Virgins DO NOT have moral agency. Non-virgins DO, under conditions.
Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This post pieces together several excerpts of posts and images that once appeared on Artisanal Toad’s Hall, hereby resuscitated after a few hours combing through The Wayback Machine.
Reader’s Note: This post was requested by Derek L. Ramsey, AKA ramman3000.
Length: 3,700 words
Reading Time: 20 minutes
First of all, I’ll say a few words about Artisanal Toad for those readers who are unfamiliar with him. Artisanal Toad is believed to be a polygynous Mormon. He boasted of having two “Ninja” wives, but it could not be ascertained how serious he was about this claim. He was a frequent commenter in the Classic Christian Manosphere and started his own blog in August 2013. He posted long essays quite regularly up until he stopped posting altogether in December 2017. Then in early 2019, he vanished from WordPress without any farewell.
Toad held controversial stances on sex, marriage, adultery, divorce, lesb!an h0m0sexuality, polygyny, and prost!tut!on. The most interesting thing about his contribution to the Christian Red Pill Lore is his unique interpretation of sex and marriage that was based entirely on scripture and stood completely on its own merit. He used this interpretation to support all his arguments, and no one could definitively prove that his interpretation was wrong (going on a point-by-point basis). Over the course of his 4 years of blogging, in addition to the basic explanations of his stances, he addressed a number of larger arguments that concerned many of the controversial implications that would result if his views were widely accepted as Biblical Truth. After a time, it became evident that the majority of his readers just couldn’t stomach it — even if it were true — mainly because of the implications. Apparently, this is why he stopped blogging.
Read on and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Links are provided for those readers who wish to further investigate Toadistry. Toad preferred the NASB, so that is what I’ve linked to here.
Male Authority is Preeminent
“The man was authorized by God to begin marriage because marriage begins the family and family is the container in which children are to be brought into this world. That is truth. Children need both their biological mother and father working together to raise them. Children need both their parents to work together to raise them. So, how does this begin?
First is the change in status as the man leaves and goes out from under the authority of his father and mother to be the head of his own house. The man has sexual intercourse with the eligible virgin and she becomes his wife. When this occurs, according to Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6), it is God who makes the two “one flesh” in a spiritual joining that the Apostle Paul said was the same as the spiritual joining that makes the Christian a member of the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:28-32). It is a great mystery. Thus, the “one flesh” portion of Genesis 2:24 is the spiritual joining that is the act of God and cannot be the act of man. This act of God occurs when the man penetrates his wife and they have sexual intercourse…”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
Sexual intercourse is an act of man that produces marriage and pair bonding (under certain conditions). The “becoming one flesh” is an act of God that happens during sex. Thus, Toad notes that “becoming one flesh” is concomitant with coitus, but sexual intercourse and “becoming one flesh” are NOT the same thing. “One flesh” refers to the spiritual pair bonding that occurs as a result of virginal coitus. Therefore, sex can produce “one flesh”, but the pair bonding aspect of sex / marriage requires virginal sex and/or the power of God. A sexual relationship that is lacking any of these aspects is debased.
To support this argument, Toad observes that the Hebrew word, “dabaq”, used in Genesis 2:24 (where man and wife become one flesh) means the exact same thing as the Greek word “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6:16 (where a man and a prost!tute become one flesh). In Matthew 19:5 (written in Greek), Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24, and the word used here is “kollao”, thereby establishing the equivalent meaning of dabaq and kollao.
Virgin Sex constitutes a Natural Marriage*
This is one of Toad’s primary claims that underpins all his other arguments.
“As we’ve just seen in both Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, sex is what makes the two married, which is exactly what Genesis 2:24 said. In 1st Corinthians 6:16 we discover that the Hebrew word “dabaq” that gets translated into English as “cleave” or “joined” in Genesis 2:24 actually means sex. There is no ceremony and nobody has to preside over anything or solemnize anything, all that’s required is sex…”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: The Lie That Caused The Adultery Epidemic (2016/6/3)
So essentially, Virginal Sex = Marriage.
“A man begins a marriage to a virgin with the act of penetration (sexual intercourse) and with that act he gives his consent and commitment to the marriage. The virgin is automatically married by that act, provided the man was eligible to marry her, because she has no agency as a virgin. Unlike a virgin, a widow or a legitimately divorced woman has agency. She must agree to be married before the act of intercourse will make her married.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
The first part carries the implications that (1) every non-virgin woman is married in the eyes of God to the first guy with whom she had sexual intercourse, and that (2) she commits adultery with every other guy she may sleep with — including a man she may be currently formally married to (if he wasn’t her first). (3) If a man formally marries a woman who is not a virgin, and her first partner is still living, then the marriage is essentially institutionalized adultery. Under these assumptions, Toad estimated that 80% of marriages among Church-goers is adulterous!
In the same essay, Toad gives further evidence that virginal sex constitutes a natural marriage.
“All women are virgins when they marry. The act of penetrative sexual intercourse with the virgin is what begins a marriage and Scripture does not require any other act, which is why the woman who was sold by her father to be a concubine (Exodus 21:7-10), the woman who was captured in battle (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), and even the woman who was r@ped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) were all married with that act. News Flash: The virgin’s consent is not required. This means whether she knew she was being married or not, whether she wanted to be married or not, with that act she is married. And the Churchians will screech over this, but Scripture is clear what the words of the text mean because the Apostle Paul showed us.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
Another very controversial point here is that virgins who have sex become married by that act, whether she knows it or not. Every non-virgin woman is married to her first partner!
* I’ve added the adjective “natural marriage” for clarity. I believe this would also be considered a covenant marriage as well.
Virgins DO NOT have Agency
“In Genesis 3:16 God issued his first judgment on mankind, saying “he shall rule over you.” I have written about this before and effectively God declared women to be incompetent and appointed their [father or] husband as their guardian. While it might be argued that prior to Christ the husband-wife relationship was primarily a master-servant relationship, it cannot be argued that the father-daughter relationship is anything but a guardian-ward relationship.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
This further supports the presumption that male authority is preeminent. This agrees with Sharkly’s stance. Male authority is also present in the act of sex / marriage.
“The act of coitus is the man’s consent, agreement and commitment to marriage. It is automatic if he engages in the act but he has a choice in whether to engage in that activity.Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
IOW, Sex is an act of commitment from the man. This transfers the woman from her father’s authority to the man’s. If the sexual intercourse happened without the father’s knowledge, he can annul the union if he disagrees (Exodus 22:17).
In Toad’s Churchian Challenge (2017/3/17), Artisanal Toad went over some of the same scriptures already mentioned to explain why he believes virgins have no agency.
“…when the virgin has sex with a man, she is married to that man whether she knew it or not, whether she agreed to be married or not. A virgin does not have agency and she can be married against her will without her consent. This is proven by the fact that in Exodus 21 a woman could be sold by her father to be the wife (concubine*) of a man whether she agreed or not. In Deuteronomy 21, we see that a woman captured in battle can become the wife of a man whether she agrees or not when he has sex with her. In Deuteronomy 22 we see that the virgin not betrothed who is r@ped (and it is discovered) is married to the man who r@ped her.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Toad’s Churchian Challenge (2017/3/17)
* Toad notes that both a wife and a concubine are both married. The difference between a wife and a concubine is that a wife has certain rights and privileges that the concubine does not.
Moreover, the virgin is a ward of her father and can therefore be married off against her will, or r@ped / seduced into sex / natural marriage. Being a ward of her father implies that she does not have agency.
Under these conditions, sex alone will establish the man’s authority over her and produce a one flesh bond. The virgin is therefore married to him because she does not have agency nor authority over herself.
Non-Virgins DO have Agency
“The woman who is not a virgin and not married does have a choice and absent her agreement sex is meaningless. We already addressed this issue and the relevant portion is this:
Numbers 30:3-5 is specific as to the authority of the father over his daughter and Exodus 22:17 clarifies that even if a daughter’s agreement to marry resulted in the act of marriage, the father (in the day he heard of it) had the authority to forbid her agreement, thus nullifying the resulting marriage. He refused the agreement to marry for her and thus the sex did not create a marriage. Numbers 30:9 is very specific in detailing that the widow and divorced woman have agency, in that there is no-one with the authority to review their agreements. Whatever agreement or vow they make is binding on them. It follows that they cannot be bound by an agreement they did not make. Likewise, the Apostle Paul (in 1st Corinthians 7:39) is clear that the woman who is no longer bound is free to choose whom she might marry, only in the Lord.
If the father has the authority to refuse marriage to the extent that the act of coitus did not make her married and the widow or divorced woman has the same authority over themselves, how can they be married unless they agree to be married? It stands to reason that if the father had the authority to refuse agreement and thereafter sex did not make the virgin married, then the refusal to agree by the non-virgin was sufficient to prevent marriage.
A non-virgin may be eligible to marry, which means that she may marry. However, [a man’s] vow to marry her is meaningless unless she agrees to marry him because that man is not in authority over that woman and he cannot make a vow that binds her unless she agrees to it. The woman has no authority over the man (and never will), so the idea that her failure or refusal to agree to his vow somehow grants her authority over him is ridiculous.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
Here I’ll add one caveat about Toad’s last sentence. In Sexual Authority and Sanctification (2022/8/8), I described how 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 stipulates that a married woman has authority over her husband’s body. This is the only area and context in which a woman has authority over a man.
“Genesis 2:24 contains no mention of any requirement for consent by the woman. We know the consent of the woman is not required because a father can sell his daughter to be another man’s wife (concubine) as described in Exodus 21:7-10. The woman captured in battle becomes the man’s wife (Deuteronomy 23:10-14). The eligible virgin becomes the man’s wife due to being r@ped by him if they are discovered (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The eligible virgin could consent to have sex (she was seduced) which resulted in her marriage, her father had the authority to forbid her agreement (consent) thereby annulling the marriage that resulted from the act of marriage that followed her agreement (Exodus 22:17). Because a virgin can be r@ped into marriage against her will and over her objections and she can agree to be married only to have her marriage annulled, we conclude that the virgin has no agency.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Marriage, Whores and Churchians (2017/1/11)
Although virgins can be seduced, they have no agency and therefore can neither give nor deny consent. This agrees with what Donal Graeme said, that virgins have no way of Knowing When To Escape, and that agency is imparted through carnal knowledge.
“The non-virgin woman [whose husband has died] has agency and is free to choose who she marries (1st Corinthians 7:39), which means she cannot be r@ped into marriage. Therefore, sex alone cannot make her married because she must consent to the marriage.”
“It should be noted that the issue of prostitution comes after a long series of posts that demonstrate that the virgin is married when she has sex, even though she doesn’t know about it, and the issue is somewhat complicated because of that. The thing is, the issue of consent depends on the woman’s status and it is the responsibility of the man to deal with that.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
On the last part above, Toad agrees with the Liberal Progressive’s emphasis on a woman’s consent — under the condition that she is a non-virgin, unmarried, and sexually liberated from her father’s authority. Essentially, harlots have agency, even though they are not formally married.
Toad’s account may explain why so many modern women have latched on to the idea of consent as being an important issue to them. If they are sexually liberated non-virgins and free agents, then maybe it is truly a thing.
“The number one thing about the ideal man (and Job is the leading candidate for an example) is the implied accountability for his wife. The Godly Christian husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves His church. The best example of how this actually happens is in Revelation 3:19, in which Christ is speaking to His church:
“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. Be zealous therefore and repent!”
In other words, the husband presents his wife as “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless” by holding her accountable for her behavior. Just as Christ says, He will hold accountable those whom He loves. A Godly man is a just man who does his duty, but what the feminist narrative cannot tolerate is a man who holds a woman accountable. This is the feminist perversion of the ideal husband.”Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Perverting The Ideal Husband (2017/2/7)
Basically, men are responsible for holding their wife / wives accountable.
In summary, what I’ve gathered from reading through Artisanal Toad’s posts are the following points.
- Virgins have no agency.
- Virgins are under their father’s authority until married.
- “Becoming one flesh” (i.e. cleaving / clinginess / pair bonding), is created by God.
- Virgin sex always leads to “becoming one flesh” / cleaving, and this is what constitutes marriage in God’s eyes.
- Sex usually leads to “becoming one flesh” / cleaving, but maybe not always, depending on the context.
- A woman having sex with any man other than the one who took her virginity is committing adultery.
- Since many women marry a man who wasn’t their first (while the first is still living), most modern marriages are therefore a form of institutionalized adultery.
- Because virgin sex constitutes natural marriage, there is no such thing as premarital sex, unless the couple agreed not to have sex until a prearranged time.
- Formal marriage (and the idea of premarital sex) was an invention of the church that was introduced as a means of power and control.
- Men have the authority to “take” an eligible virgin to wife, with conditions.
- Sexual intercourse is an act of marital commitment from the man, so men should only have sex with a woman he is willing to marry.
- The husband is required to feed, clothe, and shelter his wife (or wives), and also teach them and hold them accountable.
- Married non-virgins are under their husband’s authority.
- Married women are agents under their husband’s authority.
- If a wife exercises her agency as a wife poorly or irresponsibly, then her husband is responsible for dealing with that. However, the husband also has the authority to deal with her as he pleases, up to and including divorcing her.
- Fathers have the power to annul their daughter’s natural marriage by their word.
- Women who are not virgins and whose father annulled their natural marriage should remain in their father’s house and under his authority, but they are able to choose their own husbands. (Fathers are urged to vet her choices.) Under these conditions, women become free agents.
- The women in (17) can have sex outside of marriage and it would not be a sin unless done outside her father’s knowledge and/or permission.
- Fathers should not allow their daughters to do (17), as it would bring shame on the entire family.
- For women who are free agents (i.e. 17), their consent (and by extension their father’s too) is required for sex and/or marriage.
As you can see, there are points here that would strike just about everyone the wrong way; Complementarians, Churchians, Feminists, Liberals, Progressives, Trad-Cons, men, women… Yeah, just about everyone. To me, this suggests that Toad is on to something regarding the Biblical model of marriage (which is now all but forgotten).
The crux of the whole issue is, as Toad pointed out, how we define marriage.
Toad’s Biblical interpretation of sex and marriage brings together many of the topics about female agency and consent that we’ve covered so far, and it also accounts for many of the confusing issues surrounding agency that have come up.
- Toad’s stances on agency and consent of virgins and women in general agrees with Donal Graeme’s and Rollo Tomassi’s views, respectively. Furthermore, Toad gives a Biblical explanation of how it works.
- Toad’s views agree with Dalrock’s observations that everyone is in denial about the moral agency of women (i.e. non-virgins).
- Toad explains why even married women lack agency, as Deep Strength described.
- Toad’s views align with Catacomb Resident’s assertion that Covenant Life must come first, and he explains from a Biblical standpoint how the issues of authority, the transfer of authority, the duties of authority should work within the Covenant.
- Toad agrees with Sharkly’s stance that Male authority is (or should be) preeminent, and his interpretation of scripture explains how that authority is transferred from father to husband through the act of sex / marriage.
- Toad’s explanations ties together the important necessity of managing and teaching women through operant conditioning, as deti explained.
- Toad says all responsibility is (or should be) on men, and this supports the obligations that Headship imposes on Men, which I observed in Headship Authority Takes Work (2022/8/12).*
- We’ve already determined that sexual promiscuity debases marriage. Toad’s account fully explains how this works, and why so many modern women are unhaaappy in marriage (because they’re living in adultery).
- Toad’s discussion of consent can be extrapolated to explain why many women have latched on to the idea of consent as being an important issue to them (because they’re sexually liberated).
* Readers will note that the current condition of society has undermined male authority so much that implementing this paradigm of Headship is extremely hard or even impossible.
The only thing that readers might find objectionable is Toad’s definition of natural marriage, and only because of all the messy consequences that would result from admitting all this as God’s truth.
On a personal note, I can see how Toad’s vision of marriage aligns with Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5:27-32, and His description of marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. I can also see the overall wisdom of regarding virginal sex as the primary act that establishes a marriage, and I will put this idea across to my daughters. But yet, I also believe Western society is far too corrupted in both body and mind for this to be applicable in the present day and age. We are living in an age of harlotry and consent.
I hope I’ve presented Toad’s arguments accurately. Readers who are better read on Toadistry are welcome to suggest additions and/or improvements.
- Dalrock: Why so many wives wish their husband would cheat (2012/3/11)
- Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Adultery (2017/3/12)
- Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
- Jim’s Blog: Female sexual preferences (2022/9/11)
- Σ Frame: Do women possess moral agency? (2022/11/2)
- Σ Frame: Donal Graeme on Female Agency (2022/11/3)
- Σ Frame: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency (2022/11/4)
- Σ Frame: Dalrock on Female Agency (2022/11/7)
- Σ Frame: Deti on Female Agency (2022/11/8)
- Σ Frame: Deep Strength on Women’s Agency (2022/11/9)
- Σ Frame: Sharkly on Women’s Agency (2021/11/10)
- Σ Frame: Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency (2022/11/11)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Jack on Female Agency (2022/11/23)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency (2022/12/5)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency (2022/12/12)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Bruce Charlton on Agency (2022/12/13)
- Σ Frame (Red Pill Apostle): Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency (2022/12/15)
- Σ Frame (Jack): D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency (2022/12/16)