And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.Both men and women are hierarchical herd animals, but women tend to be more focused on status within the hierarchy, especially as it is denoted by external markers of that status. From Michal's perspective, David was behaving in a foolish manner unworthy of a king. Because his external behavior was incongruent with his high-status position, she did not respect him for either his position or his accomplishments, but despised him instead. Notice that all of his past achievements and all of her affection for him meant absolutely nothing in that moment; because he played the fool, once, in public, that is enough to completely destroy her regard for him.
- 2 Samuel 6:16, 20-23.
Take note of that, men. Screw up in her singular opinion just one time in public and that can be all she wrote for your wife's regard for you, at least in the short term.
There is, of course, an element of jealousy here as well. Michal complains specifically about "the handmaids of his servants", which tells us that they probably didn't mind the sight of the handsome young king capering about in his uncovered glory at all. It is telling that she doesn't bring up the priests, the soldiers, the old men, the widows, the beggars, or anyone else who has seen David leaping and dancing. No, it's what we can safely assume to be the positive response of the pretty young women that set her off.
This is a lesson for both men and women. Michal can't help that she doesn't like his behavior, but she has three choices. She could keep her mouth shut, she could fawn on him in the manner we presume the handmaids did, or she can resort to the role of the Mommy-fuhrer. Being filled with jealousy and despising him in her heart, she unwisely resorts to the latter. This is a terrible idea in general, and it is spectacularly stupid in the case of a charismatic alpha who is not only a popular leader of men, but a superlative killer as well. Her response is a textbook example of how a woman should NEVER behave when she thinks her man has made a fool of himself in public.
David's response is also illuminating. He not only rejects her attempt to control him, but he recognizes that her failure to understand the purpose underlying his actions renders her categorically unfit to be a wife to a king who fears and abases himself before the Lord. The clear implication of the final verse should put fear into the heart of every woman who thinks to exert herd control over her husband via shame: "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."
David doesn't divorce Michal, but he sexually rejects her as a wife from that moment forward. Not because she was jealous or because she thought he looked foolish while dancing, (he actually agrees with her in that regard given how he describes himself as base in his own sight), but due to her complete failure to understand who and what he is, her inability to comprehend his values, and her lack of respect for him as a man and a king. She has everything backwards. She thinks his dancing before the Lord makes him inglorious and unworthy of his position, whereas he knows that because he is a king, he can behave in an even more vile manner and merit honor for it.
This is a strong Alpha move. David doesn't hesitate or equivocate, he doesn't attempt to explain himself or defend himself. He simply acts. He doesn't try to fix the situation because there is nothing to fix: she has, of her own will, disqualified herself as being worthy of his wife and queen. David's action illuminates the bright dividing line between ALPHA and BETA. ALPHAS qualify women. BETAS attempt to qualify themselves to women. And ALPHAS, being secure in their self-belief, do not tolerate women attempting to qualify them. The mere attempt to do so is sufficient to intrinsically disqualify the woman.
A man answers to God. He does not answer to his wife. The wise man will listen to his wife and consider her advice. But he will not answer to her. He has a purpose in life that goes beyond pleasing her.
This passage from 2 Samuel is an ancient illustration of an observable modern reality and explains why women tend to respond so positively to douchebags with Game while despising men of quality who lack it. Women tend to focus on attitude and external status markers; they often fail to grasp that the markers can be misleading and that the value they nominally represent only exists insofar as a marker truly indicates something of substance supporting it. While this tendency can certainly be surmounted, that can't happen so long as its existence is denied.
41 comments:
"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."
And not only did Saul disqualify her, he never gave in or had a moment of weakness thereafter, which might have given her the chance to cuckold him. Had she become with child thereafter, not just Saul, but everyone else would have known what what happened, and it could not have reflected badly on him because he had already rejected her. Checkmate.
**David, not Saul
I'm very glad I've come to realize that trying to qualify myself to women is a complete waste of time. They either get it or they don't.
Irrational self confidence via "Hey, it's my world, you're just living in it" is a fun attitude to live by anyway.
Again, I am choking on a red pill. Keep 'em coming.
For some women, especially the hardcore feminists, a man rejecting a woman sexually would be welcomed. The idea of a man who does not desire to have sex with a woman (loving her pixie haircut and brilliant mind and not body) is an viral part of their rhetoric.
Of course, this probably reflects their bitterness after choosing to give away their virtue at a young age without anything following. It also sounds silly when such feminists spout the rhetoric and then marry and have children. There is no surprise that feminists are ardent supporters of the gay community, a place where weak men desire each other instead of women and leave women to run things.
That's a bit off, Miserman. A man who sexually rejects a hardcore feminist will be accused of being "weak" "a pig" "a throwback" or a plain old "bastard."
He's only rejecting her, you see, because he can't handle her.
It would not be welcome, despite what the general rhetoric might indicate. Straight feminists who support gays are also the most vocal about their confusion over why they can never find a man "strong" enough for them.
@Daniel,
In my experience, one of the biggest complaints about men from feminists is that men want to have sex with women instead of "respecting" women's intelligence and moral superiority. In that line, men who are asexual or gay are attractive to their ideology, though not to their biology.
On a strange note, CNN ran an opinion piece about a future of reproduction without sex, calling it a "liberating future" for women.
Miserman, they will accuse you for wanting sex, and accuse you for not wanting it. The one makes you a monster, the other a wimp.
A woman's mouth noises are by nature emotive. A woman who believes she is speaking honestly and substantively is, more often than not, only expressing her emotion of the moment.
They can overcome this, but most never realize the problem even exists, and it's a dangerous thing to attempt the correction.
Vox, I looked at some commentaries based on the original Hebrew. There's no indication that David was never intimate with Michal again. His strongly-worded rebuke was certainly enough. And given David's high regard for Saul and his descendants, including his daughter, regardless of her haughty manner, it doesn't make sense. The commentaries say she did have a son before this (named Ithream, on II Samuel 3:5). The Talmud (Sanhedren 21a) says Eglah is a term of endearment and a nickname of Michal, to indicate she was his most beloved wife, or because she was his first wife (the wife of thy youth, and all that). Commentaries say that either she had no child after this, or she died during childbirth. The punishment was directly from God, not from David.
Otherwise a very fine and enjoyable analysis in terms of Game.
There's no indication that David was never intimate with Michal again.
What is the literal translation of this? I'm not interested in the commentaries, just the actual text.
"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."
My Hebrew is not great, but I will try (as literal as possible and still readable):
"And to Michal daughter of Saul there was not (this could also be "will not be" - not sure) to her child until the day of her death."
Even the simple reading indicates a Divine punishment. The king is subject to the law, no different than the commoner, and every husband has an obligation to engage in sexual relations with his wife.
I can provide transliterated Hebrew for your edification. But I am sure the original is available online.
Miserman
In my experience, one of the biggest complaints about men from feminists is that men want to have sex with women instead of "respecting" women's intelligence and moral superiority.
I agree with this. This is a very big complaint.
They are, of course, lying. They wouldn't care if a man of suitable status to them only cared about sleeping with them. This is the lie they tell each other to disqualify men of low status who would deign to sleep with them. It is the lie they tell themselves to rationalize why they will never get the man they think they deserve.
My only objection was that a feminist would "welcome" the withholding of sex by a man they desired. She wouldn't - not on principle and not naturally. She simply spout the party line as a rationalization, not a truth.
You may have meant that originally, and I missed it.
I never got the impression from that passage that Saul rejected his wife sexually, but that it was a punishment from God. Of course we aren't given much information.
Regardless, David handled it with Alpha aplomb. DHV, "agree and amplify", and dread game all in one.
@Daniel
They are, of course, lying.
Lying to themselves more than to men while blaming men for lying more than themselves. Feminism is one long episode of the Twilight Zone.
The sphere is going mainstream:
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/huffpost-live-59-minutes/
My Hebrew knowledge is scanty compared to a scholar; but I point you to the use of Talmudic hyperbole in phrasing throughout the OT. Saying that she had no children is a polite way of saying she lost favor; kind of like saying "He teaches me to bend a bow of bronze!" even if you don't have a brazen bow; or a physical grave being called "gate of sheol".
Recalling the quote of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king!".
Considering feminism in the above discussion, if you accept feminism it is hard not to justify bestiality simply on the basis that it is hard to distinguish at times. Cast not your pearls before swine. Pearls are spherical - balls?
She was a queen but ended up as bareness.
There is also a disputed text, but it was later 2 Sam 21:8 said she had 5 children.
Wouldn't standard game theory indicate that she should instead be more interested in David since the other women liked him? Preselection, dread, and all that?
The two countervailing factors that come to mind for me are 1) maybe the preselection was not enough to compensate for the hit to his perceived social rank 2) she might just be a terrible person.
"charismatic alpha who is not only a popular leader of men, but a superlative killer as well"
I think of the late Neptunus Lex when I read that. I think that's why, when The Captain died, so many of us around the world who had only known him through the Internet wept, and joined the World-Wide Wake. We men all wanted to follow him; the wimmin wanted to bear his babies. He being a Christian gentleman, only his wife got to do the latter. He had been exec of TOPGUN, and commanded a couple or three fighter squadrons. Oh, and he was all-American in sabre his senior year at USNA. He would have made a much better President than that other retired Naval Aviator.
He wrote as if he were an angel, too.
Matt,
I had the same thought: his dancing and not caring what anyone thought sounds like classic alpha confident behavior, and all the girls fluttering around was pre-selection. I'd guess that she was more attracted to him, and tried a shit test to bring him back down to a lower level. It's not unusual for a woman who's desperately horny for a guy -- especially if her brain is going, "Wait, why am I so hot? I know him and he's not all that." -- to fight against that within herself, and sometimes to express it by trying to tear him down.
So David probably could've said, "Yeah, right, you know you want it; now get in bed," and she would've happily complied. He went nuclear instead, probably not because he had to, but to make a theological point about dissing the King.
"Wouldn't standard game theory indicate that she should instead be more interested in David since the other women liked him? Preselection, dread, and all that?
The two countervailing factors that come to mind for me are 1) maybe the preselection was not enough to compensate for the hit to his perceived social rank 2) she might just be a terrible person."
You could probably have thought of Michal as an early feminist. After all, there are plenty of feminists nowadays who, like Michal, end up childless (but own cats) because they've gone full retard with respect to the whole feminism thing. Basically, feminists like Michal are basically the female equivalent of the male omega.
Much like the omega, they just don't understand why it is that nobody wants to even touch them with a 10' pole.
pre-selection would not apply. She was his wife. She already knew him.
There is also a disputed text, but it was later 2 Sam 21:8 said she had 5 children.
True. Most Hebrew texts do say that (at least as per Biblegateway.com), but some say "Merab" instead.
Any Hebrews scholars around here? :-)
Justthisguy, I'm surprised to find another Lexican here. Though I suspect I should not be.
For the record, he's understating Lex's writing.
The main problem with the notion is that men no longer can have a group of wives from which to pick and choose. And while I like some of the biblical notions, I know, just as with some of what Christ did, it isn't for me or even meant for me, in a literal or even figurative manner.
All women try this type of game. How far she gets in it is more up to whether a man can and will put his foot down. No man is perfect at it, and no man probably should be. There is always some give and take.
If you want a smooth marriage, you are going to have to do your homework. While women aren't exactly animals, to my thinking and understanding, they are a part of the domain. The domain was given to man to conquer, work, maintain. It is up to us as individuals and as a group. To be honest, we aren't really good at it. Alphas are great at getting leg, but terrible husbands. Betas are good at providing, but leave much to be desired from their wives. The others have their own foibles. Women, like children, will get away with whatever they can, and they were meant to try. It is really men who allow or don't. Although society used to play a positive role in that.
The only perfect man stayed virginal from what I can tell, never took a bride for sure, and then was murdered. Not much help there, as to how to make things work, in a practical manner. And kings themselves were an affront to God, just by being chosen. Something about the people not rejecting the prophet by choosing a king as much as them rejecting God Himself. And the lifestyle of kings were rather grotesquely excessive on top of that, so no real help there. I don't know, there isn't that much in the bible, really, as a practical guide (if some moral and ethical claims). And less from modern churches. We are on our own.
She thinks his dancing before the Lord makes him inglorious and unworthy of his position, whereas he knows that because he is a king, he can behave in an even more vile manner and merit honor for it.
i have a moderately subtle difference of opinion here; it's not David's kingship which renders his antics worthy, it's the fact that what he's doing is an act of worship, fear and honor shown by him to God.
consider, these actions took place when David was transferring the Ark from Gibeah to Jerusalem. after God struck Uzzah dead, David was so frightened that he abandoned the Ark for 3 months in the middle of the journey.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%206:7-12&version=KJV
you'll also note that, practically speaking, David has explicitly abased himself to the whole nation of Israel, not just God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%206:17-19&version=KJV
the normal way of things is that kings collect taxes, not that they pay them to every single one of their citizens.
i'm sure part of what angered Micah was that David was 'pissing away' 'her' wealth.
Thanks for unpacking the game-related aspects of this passage so comprehensively, Vox. It's much clearer to me now.
BM
While we are on the subject:
Can anyone identify the socio-sexual principal in effect in this Bible verse?
"And the women sang to one another as they celebrated, “Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”"
By the way, isn't the "therefore" the dead giveaway?
Sounds to me like David was gay.
You want to know what made Michal despise David. Let's get one more piece of data about her possible mindset.
Before Saul was killed on the battlefield but after he became an avowed enemy of David we see him do this,
1 Samuel 25
44 Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was from Gallim.
Saul gave David's wife to another man and David could do nothing to stop it. How much fear and uncertainty would that engender in Michal's heart? Would she blame David for it? Even just a little? Maybe a lot? Would she feel betrayed by her father? What would that do to her? Just how much bitterness took root with this one event?
Now, David got her back once Abner came over to David's side. That's a story too long to be told here. Suffice to say Michal was taken from a weeping Palti and given back to David.
It is after all this that we see Michal despise David as he dances before the Lord. In her mind she has already personally experienced David's weakness. That she perceives David displaying weakness again, and publically at that, was probably too much for her. At least that's likely what was going on in her mind. It seems she had lost her love for him long before this day ever arrived.
I think we see in this incident that Michal was a normal woman. To her the world and the people in it were just too much of a disappointment.
Sounds to me like David was gay.
He was 'seduced' by the woman next door.
Personally, I don't believe in seduction. People do what they want to do. If it's outside of the social norms, a weak person makes excuses (i.e. I was seduced) or or if they are strong, they'll just fess up to it.
People can't be seduced, but they can use it as an excuse if they are weak.
So King David, slayer of giants, was weak. How many layers to this red pill are there?
Can anyone identify the socio-sexual principal in effect in this Bible verse?
"And the women sang to one another as they celebrated, “Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”"
I'll take a stab at it:
As it relates to game, women are herd animals and will be happy to justify their feelings with just 1 fact. David was the celebrity, more so than Saul, so the women as a group, justified this with the fact that proved it to them.
They celebrated the fact that supported what they felt and [sarcasm] since they were all virtuous women, the violence that David was capable had no play in their desire for them [/sarcasm].
...their desire for him.
My proof reading sucks...
michal had no idea of, nor appreciation for, the relationship between david and the "ark" nor even the sense to understand why the king was (properly) overcome with joy
what was ignorance then, is ignorance now
if the Lord wants the donkey kicked, he will kick it
if michal (or anybody else) tries to kick the donkey, and gets in between what is not their business, they will get it instead (paging gabby hello gabby)
instead of rallying around and supporting michal, and punishing david -- as would be done today -- the king immediately put her in her place, then relied on the LORD to enforce his disapproval (barrenness of body to match her barrenness of heart)
the michal/david incident exactly reflects modern western cultures, and God's response to nations full of screeching, jealous, selfish, shrewish females likewise will be barrenness, of various type
it's nothing to do with "game" however ... (a few) men have been acting like men right along, they didnt need rossy and roosh to refine and market the "techniques," just a relationship to God's servants (here, ark) and humility before God himself
a good piece
Some rather redemptive exegesis here, probably better than what happens in a lot of seminary classes these days. Also, great to see some fellow Neptunus Lex fans here, a year after his passing. Freedom through truth.
The socio-sexual concept is:
"Let's you and him fight."
Though the other analysis was interesting as well.
I would like to add that David, being a man, rebuked her good, and would never continue a punish a woman in the manner that Vox suggests for being guilty of a being a woman. He was Alpha. Her outburst was out of line, to be sure, but he certainly understood that it was completely typical of women in general.
In other words, she still got a royal rogering, right on schedule?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.