19 responses to “Why would my husband marry me, yet still look at other women?”

1. 

   Dragonfly

   August 15, 2015 at 11:35 pm

   This post is great! What a great answer to her question! I’ve definitely learned to never be insecure about my husband finding other women attractive or beautiful, but my own parents had a trustworthy marriage that modeled this for me. My dad was free to think that other women were beautiful, but he didn’t take it to a disrespectful level against my mother 🙂 it was simply understood that other women were allowed to be beautiful without being threatening.

   A lot of women are threatened by beautiful women because of insecurity in their own value and beauty. But I like how you made the distinction that men shouldn’t gawk or disregard their wife’s feelings about issues like that. If a husband is constantly comparing his wife to another women, (and talking about another woman constantly in a positive light does come close), then it is akin to her doing it to him. Men don’t appreciate hearing their wives talk all glowingly about another man all the time – constantly admiring him for his attributes… it makes most men feel compared to the other man in their wife’s mind, and then feel less attracted to their wife when she does that.

   In my opinion, its disrespectful for a wife to constantly talk about another man to her husband – harping on his strength or handsomeness or other great things he has going for him; just like it would be disrespectful for a husband to be constantly admiring another woman to his wife. 🙂

2. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   August 16, 2015 at 7:36 pm

   Dragonfly,

   Thanks and I agree in any healthy marriage spouses should not be threatened by the other one finding people attractive. It is all in how we go about it(as in glancing vs gawking and not going on and about it make it uncomfortable for either).

   On the issue of men liking comparisons – I think the comparisons we as men hate much worse than physical comparisons to other men is financial comparisons. Like when wives talk about how their sisters, or friends husband’s buy them this or that, or take them on these trips and “why can’t you make enough money for us to do those things”. Also men hate the comparison of “he disciplines his kids better than you, you just let our kids get away with murder – why can’t you be more like him”. I think most men could take a physical comparison to another guy WAY better than these other types of comparisons.

   Great comment – thanks

3. 

   Dragonfly

   August 16, 2015 at 9:47 pm

   OOOooo yes! That is so very true because it cuts to his core strengths (being able to provide) or his fatherly wisdom. Anytime a woman says “why can’t you be more like him?” it is coveting in my mind… she’s coveting the other husband or what that wife has through him.

4. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   August 18, 2015 at 9:29 pm

   Dragonfly,

   I got an anonymous comment from a Christian wife that I would really like to hear your opinion on.
   I have posted it here –
   https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/08/18/the-undated-wife/

5. 

   Dragonfly

   August 18, 2015 at 11:39 pm

   Gladly! Will have time later tonight.

6. 

   MarriedHusband01

   September 5, 2015 at 6:28 am

   This blog is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for taking the time to put all this information together. I am a married man and I LOVE to peek at beautiful women in public. My wife is a Christian feminist who thinks all men are vile scum. So, if I’m with her in public I try my best to look away as I do not want to be a stumbling block to her. But I do not consider it to be unfaithful, she just doesn’t understand how God wired us men because she’s been brainwashed to think otherwise. It’s only natural, women are amazing creatures and they are beautiful to behold, so if it’s not inherantly sinful, why not? Please keep up the good work.

7. 

   Lady

   October 14, 2015 at 10:22 am

   I’m sorry you misunderstand female sexuality. God created women to be monogamous in attraction to a point – while she is pregnant, nursing and weaning a small child. After that period she can be attracted to other young virile men, this doesn’t go away because she is married or why would there be adulteresses? Why would husbands be raising another mans child unbeknown to the husband? Why would there be strict cultural practices constraining women’s sexuality in most cultures? Men did not want to raise another mans seed so learned to control her behaviour.

   The reason women become very worried about her husband’s wandering eye is because she is projecting, since they are not men and don’t think like men they think men are thinking like women. Men don’t worry if their wife enjoys looking at other men because they think she thinks like a man, that it’s meaningless! However, women are designed to look for the best of the best man and to women that’s not meaningless because it can diminish her husband’s worth in her eyes because on a primal level it’s about choosing the best not appreciating variety. That is why she will not be attracted to multitudes of men at a party or in the street but the one who surpasses others in looks, status, strength and intellect. When he is there she will certainly be aware on a deep level and be just as attracted and drawn to him as men are to the female form, however she knows without self control her heart can follow. This is why women are anxious because they assume husbands take notice of women who are ‘better’ than them like they notice with men (remember they are programmed to seek the best) and become insecure because they may see their spouse noticing many many ‘betters’ even though he is just noticing and appreciating ‘differents’ or variety. Women are designed to make comparisons, otherwise how could she know who is the best of the best? Men are designed to notice variety without a lot of comparisons at the depth of a level of scrutiny a woman does. The fear of comparison and losing out to being replaced is the root of the fear for women for reasons explained above.

   THAT is why it offends wives, they think they are being compared to ‘the best’ or ‘better’ when if she were honest she knows is what she does. Not that it matters because like her husband she is only designed this way and can have and should have self control too around her husband out of respect.

8. 

   biblicalgenderroles

   October 14, 2015 at 2:57 pm

   Lady,

   I respectfully disagree with your take on female sexuality.

   The reason there are adulteresses and the Bible and God accounts for that is the same reason God has to account homosexuality. When a man or woman have homosexual desires this is because of corruption of the sexual nature that God designed. Sin has literally corrupted us on a physical and psychological level, and the corruption of sin effects each of us in different ways.

   So yes there are some women who who are not naturally monogamous in their sexual nature but I would argue from a Biblical worldview point this is a corruption of the sexual nature with which God designed woman. She is design from a physical and psychological standpoint to attach herself to one man, and one man alone.

   Now on a non-sexual level, I think that women can sometimes not even realize they are comparing different behavioral traits or the financial abilities of other men to their husbands – but again this is a corruption of their nature. Women should not be comparing their husbands to other men in this way and it can lead to covetousness or bitterness because their husband does not match up with these other men.

   I think that you right that a man’s drawing to variety in women and appreciating and taking pleasure in those varieties is not same as what women often do. Men are more capable of appreciating other women while not getting angry at their wives for not looking those other women(now some men do, but this is not as common). However when women start comparing(and it is usually not as much a physical comparison as it is a an emotional and financial comparison) they can often times become covetous and bitter very quickly.

   For instance I know of many Christian couples where a wife is constantly comparing her husband to her sister or friend’s husband(from an emotional and financial viewpoint) and it causes her to be envious of the things her sister or friend’s husband does for her sister or friend.

9. 

   Lady

   October 15, 2015 at 9:47 am

   A comment in your reply was made which indicated that you know that women compare behavioural traits and financial abilities rather than physical attributes. How would you know this? A woman knows instinctively what she feels attracted to and it is often the physical attributes of height, masculine facial features (strong brow, high cheek bones, chiseled jaw) and bodily features depicting virility and strength (broad shoulders, v shape torso, strong buttocks and muscular arms) all physical attributes which indicate ability to provide strong offspring and protection. These physical traits are noted by women on a very deep biological and subconscious level. Many men focus only on behaviour and financial ability but those help her feel secure but do not produce sexual arousal which is very different.

   There are many physiological studies on female physical desire. At ovulation women show a marked preference for very masculine dark features compared to other times in her cycle and it has been shown that the ovum can distinguish between different men’s sperm and actively choose the most genetically strong sperm to impregnate it. She is capable of intercourse with many men without a break if she chooses too and has no requirement for rest as a man does when completed. Her arousal level can remain dormant but will be sparked when a hunter like (masculine trait) enters her environment when interest will be sparked and can be noted by her 50+ different body language indicators of interest and availability which are largely unconscious. It is common for men who have been deeply hurt or shamed by a woman’s sexual behaviour toward him to seek to restore his pride through creating explanations that make him feel powerful again, so I understand where the context of your writings come from. However, physical desire for other men cannot be ignored, it exists in partnership with emotional attraction because women are very integrated so the experience cannot be separated like that of males but it is there strongly. Our peripheral vision is far more superior which explains why women do not head turn so it is not obvious. ALL of these indicate strong visceral preference for certain physical traits plus the marked change at ovulation indicates a willingness to receive a stronger man’s seed at that time than the secure man she has paired with for security. The ovums ability to choose indicates a necessary ability if men are competing for her and finally if she is naturally monogamous why doesn’t she require a rest break as a man does? Essentially she can move onto the next one quickly during her fertile time to ensure the strongest seed.
   Remember, there are men fathering children who are not their seed.

   The fact is the reason women get more upset than men about looking at others is that she doesn’t want his resources invested into someone else’s offspring. Women are highly competitive.
   She is not more prone to covetousness as men or the bible would warn women specifically on that trait, in that area. Either they are both polygamous or both monogamous. You can’t argue just for men being polygamous with the female traits outlined above rebutting the monogamous argument for women. I can understand men wanting to believe their wives are incapable of such attraction and to stray and explain it as ‘a corruption of her nature’ because it is uncomfortable and feels powerless. However it would mean denying God designed these biological traits in women so we would then have to deny God designed men’s biological traits for desire as true nature and say theirs is a corruption of their natural state too. Can’t have it one way.

   Also, God ‘allowed’ many things to pass in the OT such as taking other’s land, killing other humans, smashing infants on rocks, slavery and incest (Adam and eves offspring?). Does this mean these things reflect the true nature of the human before the fall? No, of course not and the NT gives us new ‘updated’ instructions on how to live in line with our original design.

   Sorry, I just don’t buy the argument that men are polygamous by nature and women happy to dote on them solely in monogamy. It may soothe the anxiety of the male pride/ego or fear of competition/being cheated on but it’s simply not true. Either both are polygamous by design or both have a corrupt nature which corrupted their biology OR both are built for monogamy.

   Either way whether we are theologically educated or not we must all give an account to God for what teach others, so would want to be sure of it. Sobering thought.

10. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    October 15, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    Lady,

    You stated:

    “Also, God ‘allowed’ many things to pass in the OT such as taking other’s land, killing other humans, smashing infants on rocks, slavery and incest (Adam and eves offspring?). Does this mean these things reflect the true nature of the human before the fall? No, of course not and the NT gives us new ‘updated’ instructions on how to live in line with our original design.”

    My Response:
    Lady – those difficult things in the Old(like when God orders the destruction of women and children in wicked nations) does not shake my faith in his Word or his character. He is God, we do no understand his ways, nor could we. What he does is always righteous and just because he is God. He can change and modify his law, or grant mercy and not enforce certain parts of his law as he sees fit because he is God.

    So no I do not throw out the OT because there are things that are hard for me as a 20th century Christian to understand. But I do understand the concept of progressive revelation and that God no longer operates through a theocracy(Israel) as he did in the OT, but now he operates through the Church. That is why we don’t have to stone people for adultery anymore, yet we are being completely consistent with Scripture. But what God allows we can allow. So if our government wanted to pass laws that did have people executed for adultery they would be within their Biblical right to do so.

    Lady – you and I could throw studies at each other all day long about male and female sexuality. But the standard by which I and other Bible believing Christians judge a behavior or natural trait as being a corruption of God’s design or not is the Bible. If the trait is allowed, praised or exalted in Scripture then we regard it as part of God’s design. If the trait is condemned or frowned upon in Scripture then we regard as part of the corruption of our original natural design.

    If the Bible condemned polygamy, then I would be standing alongside every other Christian and non-Christian alike who thought it was a wrong and disgusting practice. But I have shown in multiple series on this site that from a Scriptural standpoint polygyny(men having more than one wife) was allowed, regulated and approved by God.

    Only the abuse the abuse of polygamy was condemned.

    1. While men could have more than one wife, they were not to horde wives(as Solomon did).
    2. If a man took another wife – he had to continue providing for his first and giving her sex.
    3. If a man took another wife – he had to respect the inheritance rights of the children from his first wife and continue to provide for them as well.

11. 

    Lady

    October 15, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    ‘Larry’,

    You wrote:
    ‘Lady – you and I could throw studies at each other all day long about male and female sexuality. But the standard by which I and other Bible believing Christians judge a behavior or natural trait as being a corruption of God’s design or not is the Bible. If the trait is allowed, praised or exalted in Scripture then we regard it as part of God’s design. If the trait is condemned or frowned upon in Scripture then we regard as part of the corruption of our original natural design’…
    The studies about women’s biological makeup I was referring to was in response to the biological argument on this site that men are designed to be polygamous. If as you say biological evidence is not accepted then it is only reasonable that readers may likewise be able to dismiss biological arguments presented on this site for the biological design of men too since as you have now made it clear your standard for judging a behaviour is the Bible alone.

    So then now that we are only referring to the Bible to make these judgements I would say I am in complete agreement that God is righteous, can modify laws etc as He sees fit. I’m glad that difficult things in the OT do not shake your faith as nor do they for me, obviously.

    The issue I take is that you have declared that men are polygamous by original DESIGN. Not that God allowed such a practice at certain times in the OT but that He DESIGNED men that way while designing women to be monogamous. On this site biological arguments were presented to prove this design but biological arguments / evidence for women have been dismissed because they don’t fit with what you want.
    So based only on scripture we see that God created Adam and created Eve from his rib. Why stop at one rib? I mean He created Adam first so He could have added more ribs and therefore more women to Adam’s fold. The point of the narrative in Genesis is that He created man and woman together.

    Throughout the OT God allowed some polygamy, yes. Maybe it was two wrongs making a right. For example God commands us not to kill but while the Israelites were off killing others and taking their possessions etc I’m sure many of them died leaving many women and children without husbands for provision. So in this case perhaps God allowed the bending of His natural design to right a wrong.
    As you said we cannot always understand His ways and He is free to modify His laws when He chooses.

    However, just because He allowed something at sometime (ie. OT) this does not mean he designed things that way originally, His allowances or modifications were within the context of a fallen state of being for humans. This is why we see God allow or turn a blind eye to the practices mentioned in my last response (killing, deceiving others, pillaging, concubines, slavery, incest). I’m glad you mention progressive revalation since the NT can be a guide here. Your examples of polygamy management were given from the OT. Polygamy in the NT was practiced by NEW believers who were ALREADY in a polygamous arrangement. Here God allowed the practice to continue for them since it would displace the women and children. However, deacons and other leaders of High example to God’s people were to have ONE wife! Why?…..because God is in the process of restoring His people to their original design! That is why Jesus gave us new commandments to love and not kill, to give away our possessions and not take, to stop the abominable practice of incest – all of which He ‘allowed’ at certain times in the OT as you said he had every right to even though we not understand fully. We do not condone slavery today because we base our behaviours on God’s instruction to love even though there are countless examples of slaves in the OT and NT.

    But God has been very clear in His progressive revalation that He is restoring creation through Christ! Therefore using scripture we can see that man was not made polygamous by ORIGINAL design but that rather his tendency to want to collect variety and the female tendency to desire to upgrade to better mates as often as they present themselves to her are corruptions to the original design and caused by the fall.

12. 

    Lady

    October 15, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    lso, I forgot to mention that the points I was making about female sexuality (biological and behavioural) in previous posts was to make a point, that if women’s bodies and responses display such traits then it must be due to biological corruption from the fall. That although it is evidence that they are not fully monogamous, this must be due to corruption by sin at a biological level. Likewise the same could then hold true for males. While he is capable biologically of polygamy (as biological evidence can argue) this too is likely the result of the fall, a corruption of God’s design of monogamy. I believe both were designed to be monogamous, not just one. Monogamous people and animals can still appreciate the attractiveness of others, it doesn’t make them innately polygamous or promiscuous.

13. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    October 16, 2015 at 1:35 am

    Lady,
    Yes I use studies and evidence all the time for biological evidence that supports the concept that men are naturally polygamous.
    But what you missed in my previous point is that basis for truth will always be the Word of God. That is where my moral positions find their foundation.

    Now if there are scientific studies and psychological research that supports what I believe the Bible teaches on these issues you better believe I will supply it and there is no inconsistency in such an approach. If it supports God Word, I use it. If it contradicts a teaching or truth of God’s Word I will dismiss it as either false, or a corruption of human nature.

    So if I saw in the Scripture a clear condemnation of polygamy, and it being called a perversion of God’s design in marriage then I would reject any research that seemed to indicate men were polygamous and I would interpret it either as false or a corruption of man’s design.

    But again you and could throw studies at one another – because you believe polygamous nature is a corruption of both man and woman’s design you will try and find every study that shows women are just polygamous as men. So you and I are doing the same thing, but just from different sides. You start with the belief that polygamy was not God’s original intent and you work from there finding evidence to support your position.

    I did not always believe polygamy was right – I used to believe like you. I believed it because that is what I was taught by my church all growing up. I was taught like you that polygamy was not God’s original intent, but was a sin God overlooked in the OT and that got rid of in the NT. But then when I was in my early 20’s I began to research everything I had been taught in Church growing up. Baptism, Salvation by grace through faith(Calvinism/Arminanism), creationism, Church structure, holy living standards, marriage and yes polygamy.

    I came to a very different position on polygamy because I did not believe God would just “overlook sin”. Something did jive. I brought it up all the passages on polygamy in our adult Sunday school class when I was just a 20 years old. The Pastor of our church was teaching the class. His son-in-law (who was also in Bible College at the time studying to be a pastor) was in the class that day and agreed that my argument that polygamy was not a sin that God overlooked but that it was in fact moral and right. The Pastor could not answer our arguments and just shut down the conversation.

    
    Lady’s Statement:

    “So based only on scripture we see that God created Adam and created Eve from his rib. Why stop at one rib? I mean He created Adam first so He could have added more ribs and therefore more women to Adam’s fold. The point of the narrative in Genesis is that He created man and woman together.”

    Lady,
    Why did God not make multiple men and multiple women so that Adam and Eve’s children would not have to marry one another and commit what would later be called sinful behavior (incest)? We don’t know why God chose to stop with one rib and we don’t know the answer to why God stopped at creating just one man instead of multiple men and women so as to avoid incest between their offspring. We will never know the answer till we get to heaven.

    God made man with a capacity for polygyny but that does not mean every man feels compelled to act on it. Some men are content merely to appreciate the beauty of the variety of women around them without needing to marry additional wives. This has been the case throughout history. Also, not every man was able to act on is polygynous nature because of economic or other circumstances. Some men were not able to marry even one woman, let alone have men wives.

    Lady’s Statement:

    “Throughout the OT God allowed some polygamy, yes. Maybe it was two wrongs making a right. For example God commands us not to kill but while the Israelites were off killing others and taking their possessions etc I’m sure many of them died leaving many women and children without husbands for provision. So in this case perhaps God allowed the bending of His natural design to right a wrong.
    As you said we cannot always understand His ways and He is free to modify His laws when He chooses.”

    Are you kidding? Two wrongs NEVER make a right from God’s view. Whatever God allows is just and holy. So when God allowed polygamy – it was holy until at which time he ended that allowance and there is no Scripture that says he did. When God told the Israelites to go out and slay the heathen nations which resulted in many Israelite men dying, both the killing they committed in his name as well as their deaths were holy and honorable in God’s eyes.
    So when it comes to polygamy two RIGHTS made a RIGHT. When men took on additional wives after their husbands died in battle this was just another benefit of God’s design of man’s polygamous nature.

    Lady’s Statement:

    “However, just because He allowed something at sometime (ie. OT) this does not mean he designed things that way originally, His allowances or modifications were within the context of a fallen state of being for humans. This is why we see God allow or turn a blind eye to the practices mentioned in my last response (killing, deceiving others, pillaging, concubines, slavery, incest).”

    I agree that God made allowances to things like killing, deceiving others, pillaging and slavery because of the fallen state. It think incest(in the sense of brothers and sisters marrying) would have been allowed temporarily regardless of the fall since God only created one man and woman instead of creating multiple men and women.

    But these practices were not sinful, and God was not turning a blind eye to sin. These practice were allowed as a result of sin, but the practices themselves were not sinful but holy and condoned by God in response to sin.

    But I believe based on the fact that God pictures himself as polygamous husband in prophecy (Ezekial 23:1-4) that his allowance for polygamy in the Law of Moses was not as a result of fall but he shows it as normal part of his design. Otherwise he would have never pictured himself in such a way if that was a corruption of his design.

    Lady’s Statement:

    “I’m glad you mention progressive revelation since the NT can be a guide here. Your examples of polygamy management were given from the OT. Polygamy in the NT was practiced by NEW believers who were ALREADY in a polygamous arrangement. Here God allowed the practice to continue for them since it would displace the women and children. However, deacons and other leaders of High example to God’s people were to have ONE wife! Why?…..because God is in the process of restoring His people to their original design! “

    Lady – There is no issue with my examples being from the Old Testament. Our faith is based upon the whole of Scripture, not just the New Testament. The New Testament is built upon the foundation of the Old. Biblical examples can allow a practice if they are not looked as negative in their context or if they don’t violate an express command of God to the contrary.
    So polygamy is not only allowed by the moral law which was contained in the Law of Moses to Israel, but it was also reinforced by the example of the Patriarchs as well as God presenting himself as polygamist husband in prophecy.

    Is the “husband of one wife” requirement (I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) for a Pastor speaking of monogamy or divorce? I would argue based the qualifications of widows who could be supported by (and became servants of) the church that Paul was speaking of a Pastor or Deacon not having been divorced from his first wife:

    “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” – I Timothy 5:9 (KJV)

    But let’s say you were right (which I don’t think you are), that Paul was forbidding polygamy by Pastors and Deacons. If he was, then by forbidding it to Pastors and Deacons, he was acknowledging that Christians were actively practicing polygamy. Why when he wrote so much about marriage and divorce, and he even forbid believers from marrying non-believers, why did he not just go ahead and tell believers “you cannot marry more one wife anymore(as God had previously allowed you too)”?”

    If God meant for polygamy to be temporary (not sin, but temporary as brothers and sister’s marrying) he would have clearly taken this practice to task and stopped it.

    But you know why he did not? Because God still saw value in it especially in the ability of polygamy to allow men of means to provide for many women. Poor men could not marry in ancient times, if you could not provide for a woman – you generally did not get married. If you were a slave, you could not marry without you master’s permission. This left a great deal of women needing husbands and polygamy solved this issue nicely with men of means being able to take on multiple wives.

    In modern western culture we have a subsidized monogamous culture where the government actually takes from wealthy men and gives that unearned money (or other benefits) to poorer men so they can afford wives.

    Before the Roman Empire outlawed polygamy women were provide for this way. After the Roman Empire outlawed polygamy, it simply changed its outward appearance but it still existed. Women who were destitute sold themselves as female slaves to wealthy men and they in essence became slave wives (unofficial wives).

    Throughout the history of western civilization even with the Catholic Church and most Protestant churches condemning polygamy (with no Scriptural backing of course) polygamy still existed in hidden form with men having women as wards and sex happened but in secret.

    Lady’s Statement:

    “That is why Jesus gave us new commandments to love and not kill, to give away our possessions and not take, to stop the abominable practice of incest – all of which He ‘allowed’ at certain times in the OT as you said he had every right to even though we not understand fully. We do not condone slavery today because we base our behaviours on God’s instruction to love even though there are countless examples of slaves in the OT and NT.”

    Lady – Jesus never forbade killing, only murder. He did not command us to give away our possessions. He commanded a certain man to sell everything he owned, because as a physical follower of Christ’s while he walked the earth he would have no need of earthly possessions in the service of God. Yes we are not to love our possessions more than God, and we should be generous towards those in need. But the Scriptures do not each communism.

    Slavery is a bigger can of worms you can read my post on that subject and put your comments there please.
    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/07/10/why-christians-shouldnt-be-ashamed-of-slavery-in-the-bible/

14. 

    Lady

    October 16, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Ok, I read your slavery page so now I understand where you’re coming from a little better, how you come to certain conclusions and what you are trying to achieve. We don’t need to continue in discussion for I continue to disagree with you on both issues. Thankfully God’s family can agree to disagree on many things! It appears you strongly value and promote the theory that husbands are designed to want and love many women while wives are designed to only want and love one man. Of course that is a powerful and comforting position for a man for it provides him with the freedom to expand his pleasure if he chooses and the security that his wives would desire no others than himself. Very comforting indeed…it may be wise to ask yourself why you may feel the need for such control as many men do not and actively argue for monogamy.

    Many, many men and women in the church will continue to teach what our Lord Jesus taught (explained in article below) and not take risks at leading others astray. Like them my stance will remain in line with the explanation given in

    ‘Is polygamy allowed by the New Testament?’ By christianthinktank.com

    Would you consider removing the pen name and posting a photo since as you said you are not a missionary in a persecuted country or Jesus (as you agreed) there is no reason to hide yourself if you are convinced and strong in your convictions. Luther was not fearful of public shaming.

    It’s been interesting reading about an interpretation of the Bible that is not shared by most Christians.

15. 

    Gerry

    October 21, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    My mother was incited to fury over my father’s watching beauty pageants (“Miss America,” “Miss World,” “Miss Universe”) to the door-slamming degree.
    I refused to join him as I didn’t want to add to her irritation.
    Her anger doubtless was aggravated by his adulteries early in their marriage.

16. 

    Gerry

    October 21, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Suggestion: Since you KNOW that your looking at other women antagonizes her, DON’T DO IT!!
    You have enough to deal with her sin of feminism without spraying gasoline on her smoldering embers. Be a good example to her by apologizing to her and keeping your eyes away from other women. Then, after living up to your commitment for a while, ask her forgiveness.

17. 

    Gerry

    October 21, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    The Bible indicates that when the Israelites were commanded to war against degenerate pagans, not a single Israelite was harmed. In the story of Achan and the goodly Babylonish garment, 36 Israelites died in battle, striking fear into all. Joshua was shocked at this.

18. 

    biblicalgenderroles

    October 21, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Gerry,

    Respectfully, MarriedHusband01 has NOTHING to apologize for or ask his wife’s forgiveness for. By his own admission he only peeks(takes tasteful glances) as opposed to gawking at women which would be rude to them and rude to his wife. He is no more sinning by taking in tasteful glances at beautiful women then his wife would be in taking in tasteful glances of her food she liked on people’s plate as she walked through a restaurant.

19. 

    realkalebcapes

    August 30, 2025 at 6:08 am

    great article addressing the befoonery of women trying force men to be women in modern society. No man is monogamous. It’s not biblical, it’s not biological, it’s not moral, it’s not beneficial, it’s not spiritual. Men are meant for multiple wives and he gets that by pursuing what he’s attracted to. This is why adultery is always defined by if the WOMAN is married not the man. Women are the only gender born a virgin & only gender forever damaged by multiple partners. No man is more miserable than a man who has to pretend to be a woman to please his wife who in this situation is his God If he allows her to dictate his God given righteous sexuality. Don’t ever be ashamed for being attracted to single beautiful fertile women if you’re married bc that’s how God of the Bible made Man, in his image & the be fruitful & multiply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.