Marriage: Stanton’s Whorehouse

To review last time, the enablement of the base instincts and desire of women throughout society was discussed.

[26:06] They need each other, we can not live without men and women. The novel Lord of the Flies tends to be or we tend to think of it as people in isolation tend to turn into savages. What that book is really about is boys who are separated from adult supervision and the influence of women, girls, become savages. So men and women need each other, and we’re going to end up on that point later. They need to cooperate with one another.

Glenn Stanton likes the fictional Lord of The Flies as an example. However, what Stanton doesn’t see is that we are living in a real-life Lord of the Flies where women have literally become uncivilized savages. Yet Stanton refuses to see.

Stanton’s Views Simplified
We move on to the bulk of what Stanton is advocating in this talk. I’ll stay away from dealing with much of his “sources”, leaving that to people more versed if they want to contribute. As I understand, all of them have been discredited anyway. Even a cursory search of Sir Thomas Dale (Fact 11 & 12) proves Glenn Stanton to be quite wrong. Sir Thomas Dale did crack the whip, instituting the death penalty “for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians.” Hard, fast justice controlled things at Jamestown, not women.

But what I am interested in is addressing Stanton’s main arguments. Please feel free to watch the whole video to get the idea of what he is saying. I’ll distill his argument in this way:

[15:20] And that’s we’re going to talk about tonight. That marriage is a feminist institution. And of course, when I say feminist I mean that in the best sense of the word. It empowers the woman, that a married woman is the most powerful player in any society. She wields more power than anybody else.

[36:50] How do women regulate sexuality? They are the regulators of it. And that’s not a responsibility, it’s a privilege, as we’re going to see. Women regulate sexuality by determining which men will have access to sex, when and under what circumstances. Think about that. That power and that decision-making is the most powerful force in the universe. Human-wise.

So, Stanton alleges that women are the most powerful players in society because they control access to sex. Therefore, Stanton alleges that there is a sexual economy wherein women sell sexual access in exchange for good and services (or resources).

Sexual Economics – The Sexual Marketplace

[41:45] Brown’s key phrase “women being the limiting source”. It could also be phrased “women being the governing source”. Women control the sexual economy. Here’s this study, there’s this course of study or this area of study, sexual economics. It’s an interesting joining of words, but it’s very important, sexual economics. Economics is simply the exchange, the study of the exchange of goods. And at what rate and what price are they exchanged where both feel like they are getting a good deal. Sexual economics.

A quick search of “sexual economics” reveals that it is far from an accepted principle. Furthermore, it reveals the whole idea is a crack pot one from a human universal standpoint. But unfortunately, the idea has its roots about 500 years ago in the idea of traditional feminism. As described, you need a hook for men to get them to chase after women and offer themselves up on her altar as chattel.

That hook is sexual access. You stoke the lusts in men by painting sex as the be-all of existence, and the possession of the beauty as absolution for the sin of being born a man. You paint men as having the “the unrefined animalistic basic male nature” (47:36) that absolutely MUST be controlled. You even sexualize the culture, putting women out there in less modest clothing and increasing sexual exposure. So, falling in with tradition he chases after the beauty, willing to give anything and everything for her.

[46:03] So, how do women control the sexual economy. They run the cartel. They do. If the women come together and go “ladies, we got what they want, and they can’t get it anywhere else. We want to set this bar high.” and typically it’s at marriage, and guess what? If you set the bar high there, men will respond. They’ve been doing it for millennia. But if you lower the price, guess what? Men will be quite happy to pay that price. In the hookup culture, what we have today, here’s hamburgers, they cost a penny, but if you don’t have anything that’s fine too. Women giving sexuality away. Absolutely free, no strings attached, because they don’t understand who they are as women, and the power that they have.

The traditional feminist cost has typically been everything from a man. His soul, his life, his things, you name it. According to Stanton, this is the mistake women are making. Not that the whole sexual economics model could be flawed, but that women don’t know their own power.

Sex As A Commodity
Let’s dig deeper. If sex is exchanged for the perpetual provision of resources, and prostitution is “the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money”, then it seems Stanton is advocating for prostitution? It’s natural that Stanton might be confused, as prostitution is indeed the oldest profession and his sources will reflect that. Then as explained earlier, if the concept of sexual economics is a valid one, then prostitution is a valid concept as well. Yet the same traditional feminists sought to put limits on prostitution, pornography, and fornication. Could it be that they are trying to limit this sexual marketplace they have constructed? But what is this regardless?

Applying any market place concept to sex turns the female into a sexual commodity.

But to go on, I won’t refer to other sources first, but to Scripture.

Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. (Leviticus 19:29)

They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God. (Leviticus 21:7)

For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit. She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men. (Proverbs 23:27-28)

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

The message seems clear that God doesn’t think too highly of making sex into a commodity now does He? It sure seems that God wanted sex in the Biblical plan of marriage to just exist without it being something bought and sold. That the wife shouldn’t be playing prostitute with her own husband, as Focus On The Family and other groups continually encourage. As I wrote in addressing Dr. Mohler:

So we are taught by Mohler, if the man pleases her by following her direction, making her feel good, saying the right things to her, spending enough money on her desires, and generally doing everything she says, imagines, or desires (giving the perfect personal Jesus to her here on earth), then he is rewarded by sexual access from her.

Who Is Really A Woman’s Friend?
This view of sex as a commodity drives these things. Now what’s interesting is delving into the things you get in return for searching “sex is a commodity”. There’s much feminist (that “good kind of Stanton’s”) outrage to the “Economics of Sex” video. But there’s a few gems. In this publication “Do Women View Sex as a Commodity?”, the abstract itself is interesting:

That is, men were more likely to suppress female sexuality because they resisted female empowerment and automatically associated sex with money more than women did. It appears that women are not invested in sexual economics, but rather, men are invested in patriarchy, even when it means raising the price of sexual relations.

Men are driving this show, not women. When you put the prospect of sex up on a pedestal, don’t be surprised that the manipulated men are driving the concept more than women. This paper entitled “Conceiving of Sex as a Commodity:
A Study of Arrested Customers of Female Street Prostitutes” has another interesting sentence in the abstract:

Conceiving of sex as a commodity significantly predicted rape myth acceptance, attraction to violent sexuality, less frequent use of condoms while with prostitutes, support for prostitution, and the attitude that prostitution is positive for women. We argue that that conceiving of sex as a commodity has a number of negative implications for the men involved, their sexual partners, and for gender relations in general.

So it seems in the end that Glenn Stanton, Focus On The Family, and their ilk aren’t really being women’s friends by casting women into “Sexual Economics” and into a sexual market place. It seems also that God perhaps had it right in prohibiting prostitution, or a woman turning her sexuality into a commodity to be brought and sold. Women are better off when sex is simply a part of marriage, and men are better off when sex isn’t turned into a weapon against him in the name of controlling him in the marriage. Sex just is free and just…is in a healthy marriage. Finally (for this section):

[50:23] But it was the feminists that were supposed to make women happy. Giving themselves away sexually and competing on the man’s terms, and not marrying. And not requiring anything of the man. And guess what? Women’s happiness declined because there is a female nature that is elevated, strengthened when she gets what she wants from the sexual and emotional and romantic relationship. When she is giving hamburgers away for free or a penny, guess what? You as the business owner not so happy, this just isn’t working, I thought people would be happy getting free hamburgers and I thought my business would be great. Same thing with women. This is just not working.

Could it be possibly that the women were happier when they were controlled, and civilized, instead of them being unleashed feral savages? Could it be that like the prodigal son, they’re finding themselves in that field, feeding swine, and eating the husks of what they eat, and thinking that “patriarchy” isn’t so bad after all?

Could it be that as a part of that unleashing prompted by feminism that they’re finding that the sexual market exists, that beauty is a premium, and the ones that aren’t the most beautiful are finding that they have to lower their costs from everything to something where men will notice them? Could it be that this endless drive for beauty in women that drive them batty, and makes them unhappy stems from this sexual marketplace? When you set up a sexual marketplace, don’t be surprised when you find that there will be competition. The ones that don’t have the beauty will lower their prices so they will be selected. Hence the hookup culture.

Could it possibly be that the “Christians”, as Glenn Stanton says, really aren’t the women’s friends?

17 thoughts on “Marriage: Stanton’s Whorehouse”

  1. Thanks all for getting through these, as they are longer than I would like.

    Anyway, what amazes me is how these people can see prostitution as the wrong it is, but seem to can’t see the same kind of arrangement in marriages, as they are teaching them.

    Like

  2. I pray you look closely into the Biblical Hebrew concept of whoredom. It has NOTHING to do with paying for sex. It is honorable to pay the bride-price to a woman’s father. Biblical whoredom is about disloyalty. It is a type of treason to the woman’s rightful present and future owners. It doesn’t have to involve money at all.

    You quote the Bible; I hope this little bit of information will help you in the right direction, since I don’t have time or energy to write a long and detailed scholarly paper on the topic. Strong’s concordance should be sufficient for you to find out what you need to know. Paying for sex is honorable, if it is in the context of a life-long covenant following all the rules of God.

    Like

  3. @Mycroft Jones
    Yes, I’m well aware of the idea of disloyalty in this regard. It becomes an interesting exercise as you point out. The problem is that Scripture refers to prostitution and prostitutes, and I think most people have an image of what that represents. It’s harder, though, since Scripture doesn’t present the idea of a wife being disloyal to the husband in holding sex up for a price. The bride-price is irrelevant once the marriage is instated. The closest thing we can point to is:

    Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. (1 Corinthians 7:2-6)

    There’s a certain disloyalty that’s there in holding up sex in that way. As you write: “It is a type of treason to the woman’s rightful present and future owners. It doesn’t have to involve money at all.” I described marriage in the other post like this for this very reason:

    So marriage is in effect a long-term live-in prostitution and surrogacy arrangement.

    Such a challenge from a wife wouldn’t stood for very long in those Biblical days for obvious reasons, the same as the wife going out behind the husbands back to play the whore with other men. But now, given society coupled with forces like Stanton allow women to push sex into a prostitution exchange with their own husbands.

    The point is, a wife holding up sex as a commodity in order to force the spouse to do x, y, and z (often involving money) is disloyal. It defrauds the other. It says “you know what guy? I’m not really your wife.” That was the reason for the Scriptures. The question to ask is if a man pulls a hooker off the street and says “I’ll support you and even buy a few things for you when you want. You keep putting out when I feel like it.”, is that any different than marrying a woman who then says “I won’t put out unless you do x, y, and z.” Things like take her out for dinner, buy her clothes, and so on.

    Stanton, et. al. can not point to anything in Scripture that justifies the sexual control lever, yet they all teach it and continue to allow wives to be disloyal and defraud their own husbands.

    Like

  4. Stanton makes me want to vomit.
    What a base heretic he is.
    And how dare he appropriate William Golding’s allegorical message in Lord of the Flies and misandrically warp it like that.

    Like

  5. ballista74, you are right, the Bible doesn’t condone a woman using sex as a lever. If she tries to use it as a lever, that is treason, almost like she is a prostitute.

    However, sex for pay is Biblical; and not just the bride-price. It says that if a man withholds food, or raiment, or “duty of marriage” (sex) she can leave him without having the return the bride price. So, the emphasis is changed from the typical “man pays the woman to give him sex” to “man pays woman WITH sex (and money and clothes and food)” (Exodus 21:10, 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.)

    Like

  6. The only problem is when you’ve severed Fatherhood and Motherhood (procreation) from sex, in what way does it NOT become a commodity? Eternal souls potentially being created changes the kind of thing sex is.

    Women today may regulate sexuality – but they only do this now because they have been empowered by both technology and the 180 on “contraception as grave sin” that lets them regulate their fertility even within marriage.

    Women may be objectified, but not Mothers.

    Before that, men would have to think about becoming fathers, and women mothers. “Do I wish to bear this man’s child?” is a very serious question. As is “I want you to be the mother of my children”.

    Like

  7. Mycroft Jones

    However, sex for pay is Biblical; and not just the bride-price. It says that if a man withholds food, or raiment, or “duty of marriage” (sex) she can leave him without having the return the bride price. So, the emphasis is changed from the typical “man pays the woman to give him sex” to “man pays woman WITH sex (and money and clothes and food)” (Exodus 21:10, 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.)

    Please bear in mind that the ‘bride’ in Exodus 21:10 was a girl sold into slavery not marriage per se. And because she was a Hebrew she retained certain liberties even in slavery. Reconciling these liberties with the New Testament teaching on marriage will be difficult to say the least, but have a go at it if you can.

    P.S. I tried to watch the Stanton video but I could only get 20 minutes into it. Thanks to Ballister for his perseverance in a difficult situation.

    Like

  8. You should tell Dalrock it was my video. Bet that would blow his mind. 😛

    [B: I think he would have figured that out by the H/T link]

    Like

  9. The idea of the Sexual Marketplace is not discredited — fyi Roy F. Bauemeister (who I believe uses the idea in a few of his papers) is a major well-respected psychologist who also leans somewhat anti-modern feminist (see his book “Is there anything good about men?” which demolishes much modern feminist rhetoric.)

    Like

  10. women were happier when they were controlled

    Women like knowing that a man cares enough about her to have rules that she must follow or she will be tossed. In my life I have a core-group of women (three) who understand the rules, which are simply, they are sexually available ONLY to me, and they will be available when I call. That’s it. They can leave at any time, they stay because they WANT to stay. Now, due to some of my hobbies, I have lots of opportunity when it comes to women, and I avail myself of them as much as I can. My core women see this as the way it should be, and understand they are more valuable because I care enough about them to have rules on how they live. And they get my attention. The women I have sex with are just a convenient tool that I use to relax. I don’t care if they are single, married, or in any type of relationship for a simple reason, I don’t care about them other than as sex toys – they are just the wrapping around what I will enjoy tonight. They like it that way, and I like it that way.

    The only women I care about, are the ones that I have put limits on their actions. So they enjoy being controlled, as they know it’s because I care about them. Other women, they understand are just convenient tools for me to use, and afterward I really don’t care about them. They served their purpose which is all they are good for. Other men can deal with their non-sense and BS – I enjoy women in the way they want to be enjoyed.

    Stanton is full of it. He’s the type of guy that the women I use for a night go home to… And he understands that subconsciously and makes excuses for his woman’s behavior. I understand that deep down, women are just like men – they want a good hard f**k with no consequences, but when it comes to a real connection, there are rules that apply and they choose to live my them for a simple reason, because it is advantageous to them to do so. The women that I set limits on, are the only ones that have the right to ask anything of me. It really is as simple as that.

    Like

  11. Some reading comprehension is in order. As I wrote:

    I’ll stay away from dealing with much of his “sources”, leaving that to people more versed if they want to contribute. As I understand, all of them have been discredited anyway.

    As I stated in my understanding, all of Stanton’s “sources” have been discredited. Stanton did not refer to “Roy F. Bauemeister” at any point in his talk.

    A quick search of “sexual economics” reveals that it is far from an accepted principle. Furthermore, it reveals the whole idea is a crack pot one from a human universal standpoint.

    Here’s what I wrote about “sexual economics”. I stated it’s very controversial and far from accepted (it is). What I did state is it is a crack pot idea from a human universal standpoint. The term “human universal” term as I understand it means all cultures do it, and all cultures accept it. As I pointed out in the similarity between “sexual economics” and “prostitution”, all cultures may do it, but most cultures consider it a deviant sexual behavior. To that end, you could call murder, theft, and the like “human universals”, but they are more accurately deviant human universals, and to that end not societally approved behavior. It is definitely not Christian-approved behavior, as I attempted to show by the Scriptures quoted. To that end, I wrote:

    It’s natural that Stanton might be confused, as prostitution is indeed the oldest profession and his sources will reflect that. Then as explained earlier, if the concept of sexual economics is a valid one, then prostitution is a valid concept as well. Yet the same traditional feminists sought to put limits on prostitution, pornography, and fornication.

    If one is to study whether “sexual economics” as a “human universal”, one must consider instances of prostitution in the process. While I’m not versed in anthropology, I would wager that the super-majority of instances that someone like Stanton encounters are wholly related to prostitution. And if it is prostitution it must be discounted in the consideration of whether it is a legitimate “human universal”.

    Like

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.