Illicit Sex Upsets the Balance of Sexual Authority

The double standard is bad, but equality is worse.

Readership: Christians;

In Why is premarital sex a sin? (2020 August 14), I described at some length how a relationship that is founded on premarital sex delivers control to the woman.  Thus, premarital sex is wrong because it creates a relationship having a female authoritative structure – a long way from the Christian ideal of Headship.

In order to have a Headship marriage structure, it is very important for a man to have sexual authority over his wife for several reasons.

• It increases his ability to garner her attention, investment, trust, humility, and favor.
• It satiates her fleshly nature, leading to less drama and more peace in the home.
• It reduces the wife’s inclination, willingness, and overall ability to rebel.
• It makes it easier for the husband to rule over his household.
• The wife is more willing and passionate about lovemaking.
• It increases marital contentment and sanctification.
• It enhances one’s overall quality of life.

In fact, the authority of the husband is the heart of the Headship structure!

In another post, Sexual Authority (2020 September 30), I covered how one’s Sexual Market Value (SMV) is a rough equivalency of sexual authority.  Here, it should be noted that sexual authority is a two-way street.  IOW,

• A woman with a higher SMV has more sexual authority over males.
• A man with a higher SMV has more sexual authority over females.

But within marriage, there needs to be a certain balance.  The man and wife need to exert sexual authority over each other, or else sanctification will be difficult or unachievable.  To illustrate what I’m talking about here, there is a common complaint among men that if you can find a woman who respects you properly and treats you right, then she is so low on the SMV scale that you don’t really want her.  IOW, he has all the authority over her, and she has none over him.  The corresponding complaint among women is that if you can find a man who is willing to offer monogamous commitment and be willing to marry you, then he is so low on the totem pole, that you don’t really want him. IOW, she has all the authority over him, and he has none over her.

In a Headship structure, the man should exert more authority than the wife.  But the Bible says that a husband should also be willing to die for the wife (Ephesians 5:25), so she needs to have an authority that is sufficient to warrant that kind of devotion from him.

Men, which woman would you die for?

Illicit sex is harmful to the Headship structure, because when a woman increases her N count, she is substantially decreasing the authority that her future husband may have over her body.

• Few women would get the Tingles for, and bear the child of a righteous man. No slore would do this.
• Few men would die for a virtuous woman. No man would die for a slore.

All things taken together, this is why men prefer virgins for marriage.

On the other hand, when a man increases his N count, he is also decreasing the authority that his future wife may have over him. But since the husband occupies (or should occupy) the primary position of authority in the marriage, the consequences for brash Chads who settle down are not quite as catastrophically d@mning as they are for s1uts who stick the landing.

There is a biological component to this as well.  Women lose their ability to pair bond after 4-5 partners, but for men, it’s 25-30.*

Both of the above reasons explain where the old “double standard” comes from.  Very few people will argue for the double standard anymore, but in the past, it was usually used to excuse male promiscuity. This was one thing that put women into a rebellious mood and which motivated feminists to develop the current script of equaluhty. Nowadays, the hip fad is to argue against the double standard. But this is even worse, because not only are they feathering female promiscuity, they are also ignoring biology and refuting the Christian ideal of Headship.

* Of course, all of this is speaking from the viewpoint of a general praxeology. Results may vary from one individual to the next.

Related

• Σ Frame: Time Frames for various forms of sexual bonding and maturation (2019 February 5)
• Σ Frame: Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification (2020 March 2)
• Σ Frame: Sexual Consent in Marriage (2020 March 9)
• Σ Frame: Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility (2020 June 19)