Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.The solution is the same as it ever was. If a wife loses attraction to a husband and ceases to fulfill her marital duties, she has set him free to have sex with other women and he should behave accordingly. Contra conventional expectations, this behavior will reliably regenerate the attraction that she ceased to feel when he was a dutiful and faithful husband, particularly if he gets involved with younger, more attractive women.
I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.
There is nothing noble about a husband suffering in dutiful acquiescence. That will only cause his frigid wife to further despise him. When you're given carte blanche, play the damn card!
96 comments:
How does this jive with Christian marriage?
Adultery is adultery.
Saira = obnoxious entitled harridan
Steve = putz who would never cheat in a million years. Geez if she dropped dead tomorrow the guy still wouldn't be able to get laid. Just look at his body language; crouched, narrow shoulders rolled forward, looking down at the desk most of the time, defers to his awful shrew of a wife.
Please don't flame me for this, but yes - I agree with Anchorman. Or are we saying that she has already broken her vows and therefore he is free to move on?
How does this jive with Christian marriage?
Broken vows mean marital constraints no longer apply.
"If a wife loses attraction to a husband and ceases to fulfill her marital duties, she has set him free to have sex with other women and he should behave accordingly."
"Broken vows mean marital constraints no longer apply."
This is very effective rhetoric. Have you laid out the dialectic in previous posts?
In Hypergamy one should also assume if the woman is giving you carte-blanche that she will assume she has a day pass as well and will fuck others...
I'll take a shot Gunnar. Are you trying to use dialectic on a sex refusing hypergamous wife? If so you are speaking the wrong language.
Dialectically I will never (again) commit adultery. Rhetorically, my wife need not be brought to this understanding. Why provide the security blanket for her to feel comfortable in not keeping HER marriage vows?
Broken vows mean marital constraints no longer apply.
Yet sex outside marriage still goes against the Christian life requirements.
The man was not "free to have sex" per God's standards before marriage, so he is not freed to do so in marriage either. A case could be made that divorce is justified in that case, but such would be much different and restored interest on here part would be irrelevant in that case.
Arthur. No, I'm trying to avoid Hell.
I'm more interested in the theological side of the argument than gamesmanship.
I'm more interested in the theological side of the argument than gamesmanship.
Then you're in the wrong place. I'm not a theologian. And theology won't help you deal with your marriage. If you're primarily concerned about theology, then don't marry and become a monk.
Yet sex outside marriage still goes against the Christian life requirements.
Then marry the other woman.
Marriage was instituted by God. Impossible to have a satisfying marriage if you ignore the Theological issues, wether you're a Christian or not.
It's the classic "I can sin because they did it also (or did it first, or they did it worse)". What complete BS. IF adultery is wrong, then it's always wrong. God says better to never make a vow to Him, then to make it and break it.
Wife doesn't want sex? Duhh ! This website is ALL ABOUT how you fix yourself to be more attractive. YES it's a failure on her part, but this is not a business deal, so you're not released from your covenant. WHat's next? You leave your wife over her not cooking ?
This is quite thought provoking. The main issue is, What ought a virtuous man to do when faced with a frigid wife? Vox suggests, cast aside virtue. I disagree. Here is the long argument.
https://genericviews.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/marriage-in-the-modern-world/
I'm not a proponent of game. I have made arguments against it in fact. However it is still based on the sin nature of women.
If you love your wife are you willing to feed her sinful hypergamous and fraudulent behavior because the injection of dread may cause her to think you capable of comitting adultery? And her thinking so would send you to Hell?
Do you know who else uses dread game and rhetoric on His wayward bride Gunnar?
God.
Psalm 18:26 KJV
With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.
Dump the bitch. Then we'll see how long it is before she is buying a cat. Plus the guys a puss anyways.
What incentive do women have to continue to fulfill their marital duties? They're the marital version of the political incumbent. What do incumbents do? They shit all over you. None of you walking calculators understand that merely saying those words (even if you have no intention of following through) to a frigid, ice queen wife will see rapid changes, for better or worse.
Let me back up a step. I didn't mean to piss in anyone's corn flakes, this isn't about me, and I'm certainly not trying to pull some half-assed "gotcha" trick.
These quotes, in and of themselves, devoid of all context, were very interesting and thought-provoking.
"If a wife loses attraction to a husband and ceases to fulfill her marital duties, she has set him free to have sex with other women and he should behave accordingly."
"Broken vows mean marital constraints no longer apply."
I know Vox is a Christian. I know Vox is very smart. Ergo, I assume he's thought through the Biblical/scriptural implications. If said thoughts currently exist in written form in any of his blogs, I would be very interested in reading them.
I'm not a theologian either. But I think this is pretty simple to understand.
Vox's statement of "Broken vows mean marital constraints no longer apply" means a woman who isn't having sex with her husband, is actively avoiding sex with him, and is inviting him to have sex with other women, has effectively abandoned her marriage. She has essentially breached her marital vow of "to have and to hold", which in plainspeak means "we have sex with each other".
In Scripture, husbands and wives are commanded not to withhold sex from each other. The way I read this, a wife who withholds sex is breaching God's requirement of her to have sex with her husband.
A wife who is not having sex with her husband and is actively refusing enthusiastic sex is not a wife and has forfeited the title of wife. The husband is released to marry another.
Not having sex can't be the primary reason to leave a wife. Abuse and abandonment would also have to be conditions especially with young kids. Certainly, you should make plans to leave if that's a deal breaker, but wait for the kids to grow up and out. It's interesting that she already has another kid by another man. That make divorce a more likelier possibility; however, the husband must consider his kid's future before deciding to split. Maybe it is possible to save the relationship because the wife is having a bad year.
Timmy:
if a wife is actively refusing sex, she's not a wife. A marriage is a sexual relationship. The only thing I can do with my wife that I'm not supposed to do with anyone else is have sex. It's paradoxical and cruel for a woman to say "I will not have sex with you, and you cannot have sex with anyone else."
That's a big Nope on that one.
Perhaps the dissidents should try this on for size:
Let's presume a man says to his wife:
"I will not support you financially. However, I forbid you to seek financial support from anyone else. You may support yourself, but you must also support me even as I refuse to support you."
How's that sit with y'all?
De ti: A man shouldn't be having an affair with another woman (or man) either. That means be romantically involved with no sex. You leaving makes you the adulterer. Maybe you reconcile that possibility with the other scripture verse.
At one point in my marriage I found myself in the same spot. My wife decided that we were married in name only, and viewed me with disgust. Supplicating only made it worse. After wallowing in despair and unhappiness for a while, I got fed up and fixed things.
First, I withdrew from her. No more foot rubs and back massages (you don't like me to touch you, remember?). No more honey-do's - I do what I determine is needed. No sex? No leverage.
Second, I improved myself. Exercised, lost weight. I had time, with the removal of her chores from my workload.
Third, I added some dread game (not that I knew what that was). When out together, she saw me casually flirting with other women.
Then came the big fight. Understanding why came much later, but she was angry that I was proving myself not the loser she had pushed me into becoming, all unknowing. She demanded a divorce, and that I move out. I told her she would never see or hear from me again, never see our children, and never pay her a dime. She would lose the house and her chances of landing a decent guy with five children in tow were tiny. I would be married, or be gone. When I had finished saying goodbye to my children and had my duffel with clothes in hand, she gave in.
We stayed married, and were together until cancer took her. Attitude was key - I had to decide that I would no longer be married, never see my children again and would leave the country, starting a new life with minimal resources. I could not bluff her, she knew me too well for that. I was not bluffing.
"None of you walking calculators understand that merely saying those words...."
Anybody else read that in R. Lee Ermey's voice?
Rhetorical.
KJV 1 Corinthians 7:27, Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
In "marriage" divorce is NOT an option by GOD.
A married person to have sex with someone else other than their spouse is ADULTERY and is AGAINST GOD'S WAYS. I didn't say "man's ways" but GOD'S WAYS if you care of GOD'S WAYS: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/sacredness.htm
Amen AND... AMEN!
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed
My wife walked out. We've been separated for 10 months, and she continues to state that the marriage is over and she is never coming home. Who is to blame is irrelevant at this juncture, although she states it was all me and I state 50-50 - note that in a state where the courts usually side with the woman, I've won in court three times. In any case, I've been told to go ahead and date by other people, including my excellent (female) lawyer, but I've held back since we are technically still married. So yeah, the theological implications are important to me. So this is more than an academic argument in my eyes.
What I see are some guys still unwilling to confront the sin nature we find in our wives.
Friday humor: "first and foremost, i am not interested in dating. i am only here in case there is a fit for me as a friend/companion, without benefits, traveling partner. I have no idea why it is saying I'm 37. I'm 45."
"I suggest a cat with a leash."
Throughout most of human history, society has been perfectly ok with the husband calling the marital debt due at any time, with force if necessary. Current laws have basically outlawed the traditional marriage contract.
Gunnar,
R. Lee Ermey's home phone number is in my contacts. Very appropriate.
de ti said...
You nailed it. This is EXACTLY what led to my recent divorce.
As people are talking about the theological implications of the wife being frigid, and then finding another, younger one.
I thought of this verse, so I looked it up and found Hosea chapter 2
http://biblehub.com/hosea/2.htm
it talks about Israel (God's wife) going with other gods (guys) and what he would do to bring her back to him, take away her clothes even strip the clothes that are on her literally, take away the blessings he has given her such as housing, fertile lands to grow food, not being able to find the other lovers etc.
since this is talking about a frigid wife, and that is talking about Israel worshiping other gods, which since we know there is only one God. I'm thinking just simply not worshiping God is similar to not doing the act both can accept a similar response of removing the other benefits, to change behavior.
Astounding, Vox. Not really, you have no understanding of Christian values and you never have. That's terribly sad.
If your wife isn't having sex with you that's not hypergamy, that's not "female sin," that your dumbass allowing yourself to become so sexually unappealing. Go have an affair, but most women know to say, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Except for those sad women who are already worn down from having to put up with your particular brand of stupid.
"Then you're in the wrong place. I'm not a theologian. And theology won't help you deal with your marriage."
Stop calling yourself a Christian, Vox. Not only are you ignorant, you're doing harm in His name.
This is very effective rhetoric. Have you laid out the dialectic in previous posts?
That's not rhetoric, that's how contracts work.
LOL @ Insanity. I guess you take a very broad interpretation of "defraud not one another", since you claim it isn't female sin nature we are up against. And you call yourself a Christian?
Stg 58,
Lolz.... I should have known.
"Not only are you ignorant, you're doing harm in His name."
Physician, heal thyself.
@Anchorman,
Ok, so a wife won't give her husband sex, or gives it grudgingly, in violation of scripture. According to your interpretation the man is SOL. He can't get sex elsewhere because that is adultery. And he can't divorce her because divorce is forbidden. He is obligated by all his Biblical and legal responsibilities while she is not. You're making the Bible sound like something radical feminists could totally get behind.
LOL @ Insanity
That's one troll that doesn't need to be fed.
Bible would just say that a husband simply takes the sex regardless of her opinion. Oddly, most wives like that whether they admit it or not. But the Bible is way outside the Overton Window.
"That's not rhetoric, that's how contracts work."
Sure. I'm approaching this with 99% certainty that Vox is right, because he usually is.
Yet, I will need to explain his stance to cucked normies in my social circle who are even dumber than I. They will surely counter with "What part of thou shalt not commit adultery don't you understand?" or "MUH 10 COMMANDMENTS!" While they're not MENSA members, they are intellectually honest enough to engage in dialectic. Obviously, I kinda suck at articulating things, so it helps to have scriptural and logical arguments pre-loaded. Help a cracka out.
I sure wasn't expecting this comment thread to go full retard.
This blog is written for full retards.
This needs to be spoken more often.... a cold wife gives her husband permission to have sex elsewhere. And it can certainly be a turn for the good for the man!
"Sure. I'm approaching this with 99% certainty that Vox is right, because he usually is"
No he's not. He is frequently quite wrong. Anybody with two brain cells still left to rub together should understand that.
"I know Vox is a Christian. I know Vox is very smart."
If you believe either of those things, you probably shouldn't be having sex in the first place. Too much risk you might reproduce.
So, given that the man is probably trying to avoid divorce (and the accompanying financial rape) when he finds sex with another woman, is it fair for him to conceal his activities from his non-functioning wife? Or does the man only have integrity when he is up-front about what he is about?
Also, given that many women will not want to have sexual relations with a man who is still legally married (possibly because they see it as diminishing the chances of enslaving the man themselves via marriage), is it fair for the man to conceal his legal status from the other women, or does his integrity compel him to be up-front about said legal status?
"Anchorman said...
...
Adultery is adultery.
June 17, 2016 at 5:01 AM "
Adultery is a man having sex with a married woman. Period. Full stop. The man's marital status has nothing to do with it.
To state the obvious,
Men and women are not equal. Not only are they not equal in body or mind but they are not equal within the laws of God.
"Gunnar von Cowtown said...
"That's not rhetoric, that's how contracts work."
Sure. I'm approaching this with 99% certainty that Vox is right, because he usually is.
Yet, I will need to explain his stance to cucked normies in my social circle who are even dumber than I. They will surely counter with "What part of thou shalt not commit adultery don't you understand?" or "MUH 10 COMMANDMENTS!" While they're not MENSA members, they are intellectually honest enough to engage in dialectic. Obviously, I kinda suck at articulating things, so it helps to have scriptural and logical arguments pre-loaded. Help a cracka out.
June 17, 2016 at 6:45 PM "
Go find every verse with the word 'divorce' in it. What you will find is just what I said above. Adultery is defined by the marriage state of the woman, not the man. The man in fact is commanded to take more than one wife in certain circumstances.
What we see in other verses are primary wives that produce heirs and secondary wives that are supported by the man but their offspring do not inherit or inherit much less.
If you are going to put your dick in another woman be prepared to marry her because any other intention is fraudulent. If she decides to walk then that's on her. Just like with the first wife. No more sex means no more support. As long as she's willing to stay and fulfill the role of wife she gets your supoort.
The world we live in is not the world that existed for the majority of human history. We currently enjoy a material abundance that dwarfs anything we've seen before. We are also subject to a confiscatory state which transfers wealth from those that work to those that work little or not at all. This transfer in large part is male to female. This wealth and it's state enforced transfer allows great numbers of women to live without male headship or even influence.
Modern laws dealing with marriage and divorce are also not normal. They've been twisted into a funhouse mirror version of what God intended.
To restate in slightly different terms what has already been said in this thread. Once a wife refuses to have sex with you she ceases to be your wife. At that point she is your enemy. She no longer has your best interests at heart. In fact she will begin making plans that only have her interests in mind and at best ignore your interests. We all know what is most likely, that being state enforced slavery for you. She's not your wife anymore. Get it through your head.
She is not good. She is not more moral than you. Neither is her mother or her sister, neither is your mother. No woman is good or more moral than a man. Her acceptance or rejection of you has nothing to do with your relationship with God. You do not need her permission to say or do or think anything. She is not an adult, she is a woman. She is not a child, she is a woman.
Maybe she can be brought to repentance but most likely not since she has the whole world at her back. While only you represent God in her life. Though you will have a better chance if the other men in her life, like her father, back you instead of her. Be aware that shame is a powerful tool against a woman's natural inclinations to sin. Use it. And learn more game.
Vox is generally and for the most part correct, but the situation is very nuanced and has nothing to do with vows. This is what the Bible says:
**A wife commits adultery if she has sex with any man other than her husband but a man only commits adultery if he has sex with another man's wife (Leviticus 18:20)
**A man is not forbidden to have sex with an eligible woman not his wife, anywhere, unless she is a prostitute
**Sex is the act that begins marriage and no ceremony is required unless voluntarily agreed to (Genesis 3:16; Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
**Premarital sex only occurs when the man and woman are engaged to marry. The sin isn't the sex, it's the violation of the engagement agreement and the reason it does not initiate marriage is the woman is not eligible to marry until the end of the engagement period (Numbers 30:2-5)
**If a man has sex with an eligible virgin they are married (Genesis 2:24)
**If the virgin agrees to marry the guy (willingly has sex) without her father's approval, he has the authority to annul the marriage after the fact (Numbers 30:5)
**A man is not limited to only one wife (Genesis 2:24)
**The consent of the virgin is not required for her marriage (Genesis 2:24; Exodus 21:7-10; Deuteronomy 22:28-29; Deuteronomy 23:10-14)
**Rape of a married woman (including the engaged virgin) is a death penalty offense Deuteronomy 22:22-27)
**Rape of a virgin not engaged is the consummation of her marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
**Rape of a slave purchased for marriage is a punishable offense, but not by the death penalty (Leviticus 19:20-22)
**Rape of a woman who is not a virgin and not married is not a crime in the Law.
**Male homosexuality is a death-penalty offense (Leviticus 18:22)
**Male bestiality is a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:23)
**Female bestiality is a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:23)
**Female homosexuality is not forbidden anywhere.
**Female-female sex is presumed within polygynous marriage by the incest statutes (Leviticus 18:17-18)
**Jesus defined "lust" as committing adultery in the heart. Adultery requires a married woman so a man can only "lust" after a married (or engaged) woman (Matthew 5:28)
**Nowhere in Scripture is any unmarried woman forbidden from working as a prostitute, with the exception of being a cult prostitute (forbidden as idolatry- Deuteronomy 23:17)
**Only with 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is the use of a prostitute forbidden and then only to Christian men. Prior to that there was nothing in the Law to forbid it.
**Divorce was originally forbidden (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:8) but Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for "indecency" (Deuteronomy 24:1) which Jesus defined as adultery, incest or idolatrous sexual acts (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:9). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-15, Christ restored the original standard of no divorce for any reason for His servants married to each other and Paul allowed divorce in mixed marriages when the unbelieving spouse departed and would not live with the believing spouse.
**The context for every passage on submission of wives in the New Testament is Genesis 3:16, which says "he shall rule over you." God does not change.
**The curse of Genesis 3:16 is where women got hypergamy: it's not an evolved trait, it's from God because in declaring that a woman's husband would rule over her, God gave her a desire to be ruled.
**1st Timothy 3:2 is a horrible mistranslation which (as translated) forbids both the Apostle Paul and Christ Jesus from being elders in the church. Paul was both an elder and a biship and Christ is the head of the church, so the idea anything other than marriage to one wife is a disqualification is ridiculous, especially when God said He had two wives (Jeremiah 32:32-33).
I created a chart to explain this, the graphic you see is only the center portion and the complete chart is linked at the bottom:
https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/how-marriage-begins-according-to-god/
@Athor Pel
To restate in slightly different terms what has already been said in this thread. Once a wife refuses to have sex with you she ceases to be your wife. At that point she is your enemy. She no longer has your best interests at heart. In fact she will begin making plans that only have her interests in mind and at best ignore your interests. We all know what is most likely, that being state enforced slavery for you. She's not your wife anymore. Get it through your head.
Sorry, but no, that is not Biblically correct at all. There are essentially three standards at work and for a man who is not a Christian (under the Law) if his wife commits adultery he may divorce her, but that is the only reason (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:9). For a Christian married to a non-Christian, if the unbeliever departs and won't live with them, the marriage is over (1st Corinthians 7:12-15). For a Christian married to a Christian, there is no divorce, period, no matter what the wife does (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
1st Corinthians 7:10-11 commands the Christian wife not to separate from her Christian husband but IF SHE DOES, she is to remain single (chaste because she's still married) OR be reconciled to her husband. Regardless of what some little state court judge says, there is no divorce for Christians married to Christians. If the “divorced” husband takes another wife, he now has two wives and if wife #1 wants to come home, he can’t say no (1st Peter 3:7 “husbands, live with your wives…”) and wife #2 should know that’s on the table before the marriage occurs. I know women in the “2nd wife” position and they’re trying to wrap their head around the idea they’re in a plural marriage.
A wife refusing to have sex with her husband does not end the marriage and it is not grounds for divorce. However, that doesn't mean the husband is powerless.
Husbands were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church and in keeping with the previous command ("He shall rule over you") the husband is charged with holding his wife accountable for her behavior. Revelation 3:19 provides an example of how a husband is to love his wife because Christ said "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline; be zealous therefore and repent!" Note that a rebuke is oral and discipline is physical (corporal punishment).
If a Christian turned their back on Christ and went into sin, He would never turn His back on them if they repented of their sin and returned to Him. That is the standard to which men were ordered, to "love their wives as Christ loves the church." However, the marriage standard of Genesis 2:24 has not changed and the commitment of the husband is still permanent but non-exclusive. If a husband wants another wife he may take another wife if he can. But that doesn’t mean he can only have sex with another wife.
This is the part that really riles up Christians- a woman who is not married and not a virgin has agency and she must consent before a man can marry her. That means a man may desire to marry her (and I agree that the man should not have sex with a woman absent a desire to marry her) but until she consents to the marriage the sex they have is just sex. It's not forbidden and neither does it make them married. I state that in contradistinction to virgins: Have sex with an eligible virgin and she's your wife, but if a non-virgin wants to keep things in “test drive” mode for a while, she has that right. It isn’t sin for either her or the man.
Can a Christian husband have sex with a woman outside the bounds of marriage and not be in sin? Yes, that’s possible, but the only reason he should be having sex with her is because he wants to marry her and this only works if she’s not a virgin and not married. They can have a physical courtship, but if the woman told him she just wants to have sex and doesn’t want to be married… that puts it a bit too close to the prohibition on using a prostitute for me. Others may have a different opinion.
given that the man is probably trying to avoid divorce (and the accompanying financial rape) when he finds sex with another woman, is it fair for him to conceal his activities from his non-functioning wife? Or does the man only have integrity when he is up-front about what he is about?
On the local anonymous internet forum, some woman posted that
1. She refused to have sex with her husband
2. She told him to go have sex with other women
3. He did so, but discretely - he began a long-term affair with a woman in another city that he visited on business trips, and the wife didn't know about it
4. This went on for about a year (and wife was very happy because suddenly they weren't arguing about sex any more so they were getting along great) until finally the wife found out about it (because, of course, the other woman finally called the wife in an effort to destroy the marriage).
5. Now the wife is in a complete rage. She posted in order to get sympathy and validation from other women. Thankfully it has not been very forthcoming. Most of the responses are along the lines of "you told him he could go do that, and he did, so that's on you".
Anyway, she obviously thought he wasn't going to do it and would simply endure their eternally dead bedroom.
"If your wife isn't having sex with you that's not hypergamy, that's not "female sin,""
Yes it is. A wife withholding sex from a husband is committing very serious sin.
"that your dumbass allowing yourself to become so sexually unappealing"
No. That's only part of it. Your argument absolves women of all responsibility for the health of the marriage, and puts the entire burden, the entire onus of the marriage's health, on the man. Your claim denies that women have any agency and instead respond only to tingles. Thanks for proving the manosphere's point and for supporting exactly what the 'sphere has been saying for years.
The other part of it is wives marrying men they're not sexually attracted to or men who they are much less attracted to than the men they used to have sex with. The other part of it is settling for men they "like", but don't really want to fuck.
That's the problem.
Ok, so a wife won't give her husband sex, or gives it grudgingly, in violation of scripture. According to your interpretation the man is SOL. He can't get sex elsewhere because that is adultery. And he can't divorce her because divorce is forbidden. He is obligated by all his Biblical and legal responsibilities while she is not. You're making the Bible sound like something radical feminists could totally get behind.
You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than you should.
I asked a question because this is not an easy issue.
Why is divorce out of the question? Because you've made an unbreakable commitment before God? Well, how does that jive with banging a woman not your wife?
Adultery is a man having sex with a married woman. Period. Full stop. The man's marital status has nothing to do with it.
Okay. I'll bite. Got the Scripture to back it up?
"The other part of it is wives marrying men they're not sexually attracted to or men who they are much less attracted to than the men they used to have sex with. The other part of it is settling for men they "like", but don't really want to f&%k."
De ti, I've tried to say a thousand times, a woman's sexuality is incredibly flexible. Women are not men. You put homeless bum in a sports car with a pair of sunglasses and you have created instant attraction. Nothing has changed physically, only her perceptions of him have changed.
Or you can just spend the rest of your life in the 'sphere lamenting about women's alleged sin and feeling sorry for yourself because your wife no longer desires you.
Re;insanitybytes22
WHO BITCH THIS IS?!?
Athor Pel and Artisanal Toad,
That's the dialectic I was looking for. Much obliged.
I learned a while ago not to argue with free range chicks, especially of the "Christian" feminist variety.
They lack the brains to be under a covering and my arguments won't change that.
And when I say "under a covering" I mean fully submissive to the man God has provided His protection to her by.
@Insanity.
Funny that you should use the term lamenting. Seems like God's experience with miserable bitches has a lot in common with man's.
"Seems like God's experience with miserable bitches has a lot in common with man's."
No. And if you are not following His lead and His example than you have not availed yourself of having been created in His image. God doesn't have a woman problem, there are only men who have a problem with their own selves.
"And when I say "under a covering" I mean fully submissive to the man God has provided His protection to her by."
Considering I am actually the one happily married and delightfully covered, while you all are the ones lamenting and bemoaning the evils of women, your theory doesn't hold water.
If you're going to be a miserable and abysmal human being, go for it. What you cannot do is hide behind His name and teach falsely.
Don't read the Bible much for a "Christian" do you?
Maybe if God had just donned a pair of sunglasses and drove a sports car He wouldn't have inspired Ezekiel to write what we call chapter 23.
Or Jeremiah. Or Isaiah. Hosea?
I guess our fine happily submissive Bible scholar is unfamiliar with the prophets and hasn't even heard of Hosea....
"a woman's sexuality is incredibly flexible. Women are not men. You put homeless bum in a sports car with a pair of sunglasses and you have created instant attraction. Nothing has changed physically, only her perceptions of him have changed."
So basically you agree that Game works. You also seem to agree that women can be swindled, hoodwinked, and fooled. I give women a wee bit more credit than that. Who's the misogynist here?
You've also just said -- AGAIN -- that women respond only to tingles. You do realize, don't you, that you're supporting Roissy here, right?
But more to the point, what's going on in society today is that most women are having sex with the most attractive men they can find, failing to lock them down for commitment, and settling for less attractive men they don't really want to fuck because "it's time to get married" and "I wanna get married because I wanna kid and everyone else is getting married" and somesuch other reasons. I know it, everyone else here knows it, and you do too -- you simply don't want to admit it.
You're simply wrong about this, as usual.
@Deti, no, she's a troll.
On one hand she's spouting Chateau Heartiste and on the other hand she's feigning ignorance on the sin nature of women. All for the sake of being a provacatively burning bag of dogshit placed on the other side of a rung doorbell.
"So basically you agree that Game works. You also seem to agree that women can be swindled, hoodwinked, and fooled. I give women a wee bit more credit than that. Who's the misogynist here?"
The misogynist is the one who is too darn lazy and cowardly to "hoodwink, swindle, and fool" his own wife because he believes he is a special snow flake entitled to his mommy's love just because he's so darn cute.
"You're simply wrong about this, as usual."
Yes, well I'm also not the one lamenting my sex life and trying to declare the opposite is evil for rejecting me.
Insanity: If you're so "happy", why are you here trolling men who are trying to improve? Shouldn't you be taking care of your "happiness" by being with your husband?
This problem is why traditionally men had access to a mistress or prostitutes. The Church, while upholding sacramental marriage, has also traditionally recognized and allowed both as lesser evils than wholesale societal de-Christianization. Thus, in every Catholic country prostitution is tolerated.
A sham marriage, which is what most “sacramental” and other marriages in our age are, cannot bind men because they are being defrauded of their portion of the marriage contract. A contract based on fraud, or containing it, is not a valid contract and is voidable.
Btw, not providing sex in marriage is a mortal sin. There is no such thing in Christian marriage as spousal rape. She agreed to sex on demand with the vows.
Yes, well I'm also not the one lamenting my sex life and trying to declare the opposite is evil for rejecting me.
We're not declaring anything, merely citing the Lord's word.
On the other note, my sex life is just fine because I read and write sites like this so I have an adequately developed knowledge of my wife's sin nature. I understand her inherit need for a dominant hand and I don't put up with any shit. I doubt Insanity's husband is allowed to even so much as say the same..... happy. LOL.
"Insanity: If you're so "happy", why are you here trolling men who are trying to improve? Shouldn't you be taking care of your "happiness" by being with your husband?"
If you were genuinely trying to improve you wouldn't still be here year after year, rehashing the same old stupidity.
"A contract based on fraud, or containing it, is not a valid contract and is voidable."
Nope. We people have voided God's contract with us many times. He has never voided His with us. A women with a lunkhead for a husband is still required to uphold her end of the bargain, if she wishes to be pleasing to God. Vox's BS about how you are now free to just have an affair is not only false, it is cowardly. In Christ we are to aim much, much higher, and theology does indeed light the path before us creating happy marriages and wonderful sex.
My survivor's guilt and pity for you foolish men has now passed. Carry on, but I strongly advise against teaching such falsehoods while claiming Christ's name.
Or to again quote: "Who bitch dis is?"
^Claims to know what falsehood is + hasn't bothered reading the Bible = LOL.
Some of God's bride problems:
Ezekiel 23:18-20 KJV
So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister. [19] Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. [20] For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Wish God hadn't spent half of the Bible "whining" about His wife and eventually divorcing her.
I especially wish he hadn't spent the female half of human nature demonstrating His dilemma in such an in man's face way. But then I remember He is wiser than me.
Wish God hadn't spent half of the Bible "whining" about His wife and eventually divorcing her.
I especially wish he hadn't spent the female half of human nature demonstrating His dilemma in such an in man's face way. But then I remember He is wiser than me.
@Anchorman
Why is divorce out of the question? Because you've made an unbreakable commitment before God? Well, how does that jive with banging a woman not your wife?
Adultery is a man having sex with a married woman. Period. Full stop. The man's marital status has nothing to do with it.
Okay. I'll bite. Got the Scripture to back it up?
Yes, divorce is out of the question if you are Christian man committed to obedience to the Word. The original standard of Genesis 2:24 was no divorce for any reason because the authority to end the marriage was not provided (Matthew 19:8). If one is a Christian married to a Christian, divorce is absolutely forbidden in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 with no exceptions. For those (non-Christians) under the Law, a man is allowed to divorce his wife but only for adultery, incest or idolatrous sexual acts (the Greek word "porneia"). If the Christian wife is married to a non-Christian and her husband leaves, the marriage is over (they are no longer bound) regardless why they refused to live with her.
There is also the little-known matter of annulment. If a virgin, in her youth and living in her father's house gives her virginity to a man she marries him (Genesis 2:24) whether she knows that or not. If she did not have her father's permission he can unilaterally annul her agreement to marry and thus the subsequent marriage in the day he hears of it (Exodus 22:17; Numbers 30:5).
As to the point about adultery being sex with a married woman, refer to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, which both state that a sin is a violation of the Law. In other words, if something is not a specific violation of the Law, it isn't a sin and words like "porneia" in the New Testament and "zanah" in the Old Testament do not and cannot refer to acts that are not violations of the Law.
You say "got any Scripture to back that up" but that's the problem. There is no prohibition anywhere on a man taking another wife and he takes another wife by having sex with her. So, I ask you, where do you get the idea that the act of taking a second wife is an act of adultery? Where did God forbid a man from having sex with any eligible woman?
It appears you're coming at this from the perspective that a ceremony is required for a marriage, which is not true. Marriage is initiated with sex, so men are not prohibited from having sex with any eligible woman regardless of their marital status. You can search the Scriptures for some prohibition, but other than a very limited and specific prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, there is none. And, that prohibition didn't prohibit marrying her because if she consented to marry then sex with her would be the consummation of the marriage and she'd no longer be a prostitute.
Adultery is a sin, a violation of God's command and in the civil law was a death-penalty offense. Adultery is the crime of sex with a married (or engaged) woman and any man can commit adultery with a married or engaged woman (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
The authority contained in Genesis 2:24 did not contain the authority for a man to end a marriage, only to begin one. Jesus referenced this in Matthew 19:8 when He said "but from the beginning it has not been this way" and pointed out that what the Law of Marriage did not say was just as important as what it did say. Likewise, while Genesis 2:24 is the authority to initiate marriage, it contains no restriction on how many wives a man might initiate marriage with.
That is backed up with the specific regulation of families with more than one wife in the Law, the command of the Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), God giving King David multiple wives (2nd Samuel 12:8) and God saying that He had two wives (Jeremiah 32:32-33).
God does not change and He said "I am the Lord and I changeth not" and Christ said He was "the same, yesterday, today and forever."
Yes AT, also consider that having sex with a non-virgin would be adultery unless her sexual partner was dead based on your own criteria.
AT I bet the ladies love it when you tell them all about marriage and sex.
@AT: I will second Arthur Issac's point @ 4:44.
To everyone: There is a good reason Vox forbade us to respond to the idiot troll bitch.
She is a foul scold who snipes when she thinks she has a point and then tries to use God as a shield to protect her from "the mean boys" that fire back.
Ghosting females is the cruelest thing you can do to them. The longer I live, I think depriving them of emotion and drama is worse than raping them (in their own eyes, at least).
We should all be doing it to her every damn time so she cries herself to sleep and stops coming here.
@Arthur Isaac
Not really.
A girl gets married with the act of having sex. There are a lot of ways this could happen, from the societally "correct" model in which she goes through a formal engagement followed by a wedding ceremony... but according to the Bible she isn't married until the marriage is consummated. Or, it could be she was seduced and thus married, or according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, she could be raped into marriage. Nobody likes that, but as Scripture says: "Does the pot speak back to the potter?"
Once the woman is married she is "bound to her husband until the day he dies." There are exceptions I've already covered, but the fact is she is married. That's the difficulty most people have, they don't see the ceremony and can’t comprehend she's married. You are correct in stating that in general, any non-virgin is married unless her husband is dead, but you leave out the exceptions and that's a huge mistake.
This is a major issue for the modern church because according to the statistics, within the general population only about 5% of people are virgins when they "officially" get married. However, according to the Bible virtually all women are virgins when they marry because the act of losing their virginity is the consummation of their marriage. This means that if a man didn't get his wife's virginity, in virtually all cases he "married" another man's wife. In other words, at least 8 out of 10 married couples you'd meet in church are not actually married, they are living in adultery. Reflect on Luke 12:47-48.
In fact, even the vast majority of the widows are actually married because they were never married to the men they thought they were. As far as the divorcees, from a Biblical standpoint only about 25-30 out of every thousand that you’d meet in the church are legitimately divorced and eligible to remarry. All the rest are either still married or widows and they don’t know it.
This situation is so appalling that people reject what the Bible says rather than accept that people can get into sin and it causes major problems. However, what most don't realize is there is a way out of this mess for the vast majority. Because of false doctrine taught in the church and society nobody knew they were getting married and definitely not the father, which means he can annul his daughters’ unintentional marriage.
In Numbers 30:3-5 Scripture states the father is in authority over his daughter in her youth, living in his house and he has the authority to annul *any* vow or agreement with binding obligations she might make in the day he hears about it. This is the basis of the case presented in Exodus 22:16-17. The virgin who wasn't engaged (meaning she was eligible to marry) was seduced and gave some guy her virginity. According to Genesis 2:24, she was married on the spot. However, her father had the option to annul her agreement (she agreed to have sex, which was the consummation of her marriage) and thus annul her marriage that was the result of her agreement.
There is no time limit on Numbers 30:5. The girl who lost her virginity while in her youth in his house (average now is 17.1 years of age) was married. In the day her father hears about it (he has no idea she was married) he can annul her marriage by forbidding it. There is no procedure listed so it could be as simple as announcing he forbids her marriage to whatever his name is.
If she married a non-Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce for adultery (if she had sex with other guys) and she's free. There is no form prescribed and it could literally be a piece of paper saying "I divorce you for adultery. (signed)"
Finally, if the guy is a non-Christian and he is the only man she ever had sex with, if he refuses to live with her as her husband, according to 1st Corinthians 7:15 she is free, no longer bound to him.
The Bible has something to upset everyone. It's not our job to like it, but to obey.
@Stg58/Animal Mother
I get a really positive reception to this. For most women, their marriage relationship (the one with the guy that got their virginity) lasted less than a year and often only a few months. They have not done anything but commit adultery since then, so would it surprise you that most women don't get that much out of sex? You might be surprised at how many women have said
"I always knew something was wrong... I just didn't know what it was."
I find that explaining the situation with a short Bible study focusing on what happened and how to solve it is quite well received and if a guy wanted to use this as a technique to get laid he would have a lot of success. It works really well as a compliance test and I insist they call their father immediately to confess, ask his forgiveness and ask that he annul the marriage to the guy who got their virginity.
Most interestingly, that has repaired their relationship with their father every single time and I've yet to have a father refuse to annul the marriage. On one occasion I got dragged along on a visit to the father. That resulted in another Bible study and a lot of questions. When he understood the situation he forgave her and forbid her marriage. He got a drink, offered me one and before we could escape he got his phone and called each of her sisters. He asked them the name of the guy who got their virginity, then he forbid those marriages and told them if they had questions they could ask their sister about it.
So, if you wanted to get laid while doing good and not be in sin, there you go. In fact, every guy who wants to avoid adultery should do this with every woman he wants to have sex. If they refuse, don't bang her. This is probably the *only* exception to the rule that talking about Scripture will kill attraction and instantly dry up the wettest of vaginas. Treat it like a compliance test, dangle the idea of guilt-free sex and afterward you're in the land of no taboos and no shame. This is also the only way I can think of in which a man can have sex with a woman and then reasonably claim he left her better off than when he found her.
One warning though, it's hard to be attracted to a woman when what you feel is a combination of pity and disgust at what miserable creatures they turn out to be. While Daddy only gets a little of it, you are in line to get dumped on with the complete confession because after going through this there is a tremendous need to confess and be forgiven. You started it and since you're already involved, guess who they start talking to? When they finally run down and you've given them their absolution and now they want sex, it's difficult to feel any desire at all no matter how good they look. Maybe that's just me, or maybe it's because I've never done this with a woman I was seriously attracted to.
For a Christian married to a Christian, there is no divorce, period, no matter what the wife does (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
And I will assert that a wife who abandons her husband has for all practical purposes renounced her Christian faith. She is an apostate and should be regarded accordingly. The husband has thereby been abandonded by the unbelieving wife and is thus freed from the marital bond.
The longer I live, I think depriving them of emotion and drama is worse than raping them (in their own eyes, at least).
Apparently many women enjoy being raped -or at least fantasize over the idea of it. Depriving them of attention and drama, on the other hand, is like depriving them of oxygen and will kill them unless the need is eventually satisfied. This is why a woman can turn the most beautifully idyllic situation, one that should make her the happiest woman on earth, into a living hell. Her need for attention and something to complain about will outweigh every other consideration.
I'm sometimes led to wonder if when women get to heaven they'll find something to bitch and complain about even there.
Or are we saying that she has already broken her vows and therefore he is free to move on?
Speaking only for me, myself, and I, yes, that is exactly the case. A woman who denies her husband sexually and/or walks away from him has effectively not only abandoned her marriage, but also her Christian faith by choosing to consciously and deliberately violate Scriptural commandments on marriage. As I said upthread, she has, through such an act, apostasized.
Insanity:
Go be with your husband. Go submit to him. Confess to him your sin of attempting to control and deride other men.
Now go, and sin no more.
Adultery is a man having sex with a married woman. Period. Full stop. The man's marital status has nothing to do with it.
Adultery is actually the adulteration of the seed line of a man by another man. You are correct that the adulterer's marital status is irrelevant.
There are two points here, however:
1. It is a sin against the other man, because you are adulterating (bastardizing) his genetic lineage, and,
2. This particularly applies to miscegenation because that is the ultimate adulteration (bastardization); and for that reason the offspring is called a bastard - not a pure seed.
You can do the research on that if you wish, it is available.
@liberranter
For a Christian married to a Christian, there is no divorce, period, no matter what the wife does (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
And I will assert that a wife who abandons her husband has for all practical purposes renounced her Christian faith. She is an apostate and should be regarded accordingly. The husband has thereby been abandoned by the unbelieving wife and is thus freed from the marital bond.
Your assertion doesn’t agree with Scripture.
1st Corinthians 7:10-11 implicitly states that even though she leaves in violation of the command, she is still married and her only two options are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband. In verses 12-15 Paul lays out the rules on a mixed marriage, which are likewise not in favor of your assertion because only the woman is bound in marriage, not the man- he can have more than one wife.
The standard of loving the wife as Christ loves the church applies and if a wife leaves and later decides she wants to come home, the husband has an obligation to honor his commitment. To refuse to reconcile if she's repentant is to violate both 1st Peter 3:7 and the command to love her as Christ loves the church. Christ would never turn His back on a repentant sinner (Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:5) and marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and the church.
Perhaps your desire for divorce is based on the idea that it's necessary in order to get another wife. It isn't and an illegitimate divorce in civil court means nothing as far as Scripture goes (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:9). Maybe you think you can't legally have more than one wife. You can, you just can't legally have more than one concurrent licensed marriage. Maybe you think a marriage license is a requirement but it isn't according to the Supreme Court (Meister v Moore). Or, perhaps your desire to end it permanently is because she's batshit crazy NPD/BPD or whatever. You married her so you're stuck with her but she has to return to you and nothing forbids you from putting legitimate conditions on the reconciliation... like losing weight and making public confession of her wrongdoing in front of the church.
Marry the 2nd wife with a written marriage covenant with the 1st wife’s name on it. If she comes back she can sign it after completing the requirements for reconciliation. The contract will spell out the rules for marriage listed in the Bible and include a non-consensual consent in which she gives you permission to spank her anytime you think she needs it regardless of whether she agrees. That will save you if someone else ever calls the cops (especially if wife #2 backs you up) but not necessarily if she calls the cops.
No signature, no reconciliation. If you wanted to, you could go all-out and tell her that with two wives and your requirement to treat them equally, all three of you will sleep in the same bed, no separate beds or bedrooms. If she's like most modern Christian women, that's the ultimate indignity (especially if wife #2 looks better) and there won't be any reconciliation.
But... ask yourself... what if she was willing to submit to that in order to reconcile with the husband she previously abandoned and divorce-raped? It means she is truly repentant and you are required to take her back. But you are not required to give her another opportunity to divorce-rape you.
If there is no such thing as "marital rape", how can the wife - short of abandonment (one of the three traditionally acceptable criteria for Protestant divorce) deny any fulfillment. Molon Labia.
A related case might be a tragedy where the wife becomes disfigured or otherwise unpleasant so the husband no longer has interest, or worse, hurt so that it is a matter of pain or threat to the life if the sexual act occurs.
The original post said other "women" plural with "he" singular. To get release with strange women isn't the same as some kind of serial monogamy with (licit) divorce between wives.
To collect the above points, when women are pregnant or nursing, they are often neither interested, nor attractive. Is it then reasonable to abandon the wife specifically because she bears your child?
Note that neither the wife nor the husband can play the "cafeteria Christian" game where they wish all the benefits and duties of the other while denying their own.
There is no obligation to keep a backslider or traitor in your house and support them.
Yet the language of Scripture is plain - Divorce is condemned and remarriage is prohibited (except for porneia and not fulfilling the marital duties doesn't rise to that standard). You can see where it is permissible to let an unbelieving wife go, but you can't find authorization to remarry. Either there is one flesh, till death do it part, let no man put asunder what God has put together, or it is merely a civil institution. However if one wishes to argue that marriage is merely a civil institution, then much of this discussion is irrelevant and void. Let the king and legislature (see Henry VIII) declare whatever they want and ignore the clear Scripture - Gospels - Jesus words in red - on the subject. But this shatters the foundation into sand, so that rejecting any and all marital duties by either party can fall under "no-fault divorce" and there really isn't one flesh, so there is literally nothing immoral or criminal in a wife denying the marital embrace to her husband absent a statute, and similarly, pursuing another woman is amoral, but might be legal or illegal.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.