Month: August 2013

Enter the White Knight

Artisanal Toad9 Comments
Internet_white_knight
The problem with white-knights (especially in the church) is they often don’t realize they’re doing it. So deeply has the feminist dogma penetrated, they think they’re on the side of both right and good.
Recently, a blogger called “Bike Bubba” attempted to take me to task because of the (outrageous to feminists) advice I gave. He was embarrassing to watch. He seemed upset because I advised a wife (who was seeking suggestions on how she could submit to her husband) to write him a letter and ask that he hold her accountable to the point of disciplining her (if necessary) and she should give him signed permission to do so. Up to and including corporal punishment.
That, of course, was just too much for Bubba. Several of the women appeared to be outraged, but it was Bike Bubba who stepped up to the plate to defend against the evil Toad.
First, he said:

 

Toad, Paul’s challenge to husbands is found in Ephesians 5:25-33, and it does not include any mandate for physical discipline or violence of any kind. 1 Peter 3:7 also notes that the husband who does not treat his wife as the weaker vessel will have his prayers hindered. i would have to assume that unless somehow it’s a good idea to take a hammer to one’s china or crystal, Peter is telling us that treating our wives roughly is not going to end well for us.

 

Noting his somewhat feminist exegesis, I corrected him. Note that he’s looking for a “mandate” of some sort. Note also that he completely ignores any mention of Revelation 3:19, which was cited in my original comment.

 

@Bubba: Read it again. Ephesians 5:22-24 is a logical syllogism. The authority of the husband over the wife (within the covenant entity called family) is exactly the same as the authority of Christ over the Church (another covenant entity). Paul was comparing and contrasting the heads of two separate covenant entities- the husband and Christ, making the point that within their own entities, their authority is supreme.
Then take a careful look at the first 3 chapters of Revelation, sometimes known as the seven epistles of Christ. Revelation 3:19 is part of the letter from Christ to the Laodicean church. You might want to do a word study on “chastise” and give it some thought. The risen Lord clearly says that His rebuking and chastening of His church is an act of love. Now go back to Ephesians 5 and contemplate loving the wife as Christ loves the church.

 

Filled with indignation, Bubba replied. He said :

 

Toad, if you think that Ephesians 5:22-4 endorses violence against one’s wife–or any portion of the Bible for that matter–then I hope that (a) you are and remain single and (b) you are not and will not become a church officer. If you should happen to be married and following your perverse, heretical advice, it is my hope that the elders and deacons of the church will administer the discipline you would richly deserve.
Ephesians speaks of cleansing one’s wife in the Word, not abusing her, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks very clearly of the consequences that follow when a man does not live with his wife as the weaker vessel. Your prayers will not be heard.

 

OK. Got that? Corporal punishment is abuse, in Bubba’s book. Not only that, it’s perverse heretical advice I’m giving. Perhaps it’s abuse when Christians are chastised by the Lord for their misdeeds that bring shame upon Him and His church? Corporal punishment of children is abuse? Hmmm. No, it’s simple: If there are some things a husband simply isn’t to do with his wife, there are obviously some things Christ is not to do with the Church. Like require obedience and punish for disobedience. THIS is feminist exegesis.
Bubba provides guidance on what he believes with respect to theology on his blog, describing himself as “baptistic and fundamentalist.” He even helpfully lists a website on baptist distinctions, which clearly says under the very first in their list of eight distinctions:

 

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority. [Emphasis added]

 

It just so happens that Bubba and I are in complete agreement with that. The problem becomes one in which one attempts to recast the Word of God using a feminist interpretation that strips it of all power and authority (unless said power and authority is given to the women). Sadly, this is common in most Baptist denominations.
Note that under Bubba’s feminist exegesis, treating the wife as the weaker vessel means never giving her the accountability or discipline such a weaker vessel might need and perhaps even want. It means never providing boundaries within a marriage that are solid and will be enforced, because feminism has stripped women of all accountability. I responded to him one more time:

 

@Bubba
Dude- stop white-knighting. Please. It isn’t pretty.

 

Bubba finally came back and had this to say:

 

Toad, if citing the Scripture accurately counts as White Knighting, I’ll do it all day long. You would do well to try it.
So what we have here is, apparently, that some people view spanking as a turn-on, in which case it will be ineffective discipleship of one’s wife in the case of a sin issue, and others view it as violence, in which case it falls on the wrong side of 1 Peter 3:7.
In either case, moronic idea, and it has nothing to do with holding women up on a pedestal, but rather has everything to do with treating one’s “spare rib” the way God intended. As the, ahem, weaker vessel.
Nice name-calling, Toad, but that merely demonstrates that you are either unable or unwilling to make a real argument. They don’t call it the ad hominem “fallacy” for nothing, after all.

 

Notice that I described what Bubba, was doing. He neglected the central argument, tried to apply a tangential piece of scripture to support his position (prooftexting) and called what I was saying moronic before accusing me of name-calling.
I think he’s actually responding in fear. That got discussed later in the thread by Scott.
The fact he was whiteknighting is apparent in his inability to respond to exactly what I said. But he’s free to make a response here if he chooses. I won’t clog Sunshine Mary’s blog with any more. I suggested he do a word study on chastisement. I’m willing to bet he’d be more amazed if he did a study on corporal punishment. And all the verses that specifically apply it (gender-free) to adults.
It is possible to say things that women don’t want to hear, but the women don’t tend to address what was said, rather they make emotional responses. They simply make their displeasure known and sit back waiting for a feminist white knight to take up the fight [Editor: see here].
They are real, guys, but like the cartoon above, they don’t have much power, even in real life. Why? Because knights like Bubba claim one thing (Sola Scriptura) but it’s a feminist bait and switch and it can easily be argued with the Scripture he claims to revere. At the end of the day, they have an opinion that doesn’t stand up to the Bible they claim to believe in. That simple.
What’s needed is to reject the feminist assumptions and lies and get back to the subject that Feminism has rejected: obedience.

Casting Call

Artisanal Toad10 Comments
Recently, over on Dalrock’s blog, submission of wives was being discussed. Scott made this statement, speaking as an experienced mental health professional:

 

“(2) her submission is voluntary,”
Let me expand on this a little further. Again, based on my experiences as a cog in the system–which were extensive.
Under current law in the US, this is the ONLY way “submission” will be occuring for the forseable future.
And..
1. If she changes her mind..you go to jail.
2. If some of your friends come over to your house for dinner and they witness it (and don’t like it)…you go to jail.
3. If she talks about it to her mother and she doesnt like it…you go to jail

 

He was challenged about this, and responded:

 

I stand by it because I have seen it. I have been the vehicle for it. I have seen men go to jail for:

 

  • Putting their wife on an allowance.
  • Stopping her from going out with certain friends.
  • Inspecting her phone records.
  • Telling her to quit her job.
I don’t so much care who believes me. I know it to be true first hand, so it is not an issue.

 

 

This seemed to me to be quite strange, and I questioned him about this.

 

What’s bothering me about what you said is the implication that a third party could induce a chain of events such as you’ve described over the objections of the wife.

 

 

“To expand–once the call is made-IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE WIFE RECANTS in most states now. Even if it is hearsay from mommy in another state.”

 

 

“her testimony isn’t really dispositive if she decides to back off – it’s discounted, in many cases, if she decides to do that”

 

The terms “recant” and “back off” implies that at some point she made a statement (complaint) alleging wrong-doing on the part of the husband. However, my question was solely within the context of a third-party accuser and:
1.) no abuse occurred, in the opinion of the “victim”
2.) the wife didn’t make the complaint, objects to the complaint and denies abuse
3.) the wife is willing to testify in favor of the husband but not against him.

 

“What bothers me is there seems to be a large portion of men around here who think they still have some fancy lawyer tricks they are going to use in order to force the police to give them their due process rights back. Good luck with that. Once this train leaves the station on you, you are toast.”

 

We aren’t talking about fancy lawyer tricks. My concern is that Scott and Novaseeker are telling me that even under the three conditions I stated above, the husband would be convicted and the wife’s denial of abuse would be taken as confirmation of abuse. I’m not talking about recanted allegations made by the wife, rather a third party accuser and the wife’s denial any abuse took place.

 

“So, yes, someone is at your dinner party who is a feminist, doesn’t like the dynamic between you and your wife and sees it as Duluth abuse, can have you arrested for domestic violence even over your wife’s objections, and once that happens it’s likely that you will be sucked into the entire DV legal system”

 

Again, this is entirely within the context of what I originally asked Scott about, which was that a third party could get the husband thrown in jail and even convicted of domestic violence; against the will and over the objections of his wife- the purported victim. Even assuming they’re generally correct, I believe there is one huge loophole that will make it all go away. This loophole requires the wife be 100% on the husband’s side because ONLY she can defend him successfully.
I was reflecting on this, and it occurred to me that if what Scott and Novaseeker are saying is true, this is an opportunity for public education, and what better way to educate people than a short, dramatic video.
Imagine what follows as the script for a short PSA entitled “Don’t Be That Bitch”
  • Husband played by attractive male, tall, muscular, full head of hair, early forties. Wife played by very attractive woman, long blonde hair, thin with large breasts, mid thirties in age.
  • Children, four of them, oldest is about ten, youngest is two and still in diapers.
  • Judge is a balding male, mid-fifties white-knight beta with thick glasses and a wedding ring.
  • Prosecutor is an overweight, short-haired ugly woman with a bad attitude.
  • Feminist friend is a smug, self-righteous middle-aged butch looking woman who might be attractive if she were more feminine.
  • Husband’s attorney is an attractive, young and very feminine woman.
____________________________
Video begins in the courtroom, eyewitness on the stand, prosecutor has the floor and is questioning the star witness.
Prosecutor: “Would you describe the abusive behavior you witnessed, please?
Feminist Witness: “It’s a classic abusive relationship. He refers to himself as the “lord of the manor” and is always ordering her around like a servant and making her do stuff whenever I’m there. He won’t let her get a job because he says taking care of the children is more important than making money. I’ve heard him say that! He put her on an allowance, like she’s a child! He’s always calling her names, too, and making fun of her body.”
“The night he was arrested, I was at their home because she and I were going to go out for some girl-time. When she asked him for some money so we could go out, he gave her this really intimidating look and told her to go make him a sandwich, like she had to earn it! Then he slapped her because she wasn’t moving fast enough and she cried out in pain and ran away from him! I told him he was abusing her and he laughed at me and said “she loves it.” That was the last straw for me and I went into the bathroom and called the police.”
[Flashback: Feminist witness standing in bathroom dialing 911 and reporting an incident of domestic violence, asking for police intervention immediately. 911 operator asks if she thinks the husband is dangerous. Feminist witness answers “Yes. Definitely.” 911 operator asks if he’s armed. Feminist Witness says “I know there are guns in the house, but I don’t think he has one concealed on his person.”]
Prosecutor: “Have you ever witnessed any other abusive acts by the defendant that were directed toward his wife?”
Feminist Witness: “Yes. Frequently. I’ve seen him grab a fist-full of her hair and violently force her to kiss him on several occasions and on one other occasion he was yanking her hair and had her hands pinned against a wall over her head and she was moaning in pain. He’s constantly being physically aggressive and dominating with her and I’ve seen bruises on her neck where it looked like he had choked her. When I asked her about them she just shrugged her shoulders, said her husband’s name and changed the subject.”
[Flashback to scene at the family home. Cops arrived, Feminist Witness told them she witnessed husband physically strike wife. Wife, not knowing any better, admits he slapped her, but denies abuse. Husband gets taken away, wife and children are screaming, crying, and feminist former-friend is told to leave. Cut to fast-moving scene of husband being processed, booked and sitting in a cell. Repeat several more quick scenes of husband getting served breakfast for several mornings, then finally being arraigned and released OR with a TRO/No-Contact order against him. ]
[Cut to wife’s testimony, wife on the stand]
Attorney For Husband: Does your husband forbid you from working outside the home and keep you on an allowance in order to control you?”
Wife: “Are you kidding? He gets up and goes to work five and sometimes six days a week to pay all the bills. I get to stay at home, be a mom and homeschool OUR children. I don’t want to work outside the home because being a mom actually IS the most important job in the world. That means our one-income budget has us BOTH on an allowance and the budget controls BOTH of us because if we can’t afford something we don’t buy it. Period. We used to have a bunch of debt and did stupid stuff with credit cards but then we grew up and did the Dave Ramsey thing and I’m never going through that again.”
Attorney For Husband: “What is the ‘Dave Ramsey thing?’
Wife: “That’s where you go on an austerity budget and pay off all your debts, starting with the smallest one first. When you pay off the smallest debt, that payment then gets applied to the next smallest debt, and so on. Finally, you get to the biggest debt but you’re making monster payments on it because all the money that used to get paid on all the other debts is now ALL being paid on the last debt. We did that for over two years. WE ARE DEBT FREE and I’m not going to go through getting out of debt again. We each have an allowance and if I want some of his allowance because I spent mine, I have to earn it. If he wants some of mine, believe me, I have a list of stuff I want done.”
Attorney For Husband: I see. Ok, about this name-calling, um… what kind of names does your husband call you?
Wife: “In public it’s always something like Sweetcheeks, Creampie, Jugs, Hoochie-Mama, or something like that.”
Attorney For Husband: “Does it bother you when your husband calls you names?”
[Wife turns and looks judge in the eye and holds eye contact for the following statement. Camera from judge’s POV,, wife looking straight into lens:]
Wife: “No. You see, it isn’t that I’m a dirty little cum-guzzling slut. OK?
Attorney For Husband: “I never implied any such thing!”
Wife: “The point is NOT that I’m a dirty little cum-guzzling slut, the point is that I am HIS dirty little cum-guzzling slut and I enjoy it more than you can possibly imagine. When he calls me Creampie, or Jugs, [Wife bounces her breasts suggestively] I know exactly what he’s thinking about and I like that too. It reminds me that he OWNS me and I CHOSE that. That might make you uncomfortable, but I’m the one who chose this and I like it.”
[Cut back to Wife’s POV, looking at judge, who can no longer meet her eye and is starting to look a bit flushed.]
Attorney For Husband: “What about him calling himself the ‘lord of the manor’ and ordering you around?”
Wife: “I’m not sure you’re listening to me, but in our home, he IS the lord of the manor, I’m his happy little serving wench. Does he like it? Of course- who wouldn’t? Again, I’m not complaining about it because I LIKE IT THAT WAY. You know the old saying about a wife is supposed to be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom? Well, whatever he wants, if it’s within my power to give it to him, he’ll get it.”
Attorney For Husband: “In the incident that was described earlier, where on your body did your husband slap you?”
Wife: “Same place he usually slaps me, on my ass.”
Attorney For Husband: “How did you feel when your husband slapped you on the, uh, rear end?”
[Wife again focuses on judge’s face, camera angle shifts to judges POV with wife looking into the camera]
Wife: “Actually, it was really hot. I felt like giving him a blowjob while he ate his sandwich because he was paying out of his own allowance for me to go out with a woman I knew he didn’t like and all he wanted out of it was a sandwich and for me to come home horny! He was eating the sandwich when the cops got there and they wouldn’t listen to me, they arrested him. Then they took him to jail and THIS COURT issued a no-contact order so he couldn’t come home and I had to wait another THREE WEEKS before I could get that fixed and finally get laid again…
So let me tell you how I’ve been actually been abused, your honor: How about ALMOST AN ENTIRE MONTH with NO SEX because some bitch I thought was a friend decided she needed to stick her nose in my marriage. My husband got arrested, then was forbidden to have any contact with me and now he’s being prosecuted and we have to use his hard-earned savings to pay for an attorney to try to keep you from wrecking OUR lives. What did I get out of this?”
“Over twenty-four days with no sex. That’s abuse in my book. And then these idiots [Wife waves toward the prosecutor] come along and tell me I’m abused and I need help. They are all a bunch of fucking idiots and they are the ones who are abusing me because they refuse to Go The Fuck Away and leave us alone.”
Attorney For Husband: “Does your husband strike you frequently?”
Wife: “I prefer the word spank.”
Attorney For Husband: “Does your husband spank you frequently?”
[Wife looks straight at husband, smiles]
Wife: “He usually he makes me beg for it first, unless he thinks I deserve it. I gave him a signed, notarized non-consensual consent agreement that states he has my permission to spank me anytime he thinks I need it, for whatever reason, regardless of whether or not I want him to. My lawyer drew it up and I signed it with complete understanding of what it says.”
Attorney For Husband: “Why did you sign a document like that and give it to your husband?”
[Wife turns to judge before answering]
Wife: “Because the times I need a spanking are the times I’m most likely to tell him not to touch me and I might be stupid enough to get those people involved, which I would truly regret after the fact. I chose this route after careful consideration in a quiet, rational state of mind with competent counsel to assist me. So, I may not want to get spanked when I really need it, but after he gets done spanking me, I’m always really glad he did it.”
Attorney For Husband: “Are you trying to tell the court you enjoy being spanked?”
[Wife keeps focus on judge while answering question, view shifts to judge’s point of view with wife speaking directly to judge]
Wife: [Shakes head, rolls eyes.] “Think of the spanking as foreplay, ’cause it isn’t about the spanking, it’s about what comes after the spanking. Hottest. Sex. Imaginable. We’re talking earthquake and hurricane force orgasms. Just that one swat on the ass that got him arrested gave me a tingle that went straight to you know where [points at crotch] and he knew exactly what it did to me and he knew I loved it.”
Attorney For Husband: “What about the hair pulling and pinning you against a wall?”
[Wife addresses answer to husband’s attorney]
Wife: “When he grabs me by the hair and stuff like that, I get little tingles running up and down my spine and all through my body and I just kind of melt. I love it when he does stuff like that and I’m getting wet just thinking about it. OK? Like one time before we were married, he picked me up from work. Literally. He walked in and I was talking to a couple of the women, but I’d already clocked out. He didn’t say a word, just walked over, picked me up, threw me over his shoulder and walked out with me. That was so hot I had him pull over on a quiet street and I jumped him right there in the car. I wouldn’t even let him get me home. You’re straight, right? You have to know what I’m talking about.”
Attorney For Husband: “What about the bruises that were mentioned?”
Wife: They were hickies and I didn’t explain it because it wasn’t any of her business, but look- it doesn’t matter. We play rough because we BOTH like it rough. Both of us. If you think this is a one-way street, tell my husband to take his shirt off and take a look at what happens once he really gets me going.”
Attorney For Husband: “So you enjoy it when your husband is physically rough with you?”
Wife: “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. I like it, I want it and I don’t want it to stop.”
Attorney For Husband: “You don’t want it to stop?”
Wife: “Hell no! What I want stopped is this bullshit prosecution of my husband. We have a 24/7 Dominant-Submissive relationship, I call my husband ‘master’ and I do whatever he tells me to do because I want to please my master. If he told me to strip naked in public, I’d do it.”
[Judge rolls his eyes at that statement and looks at husband. Husband looks at judge, amused, and raises an eyebrow.]
Husband: [Snaps fingers while looking at judge, but speaking to wife] “Cupcake, lets see how fast you can strip.”
[Wife jumps to her feet, shrugs out of her dress and reaches behind her back to unfasten her bra. Judge bangs gavel and furiously orders her to stop undressing and pull her dress back up. Wife stops unfastening her bra, but looks to her husband, who stares at her for a moment before he nods his permission and motions her to put her dress back on. Wife pulls dress back up and sits down.]
[Bang. Bang. Bang. Judge gets everyone’s attention with his gavel.]
Judge: “I have put up with this circus long enough. Of my own motion, I am dismissing this case. Whatever antics this couple amuses themselves with is their business and it’s apparent to me that this is not something that should be taking up this court’s time.”
Attorney For Husband: “Your honor, I move the court to restore my client to the condition he was in prior to his arrest. That would include expunging his record of arrest, removing him from the domestic violence offender database, returning his personal weapons and sealing the highly personal testimony that’s been heard in this case. Since this court agrees this isn’t a matter of domestic violence, I’m asking that my client be restored so they can get on with their lives and put this behind them.”
[Speaking to Prosecutor] “Remove his name from the domestic violence offender’s database and give him back his firearms. I am ordering his record of arrest expunged and I am sealing this case. Any objections? No? It is so ordered. In the future I suggest your office do a better job of investigation before filing domestic violence charges when they’re clearly not warranted and wasting this court’s time trying to prosecute when there’s clearly no victim.”
[Speaking to Wife] Ma’am, you will restrain yourself and keep your clothes on until you get home. After that, I don’t care what you two do, but I don’t want to hear of any complaints of public indecency in our parking lot because your libido got out of hand. [Bang] “Case dismissed.”
[Scene cuts to the family home: husband, wife and husband’s attorney seated at the dinner table]
Attorney For Husband: [Speaking to wife] “I just want to say, that was an academy award winning performance today. Do you realize that if you’d pulled your bra off he would have probably jailed you for contempt?”
Wife: [Smiling] “I had him sew it closed this morning. Even with the hooks undone, it still wouldn’t come off.”
Attorney For Husband: [Shocked look on face] “You two planned that?”
Husband: “You said she had to convince the court we have an ‘alternative lifestyle’ and go into detail about BDSM stuff, so she’s been reading FetLife for weeks. She even posted a couple of questions and several of people in the group who responded are lawyers. They’re the ones who suggested I command her to strip because that’s the one thing a woman will not do unless she’s seriously into being submissive. Women can say anything, but when she pulled her dress down and started undoing her bra, that was putting her money where he mouth was. I knew he wasn’t going to allow her to completely strip down, but we had to give him time to recover and at the same time she had to be getting undressed as fast as possible because that’s what I’d ordered her to do. Sewing the bra on seemed like the best solution. The best part was after he ordered her to get dressed, when she looked at me for permission. I think that’s what finally did it.”
Attorney For Husband: [Shakes head] “Well, it worked. I doubt the prosecutor’s office will file DV charges against you again anytime soon, but you two need to realize that it could have gone either way. [Speaking to husband] You could have had your life ruined. Seriously ruined. I’m just thankful you two were willing to play it out the way I told you to. Otherwise, you’d be a convicted felon right now. If she hadn’t been willing to play it completely over the top, they’d have taken her denial of abuse as the proof she was abused.
[Speaking to Wife] When you looked the judge in the eye and said “I am his dirty little cum guzzling slut and I like it that way” he was totally on your side from that point on, but he let me rebut all the abuse issues for the record. I suggest, um, you stay with the role and whenever somebody acts concerned with your submissiveness to him, describe it in terms of kink and smile about it. Amplify whatever is causing their concern the same way you described getting spanked to the judge. Plenty of people will make a complaint about domestic violence, and like you said, you might even be tempted to do it, but nobody opens their mouth about BDSM except to gossip about it.
Attorney For Husband[stands and picks up purse]. “I need to go, but I’m curious. How did you get a notary to backdate that consent for spanking?”
Husband: “We didn’t get it backdated. It was signed 3 years ago.”
[Wife has very wide-eyed innocent look on her face]
Attorney For Husband: “So that means…”
Wife: [Shaking head, smiling] “Now you’re asking for the details, but you don’t get that without skin in the game. If you want answers, take the clothes off and join us for a threesome.”
Attorney For Husband[Gives both of them a wry smile]. “Perfect answer. That’s exactly what I was talking about. I think you’ll do just fine.”

Following The Money…

Artisanal Toad1 Comment
Currently, according to 2012 data, there are about 12,279,000 single parent households in the United States. The vast majority of them are headed by women, as can be seen in the chart below: post1
What we immediately notice is that single-family households are dominated by households headed by women, with an almost even split between the never-married and the divorced or separated. Looking at the income of single family households, We see that almost half of all single-parent households headed by women (45.6%) have a household income of just over $2000 per month. Included in the census definition of income is child support, alimony, federal and state benefits and other income. This is an important distinction because “income” as described by the Census Bureau goes beyond even the IRS definitions of taxable income, to include literally all monies received. The only thing (and a major error in our thinking) missing is imputed income, such as in cases in which the ex-wife lives in the home purchased by her ex-husband and he is required to continue paying the mortgage. Another example is the state-run health-care programs for children that operate on an ad hoc basis, essentially for free. There is no accounting for these benefits, which would cost a significant amount if purchased on the open market.
post2
Looking at the cohort with income of less than $10,000 per year, if we assume two children, the SNAP benefits would be over $500 per month and going by median child support payments, the family would be receiving some $600 per month in child support. This $1100 per month in just SNAP and child support comes out to $13,200 per year. In other words, a significant number of single-parent households are supported entirely by the father of their children and the state. In this case, the state is using its police powers to expropriate money from the biological father.
Notice in the chart below that if we back out the $13,200 per year in combined SNAP benefits and median child support, almost 30% of single parent homes headed by women are below $10,000 in income and over half of these families have earnings of less than $25,000 per year. This is only considering SNAP benefits, but there are many other programs as well, including medical insurance for the children (such as the Well Kids program) that account for an ‘on demand’ benefit that would otherwise cost a significant amount of money each month.
post3
No such allowance was made for households headed by men, because on the low end of the scale men receive no statistically significant child support from women and tend not to apply for or receive welfare benefits. There is very much a double standard for men and women in family court as witnessed by the fact that women receive primary custody of the children 80% of the time. Anecdotal evidence indicates only men who are able to hire competent counsel and afford investigative services to prove the woman is less fit than they are to receive custody are actually able to gain custody, such is the power of the bias against men.
As can be seen by the chart above, single, divorced and separated mothers are effectively married to the state. In contrast, 41.7% of all single-parent households headed by men have an income of greater than $50,000. Perhaps the reasonable way to view this chart is that only men with enough money to afford good counsel and investigative services are able to gain custody of their children in the current legal environment.
The next chart, which compares the earnings of men fifteen years of age and older, comparing married men to men who are either never married, separated, divorced or widowed, we see that married men have a strong tendency to earn more than their never-married or no-longer married counterparts.
post4
From age fifteen and up, many men will spend some ten years pursuing an education (effectively investing in themselves) without earning any income. Note that the percentages listed in this chart are of all men. Thus, just below 14 percent of all men who have no earnings are married, a percentage only surpassed by the cohort of married men earning $40,000 to $75,000 per year. Given the economy and long-term unemployment of many men, it is believed chronic unemployment and a shift to grey-market employment accounts for the significant percentage of married men with no official earnings.
The “not married” men in the chart above are the men typically paying child support and alimony. Once past $25,000 per year, married men consistently out-earn not-married men in every category, especially the $40k-$75k quintile. One inference that might be drawn from this chart is that the not-married men do not have as much incentive to earn more money as their married peers do, given that increases in earnings will result in increased child support and alimony payments.
If one accepts that the destruction of marriage creates a disincentive for men to be productive, this is proof that feminism is destroying the US economy.

Tingles and Social Taboos

Artisanal ToadLeave a comment
Much has been said about the tingles being the driving force behind a female’s attraction to a man. One of the serious questions for a married man is how to keep the tingles coming. What is referred to as ‘the tingles’ is in fact very real, and we need to talk about ocytocin and prolactin and their effect on a woman’s body in order to understand this.
The context in which to understand the biochemistry of the brain is simple: repetitive actions form neural channels in the brain. This is true with both thought and action. Emotionally we can easily see this in feminists who react immediately and with anger to certain trigger words or phrases. These neural channels lead to certain behaviors which can and do result in the release of chemicals in the brain. Oxytocin surges are the primary driving force behind the ‘tingles’ and I posit that women have created neural pathways that govern the release of oxytocin as a result of their attraction to any given man. If the man doesn’t trigger the preconditioned response, there is no attraction. That said, let’s discuss oxytocin.
When a woman has an orgasm her body releases a flood of oxytocin, which produces a powerful experience of pleasure. During intercourse, when her partner ejaculates onto her cervix, prostaglandins in the semen also cause her body to release oxytocin, which results in physical pleasure apart from on orgasm on her part. If they orgasm together, she gets a double-dose of oxytocin at the same time. The uterus will spasm and contract, which causes the sperm entering the cervix to be moved quickly up the fallopian tubes. These contractions are often described as ‘butterflies’ or ‘fluttering’ in the pelvic area. She may experience tingling in the breasts from activity in the alveoli. The endorphins released during orgasm will flood her system causing decreased perception of pain and feelings of euphoria.
However, oxytocin isn’t only released during intimate contact. Physical touch, holding hands, kissing and simple body contact causes a release of oxytocin which results in feelings of pleasure and leads to pair-bonding when a couple is dating. A strong physical attraction to a man can cause a release of oxytocin. The euphoric rush from the release of oxytocin is typically what it being referred to as the ‘tingles’ and it can happen from mere visual stimulation. Women may not like to admit it, but physiological testing proves they are just as likely to become aroused by porn as men.
As has been demonstrated, there tends to be a ‘honeymoon’ phase of marriage which coincides with high average levels of oxytocin levels in the woman. In order to understand why it is important for a husband to regularly stimulate the release of oxytocin, we look at breastfeeding. Numerous studies have shown that the act of breastfeeding causes a significant release of oxytocin, which stimulates the bonding between mother and child.
Next, we examine prolactin, which has a different effect than the euphoric rush of oxytocin. Prolactin modulates her neural state such that the woman begins ‘nesting behavior’ and focuses on house and home. Studies have shown women in a relationship that describe an active and pleasant sex life have higher average levels of prolactin than single women. Sex and breast-play elevates the level of prolactin in the woman’s body along with oxytocin. Higher levels of prolactin also tend to enlarge the breasts because the alveoli stay at a higher state of development. If the husband pays a lot of attention to his wife’s breasts, she’s likely to have further interest in his attention to her breasts because more attention leads to more oxytocin and prolactin in her system. Knowing this, we see that a woman’s emotional state can be enhanced with feelings of pleasure and well-being by her husband’s regular attention to her breasts with particular attention to the nipples. And you guys thought they were just baby feeding devices.
Prolactin is effectively opposed on a hormonal level by estrogen. When the level of one is high, it suppresses the other. Think of a seesaw- when one goes up the other goes down. However, the body doesn’t want to be balanced in the middle, it wants one to be dominant. In a non-pregnant state, we see a balance of high estrogen and low prolactin. Nipple stimulation causes the production of prolactin and enough nipple stimulation can tip the balance over to high prolactin – low estrogen. One result of this, and the best signal the prolactin is now fully dominant, is the cessation of the woman’s monthly menses. This is known as an artificially induced post-partum state, which is what birth control pills do. During pregnancy, the placenta is the source of high hormone levels and the ovaries are in a resting state because the follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) has been absent. After childbirth a woman often has a drop in estrogen (this drop in estrogen is the usual culprit in post-partum depression).
With low levels of estrogen following childbirth there is a sensitivity to prolactin. The nipple stimulation associated with breastfeeding causes the production of prolactin, which tips the balance in favor of prolactin against estrogen. If she breastfeeds often enough, FSH will be suppressed, estrogen will stay low, she won’t menstruate and her breasts will produce plenty of milk. When nipple stimulation decreases, the production of prolactin falls, allowing the estrogen – prolactin levels to come into balance and the menstrual cycle returns. Once estrogen becomes dominant again her breasts dry up and milk production ceases, along with the post-partum state.

Discussion

You might be wondering why I’m talking about this. The reason is simple: Elevated levels of prolactin cause changes in a woman’s emotions, feelings and desires. One way this has been described is ‘nesting behavior.’ The woman wants to stay at home, not explore or roam. She may want to stay in bed and wants to have her husband in bed with her. She wants to cuddle and she feels more serene and calm, with a strong desire to nurture. She wants intimacy. Elevated levels of oxytocin at this time stimulate bonding with her husband and the surges of oxytocin reward their intimate time together.
During the “honeymoon” phase of the marriage when everything is still exciting, the levels of oxytocin released are quite high. As time goes by, the level of oxytocin released tends to drop off. This can be remedied through some creative romancing on one end of the scale and what is known as ‘soft dread game’ on the other. As this research shows, a little anxiety over the relationship can be a good thing. Christians are often of the belief that sex must always be gentle and loving. As the feminist author Diana Bruk points out in a recent essay about Russian men, however: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman wants a man who’s a gentleman at dinner and an animal in bed.”
I believe keeping a wife’s level of oxytocin high during its surges is critical to helping her maintain the ‘tingles’ for the husband. Giving the breasts, and especially the nipples, extended amounts of attention as a part of foreplay and during sex will cause the release of oxytocin and prolactin, resulting in emotional feelings of happiness, euphoria and closeness for her husband. This leads to bonding. Likewise, high levels of prolactin will maintain her nurturing desires and help her focus to stay inward on her family rather than outward toward other things. Thirty minutes of aerobic exercise will also stimulate the release of prolactin, as well as other endorphins. A 30 minute aerobics session followed by sex would double-up the release of prolactin and oxytocin. The release of prolactin produced by the exercise would also help put her ‘in the mood’ to have sex. Foreplay that focuses on the breasts causes the release of oxytocin and the sex that follows will produce even more. Do this often enough and her neural pathway to pleasure will be bonded to the guy who’s giving her the pleasure.
To go one step further, we could look at what are known as ‘Adult Nursing Relationships’ (ANR) or ‘Adult Breastfeeding Relationships’ (ABR). I think the better term would be ANR because it includes nursing behavior in which the woman isn’t actually producing milk. (I am not referring to infant-play, in which the man puts on a diaper and acts like a baby- we’re talking about sucking on tits, that’s it.) Married couples who maintain an ANR typically go to great lengths to describe the emotional closeness and pair-bonding that results.
For whatever reason, this is a societal taboo. Practically considered a fetish.
Women in ANR’s report their breasts increased in size as their milk production increased (DUH!), while at the same time find they are losing weight due to their milk production. The commitment required by the partner to be available to nurse on a regular schedule and the pair-bonding that takes place through this very intimate act is remarkable. Most interestingly, almost any woman can induce lactation by nothing more than nipple stimulation, even if she is post-menopause. Pregnancy is not required. Some women choose to induce lactation through a combination of hormones (Yasmin birth control pills, for example) and Domperidone, a drug that has as a side effect the stimulation of or increase in lactation. This can take a woman from dry B-cups to D-cup fountains in six to eight months.
(EDIT: For those women who don’t have a partner but want larger breasts without surgery or milk production, there is evidentlya significant body ofsome published research demonstrating that women can increase the size of their breasts through hypnosis while at the same time shrinking their waist.)
So, why is a practice such as ANR such a taboo if it gives the woman bigger boobs and helps keep her figure slim at the same time, keeps her at home in the evenings and causes her to be more nurturing and pleasing to her husband? Add to that the natural suppression of her menses (no more PMS) without drugs. The icing on the cake is a regular nursing schedule is basically a regular sex schedule. What’s not to like about this? The taste of milk? I see a beneficial process in which the woman is getting the chemicals delivered to her brain that she needs to stay focused on her husband and stay bonded with him, as well as the intimacy she craves. He gets a better looking wife and a guarantee of regular, fulfilling sex. All he has to do is develop a taste for milk.
Domperidone
Domperidone

Incentives and Disincentives to Marriage and Children

Artisanal ToadLeave a comment
Marriage is the foundation of society. This statement is self-evident truth, yet for all the issues related to feminism that are destroying the middle class institution of marriage, we observe a completely different dynamic among the poor. Beginning with the Great Society programs, welfare incentives were arranged in such a way as to penalize married families and reward single mothers. Again, this has been proven time and time again.
I recently spent some time in Ensley Alabama, a suburb of Birmingham. Ensley is among the least integrated neighborhoods in the United States and has been the victim of policies aimed at destroying the family for generations. It presents a panoply of social pathologies wrapped within the ‘new dynamic’ of multi-generational welfare recipients. While white, middle-aged, middle-class women might ask where the men are, there is no need to ask where the men are in Ensley- many are either dead or in prison, many are on probation or parole and headed back to prison, and anyone who can escape ‘the hood’ does so. Where are the men? Gone.
The familial dynamics are controlled by the grannies. These are the women who typically raised their grandchildren and having reached an age at which they can collect a check every month, they represent the largest reservoir of stable income in the community. The power they wield through their home-ownership and income is considerable, thus the local community has a distinctly matriarchal tone to it. Worship services in the churches are dominated by women and the men present tend to all be married and rather quiet.
Raised in a middle-class ethos as I was, I was ill-prepared for the reality of tax-time. In my world, a tax refund was the excess of earned income withheld over actual tax due that was refunded after filing a tax return. Not in Ensley. In Ensley, every person receives a tax return of between $1000 and $2000. Every dependent child is worth $2000. Fly-by-night tax preparation businesses prepare the returns for individuals, often keeping a significant portion of the refund and never showing the filer the 1040 that was filed. In January and February, they party like rock-stars on the tax refund money.
Jobs are few and far between, but even so employers find it difficult to find qualified applicants who are willing to show up for work. Underground employment and business is booming, but profits are low. Prostitution is endemic, but prices on the street range from $5 for a blow-job to $20 for someone to come by and scratch the itch for an hour or so. Of course, one gets what one pays for. STD infested deranged crack-whores. Drug dealers abound, crime is rampant and nothing is safe. Well, perhaps that’s changing though.
Several years ago, the City of Birmingham (recently the subject of the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the United States- so far) installed acoustic sensors that detect and triangulate the location of gunshots. The system is pretty neat, because it determines whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle or shotgun; and it triangulates the location to within a dozen feet or so and directs a message to the nearest patrol car with mapping information within seconds of the shot being fired. After installing the sensors, the police department spent a period of time calibrating the system. Police went to various places in the city and fired weapons. The first interesting data point was less than 30% of the shots they fired were reported. I mean- really. Who reports gunfire in Birmingham, Alabama? Perhaps it gets reported in Vestavia Hills or Mountainbrook (affluent, mostly white neighborhoods) but in Ensley, what’s the point? Several years ago I recall visiting Ensley and sitting on the front porch in the evening listening to the gunfire. A single incident might be two people each burning off half a magazine from a Glock or some other high-capacity pistol at each other. Fifteen to twenty rounds fired within as many seconds. On a Friday night it wasn’t unusual to hear this kind of exchange four or five times over the course of the evening. That was then, though.
After calibrating the system and testing it for months, the police knew where most of the gunfire occurred. When they went live they put a lot of manpower in those areas. When someone fired a weapon they were triangulated and the information sent to the nearest officer’s in-car computer within seconds. The police arrived with individuals still shooting at each other or standing around with guns still smoking. Since most of the shooters were either on probation or parole, they were immediately slam-dunked. Within months a significant number of the bad guys were taken off the streets. I can attest to the fact that on my recent visit, in sharp contrast to my visit two years ago, it was unusual to hear any gunshots at all, although it did happen every few days.
The primary difference I saw between 2010 and 2013 is the sharp rise in young mothers walking the streets, which have obviously become safer. The power of the grannies has grown with fewer thugs on the street, but economic interests have caused somewhat of a baby-boom. I met multiple young women who were kicked out of their home at or after age 17 because they were no longer dependents and therefore no welfare money could be collected for them. In other words, their welfare-system utility had just vanished and they were liabilities. It was time for them to put the baby-maker in motion, because after all, having a baby means somebody has to pay, even if you take it to the extreme of having 15 kids. Everybody in the hood knows that. The interesting thing is that I can think of another mom with more than 15 kids, but she has a different setup that pays for the kids in a completely different way.
How does one create an incentive that rewards intact families in this entitlement environment? Actually, this might not be that difficult. First, give priority to married, cohabitating families in public housing and section 8 rent assistance, followed by widows. These are not people who have a lot of assets, so this isn’t a case of Shamiqua getting cash and prizesifwhen she divorces Deshawn. In fact, it would carry a significant disincentive to divorce because not being married means kissing the Section 8 voucher or project apartment goodbye.
This alone would fundamentally alter things for the urban black community. The next big issue is the money. As I pointed out in this post, unwed and divorced mothers are increasingly supported by their surrogate husband, the State. With the economy further and further in decline, it seems like a no-brainer to phase out the payments. People respond to incentives.
That brings us back to a central problem in the urban black community: the lack of men. Given that situation, there is a solution and it is arguably one that particular community is somewhat comfortable with: polygyny. It brings Isaiah 4:1 to mind. From what I’ve seen in the hood, there are plenty of men willing to wife up 4 or 5 women and in fact, I could point to numerous examples of guys who keep a “roster” and are servicing 3 to 6 different women at any given time. Make it official, remove the incentives for single mothers and reward married families regardless of their structure.
The tradcons will scream that the taxpayers will be footing the bill. Right. Like the taxpayers aren’t already footing the bill. The churches, completely dominated by women, are opposed to polygyny. However, the churches have the most to gain if they’d ever study their Bibles and reach the same conclusion that Martin Luther did: polygyny is neither prohibited nor is it condemned anywhere in Scripture and it is a legitimate form of Biblical marriage.

Who Has Authority Over Marriage?

Artisanal Toad1 Comment
God created three covenant entities: the family, the state and the church.
The family is the first of the covenant entities and was created in Genesis 2:14. The man, given authority to create a marriage (for this reason), separates himself from his father’s family and leaves his father’s headship authority in order to create his own family and is in authority over his marriage and subsequent family. The four elements necessary for a Biblical marriage are:
  1. The permission of the father of the woman. She is under his authority, and cannot marry without his permission (c.f. 1st Corinthians 7:36-38).
  2. The agreement between man and woman to marry (present words of assent).
  3. Consummation of the marriage.
  4. Cohabitation.
The authority of the husband over his wife and children is undisputed throughout the Law. In the judgment of Moses concerning divorce (c.f. Deuteronomy 24:1-4) it was the man who created the marriage that had the authority to end the marriage, but if he did so, he was to issue the woman a certificate of divorce. The mission of the family is to be fruitful, fill the earth and subdue it.
As I have covered elsewhere, nowhere in Scripture is a man forbidden from having more than one wife, inasmuch as the practice is neither forbidden nor condemned. Therefore, it is a moral action. The authority of the husband over the wife is restated in Ephesians 5:22-24, as equal to the authority of Christ over the church.
The second of the covenant entities God created was the state. In Genesis 9:16 God commanded that a murderer must be put to death. The Law discusses the cities of refuge and the avenger of blood who was tasked with executing a murderer. In 1st Samuel 8, we see the nation of Israel has rejected God as their king, so He ordered Samuel to anoint a king over them. Later, through the Davidic Covenant, God established this as a permanent and everlasting kingdom which Christ would eventually rule. We see in Romans 13 the governors of the state are ministers of righteous and they have the power of the sword. This power of the sword no longer rests with the congregation.
The third of the covenant entities is the church, which was given the mission of going out and making disciples of all men, and preaching, teaching, training and rebuking in righteousness that every man might be equipped for every good work. The church is to decide the contentions between believers (1st Corinthians 6), care for the widows and orphans (1st Timothy 5) and preach sound doctrine (2nd Timothy 4).
It must be observed that these three covenant entities exist within the context of God’s moral law. The moral authority of each of these entities to act is derived from their God given authority. Do any of them occasionally overstep their bounds? Of course. Does that make it right? No.
The Christian family exists within the church, just as the church exists within the state. The state has no more right to dictate doctrine and practice within the church than the church has to the right to dictate order and discipline within marriage. This is within the context of obedience to God’s moral law.
Inasmuch as the state has the mission of upholding order and morality, laws prohibiting homosexual unions are perfectly acceptable. Laws requiring the permission of the state in order to marry are not. Murder is prohibited, as is theft. The government is morally within its bounds in making and enforcing laws against these things, which are mala in se (wrong because they are morally wrong). The government is also within its bounds in making regulations to support social harmony. Things like speed limits, building regulations, zoning ordinances and the like are not mala in se, but rather mala prohibita (wrong because they are forbidden).
However, the invasion of another of God’s sphere’s of authority, such as the government dictating doctrine and practice within the church, is outside the grant of authority God gave the state. Likewise, the church’s decisions in the middle ages that regulated the marital bed was a usurpation of the authority of the husband in an area in which the church was not given authority.
The current state of affairs, in which the state has usurped the authority of the husband and father by allowing the police powers of the state to be used by women to overthrow their husband’s authority, destroy their marriage, remove the children from his guidance and authority and extract monetary tribute is morally wrong. The church, in refusing to rebuke this practice within the congregation is immorally abandoning its obligations and abdicating its mission.
Historically, the church made a practice of usurping the authority of both family and state, as well interfering in the affairs of both. The historic invasion of the family that resulted in the ridiculous restrictions on what might or might not be allowed to happen within the marital bed influenced culture and society for over a millennium. These restrictions were codified into laws applied to the general public. Within the last fifty years or so, these laws have been swept away, taking with them the perfectly moral laws prohibiting true indecency such as homosexuality. The church lost the strength to hold the pendulum at the point they’d pushed it and having pushed it too far away from moral equilibrium, the pendulum swung back and is now pushing far beyond the point of equilibrium.
Research such as this demonstrate that in an environment in which there are no longer any legal protections afforded to marriage, polygyny is a reasonable response that is within the moral framework of Biblical marriage. In times past the walls of the edifice we call marriage were high and strong, defended by both church and state. Today those walls have been swept away, breached by feminism. Polygyny, long forbidden by the church and ignored by the state, is perhaps the only remaining form of Biblical marriage that might provide some protection against frivorce. The believing man who created the marriage with his believing wife, forbidden to divorce her for any reason, still has the authority to add another wife, or to choose to marry more than one in the beginning.

Questioning Marriage 1.0

Artisanal Toad5 Comments
It is axiomatic that because women have the right to vote, the laws concerning marriage will not be changed for the better. In fact, it’s probably a good bet that the laws will only get worse over time until the system finally breaks. However, there is a way to do an end-run around the legislature through the judicial branch, which is what “progressives” have done for years. There’s no reason that same sheet in their playbook can’t be used.
In civil rights litigation the object is to get the courts to implement a social change that the legislative bodies will not respond to; or to extract cash and prizes from someone in order to teach them a lesson and effect social change. In the big cases everyone has heard about, litigants were using the courts to enact a change by judicial fiat. Think of the civil rights movement, the issue of abortion, sodomy laws, gay marriage, you name it. The idea is to reframe an issue in such a way the court gives you what you want. However, in order to reframe the issue there has to be a goal.
What is the goal with respect to marriage?
Because of the need to tie this down tight under the rubric of religious free exercise, we start with the Bible. Genesis 2:24 and associated passages of Scripture inform us of the standards for marriage:
  1. The authority to initiate marriage is given to the man, no other.
  2. The standard for marital commitment by the man is permanent but non-exclusive and the wife gives permanent and exclusive commitment to her husband.
  3. Consummation creates the marriage, nothing else.
  4. A father’s permission isn’t required but he can annul the marriage if he doesn’t consent or approve of the marriage when he hears of it (after the fact).
  5. An eligible non-virgin must consent to marriage in order to be married.
Notice that none of these things has anything to do with the State or the Church. The reason is that God gave the man a grant of authority to create marriage in Genesis 2:24. This authority to create marriage did not include the authority to end a marriage until Moses, who permitted divorce. (see Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The authority of the man within the marriage was described in Ephesians 5:22-24 as being the same as Christ’s authority over the church, because in Genesis 3:16 women were commanded by God “he shall rule over you.”
Quite simply, there is no room for either state or church in this business of getting married or being married.
The State has its job keeping order and governing. The church has its job making disciples of all men. The husband has his job of ruling his own household. Three separate entities, three separate jobs.
The problem is first, about 1500 years ago the church usurped the authority of the man and decided by fiat that the church was in charge of marriage and no person was really married without following the church’s rules and receiving the church’s blessing on the marriage. Following the Protestant Reformation the church lost it’s grip on power and control such that the state seized power over marriage. This culminated in a licensing scheme and rules by the State concerning marriage, specifically regarding the termination of marriage.
You can’t allow the church a voice in this because God didn’t give them a voice in marriage.
You can’t allow the State a voice in this because God didn’t give them a voice in marriage.
The only way to win at a high level is to place the issue squarely before the court in such a way as they cannot dodge the bullet. That means reliance solely on Scripture. The landmark case US v Seeger is helpful in understanding the importance of being congruent. Reading it, one might think it’s about draft dodgers. The subject is a conscience-driven objection to the draft but the issue is religion, and the Supreme Court laid down their test of religious belief in this case.
The individual has the right to choose their system of religious belief, but the court reserves for itself the right to decide if that religious belief is truly and sincerely held.
As soon as one brings a church into this the water is immediately muddied with the teachings of that church, especially doctrine and statements of faith. A family exists within a church in the same way a church exists within a state. Get it? The State doesn’t have the right to dictate doctrine to the church any more than the church has the right to dictate doctrine to the family. Some will howl and scream at that, but it’s true. The church (which includes the families) is required to obey the law of the state. As long as the church is within the bounds of the laws of the state, they have freedom to act. It is the same with the family. As long as they are acting in a moral manner in accordance with God’s Law, the church has nothing to say to them.
God’s Word defines what morality is. As soon as one steps off that rock, you’re on shifting sand. God’s Word and only God’s Word defines morality.
The Bible placed the husband in charge of his family. Full Stop. No other person or entity has MORAL authority over the family other than Christ. The authority to create a family by taking a wife is also the authority to take another wife. Having more than one wife is not immoral because the standard of commitment established by Genesis 2:24 is non-exclusive commitment by the man and the authority to marry rests solely with the man. Keep in mind that a man marries a woman, a woman is married.
Keep in mind also that the church usurped the authority of the man over his family over a thousand years ago. The result of that usurpation of authority by the church meant following the protestant reformation that the (now secular) governments didn’t want the church doing any more social engineering so they too usurped that authority for themselves. Keep in mind, we’re talking about a rights issue. If you go back to the book, God gave the authority to the man, nobody else.
Let’s bring this back to litigation.
The goal is to get families with written, contractual marriages created as a matter of right (rather than privilege) recognized by the courts as being possessed of the authority to define their own standards within their marriage (Yep, that’s right officer, she granted me permission to spank her anytime I think she needs it and we put it in our marriage contract). That’s a tall order.
That’s why this has to start with something so far outside the norm that it only makes sense to “give them what they want” and establish judicial support for covenant marriages that define their own terms. Yep, that’s polygyny. It’s far enough out there it would make more sense for the court to recognize the contract than deal with the fallout of judicially voiding the contract and violating the religious rights of third parties.
Once the concept is established and judicially accepted it should be safe for monogamous marriages, but not before then. I also believe it would be far more difficult for this type of case to be won as a monogamous marriage (and take far longer), whereas with a polygynous marriage the issue could be forced fairly easily due to the nature of the marriage. Sorry, but monogamy just looks too much like ‘same old – same old.’