Polygyny and Male Attraction

[Eristhophanes]

UntoldGlory Trigger Warning: Epic Long Posts Ahead.

This has kind of been bubbling its way to the surface, not so much in response, but as a result of some of the recent posts and comments over the past 6 months or so. Ginny's "Letter From The Front Lines" finally got me going.

Samuel Trigger Warning: It is about sex. The only Biblical reason for refusing to get married is to eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom. Otherwise, the purpose of marriage is to have sex and make babies. Which means getting married to have sex is a valid reason for getting married. So says the Apostle Paul. Which means that choosing polygyny in order to have more sex or sexual variety is also a perfectly valid reason for getting married in that manner. The wisdom of any particular person doing do is open to discussion.

However- what is the driving force behind sex? Biological attraction.

That covers the why. There are two ways to do this. One can either start off with more than one woman or one can start with one woman and later add another one.

Starting out with a poly relationship is far better, IMO, but it seems that what most people here want to do is the hardest and most dangerous, which is add another wife downstream. There is plenty of evidence that adding a second wife isn't an easy task and there are problems with that.

What I don't see is any realistic discussion of quite a number of issues as to why it's so difficult.

Here's my basic advice for people considering plural marriage: don't do it. Just don't.

Of course I don't mean that across the board. There are exceptions. But in my experience so far, there are few.

Ginny, I agree completely. But you also said this:

"I used to say that plural marriage is just like adjusting to monogamous married life. I don't believe that anymore. The best thing you can do to even try to be ready for the blows is to be super sure of your relationship with God and with your spouse - knowing that even that will be tested along the way."

While I agree that walking close to the Lord is important, there are a bunch of other issues that do not get discussed and they are important. What bothers me is the idea that as long as you've got a great relationship with the Lord, you can do it! No. I know this because I have a pretty unique perspective too. What follows are some issues that simply don't get discussed.

The central theme in this is biological attractiveness. It is not the end-all and be-all of a relationship, far from it. The problem is that from a biological perspective it cannot be ignored. The Christian community tries to create an either-or choice between biological attraction and hard commitment but it's a false dichotomy. "Attraction doesn't matter, it's the commitment." Which is delusional. "So what if your spouse is no longer attractive, you made a commitment! God will give you the strength!" I agree, but it turns out that it is a whole lot easier keeping that commitment and solving your problems when there is a lot of attraction than it is when one spouse finds the other repulsive.

From what I can see, neither men or women (but especially men) want to admit that part of loving your spouse is meeting their needs in terms of being an attractive spouse. And I'll say this repeatedly, the word "attractive" does not mean looks (which is only the icing on the cake), it's internal attitudes and behaviors. Consider 1st Peter 3:1-2 for women. Good looks is not the same thing as being attractive.

I am a man and mostly this is written for men, especially men who think they want more than one wife.


Changing from Monogamous to Polygynous: Basic Paradigm

First, when a man marries a woman under the idea that it's monogamy, that's the deal she signed on for. That is the underlying basis for a lot of decisions she made. It isn't so simple to just explain to her that the Bible says it's OK, the fact is, she has to come to the decision that polygyny is an acceptable change she's willing to make with the man she signed on with for monogamy. I think a lot of men have a great deal of difficulty with the idea that their wife's decision to marry them was a rather complex one that may have involved issues they are not aware of. Issues that affect whether they could agree to share him sometime down the road.

She chose to marry the man, which means she chose not to marry every other guy she might have been able to attract. So, the assumptions she got married under had a lot to do with who she was marrying. Think of it this way: there are some boats I'd sail in pleasant weather and calm seas, but there is no way in hell I'd take them into a gale- I want an all-weather boat for that. OTOH, I wouldn't necessarily make that all-weather boat my first choice for the Southern Caribbean.

In the same way, a woman might marry a man with the understanding she was getting a monopoly on him, but he is not the man she would have married had she known she'd have to share him at some point. And that can be a problem in an arena in which marriage is to be for life.

So, there's an element of bait-and-switch going on with a man (it's almost always the man) wanting to go poly and most women have a legitimate complaint with that. I'm not going into the issue of the vow to "forsake all others" because I'm pretty sure you guys don't want me to.


This is a bit of my history.

The first poly relationship I was in was an accident to me. I met this girl on a Friday night, we hit it off, we wound up back at her place a couple of hours later and I didn't leave until Monday morning. Probably more animal attraction than love at first sight, but over the next few weeks I wound up spending all my time with her. When I didn't have to be on base I was spending the night at her place. Her roommate Amanda was nice, we got along, but there was tension which I put down to me invading her home. About a month after I'd essentially moved in, Micky left for something on a Saturday morning early and told me to sleep in. I did. When I got up, I got in the shower. Mandy joined me. She assured me they'd talked about it, everything was cool and they wanted to share. That turned out to be true.

We re-arranged the apartment and all slept in the same bed after that. It turned out they'd been talking about a shared boyfriend for a long time.

I learned a lot about the dynamic of a poly relationship. The issue of expectations became very important and the thing is, in order to treat them equitably you cannot treat them equally. Because they aren't equal. Read the "Five Languages of Love" book and you'll understand. In order to get a handle on that, ask a zillion questions and really get to know them. If one of them has the LL of gifts and the others' is acts of service and you get both of them something out of the blue because you were thinking of them, you actually treated one better than the other. I knew that from growing up in a big family.

Another issue was balancing group time and one-on-one time. I lucked out on that because I had a bike and could only take one at a time but they both loved riding with me. Even there they were different because Mandy loved speed and Micky preferred something like a slow cruise on the 101. We found out our best group times were going to the grocery store or doing doing something together like roller-blading on the strand.

We were together for a year until I got deployed overseas. While I was gone they graduated and went to opposite corners of the US and I never saw them again. We were just a boyfriend-girlfriends situation but it was invaluable because I made lots of mistakes and got to learn from them.



The second poly relationship was different. At my last duty station I had to live off base, so I wound up sharing a duplex with a single mom. Completely platonic, it worked really well because when I was still in the Marines I was never there and by the time I got out and was around a lot more we had a pretty good relationship. Then she got a boyfriend and wanted to move him in, which meant I had to go.

I found a great house but I needed housemates to pay the rent so I posted a notice looking for housemates in the theater because doing theater requires commitment and discipline. I wound up with 5 housemates, three girls, two boys, none of them older than 19. I was 28 and the only adult in the room. A week or two into that one of the guys came out of the closet and promptly made the other one so uncomfortable that he moved out. Then he thought he'd found the love of his life and he moved out, leaving me with three 18 year old females.

This time I posted a notice in the veterans assistance office at the college. That got me a 22 year old fresh out of the Navy and I overlooked the fact she was a squid because I could tell she was exactly what the others needed. She took charge and became the den-mother to the others and quickly answered to "Mom." We decided it was a good mix, we all paid a bit more each month and didn't get another housemate. And, yes, I intentionally added another woman and I didn't give the rest of them a vote.

My girlfriend at the time was 10 years older than me. It was a doomed relationship and we both knew it but neither of us cared because we were having fun. To say that she was amused by my living arrangement is putting it mildly because she could have been their mother. The effect she had on the girls was nothing less than intimidating. She came over regularly for entertainment.

We parted company a month or two after Mom arrived and that completely changed the dynamic in the house. I tried to be good. I really did, because good roommates are worth their weight in gold. But, one night I fell asleep holding one of them on the couch while we were rehearsing lines for a play. I'm fairly sure alcohol was involved, because she is not the one I would have picked had I known what was going to happen. I know we were fully clothed when we fell asleep but we woke up in my bed with no clothes on. She waited until the rest of them were all drinking coffee together in the kitchen to walk back to her room, naked. It was not a walk of shame.

Visualize a nuclear explosion followed by the toxic fallout. Backbiting, jealousy, fighting, bickering, you name it. It was like permanent PMS on steroids and the slightest thing would set them off. Over time each of them later described their reaction to what Kat did. They were the same: First, they wanted to strangle her. Then they wanted to strangle me. "Her? If you wanted to get laid, why didn't you come see me?" Anyway, at the time it was a rather poisonous atmosphere. It didn't go away.

Two weeks later I'd had enough, started packing and told all of them I was leaving. Mom could have the lease and do whatever she wanted. Mom rounded them up and read them the riot act. That evening when I got home from work she had a private word with me and explained I wasn't going anywhere. It was all my fault for playing favorites but she'd taken care of it. There were four women in the house with needs and they'd decided they could share and there would be no more fighting. All I had to do was treat everyone equally and they'd decide how that would happen, but if I did my part I'd have a peaceful home with no complaints.

Interestingly, they didn't see the need to consult me on that decision.

Whatever she did worked because the fighting ended and they worked out whatever schedule they had among themselves. I never slept alone after that and it was a game for me to try and figure out who would show up. We were focused on classes, homework, jobs, theater and sleeping. We had no time for anything else, so you'd probably call it a relationship of convenience. That lasted for about a month.

I'm not sure how long it would have lasted, but the house got robbed and all our computers were stolen. Which meant we'd all probably flunk out for the semester. I knew the cops wouldn't do anything and we had to have our computers back so I nixxed talking to the police and took it to the local gang. We worked out a deal, they paid someone a visit and about 90% of our stuff was on our front porch the next morning with a couple of homeboys making sure nothing walked off. There was also a lot of other stuff that didn't come from our house. For the girls it was like Christmas. We all got our computers back and didn't lose any assignments and they got their juicing machines back. Two of them were hard-core juicers and they all drank the most hideously vile death-juice you can imagine. But it got them all slim and I didn't have to drink it so I didn't care.

Anyway, that somehow made me their protector. Which completely changed the dynamic in the house and what had been a relationship of convenience got a lot more serious. We had "the talk" and agreed that we were exclusive with each other. That was something they apparently needed. After that unsolicited sandwiches started showing up. My dirty clothes started disappearing and then magically re-appearing clean and folded. And there was never another word said about my guns.

The deal I cut with our local gang essentially made us a part of the community (barrio) and a few months later we attended a wedding party as a group. They got separated and all of them got hit on pretty hard by guys from the hood. They all individually told the guys I was their boyfriend. The guys compared notes and realized all of them were claiming to be my girlfriend. Which got taken the wrong way (they think they're too good for us) and talked about it with others. A couple of the women asked them about that and they said it was correct, they shared me. Twenty minutes later that story had gone around and we were the live entertainment for the rest of the day. That had consequences, one of which was that plenty of girls in the neighborhood wanted to be the one who stole me from my four girlfriends. They became very protective of me. They also became protective of themselves because guys were hitting on them a lot more for a while.

It took a few months for everything to settle into a routine, but after everyone knew about our living arrangement it was accepted and we were treated normally. Except when they wore their "property of" T-shirts as a group. We did some pretty outrageous stuff. We had an old guy living next door who made it his mission in life to call the cops on us at every opportunity. We gave him plenty of opportunities. And all of us kept at least a 3.6 GPA. The reason that worked so well was Mom made an excellent XO and it would not have worked nearly as well as it did had it not been for her.

What people don't understand when comparing a poly relationship with a monogamous relationship is that with mono there is only one relationship but with two women there are three. With three women there are six relationships and with four women there are ten relationships. It can get very complex very quickly.

That arrangement lasted for almost exactly 2 years and ended when I got abruptly sent to the other side of the country to resolve a family problem, which put me on the Gulf Coast. What made that relationship so different was that we kept getting closer. Had I not been pulled out, we would have stayed together for another two years to finish school and I'd have wanted to keep us together after that. I suspect they would have done so. The reason I had to leave was a member of the family had a problem, I was the only one who could solve it, it had to be done and my father asked me to handle it.

I don't like to think about the hurt I caused because it was traumatic. Emotionally it was pretty damn ugly for all of us and I think the worst part was we were at the point that we knew we could make it last if we wanted to. In hindsight, I was closer to any of them after two years than I ever was to my church-approved wife of 15 years. One difference was when they said "I love you" it was genuine and they meant it. The wife loved being married and when she said it... it was more like something that was expected to be said than because she meant it. But in the end I didn't give her what she needed either so I'm not throwing rocks.


During that period on the Gulf Coast I became a Christian and wound up getting married a year or so later to a woman 10 years younger than me.

About ten years and 4 children later, there were problems with pregnancy #5 and she was put on bedrest for the last trimester. I hired Squawk, the 19 year old daughter of a friend to help out (she'd been babysitting for us since she was 16). It got ugly in labor, the placenta abrupted, blood everywhere, emergency surgery... we almost lost them. Which meant she needed even more help for a few months afterward. Squawk was already a fixture in the house and had essentially moved in with us months before. She had her own room at that point. Then she decided she wanted to join the marriage and help make babies.

That was not my idea, it was hers, with no encouragement on my part.

When she announced that (not just to us), the wife totally flipped out. Recovering from childbirth, feeling vulnerable, obviously I had betrayed her and she got vocal about it. Complete meltdown. And all the good churchians said I was an evil husband because decent young Christian women don't think about things like that so obviously I seduced her. Squawk was 23 years younger than me, 13 years younger than the wife and better looking.

OTOH, Squawk's father approved of the idea and told me that if I just got her knocked up everyone else would shut up. In hindsight I should have taken his advice. It couldn't possibly have turned out any worse than it actually did.

The thing is, I never touched her. Of course, both of us denying anything had happened was confirmation that it had. Everyone was convinced I'd seduced her while my wife was practically dying and it was a seriously juicy story. Then came the rumors she'd had an abortion to cover up the pregnancy that resulted from all the sex we never had and it got ridiculous.

I listened to all the chuckleheads in the church who were telling me what a sin it was and how unloving I was being and so on and so forth. So, I quietly had a talk with Squawk, got her moved out and that should have ended it, but that was taken as proof I was evil because now I was dumping her. She got married to some other guy less than a year later and moved several states away.

And the real issue the wife had with it? The most important thing for her was what others say. Because as long as it was socially acceptable she loved having Squawk around. She thought I was banging her but she never complained about it. No, the most important thing in her life was what other people said and I'd put her into the middle of a nasty scandal so obviously I didn't love her. At all.

I had to change. So, I began a program of becoming more and more unattractive. Because supplicating to your wife and trying to be her servant is disgusting behavior in a husband. It took years of gradually getting worse before things got really bad and I made the mistake of agreeing to counseling. Then it got a lot worse. The worse it got the more I did all the stuff the marriage counselor told me to do and the more she seethed with contempt for me. Until finally she couldn't take it any longer and someone told her what all our kids were worth in child support checks.

But it took one of the nastiest divorces known to man to wake me up.

Continued.....

 

[Eristhophanes]

After The Divorce

Years later when I had figured it out and gone back to being the way I'd always been, the mother of my children wanted us to get back together. All of this stuff is pretty predictable and after a couple of years getting pumped and dumped by other men she knew she was headed toward being an old cat woman. But she didn't just burn bridges, she ripped out the foundations. Even the feminized church knows that divorce is wrong, so they get around that by turning the husband into a monster. In order for her to be righteous, he has to be a monster.

Which means that all the lies she told convinced people I really am a monster and she had to live with it or admit she lied. The kids all know it's a complete lie and when the oldest left for college he didn't come back. He wants nothing to do with his mother. It's obvious #2 is on track to do the same thing and she finally looked around at her friends who nuked their families and the fact that their kids want nothing to do with them and now the writing is on the wall.

When I explained to her that we'd never been married, that it was adultery because she was married to some other man, that was the final meltdown. Her father died before we ever purported to marry and the idea that she needs to stop committing adultery or actually get divorced from the man she gave her virginity to all those years ago is unthinkable. What would people think? She believed that because of the kids we might be able to get back together and when I told her that she lost it. Then she really lost it when I told her if she was ever going to be part of my life in the future it would be as part of a poly family because there is no way I'd ever do monogamous again.

The tragedy is we both listened to really bad advice and it came from the modern church, straight out of the feminist playbook. And our kids were the ones who suffered and were permanently damaged.

The worst part is my ignorance caused the problem.

I listened to the lies of the feminist church idiots and became contemptibly unattractive. Then, I submitted myself to marital counseling from the same people who caused the problem in the first place. I should have just kept Squawk and knocked her up. They'd have shunned me and I'd never have listened to their crap.

So, after it all blew up I sat down and over the course of a few years I really studied my Bible. That marriage chart linked in my signature is one result of that. And I discovered that I wasn't alone. I found the same patterns of behavior. Predictable patterns of behavior. Then I discovered all the stuff about Game and a light went on- it was all about teaching guys to be the way I used to be. So I searched even harder because I knew there was a Biblical basis for this... and why wasn't it being taught?

______________

The reason these things happened is not that I was so loving or Christ-centered. For most of my life I wasn't a Christian. In fact, I'm not sure we could agree on what it means to be a Christian or to be Christ-centered, but the point is all the various relationships happened because the women were attracted to me. I led and they followed. Even if I was headed for a cliff.

I've also tried to be as honest as I could about the mistakes I've made and the people I've hurt. I make an excellent bad example in a lot of things. At the same time I'm a statistical outlier in a lot of areas, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of five to six sigma. However, I've learned a lot and maybe you can get something out of what I've learned the hard way.



Moving Forward

What I've realized over the last year or so is that nobody teaches a combination of the Biblical moral aspects of sex and marriage, combined with polygyny and attractiveness issues. I guess maybe that's my job. In this post I'll try to cover attractiveness issues specifically with respect to polygyny.

Without a doubt, some will be offended. Contrary to Zec's contention that I write things like this to get a rise out of people, that's not what I'm doing. This stuff be just as strange and alien to some here as the idea of polygyny is to the average church-goer, but it's factual.

It's like giving advice to my son who really wanted to spend time with this one girl.

Son, walk over to where she and her friends are and start talking to all her friends, but ignore her. Just be a fun guy, laugh and joke with them. But you ignore her. If she has any interest at all in you, she will demand your attention after a little while. Give her a smirk and tease her for it the way you do your little sister. She will protest. Start talking to the others again and ask who brought their little sister along. Now she's getting frustrated and she'll show it. Tell her you wouldn't take her anywhere because she can't behave in public. She will demand to do something with you to prove she can. Go ahead, do it.​

He swore up and down that it wouldn't work, until he tried it. It didn't work as well as he wanted the first time, but after a week I had him comfortably talking to girls and it did work. It works on adult women too. If you're attractive.

Women tend to react violently to some of the things I've said here, and I've heard it all before. It's just like my son would say, "Dad, girls aren't like that" to which I'd reply "Really? Go try it." And it would work. Not always, but it would work.

Attractiveness of the man and the importance that plays both in attracting and keeping the attraction of the wife (or wives) within the marriage is a key element that simply isn't discussed. The elephant in the room that no-one will mention.

Attractive means high-value, not necessarily good-looking. In fact, looks are about the least of it.

From the Christian standpoint, it is the least understood and most ignored issue in marriage. It starts with "he shall rule over you" in Genesis 3:16, which should be seen as a mandate for men to be fit to rule. Let's see how that works.

"your desire shall be for [your husband and he shall rule over you]."

your desire shall be for [your ruler]

A man rules because he is fit to rule. Wearing the crown doesn't make him a ruler.

A woman desires a man who is fit to rule her.​

The woman was given a desire for her ruler. If the man is not fit to rule then the woman doesn't have desire for him. This can be demonstrated in marriages everywhere. When the man is fit to rule, the woman will have far less difficult submitting to his rule. This does not mean he rules wisely or well, but she does desire him.

If one looks at the word "desire" it's defined in Scripture as a desire to conquer and a sexual desire. As used in Genesis 3:16, it's both, and this is where the fitness tests come from. The woman will test the man (desire = conquer) for fitness to see if he is fit to rule her. If he passes the tests, her desire changes to a sexual desire. Women never stop testing men, and if men don't pass those tests women get unhappy, angry and contemptuous. And when that happens, they start paying attention to men who can pass their tests.

For women who genuinely want to be submissive wives, a husband who is unfit to rule makes it far more difficult.

Loving one's wife doesn't mean what most Christians think it means.

Again, we start with Genesis 3:16. She wants to be ruled. To be led. But only by a man who is fit to rule. Numbers 30. The husband or father has a tremendous responsibility to hold her accountable. All the passages on submission in the New Testament have Genesis 3:16 and Numbers 30 as their context because God does not change. This is why understanding the background story to what happened with Adam and Eve is so important in understanding what it means to love your wife.

Sin had not yet entered into the world. Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening. They were naked and unashamed. Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less than the ideal woman? This was the dawn of creation, there was no sin in the world. God created Eve, from Adam, and all women are descended from Eve, so does anyone believe that women are getting better? Is there any woman alive who could do a better job of being a wife than Eve? Seriously. In other words, are women getting better?

For the answer, look at women today… QED

God gave them one rule. Just one, single, simple rule. And the ideal woman, with no job, no stress, no children to chase, seriously- what did Eve have on her plate other than obedience to that one single rule? “Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And what did Paul say about it? He said Eve was totally deceived.

Notice that I’ve said nothing of Adam. He knew what he was doing, because God had said “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die.” After his wife had eaten of the fruit, Adam knowingly decided to eat of the fruit, choosing to die with his wife rather than refuse and live, knowing she would die. In doing do he displayed a remarkable lack of faith in God, but given the way men are about their women, it was understandable.

Satan took advantage of Eve's weakness to use her as a weapon to take down the greatest man who ever lived.

So, God held court and He was faced with a question and had to make a decision. What do you do with women, when at their best and I mean at the top of their game, in a world in which there is no sin and no distractions like other women, social media, television or you name it… when in the absence of all that they demonstrably can’t obey one simple rule?

You appoint a guardian for them because they’ve proved they are not competent.

"AND HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU."​

From this passage we see the relationship between husband and wife (as well as that between father and daughter) is that of ruler-subject. Carried forward to the description of the relationship in Ephesians 5:22-24 we see it as a Master-servant relationship. However, from Genesis 3:16, taken in context, we see a guardian-ward relationship. When looked in this light, Numbers 30 becomes the instruction for how to handle that relationship. So, yes, the relationship is all three, ruler-subject, master-servant and guardian-ward.

There are many Christians, both male and female, who will scream in outrage at that statement. They make pretty arguments to the effect that might be what Scripture says, but that isn't what the words mean. Look over here and see something different! It doesn't mean what it says!

To which I will say, God does not change.

I assert that the major reason a wife rebels against her husband's authority is because he is not fit to rule. Which is another way of saying he's not desirable. Not attractive (I'm not talking about looks).

The responsibility involved with that relationship causes most men to reject it. Experience with men who are not fit to rule causes most women to rebel against the headship doctrine and they actually have a very good point: it is not loving for a man to demand that his wife submit to his rule when he is not fit to rule. This is why most Christian teaching is designed to negate the authority and headship of the husband over the wife in the name of "love" and the feminist imperative.

Why? Because masculinity is politically incorrect. I don't mind being attacked over it, but most men have a lot to lose so they shut up and toe the line. Others become feminists and defend it, especially when there's money on the table.

I occasionally have a well-meaning feminist idiot try to tell me that men do not have a "need" for sex, only a desire. As a rule they are either female or men with a very low level of testosterone. They try to make beautiful Biblical arguments designed to explain that men should be pursuing the kingdom of the Lord and they don't need sex. They get upset when I point out that Jesus said some men are born eunuchs, some men are made eunuchs and some men become eunuchs for the Kingdom of God. Active emphasis on the word "become" because it emphasizes the change from the norm. Men need sex.

In the same way, women have a desire to be ruled by a man fit to rule her. Once she has her husband, there is an emotional need on her part for him to be fit to rule.

On one hand there is the emotional need for masculine dominance, on the other hand is the emotional need for comfort and loyalty. All loyalty and no dominance is like a diet of candy. It's sweet for a while but soon gets disgusting. In terms of brain chemistry, the dominance results in the giddy dopamine rush, the loyalty results in the oxytocin comfort. Long term, both are needed in the proper balance.

This is completely rejected by the modern church. Genesis 3:16 is not politically correct. They claim "the curse was lifted!" Right. So snakes no longer crawl on their bellies, farmers no longer have a problem with weeds and mothers pass their babies out with all the pain of spitting watermelon seeds at a summer picnic. Right.

Others, in an attempt to control the narrative, emphasize that men are to love their wives like Christ loves His church. "Climb up on that cross and die for her!" Except that Jesus already did that. And they forgot all about the seven epistles of Christ. Nobody studies that part of the Book.

Christ said in Revelation 3:19 "Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent."

The reaction to pointing out that a rebuke is oral and chastening is physical (as in corporal punishment) was typical. The arguments from men claiming that it was wrong to spank a wife. That a wife who desired that kind of masculine dominance was kinky. Slumberfreeze said:

"Whereas a good whipping seems absolutely necessary for a child, I see no justification for treating a full grown woman like a child."​

Which is a backhanded way of saying women do not ever act like children. Which is a denial of reality. Samuel was more moderate when he said:

"A wife is an adult. I would generally feel that by that stage of her psychological development there would be far more effective methods of discipline that could be employed, if a husband decided punishment was justified. I can see very few situations where agape would require physical punishment of a wife. I am NOT saying that agape definately rules it out, I can imagine that there could be some extremely unusual situation I cannot think of where it might be justified - but as a general rule I can't see it being a useful application of agape."​

The problem with these answers is they deny not only the reality of what women are like, but underlying that is a complete denial that women could have an emotional need to be ruled. Authority is not given without the corresponding power to enforce that authority. And when the authority is tested, the ruler who refuses to enforce their authority proves they are weak. Weakness is very unattractive.

How do the women feel about this?

I won't call it a "pick-up" line, but saying "you need to be spanked" at the right time will get a reaction from women. Their reaction is in many ways a litmus test of the man's attractiveness and/or their attraction to him. And it's the sort of thing very few men will say. I find it amusing to do this with women I meet from time to time. They engage in obnoxious or attention-seeking behavior, I tease them about it, they react and eventually I'll wind up saying something along the lines of "you need to be spanked" if she's single or "a good spanking would solve your problem" if she's married. That gets followed by "It's like a behavior reset button. A few good swats and everything goes back to normal."

It's frequently something they want to talk about. When they do, as a rule they admit they wish they had a man who would be like that. Which is not to say they want a spanking, just that they wish they had the kind of man who would, or at least might spank them if they stepped far enough across the line. And understand, the subtext of that is they wish they had a man who actually draws the line and has behavior he will not tolerate. A ruler, in other words.

The last time this happened was a few days ago, her response was to basically to agree and say "but my husband doesn't have the balls." I suspect the women understand the subtext of that.

Women will sometimes act like brats and they know it. Sometimes it's because they were just being women. Sometimes it's a test to see if the husband has standards. Will he enforce those standards, or is he a wimp? The real question is how does she react emotionally knowing her husband "doesn't have the balls" to correct her? Seeing him as weak.

And you'd better believe feminists were out to destroy marriages with the "domestic violence" (DV) laws. Because virtually everything a husband might do to enforce his authority is considered domestic violence or domestic abuse under the Duluth model. She can't control her spending so you take her credit cards away? Domestic violence. Don't believe me? Enforcing the household budget with allowances for both husband and wife is domestic abuse. But only against the woman.

Understand, as a rule women do not want to leave a relationship with a highly attractive man, nor will they file DV charges against him. But let the husband slide into repulsively unattractive behavior and the wife develops contempt. It can happen. What is the difference between a playful slap on the ass and a domestic violence charge? The attractiveness of the man who did it.

If you think that was a discussion of spanking, you got it wrong. Try again.

Continued...

 

[Eristhophanes]

Attraction and Attractiveness.

Years ago if you had asked me why I never had a problem getting laid or why I kept winding up in poly relationships I would not have been able to tell you.

Part of it is that's just the way I was born. As to the attractiveness bit, I didn't understand any of that back then, but it's summed up in what is known as "game." It helped that I was a fanatic about working out for a few decades and I could have been a fitness model in my late 20's and early 30's, but it had far more to do with attitude and personality. Women have consistently said I was "arrogant" and I'd tell them how much they loved it and they'd keep coming back for more. Then I decided to be a good Christian and do monogamy and that worked out great until I listened to all the fantastic Christian teaching on how to really love your wife, paid attention and changed to be a better, more loving Christian husband and father.

I did it. I own that, I changed and that screwed up everything.

I've recommended the book "Married Man Sex Life Primer" here before because what that book has is a road-map for how to be more attractive to women specifically within the context of marriage. Most Christian men really need that because they are not attractive to women. However, the general context of that book and just about all the stuff out there deals with monogamy, not polygyny.

There are frequently posts here by men who discovered the Bible doesn't forbid polygyny, so they want more than one wife. The thing is, just because YOU discovered God doesn't have a problem with polygyny doesn't mean women have no problem doing that sort of thing with YOU. Because if you cannot get multiple women willing to go along with that, it won't happen. Meaning, you need to be attractive enough to attract them.

But what happens if an unattractive husband has a wife who places a great deal of value on her faith and desires greatly to honor both her husband and her marriage? She may get Bible-bludgeoned into doing something she absolutely does not want to do. Which will cause no end of problems.

I think that under normal conditions 90% of marriages ought to be monogamous with the understanding they could become poly. I think less than 10% of marriages could successfully be poly marriages because really only about 10% of men can make it work. Very few Christian men can do this because while a man may want more than one wife, if the women won't get on board with the program for him it won't happen. Most women won't have a problem with it for the right man but there aren't many of them.

There are a lot of men who could work hard at it, change and become capable. But they don't want to. One of the hardest things for people to do is admit they were wrong and then do something about it. Most Christian men are generally unattractive to women because of the behaviors taught and emphasized by the feminist church. They refuse to do the things that would make them more attractive and actively do things that make them unattractive.

Again, in general women do not have a problem sharing a high-value man. The opposite is also true, in that in general women do not want to share a low-value man. High-value is attractive. Attractive is high-value. I like Donal Graeme's LAMPS model for male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, Status. In order of importance, they are

1. Power (masculine dominance, with the dominance being critical)
2. Status
3. Money
4. Looks (Height is more important)
5. Athleticism (If he's a professional athlete that counts toward status)

___________

After the bar is passed in terms of attractiveness is where we get all the extras such as the sterling character qualities, knowing the Bible, being a Godly man, etc.. And you know what the "friendzone" is, right? That's the group of men who have all the wonderful qualities here but have very little or none of the foundational attractiveness qualities. Seriously, I'll give you a composite of about 10 local Christian men I know, aged 30-50.

On a scale of 1-10 for each aspect

Power 2 (I'm being generous, their women rule them)
Status 2 (They are simply ordinary men, they have no special status)
Money 4 (They have jobs, but below average income)
Looks 3 (Average height, all but one are overweight or obese, they could improve but see no need)
Athleticism 0 (Unless you count rooting for a football team, in which case they would be 10's)​

That is more or less the average Christian man. In terms of character traits and being nice guys, they're across the board 9's and 10's. In terms of being foundationally attractive, let's say a 2.5. Every one of them could bring themselves up across the board if they wanted to, but they see no value in it. It's funny, even things like money- nobody realizes that the real value of being wealthy is time freedom. I know plenty of wealthy professionals who are little more than highly-paid slaves with plenty of toys and no time to play.

This is where the women tend to get vocal. Effectively what I'm saying is a woman won't be willing to share her husband unless he's high-value, which means if she has problems with sharing it's because she's just not that attracted to her husband because he isn't all that. Which, if true, is an extremely sensitive subject. Because she cannot tell him that because then she has to explain why. And it's complicated, as you'll see.

On the other hand, she made her choice, she's OK with that and she chooses to be happy with it. Which is to say that she made her bed and she'll sleep in it just fine. And there's nothing wrong with that... until he says he wants to buy a bigger bed and add another wife.

"Guess what, Honey? That's not the bed I signed on for."


Women Respond To A Man's Attractiveness

I observe that a woman's willingness to comply with the desires of a man varies based on her attraction to him. For one man, she'll have sex with him occasionally but only if she's in the mood or to get something from him. The same woman, for another more attractive man is always in the mood. And for an even more attractive man she'll cheerfully engage in a threesome. And that same woman will tell man #1 she would *never* do anything like the things she was doing with man #3 two weeks before.

So, how does that work out for a woman who married a man she wasn't that attracted to in the first place or for whom she's lost a lot of her attraction? Or both?

Add another wife? Hell No!

This variation can also exist between the same man and woman over a period of time because a woman's attraction to a man is dynamic. The relationship can start off with her being more attracted and he gets lots of good sex. As time goes by he loses attraction and he no longer gets as much sex and when it does happen she seldom shows much enthusiasm. This is a very familiar pattern and if you don't believe me go read the "dead bedroom" reddit forum. As Athol Kay has demonstrated with thousands of men, the process can work the other way as well. Husbands can become more attractive and get more and better sex from their wives. They desire to please him ad become more submissive. In other words, he demonstrates that he's fit to rule and they no longer have a problem with being ruled by him.

Game

Most women intrinsically know what they find attractive in men. But, because there are so few very attractive men it is not in their best interests to explain this. Most women could explain to their man what he should do to be more attractive, but that ruins it. He's supposed to just get it. But, what if he doesn't get it and needs to learn? And it just so happens that various companies and individual coaches are in the business of teaching men how to be more attractive to women. It's called Game.

Game is essentially learned charisma. A learned set of attitudes and behaviors that make a man more attractive to women, because it teaches men how to be attractive and pass the women's fitness tests. It is amoral in the same way a hammer is amoral. Merely a tool, it can be used to build or destroy.

Christians often react so strongly and so negatively to game and the language of game (alpha / beta dynamic) that in order to explain this to Christians I use a Genesis 3:16 model, which I think is more accurate. The intrinsic qualities in a man in terms of attitude and behavior that make him fit to be a ruler are very attractive to women. So, why is this such a problem? Well, first of all, it works. It really, really works. Second, look hard at Genesis 3:16 and that word desire. The man who passes her fitness tests stimulates sexual desire. Christians react very negatively to that.

So, what do women find attractive? In general it starts with masculine dominance and confidence in a physically fit man who is outcome independent. From there different women have different desires.

The problem with that is men have been taught the exact opposite, pretty much all their lives.

When you try to explain that women are not attracted to nice guys but they do want a man they are attracted to to be nice, they get angry. Nobody ever explained how to be attractive. They were told to "just be yourself" which is a huge lie. They were told women are attracted to nice guys.

Men can usually understand that perhaps they'd be more attractive if they got rid of the polyester suit, lost the spare tire around their waist, put on a little muscle and got a decent haircut. Yet, they react violently to the idea that their behavior and attitude is repulsive to most women. They're supposed to be themselves! 1st Corinthians 13! And there's the attitude in the church that women are supposed to be attracted to a man who is humble and knows the bible.

No, they want an attractive man who is humble and knows the Bible.

And this drives Christian men insane, but the fact is, the young "single" women in the churches typically do not date Christian men. Go ahead, ask the young men about that. But to suggest the men change their behavior to something more attractive? Instant emotional meltdown.

Learning behaviors that are appealing and attractive to women is manipulative! This stuff was developed by pick-up artists! It's bad! This is for getting women to have sex with you! Fornication! Sin! And they're all lies! Men making up stories! It isn't true!

And so the churches ranks swell with banged up single mothers who can't even see the Christian men in the church because they're so unattractive and the church leadership blames the men. This is where the "MAN UP and marry a slut!" campaign came from. For those who are unaware, that was the push to get Christian men interested in the SINgle mothers in the church. The men were not amused because they couldn't even get a date with those women during their party years. As one young man put it:

"I wasn't allowed to have the kitten then and I don't want the cat now. Especially not the cat with kittens."

Most of them refuse to understand, both the young men and the leadership, that the behavior the church teaches young men is repulsive to women. "Don't look at her! Don't meet her eyes, that's LUST!"


You can lead a Christian to the Bible but you can't make them think: Be fit to rule.

Game is what happened when a bunch of guys observed that some men are just "naturals" when it comes to attracting women, but there was seemingly no pattern to it. Some guys were short, ugly, skinny, fat, etc., but they never lacked for attractive female companionship. Some men were absolute jerks but their beautiful female companions kept going back to them. Why?

The men decided to find out what makes certain men attractive to women and applied scientific method to see if they could become attractive. Years of study and hundreds of thousands of field reports later, the data-set matured. Then some rather intelligent men took that data, analyzed it and laid it out in a coherent manner. Rollo Tomassi did so with "The Rational Male" and then wrote a sequel, "The Rational Male, Preventative Medicine." Both of which I highly recommend for every man, especially Christians.

Interestingly, one of the foundational bits of wisdom is "never listen to a woman when she tries to tell you what makes a man attractive." Why? Because it won't.

Athol Kay took the best of the game information available and applied it to long-term relationships. Because being married is not the same as having a girlfriend and having a girlfriend is not the same as picking up some woman for a one-night-stand. What works to separate a woman from her clothes while she's on vacation or out of town on a business trip is not the solution for a long-term relationship. However, the basics are the same and can be summed up as "be attractive." After that you can get into the 5 languages of love and communication stuff like that, but first, be attractive.

So for the men who would like a second wife, take all that wonderful advice about being loving and caring and praying for another wife, but first, be attractive.

Learn Game. Hit the gym, grow some muscle, drop your bodyfat down to about 10% and have visible 6-pack abs. Practice Game with women. Develop your job skills and career to make a good income. Develop really tight Game. Join a dojo and learn how to fight. Learning how to fight builds massive confidence. There are so many blogs and forums online that dispense this information for free that there is no excuse. I recommend the three books I've already listed because they are invaluable.

A couple of years ago I wrote a post on my blog that touched off a firestorm. My point was simple. Regardless of what any individual woman might say, in general women prefer a man with a larger penis. And believe it or not, there are devices that will permanently increase the size of a man's penis. I also pointed out that it's a two-way street, because there are devices like the kegelmaster 2000 that allow a woman to strengthen and tighten the vaginal muscles to the point that, as one Amazon reviewer said, she had her own Chinese finger-trap. So while a woman might desire a more fulfilling sexual experience from a bigger penis, she doesn't need one because she can make her vagina so tight that a smaller penis works wonders. But that doesn't matter. Women want a superior man and that is a traditional metric.

The response was a spectacular eruption of violent emotion. NO! Christians are not supposed to even think about this stuff! How dare I write about that! Women are not so shallow that they are attracted to tall, muscular men with a full head of hair who display masculine dominance, make a good income and have a large penis. That's preposterous! Women want men to be kind, caring, gentle, honest, faithful and true. And the size of his penis doesn't matter!

Right. Let's look at the typical male hero in romance novels, the tall, muscular man with a full head of hair who displays rogueish charm and masculine dominance, makes a high income and has a large penis. 6 feet 2 inches tall is the 90th percentile of height for white males. Muscular and fit with visible abs? At age 35 that easily puts him in the top 5%. Masculine dominance? Top 10%. Makes $200k a year? In most places that puts him in the top 5% of earned incomes. A penis one inch longer than the mean? He's bigger than 84% of all other men. If he's two inches longer (7.5 inches) he's bigger than 97% of all the other men.

That is dependably the description for the male protagonist in the best-selling romance novels and the market is telling us that women are paying money to fantasize about romances with men like that. In other words, that is the basic set of attributes that most attracts the largest percentage of women. Everything except height can be adjusted, and if the man doesn't want to do the work that's his decision.

I should put this in perspective. In the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 37.9 percent of adults over 20 are obese and another 32.8% are overweight. That's a whopping 70.7% of adults over 20 years of age are either obese or overweight. Literally, just by being trim and in good shape you beat 70% of the others. But, since more women tend to be overweight than men, it means more than 70% of the women are overweight or obese, so the competition is tight for the remaining women who look good.

In places like LA and Las Vegas there is a lot of competition for the best looking women. The men are tall, jacked, well-dressed and have tight game. Some are performers, athletes, celebrities, cage fighters or bouncers and they have a lot of social proof in terms of being high-value. These men are in competition for the best looking women and they do what they can to raise their value. I'm told that the size of a guy's package is now just another aspect of the competition. Interestingly, this is about where bodybuilding was 30 years ago. Then, all you had to be was buff to stand out, today you have to be jacked just to get in the game. Fifteen years ago just having some game was good enough. Now your game has to be rock solid and tight. Because men compete too.

The real point is if a man wants something like polygyny, which is facilitated by a high level of attraction, he should do what he can to improve his attractiveness. If he develops his physique, why not develop all of it? The real question is why there is such a desire on the part of Christians to shame a man for doing what he can to be attractive. Do women get shamed for having a breast augmentation? The issue is the same and it's improving their attractiveness. Almost 280,000 (US) women had their breasts enhanced last year. Because men prefer larger breasts.

I was in a discussion about polygyny two days ago on another blog. One well-respected Christian female blogger opposes polygyny and made the point that if a woman was highly attracted to a man she would do this stuff and someone should be warning them of the dangers. As was pointed out, most Christians would be extremely disturbed to see what women are willing to do for a man they are highly attracted to.

The context of the remark is significant. She was admitting that women would enter a poly marriage if the man was highly attractive. The subtext is "highly attractive men are dangerous!" So, if a man is getting the message "I would never do that!" it most likely means "I would never do that with you." The solution is to become highly attractive. And keep in mind that 75% of it is attitude and behavior. Masculine dominance, high confidence, outcome independence and amused mastery. Being physically in good shape and muscular is partly looks, mostly masculinity. Being a good earner is important, especially if the job provides social status.

Continued...

 

[Eristhophanes]

Attraction and Resistance To Change

There exists the issue of attraction. If, in order to accomplish what you desire you must become attractive, then there is very little chance you'll get what you desire without becoming attractive. But there will always be someone who pulls out their favorite Bible verse and says changing to make yourself attractive is wrong. And they'll admit that going to the gym is OK because it makes you healthier. But they don't like it. But they'll throw a snit-fit over the penis thing because the ONLY reason to do that would be for women. So either they're saying that women don't deserve it or they're saying "you're trying to rise above us." This is really proved by the response to Game, which is changing attitudes and behaviors to win over women. In general, Christians say it's wrong. Really?

Let's put this on the other foot. What do women normally do to make themselves attractive?

"braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses"

But how should a woman really win over a man?

"Without a word by her chaste and and respectful behavior... the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit"

God is saying that the behavior and attitude of women is far more important than the externalities. In the same way, the internal attitude and resulting behavior of men is of great importance in winning over the women. That's Game, to which you also have to add the externals in order to be highly attractive.

This is not to say that studying your Bible and praying isn't important.

Pray between sets in the gym. Practice your memorization verses while you're pounding the heavy bag. Know your Bible well enough that you can qualify a non-virgin (sorry, not going there in this post). Phileo that squat rack and agape the bench. Get into the dojo and learn how to fight so you can break the jaw of the wicked and snatch the prey from his teeth with confidence. Increase your earning so you can deliver the poor who cry for help and make the widow's heart sing for joy. Learn Game so your charisma and presence is enough that when you take your place, the young men hide, the elders rise and the princes and nobles stop speaking and be quiet. Because when you've done all that you can, you'll be fit to rule. And that's attractive.


The Real World

It's easily demonstrable that women want to see character traits like being kind, caring, gentle, honest, faithful and true in a man they are attracted to, but they are not attracted to those character traits in and of themselves. We can go into virtually any church and I can line up guys who have all those character traits and actually look pretty good as well but they can't get a date because women are not interested in them. Because the feminized church has pretty much stomped all the masculinity out of them.

Then, when I point to the fact there are plenty of attractive wives in churches who are disgusted with their husbands who have all those character traits... and hold them in contempt because they are unattractive... they shake their heads and say they just don't understand it. When I point out that more than a few of those wives would like to be seduced by an attractive man... the church-folk go ballistic. And you cannot explain to them that it is impossible to seduce someone unless they desire to be seduced.

It is pathetically easy for an attractive man to seduce wives like that. Especially the ones in church, because if they weren't at least nominally Christians they'd have divorced their husband already. And if it happens, well, you know, God forgives. Isolate, inebriate, escalate. And, no, that isn't something I do, but it's one of the major reasons I don't attend a church. Not so much that it's a temptation, but after what I've been through it makes me rather angry when I see it. And if you've ever spent time around a convention center, especially in Las Vegas, you already know that a huge percentage of the female visitors are pretty much expecting to get laid. Married or not. It's an item on their "to do" list of things to be checked off.

And the women will scream NAWALT!!!

Right, I know, "Not All Women Are Like That!" Which is true, until it isn't, and a lot of factors come into play. What if the man decides she should be his latest conquest? A man she's been working with for months or longer who she finds attractive? And now they're working together out of town on a business trip? This isn't a stranger, it's a man she's comfortable with and attracted to. Is she ovulating? Do I need to explain that one? What are things like with her husband? Because if she is disgusted with him, that's bad. And if they had a huge fight before she left, that's worse. Then there's the fact they are in a strange city and nobody knows them. Staying in the same hotel. Possibly adjoining rooms. If he knows what he's doing she just hit her perfect storm.

And when all is said and done, she's going to say she doesn't know how it happened, it just did. While it is impossible to seduce someone who does not want to be seduced, it's also true they won't be seduced by someone they are not attracted to.

She will not be attracted to other men if she is highly attracted to her husband.

Female Competition, Pre-Selection Bias and Monopoly Behavior.

Women compete and that will never change. No matter how close they are, they'll still compete. Before a man makes a commitment to a woman, part of his attractiveness is the fact that she's competing for him with all the other women who might catch his interest. The problem with monogamy is it gives the wife a monopoly condition and by removing the competition, the man loses attractiveness. Think of a cat chasing a piece of string. As long as it's moving it's interesting and attractive. When the string is caught, it's boring and not nearly as attractive. The monopoly removes the accountability of competition. With this gone there is no incentive for good behavior on the part of the wives nor any penalty for bad behavior other than divorce. Total destruction.

Polygyny completely changes that dynamic because even the possibility of another wife entering the marriage represents competition. She was in competition with all the other women prior to the marriage but in an environment in which polygyny is acceptable she remains in competition. Even if the marriage is monogamous. This is why I believe that social acceptance of polygyny is necessary for monogamy to function correctly. It takes away the monopoly which results in better behavior from the wives.

That competition, in and of itself, makes the man more attractive. Within a poly relationship (assuming the women are on board with that) it can make the man a lot more attractive. There are elements of pre-selection bias at work but the competition itself makes him more valuable. Other women find him attractive, therefore he is attractive, therefore she is competing for him so she is attracted to him.

Pre-selection bias is why a man will do a lot better if he goes out with an attractive female wingman. She demonstrates that an attractive women finds him attractive, therefore he must be attractive. Which causes them to be more receptive to any advances he might make. One other advantage of the female wingman is she's able to help the man by pointing out other women who display indications of interest toward him. Most guys are blind to that.

Within the female monopoly on a husband called monogamy, the relative attraction of the woman for the man is in isolation and there is a spectrum of behavior based solely on his attractiveness. On one end he barely gets sex and the idea she's going to share him is ludicrous because he doesn't deserve that. Not as far as she's concerned. She would far rather leave the relationship. On the other end, whatever he wants he will probably get and she might not like it but she'll find a way to deal with it.

What happens when polygyny gets put on the table? On one hand the issue depends on her attraction to her husband and his relative attractiveness. On the other is her level of commitment to him and the marriage, regardless of her attraction to him. But no matter how attracted to him she is or how committed to the marriage she might be, the idea of adding a wife to the marriage is extremely upsetting. It represents change and people do not like to change.

Part of this attitude is directly related to the idea that she will lose by sharing him, that she will get less. Another part of this is the social aspects in terms of what others might think and say. Women are extremely sensitive to this. However, there is another and more important aspect and that has to do with the power dynamics of who controls the relationship.


Power Dynamics, Attraction, Power and Control

In any relationship there is a power dynamic and any change to the people in the relationship or change to the relationship itself causes a change to the power dynamic. This is probably the biggest problem for women going from a monogamous relationship to a polygynous relationship.

In romantic relationships the person who cares least about the relationship has the most control.

That sounds brutal and it is, but it's the truth. So look at how it plays out. If the wife cares the least about the relationship and the husband has the most to lose (given modern divorce laws, he very much does), that puts the wife firmly in control.

In terms of perception, this has to do with options. Women are far more likely to divorce their husbands when they are young and fertile. The likelihood of a woman filing for divorce tends to decline with her fertility. Which just happens to be tied to her looks. Women, however, tend to have an inflated value of their worth and value because of all the attention and validation they get. Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, OKCupid, Match, whatever. They get bombarded with attention. Whether they truly have options or not, the attention gives them the illusion of having a lot of options.

But, the attractiveness of men and women peak at different times. As you can see from this chart, women are in their prime from about 18-23 years old. For men it's 34-40. Which means the woman could be on the down-slope past their peak sliding fast into 30 as her husband is just coming into his prime. Which means he can raise his value a lot higher than she can raise hers. Which means to her that he has more and better options, which means what he has now won't be as important.

This is alien to most men because they don't understand that men tend to love romantically while women tend to love opportunistically. For men, the investment they've made in the relationship is important. For women, it's 'what have you done for me lately.' That is the result of hypergamy. The only defense a man has against hypergamy is to stay attractive and keep her attracted. For women, a large number of better options puts a lot of strain on the relationship. This is why the "I love you but I'm not in love with you" usually means there's another man on the horizon who is giving or offering something he isn't.

Both men and women will try to adjust things so the power dynamics stay in balance. If the man holds the advantage then the woman might do any number of things to get him more invested, either emotionally or physically. The classic example is getting pregnant. Or giving him more and better sex. When the woman holds the advantage, she has zero incentive to do anything for him if she doesn't feel like it. He gets what she gives him or she leaves. And with the way the laws are structured, the divorce threat is a potent weapon. In general, the only thing a man can do is raise his attractiveness value and engage in dread-game.

Most couples start out more or less in balance with the man somewhat higher and there generally is a balance rather than the extremes I'm painting, but this is the kind of power dynamic that is completely destroyed with a move to poly. None of the wives will have any power compared to their husband and thus they will have practically zero control. While a wife may have been fine with a husband she wasn't that attracted to as long as she had control, she will have enormous problems going poly because she does not want to lose her power, influence and control.

Earlier I said that in general, women do not have a problem sharing a high-value man. That's because he has so much more in the way of options, he's in control already. Sharing means they get to hang on to something and they aren't losing anything. The low-value man doesn't have those kind of options and in all likelihood the woman is in control of the relationship. She has everything to lose. And she knows it.

Put jealousy into that context. It's not a power struggle between the man and woman because there isn't anything to struggle over. He has the power. Instead it's a competition between the women for his attention (which can translate to influence over him) and to establish a "pecking order" between the wives. The variables are the attraction of each to him, his attraction to each and their relative attraction toward each other. I do not refer to sexual attraction- people develop friendships and close relationships because they are attracted to each other. People do not get along when they find the other person unattractive.

How does the man manage that? A man cannot force the women to behave in any particular way, but he can judiciously use their own competition to get the behavior he wants. If he's attractive enough that they compete for his attention. It is easy to overlook faults in someone you are highly attracted to and difficult to stay angry with them for long when they keep charming you. But when the attraction is not there, the faults that were previously "cute" or "endearing" are now major irritations. And if an offense is given it can easily fester and become a poisonous wound.

So, in a relationship in which the man is highly attractive and his wife is highly attracted to him, another woman might enter and how well they get along will have a great deal of impact on whether it works out well. But what if that attraction isn't there?

Let's say we have a conservative Christian couple and regardless of how they might have started, he drank the churchian koolaid of mutual submission and servant leadership. His wife is not very attracted to him but she is firmly committed to him and to her marriage because of her faith and desire to be obedient to the Lord. One point I'll make is such women tend to be at least in their thirties if not forties. For whatever reason or combination of reasons, he wants another wife. Everything is lined up to put him in the power position, but primarily because she is committed to the relationship because of her faith.

And the keystone of her faith, the Bible, makes it clear this is a legitimate option and she is to submit to it.

Can we not see what kind of huge problems are going to result? If he uses this situation to force this it won't be good. First, if wife #1 is not all that attracted to him (because he's not very attractive), what does that say about the woman who is coming in? What is it that she's attracted to? Is she running to him or running from something else? Because if he isn't all that attractive, just what is it that she gets out of all this? And do you think wife #1 isn't going to be asking those questions? Does wife #2 have the same commitment to the marriage as wife #1?

Does the husband have any idea how he's going to handle this? Role models? Don't look at me- I'm a complete asshole. The personality type most suited for this is the ENTJ. That's the natural leader personality type. There aren't a lot of them. I'm an INTJ, which is one of the really rare ones. Some personality types are simply unsuited for this, but the point is where does a man go for training? Where are the role models? Who can give advice?

Men are pretty simple and it took me years to learn how to be an effective leader and coax maximum performance out of them in an environment with a rigid chain of command and defined roles. Women can likewise be fairly simple in the big picture, but they are far, far more nuanced and have to be handled differently. If the attraction is present it smooths over an enormous amount of junk that would otherwise cause problems. Without that attraction to lubricate the situation, what the man is doing is tossing it all on the women (mostly wife #1), saying deal with it. To make matters worse, he not only caused the problem but he doesn't have the tools and skills necessary to help them solve the problems.

If it blows up it won't be a surprise. If it succeeds it will by God's grace and the depth of faith possessed by the wives. No matter what happens people are very likely going to get hurt.

In the beginning of this I said that most people were trying to do the hardest thing, which is to add a wife to an existing marriage some time later. My observation is that some women are just not poly material unless you somehow found their female soul-mate. Age has a lot to do with this. The younger the women are the easier it is go learn to get along and share. In my experience, it is far easier to get multiple women to take their clothes off and share your bed than it is to get them to share a kitchen, bathroom and closet space- and that's when they are highly attracted.

Contemplating the addition of a wife you have the personalities of the women to consider. How committed are they to getting along? What issues are raised by a difference in attractiveness between the two women- which would be the case with adding a much younger and better looking woman. That's not necessarily worse than adding a woman who is roughly "equal" in age/beauty (direct rivalry?) and I know of one family who added a much older woman and even that had issues. What about children? That's a serious possible flashpoint.

There are a lot of factors involved, but primarily it's the man's fitness to rule, followed by the personalities of the women involved within the power dynamic of any existing relationship. But it really begs the question of why a man wants to do this in the first place.

Continued....

 

[Eristhophanes]

So, Mister. What Is Your Real Reason?

Everything I have described in terms of becoming more attractive will improve your life whether you have a wife or not. If you are just an ordinary man, married, but you want another wife, ask yourself why. Really. Forget about the Sunday School answer, what is the real reason? And don't go all special snowflake on me. The vast majority of men are ordinary to one extent or another. Then you have your above average men and then you have your real standouts. Lake Woebegone does not exist. There is no sin in being average, but if you don't want to be you don't have to be. Still, most men are. In fact, I think that the men who might want a second wife are probably the most unsuited for it.

(For women, it's a completely different story. Find a couple of partners, move in together and get your house in order. Then go looking for a husband and when you find that really high-value man, offer him something no individual woman ever could: a package deal)

I can only think of a few reasons why a man would truly want to add a wife. The first is he isn't satisfied with the wife he's got and that will generally boil down to wanting more and better sex- and let's not forget variety. The second is ego gratification, which could be a whole lot of different things. The third is a combination of the first two with the idea that adding another wife will fix things. The fourth is a lesbian porn driven fantasy and I was truly amazed that was such a big thing with men. The fifth is the slight chance you've read the stuff I've written about polygyny and you like the idea. If that's the case, forget it. Virtually everything I write about polygyny is from the standpoint of starting that way.

Most of this boils down to a problem you have with your existing wife that you can't admit. If you are an ordinary man, in all likelihood you are the problem with whatever the issue is with your wife. Forget the feminist churchian crap, what it boils down to is she does not see you as fit to rule her. And she cannot and will not tell you that. You, sir, are supposed to just "get it."

Let's take this step by step.

Learn Game and become charismatic. Be physically fit and look as good as you can, which means dressing well. Those two things help with your career because you'll have more opportunities, get promoted faster, get paid more and make friends easier. In other words, you'll have an easier time in life. And you'll make more money.

If you do that, plan on moving to another city where people don't know what you were once like, which means they can accept you the way you have become. You will find that if you stay where you are, the people who knew you before you changed will not be able to accept it. You are permanently pigeon-holed in the "slot" they had you in before. This is especially true of family and you may find that your wife absolutely rebels against the idea you have changed. Pack up and move elsewhere. Go to a spot with better career prospects. People there will accept you as you are. That acceptance and the way they treat you may help your wife accept you have changed.

You will be more attractive, which will give your wife a reason to want to have more sex with you and she will might even get enthusiastic at times. Learning how to pass her fitness tests and loyalty tests will cause her to become more attracted to you with the result that she is more comfortable submitting to your lead and following you. That will get you the ego gratification you wanted. And guess what? You really didn't need that extra wife

But, maybe what you want is not something she can give you or is willing to give you. No matter how much you change. It may be that she refuses to accept that you have changed because that seriously impacts the power structure in the marriage. One thing is for sure:

YOU CANNOT CHANGE HER

Women tend to follow and if you change she probably will too. If you start giving her what she needs, that may be all it takes for her to decide to change. The power dynamic of your marriage will dictate a lot of that. If you take the dominant position after she has been in control for a long time, it may take time for that to filter in. Read Athol Kays stuff because the last part of Married Man Sex Life Primer deals with this kind of thing.

There is also a spiritual issue here, one of those other issues nobody wants to discuss. Did you marry a virgin? If not, you need to take a long and close look at the chart linked in my signature. The issue is adultery, because you married another man's wife. That, however, is another subject for another time.

Let's say the thing you want is something she cannot give you. Greater beauty? Youth? Fertility? Do you really need that or do you just think you want that? If I were you I'd be busting my ass trying to make it work with her. Maximize yourself. Perhaps the only solution is to try to find another wife, but is it worth it at the cost of permanently sending the message that she isn't good enough? But, maybe she's on board with adding a wife. Approach that with caution. It may be that what you thought you wanted isn't really that important after all.

Let's say the thing you want is something she will not give you. In all likelihood (assuming what you want is reasonably within your right to ask for) you have a lot of work to do before even thinking of adding another wife. Because if you've maximized your attractiveness and are in the dominant position in the power structure and she won't budge, there is something deeper under the surface. She could be an alpha widow. There could be some hidden adultery or a secret abortion or something else that's very serious that is blocking things. If you're in this boat, you have a lot of work to do before even thinking about setting to sea in search of polygyny island, because your boat doesn't have a sound hull and your crew is not ready. But, it could be even worse.

She may be batshit crazy. Borderline, Narcissistic or Hysterical personality disorders are not uncommon and it happens in the church too. Game does not work on sociopaths. If this is the problem you're beyond my ability to offer advice. Get her diagnosed and start learning all about it. Another wife might be exactly what you need. And maybe what you need is a good attorney too. If you have children, pray hard and learn how to modify your behavior to keep hers in line. Other than that, I don't know.


Final Thoughts

My final observation is that a power dynamic exists in all marriages, attractiveness is the key feature in the husband and the relative attractiveness of both and the options that presents them with forms the foundation of the power dynamic. After that is the investment of either party (men tend to value their investment far more than the women) which could depend on anything from children to faith.

There is also the exogenous factor of the legal climate. The current divorce laws wildly favor women at the expense of the men, the domestic violence laws presume the men to be guilty until proven innocent and the marital rape laws give women a loaded gun by criminalizing marital sex. This is a deliberate attempt by feminism to shift the power balance in marriage in favor of women and it cannot be ignored. No Christian man can assume the Bible's instruction to women will save him from this because Christian women file for divorce and dial 911 in the same percentages as the secular world. And practically every so-called Christian woman who filed for divorce did so after she stood in front of the altar and swore before God and man to be faithful until death do us part.

This abusive legal situation is no longer the secret it once was, which explains why the latest (US) statistics are showing that over 70% of men between the ages of 25 and 34 are not married. In the US, one out of five (21%) of men between the ages of 21 and 30 who do not have a college degree have not had a job in the last 12 months. Over 70% of everyone over 20 is either overweight or obese. This is why I recommend going poly from the beginning to any man who wants to get married. For the next 10-20 years we're looking at a seriously target rich environment for any man who has prepared himself for such an arrangement. Which brings us back to the issue of attractiveness and in my opinion if the man is in good health, reasonably intelligent, at least 5' 8" and has even features, it might take 2-5 years (he might need to go to school to get into a high-paying field) but he can get into the top 5%.

The impact of the cultural and legal pressure is enough for me to take the position that the best thing to do is get a divorce first. Which does not mean end the marriage, it means get the state out of your marriage. It would take too long to try to explain, but the idea is to take the temptation to run to the state off the table. And it would mark a definite point at which everyone recognized that everything had changed. If wife #1 was willing to stick around for a poly marriage without the official state sanction of being married, you might have something there.

The more time I spend thinking about this, the more I'm in agreement with Ginny. If a man wants to add a wife to an existing marriage and expects kisses and cupcakes, set that aside until you are at less than 10% bodyfat, can bench press 150% of your body-weight and squat 200%. Learn game and work on it until your wife is really responding well. That's a good start. When you've done that, continue working on it but take a year to pray about it BEFORE broaching the subject with your wife. You might discover you have a whole new wife and you need to re-evaluate.

There. Fire away.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Well, I got to the end. It took me an hour, and a bathroom break, but I made it. There should be a trophy for making it through Eristhophanes' posts.
Honestly, there are bits I could pull out and tell you I disagree with, but it's way too long for me to scroll back and try and find them ( a cunning ploy, sir!). Mostly I think you're spot on.

However, I'm going to bring this up, and you're probably not going to listen to me at all, but it must be said and I need to represent women here: Not all women are ok with domestic discipline. I am not. I am attracted to my husband (inside and out), I am submissive, he is certainly the head, and if he started hitting me I would be utterly horrified, terrified, and running for the hills. No, I do not need a good spanking, not ever, not for any reason. How you are finding all these women supposedly agreeing with you on that point I do not know, but I am not one of them. It does not show leadership in any way to me. I only see it as a weakness and a tool that a man is using to try to gain power. If he has to resort to hitting to gain power then that is a weakness.

 

[windblown]

Lol, I made it too, FH2.
To add to the DD conversation, I have no idea how I feel about it. I do know that there were plenty of times when I needed it. "Brat" hardly comes close to describing some of the psychotic, manipulative tactics I employed in attempts to commandeer my husband's control. I am so thankful that he is "attractive" or "fit to rule", giving me clear expectations and never budging. I can't imagine the complete basket-case I'd be without them.

 

[A&J]

I am not sure how this will be taken but its who I am so here it goes......Just about everything said here is identical to the animal kingdom when it comes to finding a suitable mate, except of course none of them take the time to crunch numbers, and I feel that many problems crop up in our worlds because we choose to try to somehow remove ourselves from the truth that we too are a part of the animal kingdom. Yes we created to rule over them, but does that mean we are not a part of the ecosystem around us? No we are, and a very large part of, the world that surrounds each of us and as you pull back more and more and look to a larger and larger grid pattern you see that each of those small worlds combine to a larger one. So yes the attractiveness of a male is one of provider and everything else falls under that umbrella and can trace back. The more you/we/us try to mess with or change who we are at the core because of outside pressure the worse it becomes for all involved. I do have more but I am already running behind for a Monday morning and will circle back in the next day or so, besides this River Rat is still amazed a Marine can write that many words and count that high and I must process that anomaly!! (Before a storm of anger comes please read the last reference as inter service rivalry and know there is nothing but love and respect for ANY Brother in Arms)

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I'm not going into the issue of the vow to "forsake all others" because I'm pretty sure you guys don't want me to.

I already know my mind on the matter, but would be curious to know yours...

uh... if it can be stated semi briefly.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Slumberfreeze said:

"Whereas a good whipping seems absolutely necessary for a child, I see no justification for treating a full grown woman like a child."
Which is a backhanded way of saying women do not ever act like children. Which is a denial of reality.

Good great gravy. Let me tell you what I meant so you don't infer incorrect things a second time from my words. I know women act like children. I know grey-bearded men act like children. In point of particular fact, I know two men who served their country with honor and are qualified to take me apart and put me back together again before I even know I'm in a fight and it has not stood in the way of their acting like some of the thinnest skinned milk babies whenever their delicate egos get bruised.

I do not deny these realities. What I deny is (to be clear) : That it has been adequately and clearly shown from scripture that it is fitting and the responsibility of men to beat their wives either with their hands or with a rod for the purpose of discipline.

I say this because I have disciplined a fair handful of children and I know personalities are different. Some know they did wrong and take their lickin's, some know they did wrong but can't help but take defensive action, and some outright refuse to be disciplined. In any case, my duty as a father has been the same, to administer the proper discipline whether they wanted it or not, and whether they defended themselves or not. Which means some children need to be overpowered and some children take 'defensive wounds' when their dodging and blocking makes disciplinary strikes inaccurate.

This particular problem will be exacerbated when the recipient is not a child, but a grown woman. If this is truly a biblical doctrine, to me it means that if a man fattens his wife's lip for her, completely by accident, because she's hissing and twisting and resisting domestic arrest; it is her own fault and the man is still acting within the bounds of biblical propriety.

To me, it is an unacceptable risk when no-one in the bible is spoken of having struck their own wife, and nowhere is striking your wife even discussed. Whereas a man is protected from adverse action if he beats his slave non-fatally in the law, and is encouraged to beat his child; he is not protected for beating his wife, nor encouraged to at any other point. This is unless we redefine wife as either a slave or child.

It is my view that it is improper to define wife as slave. There are similarities, but: Hagar was a slave woman, Sarah was free and no slave. She called Abraham 'Lord' and obeyed him; but that is no real concern inasmuch as free men have lords that they obey.

It is my view that it is improper to define wife as child. There are similarities but they are treated differently with respect to competence. A woman is competent to inherit land if there is no male heir. But even a male heir is no different from a slave and may not inherit until he comes of age (determined beforehand by the father Galatians 4:1-2)

I'll not risk violence when none is ordained. Moses did so once, to a rock, and forfeited his life for it.

I'm not a proponent of equality in any sense of the word. I simply do not see any justification, in scripture, for disciplining a wife like you would a child.

 

[Eristhophanes]

I need to represent women here

Unfortunately, you don't. Just like I don't represent men. But, do go on.

I am submissive

Excellent! Some women are natural submissives and they can be a perfect joy if handled correctly. The downside to that is being submissive has to do with being more open and trusting. Which is why it's easy to really hurt them with a careless comment or a too-sharp rebuke. By their very nature, submissives have a great deal of difficulty understanding that some women will go out of their way to test their man to make sure he is still in control. That sort of thing is alien to a submissive.

You should keep in mind that I wrote that for men, not for women and certainly not for submissives. I'm a bit to dominant for natural submissives to handle easily until they get to know me. Having said that, I'll try to keep this at your level.

If he has to resort to hitting to gain power then that is a weakness.

For a strong/attractive man it's an application of dominance and ultimately an exercise of power he already has. Strength.

For a weak man it's an attempt to physically coerce through fear in order to gain power over a woman who is not attracted to him. Weakness.

The subject is biological attraction. The issue is masculine dominance as illustrated by spanking. By focusing on spanking and reframing it as something other than an exercise in dominance, you avoid the entire point.

Perhaps I should put it in terms of kissing. Surely you don't have a problem with kissing? I've never known a submissive who was offended by that.

The man who very hesitantly approaches and then kisses a woman fearfully is not well-received as a rule because most women interpret that (correctly) as a lack of confidence and weakness.

But, a very submissive woman might be inclined to interpret that as gentleness and appreciate it.

OTOH, if the woman is attracted to the man, when he takes her hands, lifts her arms over her head and pins her wrists against the wall with one hand, grabs a fistful of her hair with his other hand and very deliberately kisses her it usually causes her to just melt on the inside. Have Samuel do that with you in slo-mo to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

That may sound like something from a romance novel, but it works like this:

He stands in front of her, lifts her arms over her head and gently but firmly pins her wrists against the wall with one hand. Which brings them kissing close and puts her breasts on display, completely undefended. Her acute awareness of that generates some sexual tension and she starts shifting out of rational and conscious thought as her hind-brain gets involved. With that free hand, he grabs a handful of her hair and starts kissing her. If she likes it she will communicate that with the way she kisses him because she'll have tingles running up and down her body. Her hind-brain starts taking over. Then, after he starts kissing her he lets go of her hair and his hand starts slowly sliding down her face toward her neck and her mind is spinning wondering where that hand is going. The tension generated by the uncertainty is exhilarating.

His hand stops, grasps her throat and he gently places just a little pressure as if he was choking her. He symbolically has her life in his hand. That's more dominance and her hind-brain really starts spinning because its now in control. He gets direct feedback because she's still kissing him. The hand slowly moves back up to her chin to direct the kissing, back down to the throat, perhaps a little lower. He's teasing her because what he's doing isn't predictable and the uncertainty generates tension and excitement. She's aroused and she wants that hand on her breasts. When his hand slides down her throat going lower the tension subsides a bit because finally she thinks she knows what's going to happen. And when that hand bypasses her breasts and slowly travels down her belly, the sexual tension spikes, she gets a huge surge of dopamine and adrenalin in her system and he's in complete control. If she's comfortably private enough the sex will happen unless something happens to derail the situation.

There are a lot of variations on this but it's calibrated behavior because he has the feedback of her kissing him and she will respond to what she likes. He might stop kissing her for a moment and tell her to leave her hands where they are. Not ask her, tell her. He goes back to kissing her and that other hand slowly starts sliding down one of her arms. There's the compliance aspects of her obeying his command (she's investing in this), the increased tension of both of his hands being freely touching her, the unpredictable teasing and uncertainty, the flood of dopamine and adrenalin in her system, the bottom line is she is no longer thinking or acting in a conscious or rational manner. The limbic system (hind-brain) is in control responding to biological attraction and once that train builds up speed it has inertia and is very difficult to stop. The tracks lead to only one place.

Can you now see how an otherwise calm and rational young woman could be having sex with a man within an hour of meeting him?

Maybe not and that may sound completely alien to you, but perhaps you can see three things.

The first is that wasn't about kissing her, it was about masculine dominance and control which stimulated an arousal response. The kissing was actually the feedback loop he used to calibrate what he was doing. The tension created by his taking control is heightened by his teasing. The uncertainty adds to the effect because he's toying with her and she likes that. He knows what he wants and he'll do it his way. He's under control and in control. These are all marks of dominance. She doesn't just like it, she loves it. From him. The giddy rush of all the dopamine and adrenalin flooding through her system literally has her high on drugs.

The second is there is no way a woman will put up with that from an unattractive man. Which is almost beside the point because an unattractive man would never have the confidence to do something like that. Women can sniff out the fear and lack of confidence every time and it turns them off like a light-switch. The difference between the attractive man and the unattractive man is the attractive man is lightly holding her wrists above her head. She has a choice and she can end that any time she wants to but she doesn't want to because he's attractive. The unattractive man would use handcuffs because he fears rejection and seeks to remove her choices. That's not very attractive, is it?

The third is that what I just described is amoral. I can state from personal experience and the testimony of trusted witnesses that wives respond quite well to this sort of thing and they love it. That's a good thing. Likewise, it could be done to another man's wife with predictable results. Now we just stepped over into adultery and that's a bad thing.

So, it's understandable why some Christians react so violently to Game because when the average man sees something like this done it typically rocks him to the core because women will swear up and down that it's not possible. Only a slut would do something like that. Which is not true at all.

What is the difference between a playful slap on the ass and a domestic violence charge? The attractiveness of the man who did it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but have you ever seen a man give his wife a playful swat on the bottom in public and she reacted with attraction/affection toward him? Was he "hitting to gain power" as you put it? No, it was an exercise of dominance on his part and she liked it because he was attractive enough that she wanted to be dominated by him.

How you are finding all these women supposedly agreeing with you on that point I do not know

Do you understand now? This is why you can't take me anywhere.

 

[Eristhophanes]

I already know my mind on the matter, but would be curious to know yours...

When is a vow not a vow? When it's made under conditions of fraud.

Numbers 30:2 says if a man makes a vow or agreement he is to keep it. God has no patience with fools, so keep your vow and fulfill it quickly. If he vowed to forsake all others in haste, foolishness or ignorance, too bad. He isn't a woman, he's a man and he made the vow and he has to keep it. However, if the vow was made fraudulently then it's no vow at all.

At least 80% of the married men in the church (over 90% is my guess) made the vow to forsake all others as part of a ceremony that was fraudulent because the woman they purported to marry was not a virgin, she was the wife of another man. Which means they only think they're married but they're actually living in adultery. That hinges on the virgin being married by having sex. Most Christians reject that, but I have yet to have anyone refute that in honest debate and many have tried. At this point they usually resort to derailing the discussion or being dishonest.

The adultery problem is the result of ignorance of what the Bible actually says and in most cases can be mitigated:

1. Numbers 30:5, her father can annul the previous marriage in the day he hears of it with seven words
2. Deuteronomy 24:1, Matthew 19:9, if her husband isn't a Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce for her adultery
3. 1st Corinthians 7:12-15, if her husband claims to be a Christian but refuses to let her move in and support her and whatever children she has, she's free because according to 1st John 2:4-5 he's not a Christian

This should be the first priority for anyone in such a situation because otherwise they are committing adultery. However, solutions exist and the man who is living with her in adultery can become her husband, the only question is how. Corresponding to the three points above:

1) If her father annulled it, he was actually annulling her decision to marry (having sex with him) the man. The effect was as if they were never married. In which case there was no adultery involved because she was never married, the marriage ceremony was valid and the vow stands. If the woman in this situation wanted to take polygyny off the table permanently, she'd be on the phone with her father immediately to make that marriage go away, which would mean her "official" marriage was her real marriage and the vow would stand.

2) If her non-Christian husband divorced her for her adultery (because a Christian man is forbidden to divorce his wife for any reason- 1st Corinthians 7:10-11), the vow was made as part of a fraudulent ceremony while she was another man's wife and it does not apply.

3) If she recognized she was in adultery and attempted to reconcile herself to her so-called Christian husband and he refused to live with her in violation of the command to live with her (1st Peter 3:7) and the command not to send her away (1st Corinthians 7:12-14) after she showed up again, then he has proved he is the unbeliever (1st John 2:4-5) who has abandoned her and she is free (1st Corinthians 7:15) at that point to take another husband (1st Corinthians 7:39). However, the ceremony made while she was another man's husband was fraudulent and the vow does not apply.

Clear as mud? The funny part is I get accused of being legalistic when I simply apply what the book actually says.

 

[Eristhophanes]

What I deny is (to be clear) : That it has been adequately and clearly shown from scripture that it is fitting and the responsibility of men to beat their wives either with their hands or with a rod for the purpose of discipline.

Revelation 3:19 "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent."

The word translated as "discipline" is the Greek word "paideuó" (Strong's 3811). This word is used of corporal punishment in the context of correction, such as education or as Christ specifically used it in terms of holding accountable. Husbands were specifically commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church and Revelation 3:19 is pretty much the only example of how Christ loves His church: He holds them accountable for their behavior.

"Beat" is not the same thing as "spank" in English and interestingly, the Bible makes the same distinction. Because comparatively, while "paideuó" means "spank" the Greek word "mastigoó" (Strong's 3146) means "beat"

Strong's Definitions:
"paideuó" "I discipline, educate, train, chastise"

"mastigoó" "I flog, scourge"​

As you can see, Revelation 3:19's use of the word "paideuó" is translated as "discipline" and the meaning includes corporal punishment, i.e., spanking. The word "mastigoó" was not used, so regardless of any personal usage of the word within your home or references to whipping your child's ass, we are not talking about "beating" or "flogging or scourging" a wife.

I make the case that you are deflecting because nobody that I know of is saying husbands should "mastigoó" their wives. I did make the case that husbands are commanded to hold their wives accountable and this includes to whatever extent is necessary the "paideuó" of their wife. That word includes corporal punishment for the purpose of training (holding accountable) and discipline (punishing violations).

If you wish to make the case that Christ loves only men, feel free to do so, but I contend that Christ loves both men and women. Therefore Revelation 3:19 applies to both and as such it applies in the same way between husband and wife. As to Hebrews 12:6, it is disingenuous to say that applies only to "sons" as if that excludes women, because that is to say that women are not partakers of salvation.

5207 hyiós – properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28).
​

Notice that "paideuó" is used in both Revelation 3:19 and in Hebrews 12:6, which also uses the word "mastigoó" as an example of something the Lord does with those whom He loves. I confined my argument solely to "paideuó" and while you are objecting to the word "mastigoó" there is still Scriptural support for "flogging" the wife in extreme cases. In fact, right off the top of my head I can think of one example in which (depending on the woman) "paideuó" might not be nearly enough and "mastigoó" would be called for as an appropriate punishment.

So, even though I'm NOT making the argument, how would you handle correcting your rebellious, stubborn wife when, after repeated rebukes for drinking, drives around completely drunk with the children in the car? I'm not talking about tipsy, I'm talking about snot-slinging, gutter-crawling drunk.

Call the police? And risk CPS taking the kids away? NO.

Call the police but keep the kids out of it? Who pays the fine? YOU. Who does the burden of "her" punishment fall on? YOU. NO.

Talk to her again? If it didn't work before, why would it work now? NO

What is your solution? I have preached the eulogy at the funeral of one of my children. You DO NOT want to go there.

How about you, FH2? And this still falls within the realm of being fit to rule.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Revelation 3:19 gives the only specific example of how Christ loves His church. He holds them accountable for their behavior because He loves them. He said "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline, be zealous therefore and repent."

A rebuke is oral, disciplining (chastening as some translations put it) is done with a rod.

Spanking with a rod? Your words, not mine, man. If you misspoke, or didn't quite mean that, just say so!

But speaking of paideuo: Is it therefore your opinion that Pilate in Luke 23:16 and again in verse 32 was telling the people that he would administer a spanking instead of a crucifying to Jesus?


I was not saying a husband should not scourge or mastigoo his wife. Theoretically we already agree on that point. Except apparently we don't because you would consider a good mastigooing to a drunken, child endangering wife. And so while you object most strenuously to my use of the word beat... you're pretty sure you're allowed to do that too.

there is still Scriptural support for "flogging" the wife in extreme cases.

So it turns out I'm justified arguing against paideuo or mastigoo as I see fit, since it is your position that a man may spank or beat his wife, as he judges necessary. So much for that!

What I am saying is that I still don't see a command or example for a man to paideuo his wife. The word itself is a verb taken from the noun pais, which is used to refer to (like I've been saying) slaves and children, which in itself is related to the verb paio meaning "to strike".

Since children and servants called by the same noun is a strange grouping, it seems clear that the noun arises from the verb, not the other way around. Therefore:
paio = to strike;
pais = those whom you may strike;
paideuo = to instruct in the manner of those you may strike.

If even once scripture referred to a grown, married woman as 'pais', I would concede this point

If you wish to make the case that Christ loves only men, feel free to do so,

What. You may strike a female child as an expression of love, as a daughter is just as much pais as her brother and the household servant. Therefore when we are 'chastised' out of love, it is a reference to our adopted nature and sonship (or daughtership if you will). It is not a reference to our 'brideship' and therefore does not do work in proving that a man may paideuo his wife. If your argument is that paideuo is given license by agape; what can I say? I thought we were supposed to agape our enemies and neighbors as well. Should I then administer paideuo to them?

"No", a theoretical answer might be,"but my neighbors and enemies are not under my authority, whereas my wife is most definitely under my authority, so I have the responsibility and opportunity to show my agape more fully to her by spanking her or maybe flogging her depending on what she did"

And to that I would say that a woman is under a different form of authority and relates to her husband differently from a child, she is not rightly referred to as pais, The proverb runs "Train up a child" not "train up a wife". The nature of a husband/wife relationship differs greatly from that of a parent/child relationship. Notably... a suspicious absence of any precedent for beating.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Ok, so I did start to read this, got pretty far actually. There was a lot to disagree with, some to agree with, but when it comes right down to it, I think this strays pretty far from the purpose of this forum. This is a *discussion* forum, not a pulpit. Not for me, not for the staff, not for anyone. @Eristhophanes you flat out stated that it's your job to teach this stuff. You can believe that and act on that as you wish but I'd suggest if you want to *start* a ministry then get a website and do that, instead of attempting to hijack this one.

Now, I am very intentionally setting my moderator hat aside (since I haven't had a chance to discuss this with the rest of the staff) and speaking SOLELY as myself. What follows is my *personal* opinion, and not speaking as a moderator. I've actually considered stepping down as a moderator for some time now so I don't have to worry about being diplomatic. I don't think I'm going to be particularly diplomatic for the next couple of paragraphs.

There are a few impressions I'm walking away with here. One is that you're intentionally throwing *so much* out at one time in order to discourage people from effectively being able to respond to it in a meaningful manner. The text equivalent of "shock and awe". I am neither shocked, nor awed. I did almost fall into the trap of trying to refute point for point, so A for effort I guess.

Next, the first large portion of your novella reads like a wish fulfillment penthouse forum letter. Whole groups of women throwing themselves at you and heartbroken that when can't be with you, vigilante justice, deals with the local gangs. If you're such the incarnation of God's gift to women how do even *start* to have time to write so much? Isn't it distracting having legions of women desperate to be treated like crap banging on your door constantly?

The "teaching" portion of your Novella has been done before. Sure you're trying to put a "Christian" spin on it, but what you're selling isn't new. Look for any book on "how to be a player" and they've pretty much already packaged and sold what you're saying, only you're throwing domestic violence into the mix. Does treating a woman like crap get some of them to drop their pants? Yes. Does that mean it's right or the way we're supposed to love them? Great Scott no! Further, if you talked to MY wife the way you talked to FH2 I'd have already banned you from the forum even if it meant me being banned and I'd consider it a badge of honor.

You make assertions and broad generalities and basically just tell everybody who disagrees with you *or doesn't agree enough with you* that they're wrong in no uncertain terms, then throw fits and act the victim when someone tells you you're wrong. Personally, I'm tired of it. I'm turning moderation of this particular thread over to FH, because I really need to stick to my "don't feed the trolls" policy. I'm not *sure* you're a troll, possibly just really odd in the head, but I'm done trying to figure it out.

 

[mystic]

How you are finding all these women supposedly agreeing with you on that point I do not know

I've read some moving testimonials on a site that's popular for discussing such things.

But Biblical Families is not that site, and the topic appears to have arisen here only after I broached it in another thread. My apologies for crossing the streams.

 

[Eristhophanes]

@Slumberfreeze

I asked you a question: After words have failed and she continues drinking, your wife has committed a felony and placed herself and your children's lives in danger. What do you do about it?

That's a serious question and you mentioned it, but didn't answer it. I would sincerely like to hear your answer to this

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Serenely pray and fast for my wife while my children vacation with their grandparents, obviously.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm going to put this one to bed. It's an easy answer and it doesn't need anymore of our time nor do we need to risk obscuring the true goal of the forum with conversations that are better kept to a private setting.

Domestic discipline is not forbidden in Scripture. It is not even addressed. This is very telling because God is a Righteous Judge and He will make His Laws known to us. He doesn't want us to boil a kid in it's mother's milk. I can't imagine anyone who would do this but God made sure to tell us He doesn't like it. If He was as adamant against this as some of us appear to be then He would have addressed it. He's not shy. And you all forget the incredible level of bondage a wife is in to her husband, as to Christ. As to Christ. When you limit a husband's authority in his wife's life you are limiting Christ's authority in yours. That is dangerous.

Also, if the feminists are against something you can assume it is the work of Satan and you should take the opposite stance. They are the Devil's foot soldiers on every issue. When you are as obsessed with getting women to kill their children as feminists are you don't magically have happy happy joy joy feelings for the women. That kind of murderous hate permeates every part of someone's being. Anything a feminist prescribes can be assumed to be destructive to the point of death. Never side with them.

However, and it's a big however, in our culture disciplining your wife for real is actually giving her power over you. She can now make one phone call and be whisked to safety by phalanxes of armed men to be cared for and provided for and fussed over. So she has to willingly submit to discipline and if she would willingly submit to it she didn't need it in the first place. I think it would be a wonderful thing if husbands had the option to discipline their wives. The very threat would be all that was necessary to save many marriages. But we don't. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient.

Eristophanes, there is not one point in your logic that can be argued against on anything other than an emotional level. In all factual and tactical analysis your are completely correct and every man should read and heed what you've written here.

However, and it's a big however, there are meat eaters and there are milk drinkers and sometimes the carnivores need to go out and hunt away from the den. Not everyone needs to be exposed to the gory take down and rending flesh that goes along with bloody feasting. In all truthfulness, most of the weighty theoretical stuff is not going to change many people's day to day lives until they see it modeled anyway.

And stretching body parts? That's not my bag baby!

I would like to make the motion that all talk of domestic discipline be moved off of the open forum as there are a lot of hostile wives pouring over this forum to find the reasons their husbands are sinful dolts who they don't have to submit to. And heaven help us if we let our freedom become a stumbling block to them.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Excellent! Some women are natural submissives and they can be a perfect joy if handled correctly. The downside to that is being submissive has to do with being more open and trusting. Which is why it's easy to really hurt them with a careless comment or a too-sharp rebuke. By their very nature, submissives have a great deal of difficulty understanding that some women will go out of their way to test their man to make sure he is still in control. That sort of thing is alien to a submissive.

I'm agreeing with this. I can not for the life of me understand why some women want to be hit, want to test their man etc. But I know that they do, and if everyone is in agreement then that's fine, whatever floats your boat. But you can't lump all women, or even most women into this group no matter how you want to play it.

Having said that, I'll try to keep this at your level.

At. My. Level. For someone who claims to know women so well you are doing an awful job of trying to convince me you're right here.

That may sound like something from a romance novel, but it works like this:

Nice way of trying to distract. I can't imagine what went through your brain though when you thought that posting what is essentially porn was going to teach me anything. Did you think porn was my level? My goodness me.
You know, I think you have some really good points to make, but you totally blew it. Could've been a good conversation. But, when a man speaks to me like you have, I choose not to converse with him any longer.
You have missed something very important in your understanding of women: RESPECT