Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard.

It has long been obvious to me that whenever the topic of the sexual double standard is raised the end result is a rush towards female sexual immorality.  The correlation here is perfect, but the mechanism had until just recently eluded me.

The reason for the perfect correlation is that when women raise the topic of the sexual double standard they are not expressing a revulsion for sexual sin, they are expressing envy for men.  Envy of men is at the core of feminist rebellion, and envy is an exceptionally powerful temptation for women.  This goes back to Genesis and Eve’s curse, and even further with Eve being tempted to envy God for His knowledge of good and evil.

Take for example the recent Ashley Madison hack, and what at least appears to be (and very likely is) an extremely large skew when it comes to memberships.  A woman who is repulsed by sexual immorality will of course be repulsed by the revelation of rampant sexual immorality.  But she won’t think that it isn’t fair that women aren’t getting their share of sexual sin via the site.  The fairness question is really a mask for envy, for coveting the sin the woman perceives men as naturally enjoying.

With this, I present Dalrock’s Law of the Double Standard:

Whenever a woman* complains about the sexual double standard, the woman is demanding a license to sin.

*Or a man acting as a proxy for a woman or women.

This entry was posted in Ashley Madison, Envy, Law of the Double Standard, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard.

  1. Pingback: Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard. | Manosphere.com

  2. Also related:

    Lots of women have been laughing about how many men were on the site for whatever reason. Now, these men chose to go on the site, but it is also an indictment of the influence of frigidity in marriage.

    Sure, some men are going to cheat regardless. But how many of these accounts wouldn’t have been there is wives were enthusiastically respecting their men and having sex with them.

  3. ddswaterloo says:

    Envy is at the core of all liberal equality movements.

    Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. For good, reason. With liberalism. feminism. SJW’s we see its fruits.

    Satan was the first example of envy. He was thrown out of heaven in rebellion. To wander the world in attack mode. And here they are.

  4. rdchemist says:

    Nobody was cheating on Ashley madison. An analysis of the data shows there were only a couple thousand women that were active on the site for about 10 million men to fight over.
    http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

  5. Nburke says:

    I’ve heard nothing but comments about how pathetic these men are for falling for this scam and being duped out of their money while trying to cheat.

  6. Mark says:

    @Dalrock………..Nice Post Mr.’D’

    @ddsWaterloo

    Nice to meet a fellow Canuck here.We are neighbors.You are in Waterloo and I am Toronto.I went to your blog and read your article……….https://ddswaterloo.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/proud-to-be-a-canadian-actually-i-am-disgusted-2/……………..very nice.Lots of great points.I left it here for other Canucks that frequent this blog to read.

  7. Evan D. Hartshorn says:

  8. As I’ve said before, many psychologists believe “Penis Envy” to be more than just a giggly talking point. That’s why so many women cackle with glee when one of us loses ours.

  9. Dave says:

    Envy is at the core of all liberal equality movements.

    No matter how privileged an envious person might be, they cannot be happy. That is a major reason why feminists are actually more miserable today than they were 50 years ago, in spite of their “many gains”.
    An envious person’s happiness depends on making other people sad, and that is another proof why feminism is not about equality. The feminist wants to hurt men, not merely to be equal to men.
    Feminism is an insatiable canyon. Even if the whole world were to be given to the feminists, they would still complain about something—–maybe that too many responsibilities have been placed upon them to run the world.

  10. justdoit says:

    It just struck me also as something along the same lines. About all the women that complain about guys getting dick pics (on tinder or whateever), what she really is complaining about is that nobody sent HER any dick pics. This is standard female operating procedure, namely to say exactly the opposite of what is true.

  11. Pingback: Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard. | Reaction Times

  12. technovelist says:

    Here’s the latest in the “fat normalization” propaganda, as far as I can tell. I haven’t actually watched the show though…

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

  13. Novaseeker says:

    Women weren’t on AM not because they aren’t interested in affairs, but because they don’t need AM to have an affair. If they want to have an affair, they generally either do it with a work colleague (most common), personal trainer (also fairly common) or, increasingly, someone they meet on a more female–friendly site like Tinder (see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3070746/A-people-hookup-app-Tinder-married-WOMEN-likely-cheat.html ).

    I agree on the point about envy. I would say, though, that more than a few men are envious of the easier access women have to casual sex.

  14. Gunner Q says:

    “The reason for the perfect correlation is that when women raise the topic of the sexual double standard they are not expressing a revulsion for sexual sin, they are expressing envy for men.”

    Excellent insight.

  15. Spike says:

    “Whenever a woman* complains about the sexual double standard, the woman is demanding a license to sin”.
    Good point Dalrock.
    The first woman I ever heard proclaiming the double standard was a divorcee at university whose husband was very successful. She divorced him and ended up back on the carousel, only to find that men were not interested in marrying her but would readily pump and dump. This made her angry, bitter and a massive contrast to my working-class friends, most of whom happily married young. She thus had to retro-justify (“Hamsterise”) her actions and came up with the DS.

    What is sad about women sprouting the DS -BS is the assumption that all men are behaving like the Ottoman Sultans, with a massive harem that they choose from. Women see this because that is the type of man to whom they give their sexual approval. The majority of men are invisible to them, and that majority are not having sex like Sultans. Envy happens because they will inevitably be out-competed by the younger and hotter, but you cannot tell them that.
    On another note, you and Rollo should collaborate. He has his “Iron Rules”, you have this law. Together they are better predictors of female behaviour than any popular relationship book.

  16. Dragonfly says:

    “Now, these men chose to go on the site, but it is also an indictment of the influence of frigidity in marriage.

    Sure, some men are going to cheat regardless. But how many of these accounts wouldn’t have been there is wives were enthusiastically respecting their men and having sex with them.”

    That’s exactly what I was thinking. How many marriages come to that point because of how little women understand of male sexuality and their need for sex?

  17. greyghost says:

    Married men don’t pull their dicks out of their wives and stick them in their girlfriend’s stink hole. Sexually active husbands don’t have affairs. I had to tell that to a young talking trash about men cheating. I will be telling my daughters that in a few years.

  18. feeriker says:

    What is sad about women sprouting the DS -BS is the assumption that all men are behaving like the Ottoman Sultans, with a massive harem that they choose from. Women see this because that is the type of man to whom they give their sexual approval. The majority of men are invisible to them, and that majority are not having sex like Sultans.

    A significant amount of penis envy is based on the apex fallacy.

  19. feeriker says:

    How many marriages come to that point because of how little women understand of male sexuality and their need for sex?

    My own experience has me convinced that most “frigerators” understand male sexuality and their husbands’ needs perfectly; they just don’t care. Whether it’s loss of sex drive due to hormone changes or illness, or the fact that they’ve lost sexual attraction to their husbands, they just aren’t interested in sex. Some are apathetic about their husbands seeking sexual release elsewhere, other get upset – not because they’re really concerned about their husbands straying, but because they can’t abide the thought of their husbands being sexually satisfied.

  20. Pingback: Ah, Teh Stupid, it just burns… | See, there's this thing called biology...

  21. GeminiXcX says:

    Just look at the anti “slut-shaming” movement. What are all those college and university protests actually demanding?

    Are they demanding “Call men sluts too!”, or, “Don’t call women sluts!” ?

    That is your answer.

    -GXcX

  22. Dalrock, I think your law has even broader implications and is, in fact, the origin of the instant AMALT that we get first from EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who was ever confronted with the true nature of women. Sure, Men Are Like That Too.

  23. Ceer says:

    Women don’t need Ashley Madison to have an affair for a couple of reasons. First, feminism has most men scrambling to get sex…they are controlling the supply, so the demand keeps dripping through the dam. Second, women’s attraction triggers are piqued more by nonverbal cues than by words they read on a page. The two reasons make sure that women get what they ask for when they ask for it…

  24. Ceer says:

    @ freeriker

    How can a woman not abide to see her husband sexually satisfied? She knows it causes him pain, in many cases enough to leave her or to seek relief somewhere else.

  25. Andy G says:

    One thing none of those websites reporting on the Ashley Madison hack is how many women were spared, possibly due to selective release of data.
    One went through all the data and claimed that most female accounts were fake.
    So one of three scenarios played out:
    1. Female account data was withheld by white knight hackers;
    2. There really aren’t many females and men aren’t getting what they pay for;
    3. Men are paying the extra money for the ‘guaranteed affair’ and the women are really prostitutes paid for by AM (making AM a pimp by defacto).
    It could be a little of all.

  26. MarcusD says:

    “One thing none of those websites reporting on the Ashley Madison hack is how many women were spared, possibly due to selective release of data.”

    Yes, female-majority sites were not released.

  27. “Whenever a woman* complains about the sexual double standard, the woman is demanding a license to sin.”

    DING DING DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!

    Women want what men have, but don’t have what it takes intellectually, physically and psychologically to get it. Like others have said in these comments, you can expand the law to apply to most women’s complaints.

  28. @ Marcus

    “Think about it. Be responsible… because you can’t expect women to.”

  29. theshadowedknight says:

    Jake was raped! This is a cover up! Everyone, Jake was raped, too! Justice for Jake!

    The Shadowed Knight

  30. Ceer says:

    In thinking about the AM leak itself, what IF information for most of the site’s female subscribers was withheld? This might serve a purpose.

    To retain some leverage over the site to make future demands…
    To hurt the site by falsely showing everyone it’s a huge sausage fest…
    To white knight, saving these women by outting the men for their philandering…
    To eliminate all the competition, thereby having all the married sluts to himself…

    Given how debased marriage has become in the west, and women tend not to do cause and effect well, I think that AM actually had a similar M/F ratio as other dating sites. What IS clear is that the hackers actually had access to the AM database, and aren’t shy about releasing names en masse.

    I’m sure this has occurred to the media, but they’re probably refusing to discuss it.

  31. Pingback: Father Knows Best: End of August Linkfest | Patriactionary

  32. Opus says:

    I find that poster linked by Marcus D to be quite shocking – it is does not appear to be a parody. Is it perhaps the case, I wonder, whether the idea that alcohol nullifies consent is merely the latest American manifestation of Prohibition? Over here alcohol is colloquially known as knicker-elastic loosener: when I was younger women were always cautious as to the amount they drank limiting themselves per date to a glass of dry white wine; I thought Xmas had come early when one young woman (full of the Apex fallacy) asserted that it was a double standard to suggest that women could not drink pints of lager (cold beer) just like men proceeded to do so and shortly afterwards spread them for me.

    So here is another version of Dalrock’s Law: Whenever a woman complains about the drinks double-standard the woman is demanding a licence to get laid.

  33. Dave says:

    That’s exactly what I was thinking. How many marriages come to that point because of how little women understand of male sexuality and their need for sex?

    Women don’t need to understand men’s sexuality, they simply need to submit to it.
    All men must have the “sex talk” with their prospective spouses. Mine is very direct, and goes like this:

    “You must never turn me down for sex, ever. Unless you are physically unable to engage in sex with me, or you have a spiritual reason which you have previously discussed with me. Even if you are not in the mood, you must tell me so, so I can get you in the mood. Sex is very important to me and I would hate to have to look for it elsewhere.”

    I have not met a woman who objected yet. They either giggle, joke about what I said, or say nothing.

  34. greyghost says:

    The ironic thing of the “double Standard” it is the women that have it. Women are not aroused to tingles by virgin men. As seen many times here on this blogs nice guys that respect women and concern themselves with how women feel are rejected. And laws were passed and culture adjusted to make punishing those men palatable. At the same time players with huge counts that have gina tingle have the attention of women. These men are desirable by women. The equivalent women were and are never attractive to any men for marriage. Booty calls and pump and dumps are ok to some. Men would go along and wife a slut but with marriage and unenforced contract for women the strength of the marriage and the well being of the man is founded entirely of the character of the woman. As that truth and reality gets out the double standard has more basis in reality.
    I still like MGTOW family through surrogacy. Save yourself a lot of problems

  35. greyghost says:

    MarcusD That poster is most likely real and the people that posted it up have no idea how bad that shows women. It is the perfect training poster for any men’s red pill class.

  36. PokeSalad says:

    Oh, its real. Coastal Carolina University.

    Yall may not realize how far the rot has gone.

  37. Cane Caldo says:

    Excellent, as expected.

    Envy of men is at the core of feminist rebellion

    Yessir. At the core of women is desire, and envy is disordered (sinful) desire.

  38. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    I agree on the point about envy. I would say, though, that more than a few men are envious of the easier access women have to casual sex.

    Yes. This is part of most, but probably not all, red pill bitterness. Similarly, there are many men who envy other men for their sin. There is a twisted Trad Con logic that goes something like:

    I’ll teach those promiscuous men (whom the women are interested in instead of me), I’ll make women promiscuous too! How do you like that, Mr. Badboy!

    Mr. Badboy of course likes that turn of events quite well, but the men caught up in this train of thought are impervious to seeing this.

  39. Nburke says:

    The ironic thing of the “double Standard” it is the women that have it. Women are not aroused to tingles by virgin men. As seen many times here on this blogs nice guys that respect women and concern themselves with how women feel are rejected. And laws were passed and culture adjusted to make punishing those men palatable. At the same time players with huge counts that have gina tingle have the attention of women. These men are desirable by women. The equivalent women were and are never attractive to any men for marriage. Booty calls and pump and dumps are ok to some. Men would go along and wife a slut but with marriage and unenforced contract for women the strength of the marriage and the well being of the man is founded entirely of the character of the woman. As that truth and reality gets out the double standard has more basis in reality.
    I still like MGTOW family through surrogacy. Save yourself a lot of problems

    Women aren’t turned off by virginity. Virgin men are usually that way because they can’t get any, not because they are faithful Chrisitians exercising self restraint. If they were attractive enough to have sex with women and did not women wouldn’t be turned off by that.

  40. A Visitor says:

    “I find that poster linked by Marcus D to be quite shocking – it is does not appear to be a parody. Is it perhaps the case, I wonder, whether the idea that alcohol nullifies consent is merely the latest American manifestation of Prohibition?”

    As several have said, it’s real. When I was in college a little under a decade ago, we had similar posters at mine (a well known college). I was talking with a friend last night and commented how (in this example) parents do not understand how the school their child attends (even if it’s private or parochial) differs from when they were there.

  41. Weenis says:

    Dalrock, great post. I agree. I know few women who rail against promiscuity.

    Since you have been discussing adultery and sexual sin recently, I wonder if I might posit a question for you or your readers- (not to derail the thread…)

    I was married and got frivorced from Mrs. Damocles. Since then, I became promiscuous, but today I am repentant, and do not want any more sexual sin in my life, ever again.

    I have a GF who is also divorced. I have suspended all activity with her, in light of my desperate repentance. I had thought the solution might be just to marry her (she is top notch) and then settle in and ride out the clock with her.

    However, based on Jesus’ definition of adultery in Matthew, and Paul’s admonitions about adulterers not going to heaven, I am now in doubt. My key desire/requirement is to be obedient to the Lord.

    So the question is, is there any accomodation in scripture for my situation, so I could marry her and still be in obedience?

    If there isn’t, then my sex life is over. (unless my ex dies and I find a virgin to marry lol)

    I did not put my wife away, she put *me* away. There was no cheating on either side, as far as I know. I was faithful for the whole 10 years. I think she was too. She was just not haaaaappy.

    The GF and her ex both had cheated at some point in their marriage.

    How’s about it, guys? Is there any allowance from God for me to acquire a new “helpmeet”? I should note that I have had severe health problems and she has tended and cared for me in an exemplary manner. I am still sick, fighting for my life, and I don’t know how I would function without her. I am effectively disabled.

    Sorry if it’s off topic. Thank you Dalrock and brothers

  42. greyghost says:

    Women aren’t turned off by virginity. Virgin men are usually that way because they can’t get any, not because they are faithful Chrisitians exercising self restraint. If they were attractive enough to have sex with women and did not women wouldn’t be turned off by that.

    Yes they are turned off by it. You partially explained why in your comment. And it is one of the things these supplicating to the FI preachers and church leaders need to understand if they are going to have any headway in the changing of hearts and minds to the path of biblical principles.

  43. Mister E says:

    Love your writings Dalrock. Very informative and the angle you promote is one that I’ve unfortunately missed for years. After I was first married, my wife once refused me sex and then in the same breath, reassuringly stated that she loved me but “just knew” that I’d cheat on her someday. You can imagine my mixed feelings/emotions at that point in time. I could not figure out her motive and could not convince her that if she put out I’d be far less likely to cheat. The hamster liveth.

  44. PokeSalad says:

    I should note that I have had severe health problems and she has tended and cared for me in an exemplary manner. I am still sick, fighting for my life, and I don’t know how I would function without her. I am effectively disabled.

    Hmmmmmmmmm. *ping*

  45. Pingback: Don’t play hard to get. | Dalrock

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I agree on the point about envy. I would say, though, that more than a few men are envious of the easier access women have to casual sex.

    Dalrock
    Yes. This is part of most, but probably not all, red pill bitterness.

    I’ll agree it is part of red pill betterness, but disagree that it is part of most. Some red pill beitterness is surely due to a man realizing that words do not mean the same thing to women as to him; that women can and will lie quite casually to any and every man, including fathers, brothers, sons and … husbands. A man who takes oaths and vows with utmost seriousness, and who assumes that women do the same, will find himself questioning every single word that comes out of a woman’s mouth once the Glasses are on his face. Every single word, including “I Do” comes under increased scrutiny when a man has learned the truth about women. This puts him in the position of requring himself to measure and honor his words, while realizing that her words may well mean nothing, nothing at all. It’s another of the double standards that feminism has only made worse.

    This is another source of red pill bitterness, and IMO it is greater portion than the ease-of-sex issue. At least for those men who are careful with their words, anyway.

  47. Lyn87 says:

    @ weenis,

    Just so we’re all on the same page:

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    It is important to note that the word Jesus used that is translated as “fornication” (πορνεύω – porneia) is the generic word for sexual sin, while the word translated as “adultery” (μοιχός – moichaō) specifies sex with a women who is married to someone else. In other words, a woman who was unlawfully divorced is still married to her first husband in the eyes of God – there is no other way to read that as far as I can see.

    I have locked horns with the leadership of my church over this very matter, because they view their role as preserving “the marriage that exists.” This is one of the few areas where I heartily disagree with my church’s doctrine. To me, only one marriage exists, and the second one is not a marriage at all (but rather an adulterous union), regardless of what the state says. Both the pastor and the assistant pastor have told me they disagree with my understanding, but neither one can point to any scripture to support their view.

    At the time Jesus answered that particular question a woman did not have the right to initiate divorce (ah… the good old days!). Nonetheless, a husband who was abandoned by his wife (which is essentially what happened to you – she just used the apparatus of the state to do it) was not free to marry another woman. My take? You and your wife are still married, and thus you are not free to remarry. You can try to get back with her if you want, and I would think that you would be free to remarry if she ever engages in fornication (which would include her getting married to someone else), since you would then have the right to divorce her for fornication.

    That’s you: as for your GF, I don’t know enough about the situation to comment on her eligibility to remarry (I am very skeptical, but I won’t say that I know for sure). My question to you would be this, though: Why would you want to marry a divorced woman who chose to marry an adulterer and was an adulteress herself? Especially since you stated that your cessation of sexual activity with her was at your insistence (which implies that she would be open to it even now)? That’s a HUGE red flag.

  48. Lyn87 says:

    Women aren’t turned off by virginity. Virgin men are usually that way because they can’t get any, not because they are faithful Chrisitians exercising self restraint. If they were attractive enough to have sex with women and did not women wouldn’t be turned off by that. – Nburke

    I concur from personal experience. After I began my transformation from generally-Gamma toward sorta-Sigma in my early 20’s (terms explained here), I remained an out-of-the-closet virgin for religious reasons. By the time I started to get good with women it simply was not a problem. It may even have worked in my favor occasionally, since nothing says “DILLIGAF?” more than letting a girl know that I was immune to being wrapped around her… finger.

    Granted, the “good-time girls” didn’t like it because they were just looking for a roll in the hay and I wasn’t going to oblige, but to the better class of girls it was like catnip.

  49. @ Weenis

    So the question is, is there any accomodation in scripture for my situation, so I could marry her and still be in obedience?

    If there isn’t, then my sex life is over. (unless my ex dies and I find a virgin to marry lol)

    I did not put my wife away, she put *me* away. There was no cheating on either side, as far as I know. I was faithful for the whole 10 years. I think she was too. She was just not haaaaappy.

    Jesus in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16 does not give a divorce and remarriage clause. Rather, Jesus states that you can put someone away it may only be done so IF they fornicated prior to marriage. Otherwise, it would be adultery.

    Putting away is NOT the same as adultery as the Law of Moses stated that a Jewish divorce was putting away + a writ of divorcement in Deuteronomy 24. The Pharisees were tempting Jesus because they only asked about “putting away” since that was a divorce in Roman context. This is similar to their tempting him of paying taxes to Caesar (pay them to Caesar or God?) and the adultery woman (stone her = Jewish law, BUT Roman law forbids Jews to execute people without coming to them). Hence, the Pharisees are trying to pit Roman law versus Jewish law and trap Jesus.

    Hence, there are no exceptions for divorce. What Jesus said on divorce still stands: What God has put together let man not separate. This is why the disciples in Matthew 19 came to him after and said it would be better not to marry. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 talks about separation and reconciliation.

    Now, men were/are allowed multiple wives in the OT. Passages are translated as saying deacons and elders (e.g. 1 Tim 3) must be a man of only one wife, which theoretically means that you could have more technically. You have to come to the conclusion between yourself and God if legalism is something you want to pursue.

    The GF and her ex both had cheated at some point in their marriage.

    Everything above is a moot point. Don’t marry someone who once cheated.

    Any man here can tell you that.

  50. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Your comment on virginity is why the church needs to teach red pill nature of women and why game is effective. By keeping men ignorant (basically lying to them by omission, it works both ways women are just as ignorant) the men become unattractive to women. The young men have done everything “right” Confident Christian faith with real world knowledge makes for a powerful man. That is attractive.

  51. dpmonahan says:

    Remember Paul allowed Christians to remarry if the non-Christian spouse left. May apply to your case.

  52. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/08/30) | The Reactivity Place

  53. jsr says:

    @Weenis

    If the woman is eligible for marriage, your marriage would be morally acceptable, although perhaps not ideal. You may even need to take your first wife back (not legally per society) if she repents and actually balance two wives. Polygamy is not a sin per the Bible. Read what God told David about giving him more wives. However, I doubt your girlfriend is eligible for a moral wedding per biblical guidelines. She may still be married to her ex from the Bible’s perspective.

  54. Lyn87 says:

    Deep Strength,

    You say that there are NO exceptions, but Jesus Himself disagrees,

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    It’s hard to argue in favor of “no exceptions” when the phrase “except it be for…” is right there in the quote.

    And it doesn’t matter if there was a distinction between “putting away” and “divorce,” because the word “divorce” does not appear anywhere in that passage of scripture. It’s a distinction without a difference, anyway, since the word in the Greek New Testament for “putting away (a wife) is apolyō, which is a synonym for divorce by definition. Also, the word “divorcement” is found four times in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word is kᵉrîythûwth, which has an identical definition. There is no textual indication or etymological reason to think that either the Pharisees or Jesus meant anything other than “divorce” in the way that we mean it now.

    Having said that, you are the only person I’ve ever encountered who understood that the most likely reason for Jesus’ precise wording there was that a bride’s prior sexual activity was grounds for dumping her and getting someone else… I was starting to think that I was the only one. Also, you correctly noted that men (other than deacons and elders) could have more than one wife. But clearly a man could commit adultery with his “wife” if he divorced unjustly and married another woman, as is clear from the first half of that verse: so he couldn’t sidestep the rule by claiming the next wife as merely another wife.

  55. Lyn87 says:

    Edit: Also, despite our disagreement on the precise reading of Matt 19, both Deep Strength and I are in complete agreement that marrying a cheater is a bad idea. Whether or not it’s allowed (and I think we both agree that in this case it is not), it’s almost certainly a really dumb thing to do.

  56. Lyn87 says:

    jsr,

    upon what do you base you assertion that, “If the woman is eligible for marriage, your marriage would be morally acceptable“? Matt 19:9 is pretty clear that it would not be. Is there some passage of scripture that supersedes Matt 19:9 in this circumstance?

  57. Lyn87 says:

    greyghost,

    I agree, although I much prefer the Biblical concept of sōphroneō (essentially, mastery over oneself and one’s passions) to the secular (and inferior) derivation known as “game.”

  58. PuffyJacket says:

    I’ll agree it is part of red pill betterness, but disagree that it is part of most.

    Seconded. Even the bluest pill schmuck already knows women have far easier access to casual sex than men, and has known since at least high school. This isn’t problematic to him. He also knows of some women who chased the badboy. Again, not problematic. The problem is that he was consistently told this is not actually the natural insticts of women, because what women wanted all along was the “nice” guy. Even daring to suggest the opposite was worthy of setting himself up for absurd accusations of being a “misogynist” or “loser”, even when he is clearly neither (if not the exact opposite).

    Red pill bitterness is more a function of how deep and systematic the above lie is, hence the incredibly accurate analogy to the matrix.

  59. OKRickety says:

    Lyn87 said

    To me, only one marriage exists, and the second one is not a marriage at all (but rather an adulterous union), regardless of what the state says. Both the pastor and the assistant pastor have told me they disagree with my understanding, but neither one can point to any scripture to support their view.

    If I remember, I will see how author Jay Adams explains his opinion that, even in the case of a frivolous divorce, the second marriage is valid to God.

    Note: Jay Adams is not a believer in easy divorce or remarriage. For example, he believes that a divorced Christian should not marry another as long as there is any possibility that the marriage can be restored.

    Lyn87 said

    At the time Jesus answered that particular question a woman did not have the right to initiate divorce (ah… the good old days!).

    Although a Jewish woman could not technically initiate a divorce in Bible times, she certainly could request one, and, with sufficient grounds, her husband would have been forced to give her a divorce. For example, in Exodus 21:10-11 it says a wife is entitled to a divorce if the husband marries a second wife and reduces the first wife’s food, clothing, or conjugal rights. Per this article The Wife’s Grounds for Divorce on chabad.org (Jewish site),

    The right of the wife to demand a divorce is as legally entrenched as is the right of the husband to demand a divorce.

    For the non-Jews, it seems divorce also could be initiated by the wife. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul says:

    But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband, (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

    The word translated “leave” here is the Greek chōrizō which would be better translated as “divorce”. Paul confirms this when he says “if she does leave, she must remain unmarried …”.

    It appears to me that women in Bible times, both Jewish and non-Jewish, could get a divorce if they wanted to do so.

  60. @ Lyn87

    You say that there are NO exceptions, but Jesus Himself disagrees,

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    It’s hard to argue in favor of “no exceptions” when the phrase “except it be for…” is right there in the quote.

    And it doesn’t matter if there was a distinction between “putting away” and “divorce,” because the word “divorce” does not appear anywhere in that passage of scripture. It’s a distinction without a difference, anyway, since the word in the Greek New Testament for “putting away (a wife) is apolyō, which is a synonym for divorce by definition. Also, the word “divorcement” is found four times in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word is kᵉrîythûwth, which has an identical definition. There is no textual indication or etymological reason to think that either the Pharisees or Jesus meant anything other than “divorce” in the way that we mean it now.

    Having said that, you are the only person I’ve ever encountered who understood that the most likely reason for Jesus’ precise wording there was that a bride’s prior sexual activity was grounds for dumping her and getting someone else… I was starting to think that I was the only one. Also, you correctly noted that men (other than deacons and elders) could have more than one wife. But clearly a man could commit adultery with his “wife” if he divorced unjustly and married another woman, as is clear from the first half of that verse: so he couldn’t sidestep the rule by claiming the next wife as merely another wife.

    Disagreed.

    Jesus spoke that it was fine to put away (NOT DIVORCE) a woman who fornicated prior to marriage otherwise she commits adultery.

    This is because in Deut 22 provides the rules for determining the validity of the marriage which is the sheet with the blood on it from breaking the hymen. This is a valid marriage covenant — where blood was spilled.Hence, putting away a woman that fornicated prior to marriage [often without you knowing of it] is not a DIVORCE because there is no marriage covenant.

    Specifically,

    1. GREEK Apoluo is akin to HEBREW Shalach — putting away
    2. GREEK apostasion is akin to HEBREW Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.

    Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion): 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichaō): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluō) committeth adultery (moichaō).

    Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

    Ch19 v3-6: Pharisees try to trick Jesus because they are pitting Roman Law on divorce (putting away WITHOUT the writing of divorcement) against Jewish law (putting away with writing of divorcement).

    If Jesus says that a writing of divorcement is required before sending away, then He is subverting Roman law and they could accuse Him to be sentenced to death. If Jesus says that it is lawful to put away a wife without a writing of divorcement, then Jesus would be in violation of Jewish law and could be disregarded and stoned. Jesus provides the elegant solution that was from the beginning: that there should be no divorce.

    Jesus sidesteps the question going back to Genesis.

    Ch19 v7-9: Pharisees recognize that He sidesteps their question and thus tell us about how they were trying to trick Him on the writing of divorcement. Thus they ask Him about it instead.

    THEN Jesus answers the original question: When can you put away a wife (NOT DIVORCE) a wife: Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

    This goes back to the aforementioned Deut 22 on divorcing your wife if she was not a virgin. There is no valid marriage covenant if she did not spill blood on the marriage bed. Hence, she can be put away [without a writing of divorcement] and it won’t be adultery if she remarries.

    Blood forms contracts with God. God split the animals with his promises to Abraham. The burnt offering sacrifices. Jesus’ blood on the cross forming the New Covenant. Communion obviously represents this.

    See these for more details:

    http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/on-divorce/

    TL;DR: There is no divorce clause to get out of marriage if a spouse commits adultery. Jesus specifically said you can put away a woman if she fornicates prior to marriage as it wasn’t a marriage given Jewish law that marriage is proof formed by covenant of blood. Hence, Jesus’ “What God has put together let man not separate” still stands.

  61. Gunner Q says:

    Nburke @ 9:53 am:
    “Women aren’t turned off by virginity. Virgin men are usually that way because they can’t get any, not because they are faithful Chrisitians exercising self restraint. If they were attractive enough to have sex with women and did not women wouldn’t be turned off by that.”

    You forget preselection. A man can be attractive despite virginity but it’s definitely an SMV obstacle to overcome.

    I find it helps to view women as unable to recognize attractive men for themselves so they watch their sisters (and Oprah) to figure out which men they should like. The apex fallacy is then a logical consequence of this positive-feedback process.

    @Weenis:

    If you marry the GF and never cheat again then that’s as decent an outcome as can be managed. The adulteries have already happened, before your repentance, so committing to who you have or stopping entirely both seem like acceptable solutions.

    Both your previous marriage and hers are definitely broken so there’s no chance of reconciliation. Once both divorce and adultery occur it’s actually sinful to later renew that marriage. (Jeremiah 3:1)

    Since this all happened before your repentance, and because you appear to still have a strong libido, in your situation I would marry the GF. It’s a good sign she’s already taking care of you in your sickness.

  62. Weenis says:

    Thanks guys. It’s all very confusing. I just want to be obedient to the Lord.

    One thing I find remarkable is that it seems like the Holy Spirit, through Paul, seems to lean towards us not worrying too much about sex to begin with. I don’t mean willy-nilly fornication, but rather, it should almost be a non-issue in a man’s life if he is doing his overall duty to bring his flesh into subjection. I think the Lord would prefer we remain single entirely, and generally abandon our obsessions about sex. I am only 45, but in my ill health it’s no problem, as I am nearly unable to have sex anyway. I almost don’t want to be restored to health, lest my flesh get strong and take me back down a bad road.

    My girlfriend is not the bad news she might seem like, if I gave full info on all that stuff, she is, in fact, the finest woman I have ever known, and we function together in a relationship format so well I can hardly believe it. She places herself in full submission to me. She is excellent.

    If the Lord does not allow me to marry her, then my sex life is over at 45, but right now I don’t even know if I will see 46 anyway.

    If I must abandon the relationship, it will be one more giant, grievous heartbreak on top of all the other grief my sins have brought. In addition, I may falter entirely, without her. I am willing to do this, as I will not defy the Lord whatsoever in this. It’s just a terrible place to be, and a terrible cost looming, perhaps whether I keep her or not.

    I’d rather a pathetic death on an old roadside than to miss heaven for disobeying in this.

    God bless you all

  63. Weenis says:

    I will also note that I begged God for help on the day of my divorce. No help came.

    And my ex-wife is a fully professing Christian, both now and when we were married.

  64. @ Weenis

    I will also note that I begged God for help on the day of my divorce. No help came.

    Jesus promised that we would suffer as Christians. Most of us didn’t expect that some of it would come from other “professing” Christians.

    I think the one big thing about being a Christian that is hard to wrap our minds around is that God allows suffering for a reason. If He doesn’t help us in some situations then He wants us to learn and grow from the lessons.

    And my ex-wife is a fully professing Christian, both now and when we were married.

    Jesus said: you will know them by their fruit

  65. Regular Guy says:

    @ Weenis

    “…The GF and her ex both had cheated at some point in their marriage.”

    Only fools try to wife up a slut. I consider myself a former fool in repentance.

  66. Regular Guy says:

    @greyghost

    “I still like MGTOW family through surrogacy.”

    More of this alternative lifestyle garbage. The butchering of the English language is directly correlative to the degree of wicked licentiousness in modern western culture. A “MGTOW Family” is no more a family than a “Gay Marriage” is a marriage, “Social Justice” is Justice or a “Single Mom” is a Mom in any way. All of these post-modernist labels come with qualifiers that directly contradict the subject it is qualifying.

    You rail against modern feral women’s lack of morals and the damage they leave in their wake in the lives of their children, yet you propose to have men raise a generation of children without mothers? You can twist the English language as you see fit to assuage your conscious and you can lean on your own wisdom in an effort to bypass the natural order but you will NOT sidestep God’s Law of sewing and reaping. You’re a fool and a hypocrite.

  67. Regular Guy says:

    And for those doubting there is an objective moral law and an objective moral law giver…

    The volitional need to qualify what is known to be good (i.e. Family, Marriage, Justice) is the unspoken admission by the moral aggressor that the idea being communicated cannot stand on own it’s virtue. The very existence of these qualifying, soviet-speak labels is unspoken admission of what even the aggressor knows to be true or a lie and exposes themselves for what they value.

  68. greyghost says:

    Regular Guy
    She is a helper. Besides that what the hell do you think changes women’s attitude. Most of the things spoken about here are theories and ideas and scripture. The real world and actuality says fuck you and a man with a gun shows up and ventilates you with a 40 s&w just how it is. The other alternative is to take up arms and destroy this government. Or we can do the MGTOW thing. MGTOW with biblical principal is just fine. A man having a child outside of some woman is just fine. The child will do fine. women today are not the romantic idea you have of mothers other wise this blog wouldn’t be here. As soon as men start handling their business without women they will change their tune. Remember they have the power of the government behind them. The Ideal is a family with Man ,wife and child It is our job to get it there. Some of us won’t look righteous along the way so what. I guess you get to go to heaven and us bad hypocritical men go to hell. Fine with me I’ll go to hell for my and your son.

  69. feeriker says:

    How can a woman not abide to see her husband sexually satisfied? She knows it causes him pain, in many cases enough to leave her or to seek relief somewhere else.

    Never underestimate the influence and power of contempt when a woman loses attraction for her husband.

  70. OKRickety says:

    Lyn87 said:

    To me, only one marriage exists, and the second one is not a marriage at all (but rather an adulterous union), regardless of what the state says. Both the pastor and the assistant pastor have told me they disagree with my understanding, but neither one can point to any scripture to support their view.

    I reviewed the material by Jay E. Adams in his book Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible, and use it as a basis for the following explanation.

    In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, if a man divorces his wife frivolously (v. 1), and she marries another (v. 2), and the second man divorces her or he dies (v. 3), then the first man is not allowed to marry her again (v. 4).

    If only the first marriage was valid to God, then the first husband should be allowed to marry her again, but he’s not allowed to do so! Obviously, the first marriage is no longer valid in God’s sight, but was superseded by the second marriage. Remember, this is God’s Law, not legislation by the state.

    Returning again to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul says:

    But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband, (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

    [Note: The word translated “leave” here is the Greek chōrizō which would be better translated as “divorce”.]

    Paul says “if she does leave, she must remain unmarried”. If the first marriage is still valid, why does Paul call her “unmarried” (implying that she could possibly marry another)? Obviously, she is divorced, even if it is a sinful (frivolous) divorce. If she were to remarry, then it would be adultery, but it would still be marriage. Yes, I would say she is living in adultery unless she ever confesses, repents, and asks for God’s forgiveness.

    In summary, I believe sinful divorce can be followed by another marriage, but it will be an adulterous union unless she confesses, repents, and asks for God’s forgiveness.

    In considering this question, I thought about Christians marrying non-Christians. Are those marriages sinful? They do disobey Paul’s command in 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be bound together with unbelievers”)! Consequently, I realize that I should view these marriages as sin, just as I have long considered second marriages of sinfully divorced people to be sin.

  71. Lyn87 says:

    I’m not sure why so many people are looking for loopholes to allow divorced people to marry other people. Jesus said what He said: just deal with it. The bottom line is that a person can be divorced (separated from his/her spouse – with or without the permission of the state), but that does not necessarily make him/her unmarried in the eyes of God, otherwise what Matt 19:9 says would literally make no sense… otherwise why would Jesus specify that the subsequent marriage is adultery? When we realize that it’s possible to be in a relationship that is both a marriage and an adulterous union (which is the ONLY way to read Matt 19:9), the confusion over language disappears. The argument about the translations seems pointless as well: The Jews had divorce in the time of Moses (kĕriythuwth), the Jews had divorce in the time of Jesus (apolyō), and Roman law allowed it (repudii). It’s not like everyone involved didn’t know what divorce was. The genius of Matt 19:9 is that the Pharisees were looking for a legal loophole and Jesus closed it by stating that a divorce for any reason “except for fornication”, did not end the marriage, and thus subsequent marriages were adultery. Also, conversion does not nullify one’s pre-conversion marriage – not even 1 Cor 7:15 implies an automatic annulment to a convert married to an unbelieving spouse.

    tl/dr: Jesus said what he said, and neither Jay Adams nor anyone else gets to redefine it. Divorce does not set you free to remarry except as specified in Matt 19:9.

  72. mrteebs says:

    Precisely Dalrock. Feminists don’t necessarily want to call the cad to a higher standard of behavior, they want to BE the cad, while removing all stigma. Hence, slutwalks.

    Nor is it about sexual equality, where both men and women can be cads with equal impunity. It’s Heartiste’s summation of one of feminism’s prime objectives: to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

  73. mrteebs says:

    Exchange the words “Jake” and “Josie” along with “man” for “woman” and “him” for “her” in MarcusD’s poster. I wish I lived near that campus. 10 minutes with photoshop, a nearby Kinkos, some thumbtacks, and $25 could yield about 20 of mirror image versions to post side-by-side with the “real” ones — and the hamster olympics to explain the double standard would spectacularly ensue.

    It can really only be understood in light of Heartiste’s assertion: feminism is about removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

  74. OKRickety says:

    Lyn87 said:

    When we realize that it’s possible to be in a relationship that is both a marriage and an adulterous union ….

    I agree that a marriage can also be an adulterous union.

    In case there is any doubt, I believe that divorce is always sin except for the cause of porneia (fornication, sexual immorality).

    Additionally, I think marriage in the Western world today is very risky for a man. This is especially true for a marriage to a non-virgin or a non-Christian, and marriage to a sinfully divorced woman is effectively insanity.

  75. OKRickety says:

    In case there is any doubt, I believe that divorce is always sin except for the cause of porneia (fornication, sexual immorality).

    In my haste, I forgot that, based on 1 Cor. 7:12-15, I also believe divorce is allowed in the situation where one spouse becomes a Christian after marriage, and the non-Christian spouse chooses to divorce.

  76. Lyn87 says:

    First, a bit of background:

    If an unsaved couple marries and one of them becomes a Christian they are obviously still married (1 Cor 7:13 says, “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” One spouse becoming a Christian does not nullify the pre-existing marriage otherwise the Christian spouse would have to leave to avoid fornication. Now, on to the next question: If the unbelieving spouse leaves, is the Christian spouse free to marry someone else? Some, like OKR, say yes based on what it says two verses later: 1 Cor 7:15, which reads, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

    But note that Paul did NOT nullify Matt 9:19 there – he merely said that the Christian whose spouse left was “not under bondage.” The Christian spouse has no obligation to try to get the other person to come back, but that’s a far cry from a blanket statement rescinding the ruling Jesus made that only allows remarriage in cases of fornication.

    No requirement to pursue the person who left =/= freedom to marry someone else.

  77. Lyn87 says:

    Edit:

    OKR did not advocate remarriage after an unbelieving spouse leaves.

  78. @ Lyn87, OKRickety

    There is no get out of marriage card or remarriage card. As I stated before, Matthew 19 does not allow divorce for any reason.

    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife [implied: WITHOUT A WRIT OF DIVORCEMENT], except it be for fornication (porniea) [implied: PRIOR TO MARRIAGE AS FORNICATION IN MARRIAGE IS ADULTERY AND MOICHEUO WOULD’VE BEEN USED HERE INSTEAD], and shall marry another, committeth adultery (moicheuo): and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery [implied: BECAUSE SHE IS STILL MARRIED TO YOU IF YOU PUT HER AWAY WITHOUT A WRIT OF DIVORCE AND SHE WAS A VIRGIN].

    Jesus is saying you can put away (NOT DIVORCE) a woman who fornicated PRIOR TO MARRIAGE since her “marriage” to you is NOT A MARRIAGE because of Deut 22 no blood on the marriage sheet HENCE NO COVENANT MARRIAGE. Thus, women who aren’t virgins when they marry can be put away (apoluo) without a writ of divorce (apostation). Hence, PUTTING AWAY (apoluo) is not synonymous with divorce since under Jewish law in Deut 24 divorce required putting away (apoluo) AND a writ of divorce (apostation).

    This passage does not say you can divorce someone if they commit adultery!

    Even IF Matthew 19 allows divorce for adultery (WHICH IT DOESN’T), both Mark 10 and Luke 16 do not allow divorce for any reason covering the same topical passage with the Pharisees.

    Hence, NO DIVORCE FOR ANY REASON as what Jesus said still stands: “What God has brought together let man not separate.”

    Given that I’ve explained this 3 times now I’m done. You can hang onto the wrong exegesis at your own peril when giving out advice on this passage.

  79. Lyn87 says:

    DS,

    Writing in bold caps doesn’t make you right, nor does saying the same thing three times. I’ve seen your explanation, but it is simply wrong. When I have a direct quote from the Son of God saying “…except for fornication…” I’m inclined to take Him at His word. If there was any ambiguity (and there doesn’t seem to be much), I’d rather err on the side of what Jesus said rather than what somebody thinks he meant.

  80. I think Weenis can remarry in good conscience. It’s the sexual union between a man and woman that seals the marital covenant in God’s eyes – which is why He forbids fornication – so it stands to reason that adultery fractures that bond, which is why Jesus made it the exception.

    Why should Weenis, or any other victims of an adulterous spouse, be confined to a life of single celibacy because of their former spouses’ sin?

  81. Damn Crackers says:

    @Deep Strength

    Recent scholarship reveals you’re mistaken. Read some of the links from David Instone-Brewer on divorce. From contemporary Jewish debate about divorce during the time of Jesus, the debate was about Any Cause (no-fault) divorce not all divorce.

    http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/Articles/WhitefieldBriefing.htm

  82. Lyn87 says:

    Chris,

    I think Weenis can remarry in good conscience… Why should Weenis, or any other victims of an adulterous spouse, be confined to a life of single celibacy because of their former spouses’ sin?

    Weenis specified right here that neither he nor his wife committed adultery prior to her filing for divorce, which is the only legitimate thing that allows remarriage (per Matt 19:9).

  83. Weenis says:

    So, I married a woman who divorced me frivolously, and now I am doomed to a life of celibacy.

    Where does the bible address “when a wife divorces her husband”, which is what happened to me? I never wanter the divorce. I begged her not to do it. Does that matter?

    If she divorced me for no legit reason, could that be an argument that she was never a Christian to begin with? Does it matter that she had 2 sons when I married her? (the stepsons I raised)

    Does the blood of Jesus cover the entire disaster, and forgive well enough that I could be free of my past mistakes, and so could my GF, so that we could have a union blessed by God?

    Doesn’t it say that He will remember our sins no more? Or that He has the right to forgive us? Or that He could restore me after I was robbed?

    My friends – I am willing to bail and go the celibate route. I will not choose her over God.

    I do not wish to ratiionalize or spin things into what I want them to be.

    It just seems that the bible does not really address my predicament directly.

    We are not under the law, but under grace. Grace is no license to sin, but we are supposed to seek the Holy Spirit about what He wants us to do. The Holy Spirit will not contradict the Word, of course, but like I said- the Word does not address my particular circumstance. I didn’t divorce her, she divorced me, and cast me out of my own home. Is there not enough grace that I might be able to have a ‘help-meet’ that the Lord desires me to have? Is it impossible to imagine that the Lord might make a provision for me, so I can have the help He intended me to have, and provide the grace to cover it?

    The Lord allowed Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and said His grace was sufficiant to cover it. Paul did not go to hell because of the thorn. Thus, the thorn was not counted against him. Could it be that “Love covers a multitude of sins” and that a life of obedience to God would be sufficient for God’s grace to cover this thing that we screwed up, and genuinely repented from? Or are there no second chances for one who loves Jesus?

    Just thinking out loud. Thoughts?

  84. Damn Crackers says:

    Weenis,

    Rather than looking for answers on the comment boards, research what some of the Christian denominations and theologians (like the one I mentioned above) say about the matter. Specifically, read about the divorce debate going on with the Jewish community before and in Jesus’s time. Proper knowledge will help guide your conscious and what Jesus actually meant.

  85. Weenis says:

    Thank you DC and others. I will continue to seek God’s will in this matter.

    Any and all further comments are welcome. Thanks!!

  86. hoosierpope says:

    Weenis, This is a difficult gray area. My personal opinion is that remarriage in this situation, though not ideal, would not be adultery for you since you were divorced unwillingly, but rather, would be a form of polygamy (in that i don’t think that God really acknowledges any divorce). While this is clearly not ideal, i don’t believe it is specifically proscribed by scripture. But it certainly could get awkward. For example, What would you do if your ex-wife repented and desired reconciliation?

  87. Striver says:

    Weenis,

    I’m dismayed by your wish to die as to avoid temptation or sin. I believe your views are incorrect. Jesus said so in the tale of the talents. The one who buried the talents, refused to encounter life, refused to live, was cast out. So refusing to encounter life out of fear of God is a sin and perhaps a grave sin.

    All of the disciples encountered life and sinned. Should Peter have wished he was never born because he denied the Lord. Sins are forgiven. Wishing you were dead so as not to sin I think is very, very wrong.

    Jesus did not spell out every jot and tittle of what to do. Common sense tells me that if one spouse acts in a faithful fashion in the marriage, and is left by the other partner who becomes adulterous and unfaithful, the unfaithful partner is committing adultery be remarrying, but the faithful party is not.

    As far as the fornication/adultery hairsplit, are people really saying that one can divorce for a single act before marriage, but rampant adultery and outright abandonment is kosher? Marriage is a constantly renewable get out of adultery free card?

  88. OKRickety says:

    Striver said:

    As far as the fornication/adultery hairsplit, are people really saying that one can divorce for a single act before marriage, but rampant adultery and outright abandonment is kosher? Marriage is a constantly renewable get out of adultery free card?

    Thank you for asking those questions. They ought to be thought-provoking.

    I know a married Christian man should not sin like that, but suppose he did?

    As for me, ongoing, unrepentant adultery is fornication and thus a valid reason for divorce.

    However, in spite of my desire for justice, neither outright abandonment or unrelenting abuse (done with intent to harm physically or emotionally, not just “she pushed me once” or “he hurt my feelings”) are valid reasons for divorce. But, in those cases, I would strongly argue for separation until there is very strong evidence of repentance and change. Assuming this is a marriage of two Christians, this calls for the Matthew 18:15-17 process of Christian discipline. Unfortunately, I think this rarely happens, but it ideally results in the offender recognizing the sin, confessing, repenting, and ceasing the sinful behavior. If not, then the offender is recognized by the church as a non-Christian, and, in most cases, I expect the offender would abandon the remaining spouse.

  89. OKRickety says:

    And I believe abandonment of a Christian by a non-Christian is a valid reason for divorce, per 1 Corinthians 7:12-15.

  90. feeriker says:

    What would you do if your ex-wife repented and desired reconciliation?

    That would be too bad – for her.

    Actions have consequences, many of them permanent and nowhere in Scripture does God promise us avoidance of the temporal aftermath of our sins, even if we do repent. While Scripture calls for forgiveness on the husband’s part, he is under no moral or Scriptural obligation to reconcile with her.

  91. Striver says:

    Just in a brief, one minute reading of the definition of “porneia”, the word seems to have a broad definition. So I don’t agree with the contention that it refers to the very specific circumstance of fornication before marriage. That it’s impossible to fornicate after being married. To me fornication is any sex outside the bounds of marriage. So all adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. If “porneia” is translated as “immorality”, that would be a broader definition than fornication, and cover a wider variety of acts.

  92. hoosierpope says:

    Freeriker:

    I agree that the divorced husband would be under no obligation to take her back, even with forgiveness. I meant it would be awkward in the present culture to take her back if he felt so led, but i think an argument could be made that it would be scripturally permissible.

    Striver:

    While i agree that porneia may have a broad definition in general, i have doubts that it has such a broad meaning in this specific circumstance. The context of Christ’s teaching here is describing a more difficult standard for divorce. This is the point of the “You have heard it said..,…..But I say” formulation that Christ often uses, and this explains why his apostle’s astounded response was that it was then better not to marry. But the more important point is that the word for “adultery” had a narrow definition. When Christ said that one who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, he is saying that, divorce or no, they are still married in God’s eyes, because the word “adultery” would not be used unless an existing valid marriage was in force. This comports well with Christ’s teaching on Adam and Eve and His saying “What God has joined together, let no man separate”.

  93. Striver says:

    Hoosierpope:

    Porniea could also cover homosexuality, bestiality, other immoralities.

    My concern is with a faithful party who is being abandoned. The strict interpretation people here want to take leaves him or her worse off than a widow or widower. Perhaps the faithful party should kill the offending spouse in a fit of rage. A jury might be sympathetic, and then the faithful party could remarry because the original spouse is dead. I guess adultery being a capital crime also took care of that matter.

    The strict interpretation, without any welfare state, would have dumped abandoned women onto poverty row with no redress, then a claim that they are sinning if they happen to find a new partner.

    I agree that in the modern world, the person divorcing (who is almost always taking a new partner immediately) is committing adultery even after divorce. However, the faithful partner is let out by the immorality exception. They may take a new partner ONLY AFTER the immorality has taken place. But if they take a new partner, they cannot go back to the old partner. That would be adultery against the new partner.

  94. hoosierpope says:

    Freeriker: I mean of course, provided that that ex. does not remarry, for which there is a clear prohibition.

  95. hoosierpope says:

    Striver:

    I agree that Porniea could mean those, and I admit that it is difficult to come to a definitive interpretation. I am reluctant, however, to give people a licence to divorce based on a very general interpretation of “poriea” and I don’t think that was in Christ’s view at all given the context.

    For a man, I don’t think the situation would be quite as hopeless as you describe. If a man is divorced by his wife, he can simply remarry. Christ only prohibits a man from initiating divorce and remarrying. If he is divorced unwillingly, nothing in Christ’s teaching prevents him from marrying. It is spiritually (in that he would have two wives in the sight of God), but not functionally (in that he would have one acting wife) polygamy, but not specifically proscribed. For a woman, she would have to return to her family or be remarried in adultery. In such a circumstance, I think God would hold the divorcing partner responsible for the adultery, which is one reason i think the construction “causes her to commit adultery” is most accurate given the historical context. In the present circumstances, with Women holding nearly all the power of choice over who to marry, i think they at least share responsibility for the adultery.

  96. Pingback: On divorce Part 2 | Christianity and the manosphere

  97. @ Damn Crackers

    Recent scholarship reveals you’re mistaken. Read some of the links from David Instone-Brewer on divorce. From contemporary Jewish debate about divorce during the time of Jesus, the debate was about Any Cause (no-fault) divorce not all divorce.

    http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/Articles/WhitefieldBriefing.htm

    False. “Any cause” does not deny that Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 22 in Matthew 19. “Except for Fornication” refers to the wife not being a virgin from Deut 22 where an Israelite husband could put his wife away if she was not a maid (virgin).

    Jesus did not give any reasons for divorce. Mark 10 and Luke 16 which speak about the same encounter with the Pharisees also support this point. What He said still stands: “What God has put together let man not separate.”

    http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce

  98. Striver says:

    Hoosierpope:

    The problem is who are the unwillingly divorced, faithful men to marry? Apparently divorced women are committing adultery even if they are unwillingly divorced and faithful. So all divorced women are out. But a three time baby mama, a divorced man can marry her, if she has never legally married. Because her fornication can be forgiven. There are never married women and widows out there, but there are single men and widowers as well… the numbers aren’t going to match up.

    Yes, we can tell the Christian man that he is forcing his ex wife into adultery, but what if he doesn’t comply? I have a female friend. Her husband left her, married another woman, started another family with a new child. Moreover, he churchshopped so he could get approval for his actions. So presumably he still attends some sort of church. Fine, he’s sinning, but the new child still is born, still is going to encounter the world. I don’t think anyone subscribes to the notion any more that the child from the second family is damned because of how it came into existence. But anyway, if the husband just ignores the command about adultery, that’s just too bad for the ex-wife. She should be content with begging at the city gates.

  99. Striver says:

    Deep Strength,

    Jesus would not be following Deuteronomy 22 by recommending divorce for marrying a non-virgin. To do that, he would recommend that the wife be stoned to death. Jesus was on record elsewhere as not following Deuteronomy 22.

  100. Striver says:

    To take things further, Deuteronomy 22 recommends the same penalty – death – for marrying a non-virgin and adultery. So even if death is converted to divorce, why would divorce remain for non-virgin and be dropped for adultery?

  101. jsr says:

    @ Lyn87/Weenis

    In regards to “If the woman is eligible for marriage, your marriage would be morally acceptable“ and Matt 19:9…

    I assumed concerned readers could appropriately interpret my statements to understand the word “woman” as a general guide instead of a specific reference to the divorced girlfriend. Because the GF was noted to have cheated, I mentioned I doubted she was eligible (doubted since “cheat” is sometimes used for porn or emotional affairs).

    Jesus was speaking while the law was fully in place, and adultery on the part of the woman would have resulted in her death and freedom for the man to marry. Likewise, adultery on the part of a married man (with a married woman) would result in his death and freedom for the betrayed wife to marry. Due to the lack of the death penalty for adultery in our society, it would be possible to encounter a divorced woman who was betrayed by an adulterous husband (and would have been freed by the death penalty in Jesus’ day). If God was not a liar by declaring that Adam and Eve would die in the day of eating the fruit, then it is reasonable to conclude the concept of covenantal death and of spiritually/covenantally dead spouses. So, it is possible a divorced woman could be eligible for remarriage under the right circumstances, but the permanence of marriage despite adultery is not a settled issue for many sincere bible believers.

    From the polygamy angle, Weenis did not divorce his wife to seek another. She divorced him. So any marriage he might make would at worst be a second marriage. He may still have the burden of being a husband to his first wife if she repents, but her decision in that area does not affect the morality of a second marriage. Just the practicalities/convenience of it.

  102. jsr says:

    any marriage he might make TO AN ELIGIBLE WOMAN

  103. Dale says:

    weenis:
    You indicate your wife did not commit adultery while with you. Did she do so after she abandoned you; either “married” sex or not? If so, she is still an adulteress.
    As others have said, a man can have two wives, provided
    a) he did not divorce one to seek another, and
    b) he is not in church leadership.
    Now, why any man would WANT two wives I am not sure…

    OKRickety
    >I thought about Christians marrying non-Christians. Are those marriages sinful? They do disobey Paul’s command in 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be bound together with unbelievers”)

    Please read 2 Cor 4:1 to a few paragraphs into chapter 7. So 3.5 chapters. The entire thing is Paul discussing his ministry to that church. It has nothing to do with marriage. You will find words like husband, wife, groom, bride and marriage a grand total of 0 times. Apply the passage to what Paul was addressing please, not unrelated topics. Given that Paul addressed false teachers a couple paragraphs before the statement you mentioned, I think those are the people to whom he was referring.

  104. Micha Elyi says:

    As far as the fornication/adultery hairsplit, are people really saying that one can divorce for a single act before marriage, but rampant adultery and outright abandonment is kosher?
    Striver

    No, people aren’t “really saying that” at all. Adultery and outright abandonment is not “kosher”, it’s a sin.

    “Marriage is a constantly renewable get out of adultery free card?”

    We are called to imitate Christ. Ask yourself–while you contemplate Matthew 7:2–if you would like repentance to not be “a constantly renewable get out of (sin) free card” contrary to what Christ suggested in Matthew 18:22.

    Then take up your cross and follow Him.

  105. Micha Elyi says:

    The problem is who are the unwillingly divorced, faithful men to marry?
    Striver

    Your question makes no sense, those men are already married although they are unwillingly separated from their wives. “Divorce” is an invention of men, a status under Caesar’s laws. Divorce is not of our Lord’s kingdom.

    If an unfaithful wife is your cross, Striver, that is a cross you are called to take up.

  106. hoosierpope says:

    Striver:

    Obviously in the case you relate, the man is an adulterer and his new wife is an adulteress. Scripture would have both the man and woman remain single in this case to allow for reconciliation. The woman should depend on her family in this case if she wants to comply with scripture, or alternatively, there are always religious organizations to join. Much of the problem here is the presence of churches with no disciplinary teeth.

  107. Striver says:

    Micha Elyi – You’re incorrect that divorce was never a part of the Lord’s kingdom. Divorce was substituted for the punishment of adultery by death, which WAS permitted per the Bible – Deuteronomy 22.

    Adultery is a sin. Sin may have temporal consequences. Divorce is a temporal consequence. If I see a thief stealing my neighbor’s property, I don’t simply ask the neighbor to “bear the cross” of stolen property. We are permitted to apprehend and punish the thief and return the property if possible.

    Yes, I believe Jesus allowed for divorce in case of adultery. I believe people who are parsing that passage differently are in error. Our spouse is not our neighbor, it is a special status. Special relations go on between husband and wife that don’t go on between other people. Pretending that the marriage continues implies that the adulterous partner can return at any time and expect full spousal benefits after his or her abominable behavior. That’s marriage.

    The Prodigal Son may have been forgiven by his father, but I don’t think he was given a second inheritance. Sin has temporal consequences. Some here believe there should be none for adultery. They are incorrect in their teachings.

  108. hoosierpope says:

    Do to a very interesting discussion on Deepstrength’s blog I withdraw my last comment. I now think it would be better classified as sin, but not necessarily ongoing adultery.

  109. Damn Crackers says:

    @Deep Strength

    I did read your blog, but I don’t think it satisfactorily answered the arguments of Instone-Brewer.

    http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680709,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation

    Plus, you mention “…if Jesus says that you need a bill of divorcement then the Pharisees can take Jesus to the Romans and say that He is subverting Roman law.” I am not sure where you get this conclusion.

    Also porneia or fornication come from the Hebrew word zanah, which translates to many definitions of sexual immorality. But namely, the act of ongoing adultery. So, why would Jesus limit it to incest or some other event prior to marriage?

    There are more arguments from the Bible Scholars I linked above, but I cannot list them all here. I see you have done your work to try to understand the Gospel, so I will defer to you and the others on those translations. Good luck with you and your journey through the Word.

    Personally for what it’s worth, I think not allowing divorce for any reason violates the Greatest Commandments. Even the Orthodox allow it following the exception clause.

  110. Boxer says:

    Also porneia or fornication come from the Hebrew word zanah, which translates to many definitions of sexual immorality.

    Uhh, no. Hebrew and Greek are not in the same family of languages, and porneia is a word with a long history (it’s in Aristotle, written long before the Greeks ever heard of the Hebrews). It’s not a cognate of any non-IE word.

    This is one of those “Descartes was an atheist” type rambles, which hardly needs to be answered, but I wouldn’t want the casual reader thinking we’re all this loose with history and philology.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  111. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    I think you meant that I stated that porneia derived from zanah. I did not mean that. I meant that zanah translated many times to porneia in the Greek Septuagint.

    Also, I was as surprised as you to hear that Descartes was an atheist. I guess we can throw out the whole Discourse on the Method.

  112. Boxer says:

    Dear DC:

    I think you meant that I stated that porneia derived from zanah. I did not mean that. I meant that zanah translated many times to porneia in the Greek Septuagint.

    Thanks! I understand your point now. My fault probably for not realizing what you were saying.

    Porneia in Aristotle, if I remember correctly, was a word that referred to prostitution but corresponded to horme (where we get the word hormone from, but it really meant impulse, or conatvs in Latin). It represented one’s lowest and most animalistic drive to reproduce. Almost like a reflex, requiring no higher thought at all.

    High class prostitutes (hetera) were not referred to with the word. Sadly, I don’t know what zanah means nor where it’s used. I have to assume it’s a cognate of the Arabic zina — which means adultery, fornication, or general whoring around (perhaps not consummating the act, but coming close, with someone you aren’t married to).

    Best,

    Boxer

  113. Striver says:

    Another point why not having adultery in the exception clause makes no sense:

    The verse says that divorcing except for “porneia” causes the wife to commit adultery. If the wife is adulterous, already committing adultery, the statement that adultery is going to be caused would be small potatoes, BECAUSE ADULTERY IS ALREADY HAPPENING. Jesus said things for a reason, and the verse makes so much more sense if it’s presumed that the wife has been faithful in the marriage.

    But no, let’s force men to stay in marriages where women can feel free to cuckold.

  114. OKRickety says:

    Dale said on September 2, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    OKRickety

    I thought about Christians marrying non-Christians. Are those marriages sinful? They do disobey Paul’s command in 2 Cor. 6:14 (“Do not be bound together with unbelievers”)

    Please read 2 Cor 4:1 to a few paragraphs into chapter 7. So 3.5 chapters. The entire thing is Paul discussing his ministry to that church. It has nothing to do with marriage. You will find words like husband, wife, groom, bride and marriage a grand total of 0 times. Apply the passage to what Paul was addressing please, not unrelated topics. Given that Paul addressed false teachers a couple paragraphs before the statement you mentioned, I think those are the people to whom he was referring.

    The Bible outline I have describes 2 Cor. 2:14-6:10 as “Paul’s Philosophy of Ministry”, and is followed by 2 Cor. 6:11-7:16 as “Paul’s Exhortations to the Corinthians”. I agree that neither 2 Cor. 6:14,15 nor the immediate context specifically refer to marriage, but that does not mean marriage is excluded.

    You may “think” 2 Cor. 6:14,15 is referring specifically to false teachers, but I suspect you are in the minority. In fact, your statement surprises me, because, as far as I was aware, all Bible teachers and ministers would agree that these verses apply to all partnerships/relationships, and marriage is definitely part of that grouping. If this idea is actually new to you, I suggest you Google “marry non Christian” and you will find many pages espousing “unequally yoked” as a reason for Christians to avoid marriage with non-Christians.

    Even if these verses are part of Paul’s Philosophy of Ministry, the concept would reasonably be extended to marriage. A Christian married to an unbeliever will likely be strongly hindered in ministry.

    In short, I believe I am applying the passage in a fashion that is logically valid, as well as commonly believed. Obviously, you disagree. Regardless, do not try to bully me with your condescending tone and pretentious statements.

  115. Pingback: “I have always depended on the sexual kindness of strangers.” | Dalrock

  116. R says:

    Commenting, rather late, that I would agree with Nburke and Lyn.(https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/coveting-sin-the-law-of-the-double-standard/#comment-187158)

    To say any woman who talks about the double-standard is envious of men for having immoral sex because she wants to have it too, is like saying that any man who complains about “frivorce” is envious of women for getting divorces because he wants to get a divorce whenever he feels like it, too.

    Is “envy” an accurate description of the phenomenon? Yeah, probably. But is it a fair dismissal of the complaint, if we all agree that the behavior complained about is wrong? I don’t think so.

    I come at this from the perspective of a woman (sorry for intruding, guys) who is and who would very, very much like her future husband to also be a virgin – because of all the same reasons that I imagine men look for that in a wife. If evolution is supposed to dictate otherwise, it has in my case run up against Church teaching combined with a fear of abandonment and has utterly foundered. The problem is, if I marry a man with previous sexual experience at the age of 32, people will tell me that I’m lucky to be getting married at all (truth), plus his experience probably means he’s a good catch (what?)… while the same people would tell a guy in the same situation that he’ll probably just have to “settle” instead of holding out for the virgin “unicorn.” What grieves me about the double-standard is that my evaluation of a potential spouse is seen as judgmental, while a man’s similar evaluation would be applauded as being only prudent. I’m told that as a woman I’m not supposed to value virginity in my future spouse, but I can’t seem to help it; so if I talk about the double-standard with some despair, it’s because I see it as a social phenomenon that has very effectively shrunk the pool of men I find to be quality husband material, while men with whom I no longer share the common ground of prolonged, *intentional* celibacy (with all its accompanying frustrations and temptations) still think of themselves as perfectly good matches for me and do not or cannot understand my hesitation about them. It doesn’t fit their narrative of what I’m supposed to care about, you see. I should consider their past behavior a non-issue, or even a plus, like all the other women they’ve been with.

    So how should I understand the context or the value of my own virginity as a woman, when the men around me do not value theirs? How should I think about the practice of abstinence as a sacrificial gift to my future husband, if no one is saying he needs to be able to return the gift in kind? Either virginity is not much of a gift to your future spouse after all, or it’s a gift a future wife just doesn’t deserve to expect from her husband, although he deserves to expect it from her. Because… reasons?

    But surely sexual mores ought to be included in our definitions of “equally yoked” and what counts as “pearls before swine.” Either they’re important – in which case they’re important for both parties – or they aren’t.

    That’s why I, at least, object to the double-standard. It may be an outright license for men, but it also diminishes the value of chastity in the eyes of women, who are being told it’s not something they should care about in their future spouses – so why should they care about it in themselves? Especially when it’s so hard, and having sex feels both good and “normal” in today’s society. This makes things worse for everyone (except in the short run for the players of both genders, of course), but particularly for those of us who can’t manage to adjust this particular expectation away… simultaneously being told their own virginity is highly valuable, while being told not to look for that value in a partner. Paradoxically, one of the reactions, for a woman in her mid/late 20s and on who hears that her virginity makes her a hot commodity but who has been disappointed in her prospects so far, is the temptation to lose it (particularly if she meets an experienced guy who checks all the other boxes…) so that she won’t feel like she’s “settling” anymore with the men she dates. She’s being told, effectively, that her very virginity has priced her out of range of the men around her, while not being enough to get her into her desired market of other virgin – but financially stable, physically attractive, able-to-hold-a-conversation, etc. – men. So she lowers her own putative value to match what she sees as the value of the men she can attract, maybe trades up in the looks or confidence of the guys she dates by dropping her behavioral standards for them (and for herself), gets to feel more normal, gets to congratulate herself on not buying into the whole illusory value of virginity anymore, and adds the offer of sex to the arsenal of things she can use to try to get commitment from a guy, rather than wake up 20 years later as the dreaded and derided cat lady. That this is a situation prone to backfiring does not make it less compelling in the moment.

    In other words, it deflates the value of chastity everywhere, eventually, to deflate it for anyone. Might not be everyone’s reason for hating the double-standard, but it’s mine.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s