Whenever I read or hear a man consistently refer to his wife as his “bride” it alerts me to his Blue Pill state of mind as well as his conditioning. This is a relatively new colloquialism for the Christian set (“christianese”). Generally I hear and read this from Evangelical Christian men because their context (or domain) is one of a self-enforced reverence for their wives. Usually it’s meant to be a not-so-veiled attempt at pedestalizing their wives in casual conversation with people they think will appreciate it (and hopefully earn cookie points with the wife), but what it reveals in my Red Pill lens is a guy who believes his “voluntary” deference to her makes him more respectable to her.I have much the same reaction that Rollo does to those two terms. Even worse, of course, is "Milady" or "My Lady" or "My Better Half" (oh, you rogue!) or "She Who Must Be Obeyed". But the problem with both "Bride" and "First Mate" is that they are terms which are chiefly meant to pedestalize (in the case of "bride") and appease (in the case of "first mate") women. Both are problematic in this regard.
Before you think I’m unfairly highlighting “Christian Beta Game” there is a similar, but more pervasive dynamic in the married-man set of the manosphere. Whenever I read a man (I’ve never heard a guy verbalize this) refer to his wife as the “First Mate” or “First Officer” it similarly sets off the same sensitivity I get with the “brides” men – and for much of the same reasons.
Any man with a cursory experience in the manosphere recognizes this buzz-term from Athol Kay’s Married Man Sex Life. The principle of the term stems from the idea that a husband needs to be the ‘captain’ of his marriage, his family and the director and decision maker of where that unit will go, what their goals are, etc. On the face of it, this male headship positioning stresses what men (and wives) interpret as an old-order conventional complementarity between the sexes.
A strong male leadership role is very appealing to both men and women, and I’ll be the first to cosign the need for a man’s ‘captaincy’ as it were in his marriage and his life in general. This ‘Manning Up’ into a headship of his relationship hits the right buttons for a man predisposed to Beta complacency (not to mention it gives him a faint hope for resolving a sexless marriage), but also for women who are encouraged by the ‘new’ Alpha-ish husband they hope will take the lead (usually from her) and potentially generate the tingles he’s never quite been able to do for her.
Unfortunately, this push for ‘captaincy’ is self-defeated by the equalist-mindset compromise of allaying a woman’s inherent insecurities by giving her assurances that she will be the “first mate” in this new arrangement. Even in a position of instated headship (relinquished or otherwise), men predisposed to an egalitarian equalism still want to ‘play fair’ and offer an appeasement for being allowed to be the head of the home.
Her voice will be heard, her input will be considered, because he just “loves her that much”; this is the self-satisfying rationale for being allowed to direct the course of his marriage and family. The problems inherent in this are rooted in the compromise of his assuming all accountability for the failures of that arrangement while still granting her his magnanimous assurances that he’ll always have her best interests in mind.
How a man refers to his wife is a surprisingly significant indication of his level of control over the relationship. For example, what would be your reaction to a man who refers to his beaming wife as his "fucktoy"? Sure, you'd find him uncouth and appalling, but that alone would have the women around the happy couple either a) sexually melting or b) physically assaulting him. There would be no doubt at all about who was wearing the pants in that relationship. Better yet, imagine the consternation if she introduced herself as his fucktoy....
The converse is also true.
Men who habitually say "my wife" or "my woman" are intrinsically stronger in relationship terms because they are not concealing the possessive aspect of the male-female relationship. And remember, women desperately want to be possessed. They want to feel owned. Denying them that feeling makes them feel rejected and alone when it doesn't make them feel contempt for the man who does not have the strength to possess them.
Symbols matter. Titles matter. So sit at the head of the table, address your wife as "my wife", not some weaselly construction, and be the master of your house. Your wife will appreciate you all the more for it.
74 comments:
I've been lucky enough to be close friends with a pair of alpha brothers, think athletes. It has helped me tremendously in my transformative process. The older one would never hesitate to call his ex-gf "my hole" in a group setting with her sitting next to him. The younger one doesn't give a sh!t about masturbating to porn in front of his gf if she is not willing to satisfy him, of course she'll oblige.
I'll never be as outgoing and extraverted (high introversion) as them so I am on my sigma way, currently beta from gamma. What is most positive about my relationship with them is that these guys have a high opinion of me, both respect and find me "exceptionnal", which has helped with my sense of self-worth.
Every newly awakend red piller should have the impetus to befriend Real Men.
What I've found in the manosphere is that the feminized tradcons can take ANY term, ANY argument, and find a way to twist it around to make it fit their woman-pedestalizing, man-bashing paradigm. So I suppose I'm not surprised if they've been able to do that with a term like "first mate," which was originally used to emphasize the husband's headship and the wife's submission.
They can do it with anything, although I'd enjoy watching the machinations that would be required to do it with "fucktoy." They'd find a way; the hamster is powerful.
I respect Rollo's opinions a great deal but here, I feel he gets it wrong for the simple reason that he was never in uniform.
A first mate...*blech*...lets go with with XO. The XO role, is not a sop to a wife's ego, it is her clearly defined role and responsibility in a marriage. The XO while next in line of command is not the assistant captain. That is not the XO's job. The Captain is focused outward. The XO is focused inward, on the running of the ship and ensuring that the captains orders are executed. Hence the term Executive Officer.
And no, you obviously don't call your wife, "XO," "Executive Officer," "First Mate," "Matey" or even "Mister Smee." You really don't call her that last one. I mean never.
My wife is German and for years I have called her using, "eh Du, Weib-Frau," (hey you wife woman) which in German sounds a little rude. 25 years in March. I guess it is working.
"Old Lady" is perfect and what I call my main chick. Kinda possessive enough and soft dread on the age thing.
Funny enough, she refers to herself as "your or his "GF" or "babymama" when talking to me or others about herself.
The meaner and more demanding you are as a man will dictate how nice your mate will be. Be a pussy, end up with a shrew.
I completely agree! My husband speaks with a German accent (although he is actually Swiss Italian, lol). Whenever he calls me 'his woman', in that accent, something unholy happens to me :-)
Yes, women like to be possessed by a man. To belong to someone masculine. In this you are absolutely correct, Mr. Vox.
Happy New year to you and yours!
Owning or possessing a woman does take a lot of internal strength and fortitude. Men used to have this as part of their growing up process...not specifically to get women, but it was part of being a man.
Men need to relearn and practice all the cardinal virtues...fortitude is one, prudence, temperance, and justice.
I'm along the lines of Cail and Cataline. The concept of "First Mate" isn't bad, in itself (though XO is more fitting).
We should always anticipate the language being subverted. It's what they do.
"You don't use that word. That's our word."
More than any word used is the tone and connotation. It's the message conveyed and how received. You can as easily witness supplication from a husband using "my wife" as you can see dominance from a husband calling for his wife.
When I was newly married (before Churchianity bent me sideways), I always introduced my wife as my "first wife."
Outer appearance, titles, and terms mean nothing if the essence is saying something else.
The younger one doesn't give a sh!t about masturbating to porn in front of his gf if she is not willing to satisfy him, of course she'll oblige.
I had a good LOL at that one.
I don't get why anyone would use something other than "wife" to refer to their church wedded, well, wife.
Okay, I've introduced my wife a number of times as my "helpmate", but only when I sensed a potential feminist in the making and I want to smoke them out.
Ah, reflection brings another title I've used. I've re-introduced my wife as "my social events coordinator", but now that I'm using my smartphone Calendar function to keep track of my social commitments, haven't used that one for over a year. For some reason, that one made the feminists even more agitated.
"You don't use that word. That's our word."
However, some terms are more easily subverted than others, and the subverters have more time and energy for that than we do to prevent it.
I wouldn't use "first mate" myself, because although I understand what Athol was doing with it, it still seems like trying too hard. It's a bit like insisting on a pre-nup -- by bringing up the topic, you're acknowledging that there's going to be a power struggle and staking out your territory as if you expect her to invade it. Which means she probably will. I'd rather stick with "my wife" and show what that means through expectations, with the occasional teasing title like "First String Tight End" thrown in for fun.
I suppose we should also remember that Athol was writing for married guys who are trying to get the power back from out-of-control wives. I don't know if he recommends that stuff for new husbands.
I kid with my wife calling her my "bride" with some modifier, but that is more because I am playing off the fact we have been married over 26 years than of some pedestalization.
Though I do value her highly and do raise her up. I find that quite consistent with what is covered in Proverbs. I strongly oppose pedestalizing women in general, but I think we can swing too far away from that as well in our fear.
We should not abandon Biblical principles because some have perverted them to mean something different.
I knew a guy who referred to his spouse as "the wife," and he was just... beaten down; he had no fight left in him at all. "Yeah, the wife needs me to do this thing after work, so, I guess I gotta do that." He very clearly resented the power she had over him, so he retitled her as THE wife instead of MY wife. It was sad.
I like the way Nick Offerman refers to his wife: "my legal property."
Interesting. I've never referred to my wife as anything other than "my" or as a rare joke, "the" wife. Calling her something as absurd as "First Mate" never crossed my mind, possibly because that's not her role.
What I have done is liken her to my Sergeant Major.
In that role, she is my senior (natch) advisor, advocate for the family, social conscience etc., and every good commander knows that only a fool routinely ignores his SgtMaj (especially a smart/wise one). HOWEVER, I am under no obligation to do what she says, and am expected to take the lead in all major decisions not previously delegated. She knows this, and what's more, she expects it of me. At times, I have given her a very long lead with the understanding that if she blows it or deceives me, that lead becomes the rope she just metaphorically hanged herself with, but it is no less than she has earned through years of wise counsel (and she knows I'm still there to bail her out if needed). I'm not sure this works for everyone, but it has for us, and it is a rare occasion that I've had to come down with and unequivocable "no" on any of her actions.
I have noticed a trend in weddings, a change if you will in the traditional giving of the bride by the father. Of the past 20 weddings I have done, 5 requested that both be included in the giving. It would sound something like this, "Who gives this man and this woman to be wed?"
My old boss referred to his wife as "the hag", both with her present and absent.
We were never quite sure how we employees should refer to her. I mean, he never, not once, used any other word. So, she was clearly officially The Hag. But I don't think any of us ever tried how US using that word would fly...
Contrast two married men in my social circle. One calls his wife "cum dumpster." The other calls his wife "snuggle bunny wonder cuddles."
Take a wild guess which man gets treated better by his wife.
JDC,
I had to read your comment twice, because I was hoping I missed the part where you said you were kidding. I've seen one where the father and the step-father walked her down the aisle, but only the father have her away.
And hey fellas, if you're looking for a red flag to bail you out of your engagement, her saying, "your father should give you away, too" should suffice. She's not looking for a husband, she's purchasing a slave. And ladies, if your man insists on himself being given away... Well, get some cats and get used to lonely nights while he plays night golf with his buddy Bruce Rothberg (it is very hard to say that name without slipping in the gay lisp).
'Take a wild guess which man gets treated better by his wife.'
The jerk...but I bet it's still not all rainbows and unicorns.
I had to read your comment twice, because I was hoping I missed the part where you said you were kidding. I've seen one where the father and the step-father walked her down the aisle, but only the father have her away.
No, I think he means that they requested that the father of the husband also gives the son away, and not just the wife's father giving daughter away.
If I imagined myself as the pastor, I would do it after making sure that they indeed understand the implications. But it wouldn't be MY fault if the husband is such a pussy that he has been under his fathers protection so far. That doesn't dishonor the institution, it just dishonors the husband, who probably deserves it too.
@ Ghost,
Hm, interesting comment you make about a man being 'given away'. My husband insisted on his own 'arrival of the groom' at our wedding (about 30 mins before my own arrival, so I missed it - arrgggh) where he was walked down the aisle by an aunt of his (in loco Mama, as his own dear mother was deceased) to a piece of music he had chosen himself.
I had never seen this done at a wedding before, but then again my husband is unique in many ways, lol. He was very close to his mother, and I know that had she been alive, she definitely would have walked him down the aisle. This aunt is the next best thing to him. As I write, we are expecting her for New Year anytime now...
Do you mean that if a man gets given away by his FATHER, it is a red flag? The mother-son thing is quite cute, I thought...I would have definitely freaked out if he wanted to be given away by his father or uncle though!
LOL.
So sit at the head of the table
This is an extremely important area in determining who is the power structure in the house.
I have never allowed her to sit across from me. It indicates cross purposes or antagonism to you. I have always made her sit to my left, the traditional, submissive, place for the woman.
The right is reserved for the oldest son present, and then the other sons. The left is reserved for daughters. Obviously depending on the number around the table there may be some flowing from left to right, but it is understood that the sons are to the right, the wife and daughters to the left.
And I say grace. If I'm not there my oldest son says it.
Even in devotions I lead them, and if not there the oldest son leads. At the end of our devotions/rosary, all the children present kneel, and, on their knees, are blessed with the sign of the cross on their forehead.
'I have never allowed her to sit across from me. It indicates cross purposes or antagonism to you. I have always made her sit to my left, the traditional, submissive, place for the woman.
The right is reserved for the oldest son present, and then the other sons.'
That's how it worked in our family...my mom sat to the left and I sat to the right. I had no idea that was the traditional way though.
I shall be marrying in a couple of days, and have always referred to my soon-to-be wife as "my woman". She digs it and calls me her man.
the worst is when these men refer to the girl as their "partner," as though they are with another man, when they aren't. it make me want to vomit.
@ Magister Wood,
Congratulations! Wow, a New Year wedding. How nice! May you have a wonderful and happy marriage. Don't stop calling her 'your woman' ever. It is one of the most beautiful experiences a woman can have, having her man call her 'his woman'. I am sure men also like to hear 'my man' from their woman. It goes both ways, I think. My husband always smiles when I say this to him :-)
The groom is not supposed to be "given away" at a properly conducted wedding. The groom arrives, with the best man and any ushers, before the wedding starts. He positions himself at the foot of the altar, ready to receive the bride when she is escorted up the aisle by her father, preferably, or by another man in her family. When the bride and her father reach the groom, the father retreats and the groom escorts the bride to the altar and stands next to her for the exchange of vows. Any variation on this--the bride walking up the aisle by herself as is so common these days, the groom walking up the aisle period, or the mothers of either the bride or the groom participating in the procession up the aisle (mothers are supposed to be seated by the ushers in honorable places in the pews before the wedding)--is a travesty. It looks terrible and makes the groom look unmanly. Charlotte Allen
Any variation on this--the bride walking up the aisle by herself as is so common these days, the groom walking up the aisle period, or the mothers of either the bride or the groom participating in the procession up the aisle (mothers are supposed to be seated by the ushers in honorable places in the pews before the wedding)--is a travesty. It looks terrible and makes the groom look unmanly.
*Orson Welles -clap*
Language always matters, and for those who aren't going to get married (again) there appear to be two choices in describing the woman: "girlfriend," and for the social justice-inclined, "partner."
Aside from the equalist connotation, "partner" is more common with same sex couples. "Girlfriend" is rarely used in an LTR by the moral narcissists, and culturally anointed. Girlfriend implies a youthful, active sexual orientation to the relationship; partner implies Monday morning staff meetings to discuss the division of household chores. I think I'll keep my partner's desk at the office and keep my romantic relationships romantic.
***
MMSL has First Mate moderation now that has driven several of my red pill friends from the site. (They were making some women uncomfortable, so shut up, she explained.) I don't know if this makes the Captain over there Captain Queeg. It seems to me that place went south with the consulting business introduction, and it became easier to get couples to pay money if the advice pleased the female. This aligns with how most churches are structured, as again the offertory is richer if the wife is happier.
***
The tradcon, churchian, self-aggrandizing self-praise for pedestalizing the wife reveals itself in congregation elders advising one to pray on how to please and satisfy one's wife; in the noisy introduction of ill-behaved children in the sanctuary (because while the sermon may be thoughtful, it's important to remember who has a functioning birth canal, and is the real star of the service); and in the insipid, hip-swaying 'praise songs' to boyfriend Jesus; and the feminized calls for a 'relationship' with Jesus. Oddly, "relationship with Jesus" is not a biblical concept, but it certainly puts a husband in his place.
--BuenaVista
the worst is when these men refer to the girl as their "partner,"
I am in the college educated set (late Gen X/early Millennial), and I noticed there appears to be a bit of bimodal distribution in marriage age among the people I know. Either they get married in their mid 20s or their mid 30s with a bit of a marriage desert in between.
Something that strikes me odd thinking back through it is those of us that got married in our 20's had vows with some teeth in them. Many, perhaps most, removed obey but even those that did the vows still created affirmative duties (cherish, honor, aid, care, support, etc) all with a clear design at creating something from two parts.
In the mid 30's weddings which I have been attending the last few years the vows aren't even really vows, and are taking the form of "friend and partner in good and bad" and things in that vein. I seriously question the point of these marriages other than to have really expensive parties.
It seems to me that place went south with the consulting business introduction, and it became easier to get couples to pay money if the advice pleased the female. This aligns with how most churches are structured, as again the offertory is richer if the wife is happier.
On the one hand, sell out. On the other hand, a man has to feed his family. And marketing to unhappy wives is far more profitable than marketing to unhappy husbands.
I like:
* wench
* bedwarmer
* senior wife
I married an Evangelical, but a foreign one. Interesting dichotomy there. Since I'm an actual ship's captain, I intuitively wanted my wife to be my first mate, as the system works quite well...on a ship. In marriage, though, that system cost us the happiness reputed to go along with the honeymoon years. It was hell.
I credit Athol Kay with introducing me to the Manosphere, and for a lot of help in terms of rectifying my own reluctance to assume headship within my family (damn insidious programming) with my wife's desire for me to do exactly that. Becasue of his exclusion of dealing with religion in marriage, I no longer completely agree with Kay's methods, but as a 'one size fits most' starting point, he's a fantastic authority... and the real world relationship between captain and a good chief mate (many will never make captain) IS closer to what Kay envisions. A good chief mate will be able to fill my shoes, but if he tries to do so while I'm living, he goes ashore at the next port. I expect him to be masterful within the confines of his purview, submissive to me, while also being a living extension of my will. There's no room for equalism there. The moment a mate's ego conflicts with mine, he goes ashore at the next port. Even Kay would blanch at the implications for marriage there, yet, without the strength of will to do exactly that, a woman, regardless of her depth of faith, will not respect her husband enough to submit to him. I've never put my wife ashore, and never threatened to, only because I never had to.
It seems to me that without the American feminism-taint in Evangelicals, they're actually predisposed to stronger marriages via their church's demands for maintaining traditional families via traditional means.
@ Charlotte Allen,
Yes, normally I would agree with you. But given this was my own wedding, with my own husband...
LOL!
Though most of the time I refer to her as “my wife,” I sometimes introduce her to others as “my bride.” I married her just shy of her 18th birthday, so she is in fact the “bride of my youth.” It would be ridiculous to refer to her as my “bride” if she were in her twenties, or especially her thirties, when we married. She has been Godly, submissive, and has given me 4 children. She is MY bride, and no one else’s. In no way do I do it to pedestalize her. It is simply recognition of her obedience to God by being obedient and submissive to me, her husband. Just as we should be quick to shame women who have ridden the cock carousel before settling for a Beta, we should also be quick to give credit to those women who married young and take on the traditional role of a helpmeet. On the rare occasions that she acts up, she gets a stern “woman” from me, or “you ignorant slut” when she says something ridiculous. I call her all sorts of things, but most of those are reserved for the bedroom.
That being said, anyone who refers to their wife as “my best friend” should have his testicles removed from her purse and shoved through a meat grinder.
I'm surprised Rev. Insanity hasn't show up to to preach the "we're called to fuck jerks to save the world" Gospel.
Women are great at missing the point. Women are free to do whoever they want, whenever they want. What they should not be able to do is extract support from one man through government force while servicing another.
I get the appellation "favorite wife" when my behavior pleases my husband, and "least favorite wife" if I screw something up, but to other people I've always been "my wife" when my husband introduces me. "Bride" sounds like you've been married for less than a year and are still in the infatuated honeymoon stage!
Interestingly enough about the table places, I didn't know about the traditional right/left seating but that's exactly how I set things up when we moved into the house. My parents also seat themselves that way but I've never heard them talk about any particular reason why, other than the first left-hand seat having the most convenient kitchen access.
I often use "wench, " as in, "shut up, wench." For that matter, dawg, what about, "yo, bitch"? For some, that's a popular one.
Between Mr. Smee and "Fucktoy", some of y'all owe me another coffee and keyboard.
Heh
This post made a long forgotten memory bubble to the surface.
I have always called my wife 'girl' when addressing her directly. About 10 years into our marriage she confronted me and told me she had never liked being called 'girl'. I just smirked and said; 'It's a bit bloody late to tell me that now!' and walked off.
This was years before I discovered the red pill. I've only just realised it was a shit test and that I passed it.
We're nearly at the 25 year mark now and she is still called 'girl'. Mostly. Post red pill I use 'slut' when the opportunity presents. It makes her blush and giggle.
Like a girl.
I must admit I'm a little jealous of those here who have servants who can serve their family dinner at the dinner table, and thus can have their seating arrangement setup for wife on the left, sons on the right. As opposed to some of us who are forced to have the wife sit in the spot most convenient for her to stand up, grab the next hot dish or plates, serve the family, and return to her seat without a lot of fuss.
I think it is a great idea, however, so I'm not knocking it. It pretty much sets the tone for the whole family dynamic.
Terms of address do indeed mean things, and I think we've lost that kind of understanding in our society. They get at the heart of a relationship. Regarding marriage, many people, in their desire not to offend and/or be conciliatory, end up erasing all the fun interplay between men and women and coming across as patronizing. My husband has always called me his little wench or his wife or his woman, depending on context. If he called me his bride or captain, it would be so sarcastic and disdainful as to be offensive. I always wonder if this disdain which is so readily apparent in my husband is what other men are masking when they come across as patronizing.
The guy who coined the term wanted his website to be popular with females, especially married women, otherwise the site would not have succeeded so grandly. The way to appeal to females is no secret: offer them un-merited and un-earned power (or wealth) of some type. So marriage again moves away from the pole of love and obedience, and towards the pole of modern, pagan, power-politics, by awarding women a shipboard title ('First Mate') that's normally reserved for a man. Athol Kay's blog was popular for a reason -- it appeals to the rebellious sensibilities of modern secular people, while maintaining a traditional front. Women get to take over a male title, while pretending command of a 'ship'. Instead of simply being humble and obedient, as God commands.
Western men keep trying to placate and/or buy-off women, in an attempt to 'keep the peace'. But it only encourages more rebellion.
Just curious how you guys would interpret '... a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
@JCclimber:
You don't need servants. All you have to do is position the wife at the place at the table most convenient for her to serve. We almost always ate in the kitchen when I was growing up, and my mother always sat at my dad's left--and also closest to the stove. The rules for entertaining guests in a dining room are a little different, though. The host should sit at one end of the table and the hostess at the other.
Space traveler,
The man is not given away because he is already his own man. None are responsible for him but him. A mother giving away her son may seem like cute symbolism, but that's usually a sign that he's more married to his mother than he will ever be to you. An umbilical needs to be severed.
A man needs to have his shit together before he gets married.
All that being said, your husband may very well be the exception that proves the rule.
Brian, why don't you tell us how you interpret it, and what that has to do with the topic?
See, that's how conversation works, as opposed to interrogation.
Funny that you think that was interrogation.
Earlier in this comment thread there was a discussion about fathers giving away the husband. I am not for that, but I find it interesting that this verse doesn't say, "And the wife shall leave ... and cleave to her husband ... " but the other way around. Which would seem to be the way the manosphere thinks how it happens. But I could be wrong, just my impression.
I myself am not to sure of the full implications of this verse from a psychological or spiritual affect. But I can tell you that a man, a woman and marriage are symbolic of Christ and his church. So it would stand to reason that Christ, having left his father's abode, came to earth to give his life for his bride (the church is called the bride and we are admonished to give our lives for our wives as husbands) and thus has "cleaved" himself for all eternity to humanity.
I want to also add that for anyone who thinks marriage is some entrapment by a woman, or man I suppose, or some way for either party to "complete" themselves don't really understand the purpose to marriage from an eternal standpoint. From the christian's worldview, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Marriage and our roles in them have purpose beyond temporal satisfaction.
My dad called my mom "My Bride" as long as I could remember. She is now a widow and an Alpha Widow. She told me several years after he passed that there will never be and could never be another man in her life. My dad sat at the head of the table and she stood beside him and peeled his food for him the whole time they were married. Almost like Caesar reclining on a bench while nubile maidens drop grapes in his mouth.
Just a reminder, that the original post said that the terms used "alert" the listener to their blue-pill mindset or upbringing. For some of our parents, that blue-pill wasn't as far off from reality as it is in today's world. It is just one more thing to use to assess yourself and those you meet, to grant better understanding.
And while using a certain term like "my bride" may be a warning, the man's overall alpha status is the deciding factor. Just like any man who referred to his wife as his cum dumpster alerts me to the fact that his wife probably has the hots for him, but I also have a pretty good indication that I probably am not going to want to hang around him too much either.
To Brian, I think most everyone ignores that particular verse about a lack of sex in heaven....it just goes to show that we really are so far fallen that it is very very difficult for us to grasp that we'll likely be eating fruit, that we probably won't even need the promised mansion, there will no longer be any time constraints on conversations and learning, that there won't be any need for sexual intercourse.
Boggles the mind. My faith in God reassures me that whatever God has to replace it must be much better, and makes me wonder just how far out of balance we've fallen since Adam and Eve were created perfect. Because let's face it, the way our bodies work NOW, a lack of sex for eternity is pretty hard to picture as a paradise. So, I'm just going to put that into the basket of "let's wait until we get to heaven before judging God's paradise and how He runs it. And when we get there, and see Him face to face, we'll be casting our crowns at His feet and judging Him won't cross out minds."
Brian, I have not thought about it a lot, though the same question has come up in my own mind. It does seem that the idea that a man is now leader of his own family rather than being part of his father's family. A man gains a lot of independence as an adult, but is not the head of a family until he marries.
Ray,
I only want my wife to submit to me, not everyone else. Your point fails there. I do want her to actively take charge of things under her scope. I don't want to have to make each and every decision in the home.
I do this at work all the time. My boss (and his bosses) want me to make firm decisions in the areas of my responsibility. They don't want me to subvert them, but they do not want to make decisions I should be making. Those decisions should always fit with their goals and vision, but must still be made mostly without their direct involvement.
I suppose this might to some extent be a place where alpha game and mmsl are at cross purposes. The goal of mmsl is to save marrages, and the goal of agp is (I assume) to save civilization. And while those 2 goals share a lot of overlap, it's far from complete overlap.
Just curious how you guys would interpret '... a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
For the most part, I don't think it's productive to try to get much meaning out of single verses. But as far as this one goes, it doesn't seem too complicated. It's saying a man has to cut the apron strings of childhood to start his own family. It says nothing about how authority in that new family will work, but fortunately we have many other parts of scripture that do describe family authority in very clear terms. Being "one flesh" with your wife doesn't mean you're equals. In fact, to the extent that you become "one flesh," doesn't it make sense that one united creature would have one "head" rather than two?
My husband is the same way - he doesn't want to decide what to have for dinner, and to a large extent he doesn't want to make lots of decisions about things like vacations and Christmas presents. I'm typically the one planning our trips (he has final say of course), and figuring out what to get the family for Christmas and things like that. He has enough to do with work and figuring out big picture stuff (like when to replace the roof and things of that nature) that he doesn't really want to bothered with all the stuff I can handle on my own.
I have not read MMSL for a long time so this is IIRC: doesn't his vision of marriage encompass more of a "co-equal partner" thing? I found a number of things over there off-putting.
I also question where the idea of "First Mate" as a "Co-Captain" arises. Hell, even Riker knew how to heel. Wise counsel that is at least considered if not abided is not the same as making the hard choices yourself.
I always saw the analog of the family as an ancient ship. The Husband is the Captain. Wife is First Mate / XO. She enacts his policies and serves his will. I figured that meant Captain doesn't bother with day to day crew duties.
She deals with the rabble of the crew (the kids) under his authority. Tough choices come up, she gathers data and gives the Captain the options and the choice to make. In an ideal marriage, her advice is worth gold. If the crew pisses off the First Mate too much, she gets the Captain and someone gets keel-hauled. She screws up, Captain makes her walk the plank...or maybe just get spanked.
I am not at all seeing how this is contradictory to Game / being more Alpha.
I guess you only know the nuances between First Mate and XO if you are familiar with nautical terminology. If you don't know nautical terminology you must be a beta.
"For the most part, I don't think it's productive to try to get much meaning out of single verses." No its not. But this isn't the only occurrence of this verse either. But thanks for playing!
Earlier in this comment thread there was a discussion about fathers giving away the husband. I am not for that, but I find it interesting that this verse doesn't say, "And the wife shall leave ... and cleave to her husband ... " but the other way around. Which would seem to be the way the manosphere thinks how it happens. But I could be wrong, just my impression.
Note that the man leaves, he is not given away. I take it as meaning the newly married couple are not part of the parent family, but become their own family.
Brother dealt with an aspect of this just after he got married; our parents are micromanagers and would drop into his home uninvited to help with random house chores. Brother had to put his foot down and tell them they needed to request permission and give notice.
If a guy wishes to call his wife his bride, milady, buttercup, sweety, etc, what would I know about their intentions?
A nickname may just be a nickname. It might not mean anything or something, but it's not something to take that seriously. Certainly, it is a "tell" of whether the women is elevated higher than the man, but that is something easily discerned in other ways. I just find this whole thing a non-issue.
"I guess you only know the nuances between First Mate and XO if you are familiar with nautical terminology. If you don't know nautical terminology you must be a beta."
You could just explain instead of being an arse.
Milady=dead giveaway beard.
Maier,
Robert W. Is a squid who is sniffing at you because you aren't stuck in a long, hard submarine with tons of other semen like he is.
"This is my knob-gobbler and roommate..."
@Ghost - No, I wasn't kidding. To add to the folly, usually the parents in the aforementioned examples have requested that it is not the father giving his daughter, but the parents. The script would read, "Who gives this woman in marriage?" "Her parents." I suppose its an attempt to fight the patriarchy, e.g., it's sexist to have a man giving a woman away. I also agree that this is more a reflection on the weakness of the groom in this situation...as someone mentioned, the groom throws on a tux and waits at the altar to take his woman from the father.
@JCClimber
You might want to re-think your ideas about that verse. Jesus didn't mention sex - he was talking about marriage. In the heaven he describes there's no need for marriage; you cannot love any one person more or less than another.
An equally valid reading of that sentence would be that, in heaven, men and women can freely enjoy sex because there's no possible way they can deprive any other person of their rightful status in your life.
Both the question asked of Jesus, and his answer, were exclusively focused on marriage, not sex.
God invented sex, and God gave it to humanity as a gift, in Eden. I see no scriptural support whatsoever for the notion that he plans to take away anything from "Eden restored", and turn humanity into a bunch of androgynous sexual ciphers.
The idea that he was talking about sex is a deliberate misreading promulgated by a style of christian who are thoroughly conflicted about and embarrassed by the subject.
It aint neccesarily so.
@ScuzzaMan lol, thats plain nuts bro.
Heaven is an orgy. Where's Thulsa Doom?
Gen. 2: 23 And Adam said: This now, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.
24 Wherefore man shall leave his father & mother, & shall cleave to his wife, & they shall be: two in one flesh.
First she was taken from Adam, not made by a separate creation. Second, he named her, which means he had dominion over her.
(See 1 Cor. 11:8. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
Gen. 2:21
9. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.)
Then he states that (and this is obviously prophecy at this point as Adam has no earthly father or mother) the man becomes a full man in his own stead by leaving his father and mother to set up his own House, shall bind a wife to himself (cleave to his wife), and they will be two in one flesh - the sexual congress, and also the union of his seed and her’s in their children.
I take the role of master of my home very seriously. I do, however, refer to my wife as “my dear wife” when speaking to other women over the phone, or in the store when my wife is not with me, in order to put a fence around my marriage (the Jewish way to refer to protecting my marriage). We live in horrible times when some women on the prowl don’t care if a man is married or not.
Try to read for comprehension, Brian.
What I wrote was: "an equally valid reading ..."
You can take whatever you want out of the written word, if you apply Clintonian interpretation to it. "Give me six lines ..." as Cardinal Richelieu said.
Taking your own statement, if what I wrote was nuts, then any "equally valid" reading is also nuts.
The fact remains, Jesus said nothing about sex, but people are so stupidly obsessed with the physical that we overlook the spiritual reality which permeates everything he said.
Or perhaps the kingdom of God really IS "like a mustard seed", small and round and brown? No?
No, I didn't think so, either.
We'll be like the angels in that they do not marry. Read whatever you like into that, as people do, it is about marriage, not sex. The point is, WHY do they not marry? What is it about them that makes it un-necessary? You think it is merely that they don't have the plumbing?
I disagree.
If that makes me nuts, so be it. I'd only note that I made an argument, whereas you didn't even attempt one. I'm content to let the readers decide whose position is more convincing.
Matchfinder is the single largest matrimonial platform having numerous profiles from kerala matrimony ezava community.kerala matrimony ezava
Matchfinder is the single largest matrimonial platform having numerous profiles from kerala matrimony ezava community.kerala matrimony ezava
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.