Let’s take a look at this. Turn up the speakers and sit back.

Other than the fact they can really sing, what do we notice about that video? To begin with, the women are all modestly dressed in a feminine manner. They haven’t hacked their hair off. While maybe a couple of them could lose a few pounds, they are all nicely height-weight proportionate, far more so than the majority of middle-aged women. Their makeup is so tastefully applied they appear not to be wearing any and there is not a tattoo in sight. The only way these ladies could go further would be longer hair and head coverings.

Wait. Did he say head coverings? Indeed I did. While I was only referring to using scarves, there is something about a woman who covers her head in submission to men that is quite attractive. Some even consider it erotic.

But let’s not get sidetracked. They smile. A lot. They display smiling affection to the men. Their body language is gentle and feminine. Add it all up and we have a very attractive collection of middle-aged women who give every appearance of being ladies. Why? Because they’re modestly feminine in their demeanor and dress. Dare I even say it?

They come across as sweet and submissive Christian ladies. Yes, I know, they’re playing a role.

Let’s compare them to another group in which the women are 20 years younger. These kids go to Bowdoin College, which is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 liberal arts colleges in the United States.

Younger, and… what? They don’t appear to have hacked their hair off but that’s about all I can say. They aren’t feminine. At least they can sing, though.

Maybe I’m being unfair, because the first video was a professional production piece and the singers are professionals. Serious professionals. The costumes they wore were intentionally chosen to communicate a message. Their countenances and demeanor during the performance are also meant to communicate a message. Why is it that theater people can and do understand that how one dresses and how one behaves sends a message, but Christians can’t seem to comprehend that?

The second video is an amateur production of college students who dress the way feminism has taught them, not realizing their choice of costume also communicates a message. Instead of smiles, we see the occasional smirk; and even though I think they were trying to be serious because it’s a spiritual song, their demeanor also communicates a message.

The difference is day and night.

But, they’re still young. They could learn but they probably won’t and one reason is it’s rare to see one attractive woman dressed in such a modestly conservative fashion, much less a group of them. The girls just don’t have good examples any more. It isn’t in the clothes, it’s the attitude the clothes and demeanor represent. A state of mind, if you will, and it signals a clear message to men: We are worth marrying.

You know it’s coming… The smiles, the affection for each other, can you imagine coming home to these three? Can you imagine listening to them sing your children to sleep?

But, wait! These girls are younger, hotter and tighter! Pick one! They’ll have a fabulous degree from a top-ranked liberal arts college! And that red-head in the second row might clean up well…

Just know this: you’ll remember that sweet voice in your nightmares after she’s cranked out a couple of kids and then divorce-rapes the shit out of you a few years after that. Because that feminist education and indoctrination will never go away.

Now I’m accused of cherry-picking to make my point. I wish I were. Yes, the women in the original video are all beautiful and way above average in their youth, but they are all in middle age now. Here’s a collection of young women from the same college at the height of their youth and fertility, the all female A cappella group Miscellania:

That blonde on the left, the one with the dress that comes all the way down to the top of her knees, she’s on the right track but if that dress were a foot longer it would really emphasize how slim she is. The blond in the middle has a nice smile but that dress makes her look fat or worse yet, pregnant. Granted, these girls look somewhat feminine, but it’s the next photo that gives it away.

The blonde in the middle with the nice smile? She can’t believe what the idiot to her left is doing. And the one in the light blue dress on the right of the photo? She rotated her pelvis so you could see the strap-on she’s wearing. Talk about sending a message. Even our semi-conservatively dressed blonde on the left of the photo is sending you a message, telling you what’s going to happen a few years after you put a ring on it.

Take a good look guys, pick your favorite and ask yourself this question: Is that the woman I want to send my child support and alimony checks to?

Biblical dread game is founded on the husband’s authority and right to take another wife or a concubine. There’s nothing immoral about it (God had 2 wives, are you going to claim He did something wrong? See Jeremiah 31:31-32), nothing in the NT forbid it, and it’s still an allowable marriage option for men today. Note- I’m not making a defense of polygyny here, just stating that as fact.

Because modern Christianity teaches monogamy is the only permissible form of marriage and refuses to acknowledge men have the authority and right to more than one wife, the definitions of words like lust, fornication and adultery have become feminized and equalized, resulting in a huge negative impact on church doctrine. Probably the worst impact is in the modern doctrines concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.

As a rule, as soon as the subject of dread game comes up the whole “sex before or outside of marriage is forbidden” objection comes up when talking about husbands flirting (or going further) with women they aren’t married to. The problem is such a prohibition cannot be found without making a reference to fornication or adultery and you might be surprised at what those words mean and don’t mean. Modern churchians don’t have a good definition of either of those terms because they ignore what the Law says (and more importantly, doesn’t say) as well as the critical point that a man is allowed to have more than one wife. I discussed this a bit in “Pot… Kettle… Black” but I’ll get a bit more in depth in this post to demonstrate the extent of ignorance Christians have about the Bible.

The only thing necessary for a marriage to occur with an eligible virgin is sex. With the act of penetration the man is making his commitment to marry her and neither her commitment or consent is required. It is good to get the approval of the father first, because if she is still living at home her father can annul the marriage later if he doesn’t approve. With a woman who is not a virgin but eligible to marry, her consent to marry is required in addition to sex (Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39). In Genesis 2:24 the authority to initiate marriage was given to the man, there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, look at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which are “The Law” concerning pre-marital sexual relations between a man and woman eligible to marry each other.

In those passages we see no prohibition or condemnation on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, but there is a judgment: With the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay her father what he is owed (the bride price) and live with the woman as husband and wife. The judgment isn’t about punishment but rather the requirement of the man to meet his responsibilities; with the additional restriction that because he has “humbled” his wife he can never divorce her. Because the father is in authority over his daughter, he has the right to refuse to allow the marriage (that would REALLY be punishment for the woman, who would be publicly known as damaged goods) but he still gets to collect the bride price from the man. There is no distinction between a married man and a single man because it doesn’t matter- married or single they can still marry her. However, with no prohibition or condemnation, the sexual activity cannot be called a violation of the Law (sin) and thus cannot be called “sexual immorality” which is a sin.

We know this because that is exactly what Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us. Where there is no Law, there is no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed. That last word “imputed” is critical. If God doesn’t call something sin, who are you to do so?

Since I’m already throwing sacred cows on the BBQ I may as well deal with a married man using a prostitute, which reinforces the point I’m making. There is no prohibition or condemnation of a man using (having sex with) a prostitute in the Law and it isn’t a sin for a non-Christian. A close study of Samson’s story confirms this. Samson was a Nazerite and the Spirit of the Lord was with him. The Law of the Nazerite is found at Numbers 6:1-8 and if you read that passage you’ll notice that part of the Nazerite vow was to remain holy and not become unclean. Yet, we see Samson going into a prostitute (Judges 16:1) but he remained holy and the Spirit of the Lord remained with him until he violated the Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. Having sex with a prostitute was not a sin and cannot be considered sexual immorality- and the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him because sex with a prostitute didn’t violate the Nazerite vow.

I said sex with a prostitute wasn’t a sin for non-Christians, and this is why: 1st Corinthians 6 contains a prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes, not because it’s sexual immorality (Paul did not violate Deut. 4:2 and claim it was) but because Christians are specifically forbidden to join the members of Christ to a whore by having sex with them. Following that Paul said to flee from immorality, but he did not use the word “porneia” but rather the word “hamartéma” which is defined as “a fault, a sin, an evil deed.” Paul made it clear he was talking about sexual sin and said the immoral man (one who violates God’s Law) sins against his own body. However, the instruction is specific to Christians because the non-Christian cannot join the members of Christ with a whore because he is not one with Christ.

Some claim 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 specifically forbids sex outside marriage, but there are three problems with that. First, that isn’t what the text actually says. Second, if that is what Paul really meant then Paul is guilty of a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, adding to the Law. The third problem is that exegesis hinges on the definition of porneia, which would only work if porneia could be defined as any sex outside of marriage.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch (Greek word “haptomai” meaning to have carnal knowledge of) a woman. But because of immoralities (Greek word “porneia” meaning violations of God’s Law), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

It is far more reasonable to read the text for what it actually says. If we try to get a deeper meaning from it, perhaps it that Paul is saying that because of the temptation of porneia around us, each man is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man) and each woman to have her own husband (and not any other man). Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… as well as what it wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law.

The Greek word “porneia” is translated into English as either “fornication” or “sexual immorality” and is clearly a sin but what we think of as fornication isn’t specifically defined anywhere in Scripture. The word can describe both physical sexual sin and thus encompasses adultery, bestiality and incest; as well as idolatry, which is giving that which properly belongs to God alone (worship, praise, authority) to anyone or anything else. AGAIN, we know from Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. In other words, if God didn’t forbid something in His Law, it isn’t a SIN (forbidden for all time for all people).

I realize just how uncomfortable that is for most Christians, which is probably why pastors don’t teach about it. Since there is no prohibition or condemnation of the extra-marital sex mentioned in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, such sexual activity cannot be porneia (fornication), which is a sin. There are consequences to such behavior (don’t have sex with a woman you are unwilling to marry) but it isn’t a sin and to claim it is a sin when God didn’t do so is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2 (you shall not add to the Law or subtract from it).

(NB: This gets a bit complicated for Christians because that which is not of faith is sin and if one knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it, that is sin to him (Romans 14:23 and James 4:17). There are also restrictions placed on Christians that go beyond what the Law required, such as the prohibition on using a prostitute in 1st Cor. 6 and the prohibition on divorce between married believers in 1st Cor. 7, but there is no specific restriction on pre-marital sex in the NT even though Christians really wish there was.)

To get to the definition of fornication we should also look at Hebrews 13:4, which says the marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Greek word “amiantos” meaning “undefiled, untainted, free from contamination”) and describes two sins that defile the marriage bed: adultery and fornication. As seen above, a man can have sex with a woman that’s not his wife and not be in sin, but if a married woman has sex with anyone not her husband it’s adultery. Adultery requires a married woman and a man can only commit adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife. The definition of the Hebrew word we translate as “adultery” applies equally to both illicit physical unions and illicit spiritual worship. In the physical sense the word carries with it the connotation of illicit sexual activity that can produce an illegitimate child, which means a penis in a vagina.

However, the word in Hebrews 13:4 that is translated as “fornicators” (“pornos,” not “porneia”) refers to a man who indulges in unlawful sexual immorality. What is unlawful sexual immorality? For that we have to go back to the Law and we’ve already seen that a man isn’t in sin because he had sex with a woman he wasn’t married to as long as she wasn’t married or betrothed to someone else. The word translated as “adulterers” is defined as the man who commits adultery. Thus, both the husband and wife are able to defile the marriage bed, the wife by introducing the adulterer and the husband by engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.), but this passage also points to things like the husband and wife having sex while the wife is menstruating. That is forbidden and in the same category of sins as adultery, bestiality, idolatry and male homosexuality.

What illicit activity doesn’t reach the bar of being adultery? The word “pornea” includes any illicit (unlawful) sexual activity from incest to bestiality, or as mentioned above, having sex with the wife while she’s menstruating. When Christ interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 in Matthew 19, He specifically used the term “porneia” and said that was the only reason for which a man could legitimately divorce his wife. It can even be argued that idolatry was grounds for divorce under what Jesus taught. After all, that’s why God divorced Israel.

Examining the words we translate as adultery and fornication using the teachings of the Law and the NT, we must conclude (leaving aside homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other perversions) that within marriage, what we like to think of as adultery and fornication are specific sins that require the presence of a married woman; with the term fornication being a broader descriptor that includes infidelities on the part of a wife that would not rise to the level of adultery.

This goes further than most Christians would imagine. Given the teaching in Matthew 5:27-32, a married woman who deliberately dresses provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire (lust) of men could be described as a fornicator. However, a woman eligible to marry who dressed provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire of men could not be described as a fornicator because she isn’t married (or betrothed) and any desire she stimulates on the part of the men is not lust because the man’s sexual desire for her can be legitimately satisfied by marrying her.

The objections of the modern Christians to dread game are not supported by the Bible because if a husband is not in sin for having sex with a woman that isn’t his wife (as long as she’s not married or betrothed) then he certainly isn’t in sin if he’s flirting with her. The teaching of the modern church concerning monogamy robs the husband of an extremely effective tool, the legitimate threat of taking another wife if the one he has refuses to honor, obey and please him.

As you’ve probably already noticed, I’m in the process of cluttering up my blog. I’ll be going back to edit some older posts, perhaps combining a few and in general trying to straighten things out.

One of the things you’ll see is a comprehensive discussion of marriage and polygyny from the legal, cultural and Scriptural perspectives, as well as a more thorough treatment on divorce that will focus on being solution based.

I’m also thinking of starting a section on resistance, but I don’t want it to get out of hand. One of the things that’s really bothered me is the apathy of blogs like Dalrocks, in which the men seemingly don’t want to discuss solutions. In fact, Dalrock won’t allow me to post on what he calls my “pet theories” and thus won’t allow a discussion of solutions.

More changes are coming, but I’ll try to keep any photos safe for work. The new header, for example, is the photo I sent my daughter when she asked what I though of her getting a tattoo. I told her that if she must, that one was the only one I found remotely appropriate. Her response? “Eewwwww, Dad, that’s grosss!” But, I notice the subject of tattoos has not come up since then.

I love the way Christians get bent out of shape over basic things because they don’t know the definitions of words the Bible uses. This is combined with their unconscious internalization of cultural norms which effects the way they perceive what the Bible says. Usually in error. So, let’s take a look at words. Keep in mind, when it comes to Christianity the Law forms the skeleton and grace fleshes it out.

Lust. There isn’t anything really on point as to what lust is, but we can logically deduce what lust isn’t by looking at God’s various prohibitions. Lust is contextually defined as a sin and is closely related to coveting, but a good basic definition of lust is it’s a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled. The problem with this word is it falls afoul of the Biblical double standard between men and women. The cultural norms say we’re “equal” but this just isn’t so in the way that most Americans want to define equality. Yes, we’re equal in value but not in status because of the authority structure that God ordained for everyone.

Can a man or woman lust after their spouse? No. The question is ridiculous, because a desire for one’s spouse is natural, normal and healthy. Then come the ankle-biters who want to reframe the issue saying “but what about an unhealthy fixation or infatuation with the spouse? Isn’t it a problem when a person is so focused on their desire for their spouse that they ignore God?” See how they do that? Gosh, if I said it was natural, normal and healthy to have an appetite they’d start talking about overeating and gluttony.

The reason I bring up the word lust is it’s one of those difficult words that’s often twisted to become a club used to beat men with. The passage in Matthew 5:27-32 where Jesus said if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he’s already committed adultery in his heart is a beautiful case in point that demonstrates how an improper understanding of Scripture results in bad doctrine. First, the only way to look at a woman with lust in the heart is if she cannot legitimately be obtained and the only way that happens is if she’s married. It doesn’t matter if the man is married or not because a man can legitimately have more than one wife, but the only woman a man can legitimately marry without committing adultery is one who is eligible to marry.

A young man who looks on an unmarried woman with desire in his heart is not lusting after her because his desire for her can legitimately be fulfilled. That desire is the driving force behind the desire to marry and only an idiot would truly think men decide to marry women they aren’t attracted to. It may happen from time to time for various reasons, but in general it simply doesn’t happen. Why? Because that’s the way God made men.

Understanding how much trouble the word lust can cause, let’s try the word “Adultery.” According to the Liddell Scott lexicon, the word “adultery” is best translated as “to mongrelize” and there’s both a physical and spiritual component to the word. Idolatry is spiritual adultery and adultery is physical idolatry. The problem with adultery in the physical sense is it’s a sex-specific crime (sin) which requires a married woman. No married woman, no adultery. Women don’t like this because they want adultery to apply to men who have sex with a woman they aren’t married to, but it doesn’t work that way according to Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. If a man (with no distinction between married or unmarried) seduces a virgin he is to pay the father the bride price and marry her. Because he has “humbled” her he cannot divorce her all the days of his life. If the father refuses to allow the marriage the man is to pay a price equal to the bride price. That’s it. No prohibition, no condemnation.

The only thing necessary for a marriage to occur with an eligible virgin is sex. With the act of penetration the man is making his commitment to marry her and neither her commitment or consent is required. It is good to get the approval of the father first, because if she is still living at home her father can annul the marriage later if he doesn’t approve. With a woman who is not a virgin but eligible to marry, her consent to marry is required in addition to sex (Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39).

In Genesis 2:24 there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, let’s look at the situation with the seduction of a virgin not betrothed in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. (Under the Law a betrothed virgin was considered to be legally married, not a single woman)

We see no prohibition on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, nor a condemnation. Back to the elements of marriage, with the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay the father what he is owed (the bride price) and publicly live with the woman as husband and wife. It isn’t punishment we are looking at but the requirement to meet his responsibilities with the additional restriction that because he didn’t follow proper procedure and get the father’s permission first, he cannot divorce her all the days of his life (he has “humbled” her).

There is no distinction between whether the man was married or unmarried, because a man can legitimately have more than one wife. This is difficult for women because women are treated differently in this situation. If a virgin living in her fathers house (not betrothed) has sex with a man and later gets married as if she was a virgin, it’s a death-penalty offense if she’s caught but there’s no corresponding penalty for the guy she gave her virginity to because he didn’t commit adultery. She’s defrauding her husband (having cuckolded him before she married him) and having fraudulently married him she’s now guilty of adultery, which is a death-penalty offense.

The point is the Law makes a clear distinction between sex outside of marriage with an unmarried (and not betrothed) woman and sex with another man’s wife or fianceé. There is no specific prohibition or condemnation of the first, but the second is a death penalty offense. Again, the crime of adultery requires the participation of a married (or betrothed) woman.

With that in mind, let’s look at the word “fornication” and I can already hear the screams of outrage. What is the definition of fornication? The problem is there is no passage in Scripture that defines what fornication is, specifically, so we have to work with context and identify what fornication isn’t to help us understand what it is.

Since fornication is obviously a sin, the previously mentioned example of a man having sex with an unmarried woman outside the bounds of marriage cannot apply because that activity has no prohibition or condemnation. Please note, I didn’t say that the pre-marital sex was not a sin, I pointed out that it wasn’t fornication. However, we must juxtapose the word fornication with adultery because the two are related. Given that the word adultery is literally translated as “mongrelize” it carries with it the idea of penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse that could result in a bastard child being born. But what about other actions that don’t reach the point of sexual intercourse, such as a blowjob, heavy kissing petting and that sort of thing? Could it be that fornication is sexual (and possibly even emotional) infidelity on the part of a married woman that doesn’t reach the level of fornication?

Fornication and Adultery are related because in Hebrews 13:4 we see the command “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Fornication and adultery are in the same class of sexual sin that defiles the marital bed. We see in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 that Jesus interpreted the Law concerning divorce as only being permitted for the sexual immorality of the wife. The term He used in both those passages was “porneia” which is quite often translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” Notice that in both cases the word was specifically applied to the married women. Adultery is a married woman having sex with a man she is not married to and both the man and married woman are guilty of the crime. Given the contextual placement, fornication appears to be a more inclusive term which would encompass even the non-physical aspects of a married woman giving her affections to a man she’s not married to (the “emotional affair”). It also includes any sexual contact that doesn’t cross the bar to be classified as adultery. Let’s see how that works with Matthew 5:27-32:

The only way a man can look on a woman with lust is if she’s already married or betrothed to be married, because again, the crime of adultery requires a married woman and the man who looks at the woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. A man cannot commit adultery with an unmarried woman. The eye that causes the man to sin is the eye that looks on the married woman with lust, the hand that causes the man to sin is the hand that touches her. The married woman who dresses immodestly out of a desire to stimulate the sexual interest of men is fornicating, it’s sexual immorality. The married woman who allows herself to be touched in a sexual manner by other men is fornicating and it is only for this reason, the sexual immorality or fornication, that Jesus said divorce was allowed.

I suggest the word “fornication” doesn’t mean what most people assume it means and as numerous posts on this blog have pointed out, there is a double standard in the Bible when it comes to men and women’s standards of behavior. Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are very clear: where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed. No Law = No Sin. It gets a bit more complicated when you take Romans 14 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (not doing the thing you know to be right is sin) into account, but this is dependent on the individual.

So, with no Law prohibiting or condemning the extra-marital sex of the man and woman in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we cannot call it a sin unless marriage is to be referred to as a punishment. This cannot be because God created marriage and called it good, therefore it is not fornication. It does not matter if the man is married (he’s authorized to take another wife) or single. In fact, the married man in such a situation cannot be committing adultery because the woman (not his wife) he was having sex with was single and not betrothed. To claim this behavior is contrary to the Law (sinful) is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2, the crime of adding to the Law.

Notice also that the Law was silent on a man having sex with a prostitute, and silent on a woman working as a prostitute. I’m not arguing that it’s right and good, but God didn’t declare it to be a sin. Why did Paul take pains to instruct the believers in 1st Corinthians 6 not to have sex with prostitutes if it was considered fornication (it wasn’t) and a sin (it wasn’t). Consider also that Paul said of joining the members of Christ with a whore “may it never be!” Even though the Law was silent on this, it is immorality for a Christian to do so. Just as Christians are forbidden to divorce their Christian wife, this is a restriction that applies to the Bondservants of Christ- not a change to the Law.

Again, I’m not claiming that Christians get a free pass on extra-marital sex because the Law doesn’t condemn it. However, it is impossible to understand what adultery and fornication are without examining the issue of sex outside the marriage and having pointed out that the Law contains no prohibitions or condemnation of pre-marital sex between persons eligible to marry, I have to also point out that Romans 14 says we are not to judge in such matters.

In the case of the married man who keeps a mistress on the side, is she a mistress or his concubine? I’d say concubine and I can’t see that it’s a sin according to what the Bible says. What I cannot approve of is the modern cultural response that in such cases the husband and wife should get divorced so he can marry his mistress. In such a case neither the wife nor the husband have legitimate grounds for divorce and I must say that I believe destroying a family with an illegitimate divorce is a sin no matter who does it. Anyone who wishes may feel free to argue the point, but make it an argument from Scripture rather than from emotion.

Since I already know I’ll have rocks thrown at me I may as well seal the deal:

Everything I’ve discussed in the last few posts has highlighted the double-standard between men and woman in the Bible, which is God’s ordained structure of authority. There are numerous restrictions on the behavior of women that are not placed on men, but before getting upset about that one must understand that God made both men and women and He understands exactly what women are really like. It is obvious to me that God placed the restrictions on women’s behavior that He did because women needed to be restrained.

I’ve been going over the definitions of key words in this post and it should emphasize the truth of the goal of the feminine imperative: to maximally restrict men’s sexual options while giving maximum freedom to women. Folks, this started in the church. Look at how marriage was redefined from the patriarchal multiple wives allowed model to the feminist requirement of monogamy. Look at how the words lust, adultery and fornication have been expanded and changed to apply to men in ways they were never meant to. Look at how women, who were never given the authority to divorce their husbands (except for 1st Cor. 7:15 and in the case of polygynous marriages Exodus 21:10), have created such a “right” out of thin air and use it frequently.

At the end of the day men have a great deal of freedom in how they may act, but with that freedom comes responsibility.