Is the Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?

In the first part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we have covered the Red Pill concepts of the male and female imperatives as well as the alpha/beta paradigm and the alpha mindset. In this 6th part of our series we will now discuss the Red Pill concept of frame.

In one his earliest blog posts on his blog “The Rational Male”, Rollo Tomassi writes the following in his article entitled “Frame”:

“In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy…

One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers

As we can see from Tomassi’s quote above, frame in the Red Pill world is the concept that in every relationship either the man is operating in the woman’s world view or she is operating in his.

Later in the same post he states Her genuine (unnegotiated) desire for you hinges upon you covertly establishing this narrative for her.   Basically, he is saying the man should bring the woman into his frame without her knowing he is trying to bring her into his frame.  Essentially Tomassi is calling on men to perform the Red Pill equivalent of Jedi mind tricks on women.   We will get more into this in the next post on the Red Pill concept of game.

According to Red Pill, if a man attempts to bring a woman into his frame (i.e. worldview) by overt or coercive measures he defeats the central focus of Red Pill ideology – to get a woman to have “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward him.

Tomassi writes further in this post about the way most modern marriages go when he states the following:

“In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself.”

And near the end of the post he states:

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you.”

Where Red Pill is Right in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is spot on that power hates a vacuum and so does a couple’s worldview.  If the man does not set the worldview in the relationship, then the woman will.  But the couple will either operate in the woman’s worldview or the man’s.  Anything illusions of a melded worldview are just that, illusions.

Red Pill is right that a man must establish his frame from the very beginning of any relationship.

The Bible would absolutely agree with Tomassi’s statement to men that “the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you”.  God actually speaks of trying to mold his wife Israel in the Old Testament:

“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:6 (KJV)

Where Red Pill is Wrong in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is absolutely wrong in its insistence on men using covert measures to bring women into their frame.  What Red Pill asks men to do with both frame and game is to engage in what the Bible calls “craftiness”.  I will talk more about the Biblical view of craftiness in my next article on the Red Pill concept of game.

The Bible tells men in Ephesians 5:25 that they are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:19 we see how Christ loved his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

Red Pill rejects the overt measures of rebuking and disciplining a woman that the Bible calls all husbands to. A Christian man should always speak plainly to any woman he is with about his worldview and what he expects of her before he will consider courting her for marriage.

I have a friend of mine whose son recently married. But before he married his wife, they had kind of a rocky dating relationship.  They actually broke up twice before getting back together a third time and then getting engaged and eventually married.

The reason they broke up is because his son was establishing his frame during the dating relationship, his Christian world view, including his belief in Biblical gender roles and the man being the head of the woman in all things.  If she would rebel against his leadership on any issue, he would send her away and wait for her to come back and repent.  Each time she attempted to take control of the frame or really the worldview under which their relationship would operate, he would remind her that as a couple they would operate in his worldview or they would not be a couple at all.

Red Pill is right that women deep down want men to establish the frame of their relationship. Some women will of course test the man’s resolve but eventually submit to his worldview.  But where Red Pill is wrong is that this is not true for all women. There are some women who will constantly battle to control the frame of their relationship with a man.  And some will not reveal their true intent to control the frame until after marriage.

From a Christian perspective we can explain this behavior in women as greater and lesser degrees of the corruption of their God given feminine natures.  Remember that God’s original design of woman was for her to submit to and serve man. In the context of this discussion of frame, God meant for women to operate within the frame of a man, first her father and then finally her husband.  But sin corrupted a woman’s nature (as it did man’s) and it still does today.

Going back to the young man who recently married.  He established his frame in a very overt way.  He made it plain to her what his expectations were of her.  She tested him several times and each time he sent her away.  Eventually she came back after learning that she could move his resolve on these things and she loved and respected him for standing his ground.  Now there are other women who would have left him and never returned.  Again, it all comes down to the level of corruption of the woman’s nature.

We have already mentioned this previously in this series but we must mention it again here.  Red Pill makes the entire point of a man’s life to covertly cause women to genuinely desire and want sex with him.  But that is not the point of a man’s life from a Biblical perspective.

God created man to image him and thereby bring him glory (1 Corinthians 11:7). A man’s powerful driving sexual desire is certainly a part of his God given nature and man displays certain aspects of God’s nature in his sexual desire for woman.  But man was created to image God in far more ways than just his sexual desire toward woman.

God created the woman for the man (1 Corinthians 11:9) so that man could image God as a husband in marriage and father to his children.  God says in 1 Timothy 3:4 that a man must be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”.

Conclusion

The Red Pill concept of frame, that a man must establish his worldview as the one he and any potential woman he marries will live in is a Biblical concept.  God says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church and that women are to be subject to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:23-24).  He tells men that they are to love their wives as Christ loves his church and an essential part of Christ’s love for his church is his rebuking and disciplining of his church (Revelation 3:19).   The scriptures tell us of wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home”.  The man is to set the worldview for the woman.  That is the plain teaching of the Bible.

However, the Bible and Red Pill part ways when it comes to the method for a man to establish frame in a relationship with a woman and the reason for his establishing frame in the first place.

Red Pill encourages men to use covert and subtle means to bring women into their frame while the Bible discourages craftiness for Christians (2 Corinthians 4:2).  The Bible tells us in Proverbs 27:5 “Open rebuke is better than secret love”.   Men should speak plainly and establish the parameters of their relationship early with potential wives.  And after marriage they should use instruction, rebuke and discipline to keep their wives within their frame (worldview).

Red Pill sees the entire reason for men trying to get women into their frame is to invoke “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward them.  But as Christian men the only “LTR” we are authorized to enter into with a woman is marriage.  And our purpose for entering into marriage is more than getting a woman to genuinely desire us sexually.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with a man wanting a woman to genuinely sexually desire him.  God wants his people to genuinely desire him.  But a man who understands his purpose in God’s creation understands that his establishing of frame with a woman is not simply to get laid.

Marriage is about imaging or displaying the relationship between God and his people, between Christ and his Church. It is about a man demonstrating all the attributes of God with his life including his love for his people.  Some of those attributes include teaching, rebuking and disciplining one’s wife and children.  Other attributes include showing them grace, mercy and compassion as well as providing for them, sacrificing for them and protecting them.

So, should you as a man establish frame in a relationship with a woman you are looking at as a potential spouse? Certainly.   Should you continue to keep her in that frame when you are married? Absolutely.  Is it possible your woman will appreciate and even find your more sexually desirable for establishing frame with her? Yes.  But there are some women who will not respect you as a man trying to establish frame with them.  They will resist at every turn.  Others will pretend to be in your frame and only when you are married, they will attempt to take control of the frame of your relationship.

And as you set about to establish frame with a woman, you should do it using God’s methods, not Red Pill’s methods.  And you should never forget the overarching reason you are called by God to establish frame in your woman’s life in the first place.

In the last part of this series we will cover the topic of “Is The Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical?”

Is the Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Female Imperative and the Red Pill concept of hypergamy in women. We showed that aspect of the Feminine Imperative which prompts women to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.    However just as man’s nature has been corrupted, so too woman’s nature as originally designed by God has been corrupted.  Hypergamy is a corruption of the feminine nature God designed.  This corruption causes women to lack true contentment with the men they are with. Hypergamy is always looking for the next best guy.

We talked about men doing careful vetting and looking for women who will recognize their own sinful natures, including their sinful hypergamous natures and are willing to fight it.  True faith, both on the part of a man and the woman he marries, gives a couple a better fighting chance of having a truly lifelong marriage together.

As part of our discussion of the Feminine Imperative, I discussed the Alpha Male Mindset.  I wanted to come back in this fifth part of this series on Red Pill to zero on this on concept to determine if any part of it is Biblical.

As a reminder of what we spoke about concerning the Alpha Male Mindset I want to restate what Tomassi said in his article “Mental Point of Origin” :

“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…

Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”

So, did you catch what Tomassi said in the beginning of these statements above? The time in his life when he got the most sex was when he made himself and his own desires his mental point of origin and he did not care what the women around him thought of his life choices.  They could come or go and it did not matter to him.  And he had women throwing themselves at him when had this mindset.

Is there some truth to this? Are women attracted to men who do not live to please them but rather to please themselves? Yes, many women are attracted to this.  Others are not.  Will a man probably “get laid” more if he has this mindset of not needing to please women and living only for what pleases him? Most likely yes.

And if the entire point of our male existence was to have sex with as many women as possible, i.e. the Red Pill male imperative, then Tomassi would have a point.  But from a Christian and Biblical perspective, getting more sex is not the only reason for our existence as men.  God created us for a greater purpose than this which we will discuss shortly.

But before we get to that purpose, we first need to discuss whether a woman should be a man’s mental point of origin or not.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill That A Woman Should Not Be A Man’s Mental Point of Origin?

Man’s first sin was in listening to his wife, seeking to please her over pleasing God or in Red Pill vernacular, making his wife his mental point of origin.  In the book of Genesis, we read the following:

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”

Genesis 3:17 (KJV)

Job illustrates for us what Adam should have done when instead of listening to his wife’s sinful advice, he rebukes her instead:

“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

A man who lives his life to please his wife is by very definition controlled by his wife.  And God says the man who pleases him will never allow himself to be controlled by a woman:

“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

So yes, the Bible would agree 100% with Red Pill that men should never make women their mental point of origin.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill that Men Should Make Themselves Their Mental Point of Origin?

The Bible teaches us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.  In other words, as Christians, we should not live for ourselves, but rather we should live for Christ.

Christ, not you, should be your mental point of origin.

The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that we should be “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”.

With every decision we as men make, we should not be asking whether this would please the woman we are with, but rather we should be asking “Would this decision be pleasing to Christ?”

Christ Made His Mission His Mental Point of Origin and So Should We as Men

But it is one thing to say Christ should be our mental point of origin and an entirely different thing to understand what that actually means.  Many Christian teachers today teach that living for Christ means living to please others.  They teach that Christians should never seek what pleases themselves, but only do what pleases others.

They appeal to Biblical passages like the one below to bolster their position:

“25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

Matthew 20:25-27 (KJV)

The sad reality is that a great number of Christian teachers have used the statement above from Jesus Christ to cancel out what the rest of the Scriptures say and to create an entire generation of Christian beta men who live to please women and they think by doing so they are pleasing Christ.  Such a concept is a complete bastardization of the Biblical concept of servant leadership that Christ was trying to teach us.

The passage below gives us a greater understanding of what Christ was saying in the Gospels:

“3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”

Philippians 2:3-10 (KJV)

Now let’s zoom in on two key statements in the passage above.  The first one is found in verse 4:

“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

The statement above gives us the clearest Biblical definition of selfishness in the Bible.   Selfishness is not when a man seeks to meet his own needs or desires, but rather it is when a man ONLY seeks to meet his own needs or desires and never considers the needs and desires of those around him.

The next key statement we are going to look at from the passage above is found in verse 8:

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

The focus of Christ’s life was the mission he came into the world to complete.  His mission was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind.  In John 3:17 we read “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” and in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”.

Christ knew why he was born into this world.  His mission was the continuous focal point of his life while he walked this earth.  We as Christian men need to follow his example by making our mission the focal point of our lives.  In other words, making our mission from God our mental point of origin is making Christ our mental point of origin.

What is Our Mission from God as Men?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Our mission in life as men is to image God and thereby bring him glory.  Imaging God means us as men living out his attributes.

Man images God in is daily work by being the best in his business that he can be.   In John 5:17 we read “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” and in Psalm 104:23 the Bible states “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening”.

The Bible encourages men to be diligent in their business and to make it the best it can be in Proverbs 22:29 when it states “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men”.  And in Proverbs 12:24 the Bible states “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute”.

But a man cannot fully image God and thereby fulfill his purpose for being created without also being a husband and father.  In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” and in Ephesians 5:25-26 the Bible states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word”.

Men image God in the lives of their wives by leading them and washing them with the Word of God.  They also image God in the lives of their wives by providing for and protecting their wives as they would their own bodies as Ephesians 5:29 states.

Men image God in the lives of their children by providing for them (Matthew 7:9-11) as well as teaching and discipling them (Hebrews 12:6-10).

Where Does a Man’s Desire for Sex Fit into His Life’s Mission?

As we have previously shown in this series, Red Pill teaches that the male imperative, or man’s mission, is to sow his seed as often as possible with as many women as possible.  In other words, have sex as often as possible.   So, the question is, does having sex play any part in the mission God has given to us as men? The answer is yes.

While sex certainly is not the entirety of our mission from God, it does play a vital role in that mission. In Genesis 1:28 it is implied that God wanted men to have sex as part of his command to “Be fruitful, and multiply”.

But the sad truth is many church theologians over the last two thousand years have taught a falsehood regarding sexual relations between a man and woman that its primary purpose is for the continuation of the human species.  In more recent years Red Pill has essentially taken the same position from a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective.

The Bible however, stands apart from both Red Pill and historic church teachings regarding the primary purpose of sex.  The Bible does not say the primary purpose which God made sex was reproduction neither does it tell men only to have sex with their wives to have children.

But rather in Proverbs 5:19 it tells a man to let his wife’s “breasts satisfy” him “at all times” and to be “ravished” or “intoxicated” with her.   God has created a sexual thirst in man for woman that is so strong that he compares it to the human need for water in Proverbs 5:15 and he calls a man’s wife his “well” from which he encouraged to liberally drink.   In Romans 1:27 sex is called “the natural use of the woman”.  And while the Scriptures command men not to deny their wives sexually, the Bible never refers to sex as “the natural use of the man”.

All of this Biblical language encouraging men to satisfy themselves with and use their wife’s body for their sexual pleasure makes sense in light of 1 Corinthians 11:9 which states “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.

According to the Bible, everything about a woman, both psychologically and physiologically, was created for man.  That means a woman’s psychological desire for sex, her breasts, her nipples, her vagina, her clitoris, all her erogenous zones and her ability to experience sexual pleasure from all these areas was created for man.  Does that mean we are saying God only created woman for man’s sexual pleasure or that he only created sex for sexual pleasure? Of course not.  But it was a primary reason and now we will explain why.

Why would God create make sex so extremely pleasurable and make man’s desire for it so strong? The reason is so that man could image God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.  In what is widely considered a prophecy of Christ and his Church Psalms 45:11 states “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

When we remember that man’s primary purpose is to image God and we see that God as a husband to his bride desires her beauty and desires to take pleasure in her we now understand why God designed man designed man to receive sexual pleasure from the beauty and body of a woman.   This is why we can rightly say that seeking out sexual relations with a woman is part of God’s mission for man.

Conclusion

Red Pill is absolutely right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is absolutely wrong that a man should make himself his mental point of origin.  Instead as Christian men we must make Christ our mental point of origin.  What would Christ have us do in a given situation? What would Christ have us do with our lives? These are questions we should be asking ourselves on a daily basis.

Making Christ our mental point of origin is synonymous with making the mission God has given us as men our mental point of origin.   And the mission of man, the purpose for which he was created, is to image God with his life.

Unless a man has the gift of celibacy so that he “may attend upon the Lord without distraction” (1 Corinthians 7:35) then a man is called to image God in his life not only by working and making his mark on the world but also in being a husband and a father.  Man’s strong sexual desire for woman images God’s desire for the beauty of his people and to take pleasure in his people.

When a man applies this truth to both his daily decisions and long-term decisions, he will inevitably at times hurt the feelings of or disappoint those around him whether it be his parents, his church friends, his girlfriend,  his work friends, his boss at work and sometimes even his wife and children.  Ultimately though a Christian man whose life is centered on his mission from God is only concerned with not disappointing one person and that person is God.

And one final note on selfishness.   Earlier we showed that the Bible defines selfishness in Philippians 2:4 when it states “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others”.  A man needs to remember it is NOT selfish of him to look his own needs or even desires, but rather it is selfish of him to look to his own needs and desire and never consider the needs and desires around him.

It is not selfish for a man to devote the majority of his waking life to his career and or ministry.  God created men to make their mark on the world in this way.  It is also not selfish for a man to desire sexual relations with his wife more often than she desires sexual relations with him and it is not selfish of him to have sexual relations with his wife when she is not in the mood.  When a man has sex with his wife when he so desires, he is fulfilling God’s command for him to satisfy himself “at all times” with his wife’s body.

Now if his wife has a legitimate medical condition a man should protect his wife’s body as he would his own and therefore forgo relations during that time.  A prime example would be just after a woman has a had a child or after she has had surgery.  But whether it be in the arena of his career, when to have sexual relations, financial decisions or discipline of the children if a man centers these decisions around his wife’s feelings, he is failing the mission that God has given him.

Does this mean it is wrong to ever consider a woman’s feelings? Of course not.  As long as man is not centering his life on what the reaction his wife might have and always trying to please her a man can find ways to be kind, compassionate and generous with his wife and at the same time not compromise his primary mission to image God with his life.

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is The Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?”

That Might Work for You, But Not My Marriage

“BGR, (my wife and I refer to you as Bigger Guy, phonetically pronounced), Just a word of encouragement, we decided over a year ago to switch the dynamic of our marriage to a more Biblical approach. Your blog has inspired a lot of the changes that we have implemented. We were “happily married partners” for many years. Since the change, our marriage has grown and flourished like never before.

I lead a men’s ministry at our church and have been trying to slowly introduce this way of thinking into my curriculum. (Biblical way of thinking I might add.) I have had many great comments about it but I have had one comment that left me dumbfounded. “That might work for you, but not my marriage.” So, God’s way isn’t the right way? We (I mean Bible believing churches) have swallowed the world and Satan’s lies about equality to the point of reading the Bible and ignoring it. Especially Titus 2.

Long and short, you are doing a great job. Thank you. We who believe as you have a long uphill battle before us. But we should not grow weary in doing good.”

What you just read was a recent comment I received from a man calling himself “AscendedHusband”.

First of all, I just want to say thank you to AscendedHusband for your prayers and your encouragement.  I can truly say that when I receive these kinds of comments and emails God is using people like yourself to pour courage into me to continue to preach the word in a time when Christians “will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3).

And we need men like you, both in their own marriages and families as well as in church ministries in which they work to reintroduce the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles that have been neglected for so many years.  This really must be a grass roots movement.  And when enough families join together in each local church, they can take back our local churches from the feminism that has poisoned them for so many decades.

And now in regard to the comment you mentioned from someone in your men’s ministry group that left you “dumbfounded”.  Below is a story I wrote to illustrate why the “That might work for you, but not my marriage” response to Biblical gender roles in marriage is wrong.

A Tale of Two Home Builders

A wealthy land owner comes to two builders.  He has already laid the foundation for two homes.  He presents them with the requirements for building materials that must be used and rules for how they must build.

The first rule is that they may only build on the foundation that he has already laid and they cannot add to it or take away from it.  The second rule is that they must build the home with uncut stones and grind up limestones and mix that with water and dirt to make the mortar.

Beyond the building materials, he leaves them with the basic requirements that the home must have a door, at least two windows, a kitchen, a living room and of course a bedroom.

He gives the builders freedom within these requirements to build for him the most beautiful homes they can.

The wealthy land owner says he is going on a long journey and will not return for three years.  He tells the two builders they are free to live in the homes they build for him until he returns.  And when he returns, he will judge their work.  He says each of their homes must pass a test that he will reveal when he returns.  If their home passes his test, they will receive great reward and honor.  If it does not pass his test, their shame will be upon their own head.

The first builder decides that stone homes are out of fashion. And it would be grueling and time-consuming work to lift and carry all those heavy stones. He reasoned that wood homes were much more in fashion and would take only a fraction of the time to build.  He would use that time savings to add more rooms to make the home more attractive.

The first builder finishes his home in only six months.  And it is a beautiful wood home.  He built not only a kitchen, living room and bedroom, but he also made a large dining room as well as a family room.  Of course, to build these extra rooms he had to add to the foundation that was already laid to make the house bigger.  But he was sure the wealthy land owner wouldn’t mind the few “minor” deviations he made from the building requirements.

The first builder is very impressed with the home he has built and he moves his family into this new home and throws great celebrations each week with his family and friends to show them the beauty of this home.

The second builder was not even half way through building his home when the first builder finished his. The second builder had set out to build the home following the express requirements of the wealthy land owner.  He searched for the best uncut stones to build with and limestone that he could grind and mix with dirt to form the mortar.

The first builder who had finished his wood home came to mock the second builder.  He told him how he was working too hard and his home was out of fashion.  “No one is building these stone homes anymore; you need to get with the times and build a wood home like me.  It is easier, faster and more attractive.”

But the second builder continued in his work.  His aim was to please the landowner who had contracted him to build this house. He built a door for the home using a stone that could be rolled away.  He built shutters from stone that could slide to and from the windows.  He only built a living room, kitchen and bedroom as required and he did not add one inch to the foundation that had already been laid. The second builder faced great difficulty in building a stone roof for his home but eventually the home was completed after two years at which time he moved his family into the home he had built.

One year later, after three years of being away, the wealthy land owner returned to test the homes that the two builders had built.

He came to the first builder’s wood home.  The wealthy landowner took note that the foundation had been added to.   “Why have you added to the foundation I laid?” he asked.  The first builder said “So I could build you a better home of course.  I added a beautiful family room and dining room”.  The land owner then asked “Why did you not use stone as I asked?” to which the first builder replied “Because wood homes are what everyone now builds.  It is more beautiful than stone and is able to be built which much less effort”. The first builder asked the wealthy land owner “Can I show you the inside of the house, I think you will find it very pleasing?” to which he replied “No – your home must first be tested before I will enter it”.

The wealthy land owner then took torch oil and spread it all over the four outer walls of the first builder’s wood home.  The first builder protested “why are you spreading torch oil all over the home I have built for you?” to which the land owner replied “To test it as I told you I would”.  He then lit the torch oil on fire.  The wood home was immediately engulfed in flames and the home quickly burned to the ground. The first builder screamed in agony “Why have you done this? Why have you destroyed what I have built for you?” to which the wealthy land owner responded “Why did you not follow my instructions?” He continued “If you would have followed my instructions your home would have passed my test and you would have received great honor and reward from me.  Now you have escaped the flames with only your life and the shame of what you have done here will be remembered by all who see these ruins.”

The wealthy land owner then came to the second builder’s stone home.  He took note that home was built exactly on the foundation which he had previously laid and nothing had been added to it or taken away from it.  He then took his torch oil again and spread it on the four walls of the stone home as he had on the wood home before it. He lit the stone home on fire.  As the oil burned off the stone walls of the home the home stood firm fully surviving the fire.

As the flames died out the wealthy landowner looked and saw the beautiful stone door and stone window shutters covering the two windows that had been built.  He rolled away the stone door to enter the home and saw just as he required that there was a living room, kitchen and bedroom.

He then turned to the second builder and said “Well done good and faithful builder. You will receive a great reward and honor for what you have done.  You have done well with this one home; I will now set you over all the other builders as they build homes on my land”.

We Must Follow God’s Design Requirements for Marriage

When someone’s response to hearing God’s design of Biblical gender roles in marriage is “That might work for you, but not my marriage” they are doing exactly what the first builder in the story you just read did. Many people truly believe that God just wants them to be happy in their marriages by any means they choose.  Like the first builder and his wood house, they want to take the easy way out.  They want their marriage to look like the world’s marriages. They don’t want to do the hard work in marriage that God’s design requires.

But God’s blue print for marriage is clearly spelled out in Ephesians 5:22-33.  He tells us that in marriage “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” and that “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”. God created marriage to model the relationship of himself to his people.  In this model men are to represent God in their love, sacrifice, leadership, provision and protection toward their wives as God does these things toward his people.  And women are to model the people of God by their service, submission and reverence to their husbands (Proverbs 12:4,1 Corinthians 11:7,Ephesians 5:33,1 Peter 3:5-6).

When we stand before God one day and he looks over our marriage he is not going to judge our marriage by how happy and peaceful it was. But rather he will judge our marriage by how we attempted to follow his design no matter how difficult it was to follow.

Is it wrong to have happiness and peace in our marriages? Of course not.  Happiness and peace may result from following God’s design for marriage, but these things should never be the goal of marriage.  The goal of marriage must always be bringing glory and honor to God by modeling the relationship of God to his people.

Will Your Marriage Survive the Trying Fire of God?

Every Christian husband and wife must face the sobering reality that one day all of our life’s work, including our marriages will be tested as to whether we followed God’s design.  The Bible reveals that just as in our story above, our works will be tried by the fire of God:

“10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (KJV)

All of our accomplishments in this life whether in our marriage or outside our marriage will be burned up if they are not done in obedience to God’s design.  And we do not get to choose how we bring God glory, but rather we must follow his rules and his design for how we are to bring him glory if we are to one day receive the reward that he has in store for us.

Conclusion

The “That might work for you, but not my marriage” response to Biblical gender roles in marriage reveals a lack of trust in God and a complete misunderstanding of the primary purpose of marriage.  God did not create marriage for the mutual happiness of men and women, he created it for his glory.

Wives, how long will you continue to deny that God created you to be in subjection to your husband rather than being his equal partner (Ephesians 5:22-24)? How long will you continue to deny that God created you to bear and care for your husband’s children (1 Timothy 5:14)? How long will you continue to deny that God created you to be a keeper in the home rather than a keeper in your career (Titus 2:5)?  How long will you continue to deny that God created your body for your husband’s sexual use and satisfaction (Proverbs 5:18-19, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 11:9)?

Husbands, how long will you continue to refuse to rule over your home as God commands (Genesis 3:16,1 Timothy 3:4)? How long will you continue to deny the responsibility you have to provide for your wife (Ephesians 5:29)?  How long will you continue to neglect the spiritual teaching, washing and correction that God requires of husbands toward their wives (1 Corinthians 14:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, Revelation 3:19)?

On a final note, I want to mention a way in which the “That might work for you, but not my marriage”  response would actually not be wrong.  If it is not in opposition to Biblical gender roles, but rather it is in response to leadership and teaching styles within the framework of Biblical gender roles then it is not wrong. I myself have used the phrase “That might work for you, but not my marriage” when speaking to other Christian husbands when we compare our leadership styles in marriage.  But it certainly was not said in any way that rejects Biblical gender roles.

God loves variety.  That is why he had so many men from different backgrounds write the various books of the Bible. That is why he had the four Gospels written showing his life from four different perspectives.  God has created us all, both men and women with different personalities and styles.

This is what I wanted to show in the Tale of Two builders story when I stated “He gives the builders freedom within these requirements to build for him the most beautiful homes they can”.   And in the same way God gives us as husbands certain latitude and freedom within the bounds of his requirements for marriage in how we go about our duties as husbands and fathers.

In other words, I may be genuinely attempting to follow Biblical gender roles in my marriage and you as a  husband might be as well, yet the style in which we conduct our marriages and our homes might be different in many ways.

But at the end of the day the most important question we must ask ourselves is “Will my marriage survive the trying fire of God when I stand before him?”

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

In the first two parts of this series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we established the fact that some observations in Red Pill do indeed match with Biblical teachings on gender roles.  We also showed that Red Pill is not just objective intersexual behavioral theory even though its most vocal advocates would like to think it is.  While Red Pill is built on observations of nature, specifically human biology and behavior, it also interweaves these findings with its own philosophy and its own moral judgements as to how we should act based on these observations.

Now that we have looked at Red Pill from a very high level we will dive into more of the specific concepts in Red Pill starting with the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative.

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

Rollo Tomassi wrote an article for his Red Pill blog, TheRationalMale.com, entitled “The New Paternity”.  In that article he states that “Men’s biological, masculine, imperative is to spread the seed – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality”.  In “Pseudo-Virginity” he writes that men have “polygynous sexual strategy”.

Tomassi writes in “Women & Sex” , “One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than women) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard… Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth”.

And in “The Truth About Standards”,  Tomassi states “Men are so motivated by sexual experience that it supersedes the need for food. Research shows brain cells specific to men fire up when mates are present and override the need to eat. Take this as you will, but it does reinforce the idea that for men, sex is in fact a biological need”.

So, to summarize what Tomassi has stated, Red Pill teaches that the Male Imperative is for a man to spread his seed to as many women as possible and as a direct result of this men are polygynous in their sexual strategy.  And a man’s sex drive is more than 10 times what a woman’s sex drive is and it is a biological need.

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

Some people wrongly think a need is only something you will die from if you do not meet it but this is untrue.  There are many human needs that left unmet will not kill us, but they will indeed cause greater    or lesser psychological damage depending on the person.  Some men, if their sexual needs are not met, will lash out and commit rape or other wrong actions.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that sex is indeed a need unless a man or woman have the gift of celibacy as seen in the Scripture passage below:

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

In the follow passage speaking to the needs of women, God compares a woman’s need for sex to that of her need for food and clothing:

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

Would a woman physically die from not having food? Certainly.  Would a woman die from not having clothing and being constantly exposed to the elements? Probably.  Would a woman physically die from not having sex with her husband? Not at all.  But yet it is still shown as a need for a woman to have sex with her husband.  Why? Because while she may not physically die from not having sex with him, her intimacy with her husband would certainly die and this could in fact end the marriage as God allowed.

But then God goes even further when speaking of a man’s need for sexual relations with his wife in the following passage:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well… 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19 (KJV)

God built a much greater need for sex in the masculine nature than in feminine nature.  Rather than comparing a man’s need for sex to the human need for food like the Bible does for a woman, instead the Bible compares a man’s need to for sex to the human need for water.

With a constant supply of water, a human being can go 60 days to 70 days with no food.  However, the average human being can only go four to seven days without water.  The human body is made up of 60 percent water.  Our cells, our joints and every organ in our body needs water to operate.

Just as water is a fundamental driving force in the human body, so too sex is a fundamental driving force in the masculine human nature.

Tomassi is absolutely correct that while women need sex too, a woman can never truly grasp the substantially greater physical and psychological need for sex in men.

The Bible also agrees with Red Pill that men have a polygynous sexual nature and the drive to “spread the seed” to as many different women as possible.  And this polygynous sexual desire in men is not a corruption of the masculine nature by sin as many Christian teachers and preachers have falsely claimed over the centuries.

The Bible shows that God blessed and rewarded Leah for giving her servant girl to her husband as another wife.  God allows for polygamy and sets rules for its practice in Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Deuteronomy 25:5-7.  God warns kings against multiplying wives or hording wives in Deuteronomy 17:17 but tells King David in II Samuel 12:8 that he gave him the wives of his master (King Saul) and would have given him many more wives.  In Ezekiel 23:1-5 God pictures himself as polygamist husband to two women – the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.  And in the New Testament in Romans 10:19 God says he is taking on a new bride the form of the New Testament church to make his first wife, the nation of Israel, jealous so that she might return to him one day.

So, as we can see from an abundance of the Scriptures, polygamy is not sinful corruption of the masculine nature but it is in fact by God’s design.

For more on subject of polygamy and answers to objections some Christians may still have to it, see my series “Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical” .

What the Bible says About Man’s Sexual Nature that Red Pill Does Not

A fundamental flaw of Red Pill, one which we will continually remind the reader of, is that it takes an evolutionary approach to analyzing human biology and behavior. Red Pill’s natural science approach to analyzing human behavior and biology as it currently exists can reveal interesting facts about human beings.  But once they get into evolutionary science, which is a forensic science, they are just guessing in the wind.

This is where the Bible offers something Red Pill cannot.  Red Pill using scientific analysis of human biology and behavior can often (but not always) tell us the “What” of human behavior and biology but it can never provide us with the “Why”.  Only the Bible can do this.

The Bible reveals to us that the male sexual nature is about much more than reproduction.  In fact, while the Bible commands us to “Be fruitful, and multiply” it never tells us that God made sex primarily for reproduction.

The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 of the male human being that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” and then in verse 9 of that same chapter it says “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.   God created man to image him, to display or live out his attributes with his life.  And this is why God made woman.   Man needed someone upon which to play out the image of God in him.  He needed someone to love, lead, provide for and protect as God exhibits these attributes.

Another attribute of God’s nature is that he longs to be one with his people.  Man’s desire for sexual union with woman helps him to live out this aspect of God’s nature.

But there is still one more aspect of God’s nature that many Christians throughout the centuries have ignored or just plain denied due to their ascetism.  And that aspect of God’s nature is that he actually seeks out and enjoys pleasure.

The 8th century theologian John of Damascus wrote “But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.”  What he was saying is that God only created the male and female sex organs knowing that sin would enter the picture and they would need some way to reproduce.  In other words, sex in human beings, and by extension sexual pleasure, was a result of sin in human beings and never God’s perfect intention.

Such a position is of course not supported by the Scriptures.  If sex in human beings was only an allowance by God for reproduction because of sin, then God would never have commanded men to satisfy themselves sexually with their wives’ bodies in Proverbs 5:18-19 nor would he have given us the entire book of the Song of Solomon which is dedicated to sexual love in marriage.

The Bible tells us God’s desire for the beauty of his people when it states in Psalm 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

So, man’s sexual desire toward woman does not just display God’s desire for oneness with his people, but it also fully displays God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

We have just shown from the Bible how a man’s desire to take pleasure in the beauty of and bodies of women is a reflection of God’s nature within him.  However sin corrupted the masculine nature as God originally designed it.  And one of the ways sin corrupts man’s God given polygynous sexual nature is by tempting men to become whoremongers and adulterers.

And this is why the Bible warns that God will punish men if they act on this corruption of their sexual natures when it states in Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge“.

God also shows that men can allow their sexual nature to control their lives causing them to make wrong decisions.   In Proverbs 6:26 the Bible states  For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life”.  A man can literally be led to the slaughter by his sexual nature if he allows it to happen. 

Ecclesiastes 7:26 states And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her”. And this is why men are exhorted to flee from this temptation and escape the corruption of their sexual nature which would enslave them to women.

Conclusion

The Bible would agree with Red Pill that sex is a much stronger need for men than women when it compares a man’s sexual desire to the human desire for water.  The Bible would also agree with Red Pill that man’s sexual nature is polygynous.

But as we can see based upon the teachings of the Bible, man’s imperative is much more than simply reproduction.  Instead the Bible reveals that man’s sexual desire is only a part of his larger true “imperative” which is to image God and live out or display all the attributes of God’s nature in his life.

And while God indeed created man with a polygynous sexual nature, he also intended for man to bond with each of the women he had sex with and be a husband to each of those women and a father to their children.

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?

A Politically Incorrect Yet Biblical View of Sex

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well, never leaving the natural use of the woman.

If you are like the vast majority of Christians today the statement above will probably be very offensive to you to say the least.  Thoughts like “women were not made for men”, “women are not things”, “women are not sex objects to be used by men” and “men should never use women to satisfy their sexual desires” might be rushing into your mind.

Some one-word reactions to the statement above might be “misogynistic”, “sexist” and “dehumanizing”.

You may recognize the use of “thee” and “thou” in the statement above and you might be frantically looking through the Bible to find the verse.  I will save you the time.  The statement above is a combination of quotations from 1 Corinthians 11:9, Proverbs 18:22, Proverbs 5:19, Proverbs 5:15 and Romans 1:27 (all from the KJV).  I have only added one word and that is “never” (but it is in keeping with the negative use of the phrase following it from Romans 1:27).

Now that you have processed your initial reaction to the statement above let’s see if you feel more comfortable with what would be our typical cultural response to it:

“No human being was created for another human being’s “use” or “satisfaction”.  No human being is another human being’s “well” from which they may satisfy their sexual thirst.   Such treatment of any person by another person is inhumane.”

If you agree with this statement against the statement above then you are at least a partial humanist which the vast majority of Americans and even Christians today are.   The entire idea that one set of human beings was made for another is completely contrary to one of the cardinal commandments of humanism which Mario Cuomo stated at the 1994 Democratic National Convention:

“thou shalt not sin against equality”

And this cardinal commandment of Humanism teaches a false concept of where human life gets its value and what it means to treat a human being justly according to God.

Being Created for God’s Glory Gives Us Value Not Social Equality

The Bible tell us where we should find our value as both men and women:

“6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; 7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.”

Isaiah 43:6-7 (KJV)

God created us, both men and women, for his glory.   But he created his sons to bring him glory in a different way than he created he daughters to bring him glory.  And we see these two paths for glory clearly laid out in the following Scripture passage:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

Did you ever wonder why God’s titles in the Bible are all masculine like husband, father, son, king and prophet?  The answer is found in the passage above.  God created man and gave him his masculine human nature for the express purpose of imaging God and thereby bringing him glory.  In other words, God created man to display or live out his attributes.

But in order for man to fully live out God’s attributes he needed someone who would depend on him for his leadership, provision strength and protection.  So, God created woman for man. Woman and by extension the feminine human nature was not created like man for the purpose of imaging God.  Woman was created with her feminine human nature to be a man’s wife and the mother of his children.

God uses this imagery of the relationship between a husband and his wife throughout the Scriptures to symbolize his relationship to his people.  In the Old Testament this is represented as God being a husband to Israel and in the New Testament this is represented as Christ being a husband to his church.

God even created a man’s sexual desire to image his desire for the beauty of his people (Psalm 45:10-11), his desire for oneness with his people (Ezekiel 16:7-8) and his desire to take pleasure in his people (Psalm 149:4).

But Doesn’t the Bible Say God Made Sex for Both Men and Women?

Some will point to the following passage to say that God made sex for men and women:

“2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 (KJV)

First and foremost, God’s Word never contradicts.  1 Corinthians 11:9 clearly states that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  So, if God made woman for man, that means he made sex for man.  It really is that simple.  Everything about woman’s nature and body was meant to serve man, bring him glory and thereby bring God glory.

With that foundational understanding now let’s look at the passage above.   The phrase in verse 1 Corinthians 7:2 “let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” does not mean equal ownership of a husband and wife toward one another.  There are different Greek words for the English word “own”.

When referring to a man having his “own wife” the original Greek word that is translated as ‘own’ is ‘heautou’. This word speaks of owning someone or something as your personal possession and this is consistent with the Hebrew phrase for marriage ‘baal’ which referred to a man coming to own his wife.    For the wife having her “own husband” the original Greek word that is translated as ‘own’ is ‘idios’ which may or may not refer to ownership over someone or something.  It depends on the context it is used in.  When this word is used with a subordinate it can actually refer to the person being owned.  See this passage below which illustrates this concept:

“9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own [idios] masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again”

Titus 2:9 (KJV)

The word ‘servant’ refers to slaves in the original Greek.  So, in the context of a slave and his Master who has possession of who? The answer is the master.  And this is the same for wives.  Wives do not own their husbands, but rather husbands own their wives.   And why do husbands own their wives? Because God made a man’s wife for him, not him for his wife.

So, what is the rest of 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 talking about then? The answer is that God is telling men and women that they have a right to sexual access to one another’s bodies and they should not deprive one another except if they mutually agree for a short time of prayer and fasting.  But unlike what the world and specifically humanism teaches today, the mutual consent is not to have sex, but to stop having sex for a brief period.  In other words, if either person needs sex, the other should render their body.

And then we have the final question to answer on this passage.  If God made sex for men then why does the Bible tell men not to deny their wives’ sexually which would indicate that women want sex too? For the answer we go back to the 1 Corinthians 7:9 principle.  Why did God create woman? He created her for man.  Therefore, everything about her, including her own sexual desire was created for man’s benefit.  In other words, her desire for sex enhances his sexual pleasure.  So, God is saying to men “Don’t deny your wife when she wants sex – I made her to want sex for you!”

Conclusion

The Bible tells us in passages like Isaiah 43:6-7 that all of us, both men and women, were created to bring glory to God.  But 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 tells us that men and women were made to bring God glory in different ways.  Man was created to bring God glory by imaging him, by living out God’s attributes with his life.  And it is very clear that man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

And because woman was created for man, so too, sex was created for man.

It is absolutely true, according to Hebrews 13:4 ,that the only sexual relations God considers honorable and pure are those which occur between a husband and wife within the covenant of marriage.  And it is equally true that God’s first command to mankind in Genesis 1:28 was for them to “Be fruitful, and multiply“.

However, there is more to the Biblical view of sex than just restrictions on when sex may occur and the call to having children. Unfortunately, some churches today fail to see to this.

On the other hand, a lot of churches today do teach that sex is about more than just the restrictions on it or for having children.  But unfortunately these same churches usually give advice on sex which follows the humanist, feminist and egalitarian view of sex and not the Biblical view of sex.

Churches today often associate the the male sex drive with selfishness.   Husbands are taught that they should not seek  sex for their own satisfaction but only to please their wives.  And if the whole point of sex is about a husband seeking to please his wife, then it would follow that a man should never seek sex with his wife when she is not in the mood or not enthusiastically desiring it.  Most importantly, he should never coerce her into sex in any way as this would go against the entire point of sex in their view.  And this view of sex perfectly aligns with the humanist, feminist and egalitarian views of sex.

But God’s Word says just the opposite.  The Bible calls sex “the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27) and warns men against leaving this natural use.  It calls on men to quench their God given sexual thirst  by drinking from the well of sexual pleasure that is their wife’s body (Proverbs 5:15).  Not only are they to quench their sexual thirst with their wife’s body, but they are to drink their fill of her, satisfying themselves “at all times” so much so that they are intoxicated by their wife’s body (Proverbs 5:18-19).

Some will contend that these Biblical truths makes women no more than sex slaves for men.  And such a contention could not be further from the truth.  To uphold the Biblical teaching that God created woman for man and by extension sex for man does not mean women are sex slaves.  God created women for man’s companionship (Genesis 2:18, Malachi 2:14), to be the mother of his children (1 Timothy 5:14)  and the keeper of his home (Titus 2:4-5) in addition to creating woman for man’s sexual use (Romans 1:27) and satisfaction (Proverbs 5:19).

We can affirm that God created woman for more than just the sexual pleasure of man without denying that one of the purposes for which he created woman was indeed the sexual pleasure of man.    This is one of the oldest arguments in the feminist arsenal and many feminists have even referred to marriage in general as slavery for women.   See my article “8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves” for a larger discussion of this important topic.

To proclaim these truths right of the Bible does not equal misogyny or hatred for women.   This is what our world and sadly many churches today teach.  The idea that such sacred teachings of the Bible are misogynistic is based on the false notion that equality is what gives human beings value.  The Bible tells us our value comes not from our equality, but rather from our being created for God’s glory.

I know this is a lot to take in.  It may go against everything you as a Christian have been brought up to believe because humanism has so infested most Christian churches today.    It may violate your entire concept of “social justice”.  But then you must answer God’s question to Job in Job 40:8 when he says “Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?”

If your answer is no, that you will not condemn God, his Word or his design of gender roles and sex as unjust, then you only have one choice as a believer and that choice is to follow God’s command below:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

It is only by being transformed by the renewing of your mind that you will be able to bring glory to God in the way he designed you to do.

A Christian Young Man’s Guide to Life and Finding A Wife in a Post-Feminist World

Recently I received the following email from a young Christian man which ended in a challenge from him to me.

“Dear BGR, I am a 17-year-old male who will be graduating high school in this next year.  I have attended a Bible preaching Baptist church for all of my life. I was taught both at my church and in the public schools I have attended that women being given equal rights with men was and still continues to be a good thing for society.   My parents are conservatives and I have considered myself a conservative for a long as I can remember.  Like many conservatives, I believed that equal rights for women was good thing.  But this is no longer the case for me.

Because of your blog I have had my “cultural blinders” as you call them removed.   

I did not make the connection between the rise of feminism in the mid-1800s and the rampant sexual immorality, divorce, abortion and problems with LGBTQ that we face today until I read your blog.  I cannot believe how blind I was and how blind the adults around me still are to this connection.

I love how deep you dive into the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and how you base everything you believe on the Bible, the whole Bible and not just the parts people like.  I also love how you dissect and tear apart liberal, socialist and secularist arguments against the Bible.   With that said I have a favor to ask you or maybe more of a challenge for you.

Can you write a simple list, like a step by step list, of how young Christian men like me who have had our eyes opened to the evils that feminism has brought on our society can navigate this Post-Feminist world and live in a way that honors God and his design of gender roles?  And here will be the hardest part for you – can you do it in 1000 words or less? I just know that a lot people my age don’t have the attention span that I do and I think if you made it short, they might just listen.

Jonathan”

Jonathan – challenge excepted.

Step 1 – Know Your Purpose in Life

God created you to be “the image and glory of God” and he created woman to be “the glory of man” (I Corinthians 11:7).  This means you were created as a man to display or live out God’s attributes in your life’s work outside the home and as a husband and father in your home.

Companionship, sex and having children are all benefits of marriage and commanded by God in marriage but they are not the reason for marriage.

Ephesians 5:23-24 tell us “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” and “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”. It also tells us in Ephesians 5:25 that husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church”.  It is “for this cause” (Ephesians 5:31), the cause of picturing the relationship between God and his people, that we are to seek and enter into marriage.

Step 2 – Read Your Bible from Genesis to Revelation

You cannot be the kind of spiritual leader and teacher to your future home that God has called you to be without becoming a student of his Word (2 Timothy 2:15, 1 Corinthians 14:35, Ephesians 6:4).

Step 3 – Keep Sexual Relations for Marriage

The only sexual relations that God calls “honorable” (Hebrews 13:4) is that which occurs within marriage between a man and woman. When you have sex with a woman before entering into a covenant of marriage with her you pervert God’s design for man, woman, marriage and sex.

Step 4 – Build Your Career First, Then Seek A Wife

In Proverbs 24:27 we read “Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house”.  Build your career first, then get build a home and family.  In Ephesians 5:29 we read that husbands have a responsibility to nourish or provide for the physical needs of their wives “even as the Lord the church”.  A man’s ability to provide for his future wife and children is a critical aspect of him picturing the relationship of God to his people in marriage. No man should ever even begin to seek marriage until he is fully prepared to be a provider for his future wife and children.

Step 5 – Look for A Woman Who Knows Her Purpose

Just as you must know your purpose in God’s creation as a man, so too you should seek out a woman who fully embraces her purpose in God’s creation as well.

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

The women you seek should fully embrace the teaching found in the passage above.  No part of it should be uncomfortable for them.

Step 6 – Avoid Sexual Temptation While Waiting on Marriage

Some men may be able to provide for a family and therefore can marry in their late teens or early twenties because they enter a lucrative skilled trade or family business.  Others may have to wait till their late twenties or early thirties after they finish college and then spend several years in their career before making enough to be the provider God has called them to be.  A good example of those who would have to wait much longer are doctors and lawyers as it takes them almost a full decade to be firmly established in their careers.

So how does God want you to handle your unmet, yet God given sexual desires during this waiting phase of your life?  The answer is one word and it is an uncomfortable word for some while others have been taught it is a sin.  And that word is masturbation.

The scriptures condemn lust, not masturbation.  And then we must understand how the Bible defines lust verses how we define it today.  Romans 7:7 teaches us that lust is not mere sexual arousal or sexual fantasy, but it is in fact covetousness as defined in the 10th commandment. It is not a sin for you as a young man to be sexually aroused by or even have sexual fantasies about women.  It is not even a sin for you to masturbate to such thoughts or images.

Lust, in the Biblical sense, is when you think about or desire to entice a woman into having sex with you outside of marriage.  So, you don’t have to suppress your sexual nature until you are married, but rather you must exercise it within the bounds of God’s law.  And a big part of avoiding sexual temptation before marriage is to set a boundary for yourself that you will never be alone with a woman that is not your wife or your blood relative.

Step 7 – Be Diligent in Your Search for A Wife

Jesus said in Matthew 7:7 “seek, and ye shall find”.  You cannot hope to find a wife by simply sitting around and waiting for one to fall from the sky.  40 percent of couples who married in 2017 met online.  Use all resources at your disposal and do not limit your search to only your local area, but look nationally and globally. And yes, if you look outside your local area it will require a lot more money for travel. So, start saving.  Concentrate your efforts on rural areas as urban areas are often filled with women who don’t follow God’s purpose for their lives.

Step 8 – Do not Date but Instead Court

Dating leads to relationships based on emotion rather than compatibility.  The Courtship process helps protect a couple from the temptation to have premarital sex while at the same time allowing parents the ability to offer an objective analysis of the compatibility of the couple.

8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves

Webster’s dictionary defines a slave as “a person held in servitude as the chattel of another”.   The word ‘chattle’ refers to a human being that is owned by another human being.  By our modern definition of slavery, we cannot comprehend the concept of a person being owned by another person without that owned person not being a slave.

On one side of this debate about the Biblical treatment of wives we have Christians who claim that there is absolutely no similarity at all between the husband/wife relationship and that of a slave owner to his slave while on the other side we have atheists and other humanists who claim that the Bible makes women into slaves.  What do both of these sides have in common? Jesus said it best in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

Matthew 22:29 (KJV)

The truth is that the Scriptures teach us that is possible for one person to own another person without that owned person being considered a slave.  In other words, from a Biblical perspective while all slaves are owned by other people, not all people who are owned by other people are to be considered slaves.

Wives and Children Designated by God as Property and Slaves Allowed as Property

The Bible shows us that God designed two social classes of human beings that were to be considered the property of men.  He allowed a third social class of human being that could also be taken as property as well under certain circumstances.

In the 10th commandment God mentions a man’s wife, along with his male and female slaves amongst those things which are his property:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

In the following passage we see that God gives children to their fathers as property:

“3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

The English word “heritage” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Nachala” which literally means “inherited property”.

God authorized Israelite fathers to sell their daughters as indentured servants for a period of no longer than six years.  This is shown in the following passages:

“7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

Exodus 21:7-8 (KJV)

“And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.”

Deuteronomy 15:12 (KJV)

The passages above show that neither male nor female Hebrew indentured servants could be kept indefinitely unless the male Hebrew willingly wanted to stay and serve (see Exodus 21:5-6) or the woman was taken as a wife by the man who purchased her either for himself or one of his sons.   Otherwise after 6 years male Hebrew indentured servants had to be freed and female Hebrew indentured servants had to be allowed to be purchased back by their male relatives or by another man wishing to take them as a wife.

And for those who think these daughters sold as maidservants could be used for sex outside a covenant of marriage, I would refer the reader to the following prohibition against fathers selling their daughters for this purpose:

“Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.”

Leviticus 19:29 (KJV)

So, it is clear that God did not allow Hebrews to sell or buy their fellow Hebrews as slaves.  They could only could only purchases the services of fellow Hebrews as indentured servants for a limited window of time.  However, it is equally clear that God did in fact allow the Hebrews to purchase the children of foreigners within their land as slaves or they could purchase slaves from the nations around them.

“44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)

And in the New Testament Paul gives the following command to slaves:

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

Colossians 3:22 (KJV)

The word “servants” in the KJV passage above is a translation of the Greek word “Doulos” which actually means “slaves” and this is how most of the modern translations translate this verse.

This brings us back to wives.  We have already shown from the 10th commandment that it includes wives with male and female slaves as the property of men.  But the ownership of a husband over his wife is seen even clearer in the original Hebrew language of the Scriptures. The noun form of the Hebrew word ‘baal’ which means ‘owner/master’ is used eleven times in the Old Testament to speak of a husband’s relationship to his wife.    The word ‘baal’ is used an additional 11 times in verb form to refer to a woman coming to be ‘owned’, or married, to a husband.

The passage below from the book of Deuteronomy uses both the noun and verb form of the Hebrew word baal to illustrate a husband’s ownership over his wife:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an [verb ‘baal’ ‘owned by’]  husband [noun ‘baal’ ‘owner’], then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

In the New Testament the Apostle Peter refers back to this concept of a woman being owned by her husband when he admonishes wives to follow the example of the women of past generations like Sarah who “obeyed” her husband calling him “lord”:

“5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

Now having proven from the Bible that wives are actually considered by God to be property just as slaves are, we will go on to show that the responsibilities of owners toward these two types of human properties are very different.

8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves

As we have previously shown from Exodus 20:17 and Leviticus 25:44-46,  wives and slaves are both considered by God to be the property of men.  And both wives and slaves are commanded by God to obey their masters in everything as Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 5:24, 1 Peter 3:5-6 tells them to do.

But this is where the similarity between wives and slaves ends and the differences begin. Below are eight Biblical distinctions between wives and slaves.

1.  Slave owners don’t have to sacrifice themselves for their property – husbands do.

“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)

2.  Slave owners don’t have to teach God’s Word to their property  – husbands do.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:35 (KJV)

3. Slave owners don’t have to act as human instruments of God’s sanctification in the lives of their property –  husbands do.

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

Ephesians 5:26-27 (KJV)

4. Slave owners don’t have to love and care for their property as they do their own bodies – husbands do.

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

5. Slave owners don’t have to give their bodies to meet the sexual needs of their property (nor should they) – husbands do.

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

I Corinthians 7:3-4 (KJV)

6. Slave owners don’t have to honor their property – husbands do.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

7. Slave owners don’t have to give their property the fruit of their labors – husbands do.

Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Proverbs 31:31 (KJV)

8. God did not design men to be the property of other men.  God did design women to be the property of their husbands.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV)

Conclusion

We have shown conclusively from the Bible that contrary to modern humanist notions of equality, God has actually designated wives and children as the property of their husbands and fathers. And again, contrary to modern egalitarian views of what marriage should be, God commands wives to regard their husbands as their masters and like slaves to be obedient to their masters in everything. The obvious exception for both wives and slaves in their obedience is if their masters command them to sin against God.  It is only in this case that they can and must disobey their masters as Acts 5:29 tells us.

The truth from the Scriptures is that there are indeed some similarities between wives and slaves but there are also significant differences between wives and slaves.

God created the relationship between a husband and wife to mirror the loving relationship between himself and his people.  A wife is to be regarded as her husband’s most precious possession, one that he cares for and would protect with his very life.

Another significant difference between wives and slaves is husbands as their wife’s owner and master are required by God to give their wife the fruit of her labors as Proverbs 31:31 states.   A slave is not entitled to enjoy any fruits from his labors.

Now this principle must be taken into account with the entire witness of the Scriptures.  In Ephesians 5:24 wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in “everything”. And yes, that would most certainly include finances.  Every dollar that comes into their home comes under the spiritual authority of the husband whether that is income from his work, his wife’s work or inheritances that either of them may acquire.  Even if the wife does not work outside the home but instead is a keeper in the home her work there has great value.

What this means is that whether a wife works outside the home or is a keeper of the home the husband should allow his wife to have fruits from her labor.  Practically speaking that means allowing her some discretionary use of money to buy things for the house or herself personally that she would like to buy.

Finally, on the topic of slavery. It is only because of the effects of sin in the world that God allowed for the practice of slavery but he commanded it to be done under humane conditions.  For a more in-depth look at the reasons and conditions under which God allowed for the practice of slavery see my article “Why Christians Should Not Be Ashamed of Slavery in The Bible”.

Is Marriage Worth Bothering With?

“Is marriage worth bothering with? I’m surrounded by mediocre marriages; I don’t see anyone or at best very few who have a marriage that I would want to have. My sister has been married a short time and she tells me how hard it is and it seems like so much difficulty with so little reward.”

The preceding statement comes from a comment I recently received from a man calling himself AngloSaxon.

And to be honest a great majority of men in our modern western countries find themselves asking this same question for the same reasons that AngloSaxon has.

Men sought out marriage throughout the history of world to be able to have a companion with which they could share their lives.  But the companionship that men sought with women was not the same as the companionship they sought with other men.   They did not seek out women as equal partners, but rather they sought out women for things male companionship could not offer them.

They sought out things in women they could not find in men.  They sought out women so that they could be looked up to, respected and needed for their ability to provide and protect.

They sought out female companionship for the visual and physical pleasure women could give them and the fact that women could bear and care for their children and thus help them continue their family lines.  They sought female companionship to have someone to care for the domestic needs of their homes to free them to go out into the world and make their mark on it knowing their female companion had everything in order back at their home.

But this entire dynamic of marriage with women desiring men for their provision and protection was totally upended by feminist movements in America and other western nations which began in the 19th century.

Many women in our post-feminist culture do not seek out men in marriage for their provision and their protection.  Rather they seek out men simply for “friendship” and to have someone to “that makes me laugh”.

And many women today do not enter marriage in order to give their husbands sexual pleasure or bear their children or to serve the needs of their husband’s home.  But rather they come into marriage to be served by men.

So the modern state of male/female relationships is that many men have been robbed of their purpose and their desires in marriage and they have come under what one of America’s founding fathers, John Adams, warned of if women were ever given equal rights with men and that is the “despotism of the petticoat” or in other words the “despotism of women”.

And since women came to dominate male/female relationships with the abandonment of courtship and the embrace of the new concept of “dating” in late 19th and early 20th centuries marriage as an institution has been severely decimated.

Before the political feminist movements of the mid 19th century divorce rates were three percent.  As men gave more and more control to women over dating and marriage divorce rates began to skyrocket and eventually peak at over fifty percent by the mid 1980s (with women being the initiators in seventy percent of divorces).

Everything I have just stated may seem like a dark and dreary outlook of marriage and male/female relationships in our Postfeminist culture.  But we as Christians do not have the option of loosing hope in God’s institution of marriage.  God does not give us the right to give up on the very first human relationship he ever established which was marriage.

Why Marriage is Worth Bothering With

Marriage is absolutely “worth bothering with” because God has commanded it. And why has he commanded it? He has commanded it as part of his larger reason for making man and woman in the Garden of Eden.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 in its divine commentary on the creation account states:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Men and women were given life and given their shared human traits for different reasons. God gave man his human traits along with additional masculine traits so that man bring glory to God by imaging him with his life. Literally man was created to live out God’s attributes. That is why men are called to be leaders, providers and protectors to their wives and children and to image God as husband to their wives and image God as a father to their children.

Women were not given their common human traits with men for this same purpose. They were given their humanity in order to be a helper and companion to man they were purposefully made as “the weaker vessel” as 1 Peter 3:7 states so that they would need man’s leadership, provision and protection as all mankind needs God’s leadership, provision and protection.

So it is for this reason that marriage is SO MUCH MORE than about our personal happiness or having fun. Marriage was designed by God as an extension of his purpose for creating male human beings so that they could full image him in all his attributes – and to do this they need someone to lovingly lead, provide for and protect and thus he made woman.

So its not about what you or I want or what sounds like fun or if it sounds difficult. It is about obeying God’s first command to mankind:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

God has never rescinded his first command and even in the New Testament the Bible states Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Marriage is God’s rule for our lives and celibacy is his exception to that rule that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:35). In other words, if your reason for not marrying is to serve God in an undivided fashion than your reason for celibacy is honorable and holy before God. If however your reason for celibacy is based in fear or selfishness that you want to just have more money or not risk being hurt by a spouse in marriage than your reason for celibacy is not honored before God.

Another indicator that celibacy is not for most people is that the vast majority of people have God given desire for intimate companion ship that only marriage can fulfill(whether it be for sex or having children or other reasons) and therefore we can rightly say based upon the Scriptures that it is better to marry than to burn (1 Corinthians 7:9).

The Facts Don’t Lie – Marriage is Better for Men and Society

Occasionally I will check out various atheist blogs and YouTube channels that critique this blog.  What I often find interesting is that they admit something many Christian feminist bloggers will not admit.  Some atheist bloggers admit that feminism and women’s equality has been a major blow to this historic institution of marriage.  But you know what their response is? We don’t need marriage anymore.  Sure, it is fine if you want to, they say, but marriage is no longer needed for a strong and stable society in their view.

But multiple studies call into question the contention of some atheists that marriage is an outdated societal institution that is no longer needed.

Bradford Wilcox and Nicholas H. Wolfinger in their article for National Review entitled “Hey Guys, Put a Ring on It”  demonstrate through the results of many studies the positive impact marriage has on men and thus society at large:

“First, let’s consider money. Marriage has a transformative effect on men’s finances. After marrying, men typically work harder, smarter, and more successfully. They are less likely to be fired. And they make about $16,000 more than their single peers with otherwise similar backgrounds. In general, marriage seems to increase the earning power of men on the order of 10 to 24 percent…

Men don’t just enjoy a better sex life when married; they are also more likely to enjoy better health. Research suggests that men who get and stay married live almost ten years longer than their unmarried peers. And a recent Harvard study found that even among men diagnosed with cancer, the married ones live longer…

We’ve seen that for the average guy, when it comes to money, sex, and health, marriage offers significant returns on the sacrifices it requires. It’s all of a piece with what one major research project, the Harvard Study of Adult Development, found about what makes men healthy and happy over the course of their lives, including their retirement years. Indeed, elderly men who enjoyed good marriages reported significantly less depression, better moods, and more satisfaction with life.”

Robert Rector wrote an article for the Heritage.org entitled “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty” where he made the following conclusion from looking at government statistics on the demographics of those most likely to fall into poverty:

“Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent

The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, when compared to intact married families, children from single-parent homes are:

More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime;[20]

Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems;[21]

Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school;[22] and

A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[23]”

The facts above clearly show that married men make more money and are more successful in their careers.  They lead healthier and more fulfilled lives.  Children raised by fathers married to their mothers do better in their education and are less likely to fall into poverty or get involved with crime.

So, both the Christian feminists and atheists are wrong.  Christian feminists are wrong in denying that feminism has decimated the institution of marriage and atheists are wrong in saying it is OK for marriage to go away and that society no longer needs it.

Conclusion

Marriage is definitely “worth bothering with” because God commands it and it is part of the very reason, we as both men and women were created.

Now does this mean young men must take the first woman that expresses interest in them as a potential husband? Absolutely not!  And far too many young men who are insecure with themselves marry the first woman who expresses interest in them.  A lot of Christian men marry because they are desperate to have sex and they fail to look closely at the character of the woman they are marrying.

Christian men can and should approach women and dating (really it should be courting) with a great deal of Scriptural knowledge of what marriage is about and also prayer as well as discretion.  They also should lean on their parents and other wise counsel to know if a woman is of good character and one who would make a good wife to them and a good mother to their children.

But the main point is Christian men cannot give up on marriage even it takes many years to find the right woman.  The search should be continual even if it means a man saving money for many years and seeking a wife overseas from a less westernized country or more conservative (mostly rural areas) of western countries.

Related Articles:

For What Reasons Does God Allow Celibacy?

Why MGTOW Is an Unbiblical Philosphy

What is the Difference Between Courting and Dating

Oral Sex – A sin, An Option or a Requirement in Christian Marriage?

Is oral sex in Christian marriage a sin? If it is not a sin is it optional or is it a requirement for Christian husbands and wives in marriage?

Recently on another article I wrote, totally unrelated to the topic of oral sex, I had a commenter named Trey make the following statement about how a man should require that his wife demonstrate her submission and respect toward him after she has denied him sex simply because she was “not in the mood”.  He said she should be required to do this before she would be allowed back in the marriage bed:

“Denial of sex by a wife is the ultimate form of disrespect and control of her husband. If she has denied you sex (for no good reason), sex should be required before she is allowed back into your marriage bed. Oral sex while on her knees before you seems very appropriate and swallowing is a must. Spitting you out is also a form of disrespect.”

I then had these comments come in.

Lost&Found wrote in response to Trey:

“You say, “Oral sex while on her knees before you seems very appropriate and swallowing is a must. Spitting you out is also a form of disrespect.”

Why would swallowing be a “must,” and spitting be “disrespect”? How is it you have come to that conclusion? And how is a husband going to force his wife not to spit?

To me, the fact that sperm are a man’s seed and when combined with a woman’s egg will create a baby, makes the thought of a woman swallowing it absolutely repugnant.”

Bruce went even further than Lost&Found in his response to Trey:

“Don’t know about 1,2, &4 but 3 is totally wrong. Lisa should not allow her husband to put his penis in her mouth (or anus for that matter). This is sodomy or, at best, sodomitic mimicry. Her husband’s penis and semen belongs in her vagina not her digestive tract. If Lisa is reading this: you are NOT to obey your husband in this – obey God first.”

So, we can definitely see some strong views on the matter of a woman giving her husband oral sex in the three comments I have just mentioned.

With Trey we see the view that a woman a should not only give her husband oral sex, but that she should swallow and not spit out his semen when he finishes.

With Lost&Found we see the view that perhaps oral sex is ok for a woman to do for her husband, but that swallowing should not be required.

With Bruce we see a complete rejection of oral sex and his lumping it in with anal sex and categorizing oral sex and anal sex as Sodomy.  He maintains that both a husband’s penis and his semen belong in his wife’s vagina and not “in her digestive tract”.  Bruce even went as far as to tell the woman who I was responding to that she should not obey her husband regarding oral sex, but rather obey God first.

So, which of these commenters is right? As always, to find the answer to all moral questions we must first look to the Scriptures.

Do the Scriptures teach that the Penis and Semen May Only Go in the Vagina?

I am willing to bet that Bruce is most likely Catholic as his view of oral sex is more common among Catholics than any other Christian denomination.  The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all sex must be “procreative” or “open to life” or the orgasm must be “genital to genital”.  In other words, all sexual relations between a man and his wife must end with his penis ejaculating in her vagina.

Now Catholics differ on whether a woman can orally pleasure her husband and the rule is only that he must finish in her vagina.

The problem is that the Bible never teaches this doctrine. It is a completely man-made doctrine.

Some have wrongly attempted to teach that the story of Onan in the Bible confirms that God only allows sex that is penile-vaginal intercourse and that the man must finish in his wife’s vagina each and every time:

“8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.  9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.”

Genesis 38:8-10 (KJV)

Onan was not killed simply for spilling his semen on the ground – i.e. “pulling out”. He was killed by God because of WHY he pulled out.  He pulled out to avoid impregnating his dead brother’s wife which was his duty before God.  So, Genesis 38:8-10 proves nothing in regard to God requiring men to always have penile-vaginal intercourse that ends with an ejaculation in the woman’s vagina.

Are oral sex and anal sex for that matter called out as “Sodomy” in the Bible? The answer is no. If you look at the story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19 you will find no mention of oral or anal sex.  What you will find mentioned is men wanting to have sex with men – homosexuality.

Later in the Old Testament you will find the term “sodomite” used like in the following passage:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 23:17(KJV)

The English word “sodomite” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Qadesh” which literally means “male prostitute”.  So, when we take together the story of Sodom and Gomorrah along with the use of Qadesh what can we say that Sodomy is from a Biblical perspective? It is when men engage in homosexual behavior or prostitute themselves out.

Oral sex is not wrong because Sodomites engage in it anymore than penile-vaginal sex is wrong because unmarried men and women engage in it.  It is the context which makes sexual acts, including oral sex, right or wrong.

I will briefly address anal sex near the end of this article after I have fully covered oral sex from a Biblical perspective.

We must then ask the question, is there any passage of the Bible which looks negatively upon oral sex? And the answer is no.  But the answer to the next question I will pose may surprise many Christians. Does the Bible ever speak positively of oral sex? And the answer is YES.

The Bible Speaks in a Positive Manner Regarding Oral Sex

After I show you this next passage of the Bible, you will never look at a tree, especially an apple tree, the same again.

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.”

Song of Solomon 2:3 (KJV)

In ancient middle eastern poetry, the apple tree was a euphemism for a man’s genitals.  Consider the parts of the tree in the image below and how they correlate to a man’s genitals.

The image that the woman “sitting under his shadow” portrays is that of a man standing over top of his wife with his shadow over her and her down below him performing Fellatio which is oral sex performed on a man and is commonly referred to today as a “blow job“.  The Scriptures tell us she did this “with great delight” or in other words with enthusiasm and desire.  What is the fruit of his tree? It is his semen. The woman says of her husband’s semen that it was “sweet to my taste”.

But what about oral sex on a woman? Again, the Bible speaks to this as well.  And just as I warned you with the apple tree, you will no longer look at a cluster of grapes or a pomegranate the same ever again after reading the next few Scripture passages.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes

12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves.”

Song of Solomon 7:7 &12 (KJV)

This picture being presented above is that of a man wanting to see his wife’s breasts and genitals becoming aroused with grapes representing her breasts and pomegranates representing her genitals.

See the image below of a pomegranate and you can definitely see the resemblance to a woman’s genitals:

Now look below at what the wife asks her husband do with her “pomegranate”:

“I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother’s house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.”

Song of Solomon 8:2 (KJV)

Drinking of the juice of her pomegranate is a euphemism for Cunnilingus which is oral sex performed on a woman.

Another reference to the wife requesting oral sex from her husband is found below:

“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.”

Song of Solomon 4:16 (KJV)

If you ever wondered where “going south” on a woman or “eating out” a woman came from – you can find it right there in there in Song of Solomon 4:16. The imagery of this passage is unmistakably referring to cunnilingus with the “spices” that “may flow out” referring to the natural secretions that come from a woman’s genitals when she is aroused or stimulated.

So yes, we can say beyond a doubt that the Bible speaks positively, not negatively, of oral sex as long as it occurs as all sexual acts should – within the proper context of marriage.  We can now at this point completely dismiss as totally unbiblical Bruce’s position that oral sex is a sin and that women should disobey their husbands if this is requested.

So Oral Sex is an Option for Christian Spouses, But Is It Also Required?

Up to this point we have proven that oral sex is definitely an option for men and women within the covenant of marriage.  The next question we must ask though is this.  Is oral required in marriage in according to the Bible?

None of the references to oral sex in the Song of Solomon are written in the form of a command, but rather they are written in the form of a positive example.  Examples of various behaviors and actions in the Bible when presented in a positive light show us that God allows us to do that particular thing, but examples do not require us to do a certain thing.

In other words, positive Biblical examples allow while Biblical commands compel.

But while Song of Solomon contains no commands about oral sex, there are other passages which do give us commands about sex in general.

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

The passage above from 1 Corinthians teaches us several important Biblical principles about sex:

  1. Sex is both a right and duty in marriage of both the husband and the wife.
  2. The husband does not have the power to deny his body to his wife for sex nor does the wife have the power to deny her body to her husband for sex.
  3. The only thing that requires “consent” in the Biblical world view of sex is consent by both of them to stop having sex for a brief period of time.

The Biblical principles above fly in the face of our modern individualist and secular humanist view of human autonomy today.  But we as Christians are commanded to reject whatever values our culture has which conflict with the Word of God:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

So now let’s apply the principles of I Corinthians 7:3-5 to the topic of oral sex.

If a man wants his wife to perform oral sex on him – does she have the right to refuse? According to 1 Corinthians 7:4 the answer is no she does not have such a right.  But the same goes for woman.  If a woman wants her husband to perform oral sex on her, does he have the right to refuse? Again, the answer according to I Corinthians 7:4 is no, he does not have such a right.

So, the answer to our question is that oral sex can be both optional and required. 

It is optional in the sense that if neither spouse wants to engage in oral sex than it is not required.  Is required in the sense that if either spouse wants to engage in it, then the other spouse must cooperate and render themselves accordingly.

Now of course we must balance the right to have sex with one’s spouse and the responsibility to have sex with one’s spouse with other Scriptural principles.

For instance, the Bible teaches the following to husbands regarding their wife’s body:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

A man must care for the needs of his wife’s body as he would his own. In the sexual arena, that means he should never do anything to his wife that would misuse or cause harm to his wife’s body.

Sometimes vaginal sex may be need to cease for a time if the woman is having medical conditions that warrant such a ceasing, a good example of which would be right after she has had a child.  There may also be times when oral sex may need to cease because the man or woman has had some type of dental work or oral surgery.  There may be other times when it would not be conducive for a man to perform oral sex on his wife, for instance when she has her period or when she has some type of infection in her genital area.

Is it Healthy for A Woman to Swallow Her Husband’s Semen?

Under normal circumstances oral sex between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage presents no health risks whatsoever.  What do I mean by normal? If a man and woman follow God’s design for marriage and they both wait for all sexual activity (including oral sex) until marriage there is no chance of them contracting any STDs from one another due to oral sex.

On the subject of a man’s semen.  Many women are grossed out by a man’s semen while others absolutely love it.  So, what is in this mystery fluid that is ejected from a man’s body when he has an orgasm?

On average men ejaculate about a teaspoon of semen.

Sperm makes up only about 2 to 5 percent of a man’s semen.

The overwhelming majority of a man’s semen is fructose(sugar), along with vitamin C, zinc, protein, lactic acid, magnesium, calcium chlorine, citric acid, creatine, potassium, vitamin B12, sodium, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

Basically what that means is your husband’s sperm has about the same ingredients as the breakfast plate pictured below.

So, no it absolutely not unhealthy for a woman to swallow her husband’s semen.  In fact, it is very healthy both for her physically and for him psychologically. And we will tackle the male psychological side of oral sex next.

How Fellatio Affects a Man’s Psyche

There are two ways that a woman can approach oral sex with her husband.  The one is to “well I do this because I know he likes it but this is gross and he better not finish in my mouth!” In other words, the idea of her husband’s penis and especially his semen in her mouth utterly grosses her out.

Even outside of oral sex, some women just find their husband’s semen gross and immediately after sex they are running to the bathroom to do this extensive cleaning process or even taking a bath in some cases.

Other women crave their husband’s semen.  These women perform oral sex to actually be able to taste their husband’s semen.  This is the type of wife that is pictured in Song of Solomon 2:3.

For most men who have not been conditioned to be ashamed of their sexual desires, they want their wife to be like the wife of Song of Solomon 2:3.  They want their wife to crave their semen.  Whether it be wanting it on their face, in their mouth, on their breasts and certainly in their vagina.  Why? Because a man’s semen is an extension of himself.  Semen, unlike other bodily biproducts from a man, represents life.  It represents the man’s life and who he is.

So yes, many men find it disrespectful and unloving when their wife finds their semen to be gross whether inside or outside her body or she refuses to swallow.  But most men have been conditioned by our society (including the churches) to remain silent about this and to tell women what they want to hear that it is “not important” to them.

A wife shows her submission to her husband when she kneels before him and takes his “apple tree” in her mouth.

A wife shows her full acceptance of her husband when she does this act with “great delight” showing her husband that she craves the “sweet” taste of his fruit.

A wife shows her sacrificial spirit when after performing fellatio on her husband to its natural completion she asks for nothing in return.

Why Cunnilingus is Important for Women

Multiple studies have confirmed that many women cannot have orgasms from penile-vaginal intercourse alone.

Consider these numbers from an article on Psychology Today entitled “Why So Many Women Don’t Have Orgasms”:

“For men, rates of orgasm varied only slightly based on how many of these three actions they’d reported:

One (just intercourse): 96 percent of the men had orgasms.

Two (hand massage and intercourse): 95 percent.

Three (hand massage, fellatio, and intercourse): 98 percent.

But for women, rates of orgasm varied considerably based on the number of actions:

One (just intercourse): 50 percent of the women reported orgasms.

Two (hand massage and intercourse): 71 percent.

Three (hand massage, cunnilingus, and intercourse): 86 percent.

In summary, the number above show that 96 percent of men can have an orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse without any manual stimulation of their genitals or oral sex.

But only 50 percent of women can have an orgasm from penile-vaginal intercourse alone.  For many women they must have their genitals massaged along with receiving oral sex in order to have an orgasm.

So why is cunnilingus important for women? Because there is a large chunk of women that cannot have an orgasm without it.

The Importance of Allowing Oral Sex

It is rare but I do sometimes hear from both men and women that they do not really want to allow their spouse to perform oral sex on them but their spouse really wants to.

What these men and women need to understand is that giving oral sex can be a huge turn on for many men and women and it is a crucial part of foreplay for them even if orgasm is not reached through it.

From the emails I have received, it is more often women that are opposed to their husbands performing oral sex on them then men opposing their wives performing oral sex on them.

Sometimes it is because they just always feel dirty in their genital area, even after they wash.  Some women just don’t want their husband’s mouth on their genitals simply because they think it is gross.  For some women it might be because their husband performed oral sex once and he was too rough.

If it is just a matter of the husband changing his technique, this can be accomplished through communication between the wife and her husband.

But in either case, a man or woman opposed to having oral sex performed on them by their spouse needs to address whatever issues are hindering them in this area.  Because they are holding back a portion of themselves that they ought not to be from their spouse.

What About Anal Sex?

Earlier we talked about how some Christians like Bruce link oral sex with anal sex and associate both these practices with the Biblical condemnation of Sodomites.  I have a written an entire article on the subject of Anal sex entitled “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”.   I won’t go into all the details here as you can just read that article but I will just summarize my position on it here.

The anus, unlike the vagina and the mouth, is not designed for penetration.  It is designed as an “exit-only” orifice.

WebMD states this about anal sex:

“The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream… Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection

Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections

Now some have argued that “God has designed many parts of the body with a primary function and many secondary as well” and that is absolutely true.  The mouth has the primary purpose of acting as the intake for food and drink for the body but it has a secondary purpose of allowing for kissing and oral sex.  In the same way the vagina has the purpose of being able to give birth to a child, but it has another purpose of being able to receive a man’s penis for penile-vaginal intercourse.

Some have tried to argue that the anus in women, like the vagina is created by God for a dual purpose as well. They argue that a woman’s anus is designed by God for evacuating waste from the body but also receiving a man’s penis for anal intercourse.

The problem with this dual-purpose theory for a woman’s anus is that we know that it is a medical fact that the anus is NOT designed for penetration.  It does not have the thick elastic lining of either the mouth or the vagina.  It has much thinner skin that is very easily torn and can easily become infected.

Another thing which separates oral sex from anal sex is cross contamination.   There are no medical issues with a man receiving oral sex from his wife and then him placing his penis in her vagina.  There are however great risks of spreading harmful bacteria from man having anal sex with his wife and then putting his penis in her vagina afterwards as this can cause infections in the vagina.

It is for all these reasons that I believe anal sex is in fact a misuse of a woman’s body and it stands apart from oral sex.  Oral sex does not have any health risks under normal circumstances while anal sex is considered by health practitioners to be the “riskiest form of sexual activity” that there is.

Again, you can read my full article on anal sex by reading my article “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”.

Conclusion

From a Biblical perspective, oral sex is not equivalent to Sodomy any more that penile-vaginal intercourse is equivalent to fornication.  Just as penile-vaginal intercourse is only fornication if it occurs outside a marriage covenant between a man and woman, so too oral sex is only sodomy if it occurs in the context of two men having sex.

The Bible never restricts sexual relations between husbands and wives to only penile-vaginal intercourse. It actually presents oral sex, both fellatio and cunnilingus in a positive light.

We have also shown that oral sex is more than just an option for Christian husbands and wives.  The 1 Corinthians 7:4 principle that husbands and wives must fully surrender their bodies to one another for sex can make oral sex a requirement and not just an option in marriage if either spouse wants it.

Men should not be repulsed by the thought of performing oral sex on their wives and women should not be repulsed by the thought of performing oral sex on their husbands.

Women should understand that it is not gross or unhealthy in anyway for a them to swallow their husband’s semen.  It is actually very healthy and it is a powerful bonding tool for a wife to use with her husband.

When a woman has wrongfully denied her husband sex the idea of her kneeling before him, performing fellatio and then swallowing his semen is probably the best apology a wife could ever give her husband for such a sin.

But a wife must realize that her performing fellatio as well as her swallowing is not simply something she should do as an apology for sexual denial.  It is something that should be done regularly to show her love, full acceptance and submission to her husband.

Finally, for those who might be concerned that I am promoting oral sex over penile-vaginal sex.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   While I think fellatio and cunnilingus should be utilized by couples on a regular basis for foreplay or with cunnilingus to help a wife have an orgasm, I do believe that the vast majority of sexual encounters between a husband and wife should end in penile-vaginal intercourse with him ejaculating in his wife’s vagina.

You don’t have to be a doctor or a biologist to see that a man’s penis and a woman’s vagina are perfectly designed to come together.  When a man and woman come together in penile-vaginal intercourse this is them becoming “one flesh” in the most literal sense of the Biblical phase.

But what we have known since creation simply by common observation has also been proven scientifically in that penile-vaginal intercourse results in a release of 400% percent more prolactin  in men and women than any other form of sexual activity (like oral sex or masturbation). Prolactin is what give us the sense of satisfaction from having sex.

However, it is one thing to say that penile-vaginal sex is the best form of sexual relations a husband and wife can have and another to say it is the only kind of sexual relations a husband and wife can have.

Would Society Be Better If Girls Married as Soon as They Menstruated?

A Christian mother and regular reader of my blog asked “Would society be better if we returned to the standard that girls could marry as soon as they menstruated and were capable of having kids?” To ask such a question in America in the year 2019 seems patently absurd. Of course, society would NOT be better off if girls could marry as soon as they menstruated! Before we go further to address the obvious absurdity of this woman’s question here is the full email from her below.

Here is the complete email I received from a woman calling herself Rebekah:

“Long time reader, first time writer. First, I want to thank you for your trenchant insights, observations, and monologues. It’s great to find a man with such a passion for Christ and a traditional way of life. I’m a married mother with 3 daughters (12, 13, and 16) and (15) one son and my hubby and I are raising them to be good Christians and to abide by traditional gender roles.

I recently had a discussion with my husband about the expectation for marriage and we wondered, would society be better if we returned to the standard that girls could marry as soon as they menstruated and were capable of having kids? My two eldest daughters are certainly capable, and they are very motherly already.

What is your opinion?”

Why do such statements as the ones above evoke such a sense of righteous indignation from most of us in modern America and Western culture?  We will discuss these reasons next.

Why Modern Society Disapproves of the Pubescent Marriage of Women

Ancient and medieval historical records can attest to the following statement that was made in an article entitled “Child Marriage – Rationale, Historical Views, And Consequences” :

 “Child marriages involving only one marriage partner below the age of 18, usually the female, are also quite common. Throughout history till the 20th century, child marriages were the norm in most parts of the world. With the average life expectancy during such times being only 40 to 45 years of age, child marriages were the faster way to reproduce. Girls were usually married off as soon as they reached puberty or sometimes even prior to that.”

In the same article they mention in addition to shorter life expectancies that there were often economic reasons as well:

“Over the years, a large number of reasons have been suggested as triggers behind the practice of child marriage. Economic problems have been one of the primary factors that have forced parents to marry off their young girls. The system of dowry prevailing in many countries where parents of girls have to bestow hefty sums of money or expensive goods and ornaments to the in-laws’ families of their daughters have led to the consideration of the girl child as a burden in such households. However, the high demand of young girls in the marriage market have helped parents marry off their girl child to an older man, often receiving money in return, allowing them to overcome the burdens of dowry and even economically benefiting from the process.”

But in the same article we then find the reasons for our modern Western society’s disapproval of marriage for women of pubescent age:

“Child marriage is associated with scientifically established adverse effects to the young female child’s health. Pregnant girls below the age of 15 have a 5 to 7 times higher chance of dying during childbirth as compared to pregnant women in their twenties. Child mothers are also more susceptible to develop obstetric fistula, cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and other health problems. Infant mortality rates are also 60% higher in case of children born of mothers who are below the age of 18 years. Child marriage usually deprives the female child of educational rights, leading to the loss of financial independence of the child in her future. Child brides are also susceptible to domestic violence, marital rapes and sexual abuse as they are not mature enough to protest and not independent enough to escape adverse situations in their conjugal life.”

So young mothers under 15 having 5 to 7 times higher of a chance of dying from their pregnancy should be enough for all us to oppose pubescent marriage for young girls, right?

And then what about the fact these poor young girls may be deprived of education rights which will lead to a loss of financial independence from their future husbands? And their higher susceptibility to tolerate future abuse from their future husbands?

Is this not an open and shut case against the marriage of pubescent age women?

Well before we can totally wrap up our conclusion, we need to tie up a few “loose ends”.

Putting Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates in Perspective

Two of the “loose ends” we need to tie up are maternal and infant mortality rates. Previously we were told one of the reasons we should oppose the marriage of pubescent age women is because women in this age group have higher chances of dying from child birth and their infants have a higher chance of dying after birth within the first year.

The maternal mortality rate (MMR) is the number of women who die each year at any stage of pregnancy.  According to the World Health Organization(WHO) 211 million women get pregnant each year.

The sad news for us as Christians and those who value human life is that 46 million of those pregnancies are ended by the murderous act of abortion.  That means 165 million women continue with their pregnancies.  Of those 165 million pregnancies, 123 million will be “successful”, meaning that the mother gives birth and the child survives.

Of the children that survive in these 123 million births, 2.51 million, or 2 percent, will die before reaching their first birthday (this is the global infant mortality rate).

About 302,950 women die each year worldwide from pregnancy.  That means women worldwide have a 0.2 percent chance dying from pregnancy related health problems or on the other hand they have a 99.8 percent chance of dying from pregnancy.

To put these numbers further in perspective, of those 302,950 women who die from pregnancy each year 99 percent of pregnancy related deaths occur in the developing world.  And even in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest MMR in the world, only 500 women out of 100,000 died from pregnancy related complications.

The key numbers to take away from this section on maternal and infant mortality rates are that in total 0.2 percent of women who get pregnant and do not murder their unborn children later die as a result of their pregnancies.  A total of 2 percent of infants worldwide will die before they reach their first birthday.   And statistically speaking the vast majority of these deaths that occur in both these categories occur in Africa. The saddest number of all these numbers is of course the worldwide purposeful murder of 22 percent of children in their mother’s womb by the act that modern civilization calls abortion.

The Societal Impact of Economic and Social Independence for Women

Another “loose end” we need to tie up has to do with women’s social and economic independence from men.  After all that is good thing, right?

For most of the history of mankind, with few exceptions, women were economically and socially tied to their fathers or their husbands and were considered the property of their fathers or husbands.  Women could not own property and if they did inherit property it would come under their husband’s authority upon marriage.  In divorce fathers retained full custody of the children.

The fact that women could not own property, could not easily divorce their husbands and when they did divorce, they had to leave without their children and without any property or income was a strong incentive for women to stay with their husbands.

This all changed in the mid-19th century with the rise of feminism.  It began with women suing in the courts for the right to own property as men did.  Then in the late 19th century the historic custom of fathers retaining full custody of their children was reversed and full custody was given to the mother.  Fathers did not gain back at least joint custody rights until almost a century later in 1960s.

Now the incentives that brought women to marriage to men, and kept women in marriage to men had been all but destroyed.

It was also during this time that women began to throw of the authority of their fathers in courting and began the new practice of “dating”.  Men and women entering marriage based on the historic principles of faith, duty, honor and economics gradually was replaced with men and women entering marriage simply for “love” – which was really just infatuation.

And since women had come to gain alimony, child support, and property rights there was little incentive for them to stay in marriage to a man once the infatuation wore off.   This caused divorce rates to sky rocket from 3 percent before the rise of feminism in the mid-19th century to 13 percent by the time woman’s suffrage was ratified in 1920 in the United States.

Anna Howard Shaw, one of the champions of first wave feminism made the following statement in the February 25th, 1915 edition of the New York Evening Post:

“I believe in woman suffrage, whether all women vote or no women vote; whether all women vote right or all women vote wrong; whether women will love their husbands after they vote or forsake them; whether they will neglect their children or never have any children at all.”

Anna Howard Shaw summed up the goals of the political feminists’ movements of the 19th and early 20th century.  The total liberation and independence of women from men no matter what the costs to society.  Country, marriage and motherhood and children could all be destroyed to meet their goals.  The only thing that mattered was women having complete and utter control of their lives.

And what cost did we pay as a nation? Well Anna Howard Shaw’s words came true.  Women gained the right to vote and even gained the right to force men to hire them for any positions they wanted.  And in 1973 they gained the right to murder their unborn children under the guise of total bodily autonomy.

The social and economic independence of women in America has directly led to rampant sexual immorality, the decline of marriage, over 60 million divorces and over 60 million abortions.

The Arguments Against the Marriage of Pubescent Women Are Faulty

Well it seems that in our effort to tie up loose ends regarding opposition to pubescent women marrying we have instead unraveled the entire ball of yarn.

Before I show how the arguments against pubescent women marrying are faulty, I want to explain some terminology I have been using.  The way we label something or someone can very much affect how we view that something or someone.  For instance, those of us who oppose abortion as a right for women call ourselves “prolife” while those who believe abortion is a right for women call themselves “prochoice”.   Prolife advocates such as myself call the child a “baby” from the moment it is conceived while Prochoice advocates will refer to the child based on his or her biological stages of development with such words as “zigote” or “embryo”  or “fetus” in an attempt to dehumanize the human being growing inside his or her mother’s womb.

In the same way when having this argument about the age of marriage for women those who oppose marriage for women before the age of 18 will call all marriage before the age of 18 “Child Marriage”.  But is 16 or 17-year-old female or male human being for that matter, a child? The answer biologically speaking is no.

Human beings go through a transition phase from child to adult and this transition phase is called puberty.  Children are human beings in the prepubescent stage of development.  Adolescents are human beings that are at some stage of puberty. When the changes of puberty are complete the human adolescent becomes a human adult.  Girls typically start puberty around the age of 11 while some start as early as 9 or 10 and they typically complete puberty by the age of 14. Boys start a little later than girls typically around the age of 12 and they finish puberty around the age of 16 or 17.

Those who say a female human being who has experienced the major changes of puberty which are the development of breasts, pubic hair and the start of menstruation is a child are stating a biological falsehood.  Such a female human being is no longer a child (prepubescent human being), but rather she is either an adolescent (pubescent human being) or an adult (postpubescent human being).

This is why I have consistently referred to this argument as one being about the “the marriage of pubescent women” because a female human being who has experienced the changes of puberty is no longer a child.

When we acknowledge the fact that worldwide a total of 0.2 percent of women die from pregnancy related deaths, and that includes pubescent mothers, then the even if they represent a higher proportion of that 0.2 percent it does not make a strong case against pubescent women marrying.  Instead we can respond with that fact that at least 99.8 percent of pubescent women worldwide will survive their pregnancies.

When we acknowledge the fact that only 2 percent of all infants worldwide die in the first year of their life and even if children from pubescent mothers make up more of that 2 percent than children from postpubescent women, we can rightly say pubescent mothers have at least a 98 percent chance of their children surviving their first year of life.  A difference somewhere within the 2 percent range between two groups of women having their children survive is not a strong argument against pubescent women marrying.

Some may respond that these are numbers that mix the developed world and undeveloped worlds.  But let me remind you of the WHO numbers which stated even in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest MMR in the world, only 500 women out of 100,000 died from pregnancy related complications in a given year over the last decade.

Then we come to other social reasons for opposition to marriage for pubescent women.

One of those reasons is that these pubescent women will have a “the loss of financial independence” from their husbands most likely because they do not finish high school and the college and get careers before marrying.

But based on the stats I just showed which correlate the granting of economic rights to women with the destruction of marriage by disincentivizing women to seek and stay in marriage to men is “the loss of financial independence” for women a bad thing? The answer if we believe that lasting marriages form the bedrock of a stable civilization must be NO.

And finally, what about the assertion that pubescent brides are more “susceptible to domestic violence, marital rapes and sexual abuse as they are not mature enough to protest and not independent enough to escape adverse situations in their conjugal life”? Is this a strong enough argument on its own for us to oppose pubescent women marrying?

Are there some men that truly do abuse their wives, whether they enter marriage as pubescent women or as postpubescent women? Absolutely.  But again, we must put things in perspective.  Just as we cannot toss out women getting pregnant because a tiny fraction of women may die from pregnancy so to, we cannot throw out marriage for pubescent women because of the sad fact that a higher fraction of a tiny percentage of pubescent women will be truly abused.

Now that I have shown the arguments against pubescent women marrying to be faulty and weak, we will now present strong arguments for the marriage of pubescent women.

Why We Should Support the Practice of Pubescent Marriage

I have previously shown from a biological perspective it is incorrect to refer to a human being that is going through puberty or one that has finished puberty as a child.  Therefore, it is utterly wrong to label it as “Child marriage” when a pubescent woman enters marriage.

Before the last century human societies recognized three primary social classes of human beings.  Men, Women and Children. Once children entered puberty, they were basically considered either men or women.  The concept of a “teenager” is a more recent invention over the last century.

Boys were considered men around the ages of 12 to 13 and this is why it was the norm for these young men to begin their trade in their early teen years so they could save their money, buy their own land and build a home.  Once they did this, usually by their late teens or early 20s, they would seek out a wife for marriage. For girls, as soon as they developed breasts and began menstruating, they were considered women and ready for marriage and child bearing.

Many will argue that just because a young woman is biologically ready for marriage and child bearing, does not mean she is mature enough mentally for marriage and child bearing.

So how do we answer the question of when a person is ready for marriage? Is it by looking to how civilizations have done things in the past? Is it by looking to current studies?

The answer, first and foremost for us as Christians, is to look to the Word of God.

“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

1 Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)

The phrase “the flower of her age” refers to when a woman has her period.  The Apostle Paul is telling us here that the minimum of age of marriage is when a woman has her first period.

However, we must take the complete witness of the Scriptures together to determine when is the acceptable “time of love” for a young woman – as in marriage and sex.

“7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”

Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)

So, it is not until a young girl demonstrates all the signs of puberty, the growth of breasts, pubic hair and having a period that she is ready for marriage.  With most young women, their first period comes after the development of their breasts and pubic hair while in some rare cases the period may come first.  But the Scriptures show us that all three of these elements are required.

In fact, in another Scripture we read that if a woman was completely flat chested and had no breasts, she would have a difficult time marrying (even if she had her first period):

“We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?”

Song of Solomon 8:8 (KJV)

The point here is that God tells us when a woman develops breasts, grows pubic hair and has her period she is ready for marriage by God’s law.

But we must also recognize that God gives a father discretion as to when his daughter is ready for marriage:

“Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.”

Jeremiah 29:6 (KJV)

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

The passages above show us that fathers have the responsibility to prepare their daughters for marriage and be looking for suitable husbands for their daughters while at the same time they have the right of refusal for their daughter for marriage as well.

Early Teen Women Are Very Fertile

Carolyn Butler wrote an article entitled “Ovaries have not adjusted to many women’s decision to delay having children” for the Washington Post back in 2010.  In that article she stated the following inconvenient biological facts for women:

The biological reality that female fertility peaks in the teens and early 20s can be difficult for many American women to swallow, as they delay childbirth further every year, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. In the District, the average age of initial childbirth was 26.5 years in 2006, up 5.5 years since 1970, the highest jump in the country…

While we may not be mature enough to conceive at a young age, nor should we, that is still when the body is most adept at conception and carrying a baby,” says Claire Whelan, program director of the American Fertility Association. “Our biological clock has not kept pace with our ability to prolong our life spans.” Stillman agrees, pointing out that research about advanced maternal age and motherhood today is clear: The older you get, the more difficult it is to get pregnant and the higher the chance of miscarriage, pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes and hypertension, and chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome, among other concerns…

“Society has changed, ” says Stillman, “but the ovaries will take another million years or two to catch up to that.””

Notice how she has to preface her acknowledgement of the biological reality of when women are “most adept at conception and carrying a baby” with her value judgment that “While we may not be mature enough to conceive at a young age, nor should we”.

As Christians we know that the Bible says in Genesis 1:27 that “male and female created he them”.  And we know God is not going to change a woman’s ovaries to match our societal changes.

Instead our society must turn back to God so that our society matches the way he designed us as males and females both physiologically and psychologically. And the way we begin that change is in one Christian home at time.

Early Teen Women Are More Moldable

In the Scriptures we read the following passage from the Book of Jeremiah:

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

2 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:1-6 (KJV)

In the above passage God is speaking to Israel as his wife.  The phrase “O house of Israel” is used in other passages like this one below when God refers to Israel as his wife and he as her husband:

“Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.”

Jeremiah 3:20 (KJV)

Just as God sought to mold his wife Israel to be the person, he wanted her to be, so to for a marriage to be successful a woman must be very moldable just like clay in the hands of a potter.

When women are in their early teens, they typically are more moldable but as they get older into their late teens and especially early 20s, they become much harder to mold or change in their person and habits.

And make no mistake this is EXACTLY why most people today oppose women marrying very young because they know they are so impressionable or moldable at that age.  They don’t want men being able to mold young women so they want to delay marriage as a long as possible pushing it into the early and mid-20s.

Christians who follow this false philosophy that young women need “find themselves” and “be their own person” before marriage are going against God’s design.

Remember that God says marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church.  Does Christ mold his church? You bet he does.  And he tells men to love their wives as he does:

“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV)

We are often told today that if a man attempts to mold or change his wife’s behavior at all that he is “controlling” and this bad.  We are told that if a man truly loves his wife, he won’t try to change anything about her.

Well I can tell you based on the authority of the Scriptures above that if a man does not attempt to mold and shape his wife to present her to himself and to God as a glorious wife in the same way Christ does his church then he is not loving his wife as Christ loves the church.

And yes, it takes a sacrifice on our part as men and courage on our part as men to “rebuke and chasten” (Revelation 3:19) our wives as Christ does his churches. But when done in the correct spirit, such rebuke and chastening by husbands is called “love”.

Conclusion

Rebekah so here is the answer to your question – “Would society be better if we returned to the standard that girls could marry as soon as they menstruated and were capable of having kids?”

The answer first from the Bible is “YES”.  But the like many other times we can see how God’s design plays out when we follow it and also when we disobey it.  No one can argue with the cold hard facts that giving women independence from men in general and their fathers and husbands in particular has been good for the institution of marriage which God designed.

By taking away women’s dependence on men we have allowed women to dominate marriage and our society.  Society is now ordered around how people feel rather than duty to God, family and country.

And the invention of the “teenager” as an extension of childhood has not been good for our society.  It has led to rampant immorality and a complete lack of responsibility among our young people today.

I don’t think you were actually asking if your husband could do this but just if society would be better if we all turned back to this custom of marriage for young women.

However, if your daughters have demonstrated the signs God says that mark “the time of love” for a woman in that they have developed breasts, pubic hair and have begun menstruating and if your husband feels they are mature enough and ready for marriage there would be no sin in allowing them to marry.

Believe it or not there are still 15 states that allow marriage below the age of 14:

 California
 Colorado
 Idaho
 Louisiana
 Maine
 Massachusetts
 Michigan
 Mississippi
 Nevada
 New Mexico
 Oklahoma
 Pennsylvania
 Washington
 West Virginia
 Wyoming

Also, several states allow 14, and 15-year old people to marry as well.

You can find the complete list of marriage by age by state here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Answering the Scoffers

One of my favorite scoffers, Suzanne Titkemeyer, wrote a piece the other day about my review of the Handmaids Tale.   I always chuckle a little when I read her stuff.

I will cover just a few areas that I think apply to this article in regards to the age of marriage.

Suzanne wrote:

“Why is it always these creeps, like Vaughn Ohlman,imaging young burgeoning breasts and periods as a marker for readiness? Notice that none of them view young boys of that age as ready for marriage. When they talk of men marrying it’s always men over the age of 21, while saddling them with a much too young girl.”

Suzanne, it is not me imaging breasts and periods as a marker for readiness, but rather the word of God which clearly states it as I showed above from Ezekiel 16:7-8 and 1 Corinthians 7:36.  You may reject the Bible but it is my basis for truth.

And before I knew and understood these Scriptures and studied the history of the world, biology and marriage I probably would have agreed with you that early teens is too young for marriage for women.  But back then I would have been going by what you are – my feelings and my culture. Instead of looking at marriage first through the lenses of the Bible, then history and biology.  All of which support young marriage for women.

Also, on your view of boys.  I don’t think they have to be over 21, although I think in most cases it would be wiser for them to wait.  Why? Because they have to lead a woman and their family and they have to be able to provide for and protect their family.  Especially on the provision front, for most young men it takes well into their early or mid-20s until they are ready to provide for a family.   My 19-year-old son who is plumber is an exception.  He makes over 60 K a year and could support a family.  But he has to get some other things in line first.

I know you struggle with this concept, but young men and young women are different. They are designed by God for different roles.  A young woman does not have to lead a home or provide for one.  She simply has to manage it, therefore she can marry much younger than a man.  Besides it is a biological fact as I showed above the early teens to the early 20s are “when the body is most adept at conception and carrying a baby”.  I also showed that studies arguing for higher pregnancy related deaths or other health problems are using statistically insignificant differences between pubescent mothers and postpubescent  mothers.

Suzanne wrote:

“In the United States this age can come at a very young time in a girl’s life. Menstruation ages have dropped, meaning what Larry is proposing here is that girls as young as 9 could be married.”

No not really.  I have said on multiple occasions that I like the Jewish rule of minimum age of 12.  The truth is that is extremely rare for a 9-year-old to have a period but then you are leaving out several other key factors in order to build your straw-man argument.  I said the minimum age of marriage requires ALL of the following things – not just a girl having her period. She must have developed breasts, pubic hair, had a period AND her father must determine she is ready.

Suzanne wrote:

“My own cycle started at 11 years old, and I can tell you I was nowhere near ready to marry. I was still playing with my Barbies, riding my horse, going to Camp Fire Girls meetings, and giggling over how cute Donny Osmond was. My only adult actions and responsibilities revolved around caring for my horse.

Little girls should be free to ride their horses, or play with their dolls and coloring books, not forced into lifetime relationships and sex.  We’ve talked about this so much here that I’m not even going to cite the statistics again that show how early marriage harms girls in every way, physically, emotionally, financially.”

Do you know why you were no nowhere near ready to marry at age 11 including manage a home and take care of children? Because you were raised in a culture that has vastly extended childhood far beyond what cultures in the past did.  If you were raised in pre-modern times, especially medieval or ancient times you absolutely would have been preparing for marriage at 11 and most likely be married by 12 or 13.

You see that is one of the many differences between your world view and mine.  You believe the purpose of little girls and by extension women is to live for themselves.  Have fun and do whatever makes you happy (at a particular moment, because we know that changes every five minutes).

But other people who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, such as myself, believe we were put here for more than riding horses and playing with toys.  We believe life is about duty and honor and serving God.  Sure, we can have happiness along the way, but if that is our central focus, we will not serve God.

And speaking of happiness.  We understand a truth that utterly escapes most secularists and you as well.  We understand that happiness is not simply a feeling, but it is also a choice.  We can choose to be happy in whatever circumstances life brings us.  This is special kind of joy that few people know or understand. We can choose to let God and his Word lead our hearts, instead of letting our hearts lead us.

I pray one day you will come to know these truths and accept Christ and his Word as they are and not as you would have them be.