Month: May 2017

Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny

Artisanal Toad29 Comments

The Mission Of Man

The Lord God said to man, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.
That wasn’t a polite suggestion, it was a command. We have an interesting explanation of that, when following His teaching to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9, the disciples said to Jesus “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied and said

 

“Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

 

Eunuchs are men who are not physically capable of engaging in the act of marriage and to them the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” does not apply because they do not have the capacity to obey that command. The statement of the disciples that it was better not to marry is contradicted by the command to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus told them the only acceptable reason for a man avoid marriage and fatherhood was to become a “eunuch” (celibate) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And He was very careful to not make that a command, saying it was a statement only for those to whom it had been given.
In the early church there were some who believed that Christ was speaking literally in that passage and they castrated themselves. Origen (later declared to be a heretic) comes to mind as the primary example, but he was not the only one. There is now some argument as to whether Origen castrated himself, but there is no evidence to believe the testimony of men such as Eusebius was incorrect.

The Castration Of Origen
Jesus, responding to the statement by the Disciples that it was better not to marry, was reminding them of the obligation of the first command. Unless a man is choosing to be like Paul and not take a wife for the sake of having more time and energy to preach the Gospel, a man is still required to obey the command of be fruitful and multiply.

Marriage

Some will think I’m beating a dead horse with this, but it’s important. What is marriage? How does it start? What are the rules? How do we know this? Learn this and know it so you won’t be fooled.
Jesus cited Genesis 2:24 as the authority and definition of marriage. In Matthew 19:3-9, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him what the grounds for divorce were. Their exact words were “can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?” but the thrust of the question was the grounds for divorce.
Divorce was a procedure instituted by Moses and the relevant text is Deuteronomy 24:1

 

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house [emphasis added]

 

The question the Pharisees were really asking was what “indecency” meant. According to Moses, if a man found some “indecency” in his wife, before he thew her out of his house he had to give her a certificate of divorce and put it in her hand. The certificate of divorce was her second witness that she was not married and thus not committing adultery. Moses was responding to a situation in which men were discarding their wives, formalizing a situation that was already occurring. Instead of commanding that the men stop kicking their wives out of the home, he commanded that they do it in such way as to allow her to go on with life.
Note, however, that before one can divorce a woman one must first be married to her and Jesus quoted the authority on marriage for the Pharisees. First He quoted from Genesis 5:2 saying:

 

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

 

Then Jesus continued, quoting Genesis 2:24 saying:

 

‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’

 

And having quoted the authority on marriage, Jesus gave His teaching on the original standard of marriage regarding divorce:

 

“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

 

In other words, the original standard contained no grounds for divorce. That triggered the Pharisees and they demanded to know why Moses commanded them to give the woman a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus responded and made His point, again:

 

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]

 

Notice that He said Moses “permitted” them to divorce their wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way. The standard of marriage has existed from the beginning and it did not allow divorce. Having made His point and completely reframed the issue, He finally answered the question of the Pharisees, which was what the meaning of the word “indecency” was (the grounds for divorce), in accordance to the permission Moses gave. Jesus continued and said:

 

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

This is one of the most contentious passages in the New Testament and is one of the most misquoted, but it isn’t the subject of this post. I covered it in depth here and less exhaustively in the last post. Divorce was a rather contentious issue during the time of Jesus and there were two schools of thought. The Rabbi Shammai and the Rabbi Hillel were leaders of the two opposing factions who had radically opposing views on the acceptable grounds for divorce. According to Shammai a man could only divorce his wife for serious infractions. Hillel, on the other hand, taught that a man could divorce his wife for any trivial reason such as burning his meals.
It was to address this contentious issue that Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority to define how a marriage is initiated before giving His teaching on divorce: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Notice that the Pharisees made no objection to Jesus citing Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage, nor did they argue with His teaching. Not only did Jesus cite it as the authority for divorce but the Pharisees recognized it as such.
One of the critical insights Jesus provided was in verse 8, when He said

 

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]

 

All it takes is a brief glance at Genesis 2:24 to see that divorce was not mentioned. Understand that Genesis 2:24 is God’s grant of authority to the man to marry, but that grant of authority to marry contained no authority to end the marriage once it had begun. Likewise, there was no limit placed on the number of times a man may marry. It is these two points, both unstated, that inform us of what the commitment standard of marriage was designed to be. We know that because Jesus pointed it out for us.
  • The commitment of the man is permanent but non-exclusive.
  • The commitment of the woman is permanent and exclusive.
As to what Genesis 2:24 means, that has been covered repeatedly, most recently in Biblical Marriage. That is how marriage is begun from God’s perspective. There is, however, another perspective. It was observed a very long time ago that controlling a person’s expression of sexuality is to control the person. The church decided to use control of marriage to gain control of the nobility because marriage sat at the center of their multi-generational dynasties. Control of marriage gives control of families. Or, to put it another way:
When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

Modern Marriage

Modern marriage is a legal partnership defined as a monogamous relationship, governed by a mostly unwritten marriage contract and controlled by statutory law which can be dissolved for any reason or even no reason at all. The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract. Under current statutory law, legal practice and various other rules, women are significantly advantaged in any divorce proceeding. One of the best sources of real-world information about divorce and child custody is real-world divorce. This resource contains a state-by-state breakdown of the way divorce, alimony and child support actually works in that state. A must-read for every man.
NOTE: Don’t let the differences between states fool you. Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona, for example, have a statutory “covenant marriage” on their books. According to the law, under such a marriage the divorcing party typically has to attend marriage counseling and then must prove the other spouse cheated, is a felon, a drug user, or something like that. Or, they have to live separately for a specified period of time.
Does it remove the no-fault divorce issue? No. All she has to do is move to another state, wait for the statutory period of time (often three to six months) to prove residency and file for a no-fault divorce under that state’s laws. Back home, under the terms of the Covenant Marriage, hubby can do nothing. Depending on the circumstances, choosing the correct state to file for divorce can make a tremendous difference in how much she receives from him. And if he’s high-income, the rewards of jurisdiction shopping will be significant.
The basic facts of modern marriage are that currently there is about a 42% divorce rate. Women still file about 70% of the divorces, but in the other 30% where the man files, a significant percentage of those divorces were caused by the wife manipulating her husband into filing for divorce. As of 2014, government records indicate that 93% of the individuals collecting child support and alimony are women. Which means that if the couple is in a state that does not award 50-50 custody as standard, 93% of the time the husband will not get primary custody of the children and he will be forced to pay child support. With no fault divorce this process can be initiated at any time for any reason or no reason at all and there is no defense against it once the process is begun.
Note that I said “The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract.” Getting a divorce does NOT end the marriage contract, it converts it into a divorce contract and allows the courts to force performance (almost always by the man) in accordance with its decisions for many, many years to come.
If there are children, the woman has the option of converting her “marriage provisioning model” into a “child-support provisioning model” at any time and there is nothing her husband can do to stop her. He will be separated from his children and ordered by the court to pay a certain amount each month. If he fails to do, the prosecutors office (consider the fact it is the prosecutors office handling this) can terminate his professional licenses, rescind his passport, drivers license, hunting, fishing and boating licenses and have him incarcerated for failure to pay what was ordered.
The woman sits back and the state takes care of this, utilizing their resources and the police power of the state to enforce the mandatory payments. If the man becomes more successful in the future, the woman can petition the court to order an increase in the amount the man pays, but it is very rare that a court will reduce the amount a man has to pay. In fact, courts sometimes “impute” a higher income than the man actually has, claiming he should be able to earn that amount, then calculate the required payments based on that “imputed” amount.
Again, read Real World Divorce in order to understand what Modern Marriage is all about. In the following links, I’m pointing to Christian blogger Dalrock. He does a masterful job of pointing to the problems and laying them out clearly. He provides no solutions, but when it comes to explaining what the real world problems are, he is the best.
“Child Support And The Threat Point” (Archive; PDF)

 

The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay. Giving wives authority over their husbands is seen as not just good for the wife herself, but for the family and society as a whole.

 

“The Child Support Catastrophe” (Archive; PDF)

 

When the facade of “Its for the children!” is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children. If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at how it is enforced in practice.

 

“IntraSexual Competition And The Strong Independent Woman” (Archive; PDF)

 

[With respect to]… women’s intrasexual competition, what matters most is proving investment by a worthy man. In this sense the claim that “women are the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment” is incomplete. More accurately men are the gatekeepers of investment, a category which includes commitment.

 

Domestic Abuse as a Power Play: Welcome to Duluth

In addition to the divorce issues, there is a “parallel track” of domestic abuse/violence litigation and prosecution that presumes the woman to be the victim, the man the perpetrator and generally requires the man to prove himself innocent. This can be initiated at any time by dialing 911 and in most jurisdictions the police are required to arrest the man. Under the Duluth model of domestic abuse, a man can be convicted of domestic abuse for requiring a family budget which limits the amount each of them can spend. One thing I must say about Dalrock, as cringe-worthy as I find his commenters, the man absolutely nails it when it comes to documenting things like the Duluth Model:
  • “All Roads Lead To Duluth” (Archive; PDF)
  • “Setting The Record Straight On Duluth” (Archive; PDF)
  • “Another Case of the Duluth Model Working As Designed” (Archive; PDF)
Then we have the situation where things get REAL for men.
From that, we have a tale of two responses.
First, we have (again) Dalrock, in “The Crazy Dictator” (Archive; PDF):

 

what should he have done differently given a violent and unstable wife? The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him. (emphasis added)

 

Then we have Vox Day at Alpha Game:

 

The solution is simple. It is very simple and it’s very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life. (emphasis added)

 

Only an idiot would have any difficulty determining which is the superior solution. If it’s possible to save said marriage, which of these solutions will do so? Which of these solutions will cause the wife to respect her husband?

Why Would A Man Choose A Deal Like That?

As it turns out, this situation has produced the expected result: 70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are NOT MARRIED. Dr. Helen Smith wrote a book that observes and explains this phenomena called “Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream, And Why It Matters“.

 

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates.

 

It’s all so very simple, one would think. In fact, this is the impetus behind the MGTOW Cargo Cult. However, the desire to make men pay must find a way to make men pay.
Traditionally one could not get divorced unless one was married, an idea that goes all the way back to Moses. Given the extremely unequal treatment men receive in family court and the propensity of women to frivorce their husbands, a trend developed in which men began living with women but refusing to get married. (This is one of the reasons for the widespread use of domestic abuse/violence as a technique of control.) Faced with this situation in which men were not voluntarily submitting to marriage, courts began “deeming” a couple to be married if they lived together as husband and wife (shared a bed). Once the couple has been deemed to be married, the court proceeds with the divorce.
We see a further progression in this, in that the State of Alabama is in the process of removing any requirement for State sanction of marriages. On a popular level this is about the opposition to “gay marriage” but the reality is this will make all sexual relationships subject to being “deemed” to be a marriage, which can be followed by a court-supervised plundering. Expect to see other states follow suit. The truth is that since 1878, the Supreme Court has held (Meister v Moore) that Marriage is a “fundamental right” and laws requiring marriage licenses are “merely directory.” The term “directory” means that such a law is nothing more than a polite suggestion.

The Modern Marriage Solution

There is no point in listing all the problems with modern marriage because at the point of being dragged into court they don’t matter. Once in court, a divorce proceeding is very similar to being charged with some crime in Federal Court: 97% of the time you will lose. In a divorce proceeding you will lose 97% of the time for the “crime” of being in possession of a penis.
I leave it to others to dissect the various issues that cause women to file for divorce. Better is to lay out the solutions and why the solutions solve the problems.
First, maximize your potential and become fit to rule. That isn’t a requirement, it’s just very good advice. Following it will allow the man to solve problems before they become problems because as a rule, women do not desire to end a relationship with a man they are highly attracted to.
Second, ensure any woman you are courting is eligible to marry. It isn’t that difficult and the process itself is a compliance test for the woman that will give a good indication of whether she is actually attracted to you. If she’s a virgin the odds of divorce are around 5%, but if she’s not a virgin at least you know you’re not committing adultery.
If men did those two things the rate of divorce would plummet.
That’s where the standard marriage advice ends and it isn’t even “standard” advice. The problem with modern marriage is the structural problem of monogamy, which means an automatic monopoly for women. The marital standard of commitment designed by God called for a permanent but nonexclusive commitment on the part of the man and that critical design component is absent today.

Marital Structure Is The Critical Factor

Feminists understand that as a relationship structure, polygyny destroys feminism because by definition the structure highlights the fact that men and women are NOT equal. When one woman told her friends she was entering into a poly relationship, her friends went nuts. One of them thoughtfully summed up why “polygamy” was SO BAD:
Women automatically KNOW that the structure of a poly relationship allows the man to ‘next’ the women within the bounds of their relationship (it gives the man power and control). Women naturally compete but the only way they can compete for his attention is to give him what he wants: sweetness, attractiveness, submission and sexual availability (it “damages gender equality”). Nagging, withholding sex, fighting and passive aggressive bitchiness doesn’t get them anywhere because he can spend time with someone else (it “rips away” the things a SIW holds dear).
The husband has to be more aloof to manage relationships and the structure places him in a far more dominant position, which is attractive. It’s also provides immediate negative feedback when he slips and goes beta on them. Which helps keep him more attractively dominant and masculine. The collective attraction of the group validates their individual attraction to him (selection bias). The women can get their emotional needs met with each other, a group of friends who share a common interest in the success of the relationship. The opposition to such a relationship from outsiders creates an “us vs them” scenario, which draws them closer together.
And, no, the vast majority of men can’t do that. So what? Become the man who can if you want it. If you want a successful marriage and children, poly is the only thing left that doesn’t get automatically destroyed in family court. It has to be done carefully to avoid potential problems, but it’s not difficult. If a man can spin plates it’s just a matter of spinning said plates into a poly relationship. If they are attracted enough, they’ll do it. Once they realize they get more by sharing, not less, they don’t want to leave.
Women are always at the mercy of “the herd” of women who form their social circle of influence. Women need other women at an emotional level but the problem is the influential women in a wife’s life today are highly unlikely to be family members. They will be women who don’t have any interest in the wife having a successful marriage and in many cases they are opposed to it. With a polygynous marriage, women can have a self-contained “herd” within the marriage. Fellow-wives who are friends and share an interest in having a successful family.

Ask yourself: Why Does Everyone HATE Polygyny?

In a world in which we have the so-called “gay marriage” and all manner of BDSM D/s and DD/lg type relationships along with the tradcon mono-marriages, live-in arrangements, FWB relationships, casual sex and various mixtures of all that, why is it that polygyny is hated by everyone?
  • Modern churches will accept openly homosexual unions without blinking an eye.
  • Women with women? Yawn. Churches welcome them and love them.
  • Men with multiple women? What’s to see here?
  • People living together without being “married”? So what?
Nobody cares, but let a few Christian women marry one Christian man and settle down to get busy making babies… and everyone goes nuts. Churches that will welcome homosexuals and not let it bother them will get so uncomfortable with a poly marriage that they ask the poly folks to leave.
Satan desires to destroy families and he does this by causing all manner of marital conflict. His master-stoke was getting the church to throw out the Biblical standards of marriage and claim that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage. Not only that, but the church laid the “moral foundation” for feminism by claiming that men and women were held to equal standards of sexual morality. They did that 1500 years ago. 100 years ago women “won” suffrage and finally got the chance to completely screw everything up, which they promptly did.
Wizard’s First Rule states that “People will believe a lie because they either want it to be true or they fear it to be true. People are Stupid.”
The end result is there are a lot of rather sincerely wrong and misled Christians out there who believe the lie that God has a problem with polygyny. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it’s actually Satan who has a problem with polygyny. The reason is polygyny is the critical part of marriage that keeps the “monogamous” marriages working correctly.
People are stupid and they believe the lie even though there is nothing in the Bible to support it because they want it to be true. This is because of fear and envy on the part of the women and envy and jealousy on the part of the men. The real reason feminism hates polygyny is not only does polygyny destroy the belief that men and women are equal, but polygyny is far more beneficial to women than monogamy.
Given the declining number of attractive men, polygyny is more beneficial to women than monogamy because by grouping together they have the ability to get commitment from a quality man who would not be interested in any of them individually. With more wage-earners they have greater financial security. More help around the house means household chores get knocked out quickly, leaving more time for family. When children come the women are not alone and overwhelmed. So what if the man gets more sex with sexual variety? The women are the ones who win as long as he rules his family well.
With proper leadership, virtually every problem in modern marriage is mitigated by polygyny, for both men and women.

The Legal System

In the western world, polygyny is contrary to public policy, a throwback to the time when the church declared polygyny to be a sin. This means that a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage or treated as a marriage in the eyes of the law, because the law has declared marriage to be a monogamous relationship. This only becomes a factor when someone (typically a woman) desires that the union be treated as a marriage in order to obtain some advantage or benefit.
NOTE: I believe a marriage should continue as it begins unless there is a specific problem that makes it necessary to change. If a man wants more than one wife he should round them up and marry them together at the same time. This, as opposed to the idea of marrying a woman in a traditional marriage in which she thinks she is his “one and only” (has a monopoly), then later deciding to add another wife simply because he wants variety. The issue is expectations, not morality.
As long as the marriage is successful and everyone is satisfied, they are invisible in the eyes of the law because it is public policy that what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors is private. However, a problem occurs when one of the wives decides she is dissatisfied and perhaps wants out of the marriage. She looks at all the advantages women have in monogamous marriages and wants the same advantages applied to her, so she looks for a way for the courts to legally dissolve her marriage under the same rules that are applied to legal marriages. In all likelihood she may not understand the issues involved.
It is not until this point that the court system (which includes the courts, attorneys, social services, counselors and others) gets the chance to crack this nut and as a rule it begins when one of the women goes to see an attorney.
As noted above, courts are in the habit of “deeming” a couple to be married because they live together and share a bed (living as husband and wife). In some jurisdictions the courts have engaged in a “divide and conquer” strategy with polygynous marriages, “deeming” them to be a marriage characterized by “separate concurrent monogamous relationships”. This occurs, as a rule, because the family does not all live under the same roof. This usually results from a couple being married for some time and for whatever reason, the husband adds another wife.
The beauty of the “separate concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine is that it pits the women against each other. The first to file gets recognizes as the married partner, who (by definition) is the victim of her evil husband and deserves cash and prizes. The other woman is the “girlfriend” who gets nothing. Again, courts do not get the opportunity to review such arrangements unless and until the issue is placed before them, but this sort of ruling reverberates in the society and sows discord among women.

Understand The Environment, Do It Right

There is tremendous opposition to polygyny and if anyone wants to do this it must be done carefully in order to ensure that the entire structure isn’t destroyed later.
  • Round up the women first, then marry them as a group. Let there be no possibility of misunderstanding, establish that everyone is knowingly entering into a polygynous relationship from the beginning and with their signatures they acknowledge that fact.
  • Sign a written marital contract to govern the relationship. This contract will provide a written statement of the rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of each party to the marriage. It will answer basic questions concerning the who, what, where, when and how of the relationship. The contract must be complete and well-written, so assistance in drafting the document or at least a review of the completed document by a good contract attorney is essential. I will be writing at least one post covering contract issues.
  • Cohabitation is required, meaning living in and sharing the same household. The centerpiece of this cohabitation requires the husband and all wives sharing the same bed. The rule is: “Nobody Gets Married To Sleep Alone.” This is the critical litmus test that definitively proves a polygynous marriage. Do the wives share the same bed with their husband?
  • When there are children, all wives are “mom” to all children with generally equal authority as “mom” with respect to all children. That goes a long way toward homogenizing the family and I’d even recommend wives induce lactation so all the women can nurse the babies. Which means that all the wives will bond with all the babies.
  • Consider wrapping it in kink. In theory, by virtue of the wives sharing the same bed with their husband the arrangement is already wrapped in kink, but implications can be made that shift the focus away from a patriarchal domination of the marriage by the husband to the wives pursuit of orgasms through kinky group sex. “Nobody gets married to sleep alone” establishes all anyone else needs to know. After that “Nobody’s Business But Ours” is a good policy, but there are occasions when wrapping the relationship in kink is an excellent defense against 3rd party interference.
If the above points are accomplished, it is impossible to apply the “separate, concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine to the marriage. By any standard by which the man and any given woman are deemed to be married, the man is also married to the other wives and the wives are married to each other. This means that by definition, the union is a polygynous marriage in which the man is equally married to all wives at the same time. According to public policy a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage, which precludes a divorce action. In effect, polygyny presents the court with a poison pill it cannot swallow.

Blowback

Not being able to view the arrangement as a marriage, the marriage contract becomes an enforceable cohabitation agreement. It has often been said that it’s now easier to get out of a marriage than a cell phone contract and it’s true. Family law is the Alice In Wonderland area of law in which agreements such as pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements can be discarded at will if the judge decides to do so. However, the lunacy of family law can’t be applied to a polygynous marriage because it isn’t a marriage in the eyes of the law and cannot be deemed to be a marriage because that is contrary to public policy.
This situation tends to anger the courts, especially the judges, because correctly structured and arranged a polygynous marriage either eliminates or severely limits their power to do as they wish, which quite often is to punish the man. Judges are offended and angered when they cannot do as they wish.
The marriage contract’s severance clause must specifically state the contract converts to an enforceable cohabitation agreement in the event a court of competent jurisdiction declares the union not to be a marriage, which means that (gasp!) everyone will still be required to perform according to the agreement. The agreement must be fair, but this does not prevent using an agreed-upon vesting schedule to determine what assets would accrue to individuals at what point in the marriage if someone decides to leave; or, if in the event of the death of the husband, the wives decided to end the marriage.
If one woman wants to leave and she has no children, she can leave and the conditions are determined by the contract, there is nothing for the court to determine. If she has children, the courts will have the authority to determine who gets custody. The standard of child custody determination is known as “best interests of the child”.
Question: Is it in the best interests of the child to preserve the status quo, living in the family home with their father and at least one wife who has been caring for the child all his/her life, or should they be forced to leave and live with only their mother? If the other wives have children, is it in the best interests of the child to be separated not just from their father and the other “mom”, but also separated from his/her siblings and required to leave the family home in order to live alone with their mother?
Obviously, if all the wives have children by the husband, the issue of separating siblings becomes a rather difficult point because courts are loath to separate siblings and it is the established doctrine of the family courts to not separate siblings absent extraordinary circumstances. If a wife wants to leave and there are siblings involved, then it’s very unlikely she will get custody of her children. It follows that she will be required to pay child support to the father of her children, a significant negative incentive to leaving.
Does anyone wonder why such an arrangement is viewed by the courts as evil, wicked and oppressive to women? It uses established doctrines that were designed to punish men to protect the children from harm by eliminating any reward for divorce.
Under this arrangement the incentives are aligned to reward staying in the marriage and penalize leaving the marriage. Which is as it should be. In any case of alleged domestic violence or abuse, the dynamic is not one of “he said – she said” because there are multiple women involved.
At the end of the day, in general the only way a marriage gets the attention of a court is if one party to the marriage brings it before the court. However, it is also true that a 3rd party can make domestic violence/abuse allegations and create problems. All of the above is part of a strategy that creates incentives, both positive and negative, for the parties to the marriage to work out any problems on their own. Barring egregious behavior, as long as all parties support the contract and relationship, the contract itself can be a solid defense against any 3rd party claims of domestic violence/abuse.
Keep in mind, as a polygynous relationship, you wrote your own rules (your contract) specifically because what you’re doing is so unusual. The contract has a fair and equitable procedure by which any of the women can leave the marriage. It provides checks and balances. In other words, it provides recourse and the individuals waive their rights in specific areas in order to obtain what they desire.
The Duluth model of abuse can be specifically waived as a matter of equitable contract and as long as all parties support the contract, no-one else has standing to challenge the contract itself. This situation changes if one of the parties to the contract screams abuse, but even at that point the contract is a significant mitigating factor and an affirmative defense if it specifically waives the so-called “abuse” in plain language. This is where having more than one woman in the household is invaluable in terms of testimony.
For those who object to this characterization, read this. Pay particular attention to what Justice Scalia said in the Smith case, because we aren’t just talking about contracts, we’re talking about fundamental rights.
In closing, note that all of this assumes the man is not interested in ending the marriage and destroying the family. Consider all the reasons why a man might want to divorce his wife, and observe that virtually all of them revolve around monogamy and are solved by polygyny.

When Being A Ruler Isn’t Enough

Artisanal Toad10 Comments
One of the game-haters recently asked a question that deserves a response.

 

Hey Toad go and see if those same women who mocked and laughed at me will submit to their husbands if they lost their jobs, status, wealth, power, good looks etc…go on I dare ya

 

His question concerns the attractive women who aren’t aware he exists (or have him automatically assigned to their friendzone). The tragic part is we have a man who is mocked and laughed at by the objects of his desire, but he rejects the one thing that could and probably would turn his life around. So, he asks, what happens when the husbands of these attractive women lose their jobs, status, wealth, power, good looks, etc.?
What he doesn’t say is important and the question demonstrates his false belief that the attractive women he’s interested in are only attracted to peripheral stuff and not the man. This is similar to asking women what they’re attracted to in men and being told that they like nice guys who are honest, kind, never cheat and always play fair. The women tell him he should “just be himself” and everything will be fine. But there’s something missing here.
Confident, masculine dominance was not on his list because he refuses to acknowledge that women are attracted to confident, dominant masculinity. Probably because those are words no-one would use to describe him. Neither does he want to acknowledge that a man can lose it all and still have the dominant, masculine confidence that women admire and are attracted to. And what does the study of game teach? It teaches masculine dominance.
When a man gets wiped out, if his woman was attracted to him she’ll probably stick around. If it was his status, wealth, power, good looks, etc., that she was really attracted to, then she probably won’t. And it’s to that point that I’ve been speaking when I counsel that a man needs to make sure the woman is attracted to him and not his wallet. Sure, the Dubai Porta-Potties exist, but whores have always existed.
However, sometimes relationships don’t work out even when everything is working.

David Was Fit To Rule, But Even He Had Problems

King David was a man’s man and he was the King. When we talk about “alpha” it doesn’t get any more alpha than David. He had wealth, fame, power, status, looks and the honor of men. He was anointed by God to be the King over Israel and Judah. King Saul gave David his daughter Michal as his wife after David single-handedly killed 100 Philistines and brought Saul their foreskins to prove he’d done it. When David’s position got bad and he had to flee from Saul, Michal sided with her husband and helped him escape. David made his escape into the country and men gathered to him because he was a leader of men, but his wife Michal stayed behind.
The Bible doesn’t explain why Saul did it, but while David was in the wilderness Saul gave his daughter Michal (David’s wife) to a man named Paltiel to be his wife. After Saul died David became King over Israel but Saul’s son Ishbothesh became king over Israel. David demanded that Michal be returned to him as a requirement before he would even listen to any messages from Ishbothesh. David was King over Judah when he was reunited with his wife Michal.
After the civil war was over and David had consolidated the Kingdom (becoming King over both Israel and Judah), he brought the ark of the covenant back and was singing and dancing before the Lord as it came into Jerusalem. When Michal saw David dancing before the Lord in a linen tunic, she despised him. Later, she mocked him. David’s response was to put he away. He provided for her but Scripture records that she had no children. She despised him. Another way of saying that is she held him in contempt.
I’ve had anklebiters claim that Michal was justified in despising her husband because David “violated” his marriage to her by taking multiple other wives and concubines while he was out fighting against her father. No, that was not only his right, but she had zero expectation of being his one and only because polygyny was common and her own father proved that. He certainly didn’t limit himself to one woman. The point is we will never know why Michal despised him in her heart, but she did. She held him in contempt. What did David do? “Next!” He put her away and never gave her any children. He provided for her, but she was cut off from that point on.

What If Your Wife Decides To Leave?

Like David, you go on with your life. That’s what David did, and that’s what you’ll have to do too. In a nutshell, the best and wisest thing a man can do is Let Her Go. No begging, no pleading, no bargaining. Let her go. We don’t see David trying to “repair the relationship” but at the same time we don’t see any record of Michal sincerely apologizing to David for her disrespect and dishonor. We don’t see any record of her repentance and David went on with his life.
The question is, how does that work? What does God have to say about this? What about the legal system and the man’s responsibilities? This will go to divorce court, so how does that work? Churchians get bent out of shape about what God has to say about divorce but 99% of them don’t understand at all. There is a status issue involved with divorce because Slaves have Masters and their Masters can require things that the Law does not require.
1. For those who are not Christians a wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives, but if she commits adultery he may divorce her. The subject of divorce opens a can of worms because most have no idea what Scripture actually means. The central point of the instruction of Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32 (repeated in Matthew 19:9) is that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Consider what Jesus said in verse 32, which cannot mean what it appears to mean:

 

whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

 

MOSES permitted a man to divorce his wife (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) and the divorced woman was thereby unbound from her husband and free to remarry another man (but could not ever return to her original husband). Was the legitimately divorced woman committing adultery when she remarried? No. Was the man who married her committing adultery? No. Why? Divorce was the official procedure by which the woman was unbound from her husband and thus able to legitimately marry another man without committing adultery. The certificate of divorce testified to the fact she was divorced and able to remarry.
JESUS taught that marital unfaithfulness (sexual immorality) was the only acceptable reason for divorce that God would honor and any woman who was divorced by her husband for any other reason was not legitimately divorced, she was still married. According to God’s Law, no woman has the authority to divorce her husband for any reason, so any so-called “divorce” by the woman is illegitimate.
GOD said that adultery requires a married woman (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10). According to Jesus, if the man divorces his wife for any reason other than (“except for”) adultery, the divorce is illegitimate, the woman is still his wife and if she has sex with another man she commits adultery. If a man marries such a woman who has been illegitimately divorced, he commits adultery. Because God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.
THEREFORE, if Jesus taught that marrying ANY and EVERY divorced woman caused a man to commit adultery, then Jesus was guilty of adding to or subtracting from the Law, which is a sin (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Since obviously Jesus didn’t sin, He can only have been referring to illegitimately divorced women in verse 32 above. Those who claim Jesus taught that a marriage to ANY and EVERY divorced woman is adultery are claiming Jesus sinned, was not a perfect sacrifice and could not have been the Messiah. Which means they are idiots.
2. For a Christian married to a Christian, Christ gave His instruction at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. Wives are not to leave their husband (they have no authority to divorce), but if they do they are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to their husband. There are no grounds for a Christian wife to divorce her Christian husband no matter what he does and 1st Peter 3:1-2 is clear on this issue:

 

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

 

Christian husbands are forbidden to divorce their Christian wives for any reason with no exceptions. She might betray him, leave him and turn into a raging whore, walk into the courts of this world and “divorce” him, steal his children and alienate them from him, emotionally rape him, destroy him financially and use the police power of the State to force him to pay her for decades, possibly for life.
Those husbands who are under the Law have the right to divorce their wife if she commits adultery. The Risen Lord Jesus Christ issued a ruling for His slaves that require their marriage standard to be the original standard of Genesis 2:24, which means no divorce. As He said in Matthew 19, “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” The Christian man is married to his Christian wife for life, no exceptions, til death do they part.
Does this mean a wife can sentence her husband to celibacy by leaving him or refusing (in violation of the command at 1st Corinthians 7:3-5) to have sex with him? No, a man is authorized to have more than one wife and that has not changed. So what if she bails out? That’s on her head. She uses the legal system against you. That too is on her head. Do the best you can. You wifed it up, deal with it.
3. For a Christian married to an unbeliever, the rules are the same as if they were married to a believer, but if the unbeliever leaves them they are free. This instruction was given by Paul at 1st Corinthians 7:12-15 and it represents a ground-breaking new development in one area: a Christian woman can be freed from her marriage without being divorced for her adultery or by becoming a widow. Previously (under the Law) a woman could only be unbound (divorced) if she committed adultery. This instruction allows a Christian husband or wife to be unbound from their spouse if they are abandoned, which means (in the wife’s case) she was not at fault by committing adultery.

This raises a GIANT question.

The Christian wife is commanded not to separate from her husband (that prohibition includes emotional as well as physical separation), but if she does separate (for whatever reason) she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (not her “ex-husband”). The Christian husband is commanded not to “aphiémi“ his wife (send his wife away, divorce her). For two married Christians, there is no divorce and there are no exceptions. But, what if one of the so-called “Christian” spouses abandons the other?
Is the one who leaves (in violation of Scripture) really a Christian?
This is only critical in the case of an abandoned woman because a man can have more than one wife. In the case of our modern “unintended” marriages in which the foolish virgin (who was lied to and told sex doesn’t make her married) gives her virginity to a man not understanding that with that act she marries him. If her father cannot forbid that marriage (he’s dead, unavailable or unwilling) and the man is a Christian, obviously that man cannot divorce her for her adultery (and it’s almost guaranteed she’s had sex with other men, which means she committed adultery).
Christian husbands are commanded to live with their wives in an understanding way (1st Peter 3:7), which requires that the Christian husband live with his wife. The husband is commanded in Ephesians 5:25-27 to love his wife as Christ loved His church. These are very serious commands that cut to the heart of Christian living.

 

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

 

When this Christian woman who was married to that man when she gave him her virginity approaches him and he refuses to do his duty as her husband, where does that leave her? The question is whether that man is even a Christian. If he were a non-Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce for her adultery and she is no longer bound. However, can a Christian husband refuse to release her from her marriage to him and at the same time refuse to obey the commandments to live with her, love her and provide for her? No. He’s proving that he’s a liar when he claims to be a Christian and he’s abandoned her, which means she’s free.
And what about the Christian woman who is deceived by the feminist churchian rulers of her church and taught lies? She leaves her husband thinking she has grounds to do so and uses the court system to abuse him, causing great damage. If, in the day she learns she is wrong and returns to him in humble repentance, what if he refuses to reconcile himself to her? He is commanded to love her as Christ loved His church. Does Christ ever turn His back on a repentant sinner who comes to Him and asks for forgiveness? No.
The bottom line is that if you’re married you’re called to stay together, but the only person you have control over is you. If your spouse decides to destroy the marriage, they not only can but probably will. There is no magic bullet, no legal argument, no nothing. If they decide to thumb their nose at God, they will. Go on with your life.

Let Them Go

In the case of a wife who left, no good will come of trying to “win her back” because every effort will only make matters worse. The one exception is this: She must know that if she decides to return she may do so, but only in repentance.
In the case of a husband who left, a wife should sincerely ask him why he left and what she can do to change herself so that she’s pleasing to him. This might get a totally unacceptable and offensive response (to her) such as “lose weight and stop being a bitch” but in general, by the time a man has had it and he leaves, he’s done. I say the wife should do this because the vast majority would refuse. Of those who did, the vast majority would not change.
There are many who claim to be Christians but are uninterested in what God desires of them.
There are things a man can do to change the dynamic of his relationships, but it is not easy because:
The one who cares the least about the relationship will always have the most power over the relationship and within it.
This is wisdom that few can hear, but the truth of this can be observed in all walks of life. You must begin with the end in mind because some things can only be done or established in the beginning.

Begin With The End In Mind

It is often fatal to attempt to change the dynamic of a relationship after it is begun, so you should proceed as you began or end it. This requires knowledge and wisdom in order to know what is desired. You have heard it said that one should always consider the cost before you begin:

 

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’”

 

Answering the question of whether you have enough to pay the cost does not answer the question of whether it is a cost you are willing to pay or whether what you receive in return for that payment will be worth it. This is of critical importance when the subject is marriage. Did you study? Did you diligently seek wisdom? Have you not read that:

 

while I was still searching but not finding: I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

 

Again, it is written

 

Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, for she is only a woman.

 

And yet the fools of this generation look for “the one” and expect her to be upright and virtuous while alone, for the fools do not understand what teacher also said:

 

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

 

Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism

Artisanal Toad8 Comments

IT’S ALL ABOUT FRAME

In any relationship there is a balance of power and in general one person will be dominant and the other will submit to their dominance. In any given interaction between people the same dynamic tends to hold true. Dominance will be established over time by the individual (or group) who has the dominant frame. So, what is frame?
Frame is a specific interpretation of perceived reality and an individual’s frame is often determined by emotions rather than anything else. Think carefully about the words “perceived reality” and consider that an individual’s “perceived reality” does not require facts or even what we call reality.
What does this mean in the real world? Simply that how one looks at an issue determines how one feels about that issue. In the photo below we get two different frames (perspectives) of how to view the same physical act. Obviously it’s all in how you frame it.
Frame is also a matter of focus because the “frame” determines what is seen and what is not seen, which determines what is important and what is not important. How one frames anything will lead to a particular value judgment due to the emotional impact of the focus.

Fitness Testing and Frame

Women test for dominance and loyalty. By definition, a dominance test is a test to determine who has the strongest frame, because either the man enters the woman’s frame or she enters into his. Within that, the test is also a test for confidence because lack of confidence indicates a weak frame and a weak frame means a lack of confidence.
A frame is a particular view of perceived reality and that perception of reality doesn’t need to be established on facts, reason, experience or logic. For women, feelings are usually more important than anything else. Fitness testing takes many different forms and sometimes it isn’t an individual, it’s a group.

 

Once there was a professor who told dirty jokes in his class. The women decided he was a sexist pig and wanted to protest. They discussed it and decided the next time he started telling a dirty joke they’d all get up an leave the class.
Somehow the professor heard about their plan and at the next class he said “In Sweden a prostitute makes $2000 per night.” All the women stood up and started to leave the class. The professor shook his head and shouted “Hey! Ladies, there’s no need to hurry, the next scheduled flight to Sweden isn’t until day after tomorrow.”

 

Here is another example:

 

One evening an old farmer decided to walk down to his pond and look it over, as he hadn’t been there for a while. He grabbed a five gallon bucket so he could pick some fruit and bring it back. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee. As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond. He made the girls aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end. One of the women shouted “We’re not coming out until you leave!”
The old man frowned and said “I didn’t come down here to watch you girls swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked.” He held up the bucket. “I’m here to feed the alligator.”

 

While these are jokes, they illustrate the power of framing and the influence frame has on how an issue is perceived. In the first example, the professor didn’t argue about whether his statement was inappropriate. In fact, the protest the women planned was designed to not allow any argument in the matter. “He said something inappropriate and we walked out!” They were to be the judges of his behavior. Afterward, the fact they’d walked out would prove that whatever he said was inappropriate. The professor reframed their behavior completely: “I mentioned that prostitutes in Sweden made $2000 per night. They all got up and started leaving. I know they aren’t bigoted against sex workers so I can only conclude they immediately decided to go to Sweden.”
In the second example, the old farmer didn’t argue with them, he simply reframed the women’s view of the pond as being a place of safety to a place of danger. Which is more important, modesty or not getting eaten by an alligator? Notice that in these examples, perception is everything and the “facts” are subject to interpretation.
Another example of reframing is the argument of feminists about equal pay for equal work. Heartily agree that equal pay is a good thing and it’s horrible that white prostitutes make about three times as much as black prostitutes for the same work. They all do the same job and they’re all women, so there should be a law that sets the fees for prostitutes and guarantees that either the white prostitutes have to charge less or the black prostitutes have to charge more.
In this case, the feminist frame is one of equality and the false claim that men and women are equal and should be treated as interchangeable. The lie is exposed by shifting the view (frame) to the unequal pay between female white prostitutes and female black prostitutes. The funny part is the feminists will double down and claim it’s a matter of racism, not equality. Anything to avoid admitting their argument actually hurts women who desire to work and do a good job.
The subject might be equal pay, but the issue is the right to choose based on personal preferences and tastes, which is clearly demonstrated in the case of prostitutes.

Framing An Argument

The way an argument is framed will usually determine who gets to win the argument. Clarence Darrow was famous for saying that he would defend any case and win, regardless of the facts, if he got to decide the issue before the court. In other words, if he was allowed to frame the case, he’d win.
The argument about evolution is a good example. If evolution is argued from the frame of evidence (does the evidence support the general theory of evolution), in an evolution vs creation debate the creationists tend to win. That, by the way, isn’t opinion. The evolutionists will generally no longer debate the creationists. They would never admit the reason is because their lack of evidence for evolution is embarrassing when compared to the evidence for creationism, but it cannot be denied that creationists tend to win the debates, just like atheists get destroyed by the Christians.
Our recent commenter Jenny has been very helpful in this regard, so let’s look at her comment.

 

Toad- once again I don’t agree with your conclusions but I find your thought process very interesting and engaging. People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.” How’s that for a shit test?
Oh, and despite your “true word,” no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3. By not following all your “word” and just cheery picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all. The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.
Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

 

While it’s true that Jenny makes a factually deficient argument based almost solely on feminist rhetoric, the truth is she’s making a moral argument in which she’s confused. She thinks she’s pointing to a moral ontology when in fact she’s got a moral semantics problem.
Jenny presents a mish-mash of incoherent statements that she obviously feels strongly about and apparently she thinks this passes for an argument. First, she makes a declarative statement:

 

People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.”

 

Jenny’s argument was Snapper’s test with respect to how he chose to handle it. It was his test because he had to choose to either accept her frame and argue within her frame or reframe her argument and instead of arguing the semantics, argue the ontology. Or, he could have ignored her, not giving her any attention. His response to his test became his argument.
In this comment she’s reacting to my comments to Snapper, in which I described the earlier exchange she had with him as a shit test. My point to Snapper was that by arguing the details within her frame, he was conceding his frame to hers and she won. She claims she was making an argument and in truth she was. However, her argument was a test for Snapper that I labeled as a shit test for dominance, because it was. Jenny claims identifying it as such is a sign of “insecurity” because I’m fearful of losing my “manhood” to the mental strength that makes her a strong independent woman.
With any conflict we begin with a status quo that represents our system of beliefs, because we do not exist within a vacuum. When someone makes an argument that attacks that system of beliefs, such an attack is an argument on the part of the one making it and a test for the individual receiving it. How the attack is dealt with tends to establish who wins.
I chose not to respond to Jenny’s original comment because I don’t expect anyone to agree with me and I don’t even expect them to understand. She’s free to disagree and I’m free to ignore her. However, Jenny wanted me to engage so she again brought forth her argument. In doing so, she demonstrated she has no idea who she is talking to. She stated:

 

no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3. By not following all your “word” and just cherry picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all.

 

At a philosophical level, I’m an ontological reductionist. That is, someone who deals with reality and tries to reduce everything to its basic essence in order to make it easy to understand. The simple reason is that virtually everyone has been lied to all their lives about practically everything and in order to get them to understand what the truth is, it has to be presented clearly and concisely.

The Frame Built by Crazy Aunt Andrea

Jenny’s argument is incoherent and that problem is compounded by the fact she’s apparently woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says. In addition, Jenny does not know me in real life and has no clue how I live my life. Yet, she makes certain assumptions, claims she’s correct in her assumptions and on that basis claims I’m weak, feeble and insecure. Which is actually hilarious for everyone who knows me because my worst enemies would laugh at such an assertion.
As the regular readers here already know, I am a complete asshole and I truly don’t care what other people think. God, however, is a different matter because I do care what God thinks of my behavior. As I said, Jenny is obviously rather ignorant of what the Bible says, so let’s see how her assumptions play out. I have most certainly eaten lobster and will again, as well as crabs, shrimp, crawfish, clams, oysters and other seafood that are forbidden by the Law. However, Jenny has obviously never read Colossians 2:16 and since I’ve never written a post about this, I’ll quote it now.

 

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day

 

According to the Apostle Paul, the dietary laws (as well as keeping the Sabbath, the feasts and holy days) are specific issues that can be disregarded for Christians.
Then there’s the issue of “sex before marriage” and the regular readers are probably rolling on the floor with laughter at this one. Jenny, seriously, you probably think I’m a churchian, but you have no idea. Just as an example of the many posts I’ve done on this subject, take a look at these:
Marriage, Whores and Churchians (scroll down for the section on premarital sex)
It doesn’t stop there because practically everyone has been lied to all their lives about what the Bible actually says, so what about other issues like lesbians, prostitutes and having more than one wife?
Prostitutes And Lesbians Rugmunching isn’t a sin. Neither is prostitution.
Polygyny (more than one wife) Polygyny and the idiot arguments against it.
Polygyny & Female Competition Socially Imposed Monogamy hurts women.
Those are specific posts that provide a lot of detail. For a general outline on what the Bible actually says about sexual morality, see the page titled “Sexual Morality” in the blog header. According to the Bible I’ve never been married, so obviously all the sex I’ve ever had has been “before marriage” and about 99.99% of it was adultery. That’s according to what the Bible actually says. According to churchians I only did the premarital thing back when I was a heathen and the only time I committed adultery was with that one woman who didn’t tell me she was married until the 3rd or 4th time. And I dumped her for it.
Now that I understand what the Bible actually says about who I’m authorized to have sex with, I developed a process to deal with it. It’s resulted in some interesting conversations and even more interesting experiences, but the bottom line is if she’s attracted she’ll do it. If she’s not, she won’t and there’s no point for a man to continue talking to another man’s wife. That is what we call a compliance test.
As far as tattoos are concerned, there are specific prohibitions at Leviticus 19:27-28 against getting tattoos as well as “rounding off the side-growth” of the head or harming the edges of the beard. I don’t have any violations of this. It’s actually funny, back in the day I had the entire crew of unwashed heathens with me partying at the home of the country’s most famous tattoo artist. He inked the entire crew except for me. I never had any use for body graffiti.
So no, I’m not cherry-picking Scripture, which is probably why most Christians and practically all churchians hate what I write about. Witness the recent argument with Cybersith1- he objects that I’m calling the men out for their behavior. However, while the individual’s obedience to God will impact them at some point, their obedience or lack of obedience does not impact the truth of God’s existence or God’s requirements of mankind. I write for Christians who want to be obedient to the God they serve and it’s my desire to be a thorn in the flesh of those who claim to be Christians but don’t want to obey the God they claim to serve. I suppose every needs a hobby.
Churchians sing songs about their boyfriend Jesus and how they’re just worms who don’t deserve the grace they’ve been given. Really? Christ died for a pile of worms? That’s horseshit. Neither do I subscribe to the gospel of health, wealth and prosperity mixed up with the modern day dharma that is the churchian concept of love. Look at what Jesus actually said about being one of His followers:

 

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

 

That’s not for the weak, feeble and insecure, which is why preachers don’t quote that passage, just like they don’t talk about the Phineas Priests.
Jenny might not like the fact that God made woman from man, for man, to be used by man in order to accomplish his mission, but that is the testimony of Scripture. Even worse, it does not matter whether the man is obedient to God or not, the woman is still commanded to submit to him. 1st Peter 3:1-2 says

 

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

 

Jenny’s frame for this argument is that people who think for themselves are mentally strong (like her!) but men who believe the Bible (like me) are “weak, feeble and insecure.” It appears that her outlook is the same as that of the novelist Harry Harrison, who sees Christianity as a religion for slaves rather than the faith of slaves. Which is another case of semantics because everyone is a slave and the only freedom anyone has is the freedom of choosing one’s master.
All of which is incomprehensible to mindless churchians and those outside the church.

Only Two Sources For Law

Take all the philosophy and theology and everything else, boil it all down and we’re left with only two sources of authority. If God exists and He is the Creator of everything (He says He is) then He has the right to make the rules. And He did, which is what is known as “God’s Law”. But, if there is no God, then everyone is equal and the only way anyone’s ideas of right and wrong are applicable to others is if they can enforce them. This is the idea of “might makes right” and is known as “the Law of the Jungle”.
With that in mind, let’s continue with Jenny’s argument.

 

The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.

 

This is patently ridiculous because anyone with any perception at all knows that strength of mind or body is irrelevant when it comes to ruling. The powerful rule. They derive their power from a combination of economic, political and military force at their command. The biggest lie in America is the “American Dream” that you can grow up to be anything. No. Regardless of their character, the sons of the wealthy will sit on the boards of directors, reap the profits and exercise control. Those who were not born to privilege will (as a rule) serve the ones who were. The individual like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezzos and Mark Zuckerberg are the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

 

Jenny is attempting to claim that not only am I physically weak, feeble and insecure, I’m weak of mind and therefore I hate educated women. Given what she cited as her “argument”, it’s no surprise that her conclusion is what is known as a “non sequitur“.
Throughout history, the most common form of government has been a monarchy. As a rule, a monarchy was put in place when an exceptional man who was physically strong, intelligent and ambitious gathered a group of other strong men around him and took over an area by force. Conquest is the word we’re looking for and they gained the right to rule by force of arms. If that leader was wise and fit to rule, then the area he conquered prospered and he lived his life and passed on the franchise to his kids.
A system of nobility was thus established whereby the leader was the king, his stalwarts were nobles and his thugs and headbreakers became knights. The nobles possessed hereditary titles and their control of the productive assets and the people of their fife gave these individuals not only physical (military) power but also economic power as well. The combination of military and economic force gave these individuals political power. As time passed, economic power alone was able to generate political power and political power granted military power.
Case in point? Donald J. Trump. He leveraged his economic power into political power which gave him military power. How did he get his economic power? He inherited wealth and did a good job producing more.
And what was it that Trump said about women?
But what about all those strong, independent women? Where are the female rulers? Can we find any historical queens who became queen on their own merits, rather than inheriting the throne from their husband or father? There are some historical records of queens in various countries, some of them great ones. However, I know of none of them that didn’t get the throne handed to them by a relative and they only got it by virtue of being in the line of succession. Not by being mentally strong.
Being mentally strong is not enough for a man and especially not for a woman (although a woman can get a lot of mileage out of good looks and a mercenary attitude combined with high intelligence). Without a system that provides a mechanism for the mentally strong to exercise their economic, political and military power, their mental strength is useless. Without at least economic power (or inherited political and military power), mental strength doesn’t go any further than physical strength (although they work well together).
This, for example, is a mentally strong and independent woman who discovered that for all her mental strength, she wasn’t capable of refusing to submit to one overweight cop with an IQ of less than 100. And inside the jail? Mental strength is good but physical strength is far better. When it comes to the law of the jungle, might makes right and the idea that mentally strong women actually rule is a fantasy.
The fact is, only within a system of enforced morality in which right and wrong is firmly established by law (such as the one we have, which is founded on Christianity) do women get treated as anything other than cattle. Systems like that are put in place through the application of force, which requires strength. The brute strength of men, not women.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Despite being incoherent, Jenny’s argument is actually a good one for churchians, but not for the reasons she thinks. It’s true that most churchian men are rather weak individuals who submit to their women. The reason is the feminist churchian system stomps the masculinity out of them as boys and young men and teaches them to be weak and repulsive to women. They are taught the toxic doctrines of “Servant Leadership” and “Mutual Submission” and encouraged to worship their women.
The modern churchian cannot handle real submission of wives in a monogamous marriage, much less submission in a polygynous marriage and the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s physical discipline scares them to death. Interestingly, the women don’t have much of a problem with it once they figure out what is in it for them, but even mentioning any of that drives the men right over the edge. The only thing that causes worse meltdowns is the point that having sex with a virgin is to marry her. Which means that if he didn’t get her virginity when he married her, the wedding was a fraud and he’s living in adultery with another man’s wife. Oops!

Jenny:

This isn’t a churchian blog and I’m not a churchian. I’m a man who carefully studied the Bible and slowly pieced together what it says about sexual morality. I’m not an evangelist and I’m not here to tell you about Jesus, because you’ve either got him in your heart or you don’t. What I do here is explain what the Bible actually says about sexual morality.
Consider this:
  1. God is the Creator of mankind and He knows men and women better than anyone.
  2. As Creator, God has the right to order His creation as He sees fit.
  3. God gave His Law to man, in which He rewards obedience and punishes disobedience.
  4. God’s instruction on marriage is complete and satisfies the needs of men, women and children in the family.
  5. Each part of God’s marriage plan is necessary for the plan to work as intended.
  6. Modification to God’s plan by removing or adding parts has caused unmet needs.
  7. The vast majority of the marital problems today result from not following God’s plan.
  8. God’s original design is the only real solution to the marriage problems today.
  9. Only by understanding God’s original design can it be successfully implemented.
The logic of that syllogism is tight and if point #1 is accepted none of the other points can reasonably be questioned. As for the issue of whether there is a God, the atheists don’t have much confidence in themselves, for good reason: When they debate Christians they lose. As far as other religions such as islam, they get destroyed even worse than the atheists when they take on Christians. Islam is so incoherent, so easy to refute and so obviously inferior to Christianity that the default position of Muslims has been to kill anyone who left islam to become a Christian. However, whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant to me, as well as whether you are or are not a Christian. I teach what the Bible says about sexual morality. What you do with it is up to you.
Everything in the logical syllogism above is fine for most Christians until we get to the nitty-gritty of what God’s plan for marriage actually is. The simple truth is that God’s plan for marriage has been covered up and lied about for over 1500 years. I’ve written quite a bit about that and quoted definitive histories regarding the subject. The fact that the church threw out God’s plan for marriage and replaced it with a combination of pagan practice, stoic philosophy and Roman law is indisputable. The way that was done was by re-defining the meaning of words and telling lots of lies so the “new” plan fit. And they “interpreted” a lot of passages in a very self-serving fashion. Yet no-one ever questioned that Genesis 2:24 was the law of marriage that defines what marriage is, they simply claimed it meant something different and after more than a thousand years of killing anyone who disagreed with them (heretics), everyone believes it now.
If you were to read my debate with whysoserious? you’ll notice that when he couldn’t refute my argument concerning what the words of Genesis 2:24 really meant, he went through a steady progression of argument that devolved into saying that we really couldn’t know anything about marriage at all because Scripture doesn’t tell us what it is. Which is preposterous.
The information on this blog is a source of extreme embarrassment to churchians everywhere because they cannot refute it and it exposes their traditional teachings as a lie. Patriarchy? Movements like “quiverful” are a joke and they aren’t patriarchal because they don’t know what patriarchal is. They espouse a parody of patriarchy that places the wives in a very difficult position and when the women don’t measure up, they are blamed. But not the men.
You mentioned manhood being threatened. The truth is that the vast majority of feminist churchians are not comfortable with masculinity, are frightened of male dominance and in general are thoroughly feminized. The women find such men repulsive but are placed in a position whereby they are told to submit to a man they don’t respect because they’re required to. And, naturally, they rebel against that.
Perhaps you’re opposed to Christianity. If you wanted to embarrass Christians for their ignorance and unintended hypocrisy, it’s pretty easy because even the professional Christians don’t know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality. Go to the Sexual Morality page linked in the blog header, print that out and memorize it. Know what those verses say and how they fit together and with that, you’ll have all the ammunition you need to embarrass virtually any churchian you meet, using nothing but the information straight from the Bible. Keep in mind that they’re extremely sensitive to this because at least 80% of them are living in adultery. That can be fixed but first they have to acknowledge the truth. You are probably living in adultery too, but if you don’t believe in God, why would His rules on what constitutes adultery be an issue?
As an aside, do you know why “God damn you to hell” is a blasphemy? The reason is that God doesn’t damn anyone, they do it to themselves. Everyone has violated God’s Law and the penalty for that is death. God sent His only son on a suicide mission and then sat on His throne and watched His innocent son get crucified and die a horrible death in order that people like you and me could live, because with that act His Son paid the price for everyone. The unforgivable sin is to refuse to accept the free gift while you have the chance, to reject the sacrifice that Christ made. According to God, one day everyone will be judged and at that point it’s too late.
So, if you choose to reject God’s Word because you’re mentally strong, what’s a bit of adultery? Your body, your choice, right? Unintended pregnancy? Abort the little bastard! If God doesn’t exist and you’re mentally strong you can make up your own rules. And if anyone says you’re going to hell then you can agree (why argue about their fantasies?) and tell them you’re determined to enjoy the trip. Right? You go girl. YOLO!
Anyway, you’ll find that abusing misinformed churchians gets boring quickly and is actually pretty cruel and leaves you feeling depressed, because virtually all of these folks have been lied to all their lives. Genuinely, sincerely lied to by people they viewed as good and godly men who hold positions of authority, because these lies go back over 1500 years.
OTOH, maybe you’re a Christian of one flavor or another, but enough of a feminist that the Biblical truth I’m pointing at just rubs you the wrong way. If that’s the case you need to investigate this carefully and choose which side of the fence you want to be on. Straddling the fence doesn’t give you the benefits of being on either side and eventually you wind up with a sore crotch. Who needs that? There are far more pleasurable ways to get a sore crotch that God doesn’t have a problem with.
At the end of the day, though, the Bible is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. You don’t get a Savior without getting a Master who requires obedience. He made you and gave you a job to do, which is His right. As it is written, “Does the pot speak back to the potter?” Part and parcel of that is the fact that woman was created from man, for man, to be used by man as a helper to complete his mission. Later, in judgment, God said of women, “he shall rule over you.”
The only possible question is whether God changes. According to His testimony, the answer is no.
Again, I don’t expect you to agree with me, I don’t even expect you to understand.

Women’s Opinions On Submission and Discipline

Artisanal Toad46 Comments

A Request For Women’s Opinions On Submission And Discipline

As regular readers here know, I’ve had several posts on hypergamy from a Biblical point of view. I have taken the unpopular position that hypergamy isn’t an evolutionary development in women, but is rather part of God’s judgment on women contained in Genesis 3:16. I’ve posted multiple times on this, The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve and more recently, Hypergamy and Genesis 3:16 A Man Must Be Fit To Rule.
Essentially, I make the argument that women respond to men and a woman will only have desire (true sexual desire) for a man who she determines is fit to rule over her. I loosely define “fit to rule” as being a confident, masculine and dominant man who embodies good character traits such as honesty, loyalty, courage, faithfulness and wisdom. I say loosely because different women are attracted to different things, but in general all women are attracted to masculine, confidently dominant men.
Based on my understanding of what Genesis 3:16 says, I believe it’s incumbent upon a man to develop himself and become fit to rule because God said that a woman’s desire will be for a man who is fit to rule over her. As a result I’ve written a half-dozen posts or more on that subject encouraging men to maximize their potential.
Then comes the tricky question of a woman’s submission. I’ve frequently made the point that submission isn’t obedience. Obedience is following the rules, submission is accepting accountability for one’s actions and the consequences for violating the rules. And, as I’ve pointed out before, the only examples of how Christ loves His church involve spanking. Revelation 3:19 is the clearest and most succinct.
“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline. Be zealous therefore and repent!”
Specific to physical discipline, in You Need To Be Spanked I made the point that

 

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

 

I also made the point in 50 Shades of Biblical Marriage that the rules on marriage (taken from the Bible) actually read like a BDSM-style D/s relationship contract. In other words, a Biblical marriage pretty much requires a dominant man because the woman is commanded to be a submissive over and over again.

Not Everyone Agrees

Commenter Cybersith1 claims women are demon-infested and won’t willingly submit to a man’s authority.

 

women have an inbuilt Jezebelic demonic rebellious attitude towards male authority and will NEVER willingly submit.

 

In addition, his position is that men don’t have any responsibility in whether a woman desires to submit to her man.

 

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

 

(I read that to some wives I know and their response was peals of laughter.)
Even though his argument is incoherent (is he advocating beating them into submission?), it’s a common theme amongst a certain flavor of churchians. They can’t understand why women find them unattractive, they claim women should be attracted to them because they’re “godly men” and then they get upset when it doesn’t happen. And the ones who managed to get married get really upset when their wife won’t submit to them, which usually means “have sex with him”. As a rule she doesn’t want to because she finds his “servant leadership” and “mutual submission” repulsive. Castrated males are simply repulsive.
In my response to his argument I related an example of my experience with women and submission (if they’re attracted to me they don’t have any problem with submission), but I thought it would be good for the women to chime in on this. Especially those of you who blog about this sort of thing.
So, if any of you women readers would care to offer your thoughts on submission and discipline, why you might or might not want to submit to your man and what that might involve, go to the argument room with Cybersith1 and do so in the comments there. He seems to be the sort of man who listens to women.

Comments About Submission and Discipline Here