Desire is not difficult to understand — unless you’re overthinking it — or denying it.

Readership: All; Men; Single Men; Married Men;
Theme: The Gift of Singleness
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

Plainly Stated

img-1783678796-6a50c74ca10198.16349843.jpg

The previous post, A Long Hidden Truth is Now Uncovered. (2025/3/14), detailed a very elementary observation that women’s controlling nature is more widely recognized now than it was in years past.  So elementary, in fact, that I thought it was self-evident and not worth posting.  But judging by the responses, there appears to be a few readers who struggle to understand this simple concept.

Apparently, I need to translate my thesis into the Syllogistician language that is spoken by the troglogeeks in order for them to understand. So here I’ll restate my thesis more concisely by breaking it down into logical propositions.

It really is quite simple. Try to follow along.  Here we go.

Postulate A: Desire is an essential trait of femininity (explained by Cane Caldo).

Postulate B: Women desire to usurp men’s authority, to be like men or like God (Genesis 3:4-6).

Observed Behavior 1: That women desire to control / dominate / influence / manipulate men.

Exacerbating Factors of Observed Behavior 1: Feminism, Women’s Liberation, and the 15 Sirens of the SocioSexual Apocalypse have liberated women from the various constraints that used to keep Behavior 1 in check.

Observed Behavior 2: The collective awareness of Observed Behavior 1 is becoming more widespread recently, beginning in the 1970s, but especially in the past 5 years or so.  (This was the main topic of the previous essay.)

Evidence of Observed Behaviors 1 and 2: This awareness is being manifested in (at least) the following ways.

  • Male and Female Nature, i.e. conflicting and/or sinful desires and intersexual enmity (since The Beginning).
  • Newer Bible translations (since the 1970s)
  • The Manosphere’s Red Pill revelations of Women’s Nature (since ~2010).
  • The Christian Manosphere’s condemnation of Chivalry, Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, etc. as inversions of Headship and as heretical compromises with Feminism (since ~2015).
  • Women on Instagram, TikT0k, YouTube, etc. (since ~2020).
img-1783678797-6a50c74ddf2c26.46732618.jpg

Genesis 3:16

There is some debate over whether Genesis 3:16 can be interpreted to mean women’s desire to control men.

Apparently, some readers cannot accept that Postulate A, Postulate B, Behavior 1, and Behavior 2 truly exist, unless Genesis 3:16 specifically refers to these things.

They might even imagine that if they can somehow ‘prove’ that Genesis 3:16 cannot be interpreted to include these things, then these things cannot be happening.  Or at least, they won’t have to admit that these things do happen and are happening, and then be able to say that “Anyone who thinks so is a HERETIC, according to MY interpretation of Genesis 3:16!”

Some readers have the notion that Genesis 3:16 has only ONE specific meaning, when in fact, it has multiple interpretations.  They cannot comprehend that it is written ambiguously because Women’s innate desire is manifested differently in different contexts, and it also depends on the spiritual maturity of the woman in question.

img-1783678799-6a50c74f2bdcf5.96965715.jpg

I’ll spell this out more explicitly for those who are lost in Aristotleland because they cannot implement inductive reasoning appropriately.

  • In Headship, a woman’s desire appears as an emotional and sexual longing for her husband.
  • In a debased, inverted relationship, a woman’s desirous nature drives her to be controlling and domineering.

As Deep Strength pointed out,

“The wrong relationship — a wife usurping or fighting for some version of equality — is one of contentiousness and strife; whereas the right relationship — headship and submission — creates the sexual desire dynamic.”

Derek deceptively states that this is a nonsensical contradiction because he cannot tolerate the idea of masculine authority or archetypal hierarchy, nor is he willing to admit that there is any sort of power dynamic inherent in intersexual relations. Instead, he wishes to obfuscate gender hierarchies, power dynamics, and the reality of intersexual conflict.  Lately, he has been denying basic, long-established Red Pill tenets, like hypergamy — the natural feminine desire for a high quality male. He wants everyone to believe there is no archetypal structure of spiritual authority, no Headship, no female rebellion, no hypergamy … and that it is all a fabulously fabricated fable. And the more I read him, the stronger is my impression that this lacing of truths and lies in a web of philosophicalized confusion is evil; like the wicked w!tch handing you a poisoned thought apple and saying with a sly grin, “Who said there’s a w!tch here? That’s silly! There’s no w!tch here!”

img-1783678409-6a50c5c9a24a77.48927015.jpg

No.  We are talking about two different archetypes of women in relationships, and the more common of the two (the second one above), is the one that Derek and Co. don’t want to believe exists.

But instead of reading the Bible to understand reality (i.e. exegesis), some people are selectively interpreting the Bible to match their own illusions of reality (i.e. eisegesis).

The question is NOT “Which interpretation is correct?” (which is a false dichotomy with no real-world application), but rather, “How to apply a valid interpretation to a specific woman’s spiritual constitution as expressed in her marriage (or LTR)?”

The fact that women desire to control men and the growing awareness of this behavior does NOT depend on whether we believe Genesis 3:16 intends to refer to this or not.

If this exegesis is indeed a heresy, then it is a true heresy.

Related