The Infinite Power of Sex

Introduction

Sex is the most powerful ruler on earth. It relentlessly controls each and every one of us all the way from birth till death. While it itself is never destructive, no matter how strongly it's demanding service, any inappropriate response always causes harm. There are only two appropriate ways in which to respond to a sexual urge:

When Married

Only ever have sex with your spouse.

When Single

Only ever have sex with yourself, i.e. masturbate, thus effectively being your own spouse.

What goes wrong when these rules are violated? Please seriously consider the following incomplete list:

• The risk of unwanted children.
• The deliberate murder of unwanted babies who've been conceived.
• The risk of various horrible diseases, many of which have no known cure.
• Entering into miserable relationships.
• Feeling totally empty and used.
• Emotional distress.
• Erosion of trust.
• Infidelity.
• Loss of reputation.
• Objectification.
• Inappropriate exposure, often wrongly referred to as indecent exposure.
• Lust-filled thoughts.
• Addiction to pornography.
• Harassment.
• Stalking.
• Voyeurism.
• Upskirting.
• Groping.
• Rape.
• Pedophilia.
• Exploitation.

Note: The reason that I myself use inappropriate exposure rather than indecent exposure is that there's nothing whatsoever indecent about a naked human body. The real problem is that we'd rather blame others than ourselves for our own faults - in this case, for not taking full personal responsibility for our own lust-filled thoughts.

Many will say But we aren't married yet have remained faithful to one another so what's wrong with that?. Sure, but that's based on a serious misunderstanding of what marriage is. Even the religious institutions have universally gotten this wrong. It's intercourse itself that creates a marriage - the ceremony merely formalizes that marriage. In other words, as of the start of your very first intercourse you are married to each other and should immediately begin living as such regardless of any social consequences.

If you've had more than one sexual partner then you've engaged in polygamy. Sadly, what we essentially have today amounts to what I refer to as a mass polygamy grid wherein almost everyone is married to almost everyone.

So let's define some laws that'll help you have an enjoyable marriage and a fulfilling sex life. They're based on my own whole lifetime of submission to sex as well as our 40-year wonderful marriage. I've also verified that none of them violates anything that the Bible has to say about sex - which, actually, is a whole lot. I hope they'll be helpful.

Note: I added the Latin, just for fun, as a special touch in order to make them look official. 😃

Laws for Marriage

• Matrimonium constat ex uno tantum marito et una tantum uxore.
  Marriage consists of only one husband and only one wife.
• Matrimonium est indivisibilis unio usque ad mortem.
  Marriage is an indivisible union until death.
• Satis maturus ad concubitum significat satis maturus ad matrimonium.
  Being old enough for intercourse means being old enough to marry.
• Concubitus statim matrimonium creat; caerimonia id tantum formalizat.
  Intercourse immediately creates a marriage; the ceremony merely formalizes it.
• Matrimonium, sive per caerimoniam sive per priorem concubitum, est incondicionalis consensus ad omnem futuram sexualem actum.
  Marriage, whether by ceremony or by prior intercourse, is the unconditional consent for all future sexual activity.
• Coniuges semper simul habitare debent iam a primissimo suo concubitu.
  Spouses must always live together right from their very first intercourse.
• Domus est ubicumque coniunx tuus est.
  Home is wherever your spouse is.
• Fundamentum matrimonii est se invicem necessitates abnegate implere.
  The foundation of marriage is to selflessly fulfill each other's needs.
• Coniugalis amor est praecipuus; amor parentum est secundarius; matrimonium durat sed liberi discedunt.
  Spousal love is paramount; parental love is secondary; marriage endures whereas children leave.
• Omnes vestrae interactiones necessario ab amore mutuo sine sui cura regantur.
  All your interactions must be governed by mutual love without self-interest.
• Attende et responde omnibus signis nonverbalibus coniugis tui.
  Be attentive and respond to all of your spouse's nonverbal cues.
• Noli umquam rancorem tenere; simpliciter concubitum calidum et hospitale offer.
  Never hold a grudge; simply offer warm and welcoming intercourse.
• Prima officium coniugis est concubitus.
  The primary duty of a spouse is intercourse.
• Permitte concubitum fieri illud sublime fundamentum quod plenam propinquitatem et profundam intimitatem compellit.
  Allow intercourse to become the sublime foundation that compels total closeness and deep intimacy.
• Ipsum tantum audi sexum ipsum, numquam ad desideria tua, quia solus exacte novit quid faciendum sit.
  Listen only to sex itself, never to your own desires, because it alone knows exactly what to do.
• Correctio concubitus matrimonium restituit.
  Correcting intercourse restores the marriage.
• Concubitus debet esse lentus, lenis et perlongus; non celer, asper vel brevis.
  Intercourse must be slow, gentle, and prolonged; not fast, rough, or brief.
• Nudus esto et arctum lectum communica.
  Be naked and share a narrow bed.
• Nolite post concubitum vos ipsos nec lectum purgare; manete in mutuo amplexu.
  Don't clean yourselves or your bed after sex; remain in a mutual embrace.

Laws for Sex

• Coitus intra matrimonium est, aut per se si non nupti.
  Intercourse is within marriage, or by oneself if not married.
• Sive cum coniuge sive cum te ipso, actus venerius in omnibus suis formis modus vivendi esse debet; non solum ad tempus cubile.
  Whether with a spouse or with oneself, sexual activity in all its forms should be a way of life; not just for bedtime.
• Impulsus sexuales ipsi, quamvis potentes, numquam sunt destructivi; ulla responsio inappropriata ad eos tamen semper nociva est.
  Sexual urges themselves, no matter how powerful, are never destructive; however, any inappropriate response to them is always harmful.
• Impulsus sexualis numquam est excusatio ad alios abutendum; significat aut necessitatem ad coniugem tuum rediendi aut necessitatem ad masturbandum ut pacem personalem et attentionem restituas.
  A sexual urge is never an excuse to exploit others; it signifies either a need to return to your spouse or a need to masturbate in order to restore personal peace and focus.
• Levissimus impulsus sexualis est dominus; mora tormentum semper increbrescentem imponit; inevitabile obsequium magnam voluptatem et pacem profundam affert.
  The slightest sexual urge is a master; delay always imposes ever-increasing torment; inevitable submission brings great pleasure and deep peace.
• Esto mancipium perpetuum mentulae tuae exigentis aut cunni tui exigentis.
  Be a perpetual slave to your demanding penis or your demanding vulva.
• Etiam infans mentulum suum bellulum aut cunnulum suum bellulum tractare desistere non potest.
  Even an infant can't stop handling his own cute little penis or her own cute little vulva.

Children Need Sexual Relief

Based on my memories from my own very early childhood as well as my observations of our 13 babies, it's my belief that every single child has a very active need for sexual relief right from birth (or maybe even earlier). While this need starts out as very gentle urges, so the child can kind of live with them, they're not only ever-present but also are irresistible. The longer they aren't dealt with the stronger they become until the child eventually starts to feel desperate for sexual relief.

The only ethical way to resolve a child's need for sexual relief is for him/her to masturbate, which is why parents must never shame and/or try to prevent this naturally required behaviour. If they do then their child ends up in a state of helpless frustration from which he/she has no escape.

This may well be the explanation for what's known as colic, i.e. when a baby cries incessantly for no apparent reason. We Check his/her diaper and it's clean. We reposition his/her diaper in order to try to ensure that it's more comfortable. We hold them, rock them, take them for a walk, talk soothingly to them, etc but nothing works. We try feeding them but that doesn't work. We take them for a medical checkup and nothing is found. So what's wrong? I believe that it's a need for sexual relief that's been left unresolved for too long and, therefore, has become distressingly strong.

Does science support my position on this? Well - no, not officially, in spite of all of the evidence they've collected. They've come up with the concept of Infantile Gratification Disorder but that's only because they're biased. They simply can't entertain the concept of a baby needing sexual relief because they've convinced themselves that a need for sex doesn't enters a person's life until puberty. Due to this bias, they reframe an entirely natural and necessary childhood behaviour into being a serious problem that needs to be fixed. To use their own terminology, they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.

There's circumstantial evidence to support the idea that even a baby needs sexual relief. Clinical observations of infant self-stimulation often note a reset effect wherein infants appear relaxed and fall into a deep sleep following masturbation. Conversely, children prevented from this relief often become extremely agitated and/or inconsolable. this behaviour is frequently misdiagnosed by medical professionals as seizures, colic, or even urinary tract infections, suggesting a widespread lack of recognition for this innate biological drive.

Research indicates a significant discrepancy in the discovery of this relief valve with observed rates around 90% for boys compared to 50% for girls. This is probably due to mechanical differences. While a boy's anatomy allows for easier, often accidental discovery, a girl's anatomy requires the discovery of specific postures and/or movements like crossing her thighs, rhythmic rocking, stiffening her legs, holding her breath, or lying on her tummy and using her weight to press down hard with her vulva. Consequently, girls may be more likely to experience prolonged sexual agitation than boys do because resolving their need is much more difficult. Their struggle for relief is more frequently misidentified and/or suppressed by caregivers.

Summary: Children are just as much under the relentless control of sex as adults are. This begins right from birth (probably even earlier). While this control starts out as very gentle urges, those urges are just as irresistible. Parents do their children a major disservice by trying to shame and/or prevent them from masturbating. Children need to understand that those demanding sexual urges that they're feeling will always be an integral and unavoidable part of their lives.

Even the supposed experts get this wrong. They speak of children discovering how their bodies work as they explore their genitalia. No! What they're actually doing is learning how to healthily serve sex as they helplessly respond to its relentless demands. Since those urges, even at the youngest age, demand resolution, if parents don't allow their children to masturbate then they'll eventually find places and/or ways to do so in secret. They'll have no choice!

Parents should not only allow their children to masturbate - they should proactively encourage it. This must always be done subtly - it must never be done overtly - because a child must never become self-conscious about his/her need for sexual urge resolution. Here are some ideas regarding how to do this:

• If your baby is masturbating then don't put his/her new diaper on until he/she is actually finished - not just pausing.
• If your baby indicates a desire to masturbate then immediately remove his/her diaper in order to facilitate it.
• Undress your baby for nursing - which is ideal for skin-to-skin comfort and bonding anyway - and hold him/her in a way that places his/her hands right by his/her genitalia.
• Always refer to your child as a man or woman, rather than as a boy or girl, whenever he/she is masturbating.
• Always refer to your son as a man while his penis is erect, which often naturally occurs just before he needs to pee.
• Ensure that your home is a safe zone wherein your children feel free to masturbate anywhere and at any time.
• Pause discipline as soon as your child starts to masturbate and resume it as soon as he/she stops. If he/she has an orgasm then allow adequate extra time for its enjoyment.

Because sex imposes such a persistent and irresistible demand, a child naturally discovers that masturbation is his/her way to appease it. This shouldn't be viewed through a lens of shame. It must be understood as a child's only healthy way to restore internal peacefulness. The deep calm it provides serves as an internal protection against all of the temptations to engage in unhealthy external behaviours.

Because the need for sexual relief is irresistible and increases in intensity when not dealt with, it'll always eventually demand an outlet. If that outlet isn't found internally, it'll eventually compel a person to seek his/her relief from social wreckage like failed relationships. Masturbation preserves a person's sexual integrity, keeping him/her immune to the poisons of destructive sexual conduct, so that he/she can eventually enter into a healthy marriage without prior damage.

Even when his/her parents forbid masturbation (as mine did), a child will always find ways to do it simply because he/she must. Common places are while in bed or when in the bathroom, but there are much more inventive ways. Drawing on my own experience:

• We had a large, leather armchair in our living room. I made lying on my tummy on top of its back my comfortable place. By prepositioning my penis before taking up my place, I was able to use subtle movements to keep him satisfied. I was masturbating right in front of my parents and siblings. None of them seems to have ever figured it out. To them, I was just a son/brother in his favourite place while listening to the radio or watching TV.
• There was a thin, round, metal pole in the schoolyard. I'd preposition my penis and then use my arms and hands to repeatedly climb up and slide back down that pole. With my legs wrapped tightly around it, slightly readjusting them as needed, I was able to keep my penis satisfied. The teachers and others saw a student getting lots of physical exercise - and, yes, indeed I was - but, more importantly, I was very publicly masturbating during recess.
• During a six-week trip to Europe, during which I turned 15, I had a project. It was to anoint every single toilet in each of the hotel rooms, restaurants, and relative's homes that we visited with my semen. No one else knew but it was a whole lot of fun! I definitely left my mark throughout West Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and even East Germany.

Why the Parental Silence

We never hid anything about sex from our children, even visually, right from birth. They simply accepted it as normal parental behaviour. We, of course, ensured that they understood that it was strictly for a married couple.

They were always welcome to ask questions about sex, as was also the case for any other question, even at the dinner table. We'd always answer each question in a way that gave a little extra information in order to encourage more questions. As we could, we'd anticipate what more they might want to know - touching on that was the extra bit of information we'd add.

So, let's have a look at several reasons that parents have used in order to justify their lack of motivation to talk with their children about sex:

Shame of Their Own Submission to the Control of Sex

Sex - especially intercourse when done right - causes incredibly intense emotions and a total loss of self-control. This makes them look weak rather than authoritative. They may even have their own unresolved feelings about how sex makes them behave.

Fear of Encouraging Early Sexual Activity

This is just plain wrong! While parents have typically been taught that their children are merely exploring or discovering themselves, the fact is that their children are already engaging in sexual activity. Right from birth, they've been enslaved to the irresistible need to resolve their own sexual urges, gentle as they may be at the outset.

Perceived Age Inappropriateness

What's age-inappropriate about sexual knowledge? They're already having sex with themselves, anyway, so shouldn't they be taught what it's all about?

Desire to Preserve Childhood Innocence

This makes no sense. After all, what isn't innocent about sex? The opposite of innocence is guilt. Does a person become guilty of something when he/she finally does learn about sex? What the parents are actually trying to preserve is childhood naïvité, which is really just a polite way of saying childhood ignorance.

Lack of Communication Skills

One of the primary duties of parents is to teach their children how to understand what they're hearing and how to express what they're thinking. All parents are capable of this - it doesn't take some form of special communication skill. What they're really saying, without wanting to admit it, is that they're embarrassed to talk about sex. But why? Isn't that the very activity that they themselves are involved in and that brought their children into existence?

Lack of Knowledge

Now just who among us knows everything about anything. Do we not teach our children about food just because we may not know how to cook, bake, or whatever? Do we not teach our children about the dangers of stepping out into the road without looking both ways first just because we don't know everything about how cars work? Of course we should be teaching our children about sex insofar as we understand it!

Fear of Questions They Can't Answer

If our children have any questions that we can't readily answer then we should use that as an opportunity to teach them that any subject can be researched. Just be honest and tell them that you don't know, then go and find out, and finally remind them of their question and give them the answer. This approach reinforces the fact that you see them as important individuals in their own right and that you actually do care about them.

Concern Over Misinformation

It's disinformation - not misinformation - that's a crime. We all risk dispensing misinformation all the time, regardless of what we're teaching our children. Sex isn't a special case!

Assumption of School Education

That's waiting way too long! They've already been having sex with themselves since birth so how does making them wait till they're in high school to understand what they're already doing make any sense. Additionally, the schools usually teach sex in a very misguided way. They essentially flood their students' knowledge with contraceptive methods, how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, how to avoid pregnancy, etc. In other words, they effectively teach their students to go out and have sex as long as they do it safely. Is that what you really want your children to be taught, i.e. the mechanics of sex without any accompanying values and responsibilities?

Discomfort

Sure, maybe it's uncomfortable for parents to be talking about sex. Let me make a suggestion. Start talking to your babies about sex, right from birth, while you're changing their diapers. It's a wonderful opportunity to teach them about their now exposed genitalia. Tell them the proper names for those organs, explain what they're used for, etc. Your babies won't even be understanding what you're saying for quite a while so it's a wonderful opportunity to simply get used to talking about the subject.

Personal Upbringing

Just because my parents didn't talk to me about sex isn't a reason that I shouldn't talk to my children about sex. Why should my doing the right thing depend on someone else's failure?

Cultural or Religious Beliefs

Others - even other authorities - aren't always right. We need to decide for ourselves what's right. Regarding, say, christianity (I know very little about the others), we find a whole lot of misinterpretations of what the Bible actually declares regarding sex. The Bible - so no less than God Himself - has plenty to say about it, and it also declares that all of itself, without exception, is good for everyone.

Taboos and Stigmas

Why should such things even ever matter?

Intercourse - For Husbands

Let's use an analogy - that of stroking a cat - to explain the ideal speed for intercourse. You already know - be it merely intuitively or from actual experience - that stroking a cat too quickly will be interpreted as roughness and that doing so even faster will be interpreted as violence. In the same way, if you want your wife to feel true contentment from intercourse then your penis must stroke her vagina slowly. If you move too quickly then she'll interpret it as roughness and if you do so even faster then she'll interpret it as abusive.

Lie right down on your wife such that your erect penis will naturally rest about half way into her vagina. More precisely, you should be lying on her so that a gentle push will fully insert your penis and so that a gentle pull will almost - but not fully - withdraw it. This position has the following benefits:

• It maximizes both the pressure and the amount of skin-to-skin contact.
• She'll feel very secure, by being firmly squeezed between you on top of her and your bed under her, and by being hugged between your arms.
• You won't be able to move very fast.
• You'll be able to use a gentle, rocking motion, which won't exhaust you, thus allowing intercourse to last for a very long time.

Being so firmly pressed together requires synchronization insofar as breathing is concerned. She'll need to inhale while you exhale, and she'll need to exhale while you inhale. This causes your chests to move in opposite directions which, in turn, eliminates the need for a constant readjustment of your bodies. It also means that, with your faces so close together, you'll be inhaling some of her exhaled carbon dioxide and she'll be inhaling some of your exhaled carbon dioxide. This is actually a good thing as it subtly improves your intercourse in a delightful way.

In our case, my wife would wrap her legs around my thighs. This provided the stability we needed so that my arms and hands were completely freed up to be affectionate, e.g. to handle her breasts, to caress her cheeks, to touch her face, etc. It also allowed her to give me a lot of nonverbal cues, e.g. how to adjust my intercourse motion as she needed, and to let me know exactly when to ejaculate into her.

We'd have intercourse for a very long time - maybe even up to an hour or more. It effectively became a wonderful backdrop to true intimacy, e.g. being affectionate, sharing secrets, resolving issues, etc. Our intercourse would only finally conclude when she - not me - could no longer hold off any longer, at which point she'd tightly clamp her legs around me. This signalled that the right moment is right now!, i.e. the moment when she absolutely needed me to push as deeply as I could into her and fill her.

While you're giving your wife the gentle intercourse she needs, you'll of course feel moments in which you'll want to move faster in order to achieve your own relief sooner. Whenever you feel this temptation, don't yield to it. Use it as an opportunity to move even slower so that you can postpone your own relief until she's ready to join you. Don't worry - you'll get used to it. Try to remain at a speed just above that needed to maintain arousal. About two seconds per intercourse motion - one second in and one second out - is a good rate to aim for as a starting point.

Eventually, she'll reach the point when her body will take over and she'll lose all voluntary control. Her vagina will begin to rhythmically pulse, thus priming you for joint fulfillment. When she eventually signals NOW, it'll be truly wonderful for her and also be so much more satisfying for you than had you forced your own relief.

Intercourse - The Philosophy

What does a husband need? His perfect counterpart - a wife who fully and uninhibitedly embodies true girlness. He, being male, is logic-based. He maintains the slow and steady intercourse that she needs, restrains his own desire for relief until she's ready to be filled, etc. She, being female, is feeling-based. She signals the subtle changes in intercourse that she needs at the moment, her final readiness to be filled, etc. It's only when they work together, with the husband allowing himself to be controlled by his wife's intuitive femininity, that intercourse is truly fulfilling for both of them.

The control of sexual desire and the control of sex itself serve different purposes within a marriage. Sexual desire is the initial, urgent, impatient, self-focused need who's sole purpose is to compel the couple to go to and to get into their bed together. However, once their intercourse begins:

• He must deliberately ignore his own desire and wholly submit himself to his wife's control.
• She must deliberately ignore her own desire and wholly submit herself to the control of sex.

Sex is the authority that always knows exactly what to do. By ignoring the now of their own desires and wholly giving themselves over to the total control of sex itself, their intercourse will reach its natural, synchronized, all-encompassing, true climax.

An example of how intuitive femininity expresses itself is when my wife would occasionally pull our sheet all the way up over both of us and then seal us in by tucking its edges under her head and body. This effectively created an isolation chamber that retained our body heat and increased the CO2 level within the atmosphere that we were breathing. We were then within an enhanced sensory environment that further focused both of us on each other, on sex, and on the synchronization of our bodies. She didn't need to know any of the science behind it - she just needed to be a girl!

A wife's girlness will likely compel her to want to experiment with sex in many varied ways - my wife sure did this! This is feminine beauty at its best. Her husband should do whatever she'd like him to do with her - there's no reason not to.

Each spouse should always respond to the other's slightest sexual need as soon as possible. This will create a positive feedback loop wherein both will become less and less able to endure the slightest urge, thus causing them to have sex with ever-increasing frequency. In a healthy marriage, sex should indeed become more frequent over time. Decreasing frequency of sex over time is a sign that something is wrong.

Intercourse - The Science

Understanding the biological and mechanical foundations of sexual intercourse bridges the gap between lived experience and the wondrous complexity of its underlying design. Realizing that the marital union is a highly calibrated interaction between and integration of a man and a woman gives us an actual understanding of why its various properties — pacing, pressure, position — impact the systemic outcome for both spouses so powerfully.

Pacing

The human mucosal system is highly sensitive to speed. The pacing of intercourse isn't merely a preference - it imposes a functional constraint.

• Faster speeds, i.e. more than one intercourse motion per second, cause excessive friction - this is interpreted by female anatomy as roughness or even as abuse, which triggers protective tension rather than receptive soak.
• By using a slower speed, i.e. less than one intercourse motion per second, the spouses avoid the thermal limit caused of tissue irritation. This allows their intercourse to be sustainable for a long time - maybe even more than an hour - providing the necessary window for total chemical and cellular synchronization.

Pressure and Security

• Maximizing skin-to-skin contact - by having the husband lie fully, face-to-face, upon his wife - creates a secure squeeze which suppresses their sympathetic nervous systems (fight or flight) and activates their parasympathetic nervous systems (rest and digest).
• Resting his penis halfway inside her vagina minimizes mechanical strain during intercourse motions while maximizing the surface area of genital physical contact.
• Using a gentle rocking motion — rather than aggressive thrusting — maintains an intensity that steadily builds toward sexual saturation without risking premature discharge.

Hypercapnia

This is the physical condition of having the presence of an abnormally high level of carbon dioxide (CO2) within ones circulating blood. It's caused, during intercourse, by the spouses' faces being very close together, and is further accentuated if they practice opposite breathing wherein one inhales while the other exhales. It's also caused by practices like what my wife sometimes did - seal us inside our sheets so that the CO2 level within our now isolated, shared atmosphere would steadily increase since it was much more difficult for new oxygen to enter.

• CO2 is a mild neurological sedative which lowers the brain's high-alert systems. this causes the spouses to more deeply focus on each other with minimal external distractions.
• CO2 is a potent vasodilator, signalling the smooth muscles of the blood vessels to relax and widen.

  For the Wife

  • It allows for a total saturation of the peripheral tissues with blood which, in turn, directly facilitates the transudation (vaginal hydration) mechanism.
  • Combined with the Bohr Effect, it primes her pelvic nerve endings to ensure that every sensory input is amplified as her body moves toward her eventual loss of self-control.

  For the Husband

  It ensures consistent blood flow to his pelvic region. This hydraulic stability allows him to sustain long-duration intercourse as it prevents the vascular drop-off that can occur with high-intensity exertion.

Vaginal Hydration

The vagina is a self-hydrating organ. When intercourse is slow and relaxed, its natural transudation process (the sweating of its mucosal walls) is able to keep pace with the physical friction. This ensures that it remains fully lubricated and that its membranes remain receptive to the husband's semen.

Female Sexual Saturation

After a sustained period of slow, rhythmic intercourse, the wife's body reaches a peak level of saturation at which she loses self-control. An initial sign that her autonomic (involuntary) nervous system has taken over from her somatic (voluntary) nervous system is the slow, gentle, rhythmic pulsing (squeezing) of her vagina, which helps prepare both spouses for mutual climax. Other signs include:

• Her heart rate and blood pressure involuntarily rise, facilitating increased blood flow to her genitals.
• Her involuntary muscle contractions become more pronounced, especially within her pelvic floor and vaginal walls, contributing to her build-up to climax.
• Her clitoris and labia continue to engorge and become even more sensitive, and the lubrication of her vagina increases.
• Her breathing becomes rapid and irregular, reflecting the high state of her sexual arousal.

Joint Fulfillment

By deferring his own sexual relief until his wife involuntarily demands it, he ensures that they'll have a synchronized climax. This culminates in a deep and lasting peace for both of them, which reinforces the biological and emotional bond of their marriage.

Inward Drainage

By remaining in the supine position (on her back) for about 10 to 15 minutes after climax, the wife ensures that, due to the inward and downward inclination of her vagina, her husband's semen is directed toward her posterior fornix. This allows a seminal reservoir to form at her cervix, ensuring minimal loss, continuous contact with her most receptive mucosal tissues, and maximal absorption of his neurochemicals and prostaglandins.

Spousal Oneness

Spousal oneness (what the Bible calls One Flesh) isn't just a social or spiritual concept - it's the literal biological fusion of a husband and his wife. In this state, the two spouses function as a single, wholly integrated and inseparable entity. Their union is maintained through a continuous, reciprocal exchange of hormones and chemical signatures, creating a state of mutual biological dependency. These chemical transfers within their union occur in three distinct ways: from the husband to his wife, from the wife to her husband, and through shared, mutual absorption.

From Husband to Wife

The wife absorbs specific hormones and biological signatures from her husband. His chemical profile is transferred directly into her bloodstream as his semen is absorbed by the mucosal membranes of her vaginal wall. This calibrates her to his unique biological signature. The key components of this transfer are prostaglandins and androgens that regulate and stabilize her metabolic state.

From Wife to Husband

The husband receives his wife's chemical signature via two primary pathways. The glans of his penis is a specialized, highly permeable, mucosal membrane which facilitates the absorption of her estrogens, pheromones, and immune proteins directly into his bloodstream during intercourse. He also absorbs volatile chemical signals (pheromones like copulins) from her via his olfactory system and skin-to-skin contact, which synchronize his neurological state with her biological cycle.

From Each to the Other

There's also a continuous, two-way exchange of chemicals that occurs during prolonged proximity. They exchange their microbiomes - beneficial bacteria - through physical contact, which harmonizes their immune systems so that each now recognizes the other as self rather than as foreign. They also absorb air-borne chemical signals from one another that regulate each other's mood, stress levels, and circadian rhythms.

Their fusion is further solidified through the process of microchimerism. A bidirectional exchange occurs wherein live cells and genetic material are transferred from each spouse to the other through the permeable mucosal membranes of her vaginal wall and the glans of his penis. These cells enter their respective bloodstreams and eventually embed themselves within each other's internal organs. This results in a permanent, physical weaving of their identities wherein each spouse carries the living biological blueprint of the other for the remainder of their lives.

These exchanges create a mutual biological anchor. This is why, whenever they're apart for a time or when one dies, the sudden cessation of this mutual feeding can lead to systemic distress. Conversely, while in the presence of one another, they're satisfied and in a state of peace and contentment.

Contraception

While the whole idea of contraception is wrong in the first place, the reason for this has nothing to do with sex so it's beyond the scope of this document. Nevertheless, I'll briefly explain it, here, anyway. The Bible is very clear that God Himself causes each and every conception. A sperm fertilizing an egg is just a chemical reaction so, at most, that event can only establish the foundation of a baby's body. What it can't do is create a baby's spiritual essence - his/her soul - which is an essential component for life. Contraception, therefore, is no less than a profound act of rebellion against God because it's our attempt to thwart His will for our lives.

There's a serious problem that a couple who chooses to use contraception inflicts on their relationship. While they have an irresistible and desperate need to have sex with each other, they know all too well that no contraceptive method is perfect. They live in constant fear, therefore, that this time just might be that one time when their contraception will fail. This ultimately means that, if only at a subliminal level, they're living in constant fear of each other. They know that their need for sex always risks creating the very thing they fear the most - a new child. This prevents them from getting truly close to one another.

I don't want this section to become an advertising campaign for all of the various contraceptive methods so I'll just give a brief overview of the most popular ones. I want to primarily make these points:

• What we're willing to endure in order to try to avoid having a baby because our irresistible need for sex compels us to have it. Put another way, we can't help wanting to have sex but we don't want to deal with its consequences.
• Female methods aren't designed solely for contraception. While this is how they're marketed, what they - even doctors - don't tell you is that they're also designed to abort a baby who does become conceived in spite of their use. This lie is how they convince you that their products are more effective, in terms of birth control, than they actually are. Even those who believe that abortion is wrong are, by using these methods, silently and unknowingly aborting who knows how many of their own babies.

IUDs (intrauterine devices)

An IUD is absolutely not a contraceptive device - it's an abortion device! Your egg is fertilized by a sperm within one of your fallopian tubes. This is when your baby's life begins. It then takes him/her about seven days to travel down that fallopian tube to your womb. The purpose of the IUD is, by being a foreign object, to make your womb an unwelcoming place for your baby to implant. It, therefore, discards your baby without you even knowing about it. This is an abortion!

Hormonal Methods

These methods are essentially designed to make your body think that you're pregnant. When actually pregnant, your hormone levels change in order to make you more easily bond with the father of your baby. This is equally true when you aren't actually pregnant but your body is being deceived into thinking that it's the case by hormonal contraception. This puts you at extremely high risk of forming deep bonds with guys whom you'd otherwise have rejected.

Placing your body under the constant stress of believing that you're always pregnant also comes with a couple of other serious risks. You're at a much higher risk of anxiety and depression. These, in turn, add needless strain to your relationship.

Condoms

A condom not only reduces sensitivity, it also prevents your marital union from becoming complete. During intercourse, a couple exchanges various biological chemicals with each other. The wife absorbs them from her husband through her vaginal tissues, and the husband absorbs them from his wife through his glans. This includes emotionally stabilizing hormones and pheromones, bacteria and other microorganisms (their microbiomes), and each other's cells (microchimerism). They keep each other stable, and develop a common immune system wherein each recognizes the other as self rather than as foreign. See the section on Spousal Oneness for details.

Abortion

This, of course, isn't a contraceptive method at all. Very sadly, though, it's most commonly used, especially in our day, as though it were one. It's become the leading cause of death, by far, throughout the entire world. This includes not only the voluntary ones, but also all of those babies silently aborted by IUDs and the backup components of hormonal contraceptives.

Abortion - The Reasons

Our society talks about a woman's right to choose. This, of course, isn't the whole phrase so let's complete it - a woman's right to choose whatever she wants to do with her won body. I, in fact, totally agree with this statement - she absolutely does have that right! The problem is that she's actually claiming the right to do whatever she wants to do with her baby's body.

Women are incorrectly taught that their babies are, before birth, an extension to or intrinsic part of their own bodies but that isn't true. A baby begins life as a fertilized egg - a zygote - within one of his/her mother's fallopian tubes. He/she is a totally independent being, right from the start, who then travels down to his/her mother's womb for implantation. The umbilical cord starts to grow out from the baby around the fifth week of pregnancy and attaches to his/her mother's placenta around the sixth. In other words, the baby is an entirely separate human being for his/her first five or six weeks, and doesn't become any less so thereafter.

There's no way that a woman can intelligently reason that she's doing what she wants with her own body, especially during the first five weeks of pregnancy, when she chooses to abort her baby. Even afterwards, her baby doesn't become part of her just because he/she has hooked into her bloodstream in order to absorb nutrients and oxygen, and in order to eliminate waste.

So let's have a look at several of the reasons that are used to justify abortion:

Health Risk to the Mother

This one is very personal to me! My wife came very close to dying due to a pregnancy-related problem known as IIH. The doctors recommended terminating this pregnancy. We refused, they finally figured out the problem, both mother and daughter survived, and, for the next maybe six months (till our baby was born), I and our seven older children had to be fairly quiet due to her persistent symptoms. I guess it all boils down to just how much you love your new baby!

Even we'd have given in to an abortion in the case of, for example, an Ectopic Pregnancy. Why? Because there are no known medical ways to deal with situations like those. It's better to rescue one person than to know for sure that both will die.

I know of a case where a mother did have an ectopic pregnancy but was refusing to let her baby be aborted. Her husband very insensitively reasoned with her that she had to allow it because he couldn't live without her. What a guilt trip! His own selfishness was more important than her conscience. She gave in, but it poisoned their marriage. He should've acknowledged her feelings and then gently helped her accept the reality of her dilemma.

Health Risk to the Baby

How would you know without an Amniocentesis? And why would you allow one of those, anyway? Just to find out if your baby has, for example, a disease like Down Syndrome? Will your baby be in some way worth less than others just because he/she will be facing some additional difficulties?

Maybe the real issue is that you yourself don't want to put in the extra effort. It's rather telling how we all-too-often hear people saying things like, I don't care if I have a boy or a girl, as long as it's healthy..

Would you dispose of your child if, say, he/she became paralyzed due to a car accident at the age of 4? What makes discovering a serious problem with your child before he/she is born different?

Unintended Pregnancy

Maybe you didn't want to become pregnant, but you took the risk anyway. You knew that no contraceptive method is perfect yet you still chose to have sex. Having sex comes with its potential consequence. Having sex was your choice. Becoming pregnant then became your responsibility.

Already Have Children

Do your older children devalue your youngest one? If you really don't want another child then why not allow him/her to be born and then make him/her available for adoption? Would that be worse than killing him/her?

Relationship Issues

Is that your baby's fault? Why didn't you ensure that you were in a good marriage before risking becoming pregnant by having sex?

Circumstances

Your circumstances could change at any time, including after your child is born. Let's say that you lose your job when your child is 10. Would you kill him/her? I doubt it. Why would that perspective be different just because your child isn't born yet? Your child is your child at any age.

Psychological Readiness

If you don't feel mentally equipped to have and raise a child then you shouldn't be having sex. You're wanting the comfort it provides without the accompanying responsibility that it imposes.

Lack of Support

You should ensure that you'll have the full support of your partner insofar as raising children is concerned before allowing him to use you for sex.

Financial Constraints

If you put aside your wants, and only use whatever money is available for your actual needs, then this is rarely an issue.

Educational and Career Goals

This is incredible selfishness. If your personal goals in life are so important then you shouldn't be risking pregnancy.

Societal Pressure

This amounts to blaming others for your decisions. Are you their slave? You believe you're old enough to make your own, independent, big girl decision to have sex. Unless they physically drag you to a clinic and tie you down, the final decision to have an abortion is yours alone.

Rape

When is it ever right to respond to a violent act with another violent act? Yes, rape is evil, but your (his) baby had nothing to do with it. His/her only crime is existing. Killing him/her, therefore, effectively makes you worse than the rapist. The only proper way to respond to evil is with love.

Sure, some research seems to show that women continue to think that they did the right thing by aborting a child conceived through rape, but that's bad research because it only looks at about five years after the crime. Proper research, which looks at 20 or more years after, finds that women come to hate themselves for having made that choice. Over time, the trauma from the rape tends to fade whereas the trauma from having disposed of her own child tends to grow.

Very little research - if any - shows that mothers who kept children who were conceived though rape have ever regretted that decision. This is because they transferred their hatred of the rapist into love for their children. The commonly held theory that a mother will be continually reminded of the rapist by seeing his child isn't actually true.

Would that rape crisis centers understood this and, therefore, counsel their clients in a way that doesn't just try to alleviate their immediate pain. In my opinion, then should be aiming to refocus her attention from the hideousness of her assault and violation to love for her child. Abortion and continued pregnancy aren't co-equal choices. Expecting her to make such a serious decision while she's in an extreme state of traumatization is unethical.

Incest

We intuitively know that sexual relations between closely-related family members is wrong. Even the Bible - so God Himself - forbids it. We've also learned that incest risks creating a child who'll suffer from unusual, usually bad, symptoms caused by accentuated familial genetic flaws. None of this, however, justifies the disposal of that child.

Abortion - The Debate

You can clearly tell which side of this debate I'm on! What do those on the other side argue? They get into seemingly endless, philosophical reasoning about when life begins. Let's have a look at several possibilities:

At Conception

This is the only possibility that actually makes sense. The proponents of abortion would never appeal to this moment being the beginning of life but that's living in denial of the science. The baby's DNA is established and active. Even the baby's gender - male if there's a Y chromosome and female if not - is already determined. There's simply no other event throughout the entire rest of the pregnancy which could create life.

At Implantation

The true medical ethicists tend to favour this one but that's because they have a conflict of interest. They want to get their hands on embryonic stem cells so they, quite deliberately, ever-so-slightly lower their standards. They argue that this shouldn't be allowed after seven days - the time it takes the fertilized egg to reach the womb and implant - because they do know that the baby is already alive. Some have tried to argue them into increasing this limit to 14 days but, so far, they haven't given in.

Detection of a Heartbeat

This is very subjective. The fact that we can't yet detect a heartbeat from outside the womb doesn't prove that the baby's heart isn't already beating. Those who hold to this position are effectively arguing that the current quality of our medical equipment defines when life has begun. And, of course, the fact that the heart hasn't formed yet also doesn't prove that the baby isn't already alive.

Neurological Development

This is very subjective. Just how much of a baby's nervous system needs to be developed in order for life to be present. Those who hold to this position have absolutely no idea. They're just picking at straws, hoping that they'll sound scientific enough that no one will dare challenge them.

Viability

This position, as of when a baby can survive outside his/her mother's womb, makes no sense at all. As our medical equipment and skills have improved, babies have become able to survive earlier and earlier outside of their mothers' wombs. Surely, one day, we'll eventually develop fully functional, artificial wombs wherein a baby can survive apart from his/her mother right from the start. Those who hold to this position are arguing that the beginning of life depends on the current quality of our medical expertise.

At Birth

Really? Let's take this argument to its logical extreme. It'd necessarily mean that, during a caesarean delivery, the doctor is the one who imparts life as he/she lifts the baby out of his/her mother's womb. Is it the cutting of the womb that imparts life? Is it the subsequent upward motion of the baby by just a few centimeters that imparts life?

Legal Considerations

All I'll say to this one is that no declaration by any government has the power to create life. The fact that, in most regions, a baby only becomes a citizen upon his/her birth doesn't mean that he/she wasn't already alive before that.

Suggestions for Parents

We had 13 children - seven daughters and six sons. The reason that we didn't have more is simply because, after our 13th, my wife was no longer bleeding. We had a miscarriage, a child with Cerebral Palsy, and an extremely serious, pregnancy-related problem (IIH) during which they recommended abortion (we refused). My wife spent a full ten years of the first 20 years of our marriage being pregnant. And then, of course, there were all of those necessary, overlapping tasks like nursing, diaper changing, etc.

A home isn't a democracy. The parents rule! I guess dictatorship isn't the right term since they're both ruling - maybe it's diarchy (or, maybe, duumvirate). Whatever the right term is, their rule mustn't be authoritative - it should be very benevolent! There's nothing wrong with children feeling free to express their wishes, or with their parents taking them seriously - it's just that the children must understand that their parents have the right to the final say.

Being a parent is a recipe for more than occasionally getting things wrong. Unlike our courts - which seem to have an apparently endless time to try to get things right - we parents don't because the discipline of a child usually needs to be relatively immediate. Because this means that we don't always have enough time to learn all of the relevant facts, we often need to go with what we might refer to as our informed intuition. We should have the humility, therefore, to say I'm sorry! as soon as we realize that we've made a mistake. It also doesn't hurt to find some subtle - not overt - way to treat the wronged child in order to show him/her that our apology is sincere.

I recently asked one of our daughters (now about 40 years old) - whom I know is familiar with all these terms - which kind of parents we were. Were we authoritarian, authoritative, helicopter, permissive, gentle, or FAFO parents? Her answer was ALL OF THEM!. She then clarified that we were whatever any given situation called for. I wish there were a way to express the tone of her answer in writing. It carried the sense of a combination of surprise, amazement, unexpected, and humour.

The following suggestions come from a whole lot of actual, lived experience. Did we always get it right? No, of course not! But we tried.

• Loving your children means preparing them to be eventually able to independently face the evils of the world - not to shelter them from it. Children aren't stupid. They're fully able to handle reality if only you'll just trust them enough to not hide it from them. Openly and fully discuss the current news, whatever it is, with them. Show them what actually happens to those who are living irresponsibly.
• Never discipline your child for being honest, no matter how bad the truth is, but a lie warrants serious discipline. Sure, you may want to discuss the issue, but this must always be done constructively. Your child's choice should be simple - telling the truth is safe whereas telling a lie comes at a great cost. We'd explain to our children that we can only help them properly if we know all of the facts.
• Don't discipline your child for an accident. This is captured in the truism (or idiom) don't cry over spilled milk. Your child will make mistakes. If you get frustrated by them then, really, the fault is in yourself. Just let it go and get on with life. Of course, if your child does something wrong wilfully then you must discipline him/her for it.
• Always mean what you say! If you promise something then keep that promise. Put another way, never make a promise that you either don't intend to or shouldn't keep. If you can't keep a promise because circumstances have changed then apologize and give your child a proper explanation. Of course, if your child does something that deserves discipline then withdrawing a promise can be an effective way to administer that discipline.
• If you promise discipline then you absolutely must carry through. If you don't then your child will eventually learn that he/she can push you further the next time because that's exactly what backing off on discipline teaches.
• Don't let your children divide the two of you - each of them will inevitably try. For example: if one of our children didn't like my wife's answer then he/she sometimes came and asked me, hoping to get a more favourable answer. If I suspected this tactic, I'd ask Have you already asked your mother?. If the answer was yes then I'd ask And what did she say?. Then, even if I myself would've given a different answer, I'd firmly say Well, then, that's the answer!. My wife did this very same thing whenever she was asked second. Our children knew that we'd eventually cross-check with each other so, for the most part, none of them ever tried.
• Answer all of your child's little questions about the world, life, the universe, or whatever when he/she is 2 or 3 - there'll be lots of them. Don't pretend - if you don't know an answer then say I don't know, then go find out, and finally remind your child of his/her question and give him/her the answer. There's a huge consequence if you don't answer all of their little questions when they're little. A child quite logically reasons that If my parents couldn't handle my little questions when I was little then they surely can't handle my big questions now that I'm big!. This is exactly why a lot of teenagers stop sharing things with their parents.
• Don't arbitrarily defend your child when he/she is reported to have done something bad at school. Investigate properly in order to learn what the truth actually is. If your child was bad then discipline him/her and support the teachers and the principal. If your child wasn't bad then defend him/her and let the school know that you won't stand for their lazy accusations.
• Never discipline when you aren't able to think straight, e.g. when you're annoyed or too tired. Discipline is for constructively correcting your child - never for alleviating your own frustrations. While you must eventually do it, it can wait till you're in the right state of mind. If you ever feel the need to spank your child - which should be infrequent - then you must never use a weapon. Only ever do so on his/her fully clothed bum with the bare palm of your wide-open hand. This will ensure that it'll hurt you far more than it could possibly hurt your child.
• Don't expect your child to do a perfect job, e.g. when doing chores or preparing a meal. Resist the temptation to jump in and finish the job with parental perfection. Let it be! Just offer gentle guidance as needed.
• Put a good, comfortable mattress cover on each of your children's beds. This allows you to quietly and easily clean up should your child, for example, wet his/her bed. You shouldn't even mention it. Your child doesn't particularly like it either and will eventually grow out of it. If he/she doesn't then it's usually a symptom of some other underlying issue, and that's what needs to be tackled.
• We had no age by which our children had to be out of diapers. We didn't force the transition - we just let each child slowly do so at his/her own pace. Even if he/she wanted to go back to using a diaper for a while - that was okay, too.
• We didn't believe in weaning. Each child was always welcome to come drink some breast milk whenever he/she felt the need to.
• We always kept our babies right with us during meals, in a car seat up on the table when little and beside us, at the table, on a tallish chair when old enough for that. We didn't use a highchair wherein they'd be separated from the rest of us. We didn't use baby food - just regular food cut up as needed. If a child reached for food, we'd let him/her give it a try. Eventually, each of our children made the transition to regular food all on his/her own. And guess what? No food-related allergies!
• Don't treat your daughters as if they were little princesses. All that does is train them to become selfish and entitled.
• Don't hide sex from your children - neither intellectually nor even visually. If they're around it right from birth then they'll simply expect it and understand that it's a normal part of life. Of course, you should, as needed, ensure that they understand that sex is an activity specifically for within a marriage - but they'll usually deduce this on their own, anyway. Explain to them that sex is the very activity that brought each of them into existence. This is the very knowledge they need, i.e. that their parents' love for one another made them, and that that, in turn, means that each and every one of them was wanted and is loved.
• Learn to be flexible! Don't get too serious about making plans because your children - especially if you have more of them - will always inadvertently find a way to mess them up. Take life easy. Your children are ultimately way more important than your plans.
• When a child leaves your home, leave him/her alone! Don't relentlessly follow him/her around as if he/she still answers to you. He/she no longer does! Your role has transitioned into always being available to give your child candid advice and counsel, but only if he/she seeks it. Of course, should that child return to live in your home then he/she must resume living according to your rules - it's your home!

An Extremely Traumatic Experience!

My wife's whole childhood was one severe trauma after another: about seven years of total parental neglect, repeated rape by a foster brother, a gang rape at high school, and an extremely brutal rape a few months before we met. Her greatest fear was that, at some point, her own children would be taken away and potentially suffer the very same fate. Well ... on July 13 of 2000 it happened!

I kept the above-referenced diary, primarily to refresh my memory whenever those authorities made false claims, but also as a way, one day, to use the record to warn the world of how these child protection agencies can go completely awry. I guess that that day has now come! I wouldn't have released it into the public domain while my wife was still alive as that'd have retraumatized her. I also wouldn't have done so while our youngest child was still too young to deal with it. Neither of these constraints applies anymore.

They took 9 of our children - those under 16 - away, and also tried to convince the others to leave. The incident that triggered their action was our then 7-year-old son having thrown a shoe at his then 10-year-old sister's head, before school, a month earlier. She developed a black eye at school, later that morning, so her teacher understandably asked her what had happened. She told them the truth, i.e. that her younger brother had throw a shoe at her. They then checked with him in order to confirm her story.

They asked him the wrong question, i.e. How did your sister get a black eye?. Now those things take a while to form so, insofar as he knew, he had no idea. I'm sure that if they'd have asked him the right question - Did you throw a shoe at your sister this morning? - he'd have readily confirmed the event. But, sadly, their bias is to reject firsthand testimony in favour of presuming child abuse by parents.

I learned, later, through discussions with them that other things were already convincing them that we were evil parents:

• They have a rule that if they're called to the same home 10 times, and haven't found anything wrong, then they must be missing something. This rule makes a lot of sense if a family has only one child but it makes no sense at all if, as we did, a family has 13. For us, that's less than one incident per child. Maybe they know a thing or two about children, but they certainly don't seem to understand anything regarding how to interpret statistics!
• During those 10 previous visits, they'd often ask How did that happen?. My usual answer was that I don't remember, which was quite true. While most parents, having only a child or two, probably would remember, in our case, with so many, we'd just deal with whatever it was and move on - such things were really no big deal to us. They'd come to assume that what we were really doing was not wanting to admit to the truth.
• Whenever I did tell them something, I gave lots of detail. That's just the way I am - being a Bible person I simply have nothing to hide. They interpreted this as me over-alibiing, i.e. trying to cover up the truth.
• Once, my wife took our then 6-year-old daughter to emergency because she had a serious ear infection. The doctors did their usual thing of poking and prodding to see where it hurt. Our daughter0 didn't enjoy that very much, and vehemently protested. The doctors called this in as a child being afraid of her mother.
• Sometimes we'd need something serviced within our home so, of course, we'd call in the right person to do it. It happened, more than once, that if I complained about a service person who did a poor job then he'd weaponize the child protection people against us. For example, he'd notice a child at home during school time and report us for keeping a child out of school.
• Our children didn't have the expected hyper-attachment to their teachers and classmates. This was because, as confirmed by a good child psychologist, they were already growing up within a whole, huge community at home. He told us that he starts to see this phenomenon when there are six children so, with 13, I guess it was very pronounced in our case. One of their teachers seems to have fancied herself to be some sort of psychologist and would report our children as being elective mutes.
  • We noticed that our children would be always talking with us all the way to school (a half-hour walk), but that they immediately became quiet as soon as we entered the building. This told us that there must be something wrong with the school. A few of our children confirmed this, later, by telling us that, in that particular school, they were bullied by some of their teachers and many of their peers.

Though our children were all back by December, as the next July 13 (in 2001) was approaching my wife began to have increasingly strong flashbacks of seeing our children screaming for help as they were being forced into cars and driven away while all we could do was helplessly stand on the curb and do nothing. They eventually became so strong that she couldn't take them anymore and tried to take her life by swallowing all the remaining pills in her high blood pressure medication bottle. Thankfully, our youngest child (then two years old) happened by just then and she was called back to reality. Young as he was, he unknowingly saved his mother's life! She yelled for help. After figuring out what she'd done, I immediately called for an ambulance.

The paramedics came really fast but they weren't alone - they were accompanied by the police. The officers kept me for a couple of hours, repeatedly asking me questions in order to assure themselves that it wasn't actually an attempted murder. By the time I was able to finally join my wife in the hospital - so maybe about three hours later - she was very weak, barely able to talk, and hooked up to a ton of medical equipment. She was eventually able to tell me that, during her ambulance trip, they kept yelling at her to stay awake and were forcing her to swallow something that made her vomit violently.

They and the doctors did a great job! She survived with no lasting harm. She was kept in for a few days in order to monitor her and to assess her well-being. The psychologists have a rather benign term for what had happened - they call it an anniversary event. I myself call it a tragic consequence of state-sponsored terrorism.

One of our children was born with Cerebral Palsy - he was six years old at the time. One of its impacts is that his short term memory is very weak whereas his long term memory is very strong. He was okay when he was returned to us but, when he was 15, his long term memories of that ordeal came back with a fury - this, in turn, triggered a steady decline. His teacher noticed a drastic change in his behaviour and - you guessed it - called it in as suspected parental abuse. Today, at 32, he remains a person who refuses to talk and who often gets quite angry at what's going on inside his mind.

They split our children up, two by two, from oldest to youngest. Our youngest - the same one who saved his mother's life - was the odd one out and was placed in a foster home all by himself. He went from learning to talk to constant, desperate screaming. He eventually got into a state wherein, according to the notes in my diary, he:

• Was hitting people.
• Was running around uncontrollably.
• Had bouts of plaintive whining.
• Was pulling all of his hair out.
• Had bruising on his face.
• Was frequently ill.
• Had blood in his diaper.
• Had a 3cm long laceration on his penis (which they tried to blame us for).
• Ate his own feces at least twice.
• Had Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease at least twice.

When he was returned to us he calmed right down except for having horrible, hour-long nightmares in the middle of the night for about two weeks. He'd be screaming, violently kicking his legs, etc and there was nothing we could do but hold him and gently talk to him.

The social worker who'd been assigned to us by then was one of the good ones. She noticed how quickly he calmed down upon being returned, got down on her knees so she was at his level, and quietly reassured him that this will never happen again. They aren't all bad - it's just that the ones who aren't are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. They'd rather stay where they can at least try to do some good.

The psychologist told us that a rule of thumb is that it takes twice as long as the period of disruption was for a child to recover. That turned out to be almost exactly true except for our youngest child - it took him about seven years. What finally worked was that I'd take him along when one of our older children was doing his paper route. Whenever we noticed a friendly-looking adult outside, we'd secretly enlist him/her. We'd give the paper to our child and say You go give it to that person. Those secretly enlisted adults never let us down. After repeated exposure to nice adults he began, slowly on, to reframe his perception of them.

Go figure! The authorities ruined him and then left it up to us, the supposed child abusers, to repair their damage. Really, it makes no sense at all!

Another serious impact, which was true for all of them, was a total distrust of the police! This is awful because children must know, with absolute certainly, that if they're in any kind of trouble then, if all else fails, they can always safely trust that the police are there to help them. Yes, they all eventually did learn to trust the police again but this should never have happened in the first place. The child protection people don't seem to understand the severe damage that they're inflicting on those they're supposedly caring for.

There's a major structural flaw within these organizations. They're tasked with two roles that are in direct conflict with one another:

• The Protector of the Children
• The Accuser of the Parents

This is a huge conflict of interest. When an agency needs to justify its use of force, its role as the accuser of the parents almost always overrides the actual best interest of the child. They tend to become so focused on proving the parents wrong that they effectively become blinded to the severe trauma that they're inflicting on the children.

Other Instructive Experiences

Our approach was to train our children's hearts rather than their minds. Training a child's mind, i.e. his/her will, may coerce good behaviour at home but you won't be able to trust that child when he/she is somewhere else, e.g. at school or visiting a friend. Training a child's heart, i.e. his/her attitude, results in a child who'll be good wherever he/she goes. It's a much longer and harder road to travel, but it's well worth it! Training a child's heart often means that you'll need to let minor bad behaviours stand because they're the only window into his/her heart that you have.

Whenever one of our children was needlessly picking on a sibling's minor faults, we'd tell the accuser to first tell us ten of his/her own faults and then we'd listen to the original accusation. Interestingly, none of our children ever did that, and the original accusation just seemed to go away. Of course, if we felt that there was some legitimacy to the accusation then we'd deal with it privately so that the accuser wouldn't be rewarded with any self-satisfaction. We told our children that, whenever there are concurrent problems, we'd only deal with the most important one and, in this case, the greater problem is self-righteousness.

If one of our children was jumping to a conclusion then my practice was to take that child by the hands and insist that he/she jump once for each letter in the word conclusion, so ten times, saying each letter of that word on each jump. Who says that discipline can't be fun. They were always laughing by the end of this, but did learn.

The schools have this principle they live by - in loco parentis - which is Latin for in the place of a parent. This is supposed to mean that school staff can act on behalf of a student's parents in an emergency. One of the teachers took it much more seriously than that - believing that she had full authority over our children while they were at school. I took her on about it, but she wouldn't back down. I finally told her that she'd only ever get that authority should she ever become my wife. That did it!

Our children were, of course, taught evolution and a hyper-long age for the universe during science. This was a dilemma for them - should they lie in order to pass or should they tell the truth and fail. We told them to answer both. The first part of the answer should begin with the answer you want is, which would prove that they properly learned the classroom material, and then the second part should begin with but the truth is.

I happened upon one of our daughters (who was in grade 3, I think) while she was sitting on her bed, crying. I asked her what was wrong. She told me that, for school, she had to write a story about her favourite place to go when she wanted to be alone. I asked her what was wrong with that. She told me that she had nowhere like that because she didn't feel the need to be alone. I told her, Well then, write about why you don't feel the need to be alone..

One of our daughters (who was in grade 5, I think) was given an assignment to bring in an international recipe. I told her that, sure, we can get one of those from my parents (who were both German). But, first, let's have some fun. I then dictated to her a recipe that, from memory, went something like this:

1. Go to store.
2. Buy bus ticket.
3. Go to bus stop.
4. Take bus to grocery store.
5. Go to cake counter.
6. Ask for cake.
7. Pay for cake.
8. Go to bus stop.
9. Come back home.
10. Serve cake to family.
11. Wait patiently for your own peace.

She actually handed it in. Her teacher thought it was so hilarious that she read it aloud to the whole class.

One of our sons (who was in grade 4, I think) overheard his classmates talking about sex. They were saying some fairly stupid things about it, like babies are conceived when their parents kiss, so he went over to tell them the truth. When his teacher found out, she disciplined him. He just wrote that off as his teacher being stupid.

One of our daughters (who was in grade 2, I think) said something about having seen us naked. That didn't go down well with her classmates so she figured out that other families probably just don't live with that degree of freedom and openness. She resolved, all by herself, to never do that again.

The rule in this city, at that time, was to bring a dead pet to the Humane Society where they'd dispose of it properly. So, when one of our rabbits died, I wrapped it up in two garbage bags and headed out for the half-hour-long bus ride. Our then eight-year-old daughter asked if she could come along. I said sure, but only if you promise me one thing. She asked, what. I told her that she mustn't ask me anything about what was in the garbage bags I was carrying because that might upset some fellow bus passengers. She said, okay.

As soon as we were on the bus, she started asking questions. She never crossed the line, though. I personally suspect that she was trying to get me to cross the line. Every few minutes, she'd ask a question like these (the only ones I can remember after so many years):

• Do you think there are any dead rabbits on this bus?
• How many dead rabbits do you think there are on this bus?
• What do you think they'd do if they found a dead rabbit on this bus?

In case you're wondering - no, she wasn't disciplined since she hadn't done anything wrong. We parents must be fair. I told her the one promise she had to keep, and she didn't break it.

Crib Death - A Possible Explanation

We almost lost one of our babies to a near silent death! If it almost happened to one of our babies then it could just as easily happen to anyone else's baby. If it happened in our bed while I was awake to observe and prevent it then it'd likely happen much more frequently to babies who are alone in their cribs with no one to observe them.

Our baby was sleeping in our bed between us. Probably due to an accidental roll, he ended up on his tummy with his face buried in our sheet and mattress thus making him unable to breathe. He did instinctively respond to this in almost the right way, but the problem is that almost wasn't good enough. He lifted himself up, applying the same amount of force with both arms, which, of course, didn't trigger the much needed roll. He also didn't turn his head so he remained face down. Of course he couldn't hold himself up like that for very long so he eventually collapsed back down onto our bed in the very same position and was, again, unable to breathe.

This happened over and over again. It was so silent that no one would've been alerted to his predicament. The only sound was a very soft thump each time he collapsed. I waited long enough to conclude that he really wasn't going to ever use unequal arm lift and/or turn his head, and finally gave him a gentle nudge. That's all it took. He ended up back on his side, began to breathe normally, and it was almost as if it had never happened.

This horrified me because, as mentioned above, it could've easily happened while we were both asleep or while he was in his crib. I hope some expert will discover this document and read at least this section!

The Bible on Marriage

Marriage Unites One Man with One Woman

1 Corinthians 7:2 [KJV]

2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

We must necessarily conclude from this declaration that God considers homosexual marriage - i.e. either between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman - to be sexual misconduct.

Marriage Begins As of First Intercourse

A man and woman become married as of the start of their very first intercourse. This must be so because the merging of their separate bodies into one begins the moment their genitalia touch. The science behind this is described in the section on Spousal Oneness.

The Bible makes no mention of any kind regarding how to formally establish a marriage. Sure, it recounts a wedding - the one in Cana of Galilee - but it makes no mention of any formal part of that wedding that married the couple. The most we dare read into this passage (regarding marriage) is that it's okay to have a wedding reception in order to publicly celebrate their union. Let's have a look at the whole passage so that you can confirm this for yourself.

John 2:1-11 [KJV]

1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10. And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

God uses a rather perverse example - that of a man using a prostitute - to teach us that it's intercourse that creates a marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:16 [KJV]

16. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Let's look at the marriage of Isaac (one of the Hebrew patriarchs) and Rebekah. There was no ceremony - just the following sequence of events:

1. He brought her into the tent.
2. They had intercourse.
3. They became married.

Genesis 24:67 [KJV]

67. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Let's look at an extreme example - that of Amnon raping his half-sister, Tamar - wherein God teaches this very same thing. For context: Amnon was a prince and Tamar was a princess - both were children of King David though by different mothers.

2 Samuel 13:11-14 [KJV]

11. And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
12. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
14. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

What did she mean by saying that the king will not withhold me from thee? She was clearly referring to marriage because it'd be preposterous to believe the alternative, i.e. that the king would authorize either a one night stand with or the rape of his daughter. Tamar understood that proceeding with the rape, i.e. with forced intercourse, would cause her to become married to him.

What happened after he raped her? He immediately threw her out because his lust was resolved! It's almost unbelievable how she responded to this.

2 Samuel 13:15-16 [KJV]

15. Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.
16. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her.

She protested more vehemently that, You raped me and that was altogether wrong. Nevertheless, this second evil of throwing me out is far worse than the rape was!. What did she mean? She was protesting that, The evil of immediately divorcing me is far worse than the evil of having imposed our marriage on me through rape!.

Marriage Is for Life

1 Corinthians 7:39 [KJV]

39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2-3 [KJV]

2. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

There Are Only Two Genders

God declares that there are only two genders - male and female - and that we don't get to choose which one we are.

Mark 10:6-9 [KJV]

6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Deuteronomy 22:5 [KJV]

5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The Bible on Sex

Sex Is an Irresistibly Powerful and Relentless Ruler

I'm not going to take the time, here, to explain how the earlier verses, Matthew 19:1-9, teach that God doesn't allow divorce for any reason whatsoever. We can readily see this, anyway, from the apostles' response that it's better, then, not to marry at all if that's the case. Jesus then told them that there are only three very small exceptions to the reality that sex was designed to drive all of us into marriage:

Congenital

Those who were born with biological deficiencies.

External

Those who've been sexually mutilated, e.g. by castration.

Intentional

Those who've made a deliberate, personal choice to remain celibate in order to serve God.

Matthew 19:10-12 [KJV]

10. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Everyone else - so 99.99+% of mankind throughout time - is, according to God Himself, under the relentless control of sex.

There's No Inappropriate Way for a Couple to Have Sex

Hebrews 13:4 [KJV]

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

Whenever God makes a double declaration like this - i.e. marriage is honourable in everything, and their bed is undefiled - He's wanting to ensure that we get His point! We know He's referring to sexual activity, here, because of His final statement that whoremongers and adulterers will be judged. So, while any sexual activity within marriage is fine, all sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

Intercourse Is a Marital Obligation

1 Corinthians 7:3 [KJV]

3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The phrase due benevolence is far too weak for what God is saying. He takes the withholding of sex within marriage extremely seriously!

• The English word benevolence was translated from the Greek word εὔνοια (eunoia) - Strong's G2133. We can't get any direct insight regarding why God used this word because He didn't use it elsewhere within the Bible. In Classical Greek, however, it was used to express goodwill, favour, or a positive disposition towards someone. In other words, it conveyed a sense of kindness or benevolence. Modern Greek has retained a similar meaning, i.e. goodwill or favour.

  So let's dare to go with this understanding of the word. If one spouse expresses a need for sex then the other spouse, even if he/she doesn't feel like it, must respond warmly.

• The English word due was translated from the Greek word ὀφειλή (opheilē) - Strong's G3782. God uses it in three other verses:

  Matthew 18:32 [KJV]

  32. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

  Romans 13:7 [KJV]

  7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

  Romans 15:27 [KJV]

  27. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

  So, elsewhere within the Bible, it's been translated as debt, dues, and debtors. According to God, therefore, intercourse within marriage isn't a choice - it's a non-negotiable debt that each spouse owes the other. Whenever either spouse needs sex, the other must provide it.

Each Spouse Has Authority over the Other

1 Corinthians 7:4 [KJV]

4. 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.

The English word power was translated from the Greek word ἐξουσία (exousia) - Strong's G1849. It should've been translated as authority. God is teaching that marriage constitutes a total transferal of authority. Both spouses no longer have any authority over themselves - rather, they both now have total authority over one another.

Spouses Must Live Together

1 Corinthians 7:5 [KJV]

5. 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.

Spouses must live together in order to be available for fulfilling each other's sexual needs. Why? Because, if they don't, they risk being tempted by incontinency, which is a fancy word for lack of self-control. Notice how strongly God feels about either spouse withholding sex from the other. He uses the word defraud to describe it!

God gives only one reason for why they might want to consider being apart for a while - to do His work. The idea is that, in this one, very special case, God will give them the grace to endure temporary separation. Prayer is clear, but what about fasting? What does denial of food have to do with serving God? By letting the Bible explain itself, we learn that God uses fasting as a symbol for bringing the Gospel message to others.

Isaiah 58:6-7 [KJV]

6. Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7. Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Even in this one case, being apart is to be only for a short time, and by mutual consent. If either spouse says no then the activity requiring separation, whatever it is, mustn't be undertaken. If they do agree to be apart for a while then God commands that they resume intercourse as soon as they're back together. The implication is that they should also have intercourse just before they part, the idea being that the interruption should be minimal.

A Husband Is To Be Enthralled with His Wife

Proverbs 5:18-19 [KJV]

18. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

This passage wasn't translated as well as it could've been, so let's make some adjustments:

• youth - Strong's H5271 - childhood (i.e. first)
• loving - Strong's H158 - affectionate
• hind - Strong's H365 - doe
• pleasant - Strong's H2580 - precious
• roe - Strong's H3280 - gazelle
• breasts - Strong's H1717 - nipples
• satisfy - Strong's H7301 - satiate
• ravished - Strong's H7686 - intoxicated
• always - Strong's H8548 - continually

A better translation of this passage, therefore, would be:

18. Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with your childhood wife.
19. Let her be as the affectionate doe and precious gazelle; let her nipples satiate you at all times; and be continually intoxicated with her love.

The Bible on Courtship

Men Must Not Be Searching - Women May

1 Corinthians 7:27 [KJV]

27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

A man who is actively looking for a wife, or even someone to date, is one whom a woman should summarily reject.

No Possessive Touching

1 Corinthians 7:1 [KJV]

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

English doesn't capture the actual meaning of to touch, here, because it doesn't have an equivalent to the Greek middle voice. In English, it looks like God is forbidding incidental or professional touching which, of course, makes no sense. The Greek word God used is ἅπτομαι (haptomai) - Strong's G680. What He's actually forbidding is self-serving (or possessive) touching.

If a man tries to possessively touch a woman during their courtship then she should immediately reject him because what he's actually trying to do is break down her defences, by stimulating her emotions, as he attempts to trick her into giving in and letting him use her. This includes commonly practiced interactions like kissing, hugging, leg contact, etc.

If a man is sincere then he'll be content to wait till they're married. If she tries to touch him then it's his responsibility to tell her no, explaining that she, too, must wait till they're married for such interactions.

One mustn't Marry a Divorced Person Whose Spouse Is Still Living

Mark 10:11-12 [KJV]

11. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Why is this so? Because God doesn't recognize earthly divorce. If a divorced person marries someone else while his/her (former) spouse is still alive then, from God's perspective, he/she is a polygamist.

A believer Mustn't Marry an Unbeliever

If a person suspects that he/she has been saved then he/she must only marry someone whom he/she suspects has also been saved.

2 Corinthians 6:14-16 [KJV]

14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16. And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The Woman Has the Final Say

Yes, if a man has intercourse with a woman without her explicit consent then they're married. In this case, however, God says that he has humbled her. Why? Because he imposed their marriage on her without her permission. Let's look at a couple of examples wherein God clearly teaches us that the woman is the one who must give the final, uncoerced consent to proceeding with a marriage.

Rebekah

Genesis 24 documents the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. God tells us three times within this one chapter that Rebekah must be given the final say, so He really wants us to get this.

Abraham sent his eldest servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac. The servant asked him what he should do if the woman doesn't want to come. Abraham said:

Genesis 24:8 [KJV]

8. And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again.

When the servant was sure that he'd found the right woman, he first asked to be introduced to her family. While explaining his errand to them, he makes it clear that Rebekah is under no obligation to come.

Genesis 24:40-41 [KJV]

40. And he said unto me, The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father's house:
41. Then shalt thou be clear from this my oath, when thou comest to my kindred; and if they give not thee one, thou shalt be clear from my oath.

When the servant was ready to take Rebekah back with him to become Isaac's wife, her family insists that she be first asked if she really wants to go.

Genesis 24:55-58 [KJV]

55. And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.
56. And he said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.
57. And they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth.
58. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.

Zelophehad

The ceremonial law for Israel was that a man who had sons was to divide is inheritance among them. Zelophehad didn't have any sons - he only had daughters. His daughters, therefore, asked Moses what should be done because they didn't want their father to be written off.

Numbers 27:1-7 [KJV]

1. Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.
2. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
3. Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons.
4. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father.
5. And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.
6. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
7. The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.

So, although it's off-topic, we must note that God doesn't treat women as being less than men. He said they were right, and confirmed that if a man doesn't have sons then his inheritance should be divided among his daughters.

So, there was still a problem. If the daughters were to marry outside of their own tribe then their inheritance would also be transferred, along with them, to that other tribe. God agreed that this, too, was a valid concern and declared that they had to marry within their own tribe.

Numbers 36:6-7 [KJV]

6. This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophihad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall marry.
7. So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.

Did you spot it? While all of this seems to be off-topic, there's a very on-topic command right in the middle. God commanded, Let them marry to whom they think best. So, yes, buried in the midst of laws pertaining to inheritance is God's confirmation, yet again, that the woman is to have the final say.

A Wife's Purpose

Genesis 2:18 [KJV]

18. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

The phrase an help meet for him is old English. The equivalent modern English phrase, accepted by most, is a helper suitable for him. I don't think that the translators understood the concept that God is expressing, here, at all! Perhaps they were influenced by their own biases. Let's look at both words and let the Bible explain itself:

Help (or Helper)

The Hebrew word God used is רזע (ezer) - Strong's H5828. Yes, it does mean help, but it's a very special kind of help. It's the kind of help that God provides. Have a look at these passages:

Psalm 33:20 [KJV]

20. Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.

Psalm 121:2 [KJV]

2. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.

Meet (or Suitable)

The Hebrew word God used is ודגנכ (kenegdo) - Strong's H5048. Elsewhere within the Bible, for example, this word has been translated as against, before, far off, and on the other side. It absolutely does not mean suitable. It means opposite to or complementary to. My preferred way to translate it is precisely complementary to.

So what is a wife to be? Forget the sameness that everyone seems to be looking for today. She's to be everything that her husband isn't! By uniting them in marriage they become a whole human being - something that neither of them could ever be on his/her own.

Some Personal Notes

My wife was a totally traumatized girl when we met:

1. About seven years of total parental neglect due to alcoholism.
2. Repeated rape by a foster brother.
3. A gang rape at high school headed up by a guy she thought she could trust.
4. A brutal rape, just a few months before we met, in a wooded area near the town where she lived.

As she described herself back then, she'd completely retreated into her shell in order to hide from the world. She, ever-so-slowly, began to share the tragic details of her past. She was totally honest with me in order to be sure that I'd know what I was getting. I don't recall having made any pretenses to her, either. In fact, neither of us was looking, or even thinking about looking, when we met. We were simply a boy and a girl who took an instant liking - or maybe it was an instant loving - to each other.

We didn't engage in social practices like dating. We didn't refer to each other as boyfriend and girlfriend. We didn't say things like I love you to each other. What we did do was talk on that old telephone thing late into the night lots, and I'd often join her when she was babysitting. Sex wasn't an issue - not even a topic - during that only two month period. There wasn't even any possessive physical contact like kissing, hugging, touching legs beneath a table, etc. While she was babysitting, I'd usually be playing with the children.

She was taking a tremendous gamble when she wanted us to marry as she knew full well that marriage means sex and that sex might totally retraumatize her. So what happened when we were finally at home, alone together, on our wedding day?

1. We sat on our couch, this time right up against each other, just talking like before.
2. At some point, she became totally silent for a while.
3. Then, without even a single word, she gently took my hand and led me to bed.
4. She then immediately lay down on her back and spread her legs wide.

That time while she was silent was when she was finally confronting the raw reality of After all of my trauma, am I actually able to be a wife?. Her final conclusion clearly was a resounding YES. While she was already so freely expressing herself through sex and playful femininity right from the outset, she continued to suffer from a couple of serious, negative consequences from the brutality of her most recent rape:

• She, more than occasionally, brought a knife to bed. I just learned to look for it and quietly put it aside. It wasn't that I was afraid of her ever wanting to harm me. It was, rather, the risk of what might happen had she panicked while waking up from a nightmare. Many might've given up but that'd have destroyed her. Many might've concluded that she was psychotic (or whatever the right term is) but it wasn't true - she was a frightened girl doing the only thing she could think of in order to try to protect herself.
• She kept thinking that she saw that particular rapist in various random places. This never happened at home - just while we were out walking together. She was clearly just imagining it but, to her, those thoughts were very real. It was more evidence to me of just how awful that experience must've been. I just quietly kept reassuring her that he wasn't actually there. Those hallucinations could've easily ended up with her on psychiatric medications of some kind. How awful that'd have been! What she really needed was to slowly learn, over time, that her fears no longer applied.

What was her cure? Something a therapist could never deliver - a lot of love and plenty of gentle and affectionate sex! Who'd have thought that sex itself would be the total cure for profound sexual abuse. Sexual Trauma may have driven her into hiding but it never managed to destroy the truly beautiful and totally uninhibitedly feminine girl herself!

Now we might ask why sex wasn't even an issue during our courtship. The answer for her is obvious - she'd been a victim of such severe sexual abuse. For me, however, the answer is quite different. I'd been living a life of childhood sex (with myself), from even before I can remember, always dutifully responding to the slightest urge. This kept me at total peace. My mind was never cluttered with sex-related things like classroom distraction, the thrills of sexual innuendos and pornography, time and energy wasted on repeated relationship failures, wanting a girlfriend, etc. That's why I wasn't even looking for a potential mate when we met.

Interestingly, my penis knew that she was the right girl well before my mind came to that conclusion. Really, as of the very moment we met I was no longer feeling any more sexual urges until the need for spousal sex exploded in response to her fully surrendered invitation on our wedding day. We simply got to know each other without any false personal advertising. All we both knew is that we wanted to spend more and more time together, which culminated in us wanting to be together all the time.

We had a wonderful and very close marriage for the next 40 years (till she died). We never had any need for what they call alone time. For us, sexual interaction was a constant way of living - not just an appointment reserved for bedtime. We didn't need empty gestures like birthday and Christmas presents, anniversary celebrations, flowers, rings, etc. We didn't need to constantly reaffirm our love by referring to each other with endearing nicknames like dear, darling, honey, etc. We even hardly ever said I love you to each other. We just actually really did love each other!

But, yes, we did have sincerely affectionate, meaningful nicknames for each other. I usually just called her my girl, or just girl. When she lost all of her pubic hair during chemo treatments (they don't warn girls about this), I gently put my hand on her bare vulva and told her that, for now, she was my little girl. Then, when it finally all grew back I told her that she was my big girl again. I also often told her that she was my favourite toy or my living dolly. When she needed sex I was her dinkie. My dinkie itself was her favourite toy. While I was nursing at her breast I was her big baby. While I was drinking her pee I was her toilet.

Life, as it always does, threw many difficult situations our way. For example:

• One of our 13 children had to be delivered a month early, by emergency caesarean section, because blood flow through the placenta had stopped. This left him with serious side-effects from Cerebral Palsy.
• We had a miscarriage between our fifth and sixth births. It took about six months for me to gently help her to understand that it wasn't her fault.
• She had a serious pregnancy-related problem during which they recommended that we allow them to terminate this pregnancy. We refused, and they then finally figured out what the problem was and prescribed the correct medication. Then, for the next six months or so (i.e. for the rest of that pregnancy), I and our seven older children had to remain fairly quiet because she was left very weak and unable to tolerate loud sounds - she said that loudish noises felt like there was a gong inside her head.

Through them all - yes, there were plenty more - our marriage remained solid. Our love for each other, as well as our sexual desire for each other, never waned.

In case you're curious and would like to look it up: That pregnancy-related problem is now called IIH - Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension - though, at that time, it was still called Pseudotumor Cerebri. It was indeed very, very serious! In fairness to those doctors, though, it's extremely rare so they never suspected it. Until we refused to let them abort our baby they'd only been relying on the expertise within the obstetrics department. After we refused, they immediately drew on all of the experts throughout the entire hospital.

And, by the way, our refusal was very gentle and respectful. My wife was totally shocked and didn't know what to say. I then just quietly asked Tell me - is terminate this pregnancy medical jargon for murder your baby. That's all it took.

We might as well deal with the question that many might be afraid to ask, i.e. what's commonly referred to as the elephant in the room. Did all of my masturbation in response to the slightest sexual urge throughout my entire childhood detract in any way from my childhood? No, not at all! It was absolutely wonderful and gave me such a persistent peace. It made it possible for me to tackle those things that were truly important to me. For example:

• To get my amateur (ham) radio license at 15 (the youngest possible age, here, at that time).
• To pursue subjects like math, physics, electronics, and computer programming.
• To eventually get a university degree in computing science which led to an extremely successful and actually enjoyable career.

I've chosen to reveal these personal details in order to show that I'm writing this document based on a whole lot of experience with marriage and sex. Yes, even an entire childhood being helplessly enslaved to my own sexual urges.

The Love of a Real Girl

I needed hernia surgery during the spring of 1999. When I returned home, I found that it was way too painful to lie down on top of my wife. I told her that I just can't!. She answered, Then get off!. She wasn't being rude - we were always able to talk that directly to each other. I trusted that she must have a plan. Of course she did! She was a girl! She then rolled over onto her tummy, pulled in her knees, and said, For now, we're going to do it this way..

This was an incredible act of self-sacrifice on her part because it was a sexual position in which she herself got almost nothing.

• She received very little, if any, clitoral stimulation.
• We shared very little skin-to-skin contact.
• She wasn't getting the secure feeling of being squeezed between me and our bed.
• I couldn't affectionately handle her breasts, cheeks, face, etc.
• We couldn't talk quietly and tenderly with each other - we had to communicate verbally relatively loudly because our faces and ears were so far apart.
• She was actually burying her face into our bed because, in that position, her vagina was draining outwardly and she didn't want to lose any my semen. While she wasn't able to change its inclination to be inwardly draining, she was struggling to at least get it to be roughly horizontal. This made it very difficult for her to breathe but she still wanted it that way!
• With her doing this, I had to lean somewhat forward and then, in order to support myself, had to rest a fair amount of my weight on her hips.

Sure, I was still getting the sexual relief that I needed, but I actually felt like I was abusing her throughout that entire month (or so). Nevertheless, she was having none of that nonsense. Her position was that I'd been so good to her for years so this was finally her opportunity to give back. In a very real way, I learned even more of just how real and truly feminine a girl my wife was!

Hospital Births

A mother, while in labour, needs to be wholly - yes, 100% - given over to this natural process. This, by the way, is why a girl should only ever marry a man whom she can truly trust so that she can fully rely on him to manage everything around her during those times in her life when she herself can't. Hospital staff don't understand this. They insist on talking to her, rather than to her husband, because she, after all, is their patient. This constant demanding of her attention makes her labouring much more painful. The proof is that our several home births were, dare I say, easy. They only became difficult during the final pushing phase.

They want her to lie on her back because they want to be able to easily watch and assess how things are going. This means that her baby's path to the outside world is ascending rather than descending. She has to push so much harder in order to lift her baby up during delivery. Also, she has to endure a lot of needless friction because her baby is necessarily lying on the lower surface of her vagina. The right position for a mother during delivery is up on her knees and leaning forward so that her baby drops straight down. This requires a lot less pushing, as it's fully gravity-assisted, and there's very little friction.

They tell the mother, Don't push now, you'll need to hold off, because the doctor isn't here yet.. As if! I'd just lean down and very quietly tell my wife, It's okay, girl, just push.. That's all she needed to hear. Yes, a husband does have authority over his wife, but it's only meant to be used in situations like this.

I've saved the worst for last! When they make a mother lie on her back during delivery, they make her vagina be unnecessarily narrow. While I've always tried to protect my wife from harm, I wasn't ready for this one - you can't know everything in advance. During our first birth, the doctor got it into his head that she needed an episiotomy so out came his knife. Then, to protect his medical handiwork from damage during recovery, he told us that we mustn't have sex for the next month or so - as I recall, he said 30 days. Now just who do doctors think they are, interfering in a marriage like that by giving such cold instructions.

Anyway, we tried very hard to obey but, after only two weeks, my wife told me that she just had to have sex because she couldn't last any longer without it. So I told her to lie down on her back with her legs wide apart, and undertook what was probably the largest gamble of my entire life! The risk was that, were I to fail, I'd be leaving her in a far more sexually aroused state than before but without any resolution. But we'd been married for long enough, by then, that I figured I understand her body well enough and, therefore, just might succeed.

I placed the palm of my hand firmly on her pubic hair as a constant, wordless reminder for her to stay calm, and then began to very gently touch her inner vulva. It was drier than dry could be - desert dry! I just stayed with it until, ever-so-slowly, she began to become wet. When her vulva seemed to be wet enough, I gently inserted a finger into her vagina. When it became wet enough, I very slowly pushed it all the way in and then, just as slowly, withdrew it.

Now that wasn't good enough, because a penis is much larger than a finger, so I then lay down on top of her and began the next stage of her recovery. First, however, I told her that I had no way of knowing how much pain she'd feel, and that I knew that her state of extreme sexual arousal was such that she'd likely ignore her pain just to be having sex again, so she absolutely must tell me whenever she felt the slightest discomfort. I put just the tip of my penis into her vagina - so far, so good. I inserted it just a little bit at a time till my whole glans was all the way in. At that point, I moved a little faster but still very slowly, until my penis was all the way in. Then I withdrew it just as slowly. After maybe three or four of these incredibly slow intercourse motions, I concluded that it had become safe for our regular intercourse to resume. And, yes, it indeed was!

This all took literally hours but it was successful. I told her that she was a very good girl because her body had responded so very well. Yes, by then, and especially as a result of having just helped her to achieve a very early recovery from the episiotomy, I myself was incredibly sexually aroused. That didn't matter, though. The way I saw it, being a man meant that I was much more able to endure it than she was.

At least, as they did to many women back then, they didn't give my wife a symphysiotomy. That's a procedure where they sever her symphysis - a type of joint where two bones are closely joined, such as the pubic symphysis that keeps a girl's hips from spreading too far apart. When they do this, it's for life! She ends up with, among other things, serious mobility problems and there's nothing her husband can do to help her recover from it.

Epilogue

My wife became almost unable to eat during the spring of 2009. It turned out that a tumour - a non-Hodgkin lymphoma - had been growing within her abdomen that eventually became so large that it was squashing her stomach. It felt, to her, like a growing baby so, as unexpected as that was at her age, we didn't worry about it. That's even what it felt like to me whenever I was lying on top of her.

For the next four years, she endured many chemo and radiation treatments. Finally, during June of 2013, they gave her a marrow transplant. We continued to have lots of intercourse throughout that entire time. Even though the chemo treatments, and especially the marrow transplant, destroyed her immune system, our uninterrupted physical union never put her health at risk. it seemed as though our bodies were so thoroughly merged that she was drawing on my immune system in order to rebuild hers.

when she went in for her marrow transplant, I asked the nurses if they could put a cot in her room so that I'd be able to spend that whole month with her. They did, and never complained, even once, whenever they had to step over that cot in order to get to the far side of her bed. We spent a lot of time sitting on the edge of her bed, side-by-side, with our arms around each other. While she still had the strength, I'd take her out for walks. We even went outside of the hospital and found a beautiful spot - a bench amidst some trees with lots of birds flying and tweeting overhead - where we could sit quietly together and enjoy nature.

Given her diminishing immune system, we weren't sure if she was allowed to leave the hospital building. However, we weren't interested in getting in trouble so we immediately told her doctors where we were going. They didn't disapprove! One of them told us that he knew exactly where that was - it was called the Butterfly Garden and actually belonged to the neighbouring hospital which was for children. How beautifully ironic!

She remained so comfortable and positive throughout that whole, lengthy, difficult experience. One day, for example, she needed to pee while being hooked up to a lot of medical equipment. She was clearly totally relaxed because she told the nurse I need to go peepee, i.e. she expressed herself using language that we'd often use at home. She herself was a bit embarrassed As soon as she realized what she'd said. The nurse showed no reaction of any kind. As for me, I thought it was kind of cute. I wanted to go over and give her a great big, reassuring hug but her room was too crowded for that.

She was fine for the next five years but, in early 2018, her cancer returned - this time, much more vehemently. She privately told me that she simply couldn't endure yet more treatments but this left her with a horrible dilemma - a miserable death from the cancer itself or a miserable time enduring more treatments which probably wouldn't be successful anyway. So how did she die? Quietly, while asleep, at home, in bed, naked. What a gracious resolution to her dilemma!

At her viewing (or whatever they call it), I leaned over her casket for a long time, gently caressing her lips, and, with plenty of tears dripping on her face, quietly said You were a good girl! over and over and over again. Eventually, the funeral home lady came over and offered me some tissues to dry my face. I answered, No, I don't want any..

Our children chose to honour their mother by asking the city to plant a memorial tree in her favourite park - Andrew Haydon Park - here in Ottawa. They put a plaque beside it, and we spread her ashes all around it. The city's rules mandate that the writing on the plaque be in both English and French, and that both variants say exactly the same thing. In my wife's case, they authorized a third - Kwak'wala - the indigenous language of her Kwakiutl people.

English

We are always going to remember our loved one

French

Jamais nous n’oublierons notre bien-aimée

Kwak'wala

O'a̱mano'x̱w hayulis ma̱lkwa̱la tła̱n's łaxwala wa̱łe

We met in Vancouver around either the end of September or the start of October in 1977, we married on December 10 of 1977, and she died on July 8 of 2018. Oh yes - we finally did get around to formalizing our marriage, at the Ottawa courthouse, on March 2 of 1979. Our entire 40+ years of marriage were absolutely wonderful! What did I lose when she died? My cherished mate, her constant presence, the serious yet playful completion of my life, the one person to whom I could always go for confidential, candid, and trusted advice, and something truly gentle to do with my hands.

I'll conclude with an intriguing mystery:

when one of our daughters came to tell me that her mother - my wife - looked dead, I went to check. Where was she? Where else! In bed, naked. Yes, she had indeed died - her body was cold and her limbs were stiff. Just before leaving her to call the emergency services, I gently put my hand on her vulva and quietly said, I love you, girl!. For whatever reason, though the rest of her body was cold, her vulva still felt mostly warm. It was as if she were answering, I'm still here!. Of course she wasn't, and I don't believe in communication from the dead. Nevertheless, that's what happened. I have no explanation.