• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

MALE vs FEMALE PROCREATIVE NATURE

JudahYAHites

JudahYAHites

Member
Male
Genesis 1:27 KJV — ... male and female created he them.

Men are polygynous
Women are monogamous

When a woman states her support or adherence to monogamy only, she is 100% correct, as it relates to women.

Even in the procreative deviant abominable state of living as homosexuals and lesbians that core design as male and female still expresses itself within those lifestyles.

Maybe instead of opposing monogamy only, It should be given 100% backing, with regards to females.
 
JudahYAHites said:
Maybe instead of opposing monogamy only, It should be given 100% backing, with regards to females.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Some time back I commented in another thread that both my wives are strictly monogamous. I have no issue with monogamous women except when they also want their husband to be monogamous (which is difficult if he already has more than one wife!).
 
JudahYAHites said:
Genesis 1:27 KJV — ... male and female created he them.

Men are polygynous
Women are monogamous

When a woman states her support or adherence to monogamy only, she is 100% correct, as it relates to women.

Even in the procreative deviant abominable state of living as homosexuals and lesbians that core design as male and female still expresses itself within those lifestyles.

Maybe instead of opposing monogamy only, It should be given 100% backing, with regards to females.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I've often heard that we are really bad at imagining anything new. We interpret through the lens of our own understanding. We project from within ourselves. "By their fruit you will know them."

For a woman, designed and purpose-built for serving one master, having a brain pre-wired and a body pre-disposed for pair bonding, monogamy is her reality which shapes her worldview. This is helpful to her for remaining faithful. "You can only serve one master."

Men have no such design. Our nature is to possess and have dominion without limit. We do bond, but the biologic pathways were created different in us so that we bond slowly over time and we do not pair-bond. Our understanding of the world is very different from women's. Our faithfulness is not in forsaking all others, as a woman's is, but in not forsaking any one of many.

The failure of men is in allowing the woman's perception to be leading rather than subjected, in elevating her nature to the pedestal of an idol, and in bowing down to it, denying our God-given nature and forsaking God's edict to rule over our women. This goes well beyond the matter of monogamy, too.
 
NVIII said:
Men have no such design. Our nature is to possess and have dominion without limit. We do bond, but the biologic pathways were created different in us so that we bond slowly over time and we do not pair-bond. Our understanding of the world is very different from women's. Our faithfulness is not in forsaking all others, as a woman's is, but in not forsaking any one of many.
Click to expand...
Men do have pair-bonding ability. Without it, men would have no desire for relationship, nor forming emotional intimacy with any women.

Don't assume biblical law is only way people can behave.
 
MemeFan said:
Men do have pair-bonding ability. Without it, men would have no desire for relationship, nor forming emotional intimacy with any women.

Don't assume biblical law is only way people can behave.
Click to expand...
Men do not have pair-bonding ability, but they do have bonding ability. They also have goddess-worship ability, which causes them to mimic pair-bonding and subservience, but that's another story.

Here's a reference for you that's not Biblical, something I already had open in my tabs:

The Neural Basis of Pair Bonding in a Monogamous Species: A Model for Understanding the Biological Basis of Human Behavior - Offspring - NCBI Bookshelf

There is an ongoing debate in psychology as to the relative roles of genes and environment on the development of human behavior. There is little doubt that genes play a significant role in shaping certain innate human behaviors, such as sexual and parental behavior, social bonding, fear, and...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I'll come back with more receipts this evening if you need them. Googling this is actually a little difficult even though there has been a significant amount of psychological and biological research invested in this phenomenon.

Perhaps one way the confusion arises is that, while the bond a man has with a woman is not a pair-bond, it is still a bond and it is still between a pair of people. (Well, that's part of the picture, and certainly the part she sees from her perspective.) So that sounds like a pair-bond, right? But a pair-bond is exclusive. It is the type of bond a woman feels psychologically and physically with a man, and it is the reason her ability to pair-bond with a man plummets after just two sexual encounters, and bottoms out around 4 or 5, if I remember correctly. There should be another name for the type of bond a man forms with his women, but I don't know it.

If you still are struggling to see the difference, recall how the Bible verse is translated "his woman" and "her man", but the meaning behind the original language being on one hand possessive and on the other corporate. "Pair-bond" is maybe just poor English terminology. Try to see the concept past the words. It's the best I can do for you right now.
 
MemeFan said:
Men do have pair-bonding ability. Without it, men would have no desire for relationship, nor forming emotional intimacy with any women.

Don't assume biblical law is only way people can behave.
Click to expand...
Also, man, just because people can behave contrary to what the Bible describes, doesn't mean they live their best life while doing so, and usually does mean they are behaving contrary to natural law as well, which means they are suffering consequences. We are wonderfully made and able to survive all kinds of punishments, but that doesn't mean it's how we were designed to thrive. You take exception a lot to what the Bible says just because it's not the popular way or because science hasn't caught up yet. There's a time and a place for deciding what parts you yourself will ignore and accept the consequences, as we all do, but as long as bottom-line truth is being discussed, why inject compromise? Let's just discuss how God made things to be. Variance beyond that is between each man and God alone.
 
NVIII said:
It is the type of bond a woman feels psychologically and physically with a man, and it is the reason her ability to pair-bond with a man plummets after just two sexual encounters, and bottoms out around 4 or 5, if I remember correctly. There should be another name for the type of bond a man forms with his women, but I don't know it.
Click to expand...
By sexual encounter you mean sex with different man? Each encounter, another man?

Pair-bonding isn't good phrase.
 
NVIII said:
It is the type of bond a woman feels psychologically and physically with a man, and it is the reason her ability to pair-bond with a man plummets after just two sexual encounters, and bottoms out around 4 or 5, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Women who have more that 4-5 partners can’t bond with their man?

Expound on this a little.
 
NBTX11 said:
Women who have more that 4-5 partners can’t bond with their man?

Expound on this a little.
Click to expand...
"Bottoms out" is probably misleading. "Plateaus" perhaps? But as a low not a high.

Here's a chart. We love charts. Note that, in humans, pair-bonding is measured by divorce rates and satisfaction surveys. In animals they conduct trials and measure dopamine and other chemical levels as well as observable behavior. (I think that's what the link I posted earlier is.) Between the two, the inference is made.
1000006627.jpg
 
NVIII said:
"Bottoms out" is probably misleading. "Plateaus" perhaps? But as a low not a high.

Here's a chart. We love charts. Note that, in humans, pair-bonding is measured by divorce rates and satisfaction surveys. In animals they conduct trials and measure dopamine and other chemical levels as well as observable behavior. (I think that's what the link I posted earlier is.) Between the two, the inference is made.
View attachment 5416
Click to expand...
Makes sense with what you're saying @NVIII why woman desire to give their virginity to the man they love, in hopes of being with them for a lifetime. And once they've been soiled a few times by multiple men, they seem to drop this ideal altogether and become more willing to have sex, in general. Speaking from what I've observed.

Yet men do not feel this same way about their own virginity.
 
NVIII said:
"Bottoms out" is probably misleading. "Plateaus" perhaps? But as a low not a high.

Here's a chart. We love charts. Note that, in humans, pair-bonding is measured by divorce rates and satisfaction surveys. In animals they conduct trials and measure dopamine and other chemical levels as well as observable behavior. (I think that's what the link I posted earlier is.) Between the two, the inference is made.
View attachment 5416
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's probably even worse than this now, as the above study was published in 2010. I didn't memorize the source when he described a very recent study, but on one of Rollo Tomassi's recent podcasts, he quoted a study that asserted that it is now the case that women reach their pair-bonding wall anywhere between 3 body count and maximum of 8 body count; the average is at 5, after which pair-bonding becomes nearly impossible for women, no matter what they profess. I believe one of the stats was that, by a woman's 8th sexual lover, the rate at which such women initiate divorce when married is 99%.

My suspicion is that the 1% who don't initiate divorce only refrain because the men to whom they're married are 100% chumps who capitulate to their wives in all matters. But that's pure speculation.
 
Keith Martin said:
Yes, but it's probably even worse than this now, as the above study was published in 2010. I didn't memorize the source when he described a very recent study, but on one of Rollo Tomassi's recent podcasts, he quoted a study that asserted that it is now the case that women reach their pair-bonding wall anywhere between 3 body count and maximum of 8 body count; the average is at 5, after which pair-bonding becomes nearly impossible for women, no matter what they profess. I believe one of the stats was that, by a woman's 8th sexual lover, the rate at which such women initiate divorce when married is 99%.

My suspicion is that the 1% who don't initiate divorce only refrain because the men to whom they're married are 100% chumps who capitulate to their wives in all matters. But that's pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Maybe the other 1% are saved and sanctified women who have left that past behind and are new creations in Jesus Christ(?) Rahab was a harlot, so others can also be changed and make wonderful wives. Shalom
 
frederick said:
Maybe the other 1% are saved and sanctified women who have left that past behind and are new creations in Jesus Christ(?) Rahab was a harlot, so others can also be changed and make wonderful wives. Shalom
Click to expand...
Well, I pray that is true. We could do an anecdotal study of Scripture to find how many high body count women existed throughout Scripture, and then assess what percentage of them ended up making good, committed wives. But that would be far from empirical, because probably only such women who redeemed themselves got highlighted in the Bible.

I prefer to stipulate that all the 1% were sanctified women who've left their past behind.

The point, though, is that this is rapidly becoming the bulk of the potential-wife pool in America. Given that, should we just be prodding men to marry women? Or, in addition to warning them to proceed with caution, shouldn't we also be educating them to stop exhibiting behaviors that encourage women to consider themselves independent enough to believe they can handle engaging in riding that many ponies?
 
Keith Martin said:
The point, though, is that this is rapidly becoming the bulk of the potential-wife pool in America. Given that, should we just be prodding men to marry women? Or, in addition to warning them to proceed with caution, shouldn't we also be educating them to stop exhibiting behaviors that encourage women to consider themselves independent enough to believe they can handle engaging in riding that many ponies?
Click to expand...
Considering what you've pointed out @Keith Martin I personally wouldn't give much consideration to a bride from the USA. The potential for disaster seems excessively high. However, nothing is impossible for God so there maybe a few other exceptional women, like those PM brides on this site.
 
frederick said:
Considering what you've pointed out @Keith Martin I personally wouldn't give much consideration to a bride from the USA. The potential for disaster seems excessively high. However, nothing is impossible for God so there maybe a few other exceptional women, like those PM brides on this site.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone should give up all hope. Good women are still around, but we should also recognize the rationality behind why young men are increasingly avoiding marriage in America.
 
Keith Martin said:
I don't think anyone should give up all hope. Good women are still around, but we should also recognize the rationality behind why young men are increasingly avoiding marriage in America.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, don't give up. But I'm seeing more and more foreign guys in this region who are linking up with the lovely local women. It's testimony to the lack of desirability amongst the women back home for those men.
 
frederick said:
Yes indeed, don't give up. But I'm seeing more and more foreign guys in this region who are linking up with the lovely local women. It's testimony to the lack of desirability amongst the women back home for those men.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, give me an Amen, brother, on that one, Sir Frederick!

Many men I know are tempted to travel to the other side of the globe to find women prepared to be wives, but they should probably consider moving over there permanently if they're going to do that, because they're otherwise bringing them back to be immersed in this culture. It's thus a short-term fix, and what I'm finding as I engage in deep discussions with men and conduct counseling sessions with other men is that very few men have come close to analyzing just how much they are contributing to the very problems they decry about the state of women in our culture.

It's almost pointless to go fetch a foreign bride and bring her back to the States if one is just going to unwittingly turn her into the very thing one wanted to avoid in the first place.

Men, in my humble opinion now that the veils have been removed from my own eyes, generally have almost no clue just how much a part of the problem they are -- and my further observation is that this is no less true for most Biblical Families men than it is for men out in the general population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top