Husbands Wash Your Dirty Wives

When we think of a woman being “dirty” outside the literal meaning we will usually think of a woman acting in a sexually inappropriate manner.    And while there certainly are whorish women who do act in whorish ways there is another type of dirtiness in women that has nothing to do with a woman acting whorish.

When a woman speaks disrespectfully to her husband or does not show proper deference to her husband, that is her acting in a dirty way toward her husband.   When a wife refuses to submit any part of her life to her husband’s spiritual leadership that is her acting in a dirty way.   Sometimes it may not be her actions, but it may in fact be her attitudes and beliefs that are dirty.

Christian husbands, to love your wife as Christ loves his church requires that you wash her spiritual spots, wrinkles and blemishes with the Word of God.  You are to wash her dirty attitudes, beliefs and actions with the Word of God.

You could liken this to how you might wash your car.  You look over that car and make sure every dirt spot and blemish are gone and that it shines so good you can see your reflection in it.  It is the same idea with your wife spiritually.  After you wash her, her views and behaviors should be a reflection of the things you have taught her from God’s Word.

The washing of your wife requires a combination of knowing her, listening to her, teaching her, correcting her and yes disciplining her.   The washing of your wife will sometimes require great sacrifice on your part as the washing of his wife required great sacrifice on the part of Christ.  Sometimes it means temporarily sacrificing the peace in your home to rebuke your wife.  It might mean sacrificing time you might have spent doing things that were more enjoyable.  But it is a sacrifice that is necessary on the part of every Christian husband.

1 Peter 3:7 Why Are a Husband’s Prayers Hindered?

After addressing the submission of wives to their husbands in 1 Peter 3:1-6 the Apostle turns his discussion toward husbands and the treatment of their wives in verse 7 when he states “Likewise, ye husbands”.  He then caps the commands toward husbands with a warning to them of what will happen if they do not treat their wives as he has just stated when he says “that your prayers be not hindered”.

Before we discuss how the Apostle Peter, writing under the inspiration of God, tells husbands to treat their wives, we must first address whose prayers are being hindered.

Whose Prayers Will be Hindered?

Mathew Henry in his famous commentary stated the following about verse 7 of 1 Peter 3:

“The reasons are, Because she is the weaker vessel by nature and constitution, and so ought to be defended: but then the wife is, in other and higher respects, equal to her husband; they are heirs together of the grace of life, of all the blessings of this life and another, and therefore should live peaceably and quietly one with another, and, if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered, so that often “you will not pray at all, or, if you do, you will pray with a discomposed ruffled mind, and so without success.”

The key phrase in Matthew Henry’s statement above is “if they do not, their prayers one with another and one for another will be hindered”.    The “they” and “their” he is referring to is both the husband and wife.

Matthew Henry was taking the position that this phrase “and as being heirs together of the grace of life” was addressing both the husband and wife and therefore the warning “that your prayers be not hindered” was addressed to both husbands and wives.

But this is where we must remind ourselves that no commentator, no matter how famous or respected, is inerrant in their interpretation or application of the Scriptures.

I have read writings of many of the great men of the reformation like Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox.  I loved reading the commentaries of Spurgeon as a young man.  But a realization I had to come to was, none of these men were more inerrant than any Christians before them or after them except for those men who spoke and wrote the very Word of God.  Only the Old Testament Prophets, Jesus Christ and his Apostles after him were inerrant in their writings and understanding of God’s will.

This blog is in essence an online commentary, not unlike that of Matthew Henry or Charles Spurgeon.  I could be wrong in my interpretation and applications of the Scriptures just as Matthew Henry or Charles Spurgeon could be wrong in theirs.   Each of us must look at the Scriptures, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, use our knowledge of the original language of the Scriptures as well the historical and grammatical context in which various passages are written to come to what we believe is the correct interpretation and application of the Scriptures.

Some have argued that Matthew Henry’s interpretation is correct because of the Greek word “hymōn” or “Humon” (transliterated) that is in the phrase “that your [Humon] prayers be not hindered”.    They argue that since humon is always used in a plural sense to speak to a group, that it is talking to both the husband and the wife.

While it true that humon is always speaking to a group, we must look to the context to know what group it is speaking to. In the same passage we are discussing, the apostle Peter begins his conversation on marriage by first speaking to wives in 1 Peter 3:1-2:

“Likewise, ye wives [gynaikes], be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your [humon] chaste conversation coupled with fear.”

The English word “wives”, is a translation of the Greek word used to address women in the plural sense which is “gynaikes”.  From the passage above, whose “chaste conversation couple with fear” is the Apostle addressing? It is clear from the context that it is that of the wives.

Peter uses the Greek word which refers to men in the plural sense “andres” to refer to husbands, when he writes the passage we are looking at:

“Likewise, ye husbands [andres], 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 [humon] prayers be not hindered.”

There is nothing in the language of 1 Peter 3:7 which would indicate the prayers being hindered are anyone other than that of a husband’s prayers in the same way that the chaste and fearful behavior of verse 2 is referring strictly to wives in reference to their husbands.

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that 1 Peter 3:7 in its entirety is speaking to husbands and not both husbands and wives.

So, Peter is saying that if husbands don’t do the things, he commanded them toward their wives, their prayers will be hindered.  Now let’s look at how husbands are commanded to treat their wives.

Three Things God Commands of Husbands Toward their Wives

“dwell [sunoikeo ] with them according to knowledge[Gnosis],”

Sunoikeo refers to domestic association, people living together but it also was commonly used as euphemism for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.  And the Greek word gnosis means exactly what is translated as – knowledge.  It is to know about something or to know someone intimately depending on the context.    So, we can see the Apostle is saying “Husbands as you live together with your wives in this intimate and sexual relationship, do so according to knowledge”.  So, the question is what knowledge is he talking about?  Is it just a general knowledge of God and His Word? Is it also knowing your wife’s strengths and weaknesses and where she needs spiritual instruction? And could it also be knowing her fears, her concerns and her requests?  I will give the answer after we finish looking at the last two parts of this verse.

Peter then moves on to tell men two ways in which they must give proper honor their wives.  The first way is mentioned below:

“giving honour unto the wife [gune], as unto the weaker [Asthenes] vessel [Skeuos],”

The Greek word Asthenes means “weak, infirm or feeble” and Skeuos literally refers to vessels like household utensils including bowls or pitchers.  Skeuos is a common euphemism for the human body in the New Testament and our souls are seen as indwelling our vessels.

What this means is that husbands are to give honor to their wives as is appropriate for their station as the weaker vessel. But why would we honor someone for being weaker?

The answer is found in 2 Corinthians 12:9:

“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

If we remember that God created men to image his attributes, including his strength, and woman to image mankind and our weakness and dependence upon God then this makes perfect sense.  In the same way that we should glory in our weakness and need of God’s strength, so too women should glory in their weakness and dependence upon man’s strength.  And thus, we as men should not demean women who demonstrate their need of our strength, but instead we honor women for doing this.

The honoring of the weaker vessel also means we honor women for fulfilling the complete role that God designed the weaker vessel to play.  In Proverbs 31:28 after showing all the wonderful ways in which the virtuous wife serves her husband, his children and his home the Bible tells us the following:

“Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.”

Now that we have covered the first way men are commanded to honor their wives, we can now move on to the second way men are commanded to honor their wives.

“and as being heirs together of the grace of life”

Wives are to be accorded the honor that is due to fellow believers and husbands should never forget that their wives are not only their wives, but sisters in Christ. In Romans 12:10 we read the following of how we are to treat our brethren in Christ:

“Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another”.

So, we see three things men are commanded to do toward their wives:

  1. Live with them in an intimate and sexual relationship according to knowledge.
  2. Honor them for the part in God’s master design that he has designed them to play as the weaker vessel.
  3. Honor them as fellow believers and sisters in Christ.

What knowledge do men need to have with their wives?

In 2 Peter 3:18 we read “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen”.  There is no doubt that first and foremost the goal of every Christian should be to grow in the knowledge of Christ and then apply that knowledge to everything we do in this life including how we conduct our marriages.

But 1 Peter 3:7 does not say “dwell with them according to the knowledge of God” or “dwell with them according to the knowledge of Christ”.  It simply says dwell with them according to knowledge. And since the treatment of wives by their husbands is the subject Peter is addressing it strongly suggests that knowledge is indeed a husband’s knowledge of his wife.

And this idea of a man needing to know his wife on a spiritual level is seen in Ephesians 5:25-27:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  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.”

How can a man wash his wife’s spiritual spots and wrinkles if he does not know his wife’s mind? Again, in Ephesians 5:28-29, we read the following of husbands toward their wives:

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

How can a man know his wife’s needs without knowing her mind? Without talking to her?

And finally, our greatest indicator of what “knowledge” husbands are supposed to have as they live with their wives is found in the warning given to husbands:

“that your prayers be not hindered”

In 1 Peter 5:7 the Bible tells us “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you”.  We are called to cast our cares, our concerns and our fears upon God because he cares for us.  Is that not a huge part of our prayers to God?

So as husbands if we want God to hear our cares and concerns why would we think we can do so while turning a deaf ear to our wife’s cares and concerns?

God Sometimes Will Not Hear Our Prayers and so Too Husbands Will Not Hear Their Wives

Now the principles I have just laid out from the Scriptures about men needing to hear their wife’s concerns in the same way that they want God to hear their concerns could certainly be abused.  In fact, it has been abused by the modern church today which has been infested with feminism.

If we remember that man images God in the life of his wife then we must also remember that God sometimes will not hear our prayers because of our sin.  In Isaiah 1:15, God says to his wife Israel, “And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood”.  Because Israel was in open sin against God, her husband, he hid himself from seeing her needs and he would not hear her requests.  In the same way, when a wife is acting in unrepentant sin against her husband, she cannot expect that he will hear her requests.

In James 4:3 we read “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts”.  So, when we ask God with wrong motives or ask with selfish ambition, he will not hear such requests and in the same way if a husband sees his wife asking for something with wrong motives or from a position of selfishness, he has every right to turn down such sinful requests.

Finally, in John 5:14 the Bible states “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us”.   Just as husband should know his wife’s mind, so too a wife should know her husband’s mind.  And a wife should never ask her husband for something she knows goes against his will on a matter just as we should never pray to God for something we know goes against his will especially as recorded in the Bible.

Conclusion

1 Peter 3:7 is written to husbands, not husbands and wives.  The prayers that will be hindered are not the prayers of both the husband and wife, but of the husband alone.  God tells men they must dwell with their wives according to knowledge, honor them in their station as the weaker vessel, and honor them as fellow believers and sisters in Christ.  If a husband fails to do these three things, God will not hear his prayers.

When we look at God’s command of husbands in Ephesians 5:25-27 to wash their wife’s spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word, we know that part of the knowledge Peter alludes to in 1 Peter 3:7 is of a man knowing his wife’s spiritual character.  He cannot wash what he does not know.

When we look at God’s command of husbands in Ephesians 5:28-29 for them to love and care for the needs of their wife’s body and protect her as they would their own body then we also know that part of the knowledge Peter alludes to in 1 Peter 3:7 is a man knowing his wife’s requests for her physical needs.

In 1 Peter 3:5-6, which directly proceeds the passage we have been studying, the Apostle Peter writes “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”.   A woman, if she is following the example given to us by God of the women of old is to regard her husband as her lord.

The Greek word kurios translated as “lord” in 1 Peter 3:6 can also be translated as “master” as it is in Colossians 4:1 where the Bible states “Masters [Kurios], give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master [Kurios] in heaven”.  In many ways 1 Peter 3:7 repeats this same concept of Colossians 4:1 with husbands toward their wives.   We as husbands must remember that just as we are a master to our wives, we also have a master in heaven who watches how we treat her.

This does not mean that if a man’s wife is divorcing him or other bad things are happening that it automatically means he is not living with his wife according to knowledge or not honoring her as the weaker vessel and as a fellow sister in Christ.  We must remember that wife’s can and do act in evil ways against their husbands just as Israel acted in evil ways against her husband who was God.  In Isaiah 1:15 God hid his eyes from Israel and closed his ears to her prayers because she was in sinful rebellion against him.

No wife can expect to have her husband’s ear while she stands in rebellion against him.

Also, God makes it clear in John 5:14 that we don’t get everything we request from him, but only what is in accordance with his will.  And this is no different with a husband and wife situation.   A husband hearing his wife’s requests and granting them are two very different things.  And once a woman knows her husband’s mind on something, she ought not to continue asking for that same thing knowing it goes against his will.

The Scriptures warn us in Proverbs 4:27 “Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil”.  And on this matter of the treatment of wives, like most other moral subjects, there is a far left and a far right position that are both wrong and the Bible stands in the middle of the two.

On the one hand, a man knowing his wife’s spiritual mindset, her cares and her concerns is not the same as him having to run all family decisions through his wife first.  Nothing in the Scriptures gives this requirement of men.  Marriage is not a partnership, but rather a patriarchy.  When the Scriptures refer to a man dwelling with his wife according to knowledge, it is in regard to him knowing her personal spiritual and physical needs, not him getting her vote on family decisions.

On the other hand, A man knowing his wife’s spiritual condition, knowing her mind, knowing what her physical needs are, hearing her cares and concerns, honoring her station as the weaker vessel and honoring her as a fellow sister is not him putting his wife on a pedestal.  It is him obeying the Word of God.  And if he does not obey the Word of God on these matters God will not hear his prayers.  This is the express teaching of 1 Peter 3:7.

If You Love Your Wife, You Will Discipline Her

We are told in Ephesians 5:25 that husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:19 Christ after rebuking his churches says “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.  This shows us as Christian husbands that an indispensable part of us loving our wives as Christ loves his church is that we rebuke and discipline our wives.

A husband who will not rebuke or discipline his wife for sinful behavior is no better than a parent who will not rebuke and discipline their child for sinful behavior. 

And no, a husband disciplining his wife is not him treating his wife as a child, it is him treating his wife as a woman and women are under the authority of men in God’s order.   And no, God does not recognize the modern invention of the “adult” social class.  So, the notion we hear so often in churches that “he is an “adult” and responsible for himself before God and she is an “adult” and responsible for herself before God” is completely unbiblical.  The humanist invention of the “adult” social class is a perversion and attempt to give women the same rights, responsibilities and privileges as men, something God never did.

For more details on the how a husband can go about disciplining his wife in a way which follows Biblical principles for discipline see my article “7 Ways To Discipline Your Wife“.

Husbands If You Don’t Hear Your Wife, God Won’t Hear You

Christian husbands, God says you must know your wife, and not just in the sexual sense of the word.  You are also called to know her on a spiritual and emotional level.  This does not mean you have to become an emotional being like a woman, or “get more in touch with your feelings”.  It simply means talking to your wife and listening to her fears, her concerns and her requests in the same way you want God to listen to your fears, concerns and requests when you bring them to him.

Does listening to your wife mean you will always do what she wants? Of course not.   God listens to our prayers but he does not always grant our requests or do things in the way we would like him to do them.  Sometimes God corrects us and shows us later that what we were asking for was not right.  And sometimes after a husband listens to his wife, he may need to correct her thinking, just as God corrects our thinking through the Holy Spirit and through his Word.

And finally, husbands, remember that if you will not hear your wife’s fears, concerns and requests God will not hear yours.  So, if you sense that you are being shut out by God, perhaps you are doing the same thing to your wife.

Husbands You Are Called to be Your Wife’s Teacher

Christian husbands you need to teach your wife the Word of God.  It may not be a structured course style teaching and could simply be a part of everyday discussions.

You certainly should help to interpret and apply God’s Word as to your wife’s life as you hear sermons from your Pastor each week. And yes, if you have a difference of interpretation or application of the Bible with your Pastor, you should explain that difference to your wife in a way that still shows respect to your Pastor.

You should constantly be looking to apply God’s Word to every day situations your wife faces in her relationships with friends, family, your children and especially your marriage.   You should also be looking to apply God’s Word for your wife to things she reads in books or things she sees on television.

Men Should Exercise Control Over Themselves and Their Women

God said to Cain in Genesis 4:7 “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”.  He was telling Cain that his sin nature desired to control his actions and to make him do things which violated God’s will for his life.

In our modern society where humanism and feminism dominate the culture, the word “control” is often seen as swear word while “consent” is seen as a holy and sacred term.  Yet even humanists and feminists must engage in controlling actions when it suits the humanist agenda.  Just take a look at the censorship by all the major tech giants, as well as colleges and universities which are dominated by all the various forms of humanists including feminists, globalists, socialists and environmentalists.  They have no problem exercising control over what opinions may or may not be voiced on their platforms or in their classrooms or on their campuses.

Socialist humanists have no problem with governments controlling wealth distribution by engaging in theft of private property from upper and middle economic classes and redistributing that to lower economic classes.  Environmentalist humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what cars they may drive or how much energy resources they may use.

The reality is that humanists don’t really have a problem with themselves exercising a great amount of control over all elements of society.   They just don’t want to submit to God’s order or control in their lives.

And this is why humanists utterly hate and consider evil the control which God called men to exercise over the lives of their wives in Genesis 3:16 when “Unto the woman he said… thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Genesis 3:16 uses the same language structure as God used when talking to Cain in Genesis 4:7 about sin trying to control him.  Sin attempts to control our actions.  The sin nature will attempt to get us to do the very opposite of whatever God commands.  If God says to do something, the sin nature will try and get us not to do that thing.  If God says not to do something, the sin nature will tell us to do that very thing.

And here is a very important truth that every Christian man must take to heart.

In the same way that God has ordained husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives, sin attempts to use wives as human instruments of temptation in the lives of their husbands.  We see this in the very first act of sin committed by Eve when she gave Adam the forbidden fruit.

Man was ordained by God to rule over woman from the very start of creation.  Man exercised his authority over woman when he named her just as he named all the animals God created before her.  And we know, contrary to Christian feminists’ claims, that man’s rulership over woman was part of God’s design to picture the relationship of himself to his people.  To call man’s sacred trust to rule over woman a result of sin is to call Christ’s rulership over the Church to which it is directly compared to in Ephesians 5:23-24 a result of sin as well.

But man’s rulership became that much more important after the fall.  Now his rulership or his control of his wife would be far more difficult.  This is what God was saying when he told Adam his wife’s desire would be to him.  He was not saying she would have some lovely desire just to be by his side as the Christian feminists so wrongly claim.  He was saying that sin would corrupt his design of the feminine nature causing women to act in opposite ways of which God designed them to act.  God designed the feminine nature to be submissive, dependent, cooperative and to seek be under the control and dominance of man.  But sin would corrupt the feminine nature making it rebellious, independent, contentious and it would ultimately drive women to seek to control and dominate their husbands.

Conclusion

Humanists of all stripes have no problem controlling what opinions people may voice as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.  Humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what people can spend their money on, how much energy people can use, where people can live or how people can defend themselves.  Again, they have no problem with control, as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.

But humanists have a big problem, a colossal problem, with any one trying to exercise any control over the “personal” decisions of women.  Nope don’t go there.  If women want to have all kinds of sex with different men outside of marriage men better just shut their mouths and stop “slut-shaming” women. And if women want to murder their unborn babies in their wombs, often a result of their whoring around, no one can control that.  If wives want to commit adultery with other men there should be no negative consequences or shaming of such women.  If women don’t want to have sex with their husbands, men better not coerce them into having sex in any way otherwise that is “marital rape”.

But God calls men to exercise control over their own sin natures as well as well as the human instrument of temptation that sin often uses, which is a man’s wife.

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 Female Imperative Biblical?

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

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

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

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

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

The Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset

Tomassi defines the Alpha Mindset in his article “Mental Point of Origin”:

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

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

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

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

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

“Are you your mental point of origin?

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

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

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

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

The Red Pill Beta Male Mindset

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

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

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

Why Do Women Marry Beta Men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In “The New Polyandry”, Tomassi writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in “Christian Dread”  Tomassi writes:

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

Is the Feminine Imperative Biblical?

The Bible teaches us that God made men and women to bring him glory in different ways.   In 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Man was created with the primary purpose of imaging or displaying God’s attributes.  God is a leader, a worker, a husband and a father among many other things.  And in order for man to image God as a husband and father God created woman and by extension marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippians 4:13 (KJV)

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

1 John 5:4 (KJV)

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

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

Hebrews 13:4-5 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

The Feminine Imperative to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.

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

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

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

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is the Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset Biblical?”