I have long attempted to reconcile my Churchian blue pill upbringing with the modern ferale female. Thanks largely to Jim of Jim’s blog, I now grok.
Biblical marriage was a-consensual, in that consent of neither bride nor groom was required. Arrangements were made by patriarchs and law. Women were non-transferable property. Jim’s exegesis of the story of Ruth and Boaz is instructive.
Modern Christian marriage is borrowed from Roman contractual marriage, in which bride and groom consent. The Western marriage ceremony reflects the decadent, post-patriarchal phase of Roman empire. As cheap resources increase, r-selection and female emancipation and sexual promiscuity rise, and birth rate falls.
The English industrial revolution triggered Victorianism, the precursor to Puritanism, which is the forefather of the modern Cathedral. The Cathedral is defined by r-selected decadence, and “progresses” via the mechanism of holier-than-thou status competition, described by Jesus as “enlarging the phylacteries,” and properly named Phariseeism.
Victorianism overturned the previous English understanding that women were lusty whores apt to fuck any rake at the drop of a hat from puberty onwards, and redefined females as the innocent, passive and pure sex, with men as the evil aggressors. The effective result was repression of (beta) male sexuality and the liberation of the female hypergamic impulse.
Western state consensual marriage is therefore anti-Biblical, decadent and r-selected. The cultural practice of traditional patriarchal marriage gradually gave way before the legal assault, with the last vestiges disappearing in the 1950s.
Biblical marriage is legally unavailable in any white(ish) Christian nation except Timor Leste, and the predicted low birth rate results.
While a culturally patriarchal marriage was still reasonably possible in the 1950s despite the decadent legal framework, today it is (at best) an edge case barely possible for alphas with extremely careful bride selection, and even then will most likely suffer major unacknowledged r-selected drift.
Biblically, sexual crimes such as adultery and rape were crimes against the male owner, not the female recipient. Given women’s infamous rapid adaptation to sexual captivity, propensity to lie to avoid sexual accountability, unconscious arousal in response to male aggression, and inability to accurately introspect or rationally act in sexual matters, the Biblical model seems reasonable.
The Bible has no concept for the modern, un-owned, liberated woman. Their status is similar to deer. Nobody owns them, so help yourself. They lack even the standing of war brides, who clearly become the property of the victors, and were presumably previously the property of the conquered.
In the case of a war bride, the conquerer is to wait 1 month to avoid paternal ambiguity before initiating sexual relations, and may not sell her if he decides to discard her. The former regulation is now unnecessary thanks to paternity tests and contraception. The latter is inapplicable, since slavery is illegal. In any case, the point is moot because patriarchal ownership of women no longer exists – conquest is dead.
Contra Churchianity, a Christian man does not owe a feral woman an anti-Biblical state marriage. Likewise, despite what the story of the sin of Onan might superficially suggest, a Christian man also does not owe her children. Onan’s sin was extinguishing his dead brother’s patrilinial line of inheritance by not impregnating his brother’s wife. It had nothing to do with satisfying a woman’s attack of baby rabies. Today, it is legally impossible to commit the sin of Onan.
If you attempt to build your family on the foundation of state marriage rather than God’s law, you will deserve the predictable result. If you politely refrain from shooting deer because God forbids sheep rustling, you will deserve your starvation.
If you would be a shepherd, go wherever, by law or force, you may reign master in your own home.
I think there is a lot of New Testament holy blather from garrulous epistolaries that may cloud the issue. Achieve clarity by observing context and source. Yahweh>Jesus>Paul. Jesus was a racist who never read the Bible and whipped men like cattle. Yahweh frightens Conan.
The pietism and quietism which which Jesus accepted secular Roman rule does not apply to Neo-Puritan anti-Christian Pharisaical Cathedral rule. John the Baptist and Jesus both called them a brood of vipers. Embrace them and die.