To SunshineMary, who won’t give up:
Hypergamy is the female desire for a better man. Koreogamy is the male desire for another woman. Polygyny is what we get when these forces meet. Monogamy is the standard Christians have been given.
Christianity calls us to the Truth, as Christ is the Truth. So how do we reconcile these seemingly un-Christian concepts with the very Christian concept of monogamous marriage? “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
So watch this…
If you are a Christian, that means to be in Christ, and He in you. To be in Christ means to be part of an eternal, ever-new being; the Alpha and the Omega. Who He is today he will be tomorrow, but He will be greater than He was before. You, Christian, are therefore a new creation in Christ; more Him today than you were yesterday; less you today than you will be tomorrow; ever-new, ever-you, as you were meant to be.
If you are married, that means for a man to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. She becomes his body, and he becomes her head. The two become one. Together, in Christian marriage, they are a new creation in Christ. The husband who love his wife, and is respected by her, becomes more Christ-like, renewed and transformed to be more like Christ, more like himself. The wife who respects her husband, and is loved by him becomes more Christ-like, renewed and transformed to be more like Christ, more like herself.
The woman a man marries today is not the woman he will be married to tomorrow, and the man a woman marries, likewise. Through this sanctification process of leading and encouraging each other to be new and more Christ-like; she gets a new and better husband; stronger, wiser, and braver than she had yesterday. The husband wakes up with a different wife than he went to sleep with. She is more beautiful in his sight, more elegant, and graceful than the woman he married.
Oneitis is the only reconciliation of these truths. Bite once, and bite deeply.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
This is an excellent post. Very good.
Good stuff.
Thanks Elspeth, and Morticia.
Hmmmmm…
One of the things I think is usually missing in discussions like these is a concept of Aristotle’s archetypes. We have a natural desire for the archetype because it is by nature the perfect thing that God made. Absent the Fall all women would satisfy koreogamy. Absent the Fall all men would satisfy hypergamy. They would both do so in such a way that polygamy would not result (though I do like the picture you draw with the concept of constant regeneration).
The problem is when we get so wrapped up in the concept of Owls that we can’t appreciate the one hooting in our backyard.
I wanted to ask you about a comment you left on my post today. It seems better to ask it here, since my own threads are more and more resembling a barroom brawl that has bumped into a tent revival, and it’s not always easy to tell the sinners from the saints. You wrote:
But that is what I am always trying to figure out: what is the right thing to do? And just when I think I know, and I’m about to go do it, I trip over my own sparkly shoes. If we can’t say what is right, how can we do what is right? But I feel that I have misunderstood you.
And this response of yours to Rollo:
Well, I’ve nothing to add to it, I merely wanted to enjoy reading it again, and that is all.
Moving on…
From your post:
From a comment of yours on my post:
So, in looking at those two comments, are you saying that the uncorrupted form of hypergamy is used by Christ to perfect the husband? How so?
Just returned from a trip. Winding down will ensue, so I hope this is coherent.
@GKC
Yes, you’re right. I am saying something a bit more, though. When I first published the post the second sentence in the body read: ” Koreogamy is the male desire for more woman. (stet)” I meant to convey the meaning that to desire more women is really to desire full womanliness; to taste the whole that the female sex has to offer. I am saying that–absent the Fall–women would still desire better husbands and men would still desire more women. Not because they, respectively, aren’t enough, but because we are made in God’s image. We are the godlike creations; big bangs in the Big Bang–meant to expand God’s glory, and thereby our glory in Eden, on Earth, and beyond.
We didn’t break the clock. We stunted our growth.
@SSM
The first thing to do is stop trying to figure out what is right, and start doing those things you know to be good. If, tomorrow when you get ready for the day and you don’t know which pair of sparkly shoes to wear, don’t spend all morning standing in the doorway of your closet until inspiration strikes. Go brush your teeth. Once you’ve gotten everything else done, you’ll either have decided what shoes to wear, or you’ll say to yourself “I have things to do: it doesn’t matter.”
Some things are bigger than shoes, and we want to make ourselves important by making the “right” decision. “It must be I to complete God’s will on Earth!” It sounds silly when you say it out loud, doesn’t it?
A lot of the time is really spent in denial of self; which is the one thing we don’t want to do, but is also the thing that gets us to our goal. We really can wait to watch TV. (I know you don’t watch much TV. You get the gist.)
But time not spent not doing things we don’t really need to do, is going to leave us with some free time, isn’t it? Good: because there are a lot things others around you would like you to do; whether they tell you, or not. You know what they are.
Among those things are going to be some things you have to make a decision about. You can either repeat the steps above, or–having done that–just do what you think is best at the moment and offer it to God. We are sinful. He knows. He is God of all, so put it in His hands. If you’re wrong you’ll likely be corrected (Hooray!) and if you’re not corrected, then He will take that ugly glop of clay you meant to be a bowl, and complete the work He had always intended. It’s his bowl, and you can’t thwart Him. Don’t fear discipline. Discipline makes disciples.
Don’t use this to excuse thing you know to be wrong. That will bring real trouble and correction like you don’t want… or prove you don’t belong.
In my comments I referred more to the forms of hypergamy and koreogamy being occluded, than corrupted (though I probably did use that word sometimes). Occluded, or distorted, makes more sense in this analogy.
Because the complacent wife can’t be bothered to be the 1 Peter 3 wife, and it’s natural and good to want more of a good thing, as long as it’s done in a good way, and in good time. An Ice cream sundae should be so good that we should want more ice cream sundaes…just not exclusively, or in a row.
This is good. This makes sense spiritually as to the confusing question of why God would create beings with desires that they have no hope of fulfilling unless they sin! Indeed, they do not HAVE to sin to satisfy such desires: in fact, the opposite. They throw themselves upon the altar of sacrifice unto Christ and die to their desires, and then He fulfills them.
Awesome.
Thank you.
Cane-
I would be interested to hear your take on what is going on here:
http://cailcorishev.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/is-bpd-just-women-with-too-much-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-108
Cail wrote an introductory post that he asked me to chime in on. I am the psychologist writing the vast majority of the comment section. It is continuing, but I really want to know what you think. I also would like Dalrock and SSM to chime in. I know you are all very busy.
Take care.
[CC: Thanks. I am honored, and left a comment.]
Cane Caldo,
I just wanted to state that, after following the entirety of the conversation at SSM’s blog, you elaborated your argument (which I am in agreement with) quite beautifully. Nicely done, keep up the good fight, and so on…
[CC: Thanks. 400-some-odd comments is quite a haul.]
I can’t wait for it to come out of moderation. This is something we discussed over a few emails several months ago, and I know you have strong feelings about it. I am finally getting my part all out.
[CC: Here it is:
Cail,
Anon asked if I would comment. Thanks for hosting.
I am convinced you are on the right track.
There are a couple things that I think we should pay particular attention to.
1) The chromosome counts are probably indicatives, as (I believe) Cail said: XX, and XY. The Y almost certainly denotes a greater ability for an “internal locus of control”. Women, then, should not be expected to have much of this–even if this were not a fallen world. They were made doubly in submission, i.e., twice-as-needy for an external locus of control.
So, if I were a psychologist looking for an explanation or diagnosis of BPD, my first question would be: “How do you get along with your father?” The fathers are the link, and their absence or abuse is probably at the root. A word: the father’s absence is more likely to be her or her mother’s fault; at least initially.
2) We are Christians, and must not get into the habit of looking for psychological explanations where spiritual ones would tell us more. Our psychologies, personalities, etc. are a result of some combination of the material and the spiritual. In our times we have a really and truly bad habit of psychologizing Christ, scripture, traditions, etc. As someone said above: sin occludes our vision. It is the speck in the eye; which is the lamp of the body. By the eye you see. So if you hang around sinful things, your vision gets darker, more occluded, with sin.
Now we have this 50-year-long merry-go-round of pain and sin where daughters are raised without fathers (and without uncles, grandpas, friend’s fathers, etc.), or they are seduced into running away from their fathers by other women, or another man. Away from their fathers, they search for another locus of control. It is their nature. The odds that the new external locus is more sinful (in her sight) than her father is extraordinarily high. Even bad fathers usually don’t try to get their daughters to be corrupted with them. He will usually at least lock the liquor cabinet, hide the pornography, etc. His sins are not towards her, but merely near her.
Others want to sin with those daughters. I’m speaking of other men AND women.]
Thank you. That is all I wanted to say.
[CC: You’re welcome. You earned it.]
Cane: Digesting of course, but one of my initial reactions is to your comments about over pathologizing spiritual matters. My first Masters is in Nouthetic counseling, which you may or not know is a modality that attempts to use only the Bible)sola scriptura) to explain and change human behavior. I went to the “dark side” from their perspective when I entered my PhD program. As the thread continues, I am trying to swing around to that part–the spiritual. I want to end with it because my supposition is that even as dire as the rest of the document looks, only one force in the universe can really make any changes. So please return several times as it is a work in progress, and I would like you to help me get to the end.
Pingback: Link love – March 1 | The Occidental Traditionalist
Pingback: - Are the sexual attraction cues which underlie hypergamy and polygyny inherently sinful? | The Woman and the Dragon
@Anon
It looks like Cail is perplexed over whether to approve my comment, or delete it. (I can understand not wanting to play host for the Kraken Caldo.) WordPress alerts you that a new comment has been made when you log into any other WordPress site. He’s commented on other sites, so I think we can safely assume that he’s aware it is in limbo.
My suggestion is to move on as if I hadn’t said anything; though you are free to use my comment as you see fit.
Pingback: I Was Wrong About the Trees | Things that We have Heard and Known