MGTOW is gay

MGTOW is an acronym for "Men Go Their Own Way", and the movement is a genetic dead end.

From one website on the topic, https://www.mgtow.com/about/, they define the movement like this:

Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: "No". Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a "man" is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn't.

Do you catch the whiff of delusion mixed with truth?

The best way to sell a lie is to mix it with truth. Take something that is true, something that resonates with your target, get them emotionally invested, and then sell them the lie. The truth is treated as bait, its used to lure the unsuspecting, the desperate.

Like an oasis in the desert, people do truly hunger and thirst for truth while wandering through a wasteland. Something they can cling to, something that they can put their hope in, something they can rely on. In circumstances of abuse, this even shows up in phenomenon like Stockholm Syndrome, where a victim tries to find comfort in the abuse, to justify it, to cope with it to find "normal" again.

There is a comfort in familiarity that is hard to circumvent.

So here, we have the truth in that modern society does not value the individual man. Men are disposable, and men don't want to think of themselves that way. It's demeaning, right? It's dehumanizing, right?

Let's get some perspective though.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19 (NKJV)

Men are dust.

According to God, men are dust.

Exactly how much "sovereignty" does dust have?

Exactly how much power does dust have?

Look at the deception of Eve.

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:4-6 (NKJV)

Do you see the familiarity yet?

The modern deceit is that men and women are equal, or even worse that the world would be better if men were women and women were men. It's a demonic attempt to rewrite the rules that God set in place, to make an attempt to undermine or subvert God's authority.

And MGTOW is just the same lie the serpent sold Eve, being sold to feminized men.

The future doesn't exist without fathers and mothers, but now men are learning to say "no", and that's supposed to mean something?

Humanity set the tone for its own miserable existence by saying "no". Humanity said "no" to God, trying to become gods in their own right, refusing to "bow, serve, and kneel" before anyone else.

While the MGTOW movement is correct in that men today are not treated correctly and our culture is destroying itself through goddess worship, the solution isn't to start god worship. To find truth "within", to reject all external inputs, because God is an external input to humanity.

The depravity in the movement is seen in its cowardice, because the odds have always been stacked against men, since we stepped out of Eden. That's not just "bad luck", it's literally the curse we men bear for our sin against God. We cannot overthrow that anymore than we can start ignoring gravity.

So do you see the thirst for power in that definition statement about the MGTOW movement? It should disturb you deeply, because it echoes the lines of the "bad guy" from the dystopian future that had been predicted by George Orwell in the novel "1984" (underline added by me):

Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

MGTOW then is not a reaction to, or a revolution against, the cultural movements that supposedly prompted it, MGTOW is instead the NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THE SAME EXACT MOVEMENT.

I put that in caps because of how important it is to grasp that you cannot revolt against a movement by continuing the train of thought and adapting yourself to it. Where Feminism sought to begin the work of creating a permanent divorce between man and woman, MGTOW seeks to throw further fuel on the fire by appealing to the ego of feminized men, men who lacking testosterone and the brain differences caused by the chemical are more easily controlled by their emotions, to "retake" a position in life that men never had to begin with.

MGTOW would finish the dysgenic work that Feminism started by seeking to break apart the fundamental unit of civilization: the family.

Without the family, there is no civilization. It is the smallest unit of a stable society, not the individual, because the individual does not pop into existence by themselves, but are born to a mother and father, who then raise them up. The family is the microcosm that civilization reflects as a macrocosm. The individual exists in a vacuum, but a family has relationships, and so civilization cannot be based on the individual, but on family, and this is how civilizations have worked since the beginning.

Or haven't, in the case that the predominant family structure of a people group becomes dysfunctional, or is eliminated entirely under delusional hubris.

Our society has no problems "saying no". Saying no to abstinence, saying no to obedience to God, saying no to commitment, to discipline, to the process of sanctification. Women took the lead in this regard, and MGTOW wants to believe that following women, yet again, in learning how to "say no", will result in anything but mutual destruction.

There is no future for MGTOW because the "best interests" of man inherently require the involvement of woman.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” - Genesis 1:28 (NKJV)

Even more delusional, at least this definition provided seems to think that it's "the world" that has a problem with man pursuing his "best interests".

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. - John 15:19 (NKJV)

Is MGTOW leading the charge for a spiritual revival? A return to God's word, to God's definition of gender roles?

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. - Romans 8:5 (NKJV)

Well, if men are looking to "no one else", what are the odds that they'll look to God, and God's word, to dictate their behavior? To shape their priorities?

MGTOW is just the latest flavor of demonic depravity, seeking to delude people into becoming their own gods, seeking to destroy what God created, and all of it hidden behind crafty deceptions. Look at the defeatism in the choices made by the MGTOW crowd of men. The apparent inevitability of the circumstances we face, and how they apparently cannot change, so we may as well adapt and make the best of things.

How sad they are because the power they're supposed to be seeking would overturn the very dynamics they whine about in the first place. If men were looking to God, obedient to God's commands, upholding God's commands, then we'd not have gone down this path in the first place, all the way back to Adam.

And this is why, just like "conservatives", the MGTOW movement is filled with losers. Filled with men whose lofty ideals cannot ever be manifest, so they just give up on trying, on fighting, on making any real genuine changes, because that would require hard work and sacrifice that they don't want to commit.

So much easier to declare that victory is impossible, so we must now find a way to accept our new overlords and make the best of things. So much easier to declare that nothing can be done, so you are free to absolve yourself of any responsibility to do anything but what you want.

That does not mean finding a good wife is easy, but it has never truly been so. Those who believe in a "golden era" in the past are ignoring the complete view of history that informs us that the times of supposed ease have simply relaxed the definitions, not increased the number of "good women".

If you're not willing to fight, if you're willing to just give up without trying very hard, without expending resources you'd rather put towards pursuing your own pleasures, then you deserve the lonely death you will inevitably experience.

Return to God, look to God's word and God's examples, through the successes of Jesus Christ contrasted with the failures of every other man in scripture, to guide you, to define you.

Not even you know yourself as well, as honestly, as God does. Want for your life what God wants for you, and trust that where God will lead you will be more fulfilling, more rewarding, more satisfying than anything you could have accomplished on your own strength.

Word Study: "Ezer" is a helper, nothing more, nothing less.

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Genesis 2:18-22 (NKJV).

My wife recently came across a social media posting which attempted to claim that when God first referenced woman in Genesis, the word used was "ezer", and that this word was so often used in the Bible with respect to God saving mankind, that the role and responsibility of women would change dramatically once this "new understanding" came out, that it would "change everything."

Support for this was drawn from claims by a supposed expert in translation who stated that this particular word was very difficult to translate into English, but that properly understanding its meaning would change how women would be viewed from the perspective of scripture.

Never mind how women are actually viewed by scripture, or that the view of scripture they are trying to draw a contrast with is the boringly stereotypical misogynistic paper tiger that still fuels the waning flames of Feminism today, this new understanding is important for women to understand to reclaim some of their lost honor or glory that men had stolen away through poor translation of these ancient texts.

Now, as a good rule when it comes to biblical interpretation, immediately doubt in the claims of anyone who has a "new understanding" that changes some dramatic portion of scriptural understanding. You still need to back this doubt up by going to scripture, but you do yourself no favors by genuinely entertaining the idea that someone really did figure something out that had been missed for thousands of years.

You should naturally wonder why God waited till now for the "real truth" to be known, but I digress.

This is especially so because while the New Testament is relatively newer, you have to remember that the Old Testament has portions of it which are used by other major world religions as well, and so you're not just claiming that Christians have it wrong, but all religions who point to Genesis as being a divinely authored text and yet does not come to the same conclusions.

That said, let's get into the details. "Ezer" first shows up in Genesis 2:18. In this passage, God notes that Adam is alone, and says he will make a helper, and various translations define the helper as comparable, suitable, and so forth. Before you get ahead of yourself though, note that God immediately starts creating new creatures for Adam to find a helper among, resulting in verse 20 where a suitable helper was not found among them.

Because of that, we have some pertinent context that we should discuss. First off, Adam has not sinned yet, and is not in need of any sort of moral salvation. This may seem like a silly point to make, but given the connotation that is drawn from "ezer" later, it's an important distinction to keep in mind. Secondly, when God saw that Adam was alone, the first step God took was to create more creatures, not woman, to possibly fulfill the role of "ezer".

Now, moving to verses 21 and 22, the first time God references woman specifically, and the word used is "ishshah". So while "ezer" still applies, in that God is providing a helper to Adam in response to Adam having been alone and not having found a comparable helper among the other creatures God brought forth and Adam named, the label for "woman" wasn't "ezer", but "ishshah".

"Ezer" is the role, but "ishshah" is the identifier for woman specifically, and it means "woman, wife, female."

That said, let's look at how "ezer" is used. In the Hebrew/Aramaic language, there is a smaller dictionary, so the same root word will get used in multiple places, with its specific meaning drawing from context and how the root word is modified, not necessarily from the root word itself. In this manner, a word can have multiple literal and figurative meanings that are not identified by just having the same root word.

"Ezer" is one of those words, and this makes sense when you look at the definition for it, and the many different ways this root word was used in the Old Testament. In short it means "a help, helper", and is itself derived from "azar", which means "to help, succor". There are also various versions of "ezer" used in scripture, and these different versions are part of the context which completes the identification of what that root word means within that passage.

"Ezer" specifically is only explicitly used four times in the Old Testament. The first two are in Genesis, as seen above, and here are the other two:

Then You spoke in a vision to Your holy one,
And said: “I have given help to one who is mighty;
I have exalted one chosen from the people.

Psalm 89:19 (NKJV).  For parallel translations see this: Psalm 89:19.

Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue.

Daniel 11:34 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Daniel 11:34.

Notice how one of these is explicitly referring to God having given help, but the other is not.

When people talk about all the other times "ezer" is used, they are referencing the other "versions" of "ezer" which have the same "root", but carry a noticeably different connotation. "Ezri" is one variation, and here are the verses where that formation of the root word "ezer" was used:

But I am poor and needy;
Make haste to me, O God!
You are my help and my deliverer;
O Lord, do not delay.

Psalm 70:5 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Psalm 70:5.

I will lift up my eyes to the hills—
From whence comes my help?

Psalm 121:1 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this: Psalm 121:1.

My help comes from the Lord,
Who made heaven and earth.

Psalm 121:2 (NKJV). For parallel translations see this:Psalm 121:2.

Can you see how there is a common theme of "help" being provided, yet the details of who is providing help, and why, is different, reflected in how the root word is rendered in the actual passage?

There is no difficulty in understanding that the word refers to "help". The challenge is that what help is provided, and who is providing it, is defined by the remainder of the passage, as well as the manifestation of the root word in that passage.

So what of the claims about what woman was helping with? What role was she fulfilling? Well, scripture already told us what God's motivation was for creating an "ezer" for Adam:

And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

Genesis 2:18 (NKJV).

The "problem" is that Adam is alone, that's the struggle that God needs to help Adam with, loneliness. It's not that Adam needs saving in a moral, spiritual, or even material sense, but that God did not want Adam to be alone.

There is no missing honor, no stolen pride, in that woman was created to be the companion of man, to be a helper, and if you've been following my posts on Proverbs, you know the role the wife plays in her husband's life is very important.

The "problem" we face today is with the denigration of the wife, the mother, the comparable companion that God created for Adam, through denial of what what God created her for in the first place. This lack of understanding as to the genuine importance of the role of the woman in a healthy family, and only having the widely publicized misogynistic stereotypes to draw a contrast with, has both women, and men who are trying to appeal to those women, trying to reconstruct importance and significance in the life of women, but by ignoring what God really states throughout scripture and instead putting together a Frankenstein monster based on modern proclivities.

There is no hidden value in "ezer" that men have, whether intentionally or not, tried to hide away from women, to take away from their "real value". Women do have value, but our modern deceits have us dismissing what God values for what we do based on a postmodern materialism.

Instead, we all should pursue an understanding of what God values, of the "what" and the "why", and you will discover that, despite the reason for a woman's creation being rather simplistic, God did not create her without care or intent, without distinction, without refinement, without complexity, without purpose.

God loves women, has given them serious responsibilities, and it's been in the rejection of their role, of taking on those God-given responsibilities, that misery and dissatisfaction found fertile soil to grow in and produce fruits that have led both man and woman astray yet again.

Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 6:20-29

My son, keep your father’s command,
And do not forsake the law of your mother.
Bind them continually upon your heart;
Tie them around your neck.
When you roam, they will lead you;
When you sleep, they will keep you;
And when you awake, they will speak with you.
For the commandment is a lamp,
And the law a light;
Reproofs of instruction are the way of life,
To keep you from the evil woman,
From the flattering tongue of a seductress.
Do not lust after her beauty in your heart,
Nor let her allure you with her eyelids.
For by means of a harlot
A man is reduced to a crust of bread;
And an adulteress will prey upon his precious life.
Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?
Can one walk on hot coals,
And his feet not be seared?
So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
Whoever touches her shall not be innocent.

Proverbs 6:20-29 (NKJV).

As we'll continue to read later on in scripture, Solomon understands what can ruin a man.

Note that Solomon does not try to denigrate the appearance of the "evil woman", but is instead honest about her beauty, both physical and verbal. He is intentionally identifying with his son to explain the nature of temptation.

I've said it before, but you can't be tempted by something you don't want. It just doesn't work. Temptation always comes from something we already desire, but being offered to us in a time or via a means by which we would run afoul of God's commands.

Sex, for example, is neither implicitly a good or bad thing, and so we must add context to it before it gains any moral significance. Terms like adultery, rape, fornication, all of them include a context which denies God's desires for humanity in favor of humanity satisfying their own desires by their own means and on their own timing.

Solomon, and biblical writers, speak positively about sex within the context of marriage, and even in the midst of discouraging marriage, even Paul recognized the necessity of marital intimacy, of having a sanctified outlet by which the desires that God gave us can be appropriately expressed for those who do not have the "gift" of celibacy as he did.

What this means practically is that the "evil woman" is desirable, and it's not in that we find the problem. Her being attractive isn't the issue, it's the context of the intimacy that a man would seek with her, not being his wife, that the sin is found. The reason I point this out is that physical appearance is a contentious issue, given the connection between desire and appearance.

The moralistic will seek not to address the heart issue, but instead seek to disarm the "evil woman" from being able to snare a man in the first place. An example of this idea taken to a logical conclusion is the way that Islam treats women, by covering them, in some cases literally from head to toe, with nothing of the appearance of the woman being seen by those around them.

That dynamic is also seen in the justification given by Islamic migrants to Europe, who have on record claimed that because the women dress so provocatively, the men cannot control themselves and so are driven to rape and sexual assault. European nations are then bending over backward to try and cover this up, but as the details of the sexual assaults have come out people have been appalled at the behavior of men who demonstrate no restraint when it comes to their sexual behavior.

Again, the "simple" answer may appear to be that women should then just cover up, so that a man's desires are not provoked in the first place, but the problem isn't appearance, it's in the permissive nature of succumbing to desires and then using your own failure to temptation to direct the behaviors of those around you to compensate. It's why, so frequently, those who demand legislating certain types of morality are so commonly discovered to have failed spectacularly and are now trying to project their own failures on everyone else to cope.

Because the man cannot control himself, he must exert control over women's appearance instead of learning any restraint. This is not the path towards a healthy and mature society. Legalizing morality never results in the hearts of people changing, merely restrictions on what evil those hearts are able to commit in public view, because privately the heart will pursue what it desires regardless.

Solomon hammers this topic so often in Proverbs because men so easily grow arrogant in their process of accumulating power and competency that they come to believe that they can escape the consequences of their choices. They buy into the lies that their power can overcome any negative consequences, so what's the harm in pursuing some pleasure?

Yet Solomon literally had it all, and was brought down by his lust, his sexual desires, just like his father before him.

Solomon had wisdom, but then didn't heed it himself, and brought great destruction upon Israel because of it. Remember that his father, David, is even more well known for having done the exact same thing with Solomon's own mother, Bathsheba. Yea, in case you hadn't made the connection before, Solomon's mother was the target of his father's illicit sexual desire, and Solomon was by this time very well aware of the terrible circumstances that Israel faced because of complications due to David's promiscuity and the conflict over who would succeed him on the throne, let alone the damage that Solomon caused through his own folly.

Thus the emphasis Solomon places is not on whether the sinful act is pleasurable, or whether the son might get away with it for a time, or whether the attractive woman is really attractive, but that actions always have consequences, and they will always catch up to you in one way or another, in ways you may never have predicted or expected, and so entertaining adultery is simply a terrible idea.

The message resonates even today, if you are watching the political scene, wherein the adulterous actions of the current President were being used as justification to collect information to support efforts to impeach him from office. Whether that is appropriate or not, consider that had he not partook in such an illicit affair in the first place, there would not be a weakness to exploit, even if the whole ordeal is entirely disingenuous, in the first place.

When men give in to their instincts, their desires, they rebel against God, wreak havoc on both their families and their nations, all in choosing to believe that the pursuit of short-term pleasures can sufficiently offset the long-term costs. Do not be so foolish, do not believe that "where they failed, I will succeed in escaping judgment for my actions."

Do not surrender to your desires, but instead give yourself over to God, pursue God's wisdom in humility, and take pleasure only in the wife of your youth.

Daily Bible Study: Proverbs 5:15-20

Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?

Proverbs 5:15-20 (NKJV).

Not even to Song of Solomon yet, but you can already get a sense for why he wrote that one too, right?

Solomon starts off comparing the resource of water to that of intimacy with one's wife, and this is not to make of her an inanimate object, but to emphasize the importance of the physical relationship between her and him, and the exclusivity of that relationship.

Water, especially in an arid environment, is precious. It is desirable, it is necessary to live and to thrive. While Solomon may not be intending to attach the entirety of that connotation to sexual intimacy between husband and wife, it would have been an analogy that people of that era would recognize immediately.

Modern technology has diluted the significance of this reference, with plumbing and city water supplies and each household not needing to tap its own water supply, but before the invention of modern plumbing systems, if you could not find a source of water on your property, you were in trouble.

Without access to water, you could not irrigate crops, provide water to your livestock, as well as have access to water for your family. You'd have to set up an arrangement with a neighbor, and that could get complicated fast. Realize that there weren't ways to transport large quantities of water over any great distance, so to feed a herd of cattle, you'd have to take the whole herd to the source of water. All the while, those creatures are grazing, and eating of the grass of your neighbor's fields while on the way to get water, thus reducing the amount of grass that they'd have for their own cattle, further entwining the relationship with your neighbor as they take their herds onto your lands in order to have sufficient access to food.

The reason I emphasize this is that water was necessary, important, and access to it was carefully guarded, carefully protected from those who would not appreciate it, take care of the water infrastructure, or perhaps even poison or taint it through foul play.

In the same sense of importance then Solomon emphasizes the physical relationship between the husband and wife. For the same reason that you wouldn't waste water by spilling it out into the street, you wouldn't just grant anyone access, nor would you try to gain access to someone else's water supply when you have your own, so should a husband find satisfaction only in his wife, and she only in him.

This is not just an intellectual love, a romantic or idealized emotional love either, but a physical one, which should be clear in that Solomon is literally saying to enjoy your wife's body, even after the youth has departed from both of you. The immoral woman may be more attractive, more desirable.

The water always seems cooler when drawn from someone else's well, right?

The problem is that the seductress is not interested in your future, only in leveraging your present desires to satisfy her current needs, or the needs of whomever has deployed her, and will not shed a single tear for the destruction you wreak upon your own family, your own legacy, your own future in pursuing her embrace.

Instead, care to and appreciate what you already have, because the "wife of your youth" is intimately invested in both you and your family. She cares deeply about the results of the decisions you make, and not just because of how she benefits from them, but because there is no way for her to benefit without lifting up the rest of the family as well.

In the modern world, through legal and social changes, this dynamic has been destroyed, almost entirely. No longer are women encouraged to seek the benefit of their entire household, only themselves, through the deception of their own emotional state supposedly acting as an accurate reflection of the reality of the family status. In turn, men are no longer able to enjoy the wives of their youth, who have been perverted by and fallen prey to demonic deceits, and so in response, in still desiring a helper, a companion who sacrifices of themselves, they turn to immoral women to satiate desire, but not to continue to grow their own legacy.

It's the pattern of The Garden, of The Fall, all over again. Eve is tempted to lust after that which she cannot, or at least should not, obtain, and as a reaction, Adam elects to pursue physical companionship and intimacy instead of obedience to God.

This is why Solomon states what he does about intimacy in marriage, not because there is nothing else important about the marriage dynamic, but because this is what can so easily destroy it, and has done so reliably since the dawn of human civilization. It's because of how frequent, how damaging, these acts are that they get so much emphasis.

Later in Proverbs, Solomon will discuss other details, other dynamics, but it's important not to miss the significance that in the first discussion of marriage dynamics, he emphasizes the need to avoid adultery, to appreciate what you have and not lust after what only appears desirable, but in fact leads to destruction.