I don't recall pinging you to that essay; but I'm glad you spent the time on it.
I did reread it and realized I made a small error - I implied 'male arousal' was in play in a different sense than commonly understood. I did not intend for that to be the case; male arousal is pretty predictable regardless of orientation or religious background. I had intended that the wife be seen as the one who is far, far more vulnerable to the aphrodisiacical effects of truth telling. I had not any background or rational reason to look forward to this when I married Mrs. Gb. I had thought it would be ... familiar.
Instead, I discovered a Husband benefits from this unpredictable response of his wife, consequent to his adherence to Christ, and the marriage bond, consequently, cures.
But, given the strength of your doubt, I doubt this clarification makes a difference?
Ah, I almost forgot: In fact, that sort of strikes me as the kind of misty-eyed science you get from ed-school-trained kindergarten teachers with sheltered, quasi-victorian upbringings.
LOL! Right.
Speaking of right, did you ever read this essay that I posted? I just couldn't get over how Wilder, Rand, and Patterson all had the same basic intersections with regards to loveless marriage, if any, but especially, no kids for all three. And recently I learned that Rand even hated dogs ... what an EYE opener.
Our Forgotten Goddess: Isabel Paterson and the Origins of Libertarianism.
But, given the strength of your doubt, I doubt this clarification makes a difference?
Well, I still don't see what this has to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution pretty much only cares about getting viable offspring into the future. The comfort of husbands and wives, or whores and tomcats, seems sort of irrelevant, off hand.