A Christian marriage is determined by male authority and female dependence, i.e. Headship.
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 5.5 minutes
A Review of Marriage Structures and Archetypical Models
In this post, I will discuss a post from Christianity and Masculinity: No, your congregation does not preach Biblical headship (2020 August 12). It’s a classic piece from Deep Strength, and I encourage everyone to read through it.
Here, I wish to point out that the four marriage structures described by DS in this post correlate loosely with the Archetypical relationship models I outlined in a previous post, The Feminine Dilemma (2018 October 27).
To briefly review these Archetypical relationship models, consider the following diagram which appeared in The Feminine Dilemma. The female’s Life Path is on the abscissa, and the Power Structure exercised by the male is on the ordinate. Please refer to this figure as an aide to visualize the descriptions that follow.
Next, I’ll list the four marriage structures (as described by DS and shown in blue font), and indicate which relationship model it correlates with.
Headship: The view that the man is the head of his household. What he says goes.
Headship correlates with the Tingly Respect model.
Complementarianism: The view that God has given men and women different roles to fill. Among the man’s roles are the right to have the final say on disputed matters in the home.
Complementarianism correlates with the Complementarian or Courtly Love models.
Egalitarianism: The view that husband and wives are on equal footing with regard to all roles, including decision-making authority.
Egalitarianism correlates with the Allyship or Churchianity model.
Feminism: The view that women should be empowered in the home to do as they please and that men should support them in the direction the woman chooses to go, unless it would otherwise amount to direct sin.
Feminism correlates with the Feminist model.
By integrating DS’s four marriage structures into the previous diagram and revising the image a bit, we obtain the following correlating diagram for the relationship models.
Note: The earlier image shows a clear demarcation between the models, which is somewhat misleading. In reality, we find that the many various nuances of different relationships cast a spectrum which is represented by the red-blue fade in the figure.
Identifying the Marital Structure
Here, I wish to make a very important assertion that should be duly noted by the reader.
Σ Axiom 7: The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what we think it is or hope for it to be.
I’ll discuss this a bit so that it will take effect in the readers’ understanding.
The natural interaction between two people in a relationship is what defines the relational structure – not cognitive dissonance, not presumed choice, not cognition, not willpower, not doctrinal stance, and not how Alpha or Red Pilled the man might think he is. The day to day interactions follow a habitual pattern, and that pattern fits one relationship model better than the others. This relationship structure might change, but not without severe resistance.
The particular blend of personalities in the union, and the style of relationship you have developed, will largely determine whether you have a Headship or Tingly Respect type of marriage that glorifies God, or else some other type of relationship which doesn’t. In this case, the man’s authority is not merely a nominal or puppet position according to a mentally prescribed hierarchy. If it is, then it’s not truly a Headship / Tingly Respect structure and will be prone to failure because of its denial of Σ Axiom 7, as defined above.
As a consequence of fitting God’s Covenant order, Headship and Tingly Respect both yield a home environment filled with God’s peace and presence, producing a sanctified marriage and providing a superiorly ideal setting for children to be raised in. All other relationship structures do not fit God’s archetype, and will be prone to dysfunction, not only within the marriage, but also in the children.
The Differences between Headship and Tingly Respect
Headship and Tingly Respect deserve special attention, because these are the relationship structures that glorify God.
Concerning the red area in the second diagram, there is a small difference between Headship structure and the Tingly Respect model.
In the Headship structure, the woman submits to the man’s authority out of reverence and obedience to God, and this requires her maturity, faith, and willingness to do so. It does not rely so much on the character of the man, but it does work to inspire the man to grow in faith and confidence.
The success of the Headship structure depends on the wife’s willing submission. Properly understood, Headship is not predominantly a legalistic system of rules intended to control the wife nor to check the aspects of her worst nature, but it will tend to resort to these methods during rough times.
In the Tingly Respect model, the woman is emotionally and viscerally swooned by the masculine authority of the man. It does not rely so much on her faith and willingness, but instead, tends to inspire her faith and willingness.
The Tingly Respect model is less susceptible to the usual wifely indignation, because it appeals to her emotions, sates her natural hypergamic desires, and therefore relieves the wife from a heavy reliance on her willpower to be obedient.
The Tingly Respect model works because a woman’s natural desires for a husband and to be ruled over (according to Genesis 3:16) is commonly expressed as a hypergamous desire for a top quality man. She intuitively perceives that such a man has the visceral power of authority over her desires, and he therefore rules over her.
Therefore, the Tingly Respect model depends heavily on the man’s mastery of true masculine authority, characterized by Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status (AKA LAMPS or PSALM). It also requires the man to showcase his persona non gratis and his charismatic leadership, all of which attracts and inspires the wife’s affections and loyalty.
In a Headship relationship, the wife has the upper hand in attracting her husband’s sexual interest, as long as she is willing to do so. As such, she has authority over his body (i.e. his sexual desire). In a Tingly Respect relationship, the husband is able to cause the wife to lose control over her sexual desire for him, such that she wants to make love to him on impulse and without prescient contemplation. This is why I called this the Tingly Respect model.
Furthermore, if a married person has the power to turn the other on to such a degree that he/she has lost all conscious mindfulness, and dives into the act of intercourse without any thought, hesitancy, or reservation, then that person might be able to truthfully claim that he/she has real authentic authority over the other’s body (according to 1st Corinthians 7:4).
By associating the four marriage structures (from DS) with the correlating relationship models, it becomes clear how the woman’s choice of her Life Path and her subjective relation to masculine authority (e.g. father, husband, mentor, government, etc.), are the two major determining factors for the type of marital structure that results.
To obtain a God glorifying union, the man must maintain the power of authority over the woman. The woman absolutely must cultivate a posture of submission and humility in her Life Path, and she must possess an authentic respect for the male authority in her life.
Of all the relationship structures, only the Headship and the Tingly Respect structures offer a God glorifying marital union. Headship works by virtue of the woman’s strength of will to be obedient to God, whereas, Tingly Respect functions as a product of the woman’s hypergamous passions to be obedient to her husband.
Σ Frame Axiom 13, AKA The Law of Headship: As a consequence of fitting God’s Covenant order, Headship and Tingly Respect both yield a home environment filled with God’s glory, peace, and presence, producing a sanctified marriage and providing a superiorly ideal setting for children to be raised in.
Corollary to Axiom 13: All other relationship structures with the exception of Celibacy (e.g. Allyship, Chivalry, Churchianity, Complementarian, Courtly Love, Egalitarian, Feminism, FWB, Open Relationship, Polyandry, et al.) do NOT fit God’s archetype, and will be prone to dysfunction, not only within the marriage, but also in the children.
Most men would prefer a Tingly Respect relationship, but are discouraged from entering into one when they realize that (in the current MMP) this usually requires him to choose a woman who is substantially below his own SMV/MMV. Those men opting for a Headship structure will find it to be very challenging to identify a potential mate who is willing and diligent in remaining obedient to God.
If both of them are sufficiently emotionally and spiritually mature, then it will be easier for them to utilize their collective willpower under the power of the Holy Spirit.
Of note, if a woman is able to remain sexually pure prior to marriage, then it becomes all that much easier for her to experience the emotional thrills and sexual bonding necessary for her to nurture an authentic respect for her husband, which intrinsically grants him a greater strength of authority. Doing so will allow her to not have to rely on her willpower so heavily in marriage, and it will excuse the husband from relying mainly on Game tactics.
Conversely, if a woman doesn’t cultivate a posture of submission and humility in her Life Path, and she does not reverence men nor respect male authority in the structure of power, then it is highly unlikely that a God glorifying marriage will somehow ensue without a soul chafing reliance on willpower. As a consequence, the home environment and the children’s wellbeing will suffer.
Comprehensively, this study offers strong support for the Meet Cute encounter as a God honoring courtship model, since it assumes from the onset of the relationship that the man holds a visceral power of authority over the woman, and that the woman is actively responsive to his authority as evidenced by her IOI’s. I will cover this aspect further in a future study.