Do you still hold the “I am not comfortable with that” card?

Christ wife do you still hold the “I am not comfortable with that” card in your Christian marriage? If you do you need to get rid of it.  Let me explain what I mean.

You might consider yourself to be a wife who believes in submission to your husband.  You may even be able to show proof of your belief by showing times where you and your husband have disagreed on financial decisions or decisions regarding his career where you have simply followed him.

But then you hold on to the “I am not comfortable with that” card especially when it comes to you being asked to do things by him you are not comfortable with.  And we are not talking about things that are clearly outlined as sinful in the Bible like him asking you to commit adultery with another man or to murder someone or steal from someone.  We are talking about things he is asking you to do that are outside your comfort zone.

For instance, what if he decided it was ok for your young teens to watch a TV show or movie you did not think they should watch? What if he allowed them to play a game you think they should not play? And he wanted you to allow them to do these things even when he is away.

On a more personal level, what if he asked you to wear certain clothing in the bed room? What if he asked you to wear certain clothing in public (think going on a date or going to the beach)?  What if he asked you to change your makeup?  What if he asked you to do something uncomfortable in bed?

Do you pull out the “I am not comfortable with that” card as an exception to God’s command to submit to your husband “in everything”? Or have you convinced yourself that you not feeling comfortable with something equals that thing being sinful?  If you have done this you need to remember that God has made your husband your spiritual authority and instructor in his Word.  The Scriptures say to wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 that “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home”.

Christian wives, Ephesians 5:24’s command for you to submit to your husband “in every thing” means throwing out your “I am not comfortable with that” card.

Is the Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical?

In this concluding post to our series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of Game and summarize what we have learned about Red Pill in comparing it to the Bible.

In the context of an LTR or Marriage what does Red Pill Game look like? For this I will refer to one of  Rollo Tomassi’s articles entitled “Dread Games” where he gives the following practical examples of game:

“Dread, for lack of a better term, is a female condition.

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities. Most women believe that their pussies are sufficient to hold their men in thrall for a lifetime, but as a woman’s SMV declines and a Man’s appreciates their confidence in this form of leverage falls off, thus forcing them to adopt new schemas for controlling the fear of loss. When you head off to Las Vegas for that trade show and your wife fucks the ever-lovin’ shit out of you the night before you go, you’re experiencing one of those new schemas. It doesn’t take much, most times the lightest touch will do. Good dread game doesn’t even have to be initiated by you. Often enough, women will do it themselves.”

A man demonstrating his higher value, specifically his higher sexual market value (SMV) is central to the Red Pill concept of game.  In the initial attraction phase, it is all about a man showing he has higher SMV than the other guys around him thus attracting the woman to himself.  But then in an LTR or marriage situation, game switches into “dread” mode in order to stoke anxiety in the woman regarding the possible loss of her man.

This is one of those areas where I just have to flat out say that Red Pill contradicts itself.   Tomassi says regarding game that “The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value”.     But what is a man flirting with other women, changing his routine, hanging out more with friends and thus less with his wife in order to foster “competition anxiety” doing?  The answer is it is in fact instilling terror in her in the form of anxiety over possibly losing her man.

And just for those unfamiliar with this concept, SMV, or sexual market value, is the Red Pill concept that when women are in their late teens to mid-20’s (18-25) they really hold all the cards when it comes to relationships with men in the same age group.  However, as men progress past the mid-20s their SMV goes up and for women their SMV goes down.  This is why you will more often see older men with younger women and it is much rarer to see older women with younger men.

Red Pill Game Was Born Out of a Reaction to Blue Pill Game

Red Pill game was a reaction to Blue Pill game or what it sometimes refers to as “Beta Game”.  In his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”, Tomassi  explains what Beta Game is:

“Just to illustrate, 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.”

So basically, for several decades’ men have been taught if they are more sensitive (more feminine), put a woman’s ambitions ahead of their own, never correct her or judge her and basically live to make her happy this will evoke the emotional response of her desiring to have sex with them.  Red Pill is correct that this entire paradigm is absolutely flawed.  In most cases this kind of behavior will cause a woman to see a man as more of a friend, than a potential lover.

The vast majority of men today employ Beta Game which leaves women with little choice but to marry one of these men because of their need for emotional security and a man to provide for them and their future children.  They then manipulate the Beta Game for their own purpose to control the relationship with their men, using sex as a reward mechanism to reinforce their control.

So along comes Red Pill game as an alternative to Blue Pill game.  It shows the flaws in Blue Pill game by demonstrating women are not attracted to men that act in more feminine ways, but rather they are attracted to men with the Alpha mindset and Alpha physical qualities.

Why Red Pill Game Is an Unbiblical Concept

Is it wrong for a man to “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”? No.  These things can all be good and healthy for a man to do.  But then we must ask is it wrong for a married man to flirt with women other than his wife?

Unless he is in the courtship process pursing a second wife following the practice of Biblical polygamy then yes, it is absolutely wrong.   Flirtation outside the context and protection of courtship makes “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” which Romans 13:14 warns against.

I have read in Red Pill forums and comment areas of men who purposefully push their wife’s emotional buttons to start a fight with her so they can have great make up sex afterwards.  Whether it be flirting with other women in front of their wife or purposefully starting a fight these methods are what the Bible would classify as “craftiness”.  And the Bible says Christians are to have no part in such things:

“But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

2 Corinthians 4:2 (KJV)

But the biggest problem with Red Pill game from a Biblical perspective is that it is simply the flip side of a corrupt coin. And that coin is game itself. 

What is game? It is simply the attempt of a man to evoke a desired emotional response from a woman, and that response is for her to want to have sex with him.

The focus of a Christian’s man’s life should not be on evoking emotional responses from women in his life so he can get more sex.  But rather his life focus is to be on his mission, his call to image God with his life as 1 Corinthians 11:7 states “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”.

A man images God in his life’s work outside the home in addition to being the kind of husband and father that God is within his home.  Taking a wife is certainly a big part of a man’s mission. A man’s love for his wife should be pictured in the same way God shows his love his people through his leadership, provision and protection.

And in taking a wife, a man’s primary goal with his wife should not be to evoke the desired emotional responses from her, but rather to sanctify her as the Scriptures below state:

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

Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV)

In the passage above husbands are called to love their wives “as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:10 Christ tells us how he loves his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

God has chosen husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives.  A man is called to sanctify his wife by rebuking his wife and chastening his wife as Christ does his churches.

This entire concept of a man sanctifying his wife by rebuking and chastening her is utterly rejected in the secular philosophy of Red Pill as well as the Beta teachings in both our secular world and sadly in most churches today.

So How Should Christian Husbands Deal with Sexual Denial from Their Wives?

So, if game is off the table for Christian husbands, how do Christian husbands deal with things like sexual denial from their wives?  The answer is that a Christian man should throw out the corrupt coin of game (both blue pill and red pill) and replace that with the coin of sanctification.

When you as a Christian husband realize that your sexual problems with your wife are part of a much larger issue of her sanctification things become much clearer.

The sanctification of your wife requires you to wash her in the Word just as Christ washes his Church.  That washing requires you to clearly instruct her in what God expects from her as a wife.  That instruction then goes further into your specific expectations of your wife as her husband.  Don’t worry about the fact that your expectations of your wife will be different than other men.  That is ok.  As long as you are applying the principles of God’s Word then it is right.

Most women today do not submit to their husband in any area of their marriage or family.   Some women will submit to their husband in specific areas like where they go to church, finances and rules and discipline for the children and often these women will pat themselves on the back for this kind of submission.  But it is the rare woman today who is completely submitted to her husband in the sexual arena.  The overwhelming majority of Christian women, even those who think they are submissive wives, still retain ownership and control over their bodies and their sex lives with their husbands.

And this is why you as a Christian husband cannot leave the area of sexual submission alone and simply be satisfied with these other areas of submission if they are already present.  The sanctification of a wife must start in the sexual arena because this will form the foundation for submission in all other areas of the marriage.  In most cases, a woman who submits to her “in every thing” (Ephesians 5:24) regarding her body will more easily submit to her husband “in everything” in other areas of her marriage as well.

Conclusion

Rollo Tomassi, in his article “Christian Dread” stated “I know a common refrain of more traditionalist Christians is that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill…” which led to the question that we asked at the beginning of this series.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

And the answer we have proven in this 7-part series on Red Pill is yes!

There are indeed some Red Pill teachings regarding the nature of men and women that are also found in Bible. But there are also some Red Pill teachings that conflict with the teachings of the Bible.  And even when Red Pill correctly identifies HOW the masculine and feminine human natures are different, it can never truly answer the reason of WHY they are different.  Only the Bible can do that.

Red Pill is right that Male authority over woman is indeed the birthright of every man (Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:23-24, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

Red Pill is right that sex is a greater need for men than for women. The Bible compares a man’s need for sex to that of his need for water (Proverbs 5:15). But Red Pill is wrong in seeing man’s life imperative as simply to sow his seed with as many women as possible.  A man’s strong sexual nature is only a part of his larger God given nature.  His imperative is so much more than to have sex, it is to image God with his life (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Red Pill is right that men naturally have a polygynous nature and the Bible reveals this nature is blessed and allowed by God (Genesis 30:18, Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 25:5-7, II Samuel 12:8).   But God meant for man’s polygynous nature only to be exercised within the covenant and protection of marriage and not in the way that Red Pill Pick Up Artists exercise it as whoremongers.

Red Pill is right that women do indeed have a hypergamous nature always seeking the next best man to be with.  But Red Pill is wrong in seeing this as an amoral trait in women and simply a product of evolution for women to get the strongest and best seed from men.  God directly condemns feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment when he said in Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Feminine hypergamy was seen as so dangerous to society that God prescribed the death penalty for it in Deuteronomy 22:22.

Red Pill is right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is wrong in saying that a man should make himself and his desires the focal point of his life. The Bible tells men that Christ and the life mission God has given them to image him should be the focal point of their life and not a woman (Genesis 3:17, Ecclesiastes 7:26, 1 Corinthians 11:7, 2 Corinthians 10:5).

Red Pill is right that men need to establish frame, or their worldview, in a relationship with a woman from the very beginning.  And they need to hold that frame.  In any courtship it is crucial that a man establish his frame with a potential wife and if he cannot establish that frame with her during their courtship, he most certainly should not marry her.

However Red Pill’s objection to overt methods of men holding frame opting only for covert and subtle influence does not match the Biblical call of men to rebuke and discipline their wives as Christ does his Church (Revelation 3:19).  A man should set the frame not through subtle or crafty means, but rather through direct and plain instruction to his wife based upon the Word of God and when she seeks to control the frame he rebukes and disciplines her until she returns to his frame.

The Red Pill concept of Game has no place in Biblical Christianity.   As we said earlier, it is not wrong for a man to do things like “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”.   But it is wrong to state that he must earn sex with his wife by doing these things to increase his SMV status with her.

The  only “status” that matters in God’s perspective is that he is her husband and she has a duty to lovingly have sex with him whenever he so desires it.

Game is wrong because it is completely based on an appeal to a woman’s emotions in order to get her to have sex.  In this way game, whether it is Red Pill or Blue Pill, makes a woman’s feelings the central focus of sex between a man and woman.  The Biblical view of sex is that it is not based on feelings, but rather on duty (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  Sex is referred to as something that is rendered, that is due and a right in marriage.

The Red Pill concept that husbands should only seek sex when their wives genuinely desire it goes against the Scriptural command for husbands to drink from the well that is their wife’s body whenever they are thirsty and to satisfy themselves at all times with it (Proverbs 5:15-19).

And finally, I want to leave with a note about the Christian version of Red Pill. I was aware of the existence of the Christian variation of Red Pill before I started this series.  And I will admit I learned some new things about them while writing this series like the fact that some of them teach the need for husbands to take overt action by rebuking and correcting their wives.

But even among Christian Red Pill folks there is still much acceptance of game and appeal to a woman’s emotions and natural desire as the basis of sex in marriage.  A woman having sex with her husband when she does not genuinely desire it and just because it is her duty is still seen as wrong by some Christian Red Pill folks who still hold to this part of the secular Red Pill philosophy.

But the truth is that Red Pill started off as a secular philosophy and MGTOW and Christian Red Pill were later off-shoots of the original secular Red Pill.  This is why I have based this series on the secular version of Red Pill.

The Christian version of Red Pill may be much closer to the Bible and I don’t deny that there may be some additional truths in it.  But I simply maintain like other “traditionalist Christians” where Red Pill is right “that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  And I prefer to use the Bible as a basis and framework from which I discuss intersexual dynamics rather than Red Pill.  I see knowledge of Red Pill being good in the sense of being able to help non-Christians by showing them Red Pill truths that are found in the Bible.  But we as Christians must also be cognizant of many unbiblical teachings in Red Pill as we have shown in this series.

Is the Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And near the end of the post he states:

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

Where Red Pill is Right in its Teachings About Frame

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

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

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

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

Jeremiah 18:6 (KJV)

Where Red Pill is Wrong in its Teachings About Frame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

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

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

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

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

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

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

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

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

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

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

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

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

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

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

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

A Politically Incorrect Yet Biblical View of Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“thou shalt not sin against equality”

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 43:6-7 (KJV)

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Titus 2:9 (KJV)

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

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

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.

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

Is Red Pill Biblical?

In 2015, a popular Red Pill Blogger named Rollo Tomassi agreed with some traditionalist Christians that “Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  “Red Pill” refers to a  collection of theories of how human intersexual dynamics work.   The Red Pill theory has been spreading across the internet for almost two decades.  The phrase “The Red Pill”, as it is used in the Manosphere, is based upon the 1999 sci-fi movie “The Matrix” starring Keanu Reeves. In this film’s dystopian future, all of humanity has been enslaved by machines in a simulated reality known as “The Matrix” by an artificial intelligence that mankind had created long ago.

In the movie a character named Morpheus offers Neo, the movie’s main protagonist, a choice between a blue pill and a red pill in the famous quote below:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

This Red Pill/Blue Pill paradigm was adopted by the manosphere over the past two decades to compare and contrast two different collections of theories of how human civilization should be conducted.

Even though I will be quoting from Tomassi’s blog during this series to compare and contrast Red Pill with the Bible, I want to make clear from Tomassi’s own words that he is not the inventor of Red Pill theory.

In his article entitled “The Purple Pill” , Tomassi, wrote this about the origins of the Red Pill:

“While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.”

Rollo Tomassi began studying psychology and behaviorism in 2001.  His emphasis was on behaviorism and specifically behaviorism as it relates to how the human genders think and act.

He began by taking his gender centered behaviorism theories to an online forum called https://www.sosuave.com/ where he debated and discussed them with others to refine his theories.

10 years after starting his journey, in 2011, he started TheRationalMale.com blog.  His blog was an instant success becoming one of the most popular blogs in the Manosphere.  In 2013, he published his book “The Rational Male” which was essentially an edited version of his first year’s blog posts along with many questions he had from commenters and his answers to them.

This then leads us to the most important question Christians must answer about Red Pill.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

The answer to this question can be found in the following two statements by Tomassi.

In his article “Male Authority Provisioning vs Duty” :

“I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And then there is this second quote from Tomassi from his article “Male Authority Be a Man” :

“There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority…

The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it. Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

The sentiment that Tomassi has just stated, that a man’s authority over his wife and his children is his “birthright” and that a wife should trust her husband with the course he has plotted for them and with her very life is 100% Biblical.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that male authority over woman is indeed the birth right of every man.  In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” and in 1 Timothy 2:12 the Bible states that women are forbidden to “to usurp authority over the man”.   In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”.

I also want to return to Tomassi’s first comment about women in our modern era having no trust or confidence in their husbands. The Bible speaks to this trust women are called to:

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: 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)

The Bible calls on women to obey and be in subjection to their husbands because they trust God and his design of male headship over women.   In other words, women should trust their husbands ‘course’, to use Tomassi’s language, because they trust that God has given their husbands the ‘course’ he wishes them to follow.

So, the answer to the question of “Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?” is a resounding YES!

But just because the Bible would be Red Pill in some areas does not mean it is Red Pill in all areas.

And this is what I will be exploring in this new series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”  There are a lot of different aspects of Red Pill to cover and I want to break them down into bite sized pieces so that Christians can fully understand the Red Pill Theory and where Red Pill is in agreement with a Biblical world view and where Red Pill is in conflict with a Biblical world view.

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is Red Pill A Theory Or A Religion?

President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism

Today in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump used a very interesting word in his speech regarding globalism.  And that word was “religious”.  He stated that “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders causing them to ignore their own nationalist interests. But as far as America is concerned those days are over”.

President Trump probably does not understand where that “religious pull” from Globalism originates from. But as Christians we must under that the “religious pull” of globalism is a pull toward humanism, and specifically secular humanism.

Secular Humanism – the Religion that Claims Not to be a Religion

Secular humanists deny that Humanism is a religion, yet Humanism has all the core tenants of a religion.  It worships something and it has a system of values just like a religion does.

Humanists claim that because they do not worship a deity or believe in the supernatural, that humanism it is not a religion.   But you can worship something that is not supernatural or a deity.  And that is exactly what Humanism does.

The Bible speaks of Humanism in Romans 1:18-27 (KJV):

“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Does this not describe what we are seeing today in our world?

We need to recognize that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.   They all have the same end goals even though they may slightly disagree among themselves as to how to get to those goals.

Humanism is a religion that denies the existence of God, even though God’s existence is plainly seen in nature.  It is a religion that worships education making people think they are wise when they truly are fools.  It is a religion that glorifies nature rather than glorifying God.  It worships “created things rather than the Creator”.  And it leads to rampant sexual immorality including homosexuality and transgenderism.

Some Christians have tried to claim that they are “Christian Humanists”.  The unfortunate reality is that while a humanist a few centuries ago simply meant someone who believed in “free inquiry” the secular humanists morphed this into something much broader while making atheism its foundation from which all humanist values flow.

Paul Kurtz , the Council for Secular Humanism founder, wrote the following in “The Humanist Alternative” (pg 82):

“Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”

Professing Christians must come to the realization that the tenants of humanism along with the tenants of its evil spawns like environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism do not mesh with a Biblical worldview.  They are completely contradictory.

President Trump – God’s Imperfect Instrument Against Humanism

President Trump is not a perfect man.  He claims to have faith in Christ but he certainly is not a perfect Christian in either his understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith. And sadly, President Trump, like many professing Christians and churches today, is not completely unstained by the evil influences of humanism.  He has shown support for some feminist tenants as well as support for the LGBTQ community.

However, God has used him to be great defender of Israel as well as the rights and freedoms of Bible believing Christians here in the United States.  God took a man who was previously pro-abortion and turned him into the greatest defender of unborn human life this nation has seen since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.

Speaking on the topic of innocent unborn human life President Trump made the following statement today at the U.N. General Assembly:

“Americans will also never tire in defending innocent life. We are aware the many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right through tax payer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery.   Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life. Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God.”

There is absolutely no denying that God has chosen President Trump at this point in history as his imperfect instrument.  Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Jewish people look at President Trump as they did King Cyrus who helped them rebuild Jerusalem. Listen to what the God said about King Cyrus:

“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.”

Isaiah 45:13 (KJV)

And Cyrus was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination and he was not even a Jew.  But God used Cyrus as instrument of his will and that is exactly what he is doing in raising a warrior in the form of President Trump to take on globalism and environmentalism which are major pillars of humanism.

President Trump’s Stand Against Globalism

President Trump made the following declaration regarding globalism and the threat it poses to freedom:

“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over this large magnificent plant, the truth is plain to see.  If you want freedom take pride in your country.  If you want democracy hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace love your nation.  Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.

The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.  The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well-being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.

Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration.  Each you has the absolute right to protect your borders. And so of course does our country.”

Again, this is one of those areas where President Trump may not even realize the full extent as to why globalism is bad.

Yes, globalism threatens freedom because whenever you consolidate power,  freedom is lost.   This is why America’s founders believed in limited government and breaking up powers between the federal, state and local governments.  And even when the power was divided between these three levels, they believed that the ultimate power rested in the people.

But there is more to why globalism is bad then just it threatening freedom. It also threatens God’s institution of nations which was one of three of the institutions he created.   In the following three Scripture passages we see that is was God who divided mankind into nations giving them each a different language and sending them across the face of the earth:

“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Genesis 11:9 (KJV)

“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:8 (KJV)

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Acts 17:26 (KJV)

Humanism Aims to Destroy the Three Institutions God Created

As we have just shown from the Bible, the concept of a nation state, which President Trump so strongly believes in, is one of three institutions which God created.  And those three institutions are the family, the church and the nation.  He created each of these institutions for different purposes and divided powers and responsibilities between these three institutions of society.

SecularHumanism.org states the following in an article entitled “What is Secular Humanism”:

“secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.”

As we can see from the statement above, Humanism seeks the destruction of the traditional controls of the patriarchal family, the local church and the concept of nation states.   Their goal is to replace these traditional God given institutions with an atheistic, individualist and globalist society.

Humanism’s War on The Church

For over 150 years, humanists have been successfully waging a war on local churches both from without and within.  In the late 19th century humanists infiltrated the churches from within causing them to doubt the Bible which lead to the great modernist controversies and the rise of Christian fundamentalism to fight it.  In the 20th century they began attacking churches and Christianity in schools using the courts.  They were successful in having prayer and the Bible banned from schools and threatened churches with losing their tax-exempt status if they spoke out on political issues or if they publicly supported politicians who supported their values.

Humanism’s War on Biblical Gender Roles

During the same period humanists were attacking the churches, they also began attacking traditional and Biblical gender roles as God designed them with the rise feminist groups in the mid-19th century.  The roles of women in marriage and society began to be challenged and God’s order of male leadership in society, the church and home was undermined. This of course led to a weakening of marriage, the family unit and sexual morality.

In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to stand against the rising tide of gay marriage advocates.  While this reflected the will of the American people at the time, it outraged the left and especially those in Hollywood.  Hollywood elites looked to a new plan to gain public support for gay marriage.  They started incorporating more gay characters into TV shows and movies and documentaries as much as they could to desensitize the American public to the gay lifestyle.   After almost 20 years of Hollywood doing this, national polls showed that public sentiment regarding gay marriage had changed and gay rights advocates took their case to the Supreme Court.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage thus legalizing it in all fifty states.  Chief Justice Roberts in his decent on the courts gay marriage decision knew exactly what would happen because of the decision when he wrote:

“Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”

In essence the court set the stage for many future court battles between the First Amendment which guarantees free speech and the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs against against the 14th amendment which guarantees due process and equal protection(this is what all discrimination laws and cases are based on).  In other words the battle is between freedom of speech and religion verses discrimination.

Humanists believe that the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs takes a back seat to discrimination concerns.  Those on the right whether they be libertarians or evangelical Christians believe that the exercise of one’s free speech rights and religious beliefs trumps discrimination concerns.

And these are the battles that we are seeing raging in our courts over the past 4 years.  Our side has  had some victories and the Humanists have had their victories.

Humanism’s War on the Concept of Nation States

One of the first law’s that America passed was the 1790 Naturalization Act which stated that only “free white person[s] … of good character” could become citizens of the United States.  While these laws would today be considered “racist” they were in fact in keeping with the tradition of nations throughout history that protected their dominant ethnic groups as a unifying factor of a nation.

After the Civil War, Socialist Humanists began the new narrative that America was a “nation of immigrants”.  This is when “the melting pot” ideology began to spread. America’s motto of “E pluribus unum” which is found on our nation’s currency originally referred to the 13 colonies becoming one nation.  But the 19th century socialist humanists reinterpreted this famous American phrase for their own multicultural and globalist goals. They changed the mean of “E pluribus unum” from a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one to “Out of many nations one nation”.  The idea was to water down America’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture with many other religions and cultures to break down the unity of the American nation.

Humanists won a major victory with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  While there were certainly issues with Jim Crow laws that needed to be addressed the law undermined private property rights and the freedom of association.   It also laid the foundation for gay rights and now transgenders are trying to use it to shove their wicked ways in the faces of Christian business owners. Humanists won another major victory with the 1965 Immigration Act which abolished racial quotas which favored immigrants from northern European nations.

In the 20th Century, American Humanists began using the courts to push their humanist agenda on the nation.  If they could not pass a law to get what they wanted, they would simply go to a court and find judges who would agree with them.  American humanist judges used the philosophy of “if the words of the Constitution don’t say something, just reinterpret the words to make them say what you want”.

But in more recent years Humanists have taken off all pretenses and they are calling for the outright abolishment of national borders in their quest for globalism and a one world government.  In 2015, a year before President Trump was elected to office, the Atlantic ran an article entitled “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely” with the sub heading being “No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time”.  Trump ran on exactly the opposite premise and won the 2016 election in large part because it.

We as Bible believing Christians must take a stand.  We must get out and vote. We must use all the legal means at our disposal to fight back against the humanist assaults on our God given liberties.  That means Christians need to engage in law suits using the first Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and religion to protect themselves and their businesses from Humanist lawsuits.  We need to use the very legal weapons that Humanists use against us against them.

We must defend and uphold God’s three institutions of the family, the church and the nation state.

Some on both the right and left have called this a “cold civil war” while others have called it “the Second American Civil War”. And I agree with them in those descriptions.  That is exactly what is happening in our nation and we must face this reality.

We must stop allowing leftists to paint us into a corner and shame us for believing such “radical” concepts like the one Mark 10:6 states that “God made them male and female”.  God did not make people transgender; the corruption of the sin nature makes people transgender.

We must stop allowing leftists to redefine what love is by saying that that two men or two women can love each other in the special way that God only meant for men and women to do in marriage.  We must acknowledge that there are some kinds of love and some kinds of desire that are indeed “vile affections” according to God’s Word in Romans 1:26.

We must stop allowing leftists to tell us that we are acting “inhumanely” for believing a nation should have borders that are enforced.

President Trump today also raised another God given right that we should not be afraid to defend:

“The United States will uphold the right to keep and bear arms. We will uphold our Second Amendment.”

The Bible affirms the God given right to self-defense in passages like Exodus 22:2 and Nehemiah 4:14 and we read in Ecclesiastes 3:3 that there is indeed “A time to kill” and in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is “a time of war”.

And just as God used a non-Jewish person in the form of King Cyrus to accomplish his will, so too we as Christians must be willing to form political coalitions with those who hold to and believe in liberty and freedom as we do.  We must be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who defend basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.  We should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who still believe in the concept of a nation state and national borders. And we certainly should be able to stand with anyone who stands for the life of the unborn.

Discharged from Military Due to False Accusations of Sexual Harassment

“I was recently separated from the military under a GENERAL administrative separation, and the result was the loss of both my GI Bill and Unemployment benefits (due to accusations of sexual harassment). Maybe you can help me through the healing process, and perhaps fighting back on this. – glassadonis”

glassadonis,

I am sorry to hear of your troubles. The unfortunate truth is that when it comes to sexually related crimes our judicial systems, both civilian and military, have basically thrown out the American, English and Biblical concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

The Bible tells us the following about God’s standard for establishing guilt for committing a crime:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”

Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

Under God’s standard of justice, there had to be a minimum of two witnesses to a crime for it be established.  And if the two witnesses were proven to have lied then the same punishment that would have happened to the accused would happen to them.  Imagine if we had that standard today?  I don’t think we would have all these false accusations of harassment.

Does this mean that sometimes guilty men will go free? Yes.  But God considered it a greater injustice for an innocent man to be convicted than for a guilty man to go free. This used to be the standard of American justice for all crimes.

But today we have given women a free ticket.  They can falsely accuse any man they want with no proof and they suffer nothing for it.  And when it comes to sexually related crimes – the person accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.  If you can’t find multiple witnesses to prove your innocence, then you are guilty.

All you can do is fight back with lawyers the best you can and even then you may not prevail.

When you have done everything you can to fight back and prove your innocence yet still you suffer wrongly for something you did not do, then you must look to Christ’s example of “suffering wrongfully”:

“19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.”
1 Peter 2:19-20 (KJV)

I am very sorry that your military career was destroyed by the false accusations of this woman. But what you don’t want to do is get stuck in a pattern of self-pity and bitterness.  That will only hurt you and prolong you getting on with your life.  There is an old saying about bitterness that is very true.  “Being bitter at someone is like taking poison hoping for the that person to die”.

Give this injustice to God.

8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves

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

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

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

Matthew 22:29 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

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

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

Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

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

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

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

Exodus 21:7-8 (KJV)

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

Deuteronomy 15:12 (KJV)

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

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

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

Leviticus 19:29 (KJV)

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

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

Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)

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

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

Colossians 3:22 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

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

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

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

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

8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)

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

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

1 Corinthians 14:35 (KJV)

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

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

Ephesians 5:26-27 (KJV)

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

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

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

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

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

I Corinthians 7:3-4 (KJV)

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

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

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

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

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

Proverbs 31:31 (KJV)

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV)

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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