The Argument Room with CyberSith1

Previously I made the argument (if one is interested in the theology of it, there were two posts, hypergamy and fit to rule) that part of the correct meaning of Genesis 3:16 is a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her.  Which is a backhanded point to the men that if they would like their woman to actually desire them (sexual desire) then they must be fit to rule.  Our commenter Cybersith1 doesn’t agree.

Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD”


Women Want To Submit To This?

Or This?

According to Cybersith1, men have no responsibility to be fit to rule over their women.  Women are like a television and a man should be able to click the remote and women are required to serve.   In his words:

“I believe that women should be in submission regardless of whether a man is worthy enough or not…  Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD”

It’s true that the husband is in authority over his wife by default, just like a young prince becomes king when his father dies.  Yes, he’s king, but that doesn’t mean he’s ready or capable of doing a good job… or that he won’t get lazy later and turn into a couch potato.  Being in authority is one thing, being fit to use that authority correctly, wisely and well is quite another.  If that king wants the cheerful, willing support and loyalty of his people then it’s incumbent upon him to be fit to rule.  Wives are the same way.  They want to be able to look at him and see a man they can respect and bend their knee in submission to.

If the man is a self-centered, egotistical idiot who doesn’t possess the leadership of a ham sandwich, the attractiveness of week-old bread or the dominance of a plate of Jello, it’s not surprising that all he’s ever experienced from women is rebellion.  But he’s confused because feminism claims women are equal to men… so he rails at the injustice of it all:  God gave him the right to rule!  How dare they not obey him and submit to him!

Cybersith1 believes all men must to do is exist and women should submit to them, which is technically correct in terms of marriage, but he ignores God’s judgment regarding her desire and his responsibility.  This is not unusual for game-haters because the dynamic of submission is a very sensitive subject to these men.

Ultimately, it’s all about sex. 

She is expected to have sex with him because he’s her husband.  Even though he’s repulsive, he believes she should submit to his desires simply because he’s in authority over her.  These guys refuse to admit that it’s possible to learn behavior that’s very attractive to women and causes women to desire that man.   Why?  Because if he truly loved his wife he’d change and make it easier for her but he doesn’t want to do that.  So, it’s not surprising to hear him explain his experience with women:

Also, good luck in finding any woman who will willingly submit to her partner “disciplining ” her, whether she be a churchian woman or a worldly woman… women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit.

According to our hero, all women are like that.  They all have an “inbuilt, Jezebelic, demonic rebellious attitude toward male authority and will NEVER willingly submit.”

Logically, it would follow that if all women are like that, then God made them that way.


Maybe it’s because there is a critical piece of information that men like that are missing and the problem  isn’t the women, it’s the men who aren’t doing what they should do.  Perhaps the reason the men are disgusting and repulsive is because of their behavior.  That’s the opinion of virtually every woman I’ve questioned about this.

For years I’ve been telling men to improve themselves.  In the post “Five Is Not The Number You Want” I made the point that a man must maximize what he is if he wants to get the kind of woman he wants.

Get this through your head:  Women are attracted to men who have the admiration, respect and honor of other men.  It’s called “status” and it’s attractive.  Men know what kind of discipline it takes to stay in shape and you get respect for that, but it’s just the beginning.  You have to demonstrate competence and dependability, have confidence and charisma and most of all understand loyalty and trust.  It’s called being a man.

And not to put too fine a point on it, Jesus said the same thing (albeit for different reasons)

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more

Perhaps Cybersith1 should reflect on the parable of the talents.  He was given certain talents by God.   Should he develop them?  Should he become fit to rule over his wife?  I suppose that depends on how much he likes enthusiastic sex.

I made the point in the post “You Need To Be Spanked” that women have zero desire to be disciplined by a man they do not have any attraction to, but they will submit to the discipline of a man they are attracted to.  The woman who says “I would never!” is really saying she would never submit to such a thing from the man she’s with.  As I stated then:

Women are attracted to dominance and men are attracted to submission.  Attraction is the coin of the realm and as a rule, a woman chooses to submit to a man based on her attraction to him.  The willing submission to physical discipline is the ultimate expression of both dominance and submission.   All other things being equal, if he has what it takes, she will choose to submit herself to that.  If he does not, she will not willingly do so.

He should be fit to rule, which is why she will desire him.  Because that’s what God said, her desire will be for her man who is fit to rule over her.  Cybersith1 claims this is incorrect and accuses me of adding to Scripture to justify my preconceived notions of game.  Actually, he said:

as I pointed out in my first comment, you added the words ‘FIT TO”, they are neither in the Hebrew or English text, these added words to the text are based on your philosophy of “game” and Hypergamy……you didn’t apply the rules of exegesis at all, you used EISEGESIS and read something into the text something that isn’t there

Which is what this is all about.  He is a churchian who hates the idea of game.  We’ve got a clear situation in which the word for “desire” is being mistranslated and the outcome of that is clear- if men want their women to desire them they’ll have to do some work.   But the idea that God made women this way is anathema.  I wrote about this in the post “The Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive“.

“This is one of the reasons why the modern churches are so opposed to any form of self-improvement in a man that would make him more attractive to women, especially learning Game:  The men know they cannot compete.  They fear confident, masculine, dominant men and the pain they feel when they see their women reacting to such a man is off the scale.”

God said women would respond to a man’s biological attractiveness (his fitness to rule) but this has been suppressed since the time of Augustine and Jerome.  Whether he knows it or not, Cybersith1 is upholding the old argument that biological attraction is meaningless and commitment is everything.  I wrote about that in the post “The Cardinal Rule and Female Competition“.

The idea that biological attraction is meaningless once a commitment has been made is a historical legacy of the period when the church claimed commitment was the end-all and be-all of a marriage because sexual attraction was evil and a sin.  Yet, it is the woman’s attraction to the man that best indicates whether she will make and then keep a commitment to him.  A woman’s attraction to a man can be plotted in three ways depending on his masculine dominance, personal attractiveness and her personal proclivities:

Will she give him Sex (how willingly, in what ways, how often)
Will she Submit to him (level of obedience, up to D/s relationship, spanking)
Will she Share him with other women (privately, publicly, shared bed)

That was a minor point from the post.  The major point was a woman’s attraction to a man in the long term is largely based on the impact of his attractiveness combined with female competition.  A man can have rock-solid game, but in a long-term relationship the only thing that has any real impact is dread game.  Dread game works because it’s legitimately part of the way God designed marriage.

Women respond to competition from other women and the Biblical non-exclusive marriage commitment on the man’s part kept her in competition with other women after marriage because even the remote possibility of adding another wife was enough to change the entire dynamic.  The ultimate act of accountability was for a husband to uphold his permanent commitment to her and add another wife.   This was a very public display of the fact she didn’t do her job.   The threat of competition, however small, provided accountability to wives.

Cybersith1 evidently disagrees with all this because he claims women will NEVER willingly submit to a man because he denies that God made women this way in His judgment of Genesis 3:16.  Essentially he’s saying his proof that God didn’t make women this way is that women won’t submit, which is the OPPOSITE of the text he’s defending.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, his statements reflect his personal experience with women and not some fantasy he picked somewhere on the internet.

Of course, if his personal experience with women is that they won’t submit to him, then obviously said women don’t believe he’s fit to rule over them.  Which would explain why he’s so opposed to this… because he refuses to accept that it’s his fault.


Some Men Have A Completely Different Experience With Women

I was eating a pretzel a few days ago and it caused me to think about a certain young woman I’ve been training…   so I sent her something to let her know I was thinking of her.  Nothing but the pic, no explanation:

She immediately responded with “I want to be a good girl!”  and evidently sending that pic got her little hamster really revved up.  A little while later she sent me this:

Following that, she sent me this one:

Which was then followed by this (I wasn’t responding to her):

*NOTE:  She’s using the term “fuck” in the technical sense that describes a sexual experience that might involve any number of different specific acts.  She’s not using the term as a vulgar reference to “making love” or “frolicking” or whatever other euphemisms describe what passes for sex in most marriages these days.


According to Cybersith1, this is impossible.
He says women will NEVER willingly submit to a man.

I suspect there are a few women who might disagree with that, in particular the ones I’ve been training.  The question is how our keyboard hero would respond to something like that and I leave it to the reader’s imagination as to what Cybersith1 would say in return.  Or whether he’d ever have a woman express herself like that to him.


The Subject Of Genesis 3:16

Cybersith1 is opposed to game and the idea of self-improvement, but his only argument at this point is to claim I’m adding to Scripture.  Let’s see.  The relevant portion of Genesis 3:16 says:

וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל ־תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ אִישֵׁךְ֙  וְאֶל־  בָּֽךְ׃ ס

That’s Hebrew and the question is what it means and how we would write that meaning in English.  As I pointed out in the original post, the NASB translates it as

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

I asked four questions about that translation in the original post:

  • 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.  [The truth is very few men rule over their wives]
  • 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?

Take Note: The translation committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible recently changed their translation of this particular passage for the reasons I’ve just mentioned.  I completely disagree with the change they made (because it didn’t solve the problem), but the point is we have an obvious problem in that the historical English translation is not a good one because it isn’t observably true.  In fact, it’s observably false.

We observe that God said the serpent would crawl on his belly and to this day all snakes crawl on their bellies.  He said women would bring forth their children in pain, and to this day it’s true of all women.  He said the ground would bring forth thorns and thistles and just ask a farmer if that’s not true down til this day.  So, as for the second half of Genesis 3:16, whatever it means in Hebrew it is true and we should be able to observe it as fact.

Yet, when one looks at the historical translation of Genesis 3:16 in English, the meaning of those words is blatantly false:

  • All women do not either desire to conquer or sexually desire their husbands.
  • All husbands do not rule over their wives.
  • Women have desire for men who are not their husbands
  • A woman’s desire is not fixed- it comes and goes.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the meaning, in English, must be something different from the historical translation in English.  The meaning of the English words used to translate the Hebrew must give a meaning in English that is true.  The question is what the Hebrew means and how that needs to be translated into English in order that the reader might understand what the Hebrew means.  Like the other points of God’s judgment of the serpent, Eve and Adam, it will observably be true.  Which was the entire point of the post in question and I stand by it.

  • The meaning of the word that’s translated as “desire” is dual, meaning both the desire to conquer and a sexual desire.
  • The behavior this represents is empirically proven and described by the field of research known as game and it’s called “fitness testing.”
  • Only the men who are fit to be her ruler (in her judgment) will pass her tests and establish that she is able to submit to him.
  • The overall impact of this dynamic is to produce an instinctual drive in women called hypergamy.

All of which is observably and demonstrably true.  The meaning for men is if their wife doesn’t have sexual desire for him, it’s most likely his fault.  Therefore, if a man wants his wife to desire to have sex with him, he should be fit to rule.


This Isn’t About Bible Translation

Like another recent commenter, Cybersith1 is arguing his personal agenda and has offered zero in the way of explaining this obvious problem.  He can’t see “fit to rule” just like whysoserious? can’t see “eligible virgin”.  Essentially, Cybersith1 is taking the position that while the historical translation doesn’t make sense and isn’t true, he’d much rather leave it like that than admit the behavior of men is at fault.  His behavior, in other words.

As I pointed out in the “50 Shades of Biblical Marriage” post, there are a lot of women who are NOT CHRISTIANS that desire a relationship in which they can be submissive to a dominant man.  The problem is the legal system prevents that from happening in marriage because it’s politically incorrect for a wife to be submissive and generally illegal for a husband to exercise dominant behavior.  So, they wrap it in kink and it’s socially and (mostly) legally acceptable.  One might argue about the origin of the D/s relationships, but it’s the DD/lg relationships that prove the women are the ones who want a D/s relationship.

Do women really refuse to submit to some men?  Yes, absolutely.   The vast majority only refuse to to submit to men who are not, in their opinion, fit to rule over them.  Show them a confidently dominant and masculine man who blows through their fitness tests like a champ and they melt in submission and sexual desire.  And, of course, the study of game teaches men the essence of being masculine and dominant.  Game can reasonably be called learned charisma.   Which is why churchians hate it.

As for my trainee discussed above, she knows I’m a polygynist and I’ve been very clear that means she has to share and everyone sleeps under the same roof, in the same room, in the same bed.   She’s required to get along with the others.  Disagreements are normal but they have to be resolved.  If they can’t resolve their differences and fight, I will resolve the issue for them.  In other words, if they fight, I spank.  It’s taken a while, but she’s finally coming to the realization that she does indeed get more from sharing, not less.  She has a way to go, but I think she’ll make it.

That may be a lot to get women to put up with, but I’m not doing anything that most men can’t do.  It’s a lot of work, but what good thing isn’t?  Any man who can successfully spin plates can work his way into a poly relationship.  Because a woman’s desire is for a man that she’s decided is fit to rule over her.  Want her to desire you?  Be fit to rule over her.  She doesn’t want a servant, she wants a king.  Create your kingdom and invite her in.



Your job at this point is to either explain how the historical English translation of Genesis 3:16 is true (deal with the 4 questions above and in the original post), or admit that you agree with the ESV translators that there are problems with the historical English translation of Genesis 3:16 and it needs to be changed, although they still haven’t solved the problem that existed before they made their change.  If you agree that it needs to be changed, please offer your English translation and explain why your English translation is the most correct based on what the Hebrew text says.  Or, perhaps you agree with the ESV people that their new translation is the right one.  Just say so.

In other words, I’ve provided my translation/exegesis as to what the Hebrew text means.  You can either argue there is no problem with the historical translation or you can put up an alternative translation and back it up with your evidence.

You should watch the Monty Python clip at the top level of the Argument Room for an example of what NOT to do, which is rant with more unsupported and contradictory statements.  You have the opportunity to make a logical, reasoned and coherent argument.  You made your brag and in case you’ve already forgotten, you said:

“it won’t be a battle at all, it will be a rout, a humiliation, a massacre ”

Your statements about the inability of women to submit are provably wrong on their face and you give every indication you don’t want to admit that generally it’s the man’s fault.  I know what I’ve stated to be true based on my own experience and observation.  I’ve provided testimony to that effect, but I’ve also asked the women readers (some of whom are bloggers and have provided extensive testimony on their own blogs concerning submission and domestic discipline) to weigh in on this since I’m a man and perhaps the women might be able to better explain it to you.  I have the feeling you listen to women.

You can double down on your assertions and demonstrate you’re an idiot, or you can admit your silly statements about women and submission are wrong and try learning why.   Either way, the ball is in your court.



The Argument Up To This Point

In the comments to the post on Genesis 3;16, A Man Must Be Fit To Rule, our commenter CyberSith1 had this to say:

Having read your article I’m still not convinced
I believe it is a huge error in our part to start adding our own words to scripture….the words “fit to rule” are NOWHERE in the text, either in Hebrew or English. ….you’ve added them in in order to support your preconceived ideas of “game”

Also we must understand something, is Genesis 3:16 a statement or a command? The reason why this question of mine is so important is because the maxim that man is to rule over women can be seen as either a natural consequence of Eve’s sin which would make that sentence a statement OR a command if God is actually telling us that we now SHOULD rule over women……I personally take Genesis 3:16 as a statement rather than a command

Also who gets to decide the criteria in who is fit enough to rule over a woman? Is it a certain high income bracket? Is it being a “bad boy” who doesn’t take crap from women? Does a man have to have a super flash car before he is deemed worthy to rule over a woman? Do you see how complicated this becomes? Who gets to determine the criteria in who is worthy to rule?
Also, good luck in finding any woman who will willingly submit to her partner “disciplining ” her, whether she be a churchian woman or a wordly woman….women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible DOE’S instruct women to be in submission to male authority and women in the west are out of control now but this is in no way upholds the belief that only “fit men deserve to rule over women” I believe that women should be in submission regardless of whether a man is worthy enough or not, otherwise we will have a bunch of women running around defying their husband’s authority and leadership by claiming that they don’t have to be obedient because her man is failing the “shit tests” that she arbitrarily sets for him

I stand accused of adding to Scripture.  Actually, no.  The post was quite clear, we were after the exegesis of what that verse means.  I quoted the verse, I linked to the verse both in Hebrew and in English, I linked to the Strong’s references in Hebrew and the post is very clear what the verse says.  “Fit to rule” is what it means.  There is a difference.

is Genesis 3:16 a statement or a command?

This is the first part of the problem.  Genesis 3:16 is clearly a judgment.  Some refer to it as “the curse” on women.  Snakes still crawl on their bellies, women still bring forth their children in pain and man earns his bread by the sweat of his brow because the earth still brings forth thorns and thistles.  It was more, far more, than just a statement.  Yet,

I personally take Genesis 3:16 as a statement rather than a command

That is the main problem.  CyberSith1 doesn’t understand what the text is, much less what it means.

Also who gets to decide the criteria in who is fit enough to rule over a woman?

This is the nature of hypergamy.  The woman is the one who tests her man and if he’s not fit she won’t have any sexual desire for him.  Because he’s not fit the desire will stay focused on a desire to conquer as she continues to test him, hoping he’ll finally pass her tests.

Who gets to determine the criteria in who is worthy to rule?

The woman is ultimately the determining factor in who is fit to rule over her.  Asking these questions means you really don’t understand game, or women, at all.

Also, good luck in finding any woman who will willingly submit to her partner “disciplining ” her, whether she be a churchian woman or a wordly woman….women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit

This statement proves you’re blind.  I have plenty of female readers who willingly submit to their husband’s discipline.  Maybe some of them will pop in and offer their opinions, but in my experience, you’re completely wrong.

this is in no way upholds the belief that only “fit men deserve to rule over women”

I didn’t say anything about “only fit men deserve to rule over men.”  What I said was that if a man wants his woman to desire him and willingly submit to him, he must be fit to rule.  Just because he thinks he’s fit to rule does NOT mean she automatically desires to submit to his rule.  It’s all about him passing her tests as a dominant, masculine man with confidence.

All of which is to say that you’re ignorant of what the discussion is really all about.  I suggest you read Rollo Tomassi’s books (The Rational Male series)


From the Your Castle post:

I love your stuff Artinisal. …I follow your stuff religiously BUT you are a bit off with this one
There seems to be a massive disconnect between your ideology and what is currently practical or realistic.   Your ideal is fine but the REALITY of those who are able to provide for themselves and their family a true castle is extremely rare, yet you present it as if the IDEOLOGY is how it’s supposed to be and if you’re not providing a “true castle” then you must be disobedient to God

I got a huge wake up call for you dude….the only people who can maintain a castle for their families are KINGS or those with extreme wealth. …99% of us do not live like your ideology suggests

Even hard working families that are bible based don’t live in castles because of a 1000 factors, poor income, retarded taxation, stupid Govt regulations, the land permits etc

I’m sorry Toad, but you appear to be living in a dream world detached from reality where what is an IDEALIZED situation is divorced from what is REALITY of living in the west


Fascinating.  Toad’s Hall has now been declared to be an ivory tower.  Oh, the irony.

if you’re not providing a “true castle” then you must be disobedient to God

That’s pretty farfetched when referring to the man who has gone to great lengths to point out that having “sex outside marriage” and prostitution and lesbians are not “disobedient to God” because God didn’t say such things were wrong.

On one hand you look at Genesis 3:16 and can’t figure out that it’s a judgment by God that has the force of Law (cf. Deuteronomy 6:1), claiming that you see a “statement” instead. On the other hand you see me advocating (teaching) the wisdom of doing things a certain way and claim I’m teaching doctrine? C’mon. At best you’re being disingenuous.

I got a huge wake up call for you dude….the only people who can maintain a castle for their families are KINGS or those with extreme wealth. …99% of us do not live like your ideology suggests

I suggest you take a “reading for comprehension” course and learn how to read. I pointed to a specific piece of property that’s on sale right now, 74.15 acres for $65,000 asking price. I’m pretty sure the owner would take $60k for it and smile. That’s about $810 per acre. Further, I made the point that the object was to plant ginseng on the land, and let’s say you could only afford to plant 3 acres the first year. The cost of doing that would be $5000 or so and you’d need to camp on the land while you were doing it. It’s a lot of work.

After that, all you have to do is get in there every year and plant another acre or two. You don’t need to worry about the ginseng for the first 5 years because ginseng isn’t legal to sell before it’s 5 years old. However, after that you need to keep an eye on it. I made the point that for less than $10k you could build a “hunting camp” that would be reasonable living quarters for a few years. I don’t think you understand just how “reasonable” I’m talking about.

That’s a photo from this story:

He probably spent between $25,000 and $30,000 on that project, although he could have done much the same thing for a lot less.  Those two shipping containers gave him a total of 640 square feet of living space.

Just in case, let’s review:

$60,000 for the land
$5000 for ginseng seed.
$10,000 for a small cabin.

$75,000 total

You evidently don’t understand what it means to have a large garden, some laying hens for eggs, put some poultry on pasture under portable pens and keep a few feeder steers. It means that your food bill just got cut dramatically. You like venison? I guarantee you that there will be some deer on that property, all you have to do is shoot them and process the meat.

I talked about underground houses and the leading reason is the cost of living in such a home is so low. They can not only be built cheap, they cost very little to live in because they stay close to earth temperature year-round.

Even hard working families that are bible based don’t live in castles because of a 1000 factors, poor income, retarded taxation, stupid Govt regulations, the land permits etc

I was drawing on the old English Common Law doctrine that every man’s home, be it ever so humble, is his castle. Every hard-working family you’re referring to has choices. Your objections are noted as the blathering of an ignorant man. I have lived on land similar to that used in the example. We made do off the grid for over a year before getting an electrical connection.  What originally cost $95,000 eventually sold for over $300k about six years later.  I know all about taxation (notice I discussed that) and regulations. Did you notice that I pointed out farm housing in Kentucky is exempt from the building code?

The main problem is ignorance and people like you, who look at what I’m pointing to and say “that’s impossible.”  Two comments does not a trend make, but the general thrust of what you’ve been saying here is “You can’t do that!”  Whether it’s women and submission or building a home and making money, your position is “you can’t do that.”  Well, I not only can, I have.

I wrote a book a few years ago on how to radically reboot your life, starting over from scratch.  I provided an outline for that in my operation order for a radical reboot.  Go ahead, tell me it can’t be done.  I know a couple of men who did it.

In the past few posts I’ve described how to get to a better lifestyle that solves most of the most vexing problems men face today.  A lifestyle that offers a chance to make more money and have lower expenses than just about anything else I can think of.  You claim it’s out of reach.  No, it’s not.  You’re simply too blind to see that.

The Young Man

Let’s say we’ve got an 18 year old idiot (we were all idiots at 18) who decides he wants to do this but he has no money and no-one to help him.  One of the ways he could do this is to enlist in the armed forces.  You might be surprised at how willing banks are when it comes to lending money on something like this to a member of the armed forces.  A 30 year mortgage at 5% will have payments of less than $500 per month.  That provides the money to get the ginseng planted up front and after that, while Junior is off wearing a uniform, it’s growing.

Junior signs up and gets a date to go to boot camp in November or December.  He gets his loan, buys the property and plants ginseng like a madman until he has to leave for boot camp.  Junior gets 30 days leave every year and spends two weeks in the fall each year to do more planting and maybe a bit of hunting.  At the end of his 6 year hitch, Junior takes terminal leave (meaning he saved up a few months of leave so he could get out a bit early) and comes home in September, just in time to start harvesting his ginseng.

Junior works harder than he’s ever worked in his life and manages to harvest a half-acre, which winds up being worth about $100,000.  He dries it and sells it.  He sets aside $6000 to pay the mortgage in the coming year, another $24,000 for a monthly salary of $2000 and an additional $40,000 for building a small home and the purchase of equipment and supplies for the homestead.  That leaves him with savings of $30,000.

He now has the funds to work full-time building his homestead.  He pays himself a salary and since his spending is very low (cell phone, electric bill, internet, food), that $2000 a month goes a long way.  After six years in the armed forces he should be mature enough to understand how lucky he is to have the opportunity to do this.

If Junior wants to, he can forgo any major harvest in year 7, maybe just pull out 5-10 pounds.  He uses his savings for the salary and mortgage payments in year 8, harvesting another half-acre of ginseng at the end of year 8.  This allows him to completely pay off his mortgage, set aside money for the coming year’s salary and still have some money set aside for savings.  From this point on Junior is independent and actually rather wealthy.


The Married Man

In all likelihood, our married man is monumentally screwed.  If he’s got a good wife they will be able to do this by leveraging their income and cutting their spending to the bone to come up with the money.  Otherwise the wife will make life living hell before destroying the marriage.

The problem is the austerity up front creates hard feelings and the money on the back end creates a real divorce-court prize, giving our average American woman plenty of incentive to divorce-rape her husband… just when he’s finally winning.

The only solution is to make it clear there’s a poison pill involved.  Any divorce filing, false charges or anything like that will result in someone hauling a sprayer into the woods and all that ginseng will get a dose of weed killer.  Or, it will be made known that millions of dollars in ginseng is sitting there waiting for someone to dig it up and everyone for miles around will show up to clean the place out.  Several hundred people digging like maniacs would clear out 5-6 acres in a weekend.

Are women that stupid?  Yes, but it depends.  If the man in question can keep things moving forward and keeps her feeling secure, he has a good shot at succeeding.

The key is getting her to understand that she can’t steal the ginseng.  If she stays and does her job, life will get better because it takes a team.  But if she busts the team then there is no way she will ever make that kind of money and there is no way he can be forced to pay her very much money because his business will be destroyed and there is no place one can go to get a job called “ginseng farmer”.

There are plenty of men who cannot do this, but the reason isn’t that the plan doesn’t work.  The problem is the men aren’t fit to rule, which means their woman doesn’t have any desire for him.   Even when he is, ultimately their inability to do something like this is because of the woman in their life.  Everything else mentioned, the:

1000 factors, poor income, retarded taxation, stupid Govt regulations, the land permits etc

These are all details that can be overcome, but only if you have a woman who can be depended upon.  We’re talking about moving away from all her friends, her “normal” life, moving to a place out in the country with none of the standard amenities. We’re talking about hard work.  Most women are simply not on board for something like that.

The weak link is the woman and deep down, CyberSith1, I think you know that.

But, perhaps you’re referring to all the people who have so screwed their lives up playing the “chase the American dream” game and they’re so loaded with debt and trapped in their role as a wage-slave that they can’t move.  Ever hear of Dave Ramsey?  His ministry is getting people out of this kind of trouble.

Life is all about choices.  It isn’t that people cannot do things like this, it’s that they choose not to do things like this.

Wizards First Rule:  People are stupid.  They will believe a lie because they either want it to be true or they fear it to be true.

I have done everything described here and I know it can be done.  I also know that others can do it if they decide to do it.


Cybersith1 Responds


I’m furious right now….I had typed out an entire 2 pages worth in response to your post, and I hit a back key on my keyboard or something? and I lost the entire post, I swear I nearly broke my keyboard, I was so angry lol

Anyway I’m too angry with losing my entire post to give you a coherent response right now, f**k chrome and f**k my keyboard for doing that to me

Suffice it to say that in your rebuttal to me you state and I quote: *”I stand accused of adding to Scripture. Actually, no. The post was quite clear, we were after the exegesis of what that verse means”*………….WRONG!! you did add to scripture, as I pointed out in my first comment, you added the words ‘FIT TO”, they are neither in the Hebrew or English text, these added words to the text are based on your philosophy of “game” and Hypergamy……you didn’t apply the rules of exegesis at all, you used EISEGESIS and read something into the text something that isn’t there
Get angry, blow your stack, delete my comment to cover your tracks, I truly don’t care, but don’t you dare try and justify your stance by relegating me to the “argument corner”….you added to the text, I called you out, now man up and get over it, it ain’t the end of the world

Genesis 3:16 with this clause “and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” has got nothing to do with “game” or red pill garbage, It’s simply saying that because of Eve’s sin, she will no longer be equal to man, but be placed forever in subordination to him

My kindest advice to you would be to stop reading Rollo Tomassi, ROOSH, and all that anti-feminist stuff, but base your doctrines on the word of God instead and then you wouldn’t come up with stupid additions like “FIT TO” in your theology, which changes the text of holy scripture to fit your preconceived belief of “game”……Man doesn’t have to be “fit to rule” over women, he IS fit to rule over women PERIOD because of Eve’s sin, that is the declarative judgement of God himself on womankind, so deal with it

My 2 pages in rebuttal was lost and I don’t have the energy to rebut your other assertions tonight, but if you could give me clear scriptural support why you added the words to the Hebrew text I will happily await for it
Here is the text in Hebrew וְה֖וּא (and he) יִמְשָׁל־ (shall rule) verb בָּֽךְ׃ (over you)….There is NO word for FIT TO at all in the text….there never was, it’s a fiction created by you to support your worldly philosophy


And a little more, when I told him that I’d be dissecting his argument when I had time.


You can try and “dissect my argument ” but you will lose and lose ROYALLY 😊
You have absolutely no idea of what the pre-fall Adamic state was as it’s not recorded in scripture and an argument of silence is no argument at all…the declarative judgment of God concerning the women’s place next to man is AFTER sin entered the world and not before and that’s a fact… go ahead, try and have fun dissecting my comments, I will enjoy the spectacle : as Baltar said to Lucifer “it won’t be a battle at all, it will be a rout, a humiliation, a massacre ”

Notice that Cybersith1 has changed his tune.

First, instead of Genesis 3:16 being “just a statement” as he previously stated, he now recognizes it as a “declarative judgment of God”.  Which means it was a change from the previous condition.  He wants this to mean that prior to the fall, Adam was not in authority over the woman and in support he claims that the Bible is silent on the pre-fall Adamic state.  Which is completely incorrect.

  • Adam was created first, from the dust of the ground.
  • Adam was given the mission of “be fruitful and multiply…”
  • The animals were brought to Adam to be named, but there was no suitable helper for Adam to be found.
  • God said “let us make man a helper suitable for him.”
  • Eve was created from Adam, for Adam and given to Adam by God to be used by Adam to accomplish his mission.
  • Adam demonstrated his authority over Eve by naming her “woman” which means “taken from man”.
  • Eve ate from the fruit of which God commanded “you shall not eat of it” but there was no sin imputed until Adam ate of the fruit.  Adam was in authority over her, he was her covering, which is why the credit for the first sin was given to Adam.

Let’s examine that last point very carefully.  Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say that without a violation, there is no sin imputed.  Therefore, Eve did not violate the command when she ate of the fruit.  We notice from her dialogue with the serpent that she knew the command and the consequences because she stated them.  Yet, there was no sin imputed until Adam ate of the fruit in violation of the command.

It’s a bit off topic, but this concept is the same one at work with Christianity.  Adam’s status was higher due to his position and he was in authority over Eve, which is why Eve’s violation didn’t count.  Adam was without sin until he ate of the fruit.  In the same way, because Christ paid the price for our sins, when we are in Christ He is our covering and we are imputed with His righteousness.  Which is why Paul was able to say that he was free from the Law.  Adam’s position with respect to Eve was a type for the position Christ has over His servants.  Just as marriage is a type for the relationship between Christ and His church.

Adam had complete authority over Eve, so the judgment of “he shall rule over you” means something different than “he will be in authority over you” because Adam was already in authority over Eve.  This is further confirmed in Luke 12:47-48.  The servant who transgresses in ignorance will still be punished.  Ignorance is no excuse.  Eve was not ignorant and she ate of the fruit of which the Lord commanded “you shall not eat of it” but it was not until Adam ate that their eyes were opened and it was Adam who first transgressed and it was Adam who is credited with the first sin.

The Apostle Paul pointed to the same set of facts in 1st Timothy 2:12-15 when he explained why he did not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man.  From the beginning, man has been in authority over woman and woman’s purpose in life is to be the man’s helper in his mission to be fruitful and multiply.   So it should come as no surprise that Paul said

“women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.



10 Responses to The Argument Room with CyberSith1

  1. naughtynora00 says:

    I really enjoyed reading your post, thank you for sharing. Many men and women have moved away from their natural roles as our society “progresses” and I think this has led to a lot of unhappiness. As a woman, I was always longing for a man to truly lead me, and dominate me. For the first 14 years of marriage, I was a very poor leader…but my husband didn’t know how to lead. Growing up, I had the alpha male dad, but my husband’s dad was very weak and left when he was young, leaving him with a strong mother and three sisters. We were both unhappy in our roles. When we discovered domestic discipline it was like flipping a switch! My husband thrives on dominating me…sexually and otherwise. He bends me to his will as he sees fit. And I am thriving learning to submit to his authority. The way I see him is so different now…he’s strong, intelligent, capable…he takes care of us. Honestly, our marriage is better than ever and I don’t ever want to go back to the old us. Something else that you visually represented here is the physical appearance of men. It is interesting what the media (television shows) is doing to the image of men…often, there is an overweight, lazy husband married to a very attractive, capable woman who runs the household. As you wrote, women don’t want to submit to the overweight couch potato. But, I also think that most women don’t want to be the leaders in their marriage either, which leads to a lot of unhappiness, and a lot of divorces. In any case, great job bringing attention to this topic!

    • anglosaxon says:

      Thank you for your honest post. This encourages me as a man to improve myself because the message I have received form parents, church school and wider culture is to be a weak male but this post shows that women want something else.

  2. ddjennifer says:

    I don’t agree with every point here. I don’t believe dominance or submission has a gender bias as to who takes which role, although society has plenty of bias’ that make us believe those roles are predestined either by biology, religion, or both. I’ve learned that if you can reason with religious people, you wouldn’t have religious people. I digress. I do agree that submission has a lot of benefits and that I WILLINGLY SUBMITTED TO MY HUSBAND. It was my idea, not his. I know my path is not for everyone, but it works for me. I have never been happier, more joyful, and more fulfilled since becoming submissive to my husband. I didn’t do so out of any societal expectations or religious dogma. The idea just resonated with me and I opened myself up to the possibilities, gave it a try, and it’s bee wonderful.

    • anglosaxon says:

      ‘I don’t believe dominance or submission has a gender bias as to who takes which role’. Are you being serious? A man who is dominated by his wife is despised by everyone, so how can you say that dominance does not have a gender bias when it obviously does. Why the hell would a man submit to being spanked when his wife is a lot weaker than he is. The weaker submits to the stronger.

      So you think the Bible is stupid. But you are doing what the Bible tells you to do as a wife and are happy. If the Bible is stupid, why is it spot on when it comes to marriage? You’re the muppet who thinks we evolved from tiny organisms on rocks after a big bang which magically happened out of nowhere billions of years ago.

      • ddjennifer says:

        Bible says not to kill. I don’t kill, but that doesn’t mean I am following the bable. And dom/sub doesn’t have a bias. People, like you, are the ones with the bias. There are submissive men out there

        • anglosaxon says:

          So women can be as dominant as men? Nonsense, men are much stronger than women so again why the hell would a man submit to a woman for a spanking. You’re basically saying you think men and women are the same because in your world women are as dominant as men as ‘dom/sub doesn’t have a bias’ when it’s clearly biased in favour of men being the dominant participant.

          In the US men have to sign up for the draft, if you think men and women are equally strong and dominant then how about we send YOU out to fight next time there is a big war? Us weakling men can stay at home where it’s safe whilst you get blown to pieces.

  3. Renee Harris says:

    A few years ago a friend of mine tried to get you to be his woman but I got scared I also ate out of his range. Check to teach women the giving into your natural desire is wrong more often than not we confuse sin for naturalness invite versus

  4. Renee Harris says:

    Also for some reason you can’t get to the post on the WordPress app

  5. Cybersith1 has now been banned and spammed.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s