In Favor of Genesis 3:16

NRxChad · 410

NRxChad

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
on: February 04, 2022, 06:35:48 pm
THIS POST WAS BANNED ON THE MOTTE BY A BRATTY WOMAN MOD KNOWN AS NARABURNS. READ AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION.

Genesis 3:16 reads

Quote
16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

This means that women are to be submissive to their husbands.

Let’s look at some of the things the Christian Bible has to say on the subject.

See Hebrews 12:6-7: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? As Christians, we know that there are ways in which we are to strive to be like Jesus, and then there are those in which we are not. The above is a clear exemplary endorsement of our duties to our children (initially given to us in Proverbs). And if we seriously study the Bible, we can see that this also applies to a man's wife.

Scriptures instruct men to treat their wifes as Jesus treats us, as His children:

Quote
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:3-9

The Bible is clear. Husbands are to take a patriarchal leadership role over their wives.

What are the secular arguments for this?

First, humans evolved to find discipline somewhat erotic. This is not to say that it is a sexual act. Rather, what has happened here is exaptation. I know this because I have collected data on it -- about 2/3 of people report some interest in disciplinary punishment. This means that it's probably not just some mutation but rather was selected for in the gene pool. The second thing is that those with discipline interest are more likely to be accepting of punishment and loving towards the punisher. This indicates that discipline eroticism could evolve for the purpose of increasing adaptive submissiveness within a reproductive unit. The third piece of evidence is my spanking paraphilia typology; >70% of spanking stories are about discipline, basically corrective punishment given due to non-erotic selfless love. Selfless love is most common between relatives, due to genetic similarity, evolutionarily, and is very rare outside of a reproductive unit. The fourth piece of evidence is that spanking paraphilia is probably genetic, due to spanking interest being distributed continuously and childhood experience having no effect on adult spanking interest.

What this means is that women evolved to want to submit to their husbands. This is why increasingly more and more women actually choose to pursue a "Christian Domestic Discipline" household. Men today are so put down by the State's untraditional, artificial gender relations model that they have to be asked by their wives to lead them in life.

And to conclude let me emphasize the word traditional. We're dealing with Chesterton's fence here. All throughout history, "Christian Domestic Discipline" was simply the norm. In fact, it was the norm merely 70 years ago.

I conclude that the ideal marriage is one where the man wears the pants and has the authority to discipline his wife and children for the purpose of furthering the health of the family unit as a whole. This behavior in fact evolved because it is adaptive; it leads to more successful family units which means more successful reproduction, and it is bad to act as if this is wrong due to personal desire for the "empowerment" of self. "Empowerment" is bad and unnatural because on average husbands make better decisions than their wives and children, meaning that a household where he is dominant will be more successful than one where his wife and children rule over him or "with" him.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 06:38:55 pm by NRxChad »



JohnMaguire

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Reply #1 on: February 04, 2022, 06:41:00 pm
Excellent post. What forms of wife-discipline do you support? Personally I think you should just treat them like they have the maturity level of a 13 year old boy, because that's what they have and they like being treated that way. If they mouth off they should be put in time out and be spanked. Simple as



MarathonAnon

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Reply #2 on: February 04, 2022, 06:42:43 pm
Excellent post. What forms of wife-discipline do you support? Personally I think you should just treat them like they have the maturity level of a 13 year old boy, because that's what they have and they like being treated that way. If they mouth off they should be put in time out and be spanked. Simple as

Yeah I think corporal punishment is a good option because it's kind of hard to ground a 20 or 30 something woman for a week when she shit tests. She's got chores to do and stuff and needs to be out driving the kids around. Better to just get the punishment over with quickly.



JuliusBranson

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Reply #3 on: February 04, 2022, 06:44:46 pm
Nice, I saw where those losers at the Motte banned you. I think your issue was you calling your thing "Spankology" a few months ago  + being more intelligent than them, on top of pissing off wahmxn, lol. Were you influenced by Powerology per chance?



JosephBronski

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Reply #4 on: February 06, 2022, 01:37:45 pm
This post is kind of sussy. We don't need to descend into fetish posting. And I don't think corporal punishment is a good thing. When done to teenagers it's generally oppressive.



JohnMaguire

  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Reply #5 on: February 12, 2022, 06:43:59 pm
This post is kind of sussy. We don't need to descend into fetish posting. And I don't think corporal punishment is a good thing. When done to teenagers it's generally oppressive.

It's not a fetish, it's just the global human norm before 1960. In the 1950s US husbands were allowed to spank their wives for punishment and it was very common. Women have the minds of 12 year olds forever. Repeal the 19th!