Author: Artisanal Toad

The Righteousness Of Prostitutes And Lesbians

Artisanal Toad40 Comments
prostitutes
Let’s talk about righteous prostitutes. Seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to Christians, but that’s because they don’t know what the word “righteous” means. I’ll use the King James definition here, but there are other points of reference:

RIGHTEOUS, a. ri’chus.
1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man.

Is the world’s oldest profession a righteous one? According to that definition of righteousness, if a farmer is in accordance to the divine Law and observant of the divine commands, the only question is whether he’s holy at heart. That questions the meaning of holiness, which hinges on the concept of sin. God is Holy, He does not sin. Christ is Holy, He does not sin. Christians are Holy, because they are imputed (judged) to have the righteousness (the state of being without sin) of Christ.
So, can a man be a righteous farmer? The answer is yes, as long as he is obedient to the divine Law and commands. In accordance with the divine Law, the farmer is not to plow his field with an ox and an ass yoked together, nor is he to mix his seed and there are other restrictions as well. He is commanded to give his land a Sabbath rest every 7th year and allow gleaners to follow the harvest as well as other commands. These restrictions and commands exist because God regulated farming. If the farmer is in accordance with the Divine Law and commands, the question is whether he is holy in heart. The only person who can judge that is God and not only that, but we are commanded not to judge such issues.
Can a woman be a righteous prostitute? The answer is yes. In keeping with the Divine Law, as long as she is not involved in idolatry (meaning she’s selling her body in a money/goods transaction) AND she is eligible to marry the man she is servicing (no adultery/incest), there is no transgression of either Divine Law or Command. The reason is simple: there is no prohibition and without a prohibition there is no violation and with no violation there is no sin imputed. In other words, the woman is not in sin for selling her body. That is true or the Apostle Paul lied in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.
The typical knee-jerk reaction of Churchians is to Google “bible verse that prohibits prostitution” and they get to 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. They glance at it and claim it forbids women from being prostitutes. Actually, it doesn’t. That prohibition is aimed directly at the men, forbidding only Christian men from using the services of prostitutes. The men were already forbidden to use the cult prostitutes involved in idolatry, this was a specific prohibition that forbid Christian men the use of righteous prostitutes.
Obviously a woman could be an unrighteous prostitute. She could be married and every customer would be another case of adultery. She could provide her services as part of the worship of foreign gods, which is idolatry. However, just as a woman can be a righteous wife, she can also be an adulteress.

Why Are Christian Men Forbidden To Use Prostitutes?

If prostitution can be a righteous and moral activity, why was using prostitutes forbidden to Christian men? When one considers what Christian wives are like, it seems rather unfair to the men. The argument goes along the lines of saying that there must be something wrong with the prostitutes if the activity was forbidden. That’s a great Churchian argument, but the fact is, the men were forbidden to use prostitutes precisely because the prostitutes were not doing anything wrong.
The act of sexual intercourse in which the man penetrates the woman is, by definition, the act of marriage. With that act the man gives his consent and agreement to marry, as well as his commitment in marriage to the woman he is penetrating. Because of that, there is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible that forbids a man from having sexual intercourse with a woman who is eligible for him to marry. Obviously, any restriction on sexual intercourse between a man and woman eligible to marry each other is a restriction on the man’s authority to initiate marriage.
At the time when Paul sent his letter to the Church at Corinth, the men knew they were not engaged in an illicit or otherwise immoral activity when they paid a prostitute to have sex with her. They were well aware that some prostitutes were doing nothing wrong in selling their bodies, while other prostitutes were adulteresses and/or idolaters.
The men used the services of a prostitute because she was eligible to marry and at the same time (by virtue of her “profession”) the man knew that sexual activity would not result in a marriage. In other words, men had the right to have sex with any eligible woman because they have the authority to initiate marriage, but they were abusing that authority by having sex with the one group of women who would not consent to marry them. They were using the act of marriage, purely for pleasure, in such a way that it could not possibly result in marriage.
Which meant they were having their sexual needs met and felt no pressure to take on the responsibilities of being a husband and father by getting married. The women were not abusing their authority because they had no authority to abuse.

Men And Women ARE NOT Equal

There is no restriction or prohibition anywhere in the Law that forbids a woman who is eligible to marry from becoming a prostitute or selling her body to any man she is eligible to marry. There is nothing in the New Testament that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body as long as she is eligible to marry. Call it whatever you want, but women get a pass on that. Men, not so much. As I have pointed out before, the only prohibition on the use of prostitutes found anywhere in the Bible is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, and that prohibition is specific to Christian men. The prohibition that forbids Christian men from using prostitutes does not apply to non-Christian men and has nothing to do with women.

Men and Women Have Different Standards of Sexual Morality

A man is free to have more than one wife at the same time because Genesis 2:24 gave the authority to initiate marriage to the man but did not limit that authority to a single woman. Because a man initiates marriage with the act of sex, a man is free to have sex with any woman who is eligible to marry him. A woman, once bound in marriage, may only have sex with her husband and no other man. If she has sex with any other man she commits adultery. The only way a man can commit adultery is if he has sex with another man’s wife. It does not matter if the man is married or not, a man can only commit adultery if the woman is the wife of another man.
God said if a man lies with a man as with a woman it’s an abomination and a death penalty offense. If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense. What did God not forbid, and barely even mentioned at all? Women with women. There is no general prohibition on anything sexual that women might do with women. In fact, the incest statutes that apply to polygamy (Leviticus 18:17-18) presume that wives in a poly marriage will have sexual contact. After all, nobody gets married to sleep alone. As long as there’s no incest involved, God doesn’t care about sexual activity between women and whatever that might be is not a sin.

Why Do Christians Hate Girl-Girl Sexual Contact?

cute-lesbians That really is a valid question: why do churchians get so bent out of shape about this? Why are they so filled with hate?
First, it’s because they’ve been taught that Romans 1:26 somehow “forbid” lesbian sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romans 1:26 doesn’t even mention sex between women, it says that certain women were being punished by God with the degrading passion of rejecting the natural function of women.
What is the natural function of women? Well, what was Eve created for? Was Eve created to be a “helpmeet” and wife and mother to Adam, or was Eve created to be Adam’s sex toy? The only way that “rejecting the natural function of women” can be interpreted as lesbian sex is if the natural function of women is to be a sex toy for men.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but anything in the New Testament that goes beyond what is already in the Law can only apply to the church. Romans 1:26 is descriptive, with Paul describing the wrath of God being poured out on unbelievers who refuse to acknowledge, honor and worship their Creator. Clearly Romans 1:26 does not refer to the church and there is nothing wrong with a Christian woman engaging in sexual activity with another woman, just like there is nothing in the Bible that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body. There might be specific issues of conscience and faith that apply to individual women, but that’s a conscience issue for the individual to decide and we are commanded not to judge their decision.
The second reason is that it’s not about the women, it’s all about the lack of attractive men. Romans 1:26 describes women with a degrading passion that causes said women to reject being a wife and mother under a man’s authority. In other words, it’s a rejection of men, but it’s also a refusal to settle for men that aren’t desirable. Some women settle for men they aren’t that attracted to. Other women refuse to settle for a man they aren’t attracted to and settle for another woman instead. In both cases the women can’t get what they want so they settle for something else. And when I put it like that it gives everyone a case of heartburn. The men are butthurt at being rejected because it really is a rejection of their lack of masculine attractiveness. The women are butthurt, claiming they don’t want a man, they prefer women… right up until an attractive man shows them some interest. Then they discover they’re actually bisexual. Or they were confused, it was just a phase they were going through, they’re actually straight. Ooops.
tumblr_mu0c8bfl6p1rtil2yo1_1280The third reason is that women are pretty vicious when it comes to judging others, especially other women. And no matter how much of a witch she is with her husband, a wife can still look down her nose at girls who are with girls. It doesn’t matter what the details are, churchians are programmed to throw rocks and their leaders are expected to point to the right group or person.
Understanding the socio-sexual dynamics of what is happening helps one to understand why most lesbians are fat and ugly. The truth is that good-looking lesbians are very rare. The fact lesbians tend to be fat and ugly is because they were never able to attract the attention of a man they found attractive. And the men they were attracted to probably didn’t treat them well. Can you say “pump and dump?” Lots of room for embarrassment and humiliation in there. But rather than settle for a man they weren’t attracted to (a man in their league), they’d rather be with another woman.
article-2591430-1ca6585600000578-182_306x423 While previous photos have shown femmes, the “lipstick lesbians” who probably haven’t given up on the idea of attracting the attention of a man they’re interested in, most “lesbians” finally give up on men completely. After that they tend to get fatter and make themselves as ugly as possible.
Lots of feminists will howl at that and while there are exceptions, that’s pretty much the general rule. Which is one more reason why lesbians are angry with men. They couldn’t get what they wanted.
But, at the end of the day, does not getting what they wanted and settling for something else make them bad people? No. Are they “In Sin?” No. Have they done anything morally wrong? No. And the funny part is the even though lesbian porn seems to be really popular with men, the truth is that most lesbians seldom actually do that sort of thing. They fight a lot, as evidenced by the fact that the incidence of domestic violence between lesbians is really, really high.
When we compare the two issues of prostitution and female-female sexual contact, we can see that both can be completely righteous and moral activities for Christian women and both of them have traditionally been hated by the churchians because churchians hate sex. They always have.
More than that, however, is they do not like it when God’s ideas of how things should be don’t agree with theirs. God chose to prohibit the things He chose to prohibit, which means He chose not to prohibit those things He chose not to prohibit. God did not forget, He did not overlook anything, He did not get confused.

What About
Issues of Conscience?

The clearest statements on issue of conscience and sin are found at Romans 14:23 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (If you know the right thing to do and do not do it, that is sin to you). Those things that are forbidden in the law are forbidden for everyone. However, even though a person can be within the Divine Law, if they violate their conscience they are in sin. Likewise, because someone is doing something by faith that they know is right for them, they are not in sin and both Paul and James were very specific: who are you to judge your neighbor? They were speaking of judging someone over issues of conscience.
The issues discussed in this post are not issues of Divine Law because the Law does not condemn or prohibit prostitution or sexual contact between women (unless it’s incest). Perhaps an individual Christian might decide that she could not possibly spread her legs for money and the thought of a marital threesome with her husband and another wife is nauseating, but that’s OK. Some people get nauseated on a boat or a plane, but that’s not a sin and they can avoid boats and planes.

Modern Women: Schrödinger’s Cats

Artisanal Toad20 Comments
tumblr_mvkc25mut31qg407co1_500
The reader may or may not be familiar with the concept of quantum superposition, but most of us have heard at least a reference to Schrödinger‘s Box or Schrödinger‘s Cat. It comes from a “thought experiment” by Edwin Schrödinger in 1935, in which a cat is locked in a steel box with an amount of radioactive material that triggers a release of poison when it decays. After a certain amount of time the material may or may not have decayed, so the poison may or may not have been released. The cat may or may not be alive. Thus, according to the superposition theory, the cat simultaneously exists as a living cat and a dead cat until reality intrudes and someone opens the box to observe the outcome.
Make of it what you will, but here at Toad’s Hall we have identified Schrödinger‘s Cat: the modern woman.
criticalmiss_8ecfd5_5386067

Schrödinger‘s Pussy?

We start with a little girl who grows to become a woman and one day (the median age is 17.1 years of age) she decided to give her virginity to a guy named Jimmy Schrodinger. With that act she and Jimmy were married and he is her husband. But she didn’t tell her father about this and he had no idea that in giving her virginity to Jimmy that they were married.
This is described in Scripture as the man seducing the eligible virgin. And maybe Jimmy did, but these days the girls don’t need much encouragement if they’re attracted to the man. The thing is, giving her virginity to Jimmy triggered the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) and according to that Law she was married, but her father wasn’t part of that decision. That is critically important because as a young woman living in her father’s house, she is subject to the Law of Vows (Numbers 30) and her father has the authority to review any and every agreement she makes in the day he hears of it.
She knew Jimmy wanted sex. She didn’t have to say anything to agree and when she lifted her ass so he could pull her pants and panties off, that was agreement enough. For an eligible virgin, the act of sex is marriage. When she agreed to have sex, she agreed to marry that man. That agreement to marry was then consummated when they did have sex. This brings up a serious question because she made that decision and then followed through on it before Daddy had a chance to review it. And with the act of marriage, the authority over the woman passes from her father to her husband.
Does that mean Daddy is shut out? Or does he still get to review her agreement? If Daddy forbids her agreement, are they married? That is the case described in Exodus 22:16-17.
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall[a] pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17
The first thing we should note is the underlined words “to be” are in italics. They are a translators addition not found in the original text and instead of clarifying what the text says, the added words change the meaning. Verse 16 describes the father allowing his daughters agreement and they are married. Verse 17 describes the father forbidding her agreement, meaning he refuses to allow his daughter to marry this young man. Which is why the text says “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…”
Understand that if he forbids her decision, he is not annulling the marriage, he is refusing to allow the man to marry his daughter. Meaning, from the moment of the agreement (which he later forbid) she is no longer eligible to marry the man. Because that man is no longer eligible to marry her, the subsequent act of coitus does not create a marriage. She is left unmarried and no longer a virgin.
Interestingly, there is no time limit on the father’s authority to forbid an agreement his daughter might have made when she was in her youth living in his house, he may forbid it in the day he hears of it. That may not be until many years later.

Quantum Vagina

If the father never hears of it he can’t forbid that agreement so our girl was married when she gave Jimmy her virginity and she stays married to him. And after she breaks up with Jimmy (and it’s pretty much guaranteed she will), every other man she has sex with after that is an act of adultery. And when she finally has a wedding and “marries” some man years later, the entire affair is fraudulent because she is still married to Jimmy. And if she later decides she isn’t haaappy with the man she had a wedding with and decides to divorce him, it’s meaningless because she wasn’t really married to him in the first place because she’s still married to Jimmy.
If her father does hear of it and he forbids her agreement, even many years later, then that original act of coitus in which she gave Jimmy her virginity did not result in marriage because the agreement came before the penetration and when the penetration occured she was no longer eligible. Because Daddy said no to the marriage. Which is why Exodus 22:17 states “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him…” When he forbids her agreement to marry he is refusing to give her in marriage to that man. He is no longer eligible to marry her. When Daddy does that (after the fact), it means she is no longer a virgin but she is not married either. Which means that every other man she had sex with after that was not a case of adultery, it was just sex.
Because she was no longer a virgin and never married, when she finally agreed to marry some man, she was married to him because she was eligible to marry AND she was agreeing to marry. Prior to her father forbidding that original agreement she was living in adultery with the man she only thought she was married to; after he forbids it she’s living in marriage with her husband and has never committed adultery up to that point.

The modern woman as Schrödinger‘s Pussy.

She is both an eligible virgin and an ineligible virgin. Depending on her history, she is married to one man and married to another man at the same time. She is married and not married at the same time. She is an adulteress and also a woman who has never committed adultery. We do not actually know the reality of the situation until we can observe that her father forbid his daughter’s agreement to get married. It’s a box that stays closed until her father takes action or dies without taking action.
This illustrates the power of fathers. Oh- and do make note of that part about “in her youth and living in her father’s house.” That’s a limiting restriction on her father’s authority to review and forbid her agreements. Perhaps that’s why there is such a satanic focus on separating children from their fathers. Regardless what churchians know or don’t know, Satan knows full well the power of a father.

Churchian Fail: 5 out of 21

Artisanal Toad41 Comments
fail
The family is the foundation of civilization and sexual morality is the foundation of family. Most Christians would agree with those two statements, but most Christians are ignorant of the fact that of the following twenty-one points from the Bible concerning sexual morality, only five are generally and consistently taught by the churches today. Five out of twenty-one is the score for modern churchianity.
Keep in mind that this problem was baked into the cake 1500 years ago. You might have heard the old saying that when you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. There’s a lot of truth in that. This is all about power-hungry individuals and a group of very influential early church fathers who hated sex and considered sex- even within marriage, to be sinful and at best a necessary evil.

Understanding Churchian Sexual Morality

I. Modern Christianity pays little more than lip service to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ cares what His servants do. If this premise is correct, Christianity is only useful in terms of providing common social cues and general attitudes. If this premise is not correct, modern Christianity doesn’t need a revival, it needs to be destroyed for the apostate mess that it is.
II. Modern Christians are almost completely ignorant of what the Bible actually says and they can’t be bothered to read it in order to find out. If and when they do, there is a legion of feminist professional Christians on hand to “help” them “interpret” what the Bible says. The interpretation will prevent understanding what the words actually say and mean.
III. The modern church is a business, typically organized as a not-for-profit corporation that provides services to the general public of a religious nature. The purpose of this business is to receive money (tithes) from the attending public in return for teaching them that God loves them, Jesus forgives them no matter what they’ve done, they should love one another and not forget to tithe.
IV. Anyone who teaches what the Bible says within the modern framework of Christianity is derided as a “fundamentalist” and generally rejected, mocked and ridiculed because they take the appropriate points of what the Bible says in a literal fashion.
V. Because of point #4, Modern Christians of the west are unable to understand Islam because they cannot fathom the idea of being a servant of God with the requirement to do what God has commanded them to do. Therefore, they refer to Muslims who take such an attitude as being “radicalized” instead of understanding that such Muslims are simply taking their religious duties seriously. Ironically, it is common to hear of certain Christians becoming “on fire for the Lord” because they got serious about being obedient to what the Bible says, but they cannot make the connection and see that when a Muslim becomes “on fire for Mohammed” the fire is generally coming from the muzzle of a rifle.
VI. Anyone who digs into the Bible and carefully studies the area of sexual morality, marriage and family relations will discover that the doctrines in place in virtually every church are in direct conflict with what the Bible says about these areas.
VII. Anyone who teaches the parts of the Bible that conflict with the carefully constructed doctrines concerning sexual morality and marriage will be viciously attacked by everyone in the modern church; Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

21 Elements Of Biblical Sexual Morality

  1. The act of marriage is sexual intercourse and to have sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her (Genesis 2:24). This means that every man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery because the woman is already married to the man who took her virginity. Following that, any so-called marriage to another man is fraudulent because the woman is already married.
  2. The Law of Marriage states that when an eligible virgin has sex, she is married. The Law of Vows states the father has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement his daughter makes in the day he hears of it. Because the act of sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, when an eligible virgin has sex she is married. Her agreement to have sex is therefore her agreement to marry. However, in the day her father hears of her agreement (which happens after she has sex with him) he can forbid that agreement and from the moment of the agreement she is no longer an eligible virgin. Which means that the subsequent act of having sex did not make her married because her father refused her agreement and refused to give her in marriage. Thus, we see in Exodus 22:16 an example of the father allowing her agreement and they are married. In the following verse (verse 17) the father forbids it and the text says “and if he absolutely refuses to give her…” There is no time limit and her father can forbid that agreement in the day he hears of it if she made the agreement in her youth while living in his house.
  3. The consent and/or commitment of an eligible virgin to her marriage is not necessary or required for her to be married (Exodus 21:7-10; Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). In contrast, marriage to an eligible non-virgin (such as a widow or legitimately divorced woman) requires her consent to marry in addition to sex in order to form a marriage (Genesis 2:24; Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39).
  4. With the act of penetration, the man makes his commitment to marry the woman he is having sex with, every single time (Genesis 2:24).
  5. There is no requirement anywhere in Scripture for a betrothal period, a celebration or ceremony of any kind, public or private, nor does marriage require the permission of any third party such as the church, because the authority to marry was granted to the man in the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24).
  6. Reinforcing point #4, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture forbidding a man from having sex with an eligible woman, regardless of his marital status. If the woman is a virgin they are married. If the woman is not a virgin her consent to marry is required before they are married. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that prohibits an eligible woman from having sex with a man eligible to marry her. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the lack of prohibition means the act is not a sin.
  7. The lack of an eligible virgin’s requirement to provide consent to a marriage means she may be raped into marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
  8. If a woman agrees to be married and does so without her father’s consent, he has the authority to forbid her agreement in the day he hears of it (Numbers 30:5). By forbidding her agreement to marry she is no longer eligible to marry that man and the subsequent act of sex does not make them married. This is the reason Exodus 22:17 states “if the father absolutely refuses to give her.”
  9. A married woman who has sex with any man other than her husband commits adultery as long as he is still alive (Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Romans 7:2-3) which means that adultery requires a married woman. Unless a married woman is involved there can be no adultery.
  10. The original standard of marriage was permanent but non-exclusive commitment on the part of the man with permanent and exclusive commitment on the part of the woman (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:20, Genesis 3:16).
  11. Genesis 2:24 allowed a man to have more than one wife, which was supported throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; 2nd Samuel 12:8; Jeremiah 31:21-32) and never changed.
  12. Although the standard of Genesis 2:24 called for permanent commitment on the part of the men, Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for adultery (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:7-9). Christ later made a regulation for His church forbidding divorce between two Christians married to each other, effectively restoring the original standard of marriage within His church (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
  13. The Apostle Paul instructed that if a Christian was married to a non-Christian and the non-Christian left the Christian and refused to live with them, the Christian was free (no longer bound) to the marriage (1st Corinthians 7:12-15).
  14. If a man lies with a man as with a woman, that is prohibited, an abomination and was classified as a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).
  15. If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16).
  16. While male homosexuality was an offense and bestiality was an offense for both men and women, homosexual contact between women was not prohibited except for cases of incest. The incest statutes contain two prohibitions on a man marrying sisters, or marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter. Those regulations presume sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage (Leviticus 18:17-18).
  17. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being a simple money-for-sex prostitute, although prostitution as part of idolatry (cult prostitute) is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:17.
  18. The only prohibition against using the services of a prostitute is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, which only forbids Christian men from using prostitutes.
  19. If a man has sex with an eligible woman who is not a virgin and she does not consent to marry, all they did was have sex, there was no sin (Romans 4:15; 5:13).
  20. The only way a man and woman can have “premarital sex” is if they are engaged to be married and have sex during the engagement period. If they do so the man has violated the requirements of the engagement by not keeping his vow (Numbers 30:2). They are not married (even though she was a virgin) because due to the voluntary agreement, she cannot be married until after the end of the engagement period and any agreed upon ceremony. In addition, the portion of traditional marriage vows to “forsake all others” is voluntary because Scripture contains no such requirement for the man. If, however, the man chooses to make this vow it is binding upon him (Numbers 30:2).
  21. A man having intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating is committing a prohibited act that is ranked equally with adultery, bestiality, idolatry and male homosexuality (Leviticus 18:19-24). The man and woman who do such a thing are to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18). While there is no prohibition or even any mention of masturbation anywhere in Scripture, sexual relations during menstruation is never mentioned in the modern church but masturbation is frequently condemned.
Of the 21 points on this list concerning sexual morality and marriage, only points 9, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are generally taught in the churches today. The other 16 points are either completely ignored or contradicted by church doctrine and attacked as lies, yet those points describe what the Bible actually teaches.
From point number one, it follows that at least 80% of the so-called “married” couples in the modern church are living in adultery because the women were already married (they were not virgins) when they purported to marry their husbands. This means that the greatest problem in the church today is the widespread adultery of the Christians within the church that is caused by the leaders of the church refusing to teach what the Bible actually says.
If it is correct that God takes an active hand in His creation based on the behavior of people, blessing them, withholding blessings, removing His protection or cursing them; and if it is correct that Christ likewise takes an active hand in His church, then the importance of the endemic of adultery in the church cannot be understated.
There are 16 points in the list above that the Bible teaches which the church either ignores or denies. Because of this, the vast majority of the adults in the church are in sin and the families are being destroyed by divorce, permanently injuring the children. If that sin does not matter because God forgives sin, there is no point in obeying anything in Scripture and the entire so-called “religion” of Christianity is a joke.

Five Is Not The Number You Want

Artisanal Toad21 Comments
Photo credit www.cambio.com

Are these “average” men?

On a scale of one to ten, Average = Five

Odds are, you are average or close to it because that’s what most people are. You probably already know you could be better than that and you really need to. Because we have reached the point at which average is no longer acceptable. This is no longer “just” about success with women, it’s about success in life. Being as attractive as possible is now as important if not more important than other factors such as education, if for no other reason than the fact that women pretty much rule the world of human resources. They are the gatekeepers of employment.
First, the foundation of becoming more attractive is learning game. There is no substitute because becoming more physically attractive is meaningless if you don’t know what to do with it. Men are attracted to youth, beauty and fertility in women within the context of submissive femininity. She may be a beautiful thing physically, but if she’s a raving bitch she isn’t attractive. Likewise, women may be attracted to the man who has the physical attributes, but only if he projects that masculine dominance and confidence they crave. They will also be attracted to him without the physical attributes as long as he projects the masculine dominance and confidence. Learn game.
News flash: The guys in the photo above are doing better than you’d think, because according to the Centers for Disease Control, 37.9 percent of adults over 20 are obese and another 32.8% are overweight. That’s a whopping 70.7% of adults over 20 years of age are either obese or overweight. Now, one might wonder what those terms mean and the CDC helpfully explains that “overweight” and “obese” are defined according to body mass index (BMI) which is essentially your weight in kilos divided by the square of your height in meters. This is actually the spot to start with, but it’s measured with a mirror, not a scale.
Unfortunately, BMI has nothing to do with bodyfat. According to the CDC’s version of healthy (which works because so very few exercise) the men in the chart below at 3% to 10% bodyfat have a good chance of qualifying as being obese. Depending on how muscular a man is, those from 10% to 24% probably qualify as “healthy” and those over 25% in the photo below are either overweight or obese according to the CDC.
bodyfat-men The difference between being fat and having a booger hanging out of your nose is simple: Both are repulsive and both are fixable, but the booger will soon be forgotten after you get rid of it. And I know that for some, those rolls of fat represent a battle you don’t want to fight and that’s okay. For those of you who want to be a man of excellence, think of it as a booger hanging from your nose and make it disappear. Believe it or not, that isn’t nearly as difficult as you might think, it just takes discipline. If you look at the second photo of the man with the sculpted physique at 6-7% bodyfat and think you could never… you’re wrong. The problem is in your head.

Change Is Part Of Life

The one truly unchangeable thing about a man is his height, but even that can be nudged a bit in terms of perception. This is important because one of the first things people will notice about a man is his height if he’s either too tall or too short. Take a look at the distribution of heights between men and women:
HeightDistribution Average height for a man is just over 5′ 10″ and shorter than that is a disadvantage. The thing is, you can compensate if you’re a bit less than average and you’d be amazed at how many men do this. What I’m talking about is elevator shoes, which isn’t nearly as weird as one might think. In fact, it’s the male equivalent of a push-up bra. However, this is one of those things that impacts the way other men perceive you and that had an impact on how you are treated.
Amazon has a good selection and if you’re really interested you can find other sources. Tallmenshoes sells their shoes both on Amazon and from their site. I tried a pair similar to these to see how they worked. It was odd, but I had the impression people (especially women) who know me were subconsciously trying to figure out what was different about me. They did sense a difference. For a man of less than average height, this can be a game-changer. In terms of congruence this is an all-or-nothing option, which means do it all the time or don’t do it at all. That’s something to consider because if you choose that strategy you’ll need to adjust your wardrobe, so give it some thought.

Looks and Style Go Hand In Hand

Most men are clueless in terms of style. Completely clueless. For a lot of men, one of the best investments they could make is to pay a wardrobe consultant to help develop a personal style in clothing. I’ve long thought a man needs a uniform and a man’s wardrobe should be viewed from that perspective… but over time the choices a man makes about his clothing will create a uniform. Usually the wrong one. After spending the time and energy getting your body to look good, it is stupid not to showcase it properly. I’m not talking about emulating a celebrity, I’m talking about having a wardrobe of clothing that looks good on you, with a focus on those items for everyday wear that emphasize your good points and minimize your deficiencies. Because almost everyone has deficiencies. Uniforms are used to identify and you want your uniform to identify you as a man of high value.
It is worthwhile to spend the time and find a tailor or at least a seamstress who can alter your clothing for you. It is amazing how many older women there are out there who have all the tools and plenty of experience along with a lot of time on their hands. They can often be a better choice than a professional tailor because they’re able to give more time to helping you get things right. On the down-side, their ideas about what looks right might not fit your style at all. Still, for simple things like taking in trousers or adjusting the fall of a coat, they can be invaluable.
After game… confidence, looks and style are just the starting point in terms of the competition. After that there’s provisioning capability. These days, a college degree is a very good credential to have. Unless you’re going into STEM or aiming for some professional accreditation, keep in mind that it’s just a piece of paper. With that in mind, it is insanity to borrow $50k in order to get an ‘education’ that gets you into a $15 per hour job. Go to the University of the People and get the damn degree online really cheap. Fully accredited, tuition free, the student pays a flat fee of $100 per final exam.

You Built It, Now What?

Since this is a Christian (although somewhat heterodox) blog, I’ll assume male readership is far more interested in marriage than just getting laid. The problem with finding a marital partner is rather simple: Is she attracted to you? This is a critical question because it is a fools errand to marry a woman who is not attracted to you. There are three basic litmus tests to answer the question of “is she really attracted to you?”
  1. Will she have sex with you?
  2. Will she share you (sexually) with another woman?
  3. Will she submit to you (obey you)?
Like it or not, the question of whether a woman will get undressed and climb in bed with a man is pretty much the litmus test of his attraction. Women will certainly object to that, but it’s the truth and their inability to play the V card is proof.
fuck him Some might think this is incorrect, but the point is attraction is determined by the women and women are attracted primarily to masculine dominance mixed with confidence and charisma and everything else comes after that. When we look at marriage as opposed to sex the provisioning ability and other traits play a much stronger role, but attraction is primarily a function of perceived masculinity, dominance and confidence. This is one reason why men who are not good looking, out of shape and otherwise real assholes are often found in the company of very attractive women. Just to remind, that graph is not based on looks, it’s her assessment of the man and his attractiveness according to his current and possibly past competition.

Muscle, Masculinity, Dominance and Status. They All Work Together

The man’s relative attractiveness is determined by the woman’s assessment of his attractiveness. First, it’s her localized assessment according to his competition, but it can include men from her past (alpha widow syndrome). A man who is considered a 9 in Southern Mississippi might not even be considered a 6 in Las Vegas or Los Angeles. Notice the following torsos are not fat. Because so many are overweight or obese these days, the amazing thing is that just being height-weight proportionate is considered attractive. On the left we have skinny, or “normal” meaning undeveloped. Not good. Next we have defined, which is better than skinny because it demonstrates some fitness. Following that we have buff, which is probably the best choice for most men. Finally, we have very muscular, which can be threatening or frightening on first impression.
body_types_by_chaosbringer99 Get this through your head: Women are attracted to men who have the admiration, respect and honor of other men. It’s called “status” and it’s attractive. Men know what kind of discipline it takes to stay in shape and you get respect for that, but it’s just the beginning. You have to demonstrate competence and dependability, have confidence and charisma and most of all understand loyalty and trust. It’s called being a man.
The longer I live the more it seems the vast majority never left the mentality of high school behind, so consider social dynamics in terms of high school. Learn how to fight. Learning to fight and sparring with other men will give you two things: confidence and humility. You will be submitted, you will be beat and you will learn that you aren’t all that. Which is a valuable lesson to learn, but it teaches other lessons as well. You won’t have the confident self-assurance to handle confrontations with men until you’ve been punched in the face a good number of times and learned to keep on fighting.
You don’t know what confidence is until the day you walk into a room full of people and realize that if push comes to shove, you can probably take down any of them and come out on top. And when you get to that point you should realize you have nothing to prove. It also helps to know there may be a quiet guy in that room who can kick your ass without working up a sweat, you just don’t know which one he is.
When it comes to a demonstration of high value in terms of status, being a celebrity is at the top. I highly recommend getting involved in theater for any man because the benefits are beyond compare. Read the linked post, you might learn something. Shakespeare had it right: All the world’s a stage and we are merely bit players upon it.
All other things being equal, the guy who maximizes his body, has style, a good income and tight game will be able to write his own ticket and have a far better chance of having a successful marriage. Confidence and charisma will definitely enhance both career and social life as well as marriage. You must be the man of excellence and you must be the man in control of himself, which will get you the respect and honor of other men. Game teaches that you are the prize but it’s seldom mentioned that it’s your job to make sure you’re not her consolation prize.
This is because while a woman may refuse to have sex because she isn’t that attracted to a man, there comes a point at which she would consider marrying him if he has money and a good income. Even though she isn’t attracted. The problem with that is obvious: Consider the stories about the pretty woman who married a guy for his money and cheats on him with the cabana boy… and then goes all Eat-Pray-Love, divorce rapes him, steals his stuff, alienates his children and ruins his life. But we never hear stories about the woman who is really attracted to her husband cheating on him or blowing up her family. Learn the lesson.
For men on the left side of the graph, money is a requirement. On the right side of the graph money isn’t a requirement. In the middle it depends on the mix, but this reflects the dualism of women: their desire for both the alpha dominance and the beta provisioning.
marry him If you want to understand the dichotomy of this, play one-on-one “Fuck-Marry-Kill” with some women you know. This is best done in a place with a lot of people so there’s a good variety to choose from. In this version you each take turns picking people for the other and they have the choice of fuck them, marry them or kill them. It gets more interesting if they have to explain why and that can be eye-opening because over the course of playing the game you will learn more than you might imagine. Over time it’s impossible to conceal the truth with this game. The women will figure this out faster than you’d imagine and if she refuses to play, that should tell you something as well: the medium is the message.
Female communication emphasizes subtext. The words are important within a context that includes facial expression, posture, attitude, tone, inflection and locution. The total of all of that produces the subtext. The subtext of Fuck-Marry-Kill is the brutal truth of the feminine imperative and the dualistic sexual strategy universally described in the manosphere as “Alpha fucks and Beta bucks.” To round it out, the game has the logical inclusion of a category for any man who would not qualify AF or BB: Kill. Because if he isn’t in one of the two categories that benefit her then he may as well be dead.
Does anyone think, for even a moment, that a woman will tell a man prior to their marriage that she’s just marrying him because he has money, she’s not attracted to him, she’s never loved him and she never will? If you can imagine such a situation I’m sure the story starts with “Once upon a time” and it ends very badly for the woman. No, she will convince him she is in love with him and she will give him affection and sex (even if she has to repress her revulsion) and do what she has to do to get the magical ring that guarantees her a claim on half his assets and a half-interest in his income. After all, everyone tells us Anna Nichole married for love…

Sexual Morality

Observably, women will marry a man they wouldn’t otherwise agree to have sex with. This means that all other things being equal, a woman’s willing desire to have sex without commitment is a better indication of her attraction than anything else. Which sounds an awful lot like Toad is saying “dump her if she won’t put out by the third date.”
If she’s not a virgin and not married and you both know and understand what that means, then all other things being equal, yes, that’s more or less correct.
It’s not a sin and she should know that because otherwise you have no business wooing her. You must consider the context: She gave away her best to someone else. If you’re not good enough for her second-best, stop investing your time and look elsewhere. If she isn’t attracted enough to give you sex without a relationship “reward” but she is willing to give you sex if you reward her, her attraction to the reward is greater than her attraction to you. Look elsewhere, because the truth is that if she was attracted to you, she would want to have sex with you. For a great many men it is profoundly disturbing to learn just how willing a woman is to give men unfettered access to her body if she’s attracted to them. Most men can’t handle it and will refuse to believe it.
For those who know the truth, it is NOT amazing how often, after 20 minutes of flirting and escalating attraction, a woman will say “OK” when the attractive man drops a nuclear line like “Let’s fuck.” Disturbing is the fact that she’s more likely to say yes if she’s married… And for a Christian man this information is like the sound of nails on a chalkboard. Especially if it’s his wife and another man.
Ultimately this devolves to an issue of conscience and motivation. The women chose the game, God made the rules and you get to decide whether you’ll play or not. If your conscience is telling you that you just can’t, then you can’t. Quit complaining and find a virgin or buy a fleshlight. Or a sex robot, which appear to be getting better and better every year. If any female readers are insulted by the implications of that, keep in mind that I didn’t make the rules, God did. It was the women who chose to put themselves in that position.
If she is a virgin, as the saying goes- “you break it, you’ve bought it.” This points to the one time a woman has a moral claim on sex as an investment and God’s Word backs her up on this completely. Her virginity is an irrevocable investment in the man she chooses to give it to, for better or worse, come what will and what may. That investment can only be given to ONE man. Which brings us back to the point that if she isn’t a virgin it means she gave away her best to someone else. And 98% of the time, it isn’t so much that she gave it away as that she threw it away not knowing how valuable it was.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but consider a few pieces of data that come out of all the questions women have answered at OKCupid. The first is the well-known propensity for women to rate 80% of men’s photos as below average. The second is if one looks ONLY at women who rate themselves as “Christian and it’s important” we see that over 90% of those who answered the questions** say they must have sex prior to getting married. To top it all off, just less than 87% of the group saying they must have sex before marriage also say that in order to get married the sexual relationship must be the best they’ve ever had. Think through the implications of that. The bottom line is if the woman is a non-virgin, sex is a HUGE point of negotiation for her and a litmus test for you.
** Note this was self-selected. The women who don’t hold that position may well never answer such a question. And yet, the sample size is in the thousands.

Lover vs Provider

Again, as a non-virgin, she chose to put herself in a morally neutral position on sex and if you’ve followed my advice she’s not married and she knows there are no moral issues. If she’s not attracted enough to want you, sexually, find someone else because the desire on her part is more for your wallet than you. This is the dichotomy between the lover and the provider. You want her to be attracted to you as a lover before you make the decision to be her provider, so take provider status off the table. Be playful, be sexual. If she’s not interested you’ll both know. If there isn’t enough attraction to get to sex, move on.
Women obviously want both a lover and provider but many of them are willing to settle for just a provider… and you don’t want to be that guy. At all. But remember where this is going. You want a marriage that will withstand the cultural maelstrom in which at every turn she’s encouraged to take the money and run. You need her to be attracted to you and everything else can be built on that. Her willingness to have sex with you is just one point on the attractiveness scale, but it means you are actually on her attractiveness scale.
I have made the point, repeatedly, that in this legal environment the only safe marriage a man can arrange is a polygynous marriage. That’s because the State cannot regard it as a marriage, so no divorce, no splitting of the assets, no alimony. If one marries with a written contract all the details can be taken care of and the only thing a court can really do in the event of one of the women wanting out is to determine custody of the children. If the husband has children from all the wives then it’s far more likely he will get custody of the children. Essentially the arrangement places all the incentives on staying in the marriage and working things out rather than on blowing up the marriage in return for cash and prizes.
I’ve also stated previously that a good proxy of a man’s ability to achieve a polygynous marriage is his ability to get a threesome, because a man who can get multiple women in his bed has what it takes to get multiple women into a marriage with him. While the man’s provisioning ability has an impact on his marriage value, sex is the litmus test of attraction. Sharing him sexually is the litmus test of high attraction.
Threesome as test I can already hear the screams of outrage from men who want to claim that decent Christian women don’t do that! And they’re wrong. So completely wrong that it’s sad and embarrassing to hear it. The truth is that it can be easier to get two women into your bed at the same time than just one.
Be that guy who is all the way over on the right of that curve. The charming guy with a great job or business that has the respect of other men. The guy who leads an active life, is in great shape and rocks a chiseled physique with the 6-pack abs that merge into the belt of Adonis. The guy who can rule a woman (or women) with just the right mixture of alpha and beta to keep things on track for the long haul.
The real value of Athol Kay’s book “Married Man Sex Life Primer” was that it has the men create a male attraction plan (MAP) which requires that they get in shape and learn game. However, beyond that (and more importantly) it teaches that in marriage there has to be a blend of alpha and beta, which corresponds to dopamine and oxytocin. Too much alpha and not enough beta results in a lack of comfort (oxytocin) that blows it up. Too much beta and not enough alpha results in the “I love you (lots of oxytocin) but I’m not ‘in love’ with you” (not enough dopamine). With the right mix of alpha and beta, things work out just fine.
The structural problem with the Married Man Sex Life Primer is that it’s essentially a guide to fixing a problem rather than preventing a problem. The issue is familiar to anyone who has choked down the red pill, in that important people a man’s social circle won’t want to recognize the changes in him. They want to keep him in the comfortable “spot” in which they’ve classified him and that is especially true for relationships with women. It is extremely uncomfortable for many to see someone change for the better and they resist recognizing such changes. For that and many other reasons, the best choice for many men is to include a change of location in their plans. A new environment with new associates and friends who perceive him to be what he is, not what he was.

Change Is Not Easy- For Both You And Others

The remarkable inability of people to change and the resistance to change is an opportunity. I doubt one in a hundred of my readers would try, but the goal is to be in the top 6% and an average man has the capacity to do that. The problem is when you start to change others will be affected by those changes. Many of them will not like it and you will be greeted with resistance from some because your improvement changes the dynamic of the relationship. Ultimately it’s about them losing power because you’ve improved. Never forget that.
The Christian community is particularly bad about being intolerant of anyone making changes to increase their attractiveness. I addressed that in a separate post because it’s such a hold-over from ancient times regarding the hatred for all things sexual, especially sexual attraction or pleasure.
One of the things the PUA community will tell a man is he needs to go out and bang a dozen women in order to get rid of his issues with “oneitis” and see them as the interchangeable commodity they are. Women scream they are not interchangeable but arguably, they are. What, specifically, do modern women bring to a relationship other than a vagina? Then come the screams about morality, ironically from a group in which 80% are living in adultery.
As to the morality, note that the advice isn’t to go deflower a dozen virgins. The women chose to roll around in the gutter and there are consequences. And, that’s actually not my advice because there are other ways to get rid of oneitis. Self improvement is part of that because it will bring with it a much different perspective. Your goal, however, should be to shoot for the top 6%. Almost any average man can move himself into the top 6% within a few years if he is willing to do the work necessary. The man really doesn’t need to hurry because a few years of investment will pay huge dividends and there is a new crop of women coming along every year.
alpha beta sexgrid (In a lot of metro areas the top 6% is $170k to $250k, but $100k is the top 1% in so many other areas that it all balances out. And that’s individual income, not household income.)
One thing that chart doesn’t reflect is a man’s control of his time, which is power. We can all think of men who earn a lot of money but have no control over their time. For some it’s a labor of love (I know doctors who fall in this category) and for others it’s a modern day form of slavery. Then there are those who have very little other than control of their time. In the middle, think of the man who is sufficiently independent that he can take time off when he desires (within reason) without threatening his income. Further up the scale is the man with passive income that doesn’t require his time. That level of independence translates to freedom and power. That too is attractive.
At the end of the day, the combination of a man’s masculinity, competence, confidence, charisma, dependability and personal character will determine how he is perceived by the world around him. And that will help determine how attractive he is to women. The fact is, it’s easier for many successful men to get married to a woman than it is to just get her to have sex with him. And that’s a difficult pill for a lot of guys to swallow, because it points to the fact that women will marry men they aren’t that attracted to (don’t really“love”) and it happens far more often than one might think. The truth is, most men are not attractive to women. The average guy is a five and he’s invisible to women who are a six or better.
spectrum
And maybe you’re thinking “Why would I want that?” The answer is it doesn’t matter whether you do or don’t want multiple women bouncing around in your bed, what matters is for you to be of such high value that they would if you wanted them to. Because you’re that attractive to women. Like it or not, that’s just about your only defense against divorce in a world gone mad.
As a rule women do not want to end a relationship with a man to whom they are highly attracted.
God gave women a desire to be ruled by a man who is fit to rule her. Be the man women desire to rule them.
If you can’t do it for yourself, do it for her because it’s what she needs.
If not for her, do it for your children because they’re depending on you to hold the family together and protect them from their mother’s hypergamy.
If you’re too lazy or selfish to be bothered, hopefully you’ll die childless and won’t pass on those genes.

Women, Commitment and Sex

Artisanal Toad17 Comments
b788e17acb23a4cbe4b188deecf11827
The last post was a bit of quick background on male commitment to marriage, which is automatic every time the man puts his penis in a woman’s vagina. That sounds really odd, but it’s like saying the commitment to purchase a car is made automatically every time the purchase contract is signed. The point is that for a man, the commitment to marry is made with the act of marriage, which is sexual intercourse. Not so for a woman.
Men and women are different and held, by God, to different standards.
The eligible virgin has no agency when it comes to marriage. By the term eligible, I speak of the relationship of the man to the woman. Some marital relationships are forbidden, such as the proscribed incestuous relationships (Leviticus 18) and thus cannot result in marriage. In such cases, a woman may be a virgin but she is not an eligible virgin. Another example is a woman who has been engaged to marry some man. That engagement makes her ineligible to marry any other man and the Bible describes her standing as that of a wife.
The eligible virgin has no agency because her consent is not required in order for her to be married. This is difficult for many to accept, but we see in Exodus 21:7-10 where a father has the authority to sell his daughter to be another man’s concubine, which is a form of matrimony which grants her conjugal rights. We also see in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 that the woman captured in battle becomes the man’s wife without her consent. Finally, we see in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the case of the woman who is raped into marriage to the man who forced her to have sex. Thus, an eligible virgin may be forced into marriage with the act of sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.
On the other side of the equation, an eligible virgin may choose to marry a man and according to Numbers 30:3-5, her father may forbid the marriage in the day he hears of it, thereby annulling the marriage as if it had never occurred. Thus, an eligible virgin may be forced into marriage against her will and may have her marriage that she desired and consented to annulled against her wishes. Therefore, she has no agency when it comes to marriage and her consent either for the marriage or against the marriage is irrelevant.
This is a matter of what Scripture actually says. There is no requirement for the eligible virgin to give her consent to marry and multiple examples in the Law of situations in which the woman is married over her objections and against her will. Obviously it would be desirable and good for the woman to willingly consent to her marriage and desire marriage to that man, but the eligible virgin’s consent is not required. The eligible virgin is married with the act of sexual intercourse and the man who takes her virginity is her husband by virtue of that act.
Thus, generally speaking, all women are virgins when they marry, she is bound to her husband as long as he lives and sex with any other man while she is still married is an act of adultery. That fact alone has huge implications for the modern church.

The Eligible Non-Virgin

The woman who is not a virgin and yet is not married (such as a widow or a legitimately divorced woman) has agency. Numbers 30:3-5 makes it clear that the virgin daughter is under the authority of her father and he has the authority to forbid any agreement she might make. Following that, Numbers 30:6-8 makes it clear that upon marriage the authority of the father passes to the husband, thus the virgin and the married woman are under authority and any agreement they might make is subject to review by their father or husband. Because as Genesis 3:16 states: “he shall rule over you.” Not so the woman who is not married and not a virgin. Numbers 30:9 states that the widow or the divorced woman are not under a man’s authority and any agreement or vow they make is binding upon them.
Specific to marriage, we notice that the Apostle Paul states in 1st Corinthians 7 that if a woman desires to marry she is to be allowed to marry. In verse 39, the woman who is no longer bound has the authority to marry whomever she desires, but only if he is a Christian.
This causes great distress to churchians because the eligible non-virgin must consent to marriage before the act of marriage will create a marriage between the man and woman. Given that there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from engaging in sexual intercourse, if the eligible non-virgin has sex with a man but does not consent to marry, it’s just sex. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, there being no prohibition there is no sin involved.

Crossing The Sexual Rubicon

All the churchians want to stand up and scream “FORNICATION” but that cannot be. Neither is it “PREMARITAL SEX” because the couple isn’t engaged to marry. The point is that either the Apostle Paul is a liar and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 is a lie, or it is not a sin for a man and woman who are eligible to marry to have sex. If the woman is a virgin, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and consents to marry, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and does not consent to marry, the couple are not married (she did not consent) and neither are they in sin.
This is how the prostitute Rahab could be a righteous woman. Obviously she was not a virgin and not married (she was most likely a widow) and as an eligible non-virgin she was free to have sex with any man she chose and not be in sin. And if she got paid for it, that was not a sin either. In fact, the only prohibition on prostitution in all of Scripture is the prohibition on being a cult prostitute, prostitution as part of idolatrous worship. There is no prohibition on money-for-sex prostitution anywhere in Scripture.
From a Scriptural point of view, there is no difference between being a prostitute and being a farmer. A farmer could be a righteous farmer obeying the Law, or he could be a sinful farmer by violating the Law. Likewise, a prostitute could be a righteous prostitute (not violating the Law) or she could be a sinful prostitute (adultery or idolatry). So, if farming can be a moral and righteous way to make a living, so can prostitution.
Which sends the churchians into a frenzy of outrage. The one and only prohibition on using the services of a prostitute is found at 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 and that prohibition applies only to Christian men. There was no such prohibition found anywhere in the Law and under the Law, a married man could have sex with a legitimate prostitute and not be in sin. While there is a prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman, even a Christian woman, from being a prostitute.

Imagine Your Parents Having Sex

Most people find it rather uncomfortable (to say the least) to imagine their parents having sex. I’m not talking about starfish get-it-over-with duty sex. I’m talking about noisy, sweaty, wreck-the-bed fucking. For whatever reason, our minds simply don’t want to go there.
The idea that sex is dirty, evil or even just plain naughty got baked into the cultural cake a long time ago. No person can deny their parents had sex because that’s how they came into being. And wouldn’t you like to think that your parents enjoyed it? So… why is it so emotionally painful to imagine parents having sex? If your parents were married then obviously there isn’t anything immoral involved because sex and making babies is what marriage is supposed to be all about. Obeying that “be fruitful and multiply” command.
But… what could be worse than imagining your parents having sex?
What REALLY makes the churchians howl is applying this to the former prostitute Mary Magdalene. If Mary Magdalene was a righteous prostitute, meaning that she was not married, then any man who had sex with her was not in sin as long as he was eligible to marry her. That included Jesus. I am not saying He did, but if Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, He was not in sin.
Again, I’m not making the claim that Jesus was banging Mary Magdalene, but if He was, He was not in sin for doing so. This raises some questions for the peanuts gallery.
Did He? We don’t know. There is no record stating whether He did or didn’t, so anyone claiming that He just couldn’t have done it is full of shit because they weren’t there.
If He did, was He in sin? There is no prohibition that forbids any man from having sex with a prostitute in the Law. The only mention of prostitutes in the Law is Deuteronomy 23:17, which states that none of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (prostitution as part of idolatry). Anyone who claims that Jesus would have been in sin if He had sex with Mary Magdalene is automatically making the claim that the Apostle Paul lied in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.
While the prohibition that forbids Christian men from having sex with prostitutes in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 didn’t apply because that came many years later, God does not change. On the other hand, Mary Magdalene was no longer a prostitute. She gave that up to become one of the followers of Jesus.
Sex with an eligible virgin means you’re married, whether she likes it or not.
Sex with an eligible non-virgin who consents to be married means you’re married.
Sex with an eligible non-virgin who doesn’t consent to marry is just sex and not a sin.

The Commitment Of A Man To Marriage

Artisanal Toad4 Comments
commitment-quotes

How Does A Man Commit To Marriage?

We know that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture and we’ve already seen that the Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex. But that’s a special meaning, just for that passage, because everywhere else that the word “dabaq” is used in the Bible (for human interactions) it means to cling, to join, to keep close. In other words, it means commitment.
Jerome, (the original MGTOW who famously stated that if he wanted a companion he’d get a dog), not only hated sex and everything related to sexual pleasure but he was selected as the man to make the official translation of the Bible for the early church. So, we might quibble about the usage of the word “dabaq” in 1st Kings 11:2, which really should read that King Solomon loved to have sex with his wives. Given that Solomon was the wisest of all men he probably figured out a way to remember the names of all 700 of his wives and all 300 of his concubines, but he didn’t have 1000 women because he got off on his commitment to them.
However, the fact is, Moses chose to use the word that means commitment in order to describe the act of sex in Genesis 2:24. The impact of this is even more apparent when we look at the Greek word “kollao” which was used to translate the word “dabaq” when Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19. The word “kollao” (as used for human relationships) means to glue, to unite, to join; to knit together. So in Hebrew we have the word that generally means commitment and in Greek we have the word that means to glue together, to bind and join being used for the act of marriage, which is sexual intercourse.
From the language used, we can see that when the man has sex with the woman, that is the act of marriage and with that act the man makes his commitment of loyalty and faithfulness to the woman. Every single time. Think of it as a renewal of the commitment every time he does it.

The Real Problem With The Trump Tape

Artisanal Toad45 Comments
truth-hurts2
The hysteria about the Trump tape comes down to one thing: Truth.

“When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy.”

Want to know why the women are offended by that? Because what he said is the absolute truth and they know it. Know why the men are so offended? Because they are scared shitless that it’s the truth, knowing they are NOT a star, that they are not attractive men. Even more so, they know they could never get away with something like that.
The important truth in that statement was “When you’re a star they let you do it” but pussies focus on the word pussy.
It’s just another one of those hard truths about women that men don’t want to acknowledge and women don’t want men to understand. Because a better way to say it would have been:
When they’re highly attracted to you they let you do it. A lot of them want you to. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy.
Look at the man who is saying this, because he’s a bull alpha. He (especially when he was younger) combined power, status, money and looks in a way that very, very few other men have ever been able to do. As the poisonous troglodyte Henry Kissinger once said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” He has the respect and honor of other men. Men want to be him and women want to be with him. In other words, he’s a very attractive man.
Does that mean all women are like that? No, but the percentage who are not is very small if it’s the right man at the right time in the right place with the right line.
But women cannot allow the truth of what he said to stand and in the feminist-controlled modern discourse, the truth is automatically denied by those who know it to be truth as well as by those who wish it wasn’t true.
The “grab them by the pussy” remark proves that Trump understands this. And by doing it, he proves to the women that he is what he comes across as. Does it always work? No, but I’ll bet that the vast majority of the time it did work.

The “Cardinal Rule” and Female Competition

Artisanal Toad7 Comments
wind051
I have long considered Rollo Tomassi one of the most erudite thinkers of the manosphere. Taking the hard-won data about women that came out of PUA field research, Rollo created useful information with insight that men can use. I really don’t have a problem at all with the data, the problem is the paradigm through which it came and was then analyzed- evolution. The issue here isn’t an argument about evolution, it’s about the impact evolution has on his analysis and conclusions. While Darwin’s theory (adaptation of species) is both observable and provable, the general theory of evolution is far more theology than science and requires far more faith than Christianity. The point is the Bible has a much different paradigm (frame, if you will) within which to place this data.
What I’m trying to illustrate with this essay is the difference in paradigm and the resulting difference in answers the different paradigms yield when comparing the same data. In his post “The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies” Rollo made a number of points from his paradigm of evolutionary psychology that I’ll respond to from the paradigm of creationism using the standard of what the Bible actually teaches- which is the opposite of what the churches teach.
“The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”
The “standard” that frames this rule is monogamy and ironically, monogamy is the arbitrary church-created standard that hands women a monopoly within marriage. Which means no competition and thus no accountability for the women. Even more ironically, we have the evo-psych based position holding monogamy as the correct standard versus the Bible-based position holding that the standard is non-exclusivity for the man. And we know that monogamy is an artificial and arbitrary standard.
“It’s interesting to note that the popular theory amongst evolutionary anthropologists is that modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years. Needless to say, it’s a very unpopular opinion that human beings are in fact predisposed to polyamory / polygyny and monogamy is a social adaptation (a necessary one) with the purpose of curbing the worst consequences of that nature. We want to believe that monogamy is our nature and our more feral impulses are spandrels and inconveniences to that nature. We like the sound of humans having evolved past our innate proclivities to the point that they are secondary rather than accepting them as fundamental parts of who we really are.” [Emphasis added]
So, where did this artificial standard that surrenders the male sexual strategy come from? Underlying all of this is the idea that men and women are equal and are to be held to the same sexual standards, anything less is feral worst consequences and monogamy is the agreed upon solution. There can be no better illustration of Rollo’s “Cardinal Rule” than socially imposed monogamy as a moral obligation, which was created by the church for political reasons. When it comes to marriage:

Monogamy Is The Ultimate Surrender To Women

Modern monogamous culture has only been around for about 1200 years and honest historians provide the answer why: The ancient (Catholic) church. The exquisite irony of this is in creating socially imposed monogamy, the church threw out the Biblical standards of sex and marriage, replacing all of it with a mixture of pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. They did this so long ago and preached it so hard that people actually think this is the way God designed it. As Rollo put it:
“The old social contracts that constituted what I call the Old Set of Books meant a lot in respect to how the social orders prior to the sexual revolution were maintained. That structuring required an upbringing that taught men and women what their respective roles were, and those roles primarily centered on a lifetime arrangement of pair bonding.”
“Pair bonding.” Now claimed to be some sort of evolutionary development, this is nothing more than the concept of monogamy the church imposed because their thought leaders hated sex. How about that. Pair bonding is actually real and the Bible describes it as becoming one flesh. The thing is, while we don’t know how it works because the Bible clearly states it’s spiritual in nature, we do know when it happens- which is when the woman gives her virginity to a man.
The church was so effective in replacing the Biblical standard with garbage that today, as Rollo demonstrates, everyone is convinced that what the early church put in place 1500 years ago is actually the “old” way of doing things. In other words, the “right” or “correct” way of doing things. What Rollo refers to as the “old set of books” isn’t because it’s actually the second set of books. What we have today is simply a continuation of the second set of books unbound by any societal restraint. From a Biblical standpoint monogamy was a radical change from the old, which actually laid the moral foundation for feminism and was the cause of the sexual revolution.
There are 4 specific points that must be understood in order to grasp the magnitude of what happened, because the standard that God put in place originally is one that solves all the problems.
1.) “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” That was the original command to mankind. The law of marriage was given in Genesis 2:24 to implement that command. According to what the law says, marriage is initiated with the act of sex and with that act God joins the two as “one flesh” (pair bonding). Further, while there is no restriction on a man taking more than one wife, there is likewise no authority to terminate a marriage once it is begun and the virgin’s commitment is not required. From this we can see the God-given standard of marriage:
With the act of penetration of the virgin, with or without her consent, the man makes a permanent but non-exclusive commitment of marriage to her, binding her to a permanent and exclusive commitment to him until the day he dies. With that act, God joins the two as “one flesh” (pair bonding) in ways we do not understand and as Christ said “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”
The purpose of marriage is to create a permanent, durable and stable “container” called family which has as it’s purpose the production of children. The emphasis on permanence cannot be overstated, as we can readily observe the social pathologies inherent with broken families. The purpose of marriage is not romance, nor love nor even sexual gratification and fulfillment, but children. That is not to say a marriage cannot provide all these things, but the purpose of marriage is to produce children who will be legitimate heirs and raise them to adulthood under the best conditions possible.
2.) God’s first judgment on mankind stated (among other things) that the desire of the woman would be for her husband and “he shall rule over you.” The context of that passage is the events of the fall in the Garden and the woman was literally declared incompetent and her husband appointed her guardian. The evidence for this is the requirements of Numbers 30, which states every vow, every agreement with binding consequences and even the rash words of her lips which create obligations is subject to the review and either approval or annulment by her father or husband.
Rather than being an evolutionary development, we can point to Genesis 3:16 as the origin of female hypergamy, for the woman was given a desire for the man who is fit to rule her. The meaning of the word “desire” is dualistic, meaning both the desire to conquer and overcome as well as a sexual desire. We see this in the form of fitness tests in which the woman tests the man with a desire to overcome him. If he is fit to rule her and passes those tests her desire becomes a sexual desire. This is Game 101: Shit Tests.
3.) The consent of the virgin is not required for her to be married and her father has the authority to not only select her husband for her and turn her over to him to be married, but if she decides to marry without his permission he has the authority to annul that marriage in the day he hears of it. In other words, the virgin has no agency because her father has the authority to give her in marriage whether she likes it or not.
4.) Men and women are absolutely not equal in any meaningful way except in value. Women were declared incompetent and it was God’s desire that they be married and under the authority of a man who will rule them and hold them accountable. The only change from the Genesis 3:16 standard in the New Testament is men were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves His church. Effectively, Christian men are to treat their wives as loving guardians who act out of love rather than despotic rulers. To treat them “in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman” while keeping in mind that the standard for accountability has not changed. For, as Christ said, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” All of which sends feminists into screaming fits of hysterical rage.
All four of the previous points are Biblically irrefutable, but the most influential people in the church back in the 4th and 5th Centuries were men who hated sex. They hated the idea of sexual pleasure and they laid the foundational doctrine that sexual standards applied equally to men and women: marriage is by consent rather than sex and since the only reason a man would have more than one wife was sexual variety and pleasure that must now be forbidden. In doing so they threw out the Biblical standard of marriage in favor of their own opinions. One of the principle architects of this was Jerome. He was also the guy who translated the Vulgate. Just saying…
The doctrine that men and women are equal and are to be held to the same standards of sexual morality is the moral foundation of feminism. Out of this came the imposed standard of monogamy.
As Kevin MacDonald explained, this doctrine was used to good effect in the church’s war against the nobility after the fall of Rome and throughout the middle ages. By requiring the consent of the woman and a church ceremony they completely usurped the authority of the father to determine who his daughter married. By upholding the prohibition on divorce for Christians and forbidding the taking of another wife, the church created a condition in which it held the keys to the annulment of a marriage, which is the authority of the father. And, of course, when the man died without legitimate heirs there was really no other option but to leave the property to the church.

Women and Competition

Unknowingly, the church laid down the moral foundation of feminism by declaring men and women equal and giving women a monopoly condition within marriage. While the Bible says the husband has authority over his wife and she is required to be in submission to him, submission does not mean obedience, it means accepting his accountability. In order for a woman to submit to a man long-term, the woman must desire to submit to him. In large part this is just as much a function of attraction as her desire to have sex with him. A woman can be 95% in obedience to her husband but if she refuses to accept his accountability for that 5% of the time when she refuses to be in obedience, she is 100% in rebellion against him.
Read the last paragraph again. Keep reading it until you understand it.
Pronouncing monogamy as the only marital standard of sexual morality was the first and most critical step in removing accountability for women because it re-enforced the church’s false moral doctrine of equality and gave the wife a monopoly condition within the marriage. It should come as no surprise that “dread game” is acknowledged as the only tool available in a long-term relationship or marriage that really has any effect once one gets past the basics. The reason is what we know as dread game is supposed to be part of marriage because the husband has every right to add another wife if he wants to. What he doesn’t have the right to do is kick her out.
Women respond to competition from other women and the Biblical non-exclusive commitment on the man’s part kept her in competition with other women even in marriage because even the remote possibility of adding another wife was enough to change the entire dynamic. The ultimate act of accountability was for a husband to uphold his permanent commitment to her and add another wife. This was a very public display of the fact she didn’t do her job. The threat of competition, however small, provided accountability to wives.
As Rollo has pointed out time after time, the best sex a man is likely to get is before and at the very beginning of a relationship. Competition is part of the reason why, because the only way a woman can compete with other women is to give the man what he wants. And what does he want? A sweet, feminine, attractive, submissive and sexually available woman. Why isn’t the sex as good later? Because she no longer has competition. But look what that competition does…
“The indignation that comes from even the suspicions of a man’s “straying”, a wandering eye, or preplanned infidelity is one of the most delicious sensations a woman can feel.”
This is the modern view as seen from the woman’s perception that she has competition, but under the Biblical standard of marriage it represents accountability. It puts her on her A-game because if he’s straying it’s her problem and anything that results won’t be infidelity unless it happens with another man’s wife. And the result could be a new wife in the house. Call it Biblical dread game. One of the major arguments against this sort of standard is the perceived interference with “pair bonding” that would result, but the truth is that a man creating those conditions of competition is viewed as being immoral. Better stated, anything that forces the woman to compete is viewed as being immoral.
Which brings us back to the church-imposed monogamy based on the idea of equality issue, which is NOT what the Bible says. According to the Bible, a woman can only be the wife of one man at a time while a man can be the husband of many women at the same time. Because they are not equal. Yet, everyone buys into the idea of monogamy and “pair bonding” on an equal basis as if it’s some sort of holy writ. When it isn’t.
“Arguably, pair bonding has been a primary adaptation for us that has been species-beneficial.”
This is complete and utter bullshit. In this case, “pair bonding” is a magic code word for monogamy and a rhetorical argument for hard monogamy. The evo-psych idea of pair bonding is similar to what Vox Day describes as the theory of “magic dirt” when it comes to immigration. The idea that a commitment by both parties will cause a change that bonds them to one another. Pair bonding is the result of God making the two one flesh and I point to the fact that the real rate of divorce is somewhere around 5% in support of that. Which, to most, is a preposterous statement. The problem, as explained in that post, is one of definitions.
The church says the woman’s commitment in a ceremony is required for marriage and any sex prior to that time is just “premarital sex.” In order to do so, the church had to interpret Genesis 2:24 in such a way that becoming “one flesh” meant the act of sex rather than the spiritual joining together that Christ described in Matthew 19 as “what God has joined together” and the Apostle Paul described as spiritual joining that was on par with becoming a member of the body of Christ- a “great mystery.”
In denying that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her, we deny that God made the two one flesh with that act. In doing so the culture rips them apart and permanently damages them.
By society refusing to recognize the marriage the two are joined together only to be ripped apart, leaving a mass of broken women who cannot ever have that pair-bonding experience again. Because while all women save themselves for marriage, the vast majority don’t know that they’re getting married when they actually do so. For those virgins who know full well they are marrying the man who gets their virginity, the divorce rate for those marriages is around 5%.

The Church Lied and Claimed Only A Ceremony Created Marriage
The Church Created The Doctrines of Equality and Monogamy
The Doctrines of Equality and Monogamy Created Feminism
Feminism Is Destroying Marriage
The Epidemic Of Adultery and Divorce Is Destroying the Church
The Church Leadership (not the Bible) Is Responsible For This

With marriage essentially destroyed and unbridled hypergamy being the order of the day we are now seeing other patterns emerge. Because women compete.
“It might be that women would rather share a confirmed Alpha with other women than be saddled with a faithful Beta, but that’s not to say that necessity doesn’t eventually compel women to settle for monogamy with a dutiful Beta.”
Here we get to the heart of the difference. Women would rather share the confirmed Alpha if they have the chance; that is, if it was socially acceptable. In other words, the absence of shaming. However, sharing something less than alpha runs contrary to their desire for monopoly power. It isn’t that she is compelled to settle for monogamy with the dutiful Beta, it’s that she demands monogamy as the price for settling for the Beta. In theory, nobody walks into a competitive market unless they can put something on the table, but a monopoly situation in return for “settling” for the beta is a rather unequal trade.
What does the woman bring to the table in order to get this monogamous monopoly? A vagina? Really? There is no equality because this dynamic assumes the woman is superior to the man. What the reader must keep in mind is this system was set up by men of the church who hated sex and sexual pleasure, i t was NOT women who did this. Jerome’s view of women was much worse than the modern MGTOW’s and the idea behind monogamy was sex was ONLY to have babies and after that be celibate. Sex, at best, was a necessary evil. It didn’t matter if the woman refused to have sex because sexual pleasure was wicked and evil. Their idea of equality in sexual morality was that neither women or women should be having sex.
I should also mention that the church was the largest brothel owner in the world at one point… and while they were forbidding the married couples to have sex in anything other than the missionary position in darkness with the minimum amount of clothing removed and get it over with as fast as possible…. the women of the brothels were not required to follow the same rules.
In my mouth? Of course, sir, and I swallow too, but there is an added charge for doing that. Yes sir, anything you desire. The women of our order have received a special dispensation from the Bishop and nothing we do is a sin because we serve the church. If you have enough money I can get one of the other girls to help me give you an experience you’ll never forget!

Monogamy vs Polygyny: The False Dichotomy

The idea we have either Polygyny or Monogamy is preposterous because what we see from history is that in cultures in which polygyny is accepted, very few men have more than one wife. Because there are very few alphas. It follows that the vast majority of the men are monogamous. Now we run into the definition of monogamy and the problem of keeping a marriage monogamous, which the church solved with the “forsaking all others” clause in the marital vows. Why, exactly, do the marriages require such a vow to remain monogamous? The only reason is to voluntarily make a vow that prevents polygyny and reinforces the wife’s monopoly.
Fortunately, because the vast majority of marriages are fraudulent (the woman was already married), such vows are null and void.
History tells us the church was in conflict with the Nobility in the Middle Ages and the Nobility were the only ones realistically able to have more than one wife. Interestingly all of the church’s policies with respect to marriage were designed to constrain the Nobility and had little or no impact on the peasants. These policies (doctrines) were designed to usurp the authority of the fathers (requiring the consent of the woman and a marriage within the church- the father can no longer arrange a wedding) and husbands (requiring monogamy, invading the family and regulating the marital bed) for the benefit of the church.

Commitment vs Biological Attraction: A Logical Fallacy

The idea that biological attraction is meaningless once a commitment has been made is a historical legacy of the period when the church claimed commitment was the end-all and be-all of a marriage because sexual attraction was evil and a sin. Yet, it is the woman’s attraction to the man that best indicates whether she will make and then keep a commitment to him. A woman’s attraction to a man can be plotted in three ways depending on his masculine dominance, personal attractiveness and her personal proclivities:
  • Will she give him Sex (how willingly, in what ways, how often)
  • Will she Submit to him (level of obedience, up to D/s relationship, spanking)
  • Will she Share him with other women (privately, publicly, shared bed)
While it would be nice to think that a woman’s commitment to a marriage is something she values in and of itself, history tells us that the best way to keep a woman committed is to keep her attracted. Interestingly, polygyny is a structure that re-enforces the attractiveness of the husband. However, most people do not understand the interaction between polygyny and monogamy.
  1. Very few men have the capacity to have a relationship, much less marriage, to multiple women. His ability to get a threesome is a good litmus test. No matter what the man wants, in the absence of slavery if he isn’t attractive enough it probably won’t happen. The majority of men do not have the capacity for a polygynous relationship, but that does not mean they cannot change.
  2. Removing the male exclusivity requirement for monogamy as an agreed upon standard removes the monopoly situation and keeps the accountability of competition in the relationship dynamic, even though there is only one wife. It is this point that drives the fact that polygyny accepted for some is very beneficial to strong monogamy for many. Because just because it *could* happen is enough to keep the women in a competitive mode.
  3. Accepting polygyny means the woman’s SMV is no longer the end-all and be-all of her MMV (within reason) and an older, skilled and experienced woman could be a beneficial addition to the household.
Consider: The assumption the second wife will be younger and better looking is just that: an assumption rooted in the paradigm of monogamy. In fact, as soon as monogamy as a hard standard is taken off the table, a womans’ SMV is not nearly as relevant to her MMV as it once was.
Once we get away from the assumption that the only standard of marriage is hard monogamy, everything changes.

You Need To Be Spanked

Artisanal Toad16 Comments
pinup_girls_3 How a woman responds to the statement “You need to be spanked” speaks volumes about her attraction to you, the possibility you might have a future relationship or perhaps the likelihood your current relationship will continue. And that’s a good thing.
But before we begin, this post is about masculine dominance and submission, not punishment and pain. 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.
The problem men have in choosing a woman to commit to is sorting them out. Deciding which category they go in is can be difficult, but to put any woman in the “keeper” category she really needs to have at least a good amount of attraction for him and she needs to have a desire to submit to him. Those are two different things.
Both of those points are dependent on the man’s perceived fitness to rule. How willing or eager she is to get undressed and how badly she wrecks his bed once she’s there often says a lot about her attraction. There are plenty of women who might cheerfully wreck your bed, especially if you have money, but that’s an imperfect measure of attraction. After all, some women get paid to do that sort of thing, cash up front. Then there’s the old saying “crazy in the head, crazy in bed” and it’s a fact that women who are batshit crazy can and will wreck your bed on the road to wrecking your life. Others are willing to wait for the divorce for the big payoff and you want to avoid those. You definitely don’t want to be a “starter husband.”
The area of submission is a different measure of attraction. Sex is one thing, but obey him? Different story. While a woman’s physical attraction is largely driven by his alpha dominance, her submission is driven by the total package of both alpha dominance and beta comfort and loyalty, which is best described as his fitness to rule her.
Biblical submission is begins with obedience and is really about submission not to obedience but to being held accountable for that obedience. By definition, a woman who allows herself to be held accountable for her obedience to her husband is in submission to him. The amount of obedience a wife gives her husband is irrelevant if she refuses to accept his accountability for those points at which she does not obey him. That begs the question of what the standard she submits to is. The best answer is that it’s his standard that she’s required to keep and will be held accountable to. That’s what that passage in Ephesians means when it talks about wive submitting to their husbands in “everything.”

Everything? Or Everything Except THAT?

There is a spectrum for submission that could be described as the “Everything But THAT” scale. Discounting moral issues, the bigger the list of “that” a woman has, the lower her willingness to submit and be held accountable. But, how do we measure this?
After the marriage is way too late to find out how attracted and submissive she actually is. Interestingly, I find this issue is neatly encompassed with the woman’s reaction to a single statement:

“You know, you really need to be spanked.”

The response indicates to one extent or another the combination of both her attraction and her willingness to submit to the man. Wait until she violates one of your standards, look her in the eye and say it in all seriousness. How she responds will speak volumes for where any relationship is or might go, so think of it as a spectrum.
(0-4) On the low end of the scale is the reaction of contempt and taking offense. How dare you! This indicates she sees your value as low and you didn’t make the cut. There is only one wise response: Next!
There are women who say “I would never allow a man to spank me” and of those I’d say they either haven’t met the man who triggers their attraction point, or they’re personalizing it and thinking of the man they have at the moment. And some women might have real baggage in this area, in which case saying that might trigger a panic attack. Use your best judgment, but in general if you hear something like “you will never…” or she takes offense, she’s just told you all you need to know. Next!
(4-5) Somewhere in the middle she’ll joke about it, but that’s as far as it goes. Her attraction might be growing and she doesn’t know what she thinks yet. Observe her behavior. Is she acting like a brat intentionally? She may be telling you she needs to be spanked. Make the point that she is asking to be spanked with her behavior and watch what happens. It will not stay at this point, it will either drop to taking offense or it will get upgraded to a shit test.
(6-8) If she turns it into a shit test, she’s attracted and the man has to pass the test by requiring her to submit to a spanking. Not forcing her, she has to submit to it. And this is a world-class shit test.
If she refuses, she’s testing to see how the man handles her refusal to submit to him. Next! is the only move for the man.
If she submits at that point or if she returns in submission later, you passed the test and now you have a new one, which is how you handle the spanking you’ll have to give her. Despite it’s popularity, 50 shades is not an instruction manual.
(9-10) If instead of turning it into a shit test she agrees she needs to be spanked and asks when you’d like to take care of that, and she’s serious… The question is whether she’s so attracted that she desires to be fully in submission, whether she has a desire to be spanked or whether it’s a combination of both. And there’s nothing wrong with spankos- they are delightful creatures, they just need to be handled differently due to their desire to be spanked. For a woman who desires physical discipline, getting a spanking is a reward, not a punishment. This can create huge problems if it’s not understood that she wants to be spanked and if you love her you’ll do it.
tumblr_nhlcfm9jZI1tyzof9o1_400
What you cannot do is think of spanking as a punishment for such a woman. Because it is something she desires, you must reframe it as a reward or she will “brat” in order to get her spanking. You will literally be rewarding bad behavior.
Many women and most men will object to this for many different reasons, but if a woman is sufficiently attracted to a man and desires to submit to him, she will submit. From that point on it’s his game to lose. For those men who have a moral objection to using sex as their personal litmus test of attraction, this is a substitute. You’ll wind up having sex afterward, but you’ll do it knowing she’s a keeper.
The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red. But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with. She may love him and she may even be in love with him…but not like that.

The Objections Of Men

There are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked. Nothing could be further from the truth. When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear. They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take. Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen. Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.
If a woman is sufficiently attracted to a man who desires her, she will find a way to have sex with him. The medium is the message. It isn’t what she says or doesn’t say, it’s what she does. In the same way, a woman’s willingness to submit is also communicated by her behavior. If she’s attracted enough to the man, she will submit to that. Women who are in such a relationship usually enjoy the occasional reference, the playful swat on the ass, “the look” and other hints. The spanking itself? Not so much. However, it becomes part of the dynamic of the relationship and that expression of dominance makes a definite impression on the woman. Men reject this because of what it says about them as men and their lack of masculinity and dominance.
The woman who makes it clear that any form of discipline is unacceptable is communicating that regardless of what else the man might be, he doesn’t have what it takes to hold her accountable because she won’t put up with it. She might have sex with him, marry him, have his children and live with him but the message is she will not submit to him. Not that she won’t submit to any man, but she won’t submit to him. And as a rule, the man who doesn’t have what it takes will probably never have what it takes for the same reason the “friendzone” is a place from which men almost never escape.