Friday, January 31, 2020

Vox Day Has A Point About Those Roman Patriarchs

Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge? 
No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That's why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way - because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality. 
But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That's why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either. Men could end the entire divorce machine in 30 days if they chose, but instead, they prefer to live alone as indentured servants or in fear of becoming an indentured servant.

He's not wrong.

The question is what a Roman Patriarch would do when there are children involved as well. Would he take their lives as well? At least for me, I rest easy knowing it'll only be about 6 years or less before my children understand what's going on and choose to return to their father on their own.

The case is too obvious for any teenager not to see through the lies.

And if they are too converged with feminist propaganda, they are no child of mine and it will make it all the more easy to cut them out while I focus my energies on the children that do want to follow me.

The six year reprieve will give me time to start my second set of children.

Aaron M. Renn's The Masculinist - Christian Manhood Unfiltered

Based on my previous post on the abdication of moral responsibility in the household, a friend of mine brought to my attention an Amazon Prime free series called Man Rampant. It can be found here:

In the series, I was introduced to Aaron Renn who basically talked about many of the things I had read on Dalrock's blog, mainly Men's roles as defined by the modern, Christian church.

I heard about his newsletter that he emailed, tried to access it on his website, and discovered I couldn't find it because it had been taken down. Thankfully, I requested the emails and Mr. Renn sent it to me.

In it, I read more and about the things that I've observed along with Dalrock, Vox Day, and pretty much every other manosphere guy out there. When I read his emails, it was as though I was giving advice to myself who was 18 years old.

Man, I wish I had his newsletters when I was 18 years old. There's a lot of things I wish I knew when I was 18 that I know now.

It was also bizarre to recognize many of the authors he cites and concepts from various books and people I've come across too. He notices things I have noticed too like the fact that non-Christians give better practical advice on how to be a better man than the Christian world.

Some things he talked about which I lived through was:

- I Kissed Dating Goodbye
- Purity Movement
- Mark Driscoll
- Matt Chandler
- Tim Keller
- Dalrock
- Mike Cernovich
- Roosh V

The lack of good advice for men probably has to do with the fact that the kind of man who becomes a Pastor typically is not very high on the socio-sexual hierarchy to begin with. It's a self-selection bias.

For the best advice, you need to go to the best practitioners, and often that means those who have the highest notch count.

Anyway, for my children and grand children, these will be required reading. The information here is also a great jumping point to search deeper on specific topics.

Each new author that I read that has a reasoned, and detailed breakdown of how they came to the same conclusions I have come to, only solidify my conclusions that there simply are not the conversations that are needed happening in the church.

Maybe this is God's way of calling me to start a Men's Bible study where we openly discuss these topics which are forbidden in an overly feminized church.

My main objection is that I don't consider myself a moral authority. Only someone on a journey that is willing to talk openly and frankly about my convictions, failures, and discoveries.

But, in my heart, I'm still an asshole.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Who Cares If My Parent Has Moral Authority / Responsibility Over Me?

I was thinking of how a mother, who is head of her household that she created by stealing from her ex-husband's household can explain to their rebellious children why they should be obeying her commands instead of their fathers'. (Divorce situation with joint-custody).

By what means can she claim that a household that she created illegitimately suddenly be given moral authority over the original household lead by their father? It is perversion of God's original design and direct rebellion. But, taking a step back and thinking about it, without all the finger pointing, comes the practical realities.

Since when have people been obeying simply because they read one or two Bible verses in the Bible?

It's usually those in the place of Power and Control that try to use Bible verses to support their position of power. And then when someone finally determines "they've had enough" they find their own Bible verses to justify their rebellion. Both sides will have "Pastors" on their interpretation. Especially bloggers.

I don't even mean this specifically between children and their parents. With teenagers, they are definitely not choosing to submit to their respective parent based on a strong devotion to God and love of Bible verses. They do it because it is in their own self-interest based on how strong their relationship is with their respective parent. They will only use the Bible verses of Male authority to justify their rebellion against their mother AFTER they had already determined to side with their father.

This also applies to the great rebellion that started the Protestant Reformation. Who is Martin Luther to suddenly be able to declare "Sola Scriptura?" He was not one of the original apostles given moral authority by God to make such a declaration. An argument could be made that Peter (the first Pope?) were alive today, he'd be aghast at the chaos that exists today in churches throughout the world.

Even the dispute between Paul and Peter over circumcision almost split the church. It was only by giving a vision by God that the situation was resolved. Could you imagine what would've happened if God did not intervene? We'd probably be split between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians. Each side would have justification to believe the other side is in rebellion against God's design.

The question of who has legitimate Moral Authority is repeated over and over.

Two people can read the exact same Bible section and come to literally opposite conclusions. Or they can find a different Bible verse to counter the other. There are many such paradoxes in Scripture that could simply be just a matter of emphasis.

They both believe the other person is sinning and needs to repent! How can you have reconciliation when the other side thinks it should be the other person asking for forgiveness? They both believe the other person is being unrepentant and living in continual sin in rebellion against God.

Christians have killed each other for questions like this.

So why would I assume that a question like mine would ever be resolved or answered by a non-existent moral authority?

The best I can do is try to write out my reasoning, but in the end, who cares?

It doesn't change anyone's mind. It's as though no one had written anything.

But at least it brings clarity to the questions that arise and helps get down to the root of the disagreements. It helps you research further the history behind the conflicts that you are having. It helps bring perspective.

It helps you to eventually let it go because you realize there are will be no answers in this lifetime.

It helps you realize that, in the end, you will have to turn to God to be the one, true Judge, and that every knee will bow, and every tongue shall confess, that Jesus is Lord. It helps you realize some questions can only be answered when we see God face-to-face.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
And what if everything could be figured and judged perfectly in unison here on Earth?

What need of God would we have then?

The chaos of  the Earth groans for the Savior to come again.

Come, Lord Jesus, Come.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Can the Head of the Household Abdicate His Moral Responsibility To His Divorced Wife?

One of the things I take seriously is my moral responsibility when I am placed in authority (power and control). Often this makes me extremely impatient when I perceive rebellion. Ultimately, I'm the one who will be held account to God, and I want to do a good job. I work hard, because I don't want to be the weak leader that frustrates me when I have to follow someone incompetent. "Just get out of the way, already and step down if you're going to be lazy or incompetent."

When there are those under me, for which I have moral authority, begin usurping and undermining my rule, I get angry. There's a difference between correction when I'm wrong, and a Gamma, passive-aggressive, insubordination. From my most, loyal lieutenants, I want them correcting me. I don't even care if it's in public. I have full confidence that, in the end, they will enact my will.

When I get a whiff of Gamma, I get disgusted and I want them out of the organization in which I am responsible for. 

Sometimes, these Gamma types are women, are within a church, or are in positions for which it is difficult to find a replacement. For those within a position that I cannot easily replace, I am forced to have to manage their constant, passive aggressive failures. I am required to give them counseling, and feedback regarding their performance. I am obligated to, because I have to hold them accountable to their job because the rest of the team is counting on me to do so.

My role as the leader is to hold people accountable to do their position competently and correctly. When one body part fails to function correctly, the rest of the body suffers. Because I'm at the head, I'm looked at to provide discipline or to replace the non-functioning body part.

These lessons I learned when I was overseeing over 100 employees in my hotels. My managers knew I would fire them for insubordination. My managers knew that ultimately it was my will that needed to be enacted. 

The ones I got along with were the ones who enacted my will. I welcomed their input and criticism because I didn't know everything. Usually, I would enact what they think is best, but everyone knew, it was "my way or the highway."

The managers and employees I did not get along with were the ones who sneered and resented my placement in authority. They had done things a certain way, and they weren't interested in changing. I tried multiple times to convince them in private (explaining my complex reasoning), but they continued and undermined my requests.

They either could not understand the bigger picture, or chose their own pride, and rebellion. They resented the hierarchy that existed. Eventually, they either quit or I had to fire them when their insubordination was worse than if they were gone.


I lead numerous worship bands and taken leadership roles in various churches. My focus was on achieving the mission. I think that in God's Kingdom, sometimes you allow the mission and team to suffer for the sake of an individual "weak link."

Honestly, the thought of this disgusts me. Why did Jesus allow Judas to remain in the 12 to eventually betray him? If I were Jesus, I would had kicked him out and had him replaced. Of course, Jesus' mission was to be betrayed, but if I were one of the other 11 disciples, I would probably start getting frustrated why Jesus wasn't exercising his leadership role. Or maybe, they just didn't realize Judas was going to betray Jesus. 

Other times, I would be the follower. I can be a team player, but only for competent and talented people. At Mars Hill Church, I was the keyboard player for Dustin Kensrue. I don't know how long I played for, but I could tell he was talented and competent. He knew what he wanted, and I simply followed.

There are sometimes when I am in a church, and the leader that has the moral responsibility, I volunteer to support him. They are incompetent or lazy. I try to bring up things to their attention, but we just diverge on perspective. I get frustrated trying to confront them about it, and I leave the organization like wiping the dust off my feet.

Depending on how close I am with various individuals in the church I'm leaving, I may contact some select individuals and warn them that they should probably leave too, if they can. It depends on the severity. One time it was a divorced, Youth Pastor that did not fit the Elder requirements due to his previous adultery. But, perhaps that's a story for another time.

As the battle that exists with American Churches, the split between Protestants, Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox, etc. is a question of Moral Authority. 

Christians have the term, "Schism." Or "Church Splits" in America.

This fight over who has the Moral Authority in the spiritual realm sometimes lead to bloodshed. Both sides believe they are on the side of God.

This becomes important for my next point.


"If you can't submit to my headship, just leave. I will not tolerate your rebellion."

When someone no longer wants to follow you, there's no amount of begging, reasoning, or pretty much anything you can do to convince them to follow you. This is a choice made entirely by the follower of whom they want to follow. Often times, they just want to be the leader and are bitter they aren't.

The Rational Male talks about this in more detail on maintaining your frame and general Game.

Let's look at the head's options of a family member with a rebellious heart that says: "I do not accept your moral authority over my life and I will not submit."

1) Surrender. Just do things the way they want to do it. They are now the de-facto leader while you maintain the Moral Responsibility. You will be held morally responsible for the consequences (which are usually not good).

2) Scare them into submission perhaps by getting angry and with threats. This will only build resentment, and in the end they will simply leave with extra bitterness when they can get their way. Expect a lot of passive-aggressive undermining going on leading to outright rebellion in a vengeful manner.

3) Convince them with logic & reason so they see your way. This rarely works, especially when it's an issue of Pride. Also, when making hard decisions, you are weighing various risk factors and everyone weighs differently what are acceptable risks or not. 

4) Cry, and beg them to do it your way. Really?

5) Ignore them and do it your way anyway. Remove every responsibility that you have given them if they cannot complete it in a competent manner. After about the 3rd time, you should understand they are failing intentionally. This is probably the best option as hopefully their rebellious spell just goes away when they know you'll just move on without them. You may have to do more work yourself now that you can't count on them, but it's better to do it yourself when it will get done, then by someone who is passive-aggressive and will work to undermine and sabotage the results anyway. It'll only piss you off, and you're an idiot for trusting them in the first place.

Don't set them up for failure when you know they reject your authority.

6) "Servant Leadership." This is just bull-shit term starting around 1975 that makes no sense practically speaking. I'm pretty sure it was created by Complementarianists to get around being called, "Sexist" by the feminists at that time. Here's the frequency of the word. It's a fake word.

It sounds great, and there's a lot of lip service, but this cannot be seen in any other way but Surrender. For a rebellious family member, they won't suddenly be "won over" by your constant surrendering to their rebellion. In addition, the "surrendering" you are doing is often to the detriment of the other family members. They will resent you for making their lives suffer more. It is rare that the "surrendering" you are doing is something that only affects you and not other family members.

In essence, if someone has a rebellious heart, there is nothing you can do to change it, except to pray for them. Remember, that even Christ, being perfect, could not "convince" Judas from betraying him. Even God, in all his wrath and punishment during the Old Testament, could not "convince" or scare the Israelite's from constant rebellion.

Betrayal and rebellion should be an expected part of any leadership role you take. In your businesses, you must weed them out by terminating them as soon as possible (See "Corporate Cancer" by Vox Day).

In family, you can't necessarily divorce your wife for rebellion, but that's your fault for not vetting her more carefully. Now you deal with it, and live in the corner of your house if you have to. But do not back down from your moral authority and responsibility over the household. If she Divorces you, thank God he ended your suffering. Be prepared for when that day comes.

I think with children, you can and you should be willing to follow the same principles. Just let them go. Don't beg them to stay. Let them go their way, as in the Prodigal Son. The father did not beg for the son to remain. God & Jesus never begged people to follow him. You live your life in Truth by example. They will choose or choose not to follow you.

Remember, only the Holy Spirit can change a rebellious heart. Remember, even your heart is rebellious toward God and it was changed not by your works, but by God's power.

Rebellion is the default status of our hearts beginning from the original rebellion against God by Adam.

The most important thing to remember is that the rebellious person often believes they are acting in God's Will and that your moral authority is illegitimate. You really think you're going to be convincing anyone to think differently?


After reviewing the New Testament Household Codes. I am of the belief that even when a rebellious, divorcing wife attempts to steal your children from your household, you still have moral authority and responsibility over the children.

In context of Roman Family Law and Apostle Paul, this matches his model. The children are part of the father's household and do not leave with a divorcing wife.

The perverse, legal system of today makes no changes to God's Design.

It is the father, who will ultimately be held accountable for the raising of his children. Of course, I believe God would make considerations if there are Government guns pointed at you that prevent you from exercising your moral authority, but to the degree that you can exercise your moral authority as head of the household, you must.

Divorce, the kidnapping of your children, and theft of your household goods does not change your moral responsibility.

Consider, that if any other outside party were to kidnap your children and steal half your household goods, your moral responsibility would not shrink in the slightest. It makes no difference that the kidnapper and thief is your wife. It does, however, make it all the more perverse and evil.

The moral responsibility was placed upon you by God, and God did not suddenly shift that moral responsibility to your rebellious wife through her her abominable actions.

The new household she created for herself through theft and rebellion is an abomination of God's design. She can never legitimately exercise moral authority in an artificial household that only exists by the evil laws of man. Even if you chop off your dick, legally change your name to "Sally" and have the law designate you as a female, you're still a man in God's eyes.
16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.
Note in the verses below, it's always the husband, or male of the household. This most likely coincides with Roman Family Law of the eldest male having moral responsibility in the household.
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 
1 Timothy 3:4, ESV

Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 
1 Timothy 3:12, ESV

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8, ESV

The entire Progressive, Feminist, Globalist Agenda of destroying Christian Institutions and family structures has been a disastrous experience for children over the past 50 years. It simply cannot be maintained. History will look back at this time with contempt at the men and women who perverted and rebelled against God's design, and the weak, Christian men who did not fight against it.

Deus Vult. Logos Rising.
The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.

A Gamma Male is an Abomination that the Lord Hates

16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.
Proverbs 6:16-19, (ESV)

Maybe not "and hands that shed innocent blood," in a literal sense, but the rest seem pretty spot on.

Monday, January 27, 2020

New Testament Household Code, Divorce, & Custody of Children

There are three main passages in the New Testament which outline the order of a household that are considered the New Testament Household Codes (Hausfafein) in Theologian circles. These instructions comply with Roman Family Law (Patria Potesas). There are three main passages of interest, Ephesians 5:22-6:9, Colossians 3:18-4:1 and 1 Peter 2:18-3:7.

More information can be found here: as well.

On Patria Potestas:

I will assume you are familiar with all the links I posted above.

What is interesting in the passages written by Apostle Paul is that in the structure of the household, he commands "servants" and "bond servants" to obey their masters. He also commands wives to obey their husbands. Paul even uses the word "likewise" just after instructing servants to "be subject to your masters with all respect" in 1 Peter 2:
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
The hierarchy in the family looks to be as such:

Father/husband --> Wife/mother --> Children

In the case of divorce, Roman Family Law dictated that the ex-wife would return to her father with a dowry and the children would remain with their father. The father, after all, had powers of life and death over the members of his family. The father would remain head of the household with only the ex-wife leaving to submit under the headship of her father.

Protestant tradition, including Martin Luther (who coined the term Hausfafein), and Puritans, take a literal, normative approach in interpreting these passages in how families should be structured. They most likely operated divorce in a similar manner as the Romans because the first, modern no-fault divorce laws were created in Russia, 1917.

Are we to conclude then that this is the structure that God designs in a family that goes all the way back to Genesis with the creation of Adam and Eve?

If so, what do we make it of those who seek to undermine, pervert and destroy this structure (both Christian and non-Christians)?

Evil. Sin. Abomination.


In American Family Law, when a wife divorces her husband, she destroys the household (as lead by the husband), splitting it into two and taking it for herself. If there are kids involved, she also may take the children, at best with a 50% custody arrangement, or at worst, complete legal authority with a couple days a month for the father to see his children.

There are many laws that exist in America that are immoral. They include abortion. They include the legality of watching porn, and having sex with prostitutes. The mere existence of a law does not equate morality. As I have pointed out specifically with the Duluth Model, the domestic abuse laws exist with the intentional purpose to destroy Christian Household Codes. It is not a bug in the system, but a feature.

When a Christian woman destroys the household that has been structured by God, she is sinning against God (and the others in the household). The woman seeks to revolt against the God-given authority of the father over the children, and create her own household where she becomes the head of household. She becomes head of a household created by pillaging the household of her former husband. In many cases, the matriarch will steal the children from the father's household to be placed under her dominion in her household. This is an abomination.

The only way this happens is because the father is threatened by death or imprisonment if he attempts to stop the sinful pillaging from the evil, Christian woman. Also, the modern church has been woefully inadequate in confronting, and calling out this public & persistent sin.

One of the other things to consider is that the Christian woman would had most likely stayed in the marriage if under a Roman Family Law system. Being able to be the head of her own household by pillaging the resources and children from the husband's is an incentive. Having to return to living in submission from one man (her husband), to another man (her father), without her children would be a worse situation.


If there is sin, it needs to be called out. If the pillaging and theft of children from the Husband's household is a sin, then the sin needs to be confronted and called out by the church. Assuming the husband is Christian, no Christian woman should be stealing wealth and the children from a household that she is leaving for sinful reasons.

Pastors should be weeded out who enable, encourage, or tacitly approving through their unwillingness to confront such a public, persistent, and damaging sin.

Let the Christian woman have returned to her the money she directly contributed to the household, leave the children to their father, and return back to her own father's household. Don't attempt to destroy or damage the household lead by the father.

I could probably even make the case that Apostle Paul would apply this same concept to a Christian woman divorcing a pagan husband.

My First, Lazy Attempt at Gardening & Growing Vegetables in a Tropical Climate (Puerto Rico)

I'm growing salad, spinach, kale, and green onions.

These guys are good resources since they grow in the tropics:
Both Rossie Naturals ( and David The Good

When A Doctor Recommending Surgery Can't Cite Studies, Find a New One


How can a doctor recommend a surgical procedure and not have any scientific studies to cite the potential risks and efficacy? How is staying up to date on the latest research "not part of my duties as a physician."

Does that mean doctors who recommend surgery are doing it based on information they had learned back in Med-School that they can remember?

What is their basis? Personal bias?

Always verify. Especially "credentialed" individuals.

In Response to "My Country" on Dying for Gun Rights

Fred wrote a response to my other posts on my disinterest in fighting for Gun Rights in the United States. It can be read here in its entirety here. I see this more of a discussion than a debate.

In the first blog post he stated clearly that standing up for his rights (specifically gun rights) is not important enough to die for.  He rationalized his position with the idea that his wealth is not tied to the land (his wealth is mobile) so if threatened he would just leave.  He gave further importance of not throwing your life away when you are a father.
I am writing from my perspective and my unique situation living in Puerto Rico. I am not implying that my particular calculations would apply throughout the entire world, or in your particular case. (nor should it). Every person's situation is different. I am not trying to make any moral claims.

If anything the second blog post has fortified in my mind the need for true nationalism.  I do not hold to any idea of racial superiority but every people deserve their own home.  Mr. Kim's parents may have improved the economical setting of his upbringing but they have also taken him from his home.  Worse he does not understand the giants who's shoulders he stands on.  My nation developed as a high trust Christian (not Judeo-Christian) society but that society has been invaded and a general trust in others is often taken advantage of and used against you.
This is too much to go into detail on. Check out Vox Day on his views on immigration being invasion. Proximity + Diversity = War. It's time to circle the wagons. I have no dog in this fight as I'm a foreigner and live in Puerto Rico, but I'm rooting for a explicitly Christian nation to emerge in the upcoming break-up of the United States.

Would you die for the right to bear arms?  It's a simple binary answer yes or no.  The question however is not exclusively binary.  It is situationally dependent.  For example if police enter your home to remove your arms, you can fight yes, possibly killing or being killed.  If you have faith in the judicial system you may choose to submit to the local authorities and then resolve the problem through the legal system.  There are a lot of scenarios that could play out.  Stating "I don't think most people in the rally would actually be willing to die for their gun rights" (in reference to the Virginia rally) Mr. Kim has imposed the extreme example to each of the people who were in attendance.  To what gain has he made this cowardly assertion?
I discussed this more in a different post on what kind of community I would be willing to risk my life for ( I think if I lived in the New Hampshire, I could see myself more realistically joining a militia.

As you noted, the question is not realistic. Perhaps a better question is, "Would I risk my life to defend this community against harm?"

There are two virtues that are put into what appears to be conflict.  One of bravery, and one of preservation.  Bravery requires you face danger for what is morally right. Preservation requires that you keep yourself and your family safe.  They are both virtues but the question is to which do you yield?  When given no context but imposing an answer ("would you die for__") you get LARPing.  To state categorically that you would not die to protect the right of your family to protect themselves solidifies the fact you are a coward because you can't envision a scenario in which bravery is more important than self preservation.
I think we are both thinking of different circumstances in our minds. In my particular case, I am stating that there is no particular community, other than my direct blood, that I would be willing to risk my life for.

We would need to discuss particular situations to discuss what my hypothetical response would be.

I think the rest of your article relates more to hypothetical situations that we would need to discuss directly. I think we may be in agreement if we are on the same page for literally every variable. It's impossible for us to determine every single variable being in such different environments and life situations.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

What if My Daughter is Unhaaaaaapy With Her Husband?

If one of my daughters came up to me and complained about how unhaaaaapy she was with her husband, I would tell her I would need to talk to her husband first.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24, ESV
My daughter is no longer my responsibility. I will do my best to vet her potential husband and interrogate him. I will not be judged by God for not protecting my daughter from her husband after they had married.

My daughter signed the contract to submit to her husband for life. Her only remedy is to divorce him. Until she divorces him, I really do not want to undermine the authority that the husband has over his wife. In the end of the day, the husband will be judged for how he leads his wife. The wife will be judged with how she follows.

I'm not going to White-Knight on her behalf like many Pastors would (, and if she decides to divorce, I would not hesitate to confront her for her sin.

I would definitely put pressure on her to settle the divorce in an amicable way, but in all likelihood, she would've had a pre-nup.

Custody is a tough situation that I would need to think about more, but the children are the father's responsibility, not hers. So in that sense, I would defer to the children staying with the father.

In all likelihood, a daughter of mine that divorces under frivolous reasons would most likely not come to me for help, because she knows I would probably call her out for her bullshit and side with her husband.

It's most likely a daughter seeking divorce was encouraged to do so by her own, divorced mother.

Two Wives, Competition & The Children (Jacob, Leah & Rachel)

The story of Jacob and his two wives, the ugly one and pretty one, brought on an interesting twist as I sort of, may have, two wives one day (

Let's say with the ugly one, I have had four children with. But the ugly wife hates me, doesn't have sex with me, and I still have to support her monetarily. Oh well. I guess I'm stuck.At least she lives in a tent far off where I don't have to interact with her.

It's interesting to read how the mentality of the ugly one was to believe that by having more children, that she will be loved more by Jacob (who obviously loved the hotter wife more).

By having numerous children, the ugly one knew she was set because now she has monetary security (maybe).

The hot wife, on the other hand, was not able to bear any children, so she handed over her servant to be impregnated and took the child as her own.

The thing that I found interesting was the concept of wives competing to be impregnated by their husband so that he will love them more. It also seemed as though the wives competed against one another to find favor with the husband so that he will thus favor more the children from the favored wife.

Let's say I get remarried and have children with a younger, hotter wife. Certainly, if I'm forced to have to choose between the children between my two wives (though one is technically divorced), will I not end up choosing the children from my current wife? Certainly, the favored wife will have more influence on my final decision compared to the wife who absolutely hates my guts and won't even talk to me.

I suppose I may discover just how strong this influence may be.

If the children are far enough apart in age, it's not necessarily an issue as they become adults and start working for the father at different times. This seems to be the case of Donald Trump and his children. His favorite wife, Melanie, has a 13 year old son. His other children are 42, 38, 36, and 26. So there's a 29 year spread.

Well. It looks like I'm still on track and ahead of schedule.

How To Have Two Wives (or more!) in the United States

I still pay my old wife monthly in order to support her and the kids. We obviously don't have sex. But that's OK because she's beyond the age of bearing children anyway. By the legal standard, we are divorced, but in all likelihood, I will be supporting her for the rest of her life.

If not through direct payments to her, it will be through my children who will probably end up working for me. The richest children will probably be the ones who stay working with me, and they will most likely be supporting their mother as she gets older.

I doubt she will get remarried, but if she does, I'll be super happy because it will be her new husband's responsibility to provide for her into her old age.

My ex-wife's father does not make enough money to financially support her into her old age. After her father stops working, her younger brother (the eldest son) would have to take on the charge of caring for my ex-wife. I don't think they make enough money either.

There is then, of course, the Government money who can act as a provider.

My children will never be happy with me if their mother starves to death, so at the very end, I'm probably still her safety net when the Government fails.

Under Roman Family Law, after divorce the children would stay protected under the father, and the ex-wife would return to her father.

But we live in a clown world.

So, instead, my ex-wife will remain tied to me financially for probably the rest of her life never being able to admit that in financial terms, we never really got divorced. She will never be able to acknowledge any sort of gratitude toward me for providing for her financially her entire life (whether directly or indirectly).

Gross, huh?

Then suppose I take on an additional, younger wife and have children with her. She divorces me as well, but I'm still stuck in the same situation as I am with the first wife.

Maybe I'll get a third, even younger wife (she might be in Junior High right about now) and continue the process.

UPDATE 2/22/2020:

As always, I'm 10 years late to the party as this was essentially stated by Vox Day in 2010:
Keep in mind that from both practical and sociological perspectives, the legal status of a woman as an "ex-wife" rather than a "wife" is largely beside the point so long as the man is still responsible for being the primary provider for the familial unit.

How I See My Wife Changes How I See My Kids

Maintain your frame. You're the leader. They follow. When they don't want to follow, you let them go.

Don't pander them. Don't chase them. Certainly, don't beg them to stay. Wipe the dust off your feet, and move on.

This advice would be obvious for a Roman patriarch. But the incessant years of feminization of our society teaches us to pedestal worship not only our wives but our children as well. The mother can beg. The mother can chase.

This is also the beauty of having many children. The more you have, the less you'll care if you lose a couple to rebellion.

I will love them. I will cherish them. But I will not tolerate rebellion. I hold the responsibility. I will be the one judged before God. I will not relinquish my authority. I will not lose my frame.

I seek the Truth. If they seek the Truth as well, we will be on the same path. If they choose to live in lies, I do not want any part in that. They are on their own. They are no children of mine. They are children of lies.

My other children who desire to follow me seek my leadership. I will not have time to waste for the rebellious.

If they repent and come back to the Truth, of course I will welcome them back as Christ welcomes me back.

This is what happens when you start looking into Roman family law.

This Marriage is Not What I Expected (So....Divorce)

I don't know how anyone can predict what will happen 10 years from now or how people will change. I respect more a woman who tells the man up front that she will not submit and will withold sex from him whenever she wants, than a woman who says she will submit to the leadership of the husband for life, and then later changes her mind.

Oh, and she kidnaps the kids, and attempts to asset rape him for the money she never deserved. Damn it, Karen!

This is the nature of many of the Christian women raised in churches by weak men. They provide lip service to the Bible verses about submission and sex, and then when it actually comes for them to fulfill those obligations, they suddenly find their "backbone" and refuse to be a "sex slave" or are only willing to submit for the things which she doesn't personally find demeaning or makes her unhaaaapy. She was a secret feminist all along.

It could also be that she just never really understood what it means to submit because she never saw it in her parents' marriage. She promised to do something for life that she never actually thought what sorts of sacrifices would be involved. Her mother certainly never had to.

Does her mother withhold sex and her father is addicted to porn? What do you think the mother-in-law will council her daughter when sex is demanded from her husband?

Take a look at this sample vow. How many American Christian women can actually mean this authentically for their entire life or truly know what they are agreeing to?
I [Bride], take you, [Husband], to be my husband. With the greatest joy I come into my new life with you. I know that I face new responsibilities that I cannot fulfill in my own strength. But by God's grace and power working within me, I desire to be trustworthy as your wife, to serve and love you for better, for worse, in sickness and in health, in joys and in sorrows, to obey you, to allow God to use you to build His qualities in me, as long as God give us life on this earth. I praise God continually for you [husband], and for your love and friendship.
The plain meaning of Scripture is clear and uncompromising. These Christian wives, through Women's Ministries and Women's Podcasts, find other Christian teachers to pervert the Scriptures to fit in with the Feminist agenda.

If, as the husband, you attempt to correct and remind your wife about her obligations as she first agreed to in the contract, well, that's just emotional abuse and manipulative.

Maybe she's staying in the marriage unhappily for a year or two until she can strategically betray you to gain the most leverage in custody. For a Christian wife that is unhaaaaapy, she will find some excuse to finally betray you through Divorce and still make it your fault. The Pastors will support her position if she cries hard enough.

In Roman Family Law, the disgruntled wife can simply leave the marriage with her dowry and the kids stay with the father. She can go back to her father.

Think about it. If your aged out, rebellious wife simply told you:

1) She could no longer follow your lead with good conscience
2) Asked for a flat, reasonable fee to leave and live with her father
3) Leave the kids to be raised by you


Pastors White-Knighting to Rescue Unhappy Wives

It was interesting to read a little on Roman Family Law and how the eldest male of the family has legal rights over the other members in the family. The father has the legal authority to discipline the members of his household. They can send their daughters to live in some far off part of the empire if they create dishonor to the family. They have legal authority over their wives.

If they get divorced, she receives her dowry, and goes back under the authority of her father, and the children stay with the father's family. Things were much simpler then.

It was in this context that Apostle Paul wrote his instructions about how wives should be submitting to their husbands. Today, Pastors preach from the starting point of no-fault divorce, alimony, asset rape, and custody battles. Their point of reference is Feminist Law rather than Roman Family Law.

The role of the patriarch in the family is one with authority and responsibility. In some cases, the patriarch would be held responsible for the poor decisions of his children and wife.

An unhappy wife's only remedy was to divorce. It generally was not a very messy process at all with minimal Government interference.

Christian marriage is a legal and religious contract between two parties. What God has put together, let no man separate. In the system, the husband agrees to have the authority and responsibility to lead the household. The wife agrees to accept the husband's authority, acknowledging that he will be held accountable to God for how he leads. They both agree to have unlimited sex with only one another.

This is something that is not written out and signed by both parties prior. Usually, these expectations are not clearly spelled out prior to the marriage. Even if the Christian wife agrees to this at the beginning, she will soon discover that there are many "loopholes" that other Christian Pastors tell her about to get out of the contract.

In the Churchian world, the responsibility remains, but the authority has been stripped to protect women from "abuse" and when she's unhaaaaaapy. Pastors may provide lip service that the wife should be submitting to her husband, but they will provide numerous "exceptions" to the point that the wife can pretty much self-justify anything she doesn't like as the fault of the husband not leading well.

How many Pastors do you think counsel Christian wives unhappy with their husbands to spend one month just doing everything the husband asks instead of fighting over every little thing?
But I'm no DOOR MAT! I'm not his MAID. I'm his WIFE, not his EMPLOYEE! I just can't submit. That's just WHO I AM. Why can't he just love me for who I am? My rebelliousness and all? I'm tired of being the who has to change. He has to change. I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! (this is code for, "I'm going to divorce him.")
Well, because she's unhaaaaaapy, it must be something the husband is doing wrong. The husband must be too domineering (and abusive) and his expectations are too unrealistic. The woman's emotional state should be the standard by which we determine if the husband's demands are too unreasonable or not. If the demands were not so unreasonable, she wouldn't be so unhaaaaaapy.
The household should be lead by the emotional state of the wife.
This sounds insane, but things would just be a whole lot more clear if Churchians just said what they want clearly and directly, instead of trying to flower it up in Bible-speak.

This underlying mentality becomes reality once the unhaaaaaapy wife starts complaining to a Pastor. If you are familiar with the SSH, most of these Pastors are not Alphas. They are perhaps Betas at best, but generally they are social losers who get some kind of pleasure subverting the headship of husbands to make themselves look good.

The Pastor will provide a sympathetic ear and listen only to her side of the story. They will see her tears of how much she's abused. They will console her, give her a shoulder to cry on, and tell her, "Your husband is a very bad man. I will protect you from him. You did the right thing by coming to me with your problems. Let me show you how I can be a better emotional husband than what you have."

The Pastor believes it is his calling to protect the oppressed women of the world from the big, bad MAN.

She is so scared of her husband! She cries, and cries, shivering from her fright! The Pastor gets angry.

"What kind of monster could do such a thing to this precious, little flower?! I will protect her! I will make it so she can stay in a safe place away from this monster! I will help her flee from this monster! I will NOT tolerate or allow this monster to hurt her again!"

By the time the husbands ask the Pastors, "Where's my wife? What have you done with her?" the damage has already been done. The headship has already been destroyed. The Pastor inserted himself inappropriately acting as the male protector. The Pastor replies:

"You are a monster. I am protecting your wife from YOU."

White-knights to the rescue.

I think this mindset is common among Pastors because they have a tendency to Pedestal Worship. They tend not to have slept with a lot of different women, and not realize just how evil, manipulative, and simply untrustworthy they can be. They just can't help themselves.

They get some kind of White-Knight adrenal rush, feeling powerful, that they can steal the authority away from another man. It's kind of like they stole another man's wife. They conquered.

In Roman Law, these Pastors would be violating the law. In today's Feminist Law, the woman will just file Divorce.

The whole point is to punish the husband and make him suffer until he capitulates to the demands of the wife so that she can be haaaaaaaaapy. The root causes of her rebelliousness are never addressed because now the frame of the relationship no longer is the husband's direction, but of the emotional state of the woman.

And now that the woman knows she has some beta-allies to usurp the tyranny of her husband's headship, she will be two times the rebellious bitch she was before.

On the other hand, if she knew the Pastor would just tell her she needs to submit to her Christian husband as she contractually agreed to in her wedding vows, and he would not interfere with such a sacred agreement, then maybe she'll just divorce the guy. Or maybe she'll figure out there's no beta-rescuers around who will interefere and choose to submit.

This half-way measure of causing the husband to suffer until "she's finally had enough" and inevitably leaves him to find a new White-Knight to save her from her unhaaaaaaapiness is just torture for all involved.

Just divorce him already.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

When Your Wife Feels She's Your Sex Slave

This is the face you see when you need to release your seed.

When your wife starts feeling like she's your "sex slave" in your marriage, it's already over.
Never marry a woman who does not see sex as part of her marital duties, because she is a woman who does not believe a woman has any marital duties. Sex is the single most important aspect of a marriage, indeed, it can even be theologically argued that sex is marriage.  
This woman is already telling LS that she will not accept him as the head of the household, will not put the academic interests of her children ahead of herself, and will only have sex with him when she happens to feel like it. I would be astonished if LS managed to stay married to her for four years, if he is sufficiently unwise as to propose to her.

It amazes me to hear how infrequently men have sex with their wives in the Church, even Pastors (or perhaps especially Pastors).

It's her body. Her choice. She's not in the mood. Now that she has "the security of a ring backed up with the full force of the American family court system," you've trapped yourself into a sexless marriage. Time to get into porn addiction rather than confront her (that's what most do. Implementing a MAP is better, see Athol Kay).

To demand sex from your wife as your conjugal right will be called "abusive." What is she, your sex slave?
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 
1 Corinthians 7:2-5, ESV
Just Divorce him already. End his suffering. Let him find a younger wife who will be eager to satisfy his sexual needs.

50-50 Marriage Is a Lie & Will End in Divorce

Vox Day hits it right on the head in terms of what I've been thinking through in his post, "Of captains and first mates": (
This comment at Amazon concerning Athol Kay's book on marital sex is educational and highlights both the effectiveness of what he has written as well as the intrinsic challenge its concepts pose to husbands and wives alike: 
Let me just say, as a feminist, I found so much of it to be revolting and awful. I stayed up all Saturday night reading it. I was irritated and pissed off at times, yet I could not put it down.... My husband is a VERY good looking man, think Tom Brady good looking. He is incredibly attractive. 6'3", green eyes, blondish brown hair/full head, a member of Mensa and makes six figs. His genetics alone are what women would kill for. So why is it then that for me (the higher sex drive person), sex is just eh and I often don't want it.... 
It hit me like a torpedo last night after everybody else had gone to bed. I want the Captain husband and me as his First Mate. I am tired of being the person in control. I never wanted it in the first place, he assumed I did as he saw this dynamic with his parents. I am tired of words vs. actions. He always says I turn him on, I am the one he wants, I am sexy. He doesn't back it up with action though. His "action" is to wait and see, a very unsexy trait. He is very dominant in his career, so clearly he has the ability. I want him to be dominant in our relationship. I want my husband to say "be ready at 10 pm, wearing these heels and this lingerie" instead of "are you staying up?". I want the directive and the passion that comes across with it. I would literally be putty in his hands if he told me instead of asked. 
In most marriages there are one of four problems, and this woman is a good example of at least one of them. The first thing to understand is that there is absolutely no such thing as a 50-50 marriage, any more than there can be a true 50-50 presidential election. It's not so much that it does not exist as that it cannot possibly exist. The two-party marriage, like the two-party political system, means that one party must be in the effective majority at all times or nothing will be decided and no actions will be taken. If both parties are in agreement, then obviously there is no issue. It doesn't matter who is in charge. But when they are not in agreement, one party will decide and it will either be the party that is a) the default majority if one was previously determined or b) the more static party. The reason for (b) is because it is always easier to do nothing than act. 
The four problem scenarios are 1) Captain wife, First Mate husband, 2) Two Captains, 3) Two First Mates, 4) abdicated Captain husband, insubordinate First Mate wife. Scenario (1) can actually work for a while if the wife has a dominant personality and the husband a submissive one, although it is a fragile relationship and likely to eventually break down due to female hypergamy. It's usually only a matter of time before the wife loses all respect for the delta husband and starts pursuing an alpha or beta who makes her feel submissive and sexy. In any case, there isn't any fix for this scenario, it simply is what it is. 
The problem with scenario (2) is obvious. In this case, the marriage is likely headed for divorce sooner rather than later since both parties will tend to simply go their own way and neither will offer much support for the other. Unless one party breaks the other one to their will, there isn't going to be much space for negotiating disagreements, and in most cases, both parties will find it easier to end the relationship and move on. The one positive observation is that such breakups tend to be on the amicable side. 
Scenario (3) is almost always the husband's fault. In this case, the wife is actively trying to submit to her husband and follow his lead, only he will not permit her to do so because he doesn't want the responsibility that goes with the Captain's role. It's fairly difficult to make someone assume leadership when he doesn't want it, but the one tactic that can work for a woman in this position is to simply refuse to make decisions or even express an opinion. The key, of course, will be for her to avoid second-guessing those decisions once she finally forces him into making them by default, as that will undermine the very objective she is hoping to accomplish. This is superficially the situation described by the Amazon reviewer, but based on certain things she says, it appears to be more a combination of (3) and (4). And this is the one scenario where the constant Churchian calls to "man up" are actually pertinent advice. 
In the case of scenario (4), both the husband and the wife are typically culpable to varying degrees. It is usually, though not necessarily, started by the wife's repeated refusal to follow her husband's lead, an action which is subsequently exacerbated by his abdication of the Captain's role and refusal to even attempt to offer leadership anymore. While (4) can be fixed in a relatively easy manner, the challenge is that it will require the wife to do two things that tend to be difficult for women, which is to first accurately share her desires for her husband's leadership and then to clamp down on her inevitable desire to engage in back-seat driving as soon as he begins to exercise it. No man is going to lead where no one follows. 
What the Amazon reviewer has belatedly discovered thanks to Athol is that she wants influence and respect, not actual leadership and responsibility. She clearly doesn't want to decide when and how to have sex, although the chances are that she also has a contradictory desire for a veto over his decisions. The problem stems from the observation that very few women truly understand the difference until they obtain, either purposefully or inadvertently, a position in the relationship they do not want. This problem is compounded by the fact that most men make lousy First Mates; men tend to believe that if a decision is not our responsibility, then we have no need to spend any time thinking about it or even having, let alone expressing, an opinion. 
This is why an atheist like Athol has nevertheless recognized that the Biblical model of the husband is a superior one, even for irreligious couples. When the man is the Captain and the woman is the First Mate, he is more likely to be comfortable making decisions and she is more likely to offer him both advice and support. When the woman is the Captain and the man is the First Mate, she is likely to be forced to make decisions that she does not want to make without any advice or support on a regular basis. And, of course, the 50-50 model, be it Captain-Captain or First Mate-First Mate, is structurally liable to devolve into the tragedy of the commons while it lasts. 
Both men and women would benefit from accepting the actual state of their relationships. If you're the one making the decisions in an aspect of your marriage, then you are the leader whether you consider yourself to be or not. And since you can't be the leader and not be the leader at the same time, if you don't want to be the leader then you have to ask your husband or wife to accept leadership on that issue. If you are the leader, then you need accept the fact of your leadership and the decision-making responsibilities that go with it. A significant problem with most American marriages, as indicated by the Amazon reviewer, is that women are the sexual Captains and they do not want to be. But unless they are willing to turn over sexual leadership to their husbands and actively embrace the First Mate role, there can be no permanent improvements in that aspect of the relationship. 
In summary, married women have two choices before them. Either accept your man's decisions or accept the fact that you're going to making the decisions for both of you for the rest of your marriage. Whether one likes that choice or not, the logic is inescapable. In a democracy of two, one vote always has to count more than the other one.
Christian Marriage is unique in that it is a hierarchical relationship that is supposed to be for life. When there are differences of opinion on how to proceed on even the most minor issue that conflicts, someone needs to have a final say in the matter.

Every supposed 50-50 model that exists ends in an "irreconcilable difference." No business partnership ultimately lasts forever because eventually there will be a parting of the minds, and they go on their separate ways. Or, one of the partners simply goes along with where the other partner goes (which is not 50-50.

In the case of a Christian wife submitting to the final decision of the husband, when she submits, she will be told that she's just being a door mat, being walked all over, which encourages her bitterness. If the husband demands compliance from a rebellious wife, he will be labelled an abuser, and the stronger the husband demands compliance, the greater the victimhood status of the rebellious wife.

The only option, in today's world, is to simply ignore the rebellious wife and do things as you intended so she can't claim you are abusing her. Cut out all responsibility and trust you have for her so you are not inconvenienced by her inevitable negligence, deliberate sabotage, or other passive aggressive thing she'll do to undermine your authority.

Undermining Christian Headship By Calling it Abuse

There is constant attack on Scripture to change what it means in light of new moral words that have been created in society (ie. Racism, Abuse, Patriarchy, Homophobia, Gender roles, etc.). I demonstrated the growing usage of many of these fake words ( created with the purpose of rhetorically shaming those with power into silence and compliance.

The term "racist" has to be one of the more powerful ones still used today. Another word that has received popularity is "abuser." You see this in terms of "physical abuse," "spiritual abuse," "emotional abuse" etc. In regards of Mark Driscoll, the term abuse was quite common leading to his downfall.

What is inherent within the term "abuse" as used today is a power imbalance, or hierarchy that exists. "Abuse" involves the one with the power and control in a relationship to have over the other person with less power and control to do an action that the one with less power does not want to do.

In the case of the Duluth Model, it is always the man that uses power and control to coerce a woman to do something that she would not normally do if the man did not have that power and control over her.

To say it a different way, "Abuse" is whenever someone in authority demands someone they have authority over to do something she doesn't want to do.

A woman can initially believe that she was in agreement, and then later rewrite her initial agreement as being "manipulated" and that she never actually was in agreement. She was, in fact, battered. Being "battered" encourages her to rewrite history to emphasize her victim status. She will find many allies to support her victimhood.

The term "abuse" has even been used to describe Christ's Crucifixion as "cosmic child abuse."


The term "rebellious" would be a counter to a wife claiming she is being "abused."

Christians know very well our rebellion against God in our sin. We rebel against THE Divine Authority, Jesus Christ.

Rebelliousness implies that there is a legitimate hierarchy that exists. One has authority over another. To claim you have been abused means you are stating that the authority is illegitimate. You can see this in many other hierarchical relationships which seem mundane:
  • Employees will say that their bosses are abusive and controlling over their lives, preventing them from doing what they want to do when they want to do it. Bosses will say their employees are rebellious.
  • Children will say that their parents are abusive and controlling over their lives, preventing them from doing what they want to do when they want to do it. Parents will say their children are rebellious.
  • Players will say that their coaches are abusive and controlling over their lives, preventing them from doing what they want to do when they want to do it. Coaches will say their players are rebellious.
  • Subjects will say that their King is abusive and controlling over their lives, preventing them from doing what they want to do when they want to do it. The King will say his subjects are rebellious.

The underlying question for the "battered" is this: Am I willing to submit to the Authority placed over me?

If they believe the authority is legitimate, then they will tell themselves they need to stop being so rebellious and be more compliant. If they believe the authority is illegitimate, they will believe they are being abused and they need to rise up in rebellion to overthrow the authority.
Whateva', I'll do what I want.

In many hierarchical relationships, the individual who no longer wants to submit to the authority of the other can simply break off the relationship. Of course, there are many which cannot be so easily ruptured, such as Government and Marriage.


Christian Marriage is not unconditional love. It has numerous expectations. Marriage is a contract. It is supposed to be for life. There is really no other hierarchical relationship that reflects this. Unfortunately, most people don't write down all the expectations they have in marriage and find that their assumptions were incorrect.

The reason why investigating the marriage of the parents of your wife is so important, is because that is the baseline of how she will see what is acceptable and not acceptable in your marriage. It will also be the baseline for when your mother-in-law gives advice to your wife on how to "manage" you.

If her father is weak, and her mother rules the household, then that is what your wife is expecting the marriage to be like. The wife will be shocked to actually experience a man who will not allow the wife to rule the household. Your mother-in-law will probably encourage your wife to rebel, just like she does to her own husband.

Even though the wife may understand in her head the teachings of the Bible about submission, she may not actually be aware of what it actually looks like in practice. It's one thing to read about something, it's another to have it emotionally affect your entire body.

Here is a sample marital vow:
I [Bride], take you, [Husband], to be my husband. With the greatest joy I come into my new life with you. I know that I face new responsibilities that I cannot fulfill in my own strength. But by God's grace and power working within me, I desire to be trustworthy as your wife, to serve and love you for better, for worse, in sickness and in health, in joys and in sorrows, to obey you, to allow God to use you to build His qualities in me, as long as God give us life on this earth. I praise God continually for you [husband], and for your love and friendship.
There are more Bible verses that go into submission. These verses are not preached about very often in modern churches ( If they are preached about, it's to counter the common understanding as the teachers Cuck to the pressures of the world and Satan. Vox Day calls them Churchians.

Do you believe Apostle Paul, alive today, would say that a word invented in the 1970s ("abuse") countermands his instruction to wives to "submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."? The Godless people who popularized the word "abuse" in today's context created them with the explicit intent to counter Apostle Paul's teachings. So, in short: No.

The Rational Male talks a lot about the "hamster wheel" and all the beta-orbiters & white knights that come to the woman's defense for her rebellious nature.

In the Church, these are pastors and other women who distort Scripture to justify the rebellious wife. The abused wife has an epiphany that she's been a "door mat" her entire marriage. Finally, she found other Christians to support her and give her the courage to finally stand up and say, "I'm not going to take it anymore!"

It's one thing to acknowledge that a wife's rebellious nature is too great and she can no longer, in good conscience, submit to her husband in defiance to Scripture. This I could respect. 

It's another thing entirely for Christian pastors and teachers to distort the plain meaning of scripture to encourage out-right rebellion from wives under the banner of, "my husband is an emotional abuser and I'm the victim, therefore, I can do no wrong."

I could try and claim that the wife divorcing a husband is a bad thing, but this is only due to the way the legal system is setup (ie. asset rape, custody, etc.). But in a context where the legal system is not involved, this frees up the man to wipe the dust off his feet and find a much younger, more attractive, and pleasant wife.

Depending on the man's situation and even with asset rape, the man may discover that her initiating the divorce was the greatest gift she could had ever given him. As Proverbs states, it's better to live on the corner of the house than with a cantankerous wife. But you can't divorce her for being rebellious, so you're stuck.

If it weren't for the government involvement, it works in a man's favor for an aged out woman to divorce her husband.
Live free! You don't need no man to be happy! You don't need to be told you're wrong. You are strong. You are woman! Don't let any man tell you how to live your life again!

Social Engineered Attack on Christian Headship (Patriarchy): Duluth Model

Owen Benjamin and Vox Day discuss a lot about Conspiracy Theories. In summary, conspiracies are the best explanation for past events and predictor of future events. A small group of people conspire to change or affect larger society. (ie. Food Pyramid)

Something happened around the 1960s and 1970s when certain words started being introduced to the English vernacular. The meta-theme of these words is regarding equality vs inequality. Are humans inherently different (creating a natural hierarchy) or is the hierarchy proof that there is some kind of social structure that creates these differences? (If you want to go even more meta, look at Aristotle vs Plato)

Regarding the differences between men and women, the Christian model places the husband in the authoritative role in the family. There has been a deliberate attempt to attack and dismantle this model using the legal system under under the guise of "Domestic Abuse." Unfortunately, many Christians do not realize just how subversive the term is to Christian headship.

If you think people hate being called "racist," imagine how much stronger a rhetorical attack is for someone called an "emotional abuser" or being a victim of "spiritual abuse" and "domestic abuse."

Here are some words I looked up on Google Ngram Viewer. It only goes to the year 2000. I’m fairly certain it’s become even more insane now, but this is good enough to get the general idea.


Emotional Abuse
Domestic Abuse
Domestic Violence


Toxic Masculinity



Male Privilege
Emotionally Manipulative
Power and Control

Conspiracy Theorist


One of the things I discovered, thanks to Dalrock's blog, is the Duluth Model that may help explain the rise of the words "Domestic Abuse." There are probably better explanations, but this model is essential to how Domestic Abuse is viewed today.

Here’s a summary of the Duluth Model:

The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence against women. It is named after Duluth, Minnesota, the city where it was developed.[1] The program was largely founded by Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar.[1]
As of 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States.[2] It is based in feminist theory positing that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners".[2] Critics argue that the method can be ineffective as it was developed without minority communities in mind and can fail to address root psychological or emotional causes of abuse.[2]

The model has been widely adopted throughout the laws in the United States around the 1980s and the verbiage in the Puerto Rican law from 1989 essentially reflects the model.

This is the Power and Control wheel frequently used to label someone a “domestic abuser.” If you want to be the head of the household as instructed in Scripture, you will technically be an abuser according to this Model even if you never lay hands on your wife. Note also, that only the husband can be considered the Abuser. The gender pronouns are intentional. Men are the abusers and women are the victims:

Michael Paymar, the primary founder of the Duluth Model states that the goal of the Duluth Model is to coerce (through laws) “education intervention” (AKA court mandated reprogramming) in order to dismantle Biblical gender norms:

The underpinnings of the Duluth curriculum do come from a historical analysis. When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage. From the church to the state, there was not only acceptance of male supremacy, but also an expectation that husbands would maintain the family order by controlling their wives. Various indiscretions committed by wives were offenses to be punished by husbands. This system of male dominance (like any social structure where one group oppresses another) was perpetuated by: a) a belief in the primacy of men over women; b) institutional rules requiring the submission of women to men; c) the objectification of women which made violence acceptable; and d) the right of men to use violence to punish with impunity (Dobash and Dobash 1983).

 Do all men who batter want to dominate women? This is a complicated question. Clearly, many men who batter believe that women should be submissive to men and there are others who share a variation of these sexist beliefs—“The man is the head of the household” or “You can’t have two captains of one ship.” However, there are other men who batter that don’t believe that their wives or girlfriends should be subservient because of their gender, but they still batter. These men use violence to control their partners because they can and violence works. Violence ends arguments. Violence is punishment—it sends a powerful message of disapproval.



I recommend you read the whole document to understand the full scope of their intent. They are explicitly stating their intent to subvert, and flip on its head the teachings of Scripture. Biblical headship is domestic abuse when the inevitable time arises when the husband has to tell his wife, "no."

Dalrock’s blog goes into more detail on how the Duluth Model has infiltrated the church. Here are more entries about the Duluth Model on Dalrock's blog: You will also find his commentary on "Complementarianism" to be especially informative.

No Feminist, anti-Christs from the 1970s get to override Scripture. There is no reconciliation or compromise to be made with these God-hating, egalitarians. As expected, Cuckservatives & Churchians conserve nothing and have essentially adopted a watered-down Duluth Model into their worldview confusing their flock to what Biblical submission looks like.