result of separating them?  The answer is broken women.


Is The Destruction Of An Adulterous Union A Good Thing?

The key to this question has to be the issue of willing culpability.  The girl is married in ignorance due to the lies of the churchian tradition and their refusal to tell the truth.  The churchians will stand up and say “They knew premarital sex was a sin!” and even in that statement they are lying.  The lie is the fact that unless a man and woman are engaged there can be no premarital sex.  What the virgin girl is doing is getting married.  After that she’s committing adultery with every other man.

When the men and women decide to marry, they do so in the ignorant belief that it is a commitment ceremony in front of witnesses that makes them married.  Because that’s what the lying churchians have taught and society believes.  Yet, in ignorance they set out on this path, building their house on the sand of betrayal and adultery.  When the storms come (and they always do) the houses are torn apart and the children are especially damaged by this.

So, should we stand up and cheer as each ignorantly adulterous union is destroyed in family court with great suffering all around?  No.  There are solutions to the problem of these adulterous unions that can set things aright.  The problem is getting the people to recognize the problem and then take the steps to solve it.

Just as one cannot force the red pill down a man’s throat when he is thoroughly blue-pilled, the majority of so-called “married” people refuse to believe they aren’t actually married, much less that solutions exist to solve the problem they refuse to recognize.  (I will deal with this issue in a future post)  However, for those who are not married (Hi MGTOW!), there are solutions to the problems you people never knew existed.  It starts with a simple point: don’t have a wedding with a woman who is already married, you must ensure the woman is eligible to marry before you can be married.

Can an eligible non-virgin be married to a man and still get that “one-flesh” bonding from God?  Scripture does not say one way or another but from what little we know, the answer is probably no.  Which means the man who marries a virgin has an advantage over the man who marries an eligible non-virgin.  Neither have done anything wrong but the man who takes a virgin bride gains the spiritual bonding from God, while the man who marries the eligible non-virgin is getting a woman who had her bond to another man broken.  Yet, in both cases they could expect God to bless their marriage if they continue in faith and obedience.

The man who takes another man’s wife and calls it marriage because they had a wedding ceremony and took vows is still committing adultery.  He is not married to the woman he believes is his wife because she was already a married woman.  This couple cannot expect God to bless their union because God is not mocked and whatever you sow you shall also reap.  Even if the adultery was done in ignorance.


Modern Men Are Not Fit To Rule

Yes, it’s the 21st Century and the entire system is broken because this isn’t just the women.  Marriage and family are under attack from all sides by everyone in the game.  God removed His restraining hand and gave people over to impurity, degrading passions and depraved minds.

Let’s say a man finds a banged up slut he’s attracted to and she’s highly attracted to him.  He does what he needs to do to ensure she’s eligible to marry and then marries her.  There will still be problems because of her past experiences and his present condition but they are not in sin.  The MGTOW look at the landscape without understanding and due to their inability to comprehend the real problems, they reject marriage out of fear and lack of faith.  All they talk about is how horrible marriage is but what comes through is fear.

I hear this sort of thing and I think of Proverbs 22:13.

The sluggard says, “There is a lion outside;
I will be killed in the streets!”

Notice that it says “sluggard” and not “coward” in that verse.  Yet, the thought of being slain by a lion should induce fear so we should expect to hear that from the coward.  Why, then, is it the sluggard (the lazy man) who says that?  Because he is trying to shift the attention away from his laziness over to the fear of the lion.  The fear of what may happen if he took the action he does not desire to take.

The vast majority of MGTOW are not fit to rule over preschoolers, much less an adult woman.   What kind of men are they?  Men who had the masculinity stomped out of them, were taught lies about men and women being equal, the men who were taught to “just be yourself.”   The truth is that men who refuse to recognize reality and change accordingly are operating at the level of stupidity characterized by bringing a knife to a gunfight.

No, it’s not your great-grampa’s world any longer and that means you adapt or die.  Of course, if you’re happy fapping to porn while congratulating yourself on how wise you are for avoiding women, see my comments about fools and idiots.

I disagree completely with the MGTOW as to what the problems actually are, so we obviously disagree on the solutions.  What follows are the real solutions, but they only work if the woman is actually eligible to marry.  Meaning, if she’s already married the man must ensure she is no longer married.  Scripture provides several ways to deal with this, but in some cases the woman is married and that can’t be changed.  The man’s only rational response in that case is Next!


Adapt Or Die

You must change your body, your mind and your habits.  Start with your body.  Hit the gym, grow some muscles (which increases your testosterone) and lose the fat.   We are talking about an environment in which, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 37.9 percent of adults over 20 are obese and another 32.8% are overweight.  In other words, a whopping 70.7% of adults over 20 years of age are either obese or overweight.  Just being in sufficiently good shape that you’re not overweight or obese puts you in the top 30% in terms of what your body looks like.  Get your bodyfat down to around 10% and you will stand out.

Learn how to fight with both your mind and your body.  For the body I recommend Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Muay Thai.  Yes, you’ll get punched in the face.  You’ll be submitted and put in pain.  It’s good for you.  One does not learn how to fight in a short period of time regardless of what one sees on the movie screen, it takes years of training.   In the same way you must learn to fight with your mind, by which I mean learning Game.  Ultimately, Game is learned charisma.

Women want a superior man and you may as well write this on the back of your hand because it’s the truth:

Women do not desire to end a relationship with a man they are highly attracted to.

Be the man that women find highly attractive.  For that you must learn Game, be fit and look good, have the self-confidence that comes from knowing you can take care of yourself and have a good career that makes a good income.  Here are three posts that you don’t want to read but still need to:

By maximizing your potential and attracting a woman who is actually eligible to marry, it is possible to have a reasonably safe marriage.   Still, that doesn’t get rid of the problem of what women could do to you.  Given their history there may very well be problems because we live in an environment today that places temptations on women they should not have to face.

Maybe some of you are fit to rule and women find you highly attractive, but you look at the situation and decide it’s just too risky because marriage is a really bad deal nowadays. Ok, the game is rigged.   MGTOW see this as a binary choice of play by women’s rules or choose to opt out, but there is another game where you get to use God’s rules.

The problem begins with defining marriage as monogamy.   The problems in monogamous marriage come from the fact that rigid monogamy is a monopoly for women and even if you marry a virgin there will be problems given the environment she is subjected to.   At the beginning of a relationship part of the woman’s attraction for the man is the competition with other women.  In other words, the possibility she might be rejected.  This is why the sex at the beginning of the relationship is always the best you’ll get  in a monogamous relationship.

As soon as the man makes the commitment, part of her attraction dies.   A cat chasing a string is fascinated by the movement of the string and the fact they can’t quite catch it.  Let the cat catch the string and the cat immediately gets bored and looks for something else.  In the same way, by making the commitment the man destroys part of the attraction he held for the woman.

Change the game by recognizing the fact that a man can have more than one wife.

A marriage limited to one woman is called monogamy, but is better referred to as a female monopoly.  Monopoly, by definition, is characterized by a lack of accountability from competitive forces.  In other words, monogamy eliminates the most powerful word from a man’s vocabulary:  “Next!”   With no accountability, the woman has no desire to please and provide good service.  What is it that Rollo is fond of saying?

Desire Cannot Be Negotiated.

The question is what motivates her desire and female competition provides an enormous amount of motivation.   With only the threat of multiple wives, the (first) wife is subject to competitive pressure.  If her behavior is bad enough, he could move her into the spare bedroom and take another wife.   And some of you still haven’t caught on that I go by what the Bible says, so the reason for not throwing wife #1 out in order to make way for wife #2 is that behavior isn’t allowed.   The commitment of the Christian man in marriage is permanent.

Polygyny is not socially accepted as a right of men, thus, anything that deviates from monogamy is considered to be an immoral violation of the idea that men and women are equal.  Yet, if women are attracted enough, they willingly and publicly share a man if that is what he wants.

An easy litmus test for a man is the threesome.  If a man cannot manage to get two women to have a threesome with him, he will not be capable of getting multiple women to marry him.  Yet, counter-intuitively, it’s frequently easier to get two women in your bed than just one.  This is a matter of maintaining frame and managing the female competition to his advantage.

Read this post on the “Cardinal Rule”, which explains polygyny in detail from the standpoint of monogamy and lack of female competition.   Seriously, just read it.


A Marriage With Multiple Wives Is Better Than Monogamy


The Modern Legal Environment

Understand that polygyny will never be officially recognized in the United States (or any of the English-speaking West) under the current legal system.  The reason is all the laws and doctrines concerning divorce are oriented around monogamy.  Even the recognition of homosexual unions is limited to only those within the framework of monogamous unions.   As soon as the court is confronted with polygyny, the first problem is polygyny is contrary to public policy which means a marriage with multiple wives cannot be recognized as being a marriage.  To get a divorce there has to be a marriage or some relationship that can be deemed to be a marriage.  Without that there can be no divorce and polygyny cannot be deemed to be a marriage.

In some jurisdictions the State has responded with the argument that there is no polygynous marriage but rather multiple concurrent monogamous relationships.  Under this rubric, the first woman to attempt a divorce-rape becomes the “wife” and a divorce proceeds from there.  The other woman or women are left with the official status of girlfriends (mistresses) and get nothing.  The strategy is called “divide and conquer” and with a marriage with multiple income streams and significant assets the first woman to betray all the others wins.

The key assertion is each woman is in a monogamous relationship with the man.  The hallmark of monogamy is the women do not share their man.  The strategy is to absolve the woman of any blame (she becomes the legitimate victim, all the other women are victims to a lesser extent) and throw everything on the man.  This argument rests on a the idea that if all conjugal acts with each woman are strictly one-on-one, then they are separate monogamous relationships.

This argument results from situations in which a man is married and later wants another wife.  He manages to achieve that, but leaves the two women in separate housing or within the same house, in separate bedrooms.  At some point one of the women (usually the first wife) decides she’s had enough and takes it to the court.

The solution for this is simple and has benefits for the marriage:

Continue As You Begin.  If a man decides to have a monogamous marriage, he should continue his monogamous marriage because that is what the wife signed up for.  If he wants a poly marriage he should round up his collection of women first and they should all agree they are entering a polygynous marriage.  If the man is already married and decides he wants another wife, he should legally divorce and separate for 6 months to a year.  At the end of that period of time he should enter into a new marriage with all the women at once.  If wife #1 isn’t willing to do that, she should not be part of it (this is quite complicated and deserves its own post), but the rule is to continue as you began.

Use a written contract of marriage.  The contract functions as the private law that controls the marriage.  The real benefit of the contract is full disclosure to all parties.  The contract establishes by unanimous consent that the marriage with all wives began at the same time with their complete understanding, proving the marriage is a polygynous marriage with multiple wives rather than a group of concurrent monogamous relationships.

The entire family living under the same roof.  This is important in dealing with the “separate concurrent monogamous relationships” argument because women in monogamous relationships don’t share.   Having the entire family under one roof in the same residence eliminates this issue because they are held out to the public as maintaining a polygynous marriage.  This arrangement also forces the wives to deal with each other and develop relationships between themselves.

Husband and wives all share the same bedroom and bed.  Given that homosexual unions are now granted the same status as heterosexual unions, this brings the “conjugal relations” portion of the definition of marriage front and center.  The question is not “who is married to whom” but rather “who is NOT married to whom?”  Arguably everyone in the bed has a conjugal relationship with everyone else so not only is each wife married to the husband but by the same token they are married to each other.  No person is any more or less married to everyone else by any definition one wishes.

All wives are “mom” to all children.  This is far more important in terms of family harmony than anything else because it forestalls conflict between mothers.   It’s also very beneficial for the children because it’s easier for a woman to be 100% consistent with another woman’s child than it is with her own child.   However, in the event one of the wives wanted out, giving her custody of her children be to separate siblings, but leaving all the children together means they stay with their Dad and the remaining wife/wives they already know and accept as “mom”.  That is clearly more in the best interests of the child than allowing the child to be raised by a single mother.  Should the father receive custody of the child, the mother would be required to pay child support (another disincentive to the idea of leaving).


Why Does It Work?

The very first point about a polygynous marriage is the women are the ones who must consent to it and women will only consent to such an arrangement with a high-value man.  This is not the form of marriage available to “average” men and certainly not to sub-standard men.  Second, the structure of a polygynous marriage places the incentives on staying in the relationship while leaving the relationship is penalized.

In behavioral terms, good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is penalized, which is also the opposite of monogamous marriage.   The structure forces the husband to manage relationships and remain aloof, which makes him more dominant and thus more attractive.  The wives compete for their husband’s attention by giving their husband what he wants.  Bad behavior results in a lack of attention as the husband ignores them in favor of another wife.

Polygyny takes advantage of hypergamy, female competition and women’s herd instincts.   The wives need for masculine dominance and leadership is satisfied by their husband.  Some of their needs for comfort are satisfied by their husband, but many of their emotional needs can be satisfied by the other wives.  It is an observable fact that women’s emotional needs are best met by other women and in a poly marriage the women have relationships with their fellow wives.  In other words, they have their own “herd” within the marriage and are stronger for it.

Women compete.  No matter how much they love each other and get along, they still compete for their man’s attention.  The only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants.  Sweetness, loyalty, attractiveness, submissiveness, femininity and sexual availability to name the big ones.  One aspect of polygyny is the husband will not be subjected to sexual starvation and the sex he gets will be better than he would ever get in a monogamous relationship.  Yes, variety is available, but women compete and that comes through in terms of quality, especially when they are all in bed together.

A man who has maximized his potential and is high value should be able to arrange such a marriage if he desires it.   However, it is the women who decide whether they are willing to share and if the man is not sufficiently high-value they will refuse.  This is why very few men have had more than one wife.

One will regularly hear the advice of “Spin Plates”.   Meaning, maintain multiple concurrent sexual relationships.  And, it’s possible for a Christian man to do this without being in sin, but only because women of this generation are so screwed up.   There are things he has to do but it’s possible.  A man who is high value and can spin plates can spin himself together a solid marriage to multiple women and have children in the safest possible structure given this legal environment.

Women crave the dominance of a high-value masculine and dominant man.  They desire boundaries and want to be told what to do… as long as it’s the right man in charge.  Read the Biblical Marriage post and consider the rules for marriage from the Bible.  It’s all about maintaining frame and God provided the frame for marriage.


Verdict On MGTOW

The MGTOW (like most people) do not understand marriage or the problems that are caused by doing things contrary to God’s commands.  In leaving God out of the equation they cannot comprehend the problem and thus cannot fathom the solutions.  This is extremely difficult for people to accept because there is no data.   The lack of data results from women’s self-reported data and the fact no-one understands that a woman is married to the man who takes her virginity.

A wise man should recognize the reality of modern life and adjust himself accordingly.  However, the vast majority of men will not do the work necessary to become high value.  They refuse to adjust to the new paradigm, which means it’s easier for those men who choose to do so.

Polygynous marriage is available to those who are truly high-value.  Such an arrangement is more stable and offers more benefits than any monogamous marriage.  To claim that marriage is no longer a viable option is a lie because solutions exist.  The solutions begin with understanding what marriage is and how it begins.


Posted in Theology For Men of the West | 8 Comments