Final part of “LETS TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE”
Let us take a moment to study a very specific passage of scripture, the Book of Job, where this is discussed in detail.
In Job 1:3, Job was described as “the greatest of all the men of the east.” In Job 1:1 he was described as “perfect,” and that he “eschewed evil.” His wealth and righteousness were clearly evident. That is the entire point of the Book of Job: he was wealthy, blessed by his wisdom, and righteous. In that passage, it says he had a “very great household”. Let’s explore that in the original language of the text.
In that passage, the word “very” (mᵊ’ōḏ) is a masculine word meaning exceedingly. The next word, translated as “great” (raḇ), is a masculine adjective meaning many, or abounding in. The word “household” (ʿăḇudâ, עֲבֻדָּה) is a feminine noun, meaning women in his household, including family and servants. I share this from the Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon:
So, Job, the most righteous man of his time, is being described as an alpha male with great wealth and many women in his family household. If you understand even the basics of Jewish culture, you know that he would have had many wives and probably concubines and slave girls (servants). It didn’t even need to be specifically described; it was just assumed, as it was with every other blessed, righteous man for thousands of years.
In the second century, there was a struggle for power in the Christian church. Influencers like Polycarp rose to prominence by preaching poverty, celibacy, denial, and even self-abuse as proofs of spiritual holiness. It was an appeal to envy and for the endorsement of men who were relatively unsuccessful. This became a theme throughout history. These twisted people believed that suffering was a way of purifying the human soul and overcoming sin. They often prescribed horrible self-inflicted abuse. In my opinion, they became sin-obsessed instead of God oriented. This paved the way for proofs of righteousness, celibacy, and falling into the same kind of self-righteous thinking that the Pharisees had practiced and Jesus denounced. That is a paper for another time, but if you follow that kind of philosophy upward through the ages, you find horrible harm. It resulted in Christian hatred of Jews, who were a prosperous people, and the slaughter of wealthy pagan gentiles as well. There was even an incident of a wealthy pagan woman being skinned alive and tortured to death on a Christian church altar in Alexandria.
Lutheranism, the teachings of Martin Luther, contained hatred of Jews, and he actively promoted burning their homes and churches. His influence on Marx and Hitler, and their legacy cultures, resulted in the deaths of more than a billion people.
Those second-century church leaders promoted monogamy as a means of satisfying the envy of pagan men who struggled to get women to marry them. They could not earn the approval of women’s fathers, especially those worthy of admiration. There was another issue, illustrated in the Book of Job. Young men tended to live within the patriarchal rule of their fathers, building huge wealth and families. That practice was not as evident in Gentile culture. Jewish women’s families chose to marry them to wealthy men and become part of polygynous households. Eventually, that ascetic movement ended up with the creation of liberalism, which in turn fostered feminism, the promotion of women out of the home and into the workplace. That single act, the influence of women away from their biological roles as wives and mothers, promoting sameness in careers, has destroyed every society that the Christian church influenced. There is not one culture on earth where Christianity and Western society have had influence that is not on a path to extinction by the year 2100. The trajectory of the math on that issue indicates that it is irreversible unless a fundamental shift is immediate. Math and biology don’t lie, and currently the only cultures on earth that are growing are fundamentalist, polygamous Muslims, and a very few where women have no opportunity other than to trade sex for food. That is a very sad fact. We support orphanages in Africa which are populated by the children of women who bore them, then died from the diseases they caught from the many men they mated with. Many women I know today around the world have children from three or four different men, none of whom they married. Often, these children suffer in poverty. Those populations may still be growing, but as the children get educated and find jobs for $10 per day, they increasingly avoid getting married and having children to men from their culture. The future of those societies is bleak. Orphans don’t tend to do well in those societies, and most often, the churches don’t encourage solutions. In the Philippines, there are tens of thousands of children who have simply been abandoned to forage when their parents move on to new relationships. The same is true in Brazil.
Church pastors promote women to stay single and involved in church activities rather than marrying a man with other wives. Those women might be sweeping the church and singing on Sunday, but they are also having sex, so the children keep getting born, and the women beg for food from strangers. Pastors most often promote their own self-interest instead of solutions that would help their parishioners.
Modern marriage’s problem is that it fails to reconcile the conflicts between tradition and practicality, where women have the ability to make choices. There are legitimate biological and sociological reasons why marriage and family structures have existed in a similar state for thousands of years all over the world. Now, what we see mostly is cultural depravity and destruction.
It is my opinion that the government should NEVER have gotten into the business of marriage, but that horse has left the barn. What that did was to further the transition from a permanent relationship where the only reason for divorce was through the cause of true adultery, and into the realm of casual divorce, where secular judges favored women over men.
The matter is more complicated than that, of course. The breakdown of masculine values influences the issue; the institution of abortion and the horrors involved in that industry, and the ability of a judge to destroy the path of inheritance. Remember how important that was throughout history? The writings are clear: “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children.” Everything was dependent on the presence of fathers and their ability to pass everything, money, wisdom, and culture, on to future generations. Now, that wisdom has been replaced by a one-generation system of child support and separating fathers from their children’s daily lives.
There is a reason why 80% of prison inmates and teenage mothers come from single-mother households. Further, 87% of abortions are sought by single women. 95% of abortions are from unintended pregnancies. Feminism and modern era Christianity did that. We are killing ourselves.
There is another set of statistics that I find interesting. One would think that, having divorced once, people would learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. The truth is that second and third marriages have much higher divorce rates than first marriages. I did find an interesting argument in one study. The more education women have in college, the higher their fertility. Among educated women, high school graduates were most likely to reproduce at a sustainable level, but just barely. Women with a bachelor’s degree were far below the extinction level, a master’s degree was better, and a doctorate was higher yet. However, all college-level fertility statistics were below the extinction level. What is the value of educating females if it is a virtual guarantee of extinction? I know these are very difficult questions, but they need to be addressed. The absolute fact is that if the world never saw another female attorney, society would survive. If most women aren’t having 4-5 babies by the time they are 30 years old, it doesn’t. We need to find a way to accommodate both.
We have to deal with the uncomfortable facts that are resulting in the complete breakdown of human society, at least those parts that have been influenced by the second-century Christian movement to asceticism. I say that because there are sections of Christian society that are stunning examples of an alternative. The Amish are one, although they are a closed society, and that doesn’t translate into populations at large.
The truth is that women, or society, would never return to the institutions of real marriage and family life. It would mean getting married early, having 4-5 children by the time they are 30 years old, and returning to relying on their husband to be the provider and leader of the family.
It would mean that there would be no more nightclub scenes or women running around without supervision. There would be no drunk girls on the streets, or men for that matter. Men would have no easy path to irresponsible sex. This means that men would not have individual access to women on social or professional levels. If men had sex with a girl or woman, it would require marriage and a bride price, or death.
It would mean recognizing that most men don’t qualify to be husbands and fathers, especially those who are in their twenties. Men would be expected to prove themselves responsible and able to support their wives and children. No other herd animal species assumes that all males should reproduce. The rule of thumb is that only 20% of males qualify to pass on their superior genetic material. My grandfather was a world-famous behavioral psychologist. He always said that males’ most important role in any society is to pass on excellent genetics and control the young males. In most herds, horses, for instance, the alpha females actually run the herd and determine which mares breed. The obvious implication on modern society is that women should embrace polygynous families, where women share a desirable man, a man who can provide structure and leadership. This would allow women to choose who would be homemakers and provide child care, and who would work outside the home. These decisions would be made deliberately, collectively, and cooperatively, for the benefit of the entire family.
There are those who will say, “Oh, that just benefits men so they can have more wives.” That kind of statement isn’t well considered. Polygamy didn’t only benefit superior men; it benefited women and was clearly a negative for less capable males. Remember that monogamy laws limit the legitimate options of women. That is why the institution of monogamy was invented, not for the benefit of women.
My father was considered to be a pretty good catch on my mom’s part. I remember her telling me that some of her girlfriends told her they wanted him if she ever gave him up. If you think mating is about men competing for women, you haven’t been to the local High School lately. Girls compete for the biggest, smartest, most athletic boys. I have also managed senior independent living communities. I can tell you firsthand how aggressive and competitive 80-year-old widows are for the husbands of other women. The entire plastic surgery and cosmetics industry is about women competing for male attention through what women perceive men want. The truth is that men want a peaceful household and regular sex. The modern marriage doesn’t provide either one.
So, what is the answer? Let’s assume that our culture doesn’t devolve into fundamental Islam by 2100. Let’s assume that Muslim and Latino cultures find that the second generation refuses to continue their norms of large families. I suggest that we adopt several of the more successful Muslim practices, such as polygamy and marital contracts.
First, we need to get past the idea of finding a “soul mate.” We also need to get past the idea that two women giving each other attention is sinful. I’ve watched women in cultures all over the world. Western women are freakishly inhibited. I am going to really incite the Christian community when I suggest that you show me one place in scripture where girl-girl sex is specifically prohibited. Don’t give me some innuendo about sexual morality, give me the kind of specific statement that describes male-male sex. I’m not endorsing it, I’m simply stating the truth, it isn’t mentioned. I think part of that is cultural, but I can’t get past the fact that, given multiple opportunities, it isn’t described. Before you cite Romans 1: 26 you should know that this is one of the most misappropriated scriptures in the Bible. It has nothing to do with two women having sex. This was a discussion about the practice of anal intercourse with Roman male and female prostitutes in the pagan temples there.
In Asia, it is the norm to see two women walking arm in arm. I have known hundreds of poly relationships, and nearly all of them involve women who help meet each other’s emotional and sexual needs. If I lost you with that comment, you haven’t known two or three women living in the same household with a man. Men simply can’t meet all of the emotional needs of women. We’re built differently and have completely different energies. Yes, we need each other and complement each other, but that doesn’t mean that men can emotionally fulfill women in the same way other women do.
I will use my wife as an example. We love each other and are a great team. There are certain ways in which we fulfill each other emotionally. At the same time, when we go on vacation, the best situation is for us to go with another woman or two, family members usually. They go on shopping trips and adventures together that would bore the brains out of me. They will take photos of themselves for hours. My wife and her girlfriends go on excursions to tulip fields and the arboretum. They gather for Karaoke nights. Their husbands stay home and work, or if we attend dinners organized by our women, we sit and chat about politics or sports for an hour or two, and then we are ready to leave. We do not feel the need to hang out with “the boys” and share our feelings like the women do. I’m not saying some men don’t, but men take other men best in small doses. Women NEED other women. Women organize and prepare holidays, weddings, and funerals. Men enjoy them, up to a point, but if we miss some, it’s fine. Colonies of women living together improve everything about family life and society.
Just the act of encouraging community breastfeeding of children, which happens in nature and was common throughout history, would change our lives for the better. Unfortunately, the idea is almost repulsive to modern women. We screwed that up by not teaching proper behavior as a society. Screwed it up, badly.
The next thing we should do is forget institutional marriage as we know it. We should abandon the entire idea in favor of domestic contract unions. This is common in other cultures, and the more I’ve explored the idea, the smarter it seems. Sure, have a celebration, invite your friends, but that should be the result of the union, not the evidence of it.
One example of how this would benefit us is that almost all marriages struggle with unrealized expectations. The phrases “I thought you wanted that!” or “He/she was different before we got married” are almost universal.
Before marriage, the participants should write out every expectation, wish, and condition, including the potential involvement of other members in the union. Don’t tell me that it isn’t going to happen or that one of you doesn’t want it. Assume it eventually will and deal with it. The statistics are clear. 70% of married people report being unhappy. In 75% of marriages, someone has an affair. 50% divorce and 25% survive the infidelity. 75%. Why not anticipate the obvious and make a plan that allows for multiple partners in some organized fashion? That is why poly family structures were the norm for thousands of years in more cultures than not. For those who object based on religious arguments, for thousands of years, Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim cultures, all with the same theological origin, were polygynous, and there is no indication that Christians are more monogamous than non-Christians. In a recent study, as many as 40% of evangelical pastors had affairs with a woman in their flock, and the issues in the Catholic priesthood are well known. According to an investigation by the Associated Press, in 2019, the church released the names of more than 5,000 credible offenders. That number represents 30% of parishes.
My point is that we need to be realistic and plan for success in our family relationships. We also need to find a way to prevent the destruction of our society.
It should be clearly written down how many children they want, how they will be raised, how finances will be handled, and even mundane things like who will do laundry and who will mow the lawn. Every aspect of their lives should be agreed upon, including how changes will be negotiated and what happens in the case of divorce. Both parties should go through counseling, including the use of behavioral profiles to better understand how they each filter the world. There should be a psychological analysis. Harsh, I know, but people who marry a person who has mental or emotional damage end up harmed. PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, and disruptive Attention Deficit issues can be devastating to relationships and families. Again, not all people warrant being a mate and reproducing. That’s life. If you don’t identify and deal with issues up front, you’ll pay for it in pain later.
That kind of pre-marriage work and negotiation makes it difficult for the partners to operate outside of the agreement once they are united. It also prevents either one from gaining subsequent benefits from the dissolution of the family and marriage. If one or the other doesn’t perform as promised, they forfeit benefits in a divorce, and only under rare circumstances should a mother get custody. If one or the other decides to include others in their lives, that should be specifically negotiated regarding who, how, and when.
I am proposing an adult, logical way to create a relationship. The foolish alternative is to think that we should fall in love, kiss and cuddle, get married to only one person under the influence of youthful inexperience, emotion, and hormones, then submit control of our lives to divorce attorneys and judges.
Our self-destruction has to end if we are going to survive as a society. What we haven’t discussed here is how to change a culture of women who are rewarded for bad behavior and decisions, and men who exploit them and reward them for their own selfish pleasure. That might take another paper to explore those subjects. The problems are interwoven.
If you want to explore these subjects further, read some of my novels. Along with the thrill of adventure, rescuing trafficked girls, and destroying bad guys, we explore the nuances of relationships and how to build better ones in the future
vscampbell.com