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.

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.

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative and how it is Biblical in presenting sex as driving need for men and that men being polygynous in their sexual natures matches with God’s design of the masculine nature.  We showed however that Red Pill, because of its naturalistic world view, fails to see that sex is only part of a much larger masculine imperative that God intended for man when he designed him.

In this fourth part of our series, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of the Feminine Imperative and answer the question of whether any part of it is Biblical or not.

In order to discuss the Feminine Imperative we must first discuss the Red Pill paradigm of Alpha and Beta males which is at the core of the Feminine Imperative.  “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” is common way that the manosphere refers to two classes of men. There is also a well known “80/20 Rule” in relation to Alpha and Beta males meaning that 80 percent of males are Beta and 20 percent are Alpha.   Tomassi states in “Transactional vs Validational Sex”  that “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need”.

In his article entitled “Alpha”, Tomassi defines Alpha when he writes [ https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/  ] – “Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is”.  And in “The New Polyandry” [ https://therationalmale.com/2018/12/10/the-new-polyandry/ ]  he writes  “‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men”.

The point is a man being Alpha has nothing to do with how much money he has, but rather it is primarily based upon his mindset and then only secondarily upon his looks.  Together this is what makes a man “hot” to a woman.

The Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset

Tomassi defines the Alpha Mindset 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…

And in then in this same article Tomassi asks a few questions that help men to see if they are their own “mental point of origin”, i.e. living in an Alpha mindset.

“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, according to Red Pill, If you as a man make your life decisions regarding your career, your hobbies, your relationships or other decisions without seeking to please others whether they be men or women then you have an Alpha mindset. In my next article in this series I will be discussing whether any part of the Red Pill Alpha mindset is Biblical.

The Red Pill Beta Male Mindset

The beta male mindset according to Red Pill is the polar opposite of the alpha male mindset.  Unlike the alpha male who needs no approval for his life decisions, beta males crave the approval of others, especially the women around them.

Specifically, when it comes to women, beta males put women on a pedestal and adopt the “Happy Wife/Happy Life” mentality.   Tomassi describes the beta mindset or “beta game” in his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”:

“for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”

Why Do Women Marry Beta Men?

So, if women are primarily aroused by the alpha male mindset then why do we see women so often marrying Beta men? The answer to this is found in Tomassi’s article entitled “Transactional vs Validational Sex”:

“As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed…

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring…

It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.”

What Tomassi is saying is that women have duel and competing concerns when it comes to choosing a man.  The have the Alpha arousal side but they also have the Beta needs side for security, provisioning, protection and comfort.   Optimally women would like to have both sides of this equation met but few women can find a man that meets both the Alpha arousal and Beta provisioning desires that they have.   So long story short, many women compromise on the Beta provisioning side because of the “80/20 Rule” that only 20 percent of men are Alphas and 80 percent of men are Betas.

In “The New Polyandry”, Tomassi writes:

“Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.

However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men.

Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.”

And again in “Transactional vs Validational Sex” he writes about how the vast majority of women married to men whom they consider Beta husbands have sex with their husbands simply as a reward to control their behavior:

“For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know…

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband

one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.”

So why do so many women marry Beta men according to Red Pill? Because there are far fewer Alpha men, polygamy is not accepted by society, and a Beta male that can be a provider,  a protector and a father to their children is better than having no man at all.  And being married to a Beta male that they are not aroused by has one added benefit they would not have being married to an Alpha male. They can control the Beta man using sex as a reward.

In other words, according the Red Pill, the vast majority of women are settling for less than the man they would like to marry.

Hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative

According to Red Pill, a man’s sexual strategy is “quantity over quality” .  This means a man is driven to have sex as often as possible and ideally with as many women as possible, thus men are far less picky about how sex occurs and who it occurs with.

Women on the other hand have an opposite “quality over quantity” sexual strategy.  They are more concerned with the quality of the man in addition to his ability to provide for her, protect her and be a father to her offspring.

Women instinctively and naturally desire the Alpha “seed”, they desire sex with men who not only exhibit, but truly live the Alpha mindset.   And if a man has the Alpha mindset along with the Beta provisioning and security a woman’s desires this makes for a “a good Hypergamous pairing” and Tomassi states “A woman in a good Hypergamous pairing accepts – desires – his authority, but also his genes. She doesn’t just want children, she wants his children”.

It is this dualistic sexual strategy in women’s “mental firmware”, the desire for Alpha seed but also the Beta needs for provisioning and security forms the core of the Feminine Imperative.  Hypergamy is what prompts women to meet their dualistic sexual strategy by an means necessary.

Feminine Hypergamy is the reason you might see a 25-year-old woman marry a wealthy 50-year-old man.  It is also the reason that the same 50-year-old man might come home to find his wife in bed with their pool boy.

Tomassi writes the following about hypergamy in “Relational Equity” :

“That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.”

And in “Christian Dread”  Tomassi writes:

Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy. I understand that in the past religion was used as a control on Hypergamy, especially in respect to men’s burden of performance and the necessity of their provisioning to women.”

Is the Feminine Imperative Biblical?

The Bible teaches us that God made men and women to bring him glory in different ways.   In 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read “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”.  Man was created with the primary purpose of imaging or displaying God’s attributes.  God is a leader, a worker, a husband and a father among many other things.  And in order for man to image God as a husband and father God created woman and by extension marriage.

The Bible states in Ephesians 5:24 “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing and in Ephesians 5:29 we read “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”.  This teaches us that God wanted women to submit to the authority of their husbands and to be provided for and protected by their husbands.

So, we can rightly say that the part of a woman’s “mental firmware” or “hardwiring” that seeks a confident man to lead her, provide for her and protect her is by the very design of God and it is in fact Biblical.

But just as sin corrupted man’s God given masculine nature in many ways so too woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin as well.

Sin corrupts and twists a woman’s God given desire for male leadership, provision and protection and makes her discontent with her husband always wanting more.   This discontentment destroys a woman’s love and devotion to her husband and it is this discontentment that is the root cause of women having affairs and/or divorcing their husbands looking for the next best guy.

In the 7th commandment found in Exodus 20:14 we read “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and in Romans 7:2-3 we read “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth… So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”.   These are direct condemnations of the end result of Feminine Hypergamy.

Contrary to Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” the Bible teaches us that true faith in Christ can absolutely be an insulation against Hypergamy (women being sinfully discontent with their husbands) and the other sins of this world:

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

Philippians 4:13 (KJV)

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

1 John 5:4 (KJV)

The topics of the sanctity of marriage and exhortations to contentment are mentioned side by side in the book of Hebrews:

“4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:4-5 (KJV)

When women are covetous of other’s women’s husband’s or they simply allow themselves to grow discontented with their husbands for various reasons this threatens the sanctity of their marriage covenant.

Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” is also wrong not just from a Biblical perspective, but even from a divorce rate perspective.

Focus on the Family did a closer look at the common claim that divorce rates are as high for those in the church as those outside the church in an article entitled “Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?” .  In that article they state some interesting studies which show committed Christians that regularly attend church have lower divorce rates than the average population:

“Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.Bradley R.E. Wright, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133

Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church have are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” in American Religions and the Family, edited by Don S. Browning and David A. Clairmont (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007) p. 50

Professor Scott Stanley from the University of Denver, working with an absolute all-star team of leading sociologists on the Oklahoma Marriage Study, explains that couples with a vibrant religious faith had more and higher levels of the qualities couples need to avoid divorce.

Whether young or old, male or female, low-income or not, those who said that they were more religious reported higher average levels of commitment to their partners, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thinking and talking about divorce and lower levels of negative interaction. These patterns held true when controlling for such important variables as income, education, and age at first marriage.

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population – not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.

Saying you believe something or merely belonging to a church, unsurprisingly, does little for marriage. But the more you are involved in the actual practice of your faith in real ways – through submitting yourself to a serious body of believers, learning regularly from scripture, being in communion with God though prayer individually and with your spouse and children, and having friends and family around us who challenge us to take our marriage’s seriously – the greater difference this makes in strengthening both the quality and longevity of our marriages. Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so.”

True Faith in Christ, contentment with one’s marriage and keeping one’s family in church on a regular basis are in fact great insulators against Hypergamy.

Does that mean its guaranteed? Of course not.  But it gives a marriage a far better chance of success.

Conclusion

The Feminine Imperative 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.

But Red Pill because it is a naturalistic philosophy sees the hypergamous aspect of the Feminine Imperative, her always looking for the next best guy, as simply a part of evolution’s plan to give women the best quality children with the best provision and protection possible.

But as Bible believing Christians, we know that that the hypergamous part of the feminine nature, always looking for the next best guy and never truly being content with the man she is with, is actually a corruption of the feminine nature by sin.

God condemned feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment and saw it as such a threat to society that he allowed the death penalty for it in the following passage:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, 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)

Even short of the death penalty, women had a strong motivator to keep their hypergamous natures in check and keep would-be Alpha seeders at bay.  If their husband divorced them and sent them away, they would lose their children to him and leave with nothing but the clothes on their back, no split assets, no alimony and no child support.

The sad truth is that because of changes brought on by feminism since the mid-19th century, all of these controls and checks against feminine hypergamy have been removed.  Our society has actually been restructured to support feminine hypergamy.

Womens’ discontentment with men which is at the heart of feminine hypergamy is encouraged by our society.  And our society actually rewards adulterous women with child custody, alimony, child support and split assets in the event of divorce.

A society which has no controls for keeping feminine hypergamy in check will eventually collapse.  Why? Because without controls on feminine hypergamy marriage and the family unit have no security or stability.  And when marriage and the family unit collapse society will follow.

We are already seeing the beginnings of this collapse of Western civilization with the growth of the Manosphere, Red Pill and the MGTOW movement.  Many men in Western nations no longer see marriage as a blessing, but as threat to their lives and their emotional and financial wellbeing.

But what I have said many times on this blog I will say again now.

Guys I get it.  Before the mid-19th century men had about a 97% chance that their marriage would be secure and truly be “until death do us part”.  And even in the event of divorce, men did not loose their children or become financially destitute as a result like they do today.

If you are a non-Christian or fair-weather Christian who is not committed to your faith or one that does not regularly attend church you have roughly a 50 percent chance of divorce.  If you are committed to your Christian faith, regularly attend church and find a woman of like mindset and background you can reduce that chance to less than 40 percent.  But even in the best-case scenario, you still have about a 40 percent chance of being emotionally and financially devastated in the event of a divorce.

But let’s flip that around.   That means you have a 50 to 60 percent of chance of staying married to the same woman, raising your children with her and spending your sunset years together.

Let me put that chance of success in perspective.  Do you realize that only 30 percent of small businesses make it past 10 years before failing? That means you have twice the chance of your marriage succeeding as you would a small business if you started one.

Men your created purpose was not just to survive and avoid any potential harm to your emotional, physical and financial wellbeing.  God created you as men to image him and thereby bring him glory.  And you cannot fulfill that purpose without being a husband and father.  God’s rule for both men and women as found in Genesis 1:28 is to “Be fruitful, and multiply” which means men and women are to seek marriage, and after being married have sex and have children.  God’s exception to this rule is celibacy for undivided service to him for those few whom he gives this special gift to.  God says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that “it is better to marry than to burn”.

Risk is part of life gentlemen.  And God created us as men to be risk takers, it is part of our built-in masculine nature.  But just as when a man starts a small business, he must do careful planning and vetting, so too a man should do careful planning and then vetting of any woman he looks at as a potential future wife.

And a final word to the Christian women reading this. While both men and women can struggle with the sin of discontentment this sin seems to affect women far more often than it does men in marriage.  It is not hard for most men to be content in their marriages to their wives despite things they wish were better.  But for women it is the exact opposite.  The vast majority of women struggle with the sin of discontentment with their husbands.   And this is why once the societal controls on hypergamy were removed we saw divorce sky rocket with women now filing for 70 percent of divorces.

Christian women – keep your feminine hypergamy in check by daily asking the Lord to give you a spirit of contentment with your husband.

“Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)

Sexism Is a Virtue Because the Bible is a Sexist Book

“So the Bible is a sexist book, and that fact alone should make Christians want to acknowledge that sexism has to be a virtue. And because the Bible has been assiduously ignored when it comes to these matters for lo, these many years, this should make us realize that it is also a lost virtue. Therefore it must be renewed, or restored, or recovered, or perhaps even reupholstered. But how?”

The statement above was made by Douglas Wilson on his “Blog and Mablog” site in an article he entitled “Restoring Sexism: The Lost Virtue”.

That is a bold assertion to state that “the Bible is a sexist book”.  So it is in fact true that the Bible is a sexist book?

Well first we need to define what sexism is.  According to Webster’s Online dictionary the definition of sexism is as follows:

“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So, the questions are does the Bible treat people different based on their sex and does it foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex?

The answer is a resounding YES.

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible states “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Titus 2:5 the Bible commands women to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands”. It also states that women are not “…to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 it states “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home…” .

If those are not sexist statements right of out of the Bible, I don’t know what is. But we as Christians need to stop allowing humanists to frighten us into hiding with their labels.

And this is where Doug Wilson is taking a stand and I agree with him on this.  I have previously written an article on this same subject about two years ago entitled “Why Christians Should Be Proud Sexists”.  Some of my readers took offense at my attempt to redeem the term “sexist” as a badge of honor rather than a term of derision.   Others took offense at my use of the word “proud” quoting passages like James 4:6 where the Bible states “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”.

I explained however, that my statement about us as Christians being proud was not a pride in ourselves, but rather a pride in God and in his Word.  It is pride that means to be “unashamed” as the Apostle Peter stated “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf”.

So, should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that our Bible and our God who gave us our Bible treats people differently based on sex and fosters “stereotypes of social roles based on sex”? The answer for any Bible believing Christian should be “No I am not ashamed of God or his Word or his design of men and women”.

Let me give some other great statements by Doug Wilson in this article on this subject of sexism:

Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all. They are rather little wisps of aspirational fog floating off the sewage lagoon of late-stage secularism, and so we have no reason to feel bad about committing any such “sins.” If they are not gods at all, then sins against their commandments are not sins at all.

The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture, and this means that Christians should stop their furtive glancing from side to side, and simply acknowledge that it is high time for us to recover the lost virtue of sexism.

But what would such a recovery look like? How might we recover our sexist heritage? How shall we know when we have recovered it? The heart and soul of a restored sexism is to recognize that God created men and women with different natures, and has commanded us to recognize those natures as different, and to treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women respectively.”

Amen and Amen Mr. Wilson.   Mr. Wilson is absolutely right that “Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all“.  And we as Christian need to stop reverencing these false gods that our culture worships.  I have said many times that Western Civilization does indeed have a religion and that religion is Humanism.  And Humanism like some pagan religions of old is polytheistic in that it has many gods.  Some of those false gods are equality, education and the environment.  If you are not willing to bow down to these gods, and if you speak anything against egalitarianism, higher education or environmentalism you are speaking blasphemy in many parts of the Western world today.

The sad part is that many Christians today believe they can worship the false gods of equality, education and environment and place their faith in humanity while at the same time claiming they worship and place their faith in the God of the Bible.

But our God is a jealous God and he will not tolerate the worship of other gods.  In Exodus 34: 14 God says For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

In the end we all have a choice.  It is the choice that Joshua gave to Israel and it is the same choice we must give to America and the Western world today.

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

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.

Is Red Pill a Theory or a Religion?

Rollo Tomassi has been an ardent defender of Red Pill as a theory, not an ideology, political movement or religion.   In his article “The Political is Personal”, Tomassi wrote the following:

“This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests…

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”

In “The Believers” vs. The Empiricists”, Tomassi writes:

“Red Pill people… believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.

They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.”

So, as we can see from the quotes above, Rollo reflects the feeling of many Red Pill people that Red Pill is and must remain theory (or a collection of theories) about intersexual dynamics.  And it must stay out of political, racial and other arenas and strictly stick to intersexual dynamics.

We Can’t Avoid the Necessity of Religious and Political Reforms

I totally agree with Tomassi that that both men and women across political and religious spectrums will close ranks and join together when Red Pill theories are presented.

The feminine imperative was kept bound and in check by patriarchal societies which existed throughout the world for six millennia.  It was only during the mid-19th century that Secular Humanism based on the combination of individualism, naturalism and blank slate released the feminine imperative from the control of patriarchy.

And once it did that, the feminine imperative brought us the feminine reality.

But again, what was it that released the feminine imperative to do all the damage it has done to Western civilization? It was Humanism.

In “Unmarriageable”, Tomassi gives the following lamentation:

“The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.

It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.”

If Tomassi and other Red Pill folks want to keep Red Pill non-political and non-religious then more power to them.  But I would argue based on Tomassi’s own comments they can’t really solve the underlying problem and all Red Pill is then is a band aid to help men have sex in a feminine primary world with no answers for getting out of it.

But as Bible believing Christians, we must delve into the political and religious side of this.  Humanism unleashed the feminine imperative upon Western civilization and the only way to put the feminine imperative back under control is to return to patriarchal and religious societies once again. A return to Christian patriarchy would solve the problem of the feminine imperative.

Now I know right now that seems like a fantasy.  And Red Pill folks, Humanists and many Christians reading this are all laughing.  But let me tell you about a man who laughed about gender equality almost 250 years ago.

In 1776, John Adams wrote the follow response to his wife Abigail who asked him to push the founders for women’s equality with men in the new America nation and this was his famous response:

“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh…Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems… and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight”.

The “despotism of the petticoat” meant the “despotism of women”.  John Adams predicted that if the Patriarchal order which had served human civilization for six millennia was given up, that it would be replaced by a new Matriarchal order. In other words, John Adams predicted what Red Pill calls “the feminine reality”.

It took almost 200 years for what John Adams laughed at the possibility of to be fully realized.

So, is it so outlandish to believe that Patriarchy, and specifically Christian Patriarchy could return over the next two centuries? I think not.

The feminine imperative was released because of religious (humanism) changes that lead to political changes in this nation.  And the only way the feminine imperative will finally be placed back under control is through the same means – through bringing the teachings of the Bible regarding gender back to our families and churches which will then lead to changes in our societies and governments.

It must begin as a grass roots movement.  It must start with men teaching men. Then men teaching their women.  We need to be reaching our teens when they are young and more easily able to change.  And then when larger groups of families in churches band together, they can demand changes in their church leadership and a return to teaching the whole Bible, including the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.

Red Pill People Are Not Completely Moral Relativists

Tomassi says Red Pill is completely about scientific theory concerning the behavior of the sexes.  That is just about “the facts”. That its not about what is “good” or “bad” or “evil”.  But the quote below, from Tomassi’s article “The Desire Dynamic” , shows that Red Pill does actually take moral positions:

“You cannot negotiate Desire…

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other…

Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.”

Throughout his writings Tomassi denigrates what he calls “transactional”, or “obligated” or “duty” sex in favor of men only receiving “validational” (genuinely desired) sex from women.

This is taking a moral position.

This violates the male imperative for men to sow their seed as often as they can.

The male imperative is not to have perfect sex with the perfect woman, it is to have sex as many times as possible.

This is actually a glaring contradiction in Red Pill which perfectly aligns with feminist ideology that no woman should ever have to have sex with a man if she does not genuinely desire it.

Conclusion

Red Pill in a sense is only a band aid for the problem of the feminine reality and it has no answers for overturning the feminine reality.  The solution to these problems isn’t learning how to game women into having sex, it is about a return to the Biblically based world view that this nation and Western civilization once had.  It is about a return to Christian Patriarchy.

Only a society based in Christian Patriarchy can take on the feminine imperative and bring under control as it once was.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Is Red Pill A Religion?” I would have to say the answer is yes.  Any system which offers answers to moral questions, even if it is a naturalistic system like Humanism, is a religion.  And Red Pill does in fact take moral positions.

Red Pill is hybrid of scientific research and moral beliefs.   So, if we separate the moral beliefs from the scientific research and simply look at the research into human nature this can give us valuable insights.

I look at Red Pill the same as I would a biology or psychology class in college.  I know there will be humanist or naturalist teachings in these classes that I will need to weed out.  But I can still glean truths about human physiology and psychology in these classes.  The Bible tells us that God reveals himself and his truths not only through the Bible, but also secondarily through nature:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”

Romans 1:18-20 (KJV)

Is it possible that Tomassi and other Red Pill people have discovered some truths about God’s design in human nature? Absolutely it is possible.

But as Christians we must always remember that our only infallible source for truth is the Word of God.

America’s Misapplication of the Golden Rule

Jesus Christ said in Luke 6:31 “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”.  This statement is often referred to as the “Golden Rule”.  The most common interpretation of this passage that is taught today is “Treat others as you would want to be treated if you were in their situation”. And that is actually a pretty accurate interpretation of what Christ was saying.

Over two and a half centuries since it’s founding, many Americans have used the “Golden Rule” to push their culture and government for new social acceptances and legal protections regarding marriage, gender roles and sexual behavior in America.  Below is a list of some these major changes.

20 Ways America Has Applied the “Golden Rule” to Gender Roles and Sex Over Two Centuries

  1. As men, we should want women to have the right to own property, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
  2. As men, we should want women to be able to divorce their husbands in the same way and for the same reasons that men divorce their wives because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
  3. As men, we should want women to have the same custody rights to their children in divorce as men do, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
  4. As men, we should want women to have the right to alimony and child support as they divorce their husbands, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
  5. As fathers, we should never try to control or pressure our daughters in regard to their love lives, what men they see or what men they seek to marry because if we were in their shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  6. As men, we should want women to vote, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
  7. As men, we should not want women excluded from any careers, because if we were in their shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  8. As Christian men, we should want Christian women to be able to hold any position in the church that a man can hold including that of being a Pastor, because if we were in their shoes this is what we would want.
  9. As men, we should not want women forbidden from having abortions, because if we were in their shoes, we would want the right to have an abortion.
  10. As husbands, we should not try to control our wife’s behavior by telling her whether she can work outside the home or not because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  11. As husbands, we should not try to control what friends our wife has or talks to because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  12. As husbands we should not try to control our wife’s behavior by telling her how much money she can spend on various items because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  13. As husbands, we should not try to control what church our wife attends because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  14. As husbands, we should not try to pressure our wife in any way to have sex if she is not in the mood or she tells us “no” because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
  15. As men, we should not look at women as objects of potential visual and physical sexual pleasure because if we were women we would not want to be looked at in this way.
  16. As men, we should not seek out women as wives so we can take sexual pleasure in their bodies, so they can bear our children, care for our children and keep our homes while we go and make our mark on the world in our careers. Because after all, if we were women we would not want to be pursued by men for these reasons. But rather as men, we should want women to have the same career opportunities we do and we should want wives strictly for human companionship and as equal partners that we can share our lives with and not as “sex objects”, “breeding machines”, “nannies”, “cooks” and “maids”.
  17. As husbands, we should not enjoy the sight of or think of any other woman other than our wives in a sexual manner because if we were women, we would not want our husbands enjoying the sight or thought of any other woman but us.
  18. As heterosexual people, we should want homosexual people to be made to feel comfortable actively their lives as homosexuals and we should want them to have the right to marry just as we heterosexuals do. Because after all, if we were homosexuals that is how we would want to be treated.
  19. As cisgender people, we should want transgender people to be made to feel comfortable being transgender and not as if they have a mental disorder. Because after all, if we were transgender, that is how we would want to be treated.
  20. As cisgender heterosexual Christians, we would should want homosexual and transgender persons to be able to join our churches as members and even lead our congregations as clergy.

 

I have made an effort in the list above to try and put the changes in chronological order.  In the beginning of the list you will note women’s rights changes in regard to property and divorce rights which occurred from the mid-19th century up to the beginning of the 20th century. These rights were fought for by women and granted to them before their crowning achievement of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920.  Also note that just before talking about women voting I talk about women not wanting to be under their father’s authority for marriage.  This started in the late 19th century with the advent of the new practice of “dating” which encouraged women to reject their father’s authority over them in seeking a husband.

Then of course as the list progresses, we see the new changes that Second Wave Feminism brought us in regard to telling men what they should want women and marriage for. And finally, we see the changes that have occurred over the last decade regarding the treatment of LGBTQ persons.

As we look at the list above there is a key word, we must take notice of.  And that key word is “want”.

Anyone seeking to apply Christ’s statement in Luke 6:31, otherwise known as the “Golden Rule”, must take into account what God says we should want.  Failure to do this will cause the gross misapplication we have seen of the “Golden Rule” in America over the past two centuries.

In the Gospel of Matthew we read an extended version of the “Golden Rule”:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:12 (KJV)

What was Christ saying here? He was saying that the entire foundation of the “Golden Rule” is the Word of God, the Bible.  And what is the foundation of all moral truth in the Bible?  The answer is given to us by Christ later in the Gospel of Matthew:

“36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

So, the greatest command is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, our soul and our mind.  And the second one, to love our neighbor as our self, is built upon the first.  Christ was quoting two commands from the Law of Moses.

The first is found in the book of Deuteronomy:

“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

Deuteronomy 6:5 (KJV)

The second is found in the book of Leviticus:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”

Leviticus 19:18 (KJV)

Now here comes the million-dollar question. How do we as Bible believing Christians know if we are loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves by God’s definition?  The answer is given to us near the end of the New Testament in the following Scripture passage:

“2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:2 (KJV)

The definition of loving God, loving our neighbors and following Christ’s “Golden Rule” is all premised upon one simple truth.

That we are keeping God’s commands in all we do.  That we love what he loves.  That we hate what he hates.  That we want for ourselves what he wants for us.

This Scriptural truth I have just mentioned runs directly contrary to the vast majority of American teaching both outside and sadly even inside most Christian churches today.  We no longer want to adjust our wants and desires to what God wants us to want.  But instead we are trying to transpose on to God our wants and desires.  Today we actually have churches teaching that God is a feminist and that he is pro-LGBTQ.

The Scriptures actually warn of this time coming and at the same time they command for those of us who are faithful to God’s Word to call out this wickedness:

“2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”

2 Timothy 4:2-5 (KJV)

We Must Change Our Wants to What God Wants for Us

David wrote by the inspiration of God what should be the desire of every man and woman who seeks to please God with their lives and show their love for him:

“Teach me thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.”

Psalm 86:11 (KJV)

“With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.”

Psalm 119:10 (KJV)

So now we must tackle the question of what God wants for men and women which should determine what men and women want for themselves.

Should Women Want Equal Rights with Men?

While Genesis 9:6 tells us that men and women are both made in the image of God, we find in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that only man “is the image and glory of God:  but the woman is the glory of the man”.  And later in that same passage in I Corinthians 11:9 we read “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.

In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he gives us God purpose and design in marriage:

“23 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

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.

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 5:23-29 (KJV)

In 1 Corinthians 14:35 the Apostle Paul further elaborated on the husband’s duty to be his wife’s spiritual authority and teacher:

“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)

And the Apostle Peter gave the following exhortation to women:

“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)

God created marriage as picture of the relationship between himself and his people.  God is pictured as husband to Israel in the Old Testament and Christ is pictured as a husband to his Church in the New Testament.  Men as husbands picture God in leading, teaching, correcting, rebuking, providing for and protecting their wives as Christ does his church.  Women as wives picture the people of God in their submission to, service to and dependence upon their husbands for their spiritual leading and teaching as well as their physical provision and protection.

Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that women should have no want or desire for equality with men and that they instead should want to be under the authority of men in all areas of their lives whether it is civil government, the church or in their marriage.

Should Daughters Want to Be Free of Their Father’s Authority Before They Are Married?

The Scriptures give us the following commands regarding a father’s authority over his daughter:

“2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.”

Numbers 30:2-5 (KJV)

“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)

There is a reason that we have fathers walk their daughters down the aisle and then we have the traditional statement at weddings “who gives this woman to be wed” and before modern times it was not “her mother and I” but rather it was her father alone saying “I do”.

This tradition is actually firmly rooted in the Word of God as is shown in the passages above.  In God’s design fathers give or refuse their daughters for marriage and men take women in marriage with the permission of the woman’s father.

Now there are of course exceptions to this rule when women are widows like in the story of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 3:8-9).  Also, the Bible makes an exception for this rule of having the father’s permission when men take wives as the spoils of war as seen in Deuteronomy 21:11-14.

Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that a daughter should want to be under her father’s authority before marriage and she should want his direction and blessing for marriage.

Should people want to be LGBTQ or live the LGBTQ lifestyle?

The Scriptures have the following things to say in regard to LGBTQ persons:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that no person should want to be made comfortable being any part of LGBTQ.  But rather such persons should be ashamed of such desires.

Should Men Want Women for Sex, Having Children and Caring for their Homes?

The Scriptures give the following exhortations to young women:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

“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)

And the Scriptures gives the following exhortation to men:

“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 5:18-19 (KJV)

Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that men should indeed desire to marry young women for sexual pleasure, for them to bear children and for them to guide and keep their homes.

Conclusion

I have shown here conclusive proof from the Bible that in order to properly apply the “Golden Rule” Christ gave that we must take into account what God wants us to want and what he wants others to want.

For instance, often times as parents we will find that our children do not want to do the things they should want to do.  They should want to do their homework and get good grades.  But sometimes they simply do not want to do their homework.

Now if we were to put ourselves in their shoes at their age, we may have felt the same way.   But does that mean we should let them not do their homework? Of course not.  Their want is WRONG. It is not what God wants them to want.

In the same way men are not breaking Christ’s “Golden Rule” by wanting women as wives for sexual pleasure, for them to bear children and for them to guide and keep their homes.  And men are not wrong for wanting to lead, teach and mold their wives as they see fit according to the Word of God.

A man is no more wrong for wanting to control and guide his wife’s actions than a parent is for wanting to control and guide their child’s actions.

Some may say “but women are not children” and that is a very true and Biblical statement.  But it is equally true and Biblical to state that women are not men either.  In other words, children are not equal with women, but also women are not equal with men.

It is modern society that has invented two new social classes, Adults and Minors.  But God’s design has three social classes, Men, Women and Children.

And finally, on the topic of LGBTQ persons and how the “Golden Rule” applies to them.   Clearly no LGBTQ person should be “proud” of their sinful desires, but rather they should be ashamed of them and seek help to overcome such wicked desires.

Christians are not breaking Christ’s “Golden Rule” in refusing to make LGBTQ persons comfortable in their wicked desires nor in refusing to allow them to become members of or clergy in churches.

Secular Liberals are absolutely right about one thing that many Christians refuse to accept.  There is absolutely an “intersectionality” between women’s rights and LGBTQ  rights.   LGBTQ rights are a direct result of the Women’s Right’s Movements of the mid 19th Century. This is a reality that Bible believing Christians must face and address in their churches.

So what is the “Golden Rule” when understood in the entire context of the Bible?

We should do unto others as God would desire us to want done to ourselves if we were in their position.