Thou shalt have one lusty member of the weaker sex as thy spouse.
Does this go without saying? I'm just askin'.
For those whose sensitivities have been compromised by the Spirit of the Age (perhaps to the extent that they voted for Obama) this may seem a bit archaic, a bit medieval, the droolings of an unenlightened Idaho hick. Perhaps you are a man who doesn't want or wish for the Very Calm Life. Perhaps your version of life would invite the term "gelding" or perhaps you are just a little light in the loafers.
Perhaps you are offended at the patriarchal presumption this rule seems to take.
(I believe that one ought be a gentleman in the treatment of women and if the delicately nurtured have felt a little off putting occurred with words like "lusty" and "weaker", I completely understand and encourage you to read no further and perhaps leave this blog altogether.)
Perhaps that "Perhaps" was not the complaint of the delicately nurtured.
Perhaps you are a member of the "Sisters of the Fretted and Fevered Brow", the women who are angry at the supposition that they are (as the rule stated) the "weaker sex" but find that they are not strong enough to do anything about it. Bummer. That. has. got. to. sting.
The Evantine Abbey is a monastic order not a nunnery. You can make your own rules for the chicks. Heck, if you wait long enough I might get around to writing some. Number three could be rewritten to say, "Thou shalt have one strong man ("Que es Mas Macho" rating of 7 or higher) to tell you how to vote and stuff."
But to the real need and point, what is this rule not saying?
Marriage does not make the Very Calm Life. In fact the Scriptural Proverb in the running for the most repeated is "Better to dwell in the corner of the roof than under it with a contentious and fretful woman." Many women do not bring Calm along with them.
Points affirmed by the rule: This woman whom thou shalt marry will be the "weaker sex" referential to you. An Achilles can marry an Amazon but a Casper MilkToast had better not. A wife is not here to remake you, protect you, and provide for you. The weakness brings gentleness from the husband, and a more precise and civilized gentility.
The Scriptures say "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19
and "Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered." I Peter 3:7
It also provides, as a more jeopardized citizenry in a man's kingdom, a greater need of clear border and better, wiser government.
She is given, in this protection, a realm, a domestic vision and a finite prospect for her efforts and daily contribution. Good things, that men like, get builded there. While a man has a more imperial prospect than his wife, the Calm Life exists most measured in the intimate aspect within the doors of his abode. The details, well builded, produce a calm which, like the smell of baking bread, reach the far corners of his imperial attempts and benefit those efforts. The civilization a good wife provides reaches out to inform the broader world of the benefit of that married couple's kingdom. And those Philistines you know(whose wives work professionally but don't domestically) will look on your archaic, medieval, and hickish life and wonder at, and perhaps damn, the beatific calm.
Don't think I skipped lightly over the word "lusty". A man wouldn't, nay shouldn't, marry at all if he has no desire for connubial bliss. But then, this rule is not about His desire but Hers. Having married, the blessing of his underwear being washed and folded is a collateral benefit but not a sufficient reason to pay the folder's medical bills for the foreseeable future. Lustiness in one's wife is the first and necessary signal to a calm man's sense that all is right in his world. She is First Citizen, Grand Vizier, Her Man's Lieutenant in all Things, chief beneficiary of all that he conquers, surveys, and eventually bequeaths. If she does not eagerly reward his urges, hail the conquering hero with some verve, then he has been measured at the closest vantage, by the best beloved, as not impressive enough to receive a woman's central contribution to marriage. It is what a man expects since the act of "one flesh" is the Creation of Eve Reason for leaving father and mother and cleaving. It is encouraged by the Apostle as avoiding and doing without is discouraged. Absence of this urge is sufficient reason to not marry at all. The other services a wife provides are more cheaply had by domestic staff and a passel of good friends.
Let us finish by saying that the Calm ratios are not met if the key and central reason for a man having a wife is met infrequently and disinterestedly. See if a woman has the same "you ought to tolerate this because God won't let you leave" assessment if the husband was "infrequent and disinterested" in fulfilling her expectations for provision in any area (emotionally, spiritually, financially, socially).
Build a life together which protects your wife's construction of a family civilization.
But a sexual buzzkill is no wife worth having.
8 comments:
What has one left to contribute if he but wished he had penned the whole piece himself?
Nicely put, Evan.
marc did suggest that it should be "one lusty, callipygian member of the weaker sex."
This is not Justin.
You must have expected this from someone. This is not gentile and quite honestly pissed me off. I haven't a problem with there needing to be a great sex life in marriage, and I haven't a problem with the woman being the weaker sex, as I see these things to be true. However, is not lust sinful? Yes I take issue with words used. It is necessary for a woman to desire to have sex with her husband, but it is not the reason why God created Eve. This I take great offense to and seems to be blasphemous. As is quite clear in the scriptures Adam needed someone to be with him- to be his helpmeet, not his sex slave. It seems to me that if that is all women were created for- to be the mans reward when he has done something good or valiant, then it would have made more sense for God to have made us deaf, mute, and blind...however He did not. He made us seeing, thinking, speaking, hearing women who ought to be valued for more than our physical ability to please a man. Just to add a little to my rant, I think it imperative to say that while a man has a real authority over the wife it should manifest itself in the way Christ treated the church. The Gospels are a good place to study how it was God incarnate treated His people. If I remember correctly He washed their nasty dirty feet...and in the end gave his life for them. It seems that men these days, perhaps in reaction to the feminist movement, are enchanted with the idea of telling women what they ought to do and be like and spend far less time telling one another what their biblical duty as a husband is. Are not the older women to teach the younger women and likewise with the men?
Tanya- Justin's girlfriend
Hi Tanya,
Seems I stepped in something. "Lust" or "lusty" in this post means desire. Desire is no problem until one desires that which is not their own (thy neighbors house or wife or ass). The post is only defending the aspect of a Calm Life which is a healthy sex life (if one is married) and the realization, and happy participation of the wife regarding that point. You are correct in saying that Eve was made "a helper fit for him" but note that the reaction of Adam "here at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" is used as the condition which warrants the rapprochement of sex (and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh). However we may sing the other praises of the "goodwife" this is very foundational. In fact you will note how I described her as "First Citizen, Grand Vizier, Her Man's Lieutenant in all Things".
Lastly, The Ten Rules of the Very Calm Life is a comic assessment of true qualities and as such know that I am (unsuccessfully it seems) writing to continue that tone without giving up its truths. My apologies if this response fails to alleviate your concerns.
My husband often turns me down due to his scholastic desires, but I had no way of knowing this would happen pre-marriage. Since I am lusty and he is not, does this mean he should give up his claim on me and go live a chaste life elsewhere? He doesn't save anything for the childrens' milk money, and still expects me to fold his underwear.
p.s. my husband quotes you: "No woman is pretty enough or lusty enough to deny you butter, bacon, or books" and adds to this "men are bibliophiles first."
Personally, I think this should be true only if they're castrated. I have no intention of denying him what he wants, except that what he wants is to deny me on the basis of spending time with butter, bacon and books.
p.p.s. and in case you're going to council me to go to the gym or something, I already look like a cross between Scarlett Johansson and Kiera Knightly.
Pretty much if some King David wants to challenge my Nimrod in battle and take me into his harem, that would be cool with me.
Mrs. Nimrod,
Do you approach him when he wants to be approached or at some passive aggressive moment when you know your urge conflicts with his?
Do you know that your remarkable good looks is an aesthetic reference rather than an erotic one?
Do you know what the Mojo demands?
How is your expression of honor for him going?
These are not questions that I know you need to answer but you might. I would not presume to give sexual counsel in a blog comments section. I would recommend you visit Big Haus with hubby in tow. The Scripture require that he be puttin' out just as we "normal" men Biblically expect from the less than motivated "normal" female.
To your husband,
Dude! Just as wives should play well with Books, Butter, and Bacon, so shall they play well with her. The Calm Life will balance but remember that the "lusty wife" has memories and opinions and moods while your books and bacon. Earn you book time in bed.
Post a Comment