PLEASE NOTE: If you see this text, it means that certain resources could not be loaded and the website is not displayed correctly. This can happen when browsing on Apple devices (iPhone, iPad etc.) due to a bug in their software. Try the refresh button to reload this website, or use a different device not running Apple's iOS. Stop using Apple products.
Type what you’re looking for and press Enter.

The true meaning of Husband

After looking at the true meaning of the words ‘sex’ and ‘family’, it’s now time to look at the true meaning of the word ‘husband’. And as you can no doubt see coming from miles away, the word ‘husband’ doesn’t mean what most people think that it means.

According to Google the word ‘husband’ means ‘a married man considered in relation to his spouse’. But if we look at the etymology of the word ‘husband’ we find that it originally had a completely different meaning. The word ‘husband’ is a combination of two words, namely:

Taken together, we see that the word ‘husband’ actually means ‘fastened, confined or chained to a house’, quite literally a ‘house slave’. Not coincidentally, this is exactly what happens when a man ties himself to a single woman through marriage; he becomes severely limited and confined to his household — a slave having to work hard to provide for his ‘family’ (and remember, the word ‘family’ means ‘the slaves in a household’). This has also been legislated in recent times by the criminal State and in most Western societies the man literally has to work like a slave (involuntary servitude) even after divorce through alimony.

Compare this to the following:

Husband: From Middle English husbonde, housbonde, from Old English hūsbonda, hūsbunda (“male head of a household, householder, master of a house”), probably from Old Norse húsbóndi (“master of house”), from hús (“house”) + bóndi (“dweller, householder”), equivalent to house +‎ bond (“serf, slave”, originally, “dweller”).

In most societies going back to very ancient times (all the way back to the Sumerians in fact), the man was considered to be the ‘master of the house’, “the head of the ‘family'” or ‘lord of the house’, so it’s easy to understand why the word ‘husband’, even though it literally means ‘house slave’, would also be associated with the meaning ‘master of a house’. The man is himself a slave, but within the group of slaves known as the ‘family’ he is the lord or master, having authority over, and ownership of, the ‘family’. Consider that in ancient Mesopotamia, the words describing a husband meant “owner of a wife.” From “Israel’s house : Reflections on the use of “Byt Ysr’l” in the Old Testament in the light of its ancient Near Eastern environment” (PDF) by Daniel I. Block (page 268):

“In the patriarchal Mesopotamian society the father was considered to be the lord of the house.65

65 Cf. “The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, 171, #129, and 173, #161, where he is called be-el as-sa-tim,“owner of a wife.” […]”

Yes, in ancient Mesopotamia, marriage was equivalent to slavery, as it still is today; around 400 A.D. Jerome of Stridon, a priest recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church, actually referred to marriage as ‘the bondage of wedlock’.

It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘bond’ is said to have been derived from the Old Norse word ‘bóndi’, which means ‘farmer, tiller of soil’:

bond (adj.): c. 1300, “in a state of a serf, unfree,” from bond (n.) “tenant, farmer holding land under a lord in return for customary service; a married bond as head of a household” (mid-13c.). The Old English form was bonda, bunda “husbandman, householder,” but the Middle English word probably is from Old Norse *bonda, a contraction of boande, buande “occupier and tiller of soil, peasant, husbandman,” a noun from the past participle of bua, boa “to dwell” […]

The word ‘bond’ also being associated with the meaning ‘farmer, occupier and tiller of soil’ makes a lot of sense when we consider the fact that man was originally ‘created’ specifically to serve the gods (i.e., be the gods’ slaves) by working on their land. Like I mentioned in my post “Sexual Suppression and Repression I: Definition and Origin”:

We’re also told in chapter 2 of the book of Genesis that when “yhwh” created humans, they did so because “there was no man [adam; אָדָם] to work the ground” (Genesis 2:5). And in Genesis 2:15 we read that “the Lord [yhwh; ‏יהוה‎] God [elohim; אֱלֹהִים] took the man [adam; אָדָם] and placed him in the garden of Eden to work it and watch over it.” So we see that humans were created by these gods specifically to work for them and serve them as slaves on their land.

This is backed by Zecharia Sitchin in his book “The 12th Planet”:

The very terms by which the Sumerians and Akkadians called “Man” bespoke his status and purpose: He was a lulu (“primitive”), a lulu amelu (“primitive worker”), an awihim (“laborer”). That Man was created to be a servant of the gods did not strike the ancient peoples as a peculiar idea at all. In biblical times, the deity was “Lord,” “Sovereign,” “King,” “Ruler,” “Master.” The term that is commonly translated as “worship” was in fact avod (“work”). Ancient and biblical Man did not “worship” his god; he worked for him. No sooner had the biblical Deity, like the gods in Sumerian accounts, created Man, than he planted a garden and assigned Man to work there: And the Lord God took the “Man” and placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and to tend it.

So the man being a ‘husbandman’ which is associated with the meaning ‘occupier and tiller of soil’ completely makes sense given this background. We also see that the word ‘bond’ being associated with the meaning ‘slave, serf, unfree, dweller’ and ‘farmer, occupier and tiller of soil’ completely make sense given this background. The biblical Adam were the first ‘husbandmen’, which were men confined (‘band’) to their dwelling (‘hus’), in this case the ‘Garden of Eden’, tilling the land like slaves, while simultaneously being the heads/lords of their ‘families’. The ‘Garden of Eden’ was a fucking slave plantation, not paradise.

Becoming or being a ‘husband’, just like having or being a part of a ‘family’, is nothing to be proud of. Not only does it mean that you yourself are a slave, but you’re also an oppressor to the ‘slaves within your household’, i.e., your ‘family’.


  1. The Slave Plantation of Eden — Karel Donk (18/12/2019)


There are 0 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.