8 Examples of IOI Word Semantics

Women make very subtle hints. If you miss them, you’re out.

Readership: All;

A few months ago, I wrote a List of Female IOI’s (2020 March 30) which has since become one of the more popular posts this year. One of the verbal IOI’s listed was Word Semantics — playing with fuzzy semantics to form suggestive euphemisms.

Men interpret word semantics as a test of his intelligence, level of experience, and social awareness. But usually, women are not that aware of word semantics as being a test. They’re only looking to get involved with a guy, and when she makes the effort to hang out with him, things either pick up or they don’t.

Since I wrote that post, I came across this one from Bored Panda: Obvious Hints From Girls That Guys Hilariously Failed To Notice (2017). The author, Greta Jaruševičiūtė, apparently invited readers to leave their own stories on the topic. I found most of these to be great examples of fuzzy semantics, and there are also a few examples of coded speech, loaded language, pointed suggestions, and suggestive innuendos.

In this post, I’ve picked out eight stories that make for good Red Pill discussion.

* * * 1 * * *

Friend was driving a group of us home after a night out and I was the last one.
Me: Ice cream sounds so good right now.
Him: Yeah I could go for some ice cream
Me: I have some at my house, want to come up for some?
Him: Sure!
Go upstairs and he actually wants ice cream so I sit super close to him on the couch and ask him if he wants anything else *hint hint*. He then spends 15 minutes asking for my opinion on the next car he should buy and then leaves.

More evidence for the claim that women always have sex on the brain. Maybe if she served the ice cream topless, she wouldn’t have had such a cold response.

woman biting lip to the side

* * * 2 * * *

We went to eat and then a movie. After the movie was over we sat in the parking lot for hours. I then drove us back to her house so I could go home. Sat in her driveway till 1 am talking and making out.
She told me: “You’re making this so hard.”
Me: “Making what hard?”
Her: “To be good.”
Didn’t click. 30 minutes later she tells me a guy has never gotten her off. Didn’t click that she was hinting. I literally said “challenge accepted” but went on talking and never made a move. It clicked the next day.

Still more evidence for the claim that women always have sex on the brain. It would be too humbling for her to ask.

* * * 3 * * *

There was this girl who worked behind the bar at my local that I got along with and for some time too. Stepping out for a smoke break, she goes on to say that her brother is gay and in a relationship.
Her: Why is it so easy for him and all I want is a boyfriend.
Me: Hope it’s not contiguous (sic. contagious).
She was dating one of the guys working there a week later.

If the man doesn’t pick up the signal, she’s on to the next one. Time’s a wasting.

* * * 4 * * *

When I was 23, I woke up in the middle of the night to two girls (one of whom I was dating) standing next to my bed. They had been drinking, so naturally I offered her friend my couch… In the morning I realized my mistake, and asked for a redo… No.

No redo’s. Ever. You have to read her mind and be DTF on a minute’s notice. But if you get the hang of how women are, it’s not hard to read their minds. If she’s giving you steady attention, and you’re alone, there’s a very good chance she’s thinking about coitus. In this case, they didn’t even need to be alone.

* * * 5 * * *

16 year-old me playing guitar (hears doorbell ring) open the door and girl from my history class is standing there.
Me: Hey! What’s up?
Her: Just wanted to stop by and see what you’re up to.
Me: Nothing, just playing guitar.
Her: Are your parents’ home? Can I come in?
Me: Yeah, they won’t be home for a few hours.
…cut to me playing guitar with her sitting so close to me that my arm keeps hitting her and messing me up…
Me: Uhhhh… Could you move over a bit?
She gets up and leaves.

I’ll say it again. If she’s giving you steady attention, and you’re alone, there’s a very good chance she’s thinking about coitus. If you don’t deliver on the spot, she’ll be off to find one who will. Time’s a wasting.

* * * 6 * * *

So one day I end up singing a special song I co-wrote with a friend in church. And afterwards this girl I barely know strikes up conversation. She says she likes the song (which most people were saying that day) and what not and she gives off signals that she’s flirting but I don’t return them because I still think she’s my friend’s girlfriend (because that’s the unwritten law). Later after a Facebook search I discover I was wrong. Now things are forever awkward cos she thinks I’m not into her.

Women expect men to read their minds and know all the background story. The thing is, this is an unrealistic expectation. Only bad guys would be DTF under any circumstances, which may explain why hot chicks always seem to end up with bad guys. She may be a church girl, but nevertheless, if she doesn’t wake up to this dynamic, she’ll end up with a cad.

insecurity envy regret

* * * 7 * * *

So far, all these case studies have described clueless men missing their chances to be a father. However, there are cases where it is the woman who ignorantly screws up the innuendo. Consider the following examples.

My now-husband and I used to work at a newspaper together many moons ago. He (city reporter), me (designer) and the MANAGING EDITOR were standing in the newsroom talking one day about some story. All of a sudden, he looks at my chest and goes, “It must be cold in here!” I followed his gaze. Yes, it was cold. I thought the ME would have a stroke. It took me about 15 more years to figure out he had the hots for me. July will be our five-year anniversary.

One can only wonder what she did in those 15 years before she settled down with this one. But I guarantee it didn’t take her 15 years to figure out that she had (or didn’t have) the hots for him.

* * * 8 * * *

Once I called my friend and asked him if he was going to the club that weekend. He answers with, “Why? You don’t have a ride?”
Few weeks after, he already knows “I need a ride to the club” and I tell him I had a date but cut him off to go with him. Later that night he says, “Your date is there if you wanna go dance with him.”
20 years later, including 18 years married to him he is still clueless of any hint. Took him 2 years to understand!

Maybe not if he knew she was a carousel rider. He’s just the silent type who waited for his turn. The funny thing here is that she thinks he is clueless, but actually she is the one off the mark. Commenter Chris Doehla responds,

That’s not a hint. That’s more of a hint that you’re not interested/unavailable. Why do girls think bringing up another guy ever helps? Why would it clue him in that you’re interested in him if you’re talking about some other dude, especially if you had a scheduled date with him? You schedule dates with guys you like, so he probably thought you were more interested in the guy you actually had a scheduled date for, especially if the pretense of the conversation is that he’s just giving you a ride.

Some women are so focused on keeping their schedules (or inboxes) chock full of male entertainment, that they are unaware of how this is perceived by men.

1459442037-selena-phone-gif-jc

Conclusions

Contrary to popular stereotypes, women always have sex on the brain, and men are naïve and altruistic. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts. After reading a few of these word semantics, it seems obvious that it is generally true. Women are sharper than men when it comes to the sluice bait.

In most of these stories, the men never get it. But there are a few in which he does – but only after the fact.

This goes back to something I’ve said before. When a woman makes a strong advance by humbling herself sexually and opening her heart, it’s like a once in a lifetime chance. If you don’t kick things up a notch, and do it with gusto, she’ll interpret this as a rejection of her ever-so-subtle signal, and she’ll never come back. She’ll go on to the next guy on her list. If she does come back, then she has already gone through the other guys on her list without finding any satisfying takers. But since the women who do this tend to be promiscuous, perhaps it is all for the best when righteous minded men miss out.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Discernment, Wisdom, Game Theory, Hypergamy, IOI's, Models of Failure, Psychology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to 8 Examples of IOI Word Semantics

  1. lastmod says:

    These women sound like great marriage material (sarcasm)

    Liked by 2 people

  2. ramman3000 says:

    “Go upstairs and he actually wants ice cream so I sit super close to him on the couch and ask him if he wants anything else *hint hint*. He then spends 15 minutes asking for my opinion on the next car he should buy and then leaves.”

    In another comment on another post, I claimed that I’ve never received IOIs, but this quote has jogged my memory.

    When I was 16 or 17, I had my first girlfriend (if you want to call it that). She was very attractive, not the kind of girl that would have ever paid attention to me as a potential mate. She must have given me IOIs (I don’t remember) because we hit it off pretty quickly after meeting. We went out on one date to a local park. She must have been sending me signals that she wanted to get physical, but I wasn’t having it: I wasn’t even going to kiss before marriage! She must have gotten the message I was sending because she immediately placed into the friend zone.

    Some time later we went out on a ‘date’ to see a movie. I assumed it was a “friends seeing a movie together situation”, but in retrospect perhaps she was (unconsciously or consciously?) trying one last time to kick off a relationship. That was the last time we dated. We did stay on good terms. After all, my to-be-wife and I would later attend her wedding.

    Did I lose a church-going, marriage-minded girl because I wouldn’t hold her hand and kiss her on the first date? Who knows. Since it ended so abruptly, I had always assumed it was ‘bad chemistry’, but that was before red-pill awareness.

    What is a man to do when all the women who do show you IOIs are only interested in a forbidden physical relationship?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. JPF says:

    Still not sure that it is true that all women routinely think about sex… But it is certainly true for some, and being a “church-girl” has little to do with it.

    And yes, in my experience, when a church-girl hints that she wants something physical/sexual, you either deliver or lose the relationship. This was true with a Christian girlfriend, who was only 15 years old at the time, and I think still a virgin.
    It was also true with another Christian girlfriend in her mid twenties, who also at that time I think was a virgin. I did not deliver on her sexual desires; shortly after, she informed me she did not find me attractive. To be fair, from her perspective this was likely true. I thought it strange that she claimed I was not attractive for her, as she knew what I looked like before we started dating, so I thought maybe she was lying. But I suspect what changed for her, was my failure to deliver on the sexual desires she had — this failure is what I think made her lose her feelings/attraction to me.

    In both of these cases, their then-virginity was not an indicator of moral strength or of self-control; from gossip I heard and from what one directly told me, their virginity did not last until marriage. Perhaps they just had not yet had the “wrong opportunity”.

    Now, whether it is actually a loss to have such a woman leave may be disputable. But young men should not be told that “only guys want sex”. And “only bad guys” at that. Many women want sex too, and even for women who have been in church for a decade, a wedding ceremony can be done afterward, if at all.

    Expecting the same level of spiritual maturity and self-control from a woman, as you expect from a man, is likely foolish and unfair. Yes, she is a Christian. And also yes, if she hints she wants sexual touching, you either deliver or you will need to find another woman.
    Maybe it is smarter to have the father identify a good man for his young-but-sexually-developed daughter, and immediately sell her to the groom, rather than stretching the relationship out in a “dating” phase. aka “God is smarter than we are.” Granted, Scripture does not give any age guidelines for when to marry. But it does show the father agreeing (and probably deciding) on who the daughter marries, and the only delay mentioned is the groom needing to pay the brideprice. There was no mention of a six-month delay while she planned a big wedding party. Even the wedding feast that Jesus mentioned in a parable would have only needed the time to send out the verbal invitations, to prepare the room and to cook the food. So maybe a week or two?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Still not sure that it is true that all women routinely think about sex…”

      The evolutionary method: man sexually desires woman and pressures her for sex. Woman rebuffs his advances (for a while). Man has unlimited sperm for multiple sexual partners, but woman can only be pregnant by one man. She selects her mate.

      Feminism flips the script: women throw themselves at men. For (evolutionary) normal men, coupling soon follows. But commitment is poor, since woman gave up control of sexual access. This is her power. By shedding it, men use her. Cohabitation, MGTOW, divorce, single parenting, marital sexual starvation… all the logical result.

      Men have an unsatisfying choice: give in to base desires to score easily or take on the woman’s role of sexual gatekeeper. The former means lots of sex, but is sin. The latter is righteous, but lowers your chance of getting lots of sex due to weeding out the sexually voracious in favor of the stable and godly. The third choice is perhaps even worse: settling for used goods.

      Such mismatched pairings abound. Men want women who like sex, but are not promiscuous. Thus in light of the above,

      ““Hunting for a unicorn is an individual solution not a societal solution.””

      Women need become chaste pre-marital sexual gatekeepers again. The sexual voracious need use control of sex to acquire the best mates, not just the best looking and sexually willing. This would dramatically increase the odds of ‘unicorn parings.’ But we have no longer have the social systems required to mandate this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      ” Granted, Scripture does not give any age guidelines for when to marry.”

      Betrothal could happen at any time, but marriage (sex) required menarche. This is a dynamic age requirement (not guideline). As Jesus made clear, marriage requires (potentially) procreative sex for a marriage to be valid. Non-menstruating girls, eunuchs, homosexuals: none can marry (become one-flesh) for this reason.

      Like

      • JPF says:

        As Jesus made clear, marriage requires (potentially) procreative sex

        What passage are you thinking of, for the above?

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Given that there has been an “old maid” stigma in every society worldwide that is fairly consistent (females 21-25 and unmarried are deemed damaged) until the last 100 years, I think we can surmise the historical standard has always been puberty to early 20’s as the ideal time to marry

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        @JPF

        Matthew 19. As I laid out before (see here),

        Jesus is discussing the grounds for divorce. Common conclusions from this passage are that adultery is the sole grounds for divorce and that marriage is between a single man and a single woman (excludes polygamy and homosexual marriage).

        But it is verses 10-12 that are most interesting. Jesus says that if the requirements regarding divorce are too tough, then you should remain celibate and not marry just like eunuchs. The impossibility of reproducing (due to missing equipment) is what makes a eunuch. Because he cannot reproduce, he was, is, and will be celibate (cannot marry), whether or not it was their choice to become a eunuch. It is unambiguous. If marriage didn’t require (potentially) procreative sex, then Jesus’ reasoning would make no sense.

        We sanity check this explanation by noting that Jesus’ reasoning reflects the universal understanding that a pre-menstruating girl cannot marry. It is plain to see that the reason a eunuch cannot marry is exactly the same reason a pre-menstruating girl cannot marry: procreation from sex is impossible at that moment in time.

        I take one of two possible conclusions from this fact: (1) unprotected sex between two possibly (non-zero probability) fertile partners is required to consummate a marriage and/or (2) contraception is always wrong. Of these, #1 is almost certainly the case while #2 is debatable. At least one of them must be true.

        Beyond this, if you delve into Jesus’ arguments on marriage, divorce, and why remarriage is adultery, you realize that sex produces the one-flesh bond and that this bond is breakable only in death. Remarriage after divorce is adultery because not man can break the one-flesh bond. This is also why marriages don’t end if one partner becomes infertile and why marriage can’t be entered if one partner is infertile: they cannot produce a one-flesh bond by having potentially procreative sex.

        Of note, the cultural institution of marriage is a social construct that can (and does) exist independent of Jesus’ understanding of marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        ramman3000,
        I don’t believe that sex must be potentially procreative, to consummate a marriage. Otherwise, Abram and Sarai would not have been married, because she was barren. Yet God called Sarai Abram’s wife. And postmenopausal women could not get married, Etc., Etc., Etc. How does God open a barren wife’s womb, if God had it closed before, she couldn’t have even become a wife according to you? The Bible never elucidates that doctrine, that you have imagined into Mathew 19. We are never warned that menopause prevents marriage, Etc.

        Who knew an Anabaptist would be parroting the Great Whore of Rome’s gnostic fetish for all sex having to be potentially procreative. Otherwise an hour in a hot tub could render your sex with your wife into a sexually immoral fleshly indulging with no procreative potential, right? If you get interrupted, failing to finish could send you to hell with the sexually immoral, am I right? Hogwash! If you’ve got your dick inside her, you’re having sex. IMHO Women on the pill get married all the time. They’re not still virgins, just because they haven’t had potentially procreative sex. Its still adultery even if the cad
        screwing your wife wore a condom. You and your papist sexual views are lacking scriptural backing. While reproduction is a possible feature of some sex, it isn’t a moral necessity. You are not to cease all sexual relations with your wife, after menopause. That goes against 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. The papists just create temptation for their “priests” by foolishly swearing off marriage and sex that God made to be enjoyed to prevent burning with lust. And often their altar boys suffer homosexual exploitation as a result of that nonsense.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @Sharkly

        “We are never warned that menopause prevents marriage”

        That’s because it doesn’t prevent marriage.

        Abraham would likely have married Sarah when she was young, but it doesn’t matter: God shut her womb. God then opened it, at a ripe old age, as he did for Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and for Hannah, wife of Elkanah.

        A pre-menstruating girl and a eunuch cannot marry, because they are physically incapable of procreative sex. However, a barren woman is clearly understood to be barren because God wills it and if God wills it, he will open it up, as he has done on a number of occasions. You occasionally hear stories today of older women having children.

        If you know that one partner is (potentially) fertile and the other is definitely infertile, it would be immoral to allow them to marry, for it would be forcing a potentially fertile person into a childless marriage. This is why Jesus (and society) forbid eunuchs from marrying. This conclusion is inescapable.

        “Women on the pill get married all the time.”

        What about women on the pill? What about two infertile people? Can they marry?

        “Of note, the cultural institution of marriage is a social construct that can (and does) exist independent of Jesus’ understanding of marriage.”

        Society defines marriage in whatever terms it wishes. If society wants to allow a eunuch to marry, that’s society’s business, but it has no bearing on what Jesus taught.

        “While reproduction is a possible feature of some sex, it isn’t a moral necessity.”

        That’s correct. The responsibility of husband and wife is to have potentially procreative sex (establishing the permanent, one-flesh bond), but it is God who determines whether it will result in children. Do you agree that it is God—not you—who determines whether sex results in children?

        “Who knew an Anabaptist would be parroting the Great Whore of Rome’s gnostic fetish for all sex having to be potentially procreative.”

        If you reject the necessity of potentially procreative sex to institute marriage, then you by logical necessity must subscribe to the Catholic dogma. If you reject Catholic dogma, then you by logical necessity must accept that potentially procreative sex is required to institute marriage. You must pick one, but you are not obligated to pick both.

        If you don’t like the logical consequence of Jesus’ teaching, then choose another master to be Lord of your life. You don’t get to just ignore the teachings because they make you uncomfortable.

        Yes, it’s mean that eunuchs can’t marry. If you are a soldier and your man parts are blown off, then you can’t marry your fiance back at home. That’s the deal. It sucks, but that’s the cost. I didn’t make the rules, I just follow them. Similarly, if you are a man, you can’t marry another man. Yeah, its mean, but those are the rules. Those ruled by feelings must find a different Lord.

        “They’re not still virgins, just because they haven’t had potentially procreative sex.”

        Correct. Imagine having sex, thus becoming ineligible to marry anyone else ever, and yet not even gaining the one-flesh bond in the process! There is a reason so many sexual sins carried the penalty of death.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Derek,

        “If you reject the necessity of potentially procreative sex to institute marriage, then you by logical necessity must subscribe to the Catholic dogma. If you reject Catholic dogma, then you by logical necessity must accept that potentially procreative sex is required to institute marriage. You must pick one, but you are not obligated to pick both.”

        I am aware that there is a big difference between the Catholic Church as an institution (i.e. papal decrees, traditions, liturgy, confessionals), and Catholicism on a personal level (faith, forgiveness, redemption). But I am not Catholic and I’m sure many readers are not Catholic either. So I am not familiar with the “Catholic dogma” you are referring to. Could you be more specific about the dogma you have in mind, and explain why this Catholic dogma is exclusive of the belief that procreative sex institutes (or constitutes) marriage?

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        ramman3000 says: As Jesus made clear, marriage requires (potentially) procreative sex for a marriage to be valid.
        I still didn’t get that memo, and I have read Matthew 19. How about you back up to the beginning of the New Testament and read Matthew 1.

        Riddle me this: When exactly did Joseph and Mary get married? Before or after Joseph was considering divorcing Mary quietly? Before or after Jesus was born?
        Matthew 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. …
        24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

        Mic drop!
        I’m not the one trying to make Jesus Christ a bastard born to an unwed mother. Mary was Joseph’s wife, long before they had potentially procreative sex, according to God and His angel.

        Or shall we go back to the beginning of the whole Bible?
        Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

        Eve was made of one flesh with Adam, prior to sex. Eve was given by God to Adam to be his wife, at Adam and Eve’s first meeting. God can make people like Adam and Eve one flesh/married without potentially procreative sex first occurring. God tells us that Joseph took Mary, a virgin, as his wife without ever having had potentially procreative sex with her. Your contention is not scripturally based. Not in the least. You cant read even a couple chapters into either Testament before your contention is clearly contradicted by God. Quit it!

        ramman3000 says: If you know that one partner is (potentially) fertile and the other is definitely infertile, it would be immoral to allow them to marry …
        Furthermore, you are saying that whether a marriage is moral and valid or not, before God, depends upon the speculative knowledge or beliefs presumed about the sexual potency of still untested potential procreators. Just stop already. You’re way smarter than that.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @Jack

        “Could you be more specific about the dogma you have in mind, and explain why this Catholic dogma is exclusive of the belief that procreative sex institutes (or constitutes) marriage?”

        In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued a papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae” rejecting artificial contraception. Per Wikipedia:

        “This is divine partnership, so Paul VI does not allow for arbitrary human decisions, which may limit divine providence. [..] Every action specifically intended to prevent procreation is forbidden, except in medically necessary circumstances.”

        Having established the Catholic position, let’s move to your next request:

        “explain why this Catholic dogma is exclusive of the belief that procreative sex institutes (or constitutes) marriage?”

        If you read what Jesus wrote in Matthew 19, you can conclude—without logical contradiction—that a eunuch cannot marry because doing so would be an action that prevents procreation. So a Catholic, reading Matthew 19, can say that Jesus and the Catholic church are in full agreement. Because this explains Jesus’ reasoning completely, they argue that a marriage’s validity requires the church’s stamp of approval (and not because they had sex).

        But if you reject the Catholic stance (as I and Sharkly do), then you are still obligated to explain Jesus’ reasoning. If potentially non-procreative sex is not always wrong (the Catholic position), then it must be at least sometimes wrong (the Protestant position). See below.

        In Matthew 19, in referring to Genesis 2, Jesus explicitly states (v4-6) that marriage is equal to a one-flesh joining, an event that happens when a couple have sex for the first time. He states that this joining, once established, cannot be severed by any act of man. This is why even though divorce is allowed, remarriage is not.

        The disciples object to the difficulty of marriage if you forbid no-fault divorce. Jesus, to paraphrase, said “them’s the breaks, don’t get married if you don’t like it.” He used the examples of a eunuch born that way, a eunuch made that way by force, and a eunuch made that way voluntarily, to illustrate those who do not marry. In doing so, he explicitly contrasting those who can choose the celibate life and those who cannot choose the celibate life, praising both of them.

        In comparing the class of individuals who can choose to marry, he explicitly states that there is a class of individuals who cannot choose to marry: those who cannot procreate. So, Catholics believe it is wrong to choose not to procreate, but this strains Jesus’ argument too far. Jesus only said that marriage is forbidden to those who can’t procreate, he didn’t say that all sex must be procreative.

        Lastly, as Jesus said that sex produces the one-flesh bond (v4-6) and non-procreative sex doesn’t form a marriage (v12), then potentially procreative sex is required to produce the one-flesh bond (true marriage, if you will).

        All of this could be written out as a formal deductive logical proof, rather than the form I’ve given it in, but I think it is clear enough as is. Anyone who is trying to take a third stance is obligated to explain Jesus’ reasoning. I can think of at least one possibility, but it leads down a path few would want to travel.

        Like

  4. AngloSaxon says:

    “When a woman makes a strong advance by humbling herself sexually and opening her heart, it’s like a once in a lifetime chance. If you don’t kick things up a notch, and do it with gusto, she’ll interpret this as a rejection of her ever-so-subtle signal, and she’ll never come back. She’ll go on to the next guy on her list. If she does come back, then she has already gone through the other guys on her list without finding any satisfying takers. But since the women who do this tend to be promiscuous, perhaps it is all for the best when righteous minded men miss out.”

    But you are not supposed to take the open oppurtunity and bang her, but if you don’t she will move on and you will have missed a good oppurtunity, yay!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Scott says:

    Mine has always been the “dumb jock” variety. Every time.

    My second high school sweetheart (met senior year) is a great case in point. She actually went to the cross town rival high school, but we all worked at the same place (Magic Mountain amusement park in Valencia, CA).

    I started working security there after a couple of years as a ride operator. One of the duties of a security officer is to provide a cash escort for the girls who worked the front ticket booths. (They were always girls). In my first week, I was in training on how to do such things, and I got the call on the radio to go provide one of these. You had to show up at the door, the ticket girl would come out, and you would walk her about a mile to the vault where the cash goes. It was just a walk through the park, literally.

    After that night, I kept getting called to this duty, same girl each time for about a week straight. No clue what was going on. (She was calling dispatch and asking for me personally). We would do the walk, and comment on what a crazy coincidence it was. Ha ha ha!!!

    Eventually, one night I was headed into the employee cafeteria and she and her friend were headed out. As I got into line, they stopped and we talked about whatever for a few minutes, then they left.

    A few seconds later, her friend came back and grabbed me and said, “[my friend] wants you.”

    I, of course, interpreted “wants” as “wants to talk to you.”

    “Oh, sure, where is she?”

    “No. She WANTS you. And tonight is her birthday. You are going to come to her house tonight and you will be my present to her.”

    The idea of being a present sounded ridiculous to me, so I just said, “sure whatever.”

    She gave me the name of the street and said it was really easy to find, in the culdesac. I just blew it off.

    Now, this was in the days when people had home phone numbers that were listed in the phonebook. I went home, tired after a double shift and fell asleep. The phone rang and my mom comes to wake me up. It was the friend, insisting that I had promised to come. So I drag myself out of bed, sweats and bedhead and everything and groggily drove to her house. As soon as I got there, the “party” ended and all the girls left, leaving just me an her.

    This became the longest and most serious LTR I had to date. We stayed together for about two years, even lived together after graduation. I had to be hit over the head with it to get it.

    This is normal for me.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Scott says:

    This goes back to something I’ve said before. When a woman makes a strong advance by humbling herself sexually and opening her heart, it’s like a once in a lifetime chance. If you don’t kick things up a notch, and do it with gusto, she’ll interpret this as a rejection of her ever-so-subtle signal, and she’ll never come back. She’ll go on to the next guy on her list. If she does come back, then she has already gone through the other guys on her list without finding any satisfying takers. But since the women who do this tend to be promiscuous, perhaps it is all for the best when righteous minded men miss out.

    This part I’m not sure about though. Take a look at my meet cute video. That story is condensed over a period weeks being chased. She never gave up. Neither did the one above. Pretty much every one of my “meet cutes” takes place over a period of weeks, usually. They will pursue endlessly until you get it. Its the reason I am a big “nexter” on the like warm stuff. Not worth it.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      About how some women never give up, while others “next” and don’t look back, I think this may depend on the SMV of the man in question and the degree of SMV mismatch. Also, if the man is banging her regularly, she will be much more likely to hang on to the relationship. In Scott’s experience, they hang on forever, and this might be because of his sheer studliness. (I don’t know if Scott was banging these women who endlessly pursued him.) In my experience, they move on and virtually disappear. There was a period of time in my life in which I banged a few of them. The few that I banged became very possessive and would never quit, but those women I didn’t bang within the first couple dates moved on immediately. SMH

      Like

  7. “women always have sex on the brain” – this is a variation of the apex fallacy.

    Men always have sex on the brain.. for women that are attractive to them.

    Women always have sex on the brain… for men that are attractive to them.

    The vast majority of men don’t have sex on the brain with obese women. Same for women with the unattractive man: they’ll call him a creep and avoid him.

    If a woman is hanging around a man and giving him any type of one-on-one or intimate attention she’s definitely interested. But that also assumes a man can get such attention in the first place.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      Yep. If you have never heard something like this:

      “The first time I met you I couldn’t stop thinking about what those hands were going to feel like all over me” then I am really, truly sorry.

      This is the crux of the direction I am trying to take my stuff, for what its worth. I have like 159 twitter followers. About 50 some odd you tube watchers. I’m a nobody.

      I WILL NOT sell Charles Atlas style “how to pick up chicks” crap. I just can’t bring myself to do it.

      My interest is in men who have given up their natural masculine traits and been smothered by a lifetime of blue pill conditioning. Rollo’s advice is right about SO MANY important things. Including “you cannot negotiate desire.” And then goes on to try to teach men to attract women using a monkey dance. Which in my opinion, is a form of negotiating desire.

      I think this is key. This is where things went wrong. All the stuff about the SMP/MMP is correct in that is artificially skewed by factors in the environment. (Dating apps, messaging from the culture, etc). Both the SMP and MMP are out of whack and it is miserable to watch. Wrenching back to rationality is going to take as long as it took to get here, with a ton of collateral damage.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      @ DS, yes, they always have sex on the brain for the hot ones, but my point still stands. They have sex on the brain for someone, men and women alike. It doesn’t even need to be a real person. Romance novels and porn are perennially popular. Hypergamy and lust always shoot for the apex, so whether it is a fallacy depends on the person in question.

      Like

  8. Pingback: Generating and handling attraction from the opposite sex | Christianity and masculinity

  9. Novaseeker says:

    Most prominent one of these from my life history …

    I was in my early 20s, attending a summer institute in Europe when I was in law school. There were also European law students there, and around 50% of them were women.

    I was walking to the train station one day (10 minute walk or so) and one of the women, a cute Scandinavian blonde, was riding past on her bike, and she stopped, gave me a big smile, and asked me if I would like a ride to the station, gesturing at the seat she was sitting on. It was clear she intended me to sit on the same seat right behind her, pressed against her, holding her body (it was not a two-seater).

    Now I knew what was going on — it was clear as crystal to me that she was not asking me to ride to the station, and I was starting to think about whether she had followed me as I left the institute center or something like that when I politely declined — I was a “good Christian boy” at the time (this was before I wandered away from Christianity and then back again later on) and didn’t want to take her up on her offer. She was quite shocked at this, because she was quite an attractive girl to say the least, and I am sure she was not used to being refused.

    Anyway, a day or so later a group of us students were gathered around a table at the center before dinner, chatting, and she joined the group, and the encounter was still on her mind — she gestured me aside from the group and then said to me, with a kind of mocking tone, “you turned me down!”, half-jokingly. I recovered with my own witticism, and I wasn’t interested in pursuing at all, but it was also clear that what she intended to do there was to make clear that if I were interested, I had blown my chance.

    These things are consistent across time and space, gentlemen. Live and learn.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Ed Hurst says:

    I can appreciate Jason’s sarcasm at the top of the comments. We live in a very sad world. I think it’s important for men who follow Christ to be aware of how these things work, not because of “lost opportunities” but so that we may be redemptive. It’s one thing to be oblivious to overtures, but it’s a powerful witness when you recognize those overtures and can say why you decline. I’ve said often enough to women, “Flattering, but I’d rather not.” It sometimes turned into a Woman at the Well moment.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      I believe men have the ability to be just as sharp as women in this respect, but it is simply not taught nor modeled. It requires a man to be in touch with his heart-led awareness, AKA “spiritual discernment”. OTOH, there is a lot of disinformation and bad teaching (i.e. chivalry) that encourages men to ignore such things as IOI’s. If a larger number of righteous men exercised such discernment in their interactions with women, it might prove to be a wake-up call, even a watershed revival for many fleshly-minded women. The widespread “woman at the well” experience is something our culture desperately needs to return to normalcy.

      Like

  11. Sharkly says:

    I think the reason many men often fail to initially recognize a woman’s sexual overtures and IOIs, is twofold. Primarily because most women, especially in the past, would intentionally operate from a shady area of plausible deniability, where you could never publicly insist that their overture had been a direct sexual solicitation, without allowing them to come back at you and say that you are perverted and creepy for misinterpreting their “innocent kindness” as sexual invitation. Secondly, all our blue-pill conditioning trains us not to expect women to be sexual aggressors. We men are taught that we are all “rapists”, sexual aggressors, and “toxic” for being that way. So we have been misled to expect that women wouldn’t even naturally have a base sexual desire, like a man, or to ever expect that they naturally seek to be defilers hunting for your precious life.
    Proverbs 6:26 The price of a whore is a loaf of bread, but the adulteress is hunting for a precious life.

    Wintery Knight once said: A while back I was asked to mentor a girl who had cohabitated with an atheist, had an abortion, and had become a Christian after they broke up. I asked her why women have premarital sex. And her answer was “it’s a way to get control over men, without having to be nice to them”. As a virgin myself, I am not interested in marrying a woman who used sex as a tool to manipulate men. That very quickly turns into sex-withholding in a marriage.

    I believe Wintery Knight nailed it. A whore in rebellion against God will temporarily show a man respect and offer him sex and make promises of unlimited sex, prior to marriage, using her sexuality immorally to gain what she wants from that man, but then once the loyal and devoted man is bound to her by marriage, then the rebellious whore’s manipulative usurping, via her sexual agency, is again now more painfully exerted directly against her husband’s authority, now through the wicked withholding and rationing of all that she had vowed to him.

    As a leader and shepherd, a Christian man should explain to any woman he is interested in, what his sexual expectations for her loyalty and chastity are. If she won’t submit to your sexual authority prior to marriage, dump that whore. She will only be tempted and encouraged to be even less sexually loyal and obedient later. Don’t be a fool! God still wants whores put to death, not left unpunished, “forgiven”, and yoked together waylaying God’s servants. I have been made aware that the story of “Jesus and the woman taken in adultery” was not written in Greek or by any apostle, but was an apocryphal addition first made to Latin Bibles in the fourth century AD by Catholics in Rome. Don’t trust it, or consider it a part of the original Book of John in the Bible.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
    Take it from somebody who has suffered greatly because of foolishly forgiving and marrying a whore! My sons have been stolen to be raised by that unrepentant whore and turned against both their own father and God. While some whores might truly repent, most don’t, they just fake it, to fool you.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: The Friday hawt chicks & links – The tribal edition. – Adam Piggott

  13. Scott says:

    The only thing I would say about BC thing is that the confessional faiths do not only turn to scripture on anything. The hierarchy includes, just below scripture, consensus of the saints (by reading canons and homilies of the fathers and doctors). They are unanimous on artificially trying to stop a pregnancy while still having intercourse. Back in those days, there were a number of ways to do that, because there was no pill or IUDs or other modern innovations. It still existed however. And they all agreed it was sin.

    The distinction, in my mind is between willingly attempting to block it and knowing that your post-menopausal wife is infertile. One is deliberate, the other is circumstantial. But if your wife got miraculously pregnant in the second scenario, you would just say “wow, a miracle. I guess we are having a late in life baby.”

    Like

  14. Scott says:

    I guess I’ll say more than one thing. I am not tracking the whole “its not a marriage if the potential for procreation isn’t there” thing. I also haven’t asked my priest that specific question or looked into it myself either though.

    As far as I know, its just a sin. For example, if you are using BC for like the first 5 years of your marriage, and then you become convicted that it was wrong, just stop doing it, repent and remedy the situation. Its not like you weren’t married before that. You were just not enjoying the fullness of communion with your wife.

    (Sex with the potential for procreation FEELS different, on a gut level, because it is an act of faith that you are participating in together)

    The above scenario, I suspect, is about 95% of marriages who conclude that they should stop using it. It happens after some time of being married.

    Like

  15. ramman3000 says:

    @Scott

    ” I also haven’t asked my priest that specific question or looked into it myself either though.”

    An analysis shows that Russian Orthodoxy restricts it and Anabaptists and Protestants are divided.

    “One is deliberate, the other is circumstantial.”

    This is a valid nuance, but not highly relevant. Marrying if you are knowingly infertile is deliberate. If it is a sin, it is forbidden (‘just’ sin?!).

    “I am not tracking the whole “its not a marriage if the potential for procreation isn’t there” thing.”

    The argument: (1) sex makes a permanent marital one-flesh bond; (2) a certificate of divorce can break the civil marriage, but not sever the bond, so divorce and remarriage are forbidden; (3) If you don’t want to be trapped in marriage to one harpy for life due to a one-flesh bond, be like a eunuch and don’t marry; (4) A eunuch can’t form a one-flesh bond or marry because he can’t reproduce.

    To understand Jesus’ argument, you are obligated to explain why a eunuch born that way must be celibate for life in light of Jesus’ legal argument on the one-flesh bond while a fertile person (non-eunuch) can choose (or not) to be celibate.

    The first option: take the Catholic viewpoint that all sex must be procreative. This sidesteps Jesus’ earlier comments because it’s obvious a eunuch can’t marry because he can’t procreate.

    The second option: take the viewpoint that procreative sex is required to establish marriage. Since sex is required to establish marriage, it is a minor thing to clarify that this must be potentially procreative sex.

    You can also believe in both options at the same time, but are not obligated to do so.

    If you don’t like either of these options, suggest a third.

    Like

  16. Scott says:

    Since sex is required to establish marriage

    I’m not sure about this either. In Orthodoxy, you are married after the ceremony, which does not have a sexual component at the altar. There is a precise moment in the rite when you become husband and wife, according to the sacrament. Typically, you go home and do the sex part at the end of the evening. But you are married already.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “But you are married already.”

      Of course. You are married in the civil legal sense. Similarly, Mary was married to Joseph as her betrothed, even though scripture tells us that they didn’t have sex until after she gave birth.

      We must not be legalistic. What we call “marriage” (and “wife”) has nuance. If you had sex with another man’s betrothed, you had sex with his wife (!!) and thus committed adultery. But unlike a consummated marriage, a betrothal could be righteously cancelled (as Joseph had planned to do with Mary!). It is not legalistic to acknowledge that marriage has different facets. A non-consummated post-ceremony/post-contractual marriage can be cancelled, but a consummated marriage cannot be cancelled*: why?

      There are a number of cases in the Bible where sex clearly implied marriage, including the Law itself. But again, we are not legalistic. We realize that there is a normal procedure (i.e. ceremony followed by consummation) that everyone is expected to follow. But what happens when the normal procedure is not followed? In that case, the Law and other teachings make it clear how important sex is.

      There is no documented case of a valid marriage that was sexless (which would be required to show that sex wasn’t essential). However, there are a number of marriages in the Bible that were validly initiated without ceremony.

      * One Law allowed the father to cancel her daughter’s non-ceremonial marriage, but that Law presumes that the marriage had occurred.

      Like

  17. Scott says:

    Note: Its right after the priest reads the story of the wedding at Cana. After that in the ceremony, he starts referring to them as “married” past tense.

    Like

  18. Scott says:

    This is the part where I’ll just step back and let anyone reading along decide which position is the “legalistic” one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      One concept that is conspicuously absent from all this discussion of sex, marriage, and BC, is the idea of a covenant. Covenant means that the two are joined together through various means. Willful commitment, feelings of attraction, loyalty, legal/civil marriage, contracts, licenses, the marriage ceremony, promises/vows, wearing rings, sexual intercourse, love, and procreating a family are all sacraments of a covenant relationship. More sacraments make the union stronger, more stable, or more permanent, depending on the nature of the sacrament.

      If you want to argue that this sacrament (e.g. sex, fertility) determines that sacrament (e.g. marriage), or what not, then you’re missing the whole idea of the covenant and being intellectually silly.

      If you want to apply this kind of reasoning to determine sin/guilt or ascertain whether a covenant exists or not, then it is legalism.

      Like

  19. ramman3000 says:

    “One concept that is conspicuously absent from all this discussion of sex, marriage, and BC, is the idea of a covenant.”

    Not at all. Though I didn’t use “covenant” explicitly, I have variously argued (both here and <a href=”https://derekramsey.com/2018/02/01/what-constitutes-biblical-marriage/>on my blog) that covenant is important:

    “We realize that there is a normal procedure (i.e. ceremony followed by consummation) that everyone is expected to follow.”

    If the normative procedure is followed (a covenant which includes an expectation of frequent sex, having children, and never divorcing) then the details mostly don’t matter. We only and must need to consult the law if there is a deviation or lack of clarity on what God requires.

    “If you want to argue that this sacrament (e.g. sex, fertility) determines that sacrament (e.g. marriage), or what not, then you’re missing the whole idea of the covenant and being intellectually silly. If you want to apply this kind of reasoning to determine sin/guilt or ascertain whether a covenant exists or not, then it is legalism.”

    What I want is irrelevant. The Bible states that sex creates a permanent bond between partners (see footnote 3). I wouldn’t care if you call this ‘marriage’ or not, except that Jesus highlighted it as the reason a cleaved-together man and woman can’t divorce. Since a man and woman cleave together by having sex and separating them is divorce, then sex produced the marriage. The logic is so undeniable, that rejecting it demands a refutation (not a dismissal).

    Legalism is ‘excessive adherence to law or formula’, not the proper application of law. It is not intellectually silly to understand Jesus’ legal argument nor cite law in a legal argument. Jesus was not engaging in legalism when he was asked a legal question and gave a legal answer by citing the Torah. He used the Torah to demonstrate the basis for marriage and used that basis to condemn divorce and remarriage. In contrasting the Law and the certificate of divorce with the one-flesh bond, Jesus explicitly contrasted different aspects of a covenantal marriage as a matter of law. Lastly, in this context, he argued that an infertile man cannot marry.

    The essential grounds for marriage are simple, clear, logical, and profound: have sex. To call that an ‘excessive adherence to law or formula’ rather than the complex system of sacraments is utterly baffling. So, absent a further reasoned discussion, I must now concur with Scott and depart:

    “This is the part where I’ll just step back and let anyone reading along decide which position is the “legalistic” one.”

    Like

  20. Sharkly says:

    “We must not be legalistic. What we call “marriage” (and “wife”) has nuance.”
    On that note, I’m just going to declare victory. That admission was all I was pushing for.
    Just because potentially procreative sex can create a marriage bond, doesn’t mean it is the only way marriages have begun, e.g. Joseph and Mary. And the necessity of the sex being potentially procreative is a suspect inference drawn from Jesus comment relating eunuchs and celibacy. Whether or not somebody is fertile is not always easily known, so fertility is not likely the sort of thing that God would use as the required basis for determining matters regarding marriage versus mortal sexual sins. If Zachariah and Elizabeth had not had potentially procreative sex, then were they just fornicating and impersonating a married couple? Claiming that God breaks His own supposed “potentially-procreative marriage requirement” willy-nilly via frequently having closed and then sometimes later opening wombs, makes Him somewhat less principled. I believe in an unchanging God of order and righteous laws who does not institute “Rube Goldberg” sacraments and covenants, but offers us a clear-cut choice between right/wrong or marriage/fornication. When doctrines become too dependent on genius IQ to deduce them, they also become entirely suspect for me. Although God has many mysteries, He is never trying to confuse us into sinning against him. While we are to use our reasoning, our religion is not some Gnostic riddle of intense complexity.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “On that note, I’m just going to declare victory. That admission was all I was pushing for. Just because potentially procreative sex can create a marriage bond, doesn’t mean it is the only way marriages have begun, e.g. Joseph and Mary.”

      Yes, this is the general principle.

      “Whether or not somebody is fertile is not always easily known, so fertility is not likely the sort of thing that God would use as the required basis for determining matters regarding marriage versus mortal sexual sins.”

      The difference between ‘sex=marriage’ and ‘potentially procreative sex=marriage’ is extremely minor. Of Bible marriages, no care is given to whether sex was potentially procreative because of course it was as a general principle! To say otherwise is anachronistic. Only in a feminist era of birth control is this even an issue worth mentioning: a very large exception to the general principle.

      If you assert a difference, you must bring up that birth control methods existed, of which many (most?) acted as abortifacients. Any such assertion likely presupposes the moral legitimacy of abortion.

      ” If Zachariah and Elizabeth had not had potentially procreative sex, then were they just fornicating and impersonating a married couple?”

      Of course they had potentially procreative sex when they married. To marry without plans to have a family would have been a scandal (see below).

      “And the necessity of the sex being potentially procreative is a suspect inference drawn from Jesus comment relating eunuchs and celibacy.”

      It’s not a suspect inference, it’s a reflection of the ancient near east expectations. Of course procreative sex was required! A marriage would be (rightly!) forbidden if the couple didn’t intend to have children. Pre-menstruating girls, eunuchs, and homosexuals could not marry. This didn’t require deep discussions of law, because it was obviously the case. To argue otherwise is to logically imply that those things are not forbidden by law.

      Consider how kingship required virility (e.g. Abishag and David).

      For all the talk about 1 Timothy forbidding women from teaching, everyone seems to forget that the requirements for higher church office requires it be a man who is married with children.

      For all the talk about 1 Cor. 7, not defrauding your spouse of sex must include refusing to have sex in order to prevent pregnancy. Only a modern feminist mindset would even consider that having sex was independent from procreation.

      If a marriage requires sexual consummation to move from (semi-)temporary status to permanent/unbreakable status, then it had to be potentially procreative. Not because it is an inference, but because it is sex and that’s what sex is. That the infertile cannot marry is merely a confirmation of this, a sanity check if you will.

      “Claiming that God breaks His own supposed “potentially-procreative marriage requirement” willy-nilly via frequently having closed and then sometimes later opening wombs, makes Him somewhat less principled.”

      God does not break his own requirements. As per above, all fully established marriages are consummated. Once cleaved, the marriage is unbreakable, except upon death. God chooses, for his own reasons, when to bless a couple with children.

      “When doctrines become too dependent on genius IQ to deduce them, they also become entirely suspect for me.”

      I absolutely agree, but unconsciously embracing cultural feminism makes it difficult to see what is otherwise simple and basic truth. This shouldn’t even require a debate!

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “That the infertile cannot marry is merely a confirmation of this, a sanity check if you will.”
        So was Abram not married to infertile Sarai? Isaac/Rebekah? Jacob/Rachel? Obviously the infertile can and do marry despite their sexual acts not having the potential to create a baby. The fact that God later miraculously reversed the infertility for them, doesn’t mean he will do it for all married couples. Are you saying that infertile couples aren’t married, but fornicating? If not, then infertile couples can and do marry within the will of God. I’m sure plenty of eunuchs have gotten married unaware. I remember reading some strange things Martin Luther said about just that situation. If you require that the only end of marriage is to produce children, then like Luther, you wind up recommending some made up form of levirate cuckoldry, or holy adultery, or whatever you want to call it. Why not just accept that it might not be God’s will for every single marriage to always produce progeny?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Ed’s recent post covers the covenant nature of sex, marriage, and procreation.
        https://jehurst.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/its-all-evil-unless/

        Like

  21. Pingback: Wimmin at the Well | Σ Frame

  22. ramman3000 says:

    @Sharkly

    Today I saw this explanation by Alan Keyes. The host in the clip raised exactly the same objection that you did:

    “So was Abram not married to infertile Sarai? Isaac/Rebekah? Jacob/Rachel? Obviously the infertile can and do marry despite their sexual acts not having the potential to create a baby.”

    Keyes responds, saying:

    “An individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle”

    Logically, treating sex/marriage as separate from procreation allows infertile marriage as a general principle. The very notion of biblical covenantal marriage incorporates these principles of marriage. If you change the principles, you change the covenant. Asserting that fertility is in principle not a consideration is to imply that eunuchs, pre-menstruating girls, and homosexuals can marry. By the contrapositive (which must be true), if eunuchs et al cannot marry, then fertility is in principle a consideration for marriage.

    Whether or not every act of sex results in a child has no bearing on the principle. God has declared that reproduction is His call, not ours. Our duty includes the attempt, not the result. And like conception, the cleaving of husband and wife is brought about by God as a consequence of having sex.

    Now, back to your objection:

    “Are you saying that infertile couples aren’t married, but fornicating? If not, then infertile couples can and do marry within the will of God.”

    Fornication only applies to the unmarried. All fully established marriages are consummated such that once cleaved, the marriage is unbreakable, except upon death. None of the specific examples you gave include infertile, unmarried individuals. Moreover, they all had a child, thus proving their fertility and my point.

    In raising these objections, you are asking what happens if someone violates the general principle and marries anyway. So what if a eunuch or homosexual marries? So what if a man divorces and remarries? None of this changes the general principle of what marriage is and what God requires. It is definitely the case that violating God’s requirements creates absurd scenarios that are difficult to resolve. Sin is difficult to resolve! That doesn’t impinge upon or invalidate the general principle.

    The solution to all sin is not do it in the first place. If an infertile person marries anyway, disregarding biblical standards, it creates a fallen situation that is impossible to resolve. Once done there is no (legalistic) law or formula that can be applied to resolve it. The only solution is God’s grace, though earthly and spiritual consequences remain.

    For example, imagine a wife whose husband goes missing in action. After a decade of waiting, she assumes him dead and marries another. Then a miracle happens and he comes home. Who is she married to? Situations like this do not lend themselves to easy answers, but regardless, they do not disprove the general principle that she should not be married to two different men.

    “I’m sure plenty of eunuchs have gotten married unaware.”

    A eunuch is someone who has been castrated. It would be astonishing for a man to be unaware that he lacks testicles.

    Like

    • Sharkly says:

      In Matthew 19:12 Jesus named three types of “eunuchs” two out of the three had not been castrated. One definition of eunuch is: an impotent or ineffectual man. Nor does the man who abstains from marriage literally become sexually impotent. You read a lot into that verse, and then back out of it. GIGO
      Bearing children is not the only purpose of marriage, otherwise marriage would certainly end after the children all had marriages of their own and the wife was no longer fertile.
      If our earthly marriages are to be a picture of the churches eternal relationship with Christ, do you suppose the church is going to be having Christ’s babies in heaven, since that is your supposed only reason for marriage? Could there not be some divine purpose in the unity of the relationship apart from just better baby making? The fact that Alan Keyes also believes like you, proves nothing to me. I’m also not the only one who thinks marriage could serve more than just a reproductive purpose. If marriage was only for reproduction, you’d think God might have said that clearly.
      I could cite lots of scripture that hints at other purposes:
      Ecclesiastes 4:11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?
      Solomon said: let her breasts satisfy thee at all times
      That don’t make a baby! I think you’re missing out if your marriage only exists solely to make babies. God never said that marriage exists solely to make babies, or that infertile couples should have their marriages annulled.
      I knew a guy who married a girl who was medically not able to have kids. It was known before they married. They adopted a child. his wife then died of her medical issues, and he has since remarried and has since also had at least one biological child. I don’t see any moral fault with what he did, nor do I find the Bible condemning his love and care for his first wife who had health issues that made her unable to gestate children of her own.

      Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “In Matthew 19:12 Jesus named three types of “eunuchs” two out of the three had not been castrated.”

        That is a novel interpretation (see here and here) and red-herring. It doesn’t impact the argument’s logic, which has involuntary eunuchs and those by choice. The existence of those born that way is sufficient.

        “Bearing children is not the only purpose of marriage”

        Agreed.

        “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times”

        Agreed.

        “…or that infertile couples should have their marriages annulled.”

        An annulment declares that there was no marriage in the first place or voids an actual marriage that was not fully established (i.e. the two were not cleaved; e.g. Joseph wanting to divorce Mary), which is biblical. Here is the description of legal annulment in my state:

        “Like a traditional divorce, an annulment ends a marriage. However, an annulment is a legal proceeding that goes further by declaring a marriage invalid or void through a court order. In some cases, it’s as if the marriage never happened.”

        The concept of annulment as different from divorce is implied by the argument presented: once a couple is cleaved their marriage is permanent until death, otherwise the marriage is not (yet?) valid and may be either annulled or cleaved.

        Like

  23. elspeth says:

    Why did the Messiah say to the woman at the well, “You have had 5 husbands“?

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      The word for “husband” is interchangeable with “man” (see here.) For all the talk of what it means to be a “wife” above, the Hebrew and Greek words for “woman” and “wife” are also interchangeable. Context determines the meaning and where context is unclear we just have to be flexible. This actually creates a number of interpretation difficulties in ambiguous situations where people insist on one or the other. Since this involves famous passages like Mary & Joseph (mentioned up-thread), 1 Timothy 2 and passages on submission, this is usually a topic that enrages people when there is disagreement.

      Consider:

      “He told her, “Go, call your [man] and come back. “I have no [man],” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no [man]. 18 The fact is, you have had five [men], and the [man] you now have is not your [man]. What you have just said is quite true.”

      Reading it this way, it is not clear exactly how many men were lovers vs husbands. You could say she had 5 previous husbands and one current lover. But that’s reading too much into the text. The exact determination is not essential.

      Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        Correction: the words are not interchangeable, because it is one word. The word for woman is the exact same as the word for wife. The word for man is the exact same as the word for husband.

        Like

  24. Pingback: Handling an IOI requires a Miracle! | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s